Ever consider joining The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

by rawe 139 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

fedup

What's better, hospital food or airline food?

I hate them both.

Why study the creation of Man when you can study the creation of God?

Stop waisting your time with stupid writings from jokers of the past.
rawe

Hi Cold Steel,

"We even have no issues with the KJV of Isaiah being used in the Book of Mormon, as long as the translations are accurate."

My argument is that you should have issues for a couple important reasons.

Using KJV text of 1611 in this manner does not square with the story of how the Book of Mormon was produced. As explained, the claim is the Book of Mormon is a divine translation of reformed Egyptian (a language not known to exist) into English. Where Isaiah is quoted in 2 Nephi the presentation is this would be Hebrew that would have been translated into reformed Egyptian then from that into English. Or alternatively the writer of Nephi had Hebrew copies of Isaiah. But in no case, could he have the KJV text, since it would not be produced until centuries later in 1611.

Saying "we have no issues" is a glib dismissal, that does not show respect for the effort to produce the KJV. Much of our written and spoken English has been influenced by word choices in the KJV.

"For example, people get upset when they see the word “Christ” being used in the translation of a Hebrew document produced several hundred years B.C. Mormons understand that “Messiah” would have worked equally as well, but “Christ” means the same thing in English."

I can't speak for others, but "upset" is not the word I would use. The only point here "Christ" is a Greek word and therefore would be an obvious anachronism if presented as supposedly part of a Hebrew text. In the Bible you won't find "Christ" in the OT, since the language of the OT does not allow for it.

When would you say, Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians, 607 BCE or 587 BCE? If you looked it up on Wikipedia you would get the correct answer: 587 BCE. Yet, don't think for a second that a determined stick-to-their-guns Witness couldn't argue for 607 BCE. There is a thread here between Jeffro and AnnOmaly (sp?) and Scholar where Scholar argues post after post for 607 BCE, citing all sorts of supposed evidence.

What seems to happen in both faiths, is we subconciously use different standards for evaluating claims. When you look at the Witness claim of 607 BCE, as an outsider who is not committed to JW dogma, it is easy to dismiss. However, for the Witness to dismiss that would dismantle the entire foundation of their faith that points to 1914. Thus, even the most outlandish approach in the work of an appologist supporting 607 BCE is accepted and the considerable evidence for 587 BCE get a glib dismissal. And let's face it saying "God did it" allows for anything -- maybe God just liked how the KJV sounded.

Or imagine this, at college a student is doing religious studies. He is given an assignment to write some poetic phrases praising God who gives comfort. The student turns in the exact word-for-word copy of Isaiah 12 from the KJV. In that setting you would no doubt have no problem calling the student out for plagiarism. Yet in the context of the Book of Mormon a believer is expected not to be concerned.

Or look at the example you gave above about the wheel. A commitment to LDS dogma overshadows what should be an interesting idea. That is, why, did small wheels wind up on a few toys, but never anything larger? This is facinating stuff! From what I read, the wheel is only part of the problem. It was solving the issue of the axel that lead to this incredible breakthrough technology. Yet LDS dogma would have us believe an advanced society achieved (or imported) this technology in the Americas, but in 1492 when Columbus arrives it is nowhere to be found.

Cheers,

-Randy
Cold Steel
Rawe/Randy: Using KJV text of 1611 in this manner does not square with the story of how the Book of Mormon was produced. As explained, the claim is the Book of Mormon is a divine translation of reformed Egyptian (a language not known to exist) into English.

Actually, it wasn’t known at Joseph Smith’s time, there were a number of reformed Egyptian languages at 600 B.C. So much research has been done on this topic that it’s best I just point the way. Suffice it to say that the Book of Mormon is the first historical book to mention that Egyptian had been modified and reformed by anyone anciently. Since 1830, archeologists have found a number of reformed Egyptian texts, reformed Greek texts and other writings that were used to spell out other languages. My wife sends her relatives a “reformed” English, where she uses English letters to spell out words in her native Farsi. This is what our scholars believe Lehi and his family did: spell out Hebrew using an Egyptian shorthand (which we now know was common in 600 B.C.) And though no examples of Nephi’s reformed Egyptian have been found as complete text, there are examples of individual characters having been used.
.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=H8TXk-QiS6I

.

When would you say, Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians, 607 BCE or 587 BCE? If you looked it up on Wikipedia you would get the correct answer: 587 BCE. Yet, don't think for a second that a determined stick-to-their-guns Witness couldn't argue for 607 BCE. There is a thread here between Jeffro and AnnOmaly (sp?) and Scholar where Scholar argues post after post for 607 BCE, citing all sorts of supposed evidence.

What seems to happen in both faiths, is we subconciously use different standards for evaluating claims. When you look at the Witness claim of 607 BCE, as an outsider who is not committed to JW dogma, it is easy to dismiss. However, for the Witness to dismiss that would dismantle the entire foundation of their faith that points to 1914. Thus, even the most outlandish approach in the work of an appologist supporting 607 BCE is accepted and the considerable evidence for 587 BCE get a glib dismissal. And let's face it saying "God did it" allows for anything — maybe God just liked how the KJV sounded.

You make it difficult to convince you, but we LDS stand by the Lord’s promise in Moroni 10:4: “And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you by the power of the Holy Ghost.”

Later, Moroni tells readers, “deny not the power of God; for he worketh by power, according to the faith of the children of men, the same today and tomorrow, and forever.” In other words, all through the history of mankind, the Lord has never had a church or a movement representing him in which he did not operate through prophets, angels, visions, priesthood, miracles and power. And each time he has manifested his power, there are many people who simply will not accept it. There were those in the days of Jesus who, after hearing him, really believed he was nothing but an intenerate preacher who deceived his followers. The entire world at that time, led by the Greeks, completely rejected the idea that a living man, once dead, could rise again. It was as hilarious to them as the gold plates were in the days of Joseph Smith. Often the apostles would preach Christianity to the Greeks, who would listen intently until the resurrection was mentioned, then they laughed and frequently chased their speakers from their midst. It was the one big thing the early saints just couldn’t get over. It took a thousand years before people began to believe.

Mormons know that Jerusalem was destroyed years after 600 B.C. because Nephi records entering the city several times during that year and it was still intact. He didn’t find it in ruins. It wasn’t until a number of years later when his father learned by revelation that the city was destroyed (most likely in 587 or 589). Proving that that’s when Jerusalem was destroyed would, in itself, not prove that the Book of Mormon was a true record. But then there’s Nahom, being right where Nephi said it was, and indisputable archeological evidence that it was there in 600 B.C.; and in 1996 it was found to be a burial site. (How did Joseph Smith know that?) Three days out of the city we found a “steadfast and immovable” canyon with a “river of water” continually flowing through it and an encampment that dated back to 600 B.C. with an altar, indicating that someone there had priesthood. Again, it is right where Nephi said it would be. Then, if one continues to follow Nephi’s directions, then end up in a lush, tropical area by the sea on the coasts of the desert in a region our critics said it could never be. And it had fruit, grains, honey, bees, trees suitable for building a ship, a protected harbor, enough iron ore to build all the tools you would need and a steep cliff, that met the criteria for the one Nephi’s brothers almost pushed him from. And all this stuff is documented, photographed and videoed. Again, it’s all in the Book of Mormon in areas where our critics for years have said these things couldn’t be.

People can read the book and pray about it, or they can ignore it and join all the people in the past who rejected God and his prophets and his angels. Will you be destroyed at Armageddon? No. Will you burn in an everlasting (non-ending) fiery hell? Again, no. But you’ll lose the chance to reach your full potential in God’s Kingdom.

In short, we’ll never be able to prove conclusively and beyond all doubt that what we say is true; however, you can know of a surety through the power of the Holy Ghost. And despite your reservations about the translation process, the general authorities of the LDS church continue to tell us that the Book of Mormon is the most accurately translated book on Earth. And if Joseph read a term in the original that was Messiah, and it was translated Christ, it may go against what you think is a valid translation, but with Joseph, his power to translate was through the gift and power of God. So if he’s really a prophet, this means you can treat the Book of Mormon as though it was written in English, for God is its translator and bears all responsibility for its outcome. And yes, some changes have been made, but they're editorial changes that do not affect the doctrines found therein. Many, in fact, have been discovered to be Hebraisms (text that makes sense in Hebrew, but makes for very bad English).

.
rawe

Hi Cold Steel,

"Actually, it wasn’t known at Joseph Smith’s time, there were a number of reformed Egyptian languages at 600 B.C."

Here is what Wikipedia says about reformed Egyptian: Scholarly reference works on languages do not, however, acknowledge the existence of either a "reformed Egyptian" language or "reformed Egyptian" script as it has been described in Mormon belief. No archaeological, linguistic, or other evidence of the use of Egyptian writing in ancient America has been discovered.

This ties into my point about the struggle to remove bias we all have in how we evaluate information. The struggle is to apply the same standards to every claim without regard to whether we want to believe it or not. So, if we routinely find ourselves rejecting Wikipedia comments like the above, but have no issue when Wikipedia says something like this:

In 589 BC, Nebuchadnezzar II laid siege to Jerusalem, culminating in the destruction of the city and its temple in 587 BC.

we should ask why? Why is the first comment rejected but the second accepted? Could it be that every time Wikipedia makes an encylopedia comment that is opposition to Book of Mormon claims, it is wrong, yet, every time it makes a comment opposed to JW theology it is right? Thus, eventually I really started to ask myself, when I read something like:

Researchers found a haul of thousands of artefacts near the state capital, Austin, some of which were identified as blades and other tools. The material was buried in sediments that are between 13,200 and 15,500 years old. (http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/mar/24/humans-north-america-stone-tools)

Why was I so ready to be skeptical? My commitment to humans not existing prior to 4026 BCE surely was the issue, not really the science behind that comment. In fact, this US vs The World was getting tiring after so many years. Also tiring was trying to invoke the magical as the ultimate catch-all explanation -- in the form of "Satan is the arch-deceiver" (2 Cor 4:4, Rev 12:9) Finally I realized this can also be a matter of respect for the hard work of reseachers, who sometimes labor without much reward or recognition and ultimately don't ask anything of me (i.e. obedience, dedication, etc) other than give their claims a fair hearing.

You make it difficult to convince you, but we LDS stand by the Lord’s promise in Moroni 10:4: “And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you by the power of the Holy Ghost.”

What makes you think, I haven't done that ;-).

Let me offer you this: Take up the Moroni invitation as outlined here, but apply reasonable objective standards and see if there is any answer. Consider the drug approval process as a model ( http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/the-long-road-to-drug-approval-1.876157 ). Since drugs hold within them the power to heal or kill, doing such testing is only reasonable. But, given all that is involved in being an LDS member for yourself and anyone you might convince to join, surely no less of a standard should be applied.

Later, Moroni tells readers, “deny not the power of God; for he worketh by power, according to the faith of the children of men, the same today and tomorrow, and forever.”

Btw - "same today and tomorrow..." is very much like the wording you find at Hebrews 13:8. What I find interesting about such "do not deny the power of God" commands, is that is all they are -- hollow commands. While some might find them fear inspiring, I see such commands as actually an indication of profound weakness. In claims that are backed by testable truth you just don't find such language. Read Darwin's On the Origin of Species or Richard Dawkins' God Delusion and you will not find fear-mongering commands of "do not deny the power of Hero-of-the-Claim"

"Mormons. . .but then there’s Nahom, being right. . .How did Joseph Smith know that?. . .Three days out of the city we found a “steadfast and immovable”. . .right where Nephi said it would be. Then. . .region our critics said it could never be. . .is documented, photographed and videoed. . .Book of Mormon in areas where our critics. . ."

Help me out with this paragraph. I currently know nothing of these claims and counter claims, but... I don't have time or desire to investigate them all and respond. Can you isolate the one you think makes the best case for the Book of Mormon and I'll respond? The Book of Mormon is allowed to contain anything that would be known to Joseph Smith in 1830 or other original authors he may have borrowed material from. But, it is granted that production of the Book of Mormon would not have been able to accurately name a future event in specific detail. Nor would it be able to accurately name a past event in specific detail, provided of course the past event only became known after the 1830s. Let me know if you don't think is a fair standard.

"People can read the book and pray about it, or they can ignore it and join all the people in the past who rejected God and his prophets and his angels. Will you be destroyed at Armageddon? No. Will you burn in an everlasting (non-ending) fiery hell? Again, no. But you’ll lose the chance to reach your full potential in God’s Kingdom."

Or it is just as possible God has a special fondness for the intellectual honesty of atheists such as myself and will be rewarded ;-)

The key here is the end phrase "in God's Kingdom." Take note -- that is how religion works, sacrifice time and energy now for a reward in the future, so far in the future in fact, you'll be dead.

"In short, we’ll never be able to prove conclusively and beyond all doubt that what we say is true; however, you can know of a surety through the power of the Holy Ghost."

I've had Mormon missionaries say the same thing and while as Witnesses we probably wouldn't have used those exact words, we would have said something similar. One of our songs contained the phrase "make the truth your own" as in one must prove it to themselves. Or "taste and see that Jehovah is Good" (Psalms 34:8). In the end, it is a cop out. Truth should be obvious to everyone and provable beyond a reasonable doubt. You'll recall I mentioned Simon Southerton's exit story particularly resonated with me when I was a Witness coping with doubts. One of the things he said about feelings touches on this issue of "feeling the Holy Spirit or burning in your bosom.." This idea is not as strong in the Witness faith (at least not for me) but is still there. In any regards here is what Simon said...

My uncertainty with recognizing the Spirit resurfaced during my first year back from my mission. Australia beat America in the America's Cup yacht race. To most Americans this was a non-event but for many Australians it was a huge thrill. Australia came from behind in the series to snatch victory in the face of almost certain defeat. I felt intensely warm feelings in my heart, as though it was going to burst. I had felt similar feelings when I was teaching discussions as a missionary.

"And despite your reservations about the translation process, the general authorities of the LDS church continue to tell us that the Book of Mormon is the most accurately translated book on Earth."

But who are the "general authorities" compared to me? Or you? Wait... don't break out in a coy smile just yet. The point is, there really is no evidence to suggest one human brain or a collection of them must intrinsically be endowed with knowledge and authority beyond any other one. This is just a fallacy of argument from authority, that by religious commitment, cannot be questioned. In this, Jehovah's Witnesses would same something very similiar about the Governing Body.

"And if Joseph read a term in the original that was Messiah, and it was translated Christ, it may go against what you think is a valid translation, but with Joseph, his power to translate was through the gift and power of God."

I am not sure if it was on this thread or another but I have allowed for that. As I said, if he really did peer into a hat (as I've been told was one of the methods he used) and saw letters appear one by one, how can we really argue with such claims? But if we allowed for this as our standard for evaluation, on what basis would one reject the claims of Our Lady of Guadalupe or the appearance of an angel to Mohammed? Certain far more people accept those claims than those of Joseph Smith.

Which gets back to my original point -- truth claims should be tested by the same set of standards -- not one we apply to those we wish to believe and a different (often more reasonable) set of standards to claims we don't want to believe.

"And yes, some changes have been made, but they're editorial changes that do not affect the doctrines found therein."

To a certain extent I don't make a big issue about that, other than that it shows the Book of Mormon is really without a foundation it claims. In other words, if gold plates written in reformed Egyptian existed and could be translated by any scholar who wish to (i.e. like what happens with available Bible manuscripts) things like just deleting the phrase "and it came to pass" hundreds of times, would probably get more attention that it does. Bible translators tend to choose different words or methods, literal word-for-word or dynamic equivelance, for example, but you would not find any (certainly none that I know of) that would delete a 5 word phrase out of the Bible again and again because they felt it made the text sound wordy.

Discussion differences and batting points back and forth can generate a bit of frustration, if your desire to to help me see the wonders of the faith as you see it. Let me suggest though such conversations do benefit the folks involved. Even how you've presented your recent views on "Christ" vs "Messiah" seems to be a refinement from earlier posts. Likewise, I'm sure when I chase down one of the claims in your paragraph I quoted with dots, I'll learn a lot about claims. Personally, I do not believe, folks leave either the Witness or Mormon faith based on what critics of the faith say. Rather in all the exit stories I've read, including Simon's above, something happens that is very personal in the journey and prompts the intial doubts to be followed by investigation. It is also true, what the Book of Mormon might say here or there, may really mean not much during the good times shared with friends in the faith. People love these faiths and sometimes they have good reasons, at least to them, for this to be so.

Cheers,

-Randy
Witness My Fury

Thanks for the laughs ....

Cold Steel, you are in a cult. You are also on the wrong forum to be of any use to you. you need to be on an EX LDS forum as an apologist or a doubting believer.

If you want to prove your delusion is the true delusion then you need to do that against people who have left your flavour of delusion behind. yes there are some ex mormons here on this site and in this very thread talking waaaay too much sense for your cult drone mind to accept. But you'll learn more and faster against hundreds of them on the right kind of forum.

Just face it, you've been duped, you cant see the wood for the trees and are dancing the happy dance in la la land. If you like it there then great, but you are still on the wrong forum and are pissing off a great many people who have woken up by selling your cult here.

It certainly appears that you have learned nothing in your time here about cults, how they work, critical thinking skills, or anything at all for that matter.

if you want answers then you need some humility and to learn some critical thinking skills, then you need to learn stuff you dont want to hear and face the fact you have been duped. It is a very liberating experience and well worth the effort.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OLPL5p0fMg
Podobear

Can any Mormon or exJW explain the following for me, please:

"For thine is the Kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen" 3 Nephi 13:13 B.O.M and Matthew 6:13 KJV

Did the translators of the court of King James copy over the same words from the B.O.M? or, is the B.O.M merely a plagiarization of the King James Bible?

Why do no other versions of the Lords Prayer contain this verse?

I would love to read the official LDS explanation.

Recently I had cause to advise two Mormons making a return visit on a Nigerian lady in an apartment above my Clinic. They were with an older Mormon lady. When I asked the two young lads if they knew that the LDS church barred blacks from the priesthood until relatively recently... they were astonished... and the older lady confirmed my assertion. This policy, and the JW view on Neutrality were the issues that helped my Father decide which of the two faiths were promoting the "Truth".... Dad became a JW in the mid '60's. I was surprised that young LDS missionaries were ignorant of a fairly new change in their church policy.
cofty

Its a great question Podobear. I used it with a couple of Mormon missionaries mnay years ago and they were totally stumped.

Its like a teacher trying to work out who copied their homework essay from whom. Its not the similairities that are the real proof but the common errors.

That verse was added many years after the gospel was written and yet it turns up in the BOM.
Qcmbr

When I believed I couldn't understand the relevance of no outside scholars agreeing with BoM historical claims. It was this huge gaping blind spot in my thinking that stopped me realising the obvious. If Cold can stop and think about why no one else in the world of science , history , Egyptology or archaeology agrees with any core Mormon assertions it will hopefully break this mental block. It amazes me how powerful and blinding belief makes us. The constant reliance on faith over rational logic in an evolutionary world still gives me pause to think about what evolutionary advantage faith must give.
Qcmbr

..and its a great point podo! if you really look at the BoM it is filled with this kind of mistake that a poorly educated farm boy with a vivid imagination and the basic libraries available to him at the time would be expected to make in the construction of a fantasy.
excaliber

I was a member of the LDS church for years. I know about the singles branch but I dont know much about the singles wards.

It is a VERY social church, there are a lot of events planed by the singles branch and they are actually fun.

I didn't like that there weren't many other ethnicities. And I didn't like the fact that they band blacks from the priesthood etc...

Ever consider joining The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Share this