QCMBR There has to be a point where you recognise a charismatic con man when you see him.
Apparently not.
Ever consider joining The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
by rawe 139 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Cold Steel
Qcmbr: There has to be a point where you recognise a charismatic con man when you see him.
The same was said of Christ. In fact, in all of my studying of anti-Mormon literature, I have found the vast majority to be false, followed by other areas that are misunderstood or intentionally made to look foolish (“magic underwear”).
Joseph has sex with his adopted daughter (16 years old)
Who said? The only 16-year old I know of was Helen Mar Kimball, and it was a political marriage only done at the request of Joseph’s lifelong friend, Heber C. Kimball. Since the Latter-day Saints believe that marriages contracted here carry on into the next estate, Heber very much wanted to unite his family with Joseph’s. At first, Helen wasn’t for this marriage, but she remained a faithful member of the church and died an old lady in Salt Lake City. When she wrote her memoirs, she had very much changed her mind and she never indicated anywhere that her relationship with Joseph was any more than political in nature. She lived right over the print shop, and the residents of that area never recall seeing Joseph visit her. You can believe what you wish, but have you any proof?
Joseph has sex with married women
Such as? Please provide names and evidence.
Joseph drinks alcohol, owns businesses involved in alcohol production and sale all after his factually incorrect Word of Wisdom revelation
When the “Word of Wisdom” revelation was given, it explicitly states that it was not given “by commandment or restrain,” but as a word of wisdom. Mormons, including Joseph, continued to drink in moderation until the days of Brigham Young, who put the issue up to the Latter-day Saints for a vote to make it a commandment and binding. This was done on our own initiative and, in my view, it has served the church very well. What you mean by “factually incorrect” is beyond me.
Joseph makes up tall tales regularly (for example claiming a stone structure was actually Adam’s altar but forgetting what a flood would do).
This is hardly a major issue to base an objection on, especially since we have nothing directly from Joseph Smith. Nevertheless, we know that Adam lived in the general area, and the people who visited the “altar” said it was not in one piece. The following is by Benjamin H. Johnson, who said he visited the area. If the Book of Mormon is true, and if Joseph was a prophet (which I’m convinced he was), then I would say that if he said it was the altar of Adam, that it most likely was what he said it was. The answer depends on his prophetic calling.
With all the written scriptures he produced; with everything he left us, if you have to go dancing around the gray areas of Mormonism to find fault, one wonders why the Book of Mormon can’t be debunked once and for all, decisively? It claims to be an ancient record dating back to 600 B.C. And while little was known about that period of history at the time the Book of Mormon appeared (1830). We know considerably more about it now. Yet Nephi’s account, far from being debunked, is completely consistent with what we know of the region and time period. If Joseph Smith was a true prophet, then I’d think the Book of Mormon would be quickly proven a fraud. Yet it’s holding up fine. How is that possible?
Joseph caught pretending to translate (kinder hook, Greek psalter and in our day Book of Abraham)
The Book of Abraham is a book I’ll stand by to the end. Our critics act as though the issue has been completely settled and that Joseph Smith was proven a fraud. This is most certainly not true. As of now, an intellectual battle is raging, and I come down on the side of the Book of Abraham. The Greek Psalter incident is ridiculous and I can’t believe you’re even brining it up. What evidence do you have that it took place? The story was invented by an anti-Mormon professor who, in his account, quotes Joseph Smith as uncouth, unlearned and ignorant. Joseph never used the language that Caswall reported and we have his writing samples from the time to prove it. This is one of the things you should have known about. It takes my time to answer the charge, when you should have known better. You’re reading nothing but anti-Mormon literature and most of it is crap. As for the Kinderhook Plates, we have no indication whatsoever that Joseph had the least interest in it. After a historical analysis, our historians have concluded:
“The best argument against Joseph’s attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is most likely that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had ‘tricked’ the prophet. But, if they wanted to show Joseph up, why wait for decades to do it? Why didn’t they crow their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn’t fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.”
The only two accounts of the plates contradicted each other in numerous areas. Smith never showed enough interest in them to write anything in his journal, as he did concerning the Book of Abraham. BTW, anyone interested in the Book of Abraham should check out the numerous listings by FairLDS lectures on YouTube.
Joseph writes a book full of copy errors, factual mistakes and impossibilities — in the style of a pious schoolbook from his youth — and then tries to sell it.
Of what book are you speaking? Sounds like you’re copying and pasting from somewhere.
Joseph tells people of supernatural occurrences many years after and gets his salient facts wrong many times (confusing Nephi with Moroni, giving different divine responses to different questions to different people in the same ‘First Vision’)
You mean, like the apostle Paul? Actually, the church looked into a number of those allegations and also found them to be false. First it was claimed there were no revivals in 1820 — that they came later — and that was disproven. Then they said he concocted his first vision story many years later, but then they found earlier references to it in the journals of people who talked about hearing Joseph relate the story earlier than the published accounts. Also, as a journalist and editor, myself, I know how easy it is making errors in published accounts. Which change bothers you the most?
Regarding anti-Mormon literature, some deserves serious consideration (such as the first vision accounts, whether there were revivals in the Palmyra area when Joseph claimed and, of course, the Books of Mormon and Abraham. But it’s easy to just grab mud and fling it, and then the person you’re flinging it at has to go through the time and effort of cleaning it up.
Cofty: It's intersting that you dismiss ex-Mormons in the same way that JWs dismiss ex-JWs and evangelicals do the same to ex-christians.
At first blush that may seem like a valid criticism; however, the ex-Mormon community, with but few exceptions, are not competent scholars and historians. Clearly I’m going to take the criticisms of ancient scripture scholars, anthropologists, geologists, archeologists and competent historians more serious than those of ex-Mormon rank and file members. To undermine the JWs, all one needs are past issues of their own publications. Mormonism is much more problematic.
Margaret Barker, a very respected Methodist scholar with a specialty in 600 B.C. Middle East history, theology and tradition, and specifically, on early Israelite temple worship is going to carry more weight than someone who does Internet searches in their basement and creates anti-Mormon websites.
For example, she notes:
The tree of life made one happy, according to the Book of Proverbs (Proverbs 3:18), but for detailed descriptions of the tree we have to rely on noncanonical texts. Enoch described it as perfumed, with fruit like grapes (1 Enoch 32:5), and a text discovered in Egypt in 1945 described the tree as beautiful, fiery, and with fruit like white grapes. I do not know of any other source that describes the fruit as white grapes. Imagine my surprise when I read the account of Lehi’s vision of the tree whose white fruit made one happy.... [See 1 Nephi 8:10-11]
Consider as well the mysterious rod of iron in this Book of Mormon vision (1 Nephi 8:20; 11:25). In the Bible, the rod of iron is mentioned four times as the rod of the Messiah. Each mention in the King James Version says the Messiah uses the rod to “break” the nations (Psalm 2:9) or to “rule” them (Revelation 2:27; 12:5; 19:15). The ancient Greek translation (the Septuagint) is significantly different; it understood the Hebrew word in Psalm 2:9 to mean “shepherd” and it reads, “He will shepherd them with a rod of iron.” The two Hebrew verbs for “break” and “shepherd, pasture, tend, lead” look very similar and in some forms are identical. The Greek text of the Book of Revelation actually uses the word “shepherd,” poimanei, of the Messiah and his iron rod, so the English versions here are not accurate. The hold child who was taken up to heaven (Revelation 12:5) was to “shepherd the nations with a rod of iron.” The King James Version of Micah 7:14 translates this same word as “Feed thy people with thy rod,” where “guide” would be a better translation. Psalm 78:72 has, “He fed them...he guided them,” where the parallelism of Hebrew poetry would expect the two verbs to have a similar meaning: “He led them...he guided them.” Lehi’s vision has the iron rod guiding people to the great tree--the older and probably the original understanding of the word. ("Worlds of Joseph Smith" conference at the Library of Congress in 2005)She has written more extensively on the LDS views of the temple and traditions in non-canonical apocryphal and pseudepigraphal literature. And the fact that no anti-Mormon can get past is the fact that no one living in 1830 knew enough to write the Book of Mormon and other works Joseph produced. Even in the hotly contested Book of Abraham, the work includes extensive information on the premortal council of the gods, which is now a recognized area of study based on writings that simply weren’t available in Joseph Smith’s day. Had he produced the Book of Abraham today, anti-Mormons would have a field day dragging these documents forward to show where Joseph Smith stole his material. But in his day, the greatest biblical scholars had no access to such documents. The same thing is true for research in the Mesoamerican field of Book of Mormon studies. Each year, the Book of Mormon becomes more plausible, not less.
If it’s a fraud, shouldn’t it be the other way around?
-
LisaRose
I don't know why you keep posting on this board, nobody here will ever want to join the Mormons. One stupid cult is enough in a lifetime.
-
rawe
Hi Cold Steel,
You've posted a fair bit of material. If I get more time, I'll read it and respond. Here is a couple off the cuff comments...
"And I understand why. Any person leaving any church in bitterness feels that they’ve been manipulated, deceived, and that they’ve wasted a lot of time for nothing. That’s why many become atheists."
Indeed is not a nice feeling to make the awful discovery that a trusted source has in fact been less than honest. However, for what is worth, in my own case, I generally felt fairly positive about my involvement with the Witnesses, especially during my younger years, where I was adopted by the congregation as a "fatherless boy." Since both my parents were disfellowshipped, I went to meetings alone, even as an 8-year-old. I also remained in the faith for several years, after admitting to myself I was an atheist. At the time, I would have not expressed it so bluntly -- probably more of "I have doubts about the existence of God."
One Ex-Mormon in particular impressed me with how he expressed his feelings. His story convinced me there is kinship between Mormons and Witnesses who eventually come face to face with their doubts about the veracity of their faith. I found his story on exmormon.org and recall his concerns about DNA vs faith claims regarding American Indians. My point here is not the focus on his concern, but instead how he expressed feelings that were akin to my own. It has been a long while since I read his story, but I just skimmed through it again for this post.
Here is a snippet that captures his feelings: "I didn't leave the LDS Church and stop believing because it was easy. I desperately wanted the comforting teachings of the Church to be true. I don't have any brilliant insight to offer about the meaning of life, and I haven't found another true Church."
It is story #125 - Simon Southerton from Australia.
"But at the same time it’s foolish to put the Mormons in the same category as the WTBTS."
Some aspects are the similar, some are different. Naturally a believing Mormon will focus on the differences that seem to make the Mormon faith "correct." In the end, it is often a personal journey. You speculated on why many who leave the Witnesses become atheists. But of course, you don't know, right? Having never been a Witness or an atheist, all you can do is ask and draw conclusions on what may be the reasons. Likewise, although I can read The Book of Mormon and express critical vews about sections of the KJV being plagerized, this is not the same as being a Mormon. What the LDS faith means to you, would naturally go beyond such things.
Cheers,
-Randy
-
humbled
Cold Steel,
What of the LDS teaching that Jesus was a polygamist? March 1857 Orson Hyde gave a sermon that asserted that Jesus was a polygamist. His wives were Martha and a couple of Marys.
There are records of the past, even for the LDS church.
They are teaching whatever came into their heads--no different from the WBTS guys.
-
rawe
Hi Cold Steel,
"There's no ritual shunning, Latter-day Saints can visit any church they want or read any religious materials they wish."
Compared to the Witnesses this is a point in favor for Latter-day Saints. As is this...
"They're actually encouraged to seek the highest education they can"
John Cedars is an Ex-JW who sometimes posts on this site and he is the author behind jwsurvey.org. He asked about shunning on exmormonforums.com. One response he got from "Rainfeather" was this:
From what I've heard about the way people are treated when they leave the JWs, yes I would say they are worse. With Mormonism, it's more of an individual thing. One family might tolerate a member who has left, while another family will shun entirely. It's a different experience for everyone. But the stories of shunning are just so sad and it's all so unnecessary.
"The Latter-day Saints are completely different, but there's no convincing some people."
I do not assert the Latter-day Saints are the same as Jehovah's Witnesses. Several aspects of those differences are exactly what you highlight in your post. What seems to be the case is this. For believers in either faith the focus is on doctrinal points and what supports those. The doctrine is all important, because it is correct and the truth, for reasons X, Y, Z. In the initial stages of doubting most disaffected members begin to examine the foundation of those doctrines and find them faulty. However, after awhile the focus shifts to aspects of how one was mislead, how wrong, but subtle arguments were presented and reinforced, etc. How control structures with the faith worked. In this Ex-Mormons and Ex-JWs often find common ground.
I doubt any believing member would find anything more the most superficial commonality between the faiths. Instead, if they did gaze over the fence it would be to laugh at how silly the other faith is in one regard or the other.
I believe almost no one on the outside can convince a believing member they are part of a faith the lacks a factual basis. Instead, something happens within the faith, that causes the member to question. Only then do such folks begin to take seriously what critics of the faith are saying.
"But what is death?"
The opposite of life.
"It's a separation. Spiritual death is a separation of man and God."
There is no evidence of this apart from a statement of belief.
"As for Ecclesiastes, it's clearly a philosophic book and not an eschatological book."
Says, who? Eccleiastes is part of the inspired word of God and truthful in all it's plain statements of fact!
I am of course being sarcastic, since again, either view amounts to a statement of belief. All we can say for certain is Ecclesiastes is an ancient book written in Hebrew that became part of the Bible canon. The writer certainly does seem to focus on the vanity of life, but I don't think there is any reason to believe he was merely being philosophical when he said the dead "know not anything." Rather, in context the writer is reflecting on the value of being alive in constrast to being dead. As he said, a live dog is better than a dead lion.
"And the apostles asked Jesus, "Master, who did sin, this man or his parents that he was born blind?" (John 9:2) How could that man sin before his birth if he did not exist? Jesus made no attempt to correct them."
Hmm... I don't think the account demands that conclusion. The answer Jesus is said to have given here is this: "Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him."
The parents were of course alive while the child was in the womb, so they could have "sinned" then. Likewise, it may have been the belief of Jews then, that an unborn child could "sin" while in the womb. In any case Jesus said neither had sinned.
But, there is little point for me to go into great detail on these points. I don't believe in God or that Jesus was anything more than a man who long ago died along with everyone else in his time period. Likewise, I don't believe Jehovah's Witnesses have the "truth", so all I can do is share what I know about the faith, but I have no interest in defending their doctrines.
"You're also correct that death ends animated life. If you've ever lost a family member or friend, or if you've ever had an animal as a pet, once dead, the body looks different. It's clearly a shell in which the spirit, an eternal being, resides."
Again, this is just an assertive statement of belief. To say the body "looks different" is obvious enough, why would we expect any different, given the physical actions of respiration have ended?
"Injustice? How? The Lord has stated that children who die return to the Lord and will inherit eternal life, without the necessity of going through the pain and suffering of human life."
Hmm..., okay...
"I wish I could have died that young, though if I had, I don't think I would have appreciated death and a return to God as much."
I'm trying to imagine how the parent of the 5-year-old would react if you told them, no injustice had befallen them and in fact you wish you could have died at that age too. Not to be too hash, but this is just contempt for life now, we know we have. All such talk of after-life is, at best, wishful thinking. Jehovah's Witnesses routinely talk about the wonders of paradise earth without seemingly giving a thought to the genocide that must proceed it.
"On the other hand, many of those who live selfish, hedonistic lifestyles or reject the existence of God experience fear and for that reason refuse to move on."
What though of atheists who are not selfish and hedonistic? Who have not so much "rejected the existence of God" but instead accepted life for what it really is? Could it be they neither live in fear and have "moved on" from superstitious belief, that is?
"Indeed they do [claim ordination as ministers]. But from whence do they get their authority?"
The same place as any who make such claims. It is a faith claim. Each particular faith dictates these rules -- that is their proragative. Saying they aren't ordained, but I am, because of this or that, is, again just another statement of belief.
"They may surmise such, but do the JW Governing Body members see visions, have angelic ministrations?"
Jehovah's Witnesses do not make such claims, but again, they would view with suspicious any who do. In any regards Latter-day Saints are not alone in these claims. TV Evangelist Oral Roberts claimed to have several visions, including one in 1977 from a 900-foot-tall Jesus who told him to build City of Faith Medical and Research Center (see Wikipedia for more details).
Cheers,
-Randy -
rawe
Hi Cold Steel,
You'll notice I don't comment that much on LDS history. That aspect of the faith does not interest me. However, how the Bible has come into existence and been translated is of great interest to me. So, when you say this...
"Even when Isaiah is quoted in the Book of Mormon"
my comment is, this statement lacks precision. The Book of Mormon, contains, in copious amounts, text from the King James Version of the Bible. Never does the Book of Mormon "quote" Isaiah, which was written in Hebrew. Translating from Hebrew into English is a non-trivial exercise. Both word choice and syntax will result in a unique translation, even though others may equally convey the meaning. If translators are compelled to work with deficient manuscripts or are burdened with certain religious bias, that will show up, sometimes including mistakes, that only become obvious when older manuscripts are discovered.
The truth of this is easily available, all one has to do is invest a bit of time in reading how Bible translation is generally done, how the KJV of 1611 was specifically created and then just open the Book of Mormon side-by-side with a KJV Bible and compare. In previous posts, I've pointed to 2 Nephi 22 compared to KJV Isaiah 12 as an example.
Cheers,
-Randy
-
Qcmbr
Cold -
The same was said of Christ - I don't believe in that person as a divine being and the myth of Christ is awful to me. A cult is a cult. So agreed.
The only 16-year old I know of was Helen Mar Kimball - you'll be glad of this additional info then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanny_Alger http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/02-FannyAlger.htm http://mormonthink.com/QUOTES/jsplural.htm You could argue that it wasn't sexual but then you'd have to argue that , since the sealing keys weren't given till later on, that Joseph was simply marrying pluraly with no celestial hope or promise. I can think of no rational reason why someone would simply marry additional women for no particular reason. To anyone not familiar with this modern mormons consider plural marriage to be synonymous with celestial marriage (a marriage performed by priesthood keys to seal multiple women to a single man to be wives for eternity) This is a salient point here because in Mormon History , when Jospeh 'married' Fanny the sealing keys had not been restored meaning that the marriage only had effect on earth and was simply a plural marriage - if it wasn't for sex what was it for? She was already his adopted daughter and the end result of this marriage was that as soon as Joseph's first wife, Emma, found out she chucked Fanny out of the family home.
the people who visited the “altar” said it was not in one piece . - this isn't the point , the point is it would have been buried rather than neatly uncovered. Anyhow it was a simple example of Joseph making stuff up on the spot - I could mention Zelph and Onandagus but to what end? - they aren't even in the scriptures. His mother said the following:
" During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of travelings, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them."
Last one since I normally hate line by line rebuttals but this is a pretty fatal mormon fact and if it simply bounces off your mind without even a momentary pause then - shrugs - you never really wanted to know:
Joseph writes a book full of copy errors, factual mistakes and impossibilities — in the style of a pious schoolbook from his youth — and then tries to sell it.
Of what book are you speaking? Sounds like you’re copying and pasting from somewhere.
Clearly I'm not copying and pasting a sentence of my own construction doh - I was referring to the Book of Mormon which Joseph tried to sell the copyright of with its impossible historical events, incorrect flora and fauna and anachronisms. I did post links to the books he lifted style and content from earlier in this thread but you missed them; I care enough about you to do your homework though: http://archive.org/stream/firstbooknapole00gruagoog#page/n17/mode/2up and this one - http://archive.org/stream/latewarbetweenun00inhunt#page/n13/mode/2up .
-
-
