Posts by rawe

12

Shun Run 2014: Show Courage, Don't Shun

by rawe in

jw
friends

our third annual shun run will be held again at 10am at papago park, tempe, az on saturday, april 12th.

this is a low-key public event that all who wish to see an end to organizational-induced shunning can join in.

lecture room on floor 4 at 2:00pm.. as part of this event, i write a letter to sdb:ssy, the otherwise anonymous jw author who informed me about the df'ing announcement in my case.

rawe

Hi Everyone,

Our third annual Shun Run will be held again at 10am at Papago Park, Tempe, AZ on Saturday, April 12th. This is a low-key public event that all who wish to see an end to organizational-induced shunning can join in. The walk takes about 1hr and later the afternoon we'll meet at the Phoenix Public Library. Lecture room on floor 4 at 2:00pm.

As part of this event, I write a letter to SDB:SSY, the otherwise anonymous JW author who informed me about the DF'ing announcement in my case. So far, no response, be if he ever does, I'll post the response here and on the other ex-JW form I particpate in.

Shun Run 2014

Show Courage, Don't Shun

Randy Galbraith March 2, 2014

Mr. SDB:SSY

Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses

2821 Route 22, Patterson, NY

12563-2237

Dear Mr. SDB:SSY

The Chandler Ex-Jehovah's Witnesses Meetup group along with assistance from Phoenix Ex-Jehovah's Witnesses Meetup group will be holding our third annual Shun Run event:

Saturday, April 12, 2014, 10:00am at Papago Park, Tempe, AZ

The primary purpose of these events is to help members of the Ex-Jehovah's Witnesses community cope with being shunned. It also takes courage to leave the faith. And it will take courage on behalf of the leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses if they choose to end organizational induced shunning. Thus the sub-title of this year's event: Show Courage, Don't Shun. I also hope the leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses themselves will one day see the wisdom in leaving the practice of organizational-induced shunning to smaller extreme groups such as the Westboro Baptist Church.

We, the shunned, are harmed as friends and family members withdraw and refuse all forms of communication. This happens, not because we have broken the “Bible's moral code” and refused to repent. For many, it is a matter of heartfelt disagreement with the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses. We left as a matter of conscience – to remain would be living a lie.

Even if the Bible's moral code were at stake in some cases, the judicial process of Jehovah's Witnesses is entirely modern and without a Biblical basis. Each year a large number of Jehovah's Witnesses face judicial committees and are disfellowshipped1 A large portion of the elders-only policy manual Shepherd The Flock of God gives directions on disfellowshipping and operating judicial committees. No such activity is spoken of in the Christian portion of the Bible. Although 1 Corinthians 5 is often cited, this is starkly different than the modern practice of disfellowshipping among Jehovah's Witnesses. Most troubling of all is the profound slander involved in invoking 1 Corinthians 5 as a comparison. Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe every case of disfellowshipping, even ones involving “sexual misconduct,” are the equivalent of the incest mentioned at 1 Corinthians 5?

What can the leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses do?

#1 - End Organizational-Induced Shunning Now!

What would happen? Would the directions of 1 Corinthian 5:13 to “remove the wicked person from among yourself” be nullified? What of 2 John 1:10, 11 which says: “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For the one who says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.” Would such advice be ignored?

Ending organizational-induced shunning does not remove these words from the Bible. The Biblical direction remains available to all Jehovah's Witnesses. Nothing stops an individual from making a personal choice not to greet or not to welcome someone into their home. Ironically, organizational-induced shunning removes the real power from these passages. The personal choice is transferred from the individual to the organization. If John had lived in an era of organizational-induced shunning, he simply would have said, “Do not greet a disfellowshipped individual. The elders on the judicial committee have privately judged 'his wicked works', and this has been reviewed by the branch office.”

Such is the trap of forming organizational law, where conscience and principal should stand. In real life, relationships are much more nuanced. I am an atheist, yet I have family and friends who are Jehovah's Witnesses. Thankfully, a few still associate with me. Out of respect for them, once each year I also attend the Memorial at a local Kingdom Hall. On these occasions, I don't “bring” any teaching of any sort! In general, real people, in real life, do not seek to cause religious conflict when they know sincerely held, but different, views are present.

#2 - Answer The Following Question

Please explain how anyone can leave the faith without being labeled “wicked” (1 Corinthians 5:13), short of continuing year-after-year to live by some undefined subset of the rules that govern active members.2

Notice my question is different than ”Do You Shun Former Members of Your Religion?”3 Someone seeking to become one of Jehovah's Witnesses will hardly imagine one day they will break the Bible's moral code and show no repentance. Likewise, a casual visitor to jw.org may have little sympathy for someone who breaks the Bible's moral code. It is an entirely different matter to ask, “Once I join, can I leave this faith without reprisals for doing so?”

We know most Jehovah's Witnesses are sincere and honest people. Many who become Witnesses do so after first forming a friendship with their Witness teacher. The thought of what options are available if one wants to leave one day is a remote or non-existent consideration when joining. The process of coming to terms with the reality one no longer accepts the teachings of their faith is difficult enough.

100 years have now passed since 1914. Some expectations have clearly faltered. The time has come to reevaluate your relationship with your former members and those who wish to leave the faith. While no doubt it is a disappointment to see members leave, please keep in mind many are kind, decent individuals who in no way deserve to be labeled “wicked.”

The shunned are not the only ones harmed by this process. Your members do not deserve to be put under the mental strain of being asked to consider former members who are friends and family “wicked” when they clearly are not. Likewise, elders who volunteer their time should not be asked to interrogate an 18-year-old girl in regards to the extent the behavior with her fiancée was sexual and immoral. Nor should they feel compelled to disfellowship knowing dire consequences might follow. The existence of an internal judicial process to “keep the congregation clean” implies all current members can be implicitly trusted. Yet cases of pedophilia have shown this it not always true.4 No doubt, many Jehovah's Witnesses would be unhappy to learn their donations are used to pay for settlements in such cases.

All such harm is unnecessary and non-Biblical in any regard. The time has come for Jehovah's Witnesses to discard organizational-induced shunning and allow conscience to rule in such serious matters. It is my sincere hope to see this happen.

Yours sincerely,

Randy Galbraith

1For every 100 Jehovah's Witnesses more than 1 is disfellowshipped each year; over 70,000.(1) Two out of every three are never reinstated. http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/disfellowship-shunning.php. jwfacts.com is an informational site run by former member Paul Grundy.

2I have asked this question, four times before: on June 30, 2010, on January 15, 2011, on February 4, 2012 and again on November 20, 2012. It still remains unanswered.

3 http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning/

4The New York Times - Jehovah’s Witnesses Told to Pay in Abuse Case: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/18/us/28-million-awarded-in-jehovahs-witnesses-abuse-case.html?_r=0

170

Sign this petition - Investigation On Jehovahs Witnesses Religious Policy That Violates Human Rights and Abuses Religious Freedom

by TJ Curioso in

launch an investigation on jehovahs witnesses religious policy that violates human rights and abuses religious freedom.

link.

rawe

Hi Simon,

"Again, a false analogy. If they make a false public statement then yes, you could take them to court for it. It would be an individual case-by-case issue. The fact they are subtle and use coded language simply makes it difficult if not impossible to do. Yes, they are morally low but the government is not going to arrive like batman and make things 'right'."

An obvious first defense against a charge of slander or libel is the truth test. Basically, what is said in the disfellowshipping announcement would pass the truth test. Since the faith gets to define who is and who is not a member, a simple benign announcement that "So-and-so" is no longer a member would pass the truth test. But, I chose my wording of the more direct and dramatic slander, because it follows closely the model Witnesses cite for their Biblical justification -- namely 1 Cor 5. I would argue that the analogy is far from false. Not only do Witnesses publish the fact they use 1 Cor 5, but the obvious effect of the announcement is clear.

But there is another aspect of the true/false question. Can one be the subject of slander, libel or invasion of privacy, if the public statement is a truthful one? The case of the gay teen shows courts will consider the impact of even a truthful statement and rule in favor of privacy. For example, if someone where to say, "So-and-so has HIV/AIDS" they may not be able to defend that on the basis of truth -- because invasion of privacy is involved.

"How" is indeed the question. Because we wish to avoid unintended consequences, in cases like this we let obvious harm and abuse of free speech to go forward unchecked. In the Janice Paul case, the court directly acknowledged the harm she had experienced.

Also, I've noticed a couple things as of late. On jw.org the defense of their shunning policy does not reference 1 Cor 5, nor "sins" like stealing and adultery. Rather a vague reference to the Bible's "moral code" is offered.

Cheers,

-Randy

170

Sign this petition - Investigation On Jehovahs Witnesses Religious Policy That Violates Human Rights and Abuses Religious Freedom

by TJ Curioso in

launch an investigation on jehovahs witnesses religious policy that violates human rights and abuses religious freedom.

link.

rawe

Hi Simon,

"Think about it - there are very few situations where anyone is forcibly compelled to talk to someone else."

Indeed that would be awful!

However, I don't see that is the main issue with disfellowshipping. How should we feel, if Jehovah's Witnesses made the following public announcement: "So-and-so is an unrepentant wicked sexual pervert and should be strictly avoided?" Would that qualify as slander or should it be protected under freedom speech and freedom of religion? Should one's private religious views be the subject of public comment (even indirectly) by Witnesses? While the announcement Jehovah's Witnesses is benign, we know it is a coded message for what I said more directly. We also know the character of the individual is harmed the moment that announcement is made.

Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are poweful concepts that are entrenched in both the constitution of Canada and USA. And rightly so, and thank goodness -- where would be on this forum if that were not so? Yet tests of the limits of how far religious leaders can use rhetoric to bring harm to individuals or classes of individuals do make it to court. The Janice Paul case being the latest one I'm aware of in the USA involving the Witnesses. More recently the Westboro Baptist Church has had their day in court (and won) regarding protesting military funerals.

When police threated to out a young gay teen, the court ruled for the right of privacy over freedom of speech for the police.

https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights_hiv-aids/court-rules-tragic-police-outing-gay-teen-violated-constitutional-rights-aclu-s

Personally, I don't think Jehovah's Witnesses should be free to slander former members in the way they do -- but at the same time -- any cure I fear would be worse than the disease. Thus, in this case I probably won't sign the petition. Rather, I'll petition Jehovah's Witnesses directly, as I do each year, as part of the Shun Run. Asking them, respectfully, to discard these policies that bring so many, both members and non-members, harm.

Cheers,

-Randy

2596

The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday

by cofty in

yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.

we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.

they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.

rawe

Hi Cofty,

Very good set of responses!

To add your list of God problems, to me one of the biggest, is if God exists, has the ability to violate laws of nature without detection, and does so to work out his own purpose, then, knowledge about anything, even in principal, is impossible. Of course the darker side of the existence of God is not theological at all, but rather that it affords some not-so-nice individuals and groups to hold superstitious control over others.

If I ever get over the pond again (been once), we'll need to get out and discuss this over a beer!

Cheers,

-Randy

139

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

by rawe in

has anyone here left jehovah's witnesses to join the churuch of jesus christ of latter-day saints?

what was your motivation for doing so and how has it worked out?.

if you haven't joined the lds or considered it, as an ex-jw, what is your general view of the lds faith?.

rawe

Hi Cold Steel,

"Okay, that sounds reasonable. The greatest demonstrable point would be old world geography. This includes evidence for the first book of Nephi, so you don't have to read a great deal of the Book of Mormon. But first we'd have to agree that if someone were going to write a fictional account about an area of the world and a historic period in which very little was known (even amongst scholars) regarding the middle-eastern area, including the deserts of Arabia, the established trails and culture, writing directions that anyone with Nephi's account, a compass and a means of desert travel could follow, then having every detail of the entire journey check out with Ø errors -- that that would be an impossible achievement, even with the best maps of the day."

Okay. It has been awhile, since I've read the Book of Mormon, but I'll start at 1 Nephi and make some comments as I go along. In general one the first things that strike a skeptical reader is the author of the Book of Mormon is anxious to get his character out of middle east and over to the Americas. Leaving them in the middle east wouldn't be a great idea, for a couple reasons. First, the writer would be bound to wind up creating conflicts in the account with the Bible. Second the whole purpose of the Book of Mormon is to create a story about happenings in the Americas.

1 Nephi 2:8 And it came to pass that he called the name of the river, Laman, and it emptied into the Red Sea; and the valley was in the borders near the mouth thereof.

As far as I'm aware no rivers empty in the Red Sea, either today or in the time setting for the Book fo Mormon. Please provide references to correct me on this.

If the Book of Mormon is a product of the 1830s, one of the things you would expect is characters in the Book of Mormon would know about Bible characters, but the opposite would be impossible. Indeed that is just what you find. For example...

1 Nephi 7:14 For behold, the a Spirit of the Lord b ceaseth soon to strive with them; for behold, they have c rejected the prophets, and d Jeremiah have they cast into prison. And they have sought to take away the e life of my father, insomuch that they have driven him out of the land

Mentions specific detail about Jeremiah, which of course would not be difficult. Yet, God works a miracle for Lehi here too...

1 Nephi 7:18 And it came to pass that when I had said these words, behold, the bands were loosed from off my hands and feet, and I stood before my brethren, and I spake unto them again.

Yet, the character of Lehi, although getting the attention of God in this way, doesn't seem to result in any mention in the Bible.

1 Nephi 8:8 And after I had traveled for the space of many hours in darkness, I began to pray unto the Lord that he would have a mercy on me, according to the multitude of his tender mercies.

A Hebrew charachter speaking in the first person using the word "hours" is very odd. You won't find OT characters doing that.

1 Nephi 11:13 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the great city of Jerusalem, and also other cities. And I beheld the city of Nazareth; and in the city of a Nazareth I beheld a b virgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white.

A reference to "city of Nazareth" seems incorrect to me. I would need to do more research on this point to be sure. Of course, it might be possible to rescue this verse by reference to its presentation as prophesy.

I'll stop at chapter 12. If you're thinking of some specific reference, please reference to chapter and verse. So far, nearly all references, are fairly vague or easily known information from the Bible. Jerusalem, Zedekiah, Red Sea all these items are of course mentioned in the Bible and would be available to a Book of Mormon author in the 1830s.

Cheers,

-Randy

31

There Is No Atheist In Practice!

by abiather in

1) in conscious level, everyone agrees with the principle of cause and effect that says a cause precedes every effect, and every effect is the cause for another effect/s.

in subconscious level, everyone knows that if there is a cause for everything, then there a cause (or a designer) for the principle of causation also.

and this cause is more real than the principle of causation itself, just like source is more real than the resources!.

rawe

Hi Abiathar,

"1) In conscious level, everyone agrees with the principle of cause and effect that says a cause precedes every effect, and every effect is the cause for another effect/s"

Cause and effect is a rule of our universe. The problem with discussing the origin of the universe is you should not casually apply rules the govern actions within the universe to what is the case outside it. Rigorous discussions by cosmologists tend to avoid doing that, or at least acknowledge the problem. Thus...

Saying "cause & affect" - disallowed, artifact of the current universe

Saying "before & after" - dissallowed, time is an artifact of the current universe

Saying "matter or material" - disallowed, matter is an artifact of the current universe

Saying "energy" - disallowed, energy is an artifact of the current universe

Saying "God" - allowed, but since it can explain anything and is unconstrained, it ultimately means nothing

Saying "nothing" - allowed, since it comes the closest to talk about something outside of our universe

Cheers,

-Randy

139

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

by rawe in

has anyone here left jehovah's witnesses to join the churuch of jesus christ of latter-day saints?

what was your motivation for doing so and how has it worked out?.

if you haven't joined the lds or considered it, as an ex-jw, what is your general view of the lds faith?.

rawe

Hi Cold Steel,

Thanks for responding.

"I’ve read sample s of Spalding’s writings and the Book of Mormon was not written by Spalding"

I have not. This bit of the story doesn't interest me that much. I mentioned it, as per my own determination to be complete in my comments. Thus to say "Joseph Smith didn't know this bit about the Lord's Prayer", may not be the complete picture, if in fact, the original source material had been the work of Solomon Spalding, as some folks beieve. Nonetheless, it is to your credit, that you investigated this claim.

I don't have time for a detailed response right now. My prior post mentioned the paragraph where you made a number of claims about the Book of Mormon. If you wouldn't mind selecting one of the claims, perhaps the one you find most compelling, when I get the time, I'll case it down and respond. The general theme of your claims was statements in the Book of Mormon that could not be known to Joseph Smith. Naturally any future event if specified in specific detail would qualify. Any past event, if specified in specific detail, and generally not known at the time but only re-discovered in our day would qualify.

Keep in mind, I hold the same view in regards "divine origin" claims for any material, not just the Book of Mormon.

Cheers,

-Randy

ps. You quoted James who tells us we should satisfy our lack of wisdom via prayer, then having no doubts. That idea, many an Ex-JW, will tell you, trapped them for years, as they kept assuming their doubts were a bad thing. In fact, much better to respond to doubts and lack of wisdom through objective research.

139

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

by rawe in

has anyone here left jehovah's witnesses to join the churuch of jesus christ of latter-day saints?

what was your motivation for doing so and how has it worked out?.

if you haven't joined the lds or considered it, as an ex-jw, what is your general view of the lds faith?.

rawe

Hi 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."

One of the things that keeps me posting on this thread, is the debt of gratitude I feel towards Ex-Mormon's. As a Witness with early access to the Internet I could not bring myself to directly read material strongly critical of our faith or the writings of former members. Instead, I read exit stories of former LDS members. I also posted on the Usenet group alt.religion.mormon. There was a Usenet group for Jehovah's Witnesses too, but I avoided that. At first I would shake my head at just how obviously silly many of the claims of the Book of Mormon appeared to be to me. How in the world, can you believe these claims, surely all it would take is a side-by-side comparison of the KJV with the Book of Mormon to see these sections were an obvious copy? One LDS member sent my a chapter of a book from Hugh Nibley that attempts to explain this issue. I did considerable work to give a response. Alas, my response was dismissed, with a few polite words.

Then I started to read more of the exit stories. It was then that I realized LDS members really, truly believed in their faith with no less conviction than I had as a Witness. The problem with these claims is one simply cannot not evaluate claims of their faith the same way as other information. Since both faiths largely define the world we lived in, there is an important emotional need to find the claims of the faith true. Conversely finding the claims of critics deficient is also emotionally important. I have come to view this as the two ruler rule.

If one is make a choice between one claim or the other and there is no emotional investment in the outcome we can use a fixed ruler. But in evaluating faith claims, we tend to pull out the elastic ruler and stretch it as far as needed until the claim fits, or comments of a critic can be rejected.

The next thing I discovered, is when it comes to faith we tend to be a bit loose with our language. Some statements are factual and should be dumped into that box without much debate. Saying the KJV is an English Bible Translation produced in 1611 is a simple fact. However, other statements are merely faith claims. There are not facts and shouldn't be treated as such. But when we get in the habit co-mingling the two it can get confusing. Here is an example of Cold Steel's post...

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

Calling the Book of Mormon a "translation" is a faith claim. Using the phrase "the translation process", assumes a truth, that is not in evidence. Adding the qualifer "most accurate" deepens the confusion. If we restrict ourselves to verifiable evidence, all we can say is manuscripts of the Book of Mormon, in English, dates back to the 1830s.

This fact vs faith claim lack-of-rigor is rife with religious settings. Articulate speakers talk as if Noah or Abraham really existed in the same manner as known facts from history. This winds up being a sort of social conditioning, wherein we speak of Nephi doing this, in the time of Peleg that, without perhaps stopping and asking, how exactly do I know this is factual?

Btw- I believe the evolutionary advantage is tied up in imagination, self-denial, later reward and the advantage of obedience.

Cheers,

-Randy

139

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

by rawe in

has anyone here left jehovah's witnesses to join the churuch of jesus christ of latter-day saints?

what was your motivation for doing so and how has it worked out?.

if you haven't joined the lds or considered it, as an ex-jw, what is your general view of the lds faith?.

rawe

Hi 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"

The entire chapter of Matthew 6, with few differences, is copied from the King Jame Version of 1611 and presented in the Book of Mormon as 3 Nephi 13. This is presented as Jesus repeating his message to Native Americans.

These 13 words, called a doxology, were a later addition to the Bible, hence modern translations do not include them. Some believe much of the Book of Mormon is based on unpublished manuscripts for another author, Solomon Spalding. Whatever the case might be, we would say Smith or Spalding likely did not know this portion of the Lord's prayer was not originally in the Bible. Of the doxology Wikipedia says this:

The doxology associated with the Lord's Prayer is found in four Vetus Latina manuscripts, only two of which give it in its entirety. The other surviving manuscripts of the Vetus Latina Gospels do not have the doxology. The Vulgate translation also does not include it, thus agreeing with critical editions of the Greek text.

Thus this extra piece of text from 1611 KJV gets copied into the Book of Mormon produced in the 1830s.

The odd thing is a few words are dropped from the Lord's prayer in 3 Nephi 13, such as:

"Thy kingdom come" verse 10
"Give us this day our daily bread" verse 11.

If you're thinking bread doesn't fit the setting of 3 Nephi 13, that ideas falls, because the next chapter, 3 Nephi 14, is a copy of Matthew 7, where the word bread appears in verse 9 of both copies.

"Did the translators of the court of King James copy over the same words from the B.O.M?"

How the King James Version was produced from 1604 to 1611 is well known. It would of course be impossible for them to reference the Book of Mormon since it would not exist for another 219 years.

"is the B.O.M merely a plagiarization of the King James Bible?"

In large sections it obviously is. The hard work of the KJV translators is passed off as the result of translating gold plates recorded in a mysterious unknown language. If copyright laws extended across centuries this would likely not be tolerated. As it is, the KJV text is in the public domain.

Yet, this doesn't mean the KJV text is always copied verbatim in the Book of Mormon. To be sure, large sections are, but the Book of Mormon does include changes to the text. Alas, the results are often not for the better.

3 Nephi 13:30

Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which
today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, *even so will* he [[]]
clothe you, *if* ye *are not* of little faith.

vs

Matthew 6:30

Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which
to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more
clothe you, O ye of little faith?

So what Jesus should we believe? The one of Matthew who acknowledges we are of "little faith" or the Nephi Jesus who says the opposite?

Cheers,
-Randy
ps. Here is the full text of Matthew 6 and 3 Nephi 13. I've used brackets and asterisks to highlight differences.

===
Matthew 6:1

Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be
seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is
in heaven.

Matthew 6:2

Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet
before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the
streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you,
They have their reward.

Matthew 6:3

But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy
right hand doeth:

Matthew 6:4

That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in
secret himself shall reward thee openly.

Matthew 6:5

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for
they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners
of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto
you, They have their reward.

Matthew 6:6

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when
thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret;
and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

Matthew 6:7

But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do:
for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

Matthew 6:8

Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth
what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

Matthew 6:9

After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in
heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

Matthew 6:10

Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

Matthew 6:11, 12

Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

Matthew 6:13

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil:
For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory,
for ever. Amen.

Matthew 6:14

For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father
will also forgive you:

Matthew 6:15

But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your
Father forgive your trespasses.

Matthew 6:16

Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad
countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear
unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

Matthew 6:17

But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy
face;

Matthew 6:18

That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father
which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall
reward thee openly.

Matthew 6:19

Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth
and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:

Matthew 6:20

But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither
moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break
through nor steal:

Matthew 6:21

For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

Matthew 6:22

The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be
single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

Matthew 6:23

But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of
darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness,
how great is that darkness!

Matthew 6:24

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one,
and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise
the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Matthew 6:25

Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye
shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye
shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than
raiment?

Matthew 6:26

Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do
they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth
them. Are ye not much better than they?

Matthew 6:27

Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his
stature?

Matthew 6:28

And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of
the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:

Matthew 6:29

And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory
was not arrayed like one of these.

Matthew 6:30

Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which
to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more
clothe you, O ye of little faith?

Matthew 6:31

Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or,
What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?

Matthew 6:32

(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:)
for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all
these things.

Matthew 6:33

But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness;
and all these things shall be added unto you.

Matthew 6:34

Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow
shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the
day is the evil thereof.
====
3 Nephi 13:1

[[Verily, verily, I say that I would that ye should do alms unto
the poor; but]] take heed that ye do not your alms before men to be
seen of them; otherwise ye have no reward of your Father who is
in heaven.

3 Nephi 13:2

Therefore, when *ye shall do your* alms do not sound a trumpet
before *you*, as *will* hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the
streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you,
*they* have their reward.

3 Nephi 13:3

But when thou doest alms let not thy left hand know what thy
right hand doeth;

3 Nephi 13:4

That thine alms may be in secret; and thy Father *who* seeth in
secret, himself shall reward thee openly.

3 Nephi 13:5

And when thou prayest thou shalt not *do* as the hypocrites[[]], for
they love to pray, standing in the synagogues and in the corners
of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto
you, *they* have their reward.

3 Nephi 13:6

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when
thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father *who* is in secret; and
thy Father, *who* seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.

3 Nephi 13:7

But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen [[]],
for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

3 Nephi 13:8

Be not ye therefore like unto them, for your Father knoweth
what things ye have need of before ye ask him.

3 Nephi 13:9

After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father *who* art in
heaven, hallowed be thy name.

3 Nephi 13:10

[[]] Thy will be done *on* earth as it is in heaven.

3 Nephi 13:11

[[]]
And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

3 Nephi 13:12, 13

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory,
forever. Amen.

3 Nephi 13:14

For, if ye forgive men their trespasses your heavenly Father
will also forgive you;

3 Nephi 13:15

But if ye forgive not men their trespasses neither will your
Father forgive your trespasses.

3 Nephi 13:16

Moreover, when ye fast be not as the hypocrites, of a sad
countenance, for they disfigure their faces that they may appear
unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward.

3 Nephi 13:17

But thou, when thou fastest, anoint *thy* head, and wash thy
face;

3 Nephi 13:18

That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father,
*who* is in secret; and thy Father, *who* seeth in secret, shall
reward thee openly.

3 Nephi 13:19

Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth
and rust doth corrupt, and thieves break through and steal;

3 Nephi 13:20

But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither
moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break
through nor steal.

3 Nephi 13:21

For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

3 Nephi 13:22

The light of the body is the eye; if, therefore, thine eye be
single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

3 Nephi 13:23

But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of
darkness. If, therefore, the light that is in thee be darkness,
how great is that darkness!

3 Nephi 13:24

No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one
and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise
the other. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.

3 Nephi 13:25

[[And now it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these
words he looked upon the twelve whom he had chosen, and said unto
them: Remember the words which I have spoken. For behold, ye are
they whom I have chosen to minister unto this people.]]

Therefore I say unto you, take no thought for your life, what ye
shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye
shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than
raiment?

3 Nephi 13:26

Behold the fowls of the air, for they sow not, neither do
they reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth
them. Are ye not much better than they?

3 Nephi 13:27

Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his
stature?

3 Nephi 13:28

And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of
the field how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin;

3 Nephi 13:29

And yet I say unto you, that even Solomon, in all his glory,
was not arrayed like one of these.

3 Nephi 13:30

Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which
today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, *even so will* he [[]]
clothe you, *if* ye *are not* of little faith.

3 Nephi 13:31

Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or,
What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?

3 Nephi 13:32

[[]]
For your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all
these things.

3 Nephi 13:33

But seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness,
and all these things shall be added unto you.

3 Nephi 13:34

Take therefore no thought for the morrow, for the morrow
shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient *is* the
day *unto* the evil thereof.
===

139

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

by rawe in

has anyone here left jehovah's witnesses to join the churuch of jesus christ of latter-day saints?

what was your motivation for doing so and how has it worked out?.

if you haven't joined the lds or considered it, as an ex-jw, what is your general view of the lds faith?.

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