|
Post by Bill Thompson on Apr 25, 2007 14:33:51 GMT -4
Jason, if the Mormons had not changed and redefined themselves from their original structure and ideas of how to live, they would not exist today. The federal government was about to seize all their property and possession because of their firm belief in multiple wives. Lucky for them they had a vision that they should comply with the demands of the government.
The more I have learned the more I find that they have not been telling it like it is. The illustrations that Mormons show people during indoctrination do not fit into the historic facts. Smith did not sit down at a table with the golden book and transcribe it. Instead, he recited to scribes often without any book present and sometimes from behind a curtain (possible explanation to what seems to be what I call plagiarism of the bible and what you call proof of divinity?).
If people knew these things and others before getting into the religion, I think few would join.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 25, 2007 15:14:56 GMT -4
Jason, if the Mormons had not changed and redefined themselves from their original structure and ideas of how to live, they would not exist today. The federal government was about to seize all their property and possession because of their firm belief in multiple wives. Lucky for them they had a vision that they should comply with the demands of the government. That was by no means the first time God changed his commandments to mankind because of the actions of men. God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. When Abraham showed God that he was willing to carry out that command God revoked the commandment and had Abraham sacrifice a ram instead. God commanded Jonah to go and preach to the people of Ninevah that they would be destroyed unless they repented. They repented and were not destroyed, and Jonah got upset with the Lord for changing his judgement against them. Hezekiah was sick and God sent Isaiah to tell him he was going to die and to set his house in order. Hezekiah prayed mightely to the Lord and the Lord told Isaiah to go back and tell Hezekiah that he would live another fifteen years. The early saints were commanded by God to build a temple in Jackson County, Missouri. The lot was purchased and the cornerstones were laid, but violent persecution of the saints and Governor Bogg's "Extermination Order" led to a general exodus of the church from Missouri. In 1841 the Lord said in a revelation received by Joseph: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings." The church was excused for its failure to build the temple in MIssouri. In like manner, once the church proved that it was willing to face destruction rather than give up the commandment they had been given concerning polygamy the Lord withdrew the commandment. The church had been proved "even as Abraham." Now it's probably important to note that God is never surprised. He knew that Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac, that Ninevah would repent, that Hezekiah would pray for more life, that the temple would not be built in Missouri at that time, and that the commandment to practice polygamy would be withdrawn. Human action didn't really change or frustrate God's will because God knew what the human actions would be. But Abraham didn't know he would be able to substitute a ram, Jonah didn't know Ninevah would repent, Hezekiah didn't know his prayer would be heard, Joseph Smith didn't know the temple would have to wait a later generation, and Wilford Woodruff didn't know the Lord would be willing to withdraw the commandment to practice polygamy. These men and their followers learned the lesson from the experience that the Lord intended for them to learn. I never showed anyone a picture and proclaimed "this is how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon" during my mission, and it certainly wasn't a part of the teaching materials the church provided me. I do recall seeing illustrations of Joseph sitting on one side of a table with a curtain between him and his scribe, translating the plates through the urim and thumim, but they were not a part of any official curriculum for missionary work. In any case, the most important point of the translation is that it was accomplished through the power of God. The exact details of how it was acheived are unimportant in comparison to that one fact.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Apr 25, 2007 21:23:46 GMT -4
Do you slam other religions too or just this one? If some people want to believe in it why must you try so hard to show that they are wrong? Do you give Scientologists the same treatment? Or Jehovah's Witnesses? Or Catholics? There is a lot of give and leeway in the Catholic and the Methodist churches. Some of the groups you mention do not require and encourage and promote the abandonment of reason: Utah is pretty much a theocracy. Are we to allow theocracies to keep to themselves as long as they do not trespass? It may seem harmless but that is what we said about the remains of the mujahdeen after they drove the soviets out of Afghanistan.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Apr 25, 2007 21:31:49 GMT -4
And the question still remains, why, if one wants to believe in a particular religion and it is not hurting them or others, do you try so hard to convince them they are wrong. Mental Floss. I will not convince them no matter how hard I try but it is good exercise. Plus, despite appearances, it is a labour of love. I would address my son the same way.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 26, 2007 10:45:51 GMT -4
Plus, despite appearances, it is a labour of love. I would address my son the same way. Well you might address your son the same way, but love has very little to do with trying to win internet debates.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Apr 27, 2007 13:39:20 GMT -4
And the question still remains, why, if one wants to believe in a particular religion and it is not hurting them or others, do you try so hard to convince them they are wrong. Mental Floss. I will not convince them no matter how hard I try but it is good exercise. Plus, despite appearances, it is a labour of love. I would address my son the same way. You can discuss the merits of a religion all you want as long as you are respectful of the people you are talking to. It is their choice as to which religion they want to follow. If attempts to convert someone are insulting to them it is a violation of the rules of this forum. I will let people decide what they find insulting. Consider that next time you post here about religion. While I disagree with Jason's religious beliefs, I am not going to bother trying to "talk him out of it" because a) it's none of my business; and b) I expect the same non-interference from him regarding my beliefs. I do not want to be converted, I hate when people try to convert me, all attempts to convert me are ignored and added to my long list of reasons for NOT following that religion (making their attempts to convert me counter-productive), therefore I would be a hypocrite to try to convert others to my beliefs. Let people believe what they want, it doesn't affect you.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Apr 30, 2007 18:21:52 GMT -4
Plus, despite appearances, it is a labour of love. I would address my son the same way. Well you might address your son the same way, but love has very little to do with trying to win internet debates. Does logic? What is your criteria for belief? Do you believe something because it is the "right thing" to believe in? Does the fact that something does not ring true in the scientific community have any influence? I am just asking. Everthing in this post but this paragraph has been a question.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Apr 30, 2007 18:27:30 GMT -4
Mental Floss. I will not convince them no matter how hard I try but it is good exercise. Plus, despite appearances, it is a labour of love. I would address my son the same way. You can discuss the merits of a religion all you want as long as you are respectful of the people you are talking to. It is their choice as to which religion they want to follow. If attempts to convert someone are insulting to them it is a violation of the rules of this forum. I will let people decide what they find insulting. Consider that next time you post here about religion. While I disagree with Jason's religious beliefs, I am not going to bother trying to "talk him out of it" because a) it's none of my business; and b) I expect the same non-interference from him regarding my beliefs. I do not want to be converted, I hate when people try to convert me, all attempts to convert me are ignored and added to my long list of reasons for NOT following that religion (making their attempts to convert me counter-productive), therefore I would be a hypocrite to try to convert others to my beliefs. Let people believe what they want, it doesn't affect you. Just as you were unknowing of certain Christian rituals as discussed in other threads, I think you are going out on a limb here as well. We are not talking about Methodists or Baptists here. Its affect or lack of affect is open to debate. If your friends are confined into something that takes away their ability to think freely, it would be unethical to turn a blind eye and you would not be treating them the way you would want them to treat you. It is also by belief I am not telling Jason anything he will find out himself later in his life on his own by self-reflection and experience. I am saving him wasted years.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 30, 2007 21:31:26 GMT -4
Actually no, logic also regrettably usually has very little to do with Internet debates. Essentially yes, although "the right thing" may be tough to define. The right thing must also be true, or it's not really the right thing. Only to a point. The scientific community doesn't know everything, and - especially outside of the hard sciences which can be directly tested and applied - much of what it thinks it does know is really just good guess work.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 30, 2007 21:36:27 GMT -4
Just as you were unknowing of certain Christian rituals as discussed in other threads, I think you are going out on a limb here as well. We are not talking about Methodists or Baptists here. Meaning the LDS faith is somehow worse or less respectable than Methodists or Baptists? You have presented no evidence that the LDS faith is in any way limiting my ability to think freely. Are you saying the Methodists and Baptists do not limit their members in this respect but the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints somehow does? If anything I am of the opposite opinion. Actually if you plan to shake my faith you are wasting your time. Very little you have said to this point is anything I haven't heard and discussed before, and what little was new material was also fairly ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on May 3, 2007 12:06:00 GMT -4
The head of the kind Mormon family whom we lived with for a month in Sacramento often voiced phenomenal support and “facts” to support the BoM’s authenticity. He would say things such as
#1 “people have tried for years to prove that the BoM is wrong and have failed”
#2 “there are passages in the BoM that indicate particular technical advancements of mankind that Joseph Smith could not have been aware of”
Thinking on your own is hard. Repeating what others have told you are easy. Mark (let’s call him Mark here) was only repeating with others has told him. The truth of the matter is that he had only “read” the BoM in lessons and under guidance all his life. He had never really studied it closely or on his own. The truth of the matter is that is first comment: “people have tried for years to prove that the BoM is wrong and have failed” is a way of looking at a trend that in fact is misleading. There are countless problems with the BoM that the Mormon Church has wrestled with for years. Whenever it seems that a Mormon scalar nears or reaches a conclusion that Smith had penned the BoM, he is quickly removed from the church and labeled as being “Anti-Mormon”. Mark’s second comment “there are passages in the BoM that indicate particular technical advancements of mankind that Joseph Smith could not have been aware of” is also misleading and is a combination of showing the “hits” and ignoring the “misses” and also presenting a view in a very slanted way. When Mark first told me this, I was astounded. It wasn’t until later that I found is that he was talking about advancements in metallurgy in the old world at that time, but the fact of the mater remains that no such advancements are recognized as existing in Pre-Columbian Mezzo-America.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 3, 2007 12:46:15 GMT -4
#1 “people have tried for years to prove that the BoM is wrong and have failed” Absolutely correct. Uh, I'm not sure about that one. He may have meant "there are things described in the Book of Mormon that archaelogical science only confirmed after Joseph's day" which would be correct. Prime example - the burial site called Nahom located to the south east of Jerusalem. The book of 1st Nephi gives the approximate location, but only recently was a burial site named NHM (ancient hebrew didn't use vowels) discovered in the area, along with evidence that it was inhabited at the time Lehi's people went through. As you prove on this thread every time you make a post. Care to give any examples? Or will they be the same things you've posted earlier on this thread - borrowed from what others have written and already answered by myself? Incorrect. People/scholars in the church are free to have whatever opinion they wish. They are only exommunicated if they attempt to persuade others that the church is false. It makes no sense to remain a member of a church you no longer believe in.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on May 3, 2007 15:26:27 GMT -4
What are those things young people go on for a time? Missions?
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on May 3, 2007 15:29:07 GMT -4
#1 “people have tried for years to prove that the BoM is wrong and have failed” Absolutely correct. If you have the luxury of picking apart a post you can do something like this. No, Jason, this is not correct. There are huge tracks of the BoM that is right out of the Bible. Saying that this proves the BoM is a work akin to the bible is ignoring the more plausable explaination which is that a man of questionalble ethics simply copied it. If you have the luxury of picking apart a post you can do something like this. But dicing up parts does not lessen the impact of the text as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on May 3, 2007 15:33:51 GMT -4
Incorrect. People/scholars in the church are free to have whatever opinion they wish. They are only exommunicated if they attempt to persuade others that the church is false. It makes no sense to remain a member of a church you no longer believe in. I believe the example I gave was someone pretty hi-ranking and respected in the LDS. When he had concluded that it was troubling but factuall that Smith had penned the BoM, he was suddenly shunned and ignored. If I failed to post the specifics, I apologise. But if every remark I make requires me to keep notes and back up my sources, then are you merely playing a contest of wills and whomever tires first looses? Or are we having a logical discussion? Why do I have to suffer the burden of proof when all you present is rhetoric?
|
|