mormons?

[shichimenshyo]

Besides the sarcastic and belittling tone of southpark, yes for the most part its true

 

[guitarzan]

i just saw the south park episode about mormons and was wondering if it was true. i saw the scientology one and was thinking to myself that it couldnt be true but then the caption "this is what scientologists actually believe" appeared and afterwards i checked it out and sure enough south park portrayed it accurately and did not exaggerate or make it more absurd.

now on the mormon episode, particularly when joseph smith wouldnt let anyone see the plates and would dictate with his head inside a hat, i thought again it had to be an exaggeration. but sure enough it was an accurate depiction.

Nope. Joseph Smith let others see the plates and their engravings. In every Book of Mormon published, the following "Testimony of Three Witnesses" is extant in the title pages:

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.

Oliver Cowdery
David Whitmer
Martin Harris

None of the Three Witnesses ever denied this testimony. Then there is the "Testimony of Eight Witnesses":

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

Christian Whitmer
Jacob Whitmer
Peter Whitmer, Jun
John Whitmer
Hiram Page
Joseph Smith, Sen
Hyrum Smith
Samuel H. Smith

None of the Eight Witnesses ever denied their testimonies expressed here either. Then there is the testimony of Joseph Smith, which is too lengthy to post here. You can find that also in the title pages of every Book of Mormon.

then there was the part of the story how after the guy writing for smith hid the original translation and asked smith to translate it again to see if it matched exactly with the original (or if he was making it up it would be slightly different) but then smith said he had another revelation and would retranslate but from a slightly different story so what do ya know the story was worded slightly differently. i looked for info on this but couldnt find any. so anyone who knows about mormonism, is this true?

Actually, Martin Harris asked Joseph Smith for the manuscript so far as it had been translated (I think it was 116 pages) so that he could convince his wife that the work was true. Joseph was instructed by God not to let Harris have the pages, but Harris insisted and finally Joseph allowed him to do so.

Harris lost the 116 pages and it was revealed to Joseph that corrupt persons had modified the manuscript so that it would not match the "new" translation. Thus a plot to destroy the Book of Mormon's validity was revealed. The Lord told Joseph not to retranslate, so that the plot would fail. The book of 1 Nephi contained an abridgement of the 116 lost pages, so the lost manuscript's story was retold in a way the plotters could not destroy or shed doubt on.

 

[WildBlueYonder]

Nope. Joseph Smith let others see the plates and their engravings. In every Book of Mormon published, the following "Testimony of Three Witnesses" is extant in the title pages:

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, ...

Oliver Cowdery
David Whitmer
Martin Harris

actually, not exactly true, unless the LDS managed to burn old docs, edit & re-publish them, cleaned of error, as they've don't to the original mis-spelled, bad grammared 1830 edition BoM

a few thoughts;
See below: http://www.irr.org/mit/bomwit1.html

A careful investigation reveals there are a number of historical details which raise questions about the objectivity and credibility of these witnesses. To gain an objective perspective on the reliability of the witnesses and the strength of their testimony, three criteria will be used to evaluate the historical facts:
• Were they discerning men of sound judgment not easily swayed by tales of the fantastic or supernatural?
• Were they without conflict of interest, and were their characters and reputations unquestioned?
• Did their later statements regarding the plates ever vary, deviate or detract from their original statements?

See below: http://www.bible.ca/mor-witness-book.htm

False Witness #1: Martin Harris:
1. Was known for being very unstable religiously. Over his whole life he changed his affiliation over 13 times.
2. Martin Harris was first a Quaker, then a Universalist, next a Restorationist, then a Baptist, next a Presbyterian, and then a Mormon.(Mormonism Unveiled, E. D. Howe, 1834, pp. 260-261)
3. After Martin Harris’ excommunication in 1837, he changed his religion eight more times, going from the Shakers to one Mormon splinter group to the next, and back to the main group in 1842.(Improvement Era, March 1969, p. 63 and Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 164, Brigham Young)
4. In 1846, (after his excommunication in 1837) Martin Harris was preaching among the Saints in England for the Apostate James J. Strang. (Church Chronology, Andrew Jensen, 1899, p. 31; Millennial Star, vol. 8, Nov. 15, 1846, pp. 124-128.)
False Witness #2: David Whitmer:
1. David Whitmer said in 1887: "If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to 'separate myself from among the Latter-day Saints...'" Address to all believers in Christ, p27, 1887
2. David Whitmer belonged to at least three Mormon splinter groups at different times, but he died still rejecting the LDS Church and its priesthood.
False Witness #3: Oliver Cowdery:
1. Oliver Cowdery was excommunicated from the Mormon church and joined the Methodist church.
2. In 1841 the Mormons published a poem which stated "Or Book of Mormon not his word, because denied by Oliver". Seasons and Times, Vol 2, p482
3. The Mormon church accused Oliver Cowdery of Adultery and claimed he had joined "a gang of counterfeiters, thieves, liars, and blacklegs".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon

Between today's editions of the book and the first edition there are approximately 3000 differences. Most of these changes had already begun in the 1837 edition. These changes are mostly corrections of punctuation, orthography and grammar; however, there are also several changes in wording, which critics allege were made to fit changes in teaching or political conditions.

 

[guitarzan]

Did the Three Witnesses ever leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Yes.

But none of them ever denied their testimonies that they actually saw the plates, although all of them had ample opportunity to do so. The anti-Mormon opposition has to continually grasp at straws trying to deny these men their place in history as honest witnesses to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. So far, all they can come up with is, "Well, they joined other denominations, and they had human foibles!"

Aha! So these men were ***GASP*** human beings not under the control of Joseph Smith! But again, the opposition cannot come up with one, not ONE, instance of them denying their testimonies about seeing the Book of Mormon plates.

As much as some would love to smear these men's reputations into the ground, their testimony remains.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Haha, let's all laugh at mormons.

They try to live a good life - what idiots.

That was very well put. I, too, find the original story to be absurd. But damn near every Mormon I've ever met seemed like a really nice, good person.

And I think it's just the fact that the events that resulted in the founding of Mormonism occured so recently that makes us take such a critical eye. I mean, as if everything in the bible, torah, and koran was completely believable. Religious texts, by their very nature, speak of miraculous events that strike modern eyes as hard to believe.

If the founding of Mormonism occured thousands of years ago like most other religions, we wouldn't think twice about the story. It would be dogma.

 

[WildBlueYonder]

ummm, is that a yes? i didnt want this to be a discussion on mormons i just wanted to know if that part of the story was true, nobody has answered that.

yes true, found 1 source, but read Fawn Brodie's "No man knows my history", if you want a more detailed history of early mormonism

http://www.mormonstudies.com/criddle/rigdon.htm

For example, an important date in the timeline of The Book of Mormon is June 15, 1828. That was the date that Lucy Harris disposed of the first 116 pages of The Book of Mormon. Smith was highly distraught by this event. It is easy to see why, especially if he had been destroying Spalding originals after reading them to his scribe.

and im not using south park as a source, im questioning the validity of it as a source. however it was indeed accurate in its depiction of scientology so i believe it is probably correct but im not sure does anybody know that part of the story exactly?

unfortunately for mormons, BoM is a work of fiction, so SouthPark is as good a start as any to critique it, there probably is enough truth there to start, may need more thorough search if you are really interested, I contend that the BoM is the first work of science fantasy published in the Western Hemisphere

 

[guitarzan]

That was very well put. I, too, find the original story to be absurd. But damn near every Mormon I've ever met seemed like a really nice, good person.

And I think it's just the fact that the events that resulted in the founding of Mormonism occured so recently that makes us take such a critical eye. I mean, as if everything in the bible, torah, and koran was completely believable. Religious texts, by their very nature, speak of miraculous events that strike modern eyes as hard to believe.

If the founding of Mormonism occured thousands of years ago like most other religions, we wouldn't think twice about the story. It would be dogma.

Exactly. Ask WildBlueYonder if he believes that a man actually rose from the dead 2,000 years ago and claimed to be the Son of God. Further, that this man raised others from the dead, healed the sick, turned water to wine, walked on water, commanded the elements to do his bidding, etc., etc. He gives credibility to the Bible's miracles, but refuses them to more recent times.

WBY will claim that because the archeology of the Bible is so evident and valid, that Jesus actually was the Son of God. Um...non sequitur, anyone?

Edit: Yes, Jesus was the Son of God, but archeology does little or nothing to prove this.

 

[WildBlueYonder]

Did the Three Witnesses ever leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Yes.

But none of them ever denied their testimonies that they actually saw the plates, although all of them had ample opportunity to do so.

you're disguising a fact, by trying to steer the answer to a diversion

none of them, not one, even one, ever saw the "REAL PLATES", they saw them visionally, mystically, never the real thing, because , well lets just say that they needed to "see" those plates after being set-up by JS, like all those hood-winked people in "The Emperor's New Clothes", he was counting on people being to proud to admit that they couldn't see the gold-plates (made of the finest gold, a plate so thin, it's transparent, that only the finest, most worthy people may gaze upon these holy pages)

the fact stands, no one ever saw real plates, ever

 

[WildBlueYonder]

Did the Three Witnesses ever leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Yes.

But none of them ever denied their testimonies that they actually saw the plates, although all of them had ample opportunity to do so.

false testimony don't count, its religio-science fantasy, like Battlestar Galactica", mormons should be good in sci-fi, oh yeah, Orson Scott Card, Glen Larsen, I stand corrected

The anti-Mormon opposition has to continually grasp at straws trying to deny these men their place in history as honest witnesses to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.

truthfulness, big word, unfortunately, not in the BoM vocabulary, see it has 3 big probs;
1) its a work of fiction
2) the LDS church does not use it as a standard of theology, thats were D&C, etc come in
3) its major premise, the BoM idea that Native Americans were Israelish, is crumbling quickly, by DNA evidence 100%, archeology 100%, linguistics 100%, technology 100%

I dare any mormon so-called scholar to try presenting a paper at a meso-american linguistics conference on "reformed Egyptian" or publishing it in a peer-reviewed linguistics journal, it'll never happen except at BYU, U of Utah or Utah State
its not like Daniel Jackson in "Stargate", where everybody walks out on him, yet he is proved right, thats a movie, were we suspend belief & enjoy the storytelling, you know, 'fiction'

Aha! So these men were ***GASP*** human beings not under the control of Joseph Smith! But again, the opposition cannot come up with one, not ONE, instance of them denying their testimonies about seeing the Book of Mormon plates.

could you produce URL's of the accounts that we could google, to see if this is true?

As much as some would love to smear these men's reputations into the ground, their testimony remains.

remains wrong, never touched, never saw the real thing,

I stand by my testimony

 

[WildBlueYonder]

WBY will claim that because the archeology of the Bible is so evident and valid, that Jesus actually was the Son of God.

the Bible can be used by archaeologists to locate ancient sites, or ancient peoples (Hittites & Sumerians are 2 examples of here-to-for unknown peoples), Homer was used by Schliemann to discover the site of ancient Troy, can any mormon say the same of the BoM for Zarahemia, Bountiful, Lehi, & Hill Cumorah? is it?

Troy:
http://library.thinkquest.org/3011/troy.htm

Um...non sequitur, anyone?

stop using Latin, use "reformed Egyptian" instead

Edit: Yes, Jesus was the Son of God, but archeology does little or nothing to prove this.

archeology proves the Bible as a historical record, its up to the person to take it farther as the word of God, thats faith

check this out, the non-science of mormon archeology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon

 

[guitarzan]

WildBlueYonder,

Until you speak respectfully and considerately of my chosen belief system (Mormonism), I refuse to cast my pearls before you. (Also, I cannot give links until I've posted 20 posts on this forum, according to the rules of this site.)

 

[(Q)]

WildBlueYonder,

Until you speak respectfully and considerately of my chosen belief system (Mormonism)

Why should anyone respect your choice in belief system?

 

[guitarzan]

Why should anyone respect your choice in belief system?

Well, of course he doesn't have to, but I won't have a conversation with him unless he does. That goes for anyone else as well. Mutual respect is a hallmark of civilized discussion. Mockery and belittlement like WBY is exhibiting so far are not acceptable to me. Life's too short.

 

[Photizo]

Mockery and belittlement like WBY is exhibiting so far are not acceptable to me.

Be honest with yourself... What's not acceptable to you is the truth, as revealed in/by the systematic decontruction of the myths you've held to.

 

[(Q)]

Well, of course he doesn't have to, but I won't have a conversation with him unless he does. That goes for anyone else as well. Mutual respect is a hallmark of civilized discussion. Mockery and belittlement like WBY is exhibiting so far are not acceptable to me. Life's too short.

Respect may be a hallmark of civilized discussion, but respect for beliefs in myths and superstitions is not, rather it is a hallmark of the Dark Ages, which should be held in contempt.

When one takes on a belief system in which myth and superstition are the primary drivers of the beliefs in that they are to be recognized as part of reality, mockery and belittlement will be forthcoming, unless of course the claimant can demonstrate their claims.

Can you?

 

[WildBlueYonder]

Well, of course he doesn't have to, but I won't have a conversation with him unless he does. That goes for anyone else as well.

wow, I guess I'll just be having a long monologue until you can't take it?

Mutual respect is a hallmark of civilized discussion.

aren't you the guys that are trying to steal Mexican history & claim it as LDS mormon? there's a whole tourist industry sending gullible LDS into the wilds of Mayaland

Mockery and belittlement like WBY is exhibiting so far are not acceptable to me.

hmmmm? up until this point, I thought I was only relaying facts, but of course anything that exposes mormonism, puts it in a bad light, so I see your point

Life's too short.

what? I thought you were on a journey to little godhood, whats the rush, you got all the time in the world, can't stop to converse with us puny little off-the-god-making-route earthlings?

 

[WildBlueYonder]

WildBlueYonder,

Until you speak respectfully and considerately of my chosen belief system (Mormonism),

all I put out were the facts, deny them if you well or can

I refuse to cast my pearls before you.

the complete quote is:

Matt 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
From: http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Mat/Mat007.html#6

thats funny, someone asking for respect, uses a backhanded slur against the people he is asking to respect his belief system. well, mr., I'll try to be gentle when I rend you

btw, your pearls are worthless so far (plastic?), you haven't said anything that would merit respect, nor are your thoughts (apparently), deep or worthy of consideration

(Also, I cannot give links until I've posted 20 posts on this forum, according to the rules of this site.)

then list them without the "http://" & we can copy & paste

 

[WildBlueYonder]

WildBlueYonder,
I refuse to cast my pearls before you.

could you cast some pearls here by answering or responding to this?

truthfulness, big word, unfortunately, not in the BoM vocabulary, see it has 3 big probs;
1) its a work of fiction
2) the LDS church does not use it as a standard of theology, thats were D&C, etc come in

if you look at major LDS beliefs, none come from the BoM, it is only used to establish the basis of JS's prophethood & translation abilities, need I refer to the "Book of Abraham" papyrus?

3) its major premise, the BoM idea that Native Americans were Israelish, is crumbling quickly, by DNA evidence 100%, archeology 100%, linguistics 100%, technology 100%

does the BoM preport to describe life in the pre-First Contact Americas? with continent-wide civilizations & anachronistic details?

I dare any mormon so-called scholar to try presenting a paper at a meso-american linguistics conference on "reformed Egyptian" or publishing it in a peer-reviewed linguistics journal, it'll never happen except at BYU, U of Utah or Utah State

no mormon will ever dare present their mormon-based findings, beliefs or research in the confines of a nationally or internationally ranked symposium of their held disciplines, because they would not make it past peer-review & if they did, it would be torn to shreds, not like StarGate's Daniel Jackson, where they all walked out,

except at FAIR, FARM or SunStone

 

[WildBlueYonder]

here's a little discussion point

See below: http://epologetics.org/bookofmormonproblems.php

Based on the KJV Translation
The Book of Mormon contains translation errors from the King James Version.
For instance, 2 Nephi 14:5 is the same as Isaiah 4:5. The KJV incorrectly translates the Hebrew word chuppah as "canopy," when the proper translation is "defense."
Another example is 2 Nephi 15:25, which is the same as Isaiah 5:25. The KJV incorrectly translates the Hebrew word cuwchah as "filth," when the proper translation is "torn."
If Moroni buried the plates in the Hill Cummorah not long after AD 420, why is it that the Book of Mormon includes the KJV translation errors which didn't occur until almost 1,200 years later? How could the Book of Mormon contain anything from the King James Bible? Mormons are not able to answer these questions, yet the answer is clear: the mythical plates never existed, Joseph Smith did not receive a revelation from an angel, and he certainly didn't translate anything.

 

[guitarzan]

Be honest with yourself... What's not acceptable to you is the truth, as revealed in/by the systematic decontruction of the myths you've held to.

That's actually rather amusing.