Shutting down a couple of Mormons

[b.k. barunt]

It is a matter of belief. It cannot really be proven. Trying to prove Mormonism false is no differant than trying to prove Judaism false or any other long-standing religion. If they could be disproven, they would have died out.

On the other hand, Mormonism has changed their tenets and beliefs numerous times through the years, which some would consider to be proof that the doctrines and beliefs are spurious to begin with.

Brigham Young, who succeeded Joe Smith as leader and "prophet" stated clearly on numerous occasions that a man who did not have multiple wives could not enter the kingdom of heaven.
If that were true, no modern Mormons could enter into heaven, and if it is not true, then what else did he get wrong? Another one that Optimus wouldn't/couldn't answer.


Honibaz

[PLAYER57832]

It is a matter of belief. It cannot really be proven. Trying to prove Mormonism false is no differant than trying to prove Judaism false or any other long-standing religion. If they could be disproven, they would have died out.

On the other hand, Mormonism has changed their tenets and beliefs numerous times through the years, which some would consider to be proof that the doctrines and beliefs are spurious to begin with.

Brigham Young, who succeeded Joe Smith as leader and "prophet" stated clearly on numerous occasions that a man who did not have multiple wives could not enter the kingdom of heaven.
If that were true, no modern Mormons could enter into heaven, and if it is not true, then what else did he get wrong? Another one that Optimus wouldn't/couldn't answer.


Honibaz

I am not Mormon, so of course I don't think those things are true, but as has been said before "lack of evidence is not proof".

As for the multiple wives bit .. remember, they allow posthumous marriages.

[Optimus Prime]

Yeah, and the "8 witnesses" were whittled down to 2 or three at the end there - Demonfork, i notice you avoided addressing the issue of lack of historical evidence. How do you explain that no remains of walled cities have been uncovered, none of the swords, breastplates and other bits of armor of the millions of warriors has ever turned up? I asked Optimus the same question and he kept changing the subject.


Honibaz

Mind showing me where it was that those witnesses were whittled down to 2 or 3?

As for the lack of historical evidence, you said you read the Book of Mormon, and if so, you can probably find a pretty viable explanation about why there aren't ruins all over the place. Read again through those passages about what happened in the Americas when Christ was crucified, that should shed some light on the subject for you. Of course, it would require you to accept that the Book of Mormon is actually a true document and not some figment of Joseph Smith's imagination. That's the real crux of the problem here.

Note: You never asked me that question that I can remember.

[Optimus Prime]

It is a matter of belief. It cannot really be proven. Trying to prove Mormonism false is no differant than trying to prove Judaism false or any other long-standing religion. If they could be disproven, they would have died out.

On the other hand, Mormonism has changed their tenets and beliefs numerous times through the years, which some would consider to be proof that the doctrines and beliefs are spurious to begin with.

Brigham Young, who succeeded Joe Smith as leader and "prophet" stated clearly on numerous occasions that a man who did not have multiple wives could not enter the kingdom of heaven.
If that were true, no modern Mormons could enter into heaven, and if it is not true, then what else did he get wrong? Another one that Optimus wouldn't/couldn't answer.


Honibaz

Let's see here, the only tenet of LDS doctrine that I know of that has ever been "changed" is the doctrine of polygamy, which I would explain the reasoning behind, but b.k. barunt, I'm pretty sure you aren't going to be willing to hear how that actually works.

What other doctrines have been "changed"? I'd also like to see a full quote, in correct context if you don't mind, as to where Brigham Young said you must have multiple wives to make it to heaven because until you show that to me, I'm going to have a hard time believing he ever said that.

We believe that in order to receive the greatest glory in the life after this one you must be married for eternity within the temple. That's about all there is to it. It really isn't all that complicated to be honest.

[b.k. barunt]

As for the lack of historical evidence, you said you read the Book of Mormon, and if so, you can probably find a pretty viable explanation about why there aren't ruins all over the place. Read again through those passages about what happened in the Americas when Christ was crucified, that should shed some light on the subject for you. Of course, it would require you to accept that the Book of Mormon is actually a true document and not some figment of Joseph Smith's imagination. That's the real crux of the problem here.

Note: You never asked me that question that I can remember.

I have read the BOM. I did not find a viable explanation. Could you please answer the question?

Note: I have asked you this question before, and as you can see it's a real bitch getting a forthright answer.


Honibaz

[b.k. barunt]

It is a matter of belief. It cannot really be proven. Trying to prove Mormonism false is no differant than trying to prove Judaism false or any other long-standing religion. If they could be disproven, they would have died out.

On the other hand, Mormonism has changed their tenets and beliefs numerous times through the years, which some would consider to be proof that the doctrines and beliefs are spurious to begin with.

Brigham Young, who succeeded Joe Smith as leader and "prophet" stated clearly on numerous occasions that a man who did not have multiple wives could not enter the kingdom of heaven.
If that were true, no modern Mormons could enter into heaven, and if it is not true, then what else did he get wrong? Another one that Optimus wouldn't/couldn't answer.


Honibaz

Let's see here, the only tenet of LDS doctrine that I know of that has ever been "changed" is the doctrine of polygamy, which I would explain the reasoning behind, but b.k. barunt, I'm pretty sure you aren't going to be willing to hear how that actually works.

What other doctrines have been "changed"? I'd also like to see a full quote, in correct context if you don't mind, as to where Brigham Young said you must have multiple wives to make it to heaven because until you show that to me, I'm going to have a hard time believing he ever said that.

We believe that in order to receive the greatest glory in the life after this one you must be married for eternity within the temple. That's about all there is to it. It really isn't all that complicated to be honest.

Ok, dodging the polygamy question. What other doctrines have been changed? How about the priesthood being denied to blacks until recent years? That's another one i tried to get you to answer before.


Honibaz

[demonfork]

Did he just say chiasmus wasn't "known" before Joseph Smith's time...?

Am I missing something here?

Whether or not Joseph Smith used chiasmus before that "writing style was known", however, is not up for debate.

Let me clarify... The argument was that Joe smith was a dim witted individual that fabricated the BOM with his imagination. If he was so dim witted then how could he have fabricated scripture that includes many instances of Hebrewisms and chiasmus. Information that would not have been readily available to an uneducated, dim witted individual such as Joe Smith.

A related perspective comes from John W. Welch in Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins (ed. Noel B. Reynolds, Provo: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1997, pp. 218-219 - chapter available online):

A further element in this calculation is the degree to which Joseph Smith might have learned about chiasmus from sources in his so-called information environment in Palmyra, New York, or more precisely, in the neighborhood of Harmony, Pennsylvania, where he dictated most of the Book of Mormon to his scribe Oliver Cowdery in the spring of 1829. Since no library existed within that region of the Susquehanna Valley, one cannot assume that Joseph Smith would have had access to any of the British books that in the 1820s were beginning to comment on various forms of parallelism in biblical literature. None of those books were published in the United States, and it is only remotely possible that one or two of them made their way to the United States in Joseph Smith's lifetime. No definite listings of the titles by John Jebb or Thomas Boys have been found in any American libraries before 1829. And even if Joseph Smith had somehow learned of the concept of chiasmus, he would still be presented with the formidable task of writing-or rather, dictating-extensive texts in this style that was unnatural to his world, while at the same time keeping numerous other strands, threads, and concepts flowing without confusion in his dictation. The low probability that Joseph Smith was conscious of chiasmus in any respect tends to enhance its evidentiary value as an indicator of other origins (presumably Israelite) for this aspect of the book's style.

...or Arabia...

I did not say that Arabia was not known at the time, I said how was it possible that he could have described the Arabian peninsula with such detail, such as geographically describing a place called NAHOM, which ended being discovered, in recent history, exactly where the BOM described it to be.

Yeah, and the "8 witnesses" were whittled down to 2 or three at the end there - Demonfork, i notice you avoided addressing the issue of lack of historical evidence. How do you explain that no remains of walled cities have been uncovered, none of the swords, breastplates and other bits of armor of the millions of warriors has ever turned up? I asked Optimus the same question and he kept changing the subject.


Honibaz

You stated that no one saw that plates, now you concede that it was at least 3 people that claimed to have seen them.

As far as archaeological evidence, there are many unidentified or misidentified Mesoamerican relics that have been uncovered that could very well be those of the places and events written about in the BOM.

It is a matter of belief. It cannot really be proven. Trying to prove Mormonism false is no differant than trying to prove Judaism false or any other long-standing religion. If they could be disproven, they would have died out.

On the other hand, Mormonism has changed their tenets and beliefs numerous times through the years, which some would consider to be proof that the doctrines and beliefs are spurious to begin with.

Brigham Young, who succeeded Joe Smith as leader and "prophet" stated clearly on numerous occasions that a man who did not have multiple wives could not enter the kingdom of heaven.
If that were true, no modern Mormons could enter into heaven, and if it is not true, then what else did he get wrong? Another one that Optimus wouldn't/couldn't answer.


Honibaz

What are these "numerous" beliefs and tenets that you claim that have been changed over the years?

The only canonized statement that was ever made with regards to polygamy and its role in ones eternal salvation is made in D&C (Doctrine & Covenants) section 130. Nowhere in this section does it state that a man must have multiple wives to enter the kingdom of heaven. Any non canonized statement that may or my not have been said by anyone in the church that is not in harmony with the canonized scripture, would merely be the opinion of that said person.

[demonfork]

It is a matter of belief. It cannot really be proven. Trying to prove Mormonism false is no differant than trying to prove Judaism false or any other long-standing religion. If they could be disproven, they would have died out.

On the other hand, Mormonism has changed their tenets and beliefs numerous times through the years, which some would consider to be proof that the doctrines and beliefs are spurious to begin with.

Brigham Young, who succeeded Joe Smith as leader and "prophet" stated clearly on numerous occasions that a man who did not have multiple wives could not enter the kingdom of heaven.
If that were true, no modern Mormons could enter into heaven, and if it is not true, then what else did he get wrong? Another one that Optimus wouldn't/couldn't answer.


Honibaz

Let's see here, the only tenet of LDS doctrine that I know of that has ever been "changed" is the doctrine of polygamy, which I would explain the reasoning behind, but b.k. barunt, I'm pretty sure you aren't going to be willing to hear how that actually works.

What other doctrines have been "changed"? I'd also like to see a full quote, in correct context if you don't mind, as to where Brigham Young said you must have multiple wives to make it to heaven because until you show that to me, I'm going to have a hard time believing he ever said that.

We believe that in order to receive the greatest glory in the life after this one you must be married for eternity within the temple. That's about all there is to it. It really isn't all that complicated to be honest.

Ok, dodging the polygamy question. What other doctrines have been changed? How about the priesthood being denied to blacks until recent years? That's another one i tried to get you to answer before.


Honibaz

I already addressed the polygamy issue. As far as blacks and the priesthood... There is no doctrine, nor has there ever been doctrine that exists pertaining to withholding the priesthood from black members of the church. It was a practice that for whatever reason was adopted, it was an incorrect practice and is a practice that has been eliminated. In fact the scripture even teaches otherwise...


2 Nephi 26:33: For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and HE DOETH NOTHING SAVE IT BE PLAIN UNTO THE CHILDREN OF MEN; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile."

Some quotes on the matter...

President Hinckley's April 2006 quote from the priesthood session is powerful:

"How can any holder of the Melchizedek priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood, whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?"

Pres. Hinckley said about the issue when pressed by Mike Wallace:

"That's the way people back then thought."

furthermore prophets can be wrong (or influenced by their own culture), even about important things. If you don't believe that, re-read the Bible - or the D&C. Then re-read the Book of Mormon. They all are perfectly clear on that issue. The apostles were divided on the issue of the ban for YEARS after it was instituted - and even when it was instituted. To even hint that there was unanimity is ludicrous.

[b.k. barunt]

There are 3 known copies of the original Doctrines and Covenants (the actual Mormon "Bible"). 2 are in the LDS archives and are unavailable to the public, but the other one is, i believe (it's been over 25 years since i did the research) in the Harvard library. I bought a photostat and compared it to a modern copy that i had.

Every time i found something in the original that was no longer in the present day copy, i wrote it in the margin. Every time i found something in the present day copy that was not in the original i drew a line through it. When i was done, my present day copy looked like a rough manuscript. If these were the divinely inspired words of God, why so many additions and deletions over the years?


Honibaz

[demonfork]

There are 3 known copies of the original Doctrines and Covenants (the actual Mormon "Bible"). 2 are in the LDS archives and are unavailable to the public, but the other one is, i believe (it's been over 25 years since i did the research) in the Harvard library. I bought a photostat and compared it to a modern copy that i had.

Every time i found something in the original that was no longer in the present day copy, i wrote it in the margin. Every time i found something in the present day copy that was not in the original i drew a line through it. When i was done, my present day copy looked like a rough manuscript. If these were the divinely inspired words of God, why so many additions and deletions over the years?


Honibaz

Are you going to respond to any of my rebuttals to your previous bullshit questions, or are you going to bombard me with some more bullshit questions for me to refute?

[b.k. barunt]

[quote="demonfork"]
As far as blacks and the priesthood... There is no doctrine, nor has there ever been doctrine that exists pertaining to withholding the priesthood from black members of the church. It was a practice that for whatever reason was adopted, it was an incorrect practice and is a practice that has been eliminated. In fact the scripture even teaches otherwise...
[quote]

No doctrine? Let me refresh your memory a bit:

As a result of his rebellion, Cain was cursed with a dark skin; he became the father of the Negroes, and those spirits who are not worthy to receive the priesthood are born through his lineage (Mormon Doctrine, 1958, p.102).

The Negro Mormon can hold no office whatsoever in a church which offers some office to every one of its male members at some time in his life (The Mormon Establishment, pp.243-44).

Shall i tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p.110).

Hope that clears things up for you, and hey, i hope you're not black.


Honibaz

[jonesthecurl]

I went to look at my copy of the Book of Mormon, but when I moved to the U.S. it didn't somehow make the cut as one of the thousand or so books I decided to bring, rather than the three thousand or so I left behind.
A pity because it was quite an old copy, which would have been interesting.
With regard to the people who saw the golden tablets, though:
How many of them were realted to Smith, and how many other families were privileged to see this important evidence of God's word?
How many of them were later excommunicated?

[demonfork]

As far as blacks and the priesthood... There is no doctrine, nor has there ever been doctrine that exists pertaining to withholding the priesthood from black members of the church. It was a practice that for whatever reason was adopted, it was an incorrect practice and is a practice that has been eliminated. In fact the scripture even teaches otherwise...

No doctrine? Let me refresh your memory a bit:

As a result of his rebellion, Cain was cursed with a dark skin; he became the father of the Negroes, and those spirits who are not worthy to receive the priesthood are born through his lineage (Mormon Doctrine, 1958, p.102).

The Negro Mormon can hold no office whatsoever in a church which offers some office to every one of its male members at some time in his life (The Mormon Establishment, pp.243-44).

Shall i tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p.110).

Hope that clears things up for you, and hey, i hope you're not black.


Honibaz

Guy, Nothing that you just quoted from is canonized, so no it's not doctrine not by any stretch of the imagination. Anyone has the ability to write whatever they want and call it whatever they want but if it's not officially ratified by the church then it means nothing it is merely ones opinion.

Passing off quotes from non canonical sources as Gospel is a classic ploy that anti-mormons have been using for ages. The Church has no control over what may or may not be published outside of the church. Anything that is written outside of what has been officially ratified by the the church, that is not in harmony with these official doctrines, is meaningless.


Hope that clears things up for you.

[demonfork]

I went to look at my copy of the Book of Mormon, but when I moved to the U.S. it didn't somehow make the cut as one of the thousand or so books I decided to bring, rather than the three thousand or so I left behind.
A pity because it was quite an old copy, which would have been interesting.
With regard to the people who saw the golden tablets, though:
How many of them were realted to Smith, and how many other families were privileged to see this important evidence of God's word?
How many of them were later excommunicated?

Of the 8 witnesses that claimed to have physically seen and touched the plates 3 of them were related to Joseph Smith.

The other 5 were all in the Whitmer family.

John Whitmer was excommunicated from the church and 2 others voluntarily left the church but none of them ever recanted their testimony of the authenticity of the plates.

[Gillipig]

So many religious people , humm no I won't preach about why you all should be atheists but I will make a statement! More and more peope will become religious due to the financial crises we have!

[jonesthecurl]

I went to look at my copy of the Book of Mormon, but when I moved to the U.S. it didn't somehow make the cut as one of the thousand or so books I decided to bring, rather than the three thousand or so I left behind.
A pity because it was quite an old copy, which would have been interesting.
With regard to the people who saw the golden tablets, though:
How many of them were realted to Smith, and how many other families were privileged to see this important evidence of God's word?
How many of them were later excommunicated?

Of the 8 witnesses that claimed to have physically seen and touched the plates 3 of them were related to Joseph Smith.

The other 5 were all in the Whitmer family.

John Whitmer was excommunicated from the church and 2 others voluntarily left the church but none of them ever recanted their testimony of the authenticity of the plates.

So if the word of God, written on plates of gold, and physically witnessed, was not enough to convince these people that this church was the right one, why would anyone else join it?

You are also forgetting the three witnesses that had the evidence pointed out to them by an angel and who were later excommunicated.

[Juan_Bottom]

The whole premise that GOD would reveil him or herself to 5 people at a time and give them an unbelievable story to tell is.... well... unbelievable. I mean, the only other thing that GOD could have done to make this stupider would be to send those 5 back smelling like pot and alcohol. It's almost like he or she doesn't want anyone to believe in him or her.... so really, then Atheists are the only ones doing what GOD wants.... the hell with you all, I'm sure there is a cot waiting for me in heaven now.

[demonfork]

I went to look at my copy of the Book of Mormon, but when I moved to the U.S. it didn't somehow make the cut as one of the thousand or so books I decided to bring, rather than the three thousand or so I left behind.
A pity because it was quite an old copy, which would have been interesting.
With regard to the people who saw the golden tablets, though:
How many of them were realted to Smith, and how many other families were privileged to see this important evidence of God's word?
How many of them were later excommunicated?

Of the 8 witnesses that claimed to have physically seen and touched the plates 3 of them were related to Joseph Smith.

The other 5 were all in the Whitmer family.

John Whitmer was excommunicated from the church and 2 others voluntarily left the church but none of them ever recanted their testimony of the authenticity of the plates.

So if the word of God, written on plates of gold, and physically witnessed, was not enough to convince these people that this church was the right one, why would anyone else join it?

You are also forgetting the three witnesses that had the evidence pointed out to them by an angel and who were later excommunicated.

I could ask the same thing of biblical figures like King Solomon or Judas.

King Solomon had direct contact with God, yet he turned away from Him to worship false idols.

Judas walked amongst Christ, witnessed all of his miracles, yet he betrayed Jesus in the end.

If King Solomon, Judas and many other biblical figures are capable of these things why would any one else be exempt from it?

[Juan_Bottom]

I think it would help you out to know this.

I believe that BK, Jonesthecurl and I are all atheists. Many of the posters in off-topics are...

[Gillipig]

I went to look at my copy of the Book of Mormon, but when I moved to the U.S. it didn't somehow make the cut as one of the thousand or so books I decided to bring, rather than the three thousand or so I left behind.
A pity because it was quite an old copy, which would have been interesting.
With regard to the people who saw the golden tablets, though:
How many of them were realted to Smith, and how many other families were privileged to see this important evidence of God's word?
How many of them were later excommunicated?

Of the 8 witnesses that claimed to have physically seen and touched the plates 3 of them were related to Joseph Smith.

The other 5 were all in the Whitmer family.

John Whitmer was excommunicated from the church and 2 others voluntarily left the church but none of them ever recanted their testimony of the authenticity of the plates.

So if the word of God, written on plates of gold, and physically witnessed, was not enough to convince these people that this church was the right one, why would anyone else join it?

You are also forgetting the three witnesses that had the evidence pointed out to them by an angel and who were later excommunicated.

I could ask the same thing of biblical figures like King Solomon or Judas.

King Solomon had direct contact with God, yet he turned away from Him to worship false idols.

Judas walked amongst Christ, witnessed all of his miracles, yet he betrayed Jesus in the end.

If King Solomon, Judas and many other biblical figures are capable of these things why would any one else be exempt from it?

Why do you care?

[PLAYER57832]

So if the word of God, written on plates of gold, and physically witnessed, was not enough to convince these people that this church was the right one, why would anyone else join it?

You are also forgetting the three witnesses that had the evidence pointed out to them by an angel and who were later excommunicated.

I gotta say that it makes as much logic as the old testament stories of Abraham, the revelations of Martin Luther, The idea of Roman Catholic Popes, Mohammad and the K'ran, The Dalai Llama .... etc.

While religion is logical to each believer, it is not something that can be proven logically to anyone who does not believe.

[Juan_Bottom]

Why do you care?

See, another Atheist.

While religion is logical to each believer, it is not something that can be proven logically to anyone who does not believe.

Or be logic anyway.

[pimpdave]

While religion is logical to each believer, it is not something that can be proven logically to anyone who does not believe.

Or be logic anyway.

Excuse me, Juan, but there is substantial evidence logically proving the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and his ability to touch people with his noodly appendages.

[jonesthecurl]

I went to look at my copy of the Book of Mormon, but when I moved to the U.S. it didn't somehow make the cut as one of the thousand or so books I decided to bring, rather than the three thousand or so I left behind.
A pity because it was quite an old copy, which would have been interesting.
With regard to the people who saw the golden tablets, though:
How many of them were realted to Smith, and how many other families were privileged to see this important evidence of God's word?
How many of them were later excommunicated?

Of the 8 witnesses that claimed to have physically seen and touched the plates 3 of them were related to Joseph Smith.

The other 5 were all in the Whitmer family.

John Whitmer was excommunicated from the church and 2 others voluntarily left the church but none of them ever recanted their testimony of the authenticity of the plates.

A good question: but even as a non-christian I can point out that many people saw Jesus and didn't realize or didn't believe he was the messiah. Physical gold tablets written by god are, I would think, fairly persuasive.

So if the word of God, written on plates of gold, and physically witnessed, was not enough to convince these people that this church was the right one, why would anyone else join it?

You are also forgetting the three witnesses that had the evidence pointed out to them by an angel and who were later excommunicated.

I could ask the same thing of biblical figures like King Solomon or Judas.

King Solomon had direct contact with God, yet he turned away from Him to worship false idols.

Judas walked amongst Christ, witnessed all of his miracles, yet he betrayed Jesus in the end.

If King Solomon, Judas and many other biblical figures are capable of these things why would any one else be exempt from it?

[pimpdave]

A good question: but even as a non-christian I can point out that many people saw Jesus and didn't realize or didn't believe he was the messiah. Physical gold tablets written by god are, I would think, fairly persuasive.

So if the word of God, written on plates of gold, and physically witnessed, was not enough to convince these people that this church was the right one, why would anyone else join it?

You are also forgetting the three witnesses that had the evidence pointed out to them by an angel and who were later excommunicated.

I could ask the same thing of biblical figures like King Solomon or Judas.

King Solomon had direct contact with God, yet he turned away from Him to worship false idols.

Judas walked amongst Christ, witnessed all of his miracles, yet he betrayed Jesus in the end.

If King Solomon, Judas and many other biblical figures are capable of these things why would any one else be exempt from it?

I'm not sure how excommunication is defined in the Mormon Church, but I thought that to be excommunicated is to be forced out of an institution, not having doubts about one's faith, or straying from the straight and narrow.


EDITED ONCE to fix a typo I just noticed that is actually quite hilarious, but given the adversarial tone of this thread already and not wanting to project one myself, I thought prudent to correct.