Any reasons to be an LDS? [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : Any reasons to be an LDS?

Jin-Roh

July 4th 2003, 05:18 PM

yxboom

July 4th 2003, 05:19 PM

You can get a ton of chicks :joy:

Jin-Roh

July 4th 2003, 05:47 PM

OH!
Bellow the belt on that one!
:fight:

Exmo-Robertson

July 5th 2003, 01:31 AM

I think everybody knows my opinion on this topic, so I'm going to stay on the sidelines for this is one unless somebody lies.

SlaveofChrist

July 5th 2003, 03:12 AM

Many of the witnesses that claimed to have seen the golden plates (Sidney Rigdon, Oliver Cowdery, etc.) never denied that, even though most of them left the church. Although, they did all claim to see the plates with a "spiritual eye". But once again, they all did leave the church at some point.

My main disagreement with the LDS faith is....... they worship a "god" who is not omni anything, he is only an exalted man, sinful, created, subject to a "god" above him, needed a wife to get to heaven, etc. That is all correctly derived from the quote by Lorenzo Snow, "As man is, God once was, as God is, man may become." The doctrine of eternal progression. So basically it is a completely different "god", a weak "god".

I spent the past week and a half in Utah doing ministry. I spent the first week at the Manti miracle pageant. There is about 20000 LDS there every evening. We walk around on the streets and have conversations, pass out literature, etc. Then I spent about 5 more days up in SLC, mostly in front of temple square handing out literature and having conversations. The ministry is seriously AMAZING! I have been making occasional trips to Utah for four years now and studying pretty intensively. Bill McKeever of Mormonism Research Ministry happens to live a couple miles from me, so I have excellent opportunities to learn. He helped lead my Bible study for a couple of years as well. Anyway, I strongly suggest that if you are a Christian you make a way to get to the Manti Miracle Pageant next year. Its June 19-21, and June 24-28 every year in Central Utah. The LDS really need the gospel, and as a Christian it is your responsibility to give it. If you need any info on this trip, just PM me or email me. PLEASE consider this, we need more light in the darkness. 16 people got saved this year at the pageant, and who knows how many fertile seeds were planted! Anyway, God Bless you all.
:teeth:

Xmansmommy

July 5th 2003, 03:18 AM

Blessings SlaveofChrist! (Love your SN btw :thumb:) PTL for your ministry! What an awesome opportunity to share the gospel! Thanks for sharing your experience. :smile: God Bless you too brother.

Exmo, :lol:

Eyeheart Pumpkin

July 5th 2003, 10:10 AM

What I've always wanted to know, in Star Trek IV, when Kirk says that Spock "did too much LDS back in the 60s," was he tongue-tied, or was he accusing Spock of being Mormon?

Ric

July 5th 2003, 10:16 AM

The LDS church gives out these really cool short sleeve white dress shirts (they MUST give these out for no one in their right mind would buy a short sleeve dress shirt of any color) and really loud polyester (that's right, not silk ties http://theologyweb.com/forum/images/smilies/eek.gif) neck ties to their door to door missionaries!

People must be standing in long lines for these items! http://theologyweb.com/forum/images/smilies/eek.gif :eek:

Yesterday @ 05:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139629#post139629)
Jin-Roh:

I can think of a lot of reasons why I should be a Christian instead of an LDS. This is largely due to evidence. For instance, Smith couldn't translate the "Book of Abraham" (http://www.carm.org/lds/ldspapyri.htm) correctly, why should I believe that he translated the Book of Mormon correctly?

Or regarding the Book of Mormon itself. Nobody else saw those plates right? Did God do this so we could 'have faith' or something? But over 500 witnesses saw the resurrected Christ. Lots of evidence there, espiecally in historical context.

But my reasons for not being a mormon set aside, what are the reasons that Mormons are mormons? Perferred theology? Logic? Tradition? It doesn't even have to be in regard to Christianity. What are your reasons for believing the BOM of its prophets?

:shrug:

Ric

July 5th 2003, 10:24 AM

Oh yea, I forgot to mention that the LDS church must be every everimentual sound, along with the really cool short sleeve white dress shirts and polyester neck ties it seems that you must give up your car for a bicycle. WOW, Where di I sign up??? http://theologyweb.com/forum/images/smilies/metro.gif http://theologyweb.com/forum/images/smilies/metro.gif

Today @ 10:16 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139978#post139978)
Ric:

The LDS church gives out these really cool short sleeve white dress shirts (they MUST give these out for no one in their right mind would buy a short sleeve dress shirt of any color) and really loud polyester (that's right, not silk ties http://theologyweb.com/forum/images/smilies/eek.gif) neck ties to their door to door missionaries!

People must be standing in long lines for these items! http://theologyweb.com/forum/images/smilies/eek.gif :eek:

Yesterday @ 05:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139629#post139629)
Jin-Roh:

I can think of a lot of reasons why I should be a Christian instead of an LDS. This is largely due to evidence. For instance, Smith couldn't translate the "Book of Abraham" (http://www.carm.org/lds/ldspapyri.htm) correctly, why should I believe that he translated the Book of Mormon correctly?

Or regarding the Book of Mormon itself. Nobody else saw those plates right? Did God do this so we could 'have faith' or something? But over 500 witnesses saw the resurrected Christ. Lots of evidence there, espiecally in historical context.

But my reasons for not being a mormon set aside, what are the reasons that Mormons are mormons? Perferred theology? Logic? Tradition? It doesn't even have to be in regard to Christianity. What are your reasons for believing the BOM of its prophets?

:shrug:

Jin-Roh

July 5th 2003, 01:47 PM

Today @ 07:10 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139976#post139976)
Eireann:

What I've always wanted to know, in Star Trek IV, when Kirk says that Spock "did too much LDS back in the 60s," was he tongue-tied, or was he accusing Spock of being Mormon?

But Mormonism is illogical captian....

dizzle

July 5th 2003, 02:02 PM

Yesterday @ 05:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139632#post139632)
yxboom:

You can get a ton of chicks :joy:

:nc:

T.J. Maxx

July 5th 2003, 03:30 PM

Ex: "I'm going to stay on the sidelines for this is one unless somebody lies."

This explains why you keep posting after yourself.

:lol:

"But Mormonism is illogical captian...."

Maybe...I'm undecided if it is really illogical. I think many arguments like these can be made, but I'm not sure if it can be done by representing the LDS faith correctly. Many tend to say the Mormon God isn't "omni" anything, but that isn't what they say or believe. How they reconcile the logic of an omni God with eternal progression is the question. A question for them to answer, not us.

But I know many who believe Mormonism is the only logical faith. And real Evangelical scholarship does not call Mormonism an anti-intellectual religion, but it isn't that at all. Blake Ostler for example has provided some persuasive arguments about the loic of Mormonism. Most of it is beyond my puny brain's capability to understand, but they seem pretty confident in their position and I haven't seen much to refute them.

MCKeever's stuff won't do. If lay apologists like Kevin can make a complete embarassment of McKeever's book, then I don't think their arguments stand a chance against the LDS big whigs like philosophers like Ostler and Peterson.

Exmo-Robertson

July 5th 2003, 03:34 PM

Today @ 08:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140188#post140188)
T.J. Maxx:

Ex: "I'm going to stay on the sidelines for this is one unless somebody lies."

This explains why you keep posting after yourself.

:lol:

I guess T.J. doesn't have any good reasons to join the LDS Church. :rofl:

T.J. just caught with his pants down due to my last comment, decided to add this:

Today @ 08:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140188#post140188)
T.J. Maxx:

Maybe...I'm undecided if it is really illogical. I think many arguments like these can be made, but I'm not sure if it can be done by representing the LDS faith correctly.

Translation: It's logical after mormon apologists put their spin control on a topic, they hope.

Today @ 08:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140188#post140188)
T.J. Maxx:
Many tend to say the Mormon God isn't "omni" anything, but that isn't what they say or believe. How they reconcile the logic of an omni God with eternal progression is the question. A question for them to answer, not us.

Well the temple ceremony portrays a God who isn't "omni" anything. He decides what is to be done and assigns Jesus and Adam to go do it. After try finish, they have to report back to him what they had done.

Today @ 08:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140188#post140188)
T.J. Maxx:
But I know many who believe Mormonism is the only logical faith. And real Evangelical scholarship does not(!?!?!?) call Mormonism an anti-intellectual religion, but it isn't that at all. Blake Ostler for example has provided some persuasive arguments about the loic(sic) of Mormonism. Most of it is beyond my puny brain's capability to understand, but they seem pretty confident in their position and I haven't seen much to refute them.

I couldn't agree more.

Today @ 08:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140188#post140188)
T.J. Maxx:
MCKeever's(sic) stuff won't do. If lay apologists like Kevin can make a complete embarassment of McKeever's book, then I don't think their arguments stand a chance against the LDS big whigs like philosophers like Ostler and Peterson.

If that sad article post here by Kevin concerning McKeever was written by him, he should be ashamed. It was truly pathetic piece of work even if it convinced your "puny brain."

Jin-Roh

July 5th 2003, 07:01 PM

Tj...

So are you a Mormon becuase you believe it's more logical, does not need to be logical, or becuase another apologist whose writings you have trouble understanding says that it's logical?
:hrm:

Also, how does God being Omni neccesatate Eternal Progression --and if it does, why isn't the Mormon God Omni?

Did all the other LDSers run away? I know we're getting off track, but I'd honestly like to see more responces to my orginal question.

SlaveofChrist

July 6th 2003, 03:20 AM

Also, how does God being Omni neccesatate Eternal Progression --and if it does, why isn't the Mormon God Omni?

Its the other way around.... Eternal progression necessitates God not being omni anything.
1) Eternal progression leads to the existence of an infinite amount of gods
2) Philosophically you cannot have more than one omnipowerful being
3) The mormon "god" is not all powerful

1) Omni refers to an infinite
2) The mormon god has a man nature, he is only an exalted man making him finite
3) A finite being cannot oned ay jump on the track toward reaching an infinite, he will never get there. It is philisophically impossible.
4) Therefore the mormon "god" is not omni anything

Very different from the God of the Bible. Many Mormons will admit that, but when they do they also choose Mormonism over the Bible..... so sad :frown:

T.J. Maxx

July 6th 2003, 07:26 AM

Jin-roh: So are you a Mormon becuase you believe it's more logical, does not need to be logical, or becuase another apologist whose writings you have trouble understanding says that it's logical?

Nathan: I'm not a Mormon.

Jin-roh: Also, how does God being Omni neccesatate Eternal Progression --and if it does, why isn't the Mormon God Omni?

Nathan: Who said it necessitates eternal progression? I said being omni doesn't necessarily forbid eternal progression. The LDS believe God progresses in dominion, meaning his kingdom expands throughout the universe. They consider Him omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient etc. I don't think they consider him immutable though.

Jin-roh: Did all the other LDSers run away? I know we're getting off track, but I'd honestly like to see more responces to my orginal question.

Nathan: Yeah, they left because Dana posted a skewed version of the Temple ceremony here, something the LDS hold sacred and ex-Mormons know this so they insist on crapping on it out of spite. The moderators didn't think this was inappropriate at all and felt his post somehow "adds" to the quality of the discussions. Go figure on that one. The only people able to respond to such a post would be the LDS. So the only thing this did was add a shift in the balance, since now the closest thing to an LDS representative is me, and this is only because I am close friends with Kevin. So if you want sincere answers from those who really know, then I suggest you email him at Kevin@anti-mormonism-revealed.com

SlaveofChrist: Its the other way around.... Eternal progression necessitates God not being omni anything.

Nathan: This is the common argument that has been addressed by Blake Ostler. I think it is a stalemate since both have good arguments. I'd provide the links, but we all know pro-LDS links are not welcomed.

SlaveofChrist: The mormon god has a man nature, he is only an exalted man making him finite

Nathan: Actually Kevin has recently written a response to Holding's chapter that argues God is not in man's nature, but the other way around. Man is theomorphoc, which I found interesting since he had orthodox scholars agree. It means man is in the image of God, not God in the image of man. Several people here promised to read and respond to his article but so far no takers. This was the showdown I was waiting for this whole time because I am currently struggling with this issue.

SlaveofChrist: Very different from the God of the Bible. Many Mormons will admit that, but when they do they also choose Mormonism over the Bible..... so sad

Nathan: No, no Mormon will "admit" this since they claim very adamately that the Bible supports their view. We sometimes like to create these simplistic examples about Mormons choosing their religion "over the Bible" since it makes it easier to dismiss their position, but this certainly isn't how the Mormons see it. For them their religion is the Bible but they just interpret it differently. The issue seems to be over who is interpreting it properly. Keep in mind that there is no "omnis" mentioned in the Bible. This descriptions of God were offered much later during the creation of orthodoxy. The only verse that hints to God's infinity as God is in one verse with the Hebrew "holam", which only means old age (or something like that). Kevin said even JP agreed with this and Bill changed his mind to agree with JP that it doesn't mean "infinite" past and future. I guess this is found somewhere on this board.

Jin-Roh

July 6th 2003, 08:22 PM

T.J...

I'm sorry.

I was under the impression that you where a Mormon and had misread your post. :doh: If the LDSers come back, I'll direct them here, but if they'd rather not be here that's fine.

So what makes you close to a Mormon, but not a Mormon?

John Powell

July 7th 2003, 02:44 AM

POWELL:
Kevin and Marc, our bonafide Mormons, may have left so I'll give these questions a try.

Jin-Roh:
Any reasons to be an LDS?

JOHN MORMON (my former believing self):
Sure. Because it's true.

POWELL (currently as an atheist):
I now realize that I believed for a number of reasons, among them the following:

1. I was born to respectable parents who believed in Mormonism.

2. I was surrounded by successful people who believed in Mormonism.

3. I had some unusual experiences that I interpreted as being in support of Mormonism.

If you replace "Mormonism" with any other religion I might have believed it as well. An important difference, however, may be item 4.

4. More of my religious questions were adequately answered by Mormon teachers than might have been in other religions.

Jin-Roh:
I can think of a lot of reasons why I should be a Christian instead of an LDS. This is largely due to evidence. For instance, Smith couldn't translate the "Book of Abraham" correctly, why should I believe that he translated the Book of Mormon correctly?

JOHN MORMON:
What makes you think he didn't? Where are the original plates to check?

POWELL:
Problems with the Book of Abraham is one of the reasons I stopped believing in Mormonism.

However, Jin-Roh, you should note that there's evidence that some of the Bible writers suffered a similar weakness.

Jin-Roh:
Or regarding the Book of Mormon itself. Nobody else saw those plates right?

JOHN MORMON:
There were three witnesses who claimed they saw the plates and the angel and 8 other witnesses who claimed they saw the plates.

Jin-Roh:
Did God do this so we could 'have faith' or something?

JOHN MORMON:
You answered your own question, to have faith.

Jin-Roh:
But over 500 witnesses saw the resurrected Christ. Lots of evidence there, espiecally in historical context.

JOHN MORMON:
There were lots of witnesses to the various events of Mormon religious history.

JIN-ROH:
But my reasons for not being a mormon set aside, what are the reasons that Mormons are mormons?

POWELL:
Most because they were born into it. Such is the case with most religions. Others because something major happens in their life (a death in the family, a marriage, a new child, a new home) and they feel the desire for answers that don't seem forthcoming from their old religious background or they desire to join with the friendly Mormons in their neighborhood.

JOHN MORMON:
Converts join because they feel the spirit verify that what the missionaries teach them is true.

JIN-ROH:
Perferred theology?

JOHN MORMON:
Yes. Mormons have simple answers to many of the questions that other religions are confused about.

JIN-ROH:
Logic?

JOHN MORMON:
Yes. Not only is Mormonism Biblical, but it's more logical than other religions.

JIN-ROH:
Tradition?

POWELL:
Sure. Most theists are members of the religion of their parents.

JOHN MORMON:
At some point in their life, each Mormon needs to gain their own personal testimony.

JIN-ROH:
It doesn't even have to be in regard to Christianity. What are your reasons for believing the BOM of its prophets?

JOHN MORMON:
I prayed about these things and felt like I got an answer that they are true.

John Powell

SlaveofChrist

July 7th 2003, 03:09 AM

Nathan: No, no Mormon will "admit" this since they claim very adamately that the Bible supports their view. We sometimes like to create these simplistic examples about Mormons choosing their religion "over the Bible" since it makes it easier to dismiss their position, but this certainly isn't how the Mormons see it.

Sorry to burst your bubble TJ but I can think of 4 Mormons off the top of my head that I have talked to in the past 2 weeks that have admitted that. And yes they all chose Mormonism over the Bible. I am sure that there are plenty more that will admit that when presented with the correct reasoning.

Jin-Roh

July 8th 2003, 12:46 AM

Hey John, thanks for your post. I'd respond to it, but I think you have a case of split-personalities. :eek:
:rofl:

Exmo-Robertson

July 8th 2003, 01:50 AM

Should we trust witnesses that Joseph Smith himself didn't trust? Here is some info concerning them located at: http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech5a.htm#The%20Witnesses written by Jerald and Sandra Tanner.

The Witnesses

Joseph Smith claimed that after the Book of Mormon was translated he returned the gold plates to the angel. Therefore, there is no way for us to know if there really were any gold plates or whether the translation was correct. Smith, however, did have eleven men sign statements claiming that they had seen the plates. The testimonies of these eleven men are recorded in the forepart of the Book of Mormon in two separate statements. In the first statement Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris claimed that an angel of God showed the plates to them. The second statement is signed by eight men who claimed to see the plates, although they did not claim that an angel showed the plates to them. This statement is signed by Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer, Jun., John Whitmer, Hiram Page, Joseph Smith, Sen., Hyrum Smith and Samuel H. Smith.

The Mormon church claims that the witnesses to the Book of Mormon never denied their testimony. There are, however, at least two statements in Mormon publications which would seem to indicate that the witnesses had some doubts. Brigham Young, the second president, stated: "Some of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon, who handled the plates and conversed with the angels of God, were afterwards left to doubt and to disbelieve that they had ever seen an angel." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p.164).

There is some evidence to indicate that Oliver Cowdery, one of the three witnesses, may have had doubts about his testimony. The following appeared in a poem that was published in the Mormon publication Times and Seasons in 1841 (vol. 2, p.482):

Or does it prove there is no time,
Because some watches will not go?
............................................................
Or prove that Christ was not the Lord
Because that Peter cursed and swore?
Or Book of Mormon not His word
Because denied, by Oliver?

Apostle John A. Widtsoe said that the eleven men who testified to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon had "spotless reputations." Non-Mormons, on the other hand, have made many serious charges against the witnesses. Some of the most damaging statements against the Book of Mormon witnesses, however, came from the pen of Joseph Smith and other early Mormon leaders. In fact, Joseph Smith gave a revelation in July of 1828 in which Martin Harris, one of the three witnesses, was called a "wicked man," who "has set at naught the counsels of God, and has broken the most sacred promises" (Doctrine and Covenants 3:12-13). In another revelation given sometime later, God was supposed to have told Joseph Smith that Harris "is a wicked man, for he has sought to take away the things wherewith you have been entrusted; and he has also sought to destroy your gift" (Ibid., 10:7).

There is little doubt that the Book of Mormon witnesses were very gullible. For instance, Hiram Page had a peep stone which he used to obtain revelations. Joseph Smith himself admitted that Page gave false revelations through his stone and that the other witnesses to the Book of Mormon were influenced by his revelations:

To our great grief, however, we soon found that Satan had been lying in wait to deceive,... Brother Hiram Page had in his possession a certain stone, by which he obtained certain"revelations" ... all of which were entirely at variance with the order of God's house, ... the Whitmer family and Oliver Cowdery, were believing much in the things set forth by this stone, we thought best to inquire of the Lord concerning so important a matter ... (History of the Church, by Joseph Smith, vol. 1, pp.109-10).

The Doctrine and Covenants 28:11 instructs Joseph Smith to have Oliver Cowdery tell Hiram Page that "those things which he hath written from that stone are not of me, and that Satan deceiveth him."

Although Joseph Smith was able to prevail against the revelations from Hiram Page's peep stone, a more serious situation developed at Kirtland. Apostle George A. Smith related the following: "After the organization of the Twelve Apostles, the spirit of apostacy became more general.... One of the First Presidency, several of the Twelve Apostles, High Council, Presidents of Seventies, the witnesses of the Book of Mormon, Presidents of Far West, and a number of others standing high in the Church were all carried away in this apostacy ..." (Journal of Discourses, vol.7, pp.114-15).

The three witnesses were finally excommunicated from the church. Martin Harris accused Joseph Smith of "lying and licentiousness." The Mormon leaders in turn published an attack on the character of Martin Harris. The Elders' Journal--Mormon publication edited by Joseph Smith--said that Harris and others were guilty of"swearing, lying, cheating, swindling, drinking, with every species of debauchery ..." (Elders' Journal, August, 1838, p.59).

In 1838 Oliver Cowdery had serious trouble with Joseph Smith. He accused Smith of adultery, lying and teaching false doctrines. Finally, in Far West, Missouri, the division became so great that the Mormons drove out the dissenters. David Whitmer, one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon, made this statement:

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, for as they sought to do unto me, so should it be done unto them." In the spring of 1838, the heads of the church and many of the members had gone deep into error and blindness.... About the same time that I came out, the Spirit of God moved upon quite a number of the brethren who came out, with their families, all of the eight witnesses who were then living (except the three Smiths) came out; Peter and Christian Whitmer were dead. Oliver Cowdery came out also. Martin Harris was then in Ohio. The church went deeper and deeper into wickedness (An Address to all Believers in Christ, by David Whitmer, 1887, pp.27-28).

In a letter dated December 16, 1838, Joseph Smith said that "John Whitmer, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris are too mean to mention" (History of the Church, vol. 3, p.232). Smith was very upset with David Whitmer, one of the three witnesses: "God suffered such kind of beings to afflict Job.... This poor man who professes to be much of a prophet, has no other dumb ass to ride but David Whitmer, to forbid his madness when he goes up to curse Israel; and this ass not being of the same kind as Balaam's,... he brays out cursings instead of blessings. Poor ass!" (History of the Church, vol. 3, p.228).

Before driving the dissenters from Far West, Missouri, the Mormons wrote them a very threatening letter. In this letter the dissenters were accused of stealing, lying and counterfeiting:

Whereas the citizens of Caldwell county have borne with the abuse received from you at different times,... until it is no longer to be endured;... out of the county you shall go,... depart, depart, or a more fatal calamity shall befall you.

After Oliver Cowdery had been taken by a State warrant for stealing, and the stolen property found ... in which nefarious transaction John Whitmer had also participated. Oliver Cowdery stole the property, conveyed it to John Whitmer ... Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Lyman E. Johnson, united with a gang of counterfeiters, thieves, liars, and blacklegs of the deepest dye, to deceive, cheat, and defraud the saints out of their property....

During the full career of Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer's bogus money business, it got abroad into the world that they were engaged in it.... We have evidence of a very strong character that you are at this very time engaged with a gang of counterfeiters, coiners, and blacklegs,... we will put you from the county of Caldwell: so help us God (Letter quoted in Senate Document 189, February 15, 1841, pp.6-9).

The "Far West Record" contains some very important information concerning Oliver Cowdery and the bogus money business. The "Far West Record" is an unpublished "record book containing minutes of meetings in Kirtland and Far West, Missouri." It was suppressed for many years, but recently Leland Gentry, who was working on his thesis at Brigham Young University, was permitted access to it. On page 117 of the "Far West Record," Gentry found testimony given by Joseph Smith and Fredrick G. Williams that tended to link Cowdrey with the bogus money business. Leland Gentry states:

[Fredrick G.] Williams,... testified that Oliver had personally informed him of a man in the church by the name of Davis who could compound metal and make dies which could not be detected from the real thing. Oliver allegedly told Williams that there was no harm in accepting and passing around such money, provided it could not be determined to be unsound.

Joseph Smith's testimony was similar. He claimed that a nonmember of the Church by the name of Sapham had told him in Kirtland that a warrant had been issued against Oliver "for being engaged in making a purchase of bogus money and dies to make the counterfeit money with." According to the Prophet, he and Sidney Rigdon went to visit Oliver concerning the matter and told him that if he were guilty, he had better leave town; but if he was innocent, he should stand trial and thus be acquited. "That night or next," the Prophet said, Oliver "left the country" (A History of the Latter-day Saints in Northern Missouri From 1836 to 1839, p.146).

From this information it would appear that Joseph Smith was almost an accessory after the fact, since he warned Oliver Cowdery to flee from the law if he was guilty. At any rate, Joseph Smith's testimony was given at the time Oliver Cowdery was being tried for his membership in the church. The eighth charge against Cowdery read as follows: "Eighth--For disgracing the Church by being connected in the bogus business, as common report says" (History of the Church, vol. 3, p.16). According to Joseph Smith, the eighth charge against Cowdery was "sustained" (Ibid. ,p.17).

On page 147 of A History of the Latter-day Saints in Northern Missouri From 1836 to 1839, Leland Gentry states: "Joseph Smith, for example, testified that Cowdery had informed him that he had 'come to the conclusion to get property, and that if he could not get it one way, he would get it another, God or no God, Devil or no Devil, property he must and would have.' "

Since six of the nine charges against Cowdery were sustained, he was "considered no longer a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (History of the Church, vol. 3, p.17). After separating himself from the Mormons, Oliver Cowdery becamea member of the "Methodist Protestant Church of Tiffin, SenecaCounty, Ohio." G. J. Keen gave an affidavit in which he stated:

... Mr. Cowdery expressed a desire to associate himself with a Methodist Protestant Church of this city.... he was unanimously admitted a member thereof.

At that time he arose and addressed the audience present, admitted his error and implored forgiveness, and said he was sorry and ashamed of his connection with Mormonism.

He continued his membership while he resided in Tiffin, and became superintendent of the Sabbath-School, and led an exemplary life while he resided with us (Affidavit of C. J. Keen, as quoted in The True Origin of the Book of Mormon, by Charles A. Shook, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1914, pp.58-59).

Mormon writer Richard L. Anderson admits that Cowdery joined the Methodists: "The cessation of his activity in the Church meant a suspension of his role as a witness of the Book of Mormon. Not that his conviction ceased, but he discontinued public testimony as he worked out a successful legal and political career in non-Mormon society ... he logically affiliated himself with a Christian congregation for a time, the Methodist Protestant Church at Tiffin, Ohio" (Improvement Era, January 1969, p.56).

It is interesting to note that the poem about Oliver Cowdery denying his testimony to the Book of Mormon appeared in the Mormon publication Times and Seasons around the same time that Cowdery renounced Mormonism and joined the Methodist Protestant Church at Tiffin.

Some of the Book of Mormon witnesses were so credulous that they were influenced by a man named James Jesse Strang. Strang, like Joseph Smith, claimed that he found some plates that he translated with the Urim and Thummim. He had witnesses who claimed they saw the plates and their testimony is recorded in almost the same way that the testimony of the eleven witnesses is recorded in the Book of Mormon. Brigham Young and the other Mormon leaders denounced Strang as an impostor, but some of the Book of Mormon witnesses became very interested in his claims. On January 20, 1848, James J. Strang wrote the following:

... early in 1846 the tract reprint of the first number of the Voree Herald, containing the evidence of my calling and authority, strayed into upper Missouri. Immediately I received a letter from Hiram Page, one of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon, and a neighbor and friend to the Whitmers' who lived near him, and that they rejoiced with exceeding joy that God had raised up one to stand in place of Joseph.... He goes on to say that all the witnesses of the Book of Mormon living in that region received the news with gladness, and finally that they held a council in which David and John Whitmer and this Hiram Page were the principle actors; and being at a loss what they ought to do about coming to Voree, sent up to me as a prophet of God to tell them what to do.... last April (1847) I received another letter from the same Hiram Page, acknowledging the receipt of mine ... and giving me the acts of another council of himself at the Whitmers',... they invite me to come to their residence in Missouri and receive from them, David and John Whitmer, church records, and manuscript revelations, which they had kept in their possession from the time that they were active members of the church. These documents they speak of as great importance to the church, and offer them to me as the true shepherd who has a right to them ..." (Gospel Herald, January 20, 1848).

In a letter to David Whitmer, dated December 2, 1846, William E. McLellin said that James J. Strang "told me that all the witnesses to the book of Mormon yet alive were with him, except Oliver" (The Ensign of Liberty, Kirtland, Ohio, April, 1847). Strang was probably telling the truth about the witnesses to the Book of Mormon.

John Whitmer, one of the eight witnesses, wrote the following in his history of the church which later, however, was crossed out: "God knowing all things prepared a man whom he visited by an angel of God and showed him where there were some ancient record hid,... whose name is James J. Strang.... and Strang Reigns in the place of Smith the author and proprietor of the Book of Mormon" (John Whitmer's History, p.23).

Martin Harris, one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon, joined the Strangite movement and even went on a mission to England for the Strangites. The Mormon church's own publication Latter-Day Saints' Millennial Star had a great deal to say about Martin Harris when he arrived in England:

One of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon, yielded to the spirit and temptation of the devil a number of years ago--turned against Joseph Smith and became his bitter enemy. He was filled with the rage and madness of a demon. One day he would be one thing, and another day another thing. He soon became partially deranged or shattered, as many believed, flying from one thing to another.... In one of his fits of monomania, he went and joined the"Shakers" or followers of Anna Lee. ...but since Strang has made his entry ... Martin leaves the "Shakers," whom he knows to be right,... and joins Strang.... We understand that he is appointed a mission to this country,... if the Saints wish to know what the Lord hath said to him they may turn to ... the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and the person there called a"wicked man" is no other than Martin Harris ... Elder Wheelock will remember that evil men, like Harris, out of the evil treasure of their hearts bring forth evil things....

Just as our paper was going to press, we learned that Martin Harris, about whom we have written in another article, had landed in Liverpool,... there was a strangeness about him, and about one or two who came with him ... A lying deceptive spirit attends them, and has from the beginning.... they know that they are of their father, the devil, who was a liar from the beginning, and abode not in the truth (Latter-Day Saints' Millennial Star, vol. 8, pp.124-28).

Although the Book of Mormon witnesses were attracted to Strang for a short time, they soon became interested in a movement William E. McLellin (who had served as an Apostle under Joseph Smith) was trying to start. Five of the Book of Mormon witnesses definitely supported McLellin's movement and another gave some encouragement to it. Martin Harris was baptized and even joined with Leonard Rich and Calvin Beebe in a "Testimony of Three Witnesses" that Joseph Smith ordained David Whitmer to be his "Successor in office" (The Ensign of Liberty, December 1847, pp.43-44). The Mormons who went to Utah felt, of course, that Brigham Young was to be leader of the church. On July 28, 1847, Oliver Cowdery wrote a letter to David Whitmer in which he gave some support to McLellin's ideas and told Whitmer that "our right gives us the head." In a letter dated September 8, 1847, David Whitmer wrote to Oliver Cowdery and told him that "it is the will of God that you be one of my counsellors in the presidency of the Church. Jacob and Hiram have been ordained High Priests ..." (Ibid., May, 1848, p.93).

William E. McLellin tells how David Whitmer, one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon, gave revelations supporting his organization and condemning the Mormon Church:

... after a few moments of solemn secret prayer, the following was delivered solely through and by David Whitmer, as the Revelator, and written by me as scribe, viz:

"Verily, verily thus saith the Lord unto my servants David, and John, and William, and Jacob, and Hiram,... Behold I have looked upon you from the beginning, and have seen that in your hearts dwelt truth, and righteoness [sic].... it must needs have been that ye were cast out from among those who had poluted themselves and the holy authority of their priesthood.... For verily, verily saith the Lord, even Jesus, your Redeemer, they have polluted my name, and have done continually wickedness in my sight,... Thou shalt write concerning the downfall of those who once composed my church ..."

But here David [Whitmer] said a vision opened before him, and the spirit which was upon him bid him stop and talk to me concerning it. He said that in the bright light before him he saw a small chest or box of very curious and fine workmanship, which seemed to be locked, but he was told that it contained precious things, I was told that it contained 'the treasure of wisdom, and knowledge from God.' ... David and I turned aside, and called upon the Lord, and received direct instruction how we should further proceed.... I ordained H. Page to the office of High Priest, ... we two ordained Jacob Whitmer to the same office. Then we all laid hands on John Whitmer and reordained him ... we stepped forward and all laid hands upon David and re-ordained him ... (The Ensign of Liberty, August 1849, pp.101-4).

McLellin's movement never really got off the ground, and later in his life David Whitmer was reluctant to talk about his association with McLellin.

Since a person who is investigating the Book of Mormon has only the testimony of eleven men to rely on, he should be certain that they were honorable men. If the Book of Mormon witnesses were honest, stable and not easily influenced by men, we would be impressed by their testimony. Unfortunately, however, we find that this is not the case. The evidence shows that they were gullible, credulous, and their word cannot always be relied upon.

zap_30jeanluc

July 8th 2003, 02:10 AM

Hmmm...interesting thread. some want chicks, some want the religion to make sense, some want God to be Omni-everything (which would include totally responsible....for everything).

Here's my thought:
a christian follows the teachings of Christ. All other doctrines are add-ons. If Christ said "the sky is blue"..that's a teaching. it's clear. Obviously we have a whole lot of doctrines that are based or supported outside his teachings as well. So....to me it's just another sect.

Party on Wayne (now about those chicks)

Zap

themuzicman

July 8th 2003, 10:18 AM

How about that secret underwear that you can never take off?

Michael

John Powell

July 9th 2003, 07:03 PM

JIN-ROH:
Hey John, thanks for your post. I'd respond to it, but I think you have a case of split-personalities.

POWELL:
Please don't let that stop you if you really are curious about Mormon issues. I assure you that I try to relate as honestly as I can what I believed as a Mormon, but I try to do it more diplomatically than I would have then.

I do this "split personality" approach for a number of reasons. Two are the following:

1. The bonafide Mormons evidently aren't around to defend their religion, so I do it for their sake and yours. For you, I do it so you don't get the mistaken view that your arguments are airtight / rock solid.

2. It should encourage more thoughtful, less emotional dialogue of the issues because my opponents know (and should remember) that I no longer believe that way.

John Powell

John Powell

July 9th 2003, 07:16 PM

THEMUSICMAN:
How about that secret underwear that you can never take off?

Michael

JOHN MORMON:
Your information is incorrect. You don't have to always wear them. For example, you should remove them when putting them in the clothes washer and when bathing / showering, swimming, and doing sporting events (including dance competitions). You are permitted to remove them when having sex.

However, in order to have the maximum physical and spiritual protection you should wear them always.

They were designed to encourage modesty and a remembrance of sacred oaths to be good people. If modern swimming suits and dance competition attire were more modest then they would be recommended to be worn then too.

God gave Adam and Eve garments and gives similar-serving attire to His children today.

Do you wear garments that remind you to be a good person and that serve as a protection against spiritual and physical danger? Maybe you should.

John Powell

SlaveofChrist

July 9th 2003, 07:30 PM

I think it is important to note that the symbols on the underwear are the same symbols on Satan's (the actor of course) schmock thing that he wears in the temple ceremony. This is from the SLC temple, it may be different elsewhere. But nevertheless the symbols represent Satan's power and they happen to the be on the underwear that the "Christians" wear. :shrug:
:hrm: :bonk: :eek:

John Powell

July 9th 2003, 07:43 PM

slaveofchrist:
I think it is important to note that the symbols on the underwear are the same symbols on Satan's (the actor of course) schmock thing that he wears in the temple ceremony. This is from the SLC temple, it may be different elsewhere. But nevertheless the symbols represent Satan's power and they happen to the be on the underwear that the "Christians" wear.

JOHN MORMON:
Would it surprise you to see Satan copying God's patterns? It would not surprise me.

John Powell

SlaveofChrist

July 9th 2003, 07:55 PM

would you care to elaborate?

John Powell

July 9th 2003, 09:34 PM

EXMO-ROBERTSON (Ex-R):
John, concerning the Witnesses of the BOM...

Should we trust witnesses that Joseph Smith himself didn't trust?

JOHN MORMON (JM):
I think so yes. Should we trust Jesus when he was executed for being an enemy of the state and a blasphemer? Should we trust his apostles when they included individuals who were Sabbath breakers, dishonorers of parents, traitors, and liars?

POWELL:
The Tanners probably have the best methodology to weaken the faith of Mormons.

EX-R:
Here is some info . . . written by Jerald and Sandra Tanner.

JERALD and SANDRA TANNER (J&S):
The Witnesses

Joseph Smith claimed that after the Book of Mormon was translated he returned the gold plates to the angel. Therefore, there is no way for us to know if there really were any gold plates or whether the translation was correct.

JM:
That's mistaken. One can learn directly from God that these things are true.

On the other hand, then since the original stones written by God are no longer available, there's no way to know that the translation of them into part of the Mosaic Law is correct. Also, since we no longer have the original autograph copies of the Bible we can't know that they were copied and translated correctly either.

J&S:
Smith, however, did have eleven men sign statements claiming that they had seen the plates. The testimonies of these eleven men are recorded in the forepart of the Book of Mormon in two separate statements. In the first statement Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris claimed that an angel of God showed the plates to them. The second statement is signed by eight men who claimed to see the plates, although they did not claim that an angel showed the plates to them. This statement is signed by Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer, Jun., John Whitmer, Hiram Page, Joseph Smith, Sen., Hyrum Smith and Samuel H. Smith.

POWELL:
This is one place where J&S shine. They tend to begin their articles with claims that are as uncontroversial as necessary and then add their controversial opinions later. Most anti-Mormons start making incorrect statements from the first paragraph.

J&S:
The Mormon church claims that the witnesses to the Book of Mormon never denied their testimony. There are, however, at least two statements in Mormon publications which would seem to indicate that the witnesses had some doubts. Brigham Young, the second president, stated: "Some of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon, who handled the plates and conversed with the angels of God, were afterwards left to doubt and to disbelieve that they had ever seen an angel." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p.164).

POWELL:
Notice that J&S said "would seem to indicate" which is difficult to rebut. Then, they quote LDS sources to back their claim.

JOHN MORMON:
Just because someone doubts later does not mean what they saw was false.

Perhaps Judas and Peter had their moments of doubt. Didn't Jesus express doubt in the Garden?

You need to remember, Exmo-Robertson, that humans are imperfect beings.

J&S:
There is some evidence to indicate that Oliver Cowdery, one of the three witnesses, may have had doubts about his testimony. The following appeared in a poem that was published in the Mormon publication Times and Seasons in 1841 (vol. 2, p.482):
. . .
Or Book of Mormon not His word
Because denied, by Oliver?

JOHN MORMON:
Perhaps the song writer merely was mistaken. Notice that the LDS church doesn't sing this song today if they ever did.

On the other hand, maybe this was in reference to Oliver getting kicked out of the church for apostacy, not necessarily denying his testimony of the Book of Mormon.

J&S:
Apostle John A. Widtsoe said that the eleven men who testified to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon had "spotless reputations."

JOHN MORMON:
"Spotless" is probably an exaggeration. "Sufficiently spotless" is probably more correct.

J&S:
Non-Mormons, on the other hand, have made many serious charges against the witnesses. Some of the most damaging statements against the Book of Mormon witnesses, however, came from the pen of Joseph Smith and other early Mormon leaders. In fact, Joseph Smith gave a revelation in July of 1828 in which Martin Harris, one of the three witnesses, was called a "wicked man," who "has set at naught the counsels of God, and has broken the most sacred promises" (Doctrine and Covenants 3:12-13). In another revelation given sometime later, God was supposed to have told Joseph Smith that Harris "is a wicked man, for he has sought to take away the things wherewith you have been entrusted; and he has also sought to destroy your gift" (Ibid., 10:7).

JOHN MORMON:
So what? The Lord criticized Joseph Smith for transgression too.

Doctrine & Covenants 3:9
9 Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall.

JOHN MORMON:
The point, I think, is that Martin transgressed a lot more than Joseph did.

Besides, didn't the Christians criticize Judas for his wickedness? Even though Peter had also done evil by denying Jesus, the Christians forgave him. Peter's sin was less severe than that of Judas.

J&S:
There is little doubt that the Book of Mormon witnesses were very gullible. For instance, Hiram Page had a peep stone which he used to obtain revelations. Joseph Smith himself admitted that Page gave false revelations through his stone and that the other witnesses to the Book of Mormon were influenced by his revelations:

JOHN MORMON:
Maybe Satan took the honest desires of Hiram to reveal God's will and helped to twist them to evil.

POWELL:
Unfortunately, J&S don't realize how gullible the people of the the first century A.D. were.

J&S:
To our great grief, however, we soon found that Satan had been lying in wait to deceive,... Brother Hiram Page had in his possession a certain stone, by which he obtained certain"revelations" ... all of which were entirely at variance with the order of God's house, . . .

JOHN MORMON:
This is one of the reasons it's important to have living prophet, so religious teachings can be verified or corrected.

J&S:
. . . The three witnesses were finally excommunicated from the church. . .

JOHN MORMON:
If we had the early Christian and Jewish writings that were destroyed by the Catholics we might see that this sort of thing happened in the original Christian church too.

J&S:
In 1838 Oliver Cowdery had serious trouble with Joseph Smith. He accused Smith of adultery, lying and teaching false doctrines. Finally, in Far West, Missouri, the division became so great that the Mormons drove out the dissenters.

JOHN MORMON:
Presumably many of those calling for the death of Jesus were former disciples kicked out for transgression. This is just human nature to seek to degrade those you formerly adored. God probably has to deal with this more than any mortal leader like Joseph Smith.

J&S:
David Whitmer, one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon, made this statement:

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, for as they sought to do unto me, so should it be done unto them." . . .

JOHN MORMON:
Notice that David is essentially affirming his testimony of the Book of Mormon. Then he adds what he imagines is also a revelation from God. Just because God revealed something to David, does not mean what followed afterward also was from God.

POWELL:
Here may be a reason that the excommunicated witnesses did not deny the Book of Mormon. Perhaps they thought they might still bank on their importance one way or another.

J&S:
In a letter dated December 16, 1838, Joseph Smith said that "John Whitmer, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris are too mean to mention" . . .

Before driving the dissenters from Far West, Missouri, the Mormons wrote them a very threatening letter. In this letter the dissenters were accused of stealing, lying and counterfeiting: . . .

On page 117 of the "Far West Record," Gentry found testimony given by Joseph Smith and Fredrick G. Williams that tended to link Cowdrey with the bogus money business. Leland Gentry states:

[Fredrick G.] Williams,... testified that Oliver had personally informed him of a man in the church by the name of Davis who could compound metal and make dies which could not be detected from the real thing. Oliver allegedly told Williams that there was no harm in accepting and passing around such money, provided it could not be determined to be unsound.

JOHN MORMON:
"Allegedly" huh? Maybe Oliver never said those words, or said them in jest.

This complaint is largely irrelevant now that we realize that a good medium of exchange does not need to be full-value precious metal. Check the "gold" content of paper currency. Check the "silver" content of quarters and dimes. Perhaps Oliver realized something about money that most "gold-standard" people of his day did not.

J&S:
. . . According to the Prophet, he and Sidney Rigdon went to visit Oliver concerning the matter and told him that if he were guilty, he had better leave town; but if he was innocent, he should stand trial and thus be acquited. "That night or next," the Prophet said, Oliver "left the country" (A History of the Latter-day Saints in Northern Missouri From 1836 to 1839, p.146).

From this information [b]it would appear that Joseph Smith was almost an accessory after the fact, since he warned Oliver Cowdery to flee from the law if he was guilty.

JOHN MORMON:
And God was an accessory to Joseph fleeing the orders of Herod and Moses fleeing the orders of Pharoah, and David fleeing the orders of Saul, etc. Again, if God inspired Joseph to say those things then who are we to criticize God?

The "law" of that time was more lawless than what people of our day seem to realize. How likely today is it that a mob will successfully charge a county jail and kill a religious leader imprisoned for destroying a scandalous printing press in his city while he was Mayor? Our government is more in control today than in those days.

J&S:
. . .
Since six of the nine charges against Cowdery were sustained, he was "considered no longer a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (History of the Church, vol. 3, p.17). After separating himself from the Mormons, Oliver Cowdery became a member of the "Methodist Protestant Church of Tiffin, Seneca County, Ohio." G. J. Keen gave an affidavit in which he stated:

... Mr. Cowdery expressed a desire to associate himself with a Methodist Protestant Church of this city.... he was unanimously admitted a member thereof.

At that time he arose and addressed the audience present, admitted his error and implored forgiveness, and said he was sorry and ashamed of his connection with Mormonism.

. . .

Mormon writer Richard L. Anderson admits that Cowdery joined the Methodists: "The cessation of his activity in the Church meant a suspension of his role as a witness of the Book of Mormon. Not that his conviction ceased, but he discontinued public testimony as he worked out a successful legal and political career in non-Mormon society ... he logically affiliated himself with a Christian congregation for a time, the Methodist Protestant Church at Tiffin, Ohio" (Improvement Era, January 1969, p.56).

It is interesting to note that the poem about Oliver Cowdery denying his testimony to the Book of Mormon appeared in the Mormon publication Times and Seasons around the same time that Cowdery renounced Mormonism and joined the Methodist Protestant Church at Tiffin.

Some of the Book of Mormon witnesses were so credulous that they were influenced by a man named James Jesse Strang. Strang, like Joseph Smith, claimed that he found some plates that he translated with the Urim and Thummim. . .

In a letter to David Whitmer, dated December 2, 1846, William E. McLellin said that James J. Strang "told me that all the witnesses to the book of Mormon yet alive were with him, except Oliver" (The Ensign of Liberty, Kirtland, Ohio, April, 1847). Strang was probably telling the truth about the witnesses to the Book of Mormon.

John Whitmer, one of the eight witnesses, wrote the following in his history of the church which later, however, was crossed out: "God knowing all things prepared a man whom he visited by an angel of God and showed him where there were some ancient record hid,... whose name is James J. Strang.... and Strang Reigns in the place of Smith the author and proprietor of the Book of Mormon" (John Whitmer's History, p.23).

Martin Harris, one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon, joined the Strangite movement and even went on a mission to England for the Strangites. The Mormon church's own publication Latter-Day Saints' Millennial Star had a great deal to say about Martin Harris when he arrived in England:

One of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon, yielded to the spirit and temptation of the devil a number of years ago--turned against Joseph Smith and became his bitter enemy. He was filled with the rage and madness of a demon. One day he would be one thing, and another day another thing. He soon became partially deranged or shattered, as many believed, flying from one thing to another.... In one of his fits of monomania, he went and joined the"Shakers" or followers of Anna Lee. ...but since Strang has made his entry ... Martin leaves the "Shakers," whom he knows to be right,... and joins Strang.... We understand that he is appointed a mission to this country,... if the Saints wish to know what the Lord hath said to him they may turn to ... the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and the person there called a"wicked man" is no other than Martin Harris ... Elder Wheelock will remember that evil men, like Harris, out of the evil treasure of their hearts bring forth evil things....

Just as our paper was going to press, we learned that Martin Harris, about whom we have written in another article, had landed in Liverpool,... there was a strangeness about him, and about one or two who came with him ... A lying deceptive spirit attends them, and has from the beginning.... they know that they are of their father, the devil, who was a liar from the beginning, and abode not in the truth (Latter-Day Saints' Millennial Star, vol. 8, pp.124-28).

JOHN MORMON:
Who does it surprise that Satan would inspire a false prophet to try to counter God's prophet? It doesn't surprise me.

When someone is excommunicated they are especially susceptible to evil promptings by Satan.

POWELL:
Evidently, Strang realized what Joseph Smith had earlier realized: to claim to be prophet in the 1800s was a potentially rewarding scam if you did it right.

J&S:
Although the Book of Mormon witnesses were attracted to Strang for a short time, they soon became interested in a movement William E. McLellin (who had served as an Apostle under Joseph Smith) was trying to start. Five of the Book of Mormon witnesses definitely supported McLellin's movement and another gave some encouragement to it. Martin Harris was baptized and even joined with Leonard Rich and Calvin Beebe in a "Testimony of Three Witnesses" that Joseph Smith ordained David Whitmer to be his "Successor in office" (The Ensign of Liberty, December 1847, pp.43-44). The Mormons who went to Utah felt, of course, that Brigham Young was to be leader of the church. On July 28, 1847, Oliver Cowdery wrote a letter to David Whitmer in which he gave some support to McLellin's ideas and told Whitmer that "our right gives us the head." In a letter dated September 8, 1847, David Whitmer wrote to Oliver Cowdery and told him that "it is the will of God that you be one of my counsellors in the presidency of the Church. Jacob and Hiram have been ordained High Priests ..." (Ibid., May, 1848, p.93).

William E. McLellin tells how David Whitmer, one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon, gave revelations supporting his organization and condemning the Mormon Church:

... after a few moments of solemn secret prayer, the following was delivered solely through and by David Whitmer, as the Revelator, and written by me as scribe, viz:

. . .

McLellin's movement never really got off the ground, and later in his life David Whitmer was reluctant to talk about his association with McLellin.

JOHN MORMON:
It should be rather clear that McLellin's movement was not directed by God since it did not survive. Just because a religious movement persists does not prove it's directed by God, but if a movement fails to persist it demonstrates that it's not directed by God.

If we had more of those ancient records of Jews and Christians we might learn more about splinter groups from Moses, Jesus, and many others in between.

POWELL:
Notice how the witnesses jumped from one movement to another trying to find a place where they could have positions of power. I imagine they avoided denying their testimony of the Book of Mormon because they desired to "keep that bridge open." They knew that they might later rejoin the original church or they might join a Mormon splinter group where their positions as witnesses could prove valuable.

Perhaps James, the brother of Jesus, succumbed easily to pressure to take over the leadership of the original Christian church even though he knew what his brother was really like.

J&S:
Since a person who is investigating the Book of Mormon has only the testimony of eleven men to rely on, he should be certain that they were honorable men. If the Book of Mormon witnesses were honest, stable and not easily influenced by men, we would be impressed by their testimony. Unfortunately, however, we find that this is not the case. The evidence shows that they were gullible, credulous, and their word cannot always be relied upon.

JOHN MORMON:
The purpose of their testimonies is to disprove the claim that Joseph was the only one to know that the plates existed and to hear God's angel declare it to contain the word of God. What they did with their lives after becoming witnesses is a tragedy. It goes to show how powerful Satan can be when it's really important to him.

If we had more early Jewish and Christian records we might better understand the weaknesses of those early leaders.

POWELL:
J&S can't seem to realize that the Biblical writers were even more gullible and credulous than modern religious leaders, although the ancients may have been more trustworthy. Religious con artists are more common today I think than then. Perhaps in ancient times the religious leaders more often deceived themselves into believing that the things they dreamed up were inspired by God.

J&S:
Should we trust witnesses that Joseph Smith himself didn't trust?

JOHN MORMON:
To the extent of their testimony in the Book of Mormon, I think yes. However, one must read and pray to know the truth of the Book of Mormon.

POWELL:
Good question, J&S. Should we trust the apostles when they didn't trust each other (e.g., Thomas)? Should we trust the anonymous writers of the Gospels? Should we trust claims of miracles in the Bible when our world today seems to be without such events?

John Powell

John Powell

July 9th 2003, 09:47 PM

JOHN MORMON:
Would it surprise you to see Satan copying God's patterns? It would not surprise me.

SLAVEOFCHRIST:
would you care to elaborate?

JOHN MORMON:
Sure.

If God has special garments for His chosen people then surely Satan will copy that.

If God were to reveal that a certain device (e.g., Urim and Thummim) could invoke the powers of heaven, I would expect Satan would reveal similar things to his servants (Crystal balls, peep stones, etc.).

Those Sons of God before and after Jesus were probably counterfeits of Satan.

Religious leaders serving Satan usually use the same kinds of buildings and human power structures that God reveals for His Church.

Need I go on?

John Powell

zap_30jeanluc

July 10th 2003, 03:04 AM

wow, I've been reading this long thread with people arguing over whether or not people parted way on who-knows-what issues. I'm wondering if there's a church in existence that didn't suffer from infighting at some point in its' history.

Keep it real and remember...we're talking about flesh and blood here. Egos. hmmm

and above all, remember that indecision is the key to flexibility.

Zap
:hi:

John Powell

July 11th 2003, 12:31 AM

zap_30jeanluc:

wow, I've been reading this long thread with people arguing over whether or not people parted way on who-knows-what issues. I'm wondering if there's a church in existence that didn't suffer from infighting at some point in its' history.

Keep it real and remember...we're talking about flesh and blood here. Egos. hmmm

and above all, remember that indecision is the key to flexibility.

Zap
:hi:

POWELL:
I'm more insulated than most since I no longer believe the Mormon position I'm defending in these threads. That way I can try to focus on the issues rather than being overly affected by the feelings.

John Powell

Keith Rex

February 23rd 2006, 01:34 AM

Sure: Spock has it. LDS offers a very rich fantasy life while Christianity offers nothing at all - sure "salvation" but salvation for what?
LDS offers you your very own planet to play with. Well of course you do not have to join LDS to imagine that you are the God of a planet. I do it every day and it is a most educational activity. But most people do not have much imagination but if they join a group which shares this dream - like the Trekies, they can pull it off.
I note that all the posts are about why they are not Mormons, but do Christians get as much fun out of Christainity as Mormons get out of LDS?

Krusader

February 23rd 2006, 12:59 PM

Keith Rex

February 23rd 2006, 11:19 PM

Oh, for crying out loud, Baptist pot lucks make it all worth it!
Dr Bonar does not know the difference between growing and dying. If less is more, then nothing is everything - post modernism for you.

master_mormon

February 26th 2006, 01:50 AM

Keith Rex

February 27th 2006, 01:56 AM

What is wrong with some poeple that they cannot be serious? Is life just one big laugh to them - nothing has any meaning? Why do they join debating forums when they have nothing to debate and only come to poke fun like rude children?

Hitch

February 27th 2006, 02:41 AM

Hitch

February 27th 2006, 02:43 AM

Oh, for crying out loud, Baptist pot lucks make it all worth it! It was just such a Baptist potluck which drove me to the casino

master_mormon

February 27th 2006, 04:26 PM

I can think of a lot of reasons why I should be a Christian instead of an LDS. This is largely due to evidence. For instance, Smith couldn't translate the "Book of Abraham" (http://www.carm.org/lds/ldspapyri.htm) correctly, why should I believe that he translated the Book of Mormon correctly?

Or regarding the Book of Mormon itself. Nobody else saw those plates right? Did God do this so we could 'have faith' or something? But over 500 witnesses saw the resurrected Christ. Lots of evidence there, espiecally in historical context.

But my reasons for not being a mormon set aside, what are the reasons that Mormons are mormons? Perferred theology? Logic? Tradition? It doesn't even have to be in regard to Christianity. What are your reasons for believing the BOM of its prophets?

:shrug:

Everyone looks at evidence differently. One reason why there are hung jury trials. All 12 people hear the same evidence but may view the evidence differently.

Lots of people saw the plates. I can name 15-20 different individuals. Fact is there are people on death row in many states that got convicted on less eyewitness evidence than the eyewitnesses to the plates.

Yes there are 500 eyewitnesses in the New Testament for the resurrected Christ. These eyewitnesses are unnamed. I often hear this claim in christian chat in Yahoo and I always respond by saying yes there where 500 witnesses in that event. Now if you will accept 500 witnesses from the New Testament, surely one will accept 2500 witnesses from the Book of Mormon that Jesus appeared to them in 3 Nephi 11. I mean the last time i checked 2500 > 500. My atheist friends in there always back me up on it.

In the end its up to everyone to decide for themselves from all the evidences out there and make the conclusion after everything is presented. From the evidences I have seen supporting my faith and what I deem to be horrible evidences against my faith from various critics like James White and Walter Martin, I personally chose the the LDS side. Others chose different sides. Its like a card game. We all have to decide if we have the winning hand. We will see in the end who had the winning hand.

Keith Rex

February 28th 2006, 12:38 AM

master_mormon

February 28th 2006, 01:21 AM

Evidence I find counts for little in Religious matters, be it Christianity., Atheism, Islam, LDS, etc. It more "do you like the feel of it?" I do not know that anyone was ever accepted any of those beliefs on cold reasoning.

That is very true. We can't ignore that fact that our beliefs do have relation to the environment or culture or family we where raised in. I don't dismiss the fact that because I was raised LDS that I have some certain bias towards it. Same would be true for people in other religions. If a person is in an evangelical view of the Bible only or a Muslim with a view that the Koran is God's book, they will have their bias towards that.

Best thing we can do I believe is aquire as much information as we can about everything and come to conclusions that make sense as we see it. I am LDS today not because I was raise LDS but simply it has answered pretty much all of my questions to satisfaction and seen enough data that leads me to believe it is right. That along with what I believe to be the spirit has convinced ME that I am in the right place. Its up to everyone to decide what is right for them.

master_mormon

March 31st 2006, 12:58 PM

There are many reasons why I am LDS. I could possibley give 50 or more good reasons but I simply will give one that gives me comfort and understanding. Many people do believe that animals will go to heaven and many don't. Its not an LDS/non-LDS issue but by being LDS I know that that animals will be in heaven. I have 2 wonderful dogs who are i consider very much a part of my family. I could not imagine being in the Kingdom of God without them.

I am reading a book that is about life after death. It uses scriptural evidence, teaching from modern prophets, and near death experiences that explain the issues. Anyway if one accepts near death experiences one that caught my eye was one:

"I remember leaving the void and entering a garden. The garden was similar to a wooded or forest area, but it had plants that where tropical in nature, sort of like you would find in Florida.

There were animial, birds, butterflies, and small furry creatures, one resembling a fawn. I could communicate with these animals. It wasn't a verbial exchange or a question and answer scenario. It was, instead, as if I were a part of them. They seemed to receive their life force from the same source I did. We were part of a collective consciouseness, part of a universal whole. I was like I had increased awareness. On earth our bodies have five senses, but over there I have more than five senses. Part of the expanded awareness was the ability to preceive thoughts, to peer into the souls of all living things, and to communicate with them"

Anyways I know that I can be with my dogs for eternity. I know my dogs will be resurrected as I will be.

D&C 29:23-25 "And the end shall come, and the heaven and the earth shall be consumed and pass away, and there shall be a new heaven and a new earth.For all old things shall pass away, and all things shall become new, even the heaven and the earth, and all the fulness thereof, both men and beasts, the fowls of the air, and the fishes of the sea; And not one hair, neither mote, shall be lost, for it is the workmanship of mine hand."

This knowledge that i can be with all my loved ones including pets is just another reason why I find being LDS to be right for me.