Mormon Teachings

[Jenyar]

Jenyar and water, I can only offer you my assurances that done correctly, Moroni's promise worked for me. It wasn't all at once; rather, it was gradual, over years of studying and reading the Book of Mormon. I testify to you that I know the Book of Mormon is true. I testify that Moroni's promise works.

If the promise worked, why was years of studying necessary? How do you know you didn't just convince yourself it was true, since you have nothing to measure it against?

Plus, do you have the same certainty over the doctrines and beliefs not taught in the Book of Mormon?

 

[water]

Jenyar and water, I can only offer you my assurances that done correctly, Moroni's promise worked for me. It wasn't all at once; rather, it was gradual, over years of studying and reading the Book of Mormon. I testify to you that I know the Book of Mormon is true. I testify that Moroni's promise works.

It worked for *you*.

And maybe for some millions of other people.

But this is NOT enough. Big numbers of agreement do not make something true.

 

[Marlin]

Nor do they make something false. All I can offer you is my testimony. Sorry if that's not enough, but again, you can know for yourself. It's up to you, if you really want to know.

 

[Jenyar]

And your testimony is not supported by the Bible, which is it's main flaw.

 

[Marlin]

My testimony is that Jesus Christ lives, that He came to the earth, suffered and died for the sins of mankind, and was resurrected on the third day. The Book of Mormon and the Bible both testify of these things, and I believe them both.

 

[water]

Nor do they make something false. All I can offer you is my testimony. Sorry if that's not enough, but again, you can know for yourself. It's up to you, if you really want to know.

I can, if I want, eventually, make myself believe anything.

Can you understand that?


How do you reply?

 

[Marlin]

How do you reply?

Just with the assurance that I have studied the Book of Mormon and the Bible over the years, and with this study and prayer came my testimony of their truthfulness. I believe I am intelligent enough to discern truth from error.

 

[Jenyar]

My testimony is that Jesus Christ lives, that He came to the earth, suffered and died for the sins of mankind, and was resurrected on the third day. The Book of Mormon and the Bible both testify of these things, and I believe them both.

Good, then I don't know why you wish me to pray about the Book of Mormon, if it only confirms what I already believe. It just seems from my perspective that you still place your faith in "after all you an do", rather than the grace explained in the book of Hebrews. If the testimony above is of any real and lasting significance, why believe in anything more, unless you think sin is still a threat after it has been put to death with Christ?

 

[water]

Just with the assurance that I have studied the Book of Mormon and the Bible over the years, and with this study and prayer came my testimony of their truthfulness. I believe I am intelligent enough to discern truth from error.

Guided sublimation.

Controlled compensation.

Planned rationalization.


In other words:

Desired insanity.


Marlin, I can drive myself mad, and I still will not believe the Book of Mormon to be true. Or, if I do end up thinking that it is true, I can always doubt myself, thinking that the above-mentioned cognitive processes have lead me to believe it is true.

This is what happened with me, a couple of years back.

Now, I wouldn't be angry, were it not that some Mormon nitwit comes and tells me (indirectly, of course, corrupted hideous character that he is) that I haven't prayed with sincere intent. That I am a monster if I don't believe in the Book of Mormon. This ever-present insult to human intelligence and to the human heart that a Mormon always has ready on his or her lips. It is malignant.

 

[SnakeLord]

Now, I wouldn't be angry, were it not that some Mormon nitwit comes and tells me (indirectly, of course, corrupted hideous character that he is) that I haven't prayed with sincere intent. That I am a monster if I don't believe in the Book of Mormon. This ever-present insult to human intelligence and to the human heart that a Mormon always has ready on his or her lips. It is malignant.

Absolutely no different to any other religion or religiously active person. Why single the mormon out?

 

[water]

Absolutely no different to any other religion or religiously active person. Why single the mormon out?

Have you ever tried being friends with a Mormon?

 

[Marlin]

Good, then I don't know why you wish me to pray about the Book of Mormon, if it only confirms what I already believe. It just seems from my perspective that you still place your faith in "after all you an do", rather than the grace explained in the book of Hebrews. If the testimony above is of any real and lasting significance, why believe in anything more, unless you think sin is still a threat after it has been put to death with Christ?

Sin is always a threat, even after we have "entered in the narrow way." One isn't saved at conversion; one must endure to the end in faithful obedience to the commandments in order to gain salvation. The grace of Christ is all-important in gaining salvation, but works are also important.

The reason I recommend praying about the Book of Mormon is, it will prove to you that Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and if so, that the claims to Priesthood authority the LDS Church espouses are true. You need to be baptized by someone in authority in order to gain salvation in the Celestial Kingdom. Without this baptism, you cannot enter it.

 

[Marlin]

Guided sublimation.

Controlled compensation.

Planned rationalization.


In other words:

Desired insanity.


Marlin, I can drive myself mad, and I still will not believe the Book of Mormon to be true. Or, if I do end up thinking that it is true, I can always doubt myself, thinking that the above-mentioned cognitive processes have lead me to believe it is true.

One can always doubt reality; existentialists love to doubt concrete facts and experiences. But outside of existentialism, one can usually discern what's real and what's not. Doubting reality doesn't make it less real.

This is what happened with me, a couple of years back.

Now, I wouldn't be angry, were it not that some Mormon nitwit comes and tells me (indirectly, of course, corrupted hideous character that he is) that I haven't prayed with sincere intent. That I am a monster if I don't believe in the Book of Mormon. This ever-present insult to human intelligence and to the human heart that a Mormon always has ready on his or her lips. It is malignant.

No, you're not a monster for not believing the BoM. Whoever told you that was out of line, if it's true they actually said that.

 

[SnakeLord]

Have you ever tried being friends with a Mormon?

Yeah. Absolutely no different to any other religiously active person. All claiming to have 'the real truth' (tm).

 

[Halcyon]

Continuing with th eline I was on, before randolfo beat me to the first punch;

Marlin, joe bought the papyri from a travelling antique seller. He bought them with a collection of Egyptian mummies in 1835 for $2,400. He claimed to have translated them into what is now the book of Abraham. This was before the discovery of the Rosetta stone, before which, as everyone knows, there were NO translations of any kind or form of egyptian hieroglyphics. The life of the scrolls since his purchase of them has been well documented. The scrolls were bought later by the LDS church from the Metropolitan Museum where they were stored after Joseph's wife's death, in NYC in 1967. Since then, they have been deciphered by egyptologists and linguists, and been found to contain text nowhere near the vicinity of the neighborhood that Joseph Smith said they were. Not a single word correct. It has also become known that not only was he wrong concerning his translation, but he was off on dating the script by over 2000 years. The papyri were actually funeral texts, condensed from the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

Marlin, Joe lied about the translation. The book of Abraham is a fabrication, and the proof of this is not only a matter of public record, but has never been refuted by the LDS. Find somebody of rank within your church to talk to about this. someone who actually knows something about the public history of the faith. And if you have a reply, or argument, I would like it if you brought it here.

Also, this is not the only time Joe was proven to be a lier about his "translations," Asl around about the kinderhook incident. You can read a summary of it here:
http://www.algonet.se/~daba/lds/kinderpl.htm

One last thing, and I'd really like you to answer this for me. Would you consider the Smithsonian Insititute to be an authority on subjects like anthropology and natural history? They are the worlds largest "museum complex and research organization."

 

[Marlin]

Continuing with th eline I was on, before randolfo beat me to the first punch;

Marlin, joe bought the papyri from a travelling antique seller. He bought them with a collection of Egyptian mummies in 1835 for $2,400. He claimed to have translated them into what is now the book of Abraham. This was before the discovery of the Rosetta stone, before which, as everyone knows, there were NO translations of any kind or form of egyptian hieroglyphics.

I'm aware of where the papyri came from, yes. Joseph Smith never said he translated the hieroglyphics by his own knowledge; in fact, he claimed to translate them using the Urim and Thummim, which he had previously used to translate the Book of Mormon. In other words, he translated them through the gift and power of God.

The life of the scrolls since his purchase of them has been well documented. The scrolls were bought later by the LDS church from the Metropolitan Museum where they were stored after Joseph's wife's death, in NYC in 1967. Since then, they have been deciphered by egyptologists and linguists, and been found to contain text nowhere near the vicinity of the neighborhood that Joseph Smith said they were. Not a single word correct.

As this site suggests:

From the evidence that we have today, it's quite safe to say that Joseph Smith did not have the Book of Abraham or the Book of Joseph in front of him in the form of these papyri because they bear no relationship to the contents of the stories or to his translation.​

It has also become known that not only was he wrong concerning his translation, but he was off on dating the script by over 2000 years.

One can say that The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is over 100 years old, yet the book I have on my shelf has paper which only dates to a few years ago. In the same manner, one can say that the Book of Abraham dated way, way back, yet the actual copy one is holding in one's hand is not nearly as old.

The papyri were actually funeral texts, condensed from the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

Not necessarily. Look on the web sites I refer you to below for further reading.

Marlin, Joe lied about the translation. The book of Abraham is a fabrication, and the proof of this is not only a matter of public record, but has never been refuted by the LDS. Find somebody of rank within your church to talk to about this. someone who actually knows something about the public history of the faith. And if you have a reply, or argument, I would like it if you brought it here.

Here are some more sites on the Book of Abraham, the first of which is pretty darned near comprehensive:

http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/papyri.htm

http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/view.asp?t=236

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham.shtml

Also, this is not the only time Joe was proven to be a lier about his "translations," Asl around about the kinderhook incident. You can read a summary of it here:
http://www.algonet.se/~daba/lds/kinderpl.htm

Kinderhook Plates

Since no actual translation was ever forthcoming, and since there is no actual evidence for a translation being made, most believing LDS conclude that it is safe to assume that no translation actually occurred.​

One last thing, and I'd really like you to answer this for me. Would you consider the Smithsonian Insititute to be an authority on subjects like anthropology and natural history? They are the worlds largest "museum complex and research organization."

Yes, I'd consider them an authority on those sciences. However, they are not a religious authority, at least, not regarding the Lehites in the Americas, IMHO.

 

[WildBlueYonder]

Your sites are all anti-Mormon and thus biased against the Church.

I guess non-mormon also qualifies as "anti-"?

By the same logic you used against my pro-Mormon sites,

mormons are good in using logic against opponents, very sharp, cutting, down to the last detail; but when LDS books or sources are read or researched, all of a sudden they turn into 'glassy-eyed' yes-zombies, accepting items & 'truths' that if they were from any other source, mormons would tear apart to shreds this nonsense, in no time flat

I cannot accept your sites as truthful. Bias works both ways. :-D

fine, I expect this from you,

 

[WildBlueYonder]

As for Randolfo's logic, however, I have to take exception to it. He dismisses every argument I make simply because it comes from "Mormon sources," regardless of how valid it may be.

if they were "VALID", more "outsiders", non-mormons would agree, their research would reach the same conclusions that LDS do, is there some vast "anti-" conspiracy?
tell us Marlin, do you think that the Smithsonian Institute was set up just to thwart LDS claims? they have no vested interest in whether the BoM is true or not, if it were true, it would be an interesting twist to ancient history. And they would follow this research, if they could just find one shred of evidence, can you help them? point it out for those "lug-heads", will ya?

He has formulated his conclusions before (and against) accepting all evidence to the contrary.

as a Mexican, I resent "anti's" trying to steal my history. They stole the land, killed the people, took what they could steal, use or abuse; but not being satisfied with all that, they got to steal their history too, & give it to an other? I can't help it if Joe Smith was a storyteller, got tons of details wrong, it’s not my fault, but it is my problem, & so here I stand. there's nothing wrong with being Jewish, if you're Jewish, but they didn't get here one moment sooner than 1492, same as the other Europeans. No amount of himming & hawing can change that fact, mormon sources or not

He is a textbook case of the closed-minded anti-Mormon.

& you would be the text-book case of "what"? open-minded, unbiased, fair, impartial? hmmm?

 

[WildBlueYonder]

[QUOTE Halcyon] One last thing, and I'd really like you to answer this for me. Would you consider the Smithsonian Insititute to be an authority on subjects like anthropology and natural history? They are the worlds largest "museum complex and research organization."
[QUOTE Marlin]Yes, I'd consider them an authority on those sciences. However, they are not a religious authority, at least, not regarding the Lehites in the Americas, IMHO.

& the SI would agree, since there are no Lehites, if you can find them, point them out for us, will ya?

 

[Marlin]

Randolfo, I apologize for being so negative with you. I'm not trying to attack your cultural heritage or anything; I'm just sticking up for my own beliefs. However, I'm out of line for coming down so hard on you. It's just frustrating sometimes when people attack my religious beliefs and call my religion a "cult" when I know it isn't. Please accept an olive branch of peace between us. I certainly don't have the right to judge you, although I will defend my religion if you attack it. See, I have a heritage too, and when you say things against it, I too feel like defending it.

Peace.