“What is a good question to ask a Mormon?” by a mormon.

[PapaJ]

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that your point on the BOM was a rabbit trail,

I was just saying it was a trail you were going down and it was not necessary for me to deal with the subject.

Besides I wanted to cover the issues dealing with the history of the Great Awakening since I believe it has a lot for a young Mormon to think about.

Sorry it was information overload for you or did I touch a nerve.

[Homer]

PapaJ,

I also read through your screed on church history. It is a very troubling piece due to its innacuracies and judgemental nature. It appears clear that your so-called "historic christian faith" is nothing more than reformed theology dating back no farther than Augustine, and unknown before that.

Upon what grounds do you judge Locke to have been an "atheistic empiricist" other than his disagreement with your theology? He is said to have believed Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God, and considered himself to be an Anglican Christian.

Consider the following (from article http://phrasearch.com/Trans/Dean/John/Jno113.htm) :

John Locke, the famous 18th century philosopher, once wrote: “Our Saviour’s resurrection is truly of great importance in Christianity, so great that His being or not being the Messiah stands or falls with it; so that these two important articles are inseparable and in effect make one. For since that time you believe one and you believe both; deny one of them and you can believe neither.”

Locke in that quote emphasises the fact that Jesus or not being the Messiah stands or falls with the resurrection. Messiah means the anointed one or appointed one, and it is translated into Greek, christos [Xristoj], and that is what John is demonstrating in this Gospel, that we might believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the anointed one of God. That is his thesis statement for the Gospel; overriding everything is that thesis statement. There is a sub-theme and that has to do with the Christian life. When Locke makes his affirmation that the gospel stands or falls with the resurrection he is simply echoing what the apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:12-14 NASB “Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found {to be} false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised.” As Locke observes this is so inseparable to the essence of the gospel that in effect it makes belief in Christ as Messiah tantamount to belief in the resurrection and belief in the resurrection tantamount to belief in Christ as Messiah.

He sounds like a Christian to me, especially since he wrote in defense of Chistianity.

I am surprised that you connected Thomas Campbell with debates against Calvinists. Alexander Campbell was involved in several public debates but Thomas, his father, was against them.

[mkprr]

Jriccitelli,


No apology needed. I have nothing against sarcasm, I just couldn’t tell you were being sarcastic, thanks for the clarification.
It isn’t that I am not aware of the arguments made to try to discredit the witnesses, it is that I don’t find them convincing. You cited three pieces of evidence to support your idea that the witnesses testimonies aren’t credible. All of the evidence you listed was taken out of context in a way that is very misleading..
Brigham’s quote, if read in context, you will note that the point he is making is that no matter how incredible of an experience a person has, if they don’t continue to turn to God in faith and prayer daily, and if they don’t continue to seek after his spirit, they are in danger of falling away from God. Also, he is not talking about the 3 or the 8 witnesses of the Book of Mormon who placed their testimonies as official witnesses to the world in the Book of Mormon and if you would only have also included the very next sentence of his sermon this would have been clear because he gives the example he had in mind in detail. He continues like this:
“One of the Quorum of the Twelve-a young man full of faith and good works, prayed, and the vision of his mind was opened, and the angel of God came and laid the plates before him, and he saw and handled them, and saw the angel, and conversed with him as he would with one of his friends; but after this, he was left to doubt, and plunged into apostasy, and has continued to contend against this work. There are hundreds in a similar condition.”
You will note that the 8 witnesses didn’t see a vision with an angel so he isn’t referring to them, and that the three witnesses who did see a vision and an angel, were never part of the Quorum of the twelve, which means that Brigham is not referring to any of the original witnesses of the Book of Mormon but he is referring to a man who through diligence and faith was also visited by an angel but later doubted the experience. Similar visitations happened to others as well, both women and men.

The second piece of evidence you quote is the poem that references Oliver denying the Book of Mormon but you failed to put it into context, which is incredibly important in ascertaining the meaning behind a statement. Cowdery was excommunicated and left the body of the saints in 1838. This poem was written in 1841 when he had been away from the saints for about 3 years. It is reasonable to see why the saints would simply assume that he had denied his testimony of the book of Mormon and were bracing for it, but he in fact never did. As Wikipedia states “Some contemporary Mormons believed that Cowdery had denied his testimony to the Book of Mormon, but there is no direct evidence of this, and Cowdery may even have repeated his testimony while estranged from the church.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cow ... te_note-34

The last point you bring up against the witnesses I think is the most harmful to your position.

“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 ..."

Let me reason with you for a second. If you were on a jury, and a man was accused of fraud he had committed years earlier, but all of his best friends testified he was innocent, and all of his enemies testified he was guilty, how would you decide? Now imagine that all of his friends testified that he was innocent, and three of his bitterest enemies also testified that he was innocent. Would not the testimony of innocence from his bitter enemies be more persuasive than that of his friends? Oliver, Harris and David all had intense motives to discredit the Book of Mormon during periods of their life and all had the power to do so, yet all went to great lengths to clarify their testimonies whenever they heard rumors that they had denied them, and all of them were true to the end.
According to Wikipedia Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery both came back to the church after some time, David Whitmer never came back and to his death was hostile to the church claiming that Joseph was a fallen prophet. Never the less he testified to the end that the Book of Mormon was true and ordered that his testimony be placed on his tomb stone. All three of them to the end continually corrected those who claimed they denied their testimonies.
After Oliver had rejoined the church he went to visit David Whitmer and he ended up getting sick and dying there. Of Cowdery's death, David Whitmer said: "Oliver died the happiest man I ever saw. After shaking hands with the family and kissing his wife and daughter, he said ‘Now I lay down for the last time; I am going to my Saviour’; and he died immediately with a smile on his face." (edit, I relate this because it shows not only that he was faithful to his testimony to the end, but that he had a clear conscience before God about the testimony he bore and was at least in his mind and heart, very ready to meet Jesus)

I can’t see how the fact that they all went through periods of apostasy could help your case at all unless the person you are telling it too doesn’t know the rest of the story.
The evidence you brought up against the witnesses was deceptive. I am not accusing you of trying to be deceptive, I assume that you are really only regurgitating what you have read from others who were less interested in honesty than you are, but none the less, using bad sources hurts your position. In your defense, I see pro LDS arguments that are based in evidence that is just as bad. I expect you to point out if I am quoting bad sources as well. I know for me at least, sometimes I see what I want to see, instead of what is actually there and it isn’t because I am trying to be dishonest, it’s just because I, like most people, have a lot of bias and baggage I am sorting through.

This is another reason why I think evangelicals would be better off in most cases simply showing us what is right about evangelical Christianity instead of trying to attack the LDS church when they talk to mormons. Most latter day saints (if they already haven’t stopped listening the minute they notice someone is going to try the discredit the church), will for sure stop listening once they detect any sort of flaw or deception in the reasoning of the accuser even if it wasn’t intentional. Unfortunately that is just human nature. If you have other evidence against the witnesses though, I am happy to consider it.

Also, before I start to sound too harsh, I want to point out that you brought up a lot of other good points that aren’t based in such bad evidence. I am working on addressing the other important issues you and others raised because I think they are very worthy of discussion and worth deep honest consideration on my part. There is of course a lot to address which is to be expected seeing as that I am a minority in my viewpoints here. Hopefully you can be patient in me taking a little time to really consider what has been written.

[jriccitelli]

I have not seen anything from Josephs friends that would state he was 'innocent'. Not too many were aware of Josephs arrest. Is it not interesting that although it really did happen, the church did ignore it. Church leaders even pronounced that if evidence could be shown that if his money digging was proven true, it would cast serious doubt upon Josephs character. Testimony of church members or not, the evidence is that he was arrested and guilty.
I think you have some tainted sources (Wikipedia, I like, but do not trust), but for now I will also check this out. I do like your will to research, we both will be smarter I am sure.

You wrote; 'I can’t see how the fact that they all went through periods of apostasy could help your case'
The Gospel of Jesus pretty much stands or falls on the testimonies of the witness' given by 'His' disciples. For that matter so did Moses, David, the Prophets… having a good witness is pretty much Biblical, and sensible.
Is it not God Himself, who sets a standard for witnesses in his Law?
Jesus' disciples were known as going to death, scourging, and imprisonment for their testimony, they did not give any reason for doubt. This is a vast difference from the BOM witnesses.

You wrote; 'I assume that you are really only regurgitating what you have read from others who were less interested in honesty than you are…'
I appreciate the candor, and I understand we are on two sides, thats ok, but...
What I have read is the churchs own writings and witnesses.
I will only need to use the churchs own manuscripts, and works to make my case.
I will check the context again, but I do have 'a lot' of the churchs books, here in my study, on my shelfs, and I have access to many common works such as History of the Church Vol. 1-7, not to mention the LDS library at the LDS Institute of Religion just 7 miles from my house in downtown San Jose. I also looked at quite a few old books while I was in Salt lake visiting, to confirm what I was reading.
The Utah Lighthouse Tanners books are a valuable resource, they simply photocopied what the church was 'not willing' to do, reveal their own history.

There certainly are enemies of Christ and Christianity, but I usually find they are generally emotionally driven and never apologetic in their approach. I never consider people who have biblical disagreements or contrary opinions as 'enemies' of the Church.
It is easy enough to see who is just simply hostile to God, but if someone approaches me in a reasonable manner with some material I do not ever consider them 'enemies'. 'Enemies' of the church' is a line used all the time by Mormon apologists, I do not think it is anything but a excuse to discredit something. I am not an enemy of Islam or Judaism for that matter, like many others I only want to discuss the subjects of our beliefs.

By the way, If someone 'really' had documents that disproved the Bible I would be glad to look at them with them, but that’s the great thing- the Bible- has withstood millions of attacks, and so I never fear discussing what may be true or not about the Bible.

[jriccitelli]

I have to explain my rant on 'enemies of the church', it was not in response to what you said, but a warning of what the LDS church was trying to lead 'me' to believe, and I was reminded of this after going through some of the LDS church's own material the other day. We are free to read and consider what is biblical or not, we have One Lord and authority 'Gods Word'.
Jesus, Peter, Paul and others debated, reasoned, with people, and long as people are reasonable and not hostile it is agreeable to consider their opinion to see if it holds water and ultimately agreeable with scripture.

[jriccitelli]

True, the witnesses were not members of the 12.
But, Brigham 'identifies' who he is talking about '…the witnesses of the Book of Mormon, who handled the plates and conversed with the angels of God'. (Journal of Discourses, vol.7, p.164)
Brigham 'then' talks about a member of the Quorum of the 12, a young man, this is a different person than; '…the witnesses of the Book of Mormon, who handled the plates and conversed with the angels of God'.
I do not think there is anything deceptive here, the young man was 'not the subject' of Brigham's leading sentence.

This is backed up by the fact that the 3 did in fact apostate, Oliver and Harris at one time returning yes, but can you imagine reading that Peter, John, Matthew or Andrew later leaving the Apostles, being excommunicated, joining themselves to other religions, being publically chastised and called mean, cheating, swindling, and apostate by Jesus, even having it later included in the Bible, as Joseph included the chastisement of Harris in D&C 3:12-13, 10:6-7, and calling David Whitmer a dumb ass (History of the Church Vol.3 p.228)?

Doctrine and Covenants 28 confirm that even Hiram Page (one of the eight witnesses) was caught up in this 'seer stone' deception, the 'same' seer stone that the Whitmer family and Oliver Cowdery were believing in.
Harris joined up with the Strangites who also had a seer stone, and also records buried in the ground, and proclaimed he (James Strang) was a prophet. Harris followed McLellin, others, and also joined the Shakers for awhile. Harris changed his religious affiliation five times prior to Joseph Smith, and eight times after the Mormons, for a total of 13 times.

Apostasy is a pretty extreme degree of digress in the Bible, and excommunication is a really extreme form of discipline within the Biblical Church, not something thrown around here and there as witnessed to within the dawn of Mormonism.

[jriccitelli]

The Bible has great witnesses' and evidence to back them up. It makes sense to start with Gods Word, and go from there, rather than starting with Joseph Smith and trying to make the Bible 'fit' into LDS doctrine, which are dynamically opposed on a hundred doctrines.
Trust Gods Word, and go from there.

[mkprr]

Jriccitelli,
I talk to people from time to time, who claim that Mormonism is so unbelievable that it is incomprehensible to them that a thinking person could believe it, but yet, when I ask them for examples of what is so unbelievable, they often times have to twist and distort things to make their point. I am hearing a similar tone in our discussion here. You said:

But, Brigham 'identifies' who he is talking about '…the witnesses of the Book of Mormon, who handled the plates and conversed with the angels of God'. (Journal of Discourses, vol.7, p.164)
Brigham 'then' talks about a member of the Quorum of the 12, a young man, this is a different person than; '…the witnesses of the Book of Mormon, who handled the plates and conversed with the angels of God'.

While it is true that his quote does say “the witnesses” you have conveniently edited out the qualifying words “Some of the witnesses…” This of course greatly distorts his sentence and changes the meaning of what he is saying. Also, the apostle he then describes is, as he very pointedly explains, a witness who both handled the plates and conversed with an angel which means that he falls under the category of “some of the witnesses…”

Even though he uses the plural form of “ some witnesses” and then only gives one example, there is no reason to suppose that he has any of the official witnesses to the Book of Mormon In mind or that he even has in mind more than the one person he describes. I’ll show you what I mean and you can decide yourself.

First, using a plural (some witnesses) even if there is only 1 example that a person personally is aware of, is a common form of hyperbole. This type of hyperbole assumes that even though the speaker might not know of all examples he assumes that other examples could be out there. Brigham Young almost always spoke from the cuff and his sermons are full of hyperbole. This particular type of hyperbole is still common today so there is no reason to find it very perplexing.
Second, he states, as I showed last time, that he is aware of others in a “similar condition” (note not identical) although he doesn’t describe them in detail.

Third, if he is trying to drive the point home it would have made more sense for him to use an example of one of the official witnesses if he was aware of them denying their testimony. It would have driven his point home with more force.

Finally, and this is by far the strongest reason to suppose that he wasn’t referring to either of the three original official witnesses, is that he and his contemporaries used the official witnesses in their sermons as evidence to back up the validity of the Book of Mormon on numerous occasions and were fully aware that they had been true to their testimonies to the end. Here are a couple examples:

JD 2:257-258 “Martin Harris declared, before God and angels, that he had seen angels. Did he apostatize? Yes, though he says that the Book of Mormon is true. Oliver Cowdery also left the Church, though he never denied the Book of Mormon, not even in the wickedest days he ever saw, and came back into the Church before he died. A gentleman in Michigan said to him, when he was pleading law, “Mr. cowdery, I see your name attached to this book; if you believe it to be true, why are you in Michigan?” The gentleman read over the names of the witnesses, and said. “Mr. Cowdery, do you believe this book?” “No, sir,” replied Oliver Cowdery. “That is very well, but your name is attached to it, and you say here that you saw an angel, and that the plates from which this book is said to be translated, and now you say that you do not believe it. Which time was you right?” Mr. Cowdery replied, “there is my name attached to that book, and what I have there said that I saw, I know that I saw, and belief has nothing to do with it, for knowledge has swallowed up the belief that I had in the work, since I know it is true.” He gave this testimony when he was pleading law in Michigan. After he had left the church he still believed “Mormonism;” and so it was with hundreds and thousands of others, and yet they do not live it.

JD 14: 202-203 Brigham Young points out that there are 12 reliable witnesses backing up the Book of Mormon. (the 3, the 8 and then Joseph Smith himself)

George Q Cannon, one of Brigham’s contemporaries goes over in detail the strength of each of the three witnesses in JD 23:101-102. Please read these in context if you think I am mistaken in citing these examples. They are quite lengthy and I want to keep my posts to a readable size.

In short, there was a brief time when Oliver Cowdery left the church that it appears the members of the church had supposed he had denied his testimony or were at least bracing for it, but Oliver corrected them, and the church ever since then recognized the strength of the witnesses.

The three who saw both the plates and the heavenly visions all bitterly left the church at some time in their lives, yet they were always true to their testimonies written in the Book of Mormon. They thought the church was going the wrong way and made claims that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet, but they never recanted their witness of the Book of Mormon. I can’t conceive of a way to improve the validity of a testimony more than to have that testimony come from someone who would like to see the church fall, but who nevertheless couldn’t deny what they had seen. If the witnesses had all received positions of leadership in the church, and all remained unwaveringly faithful to it to the end, they would have had a strong motive to lie if they had been in on some sort of conspiracy. Their testimonies wouldn’t have near the weight to them that they do now.

Books and numerous websites have been written trying to discredit the witnesses, and everyone of them that I have come across have relied heavily on taking quotes out of context, and splicing up peoples words to distort the meaning of what has been said and written. The great lengths that otherwise reasonable people will go to in order to discredit the witnesses tells a lot about the weakness of the critics position on this particular point. The only frustrating thing about this tactic, is that it takes a lot of work to show the proper context when there are much more interesting things we could be discussing ( I apologize for the length of this post but showing the proper context of a statement simply takes more time than it does to take a statement out of context)

The same frivolous tactics are used of course to discredit the Bible and the witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection, but as you say, “The Bible has great witnesses' and evidence to back them up.” And I agree with you. I also agree that it makes sense to Trust Gods Word (the Bible), and go from there. Often times Christians like to make “Book of Mormon vs the Bible” type arguments. To a latter day saint this type of argument is a little absurd, because to us it isn’t a question of one over the other, they are both the word of God, they are both supported by various types of evidence, they both support each other, and they both contribute to our faith in Jesus Christ. I also agree that claims should be investigated, and that Joseph Smith should be tested. I certainly don’t see you or others who have made different conclusions than I have as being enemies.

I’ll write, hopefully soon as time permits, more about the various types of evidence that does support the Book of Mormon, and I will also try to address the other points you and others have made against it.

[PapaJ]

I would like to give a reply to Homers statement back on page 3 dealing with John Locke, but was asked by another member to have my discussion with Homer moved to another area, so I would not discourage the Mormons coming to this message board. I asked Jr. if he could have the moderator move Homer’s last posting to another spot so we could continue our discussion there. Now if they won't move it, I will have to provide my reply so it does not look like Homer blew my inaccurate history away, and if they are willing to move Homers last post, they can also move this reply. I asked Jr. to contact Homer since you guys have been here much longer than me, you most likely know how to do what I've never done, so I was waiting to hear from Jr. and Homer for the last few weeks. I’ll wait another week then post what I have.

Also my reply to Jr. about such a long post was to give the young Mormons something to think about from history, sorry you thought it was to much useless information, but I find it better to go to the root of a problem instead of picking the fruit I did not like.

[Jepne]

I read this thread some time ago, and re-read the more recent pages last night, and it is time to speak.

First, you seem to be a very patient person to have read through and answered as thoroughly as you did some of the longer posts, and I gather you have some sort of relationship with the God that I know, and you have a desire to lead a righteous life. Your photo is the face of someone I could imagine enjoying getting to know on some level. I have met many very kind Mormons, for that matter.

So I will lay out my thoughts, without the delicacy that my brother Brody would espouse, into which you may read questions, if you care to take them as such, and respond to them.

I understand that Mormons are told that there is no eternal life for them unless they are members of the Mormon church, faithful to the Mormon leaders, and pay ten percent of their worldly gain to the institution. They are told that God was once a man, and that some Mormons will achieve godhead.

The very foundation of the Mormon church was laid by a man who forced a binding doctrine of polygamy on this gullible people, in the name of God, as a cover for his taste for strange young flesh. That he is still regarded as a man of God and a prophet is blasphemous. Brigham Young was just as unsavoury a character, yet the university to which Mormons continue to entrust their young is named after this man, and the Mormon church has, to my knowledge, made no sign of repentance for such evil.

Why there is no access to the ‘gold tablets’, or the special 3D glasses, when we have access to truckloads of parchments on which parts of the New Testament were written two thousand years ago makes no sense whatsoever.

Our elders pray together and share the results with the congregation. I cannot believe that Jesus Christ ever would have his Church, for which He gave his life, be built on such a foundation as these men with their Freemasonry type of secret rituals, with its curses, names of pagan gods and strange costumery, and make adherence to their authority a prerequisite to being in the Lord Jesus’ good graces. He told us to go into all the world and make disciples, not build a hierarchical religious system such as this one, or the Roman church that oppressed the multitudes from the time of Constantine until more recent times – to say nothing of the multitudinous denominations we have today, all claiming to have the truth exclusively. The Church of Jesus Christ is organic, formed of a people who are knit together in love, led by the Spirit of God and of His Christ and transcends any such institutionalising and division.

So, my dear fellow, should a Mormon come to the door, I hope I would have the presence of mind to be able to present to him such things as these, and see what he has to say.