Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

mormonism

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$905.00
Goal
$1,038.00
Is mormonism Christianity?
Back to the OP...
Mormons believe in Christ - but in more of the orthodox (distorted) way than how Christ intends - except in some regards more distorted, & some ways less so.
Mormons vary but generally, members strive to love others, which Christ taught.
Mormon Leaders - generally, do not strive to love others as their priority, but would rather invest billions in shopping malls than help brothers in sisters dying of starvation. Sad, but true.
Of course, as PizzaGuy told me before, this may apply to many other denominations as well.

When asked when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus Christ taught, "The kingdom of God cometh not with observation, neither shall they say lo here or lo there, for behold the kingdom of God is within you." Luke 17:20-21
The main (largest) Mormon church is called, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" - because it is founded on the belief that we are in the latter days, awaiting Christ's return.
However, Jesus spoke in the present tense, "The kingdom of God IS within you"... as did Moses in discovering the experience of God, "I AM THAT I AM."
Jesus also taught that we shouldn't be looking outside us for God, but within - yet Mormonism teaches members to focus on externals - like worshiping leaders no matter what evil they say or do, & fearing excommunication/dysfellowship, which Jesus would have never caused anyone to fear about.
 
Back to the OP...
Mormons believe in Christ - but in more of the orthodox (distorted) way than how Christ intends - except in some regards more distorted, & some ways less so.
Being that "orthodox" literally means "right belief" and not "distorted," I don't follow what you're saying here.
 
Back to the OP...
Mormons believe in Christ - but in more of the orthodox (distorted) way than how Christ intends - except in some regards more distorted, & some ways less so.
If what you say is true, then there should be proof in the Bible that this couplet is true:
As man is, god once was
As god is, man may become
Your efforts to find that statement in our 66 books would be appreciated.


When asked when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus Christ taught, "The kingdom of God cometh not with observation, neither shall they say lo here or lo there, for behold the kingdom of God is within you." Luke 17:20-21
The main (largest) Mormon church is called, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" - because it is founded on the belief that we are in the latter days, awaiting Christ's return.
However, Jesus spoke in the present tense, "The kingdom of God IS within you"... as did Moses in discovering the experience of God, "I AM THAT I AM."
Jesus also taught that we shouldn't be looking outside us for God, but within - yet Mormonism teaches members to focus on externals - like worshiping leaders no matter what evil they say or do, & fearing excommunication/dysfellowship, which Jesus would have never caused anyone to fear about.

Is this a typo, perhaps? like worshiping leaders no matter what evil they say or do, Your explanation is requested.
 
Comprehender, you clearly have a love for Mormons, and you should. We are to have this love for all of His Created. Mormons have some wonderful attributes. Of course not all Mormons are decent neighbors to live next door, and none of them are perfect, but generally, they are people with strong morals and they seem more devout in their faith than Christians are as a whole. :sad

That said, you can't make the leap and find value in the church, and you can't sweep the massive differences in their theology under the rug. By Grace had a good example. To further draw on it, they believe they can one day be exalted to be gods of their own planets. How can you square such a doctrine with the Christian hope in eternity with Christ?

These are irreconcilable differences. If we are to be one Church with them, they will need to humble themselves before the Lord and fully reject Joseph Smith's fraudulent testimony. Don't count on that happening any time soon.
 
Being that "orthodox" literally means "right belief" and not "distorted," I don't follow what you're saying here.
During times like the crusades and inquisition, people were expected to have "right" or "orthodox" beliefs - but that doesn't necesssarily mean they are right in God's eyes.
 
If what you say is true, then there should be proof in the Bible that this couplet is true:
As man is, god once was
As god is, man may become
Your efforts to find that statement in our 66 books would be appreciated.
Is this a typo, perhaps? like worshiping leaders no matter what evil they say or do, Your explanation is requested.
LOL You guys are assuming I dislike Mormonism, or appreciate it... and can't understand how anybody could do both. :)

The bible is not my god, because then people - imperfect human beings who wrote it would be my god, and they are not.

I will tell you my perspective...
I am an adult now, but when I first began life, I was about the size of a dot, as were you... we all progress.
Life is about progression. Life is based on spirit... all things to God are spiritual... so spiritually, we also progress.
Our ideas of God are limited, but I do believe what Christ taught... that "the kingdom (realm/experience) of God is within you." (Luke 17:21)
It is also said in the scriptures, "Know ye not that ye are a temple of God, and [that] the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" & "Ye are gods."
Moses taught, that God is "I AM THAT I AM" - again going along with the obvious truth that the only way I can experience God is within me, now (present tense).

In answering about LDS leaders... I have a problem with them because they do not act Christlike, yet claim to be spokesmen for God/Christ. Sure, they can give some good speeches, but actions speak louder.
LDS Members basically worship leaders though. They will never admit to this, but in practice - they spend one hour of worship time (during Relief Society or Elder's Quorum, HP), every week, focusing on on prophet, rotating each year. They prioritize words of leaders above even basic science, or Christlike love, because they will get strongly reprimended if they "speak evil of the Lord's annointed (aka church leaders)."
 
I just noticed that I missed commenting on this important statement, or misstatement. I will admit that there are some not very attentive Mormons that have this false idea about the Book of Mormon and even about modern apostles and prophets. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not believe the Book of Mormon is without error. The book itself acknowledges that it has weaknesses. We also believe that, just like the prophets and apostles of the Bible, modern day prophets and apostles are only human. They can and do make mistakes.

This is a common misconception made by Mormons and non-Mormons that causes them to sometimes misjudge the church. It is a common practice for anti-Mormons to hold the LDS apostles and prophets to a much higher and impossible standard, which they would never hold the prophets and apostles of the Bible to. Many of the false assumptions about Mormons are caused by this double standard.

With all due respect what I hear you saying is that the Book of Mormon which mormons believe to be inspired words from God has weaknesses. You have the original text so my question is how could it have weaknesses?
 
Comprehender, you clearly have a love for Mormons, and you should. We are to have this love for all of His Created. Mormons have some wonderful attributes. Of course not all Mormons are decent neighbors to live next door, and none of them are perfect, but generally, they are people with strong morals and they seem more devout in their faith than Christians are as a whole. :sad

That said, you can't make the leap and find value in the church, and you can't sweep the massive differences in their theology under the rug. By Grace had a good example. To further draw on it, they believe they can one day be exalted to be gods of their own planets. How can you square such a doctrine with the Christian hope in eternity with Christ?

These are irreconcilable differences. If we are to be one Church with them, they will need to humble themselves before the Lord and fully reject Joseph Smith's fraudulent testimony. Don't count on that happening any time soon.
Hi Mike,
Thank you for your kindness.
You would be amazed at how my perspective and interpretation of doctrine has changed over the last few years!
I believe in finding truth, whereever it is found. Just because some of Mormonism is fraudulent, doesn't mean it all is.
Because it's led by imperfect people, some of Orthodox Christianity, Islam or Judaism could also have some imperfect interpretations of God/Spirituality, etc, but that doesn't mean they are without any GOoD.

Personally, I don't consider the likelihood of many (if any) getting planets etc., as some imagine.
I see us more like on an eternal journey to mature our souls - by learning to love ourselves & others better.
I don't know if this involves reincarnation, or how the progress is done & for me, living life now is task enough.
 
Hi Mike,
Thank you for your kindness.
You would be amazed at how my perspective and interpretation of doctrine has changed over the last few years!
I believe in finding truth, whereever it is found. Just because some of Mormonism is fraudulent, doesn't mean it all is.
Because it's led by imperfect people, some of Orthodox Christianity, Islam or Judaism could also have some imperfect interpretations of God/Spirituality, etc, but that doesn't mean they are without any GOoD.

Personally, I don't consider the likelihood of many (if any) getting planets etc., as some imagine.
I see us more like on an eternal journey to mature our souls - by learning to love ourselves & others better.
I don't know if this involves reincarnation, or how the progress is done & for me, living life now is task enough.

Comprehender,

You have stumbled upon the critical difference between Christianity amd mormonism.

In Mormonism, as you have discovered, there are many things which strain credulity, which is the thesis of my thread HERE. So let me ask you this question: Since you do not accept as true some of the things taught in Mormonism, might there be other things which are similarly not true? Pushing the envelop a little farther, and to go back to your things which you find hard to accept, does your unbelief of those things cause you to doubt some of the things about Joseph Smith?

it is true that none of the prophets were perfect in the Old Testament, but by the same token, can you find any examples of a prophet of the OT who was a polygamist? Can you find any of those prophets of the OT marrying a thirteen or fourteen-years old child (think about an 8th or 9th grade child)? What about any prophet who used a "seer stone? What about a prophet of the OT who caused a bank failure?

These are significant issues, and a matter of record, so they are true; unfortunately they are not discussed by many anywhere, but they are vital to a Mormon. All these go to the character of Smith, and the character of the god whom he is supposed to represent. Since God says in the Bible "Be ye holy, for I am holy" how can you reconcile the history of Smith with a just, righteous and holy God?

The prophets of the OT did not violate any laws of God, or the Ten Commandments. That can not be said of joseph smith. Please think about that, and get back.
 
With all due respect what I hear you saying is that the Book of Mormon which mormons believe to be inspired words from God has weaknesses. You have the original text so my question is how could it have weaknesses?

The actual ancient prophets who authored the book of the Book of Mormon expressed their frustration with the aukwardness of their written language and acknowledged it was a weak form of communicating their ideas compared to their spoken language. What I understand from that is they knew there would be ways to misunderstand their intent. Inspite of those weaknesses, Joseph felt confident that it was still the most correct book on earth. I see no reason to dispute that statement.
 
No, it is not. This comes down to very basic principles of biblical interpretation. One cannot simply ignore the historical context within which Paul is writing, and that is precisely what you are doing. "My" position is the significantly stronger one precisely because of what was meant by "heavens" by both the ancient Jews and Greeks.
After doing more research on what you refer to as the "heavens" in ancient terms, I agree that your description of the three divisions of the heavens was something that could have been referred to by Paul. However, there is also much in ancient Christian and Jewish teaching that refers to the final state of man in three levels or degrees and even compares those levels or degrees to the sun, moon and stars, just as Paul and Joseph Smith did. I see your reference to the three levels of the heavens to be mostly referring to the creation, rather than the resurrection.

Again, you are reading something into the text which isn't there. The passage you give is showing the difference between our bodies now and what the resurrection body will be like.
I think it is more like you are ignoring text that is there. Yes, Paul is comparing our mortal bodies with what our resurrected bodies will be like, but he goes on to explain that our resurrected bodies will be glorified in three different degrees or levels and uses the glories of the sun, moon and stars to illustrate his point, just as many other ancient writers did.

You admit that this Mormon doctrine goes beyond what the Bible plainly states and then begin to argue that it doesn't matter? Are you serious? Do you know just how serious of an error that is?
I have a hard time understanding this sentiment. I thought you understood that I did not believe the Bible to be the complete word of God. Do you really think that God is not capable of revealing in more detail the basics that are discussed in the Bible? And if he is capable, why wouldn't he? The books of the New Testament went beyond what was in the Bible the early Christians had. The Gospel of John went beyond what was in the other Gospels. Please help me understand why claiming that God revealed things beyond what is in the Bible is such a serious error.

Are you actually suggesting the Bible "was revealed directly from God to a prophet"? Who is this prophet? Do you know how the Bible was written and came to be in it's present form? This is not the Quran or the Book of Mormon.
Free, I am very much aware of how we got the Bible. You have completely misunderstood my point. Sorry for not being more clear. The individual books of the Bible were created by God revealing his will to prophets to teach to the rest of the people. That is why we Bible believers consider it to be inspired by God. God always teaches his people by first revealing principles to His prophets. Each prophet uses the writings of previous prophets to get his point across. There was never a time in the Biblical record where God's people had only the scriptural record to rely on without a living prophet, unless they were in a state of apostasy. That is what I mean by the Biblical pattern.

Paul didn't believe that? How do you come to that conclusion? He himself said he was an apostle and mentioned other apostles. Try Rom. 1:1, 11:13; 1 Cor. 1:1, 9:1-2, 15:9; 2 Cor. 1:1, 12:12; Gal. 1:1. That's for starters. I'm not sure where you're getting your information.
I clearly stated that I was referring to Saul who became Paul, not Paul after his conversion. Please consider my statement with that in mind.

And yet if one looks, one will still find much in common regarding beliefs from the earliest times of Christianity up until the present.
Yes, I agree. But the closer you get to the first century, the closer the teachings are to Mormonism and the more they differ from your version of Christianity. At least that is what I have found from my research.
 
So by your own admissions, you belong to a Church which was set up by a prophet who is only human and "who can and did make mistakes" who also issued a lot of Doctrinal beliefs that are basically foreign to main- line Christianity. How do you know what was merely a human mistake in the many doctrinal beliefs that Smith issued or for that matter any of the succeeding prophets?.
Jamesone, I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. You kind of missed my point, which is that we should hold Mormon prophets to the same standard we hold the Biblical prophets to. There are many examples in the Bible of the mistakes and weaknesses of the apostles and prophets in the Bible, yet you have no problem believing they were capable of sharing with their flock the doctrines of God. That is all I am saying of modern ones.

You should keep in mind that the fact that Joseph introduced ideas that were different than the prevailing orthodox views of his day, is one of the strongest evidences of his divine appointment. This puts him in the same position as John the Baptist, Jesus and the apostles. They were viewed by the orthodox religious leaders of their day to be pretty radical. I'd say Joseph is in pretty good company.

By your own admission [in a very familiar LDS belief} you, as an average believer in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, do not have the "authority" to determine what is True or False, certainly as it is interpreted from the Bible. And please do not say it is the Power of the Holy Ghost or the magical power of your testimony or even the supposed power of the priesthood that affirms these "plain and precious truths" to you.
This statement reveals a lot about how little you understood or understand about revelation and authority in the LDS church. I have the authority to receive revelation and inspiration and even speak and act as God's agent, for myself and for my stewardship in the church and my family. That includes interpreting the scriptures or just ideas of how to be better. The same goes for anyone in the church, including leadership positions. That is how God keeps order in His church and is how it has always worked, even in New Testament times.
 
proveallthings, I will not assert that you are in denial or are being decieved, but rather point to you screen name and suggest that in "proving all things" one needs to let go of pre-concieved notions and recognize the fact that the LDS Church,[ really like a lot of strong Religions] can exert a certain hold on you or any else.

Jamesone5, I appreciate your sincerity. I have no way of judging you or completely understanding what you mean about the hold the church has on a person. There have been times when I have heard things about the church that were pretty earthshaking. Things I had no answer for at the time. But I decided that if I could not find a rational answer to the questions that were presented, I was not in the right church. I believed that Christ's true church and true gospel must be rational, even the most rational belief system on the planet. So far, every criticism has only turned into a stronger evidence in favor of the church and the gospel it teaches. The hold the church has on me is a combination of pure reason and the pure love of Christ. I still feel that what I believe is based on the information I have at this time and that there is a lot of information I do not have. When I get new information I make new decisions about what I believe. In my opinion this is the attitude we should all have. Hugh Nibley once said that if we are wise we will keep looking and ask the right questions. This is what I intend to do and invite you to do the same.
 
Pushing the issue further, we can see that there are great differences in what is put out by Maxwell, or FARMS, and what is in the BoM. One central example of that is the location of Cumorrah. In HJS 1:52 ff, Smith clearly states that it is in Ontario County , (now Palmyra is a part of Wayne County) outside of Palmyra, NY, as well as the fact that president Hinkley stated that Cumorah was indeed outside Palmyra, NY. But on the other hand, the guys at BYU and environs advocate the "Two Cumorah theory". The only problem with that theory is that it severely undercuts the Mormon motion that Smith was a prophet. There is no prophet who gets the location of such a major event such as Cumorah so wrong.
By Grace, You have stated that I have been "making statements that are unverifiable and are contrary to reality". I think you need to be more careful about your accusations, for the statements above are a perfect example of what you accused me of. There is nowhere in the History of Joseph Smith that the word Cumorah is even mentioned. There is no verifiable quote from Joseph Smith anywhere saying that the hill in New York is the same hill Cumorah spoken of in the Book of Mormon. It is true that the hill believed to be the one where Joseph found the plates has been named Cumorah and goes by that name today, but there is nothing official that says it is the same Cumorah mentioned in the BofM. There are no contradictions between what the scholars at the Maxwell Institute have concluded about this and church history. You really need to check your source of this misinformation. It is not helping your credibility any.

But rising above all these is the issue of the Book of Mormon, and its contents. Absolutely nothing in it has been independently verified by any peer-reviewed publication. The problem with this that since Smith wrote the BoM (translated, you say), then the things mentioned in it should have been existence in 1820 when the book was first published, or else Smith could not have identified it.For example, to lift a term from 18th century literature, the fictional frumious bandersnatch, had the animal been in existence c 1820, then Smith would have been able to identify it and include it in the BoM. If there was no frumious bandersnatch, but instead a Bengal Tiger, it would be correct for Smith to say "Bengal Tiger" instead of a frumious bandersnatch, which could not have been seen. Therefore to claim that a Frumious Bandersnatch an ancient name for a Bengal Tiger is preposterous because it asserts something that can not be verified, and is not in compliance with reality.
More and more non-LDS scholars, after detailed examination of its contents, are coming to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon could not possibly be a product of the 19th century, but must be what it claims, a work of antiquity. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by being peer reviewed. Were any of the books of the Bible peer reviewed? Is that what you think is the standard practice of books that are revealed from heaven? Again, you are drawing conclusions from reading some very bad scholarship or something, because as you have accused me of doing, you are "making statements that are unverifiable and are contrary to reality". I do believe, however, that you are sincere and that these are honest mistakes.
 
You should keep in mind that the fact that Joseph introduced ideas that were different than the prevailing orthodox views of his day, is one of the strongest evidences of his divine appointment. This puts him in the same position as John the Baptist, Jesus and the apostles. They were viewed by the orthodox religious leaders of their day to be pretty radical. I'd say Joseph is in pretty good company.


This statement reveals a lot about how little you understood or understand about revelation and authority in the LDS church. I have the authority to receive revelation and inspiration and even speak and act as God's agent, for myself and for my stewardship in the church and my family. That includes interpreting the scriptures or just ideas of how to be better. The same goes for anyone in the church, including leadership positions. That is how God keeps order in His church and is how it has always worked, even in New Testament times.

With all due respect the statement you made [which I put in bold letters} is really a ridiculous one. For any of us to introduce new Doctrines and then claim ourselves to be a Prophet and then further claim that because of the fact that as it is all new and different it is then somehow evidence of some sort of Divine Appointment doesn't have even a hint of logic. And the fact that you put Joseph Smith in the "same position" as Jesus Christ points to the Worship of the founder-certainly another area which really points to another huge area of Doctrinal Differences within Mormon Doctrine.
 
By Grace, You have stated that I have been "making statements that are unverifiable and are contrary to reality". I think you need to be more careful about your accusations, for the statements above are a perfect example of what you accused me of.

Dear prove

You caught me in the transition from CARM to here when you objected to that remark, and Mike addressed it with a public reprimand, so let it suffice that I really meant nothing personal, and I will attempt to do better. My thinking at that time was that to attack the statement is not the same thing as attacking the person, and that is how it works on the CARM board. Here, that is not the case; I am learning. I was trying to disagree without being disagreeable, but you did not see it that way, so let's begin anew, OK?

There is nowhere in the History of Joseph Smith that the word Cumorah is even mentioned.
Correct, but that does not really solve anything, as you shall see if you read further.

There is no verifiable quote from Joseph Smith anywhere saying that the hill in New York is the same hill Cumorah spoken of in the Book of Mormon.
From Joseph Smith Histories 1:
51 Convenient to the village of Manchester, Ontario county, New York, stands a hill of considerable size, and the most elevated of any in the neighborhood. On the west side of this hill, not far from the top, under a stone of considerable size, lay the plates, deposited in a stone box. This stone was thick and rounding in the middle on the upper side, and thinner towards the edges, so that the middle part of it was visible above the ground, but the edge all around was covered with earth.

52 Having removed the earth, I obtained a lever, which I got fixed under the edge of the stone, and with a little exertion raised it up. I looked in, and there indeed did I behold the plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breastplate, as stated by the messenger .The box in which they lay was formed by laying stones together in some kind of cement. In the bottom of the box were laid two stones crossways of the box, and on these stones lay the plates and the other things with them.

53 I made an attempt to take them out, but was forbidden by the messenger,...

In verse 51, the word "hill is hyperlinked to D&C 128:20, which says
And again, what do we hear? Glad tidings from Cumorah! Moroni, an angel from heaven, declaring the fulfilment of the prophets—the book to be revealed. A voice of the Lord in the wilderness of Fayette, Seneca county, declaring the three witnesses to bear record of the book! The voice of Michael on the banks of the Susquehanna, detecting the devil when he appeared as an angel of light! The voice of Peter, James, and John in the wilderness between Harmony, Susquehanna county, and Colesville, Broome county, on the Susquehanna river, declaring themselves as possessing the keys of the kingdom, and of the dispensation of the fulness of times!
Therefore while you remain technically correct, there is indeed a very strong linkage from OFFICIAL sources of the LDS church to name that hill of Smith, and the name cumorah.
More to the point, in the portion I quoted from HJS, the intention of the words, and the interaction with the messenger (Moroni) can not help anyone to believe that the hill is NOT Cumorah.

In 1990, the First Presidency stated"The Church has long maintained, as attested to by references in the writings of General Authorities, that the Hill Cumorah in western New York state is the same as referenced in the Book of Mormon.
F. Michael Watson, Secretary to the First Presidency, in a letter dated October 16, 1990


It is true that the hill believed to be the one where Joseph found the plates has been named Cumorah and goes by that name today, but there is nothing official that says it is the same Cumorah mentioned in the BofM. There are no contradictions between what the scholars at the Maxwell Institute have concluded about this and church history. You really need to check your source of this misinformation. It is not helping your credibility any.
Begging your pardon, but my credibility is not the issue here. Rather it is the many contradicting statements from different Mormon resources about the origins of the plates.

In 1966 Harold B Lee stated this:"Some say the Hill Cumorah was in southern Mexico (and someone pushed it down still farther) and not in western New York. Well, if the Lord wanted us to know where it was, or where Zarahemla was, he’d have given us latitude and longitude, don’t you think? And why bother our heads trying to discover with archaeological certainty the geographical locations of the cities of the Book of Mormon like Zarahemla?" from Harold B. Lee, “Loyalty,†address to religious educators, 8 July 1966; in Charge to Religious Educators, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Church Educational System and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1982), 65; cited in Dennis B. Horne (ed.), Determining Doctrine: A Reference Guide for Evaluation Doctrinal Truth (Roy, Utah: Eborn Books, 2005), 172–173
Can you imagine any Christian authority saying that about Bethlehem, Jerusalem, Golgatha, or many of the cities mentioned in the Bible?

Here is another helpful quote from Joseph Fielding Smith: " . . . This modernist theory of necessity, in order to be consistent, must place the waters of Ripliancum and the Hill Cumorah some place within the restricted territory of Central America , not withstanding the teachings of the Church to the contrary for upwards of 100 years . . .â€
“It is difficult for a reasonable person to believe that such men as Oliver Cowdery, Brigham Young, Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt, Davis Wittmer, and others, could speak frequently of the spot where the Prophet Joseph Smith obtained the plates as the Hill Cumorah and not be corrected by the Prophet, if that were not the fact.â€

(Doctrines of Salvation, Volume 3, pp. 233-234.)

Your statement to me to check my resources is thus taken with a grain of salt, and I do not take it as an insult.


More and more non-LDS scholars, after detailed examination of its contents, are coming to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon could not possibly be a product of the 19th century, but must be what it claims, a work of antiquity.
OK, an approach to join the bandwagon. However, I do ask you provide the specifics about what you claim in these two areas:
1: "more and more" which means that the numbers are increasing. Can you demonstrate that?
1: "non-LDS scholars" Perhaps I am assuming too much, but my belief is that to earn that title, it is required to have an education above the undergraduate level. Therefore I also ask you to cite evidences of those with masters or PhDs or any doctorate-level conversions which are increasing, as you stated.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by being peer reviewed.
Peer reviewed means that one expert in the field or archeology, for instance submits an article to a professional academic journal, which is examined by others having Ph.Ds in that area. the publication of something like Lancet or the Journal of the American Medical Association means that the others in that field have accept the work and integrity of the author. Therefore peer-review is a high water mark of professional achievement, and is a world-wide standard for academic truth.

Were any of the books of the Bible peer reviewed?
The Bible does not need to be peer-reviewed because the things that are in it, are seen by so many different people, and the Bible is NOT an academic publication. More to the point, I can provide the sites of over 150 different sites that are mentioned in the Bible, and have been excavated by the world class archeologists. Nothing like that can be said about Bountiful, the land of Lehi, or Zarahemla.

Is that what you think is the standard practice of books that are revealed from heaven?
My point is NOT that peer review establishes if a book is from heaven or hell because that is the wrong focus. My point is that the things that are contained in any book which claims to be from heaven needs to have a corresponding reality in the real world. Otherwise, we are talking about Never-never Land or Middle Earth and hobbits.

Again, you are drawing conclusions from reading some very bad scholarship or something, because as you have accused me of doing, you are "making statements that are unverifiable and are contrary to reality". I do believe, however, that you are sincere and that these are honest mistakes.
Sarcasm noted.

What I attempted to do in this post is to let you be aware of the easily discovered contradictions between what you posted, and what your leaders stated. In doing that, I make no aspersions about your character, and that was what I was attempting to say when I made the comment about "sincere but honest" It is very easy to accept the statements of those whom we admire in an uncritical manner. But it is quite another thing to look at what those leaders stated-- that is why I added the footnotes (it is also needed to avoid plagiarism, but that is another matter). It is not your sincerity in believing Mormonism that I question, but it is the discrepancy between what many LDS people believe in an uncritical manner, and what your leaders have said. That is a gap that should be looked into in order to discover the truth.
 
This statement reveals a lot about how little you understood or understand about revelation and authority in the LDS church. I have the authority to receive revelation and inspiration and even speak and act as God's agent, for myself and for my stewardship in the church and my family. That includes interpreting the scriptures or just ideas of how to be better. The same goes for anyone in the church, including leadership positions. That is how God keeps order in His church and is how it has always worked, even in New Testament times.

Your "revelation and authority" powers within the priesthood are still very limited--they have to agree with the Prophets.

Hers is a few examples as to why that is so:
.
Any Latter-day Saint who denounces or opposes, whether actively or otherwise, any plan or doctrine advocated by the "prophets, seers, and revelators" of the Church is cultivating the spirit of apostasy.... Lucifer ... wins a great victory when he can get members of the Church to speak against their leaders and to "do their own thinking."...
When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan—it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy (Improvement Era, June 1945, p. 354).


if you are told by your leader to do a thing, do it, none of your business whether it is right or wrong" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 32).


Have we not a right to make up our minds in relation to the things recorded in the word of God, and speak about them, whether the living oracles believe our views or not? We have not the right....
God placed Joseph Smith at the head of this Church; God has likewise placed Brigham Young at the head of this Church.... We are commanded to give heed to their words in all things, and receive their words as from the mouth of God, in all patience and faith (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, pp. 374-75

One thing I realized in the Mormon Church is that the Holy Ghost only merely CONFIRMS Church teachings--never REVEALING the Truths we are Promised to be led to by the "Spirit of Truth" as Promised in John 16:13. Really such a vast difference between the True Holy Spirit and the Mormon "Holy Ghost".
 
With all due respect the statement you made [which I put in bold letters}(You should keep in mind that the fact that Joseph introduced ideas that were different than the prevailing orthodox views of his day, is one of the strongest evidences of his divine appointment.) is really a ridiculous one. For any of us to introduce new Doctrines and then claim ourselves to be a Prophet and then further claim that because of the fact that as it is all new and different it is then somehow evidence of some sort of Divine Appointment doesn't have even a hint of logic. And the fact that you put Joseph Smith in the "same position" as Jesus Christ points to the Worship of the founder-certainly another area which really points to another huge area of Doctrinal Differences within Mormon Doctrine.
You mean with all disrespect. You show here how much you want to avoid understanding my meaning. Obviously, if my claim were the only claim to his being a prophet, it certainly would be ridiculous. It is only a strong evidence when grouped with all the others. You are displaying a classic example of building a straw man that is easy to tear down in both of your arguments here. This only reveals your lack of confidence in your own position. Another disingenuous effort you make in building your straw man is to distort what I said in paraphrasing it as ALL different and ALL new. That is obviously not at all what I or Joseph Smith claimed, nor is it close to being true and you know that.

But the last statement you make here really takes the cake. It is very obvious that I am not even close to saying that Joseph Smith should be worshipped any more than John the Baptist or the other apostles should be. I only pointed out something he had in common with them. Does saying someone has something in common with Jesus mean one is saying they are worthy of being worshipped? Both of these statements give the impression that you feel the need to sidestep the real argument I brought up, because you can't counter it.

How can any rational person deny that having a different approach to interpreting the scriptures from the prevailing religious leaders of their day is something that all those I mentioned do have in common. The idea that a person claiming to be a prophet teaches some doctrines that are foreign to the popular teachings of his day cannot be rationally used as an argument against his claim of being a prophet. On the contrary, it can only be used in favor of his claim.
 
How can any rational person deny that having a different approach to interpreting the scriptures from the prevailing religious leaders of their day is something that all those I mentioned do have in common. The idea that a person claiming to be a prophet teaches some doctrines that are foreign to the popular teachings of his day cannot be rationally used as an argument against his claim of being a prophet. On the contrary, it can only be used in favor of his claim.

But first a prophet has to solidly prove that those "popular teachings of his day" were wrong. To merely claim that the Church was in Apostasy and "many plain and precious truths were lost" in that Apostasy and he [Joseph Smith] was sent by God to clear it all up really has no solid basis for validity. I hardly see where just by teaching new doctrines that are foreign even remotely favor his claim or even augment it.

Your own testimonies that I once uttered myself have to or should include an acknowlegement of "Joseph Smith as a True Prophet" and an "I know" the Church is headed by a Prophet of God today. Also, a statement about how the LDS church is the only True Church on the face of the earth. Many variances of that of course and then of course an acknowledgement of Jesus Christ as our Savior. Joseph Smith and his supposedly "resorting what was lost"---he is put in as high of standard as Jesus Christ Himself in many ways. Remember, I experienced and then remembered much of what I was personally taught in the Church myself for the first 40 years of my life. There is a special reverence for Joseph Smith and his supposedly restoring the Gospel of Jesus Christ that is akin to the Worship of Jesus Christ as our Savior.
 
But first a prophet has to solidly prove that those "popular teachings of his day" were wrong. To merely claim that the Church was in Apostasy and "many plain and precious truths were lost" in that Apostasy and he [Joseph Smith] was sent by God to clear it all up really has no solid basis for validity. I hardly see where just by teaching new doctrines that are foreign even remotely favor his claim or even augment it.
So just how did the apostles in the first century "prove" to Saul his interpretations of the scriptures were in error? How do you know that the side you have chosen is not in the same camp as Saul of Tarsus before his revelation directly from Christ? If you are hoping for the kind of proof Saul finally got, I wouldn't count on it. Just what kind of proof are you expecting?

Joseph Smith didn't just merely claim the apostasy and himself the guy to fix it. I didn't say that by just teaching new doctrines that are foreign would augment it. Again you are oversimplifying, which is how you build your little straw man without even realizing it. It helps to understand that it was a common belief among many Christians in the 18th and early 19th century that there would soon be a restoration of Christ's original church. More than one Bible scholar of that period interpreted Rev. 14:6 as a prophesy of a new book of scripture to come forth to compliment the Bible as a part of that restoration. There were many who had dreams and visions of this happening just before it did and while it was happening. There are many Bible passages that give strong evidence of an apostasy and restoration. Many non-LDS people have believed this just from their own study of the Bible, leading many of them to the church that Christ restored through Joseph Smith.

The spiritual manifestations and miracles that accompanied the age of the original apostles have been just as abundant in this church. The Book of Mormon itself is an incredible mound of evidence to the validity of Joseph's claims. There are more and more non-LDS scholars who claim that the BofM could not possibly be a product of the 19th century, but must be from antiquity. What do you suppose those scholars know that you don't? You have to understand that I am aware of probably more challenges to Mormonism than you are. I have carefully considered them each and weighed the evidence for and against. It is very easy for me to see that there is an enormous amount of information that you are unaware of, however. That is not to say that you cannot know some things that I don't. It would be a wonderful experience to have an open discussion, putting egos aside, and explore these issues point by point, but I suppose that may be a little unrealistic.

Your own testimonies that I once uttered myself have to or should include an acknowlegement of "Joseph Smith as a True Prophet" and an "I know" the Church is headed by a Prophet of God today. Also, a statement about how the LDS church is the only True Church on the face of the earth. Many variances of that of course and then of course an acknowledgement of Jesus Christ as our Savior. Joseph Smith and his supposedly "resorting what was lost"---he is put in as high of standard as Jesus Christ Himself in many ways. Remember, I experienced and then remembered much of what I was personally taught in the Church myself for the first 40 years of my life. There is a special reverence for Joseph Smith and his supposedly restoring the Gospel of Jesus Christ that is akin to the Worship of Jesus Christ as our Savior.
I will admit that I have a special reverence in my heart for Joseph Smith. I have studied his life enough to have a deep love for him. I don't think this reverence for Joseph is any different, however, than an Evangelical Christian's reverence for Paul or the apostle John, or the reverence the Jews and Christians both had and have for Abraham and Moses. Joseph never even came close to even hinting that anyone should reverence him at the same level as his Savior. He was always only His humble witness.
 
Back
Top