• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Issues with Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church

phattonez

phattonez

Catholic
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,870
Reaction score
4,246
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
By request, I started this as a new thread.

How do Mormons reconcile their idea of a Church that has fallen away to the promise of Jesus made in Matthew 16:18: "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

In mere decades, the Church that Christ promised would not fall away fell away? That seems ludicrous.

And what about the total lack of historical support for the Book of Mormon?

Catholic Answers said:
The Book of Mormon describes a vast pre-Columbian culture that supposedly existed for centuries in North and South America. It goes into amazingly specific detail describing the civilizations erected by the "Nephites" and "Lamanites," who were Jews that fled Palestine in three installments, built massive cities in the New World, farmed the land, produced works of art, and fought large-scale wars which culminated in the utter destruction of the Nephites in A.D. 421. The Latter-Day Saints revere the Book of Mormon as the divinely-inspired record of those people and of Christ’s appearance to them shortly after his crucifixion in Jerusalem.

The awkward part for the Mormon church is the total lack of historical and archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon. For example, after the cataclysmic last battle fought between the Nephites and Lamanites, there was no one left to clean up the mess. Hundreds of thousands of men and beasts allegedly perished in that battle, and the ground was strewn with weapons and armor.

Keep in mind that A.D. 421 is just yesterday in archaeological terms. It should be easy to locate and retrieve copious evidence of such a battle, and there hasn’t been enough time for the weapons and armor to turn to dust. The Bible tells of similar battles that have been documented by archaeology, battles which took place long before A.D. 421.

The embarrassing truth—embarrassing for Mormons, that is—is that no scientist, Mormon or otherwise, has been able to find anything to substantiate that such a great battle took place.
Click to expand...

And where is the evidence that the early Church was Mormon and believed in things like polytheism and polygamy?

Catholic Answers said:
According to a standard Mormon theological work, Doctrines of Salvation, one finds this definition: "By fullness of the gospel is meant all the ordinances and principles that pertain to the exaltation of the celestial kingdom" (vol. 1, p. 160). That’s an official Mormon statement on the subject. But there’s a problem.

If the Book of Mormon contains all the ordinances and principles that pertain to the gospel, why don’t Mormonism’s esoteric doctrines show up in it? The doctrine that God is nothing more than an "exalted man with a body of flesh and bones" appears nowhere in the Book of Mormon. Nor does the doctrine of Jesus Christ being the "spirit brother" of Lucifer. Nor do the doctrines that men can become gods and that God the Father has a god above him, who has a god above him, ad infinitum.
Click to expand...


And as far as I know, Mormons believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate gods, yet we have this quote: Alma 11:28-31: "Now Zeezrom said: ‘Is there more than one God?’ and [Amulek] answered, ‘No.’ And Zeezrom said unto him again, ‘How knowest thou these things?’ And he said: ‘An angel hath made them known unto me.’"

Alma 7:10 also stated that Jesus would be born in Jerusalem, yet we know that he was born in Bethlehem.

Catholic Answers said:
Another problem: Scientists have demonstrated that honey bees were first brought to the New World by Spanish explorers in the fifteenth century, but the Book of Mormon, in Ether 2:3, claims they were introduced around 2000 B.C.
Click to expand...

Problems with the Book of Mormon | Catholic Answers
 
The Book of Abraham is the nail in the coffin for me. He couldn't read ancient Egyptian papyrus as he claimed to, and based the book of Mormon on iy. We have the papyrus. We have actual experts who have translated it. He made up a bunch of mumbo jumbo.

I heard mormonism is declining because people can look things up on the internet now.
 
I'll respond to the first ten criticisms posted in this thread. Like I stated in the Hebrew calendar thread, there are like 11,631 anti-Mormon arguments against the LDS religion, every one weak with a lot of misinformation. Answers from a LDS perspective and can be found through Google. I don't have the time to respond to endless questions. What always happens is people who utilize anti-Mormon websites to discredit the LDS, they will throw out a handful of criticisms like the OP, I will post responses that will show how weak the argument is, the response will be ignored or dismissed, and then they throw out another handful of criticisms they got off of stupid anti-Mormon sites. And it goes on and on. Not going to waste my time in that game.
 
Last edited:
SheWolf said:
The Book of Abraham is the nail in the coffin for me. He couldn't read ancient Egyptian papyrus as he claimed to, and based the book of Mormon on iy. We have the papyrus. We have actual experts who have translated it. He made up a bunch of mumbo jumbo.

I heard mormonism is declining because people can look things up on the internet now.
Click to expand...

All evidence suggests we do not have the papyri that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham from. We only have a very small percentage of the Egyptian papyri and scrolls that came into his possession, and a lot of the material that came into his possession were not related to the Book of Abraham. In other words among all these Egyptian papyri and scrolls were the Papyri with the Book of Abraham. Several witnesses described the papyri that was the Book of Abraham and their descriptions do not match what is available today. So it is a strawman to say we have the papyrus that the Book of Abraham was translated, and so the Book of Abraham is not true.

Mormonism is not declining. It is one of if not the fastest growing religion in the world. There are aprox. 300,000 new converts a year. And the internet may let anti-Mormons spread lies and stupidity about the LDS but it also allows the much more intelligent and honest LDS side to defend themselves. People who are atracted to truth will see the difference. A prophet once said “Every time you kick 'Mormonism' you kick it upstairs; you never kick it downstairs. The Lord Almighty so orders it.”
 
How do Mormons reconcile their idea of a Church that has fallen away to the promise of Jesus made in Matthew 16:18: "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

In mere decades, the Church that Christ promised would not fall away fell away? That seems ludicrous.
Click to expand...

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1984/12/early-signs-of-the-apostasy

Fullscreen | Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship
 
I've played this game many times before, and come to appreciate the futility of it. There are thousands of sites out on the net spreading various falsehoods and distortions about Mormonism, and about religious history in general, in an attempt to discredit Mormonism. I think the greatest wisdom to be applied is the quote by Jonathan Swift, that when a great genius appears, you can recognize him by the fact that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him. If Mormonism is false, it is not alone, nor is it, by any stretch, the most false church of all. Yet it certainly attracts a disproportionate amount of negative attention from competing religions.

There is no argument here, that I haven't heard before, and refuted. But no matter how solidly I refute a false claim, those who make it do not back off. They'll continue to repeat the claim, no matter how solidly it is refuted, and they will find many more to repeat. It is much easier and faster to find these various false claims, than it is to do the research to properly refute them.

I'm not going to go to all the trouble, this time, of properly refuting them. I'm just going to tersely summarize my arguments against them. I also do not promise to play this game any further than the arguments that have already been presented.

phattonez said:
By request, I started this as a new thread.

How do Mormons reconcile their idea of a Church that has fallen away to the promise of Jesus made in Matthew 16:18: "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

In mere decades, the Church that Christ promised would not fall away fell away? That seems ludicrous.
Click to expand...

The Catholics claim to be the original Christian church, and they claim Peter as their first Pope. They cite this passage as supporting that claim. Though that is a possible interpretation of this passage, I dispute that it proves the meaning that the Catholics attribute to it. I think a better case can be made that the Organization that is the Catholic Church did not come into existence until a few centuries later, in the process which involved much political activity, and debate over which doctrines to accept, and which to discard.

In any event, I think it is indisputable that at some points in history, the Catholic church had become an evil and corrupt organization. Certainly, it was such by the time it began torturing and murdering “heretics”. At that point, if not at any earlier point I think it is indisputable that it had ceased to represent any religion that Christ would have endorsed.

The question, then, is once that happens to the Christian church, how can it be set right again? The Catholic position, I suppose, would be that the organization was reformed from within, straightened out, and set back on the correct path.

Orthodox and Protestant churches were formed by groups of men breaking away from the Catholic church, and forming their own new churches, each based on different ideas of where the Catholic church had gone wrong,and how to correct these errors.

The Mormon position is that once the true church has been lost, the only way that it can be restored is for God to call a new prophet, and for this prophet, under God's direct guidance, to form and lead the new restored church.


phattonez said:
And what about the total lack of historical support for the Book of Mormon?
Click to expand...

What historical support would you expect there to be? All we know about where the story took place was that it was somewhere on the American continents. The Americas are a very, very big place, much of it covered by the sort of environment that is not conducive to the long-term preservation of archeological artifacts. Nobody knows where to look, or what to look for, by way of any historical evidence, and even if we did know, it's likely that the evidence we'd be seeking has long rotted, rusted, or otherwise deteriorated away.



phattonez said:
And where is the evidence that the early Church was Mormon and believed in things like polytheism and polygamy?
Click to expand...

We don't claim that the early church was “Mormon”, nor that it believed in polytheism. We certainly do not believe in polytheism, and “Mormon” as an identifier of the current church is not officially part of our name at all; it was originally a derisive slur used against us by our enemies. Rather like “Yankee”, used to refer to Americans.

Polygamy was certainly an accepted practice throughout the Old Testament. There's little mention of the practice, if any, in the New Testament. I don't know that we can ever nail down when or why the practice was discontinued. We certainly do not make any claims that it was or was not practiced in or near the time of Jesus of early Christianity.



phattonez said:
And as far as I know, Mormons believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate gods, yet we have this quote: Alma 11:28-31: "Now Zeezrom said: ‘Is there more than one God?’ and [Amulek] answered, ‘No.’ And Zeezrom said unto him again, ‘How knowest thou these things?’ And he said: ‘An angel hath made them known unto me.’"
Click to expand...

Not an accurate account of what we believe. We believe that The Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct beings. Collectively, we call them the Godhead. There's a bit of confusion as to whether they are each a God, or only the Father is God, or somehow they are collectively God. That's a matter of semantics, not doctrine. In any event, it certainly is less confusing, inconsistent, and illogical than the Athanasian concept of the Trinity in which most other Christians believe.
 
phattonez said:
Alma 7:10 also stated that Jesus would be born in Jerusalem, yet we know that he was born in Bethlehem.
Click to expand...

Ask me where I grew up, and I'll tell you that I grew up in Santa Barbara, California. That's not completely accurate, but it's good enough to tell someone who doesn't now the area, doesn't know about the various suburbs, and unnamed, unincorporated areas in and around Santa Barbara. I was not actually born within the city of Santa Barbara, but in an unnamed unincorporated area near Santa Barbara.

It seems to me that the distinction between Jerusalem and Bethlehem is similar. To someone halfway around the world, with no familiarity of the area in question, Jerusalem is close enough. They new that's where their ancestors came from, and they might not ever have heard of Bethlehem. The important thing, in that context, was that Jesus was born very near where their ancestors had come from.


SheWolf said:
The Book of Abraham is the nail in the coffin for me. He couldn't read ancient Egyptian papyrus as he claimed to, and based the book of Mormon on iy [sic]. We have the papyrus. We have actual experts who have translated it. He made up a bunch of mumbo jumbo.
Click to expand...

There's much more to tell here, than I am going to take the time for. In summary, at some point, Joseph Smith acquired a collection of Egyptian artifacts, which included several mummies, two exceptionally well-preserved papyrus scrolls, and a bunch of various fragments of papyrus in varying poor conditions.

Joseph Smith stated that of the two well-preserved scrolls, one was written by Joseph (the “coat of many colors” guy) and the other by Abraham. The Book of Abraham is Joseph Smith's translation from the latter scroll.

After he died, the collection was sold, and last believed to be in a museum in Chicago, where the entire collection was long thought to have been destroyed in the famous fire that swept through Chicago later that century.

Nearly a hundred years later, a piece of cardboard turned up, with some bits of papyrus glued to it, and a bunch of notes, scribbles, and doodles, which were determined to have been in Joseph Smith's hand. This, apparently, was a surviving bit of the collection. However, it is also clearly not part of one of the well-preserved scrolls. It was an incomplete document, in pieces, clearly in about the same condition that it was in which Joseph Smith possessed it. It is clearly not the source for the Book of Abraham. Unless and until it turns up otherwise, it can still be presumed that the scroll that was the source of the Book of Abraham was destroyed in the great Chicago fire.


SheWolf said:
I heard mormonism is declining because people can look things up on the internet now.
Click to expand...

You heard wrong. We remain one of the fastest-growing religions in the world.
 
Last edited:
"With faith anything is possible" does not mean "with faith I can dismiss any argument."
 
And where is the evidence that the early Church was Mormon and believed in things like polytheism and polygamy?
Click to expand...


The New Testament church and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are the same church. Just add "of Meridian Day Saints" at the end of The Church of Jesus Christ. You find the same organization in both churches, same message, same spirit. A prophet, 12 apostles, bishops at the head of each local church. Sending missionaries in pairs around the world. Guided by revelation. Where in the NT do you see a pope, or that Christ's church is called Catholic? When the emperor of Rome is appointing Catholic bishops in the 4th century, does it not raise concern about authority? I won't go into the details about the forced conversions, inquisitions, selling of indulgences, loss of revelation and gifts of the spirit replaced with councils, mysticism, and ritual. The Catholic church never had authority. The NT church with God's authority was long dead by the time the Catholic church was organized and started claiming they had authority since Peter.


Apostate forms of the the true church tend to condemn the Biblical teaching that everyone are literal sons or daughters of God, that our species are gods.


The apostate religious leaders in the NT wanted to stone Jesus to death because He taught the same thing as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints teaches today:



31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?-(John 10:31-36)


The true apostles of the NT, like the true LDS apostles today teach the following:
"14 For as many as are lead by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God....
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God;
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may also be glorified together;
18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. -(Romans 8:14-18)

9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits and live?
10 For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but He [God] for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.(Hebrews 12:9,10).

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him...(1 john 3:2)



"Latter-day Saints aren't the only Christian denomination that accept what Peter taught on this issue. Eastern Orthodoxy still retains much of the original Christian doctrine of theosis or deification. Here's a quote from Orthodox writer, Dr. Seth Farber ("The Reign of Augustine,"The Christian Activist: A Journal of Orthodox Opinion, Vol. 13, Winter/Spring 1999, pp. 40-45,56):
Eastern Christian theology, Orthodoxy, has not been marred by the misanthropic premises that have been characteristic of Western Christian theology, Roman Catholic and Protestant, for centuries [e.g., the concept that infants are already great sinners worthy of damnation, that man is totally depraved, etc. - see the bottom part of my page about Adam and the Fall]. From the early Greek fathers to modern Orthodox theologians, one dominant theme has sounded again and again: the purpose of the Incarnation was to make it possible for human beings to be reunited with God, to become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4). As St. Athanasius put it, "He (the Son of God) became man, that we might become God."


A great source for studying the Old Testament from the Dead Sea Scrolls is The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, translated and with commentary by Martin Abegg, Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugen Ulrich (San Francisco, California: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999). Numerous Old Testament passages are provided from the Dead Sea Scrolls and compared to the Masoretic text or Septuagint. The version of Psalm 135 from the Dead Sea Scrolls (The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, p. 568) differs in many ways from the Masoretic Text used to prepare most modern Bible translation. One difference is the added emphasis given on "gods" in verses 5 and 6. Here is the DSS text, with changes relative to the Masoretic Text marked in italics:
5. I know that the LORD is great, and that our God is above all gods.
6. The LORD does what pleases him, in heaven and on earth, to do as he does; there is none like the LORD, and there is none who acts like the King of gods, in the seas and in all (their) depths.
 
And where is the evidence that the early Church was Mormon and believed in things like polytheism and polygamy?
Click to expand...

The Book of Mormon on polygamy:
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be bone wife; and concubines he shall have none;

28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things. (Jacob 2)

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/jacob/1?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/jacob/2?lang=eng

So it seems to say that the only time God will give the commandment for plural marriage is to increase the population quickly. Most of the time the commandment is one man and one woman. If any LDS member tries plural marriage they are kicked out of the church. That there are times when plural marriage is approved can be seen with who God set up His covenant with. Abraham and Jacob. Israel are the descendants of plural marriage.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
What historical support would you expect there to be? All we know about where the story took place was that it was somewhere on the American continents. The Americas are a very, very big place, much of it covered by the sort of environment that is not conducive to the long-term preservation of archeological artifacts. Nobody knows where to look, or what to look for, by way of any historical evidence, and even if we did know, it's likely that the evidence we'd be seeking has long rotted, rusted, or otherwise deteriorated away.
Click to expand...

Archaeologists have been over much of the Americas, they've found artifacts from Olmeks, Mayans, Cherokee, Vikings and Clovis, but nor Nephites or Lamanites. Several South American civilisations that existed at the time of the BoM kept written records, none mention anything found in the BoM. There's mention of plants and animals that did not exist in the Americas such as horses, sheep, elephants, cows, barley, wheat, silk, figs etc. Furthermore, not one American civilisation ever made iron, steel or brass.

I have a friend who is a Mormon and a Mexican, he is in Australia completing his thesis on Mayan civilisation, even he admits the BoM has no archaeological basis.

The Book of Mormon as a work of religious philosophy by one undecuated man is astounding, and lead to the founding of a church that does so much good all over the world. As a historical document though, it is complete and utter bull****.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
I've played this game many times before, and come to appreciate the futility of it. There are thousands of sites out on the net spreading various falsehoods and distortions about Mormonism, and about religious history in general, in an attempt to discredit Mormonism. I think the greatest wisdom to be applied is the quote by Jonathan Swift, that when a great genius appears, you can recognize him by the fact that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him. If Mormonism is false, it is not alone, nor is it, by any stretch, the most false church of all. Yet it certainly attracts a disproportionate amount of negative attention from competing religions.

There is no argument here, that I haven't heard before, and refuted. But no matter how solidly I refute a false claim, those who make it do not back off. They'll continue to repeat the claim, no matter how solidly it is refuted, and they will find many more to repeat. It is much easier and faster to find these various false claims, than it is to do the research to properly refute them.

I'm not going to go to all the trouble, this time, of properly refuting them. I'm just going to tersely summarize my arguments against them. I also do not promise to play this game any further than the arguments that have already been presented.
Click to expand...

Only limited debate is allowed on a debate website? Okay . . . By the way, that many are against you is not evidence that you are doing anything right. At best it's just not evidence that you're doing anything wrong. In this case, however, it seems people are against the church for good reason.

The Catholics claim to be the original Christian church, and they claim Peter as their first Pope. They cite this passage as supporting that claim. Though that is a possible interpretation of this passage, I dispute that it proves the meaning that the Catholics attribute to it. I think a better case can be made that the Organization that is the Catholic Church did not come into existence until a few centuries later, in the process which involved much political activity, and debate over which doctrines to accept, and which to discard.
Click to expand...

You discard the interpretation without any reason and then make a ridiculous claim with no evidence. See how St. Peter is handed the Keys to the Kingdom, an allusion to Shebna in Isaiah 22. See how Jesus promises that "the gates of Hell will not prevail against [the Church]", yet you claim that that's exactly what happened. Is Jesus a liar?

In any event, I think it is indisputable that at some points in history, the Catholic church had become an evil and corrupt organization. Certainly, it was such by the time it began torturing and murdering “heretics”. At that point, if not at any earlier point I think it is indisputable that it had ceased to represent any religion that Christ would have endorsed.

The question, then, is once that happens to the Christian church, how can it be set right again? The Catholic position, I suppose, would be that the organization was reformed from within, straightened out, and set back on the correct path.
Click to expand...

The issue is not problems in the past; what is most concerning is authority. Did the Church ever lose its authority? If so, then, as I showed above, Christ is a liar.

The Mormon position is that once the true church has been lost, the only way that it can be restored is for God to call a new prophet, and for this prophet, under God's direct guidance, to form and lead the new restored church.
Click to expand...

Thus the Mormon position is that Christ is a liar.


What historical support would you expect there to be? All we know about where the story took place was that it was somewhere on the American continents. The Americas are a very, very big place, much of it covered by the sort of environment that is not conducive to the long-term preservation of archeological artifacts. Nobody knows where to look, or what to look for, by way of any historical evidence, and even if we did know, it's likely that the evidence we'd be seeking has long rotted, rusted, or otherwise deteriorated away.
Click to expand...

No, things from the year 400 do not just deteriorate away. We have found much, much older ruins. See Athens, Rome, and most importantly Troy. 400 is not that long ago. The lack of evidence of such a tremendous battle between gargantuan cultures is quite underwhelming.


We don't claim that the early church was “Mormon”, nor that it believed in polytheism. We certainly do not believe in polytheism, and “Mormon” as an identifier of the current church is not officially part of our name at all; it was originally a derisive slur used against us by our enemies. Rather like “Yankee”, used to refer to Americans.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but your church absolutely believes in polytheism. "I will preach on the plurality of gods. I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see" (King Follett Discourse). Further, you hold that God(s) became God(s) exaltation; that is that righteous men became God.

Not an accurate account of what we believe. We believe that The Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct beings. Collectively, we call them the Godhead. There's a bit of confusion as to whether they are each a God, or only the Father is God, or somehow they are collectively God. That's a matter of semantics, not doctrine. In any event, it certainly is less confusing, inconsistent, and illogical than the Athanasian concept of the Trinity in which most other Christians believe.
Click to expand...

"I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity" (Moroni 8:18). How do you reconcile this with the process of exaltation? "My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same. And when I get to my kingdom [godhood], I shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself."
 
laska said:
https://www.lds.org/ensign/1984/12/early-signs-of-the-apostasy

Fullscreen | Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship
Click to expand...


I will quickly add to these quotes on why you shouldn't be surprised the keys and authority to the NT church were taken from the earth ie the NT church died. The world killed Christ, and killed His apostles. If the world rejected Christ, why would you be surprised they rejected His church. The links above go into detail that the NT predicted just that. Rome was killing the true followers of Christ early on, feeding them to the lions. Then we have a few centuries later the emperor of Rome appointing bishops. The Protestant churches came out of the Catholic church. So if the Catholic church didn't have the keys and authority, the Protestants do not either as they came out from it. Only could heaven restore them once again on the earth through a prophet. And that is exactly what happened through a latter day Joseph. I'll try and finish responding to the few remaining criticisms tonight.
 
laska said:
Mormonism is not declining. It is one of if not the fastest growing religion in the world. There are aprox. 300,000 new converts a year.
Click to expand...

Moprmonism right or wrong, Mormon growth has been consistently exaggerated for decades by creative accounting and spinning the definitions of "convert" and especially, "long term convert". For example, Mormons over estimated their numbers in Brazil by a factor of eight.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/culture/5611/mormon_numbers_not_adding_up/
http://life.nationalpost.com/2012/0...-in-united-states-may-be-greatly-exaggerated/

This source has a biased intent, but the claims to exaggerated numbers appear to be very real: http://exmormon.org/d6/drupal/Brazilian-2010-Census-226k-Mormons
 
Last edited:
Bob Blaylock said:
What makes you—someone who is obviously knows nothing at all of any significance or truth about Mormonism—qualified to tell a lifelong Mormon what my church does or does not believe?
Click to expand...

Because from what I've read the church teaches as God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as distinct entities, that is, distinct gods.

"I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a spirit; and these three constitute three distinct personages and three distinct gods" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 370).

The Father and the Son are worshipped by members of the Church, and they teach that they are distinct gods, but yet we have this quote: "For God [the Father] said unto me: 'Worship God [the Father] for him only shalt thou serve'... Call upon God [the Father] in the name of mine only begotten [Jesus] and worship me'... Depart from me, Satan, for this one God only [the Father] will I worship, which is the God of Glory" (Moses 1:15-20). This signals some confusion: if they are separate, how can members of the church worship both if Moses reportedly says to worship only the father?

Three separate gods - that's polytheism.
 
laska said:
I will quickly add to these quotes on why you shouldn't be surprised the keys and authority to the NT church were taken from the earth ie the NT church died. The world killed Christ, and killed His apostles. If the world rejected Christ, why would you be surprised they rejected His church. The links above go into detail that the NT predicted just that. Rome was killing the true followers of Christ early on, feeding them to the lions. Then we have a few centuries later the emperor of Rome appointing bishops. The Protestant churches came out of the Catholic church. So if the Catholic church didn't have the keys and authority, the Protestants do not either as they came out from it. Only could heaven restore them once again on the earth through a prophet. And that is exactly what happened through a latter day Joseph. I'll try and finish responding to the few remaining criticisms tonight.
Click to expand...

Then the church attests that Christ is a liar. "The gates of hell will not prevail against [the church]". But apparently they did and God waited about 1700 years to do anything about it.
 
About the issue of a fallen Church and Joseph Smith being the prophet to restore it many centuries later: “The idea that God was sort of snoozing until 1820 now seems to me absurd.” As I said, this is difficult to reconcile with Matthew 16 where Jesus promises that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church and with Matthew 28 where Jesus promises to be with the Church until the end of time.

And the process of God becoming God is confused and seems to limit his powers. From what I've read, God was once a normal man and became God through the process of exaltation. This creates huge issues concerning omniscience and omnipotence. Further, it creates the obvious philosophical issue of who created God?
 
laska said:
All evidence suggests we do not have the papyri that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham from. We only have a very small percentage of the Egyptian papyri and scrolls that came into his possession, and a lot of the material that came into his possession were not related to the Book of Abraham. In other words among all these Egyptian papyri and scrolls were the Papyri with the Book of Abraham. Several witnesses described the papyri that was the Book of Abraham and their descriptions do not match what is available today. So it is a strawman to say we have the papyrus that the Book of Abraham was translated, and so the Book of Abraham is not true.

Mormonism is not declining. It is one of if not the fastest growing religion in the world. There are aprox. 300,000 new converts a year. And the internet may let anti-Mormons spread lies and stupidity about the LDS but it also allows the much more intelligent and honest LDS side to defend themselves. People who are atracted to truth will see the difference. A prophet once said “Every time you kick 'Mormonism' you kick it upstairs; you never kick it downstairs. The Lord Almighty so orders it.”
Click to expand...

theirs still these any 1 can look at

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/fac-2?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/fac-1?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/fac-3?lang=eng
 
laska said:
I will quickly add to these quotes on why you shouldn't be surprised the keys and authority to the NT church were taken from the earth ie the NT church died. The world killed Christ, and killed His apostles. If the world rejected Christ, why would you be surprised they rejected His church. The links above go into detail that the NT predicted just that. Rome was killing the true followers of Christ early on, feeding them to the lions. Then we have a few centuries later the emperor of Rome appointing bishops. The Protestant churches came out of the Catholic church. So if the Catholic church didn't have the keys and authority, the Protestants do not either as they came out from it. Only could heaven restore them once again on the earth through a prophet. And that is exactly what happened through a latter day Joseph. I'll try and finish responding to the few remaining criticisms tonight.
Click to expand...

the world also had people who converted to Christianity they were never wiped out why leave them with a false religion for nearly 2000 years?
 
phattonez said:
Then the church attests that Christ is a liar. "The gates of hell will not prevail against [the church]". But apparently they did and God waited about 1700 years to do anything about it.
Click to expand...

could just be that verse was a lie and Christ never said it that's consistent with the idea that things have been corrupted at least
 
phattonez said:
About the issue of a fallen Church and Joseph Smith being the prophet to restore it many centuries later: “The idea that God was sort of snoozing until 1820 now seems to me absurd.” As I said, this is difficult to reconcile with Matthew 16 where Jesus promises that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church and with Matthew 28 where Jesus promises to be with the Church until the end of time.

And the process of God becoming God is confused and seems to limit his powers. From what I've read, God was once a normal man and became God through the process of exaltation. This creates huge issues concerning omniscience and omnipotence. Further, it creates the obvious philosophical issue of who created God?
Click to expand...

his father of course which either goes on in an endless loop or terminates in a primal god like yours
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom