The Truth about Mormons

[Uncensored2008]

Yes we do believe Jesus is the son of god

Son of which god? Adam?

 

[Truthspeaker]

Yes we do believe Jesus is the son of god

Son of which god? Adam?

No. God God

 

[ima]

Yes we do believe Jesus is the son of god

Son of which god? Adam?

No. God God

But who made god god?

 

[daws101]

what drove me away from the Mormon religion was the Mormon religion..
BTW it's it's the very pinnacle of hubris and arrogance to call it "the church" as if it's the only one.....

If we are talking about the church, why would we call it something else?

as already stated yours is not the only one.you (Mormons) are the only faith that uses that term in that way...are you this stupid all the time.

 

[daws101]

So what happened to the golden plates anyways?

They are still with Moroni and will remain so until it's time to translate the Sealed portion of the plates.

right. good story since their's no actual proof for either ..

 

[Avatar4321]

what drove me away from the Mormon religion was the Mormon religion..
BTW it's it's the very pinnacle of hubris and arrogance to call it "the church" as if it's the only one.....

If we are talking about the church, why would we call it something else?

as already stated yours is not the only one.you (Mormons) are the only faith that uses that term in that way...are you this stupid all the time.

Funny. I hear Catholics calling their Church "The Church" when refering to their church all the time. It seems kind of a no brainer to me that when you are talking about a specific Church, and others know which Church you are talking about, that you don't have to treat them like an idiot and spell it out for them all the time.

And, no I'm never that stupid. You shouldn't be either.

 

[Avatar4321]

So what happened to the golden plates anyways?

They are still with Moroni and will remain so until it's time to translate the Sealed portion of the plates.

right. good story since their's no actual proof for either ..

Except, of course, the countless eye witnesses, the text itself, and the Holy Spirit.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

Ahhh, the bigoted left. I have never seen a group of people who on one hand preach to the "masses" how everyone should be accepted and that each of us have our own worth (except of course if you're a fetus). And yet, when a man from a particular religious group runs for President against the left's 'messiah', he becomes the follower of a religion that is 'crazy', 'insane' and simply laughable. Say that about a muslim and the left just bristles though. 72 vigins and blowing up 12 year old children is the definition of a 'good' religion (although admittedly it does not represent the mainstream Muslim)?

I have read the book of Mormon and I have friends who are Mormon. I do not subscribe to their religion and when the 'preaching' commences, I quietly, but respectfully excuse myself. What I find is that this country is and should be respectful of a person's religion, I don't care what it is. You want to worship the foam on a glass of beer? I say that you should be able to and anyone who would deny you that right because, well it is after all a little nutty, should be reminded that a person's religion is NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS.

Those who trash the Mormom religion (SeaWytch to name just one) is practicing Democratic politics from the 1900's (Jim Crow comes to mind) in the guise of 'liberalism.' Liberalism and Progressivism is the least tolerant political dogma on the face of this planet. Remember, they don't care what you believe... so long as you believe what they tell you to.

God Bless each and every Mormon trying to do what they believe will land them in front of the Father.

 

[daws101]

They are still with Moroni and will remain so until it's time to translate the Sealed portion of the plates.

right. good story since their's no actual proof for either ..

Except, of course, the countless eye witnesses, the text itself, and the Holy Spirit.

there are no countless eyewitnesses last count was between 8 and 13....so you can stow that bullshit now.
the text is a fantasy and has no EVIDENTIARY value as there are no originals (gold or paper) to prove the text's authenticity..
since the holey spirit is a imaginary supernatural creation it also has no EVIDENTIARY value.. actual testimony....

TRANSLATING THE BOOK OF MORMON

Joseph Smith's wife, Emma, was the first to serve as his scribe. And she maintained that he never looked at the gold plates during his translation. In a note to their son, Joseph Smith III, she stated:
"I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us. " (History of the RLDS Church, 8 volumes (Independence, Missouri: Herald House, 1951), "Last Testimony of Sister Emma," 3:356.)
Emma's father, Isaac Hale, recorded the following in an affidavit:
"The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret, was the same as when he looked for the money-diggers, with a stone in his hat, and his hat over his face, while the Book of Plates were at the same time hid in the woods." (Affidavit of Isaac Hale dated March 20, 1834, cited in Rodger I. Anderson's, "Joseph Smith's New York Reputation Re-examined," [Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1990], pages 126-128.)
David Whitmer was one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon. Most of the translating was done in his home. And he describes in detail the method used by Smith:
"Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal [sic] scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man." ("An Address to All Believers in Christ," page 12.) (Elder Russell M. Nelson, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, used this same quote in his article, "A Treasured Testament," Ensign, July, 1993, page 62.)
There is plenty of other evidence available, all along the same lines, that makes it clear that Joseph Smith "translated" the Book of Mormon by placing his head inside his hat and peering at his occultic stone. Not only did he not look at these elusive gold plates himself during his "translation," but nobody else ever saw them either. Those who had originally testified that they had seen them readily admitted that it had only been with their spiritual eyes, in a sort of a vision.

The LDS habitually sanitizes unpalatable truths from their past. And in their illustrations of Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon they invariably show the gold plates laying directly in front of him on the table whilst he examines them. This gives one the false impression that he actually translated the Book of Mormon from engravings on gold plates. However, his scribes testified that this was not how the translating was done. Furthermore, he used the same occultic seer stone in his translation of the Book of Mormon that he had used earlier on when he had deceived his previous victims by conniving them into believing that he could divine the whereabouts of supposed hidden treasure for a fee. That was how he'd "earned" his living in pre-LDS days. And he freely admitted that he used this same seer stone to receive his supposed revelations from God.



THE WITNESSES

There are two sets of witnesses mentioned in the foreword of the Book of Mormon, one of three and another of eight. The impression is given that they actually saw the engraved gold plates with their own eyes. But that's not what happened. When Smith broached the subject of using their testimonies to promote the Book of Mormon, they knew that they would have to see the plates by faith, as he'd warned them that nobody was allowed to look at them for fear of being struck dead.

"The History of the Church" records that the first two attempts of the three witnesses ended in failure. As Martin Harris felt that he was to blame for not being sufficiently sanctified, he withdrew from the group. After he'd gone Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer each managed to have a vision of the gold plates. Then a few days later Martin Harris was finally able to conjure up a vision as well. But it should be noted that in spite of the testimonies they had signed, in published interviews and notarized affidavits the witnesses freely admitted to only having seen the plates by faith with "second sight," or with their spiritual eyes, and then only after much struggling.

According to the testimony of a Mr. Stephen Burnett given a bit further on, at first neither of the groups wanted to sign their testimonies, which had been composed by Joseph Smith. Their reluctance was due to the fact that Smith's wording gave the impression that they had actually physically seen the gold plates, which was not the case at all. But he eventually managed to persuade them to sign, anyway.

This sort of deliberate, manipulative deception would never be tolerated in a politician or anyone else in public leadership, and surely one should expect an even higher standard of integrity in a spiritual leader. Instead of being their inspiration for transparency, truthfulness and righteousness, Joseph Smith deliberately persuaded members of his church, who were under his spiritual guidance and care, to join him in his deception, against their wills.

Because the combined testimonies of both the groups that are printed in the front of the Book of Mormon were a deliberate, premeditated, connived deception, they are not worth the paper they are written on. And if the truth had been told right at the start, it is doubtful whether anybody would have believed Smith's story about the angel Moroni and the gold plates; and the Book of Mormon would most likely never have got off the ground.

As it is, there is no proof at all that the Book of Mormon had been engraved upon solid plates of gold. Nor is there any proof either that an angel named Moroni had ever appeared to him. We only have the word of Joseph Smith himself. And as deception seems to have been his chosen way of life, his word is highly suspect. Quite apart from his obvious lack of integrity, his spiritual claims need to be considered with a great deal of caution on the grounds of his long standing involvement with the occult. (See An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, by LDS seminary teacher Grant Palmer; Joseph Smith and Kabbalah: The Occult Connection by Lance S. Owens; Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, by D. Michael Quinn; No Man Knows My History by Fawn M. Brodie; Mormonism Unvailed, by Ed Howe, etc).

The Book of Mormon Witnesses Who Never Saw the Gold Plates

 

[Truthspeaker]

Son of which god? Adam?

No. God God

But who made god god?

Things that are made have a beginning. If it has a beginning it has an end. God had neither. It's a tough concept for the finite mind. But true nonetheless

 

[Truthspeaker]

what drove me away from the Mormon religion was the Mormon religion..
BTW it's it's the very pinnacle of hubris and arrogance to call it "the church" as if it's the only one.....

If we are talking about the church, why would we call it something else?

as already stated yours is not the only one.you (Mormons) are the only faith that uses that term in that way...are you this stupid all the time.

My how ignorant is your statement. Every church uses the statement "the church" when referring to their body. You must not have gone to any other church.

 

[ima]

No. God God

But who made god god?

Things that are made have a beginning. If it has a beginning it has an end. God had neither. It's a tough concept for the finite mind. But true nonetheless

You have no proof to back up your statement, did you just make that up? Plus, you have no idea whether all matter was made or existed already, and will not even have an end.

 

[Avatar4321]

But who made god god?

Things that are made have a beginning. If it has a beginning it has an end. God had neither. It's a tough concept for the finite mind. But true nonetheless

You have no proof to back up your statement, did you just make that up? Plus, you have no idea whether all matter was made or existed already, and will not even have an end.

Matter has always existed. It's just a question of which state it's in. Most matter is still in it's unorganized state.

 

[amrchaos]

Time appears to have neither beginning nor end, but I grasp the basic concept of time as such a thing without any problem.

So tell us why is it that something without neither beginning nor end should be confusing to some one with a finite mind. Come to think about it, the greeks used to play with infinite series long before Jesus walked the earth. They even set about methods in terms of determining whether a series converge or diverged.

Tell me, does you god "converge" in his infiniteness or "diverge"? (Kind of a trick question here. One has to define what it means to converge or diverge in terms of tthe infinite. One thing apparent, if any man could commune with god, then god must contain some points of convergence in our field of understanding in order for the finite to comprehend.)

 

[ima]

Things that are made have a beginning. If it has a beginning it has an end. God had neither. It's a tough concept for the finite mind. But true nonetheless

You have no proof to back up your statement, did you just make that up? Plus, you have no idea whether all matter was made or existed already, and will not even have an end.

Matter has always existed. It's just a question of which state it's in. Most matter is still in it's unorganized state.

Scientific proof link or just smoke blowing out the backdoor?

 

[ima]

Time appears to have neither beginning nor end, but I grasp the basic concept of time as such a thing without any problem.

So tell us why is it that something without neither beginning nor end should be confusing to some one with a finite mind. Come to think about it, the greeks used to play with infinite series long before Jesus walked the earth. They even set about methods in terms of determining whether a series converge or diverged.

Tell me, does you god "converge" in his infiniteness or "diverge"? (Kind of a trick question here. One has to define what it means to converge or diverge in terms of tthe infinite. One thing apparent, if any man could commune with god, then god must contain some points of convergence in our field of understanding in order for the finite to comprehend.)

Time to you appears to have no beginning and no end. Did you know that years ago, the earth appeared to be flat?

 

[Avatar4321]

You have no proof to back up your statement, did you just make that up? Plus, you have no idea whether all matter was made or existed already, and will not even have an end.

Matter has always existed. It's just a question of which state it's in. Most matter is still in it's unorganized state.

Scientific proof link or just smoke blowing out the backdoor?

There is a scientific law that says matter is neither created nor destroyed.

It can however, be converted into and from energy.

 

[ima]

Matter has always existed. It's just a question of which state it's in. Most matter is still in it's unorganized state.

Scientific proof link or just smoke blowing out the backdoor?

There is a scientific law that says matter is neither created nor destroyed.

It can however, be converted into and from energy.

A mormon quoting a scientific law? Won't you be excommunicated for that?

Anyways, if you take a solid, like coal, turn it into energy like heat, and use that heat up to warm your house, it's gone. Poof! Just like magic.

 

[Avatar4321]

Scientific proof link or just smoke blowing out the backdoor?

There is a scientific law that says matter is neither created nor destroyed.

It can however, be converted into and from energy.

A mormon quoting a scientific law? Won't you be excommunicated for that?

Anyways, if you take a solid, like coal, turn it into energy like heat, and use that heat up to warm your house, it's gone. Poof! Just like magic.

No. It's not gone. The matter is still accounted for. It's just in the same state and form.

And no. Why would I be excommunicated for citing scientific laws? We are commanded, encouraged, exhorted, etc to learn all knowledge. The Glory of God is intelligence.

 

[ima]

There is a scientific law that says matter is neither created nor destroyed.

It can however, be converted into and from energy.

A mormon quoting a scientific law? Won't you be excommunicated for that?

Anyways, if you take a solid, like coal, turn it into energy like heat, and use that heat up to warm your house, it's gone. Poof! Just like magic.

No. It's not gone. The matter is still accounted for. It's just in the same state and form.

And no. Why would I be excommunicated for citing scientific laws? We are commanded, encouraged, exhorted, etc to learn all knowledge. The Glory of God is intelligence.

Science tells us that a planet cannot be made in 6 days, with plants, animals, pre-made fossils...


These sentences "The matter is still accounted for. It's just in the same state and form." don't make any sense. it's not in the same state, it went for a solid (coal) to energy (heat) which dissipated.