Posted by: Kevin ®
06/13/2002, 02:42:33
Author Profile Mail author
|
You stated:"Three men originally backed Joseph's claim of seeing the actual plates -Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and David Whitmer. Each of these men at some time either left the church, retracted their statements about seeing the plates, or discredited Smith himself." Actually there is no record that the "Three Witnesses", as they are called, ever retracted their statements about seeing the plates. They left the Church, and discredited Smith himself, but no reliable record exists that they actually distanced themselves from their earlier claims. The only exception may have been Oliver Cowdery. Oliver Cowdery joined the Methodist church at one point in his life, and may have had to disavow the Book of Mormon to do so, but to my knowledge no written statement exists that he actually did so. On the other hand, David Whitmer embraced the Book of Mormon all his days, detailed his reasons for believing Joseph Smith to be a fallen prophet, and helped start a schismatic church called the Church of Christ. If there is new evidence showing that any of the Three Witnesses distanced themselves from their experience, I would be very interested in it!
|
Posted by: Nick Alberty ®
06/13/2002, 05:00:15
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hello, If anyone would like to know more about Mormonism, I suggest a book called "Mormonism 101". It's available at www.mrm.org It's a very good book. It doesn't attack or dishonor mormons, it simply examines the true beliefs of the church while strictly staying true to official church stance on things. All entries, quotes, etc. are accurately cited with their source and can easily be found. Also, in the book it talks specifcally about the three witnesses of Joseph Smith and the translation of the golden plates. Nick Alberty
|
Posted by: Mensch ®
06/13/2002, 07:53:01
Author Profile Mail author
|
Mormon Research Ministry is far from an objective source for anything about Mormonism, and I would hope that Nick would admit the same. For an apologist review of Mormonism 101, click here: http://www.anti-mormonism-revealed.com/201.htm David Waltz, a Catholic and student of Mormonism, says the book is "nothing more than another ill-conceived, subjective, polemical, anti-Mormon publication." For a good, objective overview of Mormonism, see: http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds.htm
|
Posted by: Nick Alberty ®
06/13/2002, 08:12:23
Author Profile Mail author
|
I'm glad that David Waltz has formed his opinion. However, how can you say that the authors of the book can't offer an objective view of Mormonism? If you had read the book, you would realize that they are totally objective. Before you take someone else's opinion, I would wish that you'd read it yourself. Then you could obviously know really how the book treats mormonism. Respectfully,
Nick Alberty
|
Posted by: Mensch ®
06/13/2002, 08:21:51
Author Profile Mail author
|
How can you say otherwise? Do you know what it means to be objective? Here's the Merriam-Webster definition: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations Even your evangelical buddies at Mormon Research Ministry admit their subjectivity. See http://www.mrm.org/faq-f.html for the quote: ARE WE BIASED?
Sure we are! And I have read enough of Mormonism 101 to know that it is fundamentalist Christian vitriol, marketed as the "result of our concern for those who belong to the LDS faith." Objective? Hardly.
Modified by Mensch at Thu, Jun 13, 2002, 08:30:34
|
Posted by: Nick Alberty ®
06/13/2002, 08:41:24
Author Profile Mail author
|
So are you telling me that you are totally objective? If so, then that must mean that you are perfect.....right?
|
Posted by: Mensch ®
06/13/2002, 09:06:23
Author Profile Mail author
|
No, Nick. That's not what I am telling you. If you disagree, please show me where I implied otherwise. I provided a link to http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds.htm (I am in no way affiliated with this site, although I should mention that Martin, one of our resident erudite atheists, recently solicited funds for this organization) because it is IMO about as objective a source as you will find on religion, although they too admit certain biases (freedom of religion and other such trivialities). From their website: Our core beliefs and biases:
Every person and group has basic beliefs. They can lead to bias and lack of objectivity. These are some of ours: We believe in freedom of speech, within limits. We do not believe that a person has the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. We do not believe that a Baptist minister in Killeen, TX has the right to publicly agitate that the government round up and exterminate religious minorities in his state with napalm. But short of these types of extremes, we feel that people should not be prevented from freely saying what they believe.
We are firm supporters of the principle of separation of church and state. Lack of religious freedom, oppression, and even mass crimes against humanity and genocide are more common in countries which lack such separation.
We believe in freedom of religion, which includes the rights of freedom of belief, speech, expression, assembly, and advocacy. We feel that people should have the right to freely change their religion. However, we recognize that there are limits that must be placed on such freedoms. For example, we do not feel that, in most cases, parents should be allowed to let their children die if medical treatment will assure a cure.
We believe that some absolute religious truths exist. For example, the statement "There is only one God," is either absolutely right or wrong -- at least it is if the term "God" is carefully predefined. However, there may be no way for us to know the correct answer.
We believe that moral absolutes exist, at least in one sense: Many people have a set of moral beliefs that are based on their own basic, foundational assumptions about deity, humanity and the rest of the universe. They often assert that these beliefs are absolutely true -- and they are -- to them. However, the absolute beliefs of a typical conservative Christian will often differ from the absolute beliefs of an average religious liberal. And the beliefs of a Humanist may differ from both.
We firmly believe in the concept of "liberty and justice for some." We believe that convicted murderers and other criminals should have their freedoms restricted. We do not believe that children should have the same full range of freedoms as do adults. But we feel that others should have the maximum degree of freedom without impinging seriously on the freedom of others. We are particularly distressed at discrimination which victimizes people because of their genetic makeup -- e.g. reducing their rights because of their race, gender or sexual orientation.
We believe that a person is not truly educated unless they have studied religion and its effect on society. Students need to learn about all religions. They need to understand the religious sources that inspired Gandhi, Albert Schweitzer, and Mother Teresa. They also need to learn how religious beliefs have contributed to mass murders and genocides in Nazi Germany, Bosnia, East Timor, Kosovo, the Middle East, Sudan and countless other countries.
We enjoy living in a religiously diverse culture in which the rights of people to hold different religious beliefs and to engage in different cultural practices are valued.
We believe that most religions have a generally positive influence on their followers and on society. Of all of the faith groups that we have studied, only a handful of destructive cults have had an overall negative effect. We do not believe that all religions and spiritual paths are the same, or that all are equally good, or that all are equally valid. We will attempt to describe each point of view carefully, respectfully and objectively. To this end, we have many of our essays reviewed by persons familiar with the issues who represent all sides of each topic. We encourage readers to Email us about any errors that they find. We do not regard any essay as fixed or complete.
|
Posted by: Mensch ®
06/13/2002, 09:50:40
Author Profile Mail author
|
Are you referring to the statement from their website: "We will attempt to describe each point of view carefully, respectfully and objectively."? If so, may I inquire what specifically you find disrespectful?
Modified by Mensch at Thu, Jun 13, 2002, 09:50:55
|
Posted by: Martin ®
06/13/2002, 10:00:20
Author Profile Mail author
|
What was that about, Vicki? What do you find so hilarious? Would you please explain?
- Martin
|
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
06/13/2002, 10:49:43
Author Profile Mail author
|
The respect part Martin. I guess it seemed so sublimely ironic in light of what I've seen take place on the thread below. Don't take it personally though, okay?
|
Posted by: Martin ®
06/13/2002, 11:06:19
Author Profile Mail author
|
So you are saying that the comments Mensch posted about Religious Tolerance are laughable and ironic. Vicki, I think you might benefit from a break for a while... - Martin
|
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
06/13/2002, 11:08:12
Author Profile Mail author
|
no, what took place on the thread below was disrespectful and doubleminded.
|
Posted by: rdl ®
06/13/2002, 11:12:40
Author Profile Mail author
|
...and has what to do with mensch's post? (I highly doubt he has a clue about the thread below)
|
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
06/13/2002, 11:23:48
Author Profile Mail author
|
do you have any idea how the following comes off to me? " Vicki, I think you might benefit from a break for a while..."
|
Posted by: Martin ®
06/13/2002, 13:45:27
Author Profile Mail author
|
I put it as politely and calmly as I could. I'm sorry you found it offensive, as it was not meant that way. But I know you too well to believe you would scoff so contemptuously at the ideals of religious tolerance, and so when you did, I couldn't help thinking that perhaps you are under some special stress right now. I'm sorry for thinking that, but I can't imagine why you would claim to be the rather bitter person you seem to be in many of these posts in this thread. Apparently, though, you ARE saying that you DO find the principles of the largely pro-religion site religioustolerance.org to be derisively laughable. That sure doesn't seem like the Vicki I knew.
- Martin
|
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
06/14/2002, 06:14:28
Author Profile Mail author
|
Martin, If there was something wrong with me Martin, you would already know that. What struck me in Mensch's post was the fundraising on your part for Religious Tolerance compared to your seemingly intolerant reaction to Nick's post below. Vicki
|
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
06/14/2002, 06:32:15
Author Profile Mail author
|
Marty, That is the honest to God's truth! I've just begun reading and posting. Be patient while I work my way down to your posts? Vicki
Modified by Jersey Girl at Fri, Jun 14, 2002, 06:33:34
|
Posted by: Martin ®
06/13/2002, 13:38:37
Author Profile Mail author
|
What has your rather bitter laugh have to do with Mench's post from Religious Tolerance.org or his comments? You still haven't explained that! I'm not at all sure you can. I think you owe Mensch an apology.
- Martin
|
Posted by: Mensch ®
06/13/2002, 11:07:41
Author Profile Mail author
|
Vicki: So are you saying your comment is not related to the substance of the religioustolerance.org website? Just wondering.
|
Posted by: Alf Omega ®
06/13/2002, 11:19:54
Author Profile Mail author
|
I understand that you feel that agnostics and atheists have done Nick (and you?) wrong on the thread below. I haven't gone back and specifically checked, but I hope that all my contributions were respectful and honest. They were certainly intended to be. But Mensch isn't one of us. He's (sorry to out you here, bud) a Mormon. (Gasp!) In my experience he shares a level-headed rationality of discourse with most of the atheo-agnostics around here, but unless he's pulled a Vines on us, he's still a believer.
|
Posted by: Mensch ®
06/13/2002, 12:15:37
Author Profile Mail author
|
No outing necessary, Alf. I am confident that Vicki knows of my religious persuasion based on past discussions. Guess she threw me in with the rest of the pack because I kinda like you agnostic/atheist types (particularly the pseudomormon edition). My mom always did say I liked hanging out with the wrong kind of crowd...
|
Posted by: Alf Omega ®
06/13/2002, 14:08:41
Author Profile Mail author
|
I think most of us agnostic/atheist types harbor an irrational affection for you believers (particularly the Rodin's Thinker edition). So as long as you're slumming with the wrong crowd, speak up from time to time, or at least hurl the occasional spitwad!
|
Posted by: Enzio Busche ®
06/13/2002, 03:56:53
Author Profile Mail author
|
The quotation above, Rev. 22:18, is used all too often by protestants and evangelicals to discredit the Mormon claims, but it should be remembered that the book itself may have been composed before the gospels. In any case, it was written long before there was any idea of a new testament (or an 'old' one for that matter), and what is probably meant in the passage is that he or she who adds to that particular book (the Book of Revelations) will earn all of those terrible plagues and such. Scripture can be interpreted in so many different ways. As for the wine, well, that poses a good question I think, namely, what exactly does the Word of Wisdom in D&C 89 mean? Nowadays it is one of the strictest of commandments, just below chastity it seems. The actual wording of the thing, however, makes it sound less like a commandment and more like a divine suggestion. In the past it was a little lower down the ladder of importance, and in fact I think Joseph Smith himself was known to have a few drinks from time to time, if I remember correctly from Brodie's book. EB
|
Posted by: angelica ®
06/13/2002, 05:43:47
Author Profile Mail author
|
Your certainly a loyal girlfriend lol.......
You write much in your post ,and I do not feel qualified to answer it with any authority but .....Joseph "received a revelation" that forbade tobacco, alcohol, hot drinks,and excessive meat...
Did not Jesus turn water into wine? 1 Timothy 5:23 "...use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities." (Could it be that God inspired that to be in His Word because He knew wine was good for us in moderation???) Again I am no authority and I accept the revelation , but the
commandment was pprefaced with a reason, as follows:section 89::4 4 Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you: In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation I will let you draw what you will from verse 4. and I may add, that the water was foul in the old times and drinking wine was probably very safe thing to do. remember God has always forbidden drunkedness. Jesus did change water into wine , no one would dispute this. but trun the clock forward to our times, water is clean, in most counntries , and if it iis not we have steralising techniques rendering it safe. I suspect the word of wisdom was origionally advise as men used to get drunk regularly, and Joseph was troubled by this , he inquired of the lord about this. I think it was wise in the event as the additives in tobbacco made people addicts, note recent law suits about tobbacco companies making them more addictive making the nicotine content greater great enough to enuse addiction and future sales (conspiring men as in section4)
the same goes for alcohol,its becoming a large element in families splitting up etc, I would say it was prophetic and in those days no one thought tobbacco was bad for you . whereas now we know it is. Remember it wasnt just LDS who forbade drink the womens movement were very pro. abstainence. also methodists and others where very opposed to alcohol and tobbacco. Three men originally backed Joseph's claim of seeing the actual plates -Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and David Whitmer. Each of these men at some time either left the church, retracted their statements about seeing the plates, or discredited Smith himself True each had thier moments leaving the church , but I am not certain they all denied seeing the plates, and the ones who did later admitted they did se the plates . and rejoined the Church. I will have to read the exact references to let you know . Regarding the court case, I doubt you can place any credance on what happend in courts in those days, it is well known many people were convicted on false charges by false witnesses. We will never know the real truth, but I accept Joseph as a sincere man and in anticipation, I Know there are those of you here who will not agree, but thats my humble opinion Finally we hsve to remember the lord has given guidance over time and sometimes that advice has differed depending on the circumstances and conditions etc. Love Angelica
|
Posted by: J ®
06/16/2002, 10:13:04
Author Profile Mail author
|
The Book of Mormon isn't an addition to the Bible, it's a completely different book, "Another Testament of Jesus Christ" Wine today is not the same as wine in Jesus time. Wine was just a name for what we call grape juice today, perhaps fermented a little, but not with as high an alcohol content as today. As for the seer stones, I don't know how reliable the source of info would be on that story. Joseph didn't even receive the seer stones until the day that he received the golden plates. These seer stones (Otherwise known as the Urrim and Thummim) were used only to help Joseph to translate. The only treasure discovered with them was those words found in the golden plates. It is my belief that the only reason these men ever left the church was because of persecution. They all testified that the church was true, and that the plates were real, and they must have received even more persecution than most other members of the church because of these claims. The greater the persecution, the more difficult it becomes to remain an open member of a certain faith. I have no doubt that they all knew it was true, but perhaps they just weren't strong enough to withstand all the persecution which they received.
|
Posted by: Eljay ®
06/17/2002, 01:48:09
Author Profile Mail author
|
Actually, Joseph Smith was arrested on March 20, 1826, charged with "being disorderly and an imposter" and was tried for "glass looking" and fined. He later admitted to using the seer stone for several years but said he gave it up because he was straining his eyes. It's also been documented that early mormons say he found the plates after looking into his "peep stone." Oliver Cowdery practiced something similar with a forked divining rod before he met Smith in 1829. He was excommunicated in 1838 for allegedly forgery and dishonesty and for speaking ill of the Lord's prophet. In fact, he had accused Smith of "a dirty, nasty, filthy affair" with an orphaned, teen-age girl living with the Smiths. While Smith denied this, the girl was later listed as the first of his plural wives. This can be found in History of the Church and Fawn M. Brodie's No Man Knows my history, 2nd ed., Vintage books, 1995. As far as whether the three witnesses saw the plates, they are said to have seen the plates with "eyes of faith" or through a vision. When they saw the plates, they were actually wrapped up. Then the story with how the plates disappeared differs depending on whose account you read (i.e., Smith, Young, Pratt). For the wine, yes, it is most probably made differenly today than it was 2,000 years ago. However, people still became drunk was they drank too much of it, yet Christ still drank wine and, in fact, changing water into wine was His first public miracle. A question I have, though, is if mormons believe the wine in the Bible is more like grape juice, why don't they use grape juice instead of water at their sacrament meetings? Please, I mena no disrespect by what I've written here. I just wonder what the Mormon church's view of these facts are. Thanks and God Bless!----Eljay
|
Posted by: angelica ®
06/17/2002, 14:01:13
Author Profile Mail author
|
Luke 1:15 speaking about John.
In For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine• nor strong drink; and he shall be filled• with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb. 1Timothy 3:1-2
THIS is a true saying•, If a man desire the office of a bbishop, he desireth a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober•, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach It is clear to me that being drunk is not pleasing to God .
|
|
