Read the testimonies of those who learned the truth about mormonism
Posted on 02/07/2011 2:56:17 AM PST by Colofornian
Today is the first “I Agree With Moroni 8:18″ day. Afterward it will be every August 18th.
If you’d like to participate, you can simply put on your Facebook wall today (the 18th), “I agree with Moroni 8:18″, or some variation.
If you’d like to participate, you can simply put on your Facebook wall today (the 18th), “I agree with Moroni 8:18″, or some variation.
“The only way to reconcile the 1844 Joseph Smith with the 1830 Joseph Smith is if the definition of ‘unchangeable’ has changed.” (Keith Walker)
I don’t. If I agree with one part of the BoM, I’m in agreement with mormonism. I am not.
The plagiarization and or bastardaziation of Biblical verses inserted into the BoM is something I cannot endorse.
To simplify the discussion of moronism, see Solomon Spalding (the truth behind the wall of secrecy).
Read the testimonies of those who learned the truth about mormonism
I Agree With Moroni 8:18
Norman -
There are many statements given by the witnesses that indicate they only saw the angel and the plates in a visionary experience, not with their physical eyes. The plates were “seen” in two groups of four not all eight together as popularized in church paintings. Many of the witnesses ended up leaving the church and following other leaders and religions such as James Strang, the Shakers, Methodists, etc. By 1847 not a single one of the surviving eleven witnesses was part of the LDS Church. Most were excommunicated as well. In fact, most followed Strang as prophet.
To me that is not a lasting “witness” I would place my eternal future on.
Sorry, but the historic Christian church has taught that Christ never stopped being man. He is the everlasting God-man.
redundant pedantic.
Good advice for truth-seekers.
More difficult to do if you actually want Mormons to occasionally dialogue with you.
Hi Godzilla,
Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery after leaving the LDS Church were rebaptized later in life. Significantly, no witness, even after leaving the Church, recanted the testimonies they had given.
These witnesses are a proof system that God has provided to the world for the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.
Best to you,
Normandy
I don’t agree with Moroni 8:18. Because Moroni is a fictional character from a badly written Sci-Fi/fantasy novel and because the purpose of the book of Mormon is to lead people away from Christianity. I renounce the BOM in its entirety.
I agree with what Moroni 8:18 says. The Book of Mormon itself is a lie from the pit of hell.
Point of fact - Cowdery’s funeral was conducted by a Methodist church and not the Mormon church. Many others believe Cowdery rejoined was the hope that he could convince the saints to abandon polygamy which he was strongly against.
Harris was destitute at the time and mormons paid for him to come to utah after Harris worked for the Strangeites, Whitmerites, Gladdenites, Williamites, and Shakers with the same zeal he did mormonites.
As a ‘witness’ to the truthfulness, one would have to accept equally the ‘truthfulness’ of the Strangeites, Whitmerites, Gladdenites, Williamites, and Shakers on the same level as mormonism as well. I doubt you as a mormon would do that, thus he stands condemned by his own associates.
Testimonies of others who knew these men further point to their lack of character and lack of integrity. If this is the best the mormon world can do - it fails epically.
As always, Reaganaut & Szonian, you make some good points.
I'll take your advice & not post future threads re: this campaign.
Beyond the campaign, tho, it's worthwhile having a discussion how ex-Mormons and Christians deal with...
...both the plagiarized word-for-word KJV chapters imported in the BoM as well as plagiarized phrases lifted from the KJV;
...and then thirdly, what do we do with ANY common-ground theological statements?
If we were to draw this on a continuum, I see it as:
Many ex-Mormons' position would be similar to yours, which I might take liberty by using this analogy: "Hey, even if that plate looks like any other plate, why would you serve up anybody food on that knowing both its source and the fact that it's been 'dishwashed' with sewer water?"
(This is a pretty tough argument to try to oppose)
Certainly in this way, I didn't think through the verses Paul deals with a similar matter -- eating meat sacrificed to idols. I should have at least drawn a parallel from 1 Cor. 10:25-33 before posting:
25 Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26 for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.” 27 If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. 29 I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? 30 If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for? 31 So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. 32 Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— 33 even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.
Certainly I am thankful that God's word is not chained or bound (what Paul said of the Gospel to Timothy), but I should have realized the objections it would raise. Still, this matter also goes beyond the Book of Mormon, as Muhammad lifted many phrases from the Bible -- and I certainly don't sanction the Koran.
On the other side of the continuum is the phrase, "All truth is God's truth." This position assumes...
...that no matter what source is trying to distort God's truth, it was His before the usurpers came along...therefore, we honor the Original Dispenser -- not its secondary capitalizers;
...and, that at least from jumpstarting dialogue, we recognize common-ground beliefs.
Certainly dangers exist with this last position:
(1) Do we inadvertently wind up sanctioning poison-well sources?
(2) Do we fail to recognize one of the points brought out in the Hollywood movie, The Book of Eli?
For those of you who haven't seen that movie, one character is desperate to get a complete Bible -- and fully for lack of noble purposes.
He believes the way to deal with social anarchy is to "control the masses" via becoming the chokepoint for no doubt what could be a "filtered" presentation of the Bible to serve that leader's ambitious purposes.
Therefore, were this leader to gain control of a Bible for self-serving purposes, he would have no doubt suppressed a good chunk of it while probably releasing his "reader's digest" version of it.
The parallels with Smith would then be striking:
Smith carefully chose which chapters and phrases from the Bible he wanted to import to give the BoM an air of authenticity;
He suppressed most of it;
He used it for ignoble purposes -- to establish himself as a religious leader and then glorify himself...Even Brigham Young in D&C 136:6 says that Smith & his brother "lived for glory."
Etc.
Anyway, Reaganaut & Szonian: It's obviously I offended each of you, and I'm sorry. I should have thought through how highlighting this campaign effects ex-Mormons). And I should have thought through its implications. It doesn't mean that this whole issue (my I mentioned in the third graph I wrote above) should not be discussed -- re: advantages, disadvantages, and what the Lord would have us do.
And I suggest people read Texson66's Galatians 1 admonition to me. We need to ask the question, "By highlighting even a smidgen of a false gospel -- even when that portion might be in agreement with the Bible, do we advertently promote it?"
Don’t really care to dialogue with them.
OK, I guess in the same way that Dumbledore and Spock had some compelling quotes.
Well, if Spock or Dumbledore quoted the Bible, you’d have to agree with the quote. Heck, Mormons quote the Bible all the time.
I think there is a corollary between this campaign and Paul speaking to the people of Athens about their unknown God.
Paul did not infer that he agreed with the Athenians and their worship of their pagan God ....
22”Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious[3].
23”For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. 24God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; 25Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; 26And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; 27That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: 28For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. 29Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device. 30And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: 31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
—Acts 17:22-17:31, KJV
That's a good example.
Certainly Paul might have issued more qualifiers or disclaimers as he cited that example--were there former Athenian pagan worshipers-turned-Christian in that crowd, that is.
I think one of the bottom-line issues is how we go about citing the common ground we have as Christians with other religions.
In our rush to highlight that common ground, do we yield unnecessary false impressions that we sanction it or their sources?
That is where we need to be good at caveats-- qualifiers-- disclaimers.
Campaigns of this nature need to stress those quite heavily. And I should have been a bit more attentive to that in my very first post; hence my apology.
It's the same thing when a writer wants to cite a source that is highly problematic.
If he doesn't use such caveats/qualifiers/disclaimers, the reader is simply going to follow the footnote & assume this is a good, trustworthy source.
I've actually come across one Mormon author who I thought was right-on re: some social insights in this country (& I'm not talking about Glenn Beck). Then I discovered this author has written a deeply, deeply occultic book.
If I posted a vanity here -- and cited the author's first book but failed to tell readers how occultic his orientation is -- I have failed that navigational course of providing proper warnings.
Therefore, it's the writer's job -- if she/he feels it's important to keep the reference in her/his work -- to point out what is controversial about this source before/after even citing it. And it's not enough for that writer to say they've done that somewhere else.
If it's an article, the reader may only have access to that article; a book, same thing.
A campaign of this nature, I believe, is similar in nature. Yes, I still think it can be pulled off...with the proper navigation and proper disclaimers on board. Certainly it would be good if MRM had plenty of ex-Mormon input before they launched it (I hoped they did).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.