Haven't Anti-Mormons Completely Destroyed the Credibility of Mormonism?

jefflindsay.com ^ | Nov. 5, 2006 | Jeff Lindsay

[Elsie]

Did the LDS take over other churches pulpit, ride around in white sheets, did they tar and feather other church members, did they call them heretics, incite a community to hate them, shoot at them, burn down their houses, rape and kill their children and than run them off of their land, exterminate them?

The KKK in UTAH...

 

 

 

 

<snip>

Klankraft in Utah faced a bleak future, partly because the kinds of issues that fed Klan activity elsewhere--law and order, public and private morality, cultural modernity, and racial and ethnic assimilation--were real but not pressing concerns in the state; religiously, demographically, and culturally, Utah society was remarkably close to the Old America the Klan idealized. Yet the primary obstacle to the growth of the Klan was the strident opposition of the dominant Mormon Church, which effectively functioned as an instrument of social regulation for most of the population. By the late 1920s the Utah KKK was a dysfunctional organization represented by a handful of individuals who maintained membership in the national organization.

</snip>

 

http://www.media.utah.edu/UHE/k/KKK.html

[Elsie]

any thing the man did, he did it on his own and had nothing to do with the Lord’s annoited servants the Man had no authority in the priesthood of the Church.

And this is EXACTLY what you'll be saying when words of your Founder and previous leaders got trotted out in this thread: "They wuzn't speaking for the LORD then; they'll have to answer to Jesus over them words."

[Elsie]

So as one see that the true Church of the Lord did prosper while other ventures faded into obscurity.

The TRUE 'mormon' church are those who still BELIEVE what is written here (THE DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS -- SECTION 132)and will have their stuff taken by the Gov't other than go against a CLEAR command of GOD!!

The ones AFRAID of the US Gov't, knuckled under to the COMMANDS OF MEN and gave up some precious truth to become a state. (Declaration #1)

[Elsie]

It seems it is you Zakeet who rejects Jesus Christ Church so it is the other way around big boy!:)

[Tennessee Nana]

BTTT

[Tennessee Nana]

Haven’t Anti-Mormons Completely Destroyed the Credibility of Mormonism?
___________________________________________

What credibility ????

[SeaHawkFan]

I noticed you did not dispute the truth of anything Zakeet stated in post #38, so I am left to assume that the facts s/he alleges are true.

[Zakeet]

[King James Strang] had nothing to do in build up the Lord’s kingdom he was baptized Feb 25,1844 and so he was only a member a few months before Joseph Smith was killed ... the Man had no authority in the priesthood of the Church.

The assertion Strang had no authority in the Priesthood of the Mormon Church is highly disputed.

Strang was an intelligent man who was a licensed as a lawyer. He did indeed join the Mormon Church in February 1844, and was sent by Joseph Smith in April 1844 to Wisconsin to enroll new converts and scout out a new location for Zion. Thus, he only spent about two months with Smith. But Strang was deeply admired and respected by Joseph.

Strang appeared in Nauvoo shortly after Smith was killed and presented a document (still existent in the Rare Documents section of the Yale University Library), apparently in Smith's own handwriting and bearing a Nauvoo postmark dated June 19, 1844 wherein Strang was declared the Designated Successor to Smith.

A number of distinguished Mormons were convinced the letter was genuine, including: John Whitmer, BoM Witness David Whitmer, BoM Witness Martin Harris, Hiram Page, John E. Page, William McLellin, William Smith (Joseph's only surviving brother), Emma Smith (Joseph's widow), the sisters of Joseph Smith, Lucy Mack Smith (Joseph's Mother), William Marks, George Miller, and an array of other scribes and family members.

Each of the above individuals rejected Brigham Young and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as successors to Joseph Smith, and in turn left the Utah Mormons in favor of Strang.

Brigham Young was excommunicated by a high council of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints led by Strang on April 6, 1846.

You can read more about the interesting story of the Strangites HERE.

[Religion Moderator]

It was not directed to a particular Freeper, personally. Therefore it is not “making it personal.”

[Cvengr]

"LDS Inc. is NOT a 'protestant' group!!"

Well stated.

IMHO, I would further simplify the position that any group which denies the Deity of our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus, the Son of God, doesn't qualify to be called "Christian".

[restornu]

What a coherent sentence!

One can even understand it!

I see you woke up with mocking spirit:)

[nicmarlo]

You may be interested to learn Dr. Nibley's credibility was seriously damaged when he authenticated Joseph Smith's translation of an Egyptian papyrus which was put forth as the Book of Abraham.

Concerning that:

Charles Larson, By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri (Institute for Religious Research, 1992)

The Joseph Smith papyri, long thought to have been destroyed in a fire in Chicago in the late 19th century, had in reality found their way to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, where they came to public attention in 1967. Their rediscovery established for certain that Joseph Smith had authentic, ancient Egyptian documents in his possession when he produced the Book of Abraham.

Unlike the gold plates of the Book of Mormon, which scholars were never able to examine [because "they were taken back up to heaven by angels," IIRC], these Egyptian texts give the actual documents from which Joseph Smith claimed to have produced one of the LDS church's scriptures. Therefore, they provide the first real opportunity to examine the prophet's claims in an objective and scientific manner.

In the first two chapters of By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus, former Mormon and Brigham Young University graduate Charles M. Larson, recounts the circumstances under which Joseph Smith acquired the two Egyptian scrolls, and his claim to have identified one of them as an account by the Biblical patriarch Abraham of his sojourn in Egypt (as described in Genesis 12:10-20). Then in chapters 3-10 Larson steps the reader through a detailed array of primary physical evidences which establish four major points: (1) the papyri which came to public attention in 1967 (color photographs of which are reproduced in the book) are indisputably those which Joseph had in his possession when he produced the Book of Abraham, (2) Joseph Smith did purport that the Book of Abraham was a translation from one of these papyrus scrolls, (3) the scrolls are now known to date from around the time of Christ, some 2,000 years after the time of Abraham, and (4) the scrolls have been identified by Egyptologists — including LDS scholars — as common, pagan Egyptian burial documents, that do not mention Abraham and have no connection to the contents of the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price.

8 scholars refute the Book of Abraham Translation by Joseph Smith, excerpts from a couple follow:

In his 1912 publication of "Joseph Smith, Jr., As a Translator,"

"The Egyptian papyrus which Smith declared to be the 'Book of Abraham,' and 'translated' or explained in his fantastical way, and of which are three specimens are published in the 'Pearl of Great Price' are parts of the well known 'Book of the Dead.' Although the reproductions are very bad, one can easily recognize familiar scenes from this book."

Dr. Edward Meyer, University of Berlin

"A careful study has convinced me that Smith probably believed seriously to have deciphered the ancient hieroglyphics, but that he utterly failed. What he calls the 'Book of Abraham' is a funeral Egyptian text, probably not older than the Greek ages."

Dr. Friedrich Freiheer Von Bissing, Professor of Egyptology in the University of Munich

I also think the following information is important to read as concerns the papyrus.

The Book of Abraham Papyri and Joseph Smith
(commentary on history and representations of images on papyrus)

Better images in the LDS text are found here:

Facsimile 1
Facsimile 2
Facsimile 3

Better image of the papyrus found at the Museum:

Vignette 1

The papyrus find is authenticated: "The Facsimile Found: The Recovery of Joseph Smith's Papyrus Manuscripts", Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought (Winter 1967), p. 64"

.

So....from the above, among other claims, Joseph Smith wrote that the papyrus was, in fact: 1) written by Abraham; 2) the papyrus, itself, then, necessarily was made at the time that Abraham lived; 3) that he, Joseph Smith, TRANSLATED some ancient Records into English and called it the Book of Abraham; and 4) the Book of Abraham is the cornerstone of the Mormon Church.

Joseph Smith claimed that the papyrus, itself, dates back to the time when Abraham lived (how else could it have been "penned by Abraham"?). However, "from paleographic and historical considerations, the papyrus can reliably be dated to around A.D. 60." However, that date not only post-dates Abraham's death, but Christ's as well. (Abraham lived during the Middle Bronze Age, which dates back to nearly 4,000 years ago.)

Confronted with the above inconsistencies, the Mormon church claims that there is text missing from the translations, thereby, outright dismissing all logical and scientific questions.

Regardless of their protestations, however, based upon examination of the papyrus by Egyptian scholars, there is no substantial text missing from the papyrus, other than the pieces obviously missing. Syntactically and contextually, it is a complete document: it has a beginning, a middle, and an end, is consistent with the funerary papyrus then commonly found (see the award winning documentary, The Lost Book of Abraham, previously linked by Zakeet). Additionally, and its length is typical for a funerary papyrus. There would be no need or normality for the papyrus to be LONGER than what currently exists to make it "whole." Anything added onto it would be deemed "out of place" an unnecessary. Liken this to the "Pledge of Allegiance." It is complete and freestanding as is. Adding page upon page to the pledge would be ridiculous and have no longer have anything to do with the purpose and intent of the Pledge of Allegiance.

The Mormon Church, for example, refer to Joseph Smith as a prophet of God. [see The Pearl of Great Price A Selection from the Revelations, Translations, and Narrations of Joseph Smith, First Prophet, Seer, and Revelator to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints].

Both the Old and New Testament Scriptures are replete with warnings concerning false prophets. For instance:

Deu 18:21-22:

21) And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? 22) When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Deu 13:1-3:

1) If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, 2) and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them," 3) you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul.

1 John 4:1:

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

The Apostle Paul gave warnings about those who "preach another gospel" than Christ's:

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." Galatians 1:8, 9

The Mormons claims cannot stand. Their claimed prophet was shown by the evidence, to be in error concerning his claims regarding the contents of the papyrus, the dating of the papyrus, and contradict what was already written in both the Old and New Testaments. Therefore, anything and everything further that Joseph Smith states is automatically suspect and, imho, without credibility.

God is not the god of division. He would therefore not be contradicting Himself and His words. Either God is right or He is not. If He is right, then all things must be measured against what He says is true, not what fallible human beings claim is true. If what a fallible human being claims to be goes against God's word, then it is the fallible human being who must be given the doubt, not God. The New Testament, which the Mormons claim to use, shows above that if "another gospel is preached," it is not of God. The Old Testament states that if what a claimed prophet states is not true, then he is not a prophet of God, he is a false prophet.

Either one believes that all of God is right or they do not. Believing only that some of God and/or some of God's Word is right makes all of God wrong and the fallible human right, and, therefore, the false prophet's words become the standard upon which someone believes, not God.

[Barnacle]

Haven't Anti-Mormons Completely Destroyed the Credibility of Mormonism?

I say, "No".

But, I don't have enough interest in the question to read all that in order to discover differently.

[restornu]

Elsie that was an excerpt from the thread topic if you had read it before reacting you would have known.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Now I know many for what ever reason feel differently but there are about 13 millions of us who did receive a witness from the Lord!”

I love that claim for so many reasons!

1. “13 millions” - this is a claim that is unsubstantiated
in any way. This -> MAY <- be the number on the membership
rolls, but is:

a. unverifiable by any independent & objective source
b. unverifiable that each had “a witness”
c. since mormonism contradicts scripture, the “witness”
was not “from the Lord”. Perhaps his brother...

2. “If you read carefully it was not some dude from upstate NY who made those comments, it was the Lord himself who was once again preparing to restoring his Church on earth and needed to get a few things straight before proceeding.”

I love this claim for so many reasons!

a. It is unverifiable by any outside, objective source
b. It violates scripture in so many ways
c. It demeans God

Thanks Resty! A wonderful spoof to brighten this thread.

[restornu]

so many of you to change the subject of this thread (by hijack) LOL

You are free to start you own thread topic!

[nicmarlo]

change the subject of this thread

The subject of this thread is......credibility. The article of this subject thread brings up Nibley. The basis of Mormonism lies upon the credibility of its own alleged prophet, Joseph Smith, and the papyrus he claims he accurately translated. Nibley's writings speak to the papyrus, and he was found in error. That speaks to Nibley's credibility as well.

What I find interesting is that apparently the only people whose credibility can be questioned are those who are: not Mormon.

[restornu]

What I find interesting is that apparently the only people whose credibility can be questioned are those who are: not Mormon.

This is so funny when the shoe is on the other foot many of you fail to see it that way!

What I find interesting is that apparently the only people whose credibility can be questioned are those who are: not Mormon mainstream

go figure....

[greyfoxx39]

What I find interesting is that apparently the only people whose credibility can be questioned are those who are: not Mormon.

I think it's amazing the the liberal PC tactics have been so thoroughly employed on behalf of the Romney candidacy. Makes one wonder if there was a decree handed down by the old men in SLC......hmmmmmmm....watch for the tactic to be expanded in the next three years.

There has been a valiant attempt to shut down by various methods of censorship, any questioning of the validity of the mormon religion. Note the extreme reaction of ONE simple question by Huckabee, it has been milked to the max here on FR.

[nicmarlo]

You’re the one who won’t address the substance of the issues. When we do, you say we’re going off topic, lol.

That speaks to your own credibility issue, as well.