De-Converting Mormons [From an ex-Mormon]

Ex-Mormon.org ^ | March 24, 2013 | Ex-Cult Member

[Elsie]

Drat!

You know me TOO well!

[Elsie]

...just look at some recent pictures of the Ratzinger...

Beware; or I'll post a recent one of Binger!

[Elsie]

My mirror indicates that I need some of that mercy, too!

[JCBreckenridge]

I’m not quite sure what Papa Ratzinger has to do with the topic of the thread...

[ejonesie22]

Just like the LDS.

I did read is God a Trinity, I posted the link, remember. I also posted the fact that UGC sees Christ and God as separate god beings, part of the “God Family” again from their own words.

Here is more...

http://www.ucg.org/booklet/god-trinity/gods-plan-bring-many-sons-glory/

All very new age “Christian” you to can be a god type thinking, very out of step with Christianity of any century.

[DouglasKC]

All very new age “Christian” you to can be a god type thinking, very out of step with Christianity of any century.

Nah, only the very ego prone would interpret being the son or daughter of God as being "God"...or as it's implied taking the place of God. That's of course absurd.

But it is the plan of God to bring many sons to glory:

Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.
Heb 2:10 For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

I don't think Paul can be any clearer than in Romans:

Rom 8:16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
Rom 8:17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together.
Rom 8:18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
Rom 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.

So it's not a "new" thought...it's what God has intended since the beginning.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

“Nah, only the very ego prone would interpret being the son or daughter of God as being “God”...or as it’s implied taking the place of God. That’s of course absurd.”

---

What’s really absurd are your arguments. Jesus Christ is called God, and calls Himself God, and calls Himself by the titles of God, as well as operating as God in the creation of all things in Earth and in heaven.

[DouglasKC]

What’s really absurd are your arguments. Jesus Christ is called God, and calls Himself God, and calls Himself by the titles of God, as well as operating as God in the creation of all things in Earth and in heaven.

I'm not sure what you think I said but I agree completely!

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

“I’m not sure what you think I said but I agree completely!”

---

Good.

There’s only one God:

Isa_44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Isa_44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

Isa_45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

[BlueDragon]

I’m not quite sure what Papa Ratzinger has to do with the topic of the thread...

We're still talking about comment #2, this thread, right...?

I couldn't make hide nor hair of it myself, other than it be just some cheap shot that much worse yet for not belonging in the first place.

[BlueDragon]

Who knows ... it was probably that Pope’s scribe that made the edits. Kind of makes you wonder how much of the Bible they edited to reflect the Nicene Creed as well, huh?

There is so much of the rest of your reply here (not quoted above) that is so twisted beyond words...it's difficult to know where to begin.

But consider this:
From a great number of writings, expositions, treatises, personal letters of correspondance and the like, from just the first few centuries (getting even better if we include all of the first five centuries!) along with fragments of NT texts themselves, (some fairly large, and altogether containing 45% of the NT by themselves) that the greater majority of the New Testament could be pieced together using the various and scattered sources, even if there were no fairly early extant copies such as we have...

It is important to note that the sources of extra-biblical writings quoting the bible, be from scattered sources...for since such is very true...how then does one entity (was it the Catholic Church? Latin branch? Eastern Orthodox? Greek Orthodox? which one?) facilitate the nefarious removals of just certain words (which hero Joey "restored" ta-DA!) or that they removed entire books (all of the various churches ganging up to synchronize their watches, I mean their nefarious removals, synching all of that with those pesky Jews, too(!) in regards to Old Testament texts...and coordinating also with that lost community of Essennes at Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls) so that most everyone had the same precise changes (which Joey "restored" ta-dA!).

Just wow. Those apostates were pretty slick about their removals! They removed stuff from letters and notes scattered very widely around the world, leaving not ONE SINGLE TRACE of the crime! I'm impressed such ancient people could be so exacting, even as so much else was evidentially hit and miss. Except for...the Masoretic text (not much hit & miss there!), assembled around 100 AD, with the oldest known extant copy from around 1000 AD...it just happens to dovetail *almost* exactly with the Qumran Isaiah scroll, word for word for word. Now since those texts were long hidden...what did those pesky Jews do? Did they run out to the desert and make sure the break-away sect there, got the news to change or delete certain portions of scripture? That would be impossible, for the community at Qumran was destroyed in 68 AD by those even peskier Romans, before the Legion did the big "pesky" at Jerusalem, throwing the stones of the Temple down, leaving nothing standing, as Christ foretold.

The Hebrew religious sect at Qumran wasn't Christian, nor is there any sign of them converting. So if it was some sort of "apostate conspiracy" to remove only certain books which Joey later found (with the help of the angel Moroni, as is claimed), then the "conspiracy" reached all the way to those desert caves.

But do you know what's even more worse, yet? Joey claimed to be translating his book of Mormon from some language he called "reformed egyptian". Now not only is there no trace of such a thing found ANYWHERE in the world, but his alleged translation (and insertion of significant portions of the book of Isaiah into BoM) read as King James translation.

Now how oh, how, does some "Egyptian" dialect just happen to translate & coincide exactly (other than J. Smith textual tweaks) with a Revised Standard Version King James of the 1700's, which itself had English roots from the year 1611 publishing date? Such is an impossibility.

How could the portions of Isaiah he inserted into BoM come from "reforemed egyptian" yet end up just as KJV which consulted the Hebrew? With all the [cited by Erhman] 400,000 variations among all these manuscripts (from the 2nd to 15th century) how does [ahem] "reformed egyptian" end up just like KJV???

There are texts in existence which the King James was translated from. From those it can be seen where PRECISELY the KJV translators diverged from exact word-for-word translation in places where there were no words to convey an idea, or words were chosen that they thought would best convey an idea without straying too far from word-for word...which again leaves it an impossibility that among all other variables...things sourced from some other language, would match the peculiarities inherent to KJV. Here's a sample comparison of Psalms with KJV, RKJV, DSS and Masoretic text to help provide hint of certain [slight] signature "peculiarities" I'm talking about http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/31_psalm138.html

No don't be replying before checking the links, examining the info, and thinking it over...

I'd like to see Mormonic scholars try their hand at explaining the BoM, in light of the sort of information found among the DSS (and elsewhere, too) using textual & form criticism, some place other than BYU, and see if anyone takes them seriously, or simply so utterly dismantles their arguments that if unedited details of such got out, it would drive Mormon wives to triple their zanax scrips, and end up with more than a few so-called Mormon scholars and others, swallowing their pistols. BOOM.

Then again... there's the usual denial machine defense mechanisms that will "protect" many Mormons from the truth of such aspects of their religion (most Mormons born into it?). I feel sorry for 'em. So close, but yet so far...

But wait, there's more! hehheh...

At http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

can be found information concerning most of the oldest NT fragments. More bad news for Joey, it appears.

One of the fragments, the "Bodmer Papyrus" dating from approx. 200 AD, comports well enough with KJV and others for John 1:1-6, which just happens to be one section of the NT Joey fiddled around with in his alleged "restoration". (Joey added some words The Joseph Smith Translation in Light of the New Testament; An Examination of Key Passages in the Gospel of John
Which would mean that, for Mormon claims to be true, the actual text was corrupted before 200 AD, but Joey fixed it(?) In the year 1830. In upstate New York. When he was 25 yrs. old. By consulting peep stones hid in his hat...And it sounds just like 17th-18th century "Kings English", too. BwaahAAAhAA! pull the other leg, pull the other leg...you guys are killing me!

Did the angel Moroni speak in 17th century "Kings English", too?

[BlueDragon]

forgot to add the link for image-copied pages at bottom of last reply, from a pdf file, google books, entitled --- Part Way To Utah; The Forgotten Mormons

[Elsie]

#67

[Elsie]

The God family will expand....

[Elsie]

Kind of makes you wonder how much of the Bible they edited to reflect the Nicene Creed as well, huh?

THIS from a MORMON???

---

The following are the LYING images that MORMONism has produced, KNOWING that they represent something FALSE!!

 

 

   

[Elsie]

Kind of makes you wonder how much of the Bible they edited to reflect the Nicene Creed as well, huh?

THIS from a MORMON???

---

"Now the way he translated was he put the urim and thummim into his hat and Darkned his Eyes than he would take a sentance and it would apper in Brite Roman Letters. Then he would tell the writer and he would write it. Then that would go away the next sentance would Come and so on. But if it was not Spelt rite it would not go away till it was rite, so we see it was marvelous. Thus was the hol [whole] translated."

---Joseph Knight's journal.

---

"In writing for your father 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 vols.

(Independence, Missouri: Herald House,1951),

"Last Testimony of Sister Emma [Smith Bidamon]," 3:356.

---

"I, as well as all of my father's family, Smith's wife, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, were present during the translation. . . . He [Joseph Smith] did not use the plates in translation."
---(David Whitmer,

as published in the "Kansas City Journal," June 5, 1881,

and reprinted in the RLDS "Journal of History", vol. 8, (1910), pp. 299-300.

---

In an 1885 interview, Zenas H. Gurley, then the editor of the RLDS Saints Herald, asked Whitmer if Joseph had used his "Peep stone" to do the translation. Whitmer replied:

"... he used a stone called a "Seers stone," the "Interpreters" having been taken away from him because of transgression. The "Interpreters" were taken from Joseph after he allowed Martin Harris to carry away the 116 pages of Ms [manuscript] of the Book of Mormon as a punishment, but he was allowed to go on and translate by use of a "Seers stone" which he had, and which he placed in a hat into which he buried his face, stating to me and others that the original character appeared upon parchment and under it the translation in English."

---

"Martin Harris related an incident that occurred during the time that he wrote that portion of the translation of the Book of Mormon which he was favored to write direct from the mouth of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He said that the Prophet possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone, Martin explained the translation as follows: By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin and when finished he would say 'Written,' and if correctly written that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used."
(Edward Stevenson, "One of the Three Witnesses,"

reprinted from Deseret News, 30 Nov. 1881

in Millennial Star, 44 (6 Feb. 1882): 86-87.)

---

In 1879, Michael Morse, Emma Smith's brother-in-law, stated:

 

 "When Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon [I] had occasion more than once to go into his immediate presence, and saw him engaged at his work of translation. The mode of procedure consisted in Joseph's placing the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his face into the hat, so as to entirely cover his face, resting his elbows upon his knees, and then dictating word after word, while the scribes Emma, John Whitmer, O. Cowdery, or some other wrote it down."
(W.W. Blair interview with Michael Morse,

Saints Herald, vol. 26, no. 12

June 15, 1879,  pp. 190-91.)

---

Joseph Smith's brother William also testified to the "face in the hat" version:

 

"The manner in which this was done was by looking into the Urim and Thummim, which was placed in a hat to exclude the light, (the plates lying near by covered up), and reading off the translation, which appeared in the stone by the power of God"

("A New Witness for Christ in America,"

Francis W. Kirkham, 2:417.)

---

"The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret was the same manner as when he looked for the money-diggers, with the stone in his hat, while the book of plates were at the same time hid in the woods."

---Isaac Hale (Emma Smith's father's) affidavit, 1834.

---

---

[Elsie]

Kind of makes you wonder how much of the Bible they edited to reflect the Nicene Creed as well, huh?

THIS from a MORMON???

---

The "Caractors" are the only tangible evidence in existence related to Smith's story.

No gold plates, no brass plates, no peep stones, no Urim and Thummim...

only these "Caractors," not a single one of which is in the purported languages.

---

Smith's translation of the Caractors. According to Martin Harris (Joseph Smith - History, 1:64), "I went to the city of New York, and presented the characters which had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor Charles Anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments. Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated,* and he said they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters."

Speak right up now in all truthfulness. Isn't it revealing how Smith started out making a stab at creating believable "caractors" but quckly gave up and produced nothing but squiggles, ending up wih a series of nothing more than crude little scribbles? Yet Professor Anthon supposedly translated them!

---

*Harris must have had two or three pieces of paper with him—one with characters and a translation of them (on the same paper or a separate one) and one with untranslated characters—quite likely the "Caractors." Some Mormon "scholars" have gone out on a limb, sawed it off, and knocked themselves out trying to translate from these true Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic characters a segment that would correspond with a verse from 1 Nephi.

---

Modern-day experts in Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic. In 1829, any knowledge of these languages possessed by U.S. scholars would have been rudimentary at best. Expertise in them has vastly improved since then. So go ahead, do it. Get any modern expert in these languages to identify which of these "Caractors" are Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac and Arabic. Better still, accept the claim of Mormon apologists that Anthon did indeed so testify and that his appraisal of the Caractors was correct. (Op. cit, pp. 73-75)

Save your money! Samples of Assyriac/Aramaic and Arabic writing:

 

What say you? Which of Smith's "Caractors" resemble the Assyriac and Arabic ones? No need to pay experts for their analysis. A child could accurately check this out. These writing systems have remained constant for well over 3000 years.

[Elsie]

Good luck; as it looks like teppe has ASKED questions and vanished yet again; without ANSWERING any directed his way - #86.

It mattereth not; as many people who WANT to know things are still reading...

[Elsie]

...his Book of Mormon...

[Elsie]

... immediately after his (Sidney Rigdon) baptism he began working with Joseph on the New Translation....

HMMmm...

Jehovah Witnesses use THEIR translation: New World Translation.