Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Mormons As "blind Followers"


Corky Wallace

Recommended Posts

How can it be shown "Mormons as "blind followers"" if things said and done in the past can't be shown?

Two points on this question.

First: there is a serious ethical problem, of which you seem to be utterly oblivious, in claiming that everyone in a large and diverse group of people share a common negative characteristic. If you said it about Blacks or Jews, everyone could spot you as a racist right off, because that is how bigots view the classes of people they despise. Trying to prove it makes it even worse, because that is how demagogues try to create hatred against those they've chosen as targets.

Second: the first rule of interfaith dialogue--and the more it gets repeated, the more the self-designated owners of the "Christian" trademark ignore it--is that each participant in the dialogue must be allowed to speak for his own faith tradition. Every single time that you take it upon yourself to tell us what we believe and why we believe it, you prove nothing at all except that you are a rude, arrogant boor whose mother failed entirely to teach you any manners--if indeed she even tried.

So if you want to expose your true nature by trying to prove that we share a common negative characteristic, and if you wish to try to do so by arguing from what we believe and why we believe it, you need to ask us. Because you were wrong about every single one of your assertions.

All of them. Without exception.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

I'm trying to answer everybody but there's so many I may miss a few- alert me if so.

Also, sorry but this is a bit long

QUOTE(rocmonkey @ Aug 28 2007, 02:45 PM) *

Oh Pahoran, not the watered down version (DC). The 'one' I quoted from JS Teachings! I gave it so go back and read it.

***Yes, I saw it. So, do you know what "JS Teachings" is? Do you even care? I doubt it; you've shown not the slighest interest in factual accuracy in anything you've posted.*****

Not one LDS would ever say page 345 (God is a man) or page 370 (Plurality of Gods) of TPJS are just 'teachings'. Please don't be selective with the facts. These are LDS doctrines (major ones!) and foundational beliefs.

***Since you don't know, and despite the fact that you don't care, I will tell you: it is not a book
authored by Joseph Smith. Rather, it is a collection of some of his talks. They were recorded without the use of modern recording equipment or even stenographic methods. They were simply written down as longhand notes at the time.*****

JS said, "For the last three years I have a record of all my acts and proceedings, for I have kept several good, faithful, and efficient clerks in constant employ: they have accompanied me everywhere, and carefully kept my history, and they have written down what I have done, where I have been, and what I have said: therefore my enemies cannot charge me with day, time, or place, but what I have a written testimony to prove my actions; and my enemies cannot prove anything against me." (Hoc 6:409)

***The accuracy of such transcripts cannot be relied upon.*****

In light of the above JS statement, I think they can be.

***That said, please note that I responded to your posting of your selective excerpts. I showed that Joseph made no prophecy therein. You have entirely failed to respond to my post. You have not even acknowledged that it was made. *****

I'm misunderstanding something here. How did you show 'what'? prophecy- the 1890 return one?.

I realize the DC says that. They tried to water down what the above says can't be watered down, even by JS enemies- certainly not by his followers, then.

***And do you know what that means?

It means that my response to you stands unanswerd.

And do you know what else that means?

It means that it is grossly dishonest for you to continue to repeat your false and discredited polemic as though it had not been refuted.

It has been. *****

I don't see how 'what' he is recorded by faithful men (more than one) to have said about Christ's return has been discredited, only verified by the statement he made in The History of the Church.

QUOTE(rocmonkey @ Aug 28 2007, 02:45 PM) *

When you use the DC you must know some of it has been changed to fit the times. This is another example of that. Please (please) CFR this statement.

***Very well: since you asked so nicely,

CFR on your claim that Doctrine and Covenants Section 130, verses 14 to 17 has been "watered down" or "changed to fit the times.

Do not try to distract us with irrelevant red herrings about any other subject.

Do not try to dodge this one.

Provide the reference you challenged me to ask for.*****

Whoa. I said the DC has been changed, not that particular DC (but obviously that one, too, now). The Hoc statement and the TPJS 1890 date show clearly the DC has been changed. But, there's another one (at least). Its DC 135:3. In June, 1844 JT said JS had done more, save Jesus only, then any other man. However, In May, 1844- one month earlier- JS, himself, said that he (JS) had done more than 'any' man. "Neither Paul, John, Peter, NOR JESUS (emphasis added) ever did it. I boast no man ever did such a work as I." He started out by speaking about holding a church together (who's church is this one? I always thought, until I read this, it was the church of Jesus Christ, not Joseph Smith) but ended up including the "work" (the whole thing) no one else ever did. This is what I meant by the DC has been changed. We now have at least two places we can prove the DC was changed (doctored), based on what JS, himself, said, to say something that wasn't said and wasn't meant.

This statement by JS is just before the one where he said he had kept all those good, faithful and efficient clerks who have recorded everything he did (Hoc 6:409) The DC has been changed or modified from what JS actually said. Because of these every DC section should taken with a grain of salt.

QUOTE(rocmonkey @ Aug 28 2007, 02:45 PM) *

If you can't answer, that's ok. Most don't even try so you're doing better than most. You still didn't answer my quote of JS prophecy, though.

*** That statement is as truthful as everything else you've written on this thread; that is, it is blatantly and brazenly false.

And you know it.*****

On this forum, you're right. But it did take a while for someone to answer, though wrongly, the 1890 return date prophecy.

QUOTE(rocmonkey @ Aug 28 2007, 02:45 PM) *

Its one of those 'new and improved' versions I mentioned earlier that the LDS do a lot when changing their doctrines to fit the culture, times and events that always hit them (and their god?) by surprise.

*** Tell me, Rocmonkey, because I'd really like to know: do you consciously choose to employ such dishonest tactics as this, or are they now totally ingrained in your nature?*****

I was so wrong to have said that that way! I won't again. But, folks here have jumped at ridiculous reasons for some of the things I have quoted from LDS doctrinal sources. Case in point, a 10 year old boy told a story that was 50 years old and somehow the Mormon leadership (prophet, apostles, church historians even and LDS god) failed to catch it and then allowed it to be printed in an official church publication as fact. Or, the 'recorder' added the '1890 year' part of JS story of Jesus' return. See the lengths LDS go to justify their errors of yesteryear. I showed where they are printed and I get off-the-wall excuses. That's not evidence for them 'not' being true. The fact that a prophet of God said them makes them true. Especially so in light of Hoc 6:409. Just admit the evidence is real- since it is there it must be.

THE truth has nothing to lose or fear by being investigated

also,

Truth requires 'facts' be admitted.

gotta go for now, be back later

Link to comment

On this forum, you're right. But it did take a while for someone to answer, though wrongly, the 1890 return date prophecy.

I'd be interesting in knowing how I answered it "wrongly" when you get a chance. Just because you don't like the answer (because it causes you to have to abandon one of your pet polemics) doesn't necessarily make it "wrong."

PS.

A good portion of your response to Pahoran is you trying to tell us what we believe. The very thing Pahoran (and others) have told you is not only rude, but goes against the very rules of inter-faith dialogue. He rightly predicted that you would ignore his plea (like you have ignored the others), but please stop it. As the body of believers, we are the ones with the right to decide what is a doctrine, what is scripture, how to interpret the teachings of our prophets and scriptures, etc. For you to try to do it for us is rude, ignorant, and dishonest (I apologize for the harsh language, but it is). A body of believers often has different paradigms, vocabulary, and foundational tenets that shape their interpretation of their religion. You are trying to force your paradigms, vocabulary, and foundational tenets onto our religion. Please stop.

BTW,

I noticed you brought out even more laundry items to your ever-growing shotgun tactic. You stated that you would stop, yet since then there have been at least 6-7 more laundry items you have tried to sneak in. If you want to dialogue, then thatâ??s great. If you want to show how much anti-Mormon literature youâ??ve read and how you have absolutely no interest in truly gaining an understanding of what we actually believe (instead of what others have told you we believe, and you telling us what we believe), then please act like a reasonable adult and stop the games.

Link to comment

Case in point, a 10 year old boy told a story that was 50 years old and somehow the Mormon leadership (prophet, apostles, church historians even and LDS god) failed to catch it and then allowed it to be printed in an official church publication as fact.

I really was beginning to think you cared about the truth. I gave you the info you needed to piece this together, and still you feel the need to coin a blatant LIE to help you in your hatred of a religious group.

The above is a dishonest representation of the facts, and you know it (or at least I truly hope you do).

[deleted... I apologize to any who read my rant. I am embarrassed that I lost control]

Link to comment

Case in point, a 10 year old boy told a story that was 50 years old and somehow the Mormon leadership (prophet, apostles, church historians even and LDS god) failed to catch it and then allowed it to be printed in an official church publication as fact.

I really was beginning to think you cared about the truth. I gave you the info you needed to piece this together, and still you feel the need to coin a blatant LIE to help you in your hatred of a religious group.

The above is a dishonest representation of the facts, and you know it (or at least I truly hope you do).

[deleted... I apologize to any who read my rant. I am embarrassed that I lost control]

You know... we just can't win with this guy. If we did catch it and fix it... then he'd be claiming that something was changed and there would be a big long diatribe at how evil we where for changing something.

You know some people might like an accurate history at how things have developed. :P

Link to comment

Post divided because of quoting restrictions.

I'm trying to answer everybody but there's so many I may miss a few- alert me if so.

Also, sorry but this is a bit long

Not one LDS would ever say page 345 (God is a man) or page 370 (Plurality of Gods) of TPJS are just 'teachings'. Please don't be selective with the facts. These are LDS doctrines (major ones!) and foundational beliefs.

That may or may not be true, but it is not for you to say. You still don't get it, do you?

As for being "selective with the facts:" you, of all people, are not qualified to accuse anyone else of any form of dishonesty. As you know, I was referring to the volume, not to any individual teachings that might be found therein. As you know, by shifting the focus, you are equivocating. That is a less than honest debate tactic.

JS said, "For the last three years I have a record of all my acts and proceedings, for I have kept several good, faithful, and efficient clerks in constant employ: they have accompanied me everywhere, and carefully kept my history, and they have written down what I have done, where I have been, and what I have said: therefore my enemies cannot charge me with day, time, or place, but what I have a written testimony to prove my actions; and my enemies cannot prove anything against me." (Hoc 6:409)

Yes. They did their best with the technology they had at the time.

In light of the above JS statement, I think they can be.

You are wrong, and that is not up to you to decide anyway.

I'm misunderstanding something here.

You are misunderstanding a whole lot of things, but you are just too arrogant to accept correction.

How did you show 'what'? prophecy- the 1890 return one?.

There was no "1890 return one." That is the material point.

I realize the DC says that. They tried to water down what the above says can't be watered down, even by JS enemies- certainly not by his followers, then.

CFR (again.) Prove that Section 130 has been "watered down." You make an accusation, you shoulder the burden of proof. Christians don't make false accusations. Therefore Christians don't make accusations unless they can support them. Support your accusation or stand convicted as a false accuser.

I don't see how 'what' he is recorded by faithful men (more than one) to have said about Christ's return has been discredited, only verified by the statement he made in The History of the Church.

I never said it had been discredited. What has been discredited is your unrighteous and polemical misuse of that volume as ammunition against the Saints.

As I previously demonstrated, Joseph's actual statements as quoted by you are not prophecies. As I subsequently demonstrated, his written account of the revelation makes it clear that it was never intended to be a prophecy. That you intentionally overlooked this canonical source in your attempt to manufacture a false accusation proves that it is really you who is being "selective with the facts."

Since you are determined to be an accuser of the Saints and a slanderer of the prophets (cf. Greek diabolos, "accuser" or "slanderer") you need to understand that only the canonical scriptures have been accepted by the Church as binding upon us in matters of faith. If you can't accuse us from them, you don't have an accusation we need to answer.

When you use the DC you must know some of it has been changed to fit the times. This is another example of that. Please (please) CFR this statement.

Very well: since you asked so nicely,

CFR on your claim that Doctrine and Covenants Section 130, verses 14 to 17 has been "watered down" or "changed to fit the times.

Do not try to distract us with irrelevant red herrings about any other subject.

Do not try to dodge this one.

Provide the reference you challenged me to ask for.

Whoa. I said the DC has been changed, not that particular DC (but obviously that one, too, now). The Hoc statement and the TPJS 1890 date show clearly the DC has been changed.

No. They don't.

And you were clearly bluffing when you begged me to CFR you on that accusation, as your "whoa" response makes clear. You were not the least bit prepared for that, were you?

Doctrine and Covenants Section 130, verses 14 to 17 were written by Joseph. If you accuse the Church of having "watered down" this passage, then you need to show that it originally read differently than it does to day.

Can you do so?

If not, then you have clearly defaulted on your promise, and you stand convicted as a false accuser.

But, there's another one (at least). Its DC 135:3.

This is irrelevant, a deliberate distraction tactic and an attempt to poison the well. I asked you about Section 130. This is a completely different section, written by a different author.

But that's okay. I can answer your false accusations on this one as well.

In June, 1844 JT said JS had done more, save Jesus only, then any other man. However, In May, 1844- one month earlier- JS, himself, said that he (JS) had done more than 'any' man. "Neither Paul, John, Peter, NOR JESUS (emphasis added) ever did it. I boast no man ever did such a work as I."

This is one of the problems you get relying upon anti-Mormon hate propaganda: it always tells lies.

Please note that since you have failed entirely to cite the source of this false accusation, I am going to hold you personally accountable for it. If it proves to be false, that makes you the author of it and a false accuser.

But first I am going to prove that it is a false accusation.

So I shall start by quoting in its entirety the sentence you have so cunningly misrepresented.

Doctrine and Covenants Section 135:

3 Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it.

Note the bolded portion. What is it referring to? What has Joseph done more, save Jesus only, than any other man? More for the salvation of others. That's what.

Now: does Joseph's so-called boast claim to have done more than Jesus for the salvation of men? Let's see:

He started out by speaking about holding a church together (who's church is this one? I always thought, until I read this, it was the church of Jesus Christ, not Joseph Smith) but ended up including the "work" (the whole thing) no one else ever did.

So the answer is: no, it did not.

Thus, your accusation is proven to be false.

And thus, you are proven to be a willful false accuser. Every time you are caught making one false accusation, you immediately try to either support it or distract attention by fabricating another.

To be continued...

Link to comment

Post Part II:

And your accusation is false on another count, too. Let us continue:

This is what I meant by the DC has been changed. We now have at least two places we can prove the DC was changed (doctored), based on what JS, himself, said, to say something that wasn't said and wasn't meant.

Except John Taylor's Section 135 does not in any regard purport to quote or report or rely upon or in any way reflect Joseph's so-called boast. Rather, it is John Taylor's own independent report of the event known as "the martyrdom" in which Joseph Smith was brutally and cold-bloodedly murdered by a gang of "Christians."

Thus, your accusation that D&C 135:3 has been "doctored" because it doesn't say the same thing as another unrelated statement is again proven to be a false accusation.

It is, as I said, irrelevant, a deliberate distraction tactic and an attempt to poison the well, thus:

This statement by JS is just before the one where he said he had kept all those good, faithful and efficient clerks who have recorded everything he did (Hoc 6:409) The DC has been changed or modified from what JS actually said. Because of these every DC section should taken with a grain of salt.

This is the way that rabble-rousers try to poison the well.

It didn't work.

And if you had any conscience left you would be utterly ashamed of yourself. Just as I and every decent person here is utterly disgusted by the depths to which you will sink in your attempts to make a false accusation stick. Is there any trick too low or dirty for you to use, or not?

And Doctrine and Covenants Section 130, verses 14 to 17, stands unrefuted and unsullied by your mis-aimed mud-slinging as the one and only canonical source of the 1890 prophecy. And what, if anything, does it prophesy?

I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time.

That is it, and that is all of it.

And so far, no-one with any credibility has tried to claim otherwise.

On this forum, you're right. But it did take a while for someone to answer, though wrongly, the 1890 return date prophecy.

This is a discredited polemic. The more you rely upon it, the more you sink your own credibililty.

I was so wrong to have said that that way! I won't again. But, folks here have jumped at ridiculous reasons for some of the things I have quoted from LDS doctrinal sources. Case in point, a 10 year old boy told a story that was 50 years old and somehow the Mormon leadership (prophet, apostles, church historians even and LDS god)

I thought that's what you just said you wouldn't say again.

failed to catch it and then allowed it to be printed in an official church publication as fact.

CFR that the Young Women's Journal was ever subject to apostolic scrutiny. (Hint: the Correlation Committee wasn't formed until the 1970's.)

Or, the 'recorder' added the '1890 year' part of JS story of Jesus' return.

Nobody has claimed that. That is a complete straw man.

See the lengths LDS go to justify their errors of yesteryear. I showed where they are printed and I get off-the-wall excuses. That's not evidence for them 'not' being true. The fact that a prophet of God said them makes them true.

Not according to the Bible, nor according to LDS doctrine. That is another straw man.

Especially so in light of Hoc 6:409. Just admit the evidence is real- since it is there it must be.

THE truth has nothing to lose or fear by being investigated

also,

Truth requires 'facts' be admitted.

So when do you plan to start?

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

Heres another example of rocmonkeys fautly logic:

The fact that a prophet of God said them makes them true.

Yet just a few pages earlier he said that Peter (a Self professed Liar), and Paul/ Moses (Murders) and many others where only Human, and not Perfect.

So which is it Mr. Monkey? Are prophets God incarnate and can never make mistake or are they human? Please make up your mind because you can't have it both ways.

:P

Link to comment

When I was a kid, I used to play with mercury gleaned from broken thermometers and thermostats. I know, that was stupid, because it

is toxic. But we didn't know it at the time. I did learn a lot about mercury,

though. If you put your finger down hard on a puddle, it breaks up into

myriads of little puddles. It flows more quickly than water and once it's

spilled or scattered, it's impossible to gather it back into one puddle. Hence the term mercurial.

Here we have a textbook example of "mercurial."

Bernard (Playing with mercury explains a lot) Gui

Link to comment

I understand the reply regarding the false prophecy. I just don't understand why you added the other itemd (coins, animals, grains, etc.). It has nothing to do with Ezekiel. This is what I was talking about earlier, that you add additional items with each passing thing. You said that you weren't adding items, you were merely replying to things and going with the flow of the discussion. I'm wondering what these items have to do with the post you were replying to?

BTW:

Alma 11:3-19 describes a monetary system of weights and measurements. This is actually a point for the BoM. The chapter heading was added to the text much later and basically serves the purpose that the Bible Dictionary serves, to help clarify and give synopsis (unfortunately, this chapter heading is wrong, and hopefully will be changed or corrected in a later edition).

What you once thought was wrong is actually right.

Ether 9:19. Might be an acronym, might not be. I tend to think it is.

Mosiah 9:9. Corn is a native crop to the Americas. Pre-Columbian domesticated barley has been discovered. And â??wheatâ? is a term which could potentially be applied to other grains. As for â??sheum,â? as I mentioned this is a word that fits nicely with the time and text (and authors). It is an Akkadian word that applies to grains. Whatâ??s amazing is that no one could read Akkadian until several decades after the BoM was published. So, once again, we have something that you thought was against the BoM that actually turns out to be something that not only could Joseph not have known (because no one knew it at the time), but that fits with what the book claims to be.

What is ziff? It may also be a strike for the BoM.

The Salonimers' etymology for ziff, "pitch, tar, asphalt," could correspond to the biblical place-name Ziph, which is what the Hebrew word they list indicates. They assign it a meaning of "pitch, tar, asphalt," though this word appears in the Bible in the form zephet (Exodus 2:3; Isaiah 34:9). Since ziff appears in the Book of Mormon in a list of other metals (silver, iron, brass, and copper; see Mosiah 11:3, :P, it is more likely to be a metal than tar. Some have likened ziff with the Hebrew z

Link to comment

... I stand on the Bible (NT especially) alone as God's only word to man- because it is.

Hi monkey,

What do you think of this glorious promise from the Bible:

12 I have yet MANY THINGS to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

--John 16

Is it not possible that your TRADITION that the Bible is the Lord's ONLY word to man may be incorrect?

Here, Jesus tells those that believed His words, the night before his crucifixion, that he has MANY more THINGS more to say unto them at some point. He promises that the Spirit of Truth will come and guide them eventually INTO ALL TRUTH.

When the Savior says he has many more things to SAY unto his disciples, that means more of his WORDS. How can he say things if he does not use words?

So these MANY more things promised to be said is a clear promise of MANY MORE WORDS.

How can it be otherwise?

And why would a true disciple of Christ be unhappy to hear MORE of his words? Since the truth will set one free from sin, why would a true disciple be unhappy to be guided into ALL TRUTH?

Richard

Link to comment

But the head of the church is not accountable to you or me. We have no authority to hold such persons accountable. Only the proscribed councils of the church, acting in the name of God and therefore with the authority of God have the power to make such judgements, and even so their decisions come by revelation and therefore are of God.

I totally agree. Have I said anything to the contrary?

But consider the right that members DO have:

Does a member of the church have the right to NOT sustain the President of the church, and to NOT reject the evidences that prompt him to that action, and to then seek for a trial to settle the controversy over the President of the church?

Or should those who claim the right to legitimately NOT sustain the President of the church be automatically excommunicated?

Why even ask for a "all in favor" and "all opposed" in Conference sustaining of the President of the church if it is automatically apostasy to take the second choice and oppose?

Richard

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...