James 1:5

[Benji]

Where there appears to be unrefutable evidence of some derogatory information, I am willing to take a wait and see attitude for the real story to come out.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here, Charity. Could you elaborate?

Benji

[Benji]

I wonder if Benji knows who Wisdom Is. (Prov He sure is Lacking.

Perhaps you'd like to elaborate, Zakuska?

Benji

[Benji]

Of course. But because the natural man is an enemy to God, you'll need wisdom from God to exceed or transcend your natural capabilities which is required for salvation.

I agree that the natural man is an enemy to God, but that does not eliminate common sense. These verses from Romans indicate that fallen human beings are still able to reason at a high enough level to comprehend that God exists:

"since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities

[charity]

Benji: You asked what I meant when I said, "Where there appears to be unrefutable evidence of some derogatory information, I am willing to take a wait and see attitude for the real story to come out."

At one time, a statement had been produced that Oliver Cowdery had said, under oath in a court case, "I don't believe the Book of Mormon to be true." Many people were really shaken by that. That didn't jibe with everything that I knew about Oliver Cowdery's testimony. I didn't get upset and shaky over it. I figured there was something we didn't know about it and it couldn't be what it looked like on the surface. It was later discovered that the whole statement was, "I don't believe the Book of Mormon to be true. I know it to be true."

When any new (and there has only been a couple of those) charge surfaces, I use the same attitude. Because of the nature of history, I figure we will get it figured out at some time in the future. And as one of the FAIR guys said, "I have a testimony of the Church. I don't have a testimony of Church history."

[Meta]

The problem that I have, Benji, is that you and I don't know everything. We don't have a perfect knowledge, and just because something may seem right or wrong, it doesn't mean it IS right or wrong. God doesn't want us to ask which orange juice to buy in the store, but he doesn't expect us to assume that other human's history of the church is valid. That means you should pray, even if you are an active member of the church, to find out if the things the people of the earlier days sad was true.

I think it is arrogant thinking we know enough about something that we shouldn't ask our Heavenly Father for confirmation.

Meta,

You're right, we don't know everything. I am not claiming to know everything. I'm just saying that some things are very obvious and plain.

Benji

This reminds me of something I read at a catholic website about mormonism:

http://www.catholic.com/library/problems_w...k_of_mormon.asp

Tell the Mormon missionaries: "Look, it is foolish to pray about things you know are not God’s will. It would be wrong of me to pray about whether adultery is right, when the Bible clearly says it is not. Similarly, it would be wrong of me to pray about the Book of Mormon when one can so easily demonstrate that it is not the word of God."

This is a joke, of course. This Catholic apologist can't seem to make up his mind about whether or not praying is right or wrong. He confuses when one should pray. Instead of praying for information when you are at a lack of it, you're told it would be foolish to pray about some things. How can one be foolish when it comes to finding God's correct church-- especially when Catholics believe their church to be the correct church!

The things you find to be "very obvious and plain" are very sophisticated in nature. Remember, you're not asking whether or not Aim with destroy the stink out of your mouth over Colgate, you're asking which church will allow you to gain exhaltation. Your soul is at stake here! Wouldn't you ask God with all your might for the correct church to follow?!

And I'll say this again:

I think it is arrogant thinking we know enough about something that we shouldn't ask our Heavenly Father for confirmation.

[Meta]

We don't need wisdom about the sky being blue or is water wet or what not, but maybe a color blind person might or someone who has no touch sense might. they would have to rely on the testimony of others to let them know these are real at least to us who are not color blind or no touch sense. The things we should be praying about to know their truths are is Jesus the Christ, is Joseph a Prophet, is the bible true, the Book of Mormon true the cchurch true. These things we need the witness from the Holy Ghost about. I personally don't need the witness about the sky being blue. Matters about my belief in God and his plan of happiness I do. On a related vein if we don't believe the book of mormon is true knowing the details of its translation won't convert or convince you DC 5:7

Hondo,

I am curious if you think a man's character is indicative of anything about him? Just because someone claims to be a prophet it doesn't mean I need to pray and ask if they really are. People make claims all the time. It would be ridiculous to pray about every claim that was made. Joseph Smith's character was not the character of a prophet. Neither was Brigham Young's. This issue alone is enough for me to dismiss their claims but there are so many more.

Wes

And how many modern day prophets do you know?! Have you ever read the bible before? In the OT there were many prophets that made many errors. There is no such thing as a perfect prophet.

Please, tell me, what do you think a "true" prophet of God would do?

[hondo]

Joseph Smith read and interpreted this scripture as meaning to him that if you have a ny questions and are willing to act on the answer then ask God. So he did. If we focus on the "if" in the scripture then we miss the message of asking God about our questions and him answering. That is how we know about Gospel truth 1 Cor. 12:3. He needed to know and found out. We need to know if Jesus is the Christ, The bible is true, the Book of Mormon is true, the Church is True. Pray and ask. How else are we going to know ask an exper? why not do better and ask the giver of all truth, God.

[TrespassersW]

Okay, so if I lack the ability to discern or judge what is true, right, or lasting, I should ask God. If I lack insight, common sense, or good judgment, I should ask and He will enlighten me.

Interestingly, this argument is virtually identical to what a lot of Atheists say about Christianity. Asserting that one can only believe a topic if they've suspended their ability to think reasonably is a very convenient way of avoiding actually engaging the topic itself.

[Benji]

Benji: You asked what I meant when I said, "Where there appears to be unrefutable evidence of some derogatory information, I am willing to take a wait and see attitude for the real story to come out."

At one time, a statement had been produced that Oliver Cowdery had said, under oath in a court case, "I don't believe the Book of Mormon to be true." Many people were really shaken by that. That didn't jibe with everything that I knew about Oliver Cowdery's testimony. I didn't get upset and shaky over it. I figured there was something we didn't know about it and it couldn't be what it looked like on the surface. It was later discovered that the whole statement was, "I don't believe the Book of Mormon to be true. I know it to be true."

When any new (and there has only been a couple of those) charge surfaces, I use the same attitude. Because of the nature of history, I figure we will get it figured out at some time in the future. And as one of the FAIR guys said, "I have a testimony of the Church. I don't have a testimony of Church history."

Well, good luck with that Charity. I have a feeling you will be waiting for quite some time. But please let me know when you find out something new.

Benji

[Benji]

I think it is arrogant thinking we know enough about something that we shouldn't ask our Heavenly Father for confirmation.

Meta,

It is interesting you think it is arrogant to use common sense. Should we pray for confirmation about every church and every person who claims to be a prophet of God?

Benji

[Benji]

And how many modern day prophets do you know?! Have you ever read the bible before? In the OT there were many prophets that made many errors. There is no such thing as a perfect prophet.

Please, tell me, what do you think a "true" prophet of God would do?

The prophets in the Bible who made false prophecies were considered false prophets. A true prophet of God is not perfect, that is not what I'm saying. However, the character of Joseph Smith (the most righteous man who ever lived since Christ according to the LDS church) and Brigham Young was woefully lacking. These men deliberately deceived people in the name of God for their own personal gain. I'm sure you will write this off as "anti-mormon" but it is beyond obvious that these men were swindlers. The evidence against the Book of Abraham alone is enough to indict Joseph Smith as a con-man.

Benji

[Benji]

Joseph Smith read and interpreted this scripture as meaning to him that if you have a ny questions and are willing to act on the answer then ask God. So he did. If we focus on the "if" in the scripture then we miss the message of asking God about our questions and him answering. That is how we know about Gospel truth 1 Cor. 12:3. He needed to know and found out. We need to know if Jesus is the Christ, The bible is true, the Book of Mormon is true, the Church is True. Pray and ask. How else are we going to know ask an exper? why not do better and ask the giver of all truth, God.

According to this we should pray about every church and every person who claims to be a prophet. Why should Mormonism be the only thing people pray about?

Benji

[Benji]

Interestingly, this argument is virtually identical to what a lot of Atheists say about Christianity. Asserting that one can only believe a topic if they've suspended their ability to think reasonably is a very convenient way of avoiding actually engaging the topic itself.

I don't think you understand what I am saying TrespassersW.

Benji

[hondo]

We are talking about our efforts to find God and the true Church. What about his efforts to find us? Are we humble and willing to do follow him? I think he is doing what he can to find us.

[Benji]

We are talking about our efforts to find God and the true Church. What about his efforts to find us? Are we humble and willing to do follow him? I think he is doing what he can to find us.

I agree Hondo. I think His biggest effort was becoming human flesh and dwelling on earth.

Benji

[charity]

Matt. 23: 37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

[hondo]

You and I may know that he came but not everyone. How are we going to get the word out and how are they going to know for themselves as you and I know? How can they be sure as we are sure?

[charity]

Hondo, I guess the best we can do is to serve and bear testimony. If they are humble and ready, the Spirit will testify that what we are saying is true.

[TrespassersW]

Benji

I don't think you understand what I am saying TrespassersW.

That's possible, I suppose. But frankly, I don't see where you've offered anything for me to understand. All I've seen here is your unsupported assertion that Mormonism is so patently false that it doesn't rise to the level of divine inquiry.

Well, I've seen a lot of arguments presented as to why some people think the LDS church is false. Some of them are very very good. Some of them are pure garbage. I've also seen arguments from those claiming the LDS church is true. Again, ranging from very very good to garbage. Now, I suppose it's possible that you've come up with an argument so brilliant and so compelling that it will end the debate once and for all. But, so far, I haven't seen any such presentation from you. Only your claim that the answer is "painfully obvious".

The character of Joseph Smith has been debated intensely. So far, I've seen enough to convince me that Joseph was sincere and was an exceptionally good and kind man. You seem to disagree with this. Perhaps you have something new to bring to the table that settles the debate? By all means, share it. Until you do, though, there is precious little to discuss.

[Benji]

Well, I've seen a lot of arguments presented as to why some people think the LDS church is false. Some of them are very very good.

I am curious what you think are very good arguments that the LDS church is false.

Benji

[Benji]

I know, in a way that is not open to doubt. I did have questions. I looked at the information out there. When I asked for a witness, I was granted one. Now there are no doubts.

Charity,

I am curious what your doubts and questions were?

Benji

[TrespassersW]

Benji:

I am curious what you think are very good arguments that the LDS church is false.

I dislike playing the game where I respond to someone's post when they have made no effort to respond to mine.

If you want to discuss, let's discuss. But it goes two ways.

[Benji]

I dislike playing the game where I respond to someone's post when they have made no effort to respond to mine.

If you want to discuss, let's discuss. But it goes two ways.

I just figured we would save time if you told me what you felt were good arguments. I have many reasons for not believing JS was a prophet. I think the Book of Abraham issue is just as good as any to start. Significant portions of The Book of Abraham that the LDS church acknowledges are authentic have been exposed as Egyptian funeral texts. They have NOTHING to do with Abraham. What more does a person need?

Benji

[TrespassersW]

Benji:

Significant portions of The Book of Abraham that the LDS church acknowledges are authentic have been exposed as Egyptian funeral texts.

Yes, that is about what I figured. You've taken subjects that are extremely complex and hotly debated (and debatable) and you've declared them "painfully obvious". You're certainly free to make that determination for yourself, but it leaves me wondering. If you can dismiss the ongoing debates so casually, just how familiar with them are you really? I know people who have devoted their entire careers to some these topics and don't feel like they have a good handle them yet.

Take your example of the Book of Abraham, for example. If I were listing what I consider to be the most legitimate arguments against the LDS church, this would be at the top. But that is not to say that I consider the matter settled. Only that currently, the overall weight of evidence favors the critics. Various apologists have presented defenses of it, but so far, I've found their arguments unconvincing.

However, I should also note here that I've yet to read anything from the critics on this topic that doesn't grossly overstate their case. With disturbing frequency, they claim that we have all the scrolls that Joseph had when such is clearly not the case (that is, where are the originals for the other two facsimiles?) . They make no effort to refute (or even acknowledge) arguments that the extant scrolls are not what Joseph translated. They spend much time loudly proclaiming how Joseph got it all wrong and the completely fail to explain (or even acknowledge) how he got some of the details so shockingly right. The critics thus far have been so busy declaring victory that they haven't bothered to address these issues. It bothers me when someone overstates their case and omits valid opposing views (which, btw, is also my chief complaint about LDS apologetic treatments of the Book of Abraham issue). It makes me wonder just how much do they really know about it and just how honest are they being in their presentation. Honestly, I haven't read a treatment of the Book of Abraham yet (from either side) that I felt actually presented all of the relevant data.

Since you asked, I'll list some other arguments that I consider legitimate arguments against the church:

1 - The Book of Abraham

2 - I think Joseph misled people about his involvement in polygamy

3 - I think Brigham Young taught a number of things that were just plain whacky

I completely disagree with you about not needing anything more. If I were searching for an excuse to dismiss Mormonism without further debate, then, sure, that would be a serviceable excuse. If, however, I were sincere in wanting to get to the bottom of whether or not Joseph Smith was, in fact, a prophet of God, then there's a whole lot more to the discussion. If we wanted to have everything hinge on one single issue, then Latter-day Saints could simply say that there are credible witnesses who have testified that they participated with Joseph in revelations including heavenly messengers. Voila! It's proven that he was a true prophet. What more do you need, right?

[Benji]

You've taken subjects that are extremely complex and hotly debated (and debatable) and you've declared them "painfully obvious". You're certainly free to make that determination for yourself, but it leaves me wondering.

What is so complex about this issue? Either he translated ot or he didn't. This is only one of many issues with Mormonism that I find painfully obvious.

They spend much time loudly proclaiming how Joseph got it all wrong and the completely fail to explain (or even acknowledge) how he got some of the details so shockingly right.

My understanding is that his "translation" of the facsimilie that has been verified as accurate is not correct in any way. In fact, it has absoutely NOTHING to do with Abraham or even Judaism for that matter. This is clearly not a person who is trustworthy.

Since you asked, I'll list some other arguments that I consider legitimate arguments against the church:

1 - The Book of Abraham

2 - I think Joseph misled people about his involvement in polygamy

3 - I think Brigham Young taught a number of things that were just plain whacky

These reasons are all at the top of my list. Here is one that definitely falls into my definition of painfully obvious. Have you ever wondered why all mormon scripture was written in King James English even though it was published in 19th century America? That just doesn't add up (unless someone wanted their writings to sound like the Bible). I have heard the argument from Mormons that it is a "holier language" which is of course absurd. Beyond that, it is so obviously a botched job of King James English. Mark Twain called the BOM "chlorophorm in print" and said it would be reduced to a pamphlet if the phrase "and it came to pass" was removed. I realize that this might not be the strongest argument against the church but it is one I have thought about often.

Other issues for me include the ever changing doctrine that seems to conveniently coincide with the politics of the day (i.e. polygamy and Blacks holding the priesthood). There is also the portions of the BOM that were clearly plaigerized from Isaiah. The trialsofascension link in my signature lists 20 good reasons and even includes the mormon response.

If we wanted to have everything hinge on one single issue, then Latter-day Saints could simply say that there are credible witnesses who have testified that they participated with Joseph in revelations including heavenly messengers. Voila! It's proven that he was a true prophet. What more do you need, right?

I have never been convinced by the "credible witnesses" who claim to have participated with JS.

Benji