Top Ten Anti-Mormon Arguments

[mfbukowski]

So admit that you don't know. Then someone should be working to find out.

We've already heard the zingers and many of us are here because of the ones we stumbled over on our own. I still think it would be very interesting to learn from you if you would ever open up and share with us instead of your often curt and dismissive retorts. It'd certainly make for a better Sunday School class than what we're getting right now. I personally feel the spirit stronger as I get closer to solving these problems, not when I ignore them.

Of course I don't know, but I don't know how you got that from this quote. You seem to jump to conclusions. Because I say someone doesn't know doesn't mean that I don't know, or at least think that I do.

How do you propose we proceed? Are you comfortable with William James Dewey and Wittgenstein?

If not, how much time do I get to spend bringing you up to speed on it? Maybe see how you do with wikipedia?

How about my signature? That is a start. Can you see how the subjective and objective are always different? What do you think are the implications for that? If you have a spiritual experience that means that no amount of science can analyze that experience or refute it. Can you see how that conclusion is reached?

This is the link to the full essay: http://organizations.utep.edu/Portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf

That essay has direct relevance to the philosophy of spiritual experience and what it is to have one.

The short explanation is that what you experience subjectively is just as "real" and relevant to your life as scientific observation is for science, but they are different realms of inquiry. Make sense?

[TAO]

Why are we arguing in this thread guys?

[Heartleap]

Do you realize it's possible to be "his"... or a true disciple of Jesus Christ... and still not be a member of His one true Church?

Anyone can follow him, either to some limited extent or all the way into His Church, and to become a member of His Church there are certain things you need to do to become a member of it.

Do you realize that?

Jesus has said The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the name that his one true Church now goes by on this Earth, at this time, and that although many people are following him, to some extent, not everyone who follows him has become a member of the Church that is His Church... which is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Tell me, Heartleap: Are you a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? If you're not, then you're not a member of His Church, even though you may be one of his true disciples.

No, Jesus did not say that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the name of his one true church. Only Latter Day saints say that he said that. I still have my LDS membership. But I do not consider myself a member. I was a believing member for 30 years though. I know who I am in Christ, you dont need to tell me, because he does. He is my authority on the matter.

Heartleap...

[mbh26]

How do you propose we proceed? Are you comfortable with William James Dewey and Wittgenstein?

If not, how much time do I get to spend bringing you up to speed on it? Maybe see how you do with wikipedia?

about 35 years worth of Sunday School classes for me... for the elders every day is a Sunday on steroids, you'd think they could at least fit some of it in. I honestly cannot believe I was able to do it. I put up with 12 hours a day of that boredom. Now I can barely put up with a few hours of it.

The short explanation is that what you experience subjectively is just as "real" and relevant to your life as scientific observation is for science, but they are different realms of inquiry. Make sense?

Sure seems to make sense to me. I was never a fan of cold hard science that rejected such truths. I appreciate the link.

I'd like to dedicate hymn 331 to this thread, "... truth the sum of existence will weather the worst, eternal, unchanged, evermore.

And it's not just anti arguments that the Church could afford to be more truthful about to prospective missionaries. Many of those never concerned me but some did and others had to deal with different ones than I did.

I'd start by explaining the hours and the schedule they'll be expected to keep in the MTC and throughout the mission. I'd also explain the military/business model the mission is based upon. Make sure the missionary knows that if he has any questions or doubts he needs to express them before the mission or forever hold his peace. During the mission obedience is the overwhelming focus. What you believe to be right has no weight compared to what you are ordered to do. Know that you will be expected to obey whether you agree or not. I'd give more detail on what the rules would be and the penalties for breaking them. I'd tell them what it will be like living in a third world country, what kind of food he'll be expected to eat, and what the risks are, including the types of disease they'll be exposed to. I'd explain to the parents that even though buying health insurance for their missionary looks outrageously expensive, realize that many insurance companies consider 19 year olds adults and are thus uncovered by parent policies if the missionary gets sick since he is not in college. If he gets sick there the Church will not pay for his treatment but will send him home to be treated by doctors that you will be expected to pay for if you want him to receive medical treatment.

Is that unacceptable because it might make the missionary back out? I personally believe it's worse to have the missionary back out when he is in the country. Explain to the parents that if he leaves early they will paying for his plane ticket home, not the Church. Holding the missionary against his will in the country was never beneficial to anyone in my experience, and yes I clearly witnessed it firsthand for his first two months of it. I talked to the Elder at a mission reunion years later. I couldn't believe it when he told me they held him there against his will for 19 months before finally letting him go home. He basically said it was every month back to meet with the MP to beg for his VISA and go home. He begged to have his parents sell his truck for him to pay for his ticket back. Upon which the MP replied, "Your parents can't do that for you. Take heart and go lose yourself in the work." Without your passport, it's sometimes tough to get out of a foreign country. Some foreign countries charge you money just for the privilege of leaving. It was pretty expensive for the Church to pay the tax when I got to finally go home. Explain that it might be two years or it might be 26 months or it could be 22 months, it just depends on how long they decide to keep you. It's not your choice. One might be allowed to leave at 18 months and called honorable, one might be sent home dishonorably for demanding to leave at 24 months, instead of staying for 26 months as asked. I didn't know this stuff when I signed on. I'm not even sure what dishonorably discharged means now that I think of it. It's not like the military where you have to put it on a job application. Is there some kind of record where they penalize a missionary for being sent home dishonorably? How would they even do that, tell the bishop to not allow you to marry in the temple when you return? Or alert everyone in the ward that you were dishonorably rather than honorably discharged? That was the way I imagined it when the MP would use the term. Geez I can't believe what kind of spell they had me under.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Consig, in addition to the ones already mentioned, there is also the Book of Mormon's extensive and anachronistic quotation from the Bible. Good luck with your talk! If you come up with any new insights during the course of your preparation, please come and share them here.

Or the same God saying the same words.

[Jeff K.]

I do not believe there is an effective argument against the Book of Mormon if one teaches by the spirit of the Lord. However if the spirit cannot reside in you for one reason or another, then I suppose a series of arguments can be made either for or against the Book of Mormon, but if you have no spirit, you have lost the conversation already.

[Lightbearer]

Lightbearer,

I assume your references about "seeking to shed innocent blood" and "thirst for the blood of Joseph Smith" are in reference to this Joseph Smith quotation in answer to the question "what must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin?":

"When a man begins to be an enemy to this work he hunts me, he seeks to kill me, and never ceases to thirst for my blood. He gets the spirit of the devil - the same spirit that they had who crucified the Lord of Life - the ame sirit that sins against the Holy Ghost. You cannot save such persons; you cannot bring them to repentance; they make open war, like the devil, and awful is the consequence" (Teachings of the Prophet JS, pg 358) "

Actually you are not far off, in fact the above quote is part of a longer quote which says the following:

(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith Section Six 1843-44, p.358) "All sins shall be forgiven, except the sin against the Holy Ghost; for Jesus will save all except the sons of perdition. What must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin? He must receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God, and then sin against Him. After a man has sinned against the Holy Ghost, there is no repentance for him. He has got to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it; he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him, and to deny the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it; and from that time he begins to be an enemy. This is the case with many apostates of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

Note it does not say "all apostates" but it is the case with some.

I see you're not a proponent of "kinder, gentler Mormonism". Perhaps your consistency does you credit. For the record, I don't know that voicing doubts and dissenting versions of the official LDS history ought to qualify one for eternity with Satan and his angels in outer darkness where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched.

I never have believed in trying to flatter my enemies into "liking me." There is a difference between civility and allowing lies and deceptions to stand unchallenged for the sake of "peaceful relations." I am frankly tired of the Anti-Mormons strutting around like some infallible source of knowledge that we must not dare contradict and walk on eggshells to avoid offending... For the record I never said this about all those who "voiced doubts" but for those who purposefully try to destroy or undermine the faith of the Latter-day Saints as mentioned here:

(3 Nephi 29:6-7) "Yea, wo unto him that shall deny the revelations of the Lord, and that shall say the Lord no longer worketh by revelation, or by prophecy, or by gifts, or by tongues, or by healings, or by the power of the Holy Ghost! Yea, and wo unto him that shall say at that day, to get gain, that there can be no miracle wrought by Jesus Christ; for he that doeth this shall become like unto the son of perdition, for whom there was no mercy, according to the word of Christ!"

So if one becomes the enemy of Christ (which is the case with those who oppose His Gospel) then what is the difference?

[maupayman]

Hey Consig, not sure if you are still even checking this thread, but I just noticed that one major issue, in my mind, has yet to be mentioned. I think some of the clearest evidence, that Joseph made things up, is the change from one priesthood to two. Many early members said that they had never even heard of a second priesthood, til nearly a year and a half after the church was formed. Whitmer, as I recall, claimed that Rigdon was responsible for the changes. I started a thread on this subject before, but can't seem to find it. I will continue to try and locate it.

[Ceeboo]

A

I never have believed in trying to flatter my enemies into "liking me.

So if one becomes the enemy of Christ (which is the case with those who oppose His Gospel) then what is the difference?

Hey Lightbearer,

For clarity and the sake of my current mind bending condition after reading some of your posts, might I ask you a few questions?

Are your "enemies" anyone who does not hold the same beliefs/opinions as you regarding the LDS church? (Is Ceeboo your enemy?)

As per your suggestion that folks become the "enemy of Christ" when they oppose his Gospel, are you suggesting that anyone who does not believe in JS and or the LDS church cliams are indeed enemies of Christ?

Peace,

Ceeboo

[maupayman]

Actually you are not far off, in fact the above quote is part of a longer quote which says the following:Note it does not say "all apostates" but it is the case with some.

I never have believed in trying to flatter my enemies into "liking me." There is a difference between civility and allowing lies and deceptions to stand unchallenged for the sake of "peaceful relations." I am frankly tired of the Anti-Mormons strutting around like some infallible source of knowledge that we must not dare contradict and walk on eggshells to avoid offending... For the record I never said this about all those who "voiced doubts" but for those who purposefully try to destroy or undermine the faith of the Latter-day Saints as mentioned here:So if one becomes the enemy of Christ (which is the case with those who oppose His Gospel) then what is the difference?

You know, the majority of the posters on this site are good and respectable people. Just like the majority of LDS are great people, but every now and then, you get a doozy like this. This reminds me of why I have resigned my membership and stopped associating with people like this.

[Jeff K.]

maupyan,

The number of times I have seen arrogance displayed by anti Mormons using half truths in order to attack the church, calling its members idiots cults and what not. Don't expect every Latter Day Saint to continue to take that abuse and respond with a nice smile.

If a person is hit hard enough and often enough they will tend to flinch when a hand is raised again. Wonder if you will extend the charity to others you seem to want for yourself when you commit a "doozy" as your post suggests.

[Ceeboo]

maupyan,

The number of times I have seen arrogance displayed by anti Mormons using half truths in order to attack the church, calling its members idiots cults and what not. Don't expect every Latter Day Saint to continue to take that abuse and respond with a nice smile.

If a person is hit hard enough and often enough they will tend to flinch when a hand is raised again. Wonder if you will extend the charity to others you seem to want for yourself when you commit a "doozy" as your post suggests.

Not exactly the kind of post I was expecting/hoping to see

Defend at all costs, I guess

Peace,

Ceeboo

[thesometimesaint]

Ceeboo:

Simply disagreeing with someone's religion should never make them an enemy. I consider you a friend.

[ELF1024]

My cousin (same age as me and whom I was very close to growing up) lost his testimony on his mission. His testimony "in the first place" was rock solid. He served out of a sense of duty and honor and because he firmly believed the church to be true. On his mission he became aware of certain facts which he'd never heard of before. One of these facts was that the Joseph Smith Papyri had been recovered by the church and the translation didn't match the Book of Abraham. He told me this several years after he'd returned from his mission and left the church. My reaction was, "So what? How do you know it's not on the missing papyri?" Though I never condemned him openly, I'm ashamed to say that, in my mind, I looked down on him for losing his faith. In a thousand indistinct ways, I along with everyone else in his extended family, registered our disapproval of him. It's been almost two decades since I've seen him. Life has an ironic way of bringing lessons home to bear.

If you are looking for reasons to believe, you will find them. If you are looking for reasons to disbelieve you will find them too.

If you want to find a reason for the Church to be false, you can believe any number of things from the Papyri not translating the same, to Joseph Smith being a womanizing cad. You could lose faith over the Adam-God theory that B.Y. held to.

I too had a friend who lost faith over the Book of Abraham.

Sure, there are missionary Horror stories, about people who lost faith on their mission. We had a missionary down here who ran off with the Bishop's wife a number of years ago.

This is still a failure on the part of the Missionary. Losing faith is as much a choice and keeping it.

[maupayman]

maupyan,

The number of times I have seen arrogance displayed by anti Mormons using half truths in order to attack the church, calling its members idiots cults and what not. Don't expect every Latter Day Saint to continue to take that abuse and respond with a nice smile.

If a person is hit hard enough and often enough they will tend to flinch when a hand is raised again. Wonder if you will extend the charity to others you seem to want for yourself when you commit a "doozy" as your post suggests.

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

[ELF1024]

Elf,

No. It has been suspended, not abolished. The LDS Church could bring it back at any time. The LDS Church has never stated that polygamy was or is wrong -- only that it no longer sanctions the practice.

For a brief explanation of why the subject is not a "dead horse," please see my blog article, "Why Are We Still Talking about Polygamy?"

Rob, In another thread you said the following to me:

Let's face facts here. It's been 170 years since any "hidden records" have surfaced that the LDS Church prophets have deemed to be scripture. Only one LDS prophet has ever claimed to have found or discerned such hidden scriptures, and he died 166 years ago. Treasure troves of documents from ancient Judaism, ancient Christianity, and ancient heretical sects and movements have been discovered in the intervening 166 years, especially in the 1940s, but the LDS Church prophets have not declared any of them to be scripture. Based on this history, it is unlikely that any future LDS prophet will identify more ancient scriptures.

So, you are attemping to have it both ways. Which is it? If it hasn't been in practice for over 100 years is it likely to happen again, or is it not?

At least attempt to be consistant...

[Jeff K.]

Not exactly the kind of post I was expecting/hoping to see

Defend at all costs, I guess

Peace,

Ceeboo

I think the earlier poster could have toned it down. I just don't like the passive aggressive "your one reason I left the church" whining. But the circumstances are true, there is a great deal more rabid anti Mormonism out there than there are angry lightbearers.

I think it is more than disagreement about religion though, blatant and acted upon hostility, ridicule, attempts to paint the church as evil and their believers as dupes. I disagree and believe that to be wrong and it does indeed create enemies. When I hear someone in my church take such a stance I quickly stand up and explain how such a mentality causes less understanding, as I have done for both my Catholic and Mulsim friends whom I know to be intelligent and devout people.

I made a ripple a few months back when I went to a 7th Day Adventist "study group" (invited) and the presenter brought forth many terrible allegations towards the Catholic Church. I pointed out the historical inaccuracies and the half truths the presenter used and showed how I disagreed by using a more clear context. Some thought me Catholic. I explained I was a Mormon and Mormons are often hurt by half truths, that we are sensitive to understanding context. In short, if you want to play, play fair (no pun to this website intended).

I don't defend at all costs, but I also understand having put up with the stuff tossed out that is a half truth whose aim is only to undermine peoples beliefs in testimonies. I have even seen some of those self same half truths tosssed out in this forum. So I see Lightbearers point of view, even if I disagree with his presentation.

[Jeff K.]

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

[thesometimesaint]

Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered. He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: `And he was numbered with the transgressors' ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied. (Luke 22:35-38, NIV)

[Jeff K.]

LOL

[maupayman]

I think the earlier poster could have toned it down. I just don't like the passive aggressive "your one reason I left the church" whining. But the circumstances are true, there is a great deal more rabid anti Mormonism out there than there are angry lightbearers.

Interesting point: most of the rabid anti-mormonism, that I have seen, comes from other religious groups.

I don't defend at all costs, but I also understand having put up with the stuff tossed out that is a half truth whose aim is only to undermine peoples beliefs in testimonies. I have even seen some of those self same half truths tosssed out in this forum. So I see Lightbearers point of view, even if I disagree with his presentation.

Yes, the labelling of non-believers as "enemies" and talk of them as "sons of perdition" does little to help bridge the gaps between mormons and others.

[maupayman]

He knew enough to take a whip to thieves and liars on the temple grounds. I guess the circumstance helps us understand the reaction. As my post explained.

Hey, I never claimed that Jesus, or the Bible, were consistant.

[Jeff K.]

LOl, who really is consistent?

[Lightbearer]

Hey Lightbearer,

For clarity and the sake of my current mind bending condition after reading some of your posts, might I ask you a few questions?

Are your "enemies" anyone who does not hold the same beliefs/opinions as you regarding the LDS church? (Is Ceeboo your enemy?)

As per your suggestion that folks become the "enemy of Christ" when they oppose his Gospel, are you suggesting that anyone who does not believe in JS and or the LDS church cliams are indeed enemies of Christ?

Peace,

Ceeboo

I have never considered you or Mudcat (and a few other non-Mormon critics) enemies of me or Christ. However those that attack over and over again the reputation of the Prophet Joseph, who waste their lives trying to undermind and destroy the faith of the Latter-day Saints and to dispute the scriptures of the restoration, yes they are enemies, some to a greater extent than others. Please do not take offence where none is intended, you do not write Anti-Mormon blogs, you do not sully and backbite every statement made by almost every general authority do you? No I have not seen you do these things, but I have seen some on this thread and in other places who do and I am sick of it! To some that is all there is to their existence, mostly from apostates who tend to blame everyone but themselves for their leaving the Church. Well to those I say good riddence... but can they leave it alone? NO they must come back again and again seeking revenge for loosing the thing that at one time they cherished most. For them I feel truly sorry, if I could give them their testimonies back I would. But I will not remain silent while they go about trying to reek havoc on the innocent, the weak and the unsuspecting so they can make them as miserable as they are themselves. Well, I have written to much and derailed this thread enough, I hope you are not offended by my comments because I get very passionate about my faith and those who would attack it are my enemies. But although I am not perfect, still I try to love my enemies... not an easy task on this board at times. But loving does not mean accepting the falsehoods designed to destroy the faith of those I love, so I will call Anti-Mormon rubbish what it is LIES and DECEIT, designed and fashioned by the father of lies.

Sorry for my "intemperate" attitude but I have a real problem with compromising my faith. If I have gone to far, then I am sure the mods will correct me.

Defender at all costs

[maupayman]

LOl, who really is consistent?

One would hope that the perfect son of God could pull it off.