cdowis Posted January 7, 2011 Posted January 7, 2011 To be fair actually, they don't let converts know about this stuff until they are baptized and giving 10% of their income.I was a member for over 40 years and my memory of learning the golden plate translation is a picture of Joseph/Emmaor Oliver Cowdery with the plates on the table and curtain between Joseph and the translater. I didn't find out aboutthe peep stone until I was 50 years old...wow..no wonder the internet is just a dirty word.I assume you are talking about the seer stone.Anyway, there is probably several hundred reasons to leave the church, and only one reason to stay.
why me Posted January 7, 2011 Posted January 7, 2011 Thank you for your detailed replies "why me", given your level of knowledge and seemingly defensive responses, I will assume that you are a regular attending Mormon member who is a staunch believer?hello beth.I am not a regular attending mormon member. But I do attend at times meetings. I am a little different from the mormons on this forum who defend the lds church. I do not have a temple recommend, I don't pay tithing nor do I have any callings in the lds church. What is amazing is that the regular attending mormons on this forum accept me for who I am and do not give me any flack for my irregular attendance etc. But I do defend the lds church. I do not know what a staunch believer is. All faith consists of doubt since faith is never based on hard evidence. All religion depends on faith. This is why in mormonism we have critics who wish to cast doubt and influence people's faith. And sometimes they succeed. To defend the lds church is to defend a mormon's faith.
why me Posted January 7, 2011 Posted January 7, 2011 What on earth are you talking about? writing the book while his head is in a hat? He wore a special hat?Sometimes critics point to this and say: hey, look here and see just how stupid this all is. But I say that the hat trick is very faith promoting. Try memorizing a manuscript and then stick your head in a hat infront of witnesses and recite the manuscript as someone copies what you are saying. Not easy at all. If the book of mormon is a fraud, this would be quite an amazing feat for any fraudster to do. People have been suggesting a book Rought Stone Rolling for you to read. That would be a great start in discovering the beginnings of early mormonism and in reading about the life of Joseph Smith. How the church was organized and how the book of mormon was translated are very interesting. And if you read the bare facts about Martin Harris' life that I posted on page 3, you can see that Martin definitely had faith in the book of mormon and in his experiences with Joseph Smith and in seeing the actual gold plates. How can that be explained if it were all a con? Usually on the deathbed, people want to make it right with their maker. But here we have martin and other witnesses to the book dying with their testimony intact and confirming what they saw.
why me Posted January 7, 2011 Posted January 7, 2011 To be fair actually, they don't let converts know about this stuff until they are baptized and giving 10% of their income.I was a member for over 40 years and my memory of learning the golden plate translation is a picture of Joseph/Emmaor Oliver Cowdery with the plates on the table and curtain between Joseph and the translater. I didn't find out aboutthe peep stone until I was 50 years old...wow..no wonder the internet is just a dirty word.Actually this is not true. There were Ensign articles in the 70's and 80's about it all. You just need to research these articles. http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1977.htm/ensign%20september%201977.htm/by%20the%20gift%20and%20power%20of%20god%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1997.htm/ensign%20january%201997.htm/by%20the%20gift%20and%20power%20of%20god.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1988.htm/ensign%20january%201988.htm/i%20have%20a%20question.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0#LPTOC1You must have not read the church magazines. It was all out there to read...nothing hidden.
why me Posted January 7, 2011 Posted January 7, 2011 I assume you are talking about the seer stone.Anyway, there is probably several hundred reasons to leave the church, and only one reason to stay.Unfortunately, she believes what she reads on the Internet about the church hiding its early beginnings. Which of course is not true as I proved with the early Ensign articles that she should have been reading 40 years ago.
why me Posted January 7, 2011 Posted January 7, 2011 Come on, Beth, why wouldn't you believe Smith? He engaged after all in treasure hunting, by his own account, and was tried for this offense is a rather comical proceeding. He was convicted of bank fraud. He was lynched by an armed mob after his role in the destruction of the printing press of the newspaper that threatened to detail the circumstances of his numerous polygamous and illegal relationships.Doesn't this just scream credibility to you?Well, when one looks into all this we can see that he certainly had enemies. And why wouldn't he? About the so called bank fraud, many banks went under at the time and certainly the run on the bank created problems not just for him but many of the investors. As far as treasure hunting, I do think that the lord picks strange characters to represent him. Just look at Paul in the new testament. Not exactly a wonderful guy as he persecuted christians. And peter? A rough and rugged fisherman who was probably ruffing it up and cursing up a storm before he was called. Most of the apostles were weak men and remained weak until christ paid a visit to them after death. If christ didn't do that, those guys would have faded into the scenery. And the tax collector? That was one of the worse professions at that time and highly disrespected by any jew.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 7, 2011 Posted January 7, 2011 Unfortunately, she believes what she reads on the Internet about the church hiding its early beginnings. Which of course is not true as I proved with the early Ensign articles that she should have been reading 40 years ago.Remember she thinks the internet is a "dirty word". Lol.
why me Posted January 7, 2011 Posted January 7, 2011 Remember she thinks the internet is a "dirty word". Lol.It is interesting just how many of the critics are misinformed. Members gleam something from the internet like the church has hidden its history. They begin to question and then fall away but then they are proved wrong or mistaken. However if one repeats a complaint enough, it becomes true in the mind...but reality may speak differently.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 7, 2011 Posted January 7, 2011 It is interesting just how many of the critics are misinformed. Members gleam something from the internet like the church has hidden its history. They begin to question and then fall away but then they are proved wrong or mistaken. However if one repeats a complaint enough, it becomes true in the mind...but reality may speak differently.Another interesting thing is that they learn something from the "dirty" internet and leave the church beacuse they did not know it like you said "Members gleam something from the internet like the church has hidden its history". And that is one of the basis for leaving. When proven that the church has taught it for a long time, I wonder why they don't come back? It is ok to be wrong on something.
why me Posted January 7, 2011 Posted January 7, 2011 Another interesting thing is that they learn something from the "dirty" internet and leave the church beacuse they did not know it like you said "Members gleam something from the internet like the church has hidden its history". And that is one of the basis for leaving. When proven that the church has taught it for a long time, I wonder why they don't come back? It is ok to be wrong on something.I don't think that it is easy to come back. Also, there is plenty of support on the outside for staying out. Take the information that I posted about martin harris on page 3. That is pretty powerful stuff on the signature books website. We see Martin as a man who believed in the book of mormon story, reconfirming his testimony. It is his own words not some newspaper journalist reporting what he said. And how is he buried. With the book of mormon in one of his arms and the D and C in the other arm. Now that speaks loudly for all to hear.
ELF1024 Posted January 7, 2011 Posted January 7, 2011 Another interesting thing is that they learn something from the "dirty" internet and leave the church beacuse they did not know it like you said "Members gleam something from the internet like the church has hidden its history". And that is one of the basis for leaving. When proven that the church has taught it for a long time, I wonder why they don't come back? It is ok to be wrong on something.It's not a "great and spacious building" without a reason.
USU78 Posted January 7, 2011 Posted January 7, 2011 It's not a "great and spacious building" without a reason.What's LES got to do with the OP?
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 7, 2011 Posted January 7, 2011 It's not a "great and spacious building" without a reason.Yeah, yeah yeah, I know.
Jeanne Posted January 7, 2011 Posted January 7, 2011 I have read those Ensign articles..but to me, (assuming that I have a mind of my own), what is being taught in Primary and to hopeful converts is stillthe same...I did not call the internet a dirty word. I was inferring to the fact that basically the church wants you to stay away from the internet. People, so manyof the critical things I have found about the church has been on sights like this.Ms. Jeanne is not the bad lady here okay? Hugs,Jeanne
cinepro Posted January 7, 2011 Posted January 7, 2011 That is, of course, a complete falsehood.The reality is that, of the thousands of hours worth of Church Historical material available, the missionary lessons hit the main headlines. The fact that they don't focus on the irrelevant factoids that fanatics obsess about in no wise prevents people from learning about such things in their own time. They are certainly not concealed from anyone.Even so, it would be awesome if the missionary "Preach My Gospel" manual had a different picture on page 38. Just to avoid any confusion.
mapman Posted January 7, 2011 Posted January 7, 2011 I did not call the internet a dirty word. I was inferring to the fact that basically the church wants you to stay away from the internet. Is that why the Church has several official websites and encourages people to share the gospel through blogs and other things on the internet? Is that why they provide internet service in chapels? I honestly don't know how a member can think these silly things about the Church because they are obviously not true.
beth Posted January 8, 2011 Posted January 8, 2011 <br />Even so, it would be awesome if the missionary <a href='http://lds.org/languages/additionalmanuals/preachgospel/PreachMyGospel___06_03-1_TheRestoration__36617_eng_006.pdf' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>"Preach My Gospel" manual had a different picture on page 38</a>.
CA Steve Posted January 8, 2011 Posted January 8, 2011 <br /><br /><br />Wait this picture in the church book doesn't show Mr. Smith with his face in the hat with a stone translating as several people said was how he did it. If that was the case, why doesn't the church show that? Seems kind of deceptive, don't you think?I don't think pictures like that are meant to be taken literally. The simpler explanations sometimes are the easiest and the most faith inspiring. For example there is a beautiful picture of 17 year old Joseph Smith on his bed alone in a room being visited by the angel Moroni. It is a faith inspiring scene but not quite accurate in that when the vision happened he lived in a small 2 room cabin with 9 other people.
cdowis Posted January 8, 2011 Posted January 8, 2011 <br /><br /><br />Wait this picture in the church book doesn't show Mr. Smith with his face in the hat with a stone translating as several people said was how he did it. If that was the case, why doesn't the church show that? Seems kind of deceptive, don't you think?Have you seen some paintings of Christ that seemed somewhat.... well, artistic. I assume that you are familiar with "artistic license", where the artist does not draw the warts, but a stylized view of an event.Beth, I think it is tragic that the antis have poisoned your mind. You have joined the inhabitants of that great building, pointing your finger and making mocking sounds. You would read a poem by Walt Whitman, and complain about the punctuation.The point is whether the Book of Mormon is scripture, and whether Joseph Smith a prophet. Complaining about paintings and such shows what they have done to you, and what you are missing.
why me Posted January 8, 2011 Posted January 8, 2011 I have read those Ensign articles..but to me, (assuming that I have a mind of my own), what is being taught in Primary and to hopeful converts is stillthe same...I did not call the internet a dirty word. I was inferring to the fact that basically the church wants you to stay away from the internet. People, so manyof the critical things I have found about the church has been on sights like this.Ms. Jeanne is not the bad lady here okay? Hugs,JeanneBut you did make a statement about the lds church hiding its history and I proved you wrong. That was my point. All faiths do not encourage their faithful to read sites that are critical of that particular faith. And it stands to reason why. Critical sites are not there to encourage critical and independent thought but to cast doubt. And doubt is easy to cast. How many people have been influenced by Richard Dawkins and his book The God Delusion? Many. I do remember a lds GA encouraging people to engage the Internet to counter the negatives.
why me Posted January 8, 2011 Posted January 8, 2011 <br /><br /><br />Wait this picture in the church book doesn't show Mr. Smith with his face in the hat with a stone translating as several people said was how he did it. If that was the case, why doesn't the church show that? Seems kind of deceptive, don't you think?Did you read the articles that I posted on the prvious page about the translation process. If you would have read them, you would discover that the translation process occured in different ways. And in fact, the lds do not know much about it because we only have summaries of what the people said when they witnessed it. Both David Whitmer and Emma Smith related the hat trick but only by mentioning it. Not much on detail. It would be nice to have more detail about the process. The use of hat seems to be mentioned the most. I think that the hat trick should be mentioned more since the witnesses to the process gave wonderful acccounts of it. And it seems like an almost impossible feat to do, if one reads the witnesses to the event. So, the hat translation works for me.
ELF1024 Posted January 8, 2011 Posted January 8, 2011 I did not call the internet a dirty word. I was inferring to the fact that basically the church wants you to stay away from the internet PORN.That statement would be more accurate.CFR where the church advises/recommends/councils to stay away from the Internet....
beth Posted January 8, 2011 Posted January 8, 2011 <br />Have you seen some paintings of Christ that seemed somewhat.... well, artistic.
beth Posted January 8, 2011 Posted January 8, 2011 That statement would be more accurate. CFR where the church advises/recommends/councils to stay away from the Internet....Does the church actually advise people to stay away from the internet? Can you give me a quote that shows that? Other people I talked to said they don't really do that. CFR? thanks
beth Posted January 8, 2011 Posted January 8, 2011 Another question - do they have discussions like this in the church meetings? Can you ask questions about the translation stuff or is that not really a good idea?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.