What's so bad about the Book of Mormon?

[Theway]

He hadn't even had his first encounter with Moroni yet--that was much later, this was when he was much younger. He was making up these stories before he encountered this Moroni--even before he had read the bible, which wasn't until after he was 18.

i don't know where you got that idea from???

"Now said he[,] Father and Mother the angel of the Lord says that we must be careful not to proclaim these things or to mention them abroad For we do not any of us know the wickedness of the world which is so sinful that when we get the plates they will want to kill us for the sake of the gold if they know we had <have> them...by sunset [we] were ready to be seated and give our atten undivided attention to Josephs recitals...From this time forth Joseph continued to receive instructions from time to time and every evening we gathered our children togather [together]...In the course of our evening conversations Joseph would give us some of the most ammusing [amusing] recitals which could be immagined [imagined]. he would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent their dress their man[n]er of traveling the animals which they rode The cities that were built by them the structure of their buildings with every particular of their mode of warfare their religious worship as particularly as though he had spent his life with them...The angel informed him at one time that he might make an effort to obtain the plates <on> the <22nd of the> ensueing september..."
1845 manuscript of Lucy Mack Smith's autobiography.

 

[fatboys]

IOW, everyone one is lying that has something to offer other than the whitewashed SLC version of events??

Or they want the church to be so wrong that they drift towards speculation an the misinformation

 

[A New Dawn]

Or they want the church to be so wrong that they drift towards speculation an the misinformation

misinformation = historical evidence, I presume. Since it differs in almost every way from the sanitized church history.

 

[fatboys]

misinformation = historical evidence, I presume. Since it differs in almost every way from the sanitized church history.

Unlike the true version you use to believe in before they changed their name?

 

[Albion]

Unlike the true version you use to believe in before they changed their name?

That seems like a strange criticism, considering that yours has changed its name several times.

 

[fatboys]

That seems like a strange criticism, considering that yours has changed its name several times.

My point was that she use to believe in and is still defending it. That is Strang to me

 

[Albion]

My point was that she use to believe in and is still defending it. That is Strang to me

That I got. It was that other thing about a name change that seemed curious.

 

[smaneck]

My point was that she use to believe in and is still defending it. That is Strang to me

I think it is quite possible to see Joseph Smith III as the legitimate successor to leadership in the church without necessarily thinking its teachings are correct.

 

[A New Dawn]

Unlike the true version you use to believe in before they changed their name?

No. The RLDS promoted their own version of whitewashed church history. After working at Nauvoo and reading tons of historical evidences, I ceased believing the whitewashed version. What is interesting is that the LDS and RLDS (now CoC) have seemingly switched places. The LDS deny Joseph Smith had anything to do with polygamy, a stance they staunchly accepted for over a hundred years, and the CoC now accepts that he was involved in it.

 

[A New Dawn]

My point was that she use to believe in and is still defending it. That is Strang to me

One can defend what historically took place whether they believe in the tenets of that church or not.

 

[ChetSinger]

No. The RLDS promoted their own version of whitewashed church history. After working at Nauvoo and reading tons of historical evidences, I ceased believing the whitewashed version. What is interesting is that the LDS and RLDS (now CoC) have seemingly switched places. The LDS deny Joseph Smith had anything to do with polygamy, a stance they staunchly accepted for over a hundred years, and the CoC now accepts that he was involved in it.

I've read that the LDS has recently acknowledged Smith's plural wives, admitting that he had between 30 and 40 of them.

More here: http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/11/living/mormon-founder-polygamy/

I found the reason for this change interesting: the information was already available on the internet.

Twenty years ago, Mormons could be excommunicated for addressing controversial topics like polygamy and the church's former ban on black priests.

But in recent years, with information about Smith's multiple marriages only a Google search away, Mormon church leaders felt pressure to answer questions from the faithful, Evans said. Some Mormons had even left the church after discovering its polygamist past.

 

[Supreme]

I've never read the Book of Mormon, but I don't feel much need to. Mormonism doesn't interest me, and I have the Bible, which gives me all the information on God that I need.

 

[smaneck]

I've read that the LDS has recently acknowledged Smith's plural wives, admitting that he had between 30 and 40 of them.

More here: http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/11/living/mormon-founder-polygamy/

I found the reason for this change interesting: the information was already available on the internet.

Given Brigham Young's known polygamy why would this even be a problem? I can see it being a problem for the RLDS but not the LDS.

 

[fatboys]

Given Brigham Young's known polygamy why would this even be a problem? I can see it being a problem for the RLDS but not the LDS.

Yes that is a question I have always wondered about. But it could be that since there are no known children from any of the sealings that many feel he did not sleep with any of them. Not that it would matter to me if he did have children with them. The RLDS teach that polygamy was BY's deal even though there are many stories that say different.

 

[fatboys]

I've never read the Book of Mormon, but I don't feel much need to. Mormonism doesn't interest me, and I have the Bible, which gives me all the information on God that I need.

That's too bad. I think you should read it. What's the matter are you afraid to?

 

[ChetSinger]

Given Brigham Young's known polygamy why would this even be a problem? I can see it being a problem for the RLDS but not the LDS.

Beats me, but it sounds like it was something to keep hidden, at least until googling forced their hand.

 

[fatboys]

Beats me, but it sounds like it was something to keep hidden, at least until googling forced their hand.

No it didn't. If you wanted to find out about there were tons of books written about by both sides long before the Internet.

 

[ChetSinger]

No it didn't. If you wanted to find out about there were tons of books written about by both sides long before the Internet.

I know, but the Time article reads like the church didn't want to discuss it. Is the article wrong?

 

[fatboys]

I know, but the Time article reads like the church didn't want to discuss it. Is the article wrong?

There was nothing to discuss. Can you imagine having to watc,h every word you say and how many people would twist and turn their words to mean something else other than what the intent was? I mean you have liberal reporters who hate religion in the first place. And then anti Mormons would dissect every little dot sno period looking for any hole they can embarrass the church?

 

[ChetSinger]

There was nothing to discuss. Can you imagine having to watc,h every word you say and how many people would twist and turn their words to mean something else other than what the intent was? I mean you have liberal reporters who hate religion in the first place. And then anti Mormons would dissect every little dot sno period looking for any hole they can embarrass the church?

I'm sorry, but I'm no longer following you.