LDS LDS---YIKES!

Status
Not open for further replies.

mmksparbud

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2011
17,312
6,821
73
Las Vegas
✟255,978.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
The Book of Mormon points us to God the Father and Jesus Christ. We are taught to keep the commandments. People should not call good evil.

And people should not call evil good---and that is what Mormonism is--it teaches false doctrines and false doctrines are evil.
 
Upvote 0

mmksparbud

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2011
17,312
6,821
73
Las Vegas
✟255,978.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
God chose Moses to do his work. The Egyptian was the one at fault, not Moses.

God uses us for His glory. Moses and David were guilty of murder---and both stand forgiven before God and their sins forgotten.

Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
 
Upvote 0

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
71
✟124,865.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
All of the writings of JS are lies and they do not tell of the true God.
You always have to remember that JS taught that God the Father, and his Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit make up the Godhead. That is a true statement, so withdraw your lie that all of the writings of JS are lies.

If you need, I will give you a list of 10 other writings of JS that you believe in.
 
Upvote 0

BigDaddy4

It's a new season...
Sep 4, 2008
7,442
1,983
Washington
✟217,719.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The Book of Mormon points us to God the Father and Jesus Christ. We are taught to keep the commandments. People should not call good evil.
The Book of Mormon is a fictional piece of literature, conjured up by your false prophet.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: 1 person
Upvote 0

twin.spin

Trust the LORD and not on your own understanding
May 1, 2010
797
266
✟72,766.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
If it was what you say, it would not have stood up to scrutiny, but it has and still does.

Mormons are taught God wouldn’t give a command we can’t keep. “For I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them” (1 Nephi 3:7, Book of Mormon).

This would include commands like:
  • Be perfect” (Matthew_ 5:48) …. not become it eventually
  • “deny yourselves of all ungodliness” (Moroni 10:32, Book of Mormon)
  • forsake all sin (Doctrine and Covenants 58:43)
Every Mormon best be prepared for a tragic ending .... outer darkness.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Rescued One

...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me
Dec 12, 2002
35,508
6,395
Midwest
✟78,539.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
If it was what you say, it would not have stood up to scrutiny, but it has and still does.

Do you think everyone is so gullible and/or stupid as to endorse fiction as the word of God?
 
Upvote 0

BigDaddy4

It's a new season...
Sep 4, 2008
7,442
1,983
Washington
✟217,719.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If it was what you say, it would not have stood up to scrutiny, but it has and still does.
It cannot hold up to any kind of serious scrutiny outside of the lds church. No credible evidence of the people or places ever existing. No evidence of the golden plates ever existing. No Reformed Egyptian as a language. Quoting a bunch of Scripture and inserting it into a fairy tale does not make it true nor make it the word of God.

You are either deceived or intentionally being dishonest.
 
Upvote 0

He is the way

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2018
8,103
359
Murray
✟113,072.00
Country
United States
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
It cannot hold up to any kind of serious scrutiny outside of the lds church. No credible evidence of the people or places ever existing. No evidence of the golden plates ever existing. No Reformed Egyptian as a language. Quoting a bunch of Scripture and inserting it into a fairy tale does not make it true nor make it the word of God.

You are either deceived or intentionally being dishonest.
I am neither deceived or dishonest. Yes there is credible evidence:

Mounting Evidence for the Book of Mormon

Archaeological and Historical Evidence - Evidences of The Book of Mormon

https://bookofmormonfacts.com/book-of-mormon-mounting-evidence/
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BigDaddy4

It's a new season...
Sep 4, 2008
7,442
1,983
Washington
✟217,719.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I said credible evidence. Verifiable by non-lds sources. All you've given is lds-related sources. Not credible.

To quote your first source, this is how the lds views evidence:
Of course, scholarship does not replace spiritual witness as a source of testimony. As Elder B. H. Roberts (1857–1933) of the Seventy said: “The power of the Holy Ghost … must ever be the chief source of evidence for the Book of Mormon. All other evidence is secondary. … No arrangement of evidence, however skillfully ordered; no argument, however adroitly made, can ever take its place.”

IOW, testimony first, evidence... eh, whatever. o_O
 
Upvote 0

He is the way

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2018
8,103
359
Murray
✟113,072.00
Country
United States
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
There is zero evidence for any golden plates.
(Book of Mormon | Preface 8 Witnesses:Heading - 1)

THE TESTIMONY OF EIGHT WITNESSES

1 BE IT KNOWN unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

CHRISTIAN WHITMER
HIRAM PAGE
JACOB WHITMER
JOSEPH SMITH, SEN.
PETER WHITMER, JUN.
HYRUM SMITH
JOHN WHITMER
SAMUEL H. SMITH
 
Upvote 0

He is the way

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2018
8,103
359
Murray
✟113,072.00
Country
United States
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
I said credible evidence. Verifiable by non-lds sources. All you've given is lds-related sources. Not credible.

To quote your first source, this is how the lds views evidence:
Of course, scholarship does not replace spiritual witness as a source of testimony. As Elder B. H. Roberts (1857–1933) of the Seventy said: “The power of the Holy Ghost … must ever be the chief source of evidence for the Book of Mormon. All other evidence is secondary. … No arrangement of evidence, however skillfully ordered; no argument, however adroitly made, can ever take its place.”

IOW, testimony first, evidence... eh, whatever. o_O
So why do you think LDS sources are not credible or verifiable? I believe they are both credible and verifiable.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,500
13,648
✟426,176.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
So why do you think LDS sources are not credible or verifiable? I believe they are both credible and verifiable.

Whether or not something is credible has nothing to do with what you or anyone personally thinks. LDS-internal sources like The Ensign, LDS websites, etc. are not peer reviewed, so they're not credible or valid in the wider non-LDS world, which is where you are right now.
 
Upvote 0

He is the way

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2018
8,103
359
Murray
✟113,072.00
Country
United States
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
Whether or not something is credible has nothing to do with what you or anyone personally thinks. LDS-internal sources like The Ensign, LDS websites, etc. are not peer reviewed, so they're not credible or valid in the wider non-LDS world, which is where you are right now.
When I was on the atheist forum they were always talking about peer reviewed material and anecdotal evidence. I can't understand why someone is unable to verify something themselves.
 
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,500
13,648
✟426,176.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
When I was on the atheist forum they were always talking about peer reviewed material and anecdotal evidence. I can't understand why someone is unable to verify something themselves.

Because it's not up to any layman (someone not trained in the relevant fields) to evaluate claims relevant to the fields that the Mormon religion manipulates to keep its people believing that it's actually based in something real. That is why peer review is important: it takes the research or supposed research out of the hands of anyone who might approve of it for non-scientific reasons (e.g., religious narrative) and evaluates it according to the standard of the relevant field. The individual who looks at it without the requisite background/training, and even worse maybe with the inherent biases for/against it (e.g., religious narrative again), cannot be trusted to do that. You don't ask a random person to perform heart surgery, do you? All the sciences ought to be treated similarly.

Like in my case, I'm a linguist, so while I'm not saying I'm an authority on anything (because I'm not; I've been asked to fill in for adjunct professors sometimes, but please no one confuse me for an actual professor...hopefully my frequent typos and grammatical mistakes made here on CF rule that out ;)), I'm at least trained to evaluate claims relevant to my field. And when I do that with the linguistic Mormonism, as I have many times before on this board, they don't stand up to even minimal scrutiny.

I strongly suspect that the same would be true if we had instead a trained anthropologist, archaeologist, geographer, etc. here to evaluate Mormon claims. I can say that with some degree of confidence because, again, being trained in an academic field I know the proper process to go through to have your research scientifically vetted (it's how I got my degree in the first place; I wrote a thesis and defended it successfully before the board, which is roughly analogous to what happens to research papers submitted for publication, in that they too go through a process of review, correction, and resubmission), so it's really easy to tell when that hasn't been done, as is the case in the vast majority of Mormon publications. There's a reason why they're "internal", i.e., published by BYU and other organs of the Mormon religion. If they want to be taken seriously by the rest of the world, it is imperative that Mormon researchers actually operate according to the impartial, secular standards of the relevant fields. That they mostly don't do that is very telling.
 
Upvote 0

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
71
✟124,865.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
Because it's not up to any layman (someone not trained in the relevant fields) to evaluate claims relevant to the fields that the Mormon religion manipulates to keep its people believing that it's actually based in something real. That is why peer review is important: it takes the research or supposed research out of the hands of anyone who might approve of it for non-scientific reasons (e.g., religious narrative) and evaluates it according to the standard of the relevant field. The individual who looks at it without the requisite background/training, and even worse maybe with the inherent biases for/against it (e.g., religious narrative again), cannot be trusted to do that. You don't ask a random person to perform heart surgery, do you? All the sciences ought to be treated similarly.

Like in my case, I'm a linguist, so while I'm not saying I'm an authority on anything (because I'm not; I've been asked to fill in for adjunct professors sometimes, but please no one confuse me for an actual professor...hopefully my frequent typos and grammatical mistakes made here on CF rule that out ;)), I'm at least trained to evaluate claims relevant to my field. And when I do that with the linguistic Mormonism, as I have many times before on this board, they don't stand up to even minimal scrutiny.

I strongly suspect that the same would be true if we had instead a trained anthropologist, archaeologist, geographer, etc. here to evaluate Mormon claims. I can say that with some degree of confidence because, again, being trained in an academic field I know the proper process to go through to have your research scientifically vetted (it's how I got my degree in the first place; I wrote a thesis and defended it successfully before the board, which is roughly analogous to what happens to research papers submitted for publication, in that they too go through a process of review, correction, and resubmission), so it's really easy to tell when that hasn't been done, as is the case in the vast majority of Mormon publications. There's a reason why they're "internal", i.e., published by BYU and other organs of the Mormon religion. If they want to be taken seriously by the rest of the world, it is imperative that Mormon researchers actually operate according to the impartial, secular standards of the relevant fields. That they mostly don't do that is very telling.
You told me one time if you were in central America and Jesus came down to you and told you that the BOM was a true book, especially the part about him coming to the America's, that you would turn around and run, because you would know that it was a demon parading as an angel of light.

IOW, no matter what would be presented to you in regards to the BOM, you would not believe it, Ph.D or peer reviews by non LDS. You would not believe it. Do you know why I know that?

I have given you 10 items that JS said existed in the Americas in 1830, that you personally would have laughed at and mocked him for being so stupid to say such a silly stupid thing. Only to be found to be archaeologically true by non-LDS many years later. And you pushed it aside as if it was garbage.

So your sincere words ring hollow.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,500
13,648
✟426,176.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
You told me one time if you were in central America and Jesus came down to you and told you that the BOM was a true book, especially the part about him coming to the America's, that you would turn around and run, because you would know that it was a demon parading as an angel of light.

Yep. I'm still agreeing with that. The actual Jesus does not give 'revelations' that contradict what He has given His apostles and disciples, as the BOM and Mormonism more generally definitely does. The true Christ has already warned us that there will be false messiahs and false christs. JS and his followers apparently did not heed this warning.

IOW, no matter what would be presented to you in regards to the BOM, you would not believe it, Ph.D or peer reviews by non LDS. You would not believe it. Do you know why I know that?

Because you're making things up as you like, and obviously you believe yourself.

I have given you 10 items that JS said existed in the Americas in 1830, that you personally would have laughed at and mocked him for being so stupid to say such a silly stupid thing. Only to be found to be archaeologically true by non-LDS many years later. And you pushed it aside as if it was garbage.

We already dealt with this at the time, Peter. Why are you bringing it up now?

So your sincere words ring hollow.

I don't care if they ring hollow to you or anyone. The scientific method and standard for publishing in academia don't change according to whether or not you personally believe in them. That was the entire point of my post.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.