• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

What's so bad about the Book of Mormon?

smaneck

Baha'i
Sep 29, 2010
21,182
2,948
Jackson, MS
✟63,144.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Baha'i
Marital Status
Single
"We --- Jews"?? Don't consider Daniel a prophet?? How did that happen?

It didn't happen, it was always that way since the Tanakh was compiled. The TaNaKh is an acronym.

The "T" stands for Torah, what Christians call the Pentateuch.

The "N" stands for Navi'im, the Prophets.

The "K" stands for Katavim or the Writings.

The Book of Daniel is part of the Katavim not the Navi'im.
 
Upvote 0

smaneck

Baha'i
Sep 29, 2010
21,182
2,948
Jackson, MS
✟63,144.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Baha'i
Marital Status
Single
David was taking care of Jonathan's family members and Saul's as part of a promise he made to Jonathan - the Bible never counts any of Saul's wives as the wives of David nor is there any reference to them being his wife.

Sorry, that was a reference to Saul's wives becoming David's.
 
Upvote 0

Ironhold

Member
Feb 14, 2014
7,625
1,467
✟209,507.00
Faith
Marital Status
Single
When this post is obviously about Mormons, why don't some Mormons answer the questions so we get to know what they actually think?

I work a double-shift on the weekends; I've got the graveyard shift on Thursday and the morning shift on Friday.

Between this, errands, and the basic need to get some sleep, I can be off-line for a good 24+ hours.
 
Upvote 0

Songsmith

Junior Member
May 3, 2015
160
55
✟17,235.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
I work a double-shift on the weekends; I've got the graveyard shift on Thursday and the morning shift on Friday.

Between this, errands, and the basic need to get some sleep, I can be off-line for a good 24+ hours.

Well welcome back to the virtual world. Immerse yourself.
 
Upvote 0

Ironhold

Member
Feb 14, 2014
7,625
1,467
✟209,507.00
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Well welcome back to the virtual world. Immerse yourself.

Thanks.

For those that don't know, I work for a local bi-weekly newspaper. I'm the de facto head courier, the movie reviewer, and the edutainment columnist. I'm also "on call" as a reporter and photographer if everyone else is busy or I'm the closest person to breaking news.

The papers usually come in at around 7 PM on Monday and Thursday nights. Between off-loading the van (which I usually have to do by myself since some of my co-workers always arrive late...), processing the newspapers that go out by mail, processing the bundles I drop off to local businesses, and handling my assigned customers, a shift can be anywhere from 10 - 12 hours.

This means that on Friday mornings, I usually have just enough time to come home, catch a nap, and change socks before I have to head off to the theater for the week's movie review. I sit in the theater and watch the film of the week alongside all of the other patrons, meaning that [1] I have to follow the theater's schedule (films can and will start as early as 9:30 AM) and [2] I only get a private screening when I'm the only person to buy a ticket for that showing. From there, it's errands for an hour or three before I finally get home. I can literally be awake 24 hours at a time under extreme circumstances.

Last night was especially difficult, as a storm knocked out power to the office. I did what I could while I still had daylight, then I had to haul the rest of my newspapers home to process them there before I could finally head on off to do my route.

So yeah - anyone who thinks that journalism is an "easy" job doesn't know what they're talking about.
 
Upvote 0

Songsmith

Junior Member
May 3, 2015
160
55
✟17,235.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
When this post is obviously about Mormons, why don't some Mormons answer the questions so we get to know what they actually think?

Actually, the original thread started as a thread about the Book of Mormon. Obviously the Mormon Church is the one most closely associated with that book in the eyes of most people so it's probably impossible to have a conversation about the BoM without talking about the Mormon Church, but they are not the only ones who believe it.
 
Upvote 0

mmksparbud

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2011
17,312
6,820
74
Las Vegas
✟263,478.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
I work a double-shift on the weekends; I've got the graveyard shift on Thursday and the morning shift on Friday.

Between this, errands, and the basic need to get some sleep, I can be off-line for a good 24+ hours.


Ain't it terrible what we have to do to make a living??!! --I used to work 100 hour work weeks---know the feeling! However, it was better than being a physical wreck and on disability as I am now.
 
Upvote 0

Ironhold

Member
Feb 14, 2014
7,625
1,467
✟209,507.00
Faith
Marital Status
Single
However, it was better than being a physical wreck and on disability as I am now.

I'm getting there.

Every time I think about going ahead and finally getting a proper physical, I get the mental image of the doctor coming back to me and asking just how it is I'm still alive.
 
Upvote 0

RestoredGospelEvidences

Active Member
Jul 27, 2013
62
4
✟22,729.00
Faith
Marital Status
Private
If you mean to argue that the slaughter of settlers going to California - as was done by Mormons can be justified in some odd way by Christians since the Christian Bible includes Ex 32:25-28 then you are horribly mistaken. Even the LDS say they have apologized for that - there is no point in Ex 32 where God says "oops -- I acted too hastily -- that was ill-advised".

Bob, in an earlier post, you attempted to side track the issue with the popular anti-Mormon-Atheistic-early to later anti-Christian tactics you borrowed from these earlier critics, by, (as they do), bringing up human weakness & "crimes" done by different religious groups, (in this case earlier Mormons). This tactic is often used to vilify the whole group. If there's some bad apple in the barrel, then all the apples must be bad. All religious groups, including non-religious, have those who do evil things. The 3000 slaughtered by "the word of Moses" the prophet, as done by the Levites, (Ex 32:25-28). This example was one in many used for the purpose of showing how the Bible prophets, which 7th Day Adventists (like Bob Ryan), & Christian-Mormons believe in, wouldn't be able to pass the same types of strick tests that Bob is shooting at Mormons with. Other examples might be ones like: Was Moses meek? Num.12:3 vrs 31. Had Midran been destroyed or not? Num.31:7-17 vrs. Jud. 6:1. How many Benjamites were killed? Judges 20:35 vrs. Jud. 20:46. Had the Amalekites been destroyed or not? 1 Sam. 15:6-8 vrs. 30:1:2. (The intent is not to try to justify what some Mormons have done in the past, such as Mountain Meadows, as distorted by Bob here in his vilification tactic, combined with a shot gun tactic (bringing up numerous issues at once, like a scatter-gun, to get in so many issues, it makes it hard to respond to all of them). Bob's use of these tactics is to be noted here as an attempt to bring in a separate issue, (with reference to Mountain Meadow), that's only a side track off the Solomon Spalding borrowing issue he keeps harping on).

The continual listings of Mormons' weaknesses, (in bringing up long lists of "crimes" claimed to be done by Mormons, as critics like Bob often do, is a vilification tactic, plain & simple). The answer to these types of tactics were given by LDS Apostle, Boyd K. Packer, in his General Conference talk, "Judge Not According to Appearance," April 1979 Conference on Temp. Sq. in SLC Ut. (May 1979 Ensign, p.79-81). He points out that when different members do wrong things, they're acting against the teachings & principles of the Church. And that there are some who seem to want to blame the Church for the different problems that people have. But perhaps in some way we Mormons have brought on some of these charges, because some of us (including myself), do make mistakes, sin, and are in as much need of repentance & Christ's atonement as the next religionists too. As the bible prophets & peoples' actions could be vilified, so also could the vilifiers be too, cause no group, in this mortal life, is made up of purely perfect souls.

What Bob has done here is the same as how the critics (atheists, & "Christian" anti-Mormons & others), will & have done, in jumping at any report, such as Mountain Meadows, & blow them out of proportion, as the horrors & crimes of "the Mormons." While, the slaughter of Mormons as Hawns Mill, the anti-Mormon mob attacks, rapes, burnings, tar & featherings, robbings of properties, & other crimes against Mormons are often not mentioned by critics. Nor are the crimes & murders done by their own fellow critics, often not mentioned too. Atheists like to list the crimes & murders done by religionists, but don't like to mention how Communists-Atheists & other tyrants, have murdered millions of people.

Horror stories contests done, (where different ones contend to see who can come up with the longest lists of horror stories against their rivals), that many different religionists & non-religionists pass back & forth, does not solve the problems. What does is living Christ's like teachings, or at least the golden rule, love, kindness, honesty, respect, tolerance, etc. Those basics, if lived by all, would solve a lot of problems before they get started. But these are not often mentioned as those needing to be done, for the critics in doing these vilification tactics against their rivals, are often done out of meaness & are hypocritical. Bob in brining up Mountain Meadows, hasn't pointed out how his own religionists, 7th Day Adventists, aren't perfect either, how some have also been accused or perhaps done murders & crimes too! Under Bob's tactics, 7th Day Adventists could also be vilified with stories about David Koresh, who "was very convincing to every single one of his followers, but if they had exercised critical thinking skills they would have avoided moving to the Waco compound entirely." A simple search on the internet could also show SDAs, aren't perfect either. The point here is to not be anti-SDAs, but to point out that Bob's use of bringing up shots at Mormons for their weakinesses, past & present, is only a vilification tactic that critical thinking exposes as being only mean spirited here.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mmksparbud

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2011
17,312
6,820
74
Las Vegas
✟263,478.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
I'm getting there.

Every time I think about going ahead and finally getting a proper physical, I get the mental image of the doctor coming back to me and asking just how it is I'm still alive.


^_^Tell them what I've been saying for years----Only by the grace of God!!!!!:holy:
 
Upvote 0

mmksparbud

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2011
17,312
6,820
74
Las Vegas
✟263,478.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Bob, in an earlier post, you attempted to side track the issue with the popular anti-Mormon-Atheistic-early to later anti-Christian tactics you borrowed from these earlier critics, by, (as they do), bringing up human weakness & "crimes" done by different religious groups, (in this case earlier Mormons). This tactic is often used to vilify the whole group. If there's some bad apple in the barrel, then all the apples must be bad. All religious groups, including non-religious, have those who do evil things. The 3000 slaughtered by "the word of Moses" the prophet, as done by the Levites, (Ex 32:25-28). This example was one in many used for the purpose of showing how the Bible prophets, which 7th Day Adventists (like Bob Ryan), & Christian-Mormons believe in, wouldn't be able to pass the same types of strick tests that Bob is shooting at Mormons with. Other examples might be ones like: Was Moses meek? Num.12:3 vrs 31. Had Midran been destroyed or not? Num.31:7-17 vrs. Jud. 6:1. How many Benjamites were killed? Judges 20:35 vrs. Jud. 20:46. Had the Amalekites been destroyed or not? 1 Sam. 15:6-8 vrs. 30:1:2. (The intent is not to try to justify what some Mormons have done in the past, such as Mountain Meadows, as distorted by Bob here in his vilification tactic, combined with a shot gun tactic (bringing up numerous issues at once, like a scatter-gun, to get in so many issues, it makes it hard to respond to all of them). Bob's use of these tactics is to be noted here as an attempt to bring in a separate issue, (with reference to Mountain Meadow), that's only a side track off the Solomon Spalding borrowing issue he keeps harping on).

The continual listings of Mormons' weaknesses, (in bringing up long lists of "crimes" claimed to be done by Mormons, as critics like Bob often do, is a vilification tactic, plain & simple). The answer to these types of tactics were given by LDS Apostle, Boyd K. Packer, in his General Conference talk, "Judge Not According to Appearance," April 1979 Conference on Temp. Sq. in SLC Ut. (May 1979 Ensign, p.79-81). He points out that when different members do wrong things, they're acting against the teachings & principles of the Church. And that there are some who seem to want to blame the Church for the different problems that people have. But perhaps in some way we Mormons have brought on some of these charges, because some of us (including myself), do make mistakes, sin, and are in as much need of repentance & Christ's atonement as the next religionists too. As the bible prophets & peoples' actions could be vilified, so also could the vilifiers be too, cause no group, in this mortal life, is made up of purely perfect souls.

What Bob has done here is the same as how the critics (atheists, & "Christian" anti-Mormons & others), will & have done, in jumping at any report, such as Mountain Meadows, & blow them out of proportion, as the horrors & crimes of "the Mormons." While, the slaughter of Mormons as Hawns Mill, the anti-Mormon mob attacks, rapes, burnings, tar & featherings, robbings of properties, & other crimes against Mormons are often not mentioned by critics. Nor are the crimes & murders done by their own fellow critics, often not mentioned too. Atheists like to list the crimes & murders done by religionists, but don't like to mention how Communists-Atheists & other tyrants, have murdered millions of people.

Horror stories contests done, (where different ones contend to see who can come up with the longest lists of horror stories against their rivals), that many different religionists & non-religionists pass back & forth, does not solve the problems. What does is living Christ's like teachings, or at least the golden rule, love, kindness, honesty, respect, tolerance, etc. Those basics, if lived by all, would solve a lot of problems before they get started. But these are not often mentioned as those needing to be done, for the critics in doing these vilification tactics against their rivals, are often done out of meaness & are hypocritical. Bob in brining up Mountain Meadows, hasn't pointed out how his own religionists, 7th Day Adventists, aren't perfect either, how some have also been accused or perhaps done murders & crimes too! Under Bob's tactics, 7th Day Adventists could also be vilified with stories about David Koresh, who "was very convincing to every single one of his followers, but if they had exercised critical thinking skills they would have avoided moving to the Waco compound entirely." A simple search on the internet could also show SDAs, aren't perfect either. The point here is to not be anti-SDAs, but to point out that Bob's use of bringing up shots at Mormons for their weakinesses, past & present, is only a vilification tactic that critical thinking exposes as being only mean spirited here.


HHmmm---Koresh was no SDA, he left, thank God and, unfortunately, took some foolish idiots with him.--and no---we are far from perfect---and whatever wrongs done by anyone, need answers, explanations, and so forth. and just where are all the answers to all the questions I've asked that never get answered.
Tar and featherings were done to many who were thought to be charlatans, not just to Mormons. A lot of "sake oil" conmen were feathered also.
Old testament and new testament prophets do not have to meet any test as they have already been declared prophets of God and it is they who write the word of God--only those outside of the bible, and after the apostles, that we must watch out for. No prophet, no man or woman, written about in the bible was perfect--their indiscretions and foibles were also listed. And it is not a matter of falling, but of lifestyle. Saul didn't just fall---he stayed down. David kept getting up. They are not the ones we need to worry about, just the new ones coming in with no end of stuff that we must, according to scripture, test.
 
Upvote 0

Ironhold

Member
Feb 14, 2014
7,625
1,467
✟209,507.00
Faith
Marital Status
Single
HHmmm---Koresh was no SDA, he left, thank God and, unfortunately, took some foolish idiots with him.--and no---we are far from perfect---and whatever wrongs done by anyone, need answers, explanations, and so forth. and just where are all the answers to all the questions I've asked that never get answered.
Tar and featherings were done to many who were thought to be charlatans, not just to Mormons. A lot of "sake oil" conmen were feathered also.
Old testament and new testament prophets do not have to meet any test as they have already been declared prophets of God and it is they who write the word of God--only those outside of the bible, and after the apostles, that we must watch out for. No prophet, no man or woman, written about in the bible was perfect--their indiscretions and foibles were also listed. And it is not a matter of falling, but of lifestyle. Saul didn't just fall---he stayed down. David kept getting up. They are not the ones we need to worry about, just the new ones coming in with no end of stuff that we must, according to scripture, test.

At the same time, though, people like BobRyan tend to be so quick about judging the whole by the individuals that they fail to do proper research into just what happened.

For example, the honest scholarship on Mountain Meadows is that a group of militia used a general panic (caused by the US Army arriving on the basis of a false report) as an excuse to deal with some old grudges. Brigham Young did not even know that there was a problem in Iron County until it was too late for his official instructions to be of any value in preventing bloodshed, and when the government first attempted to investigate in 1859 Young openly expressed willingness to cooperate. Young himself did not know that the militia had lied to him about the circumstances; all he - like most others - knew was that the local Paiute band sought to kill the settlers because they believed that the settlers had sold them tainted meat. He honestly believes that the Paiutes had been the ones to attack the settlers, and that their attack was justified in the Paiutes' eyes.

In this case, it ultimately boils down to a lack of oversight allowing disaster to occur. The church has a whole had no malice towards these settlers beyond the false reports that had been published by the local militia.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,376
11,916
Georgia
✟1,095,736.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
At the same time, though, people like BobRyan tend to be so quick about judging the whole by the individuals that they fail to do proper research into just what happened.

For example, the honest scholarship on Mountain Meadows is that a group of militia used a general panic (caused by the US Army arriving on the basis of a false report) as an excuse to deal with some old grudges. Brigham Young did not even know that there was a problem in Iron County until it was too late for his official instructions to be of any value in preventing bloodshed, and when the government first attempted to investigate in 1859 Young openly expressed willingness to cooperate. Young himself did not know that the militia had lied to him about the circumstances; all he - like most others - knew was that the local Paiute band sought to kill the settlers because they believed that the settlers had sold them tainted meat. He honestly believes that the Paiutes had been the ones to attack the settlers, and that their attack was justified in the Paiutes' eyes.

In this case, it ultimately boils down to a lack of oversight allowing disaster to occur. The church has a whole had no malice towards these settlers beyond the false reports that had been published by the local militia.

I don't think that blaming me will change history. I never claim said anything about Brigham Young in my posts.

in Christ,

Bob
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,376
11,916
Georgia
✟1,095,736.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
In this post of mine as noted below - I am talking about an event in Mormon history that Mormons have already addressed and apologized for -- so I don't know that I am posting anything in opposition to what the official LDS organization has said about it. I just don't think the Bible should be tossed under the bus to defend something that the LDS church already admits as being wrong.

===============================
QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 68119890, member: 235244"]1. I don't think I have made any reference to any story in the BoM and said that because of that story the BoM is false.
2. Your attack on the Bible is therefore premature.
3. If you mean to argue that the slaughter of settlers going to California - as was done by Mormons can be justified in some odd way by Christians since the Christian Bible includes Ex 32:25-28 then you are horribly mistaken. Even the LDS say they have apologized for that - there is no point in Ex 32 where God says "oops -- I acted too hastily -- that was ill-advised".

There is no canibalism in Lev 26 commanded by God - rather there are curses there and condemnation for those who reject the Word of God

Lev 26
15 And if ye shall despise my statutes, or if your soul abhor my judgments, so that ye will not do all my commandments, but that ye break my covenant:
16 I also will do this unto you; I will even appoint over you terror, consumption, and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it.
17 And I will set my face against you, and ye shall be slain before your enemies: they that hate you shall reign over you; and ye shall flee when none pursueth you.
18 And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins.
19 And I will break the pride of your power; and I will make your heaven as iron, and your earth as brass:
20 And your strength shall be spent in vain: for your land shall not yield her increase, neither shall the trees of the land yield their fruits.
21 And if ye walk contrary unto me, and will not hearken unto me; I will bring seven times more plagues upon you according to your sins.
22 I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your high ways shall be desolate.
23 And if ye will not be reformed by me by these things, but will walk contrary unto me;
24 Then will I also walk contrary unto you, and will punish you yet seven times for your sins.
25 And I will bring a sword upon you, that shall avenge the quarrel of my covenant: and when ye are gathered together within your cities, I will send the pestilence among you; and ye shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy.
26 And when I have broken the staff of your bread, ten women shall bake your bread in one oven, and they shall deliver you your bread again by weight: and ye shall eat, and not be satisfied.
27 And if ye will not for all this hearken unto me, but walk contrary unto me;
28 Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins.
29 And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.
.
These statements of plague and curse and horrific death to fall on those in Israel who forsake God - is not "a free pass for Mormons to slaughter settlers" and I think we would all agree to that. (And I don't see it in any way related to anything I have said about the Book of Mormon).

I don't think I am actuated by an atheist spirit simply for the "sin" of "noticing" that history of the actual Mormon massacre of innocent pilgrims on their way to California - and as has already been posted on this thread - even Mormons have admitted that this was wrong of them to do.

Your idea of comparing that to atheists attacking the Bible is misguided. It is equivocation.

As already stated that is flawed - the atheist attack on the Bible is NOT comparable to a non-Mormon admitting to the historic fact of the Mormon's massacre of innocent pilgrims. In your example above you point to atheist complaints about God's condemnation of rebellion against God by his people in Lev 26.

That is totally unrelated to the subject at hand. Your idea that to notice these facts of history that are not complimentary towards the Mormon religion " is inadvertantly attacking the bible" is off base equivocation, because nothing in what I did -- condones their method or their premise. You are mixing apples and oranges

I don't dispute that all denominations are subject to some form of criticism by other denominations. That is a general principle that applies all up and down the street no matter how pure this or that denomination may be that is being accused.

My argument was that because this is Spaulding's work we don't expect to find Mormon doctrine. I would add that because this was before Joseph Smith thought to make up some of his later ideas - even what he adds to Spaulding's material does not contain distinctive Mormon doctrine.

I gave an example of this fact with the doctrine of polygamy - that is even more explicitly condemned in the BoM than in the Bible itself. (And that is not a complaint about the Book of Mormon on my part)

I know of no apologetic for Christianity that relies on all humanity being "pre-existent spirit brothers" that came to earth.

==========================================


Bob, in an earlier post, you attempted to side track the issue with the popular anti-Mormon-Atheistic-early to later anti-Christian tactics you borrowed from these earlier critics, by, (as they do), bringing up human weakness & "crimes" done by different religious groups, (in this case earlier Mormons). This tactic is often used to vilify the whole group. If there's some bad apple in the barrel, then all the apples must be bad. All religious groups, including non-religious, have those who do evil things. The 3000 slaughtered by "the word of Moses" the prophet, as done by the Levites, (Ex 32:25-28). This example was one in many used for the purpose of showing how the Bible prophets, which 7th Day Adventists (like Bob Ryan), & Christian-Mormons believe in, wouldn't be able to pass the same types of strick tests

No Christians to this very argues "God was wrong in Ex 32" to punish Israel for idolatry -- but by contrast even the LDS organization admits that the Mountain Meadows incident was wrong.

I think both Mormons and non-Mormons see this detail.



Other examples might be ones like: Was Moses meek? Num.12:3 vrs 31. Had Midran been destroyed or not? Num.31:7-17 vrs. Jud. 6:1. How many Benjamites were killed? Judges 20:35 vrs. Jud. 20:46. Had the Amalekites been destroyed or not? 1 Sam. 15:6-8 vrs. 30:1:2. (The intent is not to try to justify what some Mormons have done in the past, such as Mountain Meadows,

Then what is your intent?

as distorted by Bob here in his vilification tactic, combined with a shot gun tactic (bringing up numerous issues at once, like a scatter-gun, to get in so many issues, it makes it hard to respond to all of them). Bob's use of these tactics is to be noted here as an attempt to bring in a separate issue,

This thread was not started by me - and the subject title is incredibly broad. I have tried to start a focus on other threads to narrow the subject down to just one or two things.



The continual listings of Mormons' weaknesses, (in bringing up long lists of "crimes" claimed to be done by Mormons, as critics like Bob often do, is a vilification tactic, plain & simple). The answer to these types of tactics were given by LDS Apostle, Boyd K. Packer, in his General Conference talk, "Judge Not According to Appearance," April 1979 Conference on Temp. Sq. in SLC Ut. (May 1979 Ensign, p.79-81).

I don't bring up long lists of complaints.


What Bob has done here is the same as how the critics (atheists, & "Christian" anti-Mormons & others), will & have done, in jumping at any report, such as Mountain Meadows, & blow them out of proportion, as the horrors & crimes of "the Mormons."

I don't think there is a nice face that any of us -- Mormon or non-Mormon can put on the massacre of non-Mormons at Mountain Meadows. I would hope we can all agree to that.

While, the slaughter of Mormons as Hawns Mill, the anti-Mormon mob attacks, rapes, burnings, tar & featherings, robbings of properties, & other crimes against Mormons are often not mentioned by critics. Nor are the crimes & murders done by their own fellow critics, often not mentioned too. Atheists like to list the crimes & murders done by religionists, but don't like to mention how Communists-Atheists & other tyrants, have murdered millions of people.

Horror stories contests done,

I don't argue in favor of atrocities - whether done by Mormons or non-Mormons.

I am hoping we can all agree to that point.

Bob in brining up Mountain Meadows, hasn't pointed out how his own religionists, 7th Day Adventists, aren't perfect either, how some have also been accused or perhaps done murders & crimes too! Under Bob's tactics, 7th Day Adventists could also be vilified with stories about David Koresh, who "was very convincing to every single one of his followers, but if they had exercised critical thinking skills they would have avoided moving to the Waco compound entirely."

Koresh (Vernon Howell) was Branch Davidian - not Seventh-day Adventist. For example - Catholics cannot be blamed for what Lutherans and Baptists might do. I don't have many affirming things on my list regarding Branch Davidian ideas and don't know of anyone who does.

A simple search on the internet could also show SDAs, aren't perfect either. The point here is to not be anti-SDAs, but to point out that Bob's use of bringing up shots at Mormons for their weakinesses, past & present, is only a vilification tactic that critical thinking exposes as being only mean spirited here.

Should Seventh-day Adventists organize into a state or a nation - then get up an army and massacre some group of people -- I would be among the first to condemn such a thing. I am not trying to setup different rules for different groups.

in Christ,

Bob
 
Upvote 0

RestoredGospelEvidences

Active Member
Jul 27, 2013
62
4
✟22,729.00
Faith
Marital Status
Private
In this post of mine as noted below - I am talking about an event in Mormon history that Mormons have already addressed and apologized for -- so I don't know that I am posting anything in opposition to what the official LDS organization has said about it. I just don't think the Bible should be tossed under the bus to defend something that the LDS church already admits as being wrong.

===============================
QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 68119890, member: 235244"]1. I don't think I have made any reference to any story in the BoM and said that because of that story the BoM is false.
2. Your attack on the Bible is therefore premature.
3. If you mean to argue that the slaughter of settlers going to California - as was done by Mormons can be justified in some odd way by Christians since the Christian Bible includes Ex 32:25-28 then you are horribly mistaken. Even the LDS say they have apologized for that - there is no point in Ex 32 where God says "oops -- I acted too hastily -- that was ill-advised".

There is no canibalism in Lev 26 commanded by God - rather there are curses there and condemnation for those who reject the Word of God

Lev 26
15 And if ye shall despise my statutes, or if your soul abhor my judgments, so that ye will not do all my commandments, but that ye break my covenant:
16 I also will do this unto you; I will even appoint over you terror, consumption, and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it.
17 And I will set my face against you, and ye shall be slain before your enemies: they that hate you shall reign over you; and ye shall flee when none pursueth you.
18 And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins.
19 And I will break the pride of your power; and I will make your heaven as iron, and your earth as brass:
20 And your strength shall be spent in vain: for your land shall not yield her increase, neither shall the trees of the land yield their fruits.
21 And if ye walk contrary unto me, and will not hearken unto me; I will bring seven times more plagues upon you according to your sins.
22 I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your high ways shall be desolate.
23 And if ye will not be reformed by me by these things, but will walk contrary unto me;
24 Then will I also walk contrary unto you, and will punish you yet seven times for your sins.
25 And I will bring a sword upon you, that shall avenge the quarrel of my covenant: and when ye are gathered together within your cities, I will send the pestilence among you; and ye shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy.
26 And when I have broken the staff of your bread, ten women shall bake your bread in one oven, and they shall deliver you your bread again by weight: and ye shall eat, and not be satisfied.
27 And if ye will not for all this hearken unto me, but walk contrary unto me;
28 Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins.
29 And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.
.
These statements of plague and curse and horrific death to fall on those in Israel who forsake God - is not "a free pass for Mormons to slaughter settlers" and I think we would all agree to that. (And I don't see it in any way related to anything I have said about the Book of Mormon).

I don't think I am actuated by an atheist spirit simply for the "sin" of "noticing" that history of the actual Mormon massacre of innocent pilgrims on their way to California - and as has already been posted on this thread - even Mormons have admitted that this was wrong of them to do.

Your idea of comparing that to atheists attacking the Bible is misguided. It is equivocation.

As already stated that is flawed - the atheist attack on the Bible is NOT comparable to a non-Mormon admitting to the historic fact of the Mormon's massacre of innocent pilgrims. In your example above you point to atheist complaints about God's condemnation of rebellion against God by his people in Lev 26.

That is totally unrelated to the subject at hand. Your idea that to notice these facts of history that are not complimentary towards the Mormon religion " is inadvertantly attacking the bible" is off base equivocation, because nothing in what I did -- condones their method or their premise. You are mixing apples and oranges

I don't dispute that all denominations are subject to some form of criticism by other denominations. That is a general principle that applies all up and down the street no matter how pure this or that denomination may be that is being accused.

My argument was that because this is Spaulding's work we don't expect to find Mormon doctrine. I would add that because this was before Joseph Smith thought to make up some of his later ideas - even what he adds to Spaulding's material does not contain distinctive Mormon doctrine.

I gave an example of this fact with the doctrine of polygamy - that is even more explicitly condemned in the BoM than in the Bible itself. (And that is not a complaint about the Book of Mormon on my part)

I know of no apologetic for Christianity that relies on all humanity being "pre-existent spirit brothers" that came to earth.

==========================================




No Christians to this very argues "God was wrong in Ex 32" to punish Israel for idolatry -- but by contrast even the LDS organization admits that the Mountain Meadows incident was wrong.

I think both Mormons and non-Mormons see this detail.





Then what is your intent?



This thread was not started by me - and the subject title is incredibly broad. I have tried to start a focus on other threads to narrow the subject down to just one or two things.





I don't bring up long lists of complaints.




I don't think there is a nice face that any of us -- Mormon or non-Mormon can put on the massacre of non-Mormons at Mountain Meadows. I would hope we can all agree to that.



I don't argue in favor of atrocities - whether done by Mormons or non-Mormons.

I am hoping we can all agree to that point.



Koresh (Vernon Howell) was Branch Davidian - not Seventh-day Adventist. For example - Catholics cannot be blamed for what Lutherans and Baptists might do. I don't have many affirming things on my list regarding Branch Davidian ideas and don't know of anyone who does.



Should Seventh-day Adventists organize into a state or a nation - then get up an army and massacre some group of people -- I would be among the first to condemn such a thing. I am not trying to setup different rules for different groups.

in Christ,

Bob

This thread began with a question about "What's so bad about the Book of Mormon?" In response, Mormons could start a threat" What's good about the Book of Mormon! But it would probably not get as many views, or become invested with the same types of postings, where different ones would take shots at the Mormon church. So far, one of the issues presented as "What's so bad" is the repeated misinterpretation made by non-Mormons claiming that their interpretation is corrected, BOM Jacob 2 has been used to claim the BOM is against Poligamy, & when Jacob 2:30 is cited to show there are acceptions to the rule, the non-Mormon misinterpreters have to try to speak of Mormons again. (Despite repeated answers to the repeated issues: Already answered #1, It reminds me of the old Nazi propaganda tactics, attributed to Joseph Goebbels, which has been used here, because of the repeat of the same issues: "If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it." One of the issues repeated, & which has been answered, is the Solomon Spalding Borrowing issue, claimed to be the origins for the Book of Mormon. This is one of those anti-Mormon propaganda lies being repeated here & all over the internet.

Answers & Re-answers, seem to be ignored, suggesting to me, that the intent of critics is to repeat the same questions, lies & issues so often that the vilification tactics will stick, & there is thus no way for the vilified to counter the prejudices & hate thus generated against those being vilified, (in this case Mormons or members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). (Answers: #1).

Christians here, as in other places, continue fail to see how their own rejections of BOM is what is also used by Atheists, & early to later anti-Christians against the Bible (that Mormons also believe in too). Cases in point: Would the same anti-Mormon tactics make biblical prophet Moses a murderer? How would Christians answer early anti-Christians' charge that Jesus neglects those before his time, & after? (Without sounding too Mormon): #1. #2. #3. #4. #5.

The repeated charge that Jospeh Smith "borrowed" or plagiarized from the bible, or pre-publication sources of his environment, has also been repeatedly answered. When does citing an earlier writer, mentioning their name, become plagiarism? (Early Christian response to same types of charges, #1, (King James English in translations of early Christian writings!?)

The repeated charge, has called for repeated answers, that the BOM is to be interpreted literal, (though earlier & still some LDS & critics still do think it's literal), when the BOM mentions black & white "skins" changing colors. Responses: #1, #2.

Book of Mormon evidences offered in numerous posts here, would also answer "What is so Bad about the Book of Mormon" issues. Evidences: #1, #2.

More to follow.

TO EXPECT MORE REVELATION IS NOT UNSCRIPTURAL (Repeated responses: #2.

Critics exposed, #1. SDAs vilified too as "cult," their symbols also misinterpreted unfairly, as occultic. #2, tactics being used exposed.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mmksparbud

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2011
17,312
6,820
74
Las Vegas
✟263,478.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
OK---let me say this--a part of the problem here is "FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE"----(I've always wanted to say that line)---Thing is, a question is asked--an answer is given--however, the answer ends up bringing up more questions. And then those are not answered. I've Never had my question answered--"Where in scripture does it say that the priesthood is to be reinstated?" I was told about a higher law --what higher law--I was given the golden rule--that says nothing about the priesthood--end result--question never answered--you, however, will claim it has been --
And that is how it goes with other questions. So---maybe, to get to the bottom line, maybe one question could be chewed over until it is totally chewed up, including the questions that the answer gives, (Like how does the golden rule explain the priesthood?)without going off topic- before going to the next question--??--Maybe?? Instead of the whole book, just one thing at a time??
 
Upvote 0

Ironhold

Member
Feb 14, 2014
7,625
1,467
✟209,507.00
Faith
Marital Status
Single
OK---let me say this--a part of the problem here is "FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE"----(I've always wanted to say that line)---Thing is, a question is asked--an answer is given--however, the answer ends up bringing up more questions. And then those are not answered. I've Never had my question answered--"Where in scripture does it say that the priesthood is to be reinstated?" I was told about a higher law --what higher law--I was given the golden rule--that says nothing about the priesthood--end result--question never answered--you, however, will claim it has been --
And that is how it goes with other questions. So---maybe, to get to the bottom line, maybe one question could be chewed over until it is totally chewed up, including the questions that the answer gives, (Like how does the golden rule explain the priesthood?)without going off topic- before going to the next question--??--Maybe?? Instead of the whole book, just one thing at a time??

Where does it say that the priesthood was ever supposed to go away?
 
Upvote 0

mmksparbud

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2011
17,312
6,820
74
Las Vegas
✟263,478.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
(Heb 7:21) (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)
(Heb 7:23) And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
(Heb 7:24) But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
(Heb 7:25) Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
(Heb 7:26) For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
(Heb 7:27) Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
(Heb 7:28) For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.



There is only one High Priest, and He is Jesus. No other priest is needed. There are elders, deacons, bishops, for the running of the church, no priests. What need is there for a priest, there are no animal sacrifices for them to do anymore. There are churches to takes care, that is all. Jesus is out intercessor.
 
Upvote 0