The Internet these days is full of serious, informative web sites that lay out the hard facts about the Mormon faith and the history of the church.

The facts are what they are. Joseph Smith was no prophet. The Book of Mormon is one of the most cunning, wicked, bold, deep-laid impositions ever palmed upon the world; calculated to deceive and ruin millions. The Book of Arbaham is exposed as a fraud, a made up text supposedly drawn from a mystic Egyptian ritual. And on and on.

Facts are stubborn things.

Before the Internet, though, few had access to the facts. If Mormon missionaries showed up at your door, you lacked at-the-fingertips resources to investigate their claims. Today, things are different.

Web sites like http://www.mormoncurtain.com/ and http://www.utlm.org/ and http://trialsofascension.net/mormon.html and dozens of others lay out the truth in all its undeniability. While most Mormons would never visit such sites, some do, and I sorrow for them as they learn the gut-wrenching truth that much of their lives have been based on a fraud.

Importantly, though, I think the spread of the Internet makes it more and more difficult for the LDS church to gain converts in developed countries.

Any serious mind which openly considers the facts reaches only one conclusion. (This is not to say that devout Mormons such as Jeff Lindsay are unserious. They are just unable to openly consider the facts due to their strongly held beliefs.)

The truth will set you free!

[This message has been edited by Modano (edited 1/30/2006 4:03p).]

I prayed about these websites and learned that they are true.

"You need to keep praying until God tells you that it(BOM) is true." (This was actually said to me by two Mormon missionaries in my home)

LOL

You guys are always good for a laugh.

Think about this.....

How does one learn whether the BoM is true?

The Book of Mormon assures you that if you pray with a sincere heart that God will tell you if the book is true. This is called the "challenge of Moroni." I will call this "the prayer promise."

Of course, the prayer promise itself is either true or false. If one prays for revelation about the BoM, one has already assumed the truth of the prayer promise!

The reader has therefore already primed himself. He has already shown some belief - and then when he prays he gets the reaction he hoped for.

Think of it this way.....
What if the BoM had a different test. what if it read that if the reader can stand on one leg for 5 mins straight then the book is true.

The reader could take the test. He could stand on one leg for 5 mins. Ouila! The book is true??!

I know I have before promised a post about the incredible danger of reliance on revelation - at the expense of reason. It's in the works.

The short version, though, is that we must use our intellect. God did not give us reason so that we could abandon it.

[This message has been edited by Modano (edited 1/30/2006 4:57p).]

It could just as easily be said:

The facts are what they are. Jesus, Allah, etc. was no prophet. The Bible, Koran, etc. is one of the most cunning, wicked, bold, deep-laid impositions ever palmed upon the world; calculated to deceive and ruin millions. The Most of the test is exposed as a fraud, a made up supposedly drawn from a mystic Egyptian rituals and other precultures. And on and on.

Facts can be stubborn things.

It could just as easily be said, but it would not be true.

The evidence for Jesus is compelling. The evidence for Jospeh Smith is also compelling - but in the opposite direction.

quote:

---

Of course, the prayer promise itself is either true or false. If one prays for revelation about the BoM, one has already assumed the truth of the prayer promise!

The reader has therefore already primed himself. He has already showsn some belief - and then when he prays he gets the reaction he hoped for.

---

I hope for your sake you're just letting your obvious anti-Mormon bias get in the way here, Modano.

The "assumption" you speak of is in reality called faith, which is the seed necessary to an answered prayer-faith that God will answer you, etc. Going before God and praying for an answer about something of which you 1.)Have no knowledge about due to laziness or apathy, or 2.)have no hope or belief that God won't lead you astray; is extreme folly.

I suppose you don't believe the Bible then, or at least the part (in James) where God tells us that if we ask in faith, nothing wavering, our prayers will be answered. We call that a PROMISE, Modano. And unless this different god that you say you believe in is a liar, you should believe it's true as well.

All this crap about checking our intelligence at the door when we pray is a clear lack of spiritual intelligence on your part.

"obvious anti-Mormon bias"

This is a pretty ridiculous accusation. I think you and I have had some good discussions.

You know that I believe that Jospeh Smith was a fraud and a false prophet. Does that fact in and of itself make me "anti-Mormon"?

Your co-saint ibmagg has posted repeatedly about the primacy of revelation.

Liam, have you read any "anti-Mormon" books? Have you really read any of the web sites of ex-Mormons who left the church after they learned the truth?

Do you honestly think Joseph transcribed the Book of Abraham from the Egyptian papyrus which we now know is part of the Book of Breathings? Joseph told everyone that the papyrus was written in Abraham's own hand. We know this is a false claim.

I am against deception.

Modano "me boy", read my last two posts on the "Strange Gods of Christendom". I think that my clarify some things in your clouded mind. As far as the internet destroying or hurting "Mormonism" we have two of the neatest new members who didn't want to ask their Mormon friends about the Church so went on the Church's official website and learned enought, they called for the missionaries to come and teach them. tThis Church is the "stone cut out of the mountain without hands that will break and consume all kingdoms before it"!

Liam, great job of showing the ridulousness of and inconsistencies of their arguments. give me a call some at 972/233-2604. Bob Dunn '60

The internet has its good and bad, it can be used to educate and spread knowledge yet it has also become a source for porn, viruses and a conduit for hate groups to rally their ideas.

Religions see it as a way to spread their gospel but it can also be used to showcase the darker side of their faith. A quick search for me reveals websites good and bad for just about every major and minor religion.

The Internet is a tool like any other, with the potential for good if used right or bad if misued....

Losman.....dude! It is interesting that an unbeliever like you would spend so much time on a board full of believers!!????

Intriguing!

I wish Mormons could discuss theology objectively, rather than taking challenges to their theology as a personal attack.

I have nothing against people who ascribe to Mormon theology. I love them, I think some are really incredible people.

When I discuss theology with them though, and ask for explainations to what I see as problems, they take them as personal attacks.

fahraint

Skeptic boards are fun but I enjoy debating the believers as the discussions are more interesting and it does give me good insight on the mind of religous folk outside of my catholic/jehovah witness family members....

b.blauser -I am sorry if I answered your questions in that manner as I thought I had originally been careful not to attack but to explain or teach. Although some of the comments have been very mean spirited they are done in ignorance, thus I never really get mad. I remember how many "attacks" I did make in the year I spent sudying the gospel with the missionaries, and thus thought I was a little more sensitive than I obviously came across. I apologize.

ibmagg: No apology necessary.

Man, you're just so deep in it. You can't see the deception you've bought into. I know you'll scoff at my reply, but man I pray that the real God above all gods will let you see what Mormonism really is, and that his Holy Spirit will show you the real savior Jesus Christ of Nazareth - his one and only son, who was, who is, and who ever will be.

Sorry we don't agree on theology, as you and Liam are precious to God, and to me.

Mormonism is so twisted, with double meanings and false teachings and major revisions of not only the King James Bible, but it's own books as well.

I know you won't convince me, and I won't convince you. I'll just pray for you, Bob. Nothing else I can really say, I know.

quote:

---

"You need to keep praying until God tells you that it(BOM) is true." (This was actually said to me by two Mormon missionaries in my home)

---

Not those same words, but the same meaning was said to me as well about 3 years back when I met with 4 different missionaries over a 2 week period. I recall the older one of the group laying out mormon claims 101, then I remember loving his lead up question about how I can know if what he just told me was true. I suggested matching the revelation claims with evidence and logical consistency. He had something else in mind. He suggested I pray and that God would show me that it was true because God had already shown Him, and God wouldn't lie to him.

The failure to distinguish between God showing man something through some spiritual experience, and the human ability to misinterpret such experiences is alone enough to dismiss this line of reasoning as any kind of objective or meaningful proof for their claims.

As long as this world continues as it is, mormonism will as well. I am not mormon any more, but our entire culture would have to change in order for the internet or any other information to cause the majority of those of the LDS church to change. One of the underlying concepts is that the church is not questioned. If it is, the questioner is made to feel like they have done an awful wrong to the church and their family.

I have been asked to pray and God would show me that the BOM is true. What if he doesn't? Now is it because of my lack of faith? I left the LDS church about a year before I became a Christian because when confronted with questions, the eventual response was to listen to god and believe what the church taught.

I work with a lot of LDS. I am friends with many of them. My family and house is considered off limits to the local LDS church.

SDG,
Riggs

B.Blause -thanks for your reply but I have totally embraced the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It took me a year of study, comparison and meaningful prayer. But I can say I took only half as much time as Brigham Young, for he was a great student of the Bible and it took him two years. He had never met Joseph, but I had a historical perspective that he never had. What is even more amazing is the hundreds and hundreds of ministers who gave up their "ministry", their means of a livlihood to join the Church. It started from the very beginning at Joseph's time and continues to this very day. You have got to make a real, sincere, thorough and prayerful attempt to find out.

[This message has been edited by ibmagg (edited 1/31/2006 12:21a).]

Riggs, I would love to know your questions that you couldn't get answered. I find it hard to believe that you won't have any that I didn't. You said you left the Church to become a Christian; who were you worshipping when you were a member?

Whooo2P. How much study and effort did you put into the process? What was your attitude as you attempted to get an answer?

By the way how many discussions did you have with the missionaries?

quote:

---

The internet has its good and bad, it can be used to educate and spread knowledge yet it has also become a source for porn, viruses and a conduit for hate groups to rally their ideas.

---

Without God, you have no basis for saying something actually is good or bad. The only thing you can consistently talk about is preference, or will of the majority.

quote:

---

I hate the term "anti-Mormon". And I hate it for a few reasons.

1.) The term has been rendered meaningless by the church's funding and promoting of "pro-Mormon" apologists who ask us to disbelieve Joseph Smith, about as much as do other supposed "anti-Mormons" (see also point four below);

2.) The term is sometimes used by Mormons to describe those who merely value fact over non-fact, like, say, those who don't believe our sun is drawing its light from Kolob, but who have no particular animosity to Mormons, or their choice to believe things, nor any particular desire to disabuse them of their ideas.

3.) It betrays the cult fantasy of being the chosen few besieged by deliberately mendacious, wicked, omnipresent "enemies". One example of this was Dallin Oaks' insinuation that the entire news media was deliberately conspiring to withhold the "crucial" information that "the image of the salamander was often used to refer to fire", etc., during the Hoffmann affair.

4.) The term "anti-Mormon" is sometimes applied by members to quotes from church sources themselves. Obviously, when a paragraph from a sitting church president can be considered both "pro-Mormon" and "anti-Mormon" by members, the term has ceased to have any meaning.

5.) It implies that those who have concluded that Joseph was lying when he, say, began telling girls he needed to marry and have sex with them lest a homicidal angel kill him, feel personal animosity toward those who believe those stories, when in fact many of us feel great affection for many members of the church.

6.) What I most dislike about this term is that it casts as specific religious bigotry what is in fact a simple dislike of fraud and a corresponding wish to expose it. That is, to characterize arguments against Mormon fraud as "anti-Mormon", rather than "anti-fraud", bespeaks conceit and a very narrow understanding of the world. I dislike Mormon fraud as much as I do conservative or liberal fraud, or Moonie or Scientologist fraud. And it is nothing unusual for someone who's life has been touched specifically by one type of fraud, to focus on it more than on others. We know more about it, those we love are still affected by it, etc. I see no difference between those who wish to expose pyramid-scheme fraud, Scientologist fraud, government fraud, or Enron-style fraud, and those who wish to expose Mormon fraud; and I think that someone who dislikes one particular type of fraud, will dislike them all. That includes me.

Members who throw around the term "anti-Mormon" at anyone who discusses fraud within Mormonism, make themselves sound as foolish as Enron employees calling fraud investigators "anti-Enronists". They've missed the point. They're not anti-"Enron" - they're anti-fraud, and it isn't the investigators fault that Enron has become so fraudulent that the two, for the time being, might be indistinguishable. It's the fault of those who made it so.

If I were a true "anti-Mormon", I would criticize Mormonism even were it to cease to be fraudulent. But I wouldn't - I would praise it, join it, if it ceased to be fraudulent. But while it is fraudulent, I don't know why I shouldn't be as willing to discuss openly the nature of that fraud, as I am the nature of any other type of fraud (like political fraud) which in fact I do sometimes in other situations.

Anyway, I don't know about anyone else, but I think "anti-Mormon" is a stupid term which amounts to not much more than a kind of cult-belief-reinforcing de facto obscenity used by members against anyone who dares speak of fact in the presence of fantasy - or as it happens, fraud.

Not "anti-Mormon", only anti-fraud,

T.

---

www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_talbachman.html

Modano, you may not like the term "anti-mormon" but I can not think of a better one. What would you call those who murdered and persecuted the members of the Church in Ohio, Missouri and Ill and drove them out. Who took their lands, their home and businesses (the ones they didn't burn) without compensation; all because of their religious beliefs in a nation founded upon religious liberty. And who were these people who committed these heinous acts? They were so called "Christians" who were led and/or encouraged to commit these acts by their ministers. They spread lies continuously. It has continued upto this day. One of the leading Evangelical ministers at Fuller College begged the LDS people for their forgiveness, from the pulpit in the Salt Lake Tabernacle last year, for his denomination having lied and misreresented our religious beliefs. The same lies and misrepresentations you continue to mouth. Don't pretend to wrap your self in the cloak of "anti-fraud". Your hyprocisy would make one choke. You "know" really nothing about the Church! You simply repeat what others have said or printed about the Church and you accept it as gospel.

George Q. Cannon was one of the most intelligent and cultivated men of his generation. An early convert to the Church, he later became an apostle. To a Circuit Judge, He explained his belief in the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's prophetic calling as follows (and you might make note): Witnesses, he said , he based his belief on witnesses. He explained the converging testimony of Joseph Smith, which he knew personally and considered eminently trustworthy, the three witnesses, the eight witnesses, and the thousands of believers who knew by the spirit that it was true. Elder Cannon added his own strong personal testimony for he to had received his personal witness. As have I!

Cry me a river. History has shown that Joseph Smith was little more than a charletan, and while there may have been heinous acts committed against Mormons hundreds of years ago, people merely believing that Joseph Smith and the church he founded is a fraud isnt the persecution that people came upon in the past.

I dont get all in a huffy because people made Christians Lions food in ancient Rome - likewise it would help your cause to live in today's world as well.

In anyrespect, there is tons of mounting evidence that Smith was a fraud, yet LDS members ignore it.

If George Q. Cannon were alive today, and I sat down with him to discuss things he did not know, what do you think his response would be?

How would he react to the fact that there is no relationship between the peolpes of north and central america and the people of Israel?

How would he react to the complete absence of archaeological support for the stories in the BoM?

How would he react to the absence of language and writing similarities between such peoples?

How would he react to the complete absence on the planet earth of "reformed Egyptian"?

How would he react to all the changes in the BoM from his day to ours?

How would he react to the fact that the "Book of Abraham" was not written by Abraham but was instead a copy of the mystic Egyptian Book of Breathings?

Would he agree that those "horses" in the BoM may actually have been Tapirs? Tapirs pulling chariots?

In other words, what if Mr. Cannon knew what we know today? I think he would be devastated. I think he might even reject God altogether. My hope is that he would reject the false doctrine foisted upon him and embrace Jesus Christ.

p.s. The people who murdered the saints were anti-Mormon. I am not. I love all people. I hate false doctrine. The main reason I am so fascinated by Mormonism, though, is what it says about people in general. We can be so easily misled. The faith of the saints in the face of overwhelming negative evidence makes me wonder sometimes about my own faith. Am I also blinded by my faith? I hope not.

From the Smithsonian:

quote:

---

"The Smithsonian Institution has never used The Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archaeologists see no direct connection between the archaeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book."

---

All of these things:
Silk - Alma 4:6, Nephi 13:7, Alma 1:29
Horses - Enos 1:21, Alma 18:9, 3 Nephi 3: 1, Nephi 18:25
Steel - Jarom 1:8, 2 Nephi 5:15,16, 1 Nephi 4:9, 16:18
Iron - 2 Nephi 5:15, 20:34, Jarom 1:8, Mosiah 11:8
Coins - Alma 11:5-19
Donkeys - 1 Nephi 18:25, Mosiah 5:14, 12:5
Cattle, Cow, and Oxen - Enos 1:21; 3 Nephi 3:22, 6: 1 Nephi 18:25
Pigs - 3 Nephi 7:8
Grain and Wheat - Mosiah 9:9; Helaman 11:17

Were brought by European settlers. They did not exist in the Americas from 600bc to 421ad when the BOM claims to have taken place.

Guitarsoup -the persecution started in earnest 170 years ago. History has shown that Joseph Smith was the exact opposite of what you tried to term him. The Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. last year held a forum of LDS & non-LDS scholars to discuss and put under a microscope the great historical significance of the Prophet Joseph Smith on the world. There is no doubt that he "is" a compelling historical and religious figure, was the conclusion of the forum. Some non-LDS scholars have described him as a religious genius. The forum was surprising to many because it was a congenial process of inquiry, assertion and response. The exchange of ideas was respectful and pointed. There was real honest inquiry because the "fruits" of Mormonism cannot be ignored and Joseph Smith is at the very center of "Mormonism". Although the Church was marginalized in the beginning and suffered intense persecution, the honor of being asked to participate in such a forum is profoud. Those who persecuted him in the beginning would see, if they were permitted to be here, their descendents honor him and build momuments to his name. A real irony but when you considered approximately 70% of the Church consists of first generation members, I guess not.

Modano, the issues you raise are "straw dogs". The assertions you make are so false that they are laughable. Listen to what two of your evanglical scholars, Carl Mosser and Paul Owen, wrote in 1997 n a scholarly artice entitled "Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics and Evangelical Neglect".

They were not conceding the battle against the Mormons but were trying to awake their followers to the fact that they were "losing the battle and not knowing it"

They said that Mormonism has, in recent years, produced a substantial body of literature defending their beliefs...In this battle the Mormons are fighting valiantly. And the evangelicals? It appears we may be losing the battle and not knowing it." They started their article by disbanding several myths that have been persistent among evangelicals regarding the Church. The following are the Myths:
"There are few, if any, traditional Mormon Scholars with training in fields pertinent to evangelical-Mormon debates."
"When Mormons receive training in historiography, biblical languages, theology and philosophy, they invariably abandon traditional beliefs in the historicity of the Book of Mormon and the prophethood of Joseph Smith."
Liberal Mormons have so shaken the foundations of LDS belief that Mormonism is crumbling apart".

From their research they have come to the following conclusions:
There are, contrary to popular evangelical perceptions, legitimate Mormon scholars."
Mormon scholars and apologists have, with varying degrees of success, answered most of the usual evangelical criticisms."
"The sophistication and erudition of LDS apologetics has risen considerably while evangelical responses HAVE NOT...We are losing the battle and do not know it.

These are stunning and unprecedented admissions. And they were written several years before the humble apology and plea for forgiveness, offered last year in Salt Lake City, from the members of the LDS Church.

I truly enjoy reading the rants about the falsity of the Church and its doctrines and then stumble around in trying to explain the failing of their members to live up to the high ideals that Christ taught. If you believe the principles of your religion should bring you any degree of happiness in this life, should it not be in the home?

In a survey published by the Barna Research Group in Ventura, Calif. they state that the evanglelicals had the highest divorce rate in the U.S. (higher even that of the athiests). The Baptists followed at 29% and Catholics and Lutherans had the lowest divorce rate at 22% but LDS couples married in the Temple had a divorce rate of less than 6%. I wonder what the differece is? Could an understanding of where we came from, why we are here, and where we may go, play a big part? I think it is called an eternal perspective.

And how does all of these religious doctrines effect the youth of America? Last year a book was published entitled "The religious Spiritual lives of American Teenagers (Oxford University Press, 2005). The multi-million dollar study (funded by Eli Co.) was the result of the work done at the University of North Carolina atChapel Hill. The results were published in Nesweek and other publications. I won't bore you with the details, but let is suffice to say, that much to the great surprise of the researchers, the LDS teens were number one in almost evey category. Dr. Kenda Creasey, dean of the Princenton Theological Seminary, and one of the contributors, has a chapter in the book called "Mormon Envy". She examines what she believes is the 4 reasons that LDS teen excel. She concluded her chapter with a call to the youth ministers of mainstream and Catholic denominations to teach the "skills of spiritual resistance" which LDS youth exhibit by developing an understandable, meaningful creed, a spiritually fulfilling "place to belong", opportunities to live out a religious calling to develop future leadership, and to emphasize doctrine that holds out hope for young people.

This what the highly trained, wellpaid youth ministers youth minister had been unable to achiece in any degree compared to the "unpaid" amatueur youth leaders of the LDS church who serve in their calling but a relatively short time. Gog figure!



"T

You just posted a whole lot of nothing.

The BOM speaks about silk, oxen, etc all being used in the Americas, but archeology has never been able to find any trace of such things before the Europeans started coming here.

Explain (spin) that.

Straw dogs??

ibmagg, I am sure you agree that the Book of Abraham is key not only to your faith but to the believability and character of Joseph Smith.

Here is how Joseph documented his initial review of the papyri:

quote:

---

"…with W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commence the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc. - a more full account of which will appear in its place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them. Truly we can say, the Lord is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth." (History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 236).

---

The perface of the Book of Abraham reads as follows:

quote:

---

"THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM

TRANSLATED FROM THE PAPYRUS, BY JOSEPH SMITH

A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. - The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."

---

Since we now know that the paoyri were merely part of the Book of Breathings, how do you explain this?

You can forget all the other issues I raised. Please just explain this apparent conflict/fraud regarding the BoA.

There were other parts of the papyri that were not recovered from the Chicago fire that were actually the writings of Abraham. [/obvious]

Alternatively:

The Rosetta Stone was a fraud.

Read the post again guys. I will later, as I have to go work out, give you the many archaelogical evidence that have been found proving the Book of Mormon claims including working with metal, cement, etc. You all can not come to grips with the real issues. Whether you like to admit it or not, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating".

I believe that the LDS church is still one of the the fastest growing, especially in the internet era.