documents seemingly contrary to beliefs

[ultimate777]

In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Hofmann you will see about a master forger, blackmailer, and conman who forged documents calling into question the origions of Mormonism. He got some of the Mormon leadership to believe them genuine and buy them off him, very likely to suppress them. Possibly if he had not been busted for murders committed for covering up a completely different scam, he might have never been found out.

Do you think it impossible for leaders of true Christianity to be fooled thusly?

And whether or not that is true, if Christians of power and influence come across documents which seem to be genuine calling into question the origions of Christianity what should they do if they might be made public?

[Danieltwotwenty]

Hi Ultimate I can recommend a really good book called "Cold Case Cristianity" by J Warner Wallace, it goes into detail about how the chain of custody works and how we can be sure the scripture is reliable.


As to your questions, I not really sure to be honest as I believe the scripture to be authentic.

Dan

[ultimate777]

Hi Ultimate I can recommend a really good book called "Cold Case Cristianity" by J Warner Wallace, it goes into detail about how the chain of custody works and how we can be sure the scripture is reliable.


As to your questions, I not really sure to be honest as I believe the scripture to be authentic.

Dan

Dan, I think I will consider looking into "Cold Case Cristianity" by J Warner Wallace. Now these Mormons, perhaps unlike yourself, were so concerned they tied to buy off the forger.

Its eery, but a few years before all this happened Peter Van Greenaway wrote a NOVEL called "The Judas Gospel"
where documents surfaced which seemed to be hard evidence that Judas lived until A.D. 70
and died in the seige of Jerusaleum and at least claimed that Peter was the one who betrayed Jesus. The Vatican sent out a James Bond like priest to "collect" all the evidence and murder the appropriate people. But the State of Israel had copies of the evidence and when certain people started dying, decided to go public with it.

I read the novel about 40 years ago, never re-read it, and when I heard about the non-fiction Mormon stuff my link is about, it seemed like deja vu all over again.

It's nice to know you cannot be fooled by false documents, unlike those Mormon big shots.

[B. W.]

In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Hofmann you will see about a master forger, blackmailer, and conman who forged documents calling into question the origions of Mormonism. He got some of the Mormon leadership to believe them genuine and buy them off him, very likely to suppress them. Possibly if he had not been busted for murders committed for covering up a completely different scam, he might have never been found out.

Do you think it impossible for leaders of true Christianity to be fooled thusly?

And whether or not that is true, if Christians of power and influence come across documents which seem to be genuine calling into question the origions of Christianity what should they do if they might be made public?

Hmmm

A form of that old Moral Equivalency Argument...

One thing you forgot is Contextual Authenticity...
-
-
-

[ultimate777]

In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Hofmann you will see about a master forger, blackmailer, and conman who forged documents calling into question the origions of Mormonism. He got some of the Mormon leadership to believe them genuine and buy them off him, very likely to suppress them. Possibly if he had not been busted for murders committed for covering up a completely different scam, he might have never been found out.

Do you think it impossible for leaders of true Christianity to be fooled thusly?

And whether or not that is true, if Christians of power and influence come across documents which seem to be genuine calling into question the origions of Christianity what should they do if they might be made public?

Hmmm

A form of that old Moral Equivalency Argument...

One thing you forgot is Contextual Authenticity...
-
-
-

Would you please explain to me what the heck you are talking about?

Its hard to remember something when you don't know what it means. What the heck is Contextual Authenticity?-

And what's this about Moral Equivalency?
Now just me, I think the moral thing would be to make it public.

But apparently our fictional pope and our real-life Mormon friends knew better, maybe you do too

[B. W.]

In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Hofmann you will see about a master forger, blackmailer, and conman who forged documents calling into question the origions of Mormonism. He got some of the Mormon leadership to believe them genuine and buy them off him, very likely to suppress them. Possibly if he had not been busted for murders committed for covering up a completely different scam, he might have never been found out.

Do you think it impossible for leaders of true Christianity to be fooled thusly?

And whether or not that is true, if Christians of power and influence come across documents which seem to be genuine calling into question the origions of Christianity what should they do if they might be made public?

Hmmm

A form of that old Moral Equivalency Argument...

One thing you forgot is Contextual Authenticity...

Would you please explain to me what the heck you are talking about?

Its hard to remember something when you don't know what it means. What the heck is Contextual Authenticity?-

And what's this about Moral Equivalency?
Now just me, I think the moral thing would be to make it public.

But apparently our fictional pope and our real-life Mormon friends knew better, maybe you do too

Equivalency Argument

Moral Equivalency Argument sets forth a tactic that seeks to draw false comparisons between two phenomena which are not equivalent. The principle it applies is also applied in many other ways to distort truth. The equivalence strategy is used to discredit an agency, person, or group entity by implying that its policies or practices are the same as another.

For example: Mormonism is based upon forged/false documents; therefore, Christianity also must be based upon forged/false documents as well...

That is a Moral Equivalency style argument which eschews truth to plant doubts or seeks some nefarious goal or just plain wants to character assassinate someone or something one disagrees with... etc and etc.

Contextual Authenticity

Contextual Authenticity is based upon truth of the human condition. It seeks not to hide or cover up human foibles. For example, ancient inscriptions/documents regarding emperors, kings, rulers/people of renown do not mention the human foibles, errors, personal issues of these folks.

Think of Obama, the main stream news media does not mention his past nor ever vetted him. In their eyes, and his own, he can do no wrong and never does; it is always someone else’s fault. Things have not changed since ancient times regarding leaders.

Yet, the bible records human error, sin, personal issues of such folks as King David, Hezekiah, Abraham, Jacob, etc and etc. It contains all the real life drama of life and all the faults, shortcomings, idiosyncrasy, and dumb acts of those mentioned. It hides nothing.

Even in the New Testament, this is felt, seen, recorded about all the apostles as well too. Peter the hot head, rebuked several times by Jesus. How the apostles quarreled amongst themselves such as Paul over Mark and with Peter. Nothing is held back. The truth of the human experience is laid bare. It is that – that defines Contextual Authenticity. Nothing is white washed.

This defies the human condition to hide such events of its leaders and elevate them into the heights of infallibly. We as human beings are not perfect, and neither are leaders. The bible holds nothing back and in doing so demonstrates credibility that lacks in cults such as Mormonism, Islam, JW, etc and etc when they discuss their founders and leaders.

For example, Mormonism does not fully explain that it was fellow Mormons who killed Its founder, Joseph Smith due to devious financial practices and what we know today as pedophilia practices that specifically targeted young girls going into puberty. That is hidden away. Joseph Smith is given to infallibility status the same as Islam’s founder and the JW’s. There leaders are infallible and never do anything really wrong – all is justified in their actions, behaviors, and deeds.

Not so in the bible or the historical Christian record of the early Church fathers. Not even the RC Popes who came later. Their deeds, lifestyle, and actions were never hid. Try as some may, they were never hid. There was and still is an unseen hand of correction with the halls of the Christian experience that exposes hypocrisy and the errors of many of its leaders. Not so, within the halls of Mormonism, Islam, JW and the cults… this lacks.

It for the reason of Contextual Authenticity of the human experience that, in my estimation grants legitimacy to the bible and what it actually teaches us. You forgot that in your equation and instead rely solely upon the - Equivalency fallacy.
-
-
-

[ultimate777]

In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Hofmann you will see about a master forger, blackmailer, and conman who forged documents calling into question the origions of Mormonism. He got some of the Mormon leadership to believe them genuine and buy them off him, very likely to suppress them. Possibly if he had not been busted for murders committed for covering up a completely different scam, he might have never been found out.

Do you think it impossible for leaders of true Christianity to be fooled thusly?

And whether or not that is true, if Christians of power and influence come across documents which seem to be genuine calling into question the origions of Christianity what should they do if they might be made public?

Hmmm

A form of that old Moral Equivalency Argument...

One thing you forgot is Contextual Authenticity...

Would you please explain to me what the heck you are talking about?

Its hard to remember something when you don't know what it means. What the heck is Contextual Authenticity?-

And what's this about Moral Equivalency?
Now just me, I think the moral thing would be to make it public.

But apparently our fictional pope and our real-life Mormon friends knew better, maybe you do too

Equivalency Argument

Moral Equivalency Argument sets forth a tactic that seeks to draw false comparisons between two phenomena which are not equivalent. The principle it applies is also applied in many other ways to distort truth. The equivalence strategy is used to discredit an agency, person, or group entity by implying that its policies or practices are the same as another.

For example: Mormonism is based upon forged/false documents; therefore, Christianity also must be based upon forged/false documents as well...


Where did I ever say either Christianity or Mormonism is based on false documents? I only said that in fiction it was so suspected of Christianity by some "Christians" and later on in real life it was so suspected of Mormonism by some Mormons, with weird similarities to the first instance.[/b


]That is a Moral Equivalency style argument which eschews truth to plant doubts or seeks some nefarious goal or just plain wants to character assassinate someone or something one disagrees with... etc and etc.

Contextual Authenticity

Contextual Authenticity is based upon truth of the human condition. It seeks not to hide or cover up human foibles. For example, ancient inscriptions/documents regarding emperors, kings, rulers/people of renown do not mention the human foibles, errors, personal issues of these folks.

Think of Obama, the main stream news media does not mention his past nor ever vetted him. In their eyes, and his own, he can do no wrong and never does; it is always someone else’s fault. Things have not changed since ancient times regarding leaders.

And you talk about character assasination, open your eyes and look around, main stream media has lots of criticism of him lately


Yet, the bible records human error, sin, personal issues of such folks as King David, Hezekiah, Abraham, Jacob, etc and etc. It contains all the real life drama of life and all the faults, shortcomings, idiosyncrasy, and dumb acts of those mentioned. It hides nothing.

Even in the New Testament, this is felt, seen, recorded about all the apostles as well too. Peter the hot head, rebuked several times by Jesus. How the apostles quarreled amongst themselves such as Paul over Mark and with Peter. Nothing is held back. The truth of the human experience is laid bare. It is that – that defines Contextual Authenticity. Nothing is white washed.


Some might say texts of other religions do likewise, it was tradition and/or it makes for a better story,


This defies the human condition to hide such events of its leaders and elevate them into the heights of infallibly. We as human beings are not perfect, and neither are leaders. The bible holds nothing back and in doing so demonstrates credibility that lacks in cults such as Mormonism, Islam, JW, etc and etc when they discuss their founders and leaders.

For example, Mormonism does not fully explain that it was fellow Mormons who killed Its founder, Joseph Smith due to devious financial practices and what we know today as pedophilia practices that specifically targeted young girls going into puberty. That is hidden away. Joseph Smith is given to infallibility status the same as Islam’s founder and the JW’s. There leaders are infallible and never do anything really wrong – all is justified in their actions, behaviors, and deeds.

Not so in the bible or the historical Christian record of the early Church fathers. Not even the RC Popes who came later. Their deeds, lifestyle, and actions were never hid. Try as some may, they were never hid. There was and still is an unseen hand of correction with the halls of the Christian experience that exposes hypocrisy and the errors of many of its leaders. Not so, within the halls of Mormonism, Islam, JW and the cults… this lacks.

It for the reason of Contextual Authenticity of the human experience that, in my estimation grants legitimacy to the bible and what it actually teaches us. You forgot that in your equation and instead rely solely upon the - Equivalency fallacy.
-
-
-

I'm not going to to defend Mormonism any more than I am going to defend your poltical beliefs. I thought Joseph Smith burning a dissident Mormon printing press was behind his killing and I did not know it was Mormons actually who killed him. Sometimes I wonder if Brigham Young was involved, though.

[PeteSinCA]

u777, it is more usual for the one making or insinuating such a claim to be the one presenting evidence directly supporting that claim, not demanding proof that the claim isn't true.

The three of us - me, myself and I - had a discussion as to whether you, u777, are a pigment of our imagination, but I decided there was no evidence to support such a conclusion.

[B. W.]

....I'm not going to to defend Mormonism any more than I am going to defend your poltical beliefs. I thought Joseph Smith burning a dissident Mormon printing press was behind his killing and I did not know it was Mormons actually who killed him. Sometimes I wonder if Brigham Young was involved, though.

Nauvoo Expositor was the paper behind Smiths destruction of the printing press. The paper was by fellow Mormons who did not like Smith's practices. See these links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauvoo_Expositor

Here is a copy from Nauvoo Expositor that shows they were fellow Mormons....

Preamble:

As for our acquaintance with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, we know, no man or set of men can be more thoroughly acquainted with its rise, its organization, and its history, than we have every reason to believe we are. We all verily believe, and many of us know of a surety, that the religion of the Latter Day Saints, as originally taught by Joseph Smith, which is contained in the Old and New Testaments, Book of Covenants, and Book of Mormon, is verily true; and that the pure principles set forth in those books, are the immutable and eternal principles of Heaven, and speaks a language which, when spoken in truth and virtue, sinks deep into the heart of every honest man.--Its precepts are invigorating, and in every sense of the word, tend to dignify and ennoble man's conceptions of God and his atributes. It speaks a language which is heard amidst the roar of Artillery, as well as in the silence of midnight: it speaks a language understood by the incarcerated spirit, as well as he who is unfettered and free; yet to those who will not see, it is dark, mysterious, and secret as the grave.

We believe that all men, professing to be the ministers of God, should keep steadily in view, the honor and glory of God, the salvation of souls and the amelioration of man's condition: and among their cardinal virtues ought to be found those of faith, hope, virtue and charity; but with Joseph Smith, and many other official characters in the Church, they are words without any meanings attached--words as ornaments; exotics nurtured for display; virtues which, throwing aside the existence of a God, the peace, happiness, welfare, and good order of society, require that they should be preserved pure, immaculate and uncorroded.

We most solemnly and sincerely declare, God this day being witness of the truth and sincerity of our designs and statements, that happy will it be with those who examine and scan Joseph Smith's pretensions to righteousness; and take counsel of human affairs, and of the experience of times gone by. Do not yield up tranquilly a superiority to that man which the reasonableness of past events, and the laws of our country declare to be pernicious and diabolical. We hope many items of doctrine, as now taught, some of which, however, are taught secretly, and denied openly, (which we know positively is the case,) and others publicly, considerate men will treat with contempt; for we declare them heretical and damnable in their influence, though they find many devotees. How shall he, who has drank of the poisonous draft, teach virtue? In the stead thereof, when the criminal ought to plead guilty to the court, the court is obliged to plead guilty to the criminal. We appeal to humanity and ask, what shall we do? Shall we lie supinely and suffer ourselves to be....

http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/exposit1.htm -- the link here let's you read it in its entirety

In Robert B. Flanders book, Kingdom on the Mississippi, page 308 reads:

"When an opportunity to murder Smith finally came, it grew paradoxically out of events within the Mormon Church. Conflict over the issues of plurality of wives and other "ultraist" doctrines, including plurality of gods, had grown within the circle of Mormon leaders until an open break occurred in the spring of 1844. A number of prominent men withdrew and formed their own reform church. They were led by William Law, a member of the First Presidency since 1841, Wilson Law, a brigadier general in the Legion, Austin Cowles, a member of the Nauvoo High Council, James Blakeslee, a prominent Seventy, and Robert D. Foster, Chauncey Higbee, and Charles Ivins, prominent businessmen. They resolved to publish their views and to 'expose' the secret and abominable teachings of the Mormon hierarchy in an opposition newspaper, to be named The Nauvoo Expositor. On June 7 they issued the first and only edition of their paper."

Kingdom on the Mississippi, page 308

There you have it. hope this explains things a bit about who murdered Smith. Smith was not a martyr as LDS makes him out to be and tells its adherents that anti-Mormons (local yokels) killed Smith. Yuo have strong evidence that it was Mormons who had enough of Smith's antics and took matters, into their own hands. Further investgage suggest that Smith created a "I'll kill them first" attitude for betraying him in the news paper article. instead he mob, responded in kind, first...
-
-
-

[B. W.]

....I'm not going to to defend Mormonism any more than I am going to defend your poltical beliefs. I thought Joseph Smith burning a dissident Mormon printing press was behind his killing and I did not know it was Mormons actually who killed him. Sometimes I wonder if Brigham Young was involved, though.

Nauvoo Expositor was the paper behind Smiths destruction of the printing press. The paper was by fellow Mormons who did not like Smith's practices. See these links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauvoo_Expositor

Here is a copy from Nauvoo Expositor that shows they were fellow Mormons....

Preamble:

As for our acquaintance with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, we know, no man or set of men can be more thoroughly acquainted with its rise, its organization, and its history, than we have every reason to believe we are. We all verily believe, and many of us know of a surety, that the religion of the Latter Day Saints, as originally taught by Joseph Smith, which is contained in the Old and New Testaments, Book of Covenants, and Book of Mormon, is verily true; and that the pure principles set forth in those books, are the immutable and eternal principles of Heaven, and speaks a language which, when spoken in truth and virtue, sinks deep into the heart of every honest man.--Its precepts are invigorating, and in every sense of the word, tend to dignify and ennoble man's conceptions of God and his atributes. It speaks a language which is heard amidst the roar of Artillery, as well as in the silence of midnight: it speaks a language understood by the incarcerated spirit, as well as he who is unfettered and free; yet to those who will not see, it is dark, mysterious, and secret as the grave.

We believe that all men, professing to be the ministers of God, should keep steadily in view, the honor and glory of God, the salvation of souls and the amelioration of man's condition: and among their cardinal virtues ought to be found those of faith, hope, virtue and charity; but with Joseph Smith, and many other official characters in the Church, they are words without any meanings attached--words as ornaments; exotics nurtured for display; virtues which, throwing aside the existence of a God, the peace, happiness, welfare, and good order of society, require that they should be preserved pure, immaculate and uncorroded.

We most solemnly and sincerely declare, God this day being witness of the truth and sincerity of our designs and statements, that happy will it be with those who examine and scan Joseph Smith's pretensions to righteousness; and take counsel of human affairs, and of the experience of times gone by. Do not yield up tranquilly a superiority to that man which the reasonableness of past events, and the laws of our country declare to be pernicious and diabolical. We hope many items of doctrine, as now taught, some of which, however, are taught secretly, and denied openly, (which we know positively is the case,) and others publicly, considerate men will treat with contempt; for we declare them heretical and damnable in their influence, though they find many devotees. How shall he, who has drank of the poisonous draft, teach virtue? In the stead thereof, when the criminal ought to plead guilty to the court, the court is obliged to plead guilty to the criminal. We appeal to humanity and ask, what shall we do? Shall we lie supinely and suffer ourselves to be....

http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/exposit1.htm -- the link here let's you read it in its entirety

In Robert B. Flanders book, Kingdom on the Mississippi, page 308 reads:

"When an opportunity to murder Smith finally came, it grew paradoxically out of events within the Mormon Church. Conflict over the issues of plurality of wives and other "ultraist" doctrines, including plurality of gods, had grown within the circle of Mormon leaders until an open break occurred in the spring of 1844. A number of prominent men withdrew and formed their own reform church. They were led by William Law, a member of the First Presidency since 1841, Wilson Law, a brigadier general in the Legion, Austin Cowles, a member of the Nauvoo High Council, James Blakeslee, a prominent Seventy, and Robert D. Foster, Chauncey Higbee, and Charles Ivins, prominent businessmen. They resolved to publish their views and to 'expose' the secret and abominable teachings of the Mormon hierarchy in an opposition newspaper, to be named The Nauvoo Expositor. On June 7 they issued the first and only edition of their paper."

Kingdom on the Mississippi, page 308

There you have it. hope this explains things a bit about who murdered Smith. Smith was not a martyr as LDS makes him out to be and tells its adherents that anti-Mormons (local yokels) killed Smith. You have strong evidence that it was Mormons who had enough of Smith's antics and took matters, into their own hands. Further investigation suggest that Smith created a "I'll kill them first" attitude towards those whom he deemed betrayed him in the news paper article. Instead the mob, responded in kind, first...
-
-
-