Evidence for God from Science

Posted: **Fri Oct 13, 2006 1:14 pm**

PL wrote:Also, the fact that Joseph Smith didn't speak a word of Egyptian doesn't help matters, particular in translating "Reformed Egyptian" to English via Greek and Hebrew.

But he had the "seeing stone" in which he stuck his head in his hat and mysteriously translated them. How much more proof do you want?

Posted: **Sat Oct 14, 2006 10:15 pm**

Sargon wrote:One important thing to remember is that a very small percentage of mormon missionaries are trained in apologetics, though most seem to think they are well-enough self-taught. Having once been a missionary myself, I know this from firsthand experience. Having no scholarly works at their disposal while serving as a missionary, they have no access to the vasts amount of information out there.

In this day of telephones and the internet? We don't exactly live in the stone age here.. Sargon, I'm sorry but this is a very weak excuse..

Sargon wrote:And frankly, a very small percentage of them would have been interested or even aware of many of the issues that are criticized by anti-mormons before their missions. Actually, no missionary is formally trained in apologetics, it is nowhere taught in any curriculum in the church, especially not in the Missionary Training Centers around the world.

So they are sending them out with no knowledge? That's like sending a knight to battle with no armour... Are you sure they are Mormons then?

Sargon wrote:Rather than dive into the massive amounts of information available on the topic of race in the Book of Mormon, I will leave you with a link to an article by an apologist named John A. Tvetdnes. He knows alot more than I do and will surely demonstrate to you that racism is not taught in the Book of Mormon. It is a short though intense article, please enjoy.

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences ... ormon.html

Sargon, no offense but this doesn't make sense... The Mormon Doctrine of 1966 seems to contradict much of what it says..

Negroes in this life are denied the Priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. (Abra. 1:20-27.) The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them... negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow therefrom, but this inequality is not of man's origin. It is the Lord's doing, is based on his eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the lack of Spiritual valiance of those concerned in their first estate." (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pp. 527-528)

Mormons believe that the blackness of skin was the mark of Cain.

Cain, Ham, and the whole negro race have been cursed with a black skin, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as a caste apart, a people with whom the other descendants of Adam should not intermarry (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pp. 114)

Or if you would like it from a neutral sourse.. It's all over the internet if you don't believe me... Please read from Wikipedia..

The curse and mark of Cain in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

After the death of Joseph Smith, Jr., The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was the largest of several organizations claiming succession from Smith's church. Brigham Young, the church's president, clearly believed that people of African ancestry were under the curse of Cain. In 1852, he reportedly stated:

"[A]ny man having one drop of the seed of [Cain] ... in him cannot hold the priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ..." (Diary of Wilford Woodruff, January 16, 1852).

Throughout his ministry, Young maintained his view that black skin was part of the curse of Cain, and that black people were still under that curse. On February 5, 1852, Young stated:

"What is that mark? you will see it on the countenance of every African you ever did see upon the face of the earth, or ever will see.... I tell you, this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain." (Brigham Young Addresses, Ms d 1234, Box 48, folder 3, located in LDS Church Historical Dept.) On October 9, 1859, he stated:

"Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race—that they should be the 'servant of servants;' and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p. 290-91.)

Similar doctrine was continued by Young's successors as President of the Church, such as John Taylor, who adopted the theory of W. W. Phelps that Cain's descendants survived the flood via the wife of Ham. In 1881, Taylor stated:

"And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham's wife, as he had married of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God." (Journal of Discourses 22:304)

Throughout the years, various church leaders and theologians spoke on the curse of Cain doctrine. Some of these writings and sermons are included at Curse of Cain/LDS historical statements. Some of the ideas propounded in these sermons and writings included the following:

1. That Cain would not be allowed to enter God's presence, nor would he enjoy the companionship of any member of the Godhead
2. That Cain would be called Perdition and not be resurrected to a degree of glory; He would lose any chance of exaltation
3. That Cain would not taste of death (become a translated being)
4. That the earth would not "yield unto Cain her strength," (or in other words, he would be agriculturally cursed)
5. That a mark would be placed upon Cain so that others would not try to kill him
6. That this mark was "Black skin and a flat nose".
7. That Cain would have to live as "a vagabond" on the earth until the return of Christ as a translated being
8. That Cain would rule over Satan after the final judgement
9. That any mixing of Blacks with any others, would pass the curse upon any of their descendants.
10. The denial of the priesthood and temple ordinances to Cain and his descendants, those being of Black African descent (except in rare occasions), until after Abel's descendants had a chance to receive the gospel and hold the priesthood. No blessing would be denied these people after the resurrection, but it would be denied in this life.

In 1978, after decades of criticism inside and outside the church, the church announced a revelation officially renouncing its policy of excluding blacks from the priesthood. Although the church never has officially stated that the racial curse of Cain doctrine was false, many top church leaders and influential LDS theologians have essentially conceded that the doctrine was not divine truth. For example, Apostle Bruce R. McConkie stated:

"Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world." ("All Are Alike Unto God", pp. 1-2).

When asked, church spokespeople generally repudiate the curse of Cain doctrine. However, despite urging from a number of black Mormons, there has not yet been an official and explicit church repudiation of the doctrine, or an admission that it was a mistake. In 1998, there was a report in the Los Angeles Times that the church leadership was considering an official repudiation of the curse of Cain and curse of Ham doctrines, to mark the 20th anniversary of the 1978 revelation. (Larry B. Stammer, "Mormons May Disavow Old View on Blacks", L.A. Times, May 18, 1998, p. A1). This, however, was quickly denied by the LDS spokesman Don LeFevre. (ABC News report, May 18, 1998). The Times later suggested that the publicity generated by its article may have caused the church to put an official disavowal on hold. (Stammer, "Mormon Plan to Disavow Racist Teachings Jeopardized by Publicity", L.A. Times, May 24, 1998).

I thought this was good too..

http://christiandefense.org/mor_black.htm

Posted: **Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:42 pm**

Sorry folks Ive been busy with mid-terms. Itll be a few more days.

In the meantime, I did find this interesting article to mull over about the names Timothy and Lachoneus in the BoM.

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/ ... 3.0#LPTOC1

Oh ya, and missionaries can only make 2 phone calls home per year, and that time is precious. The internet use for a missionary is restricted to email, and that is restricted to only family members.
They are not sent unarmed into battle, they have a the most powerful weapon of all, the truth.

Please have patience, hopefully this weekend I can address all your arguments.

Sargon

Posted: **Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:07 pm**

Sargon wrote:Sorry folks Ive been busy with mid-terms. Itll be a few more days.

No problem Sargon, we can wait..

Oh ya, and missionaries can only make 2 phone calls home per year, and that time is precious. The internet use for a missionary is restricted to email, and that is restricted to only family members.
They are not sent unarmed into battle, they have a the most powerful weapon of all, the truth.

Sargon, are you serious? Only 2 phones calls per year and restricted internet use? Why? Also couldn't they make one of those calls a question or is that prohibited too?

Are you sure this a missionary or a boot camp? Sorry.. I don't mean to belittle you.

Believe me, I know some Mormons that are probably going to get to heaven before I do. But then again, I have no clue as to what is going on here..

Thanks,
G -

Posted: **Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:22 am**

Are you sure this a missionary or a boot camp? Sorry.. I don't mean to belittle you

At times it does seem like it. However, I found that I was happiest when I was obeying all of the mission rules. The two years arent meant to be a vacation, but in focused service to God.

Sure, missionaries can talk about whatever they want during their phone calls, and surely some ask for information about specific topics. However, the phone calls are expensive usually and all the missionary wants is to hear how his family is and catch up. The phone calls are usually restricted in time as well.

Its a different world, a different culture than any other.

Sargon

Posted: **Wed Oct 18, 2006 12:09 pm**

Sargon wrote:Its a different world, a different culture than any other.

Sargon, I won't debate you on that...

Posted: **Wed Oct 18, 2006 12:26 pm**

Sargon wrote:
Are you sure this a missionary or a boot camp? Sorry.. I don't mean to belittle you
At times it does seem like it. However, I found that I was happiest when I was obeying all of the mission rules. The two years arent meant to be a vacation, but in focused service to God.

Sure, missionaries can talk about whatever they want during their phone calls, and surely some ask for information about specific topics. However, the phone calls are expensive usually and all the missionary wants is to hear how his family is and catch up. The phone calls are usually restricted in time as well.

Its a different world, a different culture than any other.

Sargon

Isolation and limited communication outside the immediate context of an organization is a common practice in disciplining and indoctrinating people toward an intended purpose.

It's not all that unique a practice.

Posted: **Wed Oct 18, 2006 1:12 pm**

My own very limited experience with Mormons wishing to have me convert has been mostly their door-knocking rounds.

I was amazed that two young men, complete strangers to me, expected me to invite them into my home for a discussion. They were asking this of a woman at home alone except for an infant. They themselves might have known they were decent types, but how wise would I have been to do that? I asked that pair that question and they looked completely baffled and said they had never thought of it like that. Naive, or what?

On another occasion, the conversation got underway at the doorstep before I could stop them. But I found that their presentation followed a set line of argument and derailment was so easy because they could not handle more than a very limited range of questions. Again, they were baffled when asked questions and could only revert to their set presentation, ignoring what I was saying.

If there is no (or very limited) reasoning allowed, and automatic acceptance expected, then surely this is akin to brainwashing?

If the Mormon missionaries were exposed to the body of knowledge that makes up Christian apologia, then I doubt that would be in the interests of their faith as there is so much reasonable argument to refute various points. Would any Mormon apologia (if there is any - I don't know) be able to match up?
Perhaps that is the very reason they are not exposed to the arguments, and it is expected that their converts will be among those who do not apply any critical thinking and are willing to accept practically anything at face value and fall into line with it - as they appeared to be doing themselves.

As I said, my experience of Mormons has been very limited, but for what they are worth, those are some of my overall impressions.

Posted: **Wed Oct 18, 2006 2:31 pm**

While my purpose here is not to go into details about the life of a missionary, I will derail in order to correct some of the misconceptions on this forum. As to the other topics, they will require more intenst debate that I dont have time for yet until after midterms.

Isolation and limited communication outside the immediate context of an organization is a common practice in disciplining and indoctrinating people toward an intended purpose.

It's not all that unique a practice.

Quite right, for example the community at qum'ran. Also there are monks, nuns, and buddhists priests.

My purpose was not to make a deep philosophical declaration, I was simply stating that the culture of an LDS mission is different than any other. The same can be said of any culture. Members of the church who have not served a 2 or 1 1/2 year mission usually are not familiar with the lingo, the rules, and the traditions. Its not supposed to be a point of debate, so please dont take it as such.

Judah,
I served for 2 years as a missionary in Brazil. I knocked on many many doors. You can ask any missionary and they will tell you that is quite an ineffective way to spread the gospel. However, it is often the only way to go about it. When introduced to a city of which you know noone, there are limited means for finding interested investigadors. Undoubtedly many missionaries are naive. You have to remember that they are usually 19-20 years old. Most grew up in utah and idaho and are seeing the world for the first time. They arent trained in apologetics, and dont have all the answers to every question. They dont claim to know everything, and are not well versed in every current topic being debated by the christian world. They do not pretend to be doctors of the scriptures. That is not their purpose.
Reasoning certainly is allowed, if not encouraged. However, it is not the focus of a missionaries job. He can use scripture to support his claims, but his number one resource is always the spirit. He introduces people to doctrines, then invites them to ponder and pray about it. That is essentially it.

For your information, there is much mormon apologia. There are various organizations dedicated to the rational and logical side of explaining our doctrines. They struggle to keep up with the tremendous amounts of criticism and are very successful at refuting false accusations and in finding evidence in almost every field of science in support of the LDS church. Their biggest challenge is not in providing answers, but in getting their audience to pay attention. I refer you to two organizations that I especially enjoy: FARMS and FAIR. Google them.

Sargon

Posted: **Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:37 pm**

Thanks for your response, Sargon.

I would absolutely hate to go door-knocking as a missionary and I agree with you that it is not the best way to go about spreading the gospel. I think you have to meet people at their point of need, not impose on them in this rather false kind of way.

I am just amazed that youngsters with no training are sent out to do that kind of thing. It surely cannot be cost-effective in terms of conversions or whatever the objective.

Thanks for the info on Mormon apologia. And all the best for your mid-terms.

Posted: **Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:38 pm**

My question would simply be why you were proselytizing in Brazil, a Christian country.

Posted: **Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:47 pm**

Even though I don't hold to the Mormon beliefs I can honestly say that the ones I have met were the most well mannered and polite people I have ever met.

Posted: **Wed Oct 18, 2006 7:08 pm**

FFC wrote:Even though I don't hold to the Mormon beliefs I can honestly say that the ones I have met were the most well mannered and polite people I have ever met.

That is true FFC, they were very nice to me when I lived in Idaho..

But it is the doctrine that is fallible.. One thing is said and then another is said later which is suppose to correct the other.. Like the more recent revelations..

We'll get into later.. Mormonism is actually an easier one to tackle.. It's the Asian religions that are a bit tougher because they are so convoluted..

Anyways, Sargon don't worry you will be among friends here. We will try to treat you respectively. Hopefully not too condescending..

FFC, Bart, Byblos, (and I think Judah) and I are in our 40's so we will try to be polite here.. I think I'm the younger 40 at 41 though..

God bless..

Speaking of 41, boy, I'm amazed on how I need spell check.. I had like 6 misspelled words here in just a few sentences.. After my mind goes I don't know what will be next..

Posted: **Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:05 am**

I agree with FFC and Gman that mormons can be some of the nicest people anyone could meet. I had quite a few mormon friends back in high school, and I probably enjoyed being friends with them the most because of how they were so respectable. I can't say much for their religion, however. I don't know how many times they told me that their parents wouldn't let me hang out with me after school because I wasn't mormon - and I was a "goody goody", too! Hearing that from them was like a stab in the heart. Anyhow, mormons are our brothers and sisters in God, and I will love them and respect them just as everyone else should each other.

Posted: **Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:37 pm**

I sincerely appreciate the warm welcome. I have been participating on another forum for most of the year, and I recently was invited by someone to check this one out and so far I like it. The focus is a bit different it seems.

I am quite aware of the history of the church in regards to blacks. That is an extensive topic that we can discuss if you would like, though I must say that in all my internet forum hopping it is not one that I have addressed yet so I might have to do some studying. If you would like to I encourage you to start a new thread so that we can have better focus.

There is much to be said about the languages that the Book of Mormon claims to have existed. But that, must wait until next time. Im hungry and I want to go home.

Sargon

Evidence for God from Science

more mormon heresy