Mormonism

[Shadows-shine]

Garland-Green

Shadows-shine

Garland-Green

Shadows-shine

Garland-Green

For them to have been martyrs, they would have had to die for the testimony of Jesus Christ. If they died for selfish reason (a lie) they were not martyrs. Just someone who were murdered. To compare Smith to Paul, Peter and the other apostles you would have to compare what they teach to see if he is a martyr for the testimony of Jesus or not. It seem to me, going through all this material that his reasons was not to uphold the tradition that had been lost, but a more selfish reason.

Quoted from Jeffrey R. Holland, an Apostle of the Lord.

Quote:

May I refer to a modern last days testimony. When Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum started for Carthage, to face what they knew to be an immenent martyrdom Hyrum read these words of comfort to the heart of his brother. "Thou hast been faithful, wherefore, thou shalt be made strong, even unto the sitting down of the place which I have prepared in the mansions of my Father. And now I Moroni, bid farewell until we shall meet, before the judgment seat of Christ."
A few, short verses, from the 12 chapter of Ether in the Book of Mormon......
......Later, when actually incarcerated in the jail, Joseph the Prophet, turned to the guards who held him captive and bore a powerful testimony to the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Shortly thereafter, pistol and ball would take the lives of these two testators.
As one of a thousand elements of my own testimony of the divinity of the Book of Mormon, I submit this as one more evidence of it's truthfulness. In this their greatest and last hour of need, I ask you, would these men blaspheme before God by continuing to fix their lives, their honor, and their own search for eternal salvation on a book? And by implication a church and ministry they had fictiously created out of whole cloth? Never mind their wives are about to be widows and their children fatherless, nevermind that their little band of followers are about to be homeless, houseless, and friendless and that their little children will leave footprints of blood across frozen rivers and an untamed prairie floor, nevermind that legions will die and other legions live declaring that they know that the Book of Mormon and the church that it espouses to be true. Disregard all of that and tell me, whether in this hour of death that these two men would enter the presence of their eternal judge quoting from, and finding solace in a book which if not the very Word of God, would brand them as imposters and charlatains until the end of time. THEY WOULD NOT DO THAT.
They were willing to die, rather than deny the divine origin and the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. For 179 years this book has been examined and attacked, denied and deconstructed, targeted and torn apart, like perhaps no other book in modern religious history, perhaps like no other book in any religious history and still it stands. Failed theories about it origins have been borne, parroted, and died. From Ethan Smith to Solomon Spaulding, to deranged paranoid to cunning geneous. None of these frankly pathetic answers has ever withstood examination because there is no other answer than the one Joseph gave as it's young, unlearned translator.
In this I stand with my own great-grandfather who said simply enough "no wicked man could write such a book as this, and no good man would write it, unless it were true, and he were commanded of God to do so."......
.....If anyone is foolish enough, or mislead enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text teeming with literary and semetic complexity without honestly attempting to account for the origins of those pages somehow especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound spiritual impact that whitness has had on what is now 10s of millions of readers; if that's the case than such persons elect or otherwise have been deceived......
.....But my testimony of this record and the peace it brings to the human heart is as binding and unequivocal as was theirs. Like them I give my name to the world to witness unto the world that that which I have seen and like them, I lie not, God bearing witness of it. I ask that my testimony of the Book of Mormon and all that it implies, given today under my oath and my office, be recorded by men on earth and angels in heaven. I hope I have a few years left in my last days but whether I do or do not, I want it absolutely clear when I stand before the judgment bar of God that I declared to the world in the most straightforward language I could summon that the Book of Mormon is true. That it came forth the way Joseph said it came forth and was given to bring happiness and hope to the faithful in the travail of the last days......

My letter to Elder Holland re Book of Mormon (very long)
By Tom Phillips

Book of Mormon
by anointed one May 2012

Here is a copy of letter I sent with specific questions regarding his proclamation of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon

I will also post his response. This is also being posted on the Biography Board as suggested by Susan I/S.

[Admin Note] The author of this article, "The Truthfulness of the Book of Mormon", also wrote about the second anointing. It can be read at The Second Anointing. A personal experience. A look into the inside of one of the secrets of the Mormon Church.
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon508.htm

2nd May 2012 Thomas Phillips

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland
Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
50 East North Temple Street Salt Lake City, UT 84150 United States

Dear Elder Holland,

Truthfulness of The Book of Mormon

After you set me apart as stake president, you said “Tom, now we are sealed”. I know you did not mean that literally, but I took it as a compliment and great honour to have a close association with you. Throughout the years my family and I have held you in great esteem.

Two letters you wrote to me are kept in a special file and in my ‘heart’. One letter iterated your admiration and appreciation of my son, Alan, and his effect on your son, Duff. As a proud parent I have retained this letter. The other letter was complimenting me on the way in which, as stake president, I dealt with apostates within my stake.

I mention these 2 letters to remind you of our association and the mutual love and respect we have shared. I have been a defender of the faith and greatly inspired by you. In fact I have used your ‘sudden death’ argument regarding the Book of Mormon many times in the past. (See Note 1).

A few years ago I studied a certain aspect of science so that I could better explain to any investigator who was a scientist an important, true doctrine of the Book of Mormon that seemed to conflict with established science. At the time I had no doubt whatsoever of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon (and the Church) so my studies were to understand the flaws in the scientific methodology. Then, I would be in a position to help an investigator overcome this ‘scientific hurdle’ and know God’s truth. The results of studying, pondering, fasting and praying were that the scientific methodology was sound and the fault was in that taught in the Book of Mormon (no death before the fall of Adam approximately 6,000 years ago). That led me to a study of other issues with the Book of Mormon and Church history which clearly showed a number of falsities.

Applying your ‘sudden death’ challenge therefore could only lead to one conclusion, it was a fraud (your words – it is either true or a fraud). I had meetings with Elder Harold G. Hillam and later with Elder Gerald N. Lund. They both gave opposite and conflicting answers that confirmed to me the Church was not true.

The purpose of this letter is to seek your help, as we are ‘sealed’, in resolving a conflict of eternal consequence to my family who still believe the Church is true. You are possibly aware of Alan’s position as a stake president. I accept your ‘sudden death’ option in that the Book of Mormon is either true, as Joseph Smith declared it, or it is a fraud. You are on public record (‘Safety for the Soul’ talk at General Conference October 2009 and posted on ‘youtube’) vigorously defending the claim of its truthfulness and, in fact, deriding those who think otherwise (including me). We cannot both be right on this issue. Either you are right or I am, there appears to be no middle ground or ‘third way’. My family listen to you and others of the Brethren, holding you all in the highest of esteem. As taught and encouraged by the Church they refuse to discuss the issues with me but only wish to bear their testimony. They have not sought to correct any misunderstandings I may have, thereby reclaiming a ‘lost sheep’, but choose to ignore the ‘elephant in the room’. I always believed the Church could bear any scrutiny as it was the one and only true church on the face of the earth.
If I am wrong on the facts, or have drawn incorrect conclusions, then I earnestly implore you to put me right.

Just as you suggest a “sudden death” position regarding The Book of Mormon, I see a “sudden death” either/or question for my situation. Either I am wrong, in which case please address my issues and demonstrate where I am wrong. I would love to be shown that I am wrong, having invested so much of my life in The Church. Or, I am right, in which case please acknowledge that fact to my family.

So, my request to you Elder Holland is to either

1. Demonstrate to me that the Book of Mormon is true by answering and refuting the ‘evidences’ against its truthfulness mentioned later in this letter ( you claim in your talk it has not been proven false in over 179 years) or
2. Admit, for the benefit of my family and hosts of others, it is (in your words) a fraud or
3. At least admit there were errors in your talk (you specify which ones) and apologise to genuine truth seekers regarding the offensive comments you made that they would have to ‘crawl over...etc.’

"If anyone is foolish enough or misled enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text teeming with literary and Semitic complexity without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages—especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound spiritual impact that witness has had on what is now tens of millions of readers—if that is the case, then such a person, elect or otherwise, has been deceived; and if he or she leaves this Church, it must be done by crawling over or under or around the Book of Mormon to make that exit."

Whichever of these 3 you choose to do, will help not only myself but countless others by confirming the truth of the Book of Mormon or admitting it is a work of fiction (however and by whom written). Please do not ignore this request, as it goes to the very heart of the matter of the Church’s veracity. A matter I would assume someone of your moral and academic stature would deem of vital importance. Why would you say something that is not true? I am not an angry ‘anti-Mormon’, I am pro truth. I served diligently in the Church because I honestly believed (‘knew’) it to be true. Once I found out otherwise I could not, as encouraged by Church leaders, just continue in the faith so that I could keep my family. I could not live a lie.

This request is made to you because of our personal relationship and also because you have publically defended the Book of Mormon in General Conference which has been broadcast internationally by the Church and also been featured on ‘youtube’ and ‘The Ensign’.

First permit me to outline the evidences I have discovered that point to the Book of Mormon not being true, or the Word of God . As stated previously, I would appreciate your comments on/refutation of these items, not as an “apologist” but as a truth seeker (whichever way that falls). These are only outline points for the purpose of brevity in this letter. I do not include all that would be included in a paper on such a topic because I assume you are already very familiar with the issues and the answers given by apologists.

Secondly, I list certain quotes from your talk which appear to me to be incorrect. Again I seek your comments/refutation.

Evidences the Book of Mormon is not True

1. 2 Nephi 2:22 and Alma 12:23,24 state there was no death of any kind (humans, all animals, birds, fish etc.) on this earth until the ‘Fall of Adam’ which, according to Doctrine and Covenants section 77:6,7 occurred approximately 6,000 years ago. This is obviously false as it is scientifically established there has been life and death on this planet for billions of years. (See Note 2).

2. The Book of Mormon purports to tell the true origins of the American Indian, descendants of Lehi and his family who left Jerusalem in 600 B.C. Anthropologists have maintained for decades that the American Indians came to North America via the Bering Strait some 15,000 – 30, 000 years ago. Recent DNA studies have conclusively proven the American Indians are not descendents of Lehi and his family. Yes, I am aware of BYU professors who ‘play loose’ with DNA studies in order to defend the Book of Mormon. They also re-invent the Church’s teachings regarding the American Indian (flying in the face of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor through to at least Spencer W. Kimball and the Lord Himself in D&C section 54:8 and others) offering a limited geography theory etc.. I understand the title page to the Book of Mormon has even been amended in this regard in recent years. (See Note 4).

3. Archaeology – there is absolutely no evidence of the Nephites and Lamanites who numbered in the millions according to the Book of Mormon. Contrast this with the Roman occupation of Britain (and other countries). Having lived in England, as well as your frequent visits and reading, you will be aware of abundant evidence the Romans were there during the first 400 years A.D. e.g. villas, mosaic floors, public baths , coins, armour, weapons, writings, art, pottery etc. etc. Even the major road system used today was originally built by the Romans (A1, A2, A4 etc. now with motorways added). Why are there no Nephite buildings, roads, coins, armour, pottery, art etc. Again, the Book of Mormon teaches a period of peace and prosperity lasting about 200 years after Jesus Christ visited the American Continent. Where are the temples etc? Where is the evidence of the 2 million + who died in battles at Hill Cumorah? No bones, chariots, swords, coins, armour, hair? Surely, if it happened it would be easy for archaeologists to find evidence in Palmyra. But then apologists wish to say Cumorah was somewhere else, yet to be discovered. It seems Joseph Smith did not understand the 2 Cumorahs, neither has it been mentioned in decades of pageants put on by the Church at ‘Hill Cumorah’ in upstate New York. There is ample evidence of the Mayan and Aztec civilizations as well as a civilization in current day Texas that dates back 15,000 years. Why no Nephite or Lamanite evidence? Indeed, not only is there no positive evidence for them there is evidence to confirm that certain things, mentioned in the Book of Mormon pertaining to them, were not even on the American continent at the time (e.g. horses, chariots, steel etc.). (See Note 3).

4. Book of Abraham – I mention this as evidence against the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon as an example of the ‘modus operandi’ of Joseph Smith. The arguments of your apologists (e.g. Hugh Nibley and Michael D. Rhodes) to defend the Book of Abraham are an insult to intelligence and certainly would not stand up to peer review by recognised Egyptologists. The Church has had parts of the papyri since, I think, 1967 and they have been translated by Egyptologists. They are no more than magical funerary texts, often buried with the dead, and nothing to do with the purported translation by Joseph Smith. If he lied about the Book of Abraham is it not conceivable he lied about the Book of Mormon? Also, pertinent to this point, is the fact that Joseph lied about (denied) his plural wives and the allegations made by the ‘Nauvoo Expositor’ which turned out to be true. Other evidence of Joseph’s modus operandi re translation projects are the ‘Greek Psalter’ and ‘Kinderhook Plates’ incidents. (See Note 5).

5. Changing skin colour – the Lamanites were cursed by the Lord with a skin of darkness (blackness) because of their sins and so that they would not be attractive to the Nephites. On some occasions, when Lamanites converted and became righteous their skin became whiter. This doctrine was commented on in recent times by President Spencer W. Kimball who noted the lightening of the skins of ‘Lamanites’ (American Indians and Polynesians) in one of his talks. Now I ask you is this the ‘word of God’? Did God use skin colour as a differentiator? Of course he did you may say, he did it with Cain and his descendents. So the racist teachings of Brigham Young etc. have their foundation in the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham and Joseph Smith’s understanding of the book of Genesis. According to science, skin colour is a product of genetics and climate on pigmentation of the skin. Any white person can become dark by sunbathing but the colour change is not permanent. A black person does not become white by being righteous, how offensive, how insulting, how racist. If it is possible (and ethical) to change the colour of a person’s skin in an instant (and then change it back when they become righteous) then it would indicate the Book of Mormon is true in this regard. However, I am of the opinion that any educated, ethical person would consider this doctrine untrue/false. Please explain to me how this doctrine can be true rather than misinformed 19th century thinking. "And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them." (2 Nephi 5:21).

6. Other ‘true doctrines’ of the Church, taken from the Book of Mormon and/or the Doctrine and Covenants ,that are proven false by science include the following (a) all humans alive today are not the descendants of just 2 people (Adam and Eve) who lived (came from the Garden of Eden) approximately 6,000 years ago neither are they the descendants of just one man (Noah) about 4,500 years ago (b) there was no world-wide flood of the earth about 4,500 years ago (c) different languages did not arise in the manner described regarding the Tower of Babel (per Bible and Book of Mormon) (d) the human race did not start in what is now the state of Missouri (D&C 116:1) then migrate to the Middle East in consequence of a universal flooding of the earth. From the Encycloaedia of Mormonism “It wasn’t until May 1838 that revelation (D&C 116) identified Adam-ondi-Ahman, a site near the Garden of Eden, to be in Daviess County, Missouri, some seventy miles from present-day Kansas City. (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., New York City: Macmillan, 1992, 1:19–20.)”

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials'. December 1770
Quote

“The problem Mormonism encounters is that so many of its claims are well within the realm of scientific study, and as such, can be proven or disproven. To cling to faith in these areas, where the overwhelming evidence is against you, is wilful ignorance, not spiritual dedication.”

Evidence the Book of Mormon is True

Here are some specific quotes from your talk, which I take as your arguments for the Book of Mormon’s truthfulness, with my comments/questions added in italics :-

‘Safety for the Soul’ Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

I want it absolutely clear when I stand before the judgment bar of God that I declared to the world . . . that the Book of Mormon is true. In what respects is it true? It is not true according to scientific laws, anthropology, zoology, metallurgy, chemistry, physics, biology, linguistics, history, archaeology etc. Why would you say something that is not true?

The Savior warned that in the last days even those of the covenant, the very elect, could be deceived by the enemy of truth the Book of Mormon itself is an enemy of truth if it declares things as true which are, in fact, false e.g. no death of any kind prior to 6,000 years ago (Book of Mormon actually states “fall of Adam” but Doctrine and Covenants section 77 places this at approximately 6,000 years ago); horses, steel etc. on American continent at time they were absent; origin of the American Indians etc. Please explain how I have been deceived and by whom.

As one of a thousand elements of my own testimony of the divinity of the Book of Mormon, I submit this as yet one more evidence of its truthfulness - you do not mention the other 999 elements, only the following which appears to be untrue :-
They were willing to die rather than deny the divine origin and the eternal truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Untrue, they did not die for their faith. They were killed in a gun battle , Joseph shot at men and, according to President John Taylor, 2 of the men Joseph shot died. They were incarcerated because of Joseph’s reprehensible behaviour and alleged crimes such as having a printing press destroyed (treason? – free speech) which he claimed had published lies about him that were, in fact true; that he practised and taught polygamy including with 14 year old girls and women already married (polyandry); was setting up a theocratic government etc. Why do you not defend the likes of William Law who, having tried to change Joseph’s reprehensible behaviour, published the truth and was demonized by Joseph and the Church as a result. I believe the charges against Joseph were (1) inciting a riot and (2) treason against the State of Illinois At no time, am I aware, were Joseph and Hyrum offered the choice of saving their lives” if they deny the divine origin and the eternal truthfulness of the Book of Mormon”. What is your source for this idea? Please give evidence to support your statement or admit it is false.
Did the State of Illinois or the jailers give Joseph Smith the opportunity to denounce his religious claims and be freed? No. So he was not a martyr. He did not die for his religious beliefs.
Bear in mind the fallacy of your assertion - The claim that no fraud would walk to their death making a claim like Joseph Smith to the very end: this ignores the countless cult leaders like David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite, Jim Jones etc.

For 179 years this book has been examined and attacked, denied and deconstructed, targeted and torn apart like perhaps no other book in modern religious history—perhaps like no other book in any religious history. And still it stands Where does it stand? Is it used in American history classes or used by those studying American history? No, it has been extensively proven false by many. If it still stands it should be easy for you to satisfactorily explain the issues I raised above as evidences that it is not true.

None of these frankly pathetic answers for this book has ever withstood examination because there is no other answer than the one Joseph gave as its young unlearned translator Completely untrue, the one answer Joseph gave is the most absurd and the only one lacking in any real evidence except the “burning in the bosom” which is the same evidence for the truthfulness of the Quran, Hinduism, Scientology and thousands of other beliefs/traditions/fortune telling which totally oppose the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon has been shown to be a work of fiction by many credible authors and is viewed as such by the Smithsonian Institute. Otherwise scholars of American history would readily use the book for their work. Again, answer my issues if I am incorrect.

Your use of the word ‘pathetic’ is rather disturbing. In what way are other suggestions as to the origin of the Book of Mormon and, by inference, my questions, ‘pathetic? Ethan Smith’s “A View of the Hebrews” could be a source, as agreed by Elder B.H. Roberts. The King James translation of the Bible has certainly been used/copied verbatim (including errors in that translation) as well as common 19th century themes prevalent in upstate New York. Please explain why you used the derogatory word ‘pathetic’.

“No wicked man could write such a book as this; and no good man would write it, unless it were true and he were commanded of God to do so.” This argument could be used to prove The Quran true. Also Ethan Smith’s “A View of the Hebrews” Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings trilogy and Rowling’s Harry Potter books.

If anyone is foolish enough or misled enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text teeming with literary and Semitic complexity without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages—especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound spiritual impact that witness has had on what is now tens of millions of readers—if that is the case, then such a person, elect or otherwise, has been deceived; and if he or she leaves this Church, it must be done by crawling over or under or around the Book of Mormon to make that exit.

How offensive a statement! Without giving any evidence in your talk that the book is true, other than a misleading statement and innuendo that Joseph and Hyrum gave their lives for it, you say I (yes me, Thomas William Phillips) have been deceived and if I leave this Church i must do so by crawling over or under or around the Book of Mormon..If this is so, please answer my issues so that I may know in what facts I have been deceived and the identity of my deceiver(s).

After meeting with 2 General Authorities of the Church, who each gave me opposite answers, I have concluded that they and you are deceived and to believe in the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon you all have to crawl over or under or around the facts and evidences of physics, chemistry, biology, genetics, geology, anthropology, linguistics, zoology, palaeontology, archaeology, metallurgy, history etc. If my conclusion is wrong please correct me by explaining the fallacy of my logic and by whom I have, in your words, been deceived. Did Elder Hillam deceive me in stating “of course there has been death on this planet for billions of years” or Elder Lund by stating” the scientists are wrong, there has been no death prior to approximately 6,000 years ago. Carbon dating is incorrect.”? Which of these 2 General Authorities has tried to deceive me? Did the academics in the fields mentioned above deceive me? Have they been deceived by Satan into teaching that which is not true in spite of the fact they can demonstrate/prove the conclusions of their research?

You also state that the likes of me are “foolish” and “misled” – please explain in what way(s) I am foolish and misled. Why do you use such offensive and unsubstantiated language? If I am foolish and misled you should easily be able to demonstrate that in which I am foolish and misled and by whom I have been misled.

Elder Holland, I am writing to you in this way as a ‘sudden death’ (your words) type of plea. I have been through the appropriate Church channels to resolve my concerns but each of those Priesthood Leaders have merely confirmed to me that the Book of Mormon (and hence, following on from your specific challenge, the Church) is not true. My final plea is to you as an Apostle and public defender of the Book of Mormon. The apologists I have been referred to actually admit the truth of my concerns but try to re-define church doctrine and scripture, contrary to that clearly taught by the Brethren. An example of the answers I have been given by Priesthood Leaders are in Note 6.

As your declarations on the Book of Mormon and derision of those, such as myself, have been made so public (General Conference broadcast throughout the world, Ensign magazine and ‘youtube’) I will be publishing this letter on two or more bulletin boards. I will also publish your reply to this letter so that all sides of the issues may be fairly represented.

So, my request to you Elder Holland is to either

1. Demonstrate to me that the Book of Mormon is true by answering and refuting the ‘evidences’ against its truthfulness mentioned above ( you claim in your talk it has not been proven false in over 179 years) or
2. Admit, for the benefit of my family and hosts of others, it is (in your words) a fraud or
3. At least admit there were errors in your talk (you specify which ones) and apologise to genuine truth seekers regarding the offensive comments you made that they would have to ‘crawl over...etc.’
If you are able to do (1) please explain to me how and by whom I have been misled.
Thank you for reading this letter and taking the time to respond. As mentioned at the beginning, I and my family have long admired and respected you. Copies of this letter are being sent to my immediate family who are all currently active members of the Church.

Sincerely,
Tom Phillips

It's funny that you turn to an ex members letter to try to disprove a man's testimony. This isn't even worth acknowledging. Most ex members speak from hate and bitterness not out of love and yearning for understanding.

Who better to point out errors in Mormonism than an ex-Mormon?
Personally I think it is a cop out to say that because he's an ex-Mormon his points should not be addressed. I think most of us would be angry if we discovered that we had been actively deceived. His objections do deserve consideration as he is raising some good points.

Yes, because bitter people are always so rational.
No, I disagree that the best source to go to find out about the LDS Church is from a member of the Church. I wouldn't go to an ex-catholic to find out about the catholic church nor would I go to an ex-protestant to find out about that religion. So why rely on an ex-member of the LDS Church to convince me I am in the wrong?
You're trying to dispute religion with me, philosophy, things that never have absolute proof. The only proof religion has is the faith we put into them. Hence why Paul says that faith is the evidence of things not seen.  

[Shadows-shine]

Here are some links to support my argument that the Church is true, the Book of Mormon is true, and that Joseph Smith is a true prophet. I can post more. There's lots of it out there.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

http://bookofmormonfacts.com/book-of-mormon/proof-that-true/


http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_prophecies.shtml


http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1981/10/joseph-smith-prophet-to-our-generation

http://www.greaterthings.com/Ridenhour/Protestant_Evangelism/TwoSticks/index.html (I found this one particularly fascinating being as it came from a Baptist minister who found the Book of Mormon to be true.)

http://www.fairlds.org/authors/ash-michael/archaeological-evidence-and-the-book-of-mormon  

[Shadows-shine]

Aoife

Quote:

According to Mormon writings (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith - History 1:1-25), on a day in 1820, Joe was praying in the woods when he received a vision from God the Father and Jesus. It was revealed to Joe that the church was in apostasy and he was the chosen one to launch a new dispensation.
...
Joe put his "calling" on hold for three years. Then, according to his own account (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith - History 1:29-54), he was paid a bedside visit by the angel Moroni in 1823.

I believe this was the "calling" that was being spoken of...

I am curious please Shadow, since you say you don't believe in the trinity, does this mean that you do believe in multiple gods?

I did a little research around and found this which I thought was awesome, I hope you'll read it. http://www.contenderministries.org/mormonism/sttestimony.php
if you won't click on the link, I can copy/paste it all, but it was kinda long, I didn't want to have to if you'll look.

Was there some thing specific I was supposed to look at in that link? I found nothing I haven't heard or read before as I grew up in a very anti-mormon household. A lot of my family won't even speak to me because I'm LDS. And I will say, from what I did read on that site they quote a lot from the Journal of Discourses, which is not doctrine or used as such.  

[Garland-Green]

Shadows-shine

Garland-Green

Shadows-shine

Garland-Green

Shadows-shine

Quoted from Jeffrey R. Holland, an Apostle of the Lord.

My letter to Elder Holland re Book of Mormon (very long)
By Tom Phillips

Book of Mormon
by anointed one May 2012

Here is a copy of letter I sent with specific questions regarding his proclamation of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon

I will also post his response. This is also being posted on the Biography Board as suggested by Susan I/S.

[Admin Note] The author of this article, "The Truthfulness of the Book of Mormon", also wrote about the second anointing. It can be read at The Second Anointing. A personal experience. A look into the inside of one of the secrets of the Mormon Church.
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon508.htm

2nd May 2012 Thomas Phillips

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland
Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
50 East North Temple Street Salt Lake City, UT 84150 United States

Dear Elder Holland,

Truthfulness of The Book of Mormon

After you set me apart as stake president, you said “Tom, now we are sealed”. I know you did not mean that literally, but I took it as a compliment and great honour to have a close association with you. Throughout the years my family and I have held you in great esteem.

Two letters you wrote to me are kept in a special file and in my ‘heart’. One letter iterated your admiration and appreciation of my son, Alan, and his effect on your son, Duff. As a proud parent I have retained this letter. The other letter was complimenting me on the way in which, as stake president, I dealt with apostates within my stake.

I mention these 2 letters to remind you of our association and the mutual love and respect we have shared. I have been a defender of the faith and greatly inspired by you. In fact I have used your ‘sudden death’ argument regarding the Book of Mormon many times in the past. (See Note 1).

A few years ago I studied a certain aspect of science so that I could better explain to any investigator who was a scientist an important, true doctrine of the Book of Mormon that seemed to conflict with established science. At the time I had no doubt whatsoever of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon (and the Church) so my studies were to understand the flaws in the scientific methodology. Then, I would be in a position to help an investigator overcome this ‘scientific hurdle’ and know God’s truth. The results of studying, pondering, fasting and praying were that the scientific methodology was sound and the fault was in that taught in the Book of Mormon (no death before the fall of Adam approximately 6,000 years ago). That led me to a study of other issues with the Book of Mormon and Church history which clearly showed a number of falsities.

Applying your ‘sudden death’ challenge therefore could only lead to one conclusion, it was a fraud (your words – it is either true or a fraud). I had meetings with Elder Harold G. Hillam and later with Elder Gerald N. Lund. They both gave opposite and conflicting answers that confirmed to me the Church was not true.

The purpose of this letter is to seek your help, as we are ‘sealed’, in resolving a conflict of eternal consequence to my family who still believe the Church is true. You are possibly aware of Alan’s position as a stake president. I accept your ‘sudden death’ option in that the Book of Mormon is either true, as Joseph Smith declared it, or it is a fraud. You are on public record (‘Safety for the Soul’ talk at General Conference October 2009 and posted on ‘youtube’) vigorously defending the claim of its truthfulness and, in fact, deriding those who think otherwise (including me). We cannot both be right on this issue. Either you are right or I am, there appears to be no middle ground or ‘third way’. My family listen to you and others of the Brethren, holding you all in the highest of esteem. As taught and encouraged by the Church they refuse to discuss the issues with me but only wish to bear their testimony. They have not sought to correct any misunderstandings I may have, thereby reclaiming a ‘lost sheep’, but choose to ignore the ‘elephant in the room’. I always believed the Church could bear any scrutiny as it was the one and only true church on the face of the earth.
If I am wrong on the facts, or have drawn incorrect conclusions, then I earnestly implore you to put me right.

Just as you suggest a “sudden death” position regarding The Book of Mormon, I see a “sudden death” either/or question for my situation. Either I am wrong, in which case please address my issues and demonstrate where I am wrong. I would love to be shown that I am wrong, having invested so much of my life in The Church. Or, I am right, in which case please acknowledge that fact to my family.

So, my request to you Elder Holland is to either

1. Demonstrate to me that the Book of Mormon is true by answering and refuting the ‘evidences’ against its truthfulness mentioned later in this letter ( you claim in your talk it has not been proven false in over 179 years) or
2. Admit, for the benefit of my family and hosts of others, it is (in your words) a fraud or
3. At least admit there were errors in your talk (you specify which ones) and apologise to genuine truth seekers regarding the offensive comments you made that they would have to ‘crawl over...etc.’

"If anyone is foolish enough or misled enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text teeming with literary and Semitic complexity without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages—especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound spiritual impact that witness has had on what is now tens of millions of readers—if that is the case, then such a person, elect or otherwise, has been deceived; and if he or she leaves this Church, it must be done by crawling over or under or around the Book of Mormon to make that exit."

Whichever of these 3 you choose to do, will help not only myself but countless others by confirming the truth of the Book of Mormon or admitting it is a work of fiction (however and by whom written). Please do not ignore this request, as it goes to the very heart of the matter of the Church’s veracity. A matter I would assume someone of your moral and academic stature would deem of vital importance. Why would you say something that is not true? I am not an angry ‘anti-Mormon’, I am pro truth. I served diligently in the Church because I honestly believed (‘knew’) it to be true. Once I found out otherwise I could not, as encouraged by Church leaders, just continue in the faith so that I could keep my family. I could not live a lie.

This request is made to you because of our personal relationship and also because you have publically defended the Book of Mormon in General Conference which has been broadcast internationally by the Church and also been featured on ‘youtube’ and ‘The Ensign’.

First permit me to outline the evidences I have discovered that point to the Book of Mormon not being true, or the Word of God . As stated previously, I would appreciate your comments on/refutation of these items, not as an “apologist” but as a truth seeker (whichever way that falls). These are only outline points for the purpose of brevity in this letter. I do not include all that would be included in a paper on such a topic because I assume you are already very familiar with the issues and the answers given by apologists.

Secondly, I list certain quotes from your talk which appear to me to be incorrect. Again I seek your comments/refutation.

Evidences the Book of Mormon is not True

1. 2 Nephi 2:22 and Alma 12:23,24 state there was no death of any kind (humans, all animals, birds, fish etc.) on this earth until the ‘Fall of Adam’ which, according to Doctrine and Covenants section 77:6,7 occurred approximately 6,000 years ago. This is obviously false as it is scientifically established there has been life and death on this planet for billions of years. (See Note 2).

2. The Book of Mormon purports to tell the true origins of the American Indian, descendants of Lehi and his family who left Jerusalem in 600 B.C. Anthropologists have maintained for decades that the American Indians came to North America via the Bering Strait some 15,000 – 30, 000 years ago. Recent DNA studies have conclusively proven the American Indians are not descendents of Lehi and his family. Yes, I am aware of BYU professors who ‘play loose’ with DNA studies in order to defend the Book of Mormon. They also re-invent the Church’s teachings regarding the American Indian (flying in the face of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor through to at least Spencer W. Kimball and the Lord Himself in D&C section 54:8 and others) offering a limited geography theory etc.. I understand the title page to the Book of Mormon has even been amended in this regard in recent years. (See Note 4).

3. Archaeology – there is absolutely no evidence of the Nephites and Lamanites who numbered in the millions according to the Book of Mormon. Contrast this with the Roman occupation of Britain (and other countries). Having lived in England, as well as your frequent visits and reading, you will be aware of abundant evidence the Romans were there during the first 400 years A.D. e.g. villas, mosaic floors, public baths , coins, armour, weapons, writings, art, pottery etc. etc. Even the major road system used today was originally built by the Romans (A1, A2, A4 etc. now with motorways added). Why are there no Nephite buildings, roads, coins, armour, pottery, art etc. Again, the Book of Mormon teaches a period of peace and prosperity lasting about 200 years after Jesus Christ visited the American Continent. Where are the temples etc? Where is the evidence of the 2 million + who died in battles at Hill Cumorah? No bones, chariots, swords, coins, armour, hair? Surely, if it happened it would be easy for archaeologists to find evidence in Palmyra. But then apologists wish to say Cumorah was somewhere else, yet to be discovered. It seems Joseph Smith did not understand the 2 Cumorahs, neither has it been mentioned in decades of pageants put on by the Church at ‘Hill Cumorah’ in upstate New York. There is ample evidence of the Mayan and Aztec civilizations as well as a civilization in current day Texas that dates back 15,000 years. Why no Nephite or Lamanite evidence? Indeed, not only is there no positive evidence for them there is evidence to confirm that certain things, mentioned in the Book of Mormon pertaining to them, were not even on the American continent at the time (e.g. horses, chariots, steel etc.). (See Note 3).

4. Book of Abraham – I mention this as evidence against the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon as an example of the ‘modus operandi’ of Joseph Smith. The arguments of your apologists (e.g. Hugh Nibley and Michael D. Rhodes) to defend the Book of Abraham are an insult to intelligence and certainly would not stand up to peer review by recognised Egyptologists. The Church has had parts of the papyri since, I think, 1967 and they have been translated by Egyptologists. They are no more than magical funerary texts, often buried with the dead, and nothing to do with the purported translation by Joseph Smith. If he lied about the Book of Abraham is it not conceivable he lied about the Book of Mormon? Also, pertinent to this point, is the fact that Joseph lied about (denied) his plural wives and the allegations made by the ‘Nauvoo Expositor’ which turned out to be true. Other evidence of Joseph’s modus operandi re translation projects are the ‘Greek Psalter’ and ‘Kinderhook Plates’ incidents. (See Note 5).

5. Changing skin colour – the Lamanites were cursed by the Lord with a skin of darkness (blackness) because of their sins and so that they would not be attractive to the Nephites. On some occasions, when Lamanites converted and became righteous their skin became whiter. This doctrine was commented on in recent times by President Spencer W. Kimball who noted the lightening of the skins of ‘Lamanites’ (American Indians and Polynesians) in one of his talks. Now I ask you is this the ‘word of God’? Did God use skin colour as a differentiator? Of course he did you may say, he did it with Cain and his descendents. So the racist teachings of Brigham Young etc. have their foundation in the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham and Joseph Smith’s understanding of the book of Genesis. According to science, skin colour is a product of genetics and climate on pigmentation of the skin. Any white person can become dark by sunbathing but the colour change is not permanent. A black person does not become white by being righteous, how offensive, how insulting, how racist. If it is possible (and ethical) to change the colour of a person’s skin in an instant (and then change it back when they become righteous) then it would indicate the Book of Mormon is true in this regard. However, I am of the opinion that any educated, ethical person would consider this doctrine untrue/false. Please explain to me how this doctrine can be true rather than misinformed 19th century thinking. "And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them." (2 Nephi 5:21).

6. Other ‘true doctrines’ of the Church, taken from the Book of Mormon and/or the Doctrine and Covenants ,that are proven false by science include the following (a) all humans alive today are not the descendants of just 2 people (Adam and Eve) who lived (came from the Garden of Eden) approximately 6,000 years ago neither are they the descendants of just one man (Noah) about 4,500 years ago (b) there was no world-wide flood of the earth about 4,500 years ago (c) different languages did not arise in the manner described regarding the Tower of Babel (per Bible and Book of Mormon) (d) the human race did not start in what is now the state of Missouri (D&C 116:1) then migrate to the Middle East in consequence of a universal flooding of the earth. From the Encycloaedia of Mormonism “It wasn’t until May 1838 that revelation (D&C 116) identified Adam-ondi-Ahman, a site near the Garden of Eden, to be in Daviess County, Missouri, some seventy miles from present-day Kansas City. (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., New York City: Macmillan, 1992, 1:19–20.)”

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials'. December 1770
Quote

“The problem Mormonism encounters is that so many of its claims are well within the realm of scientific study, and as such, can be proven or disproven. To cling to faith in these areas, where the overwhelming evidence is against you, is wilful ignorance, not spiritual dedication.”

Evidence the Book of Mormon is True

Here are some specific quotes from your talk, which I take as your arguments for the Book of Mormon’s truthfulness, with my comments/questions added in italics :-

‘Safety for the Soul’ Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

I want it absolutely clear when I stand before the judgment bar of God that I declared to the world . . . that the Book of Mormon is true. In what respects is it true? It is not true according to scientific laws, anthropology, zoology, metallurgy, chemistry, physics, biology, linguistics, history, archaeology etc. Why would you say something that is not true?

The Savior warned that in the last days even those of the covenant, the very elect, could be deceived by the enemy of truth the Book of Mormon itself is an enemy of truth if it declares things as true which are, in fact, false e.g. no death of any kind prior to 6,000 years ago (Book of Mormon actually states “fall of Adam” but Doctrine and Covenants section 77 places this at approximately 6,000 years ago); horses, steel etc. on American continent at time they were absent; origin of the American Indians etc. Please explain how I have been deceived and by whom.

As one of a thousand elements of my own testimony of the divinity of the Book of Mormon, I submit this as yet one more evidence of its truthfulness - you do not mention the other 999 elements, only the following which appears to be untrue :-
They were willing to die rather than deny the divine origin and the eternal truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Untrue, they did not die for their faith. They were killed in a gun battle , Joseph shot at men and, according to President John Taylor, 2 of the men Joseph shot died. They were incarcerated because of Joseph’s reprehensible behaviour and alleged crimes such as having a printing press destroyed (treason? – free speech) which he claimed had published lies about him that were, in fact true; that he practised and taught polygamy including with 14 year old girls and women already married (polyandry); was setting up a theocratic government etc. Why do you not defend the likes of William Law who, having tried to change Joseph’s reprehensible behaviour, published the truth and was demonized by Joseph and the Church as a result. I believe the charges against Joseph were (1) inciting a riot and (2) treason against the State of Illinois At no time, am I aware, were Joseph and Hyrum offered the choice of saving their lives” if they deny the divine origin and the eternal truthfulness of the Book of Mormon”. What is your source for this idea? Please give evidence to support your statement or admit it is false.
Did the State of Illinois or the jailers give Joseph Smith the opportunity to denounce his religious claims and be freed? No. So he was not a martyr. He did not die for his religious beliefs.
Bear in mind the fallacy of your assertion - The claim that no fraud would walk to their death making a claim like Joseph Smith to the very end: this ignores the countless cult leaders like David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite, Jim Jones etc.

For 179 years this book has been examined and attacked, denied and deconstructed, targeted and torn apart like perhaps no other book in modern religious history—perhaps like no other book in any religious history. And still it stands Where does it stand? Is it used in American history classes or used by those studying American history? No, it has been extensively proven false by many. If it still stands it should be easy for you to satisfactorily explain the issues I raised above as evidences that it is not true.

None of these frankly pathetic answers for this book has ever withstood examination because there is no other answer than the one Joseph gave as its young unlearned translator Completely untrue, the one answer Joseph gave is the most absurd and the only one lacking in any real evidence except the “burning in the bosom” which is the same evidence for the truthfulness of the Quran, Hinduism, Scientology and thousands of other beliefs/traditions/fortune telling which totally oppose the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon has been shown to be a work of fiction by many credible authors and is viewed as such by the Smithsonian Institute. Otherwise scholars of American history would readily use the book for their work. Again, answer my issues if I am incorrect.

Your use of the word ‘pathetic’ is rather disturbing. In what way are other suggestions as to the origin of the Book of Mormon and, by inference, my questions, ‘pathetic? Ethan Smith’s “A View of the Hebrews” could be a source, as agreed by Elder B.H. Roberts. The King James translation of the Bible has certainly been used/copied verbatim (including errors in that translation) as well as common 19th century themes prevalent in upstate New York. Please explain why you used the derogatory word ‘pathetic’.

“No wicked man could write such a book as this; and no good man would write it, unless it were true and he were commanded of God to do so.” This argument could be used to prove The Quran true. Also Ethan Smith’s “A View of the Hebrews” Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings trilogy and Rowling’s Harry Potter books.

If anyone is foolish enough or misled enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text teeming with literary and Semitic complexity without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages—especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound spiritual impact that witness has had on what is now tens of millions of readers—if that is the case, then such a person, elect or otherwise, has been deceived; and if he or she leaves this Church, it must be done by crawling over or under or around the Book of Mormon to make that exit.

How offensive a statement! Without giving any evidence in your talk that the book is true, other than a misleading statement and innuendo that Joseph and Hyrum gave their lives for it, you say I (yes me, Thomas William Phillips) have been deceived and if I leave this Church i must do so by crawling over or under or around the Book of Mormon..If this is so, please answer my issues so that I may know in what facts I have been deceived and the identity of my deceiver(s).

After meeting with 2 General Authorities of the Church, who each gave me opposite answers, I have concluded that they and you are deceived and to believe in the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon you all have to crawl over or under or around the facts and evidences of physics, chemistry, biology, genetics, geology, anthropology, linguistics, zoology, palaeontology, archaeology, metallurgy, history etc. If my conclusion is wrong please correct me by explaining the fallacy of my logic and by whom I have, in your words, been deceived. Did Elder Hillam deceive me in stating “of course there has been death on this planet for billions of years” or Elder Lund by stating” the scientists are wrong, there has been no death prior to approximately 6,000 years ago. Carbon dating is incorrect.”? Which of these 2 General Authorities has tried to deceive me? Did the academics in the fields mentioned above deceive me? Have they been deceived by Satan into teaching that which is not true in spite of the fact they can demonstrate/prove the conclusions of their research?

You also state that the likes of me are “foolish” and “misled” – please explain in what way(s) I am foolish and misled. Why do you use such offensive and unsubstantiated language? If I am foolish and misled you should easily be able to demonstrate that in which I am foolish and misled and by whom I have been misled.

Elder Holland, I am writing to you in this way as a ‘sudden death’ (your words) type of plea. I have been through the appropriate Church channels to resolve my concerns but each of those Priesthood Leaders have merely confirmed to me that the Book of Mormon (and hence, following on from your specific challenge, the Church) is not true. My final plea is to you as an Apostle and public defender of the Book of Mormon. The apologists I have been referred to actually admit the truth of my concerns but try to re-define church doctrine and scripture, contrary to that clearly taught by the Brethren. An example of the answers I have been given by Priesthood Leaders are in Note 6.

As your declarations on the Book of Mormon and derision of those, such as myself, have been made so public (General Conference broadcast throughout the world, Ensign magazine and ‘youtube’) I will be publishing this letter on two or more bulletin boards. I will also publish your reply to this letter so that all sides of the issues may be fairly represented.

So, my request to you Elder Holland is to either

1. Demonstrate to me that the Book of Mormon is true by answering and refuting the ‘evidences’ against its truthfulness mentioned above ( you claim in your talk it has not been proven false in over 179 years) or
2. Admit, for the benefit of my family and hosts of others, it is (in your words) a fraud or
3. At least admit there were errors in your talk (you specify which ones) and apologise to genuine truth seekers regarding the offensive comments you made that they would have to ‘crawl over...etc.’
If you are able to do (1) please explain to me how and by whom I have been misled.
Thank you for reading this letter and taking the time to respond. As mentioned at the beginning, I and my family have long admired and respected you. Copies of this letter are being sent to my immediate family who are all currently active members of the Church.

Sincerely,
Tom Phillips

It's funny that you turn to an ex members letter to try to disprove a man's testimony. This isn't even worth acknowledging. Most ex members speak from hate and bitterness not out of love and yearning for understanding.

Who better to point out errors in Mormonism than an ex-Mormon?
Personally I think it is a cop out to say that because he's an ex-Mormon his points should not be addressed. I think most of us would be angry if we discovered that we had been actively deceived. His objections do deserve consideration as he is raising some good points.

Yes, because bitter people are always so rational.
No, I disagree that the best source to go to find out about the LDS Church is from a member of the Church. I wouldn't go to an ex-catholic to find out about the catholic church nor would I go to an ex-protestant to find out about that religion. So why rely on an ex-member of the LDS Church to convince me I am in the wrong?
You're trying to dispute religion with me, philosophy, things that never have absolute proof. The only proof religion has is the faith we put into them. Hence why Paul says that faith is the evidence of things not seen.

Since he has insight into the church I feel it would be good to use him to refute the claims you post. I doubt I would find a Mormon trying to disprove what he himself believe, as I also doubt I would find a Catholic or a protestant doing the same, so I go to alternate sources. And since I believe Mormonism is a fraudulent religion I would not seek info from Mormon sources given their lax handling of historical information and the truth, at least not without consulting various other sources.

1 Peter 3:15
15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

History has proof. You find it through archaeology. If something claims to have history, yet you find no historical evidence of it, then it is not history, but fantasy. Faith is not unreasonable. You should be able to reason why you believe something. Christianity has as I pointed out earlier a lot of history and corroborating evidence to back up faith, and why it is believed to be true.
If there is no historical evidence to back up the historical claims of the book how can you expect events of a spiritual nature to be true, or to win anyone over?

Bitter or not, the points he raises are not invalid because of his feelings.  

[Shadows-shine]

Garland-Green

Shadows-shine

Garland-Green

Shadows-shine

Garland-Green

Shadows-shine

Quoted from Jeffrey R. Holland, an Apostle of the Lord.

My letter to Elder Holland re Book of Mormon (very long)
By Tom Phillips

Book of Mormon
by anointed one May 2012

Here is a copy of letter I sent with specific questions regarding his proclamation of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon

I will also post his response. This is also being posted on the Biography Board as suggested by Susan I/S.

[Admin Note] The author of this article, "The Truthfulness of the Book of Mormon", also wrote about the second anointing. It can be read at The Second Anointing. A personal experience. A look into the inside of one of the secrets of the Mormon Church.
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon508.htm

2nd May 2012 Thomas Phillips

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland
Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
50 East North Temple Street Salt Lake City, UT 84150 United States

Dear Elder Holland,

Truthfulness of The Book of Mormon

After you set me apart as stake president, you said “Tom, now we are sealed”. I know you did not mean that literally, but I took it as a compliment and great honour to have a close association with you. Throughout the years my family and I have held you in great esteem.

Two letters you wrote to me are kept in a special file and in my ‘heart’. One letter iterated your admiration and appreciation of my son, Alan, and his effect on your son, Duff. As a proud parent I have retained this letter. The other letter was complimenting me on the way in which, as stake president, I dealt with apostates within my stake.

I mention these 2 letters to remind you of our association and the mutual love and respect we have shared. I have been a defender of the faith and greatly inspired by you. In fact I have used your ‘sudden death’ argument regarding the Book of Mormon many times in the past. (See Note 1).

A few years ago I studied a certain aspect of science so that I could better explain to any investigator who was a scientist an important, true doctrine of the Book of Mormon that seemed to conflict with established science. At the time I had no doubt whatsoever of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon (and the Church) so my studies were to understand the flaws in the scientific methodology. Then, I would be in a position to help an investigator overcome this ‘scientific hurdle’ and know God’s truth. The results of studying, pondering, fasting and praying were that the scientific methodology was sound and the fault was in that taught in the Book of Mormon (no death before the fall of Adam approximately 6,000 years ago). That led me to a study of other issues with the Book of Mormon and Church history which clearly showed a number of falsities.

Applying your ‘sudden death’ challenge therefore could only lead to one conclusion, it was a fraud (your words – it is either true or a fraud). I had meetings with Elder Harold G. Hillam and later with Elder Gerald N. Lund. They both gave opposite and conflicting answers that confirmed to me the Church was not true.

The purpose of this letter is to seek your help, as we are ‘sealed’, in resolving a conflict of eternal consequence to my family who still believe the Church is true. You are possibly aware of Alan’s position as a stake president. I accept your ‘sudden death’ option in that the Book of Mormon is either true, as Joseph Smith declared it, or it is a fraud. You are on public record (‘Safety for the Soul’ talk at General Conference October 2009 and posted on ‘youtube’) vigorously defending the claim of its truthfulness and, in fact, deriding those who think otherwise (including me). We cannot both be right on this issue. Either you are right or I am, there appears to be no middle ground or ‘third way’. My family listen to you and others of the Brethren, holding you all in the highest of esteem. As taught and encouraged by the Church they refuse to discuss the issues with me but only wish to bear their testimony. They have not sought to correct any misunderstandings I may have, thereby reclaiming a ‘lost sheep’, but choose to ignore the ‘elephant in the room’. I always believed the Church could bear any scrutiny as it was the one and only true church on the face of the earth.
If I am wrong on the facts, or have drawn incorrect conclusions, then I earnestly implore you to put me right.

Just as you suggest a “sudden death” position regarding The Book of Mormon, I see a “sudden death” either/or question for my situation. Either I am wrong, in which case please address my issues and demonstrate where I am wrong. I would love to be shown that I am wrong, having invested so much of my life in The Church. Or, I am right, in which case please acknowledge that fact to my family.

So, my request to you Elder Holland is to either

1. Demonstrate to me that the Book of Mormon is true by answering and refuting the ‘evidences’ against its truthfulness mentioned later in this letter ( you claim in your talk it has not been proven false in over 179 years) or
2. Admit, for the benefit of my family and hosts of others, it is (in your words) a fraud or
3. At least admit there were errors in your talk (you specify which ones) and apologise to genuine truth seekers regarding the offensive comments you made that they would have to ‘crawl over...etc.’

"If anyone is foolish enough or misled enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text teeming with literary and Semitic complexity without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages—especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound spiritual impact that witness has had on what is now tens of millions of readers—if that is the case, then such a person, elect or otherwise, has been deceived; and if he or she leaves this Church, it must be done by crawling over or under or around the Book of Mormon to make that exit."

Whichever of these 3 you choose to do, will help not only myself but countless others by confirming the truth of the Book of Mormon or admitting it is a work of fiction (however and by whom written). Please do not ignore this request, as it goes to the very heart of the matter of the Church’s veracity. A matter I would assume someone of your moral and academic stature would deem of vital importance. Why would you say something that is not true? I am not an angry ‘anti-Mormon’, I am pro truth. I served diligently in the Church because I honestly believed (‘knew’) it to be true. Once I found out otherwise I could not, as encouraged by Church leaders, just continue in the faith so that I could keep my family. I could not live a lie.

This request is made to you because of our personal relationship and also because you have publically defended the Book of Mormon in General Conference which has been broadcast internationally by the Church and also been featured on ‘youtube’ and ‘The Ensign’.

First permit me to outline the evidences I have discovered that point to the Book of Mormon not being true, or the Word of God . As stated previously, I would appreciate your comments on/refutation of these items, not as an “apologist” but as a truth seeker (whichever way that falls). These are only outline points for the purpose of brevity in this letter. I do not include all that would be included in a paper on such a topic because I assume you are already very familiar with the issues and the answers given by apologists.

Secondly, I list certain quotes from your talk which appear to me to be incorrect. Again I seek your comments/refutation.

Evidences the Book of Mormon is not True

1. 2 Nephi 2:22 and Alma 12:23,24 state there was no death of any kind (humans, all animals, birds, fish etc.) on this earth until the ‘Fall of Adam’ which, according to Doctrine and Covenants section 77:6,7 occurred approximately 6,000 years ago. This is obviously false as it is scientifically established there has been life and death on this planet for billions of years. (See Note 2).

2. The Book of Mormon purports to tell the true origins of the American Indian, descendants of Lehi and his family who left Jerusalem in 600 B.C. Anthropologists have maintained for decades that the American Indians came to North America via the Bering Strait some 15,000 – 30, 000 years ago. Recent DNA studies have conclusively proven the American Indians are not descendents of Lehi and his family. Yes, I am aware of BYU professors who ‘play loose’ with DNA studies in order to defend the Book of Mormon. They also re-invent the Church’s teachings regarding the American Indian (flying in the face of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor through to at least Spencer W. Kimball and the Lord Himself in D&C section 54:8 and others) offering a limited geography theory etc.. I understand the title page to the Book of Mormon has even been amended in this regard in recent years. (See Note 4).

3. Archaeology – there is absolutely no evidence of the Nephites and Lamanites who numbered in the millions according to the Book of Mormon. Contrast this with the Roman occupation of Britain (and other countries). Having lived in England, as well as your frequent visits and reading, you will be aware of abundant evidence the Romans were there during the first 400 years A.D. e.g. villas, mosaic floors, public baths , coins, armour, weapons, writings, art, pottery etc. etc. Even the major road system used today was originally built by the Romans (A1, A2, A4 etc. now with motorways added). Why are there no Nephite buildings, roads, coins, armour, pottery, art etc. Again, the Book of Mormon teaches a period of peace and prosperity lasting about 200 years after Jesus Christ visited the American Continent. Where are the temples etc? Where is the evidence of the 2 million + who died in battles at Hill Cumorah? No bones, chariots, swords, coins, armour, hair? Surely, if it happened it would be easy for archaeologists to find evidence in Palmyra. But then apologists wish to say Cumorah was somewhere else, yet to be discovered. It seems Joseph Smith did not understand the 2 Cumorahs, neither has it been mentioned in decades of pageants put on by the Church at ‘Hill Cumorah’ in upstate New York. There is ample evidence of the Mayan and Aztec civilizations as well as a civilization in current day Texas that dates back 15,000 years. Why no Nephite or Lamanite evidence? Indeed, not only is there no positive evidence for them there is evidence to confirm that certain things, mentioned in the Book of Mormon pertaining to them, were not even on the American continent at the time (e.g. horses, chariots, steel etc.). (See Note 3).

4. Book of Abraham – I mention this as evidence against the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon as an example of the ‘modus operandi’ of Joseph Smith. The arguments of your apologists (e.g. Hugh Nibley and Michael D. Rhodes) to defend the Book of Abraham are an insult to intelligence and certainly would not stand up to peer review by recognised Egyptologists. The Church has had parts of the papyri since, I think, 1967 and they have been translated by Egyptologists. They are no more than magical funerary texts, often buried with the dead, and nothing to do with the purported translation by Joseph Smith. If he lied about the Book of Abraham is it not conceivable he lied about the Book of Mormon? Also, pertinent to this point, is the fact that Joseph lied about (denied) his plural wives and the allegations made by the ‘Nauvoo Expositor’ which turned out to be true. Other evidence of Joseph’s modus operandi re translation projects are the ‘Greek Psalter’ and ‘Kinderhook Plates’ incidents. (See Note 5).

5. Changing skin colour – the Lamanites were cursed by the Lord with a skin of darkness (blackness) because of their sins and so that they would not be attractive to the Nephites. On some occasions, when Lamanites converted and became righteous their skin became whiter. This doctrine was commented on in recent times by President Spencer W. Kimball who noted the lightening of the skins of ‘Lamanites’ (American Indians and Polynesians) in one of his talks. Now I ask you is this the ‘word of God’? Did God use skin colour as a differentiator? Of course he did you may say, he did it with Cain and his descendents. So the racist teachings of Brigham Young etc. have their foundation in the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham and Joseph Smith’s understanding of the book of Genesis. According to science, skin colour is a product of genetics and climate on pigmentation of the skin. Any white person can become dark by sunbathing but the colour change is not permanent. A black person does not become white by being righteous, how offensive, how insulting, how racist. If it is possible (and ethical) to change the colour of a person’s skin in an instant (and then change it back when they become righteous) then it would indicate the Book of Mormon is true in this regard. However, I am of the opinion that any educated, ethical person would consider this doctrine untrue/false. Please explain to me how this doctrine can be true rather than misinformed 19th century thinking. "And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them." (2 Nephi 5:21).

6. Other ‘true doctrines’ of the Church, taken from the Book of Mormon and/or the Doctrine and Covenants ,that are proven false by science include the following (a) all humans alive today are not the descendants of just 2 people (Adam and Eve) who lived (came from the Garden of Eden) approximately 6,000 years ago neither are they the descendants of just one man (Noah) about 4,500 years ago (b) there was no world-wide flood of the earth about 4,500 years ago (c) different languages did not arise in the manner described regarding the Tower of Babel (per Bible and Book of Mormon) (d) the human race did not start in what is now the state of Missouri (D&C 116:1) then migrate to the Middle East in consequence of a universal flooding of the earth. From the Encycloaedia of Mormonism “It wasn’t until May 1838 that revelation (D&C 116) identified Adam-ondi-Ahman, a site near the Garden of Eden, to be in Daviess County, Missouri, some seventy miles from present-day Kansas City. (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., New York City: Macmillan, 1992, 1:19–20.)”

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials'. December 1770
Quote

“The problem Mormonism encounters is that so many of its claims are well within the realm of scientific study, and as such, can be proven or disproven. To cling to faith in these areas, where the overwhelming evidence is against you, is wilful ignorance, not spiritual dedication.”

Evidence the Book of Mormon is True

Here are some specific quotes from your talk, which I take as your arguments for the Book of Mormon’s truthfulness, with my comments/questions added in italics :-

‘Safety for the Soul’ Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

I want it absolutely clear when I stand before the judgment bar of God that I declared to the world . . . that the Book of Mormon is true. In what respects is it true? It is not true according to scientific laws, anthropology, zoology, metallurgy, chemistry, physics, biology, linguistics, history, archaeology etc. Why would you say something that is not true?

The Savior warned that in the last days even those of the covenant, the very elect, could be deceived by the enemy of truth the Book of Mormon itself is an enemy of truth if it declares things as true which are, in fact, false e.g. no death of any kind prior to 6,000 years ago (Book of Mormon actually states “fall of Adam” but Doctrine and Covenants section 77 places this at approximately 6,000 years ago); horses, steel etc. on American continent at time they were absent; origin of the American Indians etc. Please explain how I have been deceived and by whom.

As one of a thousand elements of my own testimony of the divinity of the Book of Mormon, I submit this as yet one more evidence of its truthfulness - you do not mention the other 999 elements, only the following which appears to be untrue :-
They were willing to die rather than deny the divine origin and the eternal truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Untrue, they did not die for their faith. They were killed in a gun battle , Joseph shot at men and, according to President John Taylor, 2 of the men Joseph shot died. They were incarcerated because of Joseph’s reprehensible behaviour and alleged crimes such as having a printing press destroyed (treason? – free speech) which he claimed had published lies about him that were, in fact true; that he practised and taught polygamy including with 14 year old girls and women already married (polyandry); was setting up a theocratic government etc. Why do you not defend the likes of William Law who, having tried to change Joseph’s reprehensible behaviour, published the truth and was demonized by Joseph and the Church as a result. I believe the charges against Joseph were (1) inciting a riot and (2) treason against the State of Illinois At no time, am I aware, were Joseph and Hyrum offered the choice of saving their lives” if they deny the divine origin and the eternal truthfulness of the Book of Mormon”. What is your source for this idea? Please give evidence to support your statement or admit it is false.
Did the State of Illinois or the jailers give Joseph Smith the opportunity to denounce his religious claims and be freed? No. So he was not a martyr. He did not die for his religious beliefs.
Bear in mind the fallacy of your assertion - The claim that no fraud would walk to their death making a claim like Joseph Smith to the very end: this ignores the countless cult leaders like David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite, Jim Jones etc.

For 179 years this book has been examined and attacked, denied and deconstructed, targeted and torn apart like perhaps no other book in modern religious history—perhaps like no other book in any religious history. And still it stands Where does it stand? Is it used in American history classes or used by those studying American history? No, it has been extensively proven false by many. If it still stands it should be easy for you to satisfactorily explain the issues I raised above as evidences that it is not true.

None of these frankly pathetic answers for this book has ever withstood examination because there is no other answer than the one Joseph gave as its young unlearned translator Completely untrue, the one answer Joseph gave is the most absurd and the only one lacking in any real evidence except the “burning in the bosom” which is the same evidence for the truthfulness of the Quran, Hinduism, Scientology and thousands of other beliefs/traditions/fortune telling which totally oppose the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon has been shown to be a work of fiction by many credible authors and is viewed as such by the Smithsonian Institute. Otherwise scholars of American history would readily use the book for their work. Again, answer my issues if I am incorrect.

Your use of the word ‘pathetic’ is rather disturbing. In what way are other suggestions as to the origin of the Book of Mormon and, by inference, my questions, ‘pathetic? Ethan Smith’s “A View of the Hebrews” could be a source, as agreed by Elder B.H. Roberts. The King James translation of the Bible has certainly been used/copied verbatim (including errors in that translation) as well as common 19th century themes prevalent in upstate New York. Please explain why you used the derogatory word ‘pathetic’.

“No wicked man could write such a book as this; and no good man would write it, unless it were true and he were commanded of God to do so.” This argument could be used to prove The Quran true. Also Ethan Smith’s “A View of the Hebrews” Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings trilogy and Rowling’s Harry Potter books.

If anyone is foolish enough or misled enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text teeming with literary and Semitic complexity without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages—especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound spiritual impact that witness has had on what is now tens of millions of readers—if that is the case, then such a person, elect or otherwise, has been deceived; and if he or she leaves this Church, it must be done by crawling over or under or around the Book of Mormon to make that exit.

How offensive a statement! Without giving any evidence in your talk that the book is true, other than a misleading statement and innuendo that Joseph and Hyrum gave their lives for it, you say I (yes me, Thomas William Phillips) have been deceived and if I leave this Church i must do so by crawling over or under or around the Book of Mormon..If this is so, please answer my issues so that I may know in what facts I have been deceived and the identity of my deceiver(s).

After meeting with 2 General Authorities of the Church, who each gave me opposite answers, I have concluded that they and you are deceived and to believe in the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon you all have to crawl over or under or around the facts and evidences of physics, chemistry, biology, genetics, geology, anthropology, linguistics, zoology, palaeontology, archaeology, metallurgy, history etc. If my conclusion is wrong please correct me by explaining the fallacy of my logic and by whom I have, in your words, been deceived. Did Elder Hillam deceive me in stating “of course there has been death on this planet for billions of years” or Elder Lund by stating” the scientists are wrong, there has been no death prior to approximately 6,000 years ago. Carbon dating is incorrect.”? Which of these 2 General Authorities has tried to deceive me? Did the academics in the fields mentioned above deceive me? Have they been deceived by Satan into teaching that which is not true in spite of the fact they can demonstrate/prove the conclusions of their research?

You also state that the likes of me are “foolish” and “misled” – please explain in what way(s) I am foolish and misled. Why do you use such offensive and unsubstantiated language? If I am foolish and misled you should easily be able to demonstrate that in which I am foolish and misled and by whom I have been misled.

Elder Holland, I am writing to you in this way as a ‘sudden death’ (your words) type of plea. I have been through the appropriate Church channels to resolve my concerns but each of those Priesthood Leaders have merely confirmed to me that the Book of Mormon (and hence, following on from your specific challenge, the Church) is not true. My final plea is to you as an Apostle and public defender of the Book of Mormon. The apologists I have been referred to actually admit the truth of my concerns but try to re-define church doctrine and scripture, contrary to that clearly taught by the Brethren. An example of the answers I have been given by Priesthood Leaders are in Note 6.

As your declarations on the Book of Mormon and derision of those, such as myself, have been made so public (General Conference broadcast throughout the world, Ensign magazine and ‘youtube’) I will be publishing this letter on two or more bulletin boards. I will also publish your reply to this letter so that all sides of the issues may be fairly represented.

So, my request to you Elder Holland is to either

1. Demonstrate to me that the Book of Mormon is true by answering and refuting the ‘evidences’ against its truthfulness mentioned above ( you claim in your talk it has not been proven false in over 179 years) or
2. Admit, for the benefit of my family and hosts of others, it is (in your words) a fraud or
3. At least admit there were errors in your talk (you specify which ones) and apologise to genuine truth seekers regarding the offensive comments you made that they would have to ‘crawl over...etc.’
If you are able to do (1) please explain to me how and by whom I have been misled.
Thank you for reading this letter and taking the time to respond. As mentioned at the beginning, I and my family have long admired and respected you. Copies of this letter are being sent to my immediate family who are all currently active members of the Church.

Sincerely,
Tom Phillips

It's funny that you turn to an ex members letter to try to disprove a man's testimony. This isn't even worth acknowledging. Most ex members speak from hate and bitterness not out of love and yearning for understanding.

Who better to point out errors in Mormonism than an ex-Mormon?
Personally I think it is a cop out to say that because he's an ex-Mormon his points should not be addressed. I think most of us would be angry if we discovered that we had been actively deceived. His objections do deserve consideration as he is raising some good points.

Yes, because bitter people are always so rational.
No, I disagree that the best source to go to find out about the LDS Church is from a member of the Church. I wouldn't go to an ex-catholic to find out about the catholic church nor would I go to an ex-protestant to find out about that religion. So why rely on an ex-member of the LDS Church to convince me I am in the wrong?
You're trying to dispute religion with me, philosophy, things that never have absolute proof. The only proof religion has is the faith we put into them. Hence why Paul says that faith is the evidence of things not seen.

Since he has insight into the church I feel it would be good to use him to refute the claims you post. I doubt I would find a Mormon trying to disprove what he himself believe, as I also doubt I would find a Catholic or a protestant doing the same, so I go to alternate sources. And since I believe Mormonism is a fraudulent religion I would not seek info from Mormon sources given their lax handling of historical information and the truth, at least not without consulting various other sources.

1 Peter 3:15
15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

History has proof. You find it through archaeology. If something claims to have history, yet you find no historical evidence of it, then it is not history, but fantasy. Faith is not unreasonable. You should be able to reason why you believe something. Christianity has as I pointed out earlier a lot of history and corroborating evidence to back up faith, and why it is believed to be true.
If there is no historical evidence to back up the historical claims of the book how can you expect events of a spiritual nature to be true, or to win anyone over?

Bitter or not, the points he raises are not invalid because of his feelings.

I have provided links to counter it, but you seem just determined to try to prove me wrong, which you won't succeed.
My religion is not a fraud, if it was it would've died with Joseph. Yet here it stands, one of the worlds fastest growing religions. Religion is a pool of ideas. No matter how much "proof" there is. To date, there still is no absolute proof of God's existence or that Jesus was a real man. Yet both our religions cling to the belief that they exist, because if we don't our religions have no ground to stand on. Hence why faith is such a major factor. There is proof for my religion. I have provided it. Can I reccomend some books to look into as well?  

[Garland-Green]

Shadows-shine

Garland-Green

Shadows-shine

Garland-Green

Shadows-shine

It's funny that you turn to an ex members letter to try to disprove a man's testimony. This isn't even worth acknowledging. Most ex members speak from hate and bitterness not out of love and yearning for understanding.

Who better to point out errors in Mormonism than an ex-Mormon?
Personally I think it is a cop out to say that because he's an ex-Mormon his points should not be addressed. I think most of us would be angry if we discovered that we had been actively deceived. His objections do deserve consideration as he is raising some good points.

Yes, because bitter people are always so rational.
No, I disagree that the best source to go to find out about the LDS Church is from a member of the Church. I wouldn't go to an ex-catholic to find out about the catholic church nor would I go to an ex-protestant to find out about that religion. So why rely on an ex-member of the LDS Church to convince me I am in the wrong?
You're trying to dispute religion with me, philosophy, things that never have absolute proof. The only proof religion has is the faith we put into them. Hence why Paul says that faith is the evidence of things not seen.

Since he has insight into the church I feel it would be good to use him to refute the claims you post. I doubt I would find a Mormon trying to disprove what he himself believe, as I also doubt I would find a Catholic or a protestant doing the same, so I go to alternate sources. And since I believe Mormonism is a fraudulent religion I would not seek info from Mormon sources given their lax handling of historical information and the truth, at least not without consulting various other sources.

1 Peter 3:15
15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

History has proof. You find it through archaeology. If something claims to have history, yet you find no historical evidence of it, then it is not history, but fantasy. Faith is not unreasonable. You should be able to reason why you believe something. Christianity has as I pointed out earlier a lot of history and corroborating evidence to back up faith, and why it is believed to be true.
If there is no historical evidence to back up the historical claims of the book how can you expect events of a spiritual nature to be true, or to win anyone over?

Bitter or not, the points he raises are not invalid because of his feelings.

I have provided links to counter it, but you seem just determined to try to prove me wrong, which you won't succeed.
My religion is not a fraud, if it was it would've died with Joseph. Yet here it stands, one of the worlds fastest growing religions. Religion is a pool of ideas. No matter how much "proof" there is. To date, there still is no absolute proof of God's existence or that Jesus was a real man. Yet both our religions cling to the belief that they exist, because if we don't our religions have no ground to stand on. Hence why faith is such a major factor. There is proof for my religion. I have provided it. Can I reccomend some books to look into as well?

There are tons of other religions too that exists in the world, and have existed for thousands of years. It doesn't seem to be a legitimate way of determining the truth? Simply that it exists? faith is a red line, you draw it back to the apostles, you compare what they taught about Jesus to ideas other men have, and that is what your faith should be built on. If it is built on a lie it will crumble. A house is only as good as its foundation no matter how much we try to improve the exterior.

1 Thessalonians 5:21
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Evidence for Jesus
Let's begin our inquiry with a passage that historian Edwin Yamauchi calls "probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament." Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . .

What all can we learn from this ancient (and rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the early Christians? Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.

But what are we to make of Tacitus' rather enigmatic statement that Christ's death briefly checked "a most mischievous superstition," which subsequently arose not only in Judaea, but also in Rome? One historian suggests that Tacitus is here "bearing indirect . . . testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave."While this interpretation is admittedly speculative, it does help explain the otherwise bizarre occurrence of a rapidly growing religion based on the worship of a man who had been crucified as a criminal. How else might one explain that?

Evidence from Pliny the Younger
Another important source of evidence about Jesus and early Christianity can be found in the letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan. Pliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112, he asks Trajan's advice about the appropriate way to conduct legal proceedings against those accused of being Christians. Pliny says that he needed to consult the emperor about this issue because a great multitude of every age, class, and sex stood accused of Christianity.

At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of the information he has learned about these Christians:

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.

This passage provides us with a number of interesting insights into the beliefs and practices of early Christians. First, we see that Christians regularly met on a certain fixed day for worship. Second, their worship was directed to Christ, demonstrating that they firmly believed in His divinity. Furthermore, one scholar interprets Pliny's statement that hymns were sung to Christ, as to a god, as a reference to the rather distinctive fact that, "unlike other gods who were worshipped, Christ was a person who had lived on earth." If this interpretation is correct, Pliny understood that Christians were worshipping an actual historical person as God! Of course, this agrees perfectly with the New Testament doctrine that Jesus was both God and man.

Not only does Pliny's letter help us understand what early Christians believed about Jesus' person, it also reveals the high esteem to which they held His teachings. For instance, Pliny notes that Christians bound themselves by a solemn oath not to violate various moral standards, which find their source in the ethical teachings of Jesus. In addition, Pliny's reference to the Christian custom of sharing a common meal likely alludes to their observance of communion and the "love feast." This interpretation helps explain the Christian claim that the meal was merely food of an ordinary and innocent kind. They were attempting to counter the charge, sometimes made by non-Christians, of practicing "ritual cannibalism." The Christians of that day humbly repudiated such slanderous attacks on Jesus' teachings. We must sometimes do the same today.

Evidence from Josephus

Perhaps the most remarkable reference to Jesus outside the Bible can be found in the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. On two occasions, in his Jewish Antiquities, he mentions Jesus. The second, less revealing, reference describes the condemnation of one "James" by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ." F.F. Bruce points out how this agrees with Paul's description of James in Galatians 1:19 as "the Lord's brother." And Edwin Yamauchi informs us that "few scholars have questioned" that Josephus actually penned this passage.

As interesting as this brief reference is, there is an earlier one, which is truly astonishing. Called the "Testimonium Flavianum," the relevant portion declares:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared.

Did Josephus really write this? Most scholars think the core of the passage originated with Josephus, but that it was later altered by a Christian editor, possibly between the third and fourth century A.D. But why do they think it was altered? Josephus was not a Christian, and it is difficult to believe that anyone but a Christian would have made some of these statements.{19}

For instance, the claim that Jesus was a wise man seems authentic, but the qualifying phrase, "if indeed one ought to call him a man," is suspect. It implies that Jesus was more than human, and it is quite unlikely that Josephus would have said that! It is also difficult to believe he would have flatly asserted that Jesus was the Christ, especially when he later refers to Jesus as "the so-called" Christ. Finally, the claim that on the third day Jesus appeared to His disciples restored to life, inasmuch as it affirms Jesus' resurrection, is quite unlikely to come from a non-Christian!

But even if we disregard the questionable parts of this passage, we are still left with a good deal of corroborating information about the biblical Jesus. We read that he was a wise man who performed surprising feats. And although He was crucified under Pilate, His followers continued their discipleship and became known as Christians. When we combine these statements with Josephus' later reference to Jesus as "the so-called Christ," a rather detailed picture emerges which harmonizes quite well with the biblical record. It increasingly appears that the "biblical Jesus" and the "historical Jesus" are one and the same!

Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud

There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200. The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."

Let's examine this passage. You may have noticed that it refers to someone named "Yeshu." So why do we think this is Jesus? Actually, "Yeshu" (or "Yeshua") is how Jesus' name is pronounced in Hebrew. But what does the passage mean by saying that Jesus "was hanged"? Doesn't the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term "hanged" can function as a synonym for "crucified." For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was "hanged", and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus. So the Talmud declares that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover. But what of the cry of the herald that Jesus was to be stoned? This may simply indicate what the Jewish leaders were planning to do. If so, Roman involvement changed their plans!

The passage also tells us why Jesus was crucified. It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy! Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for this, what might such charges imply about Jesus?

Interestingly, both accusations have close parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance, the charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus cast out demons "by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons." But notice this: such a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim that Jesus performed miraculous feats. Apparently Jesus' miracles were too well attested to deny. The only alternative was to ascribe them to sorcery! Likewise, the charge of enticing Israel to apostasy parallels Luke's account of the Jewish leaders who accused Jesus of misleading the nation with his teaching.{ Such a charge tends to corroborate the New Testament record of Jesus' powerful teaching ministry. Thus, if read carefully, this passage from the Talmud confirms much of our knowledge about Jesus from the New Testament.

Evidence from Lucian

Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist. In one of his works, he wrote of the early Christians as follows:

The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.

Although Lucian is jesting here at the early Christians, he does make some significant comments about their founder. For instance, he says the Christians worshipped a man, "who introduced their novel rites." And though this man's followers clearly thought quite highly of Him, He so angered many of His contemporaries with His teaching that He "was crucified on that account."

Although Lucian does not mention his name, he is clearly referring to Jesus. But what did Jesus teach to arouse such wrath? According to Lucian, he taught that all men are brothers from the moment of their conversion. That's harmless enough. But what did this conversion involve? It involved denying the Greek gods, worshipping Jesus, and living according to His teachings. It's not too difficult to imagine someone being killed for teaching that. Though Lucian doesn't say so explicitly, the Christian denial of other gods combined with their worship of Jesus implies the belief that Jesus was more than human. Since they denied other gods in order to worship Him, they apparently thought Jesus a greater God than any that Greece had to offer!

Let's summarize what we've learned about Jesus from this examination of ancient non-Christian sources. First, both Josephus and Lucian indicate that Jesus was regarded as wise. Second, Pliny, the Talmud, and Lucian imply He was a powerful and revered teacher. Third, both Josephus and the Talmud indicate He performed miraculous feats. Fourth, Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, and Lucian all mention that He was crucified. Tacitus and Josephus say this occurred under Pontius Pilate. And the Talmud declares it happened on the eve of Passover. Fifth, there are possible references to the Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection in both Tacitus and Josephus. Sixth, Josephus records that Jesus' followers believed He was the Christ, or Messiah. And finally, both Pliny and Lucian indicate that Christians worshipped Jesus as God!

I hope you see how this small selection of ancient non-Christian sources helps corroborate our knowledge of Jesus from the gospels. Of course, there are many ancient Christian sources of information about Jesus as well.  

[Garland-Green]

Shadows-shine

Garland-Green

Shadows-shine

Garland-Green

Shadows-shine

It's funny that you turn to an ex members letter to try to disprove a man's testimony. This isn't even worth acknowledging. Most ex members speak from hate and bitterness not out of love and yearning for understanding.

Who better to point out errors in Mormonism than an ex-Mormon?
Personally I think it is a cop out to say that because he's an ex-Mormon his points should not be addressed. I think most of us would be angry if we discovered that we had been actively deceived. His objections do deserve consideration as he is raising some good points.

Yes, because bitter people are always so rational.
No, I disagree that the best source to go to find out about the LDS Church is from a member of the Church. I wouldn't go to an ex-catholic to find out about the catholic church nor would I go to an ex-protestant to find out about that religion. So why rely on an ex-member of the LDS Church to convince me I am in the wrong?
You're trying to dispute religion with me, philosophy, things that never have absolute proof. The only proof religion has is the faith we put into them. Hence why Paul says that faith is the evidence of things not seen.

Since he has insight into the church I feel it would be good to use him to refute the claims you post. I doubt I would find a Mormon trying to disprove what he himself believe, as I also doubt I would find a Catholic or a protestant doing the same, so I go to alternate sources. And since I believe Mormonism is a fraudulent religion I would not seek info from Mormon sources given their lax handling of historical information and the truth, at least not without consulting various other sources.

1 Peter 3:15
15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

History has proof. You find it through archaeology. If something claims to have history, yet you find no historical evidence of it, then it is not history, but fantasy. Faith is not unreasonable. You should be able to reason why you believe something. Christianity has as I pointed out earlier a lot of history and corroborating evidence to back up faith, and why it is believed to be true.
If there is no historical evidence to back up the historical claims of the book how can you expect events of a spiritual nature to be true, or to win anyone over?

Bitter or not, the points he raises are not invalid because of his feelings.

I have provided links to counter it, but you seem just determined to try to prove me wrong, which you won't succeed.
My religion is not a fraud, if it was it would've died with Joseph. Yet here it stands, one of the worlds fastest growing religions. Religion is a pool of ideas. No matter how much "proof" there is. To date, there still is no absolute proof of God's existence or that Jesus was a real man. Yet both our religions cling to the belief that they exist, because if we don't our religions have no ground to stand on. Hence why faith is such a major factor. There is proof for my religion. I have provided it. Can I reccomend some books to look into as well?

You are missing my point. If there is no evidence for a belief, the faith in that belief may very well be misplaced. Numbers of followers doesn't mean that the religion is true. In the last days most of the world will follow the Anti Christ...That is the Majority of people. Doesn't mean they are right. I still don't see evidence that what you put your faith in is true, nor do you explain why.  

[Aoife]

Shadows-shine

And I will say, from what I did read on that site they quote a lot from the Journal of Discourses, which is not doctrine or used as such.

I was asking if you read that woman's letter that the link went to. I wasn't aware she quoted anything from anywhere.  

[Shadows-shine]

Aoife

Shadows-shine

And I will say, from what I did read on that site they quote a lot from the Journal of Discourses, which is not doctrine or used as such.

I was asking if you read that woman's letter that the link went to. I wasn't aware she quoted anything from anywhere.

I will have to take a closer look. When I click on the link it doesn't take me to a letter, it takes me to a website full anti-lds stuff. I will click it again and see if I can find what I was supposed to see.  

[Garland-Green]

Shadows-shine

Garland-Green

Shadows-shine

Garland-Green

Shadows-shine

It's funny that you turn to an ex members letter to try to disprove a man's testimony. This isn't even worth acknowledging. Most ex members speak from hate and bitterness not out of love and yearning for understanding.

Who better to point out errors in Mormonism than an ex-Mormon?
Personally I think it is a cop out to say that because he's an ex-Mormon his points should not be addressed. I think most of us would be angry if we discovered that we had been actively deceived. His objections do deserve consideration as he is raising some good points.

Yes, because bitter people are always so rational.
No, I disagree that the best source to go to find out about the LDS Church is from a member of the Church. I wouldn't go to an ex-catholic to find out about the catholic church nor would I go to an ex-protestant to find out about that religion. So why rely on an ex-member of the LDS Church to convince me I am in the wrong?
You're trying to dispute religion with me, philosophy, things that never have absolute proof. The only proof religion has is the faith we put into them. Hence why Paul says that faith is the evidence of things not seen.

Since he has insight into the church I feel it would be good to use him to refute the claims you post. I doubt I would find a Mormon trying to disprove what he himself believe, as I also doubt I would find a Catholic or a protestant doing the same, so I go to alternate sources. And since I believe Mormonism is a fraudulent religion I would not seek info from Mormon sources given their lax handling of historical information and the truth, at least not without consulting various other sources.

1 Peter 3:15
15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

History has proof. You find it through archaeology. If something claims to have history, yet you find no historical evidence of it, then it is not history, but fantasy. Faith is not unreasonable. You should be able to reason why you believe something. Christianity has as I pointed out earlier a lot of history and corroborating evidence to back up faith, and why it is believed to be true.
If there is no historical evidence to back up the historical claims of the book how can you expect events of a spiritual nature to be true, or to win anyone over?

Bitter or not, the points he raises are not invalid because of his feelings.

I have provided links to counter it, but you seem just determined to try to prove me wrong, which you won't succeed.
My religion is not a fraud, if it was it would've died with Joseph. Yet here it stands, one of the worlds fastest growing religions. Religion is a pool of ideas. No matter how much "proof" there is. To date, there still is no absolute proof of God's existence or that Jesus was a real man. Yet both our religions cling to the belief that they exist, because if we don't our religions have no ground to stand on. Hence why faith is such a major factor. There is proof for my religion. I have provided it. Can I reccomend some books to look into as well?

I am not debating with you to win an argument, but to win you over to Jesus, the historical and Biblical Jesus. I am hoping that God will use something I say to push you the right way. I didn't go into this wanting to win an argument.  

[Shadows-shine]

Garland-Green

Shadows-shine

Garland-Green

Shadows-shine

Garland-Green

Shadows-shine

It's funny that you turn to an ex members letter to try to disprove a man's testimony. This isn't even worth acknowledging. Most ex members speak from hate and bitterness not out of love and yearning for understanding.

Who better to point out errors in Mormonism than an ex-Mormon?
Personally I think it is a cop out to say that because he's an ex-Mormon his points should not be addressed. I think most of us would be angry if we discovered that we had been actively deceived. His objections do deserve consideration as he is raising some good points.

Yes, because bitter people are always so rational.
No, I disagree that the best source to go to find out about the LDS Church is from a member of the Church. I wouldn't go to an ex-catholic to find out about the catholic church nor would I go to an ex-protestant to find out about that religion. So why rely on an ex-member of the LDS Church to convince me I am in the wrong?
You're trying to dispute religion with me, philosophy, things that never have absolute proof. The only proof religion has is the faith we put into them. Hence why Paul says that faith is the evidence of things not seen.

Since he has insight into the church I feel it would be good to use him to refute the claims you post. I doubt I would find a Mormon trying to disprove what he himself believe, as I also doubt I would find a Catholic or a protestant doing the same, so I go to alternate sources. And since I believe Mormonism is a fraudulent religion I would not seek info from Mormon sources given their lax handling of historical information and the truth, at least not without consulting various other sources.

1 Peter 3:15
15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

History has proof. You find it through archaeology. If something claims to have history, yet you find no historical evidence of it, then it is not history, but fantasy. Faith is not unreasonable. You should be able to reason why you believe something. Christianity has as I pointed out earlier a lot of history and corroborating evidence to back up faith, and why it is believed to be true.
If there is no historical evidence to back up the historical claims of the book how can you expect events of a spiritual nature to be true, or to win anyone over?

Bitter or not, the points he raises are not invalid because of his feelings.

I have provided links to counter it, but you seem just determined to try to prove me wrong, which you won't succeed.
My religion is not a fraud, if it was it would've died with Joseph. Yet here it stands, one of the worlds fastest growing religions. Religion is a pool of ideas. No matter how much "proof" there is. To date, there still is no absolute proof of God's existence or that Jesus was a real man. Yet both our religions cling to the belief that they exist, because if we don't our religions have no ground to stand on. Hence why faith is such a major factor. There is proof for my religion. I have provided it. Can I reccomend some books to look into as well?

You are missing my point. If there is no evidence for a belief, the faith in that belief may very well be misplaced. Numbers of followers doesn't mean that the religion is true. In the last days most of the world will follow the Anti Christ...That is the Majority of people. Doesn't mean they are right. I still don't see evidence that what you put your faith in is true, nor do you explain why.

I've provided links, verses from scripture and have offered to reccomend books to look into for proof. You have not given me adequate proof as to why my religion is false. Hence why I said we arguing ideas and philosophy to which there is no absolute proof! We're just going in circles and that is not a constructive debate/discussion. You want me to explain why I find the LDS religion true? That would involve bearing a testimony that I received from the Holy Ghost, but if scriptural and researched evidence is not enough of an explanation then my testimony will not suffice for you either, so I'm not wasting my time. In teligion seeing is not believing. We walk by faith, not sight.  

[Shadows-shine]

Garland-Green

Shadows-shine

Garland-Green

Shadows-shine

Garland-Green

Shadows-shine

It's funny that you turn to an ex members letter to try to disprove a man's testimony. This isn't even worth acknowledging. Most ex members speak from hate and bitterness not out of love and yearning for understanding.

Who better to point out errors in Mormonism than an ex-Mormon?
Personally I think it is a cop out to say that because he's an ex-Mormon his points should not be addressed. I think most of us would be angry if we discovered that we had been actively deceived. His objections do deserve consideration as he is raising some good points.

Yes, because bitter people are always so rational.
No, I disagree that the best source to go to find out about the LDS Church is from a member of the Church. I wouldn't go to an ex-catholic to find out about the catholic church nor would I go to an ex-protestant to find out about that religion. So why rely on an ex-member of the LDS Church to convince me I am in the wrong?
You're trying to dispute religion with me, philosophy, things that never have absolute proof. The only proof religion has is the faith we put into them. Hence why Paul says that faith is the evidence of things not seen.

Since he has insight into the church I feel it would be good to use him to refute the claims you post. I doubt I would find a Mormon trying to disprove what he himself believe, as I also doubt I would find a Catholic or a protestant doing the same, so I go to alternate sources. And since I believe Mormonism is a fraudulent religion I would not seek info from Mormon sources given their lax handling of historical information and the truth, at least not without consulting various other sources.

1 Peter 3:15
15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

History has proof. You find it through archaeology. If something claims to have history, yet you find no historical evidence of it, then it is not history, but fantasy. Faith is not unreasonable. You should be able to reason why you believe something. Christianity has as I pointed out earlier a lot of history and corroborating evidence to back up faith, and why it is believed to be true.
If there is no historical evidence to back up the historical claims of the book how can you expect events of a spiritual nature to be true, or to win anyone over?

Bitter or not, the points he raises are not invalid because of his feelings.

I have provided links to counter it, but you seem just determined to try to prove me wrong, which you won't succeed.
My religion is not a fraud, if it was it would've died with Joseph. Yet here it stands, one of the worlds fastest growing religions. Religion is a pool of ideas. No matter how much "proof" there is. To date, there still is no absolute proof of God's existence or that Jesus was a real man. Yet both our religions cling to the belief that they exist, because if we don't our religions have no ground to stand on. Hence why faith is such a major factor. There is proof for my religion. I have provided it. Can I reccomend some books to look into as well?

I am not debating with you to win an argument, but to win you over to Jesus, the historical and Biblical Jesus. I am hoping that God will use something I say to push you the right way. I didn't go into this wanting to win an argument.

How rude of you to assume I don't believe in Christ! How rude of you to assume that my church is of the devil and do it so blatantly! Discussions are two-sided, conversions are two-sided. This is exactly why I left protestantism! Every one speaks with a forked tongue. They claim they want to bring you to Christ but beat you down and call you evil. Christ never beat down the sinner, but rather loved them.  

[Garland-Green]

Shadows-shine

Garland-Green

Shadows-shine

Garland-Green

Shadows-shine

Yes, because bitter people are always so rational.
No, I disagree that the best source to go to find out about the LDS Church is from a member of the Church. I wouldn't go to an ex-catholic to find out about the catholic church nor would I go to an ex-protestant to find out about that religion. So why rely on an ex-member of the LDS Church to convince me I am in the wrong?
You're trying to dispute religion with me, philosophy, things that never have absolute proof. The only proof religion has is the faith we put into them. Hence why Paul says that faith is the evidence of things not seen.

Since he has insight into the church I feel it would be good to use him to refute the claims you post. I doubt I would find a Mormon trying to disprove what he himself believe, as I also doubt I would find a Catholic or a protestant doing the same, so I go to alternate sources. And since I believe Mormonism is a fraudulent religion I would not seek info from Mormon sources given their lax handling of historical information and the truth, at least not without consulting various other sources.

1 Peter 3:15
15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

History has proof. You find it through archaeology. If something claims to have history, yet you find no historical evidence of it, then it is not history, but fantasy. Faith is not unreasonable. You should be able to reason why you believe something. Christianity has as I pointed out earlier a lot of history and corroborating evidence to back up faith, and why it is believed to be true.
If there is no historical evidence to back up the historical claims of the book how can you expect events of a spiritual nature to be true, or to win anyone over?

Bitter or not, the points he raises are not invalid because of his feelings.

I have provided links to counter it, but you seem just determined to try to prove me wrong, which you won't succeed.
My religion is not a fraud, if it was it would've died with Joseph. Yet here it stands, one of the worlds fastest growing religions. Religion is a pool of ideas. No matter how much "proof" there is. To date, there still is no absolute proof of God's existence or that Jesus was a real man. Yet both our religions cling to the belief that they exist, because if we don't our religions have no ground to stand on. Hence why faith is such a major factor. There is proof for my religion. I have provided it. Can I reccomend some books to look into as well?

I am not debating with you to win an argument, but to win you over to Jesus, the historical and Biblical Jesus. I am hoping that God will use something I say to push you the right way. I didn't go into this wanting to win an argument.

How rude of you to assume I don't believe in Christ! How rude of you to assume that my church is of the devil and do it so blatantly! Discussions are two-sided, conversions are two-sided. This is exactly why I left protestantism! Every one speaks with a forked tongue. They claim they want to bring you to Christ but beat you down and call you evil. Christ never beat down the sinner, but rather loved them.

I am saying that Mormonism tells of a different Christ, which is not the Christ of the Bible so hence he can't save anyone. I am not calling you evil. Just lost and deceived. That is speaking as I see it, not putting anything in between, or speaking with a cleft tongue. If I didn't that would be speaking with a cleft tongue. He didn't beat down the sinner, but he did tell them to turn from their sins and we are told to follow his example. I don't feel it is beating someone down trying to make them see their errors.

James 5:19-20
My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins.

The Mormon Jesus

1. The literal son of god and his goddess wife begotten in the pre-existence.
2. The brother of all spirits born in heaven in the premortal existence.
3. One of 3 gods in the godhead.
4. The Trinity is three separate gods.
5. First one to receive a spirit body.
6. Atoned for sin on the cross and in the garden of Gethsemane.

The Christian Jesus

1. Not the literal son of god and his goddess wife.
2. Not the brother of all spirits born in heaven in a premortal existence.
3. Not one of 3 gods in the godhead.
4. The Trinity is 3 persons in one God.
5. Was always spirit from eternity.
6. Atoned for sin on the cross alone.

"In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ.' 'No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.'" (LDS Church News Week ending June 20, 1998, p. 7)  

[Shadows-shine]

Regardless of how you attempt to cover your rudeness, you were still rude. An apology would be accepted if it was offered but you chose to insult me and be rude. I am done with this argument as it is going no where. I offered to answer questions and have decent debate/discussion, but alas it didn't happen. So I'm done and will not continue with this debate.  

[SinfulGuillotine]

Shadows-shine

SinfulGuillotine

Shadows-shine

SinfulGuillotine

I

Shadows-shine

SinfulGuillotine

As much as I try to be open-minded about beliefs different from my own...Mormonism has always left a bad taste in my mouth. I'll admit that a great deal of that is probably because I first learned about Mormonism in any depth and detail from a book called Under the Banner of Heaven, which while historically accurate, is written with a definite bias against the faith and much of its history.

And though I know that the mainstream LDS church makes a huge effort to separate itself from various Fundementalist sects, what goes on withinthose Fundementalist compounds makes me ill. Girls just barely old enough to menstruate married off to men old enough to be their father twice over, forced into sexual slavery as one of the many wives of the "prophet," who is, in reality, nothing more than a horny old borderline ******. Maybe some of them are actually crazy enough to believe their own spritual hocos-pocus BS that they spout, justifying serial sexual abuse, but that doesn't make them any less evil.

AGAIN, I KNOW THAT MAINSTREAM LDS DOES NOT ENGAGE IN OR SUPPORT SUCH BEHAVIOUR, but, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but such behaviour WAS practised and encouraged by people such as Smith and Young, and that sort of polygamy was indeed included in original Morman teachings, whether mainstream LDS renounces it now or not.

And it really seems to me that Mormonism is about as Christian as Christianity is Jewish...possibly even less so. I feel like the more I learn of their theology the further from Christianity it seems to get.

I could go on, but I don't want to be any more disrespectful than I've already been. I really mean no disrespect (unless you happen to be the sort of Mormon who supports and/or commits child rape; then I absolutely mean all the disrespect I can possibly muster).

One: cite your sources as to where you heard this. Two: Joseph and Brigham married both young and old women so they could have an income and a husband to support them. Also, back then it was common practice for women to marry young. I've read several history books where girls got married as young as 14. Three: of course I don't support child rape! That's dispicable!

I already mentioned my source: a book called Under the Banner of Heaven. Also, various news articles I found online relating to the subject. I can try to find them again, but I'm currently using a friend's mobile to get online, so that might have to wait until I can get online on a real computer.

It may have been common practise for girls to marry young "back in the day," but by the 19th century, it was not common (and possibly not even legal) for girls to marry much younger than 18. And I'm not talking about back in the day. I'm talking about things going on right now. This stuff is still going on today in some fundementalist Mormon splinter groups.

And I never meant to imply that you support child rape, and as I said before, I'm also aware that such behaviour is not condoned by the mainstream LDS church.

Sorry, I didn't catch that refernce. My bad. The Church is.not affiliated with any of those splinter groups, so what they do or teach is not a reflection on The LDS Church.

I realise that, but that doesn't change the fact that such atrocities are being committed in the name of the Mormon religion, and feel justified in their actions because of teachings from those who founded the religion. Not that this is the first time someone has used religion as an excuse to commit horrible crimes, nor will it be the last, but whhat I find...frustrating...is that the mainstream LDS church seems more concerned with separating themselves from these people rather than making a concerted effort to stop what they themselvaes profess to be a perverse bastardisation of their religion.

All that aside, I do actually have a legitimate question that I've asked several other Mormons but never received a satisfying answer: if polygamy was a practise allegedly condoned, even encouraged, by God, why has the mainstream LDS church rejected it so vehemently?

What can the Church do to stop them? I mean, it has no control over what another religion does. I think the Church distances itself so much from those groups because there truly is nothing we can do to stop it since it's beyond our control.. To answer your question, it's because polygamy is an andwer to a concern. The concern was population. When civilization needed successors to the Church then God would allow polygamy. Thus was the case with Abraham and thus was the case with the early days of the LDS Church. Because God would allow it for a time but then would take it away as was the case with King David.

From what I understand, the LDS church has absurd amounts of money. Why not use some of that in outreach programmes, shelters for girls and women who run away from these compounds, therapy/spiritual healing for survivors of this kind of abuse..."Oh well, there's nothing we can doabout it" is a cop-out, especially when it comes from an organisation that really does have the resources to do quite a lot, or if not a lot, at least something. To my knowledge, the LDS church has done little more than throw up their hands and assure the world that they're not like that. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

That's actually the best answer I've gotten to that question. Thank you.