I threw myself heart and soul into Mormonism!

[Guest]

Hello Mr. Spaulding!

Please, by all means become a Mormon. You'll enjoy the built-in community. It's nice.

Just don't take it too seriously, lest you're labelled "lazy and intransigent" by some Mormon apologist. That might sting a little. ;)

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_thews]

Actually, Spalding, Quasimodo is not correct.

Actually Spaulding, Quasimodo is quite correct.

If you're seriously considering Mormonism, I urge you to get the complete story.

I'll agree with Simon here, only I'd urge you to get the real truth and not a LDS-spun carefully worded site that skirts the truth and uses deception to mask the truth. This is the best site for information in my opinion: http://mormonthink.com/

Questions to ask the missionaries and see what they tell you...

1) How was the Book of Mormon translated?
Answer: Joseph Smith used his seer stones (the ones he owned before the Book of Mormon when he was a money digger) out of a stove-pipe hat.

2) Why were men of color not allowed to hold the priesthood until the church changed the rules in 1978?

3) If the Nephite spectacles were taken back as punishment when Joseph Smith lost the 116 pages to evil-doers, where exactly did the "Urinm and Thummim" come from?
Answer: There never was an Urim and Thummim, as they have always been Joseph Smith seer stones (See D&C 10:1-3).
A good link: http://www.fairwiki.org/Joseph_Smith/Seer_stones
http://www.fairwiki.org/Joseph_Smith/Oc ... r_talisman

4) Why would Joseph Smith tell the parents of Sarah Ann Whitney (then 17) it was not safe for them to visit if his wife (Emma) was there? Note Joseph Smith later married her and promised her parents eternal salvation for "giving" her to him. Here's a good link: http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/16-Sa ... hitney.htm

5) Why did Joseph Smith translate the Kinderhook plates to tell of the story of Ham if they were a hoax?
A great link: http://mormonthink.com/kinderhookweb.htm

6) Why did Joseph Smith translate the pagan papyrus from the book of the dead incorrectly when he wrote the Book of Abraham? Here's a link http://mormonthink.com/book-of-abraham-issues.htm

7) If the Book of Mormon is based on people that actually existed, why isn't there one single piece of evidence to prove this? Here's a link http://20truths.information/Mormon/dna.html and this http://20truths.information/Mormon/archeology.html

I could go on for pages with all the holes, but what you should consider most is the missionaries aren't allowed to view these websites. The reason they are not allowed, is because this is part of the brainwash technique. So when asking questions, ask yourself why simple questions just can't be answered with simple answers. The Mormon "answers" all basically attempt to negate the question asked by drawing parallel arguments they you must agree with in order to follow their twisted logic.

There is only one truth regarding Mormonism Spalding, and when all the truth is acknowledged (something the Mormon sites avoid), the answer is pretty simple... Mormonism is a myth based on a book written by a con man (Joseph Smith) for his own personal gain. I hope you seek the truth, and where to start is the seer stones out of a stove-pipe hat. Look at the Mormon websites and ask yourself if the portrayal of the translation method is correct... it isn't. One more thing, they will attempt to plant answers in your head by telling you what information you can trust. Just as Simon uses this tactic in his response to paint the intent of people who are critical of Mormonism as negative, it's really just a ploy to add the "Anti" tag to keep the truth from you.

[_Simon Belmont]

The poster thews spouts the standard anti-Mormon talking points as if they haven't been dealt with over and over and over again. I urge you to examine both sides if it is at all important to you. Websites like Mormon curtain and Mormon think are very slanted and very hostile to the church. In my opinion, Mormon curtain is a hate site. Websites like FAIR and the Neil A. Maxwell Institute (BYU) are very slanted the other way and friendly toward the church. Read both. If this decision is important to you, read both sides of everything you can.

Now, everyone watch as thews posts his favorite page from the History of the Church, as if I haven't seen it a thousand times.

[_Quasimodo]

The poster thews spouts the standard anti-Mormon talking points as if they haven't been dealt with over and over and over again. I urge you to examine both sides if it is at all important to you. Websites like Mormon curtain and Mormon think are very slanted and very hostile to the church. In my opinion, Mormon curtain is a hate site. Websites like FAIR and the Neil A. Maxwell Institute (BYU) are very slanted the other way and friendly toward the church. Read both. If this decision is important to you, read both sides of everything you can.

Now, everyone watch as thews posts his favorite page from the History of the Church, as if I haven't seen it a thousand times.

Simon, you might be flogging a dead horse. It sounds like Spaulding may have already made his decision. Truth may win out in this instance.

[_thews]

The poster thews spouts the standard anti-Mormon talking points as if they haven't been dealt with over and over and over again. I urge you to examine both sides if it is at all important to you. Websites like Mormon curtain and Mormon think are very slanted and very hostile to the church. In my opinion, Mormon curtain is a hate site. Websites like FAIR and the Neil A. Maxwell Institute (BYU) are very slanted the other way and friendly toward the church. Read both. If this decision is important to you, read both sides of everything you can.

Now, everyone watch as thews posts his favorite page from the History of the Church, as if I haven't seen it a thousand times.

Here's a good example Spalding, as Simon claims the points I mentioned have been "dealt with" over and over. By "dealt with" Simon is basically claiming he has answers to the questions asked... he doesn't, just more of his rationalizations to twist the truth into something he can believe while ignoring the truth (facts).

Simon claims there's evidence to support the historicity in Mormonism, but he won't tell us what it is? I wonder why? Please Simon... answer one question and prove me wrong. You claimed there was evidence to support the historicity in Mormonism. What exactly is the evidence you claim exists?

As to the other points Spalding, responding to a question doesn't constitute an answer. Simon responds to questions, but he doesn't answer them. See the questions I posted. Please Simon... let's see your answers that address the facts and aren't "answered" by providing a link we must explore to find out what the supposed point is you're claiming to make. Just quote your point... I'd love to see your evidence.

[_sock puppet]

Welcome, Spaulding.

You should hear both the positives of Mormonism and the problems before making your decision. How else could you make an informed decision? Many in this thread have talked about balance. But balance is an eye of the beholder thing. beefcalf has laid out a good construct. Hear the best arguments that the defenders of Mormonism can make, hear the best arguments that the critics can make. Then assess them both and make your decision. That is your balance. Other members of the 'jury' will find different balances, making different decisions having heard the same arguments, pro and con.

This site permits those defending the Mormon Church to say their piece, over and over and over again. This site also permits critics of the Mormon Church to air their complaints, over and over and over again. Defenders naturally like the protected environments, such as Church meetings and MD&D for the discussion of topics they consider sacred (indeed, the event that triggered Joseph Smith Jr's downfall was his having a dissenting printing press destroyed).

Critics naturally like the greater free-for-all sites, like this one. To-wit, it was critics of Joseph Smith Jr that set up the newspaper that he had destroyed.

Your missionaries are nice folks, but they've been told to keep it high level, simplistic. Out of your earshot, they call it 'milk before the meat'. Many of us here served missions ourselves. Some, like me, had doubts growing while serving a mission, and when finished, I delved into the historical background of Mormonism. The historical record does not quite square with what the missionaries have told you about the founding of the Mormon Church. This can be faith shattering. It was for me.

If you look before you leap, then if you yet leap and join Mormonism, your participation will be less susceptible to being blown out of the water by what you'd otherwise learn later.

[_bluedream]

This microcosmic thread may be enough for you, Spalding.

On the one hand, Thews has presented some questions critical of Mormonism. Then on the other, Belmont rebuts via his typical game of Simon Says.

It really all gets rather old and boring over time, much like the church itself.

Try reading the D&C, and determine if it's your cup of tea.

[_moksha]

Mormonism is an obviously false, silly religion, and trying to pretend that people that point out its obvious flaws are biased is very silly. We don't need to take Mormon apologists seriously because the evidence against them is so strong that their arguments can be dismissed out of hand as ridiculous hogwash.

If a non-believer was honest and did not have an ax to grind with Mormonism, then they would observe that what you said applies to all religions. Despite this, many people want to make that leap of faith and believe in something. Hopefully whatever they believe in does some good for the world.

Regardless of any of the LDS Church's foundation stories, it does good for the world and is more hands on attentive to its members than many other Churches.

[_Quasimodo]

Well, Spaulding, you have received a well rounded set of responses. I hope this gets you started. Do ask questions. It's the best way to find the answers you're looking for.

Good luck in your explorations.

[_harmony]

The majority of members here are hostile toward The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

This is incorrect.