AmyJo..... you've questioned my statement that anti's lie...

[_canpakes]

When it comes to religion, there are no facts, only opinions. In falsifiable ideas based on supernatural premises do not facts make.

Though the my god can beat up yours exchange is great for entertainment.

Not true at all....

There are facts, and then there are the opinions thereby.

OK, let's try this out. Here's an opinion:

"Joseph Smith did not translate anything to create the Book of Mormon"

Please use facts, as opposed to opinions, to refute this.

[_Jersey Girl]

Okay now, AJ is sounding a whole lot like an Anti version of LdsFAQS.

It's Duck God vs Rabbit God. Again.

[_ldsfaqs]

OK, let's try this out. Here's an opinion:

"Joseph Smith did not translate anything to create the Book of Mormon"

Please use facts, as opposed to opinions, to refute this.

Your question starts out with a strawman.
You are trying to judge it according to man's "standard" methodology of translating things, but the Church has always been clear what Joseph did wasn't standard, it occured through Revelation.

The "translation" occured through revelation, so he did and didn't translate the Book of Mormon.
He was the medium, thus he did translate the Book of Mormon, however the source of the translation was from God.

It's the kind of thing in relation to Christ a.k.a. Jehovah in the Old Testament.
While it was Christ doing and saying various things in question, it was actually God.
So, it's not an "and/or" statement like you try to make the issue of the translation out to be, it's BOTH.
It was a translation AND revelation, not just a translation.

Those are the facts.
Now, opinion might be whether such was actually from God, from Joseph's own mind, etc.
Various other anti-mormon theory's of the orgins of the Book of Mormon from Sidney Rigdon, to View of the Hebrews, and a dozen other theory's to justify anti-mormon ignorance are cute and all, but they entire deny the time line of the translation, the history in question, how the transaltion occured, etc., all actual FACTS which makes all the cute theory's invalid. Plus..... make up your dang minds..... You all basically claim everything, anything, and everyone created the Book of Mormon, none of you agree or know, that's simply grasping at straws, not real solid facts and evidences.

[_ldsfaqs]

Ldsfaqs, did Brigham Young teach the Adam-God stuff as doctrine?

Most of what Brigham taught in relation to Adam/God stuff is doctrine, some was his own personal inspiration and revelation.
However, what YOU BELIEVE he was teaching in relation to that subject, is not doctrine.

That is the difference.
The essentials of what Brigham taught has always been doctrine, and is still taught in the temple.
You are simply ignorant and clueless about what he was teaching since it was a bit deeper doctrine.
He was basically teaching something that is usually only understood when going to the Temple.

It was common for him to teach the higher mystery's over the pulpit, but they require the actual spirit to understand them.

We also know he wasn't teaching false doctrine, because he taught the LDS traditional understanding of Adam and God all the time otherwise.
Thus clearly, he was teaching something else, and I know what it was. I'm not confused by it at all.

[_ldsfaqs]

Teaching them about our beliefs on the subject is not the same thing as misrepresenting and LYING about what they believe on the subject.
Understand the difference?

So how do you present this? Is it like this? -

"Your Church is corrupted, but I can't explain why..."
"Your Church has no 'priesthood authority', but I cannot explain how I know that other than hearsay, nor explain why it is necessary in the way that I believe it..."
"Your ideas on baptism for dead folks is wrong, but I can't explain why..."
"Your ideas on the nature of God are incorrect, but I can't explain the logic behind ours..."
"There are really three layers of Heaven, and three more sub-layers in the top layer, just because we say so, but can't really explain why or what gets you where..."
"Crosses are bad, but I won't tell you why we think so..."
"Jesus came to America, but you'll just have to believe me on that..."
"You need secret handshakes to get into Heaven, even though there's no explanation or Biblical precedent for that and it sounds like we stole that bit from those crazy Masons..."
"We pretended than an Egyptian funeral scroll was the Word of God until we decided that it was all just God's joke on Joseph Smith in order for him to tell 'revealed truths'..."
"We're the real Christians, even though we insist on calling ourselves 'Mormons' and photograph every missionary that we send out into the world holding only a 'Book of Mormon'..."
"... Can't you crazy Catholics (or insert other religion of choice) see how you are all evil and misled?!?"

Not even what I was saying......

This is what I was saying.....
You all claim Joseph Smith was a Pedophile.
However, that's a falsehood, because first only like 3 sealings were 18 and under, while all the rest were older, that's not much of a pedophile, but 2nd, it was common for marriages to occur at the ages they did, which by the way was about the same rate as Joseph did it, as society itself did such aged marriages, thus again he can't be claimed a pedophile. Transfering our modern sensibility's onto history is poor scholarship and not truth telling. Thus, saying Joseph was a Pedophile would be an example of a lie.

If I said the Catholic Church were cannibals, like some Muslim and extreme Jews state, that would be a lie, it's not simply an "opinion".

If taught that the Catholic Churches views on Baptism for the dead were wrong, I would explain why I believe that.
That's simply giving ones views on something, something which by the way they actually believe. I don't tell a lie and then be critical of it.

If I said the Catholic Church practices Baptism for the dead, and they don't, that would be lying.
If I said the Catholic Church practices Baptism for the dead, and here's why they are wrong, that would be lying.
Both of the above is exactly what anti's do, especially the religious ones that try to claim us believing things we don't (like that our works save us, and not grace).

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

There are facts, and then there are the opinions thereby.

Again, we aren't talking about the my god can beat up your god debate, I'm talking about the willful misrepresenting of things in order to attack them.
Again, I've sometimes went on a Catholic board or otherwise for example, and discussed their theology etc.
Yes, I'm sometimes critical of it, but when I'm doing so, I don't LIE about it first, to then be critical of it.

Like I don't say the Catholic Mass is actually Cannibalism like Muslim or Jewish anti-Catholics might. That would be lying, because it's a gross misrepresentation of what they believe. Anti-Mormons do the same thing.
by the way, as a point of interest, the most passionate religious "anti's" against other religions in this world are Evangelicals/Protestants and Muslims. Pretty much no one else has anti-ministry's save some fringe groups and individuals. So, really tells you the "source" of the bigotry.... the devil.

Can you not see the difference?

We can see the difference. That is, it's easy enough to understand your simple position on the issue, BUT it's another thing to accept your parameters and come to the same conclusion that you do because logic and reason totally get lost in the process. Your conclusion is based self-investment in the Mormon religion and then made even more emotional by persecution complex.

Ed Decker is the only anti-Mormon that I'm aware of who apparently just made up stuff. Any critic who relies on lying about the church to make their points is just lazy. The church provides more than enough ammunition.

The problem is that you, my dear faqs, can't handle the truth.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Teaching them about our beliefs on the subject is not the same thing as misrepresenting and LYING about what they believe on the subject.
Understand the difference?

Unless they believe in the apostasy, in their perception you are misrepresenting and lying. it just comes down to arguing one religious belief against another. It has nothing to do with lies or truth.

[_Tator]

There are facts, and then there are the opinions thereby.

Again, we aren't talking about the my god can beat up your god debate, I'm talking about the willful misrepresenting of things in order to attack them.
Again, I've sometimes went on a Catholic board or otherwise for example, and discussed their theology etc.
Yes, I'm sometimes critical of it, but when I'm doing so, I don't LIE about it first, to then be critical of it.

Like I don't say the Catholic Mass is actually Cannibalism like Muslim or Jewish anti-Catholics might. That would be lying, because it's a gross misrepresentation of what they believe. Anti-Mormons do the same thing.
by the way, as a point of interest, the most passionate religious "anti's" against other religions in this world are Evangelicals/Protestants and Muslims. Pretty much no one else has anti-ministry's save some fringe groups and individuals. So, really tells you the "source" of the bigotry.... the devil.

Can you not see the difference?

We can see the difference. That is, it's easy enough to understand your simple position on the issue, BUT it's another thing to accept your parameters and come to the same conclusion that you do because logic and reason totally get lost in the process. Your conclusion is based self-investment in the Mormon religion and then made even more emotional by persecution complex.

Ed Decker is the only anti-Mormon that I'm aware of who apparently just made up stuff. Any critic who relies on lying about the church to make their points is just lazy. The church provides more than enough ammunition.

The problem is that you, my dear faqs, can't handle the truth.

plus and +++++

[_grindael]

However, that's a falsehood, because first only like 3 sealings were 18 and under,

Actually it was at least 7.

[_DarkHelmet]

However, that's a falsehood, because first only like 3 sealings were 18 and under,

Actually it was at least 7.

If you don't agree with ldsfaqs that the answer is 3, you are a liar, and an anti-mormon, and probably a liberal too.