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

[_moksha]

LDSfaqs, why don't you challenge AmyJo on her Hari Torah teachings?

[_canpakes]

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.

faqs, that's a great word salad, but in the end you've used no 'facts' to basically state that Joseph Smith both did and did not translate anything to create the Book of Mormon.

Not only have you not met your own criteria, but you went the extra Mile of Fail by equivocating as much as one could possibly equivocate with simple opinion.

Last chance - do you have any facts for us that show that Smith 'translated' anything to create the Book of Mormon? You are batting -0- at this point, and proving that Steelhead is indeed correct.

[Guest]

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.

Actually, I have never stated that. But, please continue...

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.

That's nice. Cinnabons taste awesome. Next?

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.

OK, let's stop here and take these first two.

Convince me as you would a Catholic, about these two issues.

[_Gunnar]

It is true that some anti-Mormon bigots, more interested in discrediting Mormonism by any means possible than in actual truth have deliberately made up lies or naïvely accepted accepted others' lies about the Church in their fervor to destroy it. Because some of those lies were so blatant and obvious, they actually tended to strengthen my testimony at first because I naïvely thought that no one would find it necessary or advisable to lie about the Church if it really were false. It was a great shock to me when I eventually found out not all of the accusations against Joseph Smith and the church he founded were untrue. In fact, some of the things stated by Mormon apologists and even Church approved sources did even more damage to my former faith in the Church than some of the worst things I learned from honest Mormon skeptics and critics!

[_I have a question]

It is true that some anti-Mormon bigots, more interested in discrediting Mormonism by any means possible than in actual truth have deliberately made up lies or naïvely accepted accepted others' lies about the Church in their fervor to destroy it. Because some of those lies were so blatant and obvious, they actually tended to strengthen my testimony at first because I naïvely thought that no one would find it necessary or advisable to lie about the Church if it really were false. It was a great shock to me when I eventually found out not all of the accusations against Joseph Smith and the church he founded were untrue. In fact, some of the things stated by Mormon apologists and even Church approved sources did even more damage to my former faith in the Church than some of the worst things I learned from honest Mormon skeptics and critics!

What accusations about Joseph that you heard from anti-Mormon bigots have you established were untrue? What lies about the Church have you been told that were blatant and obvious such that they strengthened your testimony?

[Guest]

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

Actually it was at least 7.

Ah, you're right.... I was thinking under 17, which there was 3.

This page and the couple of links are good on the subject, telling the actual facts, showing that Joseph wasn't a pedophile, etc..

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/P ... oung_women

[_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?

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.

And here the anti-mormon still doesn't comprehend, even though I've explained it clearly a couple of times.

I'm not questioning they might believe our views of an apostasy are false, that's not what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about if I claimed they believe something they don't believe, and they even correct me, but I STILL go about and lie about what THEY BELIEVE, then that would make me a liar.

I'm not talking about everyone having different views of different things, and believing the other sides views to be false, that's not even close to what I'm talking about, that you can't comprehend this shows your own lack of intellect that you try to put on me instead with your other post.

I'm talking about is, if they say believe in the Nicene Creed, but then I try to publically tell the world that they "actually" believe in the Athanasian Creed, I provide my evidence etc., and then they counter it trying to tell me what they actually believe, and then I ignore it.
THAT is the sin that is anti-mormonism in most issues.
THAT is not simply disagreement, or contrary opposite views, that is LYING about others, what THEY believe.... that is "bearing false witness". You falsely bear something, claiming to be a witness of such, yet you are not, you state falsely.

Mormons or other good people don't do this..... But anti-mormons do, every kind, religious or non-religious.
Yes, we have our criticisms, just like everyone does, but we don't LIE about what THEY believe and are, in order to be critical.
We TAKE THEM AS THEY ARE AND BELIEVE..... then we might be critical if we have the need.

We don't distort their views on Grace and Works, like religious anti-mormons primarily do to us in order to be critical of their views.
We don't claim they both taught and/or believe God had "sex" with Mary simply because some early Church Father's taught the literal sonship to the Father, that Christ was born a man as any man, etc. Yet, anti-mormons of all types claim this. Yet it's not true, it is a perversion and distortion of what was being taught, and ignores the context of the history, both in their beliefs in general, the reasons for the responses, LDS theology in general on the subject, etc. The rare nutball Mormon that's apparently believed the same doesn't change that the rest of us don't see their words that way, and simply don't believe it either. I've been in some 25 Wards of the Church all over the place, and been online dealing with Mormonism for nearly 20 years. I've only seen I think "2" Mormons believe this idea, and I think both were online. It is simply not and never has been and their words simply aren't interpreted that way.

That's just one example...... As the original post shows in the links I posted, there are 1,000's of these.

Again I ask..... Why do you all feel the need to lie 1,000's of times in order to attack Mormonism?
Of course, some arguments of the Religious and Secular anti-mormon are different, but it doesn't change the point, you both do the same things, and for many of the same subjects.

We aren't talking about Whether I believe the Book of Mormon is from God, but you believe it's from man, or another believes it's from the Devil.
We are talking about direct lying and misrepresenting, using a little truth to lie.

[_ldsfaqs]

It is true that some anti-Mormon bigots, more interested in discrediting Mormonism by any means possible than in actual truth have deliberately made up lies or naïvely accepted accepted others' lies about the Church in their fervor to destroy it. Because some of those lies were so blatant and obvious, they actually tended to strengthen my testimony at first because I naïvely thought that no one would find it necessary or advisable to lie about the Church if it really were false. It was a great shock to me when I eventually found out not all of the accusations against Joseph Smith and the church he founded were untrue. In fact, some of the things stated by Mormon apologists and even Church approved sources did even more damage to my former faith in the Church than some of the worst things I learned from honest Mormon skeptics and critics!

Religious anti-mormonism tends to murch more so directly "make stuff up entirely" thus lying the most.
However, both for the most part use a little truth and facts to tell great lies with essentially everything they claim against Mormonism and Mormons.

So, while what you say is true that most "facts" and information about us actually come from us, it's what the anti-mormon does with those things that makes either their opinions, or actual lying. The ommision of important facts that would debunk their views, the misrepresentation of facts to create their views, etc. makes something more serious, something based in evil, not goodness or truth.

[_scorndog]

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.

In part, it's a matter of semantics. In the way we usually think of the verb translate, Smith didn't translate anything to create the Book of Mormon. So the opinion is correct in that sense. But Smith did transmit (or relay) something already translated to create the text of the Book of Mormon. So the opinion is incorrect in that sense.

What are the facts that support this view? Hundreds of bits of English language that Smith didn't know from the Bible or his environment that are in the text and that are found in earlier English. Statistically speaking, it was impossible for Smith or anyone else in his environment to produce the dictation text.

[_canpakes]

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.

In part, it's a matter of semantics. In the way we usually think of the verb translate, Smith didn't translate anything to create the Book of Mormon. So the opinion is correct in that sense. But Smith did transmit (or relay) something already translated to create the text of the Book of Mormon. So the opinion is incorrect in that sense.

From the standpoint that he could have repeated a prepared text that he created from imagination a day before, you could use the same definition of 'translate'. It's correct that we can equivocate the word 'translate' into meaninglessness for our own purposes vis-a-vis what Smith claims was the source of the book's content.

What are the facts that support this view? Hundreds of bits of English language that Smith didn't know from the Bible or his environment that are in the text and that are found in earlier English. Statistically speaking, it was impossible for Smith or anyone else in his environment to produce the dictation text.

Now you're back to 'opinion', not facts.