harmony wrote:I thought the Godmakers was a movie. Was it also a book?
Yes. It was a book before it was a movie. The book was co-authored by Dave Hunt as well as Ed Decker.
But it was the movie that made Decker [in]famous, relatively speaking.
For my own part, the two books that raised the most questions for me (In Sacred Loneliness and Women and Authority) were largely written by practicing Mormons.
EDIT: Whoops, I got that backwards. God Makers the movie was in 1982. God Makers the book was in 1984.
"It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13
Gadianton Plumber wrote: So then you have found satisfactory answers to all the others points? I think you should tell Shades what they are, especially about our friend Zelph.
You also seem to be implying that we cannot draw firm conclusions due to the questionable and murky nature of the source material. Have you refrained from drawing conclusions in similarly murky areas? Do you therefore doubt that the Melky priesthood was restored? Is the FV similarly discarded for lack of clarity? How about roughly half the DC that arises from similar sources? Do you reject the veracity of the translation of the Kinderhook Plates, since Clayton wrote it down and also reject everything else he and other scribes wrote? The whole Nauvoo period is murky in this way, isn't it?
You're the guy from John Larsen's podcast, right? I've listened to most of those and have enjoyed them a bunch. Thanks for your participation on that podcast, if indeed I'm pegging the right person.
I'm still waiting for information from Shades on his source material regarding the three "unfamiliars" that I extracted from his list. Going anywhere else is going to derail this thread even more than I've already done.
Shades seems to be somewhat sensitive to that happening. We should respect that.
He didn't mention the first anti-mormon book he picked up and read. I'm simply curious as to whether or not it was "Godmakers" (Decker and Co.) or something a bit less inflammatory. Reading Godmakers as a first anti-mormon book would, at least with some folks, send them spinning out of control without ever recovering their equilibrium. I'm not sure why he's not willing to name the book? He simply states that it is of little or no consequence/value to do so.
Maybe it is.
If he retrieved the three "unfamiliars" that I referred to from Godmakers, for example, I'd be less than impressed with his source material.
It is interesting to see what some people rely on to discredit something. The Godmakers is indeed an unimpressive work. Why do some people have to try to invent or elaborate on something that demonizes the Church? I feel strongly that the Church can be shown to be false with clear demonstration with documented historical occurrence, science, and simple logic. Yet, does Decker and others like him talk about the real issues? Oddly not. They will call Joseph Smith a demonic child molester, etc etc. Better to not set up straw men. Sillier still to address those idiots as if their arguments are the best critics can come up with.
There are many, many, many credible problems with the truth claims of the Church, we don't need to impute ill motives or conspiracies when we HAVE the evidence required to disprove Mormonism.
I would like to hear you address Zelph or the Book of Abraham at some point.
mentalgymnast wrote:Do you consider ALL sources critical of the church reliable?
Before we can proceed, I must ask the following counter-question:
Do you consider ANY source critical of the church [to be] reliable?
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
"If he didn't know what he was saying or doing was wrong (or in his mind and/or heart of hearts he believed that he was doing what was right), then he should be cut some slack".
Of course you apply this reasoning to child molesters, murderers, rapists, con-men, scam artists, wife beaters and everyone else, right?
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
"The Lord is near to all who call on him, to all who call on him in truth. He fulfills the desire of those who fear him; he also hears their cry and saves them.” Psalm 145:18-19 ESV
Gadianton Plumber wrote:It is interesting to see what some people rely on to discredit something. The Godmakers is indeed an unimpressive work. Why do some people have to try to invent or elaborate on something that demonizes the Church? I feel strongly that the Church can be shown to be false with clear demonstration with documented historical occurrence, science, and simple logic. Yet, does Decker and others like him talk about the real issues? Oddly not. They will call Joseph Smith a demonic child molester, etc etc. Better to not set up straw men. Sillier still to address those idiots as if their arguments are the best critics can come up with.
There are many, many, many credible problems with the truth claims of the Church, we don't need to impute ill motives or conspiracies when we HAVE the evidence required to disprove Mormonism.
I would like to hear you address Zelph or the Book of Abraham at some point.
Plumber, I totally, totally agree. There is enough absurdity in the church there is no need to exaggerate or make anything up. I have had many people ask me some very weird questions about the church, for example I have had several ask or tell me they "heard" that the bride and the presiding Bishop have sex before a marriage in the temple. I have no problem correcting the record and dispelling those and many other myths. I tell them that the temple ceremony is absurd enough on its own that the truth is sufficient and nothing needs to be made up. This also goes for the bulk of Mormon doctrine such as polygamy, race issues, Book of Abraham, ....oh heck just about everything in the church is bazaar to the world outside of the church.
Decker is not the best foot forward in the pursuit of truth.
Pok
I think it would be morally right to lie about your religion to edit the article favorably. bcspace
Shades told an interesting story. But the LDS church is about the Book of Mormon. Now that story is interesting. First we have a book. This book was written by someone. Who wrote it? The sidney-spaulding connection has been around since the time of smith and rigdon. And both survived that conspiracy idea very well when they were alive.
Then, we have 11 witnesses who never denied their testimony even when it could have been very profitable to do so. And if we include their wives, the list is longer. For example, when oliver returned to the fold, he brought his wife and child with him. Why would a fraudster do that? And could his wife had known about the fraud if there were a fraud?
We also have Joseph Smith sacrificing his life for the fraud. At any moment he could have given it up but he continued. In Liberty jail when he was facing death by firing squad, he continued on. Obviously he didn't show the characteristics of a fraudster.
The power of the LDS church rests in the Book of Mormon modern origins. And so far, the witnesses and the book can not be proven false.
All the rest is fluff. Now some claim that the truth claims of the LDS church are absurd and yet, people sacrificed their lives for the LDS church. And people at that time experienced what we now consider weird beliefs. But they were willing to uproot themselves and die for their faith. And that is not so weird when one is convinced that the LDS church has the truth. But the strength is with the witnesses and with the Book of Mormon's modern origins.
Last edited by Guest on Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
why me wrote:Shades told an interesting story. But the LDS church is about the Book of Mormon. Now that story is interesting. First we have a book. This book was written by someone. Who wrote it? The sidney-Spalding connection has been around since the time of smith and rigdon. And both survived that conspiracy idea very well when they were alive.
Then, we have 11 witnesses who never denied their testimony even when it could have been very profitable to do so. And if we include their wives, the list is longer. For example, when oliver returned to the fold, he brought his wife and child with him. Why would a fraudster do that? And could his wife knew about the fraud is there were a fraud?
We also have Joseph Smith sacrificing his life for the fraud. At any moment he could have given it up but he continued. In Liberty jail when he was facing death by firing squad, he continued on. Obviously he didn't show the characteristics of a fraudster.
The power of the LDS church rests in the Book of Mormon modern origins. And so far, the witnesses and the book can not be proven false.
Just for point of clarification, to what do the witnesses actually attest?
Gadianton Plumber wrote:Just for point of clarification, to what do the witnesses actually attest?
That they saw and handled the plates. Turley scoffed at them defending the revelation then turned to John Whitmer and said,
“There are many things published that they say are true, and again turn around and say they are false?" Whitmer, asked, "Do you hint at me?" Elder Turley said, "If the cap fits you, wear it; all I know is that you have published to the world that an angel did present those plates to Joseph Smith." John replied: "I now say, I handled those plates; there were fine engravings on both sides. I handled them." Then he described in the presence of these bitter enemies how the plates were fastened and he said, "They were shown to me by a supernatural power."
That was a pretty gutsy response considering he was associating with people who were out for violence against Joseph Smith and the Mormons. Incidentally, the revelation did happen when and where it was said to have. But that's a subject for a whole other webpage.
The 2nd account came from what was probably John Whitmer’s final interview before his death. It’s funny how all these witnesses who leave the church keep reaffirming their testimonies on their deathbed. What does that tell you? Anyway, this Q&A was published a few weeks after John’s death.
Q - I am aware that your name is affixed to the testimony in the Book of Mormon that you saw the plates? A - It is so, and that testimony is true. Q - Did you handle the plates with your hands? A - I did so! Q - Then they were a material substance? A - Yes, as material as anything can be. Q - Were they heavy to lift? A - Yes, and as you know gold is a heavy metal: they were very heavy. Q - How big were the leaves? A - So far as I recollect, 8 by 6 or seven inches. Q - Were the leaves thick? A - Yes, just so thick, that characters could be engraven on both sides. Q - How were the leaves joined together? A - In three rings, each one in the shape of a D with the straight line towards the center. Q - In what place did you see the plates? A - In Joseph Smith’s house; he had them there. Q - Did you see them covered with a cloth? A - No. He handed them uncovered into our hands, and we turned the leaves sufficient to satisfy us.
References: Lyndon W. Cook, The Revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.25 LDS Biographical Encyclopedia, Andrew Jenson, Vol. 1, p.251 P. Wilhelm Poulson to the editors of the Deseret News, 31 July 1878, in Deseret News, 6 August 1878. History of the Church, Vol.3, Ch.21, p.307
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
Thank you. They are attesting the held metal plates. Now, for further clarification, how does this translate that they were authentic? How does this establish that the Book of Mormon was authentic?