For the critics... what do you say to missionaries?

[Guest]

Question to the former missionaries: Did you ever encounter a critic while knocking on doors that put an element of doubt in your mind?

Not really. I was in the south, so just Bible thumpers. Their arguments always used the Bible which is a lost cause. I not sure if I had come across real criticisms it would have affected to much. Many missionaries have family at home, and such that our minds will find away to keep believing regardless of the evidence. It is way easier after your mission to come to grips with the evidence, and may be a better place to learn about it first, although for most it is still to hard. Could someone like DCP ever come to grips with it? I think he is to far in, and depends on the church in to many ways to ever allow his mind to accept what is obvious to others.

Interesting. I guess you'd have to have the LDS background where your entire family was devout to fully understand. I just find it hard that in this day and age missionaries don't break the rules and sneak off and use the web. It would be easy enough, considering most cell phones now can access the web.

[_Fence Sitter]

Now you've got me even more confused. I apologize, for I think I mistakenly asked a serious question.

The reply was that I beat my wife. Are you explaining what Themis was saying in the 'beat your wife' reply, or in another reply? The way I'm understanding is that you're referring to poor people beating their wives? Please tell me I'm just not getting the joke.

I think you asked a serious question also. I gave you a serious answer in the same vein as your questions were to me. My response to your first questions was directed at the nature of your comments, not as an answer to a specific question you asked. I know absolutely nothing about you in real life, including if you are married or not, so the wife beating comment must have had another intent. That you do/did not recognize it as such is also interesting.

Try here for more information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

[_quaker]

I think you asked a serious question also. I gave you a serious answer in the same vein as your questions were to me.

Many thanks! I appreciate when you take time away from molesting children to respond to my questions. I know your time is precious.

[_Themis]

Interesting. I guess you'd have to have the LDS background where you're entire family was devout to fully understand.

I'm sure JW would understand, or other conservative groups that view leaving or not believing in very negative terms.

I just find it hard that in this day and age missionaries don't break the rules and sneak off and use the web. It would be easy enough, considering most cell phones now can access the web.

I'm sure many do, although I am not sure how many will look up this stuff. The internet has so many more interesting things for 19-20 year old's then areas they may feel guilty about reading.

[_Fence Sitter]

I think you asked a serious question also. I gave you a serious answer in the same vein as your questions were to me.

Many thanks! I appreciate when you take time away from molesting children to respond to my questions. I know your time is precious.

You are welcome.

In retrospect, I wish I had phrased my initial response to you this way.

"I'll answer your questions as soon as I stop beating my wife".

That would have been a more appropriate way to respond and perhaps avoided quite as much misunderstanding.

My apologies.

[_Tobin]

What I believe is based upon evidence. What you believe is based upon obedience to accept what you're told to accept. Enjoying the dancing shadows on the wall and continue to do/believe as you're instructed... some find bliss in ignorance. If you ever decide to take a peek outside, I urge you to follow some of the links in the data I presented, especially this one, since it's a Mormon approved link that negates your argument:
http://www.boap.org/LDS/History/HTMLHis ... html#N_13_

Oh please... If you want to believe that Joseph Smith never received any gold plates nor the U&T and instead just sat in a corner and looked in a hat at a rock the whole time, that is your right. But don't drag the D&C 10 into your crackpot ideas to justify your beliefs.

[_thews]

What I believe is based upon evidence. What you believe is based upon obedience to accept what you're told to accept. Enjoying the dancing shadows on the wall and continue to do/believe as you're instructed... some find bliss in ignorance. If you ever decide to take a peek outside, I urge you to follow some of the links in the data I presented, especially this one, since it's a Mormon approved link that negates your argument:
http://www.boap.org/LDS/History/HTMLHis ... html#N_13_

Oh please... If you want to believe that Joseph Smith never received any gold plates nor the U&T and instead just sat in a corner and looked in a hat at a rock the whole time, that is your right. But don't drag the D&C 10 into your crackpot ideas to justify your beliefs.

Tobin, you're continuing to throw out opinion without acknowledging historical fact with data. My favorite comment ever received in my many years of engineering... without data, it's just another opinion. The Nephite spectacles were taken back according to D&C 10:1, so your argument doesn't make sense, as it doesn't acknowledge Mormon doctrine. The words "Urim and Thummim" were not used until 1833, or three years after the Book of Mormon was published, so how can they have been used to translate it? Do you find Joseph Antley an enemy? If not, you may find some insight here:

http://trevorantley.com/2012/01/08/seer ... ow-part-1/

Are “seer-stones” different from an “Urim and Thummim”?

Joseph Smith possessed at least two seer-stones before he recovered the Book of Mormon plates in 1827, and these stones were markedly different from the Nephite “interpreters” that Joseph Smith received later. What the Book of Mormon calls “the interpreters” (Mosiah 8:13, 19; 28:20; Ether 4:5), and what we might traditionally think of as the “Urim and Thummim,” were a special set of seer-stones that consisted of two transparent stones set in a “bow,” which would have resembled a large pair of eye-glasses, and which were apparently somehow attached to a breastplate, much like the biblical description of the priestly Urim and Thummim. This set, buried by Moroni with the gold plates, seems to have been barely used by Joseph Smith.

[_Tobin]

Tobin, you're continuing to throw out opinion without acknowledging historical fact with data. My favorite comment ever received in my many years of engineering... without data, it's just another opinion. The Nephite spectacles were taken back according to D&C 10:1, so your argument doesn't make sense, as it doesn't acknowledge Mormon doctrine. The words "Urim and Thummim" were not used until 1833, or three years after the Book of Mormon was published, so how can they have been used to translate it? Do you find Joseph Antley an enemy? If not, you may find some insight here:http://trevorantley.com/2012/01/08/seer-stones-things-you-probably-didnt-know-part-1/

I've heard this whole thing before. I understand that you believe there were no plates and no U&T and that Joseph Smith just made up the whole thing a few years later after staring in a hat to invent the Book of Mormon. Just state that is your belief. You don't need D&C 10 for that since you ignore everything else Joseph Smith said about it anyway because it doesn't fit your belief.

[_thews]

Tobin, you're continuing to throw out opinion without acknowledging historical fact with data. My favorite comment ever received in my many years of engineering... without data, it's just another opinion. The Nephite spectacles were taken back according to D&C 10:1, so your argument doesn't make sense, as it doesn't acknowledge Mormon doctrine. The words "Urim and Thummim" were not used until 1833, or three years after the Book of Mormon was published, so how can they have been used to translate it? Do you find Joseph Antley an enemy? If not, you may find some insight here:http://trevorantley.com/2012/01/08/seer-stones-things-you-probably-didnt-know-part-1/

I've heard this whole thing before. I understand that you believe there were no plates and no U&T and that Joseph Smith just made up the whole thing a few years later after staring in a hat to invent the Book of Mormon.

Correct. The Book of Mormon was published in 1830 and the first use of "Urim and Thummim" in Mormonism was 1833. Joseph Smith used seer stones to translate the Book of Mormon, and those seer stones (the brown and white ones) were owned by Joseph Smith and used to contact the dead in the pursuit of treasure hunting; these are all documented facts.

Just state that is your belief.

I'm only stating the facts. Look to FairMormon to back this up:
http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Seer_stones

You don't need D&C 10 for that since you ignore everything else Joseph Smith said about it anyway because it doesn't fit your belief.

I'm not understanding you? D&C 10 was changed in 1833 to add in the mention of Urim and Thummim... I've already linked you this LDS data. This is a fact... what part of Nephite spectacles vs. Urim and Thummim are you not understanding? Again, the first use of "Urim and Thummim" was 1833.

[_Tobin]

You don't need D&C 10 for that since you ignore everything else Joseph Smith said about it anyway because it doesn't fit your belief.

I'm not understanding you? D&C 10 was changed in 1833 to add in the mention of Urim and Thummim... I've already linked you this LDS data. This is a fact... what part of Nephite spectacles vs. Urim and Thummim are you not understanding? Again, the first use of "Urim and Thummim" was 1833.

My point is it severely weakens your position. It is clear you don't believe anything Joseph Smith has to say since you completely ignore what he states later about it, so it is laughable that you would consider that section 10 from the D&C came from God to Joseph Smith or that God took or did not take the U&T that you don't believe in to begin with. Your whole argument about D&C 10 is complete non-sense. You have no reason to bring it up at all since it doesn't help you and by pretending you believe what Joseph Smith says in this singular instance, you only weaken your position.