Do historical facts matter? or is LDS 'teflon' to them?

[_Tobin]

...God doesn't tell you anything. God gave you a brain to conclude what you decide to conclude. If you actually believe God told you Mormonism was true, then it explains why you don't care about the truth. Wrap your brain around this fact Tobin... why doesn't the LDS church show one single picture of Joseph Smith with his seer stones and stove-pipe hat? If they aren't telling you what they know to be true, how can the rest of it be true? In conclusion, you place faith in magical seer stones used to see evil... good luck with that.

You basically ignore everything I said in your response, so it is really not necessary to reply back to you on the points above. However, I did find your final statment interesting. It really is the problem here. The difference between you and myself is over this. I believe God is perfectly capable and does speak to man. You do not as you've stated. That is why you do not believe in Book of Mormon as scripture or follow God or do what he asks. You have failed to recognize that in your responses to my original post too. You simply haven't identified why someone that has spoken to God and God has spoken to them needs to care in the slightest about what you have to say?!?

[_Chap]

The difference between you and myself is over this. I believe God is perfectly capable and does speak to man. You do not as you've stated. That is why you do not believe in Book of Mormon as scripture or follow God or do what he asks.

I think there is good evidence that people sometimes believe strongly that a deity has spoken to them - even people who disbelieved in their local deity at the time the experience occurred:

Despite the fact that he is a confirmed atheist, when he was 43, Rudi had a powerful religious vision which convinced him he had gone to hell.

"I was told that I had gone there because I had not been a devout Christian, a believer in God. I was very depressed at the thought that I was going to remain there forever."

See this article on the likely cause of such experiences - temporal lobe epilepsy.

You simply haven't identified why someone that has spoken to God and God has spoken to them needs to care in the slightest about what you have to say?!?

Well, one reason might be because they need to realize it would be a good idea to seek medical treatment.

[_thews]

...God doesn't tell you anything. God gave you a brain to conclude what you decide to conclude. If you actually believe God told you Mormonism was true, then it explains why you don't care about the truth. Wrap your brain around this fact Tobin... why doesn't the LDS church show one single picture of Joseph Smith with his seer stones and stove-pipe hat? If they aren't telling you what they know to be true, how can the rest of it be true? In conclusion, you place faith in magical seer stones used to see evil... good luck with that.

You basically ignore everything I said in your response, so it is really not necessary to reply back to you on the points above.

If you don't have answers (which you don't), then dodge the data (facts) presented. You claim I'm dodging everything and then run away... lame response.

However, I did find your final statement interesting. It really is the problem here. The difference between you and myself is over this. I believe God is perfectly capable and does speak to man. You do not as you've stated. That is why you do not believe in Book of Mormon as scripture or follow God or do what he asks. You have failed to recognize that in your responses to my original post too. You simply haven't identified why someone that has spoken to God and God has spoken to them needs to care in the slightest about what you have to say?!?

You believe God spoke to you... I get that. I also get the capacity for the human brain to be brainwashed, and I don't believe you even acknowledge this possibility. If you had the capacity for critical thought, you'd answer the factual data with something more than "is not" and flee.

[_Tobin]

You basically ignore everything I said in your response, so it is really not necessary to reply back to you on the points above.

If you don't have answers (which you don't), then dodge the data (facts) presented. You claim I'm dodging everything and then run away... lame response.

Again, I don't have to dodge anything. I simply stated, "So what?". You haven't answered the question.

However, I did find your final statement interesting. It really is the problem here. The difference between you and myself is over this. I believe God is perfectly capable and does speak to man. You do not as you've stated. That is why you do not believe in Book of Mormon as scripture or follow God or do what he asks. You have failed to recognize that in your responses to my original post too. You simply haven't identified why someone that has spoken to God and God has spoken to them needs to care in the slightest about what you have to say?!?

You believe God spoke to you... I get that. I also get the capacity for the human brain to be brainwashed, and I don't believe you even acknowledge this possibility. If you had the capacity for critical thought, you'd answer the factual data with something more than "is not" and flee.

And you would make the same claim about all those that God spoke with in the scriptures. As I said, you don't really believe in the Bible or that man has ever spoken with God. That is the point.

[_sock puppet]

Do historical facts matter? or is LDS 'teflon' to them?

Perfect example that anti-mormon "facts" aren't the facts and especially the truth at all.
It's a perversion of it.....

List your primary sources of evidences that show the facts you label as "anti-Mormon" are perverted?

What does it matter that

• There's ample corroborative proof for Biblical places and events, both in ancillary writings and archaeological remnants, but none for the BoM--reading it makes me feel good.

There are all kinds of evidences (literally THOUSANDS from all kinds of fields of study) for the Book of Mormon for those who actually study and aren't into hate mongering the Light of the world.

As both a convert and someone who's left the Church having problems with it, I'm not in the Church nor believe in the Book of Mormon simply because "it makes me feel good". I'm in it because it's literally true.

Further, your logic is flawed. While it's nice all the evidences the Bible has, the fact that the Book of Mormon was pure revelation all together over some 1,000 years of history, and the thousands of evidences that are now known to exist and just beginning to explode is the most powerful proof of all of Restoration claims. The Book of Mormon should be being proven false, yet it's being proven true. Anti-mormonism has had nothing new in a 100 years. Even the DNA argument is simply the old debunked rehashing and repackage in a new box of body typing studies.

Your "facts" are perversion, not truth.

List the thousands of evidences. I'm thinking your list will read more like a clown of a thousand faces, but please, prove me wrong. List them.

I don't agree that 'anti-Mormonism' hasn't found or seized on anything new for over 100 years. But so what? The Book of Mormon has been debunked for more than 100 years, so if you are correct that there's nothing new in anti-Mormonism for over 100 years, explain how that observation would augur for Mormon 'truth'?

[*]JSJr was hailed into court in 1826 to face charges of glass looking for hire (chicanery)

Ya, and like no one has ever been falsely charged before. That Bible you praise over Mormonism is FULL of such examples. In fact, it's PEOPLE LIKE YOU who falsely charge and murder innocent good men with your bigotry. Note, you said "hailed". At least you got that right, he was never convicted. He was acquitted.

Again, more perverted truth.

Please point us to this evidence of acquittal. The court record does not suggest an acquittal, but that JSJr fled the jurisdiction after pre-trial arraignment and probable cause hearing was begun, and before a trial or other final disposition was rendered. But, if you evidence of an acquittal, please do provide it.

[*]JSJr tried to join the Methodist church in 1828, but beginning with the 1835 redraft of the 1820 First Vision, claimed that he'd been told by god in 1820 that none of the religions existing as of 1820 had the truth, and beginning with the 1839 redraft of the 1820 FV, claimed god had told him then (back in 1820) to join none of the existing religions

He never tried to "join" the Church, he simply attended.

I think the historical record at the time in 1828--8 years after he was supposedly told to join none--shows he did try to join. The funny thing about those contemporary 1828 accounts is what the motive for fabrication would have been. After all, it was not until 7 years later, 1835, that JSJr first infused his accounts of the 1820 FV with the notion that elohim had told him to join none. So what in 1828 would have been the motive for those Methodists to have lied and said that JSJr tried to join their church but was rebuffed? Such would not have contracted what was then extant, as JSJr did not come up with that part about having been told not to join any existing church, not until 1835 anyway?[/quote]

Further, you misrepresent the facts. He was NOT told that other religions "had no truth". He was simply told that the creeds were bad, and that many were corrupt, claiming authority and power they were never given.

Again, so called facts not facts at all.

'None doeth good no not one'. In his account (1832) of the FV, here's what your hero, JSJr, wrote:

<behold> the world lieth in sin and at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned asside from the gospel and keep not <my> commandments they draw near to me
with their lips while their hearts are far from me and mine anger is kindling against the inhabitants of the earth to visit them acording to thir ungodliness and to bring to pass that which <hath> been spoken by the mouth of the prophets and Apstles behold and lo I come quickly as it <is>written of me in the cloud
<clothed> in the glory of my Father

[*]In 1829 JSJr tried unsuccessfully to get royalties from a book house publishing the Book of Mormon

And....? A person can't do everything for free in life. They have to try to recoop costs somehow. Printing a book isn't free you know???

Recoup costs? Or, as JSJr did, get out of working as a laborer in farm fields, and live off of the labors of others by shilling to them that he needed his time freed up for god to give him revelations?

[*]In 1830, started his own religion (LDS)

And how is this some "harmful" historical fact that doesn't matter and we are "teflon" to???

And ask others to fund his life of comparative leisure to the toiling that it took in the American frontier in the 1830 and 1840s to sustain life?

[*]In the early 1830s, JSJr had sexual relations with Fanny Alger which he attempted to keep secret from his wife, Emma

And how is the "rumor mill" actually FACTS in your mind??? There is no historical FACT which makes this a truth, just speculation and rumor.

Again, your facts are not facts at all.

Contemporary accounts by, oh, say, Oliver Cowdery, that scoundrel that god had obviously told JSJr from the start to steer clear from, right?

[*]JSJr took many 'polygamous wives' behind Emma's back, including a 14 year old when he was in his mid-30s and including 'marrying' surreptitiously two sisters one afternoon--but there is little evidence that this practice was to raise up a righteous seed, as delineated in the Book of Mormon as the only reason god might instruct other than monogamy and sexual relations only in a monogamous marriage

1. Wasn't polygamy.

Agreed. It was just good, old fashioned adultery.

2. Emma knew very well of most of his sealings. In fact, strange that this secret 14 year old served with Emma in the Relief Society leadership after all the so-called events, and the rumor mill was full blown. Yes, it was just so "secret". Your other secret marriages were not secret at all. Family members, etc. were there, on and on.
3. As far as the actual evidence and facts show, Joseph only practiced the sealing ordinance, thus. But yes, later when it concerned polygamy, it was indeed to raise up a righteous seed.
4. Joseph "may" have consumated some of his marriages, but that's a different story and issue. Men even good men, sometimes aren't perfect. Further, he was technically married to them, so, it is at most a grey area, not some big sin if he did actually "do it".

Again, more facts that aren't actually facts.

Funny, but the LDS Church excommunicates men today for being imperfect in the way JSJr, the LDS idol, did. But then, no respecter of persons going on there, either by the LDS or elohim, right?

[*]Despite claims he was 'translating' ancient Egyptian papyrus upon which Abraham had himself penned his story and the KEP inextricably tying the BoAbr English text to the 1967 found papyrus with the included alphabet and grammar attempts, the characters on the papyrus do not linguistically translate into the BoAbr English text

There is not a single thing that gives "fact" that the found "fragments" are the actual Book of Abraham. In fact, there is every fact that they aren't, that they are a dime a dozen parchments that Joseph gave away, which is how they ended up being donated to a Museum, that they were simply some of his "working copies" of the Facsimiles, which are in fact a dime a dozen everywhere in Egyptian parchments.

The entire belief that the found fragments ARE the claimed Book of Abraham is entirely out of the fantasy of the anti-mormon mind, not based in "facts".

And as to the characters, further research has found that Joseph got a lot right.... Just because "common Egyptian" understanding didn't originally translate the way Joseph did, does not mean it wasn't a known Egyptian linguistic method.

Again, more facts that aren't facts at all.

Then I am sure that you doubt gravity too. Because all the evidence of it is circumstantial, or testimony of those that have evidenced the circumstantial.

[*]Numerous factual discrepancies exist in and undercut the BoAbr Facsimiles and their Explanations being what LDS claims they are?

Everything not being known is not the same thing as everything being wrong or false. Fact is, is much has been already found to be correct. Thus, Joseph clearly wasn't as wrong or made things up as anti-mormons believe.

Recoup costs? Or, as JSJr did, get out of working as a laborer in farm fields?
Weighing the evidence, it is beyond reasonable doubt that the Book of Abraham is a fraud when compared to what JSJr and the LDS Church claim it to be. But of course, for the believers, there's no room for reason in the equation, is there?

The LDS Church claims it has authority from god, a chain that runs directly through JSJr. It claims that Peter's church, a remnant of which is the Roman Catholic Church, started out with such authority but then lost it--necessitating that the church be restored, and that is what the LDS Church ostensibly is today--the one and only church on earth with authority from god to perform saving ordinances.

Yep, that's a fact..... Hey, you got something right. But, how is it a "bad" fact to us???

Yes, it is a fact that the LDS Church ostensibly claims such. What is not a fact is the substance of those claims.

Do these historical facts matter? Or are they simply inconvenient truths, and all that matters is that LDS happens to be the church and society in which one might find himself, and family and friends?

Facts do matter.... Question needs to be is are your beliefs actually facts, or are they are perversion of them. As someone who's been on all sides, including a Catholic, your facts are not facts at all, they are perversion of the fact and truth. Sure, some are facts here and there, after all, satan uses truth and fact to lie, but, plenty aren't facts, and nearly all are the perversion of fact and truth, thus not being truth at all.

Facts do matter, but not to the believer. That is the quintessential definition of faith. Hope for something that is not seen (i.e., for which there is no evidence).

For me, they have mattered and dispelled my LDS belief (and participation). For me, history matters, particularly in regards to an organization making such audacious claims of sole authority from god.

You're not the first to think that in his foolish youth or older mental degradation. But, your view is not fact nor truth.

Yes, in my foolish youth, I was trusting of adults and peers in my community, and the delusion of LDS claims. "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." 1 Cor 13:11.

I am interested in hearing from believers why these facts don't matter.

What matters is the actual facts, not your perversion of them. I've been an anti-mormon and anti-religion, leaving the Church in my arrogance, I see every detail how anti-mormonism perverts facts and truth.

Then lets see your list of evidences for 'actual facts'. Please, leave your indigestion and self-induced emotions out. Let's stick to the evidence.

[_sock puppet]

I would have worded the OP like this.

"Do facts matter? of is religion 'teflon' to them?

Mormonism is an easy target because of its many unusual factual claims and the immense volume of historical documents and scientific data that can be used to rebut those claims. Religions which have survived for centuries have done so by avoiding those type of claims or eliminating them from core beliefs. We can see this type of movement in the LDS Church as over time its footprint of central beliefs, much like the foot print of the Nephites, is rapidly shrinking.

Other religions, such as the Orthodox and RCC, have the advantage of the Dark Ages, lack of records, and centuries of time having deteriorated much of what there was. Religions starting since the Enlightenment have had a tougher go of it, certainly, such as Mormonism. It is easier to debunk because of a relatively recent historical record, much of it yet intact.

[_sock puppet]

I've never seen a picture of Joseph Smith with the wives he lived with in the Nauvoo mansion either. It's always the love story of Joseph and Emma. In reality she was somewhere in the middle of the order of the wives he was sealed to after the the ordinance was 'revealed'. That's weird, you wouldn't want to get sealed to your own wife first? Why wait years, meanwhile getting sealed to other women who are already married?

And so, for the eternal perspective, Emma is just a Nth sister wife, not first wife.

[_Harold Lee]

I've never seen a picture of Joseph Smith with the wives he lived with in the Nauvoo mansion either. It's always the love story of Joseph and Emma. In reality she was somewhere in the middle of the order of the wives he was sealed to after the the ordinance was 'revealed'. That's weird, you wouldn't want to get sealed to your own wife first? Why wait years, meanwhile getting sealed to other women who are already married?

And so, for the eternal perspective, Emma is just a Nth sister wife, not first wife.

No all that will get worked out in the celestial kingdom. He'll end up choosing just one (apparently Emma) and we'll all be monogamous in the CK since we don't practice polygamy anymore, the church has said that many times. It's part of the past so let's put that behind us.

[_sock puppet]

It's part of the past so let's put that behind us.

It's too bad for John Edwards' presidential hopes that he did not live and run for president in 1844 Nauvoo Ill.

[_Stormy Waters]

•In the early 1830s, JSJr had sexual relations with Fanny Alger which he attempted to keep secret from his wife, Emma

So what? If Joseph Smith sinned or did not sin because he was doing what God told him to do, that is not for us to judge.

•JSJr took many 'polygamous wives' behind Emma's back, including a 14 year old when he was in his mid-30s and including 'marrying' surreptitiously two sisters one afternoon--but there is little evidence that this practice was to raise up a righteous seed, as delineated in the Book of Mormon as the only reason god might instruct other than monogamy and sexual relations only in a monogamous marriage

So what? That is between Joseph Smith and God, his wife, and the women involved.

Basically you've written Joseph Smith a moral blank check. It doesn't matter what he did. Tell me, is there any sin or offense that Joseph Smith could have committed that would bother you? The scriptures themselves don't support this line of thinking.

Matthew 7:15 - 20.

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

I'll judge the prophet by his fruits.