Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: notanymore ( )
Date: March 26, 2012 04:16PM

I know that you guys will know this. I am looking for the best information, resources & presentation that I can come up with. My dad has already expressed that if he learned the book of Mormon was a fraud or plagiarized that would affect him the most. So, I was thinking about discussing the Book of Mormon & Book of Abraham. I have about a week to get it all together. I want to hear all ideas/advise? Also, my dad knows a lot about the church. He has heard about these issues but he has heard the mormon sugar coated version. He is also an excellent missionary; he has converted a lot of people, so I am going to have to know my stuff.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ronas ( )
Date: March 26, 2012 04:23PM

20truths.info & mormonthink.com are good places to start.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ronas ( )
Date: March 26, 2012 04:50PM

It's a tough discussion because eventually it usually devolves to, well we don't know anything and this is the wrong way to look at it. The spirit is the real way to know. And there is some possible way that this isn't complete evidence so I'm going with the spirit.

I had already decided I didn't believe before I saw it but for me the pictures on 20truths.info (I'm sure there are many other places you can see them too) of the Book of Abraham facsimiles is the single strongest evidence I've seen that Joseph Smith is a fraud.

Summary:
1) You see the pictures as in the Book of Abraham
2) You see the actual pictures from the Book of Breathings
3) You see the actual pictures of the documents Joseph Smith had in his possession that were recovered in 1966.

The "smoking gun" is that the parts that Joseph Smith drew in that were missing are completely inaccurate. So the regular excuse that the Egyptians somehow had a copy of Abraham's document can't be true - there is no possible way that they had a copy except for the part that Joseph Smith drew in incorrectly!! (I'm not sure if that makes total sense - 20truths.info explains it clearly and in more detail.)

Another big one is the fact that Joseph Smith was convicted of fraud in court for using a seer stone to seek treasure and he used the same seer stone to translate at least part of the Book of Mormon - you'll have to do some research to get strong references on this, but all the pieces are there and pretty easy to find.

Maybe one of the biggest ones is the ridiculous things in the Book of Mormon that make no sense (apologists can't blame anti-mormons and satan for stuff that is in the Book of Mormon). Don't miss: http://www.mormonthink.com/book-of-mormon-problems.htm, Also on this page there is a link (you could easily miss it because there is so much information) that you don't want to miss: http://www.mormonthink.com/Book_of_Mormon_Problems.pdf. Also at the bottom this page are tons of additional links both pro and con.

One approach you could take with your parents would be simply to review 20truths.info & mormonthink.org. That way you don't have to pit your debating skills against your dad's. You can just read through the issues together. Both of these sites are effective because they are written by once believers so they know how to present things in a way that is more palpable to believing mormons.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: notanymore ( )
Date: March 26, 2012 05:00PM

Thank you! I thought that I had read all of mormon think but I never did see this pdf. Looking forward to looking through it. Never been to 20 truths before either.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ronas ( )
Date: March 26, 2012 05:17PM

Also check this one out:
http://www.lds-mormon.com/campbell.shtml

Among other things, I found this argument on this site poignant:
In the 18th chapter of Numbers the Levites are again given to Aaron and his sons, and the priesthood confirmed to them with this threat - 'The stranger that cometh night shall be put to death.' 'Even Jesus, says Paul, were he on earth, could not be a priest, for he was of a tribe concerning which Moses spake nothing of priesthood.' Heb. vii.13. So irrevocable was the grant of the priesthood to Levi, and of the high priesthood to Aaron, that no stranger dare approach the altar of God which Moses established. Hence, Jesus himself was excluded from officiating as priest on earth according to the law.

This Joseph Smith overlooked in his impious fraud, and makes his hero Lehi spring from Joseph. And just as soon as his sons return with the roll of his lineage, ascertaining that he was of the tribe of Joseph, he and his sons acceptably 'offer sacrifices and burnt offerings to the Lord.' - p.15.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: jessica ( )
Date: March 26, 2012 04:29PM

Mormonthink website for sure is a gold mine of knowledge.

http://www.mormonthink.com/

Also BoA video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcyzkd_m6KE

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Just Once ( )
Date: March 26, 2012 05:28PM

Just a couple suggesstions based on the information you've given:

You set the "Ground Rules" and get his agreement on each one. I'd suggest the following:

1) Get his agreement that the meeting will take place at your home and not his.
This will give you a psychological advantage because you'll feel more comfortable in your own home. No matter how valid his reason may be, DO NOT HAVE THIS MEETING AT HIS HOME. If necessary, postpone the meeting until you both can have it at your home.

2) Get his agreement that the discussion be on only one subject of your choosing. This will allow you to thouroughly prepare yourself beforehand. If he tries to go off onto other topics, insist he stay on the topic you both agreed to. You both can address other topics at future meetings.

3) Get his agreement that these meetings be based on facts, not subjective things such as his "Testimony." If at any point he starts to bear his testimony, politely remind him that he agreed to not do so.

4) Get his agreement that you'll both be given equal time to express you arguments. If he starts taking more than his fair share of time, politely remind as to the agreement he made with you about it.

Also,

1) If you take a "shotgun" approach and try to learn a lot about numerous "mormon problems" you're not going to give a good explanation for any of them.

I suggest you stick to just one topic (i.e. Book of Abraham, Book of Mormon problems, etc.) at your meeting, learn it "backwards and forwards," and don't be drawn into other areas until you've had sufficient time to also learn them "backwards and forwards" as well.

2) If you father is as persausive as you indicated you probably won't fare very well in a "face to face" debate with him.

I'd suggest using internet podcasts and You Tube videos to make your case for you. For example, A) John Dehlin's excellent podcast www.mormonstories.org/whytheyleave, B) www.moretruthfoundations.com (click on "Top 10 Problems in Mormonism,") and C) www.mormonthink.com/kenclarkhtm has 10 videos entitled, "Lying for the Lord," (find the one that pertains to the single topic you want to address at your meeting and learn it "backwards and forwards.")
You can even play your agreed to topic from each of the three sources while he's there for both of you to watch.

Good Luck!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: notanymore ( )
Date: March 26, 2012 06:16PM

I like this idea to establish ground rules & sticking to just one topic. We will only have a couple of hours so that will work good. For me the Book of Abraham was the most damaging so maybe I will tackle that first.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ronas ( )
Date: March 26, 2012 07:00PM

Sorry for the length, just a bunch of rambling thoughts in case any of it is helpful...

Do you know what your parents approach/motives will be? Are they there to legitimately listen? Or are they just their to "resolve your concerns"?

If it is the first you could have a fantastic discussion.

If it is the second no matter what you do it is probably pointless. In the end no matter what evidence is presented it will all come down to a testimony.

You will probably have to see how it goes and adjust accordingly.

The main thing I've discussed with TBMs is why the spirit is fallible so I don't trust that it is from God:

1) The church has a ridiculous list of hierarchy and rules of who and it what circumstances you can receive revelation. You can receive a revelation but only if it agrees with the church and prophet. Therefore it is circular logic - a spiritual prompting is only valid if in line with the prophet, but the only way to validate the prophet if through the spiritual feeling.

2) Spiritual feelings that you should marry someone are only valid if the other person feels it to. So if it can be wrong about who you are to marry how can you trust it for religion? This happened to me personally as a teenager and caused me to make a huge fool of myself by continuing to pursue someone who wasn't interesting - the spirit make me a stalker! (I'm still mortified.) There are hundreds and thousands of more examples of people having "false" marriage promptings where only 1 of them got them prompting - and then there a lots of examples like my wife & I where we both got the prompting and then ending up with a crappy marriage.

3) Why could I go in the temple and feel the spirit bare testimony that the church is a fraud when fully worthy? It could not have been Satan - therefore I must have been able to create the emotion myself.

4) How come the D&C has so many sections talking about how to know if a revelation is real or now? Answer: because too many members were getting "false" revelations hurting Joseph Smith's authority. More evidence revelation is fallible.

5) How come members of some many other religions have had spiritual experiences just as powerful that their religion is true? Why is a Mormon's spiritual experience more valid than theirs?

6) Check out this general conference talk: http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/04/the-divine-call-of-a-missionary?lang=eng
"A couple of other times as the process moved along, Elder Eyring would turn to me and say, “Well, Brother Rasband, where do you feel this missionary should go?” I would name a particular mission, and Elder Eyring would look at me thoughtfully and say, “No, that’s not it!” He would then continue to assign the missionaries where he had felt prompted."

Finally at the end Rasband guessed the same one as Eyring - once - well at leasty he got the country right if not the actual mission. Here's proof that even a general authority can't get revelation consistently right - how are we supposed to be able to count on it?

7) How come I felt a strong spiritual prompting that my ex-bishops 17 year old son with cancer was going to survive? Then he died a year later.

So my conclusion is I believe the "spirit" is an emotion that comes from within me.

In the end for a TBM it basically comes down to does the feeling of the spirit trump everything else? If the answer is yes, no evidence matters - they just put questions on the shelf and take them in faith or find some possible way it could be OK no matter how improbable. As soon as the answer becomes no the evidence is overwhelming. But seeing strong evidence eventually makes you question the spirit.

Also, a lot depends on the Myers-Brigg personality of the TBM. Some personalities are built to hold up "the institution" and to only accept truths that hold up the institution. If this is your dad's personality you aren't going to get anywhere.

So at some point in the conversation you have to decide if you are on offense or defense - is this a we're here to really listen or we're hear to pretend to listen just to convince you?

If you are on defense and he is just there to "resolve concerns" and not to listen the best tactic is to not bother going into details of why you don't believe but to just say that you don't believe and that you are resolute on your beliefs and you express your love and respect for him and ask that he do the same for you - respect you for your beliefs and love you anyway.. You can just refer him to the websites and say you don't want to go into the details. Just refuse to go into anymore details once it becomes clear it isn't going anywhere positive. Then talk about the 11th article of faith and make it clear that he can give you whatever information he wants but that you are completely convinced and that going into it further is going to be unproductive and hurtful to both of you.

If he tries to go down the influence of satan path or "you are sinful" path stop him cold in his tracks. Tell him that it is very disrespectful and that if he wants to talk about different beliefs respectfully you are open to that. But if he is going to try to say his beliefs are the moral high ground that the conversation is over. You can also say try to flip it around and say you are perpetuating a scam and a cult and hurting people so I am actually the person with the moral high ground - don't take this approach! Even though you are right it would be just as offensive and unproductive as him accusing you.

It would also be interesting to open the conversation with questions like, if the church isn't true would you want to know? Do you have so much to give up in your life that you are incapable of looking at whether the church is true or not objectively? Do you realize that it is more difficult for me to stand up for what I believe to be true than to just pretend to believe what you do to fit in? These types of questions can make a major shift in the tone of the conversation as well as the balance of power of him being right trying to get you back on the path vs having an adult mutually respectful conversation. His comment that the book of Mormon being false could dissuade him is what makes me hopeful that he might listen - someone who is just their to resolve concerns and take the moral high ground doesn't seem likely to make that type of a comment to me.

I agree that going into one topic fairly deeply is a great approach. It couldn't hurt to have websites & links available to recommend for further research.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: notanymore ( )
Date: March 26, 2012 07:31PM

Thanks for the insight. It is apparent that you know this well and have studied & thought about this. I wish that I was further along in my exmormon thinking.

Both of my parents are converts. My mom never truly converted and hasn't been active in 20 years. My dad is still very active, none of my siblings are active, I was the last one. My mom really wants me to share this with my dad. I think that she is hoping I can show him the light. I think that my dad is possibly open but he has been down this road before with other people so he doesn't think that we could show him anything new. He really values the church so even if we did prove the truth to him he might keep on going but just lack a strong testimony, which is sad.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: kimball ( )
Date: March 26, 2012 05:51PM

Dang, a mormon who would be affected by evidence. That's new to me, and I envy you being in the presence of one. All the ones I know don't care about any amount of evidence or reason. They know it's all true for personal reasons and that's that.

Print out all your sources and put them in a binder, organized so that you can easily find them. I would pack it full of only original sources myself. I never use a "this historian say this or most people believe that" approach when discussing church history with mormons. I go straight to the most original available source and show them that, and I analyze it together with them (or rather, I analyze it and they fall back on their testimony - it's rare to find a mormon who will actually discuss the material together, but you might get lucky here).

The internet is a great source, but not conducive to verbal conversation. Without a binder where you can flip through the facts, then the medium of discussing verbally gives him the advantage, and it favors the person who is most skilled at verbal persuasion (and I don't consider verbal persuasion equal to recorded facts, thus I don't use it).

He probably knows very little about the Rigdon-Spaulding theory, and if he does he probably thinks it was disproved by the finding of "Manuscript Story," which is utterly preposterous if you have the facts before you (ie. Howe himself admitted the existence of "Manuscript Story" and agreed it was not the same document as "Manuscript Found.") In the end, though, you will have to concede that the Rigdon-Spaulding theory is only a theory, though you can easily show how it is a very plausible one - and that's the important part. With that doubt in mind, debunking the Book of Mormon using anachronisms and parallel mis-translations with the Bible is pretty easy.

The Book of Abraham is a downright slam-dunk, and you could fill a book with the details as to why (and people have!). Hopefully your dad feels the same way about the Book of Abraham as he does the Book of Mormon.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: notanymore ( )
Date: March 26, 2012 06:13PM

I agree, I am not expecting much from talking about the evidence but I am going to give it my best shot. I will probably just end up feeling frustrated and hearing a lot about the spirit, testimony & feelings. I think that my dad thinks that he might be able to change our minds.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: kimball ( )
Date: March 26, 2012 07:26PM

You can make sound arguments against testimonies and the spirit too. All you need to do is define the spirit beforehand (and be comprehensive, outlining all possible definitions of the spirit). See my thread I started last week of a conversation I had with TBMs in which I discussed it:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,452115

Here are some of my key points when it comes to the spirit:

1) "How do you know the spirit is a reliable source of truth?" I almost guarantee that any answer you receive will boil down to "because the spirit says so" if you explore it thoroughly enough. The circular-reasoning should be obvious. If they counter with "well you don't know that evidence and reason are reliable either, and thus I'm justified in choosing the spirit, as it's all just arbitrary" then you simply point out that they just agreed that the spirit isn't definitely reliable, and then show them how they need to give equal consideration for alternate explanations of spiritual experiences, as well as reason and evidence.

2) After emphasizing how we need to give equal consideration to alterate explanations of spiritual experiences, I discuss how I performed a controlled experiment on the spirit. I prayed about two contradicting ideas, ie "should I pay tithing?" and "should I NOT pay tithing?" I controlled every variable, ensuring that I sincerely desired an affirmative answer to both questions, and ensuring that I strictly studied material and experiences that supported the particular idea I was going to pray about. I also contemplated on each idea, not allowing myself any leeway to think about the contradictory idea at that given time. I prayed and received distinct answers from the spirit affirming both ideas separately. The spirit witness I felt for each was equal to the other, and as certain and great as any other witness I had received from the spirit throughout my devoted life as a mormon. The witnesses also fit every description of a spiritual witness that I was aware of in the scriptures, and that I had learned throughout my life. Thus, I had to conclude that either in one of the cases the spirit was lying, or that my perception of the spirit was a natural result of the variables I was controlling and not of supernatural origin at all. Either conclusion was a devastating blow to the reliability of the spirit, and given the evidence I leaned heavily towards the latter. (Note, I ensured that I informed God of my sincerity before attempting the experiment and asked him not to give anything but a genuine result so that I could be assured of his divine nature)


However, you'll find that mormons have a hard time talking about both historical matters and the spirit. It's hard to keep them focused. For instance, at the end of debunking the spirit they'll fall back on their testimony that the evidence supports what the spirit is saying. However, at the end of debunking the evidence they'll fall back on what the spirit told them. A comprehensive discussion takes a long time and is difficult to manage. It's also something most mormons aren't willing to have.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ronas ( )
Date: March 26, 2012 07:31PM

On #2 I did the same experiment in the temple when fully temple worthy. So this takes away the variable that it was satan manipulating my feelings. (Also if you do it silently this also removes the variable as satan can't read thoughts.) I got the same result as you I could feel the spirit either way.

I have since felt the same spiritual testimony of atheism. I feel a strong warmth and peace that it is the truth. Of course that doesn't do anything to prove atheism but it does a pretty darn good job of invalidating my previous Mormon testimony. Actually my atheism testimony is much stronger because I don't have any cog dis that I have to put on the shelf and have faith it - now it ALL makes perfect sense.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ihearyou ( )
Date: March 26, 2012 05:54PM

Dad is "excellent missionary; he has converted a lot of people" yet here you are on RfM. How did you fall through the cracks?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: notanymore ( )
Date: March 26, 2012 06:23PM

Thats funny, because as a teenager I wanted nothing to do with the Mormon church. So, my dad made a deal with me that if I would listen to the missionary discussions I wouldn't have to go to church anymore. I didn't return right away not until college & then I got married. So, he actually did convert me but now I am back to thinking for myself again. Too bad I stopped to begin with.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: bignevermo ( )
Date: March 26, 2012 05:59PM

thats all i have to say abou that! :)
http://home.teleport.com/~packham/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/2012 06:00PM by bignevermo.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ronas ( )
Date: March 26, 2012 06:05PM

I have mixed feelings about Packham's site as a reference for something like this.

One one hand he has some great information. He also has a fantastic way of wording things and getting his points across.

On the other hand he gets hyperbolic in some cases - e.g. arguing that Joseph Smith wasn't martyred/murdered or that the Mormon church causes divorces may or may not be true but they certainly aren't going to give you any forward traction with a TBM - I like to avoid stuff like that which gives a TBM an excuse to dig in their heels - and say - "see I can easily reconcile those issues, so I'm going to throw out the whole argument."

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: MARCIONITE ( )
Date: March 26, 2012 06:22PM

When I was objectively reviewing the pros and cons of the truth of the LDS church, I focused on what it really stands for and found the evidence against the Book of Mormon quite devastating, though not as devastating to me (as a then TBM) and clear-dut as the Book of Abraham evidence. The BoA is a good one to start with. I would try and keep it simple.

Something that cuts to the heart of what the church stands for is the most effective IMO. In addition to the Book of Mormon (keystone of the religion) the church is all about THE PRIESTHOOD. If you get a chance, you might also want to discuss something along those lines. I have always found the fact that they changed the original revelations as recorded in the Book of Commandments to how they read later in the Doctrine and Covenants as really quite revealing. It goes right to the heart of the fake restoration of the priesthood. It just didn't happen. They had to retrofit their revelations to try and make it sound like this orderly process of restoration. Look at how the revelations read when the church was formed in 1830 - no melchizedek and aaronic priesthood. Compare the revelations on priesthood and see how they reworded them. David Whitmer was right about that.

For me, the fakery surrounding the so-called restoration of the priesthood went to the very heart of the LDS claims. Your mileage may vary.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Suckafoo ( )
Date: March 26, 2012 06:32PM

Remember - No matter how strong someone's testimony or how good a Mormon they seem, their testimony can be undone in a few weeks or less if they investigate. Book of Abraham. Makes everything else fall. If that's a fraud, then so are all the other JS scripture.

Another interesting thing is showing the highlighted areas where they have changed the BOM. I think photos of actually seeing fraud helps a mind snap out of the trance.

Another effective persuasion is to ask them to do some homework on the internet. "Let's study the Book of Abraham. Go to these sites and any other ones you find helpful and come back for some discussion on the topic."

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ronas ( )
Date: March 26, 2012 07:08PM

It's putting these pieces together that really tells a story:

Joseph Smith using a seer stone before BoM. Pleasing guilty to fraud.

Joseph smith using the same seer stone to translate at least part of the BoM. All the other problems with the translation story of the BoM.

All the problems with the content of the BoM.

The evidence of fraud of the translation of the BoM.

The kinderhook plates.

When you add them all together you get a pretty clear picture... But you have to be willing to look past the "I know it is true" to see the picture...That's the hard part I think.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: notanymore ( )
Date: March 26, 2012 06:33PM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ronas ( )
Date: March 26, 2012 07:04PM

The problem with going the Masonry route is he has probably already heard that one and dealt with it. The standard TBM solution is that the temple stuff was revealed to Adam and was corrupted and handed down to the masons. Then Joseph Smith saw it and it was revealed to him that it was the true temple ceremony and he restored it to its true form.

If you take for granted that the spirit has told you the truth and you "know" the church is true it doesn't matter how improbably the "answer" is as long is it is plausible.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Titanic Survivor ( )
Date: March 26, 2012 07:00PM

Buy these books (great deals on Amazon), read them and then give them to your folks:

Quest For the Golden Plates, Thomas Stuart Ferguson's Archeological Search for The Book of Mormon. After a lifetime of searching for archeological corroboration (anything at all!) Ferguson concluded in his maturity that the BOM was fiction. What really persuaded him of the falsity of Mormonism though, was not so much his archeological research as the unrelated explosion of the Book of Abraham claims after 1967. Ferguson stayed in the church anyway for social and family reasons. This book has several letters by F to various correspondents explaining his conclusions and decision to stay a member in spite of the BOM and the rest of it being all made up. Of interest: on page 238 of Quest there begins a list of plant life the BOM claims to have existed in the Americas at the time (quoting BOM scripture for each claim, as for example Mosiah 7:22, "One half of our corn and our barley"; another example 3 Ne. 14:16, "Gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles") As far as historic _evidence_ for these plants in the region in question, the author says it stands as follows.

Barley: None
Figs: None
Grapes: None
Wheat: None

The animal life test also bombs out. Many refs in the BOM to cattle cows, goats, horses, sheep, elephants.. and varios others. Historical evidence for existence of same in the pertinent region at the time: None, None, None, None, None, None. In the metallurgy test, Bellows, None. Brass, None. Chains, None. Steel, None. (and many others)

But real thing that sealed it for Ferguson (who had been a very very devout Mormon all his life) was the business with the Book of Abraham. A wonderful book on the subject of the Boa is Charles Larson's By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus. It has a full color foldout of the entire BofA papyrus and does a complete debunking of Joseph Smith's claims about the scroll.

Both these books are very informative and hugely entertaining if you enjoy reading about skeptical inquiry.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: notanymore ( )
Date: March 26, 2012 07:11PM

Both of these books are on my list & I was going to order No man knows my history today, but maybe one of these would be better for next week. Thanks!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Titanic Survivor ( )
Date: March 26, 2012 07:44PM

The Quest book has the advantage that it has more "human interest" in that it tracks the evolution of Fergusons views and the disintegration of a faith that had been very dear to him. As a young man he got into archeology and worked hard to obtain funding to excavate in Central America because he fully expected to find evidence of the BOM account and so butress the position of Mormonism in the world. Of course, what he expects to find in the ground he does not find. When he later learns about the BOA and takes copies of the papyrus to I think 3 Egyptologists for a translation and assesement he finds out that it too is all bunkum. Still he stays in the church. You can read a few of his final letters: "Belonging with my eyes open is actually fun, less expensive than formerly, and no strain at all. I am now very selective in the meetings I attend, the functions I attend,the amounts I contribute, etc. etc., and I have a perfectly happy time." (late 1970's). The Quest book also has many, many footnotes,lengthy apendices and bibliography, probably a third of the book.

On the other hand, By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus sews the whole BofA up and is less a handfull of book. Very nice book, hard to choose between them!

I like NMKMH but while scholarly and well written, it is more like a he-said she-said question to decide if JS was a scoundrel or not, whereas the two books I have recommended explore and refute the actual claims JS made.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ronas ( )
Date: March 26, 2012 07:48PM

Also on the By His Own Hand... side is it is more commonly recommended - it seems to get to more people.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: notanymore ( )
Date: March 26, 2012 09:41PM

Not sure if everyone knows but, By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus is free on the internet. I already read it & forgot.

http://www.irr.org/mit/bhoh-pt1.html

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: msmom ( )
Date: March 26, 2012 07:06PM

If any other religion made this claim, mormons would know it was bunk. If it was important for followers not to see the plates, and accept on faith, how come smith was all over the place showing off the BOA papyrus?

I hope there will be a follow up report. Good luck with this. It sounds like there is a good relationship with your dad.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: darkprincess ( )
Date: March 26, 2012 08:08PM

It sounds like he doesn't want to have a real discussion but just to try to convert you. Lots of testimony, feelings, etc. If so he isn't going to listen to what you have to say and the conversation will only lead to frustration. So don't bring up facts that he will ignore.

Possible conversation 1:
Follow his lead about testimony. Tell him you recieved an answer from Heavenly Father that Joseph Smith was not a prophet, you prayed about it, read the scriptures, fasted etc etc etc. and recieved that answer. Don't do facts. Just simply you recieved an answer that it is false.
If he wants you to pray again challenge him to read an "anti" book and then pray, fast, etc before you will repeat what you have already done.

If you are Christian say that you were able to find Christ from other churches. If you are a different religion say you found truth through them from prayer, meditation, etc. If you are Atheist/Agnostic point out that the answer you recieved when praying etc was the same answer you got when praying about the Koran, a tv show, Lord of the Rings, the force.

Possible Conversation 2:
Ask him honestly and sincerely if he has ever had doubts. Ask him questions about his testimony. Listen very carefully and look for those cracks of the things he has doubts about. Then stick with talking about those.

In all likelyhoood this is what he is doing to you. He is trying to figure out what you are thinking so he can prepare a counter argument. Don't give him anything. Instead make him talk about his doubts/fears/things that bother him and then ask him real questions so he will expound on it.

Find his Mormon Shelf or back burner of things he doesn't want to think about and then make him focus on them.

If you just want to have a heated discussion, I for one enjoy them, go ahead. But if you want to try to move him, facts alone may not work.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: The 1st FreeAtLast ( )
Date: March 27, 2012 12:12AM

From a post I did in 2010:

"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." -- Thomas Paine, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America, intellectual, philosopher, and writer.

One of the best ways of cracking open Mormons' 'faith' is to reveal to them the fact that Joseph Smith (JS) was a liar, manipulator, adulterer and pedophile.

The LDS Church's section summary for D&C 132, the 'revelation' on polygamy written (down) by JS just over 166 years ago, says:

"Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives. HC 5: 501–507. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831."

(ref. http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132)

According to LDS scripture, two key polygamy "principles" were:

i. A Mormon priesthood holder could desire and marry only virgins who were "vowed to no other man" (i.e., not betrothed to a fiancée, or married).
ii. The first wife (Emma, in JS' case) had to give her consent to the plural marriage.

The scripture in question was D&C 132:61:

"And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else."

(ref. http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132/61#61)

In the case of 11 women that 'prophet' and Mormon Church president Joseph Smith made his plural wives, they were already vowed to their husband, and as married women, certainly not virgins (ref. http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/).

"...for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else." The 11 women belonged to their husband.

JS committed adultery at least 11 times (12, actually, when you include his extra-marital affair with teenager Fanny Alger, servant girl in the Smith home; ref. http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/02-FannyAlger.htm).

The LDS Church has a partial list of the married women, single women, and teenage girls that JS made his plural wives on the church's genealogy website at http://www.familysearch.org/eng/default.asp

Enter Smith's first and last name, birth year (1805) and birth place (Vermont, United States). Click on Search. Then click on the underlined Joseph Smith (Ancestral File 1). Scroll down to see the partial list of his plural wives. Note when he (at age 37) married Helen Mar Kimball (May 1843) and her age by clicking on her name (she was just 14).

JS' marriage to Fanny Alger can be viewed on the church's FamilySearch.org website by entering her first and last name, marriage year to JS (1835) and selecting "United States" and "Ohio" from the drop-down menus, and clicking on Search, then continuing from there.

Why did Joseph Smith make married women his plural wives - committing adultery in the process - when the Lord forbade it, and did so not just once or twice, but 11 times? Why wasn't he excommunicated for adultery?

The Mormon Church and LDS 'prophets' have taught for generations that adultery is a 'sin' next to murder and any church member who has committed adultery does not have the Holy Ghost with him/her and cannot receive revelation from God.

JS disobeyed the 'revealed' word of God (directly to him, no less) every time he desired, pursued and married a married Mormon woman. In the case of at least one of them, Sylvia Lyon (married to Windsor Lyon), JS fathered her daughter:

“On January 27, 1844 her [Sylvia’s] only surviving child, Philofreen, also died. At this time, Sylvia was eight months pregnant with her fourth child, Josephine Rosetta Lyon. Josephine later wrote, “Just prior to my mothers death in 1882 she called me to her bedside and told me that her days were numbered and before she passed away from mortality she desired to tell me something which she had kept as an entire secret from me and from all others but which she now desired to communicate to me. She then told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith”. (ref. http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/08-SylviaSessionsLyon.htm)

In May 1843, JS made a 14-year-old, two 17-year-olds and a 19-year-old his plural wives. The 14-year-old, Helen Mar Kimball, was his youngest-yet plural wife, as the genealogy data on the list of JS' plural wives on FamilySearch.org shows.

One wonders why, of all the single women in Nauvoo who were in their 20s and 30s, JS pursued and married teenage girls young enough to be his daughters and other men's wives.

On July 12, 1843, just two months after JS married the teenage girls mentioned above, he wrote down a 'divine' death threat ("threat of destruction") directed at his first and only legal wife, Emma (who was Relief Society president) if she didn't accept his plural wives, remain with him, "cleave unto" him, and accept polygamy. D&C 132:52 and 54:

52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those [plural wives] that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure [virgins] before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.

54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law [polygamy].

(ref. http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132/52#54)

How extraordinarily convenient for JS that the Lord was willing to turn a blind eye to his adultery (no rebuke, no revelation that he should be excommunicated), and back him up in his practice of polygamy by threatening to kill (destroy) Emma if she didn't get on JS' polygamy 'wagon' pronto!

According to the 'revelation' on polygamy that JS wrote down on July 12, 1843, the reason for plural marriage was to get virgins pregnant so that they would bear children, thereby increasing God’s glory:

“But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.”

(ref. http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132/63#63)

In JS' day, the only way for Mormon women and teenage girls to "bear the souls of men" was to become pregnant through sexual intercourse (human artificial insemination wasn't developed until the 1940s).

Gaining access to females who could "multiply and replenish the earth" was important to JS. In the case of 16-year-old Lucy Walker, whose mother died after the Walker family converted to Mormonism and moved to Nauvoo in the spring of 1841, he separated the teenage girl from her father (by sending him away on a 2-year mission to the Eastern United States) and her surviving siblings (her sister, Lydia, had died only months before of “brain fever”) by placing her siblings with families in Nauvoo and ‘inviting’ the unsuspecting girl to live in the home of ‘the Prophet’ (himself).

“While living in the Smith home, Lucy remembers: “In the year 1842 President Joseph Smith sought an interview with me, and said, ‘I have a message for you, I have been commanded of God to take another wife, and you are the woman.’ My astonishment knew no bounds. This announcement was indeed a thunderbolt to me...He asked me if I believed him to be a Prophet of God. ‘Most assuredly I do I replied.’...He fully Explained to me the principle of plural or celestial marriage. Said this principle was again to be restored for the benefit of the human family. That it would prove an everlasting blessing to my father’s house.”

“What do you have to Say?” Joseph asked. “Nothing” Lucy replied, “How could I speak, or what would I say?” Joseph encouraged her to pray: “tempted and tortured beyond endureance until life was not desirable. Oh that the grave would kindly receive me that I might find rest on the bosom of my dear mother...Why – Why Should I be chosen from among thy daughters, Father I am only a child in years and experience. No mother to council; no father near to tell me what to do, in this trying hour. Oh let this bitter cup pass. And thus I prayed in the agony of my soul.”

Joseph told Lucy that the marriage would have to be secret, but that he would acknowledge her as his wife, “beyond the Rocky Mountains”. He then gave Lucy an ultimatum, “It is a command of God to you. I will give you untill to-morrow to decide this matter. If you reject this message the gate will be closed forever against you.”

“Lucy married Joseph on May 1, 1843. At the time, Emma was in St. Louis buying supplies for the Nauvoo hotel. Lucy remembers, “Emma Smith was not present and she did not consent to the marriage; she did not know anything about it at all.”’ (ref. http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/23-LucyWalker.htm)

Not informing Emma of his latest plural marriage and first obtaining Emma’s consent was a violation of the Lord’s commandment to JS: “…if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent...for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.”

(ref. http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132/61#61).

Secretly marrying Lucy Walker was not the first time that JS did not obtain Emma’s consent (she discovered her husband and teenage servant girl Fanny Alger having sex in the barn and complained to Mormon Apostle Oliver Cowdery, Joseph’s second cousin and BoM scribe, about her husband’s extra-marital affair; Fanny was sent away by Emma because the teenage girl was “was unable to conceal the consequences of her celestial relation with the prophet”, in other words, Fanny’s swelling womb; ref. http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/02-FannyAlger.htm).

2. In the BoM, in Jacob 2:24, it says:

"Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord."
(ref. http://scriptures.lds.org/en/jacob/2/24#24)

However, in the 'revelation' on polygamy that Joseph Smith wrote down on July 12, 1843, it says (in verse 1):

"Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines"
(ref. http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132)

How is it that in the BoM, the Lord, who according to scripture is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, condemned as "abominable" the practice of David and Solomon of having wives and concubines, but then contradicted himself in the 'revelation' on polygamy to JS by saying he "justified" (i.e., approved of) the practice?

Answer: When JS WROTE the BoM prior to its publication in 1830, he had only one wife: Emma. But in July 1843, when he wrote down the 'revelation' on polygamy that supposedly came from 'the Lord' (into his mind), he had several plural wives (ref. http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/). In July 1843, Joseph Smith had forgotten what he wrote about David and Solomon and their practice of having wives and concubines 13+ years earlier.

3. Quote in LDS Apostle Russell Nelson's article, "A Treasured Testament", in the July 1993 Ensign (the article is online at www.lds.org; use the Search function to find it):

"Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man."

Why hasn't the LDS Church taught members and potential converts about Smith's 'magical'-rock-and-hat BoM 'translation' technique? The answer is obvious: Who would remain a member and who would join if they knew the truth?!

Why were the gold plates even needed, since Joseph Smith's 'peep' stone clearly did the job as far as 'translating' the BoM is concerned?! The huge problem is that it says in the BoM (and LDS 'prophets' have taught for generations) that 'the Lord' commanded BoM 'prophets' to keep an account of what was going on during their lives as well as teachings and doctrines.

But according to the quote in Nelson's article, there was no gold plate in JS' hat, only the 'magical' rock ('seer' stone) that mysteriously emitted "something resembling parchment" upon which one character at a time would appear. There are 1,150,219 characters in the BoM, which means that it took JS nearly a year (at eight hours per day) of putting his face in his hat and calling out the characters to his scribe to 'translate' the BoM. Why don't church pictures show him doing so?

4. A Seer Stone and a Hat - "Translating" the Book of Mormon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPnu0bx3oWg

5. For generations, a fundamental Book of Mormon (BoM) 'truth' was the following: "Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the Record of the People of Nephi; and also of the Lamanites; written to the Lamanites, which are a remnant of the House of Israel;" (ref. http://www.inephi.com/1.htm).

However, in light of DNA evidence of the past 20 years that has consistently shown that the ancestors of Native Americans came from northeast Asia and not from ancient Israel/Judea, as described in the BoM, the LDS Church has officially abandoned its 'truth' - taught to millions of church members and potential converts since JS' day - that American Indians are Jewish in origin (via Laman and Lemuel, who came from Jerusalem with Lehi, Sariah, Laman, Lemuel, and other Jewish family members).

Here is what the Introduction of 19th- to 20th-century editions of the BoM, including the 1981 edition that many Latter-day Saints living today used in church and at home, said (emphasis in capital letters is mine):

"The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel.

The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon. The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the PRINCIPAL ancestors of the American Indians."

Here is what JS wrote in March 1842 in a letter to John Wentworth, editor and proprietor of the Chicago Democrat newspaper:

"In this important and interesting book the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian era. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites and came directly from the Tower of Babel. The second race came directly from the city of Jerusalem about six hundred years before Christ. They were principally Israelites of the descendants of Joseph. The Jaredites were destroyed about the time that the Israelites came from Jerusalem, who succeeded them in the inheritance of the country. The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country."

(ref. http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=c26876e6ffe0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD)

Here is what the LDS Church is now saying (emphasis in capital letters is mine):

"The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel.

The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon. The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are AMONG the ancestors of the American Indians."

(ref. http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/introduction)

"...among the ancestors of the American Indians" clearly implies that there were other ancient people(s) who were also the ancestors of Native Americans, which is, of course, exactly what scientists concluded (no evidence exists to support the Mormon idea of Jewish ancestry of American Indians).

The HUGE problem for the LDS Church is that for the BoM to be true, the ancestors of Native Americans have to be Jewish/come from ancient Israel/Jerusaleum, as described in the BoM."

The chief problem with Mormonism is that it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Science has proven that the 'keystone' of the LDS religion, the Book of Mormon, is a work of fiction (see the links below for details). Mormonism founder Joseph Smith, Jr. repeatedly failed to relate and even write a reasonably consistent version of his so-called 'First Vision' experience (see the link below). JS kept getting his age, the place, what he saw, and other major elements of the 'First Vision' wrong. Rational people don’t believe a ‘witness’ who tells versions of their ‘true’ story that conflict with versions previously told by the individual. People who won’t use their critical thinking and scrutinize what they’ve been told often do believe ‘charismatic’ types.

According to LDS Church presidents Ezra Benson and Gordon Hinckley in Gen. Conf. talks in Oct. 1986 and Oct. 2002 (online at www.lds.org), Mormonism stands or falls on the BoM being true (historically and in all other respects) and the First Vision having taken place (as per the official church version that has been taught to millions of members and potential converts). The facts are clear: Mormonism falls (the websites linked below provide many of these facts).

All religions, including Mo-ism, are the product of people's imagination (Joseph Smith, in the case of the Mormon religion, with 'spiritual' ideas from other Mormon 'prophets' being layered on during the past 7-8 generations since 1830).

You're not obliged to mentally regurgitate other people's 'spiritual' ideas, what they believe and feel is 'true', and demonstrable nonsense (there's lots of it in cultic Mormonism!).

You have the right to ALWAYS think for yourself and scrutinize what other people, including adult Mormons, have told you is 'true', 'right', 'the will of God', etc. You also have the right to reject all beliefs - religious or otherwise - that are not supported by the facts.

Latter-day Saints fail to understand that truth is independent of what the LDS Church says and what Mormons believe is 'true' when their 'truths' are not supported by solid evidence. Very importantly, their emotions - and emotion-based beliefs - are not an INFALLIBLE guide to the truth.

Here are very good resources that you can study to educate yourself about Mormonism and its history:

Early Mormonism and the Magic World View (by former BYU history professor Dr. D. Michael Quinn): http://www.amazon.com/Early-Mormonism-Magic-World-View/dp/1560850892

The Changing World of Mormonism: http://www.utlm.org/navonlinebooks.htm

To Those Who Are Investigating Mormonism: http://packham.n4m.org/tract.htm

PBS FRONTLINE + American Experience: "The Mormons" (4-hour documentary film aired on PBS in '07 that includes excerpts from interviews with President Gordon Hinckley, Mormon Apostles Boyd Packer and Jeffrey Holland and member of the First Quorum of the Seventy and church historian Marlin Jensen): http://www.pbs.org/mormons/

101 Doubts about Mormonism: http://packham.n4m.org/101.htm

Contradictions in Mormonism: http://packham.n4m.org/contra.htm

Rethinking Mormonism: http://www.i4m.com/think/

Joseph Smith's Changing First Vision Accounts: http://www.irr.org/mit/first-vision/fvision-accounts.html

Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church (by genetic researcher Dr. Simon Southerton, a former LDS bishop): http://www.amazon.com/Losing-Lost-Tribe-Native-Americans/dp/1560851813

"DNA vs. The Book of Mormon" (ref. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svfxSscxh8o)

Book of Mormon Tories (plagarisms in the BoM involving two American history books, one published in 1789 and the other in 1805, that were available to Joseph Smith): http://www.postmormon.org/exp_e/index.php/magazine/pmm_article_full_text/211

The Lost Book of Abraham (more proof that Joseph Smith lied about his 'translation' ability): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcyzkd_m6KE

The 'motherlode' of historical info. about Mormonism (including many quoted official church sources, and their references): http://www.utlm.org/navtopicalindex.htm

Digital photograph of the title page of the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon that shows that Joseph Smith was the author and proprietor (he claimed he was the 'translator' of the ancient gold plates): http://www.inephi.com/1.htm

The Untold Story of the Death of Joseph Smith: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvSo0ate4tM&feature=related

‘Faith-disrupting’ teachings and statements of Mormon ‘prophets’ (after Joseph Smith): http://mormonthink.com/prophetsweb.htm#apostleadmits

How Mormonism 'programs' people and affects their self-esteem: http://members.shaw.ca/blair_watson/

40 fears created by LDS 'programming': http://members.shaw.ca/blair_watson/fears.htm

In the past two years, I've read Grant Palmer's "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins" (ref. http://signaturebooks.com/2010/02/an-insiders-view-of-mormon-origins-2/ ) and former BYU history professor D. Michael Quinn's exhaustive "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View" (ref. http://signaturebooks.com/2010/02/early-mormonism-and-the-magic-world-view/ ).

I've also read Todd Compton's very well-researched and -written "In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith" (ref. http://signaturebooks.com/2010/02/in-sacred-loneliness-the-plural-wives-of-joseph-smith/ ) and "Mormon Polygamy: A History" by Richard Van Wagoner (ref. http://www.amazon.com/Mormon-Polygamy-Richard-Van-Wagoner/dp/0941214796/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1332821261&sr=1-1 ).

Another scholarly book is "Studies of the Book of Mormon" by LDS Church Assistant Historian and Seventy B. H. Roberts (he died in 1933), which details Roberts' honest investigation 90 years ago about historicity problems with the Book of Mormon that he was asked by the church's senior leadership to look into (ref. http://signaturebooks.com/2010/02/studies-of-the-book-of-mormon/ ).

That should keep them busy!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Dave the Atheist ( )
Date: March 27, 2012 12:21AM

The first question to ask your father is .. "if mormonism is false would you want to know ?".

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: anagrammy ( )
Date: March 27, 2012 02:21AM

Dave is right.

Back in the eighties, a friend and I started what I think is the first anti-Mormon support group not affiliated with a religion (Ed Decker and Sandra Tanner were already rolling).

We had little classes, like Sunday School. Over time, I found the most effective of the many Mormon fraud elements. Guess which one? (this was before the Book of Abraham)


It was the many versions of the First Vision and the D&C changes in the nature of God.

It shows clearly that Joseph Smith was making it up as he went along and amending the words of the Lord and the most "perfect" book.

The fact that the Book of Mormon was translated by a rock in a hat--the same "seerstone" that Joseph used to perpetrate other frauds, for which he was convicted.

The fact that current prophets cannot prophesy, translate, reveal or even tell the truth. GBH gave the papyri to Hugh Nibly instead of translating it "by the power and gift of God" when he STILL HAS THE ROCK IN THE VAULT. GBH denied that the plan of salvation included godhood for man. He had a worldwide audience, a real opportunity to stand for something. While our young men as missionaries are not allowed to go home if there are "two people" on a street corner to preach, he dodged a direct answer to a gospel question from Larry King.

Why do we not have the Joseph Smith papyrii on display? Why is it hidden in the vault along with the rock? Why is the rock not displayed? The tiny missing pieces of the papyrii would be obviously not large enough to contain the Book of Abraham. According to scholars, the missing piece would have to be 40 feet long, so the Mormon apologetics would be screwed.


Have fun! So much to choose from....so many lies...

Anagrammy

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Regan ( )
Date: March 27, 2012 02:36AM

When I came out to my husband I used wikipedia sources. They are subjective enought that the listener will not assume they are from anti-mormon sources. They also have link sources. Wiki BOA, Joseph Smith, Josepy smith wives, book of mormon origins, book of mormon archaelogy, critisism of book of mormon. There are hundred others. Wiki has everything and taught me all that I know.

Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In


Screen Name: 
Your Email (optional): 
Subject: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 ********  ********   **     **  **    **  ******** 
 **    **  **     **  **     **   **  **   **       
     **    **     **  **     **    ****    **       
    **     **     **  **     **     **     ******   
   **      **     **  **     **     **     **       
   **      **     **  **     **     **     **       
   **      ********    *******      **     ********