|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 3:22 pm
 |
|
|
 |
Garland-Green Shadows-shine Garland-Green Shadows-shine He did dig up the brass plates containing the record of the Book of Mormon. And the Urim and Thummim were not a giant pair of spectatcles..... They were stones. Some thing similiar is described in the Old Testament I believe. Aaron, Moses' brother used a set too. What happened to his golden plates, and how did he manage to carry them? From what I gather the stones were set in a pair of silver frames... They would have the appearance of spectacles. This is not how the Urim and Thummin was used in the Old Testament. They were objects connected with the breastplate of the high priest, and used as a kind of divine oracle. Since the days of the Alexandrian translators of the Old Testament it has been asserted that mean "revelation and truth" (δήλωσις καὶ ἀλήθεια), or "lights and perfections" (φωτισμοὶ καὶ τελεότητες); the τελειότης καὶ διδαχή of Symmachus (Jerome, "perfectio et doctrina"; Field, "Hexapla" on Deut. xxxiii. 8]; and the φωτισμοί καὶ τελειώσεις of Aquila and Theodotion. The Vulgate has "doctrina [after Symmachus; Old Latin, "ostensio" or "demonstratio"] et veritas." There is, however, no foundation for such a view in the Bible itself. Ex. xxviii. 13-30 describes the high-priestly ephod and the breastplate with the Urim and Thummim. It is called a "breastplate of judgment" ("ḥoshen ha-mishpaṭ"); it is four-square and double; and the twelve stones were not put inside the ḥoshen, but on the outside. It is related in Lev. viii. 7-8 that when, in compliance with the command in Ex. xxix. 1-37, Moses consecrated Aaron and his sons as priests, "He [Moses] put upon him [Aaron] the coat, and girded him with the girdle, and clothed him with the robe, and put the ephod upon him, and he girded him with the cunningly woven band [A. V. "curious girdle"] of the ephod, and bound it unto him therewith. And he put the breastplate upon him: and in the breastplate he put the Urim and the Thummim." Deut. xxxiii. 8 (R. V.), in the blessing of Moses, reads: "And of Levi he said: Thy Thummim and thy Urim are with thy godly one, whom thou didst prove at Massah, with whom thou didst strive at the waters of Meribah" (see Steuernagel, "Deuteronomium," p. 125, Göttingen, 1898; Bertholet, "Deuteronomium," p. 106, Freiburg, 1899; Driver, "Deuteronomy," in "International Critical Commentary," p. 398, New York, 1895; Baudissin, "Gesch. des Alttestamentlichen Priesterthums," p. 76). The most important passage is I Sam. xiv. 41, where Wellhausen and Driver have corrected the text, on the basis of the Septuagint, to read as follows: "And Saul said: Lord, God of Israel, why hast thou not answered thy servant this day? If this iniquity be in me or in Jonathan my son, Lord, God of Israel, give Urim; but if it be in thy people Israel, give Thummim. Then Jonathan and Saul were taken by lot; and the people escaped" (Driver, "Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel," p. 89, Oxford, 1890; Budde, "The Books of Samuel," in Polychrome Bible, p. 63; H. P. Smith, "The Books of Samuel," p. 122; Kirkpatrick, "The First Book of Samuel," in "The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges," 1891, p. 137). - jewishencyclopedia Urim and Thummim Exodus 28:30 And thou shalt put in the breastplate of judgment the Urim and Thummim; they shall be upon Aaron's heart when he goeth in before the Lord. The Urim and Thummim was God's way of answering His people. Urim (אורים) means [the] Seer Stone was the shape of an egg though not quite so large, of a gray cast something like granite but with white stripes running around it. It was transparent but had no holes, neither on the end or in the sides fairmormon.org As a chastisement for this carelessness [loss of the 116 pages], the Urim and Thummim was taken from Smith. But by humbling himself, he again found favor with the Lord and was presented a strange oval-shaped, chocolate colored stone, about the size of an egg, but more flat which it was promised should answer the same purpose. With this stone all the present book was translated fairmormon.org Lucy M. Smith, mother of Joseph Jr., described them as "two smooth, three-cornered diamonds set in glass, and the glasses were set in silver bows, which were connected with each other...as old fashioned spectacles." The Old Testament seems to indicate that the urim and thummin faded from use during the early days of Israel’s monarchy, and are only referred to once after the Babylonian exile. This may be so because the institution of monarchy God inaugurated the office of prophet. The prophets now participated in God’s heavenly court and communicated God’s messages to the courts in Jerusalem and Samaria. Apparently prophets who revealed God’s word to the king replaced the urim and thummin, through which He revealed His mind to the priest. Nevertheless, we still find Ezra using this device to determine the ancestry of the priests who returned from the exile in Ezra 2:63. After this the Bible never mentions the urim and thummin again. God did not preserve it for His people. They are one more allowance from God to assist His people at a certain point in history.”  The plates maybe weighed about 25 pounds, so a grown man certainly would've been able to carry them. And no one knows what happened to the plates. It's been rumored they were taken up to heaven. Like the arc of the covenant. Yet no one seems to question that mystery. Lots of people question it. There are several theories as to what happened to the arc of the Covenant. Many are plausible in light of Jewish history. Finding The arc of the Covenant though is less significant then finding the gold plates, since a whole religion is based on their existence. The Bible has other corroborating evidence that makes it unnecessary to have that arc as proof. Joseph Smith wrote in the Wentworth Letter that the plates were "six inches by eight inches long." Martin Harris and David Whitmer remembered 7 by 8 inches. Joseph Smith wrote that the plates were "something near six inches in thickness." Harris remembered it being about four inches. Take Joseph Smith's estimate of 6 inches by 8 inches by 6 inches, and that gives us 288 cubic inches. Metallurgist Read H. Putnam, in an Improvement Era article in September 1966, wrote that a "solid block of gold totaling 288 cubic inches would weigh a little over 200 pounds. How heavy were Joseph Smith's "Golden Plates"?Besides that there were no ancient civilizations that would have done this type of metallurgy at the time that Joseph Smith suggests in America. There is not traces after these people found. No civilization, and definitively non as large as those that Joseph Smith claimed that would disappear without a trace. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 7:23 pm
|
|
|
|
Shadows-shine SinfulGuillotine I Shadows-shine SinfulGuillotine As much as I try to be open-minded about beliefs different from my own...Mormonism has always left a bad taste in my mouth. I'll admit that a great deal of that is probably because I first learned about Mormonism in any depth and detail from a book called Under the Banner of Heaven, which while historically accurate, is written with a definite bias against the faith and much of its history. And though I know that the mainstream LDS church makes a huge effort to separate itself from various Fundementalist sects, what goes on withinthose Fundementalist compounds makes me ill. Girls just barely old enough to menstruate married off to men old enough to be their father twice over, forced into sexual slavery as one of the many wives of the "prophet," who is, in reality, nothing more than a horny old borderline ******. Maybe some of them are actually crazy enough to believe their own spritual hocos-pocus BS that they spout, justifying serial sexual abuse, but that doesn't make them any less evil. AGAIN, I KNOW THAT MAINSTREAM LDS DOES NOT ENGAGE IN OR SUPPORT SUCH BEHAVIOUR, but, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but such behaviour WAS practised and encouraged by people such as Smith and Young, and that sort of polygamy was indeed included in original Morman teachings, whether mainstream LDS renounces it now or not. And it really seems to me that Mormonism is about as Christian as Christianity is Jewish...possibly even less so. I feel like the more I learn of their theology the further from Christianity it seems to get. I could go on, but I don't want to be any more disrespectful than I've already been. I really mean no disrespect (unless you happen to be the sort of Mormon who supports and/or commits child rape; then I absolutely mean all the disrespect I can possibly muster). One: cite your sources as to where you heard this. Two: Joseph and Brigham married both young and old women so they could have an income and a husband to support them. Also, back then it was common practice for women to marry young. I've read several history books where girls got married as young as 14. Three: of course I don't support child rape! That's dispicable! I already mentioned my source: a book called Under the Banner of Heaven. Also, various news articles I found online relating to the subject. I can try to find them again, but I'm currently using a friend's mobile to get online, so that might have to wait until I can get online on a real computer. It may have been common practise for girls to marry young "back in the day," but by the 19th century, it was not common (and possibly not even legal) for girls to marry much younger than 18. And I'm not talking about back in the day. I'm talking about things going on right now. This stuff is still going on today in some fundementalist Mormon splinter groups. And I never meant to imply that you support child rape, and as I said before, I'm also aware that such behaviour is not condoned by the mainstream LDS church. Sorry, I didn't catch that refernce. My bad. The Church is.not affiliated with any of those splinter groups, so what they do or teach is not a reflection on The LDS Church.
All that aside, I do actually have a legitimate question that I've asked several other Mormons but never received a satisfying answer: if polygamy was a practise allegedly condoned, even encouraged, by God, why has the mainstream LDS church rejected it so vehemently? |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 8:24 pm
|
|
|
|
SinfulGuillotine Shadows-shine SinfulGuillotine I Shadows-shine SinfulGuillotine As much as I try to be open-minded about beliefs different from my own...Mormonism has always left a bad taste in my mouth. I'll admit that a great deal of that is probably because I first learned about Mormonism in any depth and detail from a book called Under the Banner of Heaven, which while historically accurate, is written with a definite bias against the faith and much of its history. And though I know that the mainstream LDS church makes a huge effort to separate itself from various Fundementalist sects, what goes on withinthose Fundementalist compounds makes me ill. Girls just barely old enough to menstruate married off to men old enough to be their father twice over, forced into sexual slavery as one of the many wives of the "prophet," who is, in reality, nothing more than a horny old borderline ******. Maybe some of them are actually crazy enough to believe their own spritual hocos-pocus BS that they spout, justifying serial sexual abuse, but that doesn't make them any less evil. AGAIN, I KNOW THAT MAINSTREAM LDS DOES NOT ENGAGE IN OR SUPPORT SUCH BEHAVIOUR, but, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but such behaviour WAS practised and encouraged by people such as Smith and Young, and that sort of polygamy was indeed included in original Morman teachings, whether mainstream LDS renounces it now or not. And it really seems to me that Mormonism is about as Christian as Christianity is Jewish...possibly even less so. I feel like the more I learn of their theology the further from Christianity it seems to get. I could go on, but I don't want to be any more disrespectful than I've already been. I really mean no disrespect (unless you happen to be the sort of Mormon who supports and/or commits child rape; then I absolutely mean all the disrespect I can possibly muster). One: cite your sources as to where you heard this. Two: Joseph and Brigham married both young and old women so they could have an income and a husband to support them. Also, back then it was common practice for women to marry young. I've read several history books where girls got married as young as 14. Three: of course I don't support child rape! That's dispicable! I already mentioned my source: a book called Under the Banner of Heaven. Also, various news articles I found online relating to the subject. I can try to find them again, but I'm currently using a friend's mobile to get online, so that might have to wait until I can get online on a real computer. It may have been common practise for girls to marry young "back in the day," but by the 19th century, it was not common (and possibly not even legal) for girls to marry much younger than 18. And I'm not talking about back in the day. I'm talking about things going on right now. This stuff is still going on today in some fundementalist Mormon splinter groups. And I never meant to imply that you support child rape, and as I said before, I'm also aware that such behaviour is not condoned by the mainstream LDS church. Sorry, I didn't catch that refernce. My bad. The Church is.not affiliated with any of those splinter groups, so what they do or teach is not a reflection on The LDS Church. I realise that, but that doesn't change the fact that such atrocities are being committed in the name of the Mormon religion, and feel justified in their actions because of teachings from those who founded the religion. Not that this is the first time someone has used religion as an excuse to commit horrible crimes, nor will it be the last, but whhat I find...frustrating...is that the mainstream LDS church seems more concerned with separating themselves from these people rather than making a concerted effort to stop what they themselvaes profess to be a perverse bastardisation of their religion. All that aside, I do actually have a legitimate question that I've asked several other Mormons but never received a satisfying answer: if polygamy was a practise allegedly condoned, even encouraged, by God, why has the mainstream LDS church rejected it so vehemently? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 10:09 am
|
|
|
|
Garland-Green Shadows-shine Those men were martyred because they refused to deny their belief in the truth that God revealed to them. Just like Paul, Peter, and all the other apostles and believers in God who were martyred because they refused to deny their testimonies. Why mock Joseph's and Hyrum's death? How disrespectful. For them to have been martyrs, they would have had to die for the testimony of Jesus Christ. If they died for selfish reason (a lie) they were not martyrs. Just someone who were murdered. To compare Smith to Paul, Peter and the other apostles you would have to compare what they teach to see if he is a martyr for the testimony of Jesus or not. It seem to me, going through all this material that his reasons was not to uphold the tradition that had been lost, but a more selfish reason.
Quoted from Jeffrey R. Holland, an Apostle of the Lord.
Quote: May I refer to a modern last days testimony. When Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum started for Carthage, to face what they knew to be an immenent martyrdom Hyrum read these words of comfort to the heart of his brother. "Thou hast been faithful, wherefore, thou shalt be made strong, even unto the sitting down of the place which I have prepared in the mansions of my Father. And now I Moroni, bid farewell until we shall meet, before the judgment seat of Christ." A few, short verses, from the 12 chapter of Ether in the Book of Mormon...... ......Later, when actually incarcerated in the jail, Joseph the Prophet, turned to the guards who held him captive and bore a powerful testimony to the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Shortly thereafter, pistol and ball would take the lives of these two testators. As one of a thousand elements of my own testimony of the divinity of the Book of Mormon, I submit this as one more evidence of it's truthfulness. In this their greatest and last hour of need, I ask you, would these men blaspheme before God by continuing to fix their lives, their honor, and their own search for eternal salvation on a book? And by implication a church and ministry they had fictiously created out of whole cloth? Never mind their wives are about to be widows and their children fatherless, nevermind that their little band of followers are about to be homeless, houseless, and friendless and that their little children will leave footprints of blood across frozen rivers and an untamed prairie floor, nevermind that legions will die and other legions live declaring that they know that the Book of Mormon and the church that it espouses to be true. Disregard all of that and tell me, whether in this hour of death that these two men would enter the presence of their eternal judge quoting from, and finding solace in a book which if not the very Word of God, would brand them as imposters and charlatains until the end of time. THEY WOULD NOT DO THAT.They were willing to die, rather than deny the divine origin and the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. For 179 years this book has been examined and attacked, denied and deconstructed, targeted and torn apart, like perhaps no other book in modern religious history, perhaps like no other book in any religious history and still it stands. Failed theories about it origins have been borne, parroted, and died. From Ethan Smith to Solomon Spaulding, to deranged paranoid to cunning geneous. None of these frankly pathetic answers has ever withstood examination because there is no other answer than the one Joseph gave as it's young, unlearned translator. In this I stand with my own great-grandfather who said simply enough "no wicked man could write such a book as this, and no good man would write it, unless it were true, and he were commanded of God to do so."...... .....If anyone is foolish enough, or mislead enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text teeming with literary and semetic complexity without honestly attempting to account for the origins of those pages somehow especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound spiritual impact that whitness has had on what is now 10s of millions of readers; if that's the case than such persons elect or otherwise have been deceived...... .....But my testimony of this record and the peace it brings to the human heart is as binding and unequivocal as was theirs. Like them I give my name to the world to witness unto the world that that which I have seen and like them, I lie not, God bearing witness of it. I ask that my testimony of the Book of Mormon and all that it implies, given today under my oath and my office, be recorded by men on earth and angels in heaven. I hope I have a few years left in my last days but whether I do or do not, I want it absolutely clear when I stand before the judgment bar of God that I declared to the world in the most straightforward language I could summon that the Book of Mormon is true. That it came forth the way Joseph said it came forth and was given to bring happiness and hope to the faithful in the travail of the last days...... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 10:13 am
|
|
|
|
This is why we need a prophet on earth today:
A careful reading of Ephesians 4:11-14 indicates that prophets and apostles were meant to remain to maintain a "unity of the faith" and a "knowledge of the Son of God" but also that without them man would be "tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine" (vs. 14) This exactly the condition of "mainstream" Christianity.
If prophets existed throughout the Bible, why do we need them today? Amos 3:7 reveals that God will do nothing, save He reveals them to His prophets. Also 1 Cor. 12:27-29; 14:29-33, 37-39 indicate the prophets and the gift of prophecy were part of the original Christian church. The prophets principal duty is to prevent error and confusion among the Saints.
-From the book entitled "Answering Challenging Mormon Questions." By Micheal W. Hickenbotham-
22 apostles and 3 Prophets were mentioned in the New Testament during Christ's mortal ministry and following His death.
-Apostles-
*1-12- Original- Matthew 10:2-4; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-16
*13-Matthias-Acts 1:26
*14- Paul- Acts 13:2; 14:14; Romans 1:1
*15-Barnabus- Acts 13:2; 14:14
*16- Adronicus- Romans 16:7
*17-Junia- Romans 16:7
*18- Apollos- 1 Corinthians 4:6-9
*19- James (the brother of Jesus)- Galatians 1:19
*20- Silvanus- 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2:4-6
*21- Timotheus- 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2:4-6
*22- Jesus- Hebrews 3:1
-Prophets-
*1 Agabus- Acts 11:27-28; 21:10
*2 Judas- Acts 15:22, 32
*3 Silas- Acts 15:22, 32
*Others- Acts 11:27; 13:1; 21:9; Revelation 11:3-10
Read also Acts 1:6-7; 3:19-21
If there was to be no revelation after the Book of Revelation was written, which was written in about 95AD or 96AD, then John broke his own rule and so did several other biblical prophets. The Gospel of John was dated 96 to 104AD and was thought to have been written by Ephesus. All three of John's epistles were believed to have been written about the same time that the Gospel of John (96 to 104AD). Also if stopping future revelation was the purpose of these scriptures that you cited, then the saints of John's day and for thousands of years afterwards greatly misunderstood this scripture. The Book of Revelation was a separate document for hundreds of years before it was assembled with the other writings of the scriptural library that we call the Bible.
Bible comes from the Greek word "ta biblia" meaning "the books". So John was only referring to the words that were written specifically in the book of Revelation. Hence his wording "the words of the prophecy of this book".
You know what else? This same prohibition that you cited is also found in Deuteronomy 4:2; 13:32. Does that mean that all scripture revealed after the Pentateuch (the first five books of the OT) are invalid? You agree with me that it does not, right? So why would the similar statement found in the NT invalidate all modern revelation?
The Book of Revelation was not meant to be the end of revealed scripture, it was just a recording of all the warnings of future events to come. Plus the Bible itself talks about additional scripture that is to come forth (Isaiah 29; Ezekiel 37) and future revelations (Matthew 17:11; Luke 10:22; John 16:12-15; Acts 2:17-18; James 1:5). The Book of Revelation itself even talks about future prophets and revelations from Heaven above (Revelation 11:3; 14:6).
Also, let me add that the Bible says that revelation is part of the true Church iteslf. (See Amos 3:7; 1 Corinthians 14:29-33, 37-39).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 10:19 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 11:07 am
|
|
|
|
These next few passages I write come from the book Answering Challenging Mormon Questions. By Michael Hickenbotham and they are from my own personal notes that I've taken.
*Does Joseph Smith meet the Biblical qualifications of a prophet?*
"Numbers 12:6 teaches: "If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream."
Verse 7 and 8 go on to say that under certain conditions (i.e. Moses) the Lord will appear to his prophet and "speak mouth to mouth" with him clearly. Such was also the case with Joseph Smith. The Lord appeared to Joseph Smith and spoke to him clearly face to face (JS-H 1:17-20, 25) as with Moses (Ex. 33:11). Though this event in Joseph Smith's life is referred to as the "First Vision," it was much more than a vision or dream. The Lord at other times did indeed speak to the prophet in dreams and visions (see D&C 76; 110;137; JS-H 1:42)." (Hickenbotham)
The civil war prophecy that Joseph Smith made was fulfilled on every point. The first shot was fired at Fort Sumter in Charleston SC on April 12, 1861 and resulted in much death and misery. From that time wars have spread to all nations (ex. the World Wars 1 and 2). The Civil War was a conflict between Northern and Southern states. The South did call on the nation of Great Britain and nations for assistance. This prophecy was clearly made in the name of the Lord and has "come to pass". The prophecy was recorded nearly 30 years before it's fulfillment and was fulfilled in every detail. This is only one example though.
------------------------------------------------------------
*Why do Latter-day Saints teach that an apostasy and restoration occured when the Bible says the gospel was "once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 1:3)?*
"The word "once" as used in Jude 1:3 should be translated as "before" or "previously" to be more accurate... Note that the same Greek word was used in verse 5 and was also translated in the KJV as "once". The context used in vs. 5 makes it clear that to interpret the use in vs. 2 as "one time" is not correct. The KJV translates the Greek as "Ye once knew this" (i.e. He knew it in the past but may have forgotten it). The NIV confirms this by translating this same Greek word (once-verse 5) as "already" meaning formerly." (Hickenbotham)
Scriptures confirm many general apostasies have occured. See Deut. 9:7; 9:25; 29:25; 30:15-19; Jud. 3:7; 1 Kings 11:2; 14:22; 2 Kings 17:7; 21:2; Ps. 106:36; Isa. 2:8; 3:9; 24:5; 29:13-14; 59:2; Jer. 2:17; 7:11; 35:15; Ezek. 2:3; 11:12; 22:26; Hos. 4:6, 17; Amos 8:11; Micah 3:11;Matt. 13:15; 15:9.
The gospel had been formerly delivered to ancient Israel following all of these apostasies.
Paul taught that "God...preached before the gospel unto Abraham" (Gal. 3: cool and in Heb. 4:2 he said that "unto us was the gosepl preached as well as unto them [Israel in the days of Moses - 1 Cor. 10:4; Heb. 3:16-17]: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it."
The gospel was delivered more than once. Abraham received in 2000BC and the people of Israel received it during the exodus in 1350BC, and then to Israel in Christ's day. See also Isaiah 40:9; 52:7; 61:1
"An apostasy was predicted by Jesus Christ and his apostles. Jesus taught that "many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many" (Matt. 24:5). Paul delcared: "be not soon shaken in mind, or troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means; for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first" (2 Thess. 2:2-3). We should note that the Greek word "apostasia" was translated as "falling away" in the KJV. Thus Paul is saying that the early Christians should not be fooled by false Christs since there would be an unmistakeable apostasy before Christ's return." (Hickenbotham)
Consider these scriptures as well: Matt. 24:4, 9-13, 24; John 16:2-3; Acts 20:29-30; 1Tim. 4:1-3; 2Tim. 3:1-9, 12-13; 4:3-4; Titus 1:10-16; 2 Pet. 2:1-3; 3:1-9; 3:3; 1 John 2:18-19; Jude 3-4; Rev. 13:4-8.
Martin Luther, a key leader in the Reformation also recognized an apostasy had taken place. (Will provide quote if it is requested)
John Wesley and Roger Williams also made note of an apostasy that had taken place. (Will provide quote if requested)
Other Bible verses such as Matt 17:11; Acts 1:6-7; 3:19-21; Eph. 1:10; Rev. 14:6 confirm the LDS belief that a restoration of the gospel was prophesied to happen in these latter days.
The Protestant Reformation was not the fulfillment of these prophecies. It's clear that the promised Restoration would be accomplished not thrrough man's efforts but in spite of them (Dan. 2:44-45; Matt. 5:13; 1 Tim. 4:1-22; 2 Tim. 3:1-7; 4:3-4; Heb. 6:4- cool .
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 11:11 am
|
|
|
|
Shadows-shine Garland-Green Shadows-shine Those men were martyred because they refused to deny their belief in the truth that God revealed to them. Just like Paul, Peter, and all the other apostles and believers in God who were martyred because they refused to deny their testimonies. Why mock Joseph's and Hyrum's death? How disrespectful. For them to have been martyrs, they would have had to die for the testimony of Jesus Christ. If they died for selfish reason (a lie) they were not martyrs. Just someone who were murdered. To compare Smith to Paul, Peter and the other apostles you would have to compare what they teach to see if he is a martyr for the testimony of Jesus or not. It seem to me, going through all this material that his reasons was not to uphold the tradition that had been lost, but a more selfish reason. Quoted from Jeffrey R. Holland, an Apostle of the Lord. Quote: May I refer to a modern last days testimony. When Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum started for Carthage, to face what they knew to be an immenent martyrdom Hyrum read these words of comfort to the heart of his brother. "Thou hast been faithful, wherefore, thou shalt be made strong, even unto the sitting down of the place which I have prepared in the mansions of my Father. And now I Moroni, bid farewell until we shall meet, before the judgment seat of Christ." A few, short verses, from the 12 chapter of Ether in the Book of Mormon...... ......Later, when actually incarcerated in the jail, Joseph the Prophet, turned to the guards who held him captive and bore a powerful testimony to the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Shortly thereafter, pistol and ball would take the lives of these two testators. As one of a thousand elements of my own testimony of the divinity of the Book of Mormon, I submit this as one more evidence of it's truthfulness. In this their greatest and last hour of need, I ask you, would these men blaspheme before God by continuing to fix their lives, their honor, and their own search for eternal salvation on a book? And by implication a church and ministry they had fictiously created out of whole cloth? Never mind their wives are about to be widows and their children fatherless, nevermind that their little band of followers are about to be homeless, houseless, and friendless and that their little children will leave footprints of blood across frozen rivers and an untamed prairie floor, nevermind that legions will die and other legions live declaring that they know that the Book of Mormon and the church that it espouses to be true. Disregard all of that and tell me, whether in this hour of death that these two men would enter the presence of their eternal judge quoting from, and finding solace in a book which if not the very Word of God, would brand them as imposters and charlatains until the end of time. THEY WOULD NOT DO THAT.They were willing to die, rather than deny the divine origin and the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. For 179 years this book has been examined and attacked, denied and deconstructed, targeted and torn apart, like perhaps no other book in modern religious history, perhaps like no other book in any religious history and still it stands. Failed theories about it origins have been borne, parroted, and died. From Ethan Smith to Solomon Spaulding, to deranged paranoid to cunning geneous. None of these frankly pathetic answers has ever withstood examination because there is no other answer than the one Joseph gave as it's young, unlearned translator. In this I stand with my own great-grandfather who said simply enough "no wicked man could write such a book as this, and no good man would write it, unless it were true, and he were commanded of God to do so."...... .....If anyone is foolish enough, or mislead enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text teeming with literary and semetic complexity without honestly attempting to account for the origins of those pages somehow especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound spiritual impact that whitness has had on what is now 10s of millions of readers; if that's the case than such persons elect or otherwise have been deceived...... .....But my testimony of this record and the peace it brings to the human heart is as binding and unequivocal as was theirs. Like them I give my name to the world to witness unto the world that that which I have seen and like them, I lie not, God bearing witness of it. I ask that my testimony of the Book of Mormon and all that it implies, given today under my oath and my office, be recorded by men on earth and angels in heaven. I hope I have a few years left in my last days but whether I do or do not, I want it absolutely clear when I stand before the judgment bar of God that I declared to the world in the most straightforward language I could summon that the Book of Mormon is true. That it came forth the way Joseph said it came forth and was given to bring happiness and hope to the faithful in the travail of the last days......
My letter to Elder Holland re Book of Mormon (very long)
By Tom Phillips
Book of Mormon
by anointed one May 2012
Here is a copy of letter I sent with specific questions regarding his proclamation of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon
I will also post his response. This is also being posted on the Biography Board as suggested by Susan I/S.
[Admin Note] The author of this article, "The Truthfulness of the Book of Mormon", also wrote about the second anointing. It can be read at The Second Anointing. A personal experience. A look into the inside of one of the secrets of the Mormon Church.
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon508.htm
2nd May 2012 Thomas Phillips
Elder Jeffrey R. Holland
Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
50 East North Temple Street Salt Lake City, UT 84150 United States
Dear Elder Holland,
Truthfulness of The Book of Mormon
After you set me apart as stake president, you said “Tom, now we are sealed”. I know you did not mean that literally, but I took it as a compliment and great honour to have a close association with you. Throughout the years my family and I have held you in great esteem.
Two letters you wrote to me are kept in a special file and in my ‘heart’. One letter iterated your admiration and appreciation of my son, Alan, and his effect on your son, Duff. As a proud parent I have retained this letter. The other letter was complimenting me on the way in which, as stake president, I dealt with apostates within my stake.
I mention these 2 letters to remind you of our association and the mutual love and respect we have shared. I have been a defender of the faith and greatly inspired by you. In fact I have used your ‘sudden death’ argument regarding the Book of Mormon many times in the past. (See Note 1).
A few years ago I studied a certain aspect of science so that I could better explain to any investigator who was a scientist an important, true doctrine of the Book of Mormon that seemed to conflict with established science. At the time I had no doubt whatsoever of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon (and the Church) so my studies were to understand the flaws in the scientific methodology. Then, I would be in a position to help an investigator overcome this ‘scientific hurdle’ and know God’s truth. The results of studying, pondering, fasting and praying were that the scientific methodology was sound and the fault was in that taught in the Book of Mormon (no death before the fall of Adam approximately 6,000 years ago). That led me to a study of other issues with the Book of Mormon and Church history which clearly showed a number of falsities.
Applying your ‘sudden death’ challenge therefore could only lead to one conclusion, it was a fraud (your words – it is either true or a fraud). I had meetings with Elder Harold G. Hillam and later with Elder Gerald N. Lund. They both gave opposite and conflicting answers that confirmed to me the Church was not true.
The purpose of this letter is to seek your help, as we are ‘sealed’, in resolving a conflict of eternal consequence to my family who still believe the Church is true. You are possibly aware of Alan’s position as a stake president. I accept your ‘sudden death’ option in that the Book of Mormon is either true, as Joseph Smith declared it, or it is a fraud. You are on public record (‘Safety for the Soul’ talk at General Conference October 2009 and posted on ‘youtube’) vigorously defending the claim of its truthfulness and, in fact, deriding those who think otherwise (including me). We cannot both be right on this issue. Either you are right or I am, there appears to be no middle ground or ‘third way’. My family listen to you and others of the Brethren, holding you all in the highest of esteem. As taught and encouraged by the Church they refuse to discuss the issues with me but only wish to bear their testimony. They have not sought to correct any misunderstandings I may have, thereby reclaiming a ‘lost sheep’, but choose to ignore the ‘elephant in the room’. I always believed the Church could bear any scrutiny as it was the one and only true church on the face of the earth.
If I am wrong on the facts, or have drawn incorrect conclusions, then I earnestly implore you to put me right.
Just as you suggest a “sudden death” position regarding The Book of Mormon, I see a “sudden death” either/or question for my situation. Either I am wrong, in which case please address my issues and demonstrate where I am wrong. I would love to be shown that I am wrong, having invested so much of my life in The Church. Or, I am right, in which case please acknowledge that fact to my family.
So, my request to you Elder Holland is to either
1. Demonstrate to me that the Book of Mormon is true by answering and refuting the ‘evidences’ against its truthfulness mentioned later in this letter ( you claim in your talk it has not been proven false in over 179 years) or
2. Admit, for the benefit of my family and hosts of others, it is (in your words) a fraud or
3. At least admit there were errors in your talk (you specify which ones) and apologise to genuine truth seekers regarding the offensive comments you made that they would have to ‘crawl over...etc.’
"If anyone is foolish enough or misled enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text teeming with literary and Semitic complexity without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages—especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound spiritual impact that witness has had on what is now tens of millions of readers—if that is the case, then such a person, elect or otherwise, has been deceived; and if he or she leaves this Church, it must be done by crawling over or under or around the Book of Mormon to make that exit."
Whichever of these 3 you choose to do, will help not only myself but countless others by confirming the truth of the Book of Mormon or admitting it is a work of fiction (however and by whom written). Please do not ignore this request, as it goes to the very heart of the matter of the Church’s veracity. A matter I would assume someone of your moral and academic stature would deem of vital importance. Why would you say something that is not true? I am not an angry ‘anti-Mormon’, I am pro truth. I served diligently in the Church because I honestly believed (‘knew’) it to be true. Once I found out otherwise I could not, as encouraged by Church leaders, just continue in the faith so that I could keep my family. I could not live a lie.
This request is made to you because of our personal relationship and also because you have publically defended the Book of Mormon in General Conference which has been broadcast internationally by the Church and also been featured on ‘youtube’ and ‘The Ensign’.
First permit me to outline the evidences I have discovered that point to the Book of Mormon not being true, or the Word of God . As stated previously, I would appreciate your comments on/refutation of these items, not as an “apologist” but as a truth seeker (whichever way that falls). These are only outline points for the purpose of brevity in this letter. I do not include all that would be included in a paper on such a topic because I assume you are already very familiar with the issues and the answers given by apologists.
Secondly, I list certain quotes from your talk which appear to me to be incorrect. Again I seek your comments/refutation.
Evidences the Book of Mormon is not True
1. 2 Nephi 2:22 and Alma 12:23,24 state there was no death of any kind (humans, all animals, birds, fish etc.) on this earth until the ‘Fall of Adam’ which, according to Doctrine and Covenants section 77:6,7 occurred approximately 6,000 years ago. This is obviously false as it is scientifically established there has been life and death on this planet for billions of years. (See Note 2).
2. The Book of Mormon purports to tell the true origins of the American Indian, descendants of Lehi and his family who left Jerusalem in 600 B.C. Anthropologists have maintained for decades that the American Indians came to North America via the Bering Strait some 15,000 – 30, 000 years ago. Recent DNA studies have conclusively proven the American Indians are not descendents of Lehi and his family. Yes, I am aware of BYU professors who ‘play loose’ with DNA studies in order to defend the Book of Mormon. They also re-invent the Church’s teachings regarding the American Indian (flying in the face of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor through to at least Spencer W. Kimball and the Lord Himself in D&C section 54:8 and others) offering a limited geography theory etc.. I understand the title page to the Book of Mormon has even been amended in this regard in recent years. (See Note 4).
3. Archaeology – there is absolutely no evidence of the Nephites and Lamanites who numbered in the millions according to the Book of Mormon. Contrast this with the Roman occupation of Britain (and other countries). Having lived in England, as well as your frequent visits and reading, you will be aware of abundant evidence the Romans were there during the first 400 years A.D. e.g. villas, mosaic floors, public baths , coins, armour, weapons, writings, art, pottery etc. etc. Even the major road system used today was originally built by the Romans (A1, A2, A4 etc. now with motorways added). Why are there no Nephite buildings, roads, coins, armour, pottery, art etc. Again, the Book of Mormon teaches a period of peace and prosperity lasting about 200 years after Jesus Christ visited the American Continent. Where are the temples etc? Where is the evidence of the 2 million + who died in battles at Hill Cumorah? No bones, chariots, swords, coins, armour, hair? Surely, if it happened it would be easy for archaeologists to find evidence in Palmyra. But then apologists wish to say Cumorah was somewhere else, yet to be discovered. It seems Joseph Smith did not understand the 2 Cumorahs, neither has it been mentioned in decades of pageants put on by the Church at ‘Hill Cumorah’ in upstate New York. There is ample evidence of the Mayan and Aztec civilizations as well as a civilization in current day Texas that dates back 15,000 years. Why no Nephite or Lamanite evidence? Indeed, not only is there no positive evidence for them there is evidence to confirm that certain things, mentioned in the Book of Mormon pertaining to them, were not even on the American continent at the time (e.g. horses, chariots, steel etc.). (See Note 3).
4. Book of Abraham – I mention this as evidence against the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon as an example of the ‘modus operandi’ of Joseph Smith. The arguments of your apologists (e.g. Hugh Nibley and Michael D. Rhodes) to defend the Book of Abraham are an insult to intelligence and certainly would not stand up to peer review by recognised Egyptologists. The Church has had parts of the papyri since, I think, 1967 and they have been translated by Egyptologists. They are no more than magical funerary texts, often buried with the dead, and nothing to do with the purported translation by Joseph Smith. If he lied about the Book of Abraham is it not conceivable he lied about the Book of Mormon? Also, pertinent to this point, is the fact that Joseph lied about (denied) his plural wives and the allegations made by the ‘Nauvoo Expositor’ which turned out to be true. Other evidence of Joseph’s modus operandi re translation projects are the ‘Greek Psalter’ and ‘Kinderhook Plates’ incidents. (See Note 5).
5. Changing skin colour – the Lamanites were cursed by the Lord with a skin of darkness (blackness) because of their sins and so that they would not be attractive to the Nephites. On some occasions, when Lamanites converted and became righteous their skin became whiter. This doctrine was commented on in recent times by President Spencer W. Kimball who noted the lightening of the skins of ‘Lamanites’ (American Indians and Polynesians) in one of his talks. Now I ask you is this the ‘word of God’? Did God use skin colour as a differentiator? Of course he did you may say, he did it with Cain and his descendents. So the racist teachings of Brigham Young etc. have their foundation in the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham and Joseph Smith’s understanding of the book of Genesis. According to science, skin colour is a product of genetics and climate on pigmentation of the skin. Any white person can become dark by sunbathing but the colour change is not permanent. A black person does not become white by being righteous, how offensive, how insulting, how racist. If it is possible (and ethical) to change the colour of a person’s skin in an instant (and then change it back when they become righteous) then it would indicate the Book of Mormon is true in this regard. However, I am of the opinion that any educated, ethical person would consider this doctrine untrue/false. Please explain to me how this doctrine can be true rather than misinformed 19th century thinking. "And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them." (2 Nephi 5:21).
6. Other ‘true doctrines’ of the Church, taken from the Book of Mormon and/or the Doctrine and Covenants ,that are proven false by science include the following (a) all humans alive today are not the descendants of just 2 people (Adam and Eve) who lived (came from the Garden of Eden) approximately 6,000 years ago neither are they the descendants of just one man (Noah) about 4,500 years ago (b) there was no world-wide flood of the earth about 4,500 years ago (c) different languages did not arise in the manner described regarding the Tower of Babel (per Bible and Book of Mormon) (d) the human race did not start in what is now the state of Missouri (D&C 116:1) then migrate to the Middle East in consequence of a universal flooding of the earth. From the Encycloaedia of Mormonism “It wasn’t until May 1838 that revelation (D&C 116) identified Adam-ondi-Ahman, a site near the Garden of Eden, to be in Daviess County, Missouri, some seventy miles from present-day Kansas City. (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., New York City: Macmillan, 1992, 1:19–20.)”
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials'. December 1770
Quote
“The problem Mormonism encounters is that so many of its claims are well within the realm of scientific study, and as such, can be proven or disproven. To cling to faith in these areas, where the overwhelming evidence is against you, is wilful ignorance, not spiritual dedication.”
Evidence the Book of Mormon is True
Here are some specific quotes from your talk, which I take as your arguments for the Book of Mormon’s truthfulness, with my comments/questions added in italics :-
‘Safety for the Soul’ Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
I want it absolutely clear when I stand before the judgment bar of God that I declared to the world . . . that the Book of Mormon is true. In what respects is it true? It is not true according to scientific laws, anthropology, zoology, metallurgy, chemistry, physics, biology, linguistics, history, archaeology etc. Why would you say something that is not true?
The Savior warned that in the last days even those of the covenant, the very elect, could be deceived by the enemy of truth the Book of Mormon itself is an enemy of truth if it declares things as true which are, in fact, false e.g. no death of any kind prior to 6,000 years ago (Book of Mormon actually states “fall of Adam” but Doctrine and Covenants section 77 places this at approximately 6,000 years ago); horses, steel etc. on American continent at time they were absent; origin of the American Indians etc. Please explain how I have been deceived and by whom.
As one of a thousand elements of my own testimony of the divinity of the Book of Mormon, I submit this as yet one more evidence of its truthfulness - you do not mention the other 999 elements, only the following which appears to be untrue :-
They were willing to die rather than deny the divine origin and the eternal truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Untrue, they did not die for their faith. They were killed in a gun battle , Joseph shot at men and, according to President John Taylor, 2 of the men Joseph shot died. They were incarcerated because of Joseph’s reprehensible behaviour and alleged crimes such as having a printing press destroyed (treason? – free speech) which he claimed had published lies about him that were, in fact true; that he practised and taught polygamy including with 14 year old girls and women already married (polyandry); was setting up a theocratic government etc. Why do you not defend the likes of William Law who, having tried to change Joseph’s reprehensible behaviour, published the truth and was demonized by Joseph and the Church as a result. I believe the charges against Joseph were (1) inciting a riot and (2) treason against the State of Illinois At no time, am I aware, were Joseph and Hyrum offered the choice of saving their lives” if they deny the divine origin and the eternal truthfulness of the Book of Mormon”. What is your source for this idea? Please give evidence to support your statement or admit it is false.
Did the State of Illinois or the jailers give Joseph Smith the opportunity to denounce his religious claims and be freed? No. So he was not a martyr. He did not die for his religious beliefs.
Bear in mind the fallacy of your assertion - The claim that no fraud would walk to their death making a claim like Joseph Smith to the very end: this ignores the countless cult leaders like David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite, Jim Jones etc.
For 179 years this book has been examined and attacked, denied and deconstructed, targeted and torn apart like perhaps no other book in modern religious history—perhaps like no other book in any religious history. And still it stands Where does it stand? Is it used in American history classes or used by those studying American history? No, it has been extensively proven false by many. If it still stands it should be easy for you to satisfactorily explain the issues I raised above as evidences that it is not true.
None of these frankly pathetic answers for this book has ever withstood examination because there is no other answer than the one Joseph gave as its young unlearned translator Completely untrue, the one answer Joseph gave is the most absurd and the only one lacking in any real evidence except the “burning in the bosom” which is the same evidence for the truthfulness of the Quran, Hinduism, Scientology and thousands of other beliefs/traditions/fortune telling which totally oppose the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon has been shown to be a work of fiction by many credible authors and is viewed as such by the Smithsonian Institute. Otherwise scholars of American history would readily use the book for their work. Again, answer my issues if I am incorrect.
Your use of the word ‘pathetic’ is rather disturbing. In what way are other suggestions as to the origin of the Book of Mormon and, by inference, my questions, ‘pathetic? Ethan Smith’s “A View of the Hebrews” could be a source, as agreed by Elder B.H. Roberts. The King James translation of the Bible has certainly been used/copied verbatim (including errors in that translation) as well as common 19th century themes prevalent in upstate New York. Please explain why you used the derogatory word ‘pathetic’.
“No wicked man could write such a book as this; and no good man would write it, unless it were true and he were commanded of God to do so.” This argument could be used to prove The Quran true. Also Ethan Smith’s “A View of the Hebrews” Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings trilogy and Rowling’s Harry Potter books.
If anyone is foolish enough or misled enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text teeming with literary and Semitic complexity without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages—especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound spiritual impact that witness has had on what is now tens of millions of readers—if that is the case, then such a person, elect or otherwise, has been deceived; and if he or she leaves this Church, it must be done by crawling over or under or around the Book of Mormon to make that exit.
How offensive a statement! Without giving any evidence in your talk that the book is true, other than a misleading statement and innuendo that Joseph and Hyrum gave their lives for it, you say I (yes me, Thomas William Phillips) have been deceived and if I leave this Church i must do so by crawling over or under or around the Book of Mormon..If this is so, please answer my issues so that I may know in what facts I have been deceived and the identity of my deceiver(s).
After meeting with 2 General Authorities of the Church, who each gave me opposite answers, I have concluded that they and you are deceived and to believe in the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon you all have to crawl over or under or around the facts and evidences of physics, chemistry, biology, genetics, geology, anthropology, linguistics, zoology, palaeontology, archaeology, metallurgy, history etc. If my conclusion is wrong please correct me by explaining the fallacy of my logic and by whom I have, in your words, been deceived. Did Elder Hillam deceive me in stating “of course there has been death on this planet for billions of years” or Elder Lund by stating” the scientists are wrong, there has been no death prior to approximately 6,000 years ago. Carbon dating is incorrect.”? Which of these 2 General Authorities has tried to deceive me? Did the academics in the fields mentioned above deceive me? Have they been deceived by Satan into teaching that which is not true in spite of the fact they can demonstrate/prove the conclusions of their research?
You also state that the likes of me are “foolish” and “misled” – please explain in what way(s) I am foolish and misled. Why do you use such offensive and unsubstantiated language? If I am foolish and misled you should easily be able to demonstrate that in which I am foolish and misled and by whom I have been misled.
Elder Holland, I am writing to you in this way as a ‘sudden death’ (your words) type of plea. I have been through the appropriate Church channels to resolve my concerns but each of those Priesthood Leaders have merely confirmed to me that the Book of Mormon (and hence, following on from your specific challenge, the Church) is not true. My final plea is to you as an Apostle and public defender of the Book of Mormon. The apologists I have been referred to actually admit the truth of my concerns but try to re-define church doctrine and scripture, contrary to that clearly taught by the Brethren. An example of the answers I have been given by Priesthood Leaders are in Note 6.
As your declarations on the Book of Mormon and derision of those, such as myself, have been made so public (General Conference broadcast throughout the world, Ensign magazine and ‘youtube’) I will be publishing this letter on two or more bulletin boards. I will also publish your reply to this letter so that all sides of the issues may be fairly represented.
So, my request to you Elder Holland is to either
1. Demonstrate to me that the Book of Mormon is true by answering and refuting the ‘evidences’ against its truthfulness mentioned above ( you claim in your talk it has not been proven false in over 179 years) or
2. Admit, for the benefit of my family and hosts of others, it is (in your words) a fraud or
3. At least admit there were errors in your talk (you specify which ones) and apologise to genuine truth seekers regarding the offensive comments you made that they would have to ‘crawl over...etc.’
If you are able to do (1) please explain to me how and by whom I have been misled.
Thank you for reading this letter and taking the time to respond. As mentioned at the beginning, I and my family have long admired and respected you. Copies of this letter are being sent to my immediate family who are all currently active members of the Church.
Sincerely,
Tom Phillips |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 11:32 am
|
|
|
|
Shadows-shine This is why we need a prophet on earth today: A careful reading of Ephesians 4:11-14 indicates that prophets and apostles were meant to remain to maintain a "unity of the faith" and a "knowledge of the Son of God" but also that without them man would be "tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine" (vs. 14) This exactly the condition of "mainstream" Christianity. If prophets existed throughout the Bible, why do we need them today? Amos 3:7 reveals that God will do nothing, save He reveals them to His prophets. Also 1 Cor. 12:27-29; 14:29-33, 37-39 indicate the prophets and the gift of prophecy were part of the original Christian church. The prophets principal duty is to prevent error and confusion among the Saints. -From the book entitled "Answering Challenging Mormon Questions." By Micheal W. Hickenbotham- 22 apostles and 3 Prophets were mentioned in the New Testament during Christ's mortal ministry and following His death. -Apostles- *1-12- Original- Matthew 10:2-4; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-16 *13-Matthias-Acts 1:26 *14- Paul- Acts 13:2; 14:14; Romans 1:1 *15-Barnabus- Acts 13:2; 14:14 *16- Adronicus- Romans 16:7 *17-Junia- Romans 16:7 *18- Apollos- 1 Corinthians 4:6-9 *19- James (the brother of Jesus)- Galatians 1:19 *20- Silvanus- 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2:4-6 *21- Timotheus- 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2:4-6 *22- Jesus- Hebrews 3:1 -Prophets- *1 Agabus- Acts 11:27-28; 21:10 *2 Judas- Acts 15:22, 32 *3 Silas- Acts 15:22, 32 *Others- Acts 11:27; 13:1; 21:9; Revelation 11:3-10 Read also Acts 1:6-7; 3:19-21 If there was to be no revelation after the Book of Revelation was written, which was written in about 95AD or 96AD, then John broke his own rule and so did several other biblical prophets. The Gospel of John was dated 96 to 104AD and was thought to have been written by Ephesus. All three of John's epistles were believed to have been written about the same time that the Gospel of John (96 to 104AD). Also if stopping future revelation was the purpose of these scriptures that you cited, then the saints of John's day and for thousands of years afterwards greatly misunderstood this scripture. The Book of Revelation was a separate document for hundreds of years before it was assembled with the other writings of the scriptural library that we call the Bible. Bible comes from the Greek word "ta biblia" meaning "the books". So John was only referring to the words that were written specifically in the book of Revelation. Hence his wording "the words of the prophecy of this book". You know what else? This same prohibition that you cited is also found in Deuteronomy 4:2; 13:32. Does that mean that all scripture revealed after the Pentateuch (the first five books of the OT) are invalid? You agree with me that it does not, right? So why would the similar statement found in the NT invalidate all modern revelation? The Book of Revelation was not meant to be the end of revealed scripture, it was just a recording of all the warnings of future events to come. Plus the Bible itself talks about additional scripture that is to come forth (Isaiah 29; Ezekiel 37) and future revelations (Matthew 17:11; Luke 10:22; John 16:12-15; Acts 2:17-18; James 1:5). The Book of Revelation itself even talks about future prophets and revelations from Heaven above (Revelation 11:3; 14:6). Also, let me add that the Bible says that revelation is part of the true Church iteslf. (See Amos 3:7; 1 Corinthians 14:29-33, 37-39).
This article discusses the fact that Joseph Smith fills all the criteria of a false prophet. Most of his prophecies proved to be wrong. The few that were fulfilled were so obvious that they were even predicted by the local press. And his revelations (which he maintained God had given him through an occultic seer stone), contradicted what God had already revealed to us in the Bible. If they had truly come from God they would have agreed with, built upon or amplified His already existing revelations to us.
SOME EXAMPLES OF SMITH'S FALSE PROPHECIES
Here are just a few of Joseph Smith's false prophecies. Because the full list is an extremely long one, for convenience sake and for easier reading it has been reduced here to just a few. But there are enough for you to get the point.
1. 'I prophesy by virtue of the holy priesthood vested in me, and in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that, if Congress will not hear our petition and grant us protection, they shall be broken up as a government, and God shall damn them, and there shall be nothing left of them, not even a grease spot' (Joseph Smith, Millennial Star, Volume 22, page 455.)
When this prediction was recorded in their official history, the LDS omitted the words 'not even a grease spot' (see History of the Church, Volume 6, page 116). The government never granted the Mormons their petition, and yet the Congress remained in power (Deseret News, Volume 1, page 59).
2. Doctrine and Covenants 114:1: 'thus saith the Lord: It is wisdom in my servant, David W. Patten, that he settle up all his business as soon as he possibly can, and make a disposition [sic] of his merchandise, that he may perform a mission unto me next spring, in company with others, even twelve including himself, to testify of my name and bear glad tidings unto all the world'.
David Patten was killed before he could serve this mission. The biblical God knows the end from the beginning, and we can rest assured that He never gave this false prophecy to Joseph Smith.
As usual the LDS offers a selection of excuses (so that we can take our pick), ignoring the fact that the Bible teaches that no amount of excuses can justify a false prophecy. One of their excuses is that the Lord actually called David on mission to the Spirit World. Another excuse is that he wasn't worthy of a mission, so the Lord killed him.
But the revelation was that his mission was to the whole world, not just to the spirit world. And the second excuse it makes it seem as though the LDS God is not properly equipped for his task of being a God. It insinuates that he has such a lack of foresight that it would have been a miracle in itself if any of Smith's prophecies had ever come true. How is it that the biblical God had no such problems?
3. Doctrine and Covenants 137: Entire paragraphs, comprising 216 words, were removed by the LDS authorities solely because they contained failed prophecies. However, the original records should be in the LDS archives. If you can get hold of a copy of the original Book of Commandments you will see these false prophecies for yourself, right there in print. Photocopies of some of the changes are in a book in my possession entitled "The Changing World of Mormonism" 1981 printing, by Jerald and Sandra Tanner, c/f pages 38 to 66. (You can read their book online by clicking on the link provided at the end of this article.)
Besides the alterations to their prophet's failed prophecies mentioned in item 3 above, there are many other chapters of prophecies and revelation that have silently disappeared from Doctrine and Covenants. It is the practice of the LDS church to sanitize both their history and their scriptures whenever they show the church up in a bad light, and if necessary to lie "for the sake of the church." They even have a name for this. They call it "lying for the Lord." But what Lord are they lying for? The God of the Bible is a God of truth.
The fact that the LDS leadership regularly sanitizes their history tells us not only that they have done their utmost to conceal all the evidence that reveals that Joseph Smith was a false prophet, but that in so doing they have perpetuated his deceptions. The truth of the matter is that if they admitted that Joseph Smith was a false prophet all their doctrines would be suspect, because they all had their origins in his supposed revelations.
4. Doctrine and Covenants 124:20-21: And again, verily, I say unto you, my servant George Miller is without guile; he may be trusted because of the integrity of his heart; and for the love which he has to my testimony. I, the Lord, love him. I therefore say unto you, I seal upon his head the office of a bishopric, like unto my servant Edward Partridge, that he may receive the consecrations of mine house, that he may administer blessings upon the heads of the poor of my people, saith the Lord. Let no man despise my servant George, for he shall honor me.
George Miller was excommunicated seven years later.
The biblical record reveals that God's true prophets never ever slipped up. Every single one of their prophecies, without any exceptions, including those concerning Christ's incarnation, his life and his death on the cross, was fulfilled, exactly as prophesied. Yet Joseph Smith, the "true" latter-day prophet who was supposedly given the responsibility of restoring God's "true" church could not get his act together concerning either God's prophecies or His revelations.
Why is it that it was both unknown and inexcusable for a prophet of God to give a false prophecy in the Bible (see Deuteronomy 18:21,22), and yet Mormons seemingly swallow any feeble excuse the LDS hierarchy gives them for Joseph Smith having slipped up consistently?
One of the excuses the LDS uses is that not every word that Smith uttered was prophecy, as on some occasions their leaders were just being ordinary men who made things up. But what sort of spiritual leadership would make things up? They should have more integrity than that. Anyway, Doctrine and Covenants refutes this excuse, as does other Mormon literature:
For his word ye shall receive, as if from my own mouth, in all patience and faith (Doctrine and Covenants 21:5).
Another LDS excuse is that unforeseen circumstances had prevented some of Joseph Smith's prophecies from coming to pass. This is both ridiculous and unacceptable. The true, biblical God doesn't guess the future when He passes His word on to His prophets. He knows the future. Nothing is ever unforeseen by Him. He is not bound by the dimensions of time and space as we are here on earth. He created time, but exists in eternity. So to Him, the past, present and the future are all equally clear. He could never be taken by surprise when things go wrong or if circumstances change, because he knows and always has known the end from the beginning. That's why His biblical prophets never ever gave a false prophecy.
The above excuse leads us to believe that these so-called "prophecies" were nothing more than educated guesses on Smith's part. Otherwise how could unforeseen circumstances have prevented them from coming to pass?
Mormonism maintains that God was once a mortal man who'd earned the right to Godhood, and that he now has a body of flesh and bone. One of the problems that arise when we create a God in our own image is that He loses His eternal, infinite qualities and omnipotence. Joseph Smith's Mormon God only became a deity after the universe had already been created. So he is not even remotely necessary to the universe, and instead is merely a product of it. And unlike the biblical God, he is bound and limited by the dimensions of time and space.
The reason they persists in excusing Joseph Smith's failed prophecies, is because the LDS has a lower concept of God than they should have. Consequently they have lowered their standards regarding their ideas of what He requires of His servants. (See the article on The Case Against the God of Mormonism, a link for which is provided at the end of this page.)
At this stage we need to clear up something. The LDS shouldn't need to come up with any excuses at all, because if Joseph Smith's prophecies had truly come from God, every single one of them would have been accurately fulfilled. And the fact that they were not, proves that he is a false prophet. It's as simple as that.
THE AIM OF FALSE PROPHETS IS TO LEAD OTHERS ASTRAY
At the start of the LDS's existence Joseph Smith maintained that God was a spirit being:
".....We shall, in this lecture speak of the Godhead: we mean the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. There are two personages ..... they are the Father and the Son: the Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fullness: the Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle [body].... And he being the only begotten of The Father ..... possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the holy spirit ....." (1835 Doctrine and Covenants, Lecture Fifth of Faith, 5:1-2, pages 52, 53, 55, First Edition) (Italics inserted by author.)
(Note: The original Doctrine and Covenants was split into two sections. The first section comprised their canon of LDS Doctrines and the second section contained the LDS Covenants (Revelations). The above quote from the fifth lecture of faith was recorded in the first section, and included in their canon of scripture, indicating that it was their official doctrine. However, as mentioned earlier on, it is the habit of the LDS church to sanitize or to deny any aspects of their history, including any past doctrines that may reflect negatively on them, to the extent of even lying, if necessary. And so they vehemently deny having worshipped different deities at different times in the past. In line with that, they maintain that the above quote was only the personal opinion of one of their members. But this excuse is invalidated by the fact that it was included in their canon of official doctrine in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants.)
The following is an extract from an article on Wikipedia, that confirms, without a shadow of a doubt, that the Lectures of Faith represented the beliefs of the LDS church in its early days:
The Lectures were selected for that volume by a committee appointed on September 24, 1834 by a general assembly of the church to arrange the doctrines and revelations of the church into a single volume. That committee of Presiding Elders, consisting of Joseph Smith, Jr., Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams, stated that the Lectures were included "in consequence of their embracing the important doctrine of salvation," and that the Lectures, together with the church-regulatory sections that followed, represent "our belief, and when we say this, humbly trust, the faith and principles of this society as a body." (See 1835 D&C, Preface.) Accordingly, the church body accepted the committee's compilation on August 17, 1835 as "the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote." (History of the Church 2: 243-6).
The Book of Mormon, which Joseph published round about the time he'd started the LDS church, also defined deity in trinitarian terms, describing God the Father as a spirit being as well as the one and only God:
"..... Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God" ..... (Alma 11:44)
"..... the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one ....." (3 Nephi 11:27)
"And then Ammon said: Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit? And he said, Yes. And Ammon said: This is God. And Ammon said unto him again: Believest thou that this Great Spirit, who is God, created all things which are in heaven and on the earth? And he said Yes ........" (Alma 18:26-29)
And the king said: Is God that Great Spirit that brought our fathers out of the land of Jerusalem? And Aaron said unto him: Yea, he is that Great Spirit, and he created all things both in heaven and in earth ..... (BOM Alma 22:9-11)
"..... to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God....." (Mormon 7:7)
"Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And he answered, No." (Alma 11:28-29)
"..... there is but one God" (Alma 11:35)
The LDS "Articles and Covenants" (the original Doctrine and Covenants) also taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are "one God." And Section 20:17-28 on the nature of God was similar to the creeds of protestant churches. (You can view this in the LDS archives.)
In the early 1840's, Joseph Smith persuaded the LDS membership to follow his new God, who had a body of flesh and bone. And the wording he used showed very clearly that they had previously worshipped a deity who had always been God, eternally:
"We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see ..... God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 345, compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith). (Italics inserted by editor.)
Enticing others to turn from the worship of the true God to another deity qualified Joseph Smith on a second count as a false prophet, according to the book of Deuteronomy.
If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. (Deuteronomy 13:1-3, KJV)
Mormons need to ask themselves how it could be possible for a true prophet of God to start up the so-called "true" restored church of Jesus Christ under God's inspiration and guidance, and then later on maintain that they had originally been worshipping the wrong God.
Remember, Joseph's words were:
"We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil that you may see. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God ..… that he was once a man like us ..... Here, then, is eternal life — to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, namely by going from one small degree to another" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, 1976, pages 345-346 c/f "Times and Seasons," Volume 5, pages 613-614). (Italics inserted by editor)
Don't forget that during those early years Joseph Smith had claimed that he was receiving ongoing revelations and prophecies from God. He was even supposed to have retranslated the Bible under God's divine guidance during this period. Yet we are expected to believe that God never bothered to tell him that he and the LDS church were worshipping, following and praying to the "wrong" deity, a deity they now ridicule.
A false prophet is a spiritual danger to everyone around him. The New Testament calls false prophets "deceivers" and "servants of Satan".
THE REASON BEHIND JOSEPH'S FALSE PROPHECIES
In the winter of 1829/1830 Joseph Smith claimed that God had revealed to him that he should send Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery to Toronto, Canada, where they would sell the copyright to the Book of Mormon (c/f "An Address to All Believers in Christ" by David Whitmer). But their mission didn't turn out the way the revelation had said it would. Smith said that God then explained to him why this was the case:
"(I Joseph) enquired of the Lord about it, and behold, the following revelation came through the stone: Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of man: and some revelations are of the devil."
If Joseph was unable to discern whether his so-called revelations had come from God, his own imagination or the devil, surely one should be extremely cautious about listening to any of his claims, let alone accepting them as being truth. Bear in mind that none of Smith's teachings were in line with God's revelations in the Bible. To put it bluntly, to gamble one's eternal existence on the claims of a self-proclaimed prophet who admitted that he couldn't tell whether his prophecies and revelations had come from God, the devil, or his own imagination, would be most unwise.
Mormons should never gloss over the fact that Joseph Smith had been deeply involved in both the occult and spiritism since his early youth (c/f An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, by LDS seminary teacher Grant Palmer; Joseph Smith and Kabbalah: The Occult Connection by Lance S. Owens; Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, by D. Michael Quinn; No Man Knows My History by Fawn M. Brodie; Mormonism Unvailed, by Ed Howe, etc.)
In pre-LDS days he had earned his living by convincing his victims that he could divine the whereabouts of hidden treasure through the same occultic seer stone that he had later used to "translate" the Book of Mormon. And he openly admitted that his revelations from God had come to him through the stone. It's hardly likely that a God of holiness and purity would speak to his prophet through an occultic stone, bearing in mind that in the Bible the occult is placed in the same category as witchcraft, spiritism and idolatry, as they all have spiritual powers behind them that oppose the purposes of God.
SPIRITUAL DECEPTION
False prophets are servants of Satan. And Satan's favourite tool is spiritual deception. His primary aim is to draw folk away from the truth. His ultimate goal is to foster a mind set that will alienate his victims from the true gospel of Jesus Christ, thereby ensuring their eternal ruination.
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. (Ephesians 6:12, KJV)
Joseph Smith's followers have been led to believe that God allowed the early church of Jesus Christ, for which He gave His life, to become totally apostate, and that He also allowed the Bible (the standard of truth He had given us to protect ourselves from spiritual deception) to become corrupted and unreliable. Furthermore, they have been persuaded to worship a different, previously unknown God who was once an ordinary mortal man who had to earn his way to godhood; to follow a different Jesus to the Christ of the Bible (see the link to the relevant article); and to believe in a different gospel, despite the warnings in the Bible about the deceptiveness of false prophets who teach about a different Jesus and a different gospel. (c/f 2 Corinthians 11:3-4, Galations 1:8, 2 Corinthians 11:13-15, etc.)
As a false prophet, Joseph Smith did his job well. And the LDS church, filled with sincere, but misguided people, is one of the biggest success stories in the arena of spiritual deception.
Should you have any queries you are welcome to use the email facility provided at the bottom of the home page.
The following link leads to a web site where you can read online "The Changing World of Mormonism," containing microfilmed copies of original LDS revelations that have been changed by the LDS; and also links to other relevant articles from this website:
http://utlm.org/onlinebooks/changecontents.htm
http://bibtruth.com/case.html
http://bibtruth.com/ldsjc.html
http://bibtruth.com/abrah.html
http://bibtruth.com/bomex.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 11:48 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 12:34 pm
|
|
|
|
Garland-Green Shadows-shine Garland-Green Shadows-shine Those men were martyred because they refused to deny their belief in the truth that God revealed to them. Just like Paul, Peter, and all the other apostles and believers in God who were martyred because they refused to deny their testimonies. Why mock Joseph's and Hyrum's death? How disrespectful. For them to have been martyrs, they would have had to die for the testimony of Jesus Christ. If they died for selfish reason (a lie) they were not martyrs. Just someone who were murdered. To compare Smith to Paul, Peter and the other apostles you would have to compare what they teach to see if he is a martyr for the testimony of Jesus or not. It seem to me, going through all this material that his reasons was not to uphold the tradition that had been lost, but a more selfish reason. Quoted from Jeffrey R. Holland, an Apostle of the Lord. Quote: May I refer to a modern last days testimony. When Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum started for Carthage, to face what they knew to be an immenent martyrdom Hyrum read these words of comfort to the heart of his brother. "Thou hast been faithful, wherefore, thou shalt be made strong, even unto the sitting down of the place which I have prepared in the mansions of my Father. And now I Moroni, bid farewell until we shall meet, before the judgment seat of Christ." A few, short verses, from the 12 chapter of Ether in the Book of Mormon...... ......Later, when actually incarcerated in the jail, Joseph the Prophet, turned to the guards who held him captive and bore a powerful testimony to the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Shortly thereafter, pistol and ball would take the lives of these two testators. As one of a thousand elements of my own testimony of the divinity of the Book of Mormon, I submit this as one more evidence of it's truthfulness. In this their greatest and last hour of need, I ask you, would these men blaspheme before God by continuing to fix their lives, their honor, and their own search for eternal salvation on a book? And by implication a church and ministry they had fictiously created out of whole cloth? Never mind their wives are about to be widows and their children fatherless, nevermind that their little band of followers are about to be homeless, houseless, and friendless and that their little children will leave footprints of blood across frozen rivers and an untamed prairie floor, nevermind that legions will die and other legions live declaring that they know that the Book of Mormon and the church that it espouses to be true. Disregard all of that and tell me, whether in this hour of death that these two men would enter the presence of their eternal judge quoting from, and finding solace in a book which if not the very Word of God, would brand them as imposters and charlatains until the end of time. THEY WOULD NOT DO THAT.They were willing to die, rather than deny the divine origin and the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. For 179 years this book has been examined and attacked, denied and deconstructed, targeted and torn apart, like perhaps no other book in modern religious history, perhaps like no other book in any religious history and still it stands. Failed theories about it origins have been borne, parroted, and died. From Ethan Smith to Solomon Spaulding, to deranged paranoid to cunning geneous. None of these frankly pathetic answers has ever withstood examination because there is no other answer than the one Joseph gave as it's young, unlearned translator. In this I stand with my own great-grandfather who said simply enough "no wicked man could write such a book as this, and no good man would write it, unless it were true, and he were commanded of God to do so."...... .....If anyone is foolish enough, or mislead enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text teeming with literary and semetic complexity without honestly attempting to account for the origins of those pages somehow especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound spiritual impact that whitness has had on what is now 10s of millions of readers; if that's the case than such persons elect or otherwise have been deceived...... .....But my testimony of this record and the peace it brings to the human heart is as binding and unequivocal as was theirs. Like them I give my name to the world to witness unto the world that that which I have seen and like them, I lie not, God bearing witness of it. I ask that my testimony of the Book of Mormon and all that it implies, given today under my oath and my office, be recorded by men on earth and angels in heaven. I hope I have a few years left in my last days but whether I do or do not, I want it absolutely clear when I stand before the judgment bar of God that I declared to the world in the most straightforward language I could summon that the Book of Mormon is true. That it came forth the way Joseph said it came forth and was given to bring happiness and hope to the faithful in the travail of the last days...... My letter to Elder Holland re Book of Mormon (very long) By Tom Phillips Book of Mormon by anointed one May 2012 Here is a copy of letter I sent with specific questions regarding his proclamation of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon I will also post his response. This is also being posted on the Biography Board as suggested by Susan I/S. [Admin Note] The author of this article, "The Truthfulness of the Book of Mormon", also wrote about the second anointing. It can be read at The Second Anointing. A personal experience. A look into the inside of one of the secrets of the Mormon Church. http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon508.htm2nd May 2012 Thomas Phillips Elder Jeffrey R. Holland Quorum of the Twelve Apostles The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 50 East North Temple Street Salt Lake City, UT 84150 United States Dear Elder Holland, Truthfulness of The Book of Mormon After you set me apart as stake president, you said “Tom, now we are sealed”. I know you did not mean that literally, but I took it as a compliment and great honour to have a close association with you. Throughout the years my family and I have held you in great esteem. Two letters you wrote to me are kept in a special file and in my ‘heart’. One letter iterated your admiration and appreciation of my son, Alan, and his effect on your son, Duff. As a proud parent I have retained this letter. The other letter was complimenting me on the way in which, as stake president, I dealt with apostates within my stake. I mention these 2 letters to remind you of our association and the mutual love and respect we have shared. I have been a defender of the faith and greatly inspired by you. In fact I have used your ‘sudden death’ argument regarding the Book of Mormon many times in the past. (See Note 1). A few years ago I studied a certain aspect of science so that I could better explain to any investigator who was a scientist an important, true doctrine of the Book of Mormon that seemed to conflict with established science. At the time I had no doubt whatsoever of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon (and the Church) so my studies were to understand the flaws in the scientific methodology. Then, I would be in a position to help an investigator overcome this ‘scientific hurdle’ and know God’s truth. The results of studying, pondering, fasting and praying were that the scientific methodology was sound and the fault was in that taught in the Book of Mormon (no death before the fall of Adam approximately 6,000 years ago). That led me to a study of other issues with the Book of Mormon and Church history which clearly showed a number of falsities. Applying your ‘sudden death’ challenge therefore could only lead to one conclusion, it was a fraud (your words – it is either true or a fraud). I had meetings with Elder Harold G. Hillam and later with Elder Gerald N. Lund. They both gave opposite and conflicting answers that confirmed to me the Church was not true. The purpose of this letter is to seek your help, as we are ‘sealed’, in resolving a conflict of eternal consequence to my family who still believe the Church is true. You are possibly aware of Alan’s position as a stake president. I accept your ‘sudden death’ option in that the Book of Mormon is either true, as Joseph Smith declared it, or it is a fraud. You are on public record (‘Safety for the Soul’ talk at General Conference October 2009 and posted on ‘youtube’) vigorously defending the claim of its truthfulness and, in fact, deriding those who think otherwise (including me). We cannot both be right on this issue. Either you are right or I am, there appears to be no middle ground or ‘third way’. My family listen to you and others of the Brethren, holding you all in the highest of esteem. As taught and encouraged by the Church they refuse to discuss the issues with me but only wish to bear their testimony. They have not sought to correct any misunderstandings I may have, thereby reclaiming a ‘lost sheep’, but choose to ignore the ‘elephant in the room’. I always believed the Church could bear any scrutiny as it was the one and only true church on the face of the earth. If I am wrong on the facts, or have drawn incorrect conclusions, then I earnestly implore you to put me right. Just as you suggest a “sudden death” position regarding The Book of Mormon, I see a “sudden death” either/or question for my situation. Either I am wrong, in which case please address my issues and demonstrate where I am wrong. I would love to be shown that I am wrong, having invested so much of my life in The Church. Or, I am right, in which case please acknowledge that fact to my family. So, my request to you Elder Holland is to either 1. Demonstrate to me that the Book of Mormon is true by answering and refuting the ‘evidences’ against its truthfulness mentioned later in this letter ( you claim in your talk it has not been proven false in over 179 years) or 2. Admit, for the benefit of my family and hosts of others, it is (in your words) a fraud or 3. At least admit there were errors in your talk (you specify which ones) and apologise to genuine truth seekers regarding the offensive comments you made that they would have to ‘crawl over...etc.’ "If anyone is foolish enough or misled enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text teeming with literary and Semitic complexity without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages—especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound spiritual impact that witness has had on what is now tens of millions of readers—if that is the case, then such a person, elect or otherwise, has been deceived; and if he or she leaves this Church, it must be done by crawling over or under or around the Book of Mormon to make that exit." Whichever of these 3 you choose to do, will help not only myself but countless others by confirming the truth of the Book of Mormon or admitting it is a work of fiction (however and by whom written). Please do not ignore this request, as it goes to the very heart of the matter of the Church’s veracity. A matter I would assume someone of your moral and academic stature would deem of vital importance. Why would you say something that is not true? I am not an angry ‘anti-Mormon’, I am pro truth. I served diligently in the Church because I honestly believed (‘knew’) it to be true. Once I found out otherwise I could not, as encouraged by Church leaders, just continue in the faith so that I could keep my family. I could not live a lie. This request is made to you because of our personal relationship and also because you have publically defended the Book of Mormon in General Conference which has been broadcast internationally by the Church and also been featured on ‘youtube’ and ‘The Ensign’. First permit me to outline the evidences I have discovered that point to the Book of Mormon not being true, or the Word of God . As stated previously, I would appreciate your comments on/refutation of these items, not as an “apologist” but as a truth seeker (whichever way that falls). These are only outline points for the purpose of brevity in this letter. I do not include all that would be included in a paper on such a topic because I assume you are already very familiar with the issues and the answers given by apologists. Secondly, I list certain quotes from your talk which appear to me to be incorrect. Again I seek your comments/refutation. Evidences the Book of Mormon is not True 1. 2 Nephi 2:22 and Alma 12:23,24 state there was no death of any kind (humans, all animals, birds, fish etc.) on this earth until the ‘Fall of Adam’ which, according to Doctrine and Covenants section 77:6,7 occurred approximately 6,000 years ago. This is obviously false as it is scientifically established there has been life and death on this planet for billions of years. (See Note 2). 2. The Book of Mormon purports to tell the true origins of the American Indian, descendants of Lehi and his family who left Jerusalem in 600 B.C. Anthropologists have maintained for decades that the American Indians came to North America via the Bering Strait some 15,000 – 30, 000 years ago. Recent DNA studies have conclusively proven the American Indians are not descendents of Lehi and his family. Yes, I am aware of BYU professors who ‘play loose’ with DNA studies in order to defend the Book of Mormon. They also re-invent the Church’s teachings regarding the American Indian (flying in the face of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor through to at least Spencer W. Kimball and the Lord Himself in D&C section 54:8 and others) offering a limited geography theory etc.. I understand the title page to the Book of Mormon has even been amended in this regard in recent years. (See Note 4). 3. Archaeology – there is absolutely no evidence of the Nephites and Lamanites who numbered in the millions according to the Book of Mormon. Contrast this with the Roman occupation of Britain (and other countries). Having lived in England, as well as your frequent visits and reading, you will be aware of abundant evidence the Romans were there during the first 400 years A.D. e.g. villas, mosaic floors, public baths , coins, armour, weapons, writings, art, pottery etc. etc. Even the major road system used today was originally built by the Romans (A1, A2, A4 etc. now with motorways added). Why are there no Nephite buildings, roads, coins, armour, pottery, art etc. Again, the Book of Mormon teaches a period of peace and prosperity lasting about 200 years after Jesus Christ visited the American Continent. Where are the temples etc? Where is the evidence of the 2 million + who died in battles at Hill Cumorah? No bones, chariots, swords, coins, armour, hair? Surely, if it happened it would be easy for archaeologists to find evidence in Palmyra. But then apologists wish to say Cumorah was somewhere else, yet to be discovered. It seems Joseph Smith did not understand the 2 Cumorahs, neither has it been mentioned in decades of pageants put on by the Church at ‘Hill Cumorah’ in upstate New York. There is ample evidence of the Mayan and Aztec civilizations as well as a civilization in current day Texas that dates back 15,000 years. Why no Nephite or Lamanite evidence? Indeed, not only is there no positive evidence for them there is evidence to confirm that certain things, mentioned in the Book of Mormon pertaining to them, were not even on the American continent at the time (e.g. horses, chariots, steel etc.). (See Note 3). 4. Book of Abraham – I mention this as evidence against the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon as an example of the ‘modus operandi’ of Joseph Smith. The arguments of your apologists (e.g. Hugh Nibley and Michael D. Rhodes) to defend the Book of Abraham are an insult to intelligence and certainly would not stand up to peer review by recognised Egyptologists. The Church has had parts of the papyri since, I think, 1967 and they have been translated by Egyptologists. They are no more than magical funerary texts, often buried with the dead, and nothing to do with the purported translation by Joseph Smith. If he lied about the Book of Abraham is it not conceivable he lied about the Book of Mormon? Also, pertinent to this point, is the fact that Joseph lied about (denied) his plural wives and the allegations made by the ‘Nauvoo Expositor’ which turned out to be true. Other evidence of Joseph’s modus operandi re translation projects are the ‘Greek Psalter’ and ‘Kinderhook Plates’ incidents. (See Note 5). 5. Changing skin colour – the Lamanites were cursed by the Lord with a skin of darkness (blackness) because of their sins and so that they would not be attractive to the Nephites. On some occasions, when Lamanites converted and became righteous their skin became whiter. This doctrine was commented on in recent times by President Spencer W. Kimball who noted the lightening of the skins of ‘Lamanites’ (American Indians and Polynesians) in one of his talks. Now I ask you is this the ‘word of God’? Did God use skin colour as a differentiator? Of course he did you may say, he did it with Cain and his descendents. So the racist teachings of Brigham Young etc. have their foundation in the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham and Joseph Smith’s understanding of the book of Genesis. According to science, skin colour is a product of genetics and climate on pigmentation of the skin. Any white person can become dark by sunbathing but the colour change is not permanent. A black person does not become white by being righteous, how offensive, how insulting, how racist. If it is possible (and ethical) to change the colour of a person’s skin in an instant (and then change it back when they become righteous) then it would indicate the Book of Mormon is true in this regard. However, I am of the opinion that any educated, ethical person would consider this doctrine untrue/false. Please explain to me how this doctrine can be true rather than misinformed 19th century thinking. "And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them." (2 Nephi 5:21). 6. Other ‘true doctrines’ of the Church, taken from the Book of Mormon and/or the Doctrine and Covenants ,that are proven false by science include the following (a) all humans alive today are not the descendants of just 2 people (Adam and Eve) who lived (came from the Garden of Eden) approximately 6,000 years ago neither are they the descendants of just one man (Noah) about 4,500 years ago (b) there was no world-wide flood of the earth about 4,500 years ago (c) different languages did not arise in the manner described regarding the Tower of Babel (per Bible and Book of Mormon) (d) the human race did not start in what is now the state of Missouri (D&C 116:1) then migrate to the Middle East in consequence of a universal flooding of the earth. From the Encycloaedia of Mormonism “It wasn’t until May 1838 that revelation (D&C 116) identified Adam-ondi-Ahman, a site near the Garden of Eden, to be in Daviess County, Missouri, some seventy miles from present-day Kansas City. (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., New York City: Macmillan, 1992, 1:19–20.)” "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials'. December 1770 Quote “The problem Mormonism encounters is that so many of its claims are well within the realm of scientific study, and as such, can be proven or disproven. To cling to faith in these areas, where the overwhelming evidence is against you, is wilful ignorance, not spiritual dedication.” Evidence the Book of Mormon is True Here are some specific quotes from your talk, which I take as your arguments for the Book of Mormon’s truthfulness, with my comments/questions added in italics :- ‘Safety for the Soul’ Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles I want it absolutely clear when I stand before the judgment bar of God that I declared to the world . . . that the Book of Mormon is true. In what respects is it true? It is not true according to scientific laws, anthropology, zoology, metallurgy, chemistry, physics, biology, linguistics, history, archaeology etc. Why would you say something that is not true? The Savior warned that in the last days even those of the covenant, the very elect, could be deceived by the enemy of truth the Book of Mormon itself is an enemy of truth if it declares things as true which are, in fact, false e.g. no death of any kind prior to 6,000 years ago (Book of Mormon actually states “fall of Adam” but Doctrine and Covenants section 77 places this at approximately 6,000 years ago); horses, steel etc. on American continent at time they were absent; origin of the American Indians etc. Please explain how I have been deceived and by whom. As one of a thousand elements of my own testimony of the divinity of the Book of Mormon, I submit this as yet one more evidence of its truthfulness - you do not mention the other 999 elements, only the following which appears to be untrue :- They were willing to die rather than deny the divine origin and the eternal truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Untrue, they did not die for their faith. They were killed in a gun battle , Joseph shot at men and, according to President John Taylor, 2 of the men Joseph shot died. They were incarcerated because of Joseph’s reprehensible behaviour and alleged crimes such as having a printing press destroyed (treason? – free speech) which he claimed had published lies about him that were, in fact true; that he practised and taught polygamy including with 14 year old girls and women already married (polyandry); was setting up a theocratic government etc. Why do you not defend the likes of William Law who, having tried to change Joseph’s reprehensible behaviour, published the truth and was demonized by Joseph and the Church as a result. I believe the charges against Joseph were (1) inciting a riot and (2) treason against the State of Illinois At no time, am I aware, were Joseph and Hyrum offered the choice of saving their lives” if they deny the divine origin and the eternal truthfulness of the Book of Mormon”. What is your source for this idea? Please give evidence to support your statement or admit it is false. Did the State of Illinois or the jailers give Joseph Smith the opportunity to denounce his religious claims and be freed? No. So he was not a martyr. He did not die for his religious beliefs. Bear in mind the fallacy of your assertion - The claim that no fraud would walk to their death making a claim like Joseph Smith to the very end: this ignores the countless cult leaders like David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite, Jim Jones etc. For 179 years this book has been examined and attacked, denied and deconstructed, targeted and torn apart like perhaps no other book in modern religious history—perhaps like no other book in any religious history. And still it stands Where does it stand? Is it used in American history classes or used by those studying American history? No, it has been extensively proven false by many. If it still stands it should be easy for you to satisfactorily explain the issues I raised above as evidences that it is not true. None of these frankly pathetic answers for this book has ever withstood examination because there is no other answer than the one Joseph gave as its young unlearned translator Completely untrue, the one answer Joseph gave is the most absurd and the only one lacking in any real evidence except the “burning in the bosom” which is the same evidence for the truthfulness of the Quran, Hinduism, Scientology and thousands of other beliefs/traditions/fortune telling which totally oppose the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon has been shown to be a work of fiction by many credible authors and is viewed as such by the Smithsonian Institute. Otherwise scholars of American history would readily use the book for their work. Again, answer my issues if I am incorrect. Your use of the word ‘pathetic’ is rather disturbing. In what way are other suggestions as to the origin of the Book of Mormon and, by inference, my questions, ‘pathetic? Ethan Smith’s “A View of the Hebrews” could be a source, as agreed by Elder B.H. Roberts. The King James translation of the Bible has certainly been used/copied verbatim (including errors in that translation) as well as common 19th century themes prevalent in upstate New York. Please explain why you used the derogatory word ‘pathetic’. “No wicked man could write such a book as this; and no good man would write it, unless it were true and he were commanded of God to do so.” This argument could be used to prove The Quran true. Also Ethan Smith’s “A View of the Hebrews” Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings trilogy and Rowling’s Harry Potter books. If anyone is foolish enough or misled enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text teeming with literary and Semitic complexity without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages—especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound spiritual impact that witness has had on what is now tens of millions of readers—if that is the case, then such a person, elect or otherwise, has been deceived; and if he or she leaves this Church, it must be done by crawling over or under or around the Book of Mormon to make that exit. How offensive a statement! Without giving any evidence in your talk that the book is true, other than a misleading statement and innuendo that Joseph and Hyrum gave their lives for it, you say I (yes me, Thomas William Phillips) have been deceived and if I leave this Church i must do so by crawling over or under or around the Book of Mormon..If this is so, please answer my issues so that I may know in what facts I have been deceived and the identity of my deceiver(s). After meeting with 2 General Authorities of the Church, who each gave me opposite answers, I have concluded that they and you are deceived and to believe in the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon you all have to crawl over or under or around the facts and evidences of physics, chemistry, biology, genetics, geology, anthropology, linguistics, zoology, palaeontology, archaeology, metallurgy, history etc. If my conclusion is wrong please correct me by explaining the fallacy of my logic and by whom I have, in your words, been deceived. Did Elder Hillam deceive me in stating “of course there has been death on this planet for billions of years” or Elder Lund by stating” the scientists are wrong, there has been no death prior to approximately 6,000 years ago. Carbon dating is incorrect.”? Which of these 2 General Authorities has tried to deceive me? Did the academics in the fields mentioned above deceive me? Have they been deceived by Satan into teaching that which is not true in spite of the fact they can demonstrate/prove the conclusions of their research? You also state that the likes of me are “foolish” and “misled” – please explain in what way(s) I am foolish and misled. Why do you use such offensive and unsubstantiated language? If I am foolish and misled you should easily be able to demonstrate that in which I am foolish and misled and by whom I have been misled. Elder Holland, I am writing to you in this way as a ‘sudden death’ (your words) type of plea. I have been through the appropriate Church channels to resolve my concerns but each of those Priesthood Leaders have merely confirmed to me that the Book of Mormon (and hence, following on from your specific challenge, the Church) is not true. My final plea is to you as an Apostle and public defender of the Book of Mormon. The apologists I have been referred to actually admit the truth of my concerns but try to re-define church doctrine and scripture, contrary to that clearly taught by the Brethren. An example of the answers I have been given by Priesthood Leaders are in Note 6. As your declarations on the Book of Mormon and derision of those, such as myself, have been made so public (General Conference broadcast throughout the world, Ensign magazine and ‘youtube’) I will be publishing this letter on two or more bulletin boards. I will also publish your reply to this letter so that all sides of the issues may be fairly represented. So, my request to you Elder Holland is to either 1. Demonstrate to me that the Book of Mormon is true by answering and refuting the ‘evidences’ against its truthfulness mentioned above ( you claim in your talk it has not been proven false in over 179 years) or 2. Admit, for the benefit of my family and hosts of others, it is (in your words) a fraud or 3. At least admit there were errors in your talk (you specify which ones) and apologise to genuine truth seekers regarding the offensive comments you made that they would have to ‘crawl over...etc.’ If you are able to do (1) please explain to me how and by whom I have been misled. Thank you for reading this letter and taking the time to respond. As mentioned at the beginning, I and my family have long admired and respected you. Copies of this letter are being sent to my immediate family who are all currently active members of the Church. Sincerely, Tom Phillips |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 12:38 pm
|
|
|
|
Shadows-shine Why do Latter-day Saints teach that an apostasy and restoration occured when the Bible says the gospel was "once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 1:3)?* "The word "once" as used in Jude 1:3 should be translated as "before" or "previously" to be more accurate... Note that the same Greek word was used in verse 5 and was also translated in the KJV as "once". The context used in vs. 5 makes it clear that to interpret the use in vs. 2 as "one time" is not correct. The KJV translates the Greek as "Ye once knew this" (i.e. He knew it in the past but may have forgotten it). The NIV confirms this by translating this same Greek word (once-verse 5) as "already" meaning formerly." (Hickenbotham)
If Smith was right about apostasy, then Jesus was a pathetic failure when it came to establishing his Church. After all, what are we to think of his promises? If there really was a complete apostasy, how do we explain our Lord's claim that his Church never would be overcome, "Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt 16:19)? What about his promise that he would be with his Church until the end of time (Matt 28:20)? What about his promise to send the Holy Spirit as a guide who would abide with the Church (John 14:16,26)? What about the Holy Spirit guiding the Church into all truth (John 16:13)?
Jesus' promises regarding the doctrinal integrity and the temporal perpetuity of his Church: "On this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" [Matt 16:18]; "Behold, I will be with you always, even until the end of the world" (Matt 28:20); "The Father...will give you another Advocate to be with you always" (John 14:16); "The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name, he will teach you everything and remind you of all I have told you" (John 14:26); "But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth" (John 16:13). Go through each text, see that none mentions a complete apostasy.
Look also at the many New Testament verses which speak of the Church as Christ's own body, such as Romans 12:1-5; 1 Corinthians 12:12-27; Ephesians 3:4-6; 5:21-32; and Colossians 1:18. Since Christ is the mind and head of his Church (Eph 4:15-16), animating the body, the members enjoy and organic spiritual union with him [John 15:1-8]. It's inconceivable that he would permit his body to disintegrate under the attacks of Satan. The apostle John reminds us that Jesus is greater than Satan. (1 John 4:4).
The gates of hell can't prevail against the Church Jesus built on the rock of Peter. If they could—if they did—Jesus is made to look foolish for having taught, "Which of you wishing to construct a tower does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if there is enough for its completion? Otherwise, after laying the foundation and finding himself unable to finish the work the onlookers should laugh at him and say, 'This one began to build but did not have the resources to finish'" (Luke 15:28-30)
Consider another of Jesus' promises: "I will ask the Father and he will send you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of the truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it because it remains with you, and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans" [John 14:16-18]. If Mormons are right about a complete apostasy, Jesus did leave us as orphans—for 1700 years!
Scripture mentions an apostasy in Matthew 24:4-12; Mark 13:21-23; Luke 21:7-8; Acts 20:29-30; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12; 2 Timothy 3:1-7, 4:1-4; 2 Peter 2:1-3; and Jude 17-19. Most of these verses say "many" will fall away, and not one mentions a complete apostasy of the Church. Another complication for Mormons is that these verses say the apostasy will take place at the end times, the "latter days" as the King James renders it. The second and third centuries were not the "latter days." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 12:51 pm
|
|
|
|
Shadows-shine Garland-Green Shadows-shine Garland-Green Shadows-shine Those men were martyred because they refused to deny their belief in the truth that God revealed to them. Just like Paul, Peter, and all the other apostles and believers in God who were martyred because they refused to deny their testimonies. Why mock Joseph's and Hyrum's death? How disrespectful. For them to have been martyrs, they would have had to die for the testimony of Jesus Christ. If they died for selfish reason (a lie) they were not martyrs. Just someone who were murdered. To compare Smith to Paul, Peter and the other apostles you would have to compare what they teach to see if he is a martyr for the testimony of Jesus or not. It seem to me, going through all this material that his reasons was not to uphold the tradition that had been lost, but a more selfish reason. Quoted from Jeffrey R. Holland, an Apostle of the Lord. Quote: May I refer to a modern last days testimony. When Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum started for Carthage, to face what they knew to be an immenent martyrdom Hyrum read these words of comfort to the heart of his brother. "Thou hast been faithful, wherefore, thou shalt be made strong, even unto the sitting down of the place which I have prepared in the mansions of my Father. And now I Moroni, bid farewell until we shall meet, before the judgment seat of Christ." A few, short verses, from the 12 chapter of Ether in the Book of Mormon...... ......Later, when actually incarcerated in the jail, Joseph the Prophet, turned to the guards who held him captive and bore a powerful testimony to the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Shortly thereafter, pistol and ball would take the lives of these two testators. As one of a thousand elements of my own testimony of the divinity of the Book of Mormon, I submit this as one more evidence of it's truthfulness. In this their greatest and last hour of need, I ask you, would these men blaspheme before God by continuing to fix their lives, their honor, and their own search for eternal salvation on a book? And by implication a church and ministry they had fictiously created out of whole cloth? Never mind their wives are about to be widows and their children fatherless, nevermind that their little band of followers are about to be homeless, houseless, and friendless and that their little children will leave footprints of blood across frozen rivers and an untamed prairie floor, nevermind that legions will die and other legions live declaring that they know that the Book of Mormon and the church that it espouses to be true. Disregard all of that and tell me, whether in this hour of death that these two men would enter the presence of their eternal judge quoting from, and finding solace in a book which if not the very Word of God, would brand them as imposters and charlatains until the end of time. THEY WOULD NOT DO THAT.They were willing to die, rather than deny the divine origin and the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. For 179 years this book has been examined and attacked, denied and deconstructed, targeted and torn apart, like perhaps no other book in modern religious history, perhaps like no other book in any religious history and still it stands. Failed theories about it origins have been borne, parroted, and died. From Ethan Smith to Solomon Spaulding, to deranged paranoid to cunning geneous. None of these frankly pathetic answers has ever withstood examination because there is no other answer than the one Joseph gave as it's young, unlearned translator. In this I stand with my own great-grandfather who said simply enough "no wicked man could write such a book as this, and no good man would write it, unless it were true, and he were commanded of God to do so."...... .....If anyone is foolish enough, or mislead enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text teeming with literary and semetic complexity without honestly attempting to account for the origins of those pages somehow especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound spiritual impact that whitness has had on what is now 10s of millions of readers; if that's the case than such persons elect or otherwise have been deceived...... .....But my testimony of this record and the peace it brings to the human heart is as binding and unequivocal as was theirs. Like them I give my name to the world to witness unto the world that that which I have seen and like them, I lie not, God bearing witness of it. I ask that my testimony of the Book of Mormon and all that it implies, given today under my oath and my office, be recorded by men on earth and angels in heaven. I hope I have a few years left in my last days but whether I do or do not, I want it absolutely clear when I stand before the judgment bar of God that I declared to the world in the most straightforward language I could summon that the Book of Mormon is true. That it came forth the way Joseph said it came forth and was given to bring happiness and hope to the faithful in the travail of the last days...... My letter to Elder Holland re Book of Mormon (very long) By Tom Phillips Book of Mormon by anointed one May 2012 Here is a copy of letter I sent with specific questions regarding his proclamation of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon I will also post his response. This is also being posted on the Biography Board as suggested by Susan I/S. [Admin Note] The author of this article, "The Truthfulness of the Book of Mormon", also wrote about the second anointing. It can be read at The Second Anointing. A personal experience. A look into the inside of one of the secrets of the Mormon Church. http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon508.htm2nd May 2012 Thomas Phillips Elder Jeffrey R. Holland Quorum of the Twelve Apostles The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 50 East North Temple Street Salt Lake City, UT 84150 United States Dear Elder Holland, Truthfulness of The Book of Mormon After you set me apart as stake president, you said “Tom, now we are sealed”. I know you did not mean that literally, but I took it as a compliment and great honour to have a close association with you. Throughout the years my family and I have held you in great esteem. Two letters you wrote to me are kept in a special file and in my ‘heart’. One letter iterated your admiration and appreciation of my son, Alan, and his effect on your son, Duff. As a proud parent I have retained this letter. The other letter was complimenting me on the way in which, as stake president, I dealt with apostates within my stake. I mention these 2 letters to remind you of our association and the mutual love and respect we have shared. I have been a defender of the faith and greatly inspired by you. In fact I have used your ‘sudden death’ argument regarding the Book of Mormon many times in the past. (See Note 1). A few years ago I studied a certain aspect of science so that I could better explain to any investigator who was a scientist an important, true doctrine of the Book of Mormon that seemed to conflict with established science. At the time I had no doubt whatsoever of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon (and the Church) so my studies were to understand the flaws in the scientific methodology. Then, I would be in a position to help an investigator overcome this ‘scientific hurdle’ and know God’s truth. The results of studying, pondering, fasting and praying were that the scientific methodology was sound and the fault was in that taught in the Book of Mormon (no death before the fall of Adam approximately 6,000 years ago). That led me to a study of other issues with the Book of Mormon and Church history which clearly showed a number of falsities. Applying your ‘sudden death’ challenge therefore could only lead to one conclusion, it was a fraud (your words – it is either true or a fraud). I had meetings with Elder Harold G. Hillam and later with Elder Gerald N. Lund. They both gave opposite and conflicting answers that confirmed to me the Church was not true. The purpose of this letter is to seek your help, as we are ‘sealed’, in resolving a conflict of eternal consequence to my family who still believe the Church is true. You are possibly aware of Alan’s position as a stake president. I accept your ‘sudden death’ option in that the Book of Mormon is either true, as Joseph Smith declared it, or it is a fraud. You are on public record (‘Safety for the Soul’ talk at General Conference October 2009 and posted on ‘youtube’) vigorously defending the claim of its truthfulness and, in fact, deriding those who think otherwise (including me). We cannot both be right on this issue. Either you are right or I am, there appears to be no middle ground or ‘third way’. My family listen to you and others of the Brethren, holding you all in the highest of esteem. As taught and encouraged by the Church they refuse to discuss the issues with me but only wish to bear their testimony. They have not sought to correct any misunderstandings I may have, thereby reclaiming a ‘lost sheep’, but choose to ignore the ‘elephant in the room’. I always believed the Church could bear any scrutiny as it was the one and only true church on the face of the earth. If I am wrong on the facts, or have drawn incorrect conclusions, then I earnestly implore you to put me right. Just as you suggest a “sudden death” position regarding The Book of Mormon, I see a “sudden death” either/or question for my situation. Either I am wrong, in which case please address my issues and demonstrate where I am wrong. I would love to be shown that I am wrong, having invested so much of my life in The Church. Or, I am right, in which case please acknowledge that fact to my family. So, my request to you Elder Holland is to either 1. Demonstrate to me that the Book of Mormon is true by answering and refuting the ‘evidences’ against its truthfulness mentioned later in this letter ( you claim in your talk it has not been proven false in over 179 years) or 2. Admit, for the benefit of my family and hosts of others, it is (in your words) a fraud or 3. At least admit there were errors in your talk (you specify which ones) and apologise to genuine truth seekers regarding the offensive comments you made that they would have to ‘crawl over...etc.’ "If anyone is foolish enough or misled enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text teeming with literary and Semitic complexity without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages—especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound spiritual impact that witness has had on what is now tens of millions of readers—if that is the case, then such a person, elect or otherwise, has been deceived; and if he or she leaves this Church, it must be done by crawling over or under or around the Book of Mormon to make that exit." Whichever of these 3 you choose to do, will help not only myself but countless others by confirming the truth of the Book of Mormon or admitting it is a work of fiction (however and by whom written). Please do not ignore this request, as it goes to the very heart of the matter of the Church’s veracity. A matter I would assume someone of your moral and academic stature would deem of vital importance. Why would you say something that is not true? I am not an angry ‘anti-Mormon’, I am pro truth. I served diligently in the Church because I honestly believed (‘knew’) it to be true. Once I found out otherwise I could not, as encouraged by Church leaders, just continue in the faith so that I could keep my family. I could not live a lie. This request is made to you because of our personal relationship and also because you have publically defended the Book of Mormon in General Conference which has been broadcast internationally by the Church and also been featured on ‘youtube’ and ‘The Ensign’. First permit me to outline the evidences I have discovered that point to the Book of Mormon not being true, or the Word of God . As stated previously, I would appreciate your comments on/refutation of these items, not as an “apologist” but as a truth seeker (whichever way that falls). These are only outline points for the purpose of brevity in this letter. I do not include all that would be included in a paper on such a topic because I assume you are already very familiar with the issues and the answers given by apologists. Secondly, I list certain quotes from your talk which appear to me to be incorrect. Again I seek your comments/refutation. Evidences the Book of Mormon is not True 1. 2 Nephi 2:22 and Alma 12:23,24 state there was no death of any kind (humans, all animals, birds, fish etc.) on this earth until the ‘Fall of Adam’ which, according to Doctrine and Covenants section 77:6,7 occurred approximately 6,000 years ago. This is obviously false as it is scientifically established there has been life and death on this planet for billions of years. (See Note 2). 2. The Book of Mormon purports to tell the true origins of the American Indian, descendants of Lehi and his family who left Jerusalem in 600 B.C. Anthropologists have maintained for decades that the American Indians came to North America via the Bering Strait some 15,000 – 30, 000 years ago. Recent DNA studies have conclusively proven the American Indians are not descendents of Lehi and his family. Yes, I am aware of BYU professors who ‘play loose’ with DNA studies in order to defend the Book of Mormon. They also re-invent the Church’s teachings regarding the American Indian (flying in the face of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor through to at least Spencer W. Kimball and the Lord Himself in D&C section 54:8 and others) offering a limited geography theory etc.. I understand the title page to the Book of Mormon has even been amended in this regard in recent years. (See Note 4). 3. Archaeology – there is absolutely no evidence of the Nephites and Lamanites who numbered in the millions according to the Book of Mormon. Contrast this with the Roman occupation of Britain (and other countries). Having lived in England, as well as your frequent visits and reading, you will be aware of abundant evidence the Romans were there during the first 400 years A.D. e.g. villas, mosaic floors, public baths , coins, armour, weapons, writings, art, pottery etc. etc. Even the major road system used today was originally built by the Romans (A1, A2, A4 etc. now with motorways added). Why are there no Nephite buildings, roads, coins, armour, pottery, art etc. Again, the Book of Mormon teaches a period of peace and prosperity lasting about 200 years after Jesus Christ visited the American Continent. Where are the temples etc? Where is the evidence of the 2 million + who died in battles at Hill Cumorah? No bones, chariots, swords, coins, armour, hair? Surely, if it happened it would be easy for archaeologists to find evidence in Palmyra. But then apologists wish to say Cumorah was somewhere else, yet to be discovered. It seems Joseph Smith did not understand the 2 Cumorahs, neither has it been mentioned in decades of pageants put on by the Church at ‘Hill Cumorah’ in upstate New York. There is ample evidence of the Mayan and Aztec civilizations as well as a civilization in current day Texas that dates back 15,000 years. Why no Nephite or Lamanite evidence? Indeed, not only is there no positive evidence for them there is evidence to confirm that certain things, mentioned in the Book of Mormon pertaining to them, were not even on the American continent at the time (e.g. horses, chariots, steel etc.). (See Note 3). 4. Book of Abraham – I mention this as evidence against the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon as an example of the ‘modus operandi’ of Joseph Smith. The arguments of your apologists (e.g. Hugh Nibley and Michael D. Rhodes) to defend the Book of Abraham are an insult to intelligence and certainly would not stand up to peer review by recognised Egyptologists. The Church has had parts of the papyri since, I think, 1967 and they have been translated by Egyptologists. They are no more than magical funerary texts, often buried with the dead, and nothing to do with the purported translation by Joseph Smith. If he lied about the Book of Abraham is it not conceivable he lied about the Book of Mormon? Also, pertinent to this point, is the fact that Joseph lied about (denied) his plural wives and the allegations made by the ‘Nauvoo Expositor’ which turned out to be true. Other evidence of Joseph’s modus operandi re translation projects are the ‘Greek Psalter’ and ‘Kinderhook Plates’ incidents. (See Note 5). 5. Changing skin colour – the Lamanites were cursed by the Lord with a skin of darkness (blackness) because of their sins and so that they would not be attractive to the Nephites. On some occasions, when Lamanites converted and became righteous their skin became whiter. This doctrine was commented on in recent times by President Spencer W. Kimball who noted the lightening of the skins of ‘Lamanites’ (American Indians and Polynesians) in one of his talks. Now I ask you is this the ‘word of God’? Did God use skin colour as a differentiator? Of course he did you may say, he did it with Cain and his descendents. So the racist teachings of Brigham Young etc. have their foundation in the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham and Joseph Smith’s understanding of the book of Genesis. According to science, skin colour is a product of genetics and climate on pigmentation of the skin. Any white person can become dark by sunbathing but the colour change is not permanent. A black person does not become white by being righteous, how offensive, how insulting, how racist. If it is possible (and ethical) to change the colour of a person’s skin in an instant (and then change it back when they become righteous) then it would indicate the Book of Mormon is true in this regard. However, I am of the opinion that any educated, ethical person would consider this doctrine untrue/false. Please explain to me how this doctrine can be true rather than misinformed 19th century thinking. "And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them." (2 Nephi 5:21). 6. Other ‘true doctrines’ of the Church, taken from the Book of Mormon and/or the Doctrine and Covenants ,that are proven false by science include the following (a) all humans alive today are not the descendants of just 2 people (Adam and Eve) who lived (came from the Garden of Eden) approximately 6,000 years ago neither are they the descendants of just one man (Noah) about 4,500 years ago (b) there was no world-wide flood of the earth about 4,500 years ago (c) different languages did not arise in the manner described regarding the Tower of Babel (per Bible and Book of Mormon) (d) the human race did not start in what is now the state of Missouri (D&C 116:1) then migrate to the Middle East in consequence of a universal flooding of the earth. From the Encycloaedia of Mormonism “It wasn’t until May 1838 that revelation (D&C 116) identified Adam-ondi-Ahman, a site near the Garden of Eden, to be in Daviess County, Missouri, some seventy miles from present-day Kansas City. (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., New York City: Macmillan, 1992, 1:19–20.)” "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials'. December 1770 Quote “The problem Mormonism encounters is that so many of its claims are well within the realm of scientific study, and as such, can be proven or disproven. To cling to faith in these areas, where the overwhelming evidence is against you, is wilful ignorance, not spiritual dedication.” Evidence the Book of Mormon is True Here are some specific quotes from your talk, which I take as your arguments for the Book of Mormon’s truthfulness, with my comments/questions added in italics :- ‘Safety for the Soul’ Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles I want it absolutely clear when I stand before the judgment bar of God that I declared to the world . . . that the Book of Mormon is true. In what respects is it true? It is not true according to scientific laws, anthropology, zoology, metallurgy, chemistry, physics, biology, linguistics, history, archaeology etc. Why would you say something that is not true? The Savior warned that in the last days even those of the covenant, the very elect, could be deceived by the enemy of truth the Book of Mormon itself is an enemy of truth if it declares things as true which are, in fact, false e.g. no death of any kind prior to 6,000 years ago (Book of Mormon actually states “fall of Adam” but Doctrine and Covenants section 77 places this at approximately 6,000 years ago); horses, steel etc. on American continent at time they were absent; origin of the American Indians etc. Please explain how I have been deceived and by whom. As one of a thousand elements of my own testimony of the divinity of the Book of Mormon, I submit this as yet one more evidence of its truthfulness - you do not mention the other 999 elements, only the following which appears to be untrue :- They were willing to die rather than deny the divine origin and the eternal truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Untrue, they did not die for their faith. They were killed in a gun battle , Joseph shot at men and, according to President John Taylor, 2 of the men Joseph shot died. They were incarcerated because of Joseph’s reprehensible behaviour and alleged crimes such as having a printing press destroyed (treason? – free speech) which he claimed had published lies about him that were, in fact true; that he practised and taught polygamy including with 14 year old girls and women already married (polyandry); was setting up a theocratic government etc. Why do you not defend the likes of William Law who, having tried to change Joseph’s reprehensible behaviour, published the truth and was demonized by Joseph and the Church as a result. I believe the charges against Joseph were (1) inciting a riot and (2) treason against the State of Illinois At no time, am I aware, were Joseph and Hyrum offered the choice of saving their lives” if they deny the divine origin and the eternal truthfulness of the Book of Mormon”. What is your source for this idea? Please give evidence to support your statement or admit it is false. Did the State of Illinois or the jailers give Joseph Smith the opportunity to denounce his religious claims and be freed? No. So he was not a martyr. He did not die for his religious beliefs. Bear in mind the fallacy of your assertion - The claim that no fraud would walk to their death making a claim like Joseph Smith to the very end: this ignores the countless cult leaders like David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite, Jim Jones etc. For 179 years this book has been examined and attacked, denied and deconstructed, targeted and torn apart like perhaps no other book in modern religious history—perhaps like no other book in any religious history. And still it stands Where does it stand? Is it used in American history classes or used by those studying American history? No, it has been extensively proven false by many. If it still stands it should be easy for you to satisfactorily explain the issues I raised above as evidences that it is not true. None of these frankly pathetic answers for this book has ever withstood examination because there is no other answer than the one Joseph gave as its young unlearned translator Completely untrue, the one answer Joseph gave is the most absurd and the only one lacking in any real evidence except the “burning in the bosom” which is the same evidence for the truthfulness of the Quran, Hinduism, Scientology and thousands of other beliefs/traditions/fortune telling which totally oppose the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon has been shown to be a work of fiction by many credible authors and is viewed as such by the Smithsonian Institute. Otherwise scholars of American history would readily use the book for their work. Again, answer my issues if I am incorrect. Your use of the word ‘pathetic’ is rather disturbing. In what way are other suggestions as to the origin of the Book of Mormon and, by inference, my questions, ‘pathetic? Ethan Smith’s “A View of the Hebrews” could be a source, as agreed by Elder B.H. Roberts. The King James translation of the Bible has certainly been used/copied verbatim (including errors in that translation) as well as common 19th century themes prevalent in upstate New York. Please explain why you used the derogatory word ‘pathetic’. “No wicked man could write such a book as this; and no good man would write it, unless it were true and he were commanded of God to do so.” This argument could be used to prove The Quran true. Also Ethan Smith’s “A View of the Hebrews” Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings trilogy and Rowling’s Harry Potter books. If anyone is foolish enough or misled enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text teeming with literary and Semitic complexity without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages—especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound spiritual impact that witness has had on what is now tens of millions of readers—if that is the case, then such a person, elect or otherwise, has been deceived; and if he or she leaves this Church, it must be done by crawling over or under or around the Book of Mormon to make that exit. How offensive a statement! Without giving any evidence in your talk that the book is true, other than a misleading statement and innuendo that Joseph and Hyrum gave their lives for it, you say I (yes me, Thomas William Phillips) have been deceived and if I leave this Church i must do so by crawling over or under or around the Book of Mormon..If this is so, please answer my issues so that I may know in what facts I have been deceived and the identity of my deceiver(s). After meeting with 2 General Authorities of the Church, who each gave me opposite answers, I have concluded that they and you are deceived and to believe in the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon you all have to crawl over or under or around the facts and evidences of physics, chemistry, biology, genetics, geology, anthropology, linguistics, zoology, palaeontology, archaeology, metallurgy, history etc. If my conclusion is wrong please correct me by explaining the fallacy of my logic and by whom I have, in your words, been deceived. Did Elder Hillam deceive me in stating “of course there has been death on this planet for billions of years” or Elder Lund by stating” the scientists are wrong, there has been no death prior to approximately 6,000 years ago. Carbon dating is incorrect.”? Which of these 2 General Authorities has tried to deceive me? Did the academics in the fields mentioned above deceive me? Have they been deceived by Satan into teaching that which is not true in spite of the fact they can demonstrate/prove the conclusions of their research? You also state that the likes of me are “foolish” and “misled” – please explain in what way(s) I am foolish and misled. Why do you use such offensive and unsubstantiated language? If I am foolish and misled you should easily be able to demonstrate that in which I am foolish and misled and by whom I have been misled. Elder Holland, I am writing to you in this way as a ‘sudden death’ (your words) type of plea. I have been through the appropriate Church channels to resolve my concerns but each of those Priesthood Leaders have merely confirmed to me that the Book of Mormon (and hence, following on from your specific challenge, the Church) is not true. My final plea is to you as an Apostle and public defender of the Book of Mormon. The apologists I have been referred to actually admit the truth of my concerns but try to re-define church doctrine and scripture, contrary to that clearly taught by the Brethren. An example of the answers I have been given by Priesthood Leaders are in Note 6. As your declarations on the Book of Mormon and derision of those, such as myself, have been made so public (General Conference broadcast throughout the world, Ensign magazine and ‘youtube’) I will be publishing this letter on two or more bulletin boards. I will also publish your reply to this letter so that all sides of the issues may be fairly represented. So, my request to you Elder Holland is to either 1. Demonstrate to me that the Book of Mormon is true by answering and refuting the ‘evidences’ against its truthfulness mentioned above ( you claim in your talk it has not been proven false in over 179 years) or 2. Admit, for the benefit of my family and hosts of others, it is (in your words) a fraud or 3. At least admit there were errors in your talk (you specify which ones) and apologise to genuine truth seekers regarding the offensive comments you made that they would have to ‘crawl over...etc.’ If you are able to do (1) please explain to me how and by whom I have been misled. Thank you for reading this letter and taking the time to respond. As mentioned at the beginning, I and my family have long admired and respected you. Copies of this letter are being sent to my immediate family who are all currently active members of the Church. Sincerely, Tom Phillips It's funny that you turn to an ex members letter to try to disprove a man's testimony. This isn't even worth acknowledging. Most ex members speak from hate and bitterness not out of love and yearning for understanding.
Who better to point out errors in Mormonism than an ex-Mormon?
Personally I think it is a cop out to say that because he's an ex-Mormon his points should not be addressed. I think most of us would be angry if we discovered that we had been actively deceived. His objections do deserve consideration as he is raising some good points. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
