I apologize for not posting for quite a long time... School, spring break, and family have been taking up most of my time. I am still working on "Where Does the Book of Mormon Take Place? - Part II", and it should be ready in a little bit, but in the meantime my mind has been on other subjects.
I was idly sitting in my dormitory a few days ago, talking to a friend. Somehow or another my beliefs were brought up, and I was more than eager to talk a bit about my faith in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. Her questioning of my beliefs and LDS beliefs, in general, was sincere. She simply wanted to know a bit more about the Church, and, I believe, wanted to figure out why there is such a commotion caused by the simple mentioning of the word “Mormon” (not always bad… just you say you’re Mormon, or basically Mormon…, and people always go “Ooh really?”; some then respond, “Oh I know a Mormon back home”, others, “Really?! Why?”, and some simply say in a somewhat disapproving tone, “Oh…”). I explained some stuff, such as the First Vision, the Golden Plates, modern-day prophets, and such. During the conversation she said something about some of the criticisms and accusations made against the Book of Mormon that I was somewhat surprised by; she said she did not understand how critics (most of which are Christians of other denominations) found things wrong with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when the same (or very similar) arguments could be made against aspects and parts of the Bible. She's completely right. Critics of the LDS Church and the Book of Mormon often use hypocritical arguments when the same arguments could be posed to them. I'm not saying all critics, but many do (I am refering to Christian anti-Mormons, just to clarify).
Critics look at the Book of Mormon as a textbook, searching direly for flaws and mistakes. I understand this approach, I myself began my reading of the Book of Mormon in much the same way, but the Book of Mormon is not a textbook. Granted it is a record of ancient peoples in the Americas, but that is only a very small part of it. The true purpose of the Book of Mormon (like the Bible) is to give people a testament of Jesus Christ, that He is in fact our Lord and Redeemer.
Now this is where the hypocrisy comes into play. Generally speaking, critics of the Book of Mormon pick it apart bit by bit grappling onto whatever they can to "falsify" it. But what do many of these same highly scrutinizing critics do when they look at the Bible? They turn a blind eye to the somewhat "disputed" events in the Bible. Now don't get me wrong I believe the Bible to be true (so long as it is translated correctly; see: Article 8 of the Articles of Faith). My point is simply that critics should be careful in their criticisms of the Book of Mormon and aspects of the Church (such as a sea-voyage across the Pacific c. 600 B.C) when, many times, very similar things occur in the Bible (Noah's ark).
If you recall earlier I said the Book of Mormon is not a textbook, let me explain. Although the Book of Mormon (contrary to what many may say) gives a quite accurate description of Mesoamerican culture (heirarchal political structre and political diffusion, cities rather than nomadic living, temples, smitting of arms, priests/teachers, use of cement, warring factions, etc.) it is a record of religion, a record of Christ, therefore it is meant to tested by the Spirit and confirmed by faith, not by physical evidence. Now, as you may have seen already on my blog, I am very interested in finding evidence for the Book of Mormon and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it helps me in building my testimony, but it is not the rock on which my testimony is built. That I received simply through faith; by power of the Holy Ghost.
I was speaking with a couple very good friends of mine recently (who have helped me so much in my investigating the Church, thanks again!), we were talking about different things that have been found only in recent years that actually heavily support the validity of the Book of Mormon and the Church, then one of them posed a very hypothetical question to me, "Let's say some physical evidence came out tomorrow that invalidated the Book of Mormon, whould you still believe it to be true?" I thought about it, and the answer is I would. Now before you go hooting and hollering about me being irrational and brainwashed, let me try to explain how I arrived at my decision. Although the physical evidence is a big part of why I believe the things I do, it is not the core, that is faith. One does not need a single shred of physical evidence to know the Book of Mormon is true, and that Joseph Smith Jun. was a prophet of God. Secondly, physical evidence is fleeting. Evidence/Fact one day changes the next. A few centuries ago we knew the earth was flat, it was common knowledge. I few months ago we knew eggs were bad for us, now we know they are good for us, or are they bad again? A few years ago, VHS was the best quality movie we could get, a couple years ago we knew DVDs were the best quality we could get, now it's Blue-Ray, what will it be tomorrow? Facts change (as much as that sounds like an oxymoron I believe its somewhat true). Time and technology unearth new evidence all the time, that many times invalidates old facts, new theories will arise, more evidence will come about both in support or and against the Book of Mormon; just the same as it has been for thousands of years with both the Book of Mormon and the Bible. It's not that the evidence is false it's that we may not fully understand what it means, or what it is saying; it's true meaning may only be revealed to us later.
Revelation. That is another reason I love the Church. God has information, scriptures, prophesies that He has yet to reveal, and He can, and has clarified things so that we can understand them in this dispensation. (Sorry for getting sidetracked...)
So I'm not asking you critics to give up your beliefs and just convert (although if you would to here is a link to finding a Church meetinghouse near you and here is a link to request a visit from the Missionaries), I'm just asking you to have some faith... at least try to use the faith you have for the Bible when speculating the Book of Mormon.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Hypocrisy: The Foundation for Many Anti-Mormon Arguements
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
What bothers me the most when people attack the Book of Mormon is that most are just parroting what their preachers said. They've never even picked up the Book of Mormon! And those that have read it do so with the express purpose of disproving it.
Oh well. I'll keep sharing my testimony of the Book of Mormon and the restoration. By the way, you may want to read my testimony about it here: http://craiglpankratz.blogspot.com/2006/11/another-witness.html
Hey Bobbit, nice post. :-)
you know I found this blog while researching the mormon religion....Now i am a Christian, protestant. You know i think I could argue with you here. the critics of the Mormon religion is that they claim to be Christians, when really it is not. Christina s do not say the same thing about Muslims or Jews. they too have different beliefs. But Moromns claim to be Christians and most of the people that try and prove it false were once in fact mormon. See my problem, besides the ridiculous beliefs that you can become a god and and that God himself came from another planet, there is no backing to this religion. See there is historical evidence to the bible people in the bible and stories in it, unlike the book of mormon. there has been nothing found. In fact the book and story or the book goes totally against History. Nobody has ever even seen the plates. Why not where are they?? The problem with Mormons is that it is run by the heads of the church they tell you what to believe its all about rules, you dont do think for yourself. Really, I have not been able to find anything that to show me these beliefs are even true. I mean the basis is getting married in a temple. If you dont your looked down upon judged and really the whole basis of your beliefs are out the window. The critics look for proof because there isnt any. it was created by a random guy who was a gold digger that no one liked, created a story that really makes no sense has people pay to join the church and and creates a cult like culture by keeping everyone together. I really just dont understand how people can believe the things they do. The levels of heaven. you can run your own planet. Mormons try and argue that the bible is n ot complete yet the bible has not changed in over all its time. yet the book of mormon which was translated directly by god or mormon or whoever.... has been changed many times.
I appreciate you using my blog as a research tool, but I suggest if you would like to get correct and full information on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints please visit, www.mormon.org, or contact your local missionaries I know they would be more than happy to sit down and discuss doctrinal beliefs (http://www.mormon.org/question/talk/0,8554,796-1,00.html).
Now I pose a question to you what constitutes 'being a Christian'? I was formally a protestant myself and according to most protestant churches, if one has only faith in Jesus Christ then they will get into heaven (and by my standards and I believe most standards would be deemed Christian). Well, sir or ma'am, I have full faith that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior, atoned for our sins through the sacrifice of His own life, and is truly the son of God, am I not a Christian?
"Most of the people that try and prove [the LDS faith] false were once in fact Mormon..." I wonder were you found this statistic. Now there are a few ex-Mormons who critize the LDS Church, but there are millions more who do not, millions more who believe, who feel the spirit guide them, who know the Church is true. To say most critics of the LDS Church are former Mormons is preposterous. A few indeed (although I'd like to see how many of those few grew up in the Church, received the Priesthood keys, and were given a temple recommend). Often I've seen critics who converted for the wrong reasons; just to marry someone is a very common one. Critics come in all shapes and sizes, just as do critics of everything. Of course there are some who are resentful of Church who were former members, just like there are American citizens who are bitter at America and its doings.
I believe the correct terminology for the "ridiculous belief" you speak of Theosis. Theosis is a belief held by many (including members of the early Church and even other Christian leaders of today) that through Christ's sacrifice we can ascend into Heaven (where He and Heavenly Father both dwell and we can live forever (as He and Heavenly Father both do). I am going to borrow somethings from Jeff Linsay's LDS FAQ - Do Mormons Believe They Can Become Gods? (http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_theosis.shtml#think). "To those who follow Christ and receive His grace and power, great promises are extended. We are promised that we can receive "the fullness of God" through the grace of Christ (Ephesians 3:19). Christ said that we can become one with Him, as He is one with the Father (John 17:20-23). Paul said that Christians can become "joint heirs with Christ" and be glorified with Him (Romans 8:14-18). He challenged us to pursue the example of Christ "who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God" (Philippian 2:5,6). Peter said that through Christ, we can "put on the divine nature" and receive great and precious promises (2 Peter 1:3-4). Those who follow Christ can become "like Him" (1 John 3:2), can "inherit all things" (Rev. 21:7), and can be kings and priests before God (Rev. 1:6), sitting with Christ in His throne (Rev. 3:21). Critics, how do you explain away such scriptures? They disclose an important aspect of early Christianity, the doctrine of "theosis," holding that man can become like God... After pondering the above-mentioned scriptures, let's turn to terminology. What do we call glorified, resurrected beings who, through Christ, receive eternal life and the fullness of God as joint-heirs with Christ, sitting with Him in his throne? Personally, I would prefer to call them angels who serve and represent God. However, the word that is used in the Bible and in other LDS sources to describe such beings is not generally angels, but the much more controversial term, gods. (In Doctrine and Covenants 132, "gods" are clearly higher than the angels - but they are nevertheless children of God and subject to Him.) Accept my apologies, but the choice of the term "gods" is not ours.
Christ himself spoke of humans when he quoted Psalms 82:6 and said, in John 10:34, "Ye are gods." As every serious Christian scholar knows, He was not saying that humans are God, but is often interpreted as saying that human representatives of God can be called "gods" in a very limited sense. Humans are not and will not be gods in the sense of Greek philosophy (absolute, ultimate, uncreated, independent beings). No, the terms "gods" when used in the Bible and LDS writings may be meant in a more limited sense not radically different in meaning than "angels"... If we used the term "angels," the anti-LDS attacks would lose much of their zing. After all, how many people would be interested in seeing a movie called "The Angel Makers"? But the term "gods" is what God Himself has chosen to describe the divine potential of His sons and daughters..." Please check out the entire article at the above link.
As for the things about other planets nowhere in scriptures does it say God "came from another planet", perhaps one person who happened to be a member of teh Church proposed He might be, but just because a member of a group holds a characteristic it does not mean that that characteristic is shared by the whole, that is a huge compositional fallacy to assume such a thing. We, like any other church (well like any other church should), allow people to have free-thought. Just because Columbus was a navigator and an explorer does not mean that he had to believe the earth was flat. People are free to speculate, but their indiviual speculations should not be applied to groups and organizations they belong to. If you want know what "Mormons" believe look at scripture: the Old and New Testament, the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.
I believe there is historical evidence that supports the Book of Mormon as well. This includes geologic and volcanic activity that aligns with the Book of Mormon. Locations described in the Book of Mormon that have only been discovered in the last 50 years. Among many other "evidences" that correspond and support the Book of Mormon. But does one need physical evidence to believe in God? Do you yourself hold your Protestant beliefs because of physical evidence or because of the Holy Spirit and your faith? A church needs a solid foundation and that foundation is faith, I believe all Christian churches are founded on this, not because of overwhelming physical evidence (which was unavailable to the millions of Christians in the first few centuries after Christ yet they were still able to believe).
Let me pose another question: have you ever seen the original Bible? The original writings of Moses? The original letters Paul wrote?
The original preachings of John? No, yet you still believe and know the Bible to be true. Same goes with me, I have never seen the original Plates, nor have I seen the original Bible but that does not shake my faith in either in the least.
"Nobody has ever seen the plates" This is completely false. If you really had researched the Book of Mormon and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints you would know there were eleven witnesses of the actual plates (It's like on the 3rd or 4th page of the Book of Mormon).
Of course Church leaders tell us what to do... they lead us, they tell us how to best live our lives so that we may live as Christ-like as possible. In my experience with other Christian churches, leaders also tell you what to do. Of course there are rules. God works in rules (the 10 commandments, among others). We are to live our lives correctly and righteously. I don't think you can fault members for not drinking and smoking toxins, not doing drugs, not killing, not stealing, not cheating, not lying, not speaking ill of his or her neighbor, not having sex before marriage, etc. It might come as a shock but many churches have these very same or similar rules. Just as a whole, I see LDS members hold and adhere to rules and commandments better than those of other denominations. I'm not saying others are unrighteous, I know many a Catholic and many a Protestant who are amazingly righteous; I am just speaking as a whole.
"You dont do think for yourself" ('We don't think for ourselves'?). This comment again shows you haven't had a very full research of the Church. One of our biggest beliefs is that Heavenly Father gave us a thing called agency. Agency is our free-will. We can think, act, and be what we want, when we want. We make our own decisions, as an individual. God hopes we "choose the right" (a kind of Mormon slogan), but ultimately it is our decision and our choice what we do. We are held accountable for our actions. I can choose or choose not to listen to what Church leaders and what prophets tell me, but I believe these leaders because their words are confirmed by the spirit and I know they are trying to help me reach Heavenly Father's Eternal Kingdom.
As for the changing of the Bible, it has... Do you know what language the Bible was first written in? Partially Hebrew, partially Aramaic, and partially Greek. Then it was translated into Latin, then German, and so forth. We didn't get a fully English version of the Bible till 1384 A.D. Each time one translate things are lost, one language doesn't have the exact word another might, one might have one word that means multiple things in another; things change slightly. As for additional scripture, what about the book of Maccabees? Among other deuterocanonical books of the Bible.
I hope this clears up somethings, and thank you for your time and comments.
i appreciate your response. I wanted to clear up a few things first. I dont want you to get the wrong impression of me. I do not haste mormons or anything i believe everyone has the right to follow thier own faith. But i do liek to talk and debate, and somtimes in doing this i get a little harsh and emotional. Now as to being christian, true mormons claim to believe in christ, but thats not all the being christian means. Yes you have to believe in Jesus, but you also believe in God and the bible. Protestants have are faith not based in a church. We find are faith personal, I dont talk through a bishop or a pope or anyone i talk directly to god. Now Mormons say they beleive in jesus, yet the former president himself, said we do not believe in the same Jesus that appeared in the bible, ( im sorry about the inability to give exact quotes, i came across so many but did not copy them down, but they are not in exact words but have the same meaning). Also we bleive in one singular god, in the bible it clearly states there as being one god, and then later condemns his people for worshiping other gods, also, I believe as a christain, as do all christian churches, although some have more rules you maight say, believe that fiath in christ and our lord will give a passage to heaven, now that does not mean you can just say Hey i believe in Jesus and not practice anything from the bible or his teachings. You do have to work, but through faith in christ and following in his example you will be rewarded. Mormons, to my knowledge believe in the levels of heaven? And reaching or becomming a God of another planet? thats about as far from christian beliefs as you can get. You can say you belive in Christ but still Mormons are not christian.. Also i guess i phrased it wrong. Your right not all critics are ex mromons. however i have heard alot of testimony against it. and also, some quite a few were actually married in temples before leaving. Many critics were one professors for BYU or bishops who were to study and find historical evidence for the church, but during their search lost faith, and were thence forth either dis communicated or left.
I see that you quote the bible, now those quotes can be interpreted in several difernt ways. You see it as saying we are gods, now i see it as we will live in heaven, never once does it say, "you can become a god " it says you can rule benieth him as a king, yes angels, in heaven you recieve his power of eternal life. But there is still and always one god. I can not quote exact the book of mormon but i have read the passeges where it says in other words, "you can become a god and rule your own planet as a god" does it not? Is not that what mromons beleive? yes i believe in ever lasting life and reaching heaven and being along side god and jesus, but you do not reach a certain godhood. also i have asked members of the church, just everday members very good momrons good friends of mine who believe that, who follow that god came from another planet. Also it was the apostles or presidents of the church, higher members who have the full knwoledge that claim this beleif. I used to eb in a relationship with someone who was mormon, and when i asked her about this particular belief, she began to cry because she knew I would not like her answer and didnt know ways to explain it and make it sound nice. But in the end she did admit that they as does she and members of the curch believe in this.
so i can not respond in a whole right now becasue i must go, but one last thing i do not need historical evidence for my faith, but when trying to find a new faith or learn of one and can it be true, searching for something a light that might give hope that it can be true, i do look for historical support. And there has been much much much support for the bible, but not so much for the book of mormon as i have found. I apologize for the misspellings but i wrote this in haste and must go. i willbe back later to finish our discussion.
I did not have time to address everyhting earlier so i shall finish now. What i meant by no one has seen the plates, you say eleven apostles have. well personally no i have not seen the original bible but there is proof on display of the original pages they have recovered original documents. no one since the first eleven have seen these plates, and there is even questionable evidence against the other ten ever even seeing the plates. only joe smith was the one who saw them. that is not a fact just something i came across in research. as for doin what your told, i do not question the morals tought by the church, but its not only mormons your right, catholics are simialr to this complaint as well, thats why im not chatholic either. I built my own relatinship wiht god, i was not told by a pastor or a bishop or a priest when im wrong or when im sinning. Mormons are even told when to go to church. And yes the bibl has been trasnlated and has been around for thousands of years. but the meanings and teachings are all the same, just worded diferently. the book of mormon was undergoing changes as early as 50 years after it was written. there have been many changes of the religion and the book of mormon, which have altered beliefs.
I appreciate you posting again, I too like to debate, as long as it remains friendly, which I commend you for doing so (hopefully I will be able to also ;) ). And thank you for also being respectful.
As for believing in God and the Bible, we do both those things as well. (We often call 'God', Heavenly Father similar to what Jesus calls him in the Bible). And as for the Bible, like I said our scriptural cannon includes: the Old and New Testaments, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.
We view the faith as very personal also. Heavenly Father knows each of us individually. I'm not sure if you are implying we talk to God through a bishop. When I pray I pray to Heavenly Father, and in the name of Jesus Christ, not to Bishop so, and so. We are able to speak to Him [God] directly through prayer.
I know the quote you speak of and yes former President Gordon B. Hinckley did say that, but it is taken out of context. He was talking about the "traditional Christ", as in the way other churches (churches that are known as traditional: protestant, catholic, and orthodox) look at Christ and his ministries. He meant, we look at the Christ who set up the Church governing body of 12 apostles, which we have today. We look at the Christ who held the Priesthood and bestowed the keys of the Priesthood on his apostles, as we have today. We look at the Christ and his visitation to his other fold, "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." (John 10:16), who were those groups in the Americas (see Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ). We look at the Christ who taught faith was essential for salvation but so also were 'good works' and keeping the commandments (this is where I have to somewhat disagree with you, the Protestant churches believe faith is the only requirement to get into heaven, that good works are unnecessary because of grace. This was set up by Martin Luther when he broke off from the Catholic Church. I understand why he did, the Catholic Church, at the time, was somewhat corrupt and were using "good works" as a tool for profit [i.e. indulgences], but nonetheless, good works, according to the Protestants, are not necessary for salvation). We look at the Christ who speaks to His Father, not himself:
"For there is one God [one God in purpose], and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim 2:5);
"I ago unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I" (John 14:28);
"But [Stephen], being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God." (Acts 7:55,56). And this Christ is the same Christ who, along with his Father, came and visited a young boy in New York and told him his hand in restoring the Gospel, just as many others had before him (Abraham, Moses, etc.).
Now this Christ I speak of seems a bit different than that of 'the Christ' of other churches no? Where the teachings of good works, the Priesthood, visitation to other people, the governing body of the Church, and being distinctly, physically separate from the Father are not taught. This is what President Hinckley meant, granted his wording was not the best, but I believe he was playing (for lack of any better term) devil's advocate, saying somehow we look at Christ with all these things included, while other churches look at Christ but not at all his teachings and ministries which include these.
We believe God to be singular in purpose. That is why we cal it the Godhead. The Godhead is the collection of Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. All three are distinct personages but the same in purpose and goal. You probably believe in the Trinity, we do not. The Trinity which was established about 300 years after Christ at the Council of Nicaea, states that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are one in body. As you have seen by the scripture I have cited above, I do not believe this.
We do believe in three "levels" of Heaven (Celestial, Terrestrial,
and Telestial). This is a very complicated subject, one best spoken with the Missionaries, but I will attempt to explain it. In section 76 of Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph Smith recieved revelation about the Kingdoms of Heaven. There is also a part of the Bible which some believe to support the different Kingdoms of Heaven: 1 Corinthians 15. I will cite from Jeff Linsay's site again (http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Salvation.shtml#degrees):
"[O]n its face, the passage [1 Cor. 15:40-42] seems to be just talking about heavenly vs. earthly bodies. However, the passage also has this little enigmatic reference to "one glory of the sun, one glory of the moon, and one glory of the stars," and one star differs from another in glory. What does that mean? Most people would just skip right over it, but the early Christians seem to have placed great significance on it, taking it to mean that there are degrees of reward and punishment in heaven and hell. Whether he was actually restoring lost text, or not, Joseph Smith restored the basic meaning that early Christians attached to the passage!".
Paul also mentions "the third heaven" in 2 Cor. 12.
"We are gods" - by that I simply mean we can become exalted (exalted in the sense of moving on, or upward to Heaven) beings, we can inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. "Gods" in the sense of immortal, not worshiped idols. That's what I am saying not as if one of us will go to Heaven and replace God or instead have people worship us, it's basically just another term for ascending into Heaven.
Inheriting a planet? I've heard this too, again I believe this was just a member mentioned this as speculation and used "a planet" as symbolism for a 'kingdom among the stars'(the heavens). I really wouldn't place too much emphasis on this, for I believe it to be mostly for literary effect. And again is not doctrine.
Oh trust me I know many former LDS members have come out and criticized the Church, but what I was wondering is how many do it out of spite for other reasons, such as a failed marriage? Many people get married young and in the temple but sometimes their heart is not in it for the right reasons (i.e. they do it for the spouse rather than really have it confirmed by the Spirit). Yes some scholars have lost faith because they cannot find physical evidence but that means that they were also not in the faith for the right reasons. I mean do you need physical evidence to know the Bible is true? I hope not, that is not how we are told of its validity, we are told by listening to the Spirit, everything else (such as physical evidence) is an afterthought that may support it but is not the cornerstone it is built upon.
I do quote the Bible. It helps me in support of my arguments, I doubt you would find me very credible if I just put my opinion down willy nilly with nothing to back it up. And you are absolutely correct, many verses are up to interpretation, you look at them one way, I may look another, but one should not be able to fault one's view on a verse for theirs is just as fragile.
NOWHERE in the Book of Mormon does it say "you can become a god and rule your own planet as a god" or anything of that nature. Like I said before the term "god" here means immortality, the planet is symbolism for the inheritance of the Heavenly Kingdom.
Again some do believe certain things, but there is no doctrine that states God was from another planet or is an exalted man. Some speculate this and you must be careful if this is speaking of God the Father or Jesus Christ. I believe the controversial quote is from President Lorenzo Snow, "As man now is, God once was: as God now is, man may be". Now it is not clear if he was speaking of Heavenly Father or Jesus Christ.
I am very sorry for that poor girl... If you have tough questions I don't believe you should ask young girls in the Church, visit your bishop or the missionaries they can find the answers you seek.
About original documents, I do not believe they have found them. They have in recent years found early 'copies' of things such as the Talmund, the Torah, and so forth. One very popular one in recent years were the Dead Sea Scrolls, but they too were just copies not originals. My point is seeing is not necessary, as you already know; I do not believe it is a valid reason to assume something false just because you have never seen it's original copy.
The Plates have been sent back up to Moroni. Joseph Smith's translating was deemed finished and the records were reburied in the Hill Cumorah. I know you might scoff at this, but this is what I believe and I'd say have a little faith ;).
I know you may not have intended to do this, but I ask that you please be respectful in names and other aspects of the Church. Too often I see people write 'joe smith' to try to discredit the man, and try to give him the connotation of a simpleton. I believe that is very disrespectful; and is frankly a poor argumentative technique and is also a fallacy at that. I am not saying this was your intention it just sparked the thought.
How did you learn of sin? Or what was a sin? No doubt a leader of some sort taught you right and wrong. Now that leader may have been a pastor, a bishop, or a priest, or it could have been a parent, a sibling, a friend. A leader does not need to be a "church leader" or "figurehead". In the LDS Church we place a very heavy significance on the family and believe the family is ultimately where the Church is. I am not saying a leader is necessary to tell you what is right and wrong all the time, and to tell you what your relationship is with God (for this is not how they work in the LDS Church either). But a leader is there to teach. That is why God has sent forth prophets throughout time, to teach and to lead. That is why Jesus set up his ministry with the 12 apostles, to teach and to lead.
Indeed there have been changes to the Book of Mormon, but were largely grammatical, and such. We can all use a proof-reader sometimes!
So i had written this long response to your last post, but apparently I had typed the letter code wrogn and it was all erased so, i will in short time post a reply, but i think after i recharge and get the energy to sit back down and wright it alll again!
Post a Comment