mormons, i went to your websites...?

Question

i visited lds.org and mormon.org, as suggested by the mormons on here. i read through them thoroughly, but i won't comment for now. i think it would only be fair if you would also visit these websites...
http://www.mrm.org/topics/jesus-christ/guess-who
http://www.mrm.org/topics/mormon-temple/nauvoo-pentagrams
http://www.mrm.org/topics/god-father/does-genesis-1-26-27-prove-god-has-physical-body
http://www.mrm.org/topics/book-mormon/smithsonian-institution-statement-regarding-book-mormon

please explain to me how they are being dishonest? enlighten me.

Answer 1

learning about Mormonism from lds.org, and mormon.org is like learning about a product from a commercial.

I'm proud that you were willing to visit the pro Mormon sites as well as the not so pro Mormon sites.

Answer 2

First link: We do respect and honor Joseph Smith, but we do not worship him. He did much for the church and we appreciate what he did, but we continue to believe Christ is the central figure of the faith and there is no other way man can be saved, but through Jesus Christ. It is like saying the Catholics worship Peter more than Christ because they believe he is the foundation/rock of their church (a little more extreme than Mormons), or protestant religions worshiping Luther more than Christ, or Jews worshipping Moses because their strict adherence to the Old Testament and the Law of Moses. It would be silly to do so, just like it is to say such things about the Mormons and Joseph Smith.

Second link: So what they are saying is that because most people associate it with Satan, then it must be bad or something? That's rediculous. There are many people who have tried to explain the meaning of these symbols, including just the representation of the stars and the vastness of God's worlds, but who knows. Certainly, there is no evidence of these statements or the negative ideals attached by some. I have a little buddhist statue on my desk, not for worship obviously, but it is peaceful (I studied with Buddhist for some time). On it's chest is the reversed swastika. Some may be offended, but at least we can explain the meaning. With the stars this link refers it is merely left to speculation.

Third link: Again, just this persons interpretation. I could come up with hundreds of interpretations on both Mormonism and other religions. What Mormons believe is that God does have a perfected body of flesh and bones, as does Christ (because of being born into the flesh and the resurrection). Clearly, we can all interpret, and have the right to interpret the message of the Bible. Religion is a personal thing and is of faith. Continuing revelation, which the Mormons believe, clarifies their views.

Fourth link: I've actually never heard anyone use the Smithsonian as evidence of the Book of Mormon. There is no objective evidence that will prove any religion of the world, they are all faith based. There have been people find evidence of and those who believe to have found evidence against the Book of Mormon, so what? It is religion. There is certainly no evidence of God, or much of the history of the Bible (like Noah's Ark, the Tablets of the 10 Commandments, etc.), but does that change or drive people from their faiths? Of course not. The only way you will believe or disbelieve the Book of Mormon is the same as any scriptural (alleged or not) text, you read it, study it, pray about it, etc. If you pray, or believe prayers are answered, then God should answer you. If not, you probably aren't a religious person or have your own beliefs, which is fine.

As I have repeated, religion is personal and faith based. All religions can be torn down or mocked, but I choose not to do that, but rather respect the rights of all to believe as they choose. Who am I to tell someone they actually didn't receive an answer to a prayer? I'm not. They may not be able to prove it, but I also can't prove it didn't happen. If you honestly want to know the truth of any religion you should studying it from it's members (I have studied hundreds of religions from the horses mouth). That certainly makes logical sense in a world of often illogical religion.

Answer 3

Tell you how they are lying?

First link:
They are lying by suggesting that we put Joseph Smith above Jesus Christ. They culled out some statements about Joseph Smith, but, I bet they had to look harder for those han they would have for statements abouto Jesus Christ. Especially in the Hymnal. So, if they aren't lying, they are being VERY deceptive.

Second one: inverted pentagram, or just an upside down star? What meaning YOU give a particular symbol says more about YOU than it does about us. The article mentions the swastika. I have a feeling that if the swastika was incorporated into our temple designs, you all would be getting all crappy about that, too.

I like rainbows. But, I get too many people who try to make it ou that I am somehow supportive of gay pride or something. I say, hey, the rainbow has lots of meanings and mine don't mean anyting about gays.

fourth link: Smithsonian.

Have you read their statment on the Bible? Here's the summary:

>It is therefore not possible to try to "prove" the Bible by means of checking its historical or scientific accuracy. The only "proof" to which it can be subjected is this: Does it correctly portray the God-human relationship? In the best analysis, the Bible is a religious book, not an historical document.<

No to mention, tat the statement on the Book of Mormon has undergone a few revisions since the one posted here.

>In 1982 John Sorenson wrote a detailed critique of the Smithsonian piece that was published by FARMS. It pointed out errors of fact and logic in the statement. He revised that in 1995 and included the recommendation that the Smithsonian Institution completely modify their statement to bring it up to date scientifically. FARMS officers later conferred with a Smithsonian representative who indicated a willingness to make changes. More recently, members of Congress have questioned the Institution about the inappropriateness of a government agency taking a stand regarding a religious book.

In March of 1998 the Director of Communications at the Smithsonian began using the following brief response to queries about the Book of Mormon:

Your recent inquiry concerning the Smithsonian Institution's alleged use of the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide has been received in the Office of Communications. The Book of Mormon is a religious document and not a scientific guide. The Smithsonian Institution has never used it in archeological research and any information that you have received to the contrary is incorrect.<

I was surfing the rest of this site, and I find lots of stuff that I question. For instance, ANYTHING that happens in the temple that non-members find offensive? How the heck do they know anyway? That's why we don't discuss it outside the temple, because THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!!! It was never meant to be offensive to anyone, and if anyone finds it offensive, they aer not ready to go to the temple. And non-members don't go anyway, so what they find offensive is not what we do or say, but how they learn about it-from people like MRM.

As for temple weddings and non-member parents. If the children getting married can't convince their parents of the reason why tey want to get married in the temple, then they will have to sacrifice their principles and have a civil ceremony, and wait a year to get sealed. However, I doubt that the parents will appreciate an LDS chapel wedding either. Large weddings are discouraged, and a lot of the wedding is geared towards teaching all non-member guests about the church.

Satan has to mix truth with lies, otherwise, no one would believe him.

Answer 4

what question would you like to be answered? well it seems that essentially your question here is to whom should you appeal to for answers, Mormons or non-Mormons, concerning questions of the Mormon faith. If you would like to know doctrinal beliefs, of course it would be expedient for you to appeal to the direct source, e.g. the mormon faith itself. Sadly, "religion" has degraded sometimes to simply bashing other religions other than building up a chosen doctinal difference that a religion chooses. I'm assuming that the sites above deal with the same things that i've read in anti-mormon literature over the years, and i'll address them.

Mormonism is a CHRISTIAN church, teaching that the same Jesus of Nazareth as in the Bible is the Messiah, savior, and redeemer. He is the son of god, although we believe he is a separate entity from God the Father and the Holy Spirit (there are doctrinal referecnes for this in the Bible, Acts 7 for instance, or anytime Jesus prays to his father or the baptism scene in John 3:16 where all entities are present individually and independently.)
The main difference is that we believe Jesus visited the America's. Jesus explained that he'd do this in John 10: 14(verse?).


The temple. Everyone makes a big deal about the temple, for whatever reason. they've existed since the time of Solomon in the Bible. They serve a practical purpose. You have to understand that Mormons believe in the restoration of the priesthood to modern days, after the apostasy (the extinguishing of the priesthood of jesus from the earth after the death of his apostles, e.g. the Dark Ages). this is a foreign concept to most, so it's understandable why temples would be misunderstood. but with the priesthood restored, temples are necessary to do the works ordained by Christ, and some made known by modern day revelation by prophets who hold the proper keys that have been restored in these latter-days by Christ. In fact, all Mormon priesthood holders can trace their line of authority back to Jesus Christ!


The Book of Mormon. Most critics cite John's scripture in Revelations about the curses that will befall any who tamper with his words. And HIS WORDS is exactly what he means. You see, the Bible is not compiled in chronological order, and Revelations was not meant to be the final book of it. So using the evangelical "counter" of the Book of Mormon would be to say that anything written after the book of Revelations is invalid because Jon said so! Clearly this was not his purpose. He foresaw those that would tamper with the Bible. and "editorialize" it to fulfill their own expectations. He was warning those that would tamper with his own words, which were inspired. In fact, the Bible makes mention of other books, and even specifically of Joseph Smith! To say that "we have a bible, we need no more bible" is foolish. can you ever have too much of the word of god?

How do you determine whether the Book of Mormon is the word of God? Read it! with an open, unbiased heart. and pray. you'll know one way or the other. And remember, the bible teaches that "by their fruits shall ye know them." so read the precepts of the Book of Mormon and see if they match up with Biblical teachings.

I really hope this helps. It's up to you to make a decision, I've tried to prepare something worthwhile.

Answer 5

I know being a ex mormon I was lied to about the history of the church. Josesp Smith had 33 wives no one ever told me that. plus that he died in a shoot out and killed two people. Polgmany was only practice because all widows. Because their husband were kill by the mobs. But accorrding to records their was more man than women. The Mormons need to own up to their history. They hiding the truth from the members.

Answer 6

Hehe...I used to watch Saved by the Bell all the time. :)

Mormons are usually advised against visiting any sites which point out problems with their beliefs. Although, quite a few of them are well aware of what is said.

I'm not Mormon, but some of my family is....so I'm going to stay out of this. I just wanted to comment on your avatar name! :)

Answer 7

Most anti-Mormons are just twisting things in order to distort the truth. That's not very Christian in my opinion. Why can't people just leave the Mormons alone?

Answer 8

I will look at them! Thank you, I hate doing the research and will read just about anything.

Answer 9

Been there, done that. Perhaps you can find a site that doesnt need to resort to lies to criticize the church...

But then again, that hasnt ever been done. So I doubt youll find one.

Seriously, if their arguments are so strong why do they have to be dishonest?

Answer 10

Smith 'Worship': It was explained to me that the sacred name of Jesus was not to be overly used lest it become to familiar - this is related to McConkie's view that no real mormon has a personal relationship with him.
Pentagrams: Smith was no satanist, but was exposed to much folklore in his youth. My opinion is he simply like star shapes.
God & Jesus tangible bodies: I remember only the tangible side of mormon teachings, so my exposure to biblical 'logic' is minimal.
Book of Mormon evidence: My sticking point precisely - There is no credible evidence of anything remotely reflecting a civilization(s) as depicted by Smith. Any civilization that ended as suddenly and abruptly as the Nephites and Jaredites cannot physically evaporate. The Minoans left tons of evidence by comparison. Even the Egyptians left several forms of writing except 'reformed'.