Jesus is not only a prophet. He is the Son of God. He is infallible. I'm going to nit-pick here a bit. "infallible" means incapable of making mistakes. Jesus never sinned, but (1) that doesn't mean that he didn't make mistakes. Don't tell me he never dropped anything, never stepped on someones toes, never mispronounced a word, never had to say "I'm sorry" to be polite, etc. He never acted contrary to the will of God, but that is different. (2) That also doesn't mean that he was incapable of sin. I believe His atonement would have been worthless if he didn't have a choice to sin.
Now that I know what to look for, I found this: http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/66259
The passage in question is not in the Book of Mormon itself. It is in the introduction. The prophet Joseph Smith never wrote the words and he never claimed that any other Book of Mormon prophet did either. The words were added in 1981 by the then apostle Bruce R. McConkie to help familiarize new readers with the book.
Oddly enough, the page preceding the Book of Mormon introduction sheds some light on the situation. In the book's title page, Mormon wrote, "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore - condemn not the things of God." Granted this is an opinion piece, but it serves it's purpose here. McConkie was a wonderful scholar, but he has been known to publish assumptions before. Some of them he apologized for personally.
Wikipedia is really not a good place to go for accurate information, but these paragraphs frame what happened well (even if it has been edited by someone with bias)
And so I ask, was the US Army at the time an independent source?
The Utah War, also known as the Utah Expedition or Buchanan's Blunder, was an armed dispute between Latter-day Saint ("Mormon") settlers in Utah Territory and the United States federal government. The confrontation lasted from May 1857 until July 1858. While not fully bloodless, the war consisted of no pitched battles and was ultimately resolved through negotiation. Nevertheless, according to historian William P. MacKinnon, the Utah War was America's "most extensive and expensive military undertaking during the period between the Mexican and Civil wars, one that ultimately pitted nearly one-third of the US Army against what was arguably the nation's largest, most experienced militia." Note that this experience came protecting family and property repeatedly from mobs and the Missouri Government ("The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the state, if necessary, for the public good." - Lillburn W. Boggs, Governor Missouri ).
The Utah War was largely based on misperceptions and a lack of effective communication. From 1857 to 1858, the Buchanan administration sought to quell what it perceived to be a rebellion in Utah Territory while the Mormons, fearful that the large federal army dispatched to the region had been sent to annihilate them, blocked the army's entrance into the Salt Lake Valley. While the confrontation between the Mormon militia, called the Nauvoo Legion, and the U.S. Army involved some destruction of property and a few brief skirmishes in what is today southwestern Wyoming, no actual battles occurred between the contending military forces.
Despite this, the confrontation was not bloodless. At the height of the conflict, on September 11, 1857, more than 120 California-bound settlers from Arkansas, including unarmed men, women and children,[2] were killed in remote southwestern Utah by a group of local Mormon militiamen, possibly with the help of Native American allies. This tragedy was later called the Mountain Meadows massacre. While this incident was undoubtedly connected to the hysteria surrounding the approaching federal army which pervaded Utah in 1857, many historians conclude that the killings were an anomaly instigated by geographically isolated and deeply paranoid local leadership acting without the knowledge of the LDS hierarchy in Salt Lake City, although some maintain the existence of a larger conspiracy.[3]
The wagon train may have been joined by a group of eleven miners and plainsmen who called themselves "Missouri Wildcats," some of whom reportedly taunted, vandalized and "caused trouble" for Mormons and Native Americans along the route (by some accounts claiming that they had the gun that "shot the guts out of Old Joe Smith"[8]) and stories of this spread through Mormon communities.[9] However, it is uncertain whether the Missouri Wildcat group stayed with the slow-moving Fancher party after leaving Salt Lake City,[10] or even existed.[11] Either way, popular Mormon leader Parley P. Pratt had been murdered in Arkansas a few months earlier
I feel you misunderstood what he said. To clarify:
As has been said down the thread, there is nothing crazy about this book that would drive people away from the church, but this now allows for tons of things to be taken out of context (things taken out of context are the main reason that people think the LDS church is so weird... that, and flat out lies about it). In this context, "taken out of context" is compared to "flat out lies". This is saying that people make statements from information that are not true. Whether they are intentional or not. Note that both of these kinds of out-of-context statements are not uncommon when talking about the church. How are we supposed to give context in someone else's publication when they intentionally misrepresent something?
To deny someone information because you think they are incapable of understanding is called censorship.
If you think people need context, supply context. These two statements just don't mesh well. Do you really expect us to publish "How to run a Mormon Congregation: a non-mormon's guide to leadership in the Mormon Church!"? That is absurd and impractical.
Frankly, I wish they provided the manual more freely too. I wish they could. Nevertheless, the church has many enemies, and there are more practical reasons to limit such information too. There is nothing secret in there. Just ask a question to someone locally who has one and they'll give an honest (perhaps long-winded) answer.
In regards to "holy places", yes, that falls in the pearls-before-swine category. The teachings and ordinances there are ones that non-members are not prepared to understand. Frankly, we'd rather be mocked about being secretive than be mocked about our temple beliefs. A members-only policy also helps with the atmosphere. Everywhere in the building is kept quiet. People whisper and are very kind. It is a place where the Spirit of the Lord can be felt strongly. The last thing we need is a flock of tourists who really don't understand that we want to be alone with our thoughts and our God. Our Sunday services are totally different. With children making a fuss, people talking (hypothetically in the hallway), and visitors welcome to introduce minor disruptions everywhere.
ware are you getting your info?
Moses didn't start Judaism, Uh, it can be said that he did. It can be said in a substantial way.
nor did God impart special knowledge to him to teach to people. Yes, he did. Anything in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy that aren't in Genesis are attributed directly to Moses. The 10 commandments are a very notable teaching that came through Moses. Things in Genesis may also be attributed to Moses.
Moses was a Jew, the Jews already believed in God, moses just said he had the backing of God, and would free them from Egyptian enslavement. the old testament, basically the laws of Jewish society was created long before that. No, they weren't. The first 5 books were supposedly written by Moses, including Genesis.
again Jesus did not create Christianity but rather his disciples decedents(I think 3 generations later, after they figured out Jesus second coming was not going to be any time soon and actually started righting down the bible) I think you mean "compiling" the bible from whatever books were both left and thought to be authentic. You are correct, though, that the Bible didn't exist as such for a long time after Christ.
Whoa. I was glancing through, looking at your opinion, but I have to stop right there and comment. Mormonism does not hold non-existence as one of the eternal options. There is nothing doctrinal that I can think of to support full isolation either. It's true that there are at least 6 types of final destinations, but that is hardly isolation. I'd like a reference.
"Saved from what?"
If I may add my two cents... The short answer is: to be saved from the devil. A longer, and slightly more correct answer might be: to be saved from the consequences of past choices that the devil convinced you to make which are contrary to the commandments of God and lead to future pain and suffering.
This line, of course, was changed in the 2006 edition.
I doubt that very much. I don't have a 2006 edition handy, but I do have a 1981 edition and the online version. Both are the same as what you posted. What was it changed from and to?
It's not my definition; it's the biblical definition.
That's not true. The bible itself does not define the word, and people cannot agree on the exact tenets that the bible teaches.
If you insist that the bible has a definition, then you would have to refer to 1st Peter 4:16. By this definition, there are few throughout history that have a better claim than the 19th century Mormons.
If, on the other hand, you claim that belief in the New Testament is your "biblical" definition of "Christian", then each person would say: "My church is the only Christian church in the world. Nobody else really believes the Bible."
"Christianity" (as defined as the set of denominations you would accept as Christian) is mutually exclusive to itself! How then can you define Mormonism as not Christian because it has some mutually exclusive beliefs to other churches? I'm sure you can find "Christian" churches to contradict most of the "most basic tenant[s]" you look for.
I haven't looked into this handbook, so I haven't a clue what it could possibly say that would cause them to not want it publicized.
It's more complicated than that. It's not what's in the book, but what may change in future printings. If something changes in church policy, the accusation can be made that church leaders are not inspired of God because they didn't "get it right" the first time. I know, it's lame, but so are most of the lies in the "easy to obtain info" that you mention. I think they might also fear people misprinting sections of it. Sometimes a small "accidental" mistake in a "commentary" can be quite controversial.
Make no mistake, LDS/Mormans are not Christians. Similar values, though.
By your standard, perhaps. The things we believe are more "Christian" that a lot of the things I hear that many "Christian" churches preach. Probably the only fundamental difference you can really point to is that we do not believe in a closed cannon. I'd like to note that there is no good Biblical reason for believing in a closed cannon, so it's all academic anyway (please don't quote the passage in Revelations; I don't want to spend the time debunking that one again; I will if you insist).
I'm not trying to flame or troll.
I believe you. Likewise I don't mean to attack you back. I'm just speaking boldly.
It was a blatent and fraudulent attack at the time, and there is no reason to believe any differently now. The accusation was made when no Spaulding Manuscript was available. When one was finally found (recently) there began to be claims of a longer version. Give me a break.
Place it in historical context. Many people felt threatened by the doctrinal teachings and social solidarity of the church. Many conflicting lies were issued, schemes were put into action, and mobs were formed to try to destroy the church. This much is very easy to prove historically. The Spaulding Manuscript lie doesn't make sense until you try to contort historical records to try to prove it. Even then, you have to squint and cover one eye.
That's not quite true. At least you are making sane statements, which is far better than many in this thread.
In reguards to the original mormon belief of polygamy, you would need to refer to The Book of Mormon, which was published before the first "Mormon Church" was organized. The section I refer to is Jacob 2:23-30. Pay particular attention to verse 30. Note also that this passage talks about David and Solomon, but not Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and other biblical polygamists. It has always been doctrine that God periodically commands polygamy, but that it is a sin otherwise.
The question then is not one of doctrine, but of authority. Did Wilford Woodruff have the authority from God to make that declaration.
Your second accusation regarding Africans is interesting. I hadn't heard that before. It makes sense though. It was something that was going to happen eventually, and that sounds like a good trigger to me.
Joseph Smith was widely accused of bank fraud and had several lawsuits and indictments leveled against him.
So? If you found a bank which goes under, people are going to naturally accuse you of fraud. That does not mean that fraud occurred. There was a depression and people were looking for someone to blame. Big deal.
A warrant was issued for his arrest. He spent time in jail.
Yeah, so? He was never convicted of anything. He had a number of warrants issued and he spent several stays in various jails. He was murdered in cold blood by a mob while in jail. We release innocent people periodically in todays day and age (even people who are convicted who are found innocent). The fact that he spent time in jail is not an indicator of guilt.
What is telling, though, is that one of those arrest was accompanied by an extermination order. That's right. The govenor of Missouri signed an executive order that every "mormon" leave Missouri or be killed without trial or mercy. While Joseph spent that time in jail, the people that he lead were being robed, murdered, and raped (the mobs did not wait for the LDS to leave). When the president of the US was petitioned they were told "Your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you."
The fact that he was in jail says nothing about his character, but about others at the time.
When Alpha830RulZ's questionable activity becomes a matter of legal and historical record, then maybe you can come back and make a worthwhile comparison, eh?
It is already just as legitimate as the repeated claims against Joseph. History is a record of what people say has happened. The accusation against Alpha830RulZ has been made, and is now historical. While it was poorly delivered, it is a properly framed comparison. If lots of people hated Alpha830RulZ, there would be a corresponding number of accusations.
You are sadly and thoroughly misinformed. You have clearly been reading anti-mormon propaganda. That rabid drivel is never accurate. It is amazingly difficult to find truly neutral information on the LDS church. What can be said with absolute certainly is that you do not understand the doctrine. I would encourage you to take everything you read with a large grain of salt. Even many so-called experts are just people with an axe to grind.
Excuse me? Since it is unencrypted at the client end, this is still almost trivial to write. The only difference is that it would need to go through stunnel or the like.
(Note that I don't know their exact design, but I suspect it is very easy to automate, unless they include a captcha.)
In fact right now the honeybee is quickly going from high population to endangered, and there's still no explanation why. ... ...it's very clear that they are NOT more adaptive. rather, they have simply filled a niche by nature, and are no longer there (or will be soon) since the niche is gone.
Whoa there! Talk about leaping to conclusions. That niche is there greater than ever, and encouraged by our agricultural industry. There are myriad other possible explanations, but their niche collapsing isn't one of them!
If I remember right, with bees, the workers can reproduce, but can only produce other workers. They cannot produce drones (males). Without the queen, the colony eventually dies. I assume ants are the same.
I find your statement a bit ambiguous. You seem to be saying "what if aliens believe something different than us?"
Well, there are four possibilities. Either: we're right and they're wrong, they're right and we are wrong, we're both wrong, or there is some unexplained way for both of us to be right.
Of course, I'm not exactly sure what you are suggesting they are saying. That said, this is as good as I can do.
I was going to write something honest and more complete, but decided it would be interpreted as flamebait. "Image" has been interpreted as not being literal. I suggest that this does not mean that it wasn't meant literally.
You may take exception if you wish, but they are given the same opportunities as we are. Yes, I realize this is my theology, and not yours.
22 And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!
23 For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father-
24 That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.
(Note that there have been a lot of anonymous posts in this thread. I should post anonymous to save my karma, but I wont. Don't mod me down purely out of disagreement. That would be childish. Post instead. I will remain civil.)
This is a common misconception. There are honest duplicates within the system. I'm not talking about the "undocumented worker" down the street. Duplicate SSN's are issued. You need some other information such as a name to make it a unique identifier.
There are almost 304,000,000 people in the US. If they were unique, that would mean that a third of the total possible SSNs must be used just for the current living population. Count everyone who has died since 1936 (with an SSN), and everyone to be born in the next hundred years, and almost all possible numbers will be taken. I don't think SSNs were designed to be absolutely unique. They claimed they would never be used as identifiers.
For those who don't remember, Diebold got caught doing that a few years back in CA. That brings out the concern: When aren't we catching it? Who aren't we catching?
I like electronic voting machines in principle, but we really need some public outcry. This is lunacy.
Since you can take and leave things at will in the air, how about some good old 3D checkers?
Not going to work. You can't just set things in mid air. They'll drift off. Even if you do manage to get the checker totally still, the next time somebody moves near the board it will cause air currents that will cause them all to drift. It would be easier to play 3D checkers with gravity than without.
Slashdot Mirror
http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/66259 The passage in question is not in the Book of Mormon itself. It is in the introduction. The prophet Joseph Smith never wrote the words and he never claimed that any other Book of Mormon prophet did either. The words were added in 1981 by the then apostle Bruce R. McConkie to help familiarize new readers with the book.
Oddly enough, the page preceding the Book of Mormon introduction sheds some light on the situation. In the book's title page, Mormon wrote, "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore - condemn not the things of God." Granted this is an opinion piece, but it serves it's purpose here. McConkie was a wonderful scholar, but he has been known to publish assumptions before. Some of them he apologized for personally.
And so I ask, was the US Army at the time an independent source? The Utah War, also known as the Utah Expedition or Buchanan's Blunder, was an armed dispute between Latter-day Saint ("Mormon") settlers in Utah Territory and the United States federal government. The confrontation lasted from May 1857 until July 1858. While not fully bloodless, the war consisted of no pitched battles and was ultimately resolved through negotiation. Nevertheless, according to historian William P. MacKinnon, the Utah War was America's "most extensive and expensive military undertaking during the period between the Mexican and Civil wars, one that ultimately pitted nearly one-third of the US Army against what was arguably the nation's largest, most experienced militia." Note that this experience came protecting family and property repeatedly from mobs and the Missouri Government ("The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the state, if necessary, for the public good." - Lillburn W. Boggs, Governor Missouri ). The Utah War was largely based on misperceptions and a lack of effective communication. From 1857 to 1858, the Buchanan administration sought to quell what it perceived to be a rebellion in Utah Territory while the Mormons, fearful that the large federal army dispatched to the region had been sent to annihilate them, blocked the army's entrance into the Salt Lake Valley. While the confrontation between the Mormon militia, called the Nauvoo Legion, and the U.S. Army involved some destruction of property and a few brief skirmishes in what is today southwestern Wyoming, no actual battles occurred between the contending military forces.
Despite this, the confrontation was not bloodless. At the height of the conflict, on September 11, 1857, more than 120 California-bound settlers from Arkansas, including unarmed men, women and children,[2] were killed in remote southwestern Utah by a group of local Mormon militiamen, possibly with the help of Native American allies. This tragedy was later called the Mountain Meadows massacre. While this incident was undoubtedly connected to the hysteria surrounding the approaching federal army which pervaded Utah in 1857, many historians conclude that the killings were an anomaly instigated by geographically isolated and deeply paranoid local leadership acting without the knowledge of the LDS hierarchy in Salt Lake City, although some maintain the existence of a larger conspiracy.[3] The wagon train may have been joined by a group of eleven miners and plainsmen who called themselves "Missouri Wildcats," some of whom reportedly taunted, vandalized and "caused trouble" for Mormons and Native Americans along the route (by some accounts claiming that they had the gun that "shot the guts out of Old Joe Smith"[8]) and stories of this spread through Mormon communities.[9] However, it is uncertain whether the Missouri Wildcat group stayed with the slow-moving Fancher party after leaving Salt Lake City,[10] or even existed.[11] Either way, popular Mormon leader Parley P. Pratt had been murdered in Arkansas a few months earlier
If you think people need context, supply context. These two statements just don't mesh well. Do you really expect us to publish "How to run a Mormon Congregation: a non-mormon's guide to leadership in the Mormon Church!"? That is absurd and impractical.
Frankly, I wish they provided the manual more freely too. I wish they could. Nevertheless, the church has many enemies, and there are more practical reasons to limit such information too. There is nothing secret in there. Just ask a question to someone locally who has one and they'll give an honest (perhaps long-winded) answer.
In regards to "holy places", yes, that falls in the pearls-before-swine category. The teachings and ordinances there are ones that non-members are not prepared to understand. Frankly, we'd rather be mocked about being secretive than be mocked about our temple beliefs. A members-only policy also helps with the atmosphere. Everywhere in the building is kept quiet. People whisper and are very kind. It is a place where the Spirit of the Lord can be felt strongly. The last thing we need is a flock of tourists who really don't understand that we want to be alone with our thoughts and our God. Our Sunday services are totally different. With children making a fuss, people talking (hypothetically in the hallway), and visitors welcome to introduce minor disruptions everywhere.
So THAT'S who Anonymous Coward is! It all makes sense now!
If you insist that the bible has a definition, then you would have to refer to 1st Peter 4:16. By this definition, there are few throughout history that have a better claim than the 19th century Mormons.
If, on the other hand, you claim that belief in the New Testament is your "biblical" definition of "Christian", then each person would say: "My church is the only Christian church in the world. Nobody else really believes the Bible."
"Christianity" (as defined as the set of denominations you would accept as Christian) is mutually exclusive to itself! How then can you define Mormonism as not Christian because it has some mutually exclusive beliefs to other churches? I'm sure you can find "Christian" churches to contradict most of the "most basic tenant[s]" you look for.
It was a blatent and fraudulent attack at the time, and there is no reason to believe any differently now. The accusation was made when no Spaulding Manuscript was available. When one was finally found (recently) there began to be claims of a longer version. Give me a break.
Place it in historical context. Many people felt threatened by the doctrinal teachings and social solidarity of the church. Many conflicting lies were issued, schemes were put into action, and mobs were formed to try to destroy the church. This much is very easy to prove historically. The Spaulding Manuscript lie doesn't make sense until you try to contort historical records to try to prove it. Even then, you have to squint and cover one eye.
That's not quite true. At least you are making sane statements, which is far better than many in this thread.
In reguards to the original mormon belief of polygamy, you would need to refer to The Book of Mormon, which was published before the first "Mormon Church" was organized. The section I refer to is Jacob 2:23-30. Pay particular attention to verse 30. Note also that this passage talks about David and Solomon, but not Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and other biblical polygamists. It has always been doctrine that God periodically commands polygamy, but that it is a sin otherwise.
The question then is not one of doctrine, but of authority. Did Wilford Woodruff have the authority from God to make that declaration.
Your second accusation regarding Africans is interesting. I hadn't heard that before. It makes sense though. It was something that was going to happen eventually, and that sounds like a good trigger to me.
Yeah, so? He was never convicted of anything. He had a number of warrants issued and he spent several stays in various jails. He was murdered in cold blood by a mob while in jail. We release innocent people periodically in todays day and age (even people who are convicted who are found innocent). The fact that he spent time in jail is not an indicator of guilt.
What is telling, though, is that one of those arrest was accompanied by an extermination order. That's right. The govenor of Missouri signed an executive order that every "mormon" leave Missouri or be killed without trial or mercy. While Joseph spent that time in jail, the people that he lead were being robed, murdered, and raped (the mobs did not wait for the LDS to leave). When the president of the US was petitioned they were told "Your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you."
The fact that he was in jail says nothing about his character, but about others at the time.
It is already just as legitimate as the repeated claims against Joseph. History is a record of what people say has happened. The accusation against Alpha830RulZ has been made, and is now historical. While it was poorly delivered, it is a properly framed comparison. If lots of people hated Alpha830RulZ, there would be a corresponding number of accusations.
You are sadly and thoroughly misinformed. You have clearly been reading anti-mormon propaganda. That rabid drivel is never accurate. It is amazingly difficult to find truly neutral information on the LDS church. What can be said with absolute certainly is that you do not understand the doctrine. I would encourage you to take everything you read with a large grain of salt. Even many so-called experts are just people with an axe to grind.
Excuse me? Since it is unencrypted at the client end, this is still almost trivial to write. The only difference is that it would need to go through stunnel or the like.
(Note that I don't know their exact design, but I suspect it is very easy to automate, unless they include a captcha.)
If I remember right, with bees, the workers can reproduce, but can only produce other workers. They cannot produce drones (males). Without the queen, the colony eventually dies. I assume ants are the same.
I find your statement a bit ambiguous. You seem to be saying "what if aliens believe something different than us?"
Well, there are four possibilities. Either: we're right and they're wrong, they're right and we are wrong, we're both wrong, or there is some unexplained way for both of us to be right.
Of course, I'm not exactly sure what you are suggesting they are saying. That said, this is as good as I can do.
I was going to write something honest and more complete, but decided it would be interpreted as flamebait. "Image" has been interpreted as not being literal. I suggest that this does not mean that it wasn't meant literally.
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/76/22-24#22
(Note that there have been a lot of anonymous posts in this thread. I should post anonymous to save my karma, but I wont. Don't mod me down purely out of disagreement. That would be childish. Post instead. I will remain civil.)
This is a common misconception. There are honest duplicates within the system. I'm not talking about the "undocumented worker" down the street. Duplicate SSN's are issued. You need some other information such as a name to make it a unique identifier.
There are almost 304,000,000 people in the US. If they were unique, that would mean that a third of the total possible SSNs must be used just for the current living population. Count everyone who has died since 1936 (with an SSN), and everyone to be born in the next hundred years, and almost all possible numbers will be taken. I don't think SSNs were designed to be absolutely unique. They claimed they would never be used as identifiers.
For those who don't remember, Diebold got caught doing that a few years back in CA. That brings out the concern: When aren't we catching it? Who aren't we catching?
I like electronic voting machines in principle, but we really need some public outcry. This is lunacy.