Saturday, 6 October 2007

Comoros Island

Steffie can you see the island and the name of its its Capital City ?

Click on the picture and it should show full size ?

Let us know by email what you think ? I've not bothered much with this blog as there are too many other good ones out there ...

44 comments:

stephanie said...

Oh but I have to comment :)

I googled it and found some interesting info. BUT nothing conclusive. Plus it was spelled differently! Thanks for putting it on here so I could see it! I will continue my research on it! From what I read it said "He may have, and might have", Joseph himself did not seem to ever reference it.

Steff :)

rick b said...

Hey, I was wondering if you died or where you were. Glad your still around. You should post or link these blogs or website you stated, I would like to check some out. Rick b

John J. Kaiser said...

What am I supposed to be seeing?

tatabug said...

The point about Comoros Island and the capital city of Moroni is....? Let me guess. Joseph plagiarized Moroni and changed the letters in Comoros to make Cumorah in his elaborate hoax of a religion. Does that sound about right?

What I would like to know is what evidence is there that a map that would have been available to Joseph which featured Comoros and Moroni? By evidence I mean something other than an anti-mormon book which merely says it is evident that it was common knowledge during Joseph's time. I've scoured the internet for such information and haven't been able to find anything conclusive. This issue seems to be purely speculation.

Considering the fact that Joseph was nearly illiterate, I find it hard to believe that he did the elaborate research which many would like to believe he did. He would have not only had to have access to maps but also numerous other types of books and information to be able to plagiarize to the degree he has been accused.

rick b said...

Tatabug said :
Considering the fact that Joseph was nearly illiterate,

What evidence of this do you have, besides some LDS simply saying so? Rick b

Elder Joseph said...

Tata ,

I thought my blog was redundant ... but since you ask .this is what I have so far on

Comoros Islands / Moroni

In Josephs time the Camora Islands were famous/known for Captain Kidd treasure hunting stories .

http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~omar/Comoros

Captain Kidd was known to have travelled to Camora in his expeditions…

Joseph Smith’s Father was a Treasure hunter also like Joseph . Joseph Smith was heard to speak about Captain Kidd and pots of gold and silver hidden/buried in the ground …( Grant Palmer Insiders view Of Mormon Origins p188 )……..he was familiar with the stories of his treasure expeditions . They both used to go round looking for treasure/goldmines with their Hats and peep stones?

Joseph Smith was arrested for it in 1826 , he had been involved in it since 1822 when he found his seer stone ….
Joseph Smith was heard to admit that he could not really see buried treasure with his hat and stone ( Richard Bushman ‘Rough stone Rolling’ p51 ) and Grant Palmer ‘Insiders View of Mormon Origins’ p9 ). Emma’s father Isaac Hale did not like Joseph Smith being involved with this criminal activity .

There is a verse in the BookOf Mormon which mentions treasure

Mormon1:18 And these Gadianton robbers, who were among the Lamanites, did infest the land, insomuch that the inhabitants thereof began to ahide up their btreasures in the earth; and they became slippery, because the Lord had cursed the land, that they could not hold them, nor retain them again.

But could Joseph Smith be talking about those days as a treasure hunter where they never found anything ?

There is also a verse in D&C 111 where he sends Sidney Rigdon, Hyrum Smith, and Oliver Cowdery to a place called Salem for treasure ?

D&C 111 :2 I have much treasure in this city for you, for the benefit of Zion, and many people in this city, whom I will gather out in due time for the benefit of Zion, through your instrumentality.

tatabug said...

rick,

Well I suppose his wife and his mother saying so sounds pretty good to me.

tatabug said...

EJ,

Well the truth is that Moroni didn't become the capital of Comoros until 1876 and the maps and gazeteers of Joseph's day often neglected Comoros and didn't show Moroni at all.

Your Captain Kidd theory is interesting, but here is one which I am fond of:

"Madagascar is the major westernmost extension of the Malayo-Polynesian language family. Migrants from Indonesia sailed there about 2,000 years ago or so. They brought with them many foods, music (and musical instruments), traditions and their language.

As Dr. Gordon Thomassen then asks us:

Did my friendly neighborhood ocean-going outrigger Malayo-Polynesian Malagasy friends name the Islands or contribute to their language? Or is it Arabic? Or, or, or. People moved all over that world, long before the Ming treasure fleets....let your mind expand to the worldview of Malayo-Polynesian peoples who navigated by the seat of their pants (almost literally), all the way from the coast of South America to the east coast of Africa."

Why is this important? Because the Book of Mormon teaches that circa 55 B.C., some of its people, led by a man named Hagoth, left the Americas in ships to settle far away places, and they were never heard from again! (see Alma 63:5-8). In Joseph's day, and even in our day, the idea of early world travel was not conceivable. Remember, many thought in Columbus' day that sea monsters would destroy ships, or at least those ships which didn't fall off the edge of the world!

To consider such travel 1500 years before such an event as the discovery of the New World by Europeans was foolhardy and unbelievable. Yet, the archaeological record shows that it occurred!"


Is it possible that Joseph didn't need to plagiarize Cumorah or Moroni from the Comoros Islands because those names were given to the island by some Nephite explorers who would have been quite familiar with those names? Or was Joseph just smart enough to prepare himself an out by including Hagoth in his fraud? But wait--how could he have known that Comoros Island had originally been settled by Malayo-Polynesians around 2000 years ago, which was precisely the time that he set Hagoth out to sea? Also, how could he have known that these Polynesians could possibly have DNA connections to Native Americans? Either way, there sure are lots of coincidences here.

Galatian said...

Hi EJ,

Thanks for the note. Wanted to email you, didn't have your email.

You really should update your blog. It is not redundant at all. You have your own unique perspective and style to bring to the ex-mo blogger community, and every extra voice helps!

For instance, this last article was quite interesting to me.

Anyway, hope you are well. I am back, and here to stay!!
Take care. Chat soon I hope.

Corri said...

This is pretty sad if you have to spend your life tearing religions down. All religions should be here to build each other up. Pulling together to bring peace, not war and hatred. There are many things wrong with many religions, why is it always the Mormons everyone goes after. As in the time of Christ, there were so many things wrongs in the synagogues and everyone went after Christ; the only one who taught truth. There may be many people who are not righteous in the LDS church but the people are not what makes the church what it is. It is the doctrine that Christ taught. Read the Bible.

Even though there are MANY mistakes in it, we still believe in the apostles and prophets from those times.

This makes me sad that there has to be contention in all this. If you don't believe that is fine and you don't have to. But why can't those who believe, believe in peace.

May God bless you in your life.
"work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" Philippians 2:12

Elder Joseph said...

corri

All cults say the same .. JW's , Moonies, Scientologists ..

You say all religions should build each other up , but you are the church which was built on the premise that everyone else is false and from Satan .

Its in your pre 1990 endowment ceremony which shows Satan doing a deal with a Minister Of Religion to teach the world satans lies in exchange for money ..

And I don't want your blessing either , you are just trying appease me ......

tatabug said...

EJ,

While we recognize the shortcomings of other religions, we believe that they also contain much good, and do much toward teaching people to live good lives. There are many good and wonderful people in other religions. All many people wish to do is follow God in the best way that they know how to. But at some point, all religions departed from the truth in some way, since there is only one truth and God is not the author of confusion. All lies are from Satan, not God, which I'm sure you would agree with. And so through unrighteousness, some religious and political leaders corrupted the truth, which has led to much confusion and distortion of truth. Basically, some professor(s) of religion, "sold their souls" so to speak. So, while we believe that Satan has had his influence in the establishment of false teachings in religion, we believe that there is a lot of good intent and genuine love and reverence for God, and wherever we can find it, we try to gratefully acknowledge it. But we too are human.

EJ, surely you would like God's blessings, which is all that Corri was wishing for you. You don't have to be snotty about it. I know all you want to do is publish the truth as you see it, and that is all we want to do. Unfortunately we have different ideas about what the truth is, and we all get upset when we see people distorting what we hold most dear. We are talking about God here and because we have different ideas about Him, it causes contention. God shouldn't be a point of contention. Our time and efforts might be better spent trying to find truth together, rather than trying to find fault. Instead of leading people away from God (which is what happens to many who leave the Church because they begin to question everything, even God), we should look for the good in all religions and focus more on that, instead of perceived flaws. I think that is all Corri is trying to say.

rick b said...

EJ,
How are you brother?
Well this corri person posted the same exact thing on my blog, word for word, I happend to see Corri posted it on your blog, so I removed it from mine.

I did so because, if it is word for word the same as on your blog, that tells me this person never read a thing on my blog or your and is simply posting in a mindless manner.

But that is just my thoughts, Rick b

Elder Joseph said...

tatabug

You said "But at some point, all religions departed from the truth in some way, since there is only one truth and God is not the author of confusion."

This is the same thing I've heard from Christadelphians , Jehovahs Witnesses , Muslims etc ... you are just one a bunch making the same claim ..

you said

" All lies are from Satan, not God, which I'm sure you would agree with."

I would agree with this ,however you would have to include Joseph Smith and the church leaders conspiracy to Lie about polygamy all those years and even included a false scripture in D&C about believing only in monogomy .

you said

"Instead of leading people away from God (which is what happens to many who leave the Church because they begin to question everything, even God), "

I blame the dishonest church leaders who weren't truthful in the beginning for that.The LDS church is still doing the same now , I experienced it myself . The monogomous Joseph Smith , The Urim and Thummim , The helpless Martyrdom , the sincere young boy Joseph etc ..

No mention of his womanising , marrying women behind his wifes back ,marrying teens - household maids etc marrying married women , threatening to take wives from followers and did so.

No Mention of a stone and hat , how embarassing for me .. No mention of his violent acts against a newspaper press which was set up by his one time closest associates . No mention of a gun in Jail killing others etc .The list is endless really .

I'm glad I fought off all the pressure to baptise.The result would have been disasterous and I may have gone looking for my missionaries with a view to thumping them.

And Corri's blessing wish ?....I don't believe her.I've learnt not to trust Latter Day Saints anmore than anyone else from experience.They are prone to Hyperbole and exaggeration.I see it in my missionaries all the time , they will say absolutely anything to try to get a baptism ,its actually quite sad.I got fed up of being told how great I was , How awsome I am etc etc and they only had one motive in mind .

"So, while we believe that Satan has had his influence in the establishment of false teachings in religion"

I believe Satan had the hand in starting the religion Of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young .The fruits of these two men says it all for me , and I don't want any link to them whatsoever as far as God is concerned.

My words are no reflection on you Tata .. I believe you are sincere ....

Bishop Rick said...

If God is not the author of confusion, then there is no God, because ALL religions are riddled with confusion.

ALL

Including the Mormons.

tatabug said...

BR,

Actually, the confusion is that there are so many religions and varying beliefs, which is as a result of sin and rebellion. It is Satan's influence. He is allowed to have his influence in the world and it is he who is the author of confusion. Not fun, but opposition in all things is necessary for our learning and growth.

The only confusion in Mormonism is the confusion which has been created by those who are looking for it in order to hinder the Church. Much of that confusion comes from the Church's history, which can be attributed to a lack of historical data on certain issues or a lack of searching for or utilizing essential information. That comes from those who want to cast doubt on the Church's validity. Other confusion comes when people want to use the Bible without sufficient understanding of its meaning and its inherent flaws and limitations, to try and cast stones at Mormon doctrines. If it weren't for the opposition to the Church, there would be no confusion.

I see the confusion, but I do not live in the confusion.

rick b said...

Great examples of Confusion by the mormon god.


LDS Prophets cannot agree

JS claims over in D and C 135:3-4 he has done more except Jesus has, well if this is the case why is it that the apostles like Paul, John, Peter and others have books of the Bible named after them and not Joseph? We read in the book of revelation that the names of the 12 apostles will be written on the gates of heaven but no where are any LDS apostles or prophets mentioned, strange how not even the super prophet JS is not mentioned if he ranks second to Jesus?

Now we read J Smith saying in the book History of the Church vol 4, pg 461. "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by it's precepts, than any other book."

Then over in the book, Teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith on pg 71 we read, " Take away the book of Mormon and the revelations, and where is our religion? we have none."

Now lets look at what the prophet, Joseph Fielding Smith said. Notice Joseph Smith was the first "prophet" Joseph F Smith was the 10th "prophet/president" of the Church. So as not to confuse with the close names.

We read in the book,

Doctrines of Salvation vol 3, pg 198-199 J.F.S. teaches, " In my judgment their is no book on earth yet come to man as important as the book known as the Doctrine and Covenants, with all due respect to the Book of Mormon, and the Bible, and the pearl of great price, which we say are our standards in Doctrine. The book of Doctrine and Covenants to us stands in a peculiar position above them all.

I am going to tell you why. When I say that, do not for a moment think I do not value the Book of Mormon, the Bible, and the Pearl of Great Price, just as much as any man that lives; I think I do. I do not know of anybody who has read them more, and I appreciate them; they are wonderful; they contain doctrine and revelation and commandments that we should heed; but the Bible is a history containing the doctrine and commandments given to the people anciently. that applies also to the Book of Mormon. It is the doctrine and history and commandments of the people who dwelt upon this continent anciently.

But this Doctrine and Covenants contains the word of God to those who dwell here now. It is our book. It belongs to the Latter Day Saints.



So we find here two prophets disagree on just how important the BoM really is?
Now lets add to this what Ezra Taft Benson taught. He taught the 14 fundamentals of following the brethren. This was the SECOND: The Living Prophet is More Vital to Us Than The Standard Works.

So now we have 3 people, all prophets teaching different things. This leads to another question, if D and C is over the book of Mormon, why do the Mormon missionary's not pass that out? And if the Prophet is over all the 4 standard works, why bother passing them out at all? Why not pass out books of the prophets teachings?

Now lets move on to a sore subject in Mormonism that shows more contradictions. The issue of Plural Wives.

I would like to share my thoughts on this subject. I feel that it was a doctrine of man, by man and for man. Not from God and here is why I say this. In the Journal of Discourses number 5 pg 203 Heber C Kimbal said this and I quote extra for context that some seem to feel people leave out.


"Some quietly listen to those who speak against the lords servants, against his anointed, against the plurality of wives, and against almost every principle that god has revealed. Such persons have a half dozen devils with them all the time. YOU MIGHT AS WELL DENY "MORMONISM," AND TURN AWAY FROM IT, AS TO OPPOSE THE PLURALITY OF WIVES. Let the presidency of this church, and the twelve apostles, and all the authorities unite and say with one voice that they will oppose that doctrine, and the whole of them would be damned. Also we read in vol 3 pg 266, where B Young said and I quote, "Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned. WOW B Young promises we will be damned if we stop this practice. I guess there will be many damned LDS, as the stopped doing this.



Let us add to this

D and C 132 1-3 2. Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter. So here we find it is "supposedly" of God. 3. Therefore ,prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; FOR ALL THOSE WHO HAVE THIS LAW REVEALED UNTO THEM MUST OBEY THE SAME. 4. for behold, I reveal unto you a new and everlasting covenant, then are ye damned;for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory. I would like to point out some things here. First off in D and C 1:14 it says we must obey the lord, the apostles, and the prophets or we will be cut off.



Their, You read it and heard it, so this applies to you, not only to a select few as Mormons claim, otherwise God lied.
Also Since when is new and everlasting only 50 or so years. Everlasting means forever, without end. Again did God lie? It was reveled unto all who hear and read, yet all who hear and read reject this, by saying everlasting means a limited time and limited people. This defies logic.

Read verse 5-6. it is a LAW that you MUST obey. Verse 8 says, Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion. I'm sorry but everlasting only lasting about 50 years, and God said this is for all but Mormons claim it was only for some, is confusion.

Who gave this new and everlasting covenant? The lord did. The lord said for all who have this law revealed unto them MUST obey it. Well if you read D and C or just read what I wrote, you fall under all who have it reveled unto them. Now you must obey it. Not only are Mormons not following D and C 1:14 but the concept of on going revelation now shows it's flaws. Ezra Taft Benson taught the prophet does not need to say thus saith the lord to give us scripture. But the lord was clear he gave us that scripture. But the counsel backed it up as I stated above.

Then Ezra Taft Benson also taught the prophet cannot lead the church astray. so which prophet is leading us astray? The prophets of old followed and taught it, but now deny it.

Hebrews 6:16 say it is impossible for God to lie, Titus 1:2 Enos 6, Ether 3:12 and D and C 62:6 all teach God cannot lie.

So did God lie? He states it is a new and everlasting covenant. Again since when is everlasting only 50 plus years. Also if God did not lie who did? Mormons teach that the plural wife teaching was for a select few men, God said it was for all that it was reveled unto. Again if you heard it, it was reveled unto you, why are you not obeying it?

Now lets look to the book of Mormon. In Jacob 1:15-19 and 2:21-25 it teaches David and Solomon did evil by having many wives. Then in Mosiah 11:2 it teaches many wives is a sin. Now here is a contradiction because in D and C 132:37-39 it says it was not a sin for David Solomon and others to have many wives. Now I thought God could not lie? But Gods word is both in the B.O.M and D and C. So either man wrote it and messed up or God lied.

If the BOM is the fullness of the Gospel why then does it not support D and C 132 About the topic of Plural wives forever.

Then Again if the BOM is the fullness why do we read in Mosiah 11:2 and Ether 10:5 plural wives is a sin, this goes against D and C 132. Add to that Jacob 3:5, the Lamanites are called filthy yet at the same time they are more righteous in their actions because they don't practice plural wives.

D and C 19:26 and 42:12 states both the Bible and BOM contain truth and are the word of God, yet they deny the teaching of plural wives as a good God ordained teaching.

Moroni 8:18 teach's God is unchangble yet he changed his stance, saying plural wives is an abomation by allowing it to happen in D and C 132?. Now I know LDS will reply by saying Plural wives was practiced in the Bible. It was a sin even in the Bible, If God were to punish us with death every time we sinned there would only be plants and animals left on this planet. Now if you want to give your Bible scripture on plural wives please give a scripture(s) from the Bible as clear as D and C 132 Where God says here you go a gift of many wives or Hey you I commanded you to take wives and the more the better. It is not in there. Yes the people sinned and disobeyed the Lord by taking them but God never said this is what I want/commanded you to do.

Let me ask again. Who in Mormonism can we trust?

Now, Mormons claim they are christens also, Lets look at what the Prophets of old said about Christians and I quote:

"B Young: "With a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world" (Journal of Discourses 8:199). I quote 3rd president John Taylor (Brigham Young quotes Mr. Taylor) "Brother Taylor has just said that the religions of the day were hatched in hell, the eggs were laid in hell, hatched on its borders, and kicked onto the earth" (J.O.D 6:176). I quote Heber C. Kimball "Christians-those poor, miserable priests brother Brigham was speaking about-some of them are the biggest whoremasters there are on the earth" (J.O.D 5:89)." then we can add the first vision by Joseph Smith. If God really did speak to him then he said all the Christian creeds are an abomtion in his sight.



If this is the case how can you say you are Christians. Along this lines I would like to ask also, if you are Christians then why do you try and convert Christians to the Mormon faith if we all are Christians?

OK, Now I will just post problems in general otherwise known as contradictions. But the problem with these is, either The Prophet Joseph Smith claims God told him or God himself said this stuff, Again, who in Mormonism can we trust?.


Over in D and C 7 it teaches John the apostle was to live and preach till the lord returns. Read 3 NEPHI 28:6-7 It teaches the apostle John, Who walked with Jesus, Was told he will never die. Then over in ETHER 12:17 3 more disciples were also told they would never see death. Then read D and C 7:1-8 Ok now if this stuff is true there could never have been a total apostasy of the church, Because there were people who were living that had the gospel truth.

1 NEPHI 1:8 It says " I THOUGHT I SAW GOD" You either did see God or you did not, You cannot say I thought I saw God. Not only that but the Bible teaches no man can see God and live, Also over in D and C 84:19-22 Says if you do not have the priesthood you cannot see God and live. Here is another problem, When this guy said I thought I saw God, There is no mention of him having the priesthood. Also when Joseph Smith first had his vision and said he saw God, Then later said God came and baptized him he did not have the priesthood. So if Joseph Smith could see and talk with God then receive the priesthood, That means D and C 84 is wrong other wise the only other option is Joseph Smith lied. Either way someone lied.

Now here is the subject of Negros and them not being able to receive the same rights as white people according to the Prophet B Young and Bruce Mc. But even this has since changed and has been tried to be buried.

In the 1958 edition Mormon Doctrine ( I happen to own a copy), pg 477 says,

Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES can they hold this delegation of authority from the ALMIGHTY. The GOSPEL message of salvation is not carried AFFIRMATIVELY to them....Negroes are NOT EQUAL with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned.



So please explain how we go from UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES to the change that it is ok in the newer versions of Mormon Doctrine? Also please explain this, B Young clearly states here in

JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES VOL 10 PG 110 (again I own these books) Shall I tell you THE LAW OF GOD in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of cain, the penalty, under the LAW OF GOD, is DEATH on the SPOT. THIS WILL ALWAYS BE SO.



Again how can this be the law of God THAT WILL ALWAYS BE SO, YET IT IS NO LONGER SO?. Any thoughts on why the doctrine changed. In light of the fact that the PROPHET spoke this and claimed it was a LAW of God.

Ok, here is another doctrine that has caused many Mormons major embarrassment. it's the Adam God Doctrine. In short, B Young taught Adam from the garden of Eden is our God and father. This is found in vol 1 of the journal of discourses. there is to much to post here. I am posting very little of what B Young said on this subject. But if any Mormon reads this and feels I am wrong please explain how and why. I Own the entire JoD and have read in context the entire Adam God teachings.


I quote in CONTEXT what B young TAUGHT. "Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner. If you read this then I believe you fall under Inhabitant of the earth, B young said NOW HEAR IT.

this is his teaching.

When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. pause. let me point out how can ADAM HELP MAKE THIS WORLD WHEN THE BIBLE TEACHES GOD CREATED IT FIRST WITH EVERYTHING GOOD TO GO, HE CREATED ADAM FROM THE DUST. Start up again, He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken-- He is our FATHER and our GOD. and the only God with whom we have to do.



Notice what B young is about to say here,

Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, MUST HEAR IT, and will know it sooner or later. notice B Young claims we will hear it sooner or later, and every man must KNOW IT. you fall under every man, you heard it. . This is very important here, notice B Young claims "Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause. notice he said all who hear, you heard and he said they are doctrines. resume, before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their SALVATION or DAMNATION.

MORMONS REJECT THESE TEACHINGS, AS YOU SEE HE CLEARLY TEACHES THIS IS DOCTRINE. are you gonna be dammed for denying it.

Now lets look at something else B Young said. In the book Discourses of BY pg 194 1925 edition also found in JOD vol 1 pg 237 a person ask's BY a question.

I ask you, brother B, how I must believe the Bible, and how shall you and every other follower of the Lord Jesus Christ believe it? BY replies with. "Brother Mormon, how do you believe it?" I believe it just as it is. I do not believe in putting any man's interpretation upon it, whatever, unless it should be directed by the Lord himself in some way. I do not believe we need interpreters and expounders of the Scriptures, to wrest them from there literal, plain, simple meaning.



Now according to BY, if he believes the Bible as it is, Then I believe we could apply that to other LDS teachings. When I said LDS redefine meanings, God said I am eternal, hell is everlasting and eternal. Yet when I point out God the father was not once man who progressed first because the Bible does not teach it, also God the father states I am eternal. Now according to LDS eternal Really means He had a beginning, yet the dictionary claims Eternal is without a beginning. You name it, we disagree because you guys when we take something at face value and point out the LDS teach... then all of a sudden the meaning is twisted to fit LDS definition so as to mean something different.

Now here is a nice little bit of things to think about.

3 Nephi 26:2-3 say 3:and He (Jesus) did expound all things from the beginning until the time that he should come in his glory.

If Jesus taught ALL things why are we missing at least 12 major lds doctrine from the BOM. Also read over in

3 Nephi 26:6 And now there cannot be written in this book even a hundredth part of the things which Jesus did truly teach unto the people.

Now how can the BOM claim Jesus taught all things but yet not all things are written for us. The biggest problem I see is LDS teach the Bible is missing books and precious parts, well it would appear by these verses so is the BOM?

But over in D and C 18:4 and 20:8-9 it teaches all things are written in the BOM, so are they or not?. Then over in D and C 42:12 it teaches principles of Jesus gospel are in the Bible and BOM, so again if this is true, why are we missing major doctrines from it?. Then again on the topic of missing books from the Bible, what about 1 Nephi 1:15-16. it says a full account of the things made unto him, so did the Lord only show some things which make up the full account.

Ok over in 1 Nephi 13:26-27 it says the plain and precious things are missing. Can anyone tell me what these things are, and how can you prove they are the plain and precious things, not just any ol list you choose.



Alma 34:32-35 claims no second chance after death, IE no baptism for the dead. Yet Mormonism teaches baptism for the dead. But Mormonism also teaches God cannot change, so it appears he has changed.

2 Nephi 11:7 teaches if God did not exist there would have been no creation. Yet there were other Gods before God the father according to Mormonism, I would be willing to suspect they could have done it instead.

Mormonism teaches the Trinity is 3 separate Gods, Born Again Christians say 3 people who form ONE ETERNAL GOD. 2 Nephi 26:12 says Jesus is the Christ THE ETERNAL GOD. Not a God or one of the Gods. It teaches HE (Jesus) is God.

So who really can we trust and even if you said well we can trust so and so or his teachings, how can I really know for sure that their correct. If I follow mormon logic and "pray about this" and feel that it is correct, yet another LDS member prays about something totally different (contradictory) and they feel they are correct then we are back at square one again.

here is an example, in Doct of Sal vol 2 pg 1 of chapter 1 heading says SALVATION.
below that it says THE PLAN OF SALVATION.


TRUTHS of SALVATION EASILY UNDERSTOOD.
Salvation should be a subject uppermost in the minds of all men. It is, without question the most important subject that could possibly be considered, and yet there are so few among the many who pay any attention whatever to this great and important theme, as it may be applied in their lives.



Joseph F Smith feels this is of major importance. If it is then how can we know what is correct and what is false if no one can seem to get things straight. If salvation is of major importance then how come the Bible teaches we must call upon the name of the Lord to be saved, no works needed, look at the jailer in Acts. Then no mention of all the works needed to be saved in the book of Mormon, yet Mormonism teaches we must obey all the laws to be saved.

read pg 9 of doc of salvation vol 2. Here J.F.S states what I said.

"what is eternal life? it is to have a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. no one receives eternal life except those who receive the exaltation. eternal life is the greatest gift of God; immortality is not. the Lord says; verily verily, I say unto you, he that heareth my word and believeth on him that sent me hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. everlasting life in this passage is the same as eternal life".



In that section there J.F.S. states eternal life is the same as exaltation and no works expect belief are mentioned. But in an earlier post from the same book he stated not half the LDS will be saved. If belief as he states is all that is needed then you could be lead to believe LDS don't believe.

Now here is two more problems. First one is, Joseph Smith stated in "Teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith pg 107" His brother Alvin entered into the exaltation with out doing a thing, not even baptism which according to the LDS is a requirement. know Joseph Smith states here in Doc of Salvation vol 1 pg 98, "Joseph Smith taught a plurality of Gods, and that man by obeying the commandments of God and keeping the whole law will eventually reach the power and exaltation by which he also will become a God.

I find it interesting how the prophets brother makes it into exaltation with out keeping the law, yet these two prophets seem to disagree. One disagree's or contradicts himself, by stating his brother was in and he admits this was a surprise, but then goes on to say we must obey the WHOLE LAW. Then the other prophet states we need only to believe. This is why I feel their is much confusion, and even though you feel Bruce was wrong on some issues, that fact remains that every one disagrees with some one within the LDS church or they disagree with the 4 standard works.

I pointed out some time ago how these 2 prophets even disagreed as to the BOM or D and C being more important. So the question still remains who is correct in all of this and even after you or someone else say this person is correct how can we truly trust that person to be correct? I also would point out along this lines that within Christian circles, lets say pastors from a few different demonitions were to write books on the church, the gifts, holy spirit, ect and it denied the Bible, well then that's easy, the pastors are wrong the Bible is correct. Not so with in Mormonism, to much confusion, so much so that so-called prophets even disagree with each other and the 4 standard works.

Well I have shown plenty of the Prophets and Presidents and how they don't agree with each other or the 4 standard works. So let me end with this last few things. This is a teaching of the LDS that I happen to follow very faithfully. (SHOCK) a non-lds Member that really is following the church's teachings, yep for once I am. Here it goes.

Read pg 188 of Doct of Salvation vol 1.

I quote Joseph F Smith. "CHURCH STANDS OR FALLS WITH JOSEPH SMITH. MORMONISM, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. Their is no middle ground. If Joseph Smith was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead the people, then he should be exposed: his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false".



Read also

D and C 71:5-11 98:14,23-26 it says meet your enemy in public. If I am your enemy which I don't feel I am but if I am it says meet me in public to talk about this stuff. Jesus said love your enemy. D and C 66:7 68:1,9 go into the church's public or private to discuss this stuff. D and C 6:9-11 say convince us of our error if we have any. why do I get accused of being hateful for doing what the scriptures teach. now let me add this, would you agree it is good to listen to the Mormon prophets? if so, then I am.


I quote Orsan Pratt still pg 15. "we ask from you the same generosity--protect us in the exercise of our religious rights--CONVINCE US of our errors of doctrine, if we have any, by reason, by logical arguments, or by the word of god, and we will be ever grateful for the information, and you will ever have the pleasing reflection that you have been instruments in the hands of God redeeming your fellow beings from the darkness which you may see enveloping their minds".

I am just trying to look at Mormonism in a logical way and point out what I believe are problems. I find it interesting that Mormons of old were willing to tell others they were wrong or be open to talks. but it does not appear to be that way today. I hope this really makes you examine your faith. If you would like to talk privately off line you are more than welcome. Rick Beaudin

tatabug said...

WOW. This is certainly a huge laundry list and it has taken me several hours to read and respond. Unfortunately, I was not able to go into much detail, and I may have missed some of the points you were trying to make. However, I did the best I could. In the future, I would ask that you please try to keep it shorter, or at least don't try to cover everything at once. Maybe we could go point by point, or maybe two or three points at a time. That would be easier and less frustrating (at least for me), and provide an opportunity for a more thorough discussion. Anyway, I have put your quotes in italics, followed by my comments which are not italicized.

JS claims over in D and C 135:3-4 he has done more except Jesus has, well if this is the case why is it that the apostles like Paul, John, Peter and others have books of the Bible named after them and not Joseph?

I'm not sure how this is significant. Did Jesus have any books of scripture named after Him?

Now we read J Smith saying in the book History of the Church vol 4, pg 461. "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by it's precepts, than any other book."

J.F.S. teaches, " In my judgment their is no book on earth yet come to man as important as the book known as the Doctrine and Covenants, with all due respect to the Book of Mormon, and the Bible, and the pearl of great price, which we say are our standards in Doctrine. The book of Doctrine and Covenants to us stands in a peculiar position above them all.
...
But this Doctrine and Covenants contains the word of God to those who dwell here now. It is our book. It belongs to the Latter Day Saints.


Notice how Joseph F. Smith says, "In my judgement...". He is stating his opinion. Prophets have opinions just like everyone else. Sometimes their opinions are wrong or they are not completely accurate. In this case, I think he makes a very good argument for the D&C. The revelations in that book are more relevant to us today than the ones contained in the Book of Mormon, but the statement that a man could get nearer to God by reading it (the BOM) than any other book, can still be true. The D&C has revelations pertaining to this day and age, but the Book of Mormon is so full of testimony of Jesus Christ, which I believe brings a person closer to the Savior.

Now lets add to this what Ezra Taft Benson taught. He taught the 14 fundamentals of following the brethren. This was the SECOND: The Living Prophet is More Vital to Us Than The Standard Works.

Apparently some other prophets felt the same way. President Wilford Woodruff tells of an interesting incident that occurred in the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith: “I will refer to a certain meeting I attended in the town of Kirtland in my early days. At that meeting some remarks were made that have been made here today, with regard to the living prophets and with regard to the written word of God. The same principle was presented, although not as extensively as it has been here, when a leading man in the Church got up and talked upon the subject, and said: ‘You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, and you who give revelations should give revelations according to those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them.’

“When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, ‘Brother Brigham, I want you to go to the podium and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of God.’ Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: ‘There is the written word of god to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,’ said he, ‘when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.’ That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation; ‘Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.’”

Orson Pratt has said, “The very moment that we set aside the living oracles we set aside the revelations of God. Why? Because the revelations of God command us plainly that we shall hearken to the living oracles. Hence, if we undertake to follow the written word, and at the same time do not give heed to the living oracles of God, the written word will condemn us…”

So now we have 3 people, all prophets teaching different things. This leads to another question, if D and C is over the book of Mormon, why do the Mormon missionary's not pass that out? And if the Prophet is over all the 4 standard works, why bother passing them out at all? Why not pass out books of the prophets teachings?

We believe that all scripture is of God and is for our profit and learning. Just because living revelation supercedes past revelation, doesn't mean that we can't benefit from past scriptures. There are many important teachings contained in all of the scriptures that aren't outdated, but more importantly, the scriptures testify of Christ and help us learn of Him and grow closer to Him.

...YOU MIGHT AS WELL DENY "MORMONISM," AND TURN AWAY FROM IT, AS TO OPPOSE THE PLURALITY OF WIVES.

B Young said and I quote, "Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned. WOW B Young promises we will be damned if we stop this practice. I guess there will be many damned LDS, as the stopped doing this.


Jacob 2:27-30, "Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastitiy of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. FOR IF I WILL, SAITH THE LORD OF HOSTS, RAISE UP SEED UNTO ME, I WILL COMMAND MY PEOPLE; OTHERWISE THEY SHALL HEARKEN UNTO THESE SAYINGS."

There are times when the Lord deems plural marriage necessary or appropriate. Other times it is not. In the Old Testament, there was polygamy, but it appears that in the New Testament there wasn't. If the Lord commands polygamy, it is binding on the Saints to keep the law, but when He forbids its practice, logic only dictates that He wouldn't sentence damnation to those who don't keep a law they are not allowed to keep in the first place.

Also Since when is new and everlasting only 50 or so years. Everlasting means forever, without end. Again did God lie? It was reveled unto all who hear and read, yet all who hear and read reject this, by saying everlasting means a limited time and limited people. This defies logic.

Read verse 5-6. it is a LAW that you MUST obey. Verse 8 says, Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion. I'm sorry but everlasting only lasting about 50 years, and God said this is for all but Mormons claim it was only for some, is confusion.


The everlasting nature of the covenant which you speak of refers not to everlasting in man's time, but everlasting in God's time. When He makes a covenant with His people, He keeps His promises to them when they are obedient to the command which He gives, for eternity. That does not relate to the amount of time that the command is expected to be adhered to by the Saints. It is only an indication that the promises of those covenants will be eternal. While the command is in force, it is expected to be kept. When the command is not in force, there is no covenant. Anyway, the everlasting covenant applies to marriage in general. It does not mean polygamy or monogamy. It means that when a husband and wife are sealed together, they enter the new and everlasting covenant, wherein they will be sealed together as husband and wife for eternity. If it just so happens that a man is married to more than one wife in the new and everlasting covenant, then that means He is sealed to more than one wife for eternity. The new and everlasting covenant is not by definition the law of polygamous marriage. It is the law of eternal marriage.

Hebrews 6:16 say it is impossible for God to lie, Titus 1:2 Enos 6, Ether 3:12 and D and C 62:6 all teach God cannot lie.

This is true. You have no argument from me here.

Now lets look to the book of Mormon. In Jacob 1:15-19 and 2:21-25 it teaches David and Solomon did evil by having many wives. Then in Mosiah 11:2 it teaches many wives is a sin. Now here is a contradiction because in D and C 132:37-39 it says it was not a sin for David Solomon and others to have many wives. Now I thought God could not lie? But Gods word is both in the B.O.M and D and C. So either man wrote it and messed up or God lied.

D&C 132:38 says, "David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants from the beginning of creation until this time; AND IN NOTHING DID THEY SIN SAVE IN THOSE THINGS WHICH THEY RECEIVED NOT OF ME."

Where David and Solomon sinned was not in the taking of plural wives. That wasn't the problem. Them problem was that they took wives that they weren't permitted to take. David took Uriah's wife, and Solomon "had seven hundred wives, and princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart." Solomon took wives of people from other lands who did not worship as Israel, and so it led to his unrighteousness. Plural marriage was not the problem. It was the unrighteous exercise of it that was the problem. The Nephites were trying to justify their actions based off of David and Solomon's behavior, and they frankly set a very poor example. The Lord didn't want the Nephites to practice polygamy for some reason, but that doesn't mean that polygamy itself is abominable. It is only abominable when it is forbidden.

"B Young: "With a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world" (Journal of Discourses 8:199). I quote 3rd president John Taylor (Brigham Young quotes Mr. Taylor) "Brother Taylor has just said that the religions of the day were hatched in hell, the eggs were laid in hell, hatched on its borders, and kicked onto the earth" (J.O.D 6:176). I quote Heber C. Kimball "Christians-those poor, miserable priests brother Brigham was speaking about-some of them are the biggest whoremasters there are on the earth" (J.O.D 5:89)." then we can add the first vision by Joseph Smith. If God really did speak to him then he said all the Christian creeds are an abomtion in his sight.

How is it unChristian to say that the creeds of mainstream Christianity are wrong or false or abominable? If God is not a liar, then He would not be the author of numerous religions with different teachings. If all religions teach something different, there can be only one true religion and all the rest must be wrong.

If this is the case how can you say you are Christians. Along this lines I would like to ask also, if you are Christians then why do you try and convert Christians to the Mormon faith if we all are Christians?

We are not trying to convert Christians to Christianity. Those who profess to believe in and follow Jesus Christ the Savior, are by definition Christian. We only want to bring the true gospel of Jesus Christ to all mankind, and since there can be only one true Church of Jesus Christ on the earth, which we claim to be, then it is our responsibility to share it with all mankind.

Over in D and C 7 it teaches John the apostle was to live and preach till the lord returns. Read 3 NEPHI 28:6-7 It teaches the apostle John, Who walked with Jesus, Was told he will never die. Then over in ETHER 12:17 3 more disciples were also told they would never see death. Then read D and C 7:1-8 Ok now if this stuff is true there could never have been a total apostasy of the church, Because there were people who were living that had the gospel truth.

There was no established true Church after the apostasy. The Church itself, or rather the body of the Church apostasized. Christ's true Church was no longer present on the Earth. John and the Nephites who were translated, obviously didn't apostasize, but because of the general apostasy, the priesthood authority was taken from the Earth. Perhaps it remained with John and the three Nephites, but even if they kept their authority, they would not have been allowed to bestow it upon anyone else, since the world was in apostasy. The restoration made it possible once again for men to receive the priesthood authority.

1 NEPHI 1:8 It says " I THOUGHT I SAW GOD" You either did see God or you did not, You cannot say I thought I saw God.

The scripture you cite refers to Nephi who is recounting a vision that his father, Lehi had, but what it actually says is, "HE thought HE saw God." So here we have a VISION, not a visitation. In other words, he is having a dream, where maybe some of the details are not quite spelled out, but that was what he thought he was seeing. Anyway, I don't see the big deal here.

Not only that but the Bible teaches no man can see God and live,

The Bible also says in Gen. 32:30, "I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." In the same chapter where it says "Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live," it also says in verse 11, "And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend." Also in Ex. 24:9-10 it says, "Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: And they saw the God of Israel:" Does this make God a liar? No. What it means is that you can't take one verse out of context in relation to other conflicting scriptures. You also have to remember that the Bible was corrupted by men. Joseph Smith retranslated Exodus 33:20 to read, "And he said unto Moses, Thou canst not see my face at this time, lest mine anger be kindled against thee also, and I destroy thee, and thy people; for there shall no man among them see me at this time, and live, for they are exceeding sinful. And no sinful man hath at any time, neither shall there be any sinful man at any time that shall see my face and live."

Also over in D and C 84:19-22 Says if you do not have the priesthood you cannot see God and live.

The preceding scripture says, "Without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh" (D&C 84:21). In other words, for a mortal to act in God's name he must have priesthood. These verses are not intended to restrict God in initiating contact with mortals. In other words, with the priesthood restored, God would normally work through those lines of authority, but God or Christ may reveal themselves in any way they wish, as happened to Paul on the road to Damascus when he had his vision (Acts 9). The very next verse (D&C 84:23), in fact, refers to a time when the Lord was planning to show himself to all the people of Israel at once, but they lacked the faith to receive this blessing (Ex. 19:11).

To be gramaticaJly correct the proper referant for "this" is "the power of godliness" and not "priesthood" in D&C 84:20. In other words, the power of godliness transfigures and overshadows a person, not priesthood, or that person cannot endure beholding the face of God.

Now here is the subject of Negros and them not being able to receive the same rights as white people according to the Prophet B Young and Bruce Mc. But even this has since changed and has been tried to be buried.

God can alter commandments and remove curses, can He not? He is afterall, Almighty God. Fortunately, He did just that, and as a result, all worthy males are blessed to receive the priesthood.

Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES can they hold this delegation of authority from the ALMIGHTY. The GOSPEL message of salvation is not carried AFFIRMATIVELY to them....Negroes are NOT EQUAL with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned.

Well, apparently that must have meant that the circumstances deemed appropriate by man would never have been sufficient cause to change the rules, but God has full authority to decide when the circumstances are acceptable.

JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES VOL 10 PG 110 (again I own these books) Shall I tell you THE LAW OF GOD in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of cain, the penalty, under the LAW OF GOD, is DEATH on the SPOT. THIS WILL ALWAYS BE SO.

I could go into much detail about this particular comment, but I won't because of the time it would take. But this comment appears to refer to the issue of rape. The virtue of black women was not regarded the same if at all as it was with white women during that time. To many, black people were not human, but animals, and virile white men were sometimes encouraged to take their physical urges out on black women. It is possible that this is what he is referring to, and the death to which he was referring was spiritual death ("Fornication leads to death." The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p.271).

Ok, here is another doctrine that has caused many Mormons major embarrassment. it's the Adam God Doctrine...When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. pause. let me point out how can ADAM HELP MAKE THIS WORLD WHEN THE BIBLE TEACHES GOD CREATED IT FIRST WITH EVERYTHING GOOD TO GO, HE CREATED ADAM FROM THE DUST. Start up again, He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken-- He is our FATHER and our GOD. and the only God with whom we have to do.

I could also go into great depth with this one as well, but will only deal briefly with it. This is a very deep subject, but Brigham Young did not teach the Adam/God doctrine as interpreted by some. Basically, he was calling God, Adam. But the first mortal was also Adam. They are separate individuals. Calling God, Adam, was basically symbollic of the fact that God is our first Father, in the spiritual sense. Adam is our first father in a mortal sense. All of our doctrine which is included in the scriptures, conflicts with the idea that the mortal Adam was God the Father. The teachings of Brigham Young have been severely misunderstood and distorted to mean something that they don't. Again, there is much detail that I just don't have the time to go into here and now. But if you want to read more follow this link.

When I said LDS redefine meanings, God said I am eternal, hell is everlasting and eternal. Yet when I point out God the father was not once man who progressed first because the Bible does not teach it, also God the father states I am eternal. Now according to LDS eternal Really means He had a beginning, yet the dictionary claims Eternal is without a beginning.

Now you are getting into a subject which is not entirely doctrinal. We just don't know enough about this. But I will comment on what you have said as much as I can. We do believe that God is eternal. We believe there is no beginning to His existence. But that doesn't eliminate the possibility that He too went through develpmental stages of progress to where He is now.

3 Nephi 26:2-3 say 3:and He
(Jesus) did expound all things from the beginning until the time that he should come in his glory.

If Jesus taught ALL things why are we missing at least 12 major lds doctrine from the BOM.


I'm not sure. Perhaps those doctrines weren't applicable during the Book of Mormon times. If you could list the specific doctrines, I might be able to give you a better answer.

Also read over in 3 Nephi 26:6 And now there cannot be written in this book even a hundredth part of the things which Jesus did truly teach unto the people.

Sounds like the teachings were so numerous that they just weren't able to write them all down.

Now how can the BOM claim Jesus taught all things but yet not all things are written for us. The biggest problem I see is LDS teach the Bible is missing books and precious parts, well it would appear by these verses so is the BOM?

President Ezra Taft Benson explains: "The Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ (D&C 20:9). That does not mean it contains every teaching, every doctrine ever revealed. Rather, it means that in the Book of Mormon we will find the fulness of those doctrines required for our salvation. And they are taught plainly and simply so that even children can learn the ways of salvation and exaltation."

Then again on the topic of missing books from the Bible, what about 1 Nephi 1:15-16. it says a full account of the things made unto him, so did the Lord only show some things which make up the full account.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here, but it appears that you have once again misquoted Nephi. It actually says, "of which I shall NOT make a full account." (emphasis mine) Perhaps that is where you see a problem. To that I would say that Nephi is only making an account of the things which he felt was most important. He didn't have an unlimited amount of time or resources so he had to make the most efficient use of what he had by only including the most important things. That isn't saying he is leaving out doctrine, but perhaps things that are just superfluous or repetitive.

Ok over in 1 Nephi 13:26-27 it says the plain and precious things are missing. Can anyone tell me what these things are, and how can you prove they are the plain and precious things, not just any ol list you choose.

I don't know for sure what those things are, but I would say that they largely consist of the teachings which are contained in the restored gospel of Jesus Christ (LDS). Joseph Smith retranslated the Bible to correct some of the errors which resulted in some of the plain and precious parts which are missing from the current Bible.

Alma 34:32-35 claims no second chance after death, IE no baptism for the dead. Yet Mormonism teaches baptism for the dead. But Mormonism also teaches God cannot change, so it appears he has changed.

Alma is speaking about repentance and obedience to the commandments. Those who accept and follow Jesus Christ cannot die in their sins and expect to be forgiven. This, in no way, applies to those who have not had a chance to accept the gospel and be baptized. Those who do not have that chance will have that chance in the spirit world, which is why there are baptisms for the dead. John 5:25 says, "The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live."

Mormonism teaches the Trinity is 3 separate Gods, Born Again Christians say 3 people who form ONE ETERNAL GOD. 2 Nephi 26:12 says Jesus is the Christ THE ETERNAL GOD. Not a God or one of the Gods. It teaches HE (Jesus) is God.

Mormonism does not teach the Trinity. The Trinity is a creed of man. But anyway, I know what you are saying. That, however, is not what we teach. All of the scriptures are filled with the different names of Jesus, and some of those names are the same as those names given to God, but that doesn't make them one God, or one being. I think Joseph (was he smart or uneducated?) would have been smart enough to pick up on what appears to be a contradiction there, and had he plagiarized or made up the Book of Mormon, I think he would have made sure to recognize that he was writing that Jesus was God, but then teaching something totally different. Our doctrine teaches that Jesus is God but God the Father and Jesus Christ are separate individuals who are "one in purpose."

Joseph F Smith feels this is of major importance. If it is then how can we know what is correct and what is false if no one can seem to get things straight. If salvation is of major importance then how come the Bible teaches we must call upon the name of the Lord to be saved, no works needed, look at the jailer in Acts. Then no mention of all the works needed to be saved in the book of Mormon, yet Mormonism teaches we must obey all the laws to be saved.

read pg 9 of doc of salvation vol 2. Here J.F.S states what I said.

"what is eternal life? it is to have a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. no one receives eternal life except those who receive the exaltation. eternal life is the greatest gift of God; immortality is not. the Lord says; verily verily, I say unto you, he that heareth my word and believeth on him that sent me hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. everlasting life in this passage is the same as eternal life".


This too is a difficult subject to discuss briefly, but I will do my best briefly. Salvation is free for all men. All men are freely given immortality. Nothing is required for this gift. That is a form of salvation. All men (but the sons of perdition--which will be few) will receive a degree of glory, even the vilest of sinners. There are three degrees of glory. The telestial kingdom is a glory which will be given to the vilest sinners. The terrestrial kingdom is a glory given to those who accepted Christ but did not keep the commandments. The celestial kingdom is for those who accepted Christ and kept His commandments. See, most will receive a degree of glory, which is another form of salvation. Nothing is required for those who inherit the telestial kingdom and its glory will exceed that of the Earth on which we live. But the highest degree of glory takes much more effort on our parts to achieve. However, we don't earn anything. It is only through Christ that we are saved. Christ had paid the price for our freedom from the chains of spiritual and physical death, but He gives us commandments and expects obedience to them in order to be exalted. We can never repay our debt to Him, but in return He simply asks that we follow Him and keep His commandments.

In that section there J.F.S. states eternal life is the same as exaltation and no works expect belief are mentioned. But in an earlier post from the same book he stated not half the LDS will be saved. If belief as he states is all that is needed then you could be lead to believe LDS don't believe.

To believe is to obey. If we don't obey, it can be said that we don't believe or have enough faith to obey.

Now here is two more problems. First one is, Joseph Smith stated in "Teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith pg 107" His brother Alvin entered into the exaltation with out doing a thing, not even baptism which according to the LDS is a requirement.

I have the "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith," but since mine is a PDA version, the page numbers are different. Could you give me the section and the heading please. My guess is that you have misunderstood or misinterpreted.

I also would point out along this lines that within Christian circles, lets say pastors from a few different demonitions were to write books on the church, the gifts, holy spirit, ect and it denied the Bible, well then that's easy, the pastors are wrong the Bible is correct. Not so with in Mormonism, to much confusion, so much so that so-called prophets even disagree with each other and the 4 standard works.

I don't disagree that Bible is correct, but whose interpretation do we follow--a man's or a prophet's? That's where the problem lies. That's why the Bible isn't enough. That's why a prophet is needed. Look at the confusion that it alone has caused in the differing beliefs and religions all based on the Bible.

tatabug said...

I forgot to add something. The confusion which people, including yourself, find, is not because the teachings of the Church are confusing. It is because people don't have enough information or understanding to make correct interpretaions. If people spent as much time trying to understand the Church as they did in trying to disprove the Church, then maybe there wouldn't be the degree of misunderstanding that there is.

tatabug said...

I finally found the statement regarding Joseph's brother, Alvin. You apparently didn't consider the context of the statement. Joseph is reporting a vision which apparently takes place in the future, since his mother and father were also there, but they hadn't yet died. Joseph is marvelling at the fact that Alvin had obtained an inheritance in the kingdom since he hadn't been baptized. That doesn't imply that Alvin didn't need to be baptized, but only that Joseph didn't know how it was possible. This vision was in 1836, and the doctrine of baptism for the dead was received as early as 1838. I'm sure that knowledge would have given Joseph an indication of how it was possible for Alvin to receive an inheritance in the Kingdom of God.

Bishop Rick said...

The Book of Mormon says: 1+1=5.

Since we all know that 1+1=2, the Book of Mormon is false and Joseph is a false prophet.

Apologist Response:

Well at the time this statement was made, 1 often referred to a group with a common purpose so it is quite possible that this statement refers to groups that collectively add up to 5. Since Joseph could not have possibly known this, this is proof that the Book of Mormon is true and Joseph is a true prophet.

Sound familiar?

tatabug said...

It seems you are insulting me, BR. Anyway, not a very provable/disprovable statement you make, and not really fair either. It's the kind of statement that leads to such intelligent conversations as "You're stupid!" "No I'm not!" "Yes you are!" "No I'm not!" "Yes you are, infinity!" "No I'm not, infinity, infinity!" I've come to expect more of you than that.

Bishop Rick said...

tata,

You are correct. Though not intended to insult, it was definitely sarcastic. I humbly retract.

tatabug said...

Retraction accepted. Given our past conversations, you've always been kind to me, and so this one threw me and I wasn't sure how to take it, since in this situation, though I am not a "professional" apologist, I am playing the part of an apologist by defending my beliefs.

MikeyA said...

Hmmmm..that vision revelation with Alvin, in early edition of D&C JS says he saw Adam and Micheal the archangel. This is interesting because years later when he made up the temple stuff he said Adam and Micheal were the same person. He got caught out because he was MAKING IT UP as he went.

Elder Joseph said...

Alot happening in my blog:)

I'll put a new topic soon concerning D&C 8:6 , just what is the Gift Of Aaron that Cowdery supposedly posessed ?

One for tatabug !

Elder Joseph said...

mikeya

Interesting stuff .I'll look that one up again as I seem to come across it before .Thanks for reminding me ..

MikeyA said...

EJ

Sorry, correction, when the revelation was first produced, it wasn't published in the D&C but later was added at the end, 137 I think with the change made. It demonstates one example of how the doctrine evolved and got wierder. The church as first organized in 1830 was completely different to the bizzaro mess of doctrine JS left.

If you follow the mopologetics for this one you get excuses from Adam-God-Theory which was the fashion of the time, to a sick scribe, wtf? lol

Elder Joseph said...

Mikeya

Best I can make out from it all is

D&C 107:54 says that Adam Is Michael the Archangel...

Joseph Smiths Diary of 1835-1836 Jan 21st concerning CK vision says " I saw father Adam and Abraham and Michael and my father and mother , my brother Alvin "

The version in D&C 137:5 says "I saw Father Adam and Abraham and my father and my mother, my brother Alvin "

MICHAEL was missed out somewhere along the line and then they added it to D&C, because the church had Adam is Michael and having them as two seperate persons doesn't quite fit !

Tata one for you to investigate ?

Has the CK revelation been edited from Joseph Smiths original Diary entry? It looks like it .

tatabug said...

EJ,

I haven't seen this particular charge before, but just from looking at it, it seems to be tied to the Adam/God theory. It sounds to me like the reference to Father Adam was referring to God the Father. It may have been changed so that people wouldn't be confused about it. The whole idea of God the Father being called Adam, which also dealt with some deeper doctrines that the Church members didn't receive well in the early days of the Church, was deemphasized to the point that it was no longer taught, so people who weren't taught the doctrine would be very confused since they've never heard God referred to as Adam.

I will try to look into this though and make sure that I'm not mistaken.

A Seeker of Truth said...

I've been reading through your blog.

You remind me of Saul. (Acts 9:4-5)

I imagine you feel great pride in what you are doing. You may also claim to feel compassion and love. It does you credit to wish to give truth to those you believe do not have it.

But the things you are writing will bring you nothing but sorrow.

rick b said...

A Seeker of Truth said...

I've been reading through your blog.

I'm guessing your a mormon, or something other. Are you? Rick b

a seeker of truth said...

I am a servant of Jesus Christ.

rick b said...

a seeker of truth said...

I am a servant of Jesus Christ.

Makes me wonder by your reply to EJ. Rick b

ColinSamul said...

EJ,
I was going to post this on the Mormons Rock blog, but it was shut down. What parts of the Christian faith do you doubt? Maybe I can answer your questions...

Elder Joseph said...

Hi Colin

Thanks for the message .

My doubts sometimes are as to the whole thing . I sometimes wonder if God maybe has not communicated with us yet as there seems to be so many awful things in the bible that I struggle to believe , especially the Old Testament .

Aside from those doubts then I am a believer most times in the person of Jesus Christ and that Faith brings on good works and not works done in order to obtain an expected reward.I think the Mormon Temple system is flawed .I've seen constant pressure in Elders Qurom meetings for atendance to the temple .Why do they have to be constantly pressured . One recent convert got fed up with all the threats that if he didn't redeem his ancestors in the Temple then he wouldn't get to CK and has since read Grant Palmers book 'Insiders View of Mormon origins ' .He afterwards declared how good he felt about himself in comparison with Joseph Smith and the other Mormon leaders .He's been literally a new man since then ! :)

I've further helped him with Arza Evans's book , ex mormon conference talks and JOD quotes .

He is a classic example of someone who was duped into LDS baptism by those highly pressurised missionaries.

ColinSamul said...

Elder Jospeph,
I would definitly recommend that you look more into a lot of the "mean" things from the Old Testament. When you recognize the historical distance, and other factors you find that Yahweh in the Old Testament is actually quite merciful compared to other systems of morals in that region. For example, taking over a land filled with completely depraved people in that day and age would nessecitate that everyone (women and children) be destroyed also. It puts things in perspective to realize the Israelites were a wandering tribe who did not have hospitals and orphanages to care for people who would probably just follow the wicked behavior of their ancestors anyways. It was just not economically feasible to support the women and children of a people that you conquered back then. Other things like slavery were nessecary institutions in ancient times, and it was very different from what we dealt with in this country. In fact, some have argued that the word slavery in the OT should really be servanthood. Under Jewish Laws slave owners could be severly punished (even put to death) for mistreating slaves in various ways. Furthermore, they were to be set free every seven years. I would recommend these sites for more research
http://www.gotquestions.org/questions_God.html
http://www.tektonics.org/

Rachel H said...

Elder Joseph,
Well, there you go, doing exactly what I said those like you do. I so appreciate the comment on my Christmas post that is clearly a personal FAMILY blog, not to be confused with he kind of blog you have. Thank you so much and Merry Christmas to you too. Happy Holidays, and may you be blessed for your efforts.

the terrys said...

When will we see another post???

Weston Krogstadt said...

Mormon Haters, please visit my site for help:

mormonhatershow.blogspot.com

Shannon said...

Hey, I just wanted to comment that I appreciate your site a great deal. My husband and I left the Church a couple of years ago, and it's nice that others sincerely care about truth. You're awesome :):)

Jake said...

THIS ISLAND DOESN'T EXIST MAN!!!! JOSEPH SMITH REFERENCES TO EVERYTHING ABOUT THE CHURCH!!!!

Dustin said...

In response to the Father Adam/Michael question, see http://www.shire.net/mormon/defending/emailp5.html. I think the explanation here is satisfactory.

As an aside this blog reminds me of a quote attributed to Cardinal Richelieu: "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." Well, my friend, you have a great deal more to work with than six lines.

Though this statement is probably hyperbole, especially as applied to you-who I believe to be a good-hearted but misdirected individual-the underlying principle does apply to you and all other folks who spend all their time trying to discredit a person or organization. It is easy to find something that looks ugly to someone who doesn't know all the facts, especially when you have over a hundred and fifty years of history and thousands of pages to work with.

Have you ever associated with a person who was determined to make you look bad? I don't mean stupid, but bad, evil, or dishonest. Those who have had that kind of relationship will know what I am talking about. The most innocent things can be twisted into a parade of horribles when someone is determined to make you look bad. But when all the facts are laid out-which not everyone has the time or inclination to hunt for-your actions were innocuous, perhaps even laudable.

What you are doing is unfair.

Sincerely,
Dustin

Jake said...

It IS fair for me Bro!!!
I BELIEVE IN THE LDS CHURCH!!! THOSE WHO MAKE FUN OF IT ON THIS SITE DON'T, 'CAUSE I JUST WANT TO STOP THEM!!!