It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mormon Religion Question

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2004 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Hmm..

First off I don't know if you guys here are Religous or not so I respect anyones comments on this subject..

So I understand somewhat the Mormon religous because my sister is part of it.. I believe in GOD but when I heard what the Mormon faith is based on it's kinda weird..

The Joseph Smith story seems highly unlikely and a very weird reason to change your way of life/faith.. I find it hard to believe and wanted to know what your guys opinions on this religion are.

BTW (I watched that SouthPark epsiode and really believe that this religion is somewhat DUMB DUMB DUMB 'whoever knows what I'm talking abotu will laugh' )



posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Mormonism is a cult and nothing more, I'd advise your sister to stay clear of it and embrace the true Christian Faith. Keating writes an exceelent expose on Mormonism:

"Ask the Mormons to produce any historical proof to support their claim that in the early centuries the Church was Mormon. They can�t do it because there is no such evidence.

The Book of Mormon itself suffers the same fate when it comes to its own historical support. In a word, it hasn�t got any.

The Book of Mormon describes a vast pre-Columbian culture that supposedly existed for centuries in North and South America. It goes into amazingly specific detail describing the civilizations erected by the "Nephites" and "Lamanites," who were Jews that fled Palestine in three installments, built massive cities in the New World, farmed the land, produced works of art, and fought large-scale wars which culminated in the utter destruction of the Nephites in A.D. 421. The Latter-Day Saints revere the Book of Mormon as the divinely-inspired record of those people and of Christ�s appearance to them shortly after his crucifixion in Jerusalem.

The awkward part for the Mormon church is the total lack of historical and archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon. For example, after the cataclysmic last battle fought between the Nephites and Lamanites, there was no one left to clean up the mess. Hundreds of thousands of men and beasts allegedly perished in that battle, and the ground was strewn with weapons and armor.

Keep in mind that A.D. 421 is just yesterday in archaeological terms. It should be easy to locate and retrieve copious evidence of such a battle, and there hasn�t been enough time for the weapons and armor to turn to dust. The Bible tells of similar battles that have been documented by archaeology, battles which took place long before A.D. 421.

The embarrassing truth�embarrassing for Mormons, that is�is that no scientist, Mormon or otherwise, has been able to find anything to substantiate that such a great battle took place.


"Lifting" from the King James Bible



There are other problems with the Book of Mormon. For example, critics of Mormonism have shown convincing proof that the Book of Mormon is a synthesis of earlier works (written by other men), of the vivid imaginings of Joseph Smith, and of simple plagiarisms of the King James Bible.

The only Bible that Joseph Smith relied on was the King James Version. This translation was based on a good but imperfect set of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible.

Scholars now know the Textus Receptus contains errors, which means the King James Version contains errors. The problem for Mormons is that these exact same errors show up in the Book of Mormon.

It seems reasonable to assume that since Smith was a prophet of God and was translating the Book of Mormon under divine inspiration, he would have known about the errors found in the King James Version and would have corrected them for when passages from the King James Version appeared in the Book of Mormon. But the errors went in.


The "Fullness" of the Gospel?



According to a standard Mormon theological work, Doctrines of Salvation, one finds this definition: "By fullness of the gospel is meant all the ordinances and principles that pertain to the exaltation of the celestial kingdom" (vol. 1, p. 160). That�s an official Mormon statement on the subject. But there�s a problem.

If the Book of Mormon contains all the ordinances and principles that pertain to the gospel, why don�t Mormonism�s esoteric doctrines show up in it? The doctrine that God is nothing more than an "exalted man with a body of flesh and bones" appears nowhere in the Book of Mormon. Nor does the doctrine of Jesus Christ being the "spirit brother" of Lucifer. Nor do the doctrines that men can become gods and that God the Father has a god above him, who has a god above him, ad infinitum.


The Book of Mormon is Anti-Mormon



These heterodox teachings, and many others like them, appear nowhere in the Book of Mormon. In fact, pivotal Mormon doctrines are flatly refuted by the Book of Mormon.

For instance, the most pointed refutation of the Mormon doctrine that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are actually three separate gods is found in Alma 11:28-31: "Now Zeezrom said: �Is there more than one God?� and [Amulek] answered, �No.� And Zeezrom said unto him again, �How knowest thou these things?� And he said: �An angel hath made them known unto me.�"


The Bottom Line



The Book of Mormon fails on three main counts. First, it utterly lacks historical or archaeological support, and there is an overwhelming body of empirical evidence that refutes it. Second, the Book of Mormon contains none of the key Mormon doctrines. This is important to note because the Latter-Day Saints make such a ballyhoo about it containing the "fullness of the everlasting gospel." (It would be more accurate to say it contains almost none of their "everlasting gospel" at all.) Third, the Book of Mormon abounds in textual errors, factual errors, and outright plagiarisms from other works.

If you�re asked by Mormon missionaries to point out examples of such errors, here are two you can use.

We read that Jesus "shall be born of Mary at Jerusalem, which is in the land of our forefathers" (Alma 7:10). But Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not Jerusalem (Matt. 2:1).

If you mention this to a Mormon missionary, he might say Jerusalem and Bethlehem are only a few miles apart and that Alma could have been referring to the general area around Jerusalem. But Bethany is even closer to Jerusalem than is Bethlehem, yet the Gospels make frequent reference to Bethany as a separate town.

Another problem: Scientists have demonstrated that honey bees were first brought to the New World by Spanish explorers in the fifteenth century, but the Book of Mormon, in Ether 2:3, claims they were introduced around 2000 B.C.

The problem was that Joseph Smith wasn�t a naturalist; he didn�t know anything about bees and where and when they might be found. He saw bees in America and threw them in the Book of Mormon as a little local color. He didn�t realize he�d get stung by them."


Here are a few links to have your sister look over:

www.catholic.com...
www.catholic.com...
www.catholic.com...

Hope this helps.



 
0

log in

join