Issues with Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church

[laska]

Another example that Catholic Answers gives for why they know the BoM is not worthy to pray about:

"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."

This criticism of the Book of Mormon has proven to be a strong evidence in favor of the BoM:
"For over 160 years, beginning at least with the 1833 publication of Alexander Campbell's Delusions, countless critics have claimed that the Book of Mormon's use of the phrase "land of Jerusalem" was a major error and proof that the Book of Mormon was false. They especially criticized the use of this phrase in reference to the place where Christ would be born. That phrase was not used in the Bible nor in the Apocrypha. Therefore, the critics concluded, it was an example of Joseph Smith's ignorance and evidence that he had tried to perpetrate a fraud. (For a thorough overview of this argument, see the essay by Daniel Peterson in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, 5:62-78.)
For anyone honestly concerned with the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, there was little to argue about after Hugh Nibley showed in 1957 that one of the Amarna letters, written in the 13th century B.C. and discovered in 1887, recounted the capture of "a city of the land of Jerusalem, Bet-Ninib":
The "Land of Jerusalem" - A Fatal Error?

These are obvious false criticisms that Catholic Answers has put out which you posted, and which you have not apologized for and admitted they were untrue. You then criticized another poster for doing what you did. Nothing personal against you, you may not even realize the dishonesty of your logic, but I could go all day(which I have no desire to do) of listing the dishonesty of many of your posts. Another example:

"As for Muhammad, he had to spread his religion with the sword. Is he trustworthy? I'd say no. Yet look at how belief in Christ spread at first: not through violence."

Yet you ignore Catholic history in regards to undermining free agency and violence.

 

[Enginerdy]

I’m fully aware of the many issues surrounding the history and claims of the LDS church. I have studied these issues a great deal. Some issues are easier to dismiss and others are difficult if not impossible to dismiss.

For myself, I do have doubts about some of the LDS church’s teachings and claims, yet I remain active in the LDS faith. I think it is best to be open and honest about the issues and not obfuscate them. I have to live my faith by own terms and in an authentic way. My doubts help me to freely believe and have actually strengthened me in a spiritual sense.

I believe Joseph Smith was able to establish a refocusing on many truths about how to live one’s life in accordance with Christ’s teachings for many people. I believe God did work through him to do this in many ways. I also know Joseph Smith and other LDS leaders were not perfect and did make mistakes.

Some of those who followed the path Joseph Smith created were my ancestors, and so it has been passed down to me, this spiritual path to follow. Even though my doubt and in some cases disagreement on some things taught causes me to walk off the path at certain times, I strive to maintain the general direction.

The LDS faith has become my spiritual identity. Yet, I am able to separate the church from my own spiritual experiences with God. The church is a tool I am able to use in order to grow spiritually. People within the church provide encouragement to live according to principles that make me happy and the church provides opportunities for me to serve and help others as Christ taught.

I think that every religion has its issues to cause people to seriously doubt and question. If there were no doubts there would be no faith.

No offense, but I found the “our miracles are more believable than your miracles” discussion silly.

 

[phattonez]

whatever's taking the forms can be eternal and a specific explanation for 1 set of forms levees room for explanation for other possible forms so a 1st cause doesn't solve that problem because your left with why that kind of 1st cause

unless you go with a multi verse and every thing happens

This explanation is incoherent. If you have something that is a composite of form and matter, then it must have a cause since it necessarily takes on a certain form and demands an explanation for why that form and not another. Thus, only a being of pure actuality can explain this chain of relation.

 

[blarg]

This explanation is incoherent. If you have something that is a composite of form and matter, then it must have a cause since it necessarily takes on a certain form and demands an explanation for why that form and not another. Thus, only a being of pure actuality can explain this chain of relation.

fine give energy a nature that has it assume certain forms if you get beyond time I guess it would be eternal though im not sure cause and effect remain intact without time

but a god doesn't give an ultimate explanation since your left without he question why that kind of god?

again multi verse that expresses all possible forms simultaneously dose the job just fine

 

[blarg]

In Classical Theism God is help to be absolutely simple:

Divine simplicity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is a Platonic argument for God that suggests that the existence of the complex, that with parts, must ultimately be explained by reference to the absolutely simple.

He is held to be purely actual and that which is necessary. I'm not going to try and argue the proofs of God here. I was just pointing out that it is not necessarily the case that God must be treated in the same way matter is, as you asserted.

come to think of it make something Omni possible you got a greet if empty simplicity that allows for any complexity and it need not be divine though it might contain powerful or at least seemingly powerful entity's within it that people might call gods

 

[phattonez]

fine give energy a nature that has it assume certain forms if you get beyond time I guess it would be eternal though im not sure cause and effect remain intact without time

but a god doesn't give an ultimate explanation since your left without he question why that kind of god?

again multi verse that expresses all possible forms simultaneously dose the job just fine

Because it is a logical necessity: He is pure actuality. This is what implies eternal existence. So your criticism doesn't really address the problem. God is not caused, He is the uncaused cause.

 

[laska]

Because it is a logical necessity: He is pure actuality. This is what implies eternal existence. So your criticism doesn't really address the problem. God is not caused, He is the uncaused cause.

The mistake in logic that you are making is not realizing you have to expand what you call actuality to not only God but everything.


29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.-D&C 93:29

It is illogical to say nothing can exist without a first cause but have the first cause somehow magically outside the logic.

This life is a pattern of what exists in pre and post mortal existence. Each of us have a mother and father, just as they had parents, etc, etc. Our physical bodies are made up of eternal element. Now use these truths to hypothesize about our spirits, the actual living parts of us. The spirit is the offspring of God(the Hebrew word for God in the Bible is plural, part of it is masculine tense, the other part feminine tense. Suggests the uniting of a man and woman in eternal marriage.)

Eternal intelligences the sparkle in divine parents eyes, infinite offspring, infinite genealogy, infinite multi-verses. Eternity, no beginning or end.

 

[blarg]

Because it is a logical necessity: He is pure actuality. This is what implies eternal existence. So your criticism doesn't really address the problem. God is not caused, He is the uncaused cause.

it is not a necessity if the universe could be a pick bunny or a purple fox and its the fox and you say god made it the fox then why was it a fox making god and not a bunny god?

 

[phattonez]

it is not a necessity if the universe could be a pick bunny or a purple fox and its the fox and you say god made it the fox then why was it a fox making god and not a bunny god?

I'm not understanding the argument. God can choose whatever He wants. I don't understand the criticism.

 

[phattonez]

The mistake in logic that you are making is not realizing you have to expand what you call actuality to not only God but everything.


29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.-D&C 93:29

It is illogical to say nothing can exist without a first cause but have the first cause somehow magically outside the logic.

I never said that nothing can exist without a first cause. I said that all contingent beings (those that are composites of form and matter) demand an explanation. Thus, the only ultimate explanation must be something that is not a composite of form and matter, it must be a being of pure actuality. This being of pure actuality is what we call God.

If you can find another solution besides a being of pure actuality, then please let me know.

This life is a pattern of what exists in pre and post mortal existence. Each of us have a mother and father, just as they had parents, etc, etc. Our physical bodies are made up of eternal element.

Our bodies are made up of matter, sure, but they also have a form. Thus, they demand an explanation as to why one form and not another. A contingent being cannot explain its own existence, it demands an explanation outside of it.

 

[phattonez]

Another example that Catholic Answers gives for why they know the BoM is not worthy to pray about:

"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."

This criticism of the Book of Mormon has proven to be a strong evidence in favor of the BoM:
"For over 160 years, beginning at least with the 1833 publication of Alexander Campbell's Delusions, countless critics have claimed that the Book of Mormon's use of the phrase "land of Jerusalem" was a major error and proof that the Book of Mormon was false. They especially criticized the use of this phrase in reference to the place where Christ would be born. That phrase was not used in the Bible nor in the Apocrypha. Therefore, the critics concluded, it was an example of Joseph Smith's ignorance and evidence that he had tried to perpetrate a fraud. (For a thorough overview of this argument, see the essay by Daniel Peterson in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, 5:62-78.)
For anyone honestly concerned with the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, there was little to argue about after Hugh Nibley showed in 1957 that one of the Amarna letters, written in the 13th century B.C. and discovered in 1887, recounted the capture of "a city of the land of Jerusalem, Bet-Ninib":
The "Land of Jerusalem" - A Fatal Error?

You're going to have to explain more how this avoids the problem, it's not self-evident.

These are obvious false criticisms that Catholic Answers has put out which you posted, and which you have not apologized for and admitted they were untrue. You then criticized another poster for doing what you did. Nothing personal against you, you may not even realize the dishonesty of your logic, but I could go all day(which I have no desire to do) of listing the dishonesty of many of your posts. Another example:

I criticized another poster for posting awful arguments over and over again that were easily debunked. The criticisms that I offer are not as easily debunked. The length of your posts shows that.

"As for Muhammad, he had to spread his religion with the sword. Is he trustworthy? I'd say no. Yet look at how belief in Christ spread at first: not through violence."

Yet you ignore Catholic history in regards to undermining free agency and violence.

The faith grew in the first few hundred years under heavy persecution. That is the point that I was making as to why it is more believable than Islam. You, calling yourself a Christian, ought to believe the same. Do you think that early history is not trustworthy? There is violence later, sure, and I'm not going to excuse it, but the faith was already huge by the time this was happening.

 

[phattonez]

When you created this thread you gave criticisms of the LDS faith from Catholic Answers. I responded and showed the criticisms were weak, and yet no apologies from you for posting false criticisms or acknowledgement even once that any of the criticisms were wrong. If I did something like that, I'd be embarrassed and apologize. I would never post untrue things on something, and if I did it would be out of character, honest mistake, and I'd quickly apologize. I would not ignore the corrections brought to my attention and continue the same path of posting untrue things about them. About three weeks later after you posted these false criticisms of the LDS faith from Catholic Answers you wrote this to another poster that was criticizing the Catholic church:

"I recommend that rather than look at Catholic attack websites to learn what the Catholic Church teaches, that you go straight to the horse's mouth. If you are really interested and don't want just a ton of falsehoods and slander, talk to either me or Monserrat. Or even go to Catholic Answers. If you see an attack on the Catholic church, look it up on Catholic Answers and see the response. "

Hypocrisy.

If what Catholic Answers stated was true, I'd have no problem with it.

This all assumes that the answers that you gave answered the criticisms. For the most part though, you hadn't answered the criticisms. You provided a few links and told me to see the answers. I asked you for a defense, and you gave me links. I'm sorry but that's not very convincing. Every time I post a claim I provide the link but also add quotes, summarize, and defend. That is what I do when people attack the Catholic faith (and notice how easy it is for me to defend) and when I talk about why I'm not inclined to follow another faith.

If you think that I am being uncharitable then I'm sorry. I don't mean to come across as being bellicose or argumentative. I just want to point out some criticisms of the Church that I have seen that I find fairly convincing and see what response if any there is. The pursuit of truth is important, no?

The arguments that I have provided are much more substantive than the typical garbage anti-Catholic arguments that I can debunk in a sentence or two. Notice how the arguments that I've provided take much longer and more convoluted answers.

But let's again take a look at what Catholic Answers stated about the LDS faith (everything they stated is pretty much untrue and I have covered it earlier in the tread so I'll just give a few examples):

Tell the Mormon missionaries: "Look, it is foolish to pray about things you know are not God’s will. It would be wrong of me to pray about whether adultery is right, when the Bible clearly says it is not. Similarly, it would be wrong of me to pray about the Book of Mormon when one can so easily demonstrate that it is not the word of God."

Catholic Answers is telling people not to pray and ask God if the Book of Mormon is His word, that should be a warning to smart people of faith. The Bible states the following though: " If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him." "Call to me and I will answer you, and will tell you great and hidden things that you have not known." And I tell you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will instead of a fish give him a serpent; or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” False religious leaders tell people not to pray, to trust in the arms of flesh.

Catholic Answers states the reason why a person should not pray about the Book of Mormon is because it is easy to demonstrate it is not the word of God so don't waste God's time on it. Then gives several examples that in their mind shows it is a fake.

Notice the clause: IF ANY OF YOU LACK WISDOM. The position of Catholic Answers (which I'm not necessarily defending) is that if something is obviously untrue then there is no reason to pray and ask about the truth of the matter. So if they can demonstrate that the Book of Mormon is false, then they are right that there is no reason to pray about it. So it really is all about how well they demonstrate the falseness of the Book of Mormon. They find it very convincing, you find it totally unconvincing, and I'm somewhere in the middle.

 

[phattonez]

All of the reasons they give are easily shown to be poor logic and not true! For example:

"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 with this is that "there are several references to bees or honey in the Book of Mormon - but all occur in the Old World. Lehi's group found honey in the Old World, a passage quoted from Isaiah mentions bees, and the Jaredite group carried bees with them as they traveled in the Old World. We are not told that the Jaredites brought bees into the New World. Bees are missing in the list of items placed on the ships in Ether 6:4. But no wonder: I'd be uncomfortable being locked in a closed vessel with hives of bees. With no indication of bees being brought to the New World, we have nothing to explain. We simply don't have to explain or apologize for things that the Book of Mormon does not say."-Jeff Lindsay

So the entire point made by Catholic Answers is a strawman. The Book of Mormon never states honey bees were brought to the New World, or that they existed in the New World. But they tell us not to ask God if the Book of Mormon is His word because it is an obvious fraud because of a strawman they have built on honey bees. How honest of them. Besides that, even if the BoM had stated honey bees were in the New World, which again it doesn't, stating that they did not exist in the New World as a fact is not scholarly. For example scientists did not think ancient barley was in the New World until it was discovered in Arizona. There is also evidence that honey bees very well may have been in the New World:

"According to Alexander von Humboldt, the Spanish conqueror Cortes found honey being sold by Native Americans in their market places when he came to the New World. Here is the passage from Alexander von Humboldt, Political Essay on the Kingdom of New Spain, translated by John Black, London, 1811, vols. 1 of 3 volumes (accessed in the Special Collection Department at Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa):

Cortez . . . told Emperor Charles V of the commodities sold in the great market of Tlaletolco--"There is sold," says he, "honey of bees and wax, honey from the stalks of maize, and honey from a shrub called maguey by the people. The natives make sugar of these plants, and this sugar they also sell."

From a Dutch website:
Since pre-Hispanic times the Mayan and Nahua ethnic groups of Central America bred stingless bees for their honey and wax. This type of beekeeping, which is called "meliponiculture", was a well-developed enterprise at the time of the Spanish conquest. Bee stands with hundreds of colonies of Melipona beecheii supplied honey and wax for exportation to Europe. To this day, peasant farmers continue to keep stingless bees in forest areas. Melipona beecheii is still the preferred species for husbandry, while some eight more species are being kept in the home gardens. The honey, wax and pollen of almost all the other stingless bee species are collected in the forest.

The fact is at best ambiguous. They carried bees with them around in the desert. It seems odd that they would carry them around in the desert for all that time and then just leave them as they go in their boats. I'll admit that it's not conclusive, but neither is it conclusive that they assuredly were not in the boats. After all, you go through all that work to carry them around the desert and then just leave them? It seems odd.

 

[shrubnose]

Why couldn't the Mormons 'Tribes' and the Spanish both have brought honeybees to the Americas?

Is there some kind of law against that?

Not trying to be a smartypants here, just asking a question.

 

[phattonez]

Why couldn't the Mormons Tribes and the Spanish both have brought honeybees to the Americas?

Is there some kind of law against that?

Because then we would have evidence that honeybees have been here longer than we currently estimate. Geneticists can easily determine how old a population is based on things like heterozygosity and genetic diversity.

 

[phattonez]

Besides, the argument is not only honeybees. It's also elephants (Ether 9:19), horses (1 Nephi 18:25), steel (1 Nephi 4:9), and silk (Alma 4:6).

Elephants and horses weren't in the New World at the time the Book of Mormon describes. The Jews didn't have steel and silk at the time that the Book of Mormon describes.

 

[blarg]

I'm not understanding the argument. God can choose whatever He wants. I don't understand the criticism.

the god that you would explain all the possible stuff with by saying its necessary is itself not a necessary state and so it doesn't solve the problem of why you get one possible set of forms over another

 

[phattonez]

the god that you would explain all the possible stuff with by saying its necessary is itself not a necessary state and so it doesn't solve the problem of why you get one possible set of forms over another

Could you use complete sentences? I'm having an impossible time reading what you're trying to say.

 

[blarg]

I never said that nothing can exist without a first cause. I said that all contingent beings (those that are composites of form and matter) demand an explanation. Thus, the only ultimate explanation must be something that is not a composite of form and matter, it must be a being of pure actuality. This being of pure actuality is what we call God.

If you can find another solution besides a being of pure actuality, then please let me know.



Our bodies are made up of matter, sure, but they also have a form. Thus, they demand an explanation as to why one form and not another. A contingent being cannot explain its own existence, it demands an explanation outside of it.

a multiverse that expresses all possible forms simultaneously will do you

 

[phattonez]

a multiverse that expresses all possible forms simultaneously will do you

Multiverses are composed of matter that takes certain forms. It still demands an explanation.

 

[blarg]

That is where we have a problem, then. Matter does not just come out of nowhere. Matter exists, and its existence necessitates a cause of its existence. We have to ask WHY does it exist and not something else. The answer is God in the monotheistic sense.

if energy cant be created or destroyed it is what's eternal, all that might be contingent would be the forms it takes

and god doesn't serve as an ultimate explanations for a particular set of posible forms

because a different version of god could have made all the other possible sets of forms

the god who would do 1 possible thing over another is itself contingent


1con·tin·gent
adjective \kən-ˈtin-jənt\

: depending on something else that might or might not happen














EasyBib






Full Definition of CONTINGENT


1

: likely but not certain to happen : possible


2

: not logically necessary; especially : empirical


3

a : happening by chance or unforeseen causes

b : subject to chance or unseen effects : unpredictable

c : intended for use in circumstances not completely foreseen

4

: dependent on or conditioned by something else <payment is contingent on fulfillment of certain conditions>


5

: not necessitated : determined by free choice

 

[blarg]

Multiverses are composed of matter that takes certain forms. It still demands an explanation.

unless its one that takes every form as a part of its nature that explains the forms not why the multiverse exists at all

but god doesn't answer the question of why god exists either

 

[laska]

Sometimes you just want to puke.

 

[laska]

Phattonez, God bless you man, we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[phattonez]

unless its one that takes every form as a part of its nature that explains the forms not why the multiverse exists at all

You can't take every form, you only ever take 1 form.

but god doesn't answer the question of why god exists either

A being of pure actuality doesn't demand an explanation because it is not contingent.