Great question - "Why are facts Anti-Mormon?"

[_lance peters]

I don't recall the full history, but tradition claims it's in the top spire of the Salt Lake Temple. But, I think I remember hearing it was moved? Who knows, so what? We don't believe in worshiping graven images, so why should we display something so sacred?

You are too cute, I want to bring you to "show and tell." ... I'll wind you up, press your buttons, and then put you up on a pulpit where you can explain to the audience the mysteries of God, the earth, and the eternities.

In other news, have you heard the rumor that there's a teleportation device in the "Holy of Holies" in the SLC temple that transports the user to Kolob?

[_thews]

What "hate" do you equate to interpreting facts? When the rose-colored glasses don't fit your skewed interpretation? "Anti-Mormon" is used as a shield to trigger a rejection to those that believe the distortion, as they don't know the truth. Please give us your spin on the following facts:

Hate is partially defined by a person spending their lives attacking others both falsely and degradingly unfairly. This is what you do.

I see you've resurfaced after tucking tail to avoid the questions you can't answer... again. I would counter that your supposed "hate" is what you've been taught to believe is the truth about Mormonism. It's part of the cult tactic used for you to reject the truth, so it's understandable why you're so angry. In the end ldsfaqs, once you've painted yourself in a corner and run out of excuses, you'll resurface in a few weeks to spout the same tired tripe you couldn't answer the first few times around. You'll use "hate", "bigot" and whatever term you feel is the most angry to make your supposed point, but all it does is define you as a fool, because you can't answer simple questions and need to divert. Care to prove me wrong? Still waiting for answers:

1) Waiting for you to back up your claim Mormon doctrine is not racist as the Curse of Cain has nothing to do with skin color:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=27327&start=21

2) Waiting for you to define what your argument is:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=27421&start=84

1) The Book of Abraham is an incorrect translation of a common pagan papyrus that had nothing to do with Abraham (as Joseph Smith claimed when he "translated" it).

A lie.... There is not evidence whatsoever (or little anyway) that demonstrates that the found "fragments" are in fact the actual Book of Abraham that Joseph claimed to have translated. The only evidence that you have is a couple of the "facsimiles", something for which is a DIME A DOZEN for anyone that knows Egyptian research. Further, the Facsimiles never were the Book of Abraham, they were simply an interpretive rendering with the parchments and story. Again, anyone that knows Egyptian research, that there are MANY versions of such facsimiles having and going with MANY different story's as "art" representing the story's, not actually having anything to do with the story's.

And, once again, you have to concoct an argument from silence based on what isn't in order to counter all the data known to exist. Why does the LDS church keep the data under lock and key? There's a reason ldsfaqs, and that because it's all wrong.

In contrast, there is plenty of evidence that the found fragments were simply Joseph's working copies and parts of the tones of material he gave away, material low and behold, had nothing to do with the Book of Abraham.

This has to be the most ignorant thing you've said so far. Care to give us your interpretation of the Facsimiles:
http://www.mormonhandbook.com/home/book-of-abraham.html

Assumptions and anti-mormon claims and gossip are not "facts" which debunk the Book of Abraham.
That makes you a liar. If the book was in fact translated from the found fragments, we would not be Mormon. We are not dumb. In fact, we are much more intelligent than you.

If you can't acknowledge what is known to exist as completely wrong then continue with your argument that what doesn't exist outweighs was does. In a nutshell, you're a very dim bulb that echos what you're told to believe without an ounce of critical thinking abilities.

2) Mormon doctrine is racist, as the Curse of Cain is specifically defined by skin color.

Another lie.... First, there is no "Mormon doctrine 'is' racist". At the most, you could claim it once was, but even that is a lie. Reason being is second, the curse of cain was never defined by skin color, it was defined by LINEAGE. Two separate animals buddy. Skin color yes was a possible sign of the curse, but not the curse. The curse was the denial of the priesthood. Third, proof that it wasn't according to skin color is because a dozen other races at least who were AS BLACK as African blacks WERE in fact given the Priesthood, not to mention all the OTHER COLORS of the spectrum. Fourth, even "whites" were not given the Priesthood or had it removed not because of their skin color but because of their lineage. Fifth, if Mormons were actually "racists", we would have segregated like YOUR ACTUAL RACIST religious evangelical/protestant forefathers. But black men, even Africans had full membership and fellowshipped together, had callings, were leaders, on and on, no different from any other male in the Church save the Priesthood.

You again are the liar.

You ran away from the facts the last time I asked you, so once again I expect you to do the same. Your convoluted logic stating "Skin color yes was a possible sign of the curse, but not the curse" is nothing short of pure ignorance. Here's the data again that you failed to acknowledge:

http://mormonthink.com/blackweb.htm

Doctrine supported by LDS Scriptures.
2 Nephi 5: 21

'And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people, the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.'
Alma 3: 6

'And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.'
2 Nephi 30: 6

"...their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people."
NOTE: THE TERM 'WHITE' WAS CHANGED TO 'PURE' IN 1981.
3 Nephi 2:15

"And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites."
Jacob 3: 5, 8-9

5 Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father—that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them.

8 O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God.
9 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers.
Moses 7:22

And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.

I assume you can read ldsfaqs... please give us your interpretation of "skins" in the above references and why changing "the most perfect book ever written" from "White" and delightsome, to "Pure" and delightsome makes sense when God would not allow Joseph Smith to proceed unless the translation was correct.

3) Polygamy/Polyandry is God's will if one believes Joseph Smith's truth claims. At what point did God change his mind?

We don't have to believe Joseph Smith, we just have to believe the Bible, which you must not, since you condemn it. When did God "change his mind" then???

Again, you the liar....

You don't have to believe Joseph Smith? Are you stating you don't believe Joseph Smith ldsfaqs? Is this how you pick and choose which truth claims made by your prophet of God are actually true? What does the Bible have to do with Joseph Smith? There isn't anything Christian about Mormon doctrine, as Christians reject Mormon doctrine as false. Once again, you fail to make any sense and show your true colors in a left-hand acknowledgement that Joseph Smith's truth claims are false.

4) The Book of Mormon is supposed to be a historical account. Why isn't there one single piece of evidence (tangible) on the planet to support it?

Another lie... There is plenty....
All of 1st Nephi has been fully verified. Read the book "Lehi in the Wilderness - 81 Evidences that the Book of Mormon is true history...." Get the video that goes with it also.

http://www.nephiproject.com

This is the first work, and as it should starting at the beginning which fully verifies all beginning Book of Mormon claims.

And don't change the subject "what about the New World"???
Deal with the actual facts for a change, instead of changing the goal post.
Deal with that evidence, which is not actually 81, but in fact about a 1,000 evidences. 81 actually refers to the 81 statements in the Book of Mormon that has been verified as being true.

But, as to the New World, there is a lot of good stuff. Go to an LDS bookstore and start learning something. We are professional people, including our scholars and intellectuals. We are not "quacks". Deal with the actual facts for a change, instead of anti-mormon propaganda which uses a little truth to lie.

Most of us are Mormons BECAUSE OF THE EVIDENCES for the work. And it's entirely why we aren't in "your" religions. Because they are clearly man-made, having no evidence whatsoever for their claims and authority but "personal interpretation".

Again, you lie....

And, once again, your "evidence" can be found down some linked rabbit hole you claim contains the answer. If you're so smart ldsfaqs, please post (use the QUOTE feature) of your tangible evidence. You won't, once again, and that's because you can't.

5) What happened to the so-called Urim and Thummim Joseph Smith used to translate the Book of Mormon?

I don't recall the full history, but tradition claims it's in the top spire of the Salt Lake Temple. But, I think I remember hearing it was moved? Who knows, so what? We don't believe in worshiping graven images, so why should we display something so sacred?

Why don't you just come out and admit you don't know? The reason you don't know, is the brown and white seer stones Joseph Smith used to translate the Book of Mormon are locked up... just like the Book of Abraham documents. Do you really consider Joseph Smith's white and brown seer stones used to "see" evil treasure guardians sacred? Which one is the Urim and which one is the Thummim?

Since you seem to believe your interpretation of these facts is more correct than those who use logic in concluding the merit of Joseph Smith's truth claims, I'd like to know how you interpret them.

Don't have to "interpret" them.... We simply know MORE than YOU. Because after all, if you were really telling the truth, and since truth is central to our Faith, it would be easy to see that you are so wise. But, for those of us who know better, we know you spout nothing but half truths and claim them as truth.

Let me get this straight... you don't have to believe Joseph Smith's truth claims, and you claim you "simply know more than you" as the foundation to your supposed intellect? It's no wonder why you tuck tail and flee when presented with the facts ldsfaqs, and that's because you have to ignore them to "simply know" what you're instructed to believe. Does the scary threat of eternal darkness prevent you from acknowledging the truth? Does fear rule your ability to discern fact from fiction? When you acknowledged, "We don't have to believe Joseph Smith" it summed it all up... you choose what you want to believe... it's why your arguments don't make sense and contradict the facts.

[_ludwigm]

.

Hate is partially defined by a person spending their lives attacking others both falsely and degradingly unfairly. This is what you do.

.

A lie.... That makes you a liar. We are not dumb. In fact, we are much more intelligent than you.

.

Another lie.... You again are the liar.

.

Again, you the liar....

Another lie... There is plenty....
Again, you lie....

.

We simply know MORE than YOU.
we know you spout nothing but half truths and claim them as truth.

I've collected Your arguments...
They are persuasive ones.

[_lance peters]

I've collected Your arguments ... They are persuasive ones.

Hahahaha, fun times, fun times, I love it

[_lulu]

You do know we don't teach "History classes" right at Church?

When you speak or write about the past you are speaking and writing history.

So unless its your contention that everything that is said at church is about the present or the future, your statement is patently and blatantly false.

Enough with this the Book of Mormon or the # of Brigham Young's wives in church is religion not history.

[_Robert F Smith]

Your hate is showing.

Naaah. Stale old anti-critic countermeasure.

I don't believe in alien abduction. I think the way that believers in alien abduction try to justify their beliefs is a model of how not to evaluate evidence, in which belief always trumps any problem that critics can raise, and I feel free to say so. Sometimes a little mild derision may be in order. But that doesn't mean I hate believers in alien abduction.

Same for people who believe the Mayan calendar predicts the end of the world. And so on, including Mormons.

Attributing to Mormons views they do not hold, or associating them with fringe elements is a favorite tactic of the haters.

Carrying on a civil and respectful debate or discussion is quite another matter.

[_moksha]

However, although this was cited as a reason for disciplinary action, it should be noted that the link that David provided another member was written by the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR). The person who identified David Twede and forwarded David's writing to Church headquarters was Scott Gordon, president of FAIR.

Didn't realize the writings at FAIR were so subversive as to constitute heresy, but it does seem like a cosmic irony that this heresy would be pointed out by the President of FAIR. What a devilish form of entrapment.

[_Darth J]

ldsfaqs:

I'm trying to think of the nicest way possible to tell you that if I opened a can of alphabet soup and dumped it on the floor, the resulting random puddle of letters would have as much coherence and meaning as anything you have ever posted.

why me:

Contrary to your chatbot-like prose, the problem is not the "interpretation" of facts. The problem is that there is no set of facts in discernible reality that a rational, informed adult would interpret as supporting the truth claims of the LDS Church. The facts do not exist to be interpreted. Similarly, there is an insurmountable set of facts that a rational, informed adult would interpret as negating the truth claims of the LDS Church.

[_Darth J]

I don't believe in alien abduction. I think the way that believers in alien abduction try to justify their beliefs is a model of how not to evaluate evidence, in which belief always trumps any problem that critics can raise, and I feel free to say so. Sometimes a little mild derision may be in order. But that doesn't mean I hate believers in alien abduction.

Same for people who believe the Mayan calendar predicts the end of the world. And so on, including Mormons.

Attributing to Mormons views they do not hold, or associating them with fringe elements is a favorite tactic of the haters.

Carrying on a civil and respectful debate or discussion is quite another matter.

Before Robert F. Smith blithely discounts attributing to Mormons a belief in alien abduction, I would like to remind him that according to the Pearl of Great Price, an extraterrestrial humanoid from Kolob took the entire city of Zion off this planet.

[_Chap]

Your hate is showing.

Naaah. Stale old anti-critic countermeasure.

I don't believe in alien abduction. I think the way that believers in alien abduction try to justify their beliefs is a model of how not to evaluate evidence, in which belief always trumps any problem that critics can raise, and I feel free to say so. Sometimes a little mild derision may be in order. But that doesn't mean I hate believers in alien abduction.

Same for people who believe the Mayan calendar predicts the end of the world. And so on, including Mormons.

Attributing to Mormons views they do not hold, or associating them with fringe elements is a favorite tactic of the haters.

Carrying on a civil and respectful debate or discussion is quite another matter.

I am sorry that I missed this. Let me make myself clear;

1. My post did not attribute to Mormons any view concerning alien abductions, or the Mayan calendar for that matter.

2. Its point was that one may consider views to be obviously fallacious, even ludicrous, without hating the people who hold them. Specifically, I don't hate Mormons at all, any more than I hate the believers in alien abduction or the Mayan apocalypse.

3. As for "associating [Mormons] with fringe elements", I have news for Robert F. Smith: I'd bet that for most normally educated people who come to know of it from outside LDS culture, the narrative of the Book of Mormon and its 'translation' (Jaredite barges 'tight as a dish', great Christian civilizations in pre-Columbian America, gold plates miraculously translated from 'Reformed Egyptian' and then disappearing again) seems just as 'fringe' as the other two belief systems I mentioned.

4. Respectful debate does not exclude telling people that there is good reason to think that their beliefs are radically false, if you think they are. Anything else is merely patronizing, and involves treating one's interlocutor as sub-rational. And if one's interlocutor responds by crying "Why do you hate me?", I don't think it does much harm to point out that this is a rather silly kind of response.