jinc1019

Thank you for the wonderful sources! I look forward to going through them!

Thank you so much for your advice. I will, as I have promised, give it a fair shot and try what you have suggested. God bless. Justin

That's totally fair...but the problem with this reasoning is...How do you know when you receive a true testimony and not simply an emotion that makes you FEEL like it's a true testimony?

It's been awhile since I have been able to really study the Mormon church again in depth. While I remain very impressed, even baffled, by some of the Book of Mormon evidences, certain aspects of the Mormon faith seem suspect to me (if they didn't, I would already be a Mormon!). One of the biggest problems I see is with the Book of Abraham. I have read the Jeff Lindsay and FAIR Mormon responses to the criticisms of the Book of Abraham, and while many of those arguments make sense, it still seems very hard to believe that Smith accurately translated the papyri (whichever ones they are) when the first picture seems to be referenced in the text and does NOT appear to be accurately translated. What are your thoughts on the Book of Abraham? Any good evidence (that's at least somewhat easy to suggest) to support your claims? As I have said on these forums before, I try to be as fair as I can possibly be and I truly am genuinely interested in learning more. Thanks in advance! Justin

I will, thank you for the advice!

Absolutely. I have been on MANY different forums of numerous faiths and I have found that this is definitely one of the most helpful and kind. I greatly appreciate everyone's efforts.

And even then, we should always be respectful of the beliefs of others!

Yes you are correct about the fact that many of his followers absolutely believed he was legitimate. "Stupid dopes," many non-Mormons would say, but not me. Even if I don't ever accept Mormonism, I believe that there, for whatever reason, was something special about Smith and that many thousands (and eventually millions) of people believed (and still do believe) in his message. It's unjust to insult those dead souls who gave up so much to follow what they truly believed in without weighing all of the evidence very carefully.

Very interesting view. Thanks for sharing it.

Fair enough.

Anatess has nailed my feelings on this! A great deal of thanks goes out to her.

Mnn, With all due respect, I think you totally misunderstand your own church's position. Your church claims to be the restored church of Christ, correct? Your church claims to teach what the apostles taught (plus some additional teachings as well), correct? The early church fathers then matter quite a bit. If your church claims one thing is true and has always been true, such as believer's baptism for instance, then the apostles must also have believed the same thing. So, it's reasonable to go back as far as I can and see, historically, what the earliest Christian leaders taught. It's one way of trying to verify if Joseph Smith was really restoring the original church or making things up. Now, this way of looking back at early church fathers and comparing those teachings to Smith is greatly flawed, and I admit that. I don't discount Mormonism just because it disagrees with what early church fathers taught. Why? Because many so-called "early" church fathers wrote 300 years after Christ! However, I think it's fair to examine the earliest sources, such as the Didache, Ignatius, Clement, etc. and see what they had to say on certain issues. Many of these men actually knew the apostles, so it's fair to say that there opinion, which is still fallible, should at least be considered. Again, I am not dismissing your religion because of it, but it definitely factors into the equation. The disconnect here is due in part to the fact that you base every argument you have on the assumption that Smith was a real and true prophet. I don't...I can't...and I won't. I am willing to consider that possibility, but I can't assume that. Because I can't assume it, I need to look at the remaining evidence available, weight it, and come to the best conclusion possible. I shouldn't be disparaged for that. Further, your suggestion that the early church fathers don't matter to anyone but Catholic offshoots is embarrassingly incorrect. Obviously you never read anything Martin Luther, John Calvin, Zwingli, etc. wrote...they speak A LOT about the early church fathers. Even Baptists argue that one of the best reasons why believer's baptism is the right doctrine is because they have studied the early church fathers and can't find infant baptism mentioned in the first 200 years or so of the Christian Church. Further, I have read MULTIPLE Mormon sources, including Jeff Lindsay and many of the Mormon apologists he quotes, that have stated that it is a fact that Joseph Smith himself read works of the early church fathers. Why? Because it does matter. It doesn't matter to you because, again, you have the benefit of looking at the world from the perspective of having a relatively recent prophet in your corner. I don't. Further, to say I am espousing "Catholic" dogma is incredibly unfair. Roughly 80% or more of all Christians in the world are in agreement about 95% of all theological points (Including Lutherans, Catholics, Orthodox, Presbyterian, Oriental, etc.). Your view, which is supported by one relatively small church (very small in fact), should not be dismissed just because a few people agree with it, but neither should my view because it happens to coincide with what the overwhelming majority of Christians believe. EVEN further, the principle argument I made was that virtually ALL CHRISTIANS, with very, very limited exceptions, teach that baptisms done by baptized Christians are valid, no matter what denomination the person belongs to. Baptisms by Baptists are accepted by Eastern Orthodox and baptisms by Non-denominational Christians are accepted by Catholics. It's one point the vast majority of Christians agree on today. Mormons, on the other hand, teach the opposite. It's fair to ask, "why?" No one interprets the NT passages involving baptism the way you do except other Mormons...and all I wanted to know is...Why? Many forum members helped to answer that question. I, with a good degree of politeness (I hope), disagreed. I think these questions are fair and important, at least they are to me!

That's not accurate. Based on the logic you use, virtually ANYTHING is possible then. We could argue that Paul was really from Mars and dropped off on planet earth by aliens...Why? Because it doesn't say he wasn't. We have to weigh the evidence we have and make decisions on what we know. It doesn't make sense to assume they had priesthood rights that are never mentioned anywhere.

That's a perfectly fair response. I don't want to sound like I am denouncing your religious beliefs because of this one issue. I think it's entirely possible that your church made a mistake for over a hundred years, like many churches have on all sorts of issues, and then God finally said, "Enough is enough. Get you act together." Where I get uncomfortable is with the argument that God WANTED black people to be kept from the priesthood for some unknown reason. While theoretically that is possible, I can't imagine it is true based on logic and everything else we read in the Bible.

The analogy doesn't work for one very important reason...Your church has never once stated that this position was Divinely mandated. At least that's what I have read so far...So the reality isn't that God said, "Black people can't be priesthood holders," but instead that the church created the policy itself. Now you could argue that it was revealed to them but no one ever stated that or wrote it down. Correct? The problem is that the LDS Church did adopt this position, it just took them until 1978 do it, well after almost every other Christian church in the Western hemisphere abandoned such policies. If the LDS Church is the restored and true church, why would it be so LATE to adopt this position?