Only Pro-mormon Sites?

[JoshuaFKon]

Hello everyone :)

I have heard a lot from mormons that If you really want to know about something you will only research sites that Agree with that. a.k.a. If you want to know about mormonism only ask Mormons.

I am not going to argue with anyone on this thread about if that is true or not. I personally think you need to hear both sides.

But I want to know what do most of you think?

Thanks

God Bless

Josh

[Latter Days Guy]

If you wanted to get your car fixed you would go to a mechanic wouldn't you? You could go to your mate who tinkers around with engines but he may fix it or he may not have a clue, you got to the expert to get the job done.

Well if you want to know about what Mormons believe ask a Mormon. They are the experts and Mormonism as they are, well Mormons

[shanstress70]

If you wanted to get your car fixed you would go to a mechanic wouldn't you? You could go to your mate who tinkers around with engines but he may fix it or he may not have a clue, you got to the expert to get the job done.

Well if you want to know about what Mormons believe ask a Mormon. They are the experts and Mormonism as they are, well Mormons

I disagree, as there are many experts on Mormonism who are not Mormon.

If I'm searching for the best kind of mortgage to get for my new home, I'm not going to only talk to the bank that only has 'Interest Only' mortgages, because of course they will try to talk me into going with their mortgage. They won't tell me what's best for me if it's actually a 'Fixed Rate'. If I was close to deciding, and was leaning toward an 'Interest Only' after all, I would talk to a person who was opposed to 'Interest Only' mortgages to find out why and listen to what he knew about the subject. Then perhaps I would still choose the Interest Only, but at least then I could make an informed decision. To only listen to the 'Interest Only' pusher would be a huge mistake, in my opinion.

[Princess3dward]

Although you mentioned how you pretty much wouldn't believe us unless we clicked pro-mormon (thus making that poll a waste of your time...) when I was researching mormonisn, I was an anti-mormon trying to figure out why mormons were so flippin' nutty, and why they think they have to go out of their way for things they believe in, like keeping the sabbeth day holy, which to me was these freaks don't do anything fun on Sundays... so I researched mormonism via both. First anti-mormon, and then mormon, but a BETTER way to do it is to research maybe non-members who actually know facts, and THEN take those FACTS to anti-'s and members....

[lisajo]

Here we go again.............. Ok DR. T Bring out the electrodes. this testing and reserching is totally getting outta hand, i hate being some ones theo. project!

[Princess3dward]

I agree.

We are being asked stupid questions so he can find more reasons why we are all lying and faithful to a false religion!

He has made no points,

and now is saying we don't look at both sides,

when I PLAYED the part of both sides!

I am not something to be tested on!

I don't mind honest questions, but this is a little bit nuts.

[JoshuaFKon]

I agree.

We are being asked stupid questions so he can find more reasons why we are all lying and faithful to a false religion!

He has made no points,

and now is saying we don't look at both sides,

when I PLAYED the part of both sides!

I am not something to be tested on!

I don't mind honest questions, but this is a little bit nuts.

Look, I'm just asking for your opinion, if you don't want to give it...no hard feelings.

I am not going to make comments on whether or dissagree with you or not.

If you feel you look at both sides just say so...I'm not going to argure with you.

I can't tell you how many people have gotten mad at me because I looked at an anti-mormon site. All I'm asking is your opinion

I don't see why this upsets you....

Thank you,

Josh

[Princess3dward]

No one is mad you looked on an anti-mormon site.

People are mad that you arn't listening to us and taking our honest answers.

I gave my opinion,

and you don't see why?

Because since I got here I have been called a liar numerous times,

and I don't lie.

[Maureen]

I said 'Both'. IMO, many of the people who know about Mormons are ex-mormons (who are sometimes quite 'anti'). They once lived the Mormon life, therefore know what its like to be Mormon. And of course Mormons themselves, goes without saying.

M.

[Dr T]

Lisajo you are great!

No one is mad you looked on an anti-mormon site.

People are mad that you arn't listening to us and taking our honest answers.

I gave my opinion,

and you don't see why?

Because since I got here I have been called a liar numerous times,

and I don't lie.

Two quick questions: "How many times do you have to lie before you are considered a "lier"? 10? 5? 1?

2nd question: Have you ever lied?

Would that make you a lier or not?

I have lied, stolen, etc. That makes me a lier and a theif (at least)

Dr. T

[Ray]

Okay, here’s my answer, from personal experience.

Before I met a member of the church I’m in right now, I hadn’t really heard too much about Mormons, and after learning from that member and what other members taught me, my family gave me gifts to help me learn.

At that point I only knew the Book of Mormon was really true, because God had given me His true assurance, and I’d taken all the lessons, and I chose to be a member, and they told me to receive the Holy Ghost.

Anyway, the first gift from all my family was the gift of their contentions about how the Mormon church could not be true, which really didn’t help me to learn much of what was true, so I still relied on God to teach the good stuff.

And the second gift they gave me were some books about contentions with more reasons the Mormon church could not be true, which also didn’t help me to learn much of what was true, so I still relied on God to teach the good stuff.

And all along the way I tried to find some good books to show me why Church leaders would be in the Church, ‘cause I figured they had heard the contentions I was hearing and I thought they could explain why they were members.

And lo, and behold, I learned more about the truth than all I ever learned outside the Church. And I now know the Church has more knowledge of the truth than all who say the Church cannot be true.

So you tell me:

Was it good to hear contentions?

What if I had never learned through faith from God?

If all I ever heard was only all of those contentions, how would I have ever learned what is the truth?

Can a person learn the truth without learning what is true???

Why would any want all that and not the good stuff???

Do you want to hear the lies, or do you want to hear the truth???

And who else, but only God, should we all listen to???

[Traveler]

Hello everyone :)

I have heard a lot from mormons that If you really want to know about something you will only research sites that Agree with that. a.k.a. If you want to know about mormonism only ask Mormons.

I am not going to argue with anyone on this thread about if that is true or not. I personally think you need to hear both sides.

But I want to know what do most of you think?

Thanks

God Bless

Josh

You have a real hard problem in getting anything straight. I said that if you want to know about Mormons you begin (NOTE THE WORD “BEGIN”) with Mormons and talk to them about what they teach. What you do is begin with anti-mormons and then only talk to the mormons about what the anti-mormons say about us.

I asked you in the past to list one source from the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS for your information. All I asked is for one source and you have not provided even one source. Yet you said you have been studying Mormonism - This is not true you have never studied the LDS faith - Until you are willing to read LDS stuff do not ask questions and do not pretend you care.

Anti-Mormons killed our prophet, raped our women drove our ancestors from their homes, destroyed their property - and not just once. Why should I care what murders and supporters of murders say about us. Why should I care what you ask when all your questions are questions that were first thought up by murders of my ancestors? Why should I care what you say when you refuse to consider anything unless it came from a murder of my ancestors? I have tried to be kind in asking you to consider your sources - but you will have nothing of it. And you do not care one whit why I am not interested in your questions intended to generate that kind of hate that inspired so-called Christians to murder my ancestors?

Only once in my life has someone that knew me and knew my name sought to kill me and that was a self proclaimed Christians fed by lies from their minister from the very pulpit of their church - and he asked the same question you ask. Why - I wonder?

The Traveler

[rosie321]

Wow Traveler-what passion

Unfortunately your right. Otherwise christian people can be turned murderous at the name of mormon. Many times because somebody usually a leader said thats what they should do (who wouldn't have the guts to do anything themselves and can't say what they believe). Its too bad they can't look at their own lifes and take out the log.

Wow. Your post was something. I feel like a moment of silence and bowed heads is due.

[JoshuaFKon]

I asked you in the past to list one source from the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS for your information. All I asked is for one source and you have not provided even one source. Yet you said you have been studying Mormonism - This is not true you have never studied the LDS faith - Until you are willing to read LDS stuff do not ask questions and do not pretend you care.

Actually I did answer your questions, I will do it again here.

Mormon sources I have read:

The Book of Mormon (not completely )

LDS.org

Jefflindsay.com (my favorite)

FAIR

FARMS

Much of the work of Dr. Nibley

I have also personally disscused this with Mormons from the start. I have never personally talked to an "anti-mormon" as I have members of the LDS

and many other small pro-mormon sites

Anti-Mormons killed our prophet, raped our women drove our ancestors from their homes, destroyed their property - and not just once. Why should I care what murders and supporters of murders say about us. Why should I care what you ask when all your questions are questions that were first thought up by murders of my ancestors? Why should I care what you say when you refuse to consider anything unless it came from a murder of my ancestors?

I am not an "anti-mormon" who do you consider to be an anti-mormon, anyone who is not a member of the LDS? And even if I was the son of whoever murdered Joseph Smith, does that mean my opinion is not valid?

Thank you

Josh

[Ray]

...does that mean my opinion is not valid?

Thank you

Josh

What do YOU mean by asking if your opinion would not be valid???

Do you mean valid as in truthful, perhaps???

Do you think false ideas are as valid as true ones???

If an idea isn't true, is it valid???

And btw, please notice that I'm trying to make a distinction between an IDEA and a PERSON.

Of course YOU are valid. YOU are a person, and YOU are a child of God.

But if you have ideas that aren't really true, then you tell me:

Are they valid???

[JoshuaFKon]

I mean, is my opinion not worthy of equal consideration.

Josh

[Dr T]

Cue AK's devious laugh...

[Guest ApostleKnight]

*AK clears his throat...*

Gwahahahaha, mwahahahaha, bwahahahaha!

[Dr T]

[JoshuaFKon]

Ok, ok, I'll give you that was funny :)

Josh B)

[prisonchaplain]

I'm only responding to Josh's question. Generally speaking, adult non-LDS people who either simply want to learn what Mormonism is about, or who may be considering investigation would do well to read BOTH. Even trolls would want to know what their targets are thinking. Mormon children under the age of 12 or so would probably not be allowed to read "anti" sites--I know I won't be having my children peruse anti-pentecostal sites.

Anyone who is sincere will definitely want to read the Standard Works, and first consult the official church sites (this goes for any religion, really). Then, if there are concerns, or the Spirit of God has not given a clear answer, questions might be "fleshed out" at places like this. If there are "checks in the Spirit," perhaps the anti-sites can either confirm suspicions or belay them (occasionally anti-sites become faith-affirming because they are so outrageous and feeble).

If you are simply looking for some encouragement forgo the computer, and get in touch with a trusted spiritual mentor from your own faith.

Here we go again.............. Ok DR. T Bring out the electrodes. this testing and reserching is totally getting outta hand, i hate being some ones theo. project!

Sorry, but until you get rid of that avatar (freaks me out big time! ) you deserve everything you get.

[prisonchaplain]

Hello everyone :) I have heard a lot from mormons that If you really want to know about something you will only research sites that Agree with that. a.k.a. If you want to know about mormonism only ask Mormons. I am not going to argue with anyone on this thread about if that is true or not. I personally think you need to hear both sides. But I want to know what do most of you think?

Thanks, God Bless. Josh

As much as I understand Josh's question, and believe he's somewhat open-minded (85% hoping to create doubts and aid in converting folk out of LDS, 15% willing to see good stuff in it and learn), here's the problem with this poll and this approach.

If someone were to ask me if those who considered joining a Pentecostal church ought to first examine anti-Pentecostal literature and websites, my first thought would be, "What for? We got it right! Just look at your Bible--especially Acts and 1 Corinthians."

Of course, some very intelligent and thoughtful Christians might disagree. A few Pentecostals may have converted (to LDS, to Catholic, to fundamental Baptist, etc.). BUT, yeah, I'd feel immediately put on the defensive, and would probably be a bit offended. The very suggestion that someone would need to visit anti-sites before joining me in my glorious spiritual community would seem to justify opponents.

I did mark "both" for reasons explained in another post. At the same time, I see why many many Mormons would find the question itself somewhat offensive. And, Josh, if you come to the place of seeing how the question could be offensive, you'll be on the road to fruitful dialogue here. It's not enough to know Mormon teachings. You need to see the other person's perspective and understand it. Don't have to agree--just see it clearly.

Don't worry. Your message won't change. But, your tone, your vocabulary, and your effectiveness will.

[JoshuaFKon]

As much as I understand Josh's question, and believe he's somewhat open-minded (85% hoping to create doubts and aid in converting folk out of LDS, 15% willing to see good stuff in it and learn), here's the problem with this poll and this approach.

Only 15%? I was sure you'd at least give me 20%

I'd feel immediately put on the defensive, and would probably be a bit offended. The very suggestion that someone would need to visit anti-sites before joining me in my glorious spiritual community would seem to justify opponents.

Actually, I would suggest that before anyone makes a commitment to Christianity, they should look at all the anti-Chrsitian sites, (as well as the pro-Christian sites) like I did, I found it very faith afirming.

I see why many many Mormons would find the question itself somewhat offensive. And, Josh, if you come to the place of seeing how the question could be offensive, you'll be on the road to fruitful dialogue here. It's not enough to know Mormon teachings. You need to see the other person's perspective and understand it. Don't have to agree--just see it clearly.

I would find this question slightly offensive I'll admit, but only becasue the implacation would be that I might think you don't have to see both sides. However since...what was it? 33%? say you shouldn't see the other side (probably more really because you and I voted for "both") I don't understand why everyone's upset.

Don't worry. Your message won't change. But, your tone, your vocabulary, and your effectiveness will.

I hope they change, my effectiveness sure needs some work...2000+ views....6-7 attempts to answer my questions...I've probably been called a liar about 30 though if that counts for anything.....

thanks,

Josh

[Traveler]

I am not an "anti-mormon" who do you consider to be an anti-mormon, anyone who is not a member of the LDS? And even if I was the son of whoever murdered Joseph Smith, does that mean my opinion is not valid?

Thank you

Josh

There are religious organizations that ordained and paid ministers that in the day of Joseph Smith encouraged and supported the murders of Joseph Smith. I am not concerned that you may be a descendent of someone involved in such murders as I am that you reference publications from religious organizations that ordained such ministers and have never recognized (published) that the murders are not "Christian".

But let us take one of your questions:

(3) Why is there no archeological evidence of the Book of Mormon's claims? And why does the evidence seem to contradict it? E.g. the animals, crops, and metalworking.

Notice the statement of "no archeological evidence of the Book of Mormon's claims". I will begin with the first few chapters of the first book - Nephi. Below are some excerpt from previous post of mine concerning this topic:

In the year 1985 the Book of Mormon critic Thomas Key wrote in the "journal of American Scientific Affiliation" that since Pleistocene times there has been in Arabia no Bountiful land with "much fruit and also wild honey" (critical of 1Nephi 17:5) and no timber that Nephi could have used to build a ship (critical of 1Nephi 18:1). As it turns out the Book of Mormon is more historically accurate than all the material in our culture available to Mr. Key in his critical review. There is such a place called Taqah/Khor Rori. It is a very ancient harbor that is found at the end of the Frankincense Trail and due East (less than 3% deviation) from a place called Nahor to this day (specifically identified in the Book of Mormon) but not known on any map in western civilization at the time of Joseph Smith. And Taqah/Khor Rori has all the elements exactly as described in the Book of Mormon - not one thing described in the Book of Mormon is missing - not one. For example this in the only place in all of Arabia were wild honey is harvested.

Nephi gives us a very accurate description both of the place and its location in reference to other key places in Arabia. The critics listen too much to their own babble and do not realize the degree of accuracy in which the Book of Mormon describes numerous things.

About 7 years ago I was invited to spend a week at a home in the Persian Gulf area of a devout Moslem and a very good friend. The event was his sister’s wedding. A Moslem wedding lasts for a week and I was honored by the invitation.

I learned a most interesting thing from my friend. Something known throughout Arabia but completely lost and unknown in our western civilization. In the center of my friends home town is a giant statue devoted to The Tree of Life of Arabia. This statue is famous throughout Arabia and the Islamic people. The reason is because this tree is a powerful symbol of Allah’s love of the people that live in Arabia. The Tree of Life is the second of 3 great gifts from Allah to those that live in Arabia.

The First gift is water. This is the greatest treasure in Arabia. The third gift is the domestication of the camel.

The second gift is a special palm tree that grows in Arabia and some places of Northern Africa. This is the date palm tree. The reason this tree is so important is because the dates of this particular tree are rather good to eat and are one of the only foods that will last for weeks on end without spoiling in the heat of Arabia for anyone traveling. It is survival and life. Anciently there was no other food that would sustain someone traveling for any distance in Arabia. It has been called the Tree of Life for good reason for thousands of years. But there is not even of hint of this tree in western sources prior to Laurence of Arabia who was the first to note it from out side Middle Eastern society. Although the date palm is mentioned in the Bible its importance is lost to our place and time.

For the most part the date tree’s fruit ranges in color from brown to pale yellow when it is ripe and the lighter the color the sweeter the taste of the fruit. There is however, one variety of this date palm tree whose fruit is almost white. It is the tree with the white fruit that is the model for the statue in my friend's hometown. It is the most highly valued and believed to be the one most similar to the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden. This tree grows naturally only in Western Arabia and has been found as far north as the area where the Book of Mormon describes the “Valley of Lemuel”, which by the way there really is such a valley exactly where the Book of Mormon says there is. And there is a river of water flowing rear-round into the Red Sea. It is the only place where there is a river of water in Arabia that flows year-round into the Red Sea. There is no document in Western “Christian” civilization that references such a river until just within the last 40 years.

How many trees do you know that produce “white fruit”? And how many of them are called “The Tree of Life”? Where in 1830 could anyone in the West find a historically accurate document that mentions this fact and others about Arabia (for example the year-round river flowing into the Red Sea)? Once again this is proof that the Book of Mormon is a historically accurate account. Our western accounts including computers internet and other access still lacks the depth of understanding given in the Book of Mormon almost 150 years ago.

More historical information found in the Book of Mormon. One of the main places for tourist around Jerusalem is called the cave of Lehi. This cave is of interest because it is one of the few known sites where there are Hebrew artifacts that date back to the first temple era (prior to the Babylonian captivity). The artifacts in the cave establish a number of historical truth that high lighted in the Book of Mormon. For example the cave demonstrates that the Egyptian name "Lehi" was being used by Hebrews in the Jerusalem area around 600 BC. It also demonstrates that Egyptian characters were used to express the Hebrew language in written form. (this is because Egyptian characters are phonetic).

As far as accurate historical data I challenge anyone to find a more accurate description of the Frankincense Trail, the path taken by Lehi as described in the Book of Mormon.

In a quick review of a few facts from The Book of Mormon, there is the accurate naming of ancient trails, several places where water is to be found in Arabia, the identification of the "Head of the Red Sea", identification of “Borders near the Red Sea”, a river the flows year round into the Red Sea, the “Tree of Life”, and a extremely accurate description of a place known as the valley of Lemuel and also the "Land Bountiful”, identification of the "fertile parts" and the more "fertile parts" (according to ancient Arabic legions), where wood to make bows can be found, areas good for hunting game, and the list goes on and on. The point I want to make here is that the numbers are just too great for Joseph to have named so many things with such accuracy that exceeds everything else written about the area in over 150 years.

Another historical reference from the Book of Mormon. Before I begin I would point out that in 1830 little was known of ancient Egypt. Egyptian text could not be accurately translated or deciphered at the time of Joseph Smith. No one knew anything about Egyptian literary forms. But lucky for us we do know something of Egyptian literary forms today. I would like to introduce the readers to the classic Egyptian Colophon literary form. The Egyptian Colophon is found at the beginning of Egyptian based literature contained three essential elements:

1. It begins with the arthur giving their name.

2. Following the identification of the arthur the virtues and importance of the arthur’s parents are extolled.

3. Concludes with assurance that the literature was written by the very hand of the arthur.

Now observe 1Nephi 1:1-3 “I Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen many afflictions in the course of my days, nevertheless, having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days; yea, having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of G-d, therefore I make a record of my preceedings in my days.

Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians.

And I know that the record which I make is true; and I make it with mine own hand; and I make it according to my knowledge.”

Is this another lucky guess? What are the chances of such a lucky guess. Can anyone produce another such lucky guess where someone happened to write using the Egyptian Colophon literary form by accident or guess before the form was even known to exist?

Once again despite critics not knowing what they criticize we learn of the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon.

I have not even started on archeological evidence in the Americas. But here is a challenge - produce any archeological evidence in the Americas that disproves the Book of Mormon that does not also disprove the Bible. Why would anyone that does not believe the evidence that disproves the Bible is accurate and then use such evidence against the Book of Mormon?

The Traveler

[sgallan]

If you want to know about the Republican Party or Democratic Party, and you only went to those sites, what would you find? If you wanted to know about the Communism and only went to their site, what would you find? You can use the same analogies with any group no matter how mainstream, or how extreme, or how deviant.

The answer is both. If you are intelligent human who is truly searching you'll get enough information to draw your own conclusions.