Why have many people left the Church after reading false things?

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

With respect to joesph Smith, he is either a prophet or a con artist. So if you do not believe the church is true, he is a con artist. 

Removing myself from my strongly Mormon identity and trying to be as objective as I can, I can honestly say this - something was going on with Joseph Smith, no matter how you look at it, that was more than being a con artist.

How do you explain a backwoods farm boy writing a book such as the Book of Mormon, seemingly pulling such a complex document out of thin air?  How do you explain Joseph Smith convincing numerous witnesses, men with reputations to protect, to back him up and say they felt golden plates and saw angels?  How do you explain the fact that, even after many of these witnesses left the Church and the Saints were far away in Utah, these witnesses refused to refute their testimony of the Book of Mormon, despite having every incentive to do so?  How do you explain chiasmus, hebraisms, internal and external textual consistency, correct Semitic grammar, and surprisingly accurate geographic descriptions coming out of the Book of Mormon, all of which was written by a backwoods farm boy with virtually no education?  How do you explain wordprint analysis showing multiple authors for the Book of Mormon?  How do you explain Joseph Smith accurately restoring giant swaths of first-century Christianity, deftly cleansing Christianity of foreign/Greek influence it had picked up over the years, even restoring very esoteric subject matter such as baptisms for the dead?  Has anyone ever seen anything remotely resembling all of this since the days of Jesus and the apostles themselves?

Whatever Joseph Smith was, I don't think we can write him off as a mere con artist.  No, being fully objective, I think something else, something very big, was at play here.  And if I were not already a believer, I would be eyeing Joseph Smith very, very closely, because it is clear from my objective viewpoint that something was going on with him, something that would be very difficult indeed to explain without simply conceding that he was a prophet.

(And being back to my subjective self, I think that God has left a trail of evidence, for those willing to put out even the smallest bit of faith and look, which testifies that Joseph Smith is exactly what he claimed to be - a prophet of God - and the Church is exactly what it claims to be today - the only true and complete Christian church).

Edited March 26, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[Guest MormonGator]

11 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

With respect to joesph Smith, he is either a prophet or a con artist. So if you do not believe the church is true, he is a con artist. 

 

I agree. It's like what CS Lewis said about Christ (paraphrased) Given the claims he made, He's either the Lord, a liar, or a lunatic. 

[Eve1991]

someone said they resigned from the Church because they discovered the Church is a lie and Joseph Smith is a fraud. the same person said something else because I asked him a question and his response was this:  I would love nothing more than to have Jesus Christ come back and tell me Joseph Smith was a prophet and the BOM was true. Obviously I'd admit I was wrong. That's what people like myself want more then even you, to have him come back and show to us non-believers we are wrong. however I live my life not on feelings or emotions. I live my life on facts, and evidence. Facts and overwhelming evidence show Joseph Smith was a liar and a con man, convicted in a court of law. He used a rock in a hat to translate the BOM and never even needed the plates. The witnesses to the plates never saw them. The LDS church now admits this in it's essays. They only saw them with spiritual eye's or second sight and when they handled the plates they were covered by a cloth. There is so much more to prove J.S. was a fraud, but to list them here would take up pages of text. Then the BOM it's self makes claims that it can not defend. I've heard it said the BOM is not a scientific book. That's a fine statement if it were not for the fact that the LDS church say's it's true. In that case it must defend it's self. The fictional author of Harry Potter never makes the claim the stories, places, names, races, etc., are true. Therefore everyone accepts it as fiction. But the BOM make's outrageous claims in the area's of metallurgy, geography, human migration into the Americas, linguistics, and animals including horses that did not exist in the Americas before Columbus. If a book or a person is going to make such extraordinary claims they need extraordinary evidence to back it up. The LDS church had to spin it's head off once DNA proved the LDS church's claim Native Americans came from the middle east. DNA proved they in fact did not come from the middle east but from Asia. A long held theory that evidence had suspected for a long time. Once again you'll find The LDS church spinning this story in one of it's essay's. So much for god being the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. I could go on and on. The fact is all holy books are man made. Christ is a historical figure, not the son of god. There are many historical persons thousands of years before Christ that claim divinity, died and rose three days later. The Christ story does not hold the rights to that story. Of course lets not forget god. There is no proof of his existence at all. I won't even go into all the problems with the idea there is a god. You fail to realize the christian god you worship today is one of the last 10,000 worshiped in human history. But because your alive now, you don't know the difference and accept what you have been taught since childhood. And let's not forget your only a hardcore believing christian because you were born in the U,S. or a western culture. Had you been born in the middle east our conversation would be how truthful you believe the Koran to be and Mohammad was a true prophet of god. Read and educate yourself not just with what the LDS church would want you to read or family would want you to read but expand your education by reading books that challenge you to rethink your traditional beliefs. Or you can go on living life on a warm fuzzy feeling and emotion. Either way you do not need a god or a redeemer to be a good moral, helpful, generous, giving human being. I was born in the LDS church, held high positions and have since resigned because it is a lie.

[Eve1991]

17 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

Removing myself from my strongly Mormon identity and trying to be as objective as I can, I can honestly say this - something was going on with Joseph Smith, no matter how you look at it, that was more than being a con artist.

How do you explain a backwoods farm boy writing a book such as the Book of Mormon, seemingly pulling such a complex document out of thin air?  How do you explain Joseph Smith convincing numerous witnesses, men with reputations to protect, to back him up and say they felt golden plates and saw angels?  How do you explain the fact that, even after many of these witnesses left the Church and the Saints were far away in Utah, these witnesses refused to refute their testimony of the Book of Mormon, despite having every incentive to do so?  How do you explain chiasmus, hebraisms, internal and external textual consistency, correct Semitic grammar, and surprisingly accurate geographic descriptions coming out of the Book of Mormon, all of which was written by a backwoods farm boy with virtually no education?  How do you explain wordprint analysis showing multiple authors for the Book of Mormon?  How do you explain Joseph Smith accurately restoring giant swaths of first-century Christianity, deftly cleansing Christianity of foreign/Greek influence it had picked up over the years, even restoring very esoteric subject matter such as baptisms for the dead?  Has anyone ever seen anything remotely resembling all of this since the days of Jesus and the apostles themselves?

Whatever Joseph Smith was, I don't think we can write him off as a mere con artist.  No, being fully objective, I think something else, something very big, was at play here.  And if I were not already a believer, I would be eyeing Joseph Smith very, very closely, because it is clear from my objective viewpoint that something was going on with him, something that would be very difficult indeed to explain without simply conceding that he was a prophet.

(And being back to my subjective self, I think that God has left a trail of evidence, for those willing to put out even the smallest bit of faith and look, which testifies that Joseph Smith is exactly what he claimed to be - a prophet of God - and the Church is exactly what it claims to be today - the only true and complete Christian church).

The best thing for us all to do is pray people who have resigned from the Church or are inactive but haven't resigned will come back to Church in the future 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Eve1991 said:

The witnesses to the plates never saw them. The LDS church now admits this in it's essays. They only saw them with spiritual eye's or second sight and when they handled the plates they were covered by a cloth.

Not sure this is accurate.

 

14 minutes ago, Eve1991 said:

DNA proved they in fact did not come from the middle east but from Asia.

This statement reflects a very poor knowledge of how DNA works, as well as what the Book of Mormon actually teaches and claims.  Remember, the Lamanites were cursed with a hereditary curse, meaning their DNA was changed, and the Nephites were later killed off, so we wouldn't expect to find much Middle Eastern DNA in Native Americans in the first place.  There is also at least the implication within the Book of Mormon that other people (who may have been from Asia) interacted with, and mixed with, the Nephites and Lamanites, including perhaps the likely-Asian Jaredites and others.  DNA based arguments that I have heard sound good, but lack meaningful substance because they are made by people with no real knowledge of the Book of Mormon (or DNA, for that matter).

 

15 minutes ago, Eve1991 said:

Of course lets not forget god. There is no proof of his existence at all.

There is plenty of proof of God in science, particular biology.  Scientists who refuse to acknowledge God are being willfully blind.  I think the proof of God in science is so overwhelming I could construct a testimony of Him based off of science alone and without bringing religion into it.

 

18 minutes ago, Eve1991 said:

Had you been born in the middle east our conversation would be how truthful you believe the Koran to be and Mohammad was a true prophet of god.

I will take Islam over atheism any day of the week.

This is just a quick response to your statements about your friend (I could comment much more), but frankly he has not said anything I have not seen (and refuted, to myself or others), a thousand times before. 

[Sunday21]

Fair Mormon has a number of interesting videos that look at evidence for the Book of Mormon 

 

in a addition you might like to read a book called shaken faith syndrome. If you are going to stake your faith on archeology, I suggest you take a single university course on the subject. I found that quite an eye opening experience. alternatively one can follow the example of Joseph Smith and ask of God.

[Guest MormonGator]

16 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

Fair Mormon has a number of interesting videos that look at evidence for the Book of Mormon 

 

in a addition you might like to read a book called shaken faith syndrome. If you are going to stake your faith on archeology, I suggest you take a single university course on the subject. I found that quite an eye opening experience. alternatively one can follow the example of Joseph Smith and ask of God.

Michael Ash I think is the writer of the book and it's quite good. 

[JohnsonJones]

There are a TON of things talked about in the above topics, too many to address, so I don't think I will due to my absence for a while.  I will address a few.

I'm not a scientist, so if you are a scientist (particularly OUTSIDE the US or Australia as the biggest objectors I think are actually NOT English speaking) and know more, feel free to correct me on the DNA study problems.

I'm editing down my stuff on the DNA evidence ideas because, as a non-scientist, my understanding of this study is probably far more limited and I'm not really qualified to discuss it in depth.  Basically, there are those who are bothered by that study as they feel the study was not good research.  It boils down to the research being too small and too narrow and contradicting other studies done in other locations.  The study had a very small number of subjects, many which were from the same tribes or area.  It represented less than 1% of all the Native peoples and tribes of the Americas (North and South) and hence is a poor indicator of all the connections in that regards (though I understand some of the objections focus around various other findings in the research than what most LDS and it's detractors focus on).  It seems that mostly LDS and anti-LDS focus on it's validity these days and apply it as valid research, though I could be mistaken on that claim or outlook of mine.

That leads into what are some of the other claims talked about in the thread, and one thing that puzzles me about the Church essays on their website.  As I historian, it is being bad at history if I merely use one source.  It is almost as bad if I only get ONE SIDE of a conflict.  For example, if I only got the Side of the French Crusaders in the second crusade, my research would be considered extremely biased if I had other sources I could turn to.  Getting alternate points of view is necessary to write valid history.

Historically speaking then, the new essays on the LDS website are some of the most accurate articles on the subjects ever written.  They not only take into account LDS versions and thoughts, but also THE ENEMIES OF THE CHURCH's viewpoints in some cases.

One of the items we have heard from enemies of the LDS church's writings consistently over the years is the stone in the hat story...normally with Whitmer as the quoted source (which can actually be questioned for multiple reasons...).  Now, one thing to note on this...even as a Historian...was Whitmer one of the scribes of the book of Mormon?  (I don't believe so, which questions how exactly he saw this occurring, or is it simply the gossip and say so attributed to him so it appears authentic...as I KNOW at least one anti-Mormon source which is actually NOT whitmer stating it but someone stating he told them such and such).  However, this so called story that was related to someone supposedly from Whitmer is taken as fact by many, and been utilized as such by many anti-Mormons through the years.  A good historian would be remiss to avoid this or not utilize this information. 

From a historians viewpoint, this is good history. 

From an LDS viewpoint, I have NO IDEA why we are using such sources when we have the actual writings of the Prophet and his approved writers viewpoints.  It ONLY gives fuel to the fire which Anti-Mormons burn brightest.

I have seen the photos Seer Stone (and I believe an apostle actually posted pictures of it a while back)  and I have seen other artifacts from LDS history (I've actually seen the original facsimile's in slide form from the Book of Abraham), but draw different conclusions from the historical writings than many of those who have turned against the church have concluded.

Most of the stories they relate are from primary sources of those who opposed the church directly from the days of Joseph Smith.  Their stories are NOT new, nor are they original, and have been being utilized since the founding days to try to convince others that Joseph Smith was not a prophet, nor that he did what he claimed he did.  The only difference I see now is that they are reading them on the internet rather than buying them from various sources in the book store.

Edited March 27, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[Eve1991]

10 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

Not sure this is accurate.

 

This statement reflects a very poor knowledge of how DNA works, as well as what the Book of Mormon actually teaches and claims.  Remember, the Lamanites were cursed with a hereditary curse, meaning their DNA was changed, and the Nephites were later killed off, so we wouldn't expect to find much Middle Eastern DNA in Native Americans in the first place.  There is also at least the implication within the Book of Mormon that other people (who may have been from Asia) interacted with, and mixed with, the Nephites and Lamanites, including perhaps the likely-Asian Jaredites and others.  DNA based arguments that I have heard sound good, but lack meaningful substance because they are made by people with no real knowledge of the Book of Mormon (or DNA, for that matter).

 

There is plenty of proof of God in science, particular biology.  Scientists who refuse to acknowledge God are being willfully blind.  I think the proof of God in science is so overwhelming I could construct a testimony of Him based off of science alone and without bringing religion into it.

 

I will take Islam over atheism any day of the week.

This is just a quick response to your statements about your friend (I could comment much more), but frankly he has not said anything I have not seen (and refuted, to myself or others), a thousand times before. 

This person is not my friend I commmented on his post on youtube and then replied to me.

[Guest]

14 hours ago, Eve1991 said:

someone said they resigned from the Church because they discovered the Church is a lie and Joseph Smith is a fraud. the same person said something else because I asked him a question and his response was this:  I would love nothing more than to have Jesus Christ come back and tell me Joseph Smith was a prophet and the BOM was true. Obviously I'd admit I was wrong. That's what people like myself want more then even you, to have him come back and show to us non-believers we are wrong. however I live my life not on feelings or emotions. I live my life on facts, and evidence. Facts and overwhelming evidence show Joseph Smith was a liar and a con man...

I suppose this was bound to become a post considering the OP.

Doc Lemon did a great job of starting the apologetics.  But the bottom line is that this guy on Youtube did a great job of repeating anti-Mormon rhetoric that has been refuted a million times.  Nothing he said is new.  Little he said was true.  First and foremost is that he lives his life on facts and evidence rather than feelings or emotions.  I assure you he does not.

[The Folk Prophet]

15 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

Not sure this is accurate.

Definitely not accurate. Particularly with the 8 witnesses.

[anatess2]

5 hours ago, Eve1991 said:

This person is not my friend I commmented on his post on youtube and then replied to me.

Send him to @cdowis

[unixknight]

17 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

This statement reflects a very poor knowledge of how DNA works, as well as what the Book of Mormon actually teaches and claims.  Remember, the Lamanites were cursed with a hereditary curse, meaning their DNA was changed, and the Nephites were later killed off, so we wouldn't expect to find much Middle Eastern DNA in Native Americans in the first place.  There is also at least the implication within the Book of Mormon that other people (who may have been from Asia) interacted with, and mixed with, the Nephites and Lamanites, including perhaps the likely-Asian Jaredites and others.  DNA based arguments that I have heard sound good, but lack meaningful substance because they are made by people with no real knowledge of the Book of Mormon (or DNA, for that matter).

Actually, you can refute the argument even more simply than that.  I was listening to a geneticist on the MormonMatters podcast a couple of moths ago where he explained how after a few generations, you lose prettymuch all of the genetics of most of your ancestors.  So to expect to find the DNA from a group of about 50 or so settlers around 600BC in a population from Central America today would be like looking for a needle in a haystack with no needles in it.

[unixknight]

59 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Actually, you can refute the argument even more simply than that.  I was listening to a geneticist on the MormonMatters podcast a couple of moths ago where he explained how after a few generations, you lose prettymuch all of the genetics of most of your ancestors.  So to expect to find the DNA from a group of about 50 or so settlers around 600BC in a population from Central America today would be like looking for a needle in a haystack with no needles in it.

Correction:  Mormon FAIR Cast

[cdowis]

23 hours ago, Eve1991 said:

The witnesses to the plates never saw them. The LDS church now admits this in it's essays.

This is a typical mixture of truth and misinformation.  The church never said that the witnesses "never saw the plates", and your friend thinks that people will trust him and not check him out.

The other popular technique is to "summarize" what someone says.  "BY said that there are people living on the moon and on the sun."  He did not say that.

"JS was arrested 42 times according to wiki".  They forget to mention that he was not convicted.

"JS was convicted as a con man."  The records contract themselves on whether he was convicted ( as a disorderly person).

"JS practiced lah blah blah".  Paul threw Christians into prison, and participated in the stoning death of Stephen.

The church leaders get a six figure income.  (gives the impression of enormous sums of money)

[Guest]

17 hours ago, cdowis said:

The church leaders get a six figure income.  (gives the impression of enormous sums of money)

It also fails to mention that it is not from tithing funds but from a combination of the for-profit entities of the church and from each of the individuals' private income sources.  For instance Gerald Lund is sure making bank on his books.

Edited March 28, 2017 by Guest