I'm replying here to a recent comment made by Ron in the Post Mormon Magazine article to give others a chance to also respond in the forum.
Ron wrote in response to Arza Evans article Families Held Hostage:
"I found that being married in the temple has strengthen my marrage of 32 years. It gives us an eternal perspective so the little problems dont become big ones. I am a convert and had that issue about parents that werent members. We decided to do everything we could outside the temple for my moms sake. So we exchanged rings and said vows and she was very impressed. We explained to her why temple marriage was so important to us. I could have had a civil ceremony after the temple but that would cheapen the temple experance. I did not want to do that to my wife. Even with that, my mom enjoyed the entire time we had together.
We live by the 80/20 law. We each do 80% and expect 20%. When we both do that, it is heaven. I learned most of how to be a husband from a family that was in the Cookeville Ward,Ted and Sandy Naylor. They were great friends and wonderful examples. I doubt that Lynmarie would have stayed with me if I treated her like Doc did to my mom. He treated my mom like a slave and I decided that my wife would not be treated like that.
Most of the Saints that I know have great marriages so I think that your story is the exception not the rule."
I found that leaving behind the fraud, deceit and ignorance
of 35 years plus in the mormon church has strengthened my marriage of 25 years
and brought us amazing peace, love, patience, tolerance and caring for
others.We are so much less
self-centered than when we were focused on saving ourselves.We stopped living to die for some future
happiness and started living in the now.Life is so full and joyful and exhilerating in the present moment when
you stop worrying about whether you're doing enough, worthy enough and paying
enough to make it into some future happiness.I think it's arrogant and self-righteous to suggest that being married
anywhere other than in the temple does not strengthen a marriage or creates
insurmountable problems.Nothing could
be further than the truth.But
the years of indoctrination have developed those twisted ideas in your own
mind, because you are under mind control.You will deny it, but it is plainly evident.
In our marriage we both put into our relationship all that
we have, not just 80%.I'm fully
committed to her and to our children.We don't have any expectations of a return on our investment of love. That is such a bizarre philosphy for marriage
to only put in 80% and expect to get out 20%.WTF?We have learned that there
is no one shaping our lives other than ourselves.We make it of it what we want and no other organizaton, or
invisible being or otherwise is responsible for our happiness.
Many of the members that I know have an outward shiny glossy
appearance of happiness, but inwardly they are searching for happiness that
eludes them.It is because they are
living to die when they could be living life now to its fullest without any
regrets.I'm afraid you've been living
life through the carefully crafted lens of mormonism which has obscured your
views and perceptions of reality.Discounting the experiences of what others have gone through is
shameful.How dare you lessen the
importance of their journey to rationalize in your own mind your
self-righteousness and superiority that you view is yours because you deem
yourself worthy in the eyes of God.
I learned how to be a husband and father through trial and
error.Mormonism taught me to treat my
wife and women as second class.It
taught her to be obedient to me and to submit to my authority. I was always
uncomfortable with the way women are ruled over and not treated as equals.Giving lip service to the importance of
women doesn' cut the mustard.The
actions of the church speak otherwise.
But you have closed your eyes to see the lies and your heart
to feel the pain, hurt and suffering. You are self-centered. It's all about you
isn't it.You would rather live in a
make believe world that teaches you to rely on a warm fuzzy feeling.I know the truth from facts, evidence, logic
and reason.I no longer accept myth as
gospel or fiction as doctrine.There is
sufficient evidence of corruption, contradiction and hypocrisy from within that
shows by the actions of the church that is in fact made up and false.You will resist this because you cclaim to
know that is the one and only true and living church upon the face of the earth.Therefore you believe that anything else
must be false.You won't even consider
the possibility that it is not what it claims to be.The congitive disonance when presented with information that
contradicts your long held beliefs and views is too great and you quickly
dismiss it without giving the information proper consideration.You are fearful and live with guilt
wondering whether you've ever done enough, repented enough, given enough.In the church, it is NEVER enough.
I do not need a church to show me the way, how to treat my
children, how to treat my wife.I don't
need those crutches.It makes you
reliant on the church.That is not
self-reliance, it's weakness because you do not know how to live without
someone guiding your life.I feel sad
for you knowing that I was once as you are now, duped into being loyal to a
church and calling it faithful, being loyal to men who call themselves
prophets, seers and revelators and calling it relying on the arm of God.You are more married to the church than you
are to your wife. Just look at the covenants and promise you make in the temple
and in the sealing ceremony to see that you will sacrifice everything you have,
even your own life for the church.It isn't
about family, it's always been about the church.You are a slave, you just don't realize it.
Thanks for posting this here where we are more likely to see it. I loved your response.
To Ron,
You're welcome to be here as long as you comply with the rules of the site but I don't understand what you are doing here. What is your goal? Are you just bored? Have we been assigned to you?
Suspicious Minds: ...
(Quoting Ron) He treated my mom like a slave and I decided that my wife would not be treated like that.
...
It is really too bad that your wife was not able to make a decision as to how she would be treated. The priesthood leader had to make it for her.
I think it's arrogant and self-righteous to suggest that being married
anywhere other than in the temple does not strengthen a marriage or creates
insurmountable problems.Nothing could
be further than the truth.But
the years of indoctrination have developed those twisted ideas in your own
mind, because you are under mind control.You will deny it, but it is plainly evident.
I do not need a church to show me the way, how to treat my
children, how to treat my wife.I don't
need those crutches.It makes you
reliant on the church.
Great response. There was so much good that there is no way to comment on all of it. However, this really stood out.
When someone has The Truth™ he can not have empathy for others because he knows what those people need.
As a Mormon, divorce was never an option. We were sealed for eternity and that was that. That applied to most of the couples I knew, and several of the women even told me that they didn't like their husbands. Now, as an independent human being, I have evaluated my marriage from a different perspective. "Is this something that I still want?" vs. "This is the commitment I made and I have to stick with it." makes a huge difference. I am with my husband because he is where my heart chooses to be. It's now that simple. It isn't a forced commitment. Either of us can choose to leave if the union isn't fulfilling. At that would be ok - but for now we are happy together.
An unhappy marriage is a failed one even if the couple stays together.
I'm replying here to a recent comment made by Ron in the Post Mormon Magazine article to give others a chance to also respond in the forum.
Ron wrote in response to Arza Evans article Families Held Hostage:
"I found that being married in the temple has strengthen my marrage of 32 years. It gives us an eternal perspective so the little problems dont become big ones. I am a convert and had that issue about parents that werent members. We decided to do everything we could outside the temple for my moms sake. So we exchanged rings and said vows and she was very impressed. We explained to her why temple marriage was so important to us. I could have had a civil ceremony after the temple but that would cheapen the temple experance. I did not want to do that to my wife. Even with that, my mom enjoyed the entire time we had together.
We live by the 80/20 law. We each do 80% and expect 20%. When we both do that, it is heaven. I learned most of how to be a husband from a family that was in the Cookeville Ward,Ted and Sandy Naylor. They were great friends and wonderful examples. I doubt that Lynmarie would have stayed with me if I treated her like Doc did to my mom. He treated my mom like a slave and I decided that my wife would not be treated like that.
Most of the Saints that I know have great marriages so I think that your story is the exception not the rule."
I found that leaving behind the fraud, deceit and ignorance of 35 years plus in the mormon church has strengthened my marriage of 25 years and brought us amazing peace, love, patience, tolerance and caring for others.We are so much less self-centered than when we were focused on saving ourselves.We stopped living to die for some future happiness and started living in the now.Life is so full and joyful and exhilerating in the present moment when you stop worrying about whether you're doing enough, worthy enough and paying enough to make it into some future happiness.I think it's arrogant and self-righteous to suggest that being married anywhere other than in the temple does not strengthen a marriage or creates insurmountable problems.Nothing could be further than the truth.But the years of indoctrination have developed those twisted ideas in your own mind, because you are under mind control.You will deny it, but it is plainly evident.
In our marriage we both put into our relationship all that we have, not just 80%.I'm fully committed to her and to our children.We don't have any expectations of a return on our investment of love. That is such a bizarre philosphy for marriage to only put in 80% and expect to get out 20%.WTF?We have learned that there is no one shaping our lives other than ourselves.We make it of it what we want and no other organizaton, or invisible being or otherwise is responsible for our happiness.
Many of the members that I know have an outward shiny glossy appearance of happiness, but inwardly they are searching for happiness that eludes them.It is because they are living to die when they could be living life now to its fullest without any regrets.I'm afraid you've been living life through the carefully crafted lens of mormonism which has obscured your views and perceptions of reality.Discounting the experiences of what others have gone through is shameful.How dare you lessen the importance of their journey to rationalize in your own mind your self-righteousness and superiority that you view is yours because you deem yourself worthy in the eyes of God.
I learned how to be a husband and father through trial and error.Mormonism taught me to treat my wife and women as second class.It taught her to be obedient to me and to submit to my authority. I was always uncomfortable with the way women are ruled over and not treated as equals.Giving lip service to the importance of women doesn' cut the mustard.The actions of the church speak otherwise.
But you have closed your eyes to see the lies and your heart to feel the pain, hurt and suffering. You are self-centered. It's all about you isn't it.You would rather live in a make believe world that teaches you to rely on a warm fuzzy feeling.I know the truth from facts, evidence, logic and reason.I no longer accept myth as gospel or fiction as doctrine.There is sufficient evidence of corruption, contradiction and hypocrisy from within that shows by the actions of the church that is in fact made up and false.You will resist this because you cclaim to know that is the one and only true and living church upon the face of the earth.Therefore you believe that anything else must be false.You won't even consider the possibility that it is not what it claims to be.The congitive disonance when presented with information that contradicts your long held beliefs and views is too great and you quickly dismiss it without giving the information proper consideration.You are fearful and live with guilt wondering whether you've ever done enough, repented enough, given enough.In the church, it is NEVER enough.
I do not need a church to show me the way, how to treat my children, how to treat my wife.I don't need those crutches.It makes you reliant on the church.That is not self-reliance, it's weakness because you do not know how to live without someone guiding your life.I feel sad for you knowing that I was once as you are now, duped into being loyal to a church and calling it faithful, being loyal to men who call themselves prophets, seers and revelators and calling it relying on the arm of God.You are more married to the church than you are to your wife. Just look at the covenants and promise you make in the temple and in the sealing ceremony to see that you will sacrifice everything you have, even your own life for the church.It isn't about family, it's always been about the church.You are a slave, you just don't realize it.
I am also a convert who decided to get married in the temple, my parents did not want a ring ceremony and did not even attend the wedding because they would have to stand outside while their son was getting married. By deciding to marry in the temple I excluded the most important people in my life, my mother and father. I do not understand why a couple cannot get married civilly so everyone can be included then to have a temple sealing later.
This has been one of the biggest mistakes that I have ever made, I wish I could take it back. My parents have moved on but I am pretty sure that my mother is still very hurt. I am not sure if I want to believe in a god that would exclude a family from a wedding ceremony just because they are not a member of that faith or they do not have a current TR. So much for families coming 1st. I am pretty sure that anyone who is not a member would not understand the ceremony because it is cultish and I am sure that if they would allow young unmarried members to participate it wouls lose its appeal and maybe some would realize how cultish the church really is.
I am also a convert who decided to get married in the temple, my parents did not want a ring ceremony and did not even attend the wedding because they would have to stand outside while their son was getting married. By deciding to marry in the temple I excluded the most important people in my life, my mother and father. I do not understand why a couple cannot get married civilly so everyone can be included then to have a temple sealing later.
This has been one of the biggest mistakes that I have ever made, I wish I could take it back. My parents have moved on but I am pretty sure that my mother is still very hurt. I am not sure if I want to believe in a god that would exclude a family from a wedding ceremony just because they are not a member of that faith or they do not have a current TR. So much for families coming 1st. I am pretty sure that anyone who is not a member would not understand the ceremony because it is cultish and I am sure that if they would allow young unmarried members to participate it wouls lose its appeal and maybe some would realize how cultish the church really is.
I'm in the same boat. Looking back, I can't believe I actually thought I was doing the right thing. My mom is a very patient and understanding person, but I know it broke her heart, not being able to see me getting married. Regardless of how sacred a wedding might be, why would a God deliberately exclude family and friends based on membership and worthiness? I'm embarrassed that I once blindly followed and believed in such rules.
Most of the Saints that I know have great marriages so I think that your story is the exception not the rule."
Most of the non-members I know have better marriages than LDS members. Why? Because the wife isn't stuck at home with the kids alone while her husband is at "meetings" for church. They have a way better balance.
"Most of the Saints that I know have great marriages so I think that your story is the exception not the rule."
Ron comes to a conclusion about the quality of ALL marriages based on his perception that the marriages of the "Saints" he knows are 'great'.
First, everybody puts their best face out front to the people around them. His perception is based on common deceit which occurs in and out of the church.
Second, this guy at best knows, say, 50 other couples well enough to be presumptive enough to vouch for the quality of their marriages. That is a very limited sample group to use to draw a conclusion about the condition of ALL marriages.
Conclusion, Ron's statement is nothing but his own lousy opinion that ain't worth two shits.
I was just talking to my sister yesterday about this. As I removed myself from the church I have reflected on some of my regrets in life.
One of my biggest regrests is I am the oldest and none of my younger sibilings saw me get married. And they are all members. I regret ignorantly excluding them. At the time I didn't think of it this way. All the adults around me told me I was doing the right thing.
I don't get how people can accept that is the right thing. Yes both parents where there but it didn't matter alot of people I loved where excluded. Sad that they mormon church is so closed minded to bringing families together really. Living for life after death isn't living. It is manipulating people.
Funny thing is my sister who is still in the church agree's with me. She thinks it is stupid. Her in-laws didn't attend her wedding. And I think it makes her sad. Also alot of her siblings didn't get to see her's either.
Stepping back and looking from the outside it is such a crazy doctine or policy or whatever it is. I can't see a free thinking person thinking it is ok. But I realize that I was never a free thinking person in the church. Everyone else did my thinking for me. What a crock.
Temple Marriage is a farce. So sad what it continues to do to good people everywhere.
I am a convert, was married in the Temple, both my ex and myself are returned missionaries. Both sets of our parents, and siblings are/were non-members. On our Wedding day, my mother, sister, waited outside the Temple with my ex's mother, father, three sister's, and brother.
As I was at BYU working on a BSc degree, and my ex had her MFA, we decided to get married before my ex's Indian student placement program foster parent's went on there mission, which was the middle of a winter semester. As I reflect back, I am so grateful for the family support we received on our wedding day. As our familes both lived on reservations in Canada, and Arizona, it took much sacrifice on our parents part to travel such great distances to be with us. I now regret, that we didn't have a civil marriage, then went to the Temple a year later, or that we didn't have a cilvil marriage after.
We were taught families are forever, that if you married in the Temple, that you lessened your chance of divorcing. We were not happy together in our marriage. It took us 8 years after our divorce to forgive each other, and realize, that we do love each other, but we can't live together. The last 10 years have been great, we are very good friends.
I was married in the temple. I was a returned missionary, as was my husband. I made sure we had family home evening, family prayer, we paid a full tithing, attended church every Sunday, magnified our callings. My husband also emotionallyabused me. To let others know how I suffered, it is easier to quote from a website than give my personal examples: http://www.heartlessbitchesinternational.com/rants/manipulator/emotional_abuse.shtml
Abusers play the push-me-pull-you game threatening to withdraw their affections, dropping statements out of the blue intended to destabilize. This has the effect of making their partners insecure and uncertain, but that plays right into the abuser's hand as he then can accuse the partner of being "too needy".
An emotional abuser may make fun of his partner, or make subtle or not-so-subtledisparaging remarks about her while with other friends, and encourage the friends to make disparaging remarks. He will then be sure to tell her about the jokes they made and act surprised when she doesn't find them "funny". He may even tell her that she is overreacting and that it was "all in fun" and that no harm was meant by the "joking".
No tall emotional abusers criticize their partners directly - sometimes it can be as simple as constantly criticizing how someone keeps a kitchen, or complaining about the mess in the house, or continuous grumbling about the laundry, or complaining about the noise and mess the kids make. He will make her think it is her job to keep him happy, and imply that household things are contributing to his unhappiness and bad temper.
A common misconception is that emotional abuse has to take the form of a partner yelling over every little thing, belittling or constantly criticizing apartner. Other forms of emotional abuse can however, be just as damaging, and far less overt. They can include being disrespectful, discourteous, rude,condescending, patronizing, critical, judgmental, "joking" insults, lying, repeatedly "forgetting" promises and agreements, betrayal of trust, "setting you up", and "revising" history.
To outsiders, abusers often appear as decent, successful, sensitive, calm and nondescript. To their families, they are often controlling, self-absorbed,hypercritical, compulsive, childish and mean-spirited. Most of abusers are actually BOTH. It is the disparity between the one they love and the one thatharms them that keeps the woman confused. He may intersperse episodes of abuse with words of love, telling her that she is "the best thing that has everhappened" to him, and that he wants to start treating her that way,confusing her further. She keeps hoping that if she does enough, if she gives enough, he will stop hurting her and the loving, caring side of him will prevail. Unfortunately, this is a fallacy that often keeps the woman in the relationship for far too long. Ask yourself: Do you have a drawer full of"apology" jewelry, or a closet full of "apology" clothes?
You see, all these ‘Mormon things’ did not keep us married, did not keep us happy, did not keep him from abusing me. The TSCC did help us put up the façade that we were happy; all the while I was miserable.
Thanks for posting this here where we are more likely to see it. I loved your response.
To Ron,
You're welcome to be here as long as you comply with the rules of the site but I don't understand what you are doing here. What is your goal? Are you just bored? Have we been assigned to you?
I like to read contrary ideas as it helps with my own study of the gospel. I learn alot this way. No one assigned me to your site. Infact I think that my stake Pres.thought it odd that I get on from time to time during my temple recommend interview. I told him that I assosiate with with those contrary to the gospel but dont agree with them. My wife tolerates its. I have had to many spiritual experiances to ignore them.
I am an auditor by profession and enjoy digging into the facts. For example, I learned that Dr Sami Hanna translated the Book of Mormon from the original English to its native Hebrew. Quoting him, he stated that it was the most beautiful Semetic book that he had read at the time. Since then I have learned that he has left the church, is part of a fundimentist christian church and calls us a cult. He is like me in reverse, I was raised as an Evangilical at first. Anyway, his son requested that a disclaimer be placed on the site that talks about his dads first impression about the Book of Mormon. His name gives credance to the name of Sam in the Book of Mormon. I also know that Nephi is an Arabic name thanks to my son in law that found that out while role playing on the internet. As I see it, his first statement still holds. The Book of Mormon is a Semetic book, period.
I am now pondering this issue. Why did the son send the request and not his dad. If that were me, I would be the one asking for the retraction. I dont see any issue with his first comments about the Book of Mormon. After all that is what brought him into Christianity in the first place. I need more study on that one. It does not bother me though since I was once opposed to the book until it was revealed to me that it is scripture. I have read the Spaulding theories and dont buy them as I can see issue with them. There are things in the book that could not have been known at the time. I have watched the video that makes some grand find that the manuscript was written on fools cap paper, the same as the translation. They dont mention that there are witnesses stating that Joseph Smith was not reading from any thing written. Thats just ignored.
So I dont know if that answers your question or not. Maybe I am only wanting to balance things out a little. Those that are crude I dont answer. By their fruits ye will know them, if you get my drift.
No church or any other institution is responsible for two people staying together (whether married or not), it is the two people in the relationship who are responsible for staying together.
Thanks for posting this here where we are more likely to see it. I loved your response.
To Ron,
You're welcome to be here as long as you comply with the rules of the site but I don't understand what you are doing here. What is your goal? Are you just bored? Have we been assigned to you?
I like to read contrary ideas as it helps with my own study of the gospel. I learn alot this way. No one assigned me to your site. Infact I think that my stake Pres.thought it odd that I get on from time to time during my temple recommend interview. I told him that I assosiate with with those contrary to the gospel but dont agree with them. My wife tolerates its. I have had to many spiritual experiances to ignore them.
I am an auditor by profession and enjoy digging into the facts. For example, I learned that Dr Sami Hanna translated the Book of Mormon from the original English to its native Hebrew. Quoting him, he stated that it was the most beautiful Semetic book that he had read at the time. Since then I have learned that he has left the church, is part of a fundimentist christian church and calls us a cult. He is like me in reverse, I was raised as an Evangilical at first. Anyway, his son requested that a disclaimer be placed on the site that talks about his dads first impression about the Book of Mormon. His name gives credance to the name of Sam in the Book of Mormon. I also know that Nephi is an Arabic name thanks to my son in law that found that out while role playing on the internet. As I see it, his first statement still holds. The Book of Mormon is a Semetic book, period.
I am now pondering this issue. Why did the son send the request and not his dad. If that were me, I would be the one asking for the retraction. I dont see any issue with his first comments about the Book of Mormon. After all that is what brought him into Christianity in the first place. I need more study on that one. It does not bother me though since I was once opposed to the book until it was revealed to me that it is scripture. I have read the Spaulding theories and dont buy them as I can see issue with them. There are things in the book that could not have been known at the time. I have watched the video that makes some grand find that the manuscript was written on fools cap paper, the same as the translation. They dont mention that there are witnesses stating that Joseph Smith was not reading from any thing written. Thats just ignored.
So I dont know if that answers your question or not. Maybe I am only wanting to balance things out a little. Those that are crude I dont answer. By their fruits ye will know them, if you get my drift.
your brother in Christ
Ron Cook
What things are there in the Book of Mormon that could not have been known at the time? Are you referring to Joseph Smith's time?
What things are there in the Book of Mormon that could not have been known at the time? Are you referring to Joseph Smith's time?
I would also like to know what in the Book of Mormon couldn't be known when the BoM was written.
("Nephite" came from "Neophyte" which means a beginner or novice, and Solomon Spaulding used that name. Joseph just never was very good at spelling. Benjamin Franklin advocated the word of wisdom because he wanted cheaper room and board by not making his landlord pay for extra meat and tea.)
Your sister in the Flying Spaghetti Monster,
Megan
(Do you think signing my name like that is offensive? Stop signing your name like that. It is rude and inconsiderate, and completely unChristlike.)
I call BS on this "Ron" person. If he was so interested in details, he would own a concordance for the Bible, he would own a dictionary (I recommend the "Smith's Bible Dictionary"). He would investigate the Hebrew and Latin translations of the Bible so he could be as utterly thorough as he claims to be.
If he were that thorough, he wouldn't be Mormon anymore because his research would inevitably kick in his BS meter.
Unfortunately, he sounds brainwashed enough to put in just enough effort to back up the parts of his religion he chooses to support. BTW, according to the rules of his religion, the Bible is part of his faith, and it directly warns of "modern day prophets" and other aspects of his Mormon faith. "Ron" , in his self proclaimed perfect thoroughness would be able to break down the bible, chapter by chapter, and verse by verse, and show us which parts he thinks are translated correctly and which ones aren't.
And for the "80/20" that sounds like some BS somebody made up to shut his wife up when she was upset about him being gone all the time and not contributing to the marriage. If she is only supposed to expect that he is giving 20 percent to their union, then she can't be upset, right? Marriages are about going all in, not 20 percent in, or even a "whopping" 80 percent.
I don't care if you are offended, "Ron". Someone needs to do it. I call BS on you. You are not what you claim to be. If you become what you claim, you will change.
Thanks for posting this here where we are more likely to see it. I loved your response.
To Ron,
You're welcome to be here as long as you comply with the rules of the site but I don't understand what you are doing here. What is your goal? Are you just bored? Have we been assigned to you?
I like to read contrary ideas as it helps with my own study of the gospel. I learn alot this way. No one assigned me to your site. Infact I think that my stake Pres.thought it odd that I get on from time to time during my temple recommend interview. I told him that I assosiate with with those contrary to the gospel but dont agree with them. My wife tolerates its. I have had to many spiritual experiances to ignore them.
I am an auditor by profession and enjoy digging into the facts. For example, I learned that Dr Sami Hanna translated the Book of Mormon from the original English to its native Hebrew. Quoting him, he stated that it was the most beautiful Semetic book that he had read at the time. Since then I have learned that he has left the church, is part of a fundimentist christian church and calls us a cult. He is like me in reverse, I was raised as an Evangilical at first. Anyway, his son requested that a disclaimer be placed on the site that talks about his dads first impression about the Book of Mormon. His name gives credance to the name of Sam in the Book of Mormon. I also know that Nephi is an Arabic name thanks to my son in law that found that out while role playing on the internet. As I see it, his first statement still holds. The Book of Mormon is a Semetic book, period.
I am now pondering this issue. Why did the son send the request and not his dad. If that were me, I would be the one asking for the retraction. I dont see any issue with his first comments about the Book of Mormon. After all that is what brought him into Christianity in the first place. I need more study on that one. It does not bother me though since I was once opposed to the book until it was revealed to me that it is scripture. I have read the Spaulding theories and dont buy them as I can see issue with them. There are things in the book that could not have been known at the time. I have watched the video that makes some grand find that the manuscript was written on fools cap paper, the same as the translation. They dont mention that there are witnesses stating that Joseph Smith was not reading from any thing written. Thats just ignored.
So I dont know if that answers your question or not. Maybe I am only wanting to balance things out a little. Those that are crude , I mean, those that can present a cogent response to my drivel, I dont answer. By their fruits ye will know them, if you get my drift.
your brother in Christ
Ron Cook
Hey, my brother in christ, I fixed that last paragraph for you. I think you might have had a momentary lapse there into complete illogic. We can't have that, can we? See how that last sentence of yours punctuates the former sentence after it was repaired???
My husband and I were married in the temple. Sadly, at the time I didn't consider those that were being excluded. The temple wedding did not strengthen our marriage and neither did jumping through the hoops of the Mormon religion. If definitely strained it, though.
It is to our credit that our love and commitment kept us together through our journey from the church. Patience and long-suffering on the part of my husband was critical as he gently guided me toward the truth and allowed me to discover for myself what he already had. Leaders would rather have split us and our children up.
I am happy to say our Postmo marriage is happier and stronger than ever. We are true to each other, not to what some bogus church leaders or profit dictate.
We have faced criticism and judgement and pressure to confrom from TBM family on both sides. This church is NOT about family unity. It definitely tears family apart and causes heartache.
When I was TBM I would have insisted my marriage was wonderful and that the reason was because of the gospel(tm). Just like Ron I was absolutely certain that the covenants we made in the temple made our marriage have so much better chance than those sad little civil ceremonies everyone else had to have. Now that I am out of the brainwashing I can give myself permission to admit how horrible and strained things were. My marriage was all about making sure my husband and myself toed the line. That we did anything and everything we were "supposed" to do. When my husband started questioning it was my job to get him back in line.
The problem was that I had been told all my life that a temple marriage, along with righteous living, was an absolutely sure fire way to have a happy marriage. To admit that our marriage wasn't as happy as I had always thought it would be was to admit that either we weren't being righteous enough or that the promised happiness had been a lie. I knew we weren't perfect but we WERE doing everything we were asked and I had a hard time believing in a god who would require us to be absolutely perfect before he would give us the promised blessings. So in an effort to protect myself from the truth (that all the temple promises were complete bunk) I had to convince myself that everything was wonderful and we were deliriously happy.
Now that we are both out, things are....shockingly, amazingly better. Of course they are still not perfect but they have NEVER been better. I feel like we have fallen in love all over again. Now that we are finally allowed to get to know each other as the people we really are, not the people we were trying to force ourselves to be, we have discovered that we really truly love each other.
Also, the idea that our marriage is not something we HAVE to do if we're not happy with each other makes it SOO much less constricting. We are no longer together because we have to be, but because we want to be. We definitely wouldn't get divorced if things just got slightly annoying but to know that if some day things are no longer working, we would both be ok with moving on and it wouldn't completely destroy the others' world is an amazingly freeing feeling and allows us to to be emotionally interdependent, instead of the unhealthy codependent relationship we had before.
Plus, I'm extremely resentful of the complete crock that was my temple wedding. Someone else called it a McMarraige and it says so much. The dream wedding I was sold as a child was a complete and utter sham. I tried to convince myself for years that it was such a special experience when in reality I always wanted to cry for that girl in her silly apron and robes, completely covered and veiled to block out any spark of individuality. I thought I was a horrible person for thinking that way. Thought that I must be somehow defective to not have had the same experience everyone else described. So I lied. I told the young women and the Sunday school class I taught that it was amazing and beautiful. I wanted to believe it. I tried to rewrite it in my own mind in to the beautiful experience it was supposed to have been.
I usually don't get angry at the Mormon church much any more. I'm even grateful for some of the things I learned there, but I don't think I can ever forgive them for stealing my wedding from me.
Thanks for posting this here where we are more likely to see it. I loved your response.
To Ron,
You're welcome to be here as long as you comply with the rules of the site but I don't understand what you are doing here. What is your goal? Are you just bored? Have we been assigned to you?
I like to read contrary ideas as it helps with my own study of the gospel. I learn alot this way. No one assigned me to your site. Infact I think that my stake Pres.thought it odd that I get on from time to time during my temple recommend interview. I told him that I assosiate with with those contrary to the gospel but dont agree with them. My wife tolerates its. I have had to many spiritual experiances to ignore them.
I am an auditor by profession and enjoy digging into the facts. For example, I learned that Dr Sami Hanna translated the Book of Mormon from the original English to its native Hebrew. Quoting him, he stated that it was the most beautiful Semetic book that he had read at the time. Since then I have learned that he has left the church, is part of a fundimentist christian church and calls us a cult. He is like me in reverse, I was raised as an Evangilical at first. Anyway, his son requested that a disclaimer be placed on the site that talks about his dads first impression about the Book of Mormon. His name gives credance to the name of Sam in the Book of Mormon. I also know that Nephi is an Arabic name thanks to my son in law that found that out while role playing on the internet. As I see it, his first statement still holds. The Book of Mormon is a Semetic book, period.
I am now pondering this issue. Why did the son send the request and not his dad. If that were me, I would be the one asking for the retraction. I dont see any issue with his first comments about the Book of Mormon. After all that is what brought him into Christianity in the first place. I need more study on that one. It does not bother me though since I was once opposed to the book until it was revealed to me that it is scripture. I have read the Spaulding theories and dont buy them as I can see issue with them. There are things in the book that could not have been known at the time. I have watched the video that makes some grand find that the manuscript was written on fools cap paper, the same as the translation. They dont mention that there are witnesses stating that Joseph Smith was not reading from any thing written. Thats just ignored.
So I dont know if that answers your question or not. Maybe I am only wanting to balance things out a little. Those that are crude I dont answer. By their fruits ye will know them, if you get my drift.
your brother in Christ
Ron Cook
Hi Ron,
Thanks for the reply. If it's discussion you want, you've come to the right place. That is why we are here also.
I do have a couple of questions about your post. What things do you think the BoM reveals that couldn't be known? Why does the BoM talk about things that didn't exist in BoM times in the Americas? Horses, Metallurgy, Elephants, Plants etc. Why do BoM stories reflect a 19th century view of American history that is not supported by a single piece of evidence when overwhelming evidence to the contrary is present? Do you think God did this to test our faith?
How would someone know if there was anything else in Joseph's hat besides his "seer stone?" Why does the church not portray the "translation" in pictures the way it actually occurred, head in hat? Why are most members not aware that it was even done in this manner? Why did Joseph use the same seer stone he used to swindle superstitious farmers to "translate" the golden plates? Why were the plates even necessary when they weren't even present for much of the translation?
Ron, I don't just have 1 or 2 questions that require a "leap of faith." I believe that if faith is to be used, we should use it to bridge a gap in information. When something is not known, if you value faith, it may be used to to bridge that lack of knowledge. In my opinion, faith should not be used to contradict real evidence or contradict information where no gap exists. Polyandry, Treasure Hunting, Anti-Banking, "selling" the BoM copyright, blacks and women receiving the priesthood, consecration as practiced by the Danites, Porter Rockwell, martyrdumb etc. Should we use faith to stand in the place of the real evidence surrounding these things.
From your post I can see that you value gaps in information that allow you to keep your views on Mormonism. Does evidence have to be "beyond a shadow of a doubt" or "beyond a reasonable doubt?" What makes more sense?
What say ye? I'm curious? Not asking for citations, just curious why you believe what you do in the face of all of the information that is now available because of the phenomenon of the internet and this sharing of information that has never occurred before. When new information about things becomes available, do you try to fit it into the box of your beliefs or do you choose to re-evaluate your beliefs in light of this new information. Which do you think is healthier?
Thanks for posting this here where we are more likely to see it. I loved your response.
To Ron,
You're welcome to be here as long as you comply with the rules of the site but I don't understand what you are doing here. What is your goal? Are you just bored? Have we been assigned to you?
I like to read contrary ideas as it helps with my own study of the gospel. I learn alot this way. No one assigned me to your site. Infact I think that my stake Pres.thought it odd that I get on from time to time during my temple recommend interview. I told him that I assosiate with with those contrary to the gospel but dont agree with them. My wife tolerates its. I have had to many spiritual experiances to ignore them.
I am an auditor by profession and enjoy digging into the facts. For example, I learned that Dr Sami Hanna translated the Book of Mormon from the original English to its native Hebrew. Quoting him, he stated that it was the most beautiful Semetic book that he had read at the time. Since then I have learned that he has left the church, is part of a fundimentist christian church and calls us a cult. He is like me in reverse, I was raised as an Evangilical at first. Anyway, his son requested that a disclaimer be placed on the site that talks about his dads first impression about the Book of Mormon. His name gives credance to the name of Sam in the Book of Mormon. I also know that Nephi is an Arabic name thanks to my son in law that found that out while role playing on the internet. As I see it, his first statement still holds. The Book of Mormon is a Semetic book, period.
I am now pondering this issue. Why did the son send the request and not his dad. If that were me, I would be the one asking for the retraction. I dont see any issue with his first comments about the Book of Mormon. After all that is what brought him into Christianity in the first place. I need more study on that one. It does not bother me though since I was once opposed to the book until it was revealed to me that it is scripture. I have read the Spaulding theories and dont buy them as I can see issue with them. There are things in the book that could not have been known at the time. I have watched the video that makes some grand find that the manuscript was written on fools cap paper, the same as the translation. They dont mention that there are witnesses stating that Joseph Smith was not reading from any thing written. Thats just ignored.
So I dont know if that answers your question or not. Maybe I am only wanting to balance things out a little. Those that are crude I dont answer. By their fruits ye will know them, if you get my drift.
your brother in Christ
Ron Cook
Hi Ron,
Thanks for the reply. If it's discussion you want, you've come to the right place. That is why we are here also.
I do have a couple of questions about your post. What things do you think the BoM reveals that couldn't be known? Why does the BoM talk about things that didn't exist in BoM times in the Americas? Horses, Metallurgy, Elephants, Plants etc. Why do BoM stories reflect a 19th century view of American history that is not supported by a single piece of evidence when overwhelming evidence to the contrary is present? Do you think God did this to test our faith?
How would someone know if there was anything else in Joseph's hat besides his "seer stone?" Why does the church not portray the "translation" in pictures the way it actually occurred, head in hat? Why are most members not aware that it was even done in this manner? Why did Joseph use the same seer stone he used to swindle superstitious farmers to "translate" the golden plates? Why were the plates even necessary when they weren't even present for much of the translation?
Ron, I don't just have 1 or 2 questions that require a "leap of faith." I believe that if faith is to be used, we should use it to bridge a gap in information. When something is not known, if you value faith, it may be used to to bridge that lack of knowledge. In my opinion, faith should not be used to contradict real evidence or contradict information where no gap exists. Polyandry, Treasure Hunting, Anti-Banking, "selling" the BoM copyright, blacks and women receiving the priesthood, consecration as practiced by the Danites, Porter Rockwell, martyrdumb etc. Should we use faith to stand in the place of the real evidence surrounding these things.
From your post I can see that you value gaps in information that allow you to keep your views on Mormonism. Does evidence have to be "beyond a shadow of a doubt" or "beyond a reasonable doubt?" What makes more sense?
What say ye? I'm curious? Not asking for citations, just curious why you believe what you do in the face of all of the information that is now available because of the phenomenon of the internet and this sharing of information that has never occurred before. When new information about things becomes available, do you try to fit it into the box of your beliefs or do you choose to re-evaluate your beliefs in light of this new information. Which do you think is healthier?
I do have a couple of questions about your post. What things do you think the BoM reveals that couldn't be known? Why does the BoM talk about things that didn't exist in BoM times in the Americas? Horses, Metallurgy, Elephants, Plants etc. Why do BoM stories reflect a 19th century view of American history that is not supported by a single piece of evidence when overwhelming evidence to the contrary is present? Do you think God did this to test our faith?
On the Book of Mormon, I would say that cement buildings, an advanced civilization with a written language ( referring to Omecs or Jaridites during the correct time frame), a mixure of copper and gold same as the plates given to Joseph, simular charactors as written on Anthons transcript located on two weathered stone artifacts in southen Mexico ( they are part of a private collection in Chicago now),
a fertile location found in Saudi Arabia complete with ore that Nephi needed to make tools with called Bountiful in the Book of Mormon, Nahem or place of burial found in Saudi Arabia, the Lyhians also found in Saudi Arabia that are the followers of an ancient prophet that traveled through their country about 500 BC, the cave of Lehi ( name given by the locals) recently found near Jerusalem with images of ships and words about fleeing, Alma once thought a females name is a masculine name in the middle east , Nephi an arab name also Sam (Sami Hanna an arab that translated the Book of Mormon back to its original semetic roots and stated that it was the most beautiful semetic book he had read), ( this was before he lost his testimony and had his son retract his belief in the LDS church. Thats a small sample.
On elephants and horses, I have read articles in science magizines that talk of a smaller elephant that inhabited the Americas around the time of the Jaridites and same of horses. There is stone art of men riding horse like animals ( no I dont think that they are deer, they arent built to ride and Indians werent doing that when the white man came, but they sure caught on when they got horses) . Both of these died out anciently. Domesticated plants and animals do that when they dont have man to keep them. We have found ancient barely in a cave in America.
I live in the country and can tell you that domesticated grain would not survive long with out man because the trigger that shoots the seed out has been bred out of the grains, so they would not compete with the wild plants. I planted wheat a few years ago and could not harvest it. Cant even tell that it was planted.
I have seen the metal works of the ancient americans in the Mexico, of gold,copper, iron, steel and their jade work also. My understanding is that they made a hardened copper that we cant even copy but that is just hearsay. there is one other thing, that of a white and dark race in Meso America. I have seen the ancient pictures. In most cases, its where the lighter race was enslaved by the darker one.
None of this was available to Joseph Smith or anyone else in that area to my knowledge. Many of these items werent even discovered until after the Book of Mormon was published. What he knew of the American Indians was no where near what the Book of Mormon teaches. In fact, Moroni calmed their fears that no one would accept the book because of the stark differences by telling them that the Lord would soon be revealing these evidences soon. The big discoveries were around 1840 if I remember correctly, ten years after the book was published.
We know that Joseph had the plates of gold ( gold and copper mix). Remember they were a poor family and to have that kind of expense even if it were copper would be costly for them and would have been noticed by the store keepers that they bought plates from ( copper plates would have turned green and solid gold would be too flimsy to work with. That is why it was an alloy). Many people handled them while wrapped with a cloth or in a sack. Eight witnesses handled the plates and saw the sword of Laban and the Urum and Thumum. Years later some said that it seemed to be a dream but I can say that about parts of my life decades ago that I know happened. They seem dream like years later even though they really happened. The Urim and Thumum were like glasses (with the breastplate) except that they were too large for Joseph to see out both lenes. One reason why he also used his seer stone. The evidence shows that he used both. The Jaridites that brought the interpretors were a large people so it seemed as were some of the Nephites. Giant bones were just found in the area where the Jaridites could have started in the old world and we have found such bones in America also. Some of those tombs had steel or at least iron swords, or what is left of them meaning rust with a hilt by the skelelon. I believe that Joseph showed his mother the Urim and Thumum when he first received them.
You question the idea that the Book of Mormon has 19th century ideas in it could be divine. the book was written by prophets of God and was ment for our day. I believe that it was inspired. No I dont buy the idea that Spaulding wrote it. He would have been a master at Hebrew literary forms to accomplish such a feat. So would Rigdon and I dont know of any referrences that show that he was that knowledgable in hebrew literary forms. I agree with Fawn Brodi and the Tanners that Hurlbut inflenced Spauldings family and friends with what to say in their signed testimonies. I find it interesting that those that did not talk to Hurlbut had little to say about Nephi, Lehi,etc. However their comments showed contempt for Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.
These reasons are not why I believe in the Book of Mormon. I have recieved a witness from God ( and so did my companion at the same time, second witness, interesting). I have received inspiration and guidance just like I do with the Bible.
I am a convert to the restored church of Jesus Christ and would not allow the missionaries to teach me from the Book of Mormon. Now I cant get enough of it.
this is probably falling on deaf ears but thats ok. It strenthens my witness to the truth. Its late so I will have to answer the rest of your questions later. On the internet, I love it. It is full of both truth and nonsense. As you can see, I read both sides and draw my own conclusions.
I have noticed that there is a lot of crude people here. I feel sorry for them.
I have noticed that there is a lot of crude people here. I feel sorry for them. your brother in Christ
Ron Cook
Ron,
I've been here a while and frankly, I think you have been treated not only fairly but quite well.
In spite of your Bible Book of Mormon-thumping, your witnessing and testifying, I think that the members here, especially the moderators, have shown remarkable restraint.
Clearly you are on the wrong site. You know it and everyone here knows it.
I suspect you will continue to bear your testimony and witness to us, even though you have been warned multiple times about this, until the moderators finally have to show you the door.
This will further strengthen your testimony as to our evil and apostate ways here and will make a wonderful and faith-promoting entry for your journal and a great story for your posterity.
Why don't you do us all a favor Ron and quietly slip out the back door.
If TBMs can come here and present their arguments then we should be able to stand up in Fast and Testimony meeting or any other meeting and present our views. That would be great. In the next general conference there should be several speakers chosen from the posters on this site. It would be great to hear these words come from President Monson, "We will now hear from [fill in the name of the postmo] who has many questions about the teachings of the church."
With TBMs it is always a one way street. They send out 50,000 missionaries, run ads on TV, push their friends and strangers to hear the discussions, feel that they can push their dogma in another person's home but they do not want other opinions brought into their homes or into church.
I have noticed that there is a lot of crude people here. I feel sorry for them. your brother in Christ
Ron Cook
Ron,
I've been here a while and frankly, I think you have been treated not only fairly but quite well.
In spite of your Bible Book of Mormon-thumping, your witnessing and testifying, I think that the members here, especially the moderators, have shown remarkable restraint.
Clearly you are on the wrong site. You know it and everyone here knows it.
I suspect you will continue to bear your testimony and witness to us, even though you have been warned multiple times about this, until the moderators finally have to show you the door.
This will further strengthen your testimony as to our evil and apostate ways here and will make a wonderful and faith-promoting entry for your journal and a great story for your posterity.
Why don't you do us all a favor Ron and quietly slip out the back door.
Thanks for posting this here where we are more likely to see it. I loved your response.
To Ron,
You're welcome to be here as long as you comply with the rules of the site but I don't understand what you are doing here. What is your goal? Are you just bored? Have we been assigned to you?
I like to read contrary ideas as it helps with my own study of the gospel. I learn alot this way. No one assigned me to your site. Infact I think that my stake Pres.thought it odd that I get on from time to time during my temple recommend interview. I told him that I assosiate with with those contrary to the gospel but dont agree with them. My wife tolerates its. I have had to many spiritual experiances to ignore them.
I am an auditor by profession and enjoy digging into the facts. For example, I learned that Dr Sami Hanna translated the Book of Mormon from the original English to its native Hebrew. Quoting him, he stated that it was the most beautiful Semetic book that he had read at the time. Since then I have learned that he has left the church, is part of a fundimentist christian church and calls us a cult. He is like me in reverse, I was raised as an Evangilical at first. Anyway, his son requested that a disclaimer be placed on the site that talks about his dads first impression about the Book of Mormon. His name gives credance to the name of Sam in the Book of Mormon. I also know that Nephi is an Arabic name thanks to my son in law that found that out while role playing on the internet. As I see it, his first statement still holds. The Book of Mormon is a Semetic book, period.
I am now pondering this issue. Why did the son send the request and not his dad. If that were me, I would be the one asking for the retraction. I dont see any issue with his first comments about the Book of Mormon. After all that is what brought him into Christianity in the first place. I need more study on that one. It does not bother me though since I was once opposed to the book until it was revealed to me that it is scripture. I have read the Spaulding theories and dont buy them as I can see issue with them. There are things in the book that could not have been known at the time. I have watched the video that makes some grand find that the manuscript was written on fools cap paper, the same as the translation. They dont mention that there are witnesses stating that Joseph Smith was not reading from any thing written. Thats just ignored.
So I dont know if that answers your question or not. Maybe I am only wanting to balance things out a little. Those that are crude I dont answer. By their fruits ye will know them, if you get my drift.
your brother in Christ
Ron Cook
Hi Ron,
Thanks for the reply. If it's discussion you want, you've come to the right place. That is why we are here also.
I do have a couple of questions about your post. What things do you think the BoM reveals that couldn't be known? Why does the BoM talk about things that didn't exist in BoM times in the Americas? Horses, Metallurgy, Elephants, Plants etc. Why do BoM stories reflect a 19th century view of American history that is not supported by a single piece of evidence when overwhelming evidence to the contrary is present? Do you think God did this to test our faith?
How would someone know if there was anything else in Joseph's hat besides his "seer stone?" Why does the church not portray the "translation" in pictures the way it actually occurred, head in hat? Why are most members not aware that it was even done in this manner? Why did Joseph use the same seer stone he used to swindle superstitious farmers to "translate" the golden plates? Why were the plates even necessary when they weren't even present for much of the translation?
Ron, I don't just have 1 or 2 questions that require a "leap of faith." I believe that if faith is to be used, we should use it to bridge a gap in information. When something is not known, if you value faith, it may be used to to bridge that lack of knowledge. In my opinion, faith should not be used to contradict real evidence or contradict information where no gap exists. Polyandry, Treasure Hunting, Anti-Banking, "selling" the BoM copyright, blacks and women receiving the priesthood, consecration as practiced by the Danites, Porter Rockwell, martyrdumb etc. Should we use faith to stand in the place of the real evidence surrounding these things.
From your post I can see that you value gaps in information that allow you to keep your views on Mormonism. Does evidence have to be "beyond a shadow of a doubt" or "beyond a reasonable doubt?" What makes more sense?
What say ye? I'm curious? Not asking for citations, just curious why you believe what you do in the face of all of the information that is now available because of the phenomenon of the internet and this sharing of information that has never occurred before. When new information about things becomes available, do you try to fit it into the box of your beliefs or do you choose to re-evaluate your beliefs in light of this new information. Which do you think is healthier?
I do have a couple of questions about your post. What things do you think the BoM reveals that couldn't be known? Why does the BoM talk about things that didn't exist in BoM times in the Americas? Horses, Metallurgy, Elephants, Plants etc. Why do BoM stories reflect a 19th century view of American history that is not supported by a single piece of evidence when overwhelming evidence to the contrary is present? Do you think God did this to test our faith?
On the Book of Mormon, I would say that cement buildings, an advanced civilization with a written language ( referring to Omecs or Jaridites during the correct time frame), a mixure of copper and gold same as the plates given to Joseph, simular charactors as written on Anthons transcript located on two weathered stone artifacts in southen Mexico ( they are part of a private collection in Chicago now),
a fertile location found in Saudi Arabia complete with ore that Nephi needed to make tools with called Bountiful in the Book of Mormon, Nahem or place of burial found in Saudi Arabia, the Lyhians also found in Saudi Arabia that are the followers of an ancient prophet that traveled through their country about 500 BC, the cave of Lehi ( name given by the locals) recently found near Jerusalem with images of ships and words about fleeing, Alma once thought a females name is a masculine name in the middle east , Nephi an arab name also Sam (Sami Hanna an arab that translated the Book of Mormon back to its original semetic roots and stated that it was the most beautiful semetic book he had read), ( this was before he lost his testimony and had his son retract his belief in the LDS church. Thats a small sample.
On elephants and horses, I have read articles in science magizines that talk of a smaller elephant that inhabited the Americas around the time of the Jaridites and same of horses. There is stone art of men riding horse like animals ( no I dont think that they are deer, they arent built to ride and Indians werent doing that when the white man came, but they sure caught on when they got horses) . Both of these died out anciently. Domesticated plants and animals do that when they dont have man to keep them. We have found ancient barely in a cave in America.
I live in the country and can tell you that domesticated grain would not survive long with out man because the trigger that shoots the seed out has been bred out of the grains, so they would not compete with the wild plants. I planted wheat a few years ago and could not harvest it. Cant even tell that it was planted.
I have seen the metal works of the ancient americans in the Mexico, of gold,copper, iron, steel and their jade work also. My understanding is that they made a hardened copper that we cant even copy but that is just hearsay. there is one other thing, that of a white and dark race in Meso America. I have seen the ancient pictures. In most cases, its where the lighter race was enslaved by the darker one.
None of this was available to Joseph Smith or anyone else in that area to my knowledge. Many of these items werent even discovered until after the Book of Mormon was published. What he knew of the American Indians was no where near what the Book of Mormon teaches. In fact, Moroni calmed their fears that no one would accept the book because of the stark differences by telling them that the Lord would soon be revealing these evidences soon. The big discoveries were around 1840 if I remember correctly, ten years after the book was published.
We know that Joseph had the plates of gold ( gold and copper mix). Remember they were a poor family and to have that kind of expense even if it were copper would be costly for them and would have been noticed by the store keepers that they bought plates from ( copper plates would have turned green and solid gold would be too flimsy to work with. That is why it was an alloy). Many people handled them while wrapped with a cloth or in a sack. Eight witnesses handled the plates and saw the sword of Laban and the Urum and Thumum. Years later some said that it seemed to be a dream but I can say that about parts of my life decades ago that I know happened. They seem dream like years later even though they really happened. The Urim and Thumum were like glasses (with the breastplate) except that they were too large for Joseph to see out both lenes. One reason why he also used his seer stone. The evidence shows that he used both. The Jaridites that brought the interpretors were a large people so it seemed as were some of the Nephites. Giant bones were just found in the area where the Jaridites could have started in the old world and we have found such bones in America also. Some of those tombs had steel or at least iron swords, or what is left of them meaning rust with a hilt by the skelelon. I believe that Joseph showed his mother the Urim and Thumum when he first received them.
You question the idea that the Book of Mormon has 19th century ideas in it could be divine. the book was written by prophets of God and was ment for our day. I believe that it was inspired. No I dont buy the idea that Spaulding wrote it. He would have been a master at Hebrew literary forms to accomplish such a feat. So would Rigdon and I dont know of any referrences that show that he was that knowledgable in hebrew literary forms. I agree with Fawn Brodi and the Tanners that Hurlbut inflenced Spauldings family and friends with what to say in their signed testimonies. I find it interesting that those that did not talk to Hurlbut had little to say about Nephi, Lehi,etc. However their comments showed contempt for Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.
These reasons are not why I believe in the Book of Mormon. I have recieved a witness from God ( and so did my companion at the same time, second witness, interesting). I have received inspiration and guidance just like I do with the Bible.
I am a convert to the restored church of Jesus Christ and would not allow the missionaries to teach me from the Book of Mormon. Now I cant get enough of it.
this is probably falling on deaf ears but thats ok. It strenthens my witness to the truth. Its late so I will have to answer the rest of your questions later. On the internet, I love it. It is full of both truth and nonsense. As you can see, I read both sides and draw my own conclusions.
I have noticed that there is a lot of crude people here. I feel sorry for them.
your brother in Christ
Ron Cook
Ron,
All I can say is WOW!
I was interested in how you think. Thanks for the lesson. I wouldn't even know where to start with this stuff.
Sometimes I kinda forget how absurdly whacko it all is. Thanks for the reminder. The mind is an interesting thing. I'm happy for you if this all makes sense to you. To most of us here it just doesn't. If Mormonism was working so well for you, you'd be much to busy serving in your callings to come here and spread this garbage. Your apologetics would be better served at the local ward where there are others like you trying so desperately to hang on to the lies that they are willing to resort to the mental gymnastics required to continue to buy into Joseph's Myth in the age of information. Every year the struggle requires more contortions and death defying acts. You now have to come here and re-convince yourself by posting this kind of crap that you try to pass off as evidence just to keep the cognitive dissonance volume low enough to survive? Tell DP hello and that , yes, "he's still got it!"and apparently it still works. Thanks for coming. You have definately been an example to me and I appreciate your public display service. Don't let the door hit you in the arse.
I'm sure you are getting promptings from beyond the veil telling you to come here. Unfortunately you didn't understand that you were to come here and learn, not teach. Try putting some foil on your head and the voices may stop.
What this Ron doesn't seem to realise is that many people here have been exactly where he is now. Personally, I spent years researching things with the idea of strengthening my so called testimony. I was like an apologist. I wanted to know the answers to the hard questions so that I could defend the church. I bought books and books and books written by people mostly from the church but also others from outside of it. I did research on the Internet as well. I learned so much. I was like Ron thinking I had the answers to anti-Mormon stuff as I had read up on so many of the accusations and questions. I learned from other apologists and also came up with a lot of my own theories and answers. But you know, since last year when I finally allowed myself to truly open my mind to real truth I've actually learned so much more of what the real truth is. It's amazing what a difference it can make to take off the blinders and see what's actually around you. No, it's not always easy. It takes courage to face the truth. But that's why coming here is a great help.
.
I don't think Ron is really looking for the truth as he thinks he's already found it. But many here know where he's at because many here were once there themselves.
.
Some people just won't listen to facts or reason because they won't look beyond their beliefs because they are indoctrinated beyond belief.
I don't know why I am even bothering. However, the "auditor" Ron, with his terrible spelling, likes to say that he has read magazines, seen pictures, and that there is all kinds of "evidence" supporting his beliefs.
Hmmm. The evidence he points to is circumstantial, at best, and I noticed that he does not say which magazines, or other resources. This is so typical of MormonThink. Anecdotal evidence, with no research to back it up, and the anecdotal stories are circumstantial, at best.
Also, "Ron" states that parts of his life seem "dreamlike". Weird. Is he on something? I can remember 20 years ago, and it certainly doesn't seem "dreamlike". Significant events, like my high school graduation were not "dreamlike".
Oh, and the "giant" photoshopped bones that were "just found":
It looks like this discussion is going the way of BOM archeology and that is fine. Back to the original issue, though, I think it's great if you feel your temple marriage makes your relationship better. My hope for people all over the world is that they will be good partners and good people. Some feel religion helps them to do this and others find the way elsewhere. I know some TBM marriages that are happy and I also know others that are not. My own parents nearly divorced when I was 20. My father traveled out of town M-F every week and was also the Bishop, so he was at church Saturday and Sunday. I saw my dad, at my house for under 3 hours per week. I would also see him at church, but he was on the stand and we were in the congregation. There was no infidelity or anything like that, but my mom was alone pretty much 7 days per week with 8 children. It reached a breaking point for her when her kids were 20 as the oldest (me) and 3 at the youngest.
I'm not sure what you mean by having an "eternal perspective". I've heard several members say this, though, you are not the first. I feel that part of growing up is accepting that no individual plays a huge part in the goings on of the world. I don't get upset about the little things in my marriage either, because I'm old enough and have been married long enough to know that most everything works itself out. I know the difference between problems and PROBLEMS. Having a problem is that I went shopping with my friends and spent too much money and my husband is ticked. Having a PROBLEM is I have cancer or that I just found out my husband had an affair.
I did end up concluding that Joseph Smith was not a prophet, and I concluded that by this very subject of marriage. When I quite on accident stumbled upon the documented facts of how polygamy started - specifically how long it took Emma Smith to become aware that her husband was taking other wives and specifically how he was going about taking his other wives, I realized quite quickly - if a man's wife can't trust him then I'm not going to either.
Through this new insight I saw D&C 132 in a very different light. Especially the part to his dear wife Emma who was to put up and shut up lest she be destroyed. I did look in the BOM to find other ideals of marriage but there were - none. No mentions of marriages, no love stories, no temple marriages, no eternal families. None of this was in the BOM. While the notion that the BOM is an ancient record and that Joseph Smith was able to translate this is proof the church is true; I am wondering what lessons or notions the BOM brings to the table that other religions do not? I guess one could say Jesus appearing to these people is a new idea - but does it make Christ any more divine? Does it make Jesus an actal factual person while the Bible did not? The Qu'uran mentions Jesus and gives many more details to Jesus' life than the BOM does. Wouldn't the Qu'uran be another testament of Christ? If he came here and recited the Sermon on the Mount this is not really another testament. To me. You are free to interpret it as you wish.
You will not see me on the Mormon Apologists Board, but I have read enough to know that there are many crude and rude people there as well. Once again, if I saw anything in the Mormon church that was atypical of society as a whole I might be compelled to give it another try. Rude people outside, rude people inside. Good people outside, good people inside. Strong marriages outside, strong marriages inside. Good kids, good kids. Unhappy people, unhappy people, happy people, happy people. On and on and on.
Edited to add - perhaps I was not specific enough when I mentioned "marriage" not being part of the BOM. While the word marriage appears and while the description of so and so begat so and so and these people married these people there are NO NEW ideas about marriage in the BOM. The fullness of the gospel apparently does not include temple marriage. I"m wondering if the church has done the temple work for Nephi and - wait, do we know who Nephi married? That's really a bummer if they are floating around unsealed in the Celestial Kingdom.
Eternal marriage, sealing ceremonies, the endowment all coming into play post BOM is only more evidence to me that Joseph Smith was spinning it as he went along.
I don't know why I am even bothering. However, the "auditor" Ron, with his terrible spelling, likes to say that he has read magazines, seen pictures, and that there is all kinds of "evidence" supporting his beliefs.
Hmmm. The evidence he points to is circumstantial, at best, and I noticed that he does not say which magazines, or other resources. This is so typical of MormonThink. Anecdotal evidence, with no research to back it up, and the anecdotal stories are circumstantial, at best.
Also, "Ron" states that parts of his life seem "dreamlike". Weird. Is he on something? I can remember 20 years ago, and it certainly doesn't seem "dreamlike". Significant events, like my high school graduation were not "dreamlike".
Oh, and the "giant" photoshopped bones that were "just found":
These giant bones? Yeah, I got the photoshopped email, too.
It started with a contest at the website "Worth1000" to see who could come up with the best fake "archealogical dig".
Mashiara:
Yeah. I didn't ask him for citations on purpose. Had I asked him to reference his claims, he wouldn't have posted any of that drivel. Now that we have Ron's "evidence," think there is any chance he can cite a scholarly publication or should we just say it's all over at MADB if you want to look at it? I found not one single bit of his evidence credible. Not one.
Ron, if you're out there, do this:
Find the scholarly sources for your all of evidence. MADB and FARMS don't count.
If you find any scholarly sources , place the verified event on a timeline.
Ask yourself if it really makes sense. Do you really think God works this way? "The Glory of God is Intellegence," right?
After you've done all that, grab a beer and pull up a chair. We're here for you buddy.
I don't know why I am even bothering. However, the "auditor" Ron, with his terrible spelling, likes to say that he has read magazines, seen pictures, and that there is all kinds of "evidence" supporting his beliefs.
Hmmm. The evidence he points to is circumstantial, at best, and I noticed that he does not say which magazines, or other resources. This is so typical of MormonThink. Anecdotal evidence, with no research to back it up, and the anecdotal stories are circumstantial, at best.
Also, "Ron" states that parts of his life seem "dreamlike". Weird. Is he on something? I can remember 20 years ago, and it certainly doesn't seem "dreamlike". Significant events, like my high school graduation were not "dreamlike".
Oh, and the "giant" photoshopped bones that were "just found":
These giant bones? Yeah, I got the photoshopped email, too.
It started with a contest at the website "Worth1000" to see who could come up with the best fake "archealogical dig".
Mashiara:
Yeah. I didn't ask him for citations on purpose. Had I asked him to reference his claims, he wouldn't have posted any of that drivel. Now that we have Ron's "evidence," think there is any chance he can cite a scholarly publication or should we just say it's all over at MADB if you want to look at it? I found not one single bit of his evidence credible. Not one.
Ron, if you're out there, do this:
Find the scholarly sources for your all of evidence. MADB and FARMS don't count.
If you find any scholarly sources , place the verified event on a timeline.
Ask yourself if it really makes sense. Do you really think God works this way? "The Glory of God is Intellegence," right?
After you've done all that, grab a beer and pull up a chair. We're here for you buddy.
p.s. btw, the spellchecker is complimentary.
I cant use anything that is positive about the church because that is considered testimony baring, that is what I am getting out of this. You know how much that sounds like the USSR and China? Instead of limiting my information, we use everything and see if it stands up to the truth. The one thing that I notice is that the LDS sites list their sources, unlike many of the anti Mormon sources that I have seen. Since anything I bring in would be on a Mormon site it would be ignored here. I call that stacking the deck and does not add a lot of credit to your argument. Just a thought, most of what I would list here would only be interested to LDS people, they would be the only ones that care enough to study it.
I also see that demonizing is encouraged. We learned a lot about that from the current administration. Interesting. Did I mention that one of the reasons that I became interested in the LDS church was the false charges that I found about it before investigating the church. I have seen a lot of that here already.
The church is built on the spiritual witness from the Holy Ghost. Without that we become just another man-made church. My experiences are too numerous and sacred to list here. Since only negative comments seem to be allowed, my position is unacceptable here. I knew that at the start. However, I did think that people here would be more open minded. My mistake.
I cant use anything that is positive about the church because that is considered testimony baring, that is what I am getting out of this. You know how much that sounds like the USSR and China? Instead of limiting my information, we use everything and see if it stands up to the truth. The one thing that I notice is that the LDS sites list their sources, unlike many of the anti Mormon sources that I have seen. Since anything I bring in would be on a Mormon site it would be ignored here. I call that stacking the deck and does not add a lot of credit to your argument. Just a thought, most of what I would list here would only be interested to LDS people, they would be the only ones that care enough to study it.
I also see that demonizing is encouraged. We learned a lot about that from the current administration. Interesting. Did I mention that one of the reasons that I became interested in the LDS church was the false charges that I found about it before investigating the church. I have seen a lot of that here already.
The church is built on the spiritual witness from the Holy Ghost. Without that we become just another man-made church. My experiences are too numerous and sacred to list here. Since only negative comments seem to be allowed, my position is unacceptable here. I knew that at the start. However, I did think that people here would be more open minded. My mistake.
your brother in Christ,
Ron Cook
Ron,
Please bear in mind that the primary purpose of a site like this is simply to have a safe place for people who are questioning their beliefs in the mormon church.
It is NOT a site for debating pros and cons. This may be why you feel that the deck is stacked against you.
The stated purpose is to allow the discussion of experiences and note comparing that adds a facet to the decision making needed to consider such a huge shift in belief. Debates and arguments can be had at other sites.
This is a refuge. Not a confrontation zone, even though you feel otherwise. I imagine you feel otherwise, because we aren't trying to engage in arguing.
Thanks for your interest, but, this really isn't the place to bring your beliefs which clearly are not centered on doubt.
I cant use anything that is positive about the church because that is considered testimony baring, that is what I am getting out of this. You know how much that sounds like the USSR and China? Instead of limiting my information, we use everything and see if it stands up to the truth. The one thing that I notice is that the LDS sites list their sources, unlike many of the anti Mormon sources that I have seen. Since anything I bring in would be on a Mormon site it would be ignored here. I call that stacking the deck and does not add a lot of credit to your argument. Just a thought, most of what I would list here would only be interested to LDS people, they would be the only ones that care enough to study it.
I also see that demonizing is encouraged. We learned a lot about that from the current administration. Interesting. Did I mention that one of the reasons that I became interested in the LDS church was the false charges that I found about it before investigating the church. I have seen a lot of that here already.
The church is built on the spiritual witness from the Holy Ghost. Without that we become just another man-made church. My experiences are too numerous and sacred to list here. Since only negative comments seem to be allowed, my position is unacceptable here. I knew that at the start. However, I did think that people here would be more open minded. My mistake.
your brother in Christ,
Ron Cook
Ron, please respect the House Rules for posting here. Here's an excerpt you should pay particular attention to:
For Mormons visiting this website, know
that you are welcome as long as you respect that this is our home and
you are a guest in it. As a guest you are expected to conduct yourself
as any guest normally would when visiting someone’s home, even if you
don’t agree with some of the things you find during your visit. We find
that most Mormons visiting here respect the house rules. If you are one
of those who don't, then don't be surprised if you are shown
the door."
Show some respect, Ron, and you'll get respect in return. I recall Jesus saying something like, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Also, "Judge not that you be not judged"
He also is known to have said,
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold , a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
Maybe you need to pay a little more attention to what you're doing
and less to what others are doing, and maybe you need to pay a little more attention to what those books actually say that you claim
to believe in and base your life on.
How are you a "brother in Christ?" Jesus didn't even imagine doing what you are doing. He left folks to "seek and ye shall find"...for themselves. No forcing necessary. Sorry "Brutha"....you are not even following in his footsteps.
I think it's fine that you are a Brother in Christ and I also have no interest in talking you out of the church. You came to this website, I did not go to Mormon.org to debate anyone there. Furthermore I felt I was quite nice in my post.
This is the whole trouble, though. When push comes to shove it always goes back to a spiritual witness. You've had spiritual witnesses that the church is true. That's great for you. You cannot expect anyone here to re-join the church based on Ron Cooks spirital witnesses, can you? I can't believe in the church with my parents testimonies or anyone elses.
It's just me and I have issues with this and that. Instead of getting answers from anyone in the church I get "I believe because I had a spiritual witness." This does not help me.
I'm happy for you to be a part of something you enjoy, but while I am happy for you I wish you could be happy for US too. We have our reasons for leaving, and you had your reasons for joining. I wish I had the choice to join. I was BORN into this religion. And at 8 years of age, I had no idea what I was really joining when I got baptized.
I suppose I am now like you.. the way you were before you chose to join this church.
You were born into a church that had it's rules, had it's policies and belief systems you didn't agree with, so you sought out one that would be right for you!(well the one that's "right for everybody" according to you..) I am now searching for the one that will be right for me.
It will be one where I don't feel inferior as a woman. One where I'm allowed to drink tea or coffee. One where I'm not required to wear some funny looking underwear... One where I can have a wedding in a beautiful building and everybody I know can come see it!
You know it's funny, but I noticed that most people who end up leaving this church are the ones who were born into it.. the ones who didn't get to choose this in the first place. We are more like you than you think Ron, we are leaving something behind b/c we saw how it's affected our parents, siblings, and friends.
Not all Temple marriages are Perfect marriages... A temple marriage is just a manipulated wedding ceremony using scare tactics to keep two people (no matter how much they end up hating each other) together... even though they will be better off getting divorced. You don't know HOW MANY Latter Day Saint couples I have seen that constantly fight and show no interest in each other at all.. only staying together to "look good" in the eyes of other members. And realize that while you didn't want the kind of marriage your parents have, I don't want a temple marriage either seeing how bad it's been for people. There are good AND bad temple marriages, there are good and bad NON-temple marriages.
You know the ol' saying, "one man's trash is another man's treasure"..? Well, our "trash" is your "treasure". Your "trash" could be someone else's treasure) It sounds to me like you've found a real "treasure" in your life, and that you will never go back to your old life.. but I hope you realize, you could have found this same success and happiness in another church if you had kept looking. I mean that's not guaranteed, but with all the thousands of churches and religions out there you never know..
Btw I do not speak for all us when I refer to this religion as "our trash" it was a treasure to many of us too, but now it's "buried treasure" b/c we found A BIGGER AND BETTER TREASURE. specifically for us, that is.
Anyways, as I said before do what makes YOU happy, but realize that we at the same time are doing what makes us happy, and we ask that you accept that. And know, that it's not so much about "who's right" and "who's wrong" because that is an endless argument my friend. Religion is based on faith.. and no matter how much evidence is out there to prove you wrong, you will choose to keep believing.To me though, i don't see you saying "I am right!" i see you saying "I WANT to be right! and I WANT this to be right for you too!" As I said before, just because it worked for you, doesn't mean it will work for us.
Your sister from another mister,
(mister and miss i mean.. okay well, I'm not your sister at all really..)
I don't know why I am even bothering. However, the "auditor" Ron, with his terrible spelling, likes to say that he has read magazines, seen pictures, and that there is all kinds of "evidence" supporting his beliefs.
Hmmm. The evidence he points to is circumstantial, at best, and I noticed that he does not say which magazines, or other resources. This is so typical of MormonThink. Anecdotal evidence, with no research to back it up, and the anecdotal stories are circumstantial, at best.
Also, "Ron" states that parts of his life seem "dreamlike". Weird. Is he on something? I can remember 20 years ago, and it certainly doesn't seem "dreamlike". Significant events, like my high school graduation were not "dreamlike".
Oh, and the "giant" photoshopped bones that were "just found":
These giant bones? Yeah, I got the photoshopped email, too.
It started with a contest at the website "Worth1000" to see who could come up with the best fake "archealogical dig".
Mashiara:
Yeah. I didn't ask him for citations on purpose. Had I asked him to reference his claims, he wouldn't have posted any of that drivel. Now that we have Ron's "evidence," think there is any chance he can cite a scholarly publication or should we just say it's all over at MADB if you want to look at it? I found not one single bit of his evidence credible. Not one.
Ron, if you're out there, do this:
Find the scholarly sources for your all of evidence. MADB and FARMS don't count.
If you find any scholarly sources , place the verified event on a timeline.
Ask yourself if it really makes sense. Do you really think God works this way? "The Glory of God is Intellegence," right?
After you've done all that, grab a beer and pull up a chair. We're here for you buddy.
p.s. btw, the spellchecker is complimentary.
I cant use anything that is positive about the church because that is considered testimony baring, that is what I am getting out of this. You know how much that sounds like the USSR and China? Instead of limiting my information, we use everything and see if it stands up to the truth. The one thing that I notice is that the LDS sites list their sources, unlike many of the anti Mormon sources that I have seen. Since anything I bring in would be on a Mormon site it would be ignored here. I call that stacking the deck and does not add a lot of credit to your argument. Just a thought, most of what I would list here would only be interested to LDS people, they would be the only ones that care enough to study it.
I also see that demonizing is encouraged. We learned a lot about that from the current administration. Interesting. Did I mention that one of the reasons that I became interested in the LDS church was the false charges that I found about it before investigating the church. I have seen a lot of that here already.
The church is built on the spiritual witness from the Holy Ghost. Without that we become just another man-made church. My experiences are too numerous and sacred to list here. Since only negative comments seem to be allowed, my position is unacceptable here. I knew that at the start. However, I did think that people here would be more open minded. My mistake.
your brother in Christ,
Ron Cook
If you consider all the information and all the sources, as you claim, have you considered the overwhelming evidence that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century piece of fiction? My guess is that you are looking for ways to validate your testimony, not the actual truth.
Additionally I feel I should mention that "anti-Mormon" sites are full of church sources. It was the Journal of Discourses that killed my testimony.
As other posters have pointed out, this is not the right website for you. We'll be here for you when you're ready.
Sadly, at the time I didn't consider those that were being excluded. The temple wedding did not strengthen our marriage and neither did jumping through the hoops of the Mormon religion. If definitely strained it, though.
Leaders would rather have split us and our children up.
specifically for us, that is.
