Proving that Mormonism is false

[Nickman]

I claim that it is a fact that the LDS faith is 100% false and I will back it up. I will use know facts that are extra-biblical. As well as the bible. I am an atheist and a humanist just so you know my background. I was a christian for most of my life and LDS for several of those years and I live in mormon central, SLC.

In this thread please make contributions for or againts the arguement.

Joseph Smith is the trunk of the tree known as mormonism so if you cut him out you make the tree fall.

Joseph claimed he was visited after a sincere prayer asking what church was the true church. He said he was answered by god and jesus. The bible says no man hath seen god, but I don't believe in the bible so I will move forward. Later he was visited by moroni which was an angel three times in one night depending on which version you read. He was told about some plates which he would receive when he was old enough. Age was a big deal back then when it came to truth. He said he received the plates when the time was appointed and they were gold. Note that the weight of the plates would have been 30-60 lbs. There were eight witnesses to the plates which later were excommunicated. They never denied but their affiliation was suspicious. Four were Whitmers and friends of the Smith's. The others were Smiths. So two families associated well. The witness selection is very sketchy. Smith went to translate and his efforts were secret. On one occassion Martin harris wanted to prove to his wife that the money they had loaned was not used in vain and asked for the copies. Smith obliged after some prodding and low and behold the 116 copies were lost so moroni took the plates back from july to sept 1828. Those 116 pages were dismissed because Smith couldnt reproduce them or if he could then harris's wife would alter the originals making Smith a liar. Sounds like a backup plan or a latter day cover up.

Ok past all that Joseph gave the plates back and could never produce them to anyone that could actually give any credit to them. What we are left with is the book of mormon, the most boring read I have ever come across. It was translated by a man with an eigth grade education and reads as such. It claims many things such as horses in south america, that werent there, spices and swords that were not there. Names of places that are not found.

With all this said the book of Abraham is the most damnable. Especially the facsimilies. These facsimilies were sold after Smiths death by his wife and lost for a while. Before and after that several Egyptologists reviewed them and reported as such all of which are sourced;

Wikipedia

Sometime in 1856, Theodule Deveria, an Egyptologist at the Louvre, had the opportunity to examine the facsimiles published as part of the Book of Abraham. [24] His interpretation, juxtaposed with Smith's interpretation, was published in T. B. H. Stenhouse's book The Rocky Mountain Saints: A Full and Complete History of the Mormons in 1873. [25] Additionally, later in 1912, Reverend Franklin S. Spalding sent copies of the three facsimiles to eight Egyptologists and semitists soliciting their interpretation of the facsimiles, the results of which were published in Spalding's work Joseph Smith, Jr. As a Translator. Deveria, and each of the eight scholars recognized the facsimiles as portions of ordinary funerary documents, and some harshly condemned Joseph Smith's interpretation: Egyptologist Dr. James H. Breasted of the University of Chicago noted:

"... these three facsimiles of Egyptian documents in the ‘Pearl of Great Price’ depict the most common objects in the Mortuary religion of Egypt. Joseph Smith’s interpretations of them as part of a unique revelation through Abraham, therefore, very clearly demonstrates that he was totally unacquainted with the significance of these documents and absolutely ignorant of the simplest facts of Egyptian writing and civilization." [26]

Dr. W.M. Flinders Petrie of London University wrote:

"It may be safely said that there is not one single word that is true in these explanations" [27]

Dr. A.H. Sayce, Oxford professor of Egyptology,

“It is difficult to deal seriously with Joseph Smith’s impudent fraud.... Smith has turned the goddess [Isis in Facsimile No.[28]

The actual papyrus has was found... it is not what joseph translated. Joseph was a fraud but very smart. He made money from his followers. His legacy still does.

[Nickman]

I hit send before answering part of your post sleepyhead. The simple truth I found was that phrase, truth will always overcome scrutiny. What truth led me to my atheism? The simple truth that every faith I looked at I could see holes. The main thing was the lack of evidence for every deity to ever have been worshipped and the extinction of most all that have ever been. There are only a few endangered species of gods left.

[Nickman]

I claim that it is a fact that the LDS faith is 100% false and I will back it up. I will use know facts that are extra-biblical. As well as the bible. I am an atheist and a humanist just so you know my background. I was a christian for most of my life and LDS for several of those years and I live in mormon central, SLC.

In this thread please make contributions for or againts the arguement.

Joseph Smith is the trunk of the tree known as mormonism so if you cut him out you make the tree fall.

Joseph claimed he was visited after a sincere prayer asking what church was the true church. He said he was answered by god and jesus. The bible says no man hath seen god,

dianiaiad wrote:

Are you talking about Exodus 33:20…which states that “Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me, and live?�

No what I am talking about is 1 John 4:12 No man has ever seen god. When you go back into the original Hebrew you will see in Exodus that the word god is elohim meaning gods or angels, messengers. The word used for god is EL or also Yahweh because the Israelite god originated in Canaan. One thing you mis is that Yahweh in Exodus 33:19 says you can see my glory not me. Then in verse 20 it says specifically "You cannot see my face, for no man can see ME and live. Moses asked to see gods glory and god granted him that but did not in any way show him himself because you cannot see god and live. This is Judaism 101.

In Exodus 24:10 we see the use of the word elohim meaning anels, messengers, judges. We do not see the name of Yahweh in this text. No where is the name of god used in conjunction with someone seeing him. Like I said it is Judaism 101. Why do you think the Pharisees were so upset at Jesus? He claimed to know god and see him and be one with him. This is a no no. You should learn more about Lexical exegesis and the original meaning of words. What you read in English is not what is meant to be said. You have to do a study of the actual words used. Yahweh was never seen once in the OT or the NT. His glory was seen but he was not.



dianiaiad wrote:

Then you are doubly in trouble. If you believed in it, you could use your own interpretation of it to defend it. However, since you have to treat it as nothing more than a book…and a book of fiction and semi-history at best, you ALSO have to deal with it as with any other book of fiction….and take all of it into consideration.
………..and you don’t even have to take the whole BIBLE (which is a collection of books, not just one) so. You only have to consider the book of Exodus.

Obviously you don't know me very well and think I just dismiss something without the facts. I use scholarly peer-reviewed literature to help me come to the conclusions that I do. You obviously haven't seen my thread called contextualizing scripture, where I talk about how you cannot gain context in the bible using more than one book. There are many books and they were never meant to be one compilation. I don't treat the bible as a fiction. I treat it as a history, and in every history there are facts and there are fiction within. I take the fiction out and learn from it and the facts out and learn from them.

You do have to consider the BoE yes and understand what it really says in original form. If you learn that the word Yahweh is used for gods true name and you see that that name is no wherein the original text of Exodus 24:9-11 and you only see elohim which is the plural form meaning messengers then you will understand that John was actually correct in stating, "no man hath seen god." It is Judaism 101. Just because JS didn't know that and thought he understood the bible he made a grave mistake in the world of Yahweh, by saying he can be seen. This is more fire power for me Dianiaiad. Stop looking at your Niel Maxwell Institute and FARMs crap and look at real scholarly peer-reviewed literature on the subjects. Your LDS apologists have no credentials in the scholarly community because they defy logic and true exegesis for their own presuppositions. True scholars are not against the church just because they disagree with the teachings. They publish literature so other scholars can critique it. Peer-review is true scholarly work. LDS apologists don't publish material for peer-review, because they wouldn't get very far. So they publish it on your proLDS site for people such as yourself who think that your leaders are leading you in the right direction.

dianiaiad wrote:

It would, to someone predisposed to conspiracy theories and bitter toward the whole thing.

Im not a conspiracy theorist. I don't want what happened with proposition 8 happen again on a larger level.


dianiaiad wrote:

Now take that natural bias of yours AGAINST the church, and think about the reaction of the folks around Joseph Smith at the time, the attacks that were made against him even then, and think about it. Just how likely WAS it that someone would ‘alter the originals?� Extremely likely, Probably, or almost certainly?

That is just what your apologists say. How could any human ever pull one over on GOD by distorting an original translation. You believe what you want but all your really doing is making up excuses for JS.

dianiaiad wrote:

OK, so far you have presented the old yawner about ‘not seeing God,’ and I did the counter-step.

And failed miserably, by either posting your own ignorant exegesis of Exodus 24 and 33 or you used something from your LDS FARMS site. Either way your lack of knowledge is apparent, or your apologists are. Also if you did post this exegesis on your own I can sympathize with you cause you didn't know, but think if you used one of your apologist sites how discredited are they for posting unreviewed mumbojumbo?

You have (and I do congratulate you on this part) succinctly boiled down the events of getting the BoM plates, and even come closer to the actual weight than most anti-Mormon critics. I’m actually impressed.

The actual weight can never be known. You have many different statements in mormon literature. The problem is that the history of the church states that they were made of PURE gold. Gold is very heavy and with the dimensions given by Smith 16 by 6 by 6 you would have a block of gold over 130lbs. Not to mention that gold is very very malleable and ductile and any weight over 20 lbs would cause it to droop of the rings like melted chocolate. Please don't say there would be air between the leaves and insult me either. There would be no air between the leaves because of the physical properties of PURE gold. Don't get this confused with the gold on your finger. Thats an alloy. The most damning part is that pure gold in leaf form for an object such as gold plates, would only allow you to write on one side or otherwise you would be pressing into the text on the other side. With that also the text would not stay in pure gold in leaf form because is would be so malleable it would press itself flat again.


dianiaiad wrote:

You then give your conspiracy theory impression of the actions of some understandably nervous and suspicious people defending not only an unpopular new opinion, but the idea of NEW SCRIPTURE, and have called the Book of Mormon boring.

It is BORING!!!! "and it came to pass", "and it came to pass".

dianiaiad wrote:

Well, the first time I read it, I have to admit that I agreed with you.

Im glad we agree

dianiaiad wrote:

The problem is, Nickman, none of the above points prove, 100%, that “The LDS faith is false�

They actually do in the real world, not in the world of FARMS. Im glad you took the time to try and refute my OP I have been waiting. I hope you see your folly and ignorance on the subject.

dianiaiad wrote:

Now that’s opinion, not proof. Well, the formal eighth grade education part is true (actually, it’s more like third grade) but that the BoM ‘reads as such?� I WISH most eighth graders could read easily on that level! Just for kicks, I went to “Readabilityscore.com� and pasted the first chapter of the Book of Mormon into it in order to get the reading test scores. The results are as follows:

Readability Formula Grade Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 15.3
Gunning-Fog Score 17.8
Coleman-Liau Index 8.3
SMOG Index 9.4
Automated Readability Index 17.1
Average Grade Level 13.6

The problem doesn't lie with JS's education level, it really lies on GOD's. JS said and so did the witnesses and his wife and several prophets of the church through out the years that the BoM was translated letter by letter.

Joseph Smith himself said that the golden plates from which he supposedly got the Book of Mormon, were translated letter-by-letter, and "by the power of God." (History of the Church, i, p.54-55) see Saint's Herald, November 15, 1962, p.16. Joseph Smith said that the Book of Mormon was, “the most correct of any book on earth� (History of the Church, 4:461; this is also stated in the Introduction in the Book of Mormon).

God must really suck at grammar and English in general. There are only two options dianiaiad, either JS is the author and had no divine help or he did have divine help and that divine help is an imbecile. Good thing the church keeps excellent records, because the church has wrote down that JS received help from god and translated the BoM letter by letter by peering into his hat. This is all in your church history.

dianiaiad wrote:

…….so you have a problem with your claim. ONE group figures the BoM at an 8th grade level, one at the 9th grade level…but the rest place the BoM squarely at the college level for the level of reading skills required.
Ah, well…..

Like I said it really boils down to the competence of the god who gave him the letter by letter.

dianiaiad wrote:

Given that it took more than two thousand years to find Troy in a place that had a continuous history of occupation and an unbroken line of historical discourse, and given that we have only now sort of found where Sodom and Gommorah were (or that, frankly, skeptics have even considered that those cities may actually have existed) you are on very shaky ground in claiming that THIS is 100% proof that “the LDS faith is false.� In fact, so far you haven’t come up with evidence that would convince the most hide bound atheist that the LDS faith is 100% false.

BS dianiaiad. I have shown the truth and refuted your typical LDS counter posted on ignorance on the subject.

dianiaiad wrote:

Opinion and presentation of things NOT found simply will not do that. After all, opinion is not proof, and we could always find something later.

I post only facts based on peer-reviewed literature.

With all this said the book of Abraham is the most damnable. Especially the facsimilies. These facsimilies were sold after Smiths death by his wife and lost for a while. Before and after that several Egyptologists reviewed them and reported as such all of which are sourced;

Wikipedia

Sometime in 1856, Theodule Deveria, an Egyptologist at the Louvre, had the opportunity to examine the facsimiles published as part of the Book of Abraham. [24] His interpretation, juxtaposed with Smith's interpretation, was published in T. B. H. Stenhouse's book The Rocky Mountain Saints: A Full and Complete History of the Mormons in 1873. [25] Additionally, later in 1912, Reverend Franklin S. Spalding sent copies of the three facsimiles to eight Egyptologists and semitists soliciting their interpretation of the facsimiles, the results of which were published in Spalding's work Joseph Smith, Jr. As a Translator. Deveria, and each of the eight scholars recognized the facsimiles as portions of ordinary funerary documents, and some harshly condemned Joseph Smith's interpretation: Egyptologist Dr. James H. Breasted of the University of Chicago noted:

"... these three facsimiles of Egyptian documents in the ‘Pearl of Great Price’ depict the most common objects in the Mortuary religion of Egypt. Joseph Smith’s interpretations of them as part of a unique revelation through Abraham, therefore, very clearly demonstrates that he was totally unacquainted with the significance of these documents and absolutely ignorant of the simplest facts of Egyptian writing and civilization." [26]

Dr. W.M. Flinders Petrie of London University wrote:

� "It may be safely said that there is not one single word that is true in these explanations" [27]

Dr. A.H. Sayce, Oxford professor of Egyptology,

“It is difficult to deal seriously with Joseph Smith’s impudent fraud.... Smith has turned the goddess [Isis in Facsimile No.[28]

The actual papyrus has was found... it is not what joseph translated. Joseph was a fraud but very smart. He made money from his followers. His legacy still does.

dianiaiad wrote:

There is one problem. One small problem; yes, we do have part of the papyri from which the Book of Abraham was translated. However…we only have a small part. We have the ‘facsimiles..� but NOT THE TEXT.

OH the missing piece, right! We have more than enough and we have the same characters used in JS's personal journal. These are from the facsimilies. They are not even sure if there were any "missing texts" because what we have is all that is required to show JS to be a fraud. JS copied the characters from the facsimilies into his personal journal and wrote their definitions beside them. In some cases one character had a complete paragraph of nonsense. I posted testimonies from actual egyptologists who looked at the documents first hand and are known as leading authorities in the field. They both came top the same conclusion. I think you are the conspiracy theorist thinking that everyone is out to get your church, when in fact evidence is so damning that it feels like an attack against you.

dianiaiad wrote:

The majority, and I do mean almost ALL of it, was destroyed when the museum that held it burned down. Our most incendiary critics cannot dispute that…not that the text from which the Book of Abraham was burned, or that what we have now is, basically…just the illustrations and only two of those.

Where did you get this idea? Where did you get the information stating that almost all of it was destroyed?

dianiaiad wrote:

So how do YOU know, then, that those ‘facsimiles’ or ‘illustrations’ mean what you claim they do? Shoot, non-Mormon Egyptologists can’t agree on what they actually do mean, except that they will not admit that Joseph Smith may have gotten anything right even coincidentally. Why?

Egyptologist do agree on the meaning of egyptian texts. Where do you get the information to make such a claim? I posted two which are leaders in the field and they came to same exact conclusion. Here you are the conspiracy theorist dianiaiad. They disagree with JS's interpretation because it is not even an iota of a bit correct.

dianiad wrote:

Because of course he was Joseph Smith and THEREFORE could not have been right on any detail, even coincidentally. When you look at this objectively, you can see a problem with this attitude; even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Can we say conspiracy against JS? You come into this argument thinking JS is completely right and anyone that says otherwise has it out for him. The truth is we have a goal for truth. JS doesn't give any.

dianiaiad wrote

To sum up…you have not proven, 100%, that the “LDS faith� is wrong. Indeed, all you have shown is that YOU THINK it’s wrong, and you think so because….you think so. That’s fine and all, but you are going to have to do better than trying to prove a bunch of negatives and presenting your very biased opinion to do this.

I think I did prove so far 100% that JS fashioned a church that is false from its very origins, and that he was not able to translate egyptian, that the plates were physically impossible. I have done a detailed job in doing so. I also have many other posts in this thread with even more damning evidence that hasn't been disproved because I get facts and don't post stuff that is false or that I don't have and credibility in. Your turn Dianiaiad if you dare.

[dianaiad]

[quote="Nickman"]

Before I go on with this, Nickman, I need to get some ground rules straight here.

SO far I get the impression that:

Nickman may use any source he wishes...including 'peer reviewed' sources, to present his case. He may use apologetics sites for any position, from Judaism on.

I may not use any apologetics site that attempts to present the LDS position.

Nickman may use condescending and insulting language to refer to me and my beliefs,

I may not return the favor.

Nickman may invoke conspiracy theories, mockery and all manner of interesting (at least to him and those who are cheering for him) accusations.

I may not.

Nickman can use CARM, Martin, indeed, any and all anti-Mormon sources he wants to.

If I dare to use FARMS (a private...that is, NOT officially LDS site) apologetics site, I am to be ridiculed for doing so.

Hello, Nickman?

GIVE ME ONE GOOD REASON WHY I SHOULD ENGAGE IN A DEBATE WITH YOU UNDER THOSE RULES?

[Nickman]

Before I go on with this, Nickman, I need to get some ground rules straight here.

SO far I get the impression that:

Nickman may use any source he wishes...including 'peer reviewed' sources, to present his case. He may use apologetics sites for any position, from Judaism on.

I may not use any apologetics site that attempts to present the LDS position.

Nickman may use condescending and insulting language to refer to me and my beliefs,

I may not return the favor.

Nickman may invoke conspiracy theories, mockery and all manner of interesting (at least to him and those who are cheering for him) accusations.

I may not.

Nickman can use CARM, Martin, indeed, any and all anti-Mormon sources he wants to.

If I dare to use FARMS (a private...that is, NOT officially LDS site) apologetics site, I am to be ridiculed for doing so.

Hello, Nickman?

GIVE ME ONE GOOD REASON WHY I SHOULD ENGAGE IN A DEBATE WITH YOU UNDER THOSE RULES?

So now that I refuted your posts and showed how they were not correct in representing the church you belong to I am accused of all of the above? I don't use anti-mormon sources. You are able to use whatever you want, I don't care. I was able to show the ignorance behind it. Ignorance is not an insult. It is stating that the person is unaware and uneducated at the subject which reflected in your last post.

I didn't ask you to engage so your free to not do so. You engaged on your own and now you are using special pleading and saying that I am being unfair because I had shown your error on the previous post. I also didn't set any rules at all. You just feel the pressure of actual truth breaking down your walls made by your apologetics. Please please use the FARMS website to debate me I beg you. I know all of their counter arguments and how to show them with their pants down. So please do. All I am asking is for some actual peer-reviewed rebuttals from you. Use reliable sources. I used actual egyptologists to refute your counter argument stating that we don't have all the texts and to prove JS knew jack about any language but English and even his English is a bit sketchy. You could not provide anything so you derailed to special pleading.

I am not being mean here or nasty with you. I am providing evidence and so far you can't refute it so you get mad.

[dianaiad]

Before I go on with this, Nickman, I need to get some ground rules straight here.

SO far I get the impression that:

Nickman may use any source he wishes...including 'peer reviewed' sources, to present his case. He may use apologetics sites for any position, from Judaism on.

I may not use any apologetics site that attempts to present the LDS position.

Nickman may use condescending and insulting language to refer to me and my beliefs,

I may not return the favor.

Nickman may invoke conspiracy theories, mockery and all manner of interesting (at least to him and those who are cheering for him) accusations.

I may not.

Nickman can use CARM, Martin, indeed, any and all anti-Mormon sources he wants to.

If I dare to use FARMS (a private...that is, NOT officially LDS site) apologetics site, I am to be ridiculed for doing so.

Hello, Nickman?

GIVE ME ONE GOOD REASON WHY I SHOULD ENGAGE IN A DEBATE WITH YOU UNDER THOSE RULES?

So now that I refuted your posts and showed how they were not correct in representing the church you belong to I am accused of all of the above?

You have refuted very little, and you HAVE been guilty of all the above.

Nickman, I frankly don't care what you think of me, or the church I belong to. However, if you are going to attack it, and honestly expect me to (as you have been waiting for me to do...your words, that waiting bit) respond, then there WILL be some ground rules.

If you don't agree to them, you can rant and rave to your heart's content. I will not respond.

You may even consider my lack of response to be a victory of some sort. I honestly don't care. You are not unique in my experience by any means.

But here are the rules....

1. Address the issue. Do not denigrate your opponent. Do not make snarky remarks regarding intelligence, gullibility or anything else.

2. Do not dismiss the sources used by your opponent unless you can PROVE that those sources are not credible. For instance, I will disparage your use of "The Godmakers" not because I don't like what Ed Decker says in it, but because there isn't a single religious scholar out there who gives Decker any respect for his scholarship. Appeal to ridicule is a fallacy, and I won't use it. If YOU do, I'm gone. That means I can use FAIR; if not as a primary source, certainly as a secondary one, inasmuch as the writers there use their own sources.

If you can't do this (and I'm not going to hold my breath, since your posts to me have invariably been snarkly, insulting and condescending) then....nevermind. You can chalk my departure as a victory for yourself.

[Nickman]

Before I go on with this, Nickman, I need to get some ground rules straight here.

SO far I get the impression that:

Nickman may use any source he wishes...including 'peer reviewed' sources, to present his case. He may use apologetics sites for any position, from Judaism on.

I may not use any apologetics site that attempts to present the LDS position.

Nickman may use condescending and insulting language to refer to me and my beliefs,

I may not return the favor.

Nickman may invoke conspiracy theories, mockery and all manner of interesting (at least to him and those who are cheering for him) accusations.

I may not.

Nickman can use CARM, Martin, indeed, any and all anti-Mormon sources he wants to.

If I dare to use FARMS (a private...that is, NOT officially LDS site) apologetics site, I am to be ridiculed for doing so.

Hello, Nickman?

GIVE ME ONE GOOD REASON WHY I SHOULD ENGAGE IN A DEBATE WITH YOU UNDER THOSE RULES?

So now that I refuted your posts and showed how they were not correct in representing the church you belong to I am accused of all of the above?

You have refuted very little, and you HAVE been guilty of all the above.

Nickman, I frankly don't care what you think of me, or the church I belong to. However, if you are going to attack it, and honestly expect me to (as you have been waiting for me to do...your words, that waiting bit) respond, then there WILL be some ground rules.

If you don't agree to them, you can rant and rave to your heart's content. I will not respond.

You may even consider my lack of response to be a victory of some sort. I honestly don't care. You are not unique in my experience by any means.

But here are the rules....

1. Address the issue. Do not denigrate your opponent. Do not make snarky remarks regarding intelligence, gullibility or anything else.

2. Do not dismiss the sources used by your opponent unless you can PROVE that those sources are not credible. For instance, I will disparage your use of "The Godmakers" not because I don't like what Ed Decker says in it, but because there isn't a single religious scholar out there who gives Decker any respect for his scholarship. Appeal to ridicule is a fallacy, and I won't use it. If YOU do, I'm gone. That means I can use FAIR; if not as a primary source, certainly as a secondary one, inasmuch as the writers there use their own sources.

If you can't do this (and I'm not going to hold my breath, since your posts to me have invariably been snarkly, insulting and condescending) then....nevermind. You can chalk my departure as a victory for yourself.

Those rules are fair and the only ones I have been guilty of in our non-debate were there words ignorance.

I don't use the "The Godmakers", never even seen the movie. I use only facts as I have on this entire thread. If you would like to debate please by all means lets do so.

[Dantalion]

a bit offtopic here, but I can't resist asking, Nickman, why don't you apply the same skillset you used in your mormonism debunking to the investigation of people claiming to be psychics ? I don't assume you don"t apply them, your actual belief in the existence of a psychic would seem to tell me you just don't.
I ask this because it is my scepticism and demand for evidence, logic and reason that led me to atheism, and I use those same things when it comes to any supernatural claims, hence I found none to be anything other thn wishful thinking or just plain old bs.
(but by all means keep the on-topicness going)

[Vanguard]

The LDS church is a system. The system is always right no matter what!
You cannot convince the system. The system doesn't care what your doubts are or if you have certain feelings. The system is designed to keep you in the herd through manipulation, guilt, and fear. You can never be right unless you follow the systems rules. If you do not follow the systems rules you will be expendable, unless they can manipulate, create fear, or guilt in you to make you shut up and follow the rules.

Here is an example;

The first sign of this system working to get you in is a tactic used by the missionaries. The missionaries ask you to read the BoM and to follow Moroni's promise located in Moroni 10:4.

And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. [Moroni 10:4]

This challenge/promise is what brings in a lot of new converts. The Missionaries ask the member to take this challenge and they will get a "burning in the bosom" (whatever that is, sounds like hemmoroids). Many converts take the challenge and to no avail nothing happens as promised. The next thing that happens when the missionaries follow up is quite genius. I hope you can see the manipulation and the problem here. In the scenario below, Mary is the potential convert.

The missionaries stop by Mary's home and greet her at the door. She lets them in and they sit down for a discussion. "Have you had the time to follow Moroni's Challenge Mary?" "I have", Mary replies. "And what conclusion did you come to?", said one missionary. "I didn't feel anything", Mary replied. "You must have not been sincere enough, Mary." "But I was sincere and I prayed hard about it all night long", says Mary. "You must have not had enough faith" the missionaries reply. "but my faith is very strong and I was 100% honest and sincere in my prayer", "I wanted to know more than anything the truth". One missionary says, "You must have a certain sin in your life that is not resolved, get rid of whatever sins you are holding on to and you will receive this testimony." "I don't have any sins or feelings of guilt", says Mary. "You must try harder", one missionary says.

This is a distortion of the truth. I have attended countless missionary discussions over several decades. I can't remember the last time I heard anything of the sort as you have claimed. The numerous missionaries I have known have been much more senstive to the possiblity that someone doesn't get an answer after the first challenge. This notion of the missionaries saying "You must have a certain sin in your life that is not resolved" is absolutely ridiculous. I didn't even say that and I served some 25 yrs ago.

I know this is only a minor point of disagreement when taken within the context of everything you are saying in this and other threads. You posit many points worthy of consideration. It is no doubt you have done your homework. Nonetheless, when you express ideas such as the aforementioned in the deragatory way that you do, you do yourself no favors. I am all the less inclined to engage you when I suspect that you will soon drop another "distortion bomb" as you have repeatedly done throughout this thread. It's ok to admit that the church is not as you see it in every respect. This does not have to detract from your points however. Your zeal in holding firm to everything you claim actually trivializes some of your more salient points.

Chill just a bit and I suspect you will not only get farther in making thsoe points but will also gain a greater measure of credibility.

[Nickman]

a bit offtopic here, but I can't resist asking, Nickman, why don't you apply the same skillset you used in your mormonism debunking to the investigation of people claiming to be psychics ? I don't assume you don"t apply them, your actual belief in the existence of a psychic would seem to tell me you just don't.
I ask this because it is my scepticism and demand for evidence, logic and reason that led me to atheism, and I use those same things when it comes to any supernatural claims, hence I found none to be anything other thn wishful thinking or just plain old bs.
(but by all means keep the on-topicness going)

I dpnt believe in psychics at all. Another member brought up Edgar Cayce and I said some of the things he said were impressive. This doesnt mean I have any care about psychics, and I would never ask one for a reading.

[Nickman]

The LDS church is a system. The system is always right no matter what!
You cannot convince the system. The system doesn't care what your doubts are or if you have certain feelings. The system is designed to keep you in the herd through manipulation, guilt, and fear. You can never be right unless you follow the systems rules. If you do not follow the systems rules you will be expendable, unless they can manipulate, create fear, or guilt in you to make you shut up and follow the rules.

Here is an example;

The first sign of this system working to get you in is a tactic used by the missionaries. The missionaries ask you to read the BoM and to follow Moroni's promise located in Moroni 10:4.

And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. [Moroni 10:4]

This challenge/promise is what brings in a lot of new converts. The Missionaries ask the member to take this challenge and they will get a "burning in the bosom" (whatever that is, sounds like hemmoroids). Many converts take the challenge and to no avail nothing happens as promised. The next thing that happens when the missionaries follow up is quite genius. I hope you can see the manipulation and the problem here. In the scenario below, Mary is the potential convert.

The missionaries stop by Mary's home and greet her at the door. She lets them in and they sit down for a discussion. "Have you had the time to follow Moroni's Challenge Mary?" "I have", Mary replies. "And what conclusion did you come to?", said one missionary. "I didn't feel anything", Mary replied. "You must have not been sincere enough, Mary." "But I was sincere and I prayed hard about it all night long", says Mary. "You must have not had enough faith" the missionaries reply. "but my faith is very strong and I was 100% honest and sincere in my prayer", "I wanted to know more than anything the truth". One missionary says, "You must have a certain sin in your life that is not resolved, get rid of whatever sins you are holding on to and you will receive this testimony." "I don't have any sins or feelings of guilt", says Mary. "You must try harder", one missionary says.

This is a distortion of the truth. I have attended countless missionary discussions over several decades. I can't remember the last time I heard anything of the sort as you have claimed. The numerous missionaries I have known have been much more senstive to the possiblity that someone doesn't get an answer after the first challenge. This notion of the missionaries saying "You must have a certain sin in your life that is not resolved" is absolutely ridiculous. I didn't even say that and I served some 25 yrs ago.

I know this is only a minor point of disagreement when taken within the context of everything you are saying in this and other threads. You posit many points worthy of consideration. It is no doubt you have done your homework. Nonetheless, when you express ideas such as the aforementioned in the deragatory way that you do, you do yourself no favors. I am all the less inclined to engage you when I suspect that you will soon drop another "distortion bomb" as you have repeatedly done throughout this thread. It's ok to admit that the church is not as you see it in every respect. This does not have to detract from your points however. Your zeal in holding firm to everything you claim actually trivializes some of your more salient points.

Chill just a bit and I suspect you will not only get farther in making thsoe points but will also gain a greater measure of credibility.

The missionaries did this to me and on several occasions when I went with our ward missionaries to speak to others about the restored gospel, I heard the same thing again. The double bind was posted on the recovering from mormonism website which you would call antimormon. It has many testimonies of people being dealt the same hand.

You are right though, this is very minute compared to the real problems people face in the church. I appreciate you reading the post and hope you walked away with some questions of your own. I will be happy to speak cordially about any subject you would like.

You claim I am dropping distortion bombs in this thread to try and destroy my credibility so what are those distortion bombs? You stated that missionaries don't tell nonmembers they haven't prayed hard enough or don't have enough faith as I claimed from experience and from the many letters written to RfromM. What distortion bombs am I using please explain yourself.