Is this True about Mormons

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
I have heard people say, generally those that are not of the Mormon faith so how they know I haven't a clue, that Mormons believe that blacks are fallen angels. I am not an expert on Mormonism, but I seriously doubt they believe such a doctrine. It sounds more like mainstream Christianity attacking those who don't believe exactly as they do again. It happens over and over and over and over again.

[edit on 10-5-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

Yeah, too right and you do it all the time. You wrote me off as some new age mumbo jumbo and I subscribe to Christ. You were superior in your responses to me. Take a look in the mirror... I just couldnt believe you of all people offered up this.

your on the judgemental treadmill and don't even realise it.

I hope my recent questions did not scare any one off...for I did not mean to I just had some issues I needed clarifing thats all.

Joseph Smith didnt he have tablets handed to him that he could not decphire? who translated the language if Joseph Smith could not translate it?

Out of the records that Smith claimed to have, he said that there was a portion that God said he was not allowed to translate. As a result, he translated only 1/3 (if I remember the fraction correctly) of what he had. He was told that we weren't ready for whatever was in it, yet. Those untranslated records, along with the translated ones, were given back to the angel Moroni, and he took them away somewhere.

Why does the Book of Mormon say Jesus would be born in Jerusalem (Alma 7:10) when the Bible says he was born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1)?

This is a puzzling one. I think I remember reading somewhere that Bethlehem is extremely close to Jerusalem, close enough that it would be within the same province, or something like that. I'd have to do some deeper research to be sure.

How do you explain the claims of Solomon Spaulding, who says he wrote a fictional novel called Manuscript Lost about the early history of America, and that the novel was stolen, adapted, and later published as the Book of Mormon? Furthermore, seven witnesses produced signed statements claiming they had seen drafts of Spaulding's novel before the Book of Mormon was first published.

I haven't read Spaulding's work, but I'm told it doesn't bear much of a resemblance to the Book of Mormon, and that the idea of ancient Americans being descended from Israelites was the only real similarity. (albeit a large one) I am unaware of 7 witnesses signing any such statement, so I can't comment on that, except to say that I don't believe it's likely, but I can't be sure.

Why are there no non-Mormon archaeologists who accept the migration from Israel to America, or the large-scale wars such as that alleged near Hill Cumorah in AD 385 (Mormon 6:9-15)?

The first is based on some DNA research that was done, although I have read that there were some flaws in their reasoning. I don't have much training in biology; I'm more of a math/physics kind of guy, but if you go to this link here there is a better explanation than I can ever give. As to the second part regarding the wars, all I can say is that perhaps the evidence of such hasn't been found, yet. I'm not particularly bothered by the lack of evidence of the large wars described; there are other things in the Book of Mormon that were once laughed at, that are now established to have been fact, such as cement having been used, as well as gold plate written records. It doesn't prove anything one way or the other. To quote a cliche, 'the evidence of absence is not absence of evidence.'

Why does the Book or Mormon copy sections from the King James Version of the Bible including translation errors? For example, 2 Nephi 13:17-26 is identical with Isaiah 3:17-26 (except for the italicized words). Yet, recent Hebrew scholarship has shown that the KJV is defective in these verses.

That I'm not sure. I suppose it's possible that the Nephites got it wrong, as well, and that Smith merely copied verbatim their error. Basically, I don't know the answer to this one. English I know quite well :p but other languages I am not so familiar with, except for knowing a bit of french, so I can't attest to the quality of the translations. I do know that in researching some other verses that appear both in Nephi and Isaiah, that there is considerable discrepancy amongst even the non-Mormon scholars over what the correct translations are, so I'm never quite sure who to believe, considering I cannot read Hebrew for myself.

Originally posted by RWPBR
Gee how did I miss the whole "God on my own Planet" thing during my 20 years of Masonry ?

Your post are always interesting and entertaining but sometimes I think you are either very gullible or not in touch with reality.

Well, i believe he was actually referring to Mormons, not Masonry. I lived in Salt Lake City for awhile, lived with a Mormon family, worked with the LDS. I asked as many questions as i could without getting annoying and some people ven didn't mind answering them.

I worked with a church Elder who told me that Mormons are taught to believe that they basically will have their very own world to be Lord of. Might sound strange to me, but i bet my ideas sound strange to them too.

All i know is that the Mormon's i've come across are some of the nicest and most generous people i've ever known. I'm not a christian, but if i had to choose, i'd be a Mormon.

Originally posted by DragonsDemesne

The Book of Mormon states that the ancestors of the Indians were indeed cursed by God for various sins and that their skin was darkened as a mark of this.

This is outrageous. I can only imagine what the Mormon church thinks of blacks. I happen to be caucasian but I know some blacks that are some of the best people on earth!!! I love blacks, whites, reds, yellows, browns, tans, greens, blues, and purples!!! I am not surprised that a Mormon has never become President of the United States of America.

As far as racism is concerned, I refer you to Mark 15:21, John 7:41-52, Acts 10:24-28, Acts 10:34-35, 1 Corinthians 4:6, and Galatians 3:28 in the HOLY BIBLE.

Please try to love all.

Well thank you Dragon for answering them to the best of your abiltiy, I will forever be a Follower of Christ and his disciples.
One more thing, Im sorry if Im asking a lot of questions but, someone told me that Jesus appeared over here to be (now this is what puzzled me) as caucasion?! wouldnt his skin be a darker color more resembling his Middle Eastern decent??
And doesnt the word Moroni mean light bearer or false light bearer or something? and could that not have been lucifer that showed himself to Joseph?

I hope you understand I mean no disrespect. I think that is it for right now I hope I am not offending you Thank you all for haveing patience with me

God bless

Originally posted by The Cyfre
Well, i believe he was actually referring to Mormons, not Masonry.

What I was saying, is that it is a very Ancient teaching(i.e. the Kabbalah of the Gnostics, Hindus, Tantrikas, etc.) and that there is no where else that Joseph Smith could have got that teaching, other than from the Masons; the latter of whom were a Gnostic sect in their origins(see the writings of Godfrey Higgins, Samael Aun Weor, H.P. Blavatsky, and Manly P. Hall).

I say that Joseph Smith(a Mason) couldn't have gotten the teaching anywhere else, as he lived in America during the mid 19th century, where the only ones who would have had access to such teachings would have been the FreeMasons, Rosicrucians, or Illuminati, etc.

Mormonism, like the corrupted Roman-church dogmas, seems to be for the most part a pseudo-Gnosticism(notice how the the Mormon Church makes much use of inverted pentagrams).


Yehoshua Hamashiach Himself undoubtedly taught the Ancient Catholic Gnosis.




[edit on 15-5-2007 by Tamahu]

Now, GreatTech, keep in mind that the Book of Mormon does NOT state that all ancient Americans were bad. It states that a particular group at a particular time were bad, because they were murdering each other. It is no different than the punishment inflicted on Sodom and Gomorrah because those cities were committing evil acts, or on ancient Israelites cursed to wander 40 years in the wilderness. Claiming modern American Indians to be 'evil' is like claiming modern Germans are 'evil' because of what the Nazis did. It simply isn't true.

And if you think that the American Indian's ancestors had it rough by having their skin darkened, well at least they didn't suffer the fate of the caucasians in the Book of Mormon. They were all killed because they were doing even more wicked things at the time than the darker-skinned ones.

[edit on 15-5-2007 by DragonsDemesne]

Originally posted by followerofchrist
...someone told me that Jesus appeared over here to be (now this is what puzzled me) as caucasion?! wouldnt his skin be a darker color more resembling his Middle Eastern decent??

And doesnt the word Moroni mean light bearer or false light bearer or something? and could that not have been lucifer that showed himself to Joseph?

I hope you understand I mean no disrespect. I think that is it for right now I hope I am not offending you Thank you all for haveing patience with me

(edit because ATS destroyed my entire post!...)

1st part: I am unaware of any Mormon teaching that claims to know what skin colour Jesus was. It seems logical to me that he would have appeared Jewish or had some sort of Mideastern appearance, but we just don't know for sure. A lot of Mormon artwork portrays Jesus as caucasian-looking, but that's probably fairly unrealistic, given where He lived.

2nd part: It says in the Bible (I do not recall the exact verse, but I am fairly sure it is in the New Testament, I think a quote of Paul) that Lucifer is capable of appearing as 'an angel of light'. This does not mean that every angel that has ever appeared was Lucifer in disguise. Certainly I believe that Moroni was the real deal, an angel from God, and not the devil disguised.

I have no idea of the etymology behind the word 'Moroni', other than that it interestingly also happens to be the name of a city in Madagascar. I believe that is almost certainly a coincidence, however, like turkey the animal and Turkey the country.

3rd part: No offense is taken by any question that honestly seeks knowledge and learning. I've asked my own hard questions of practitioners of faiths other than my own, and I'm as equally careful as you not to offend when I do so.

Originally posted by NJE777

Yeah, too right and you do it all the time. You wrote me off as some new age mumbo jumbo and I subscribe to Christ. You were superior in your responses to me. Take a look in the mirror... I just couldnt believe you of all people offered up this.

Uh,excuse, me, but I am a "New ager" so why would I accuse you of being into New Age "mumbo jumbo." You have me confused with someone else. Piss off.

well thank you for being patient...um, a couple more questions I found actually interesting I hope they are not offending...



1. if the American Indians were all descendants of Lehi-why was there such diversity in the languages of the American Indians and why was there no indication of Hebrew in any of the Indian languages?

2. The Book of Mormon says that Lehi found horses when he arrived in America. The horse described in the Book of Mormon (as well as many other domestic animals) did not exist in the New World before the arrival of the Spanish Conquistadors.

3. Nephi is stated to have had a "bow of steel." Jews did not know steel at that time. And there was no iron smelted on this continent until after the Spaniard conquest.

4. The Book of Mormon frequently mentions "swords and scimiters (scimitars)." Scimitars are unknown until the rise of the Moslem faith (after 600 A.D.).

5. The Book of Mormon says the Nephites possessed silk. Silk did not exist in America in pre-Columbian times

God bless

[edit on 16-5-2007 by followerofchrist]

...I must have offended someone with that last post. I am truly sorry, if you would like I will not ask any more questions.

God bless

...I must have offended someone with that last post. I am truly sorry, if you would like I will not ask any more questions.

God bless

(sorry followerofchrist, I would've replied sooner but I didn't even notice anyone had posted on this thread in the last couple days)

1. if the American Indians were all descendants of Lehi-why was there such diversity in the languages of the American Indians and why was there no indication of Hebrew in any of the Indian languages?

Well, strictly speaking, there were a few others who came to America with Lehi. There was another family, as well as an individual named Zeezrom, that came with them. Possibly they had multiple languages, not just Hebrew, but that is only a guess. We really don't know for sure. The most likely explanation is that Lehi and company were not the only people in the Americas.

Archaeology has shown that people have been here in America far longer than 600 B.C, which is the date in the Book of Mormon given for Lehi's journey. It may well be that Lehi and the others were only a minority on this continent, and that eventually their descendants were assimilated to the point where any Hebrew roots were lost.

There was also a thread on ATS a month or two ago about a rock found (I think it was Arizona or New Mexico) with Hebrew on it. There seems to be a lot of controversy over its age, but it has probably been there for centuries. See www.abovetopsecret.com...'

2. The Book of Mormon says that Lehi found horses when he arrived in America. The horse described in the Book of Mormon (as well as many other domestic animals) did not exist in the New World before the arrival of the Spanish Conquistadors.

This link should answer it all: www.jefflindsay.com...

It's pretty self-explanatory. Assuming the archaeologists mentioned in that article didn't screw up, there were at least a few horses in the Americas in pre-Columbian times. They were definitely extinct by the time Conquistadors came onto the scene, since the natives had never seen a horse.

Also see:
www.2s2.com...

3. Nephi is stated to have had a "bow of steel." Jews did not know steel at that time. And there was no iron smelted on this continent until after the Spaniard conquest.

See www.abovetopsecret.com...' which was a thread I authored awhile back. I think I found that story linked on Graham Hancock's website, and obviously, being a Mormon, the first thing I thought of was this very issue. It doesn't mention iron as being a metal they looked at, but it doesn't seem like too much of a stretch, at least for me, to imagine that other metals other than those specifically tested for could have been used, as well. The dating does place them far later than Book of Mormon times, but far earlier than Columbus. Who knows, though, there may be other, older sites?

4. The Book of Mormon frequently mentions "swords and scimiters (scimitars)." Scimitars are unknown until the rise of the Moslem faith (after 600 A.D.).

I don't think I've seen a plausible explanation for this one. If I had to guess, perhaps the word 'scimitar' was as close as translation allowed for whatever scimitar-like weapon they may have used? Does anyone know whether swords or similar weapons have been found in the Americas before 1492?

5. The Book of Mormon says the Nephites possessed silk. Silk did not exist in America in pre-Columbian times

Again, I'll have to refer to Jeff Lindsay's website... He likes to find answers to these sorts of questions, and has spent a lot more time doing it than I have. www.jefflindsay.com...

He might have better answers to some of the other questions than I gave, as well. His website is so massive that I certainly haven't been able to go through it all.

God bless

Right back at you.

Well thank you for answering my questions. I figured someone else would have had a stab at these questions as well but you answered them as best as you could. I will try that link as I have more questions on them topics.

God bless