DarthPoppy posted:I guess my question is really pretty simple: I mean "Trinitarian" in the classic Roman Catholic/Episcipalian sense of the word: "One God in Three Persons" based largely on the text of John I: "In th beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God", etc. The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are three distinct aspects of one God; this is in opposition to the position of, for example, the Unitarian Universalists, who have a "unitarian" view, with God the Father acting much more like the Jewish or Islamic conception of God. Jesus Christ is his begotton son, but not an eternal part of his divinity from before time; and the Holy Spirit too is less a largely independant entity, but rather a messenger of God the Father. I hope this makes sense....
StarWars_Revelation posted:1. How do you feel about some of the hypocrisy brought up in the life of Joseph Smith? It's recorded in History of the Church that he both drank and smoke, and even called one of his subordinates an "ass" at one time. He also shot at least two men I believe in the Nauvoo jail. Smith was also very deceptive when he opened the bank in Kirtland, scamming a lot of people out of their money it seems. There's also that whole counterfeiting thing. And then there's the Danites, a group of men that essentially acted as Smith's stormtroopers (they reportedly committed murder). It just seems odd that a prophet/man of God would act in such a manner.
StarWars_Revelation posted:2. How do you feel about the altered doctrine of polygamy? Brigham Young once stated that the "Only men who became gods were those who did so through polygamy." Yet the Church's current stance is that anyone who practices polygamy is living in adultery and will be punished for it in the afterlife.
StarWars_Revelation posted:3. I mentioned earlier Smith's drinking and smoking being recorded in History of the Church. Now, you won't find this in the most recent editions of the History of the Church because the references have been edited out. I'm just curious as to what explanation there is as to why the Church chooses to suppress any documents which might incriminate Smith or the Church itself. For example, there's the incident of Hinckley paying off the infamous Mormon document forger Mark Hofmann with a $15,000 check in order to keep him silent about a document that (albeit forged) incriminated Joseph Smith.
StarWars_Revelation posted:4. How do you feel about Smith's three BIG witnesses to the golden plates being ex-communicated from the Church? Smith is recorded as condemning each individual man on separate occasions, so it seems odd that these three men would be brought up as impeccable witnesses despite their obvious lack of spotless character.
StarWars_Revelation posted:5. How do you explain the number of mistakes found in the Book of Mormon, which is reputed to be the inerrant work of God? For example there is a section in the Book of Mormon where Christ appears to the Nephites and quotes Deuteronomy 18. However, instead of quoting the words from Deuteronomy 18, Jesus instead quotes Peter's paraphrase of Moses' words. This is significant because the Book of Mormon was reportedly written before the NT. That is also not the only instance of the New Testament being quoted in the Book of Mormon. For example, the Book of Moroni has several quotes from Paul's epistles to the Corinthians.
StarWars_Revelation posted:The Book of Mormon also claims to be a historical record of ancient civilizations (Nephites and Lamanites) that existed in South America (some migrated as far north as Mexico and N. America). Yet not one shred of evidence has ever been found to support the existence of these civilizations, despite the hundreds of excavations funded by the Church. The Jews, Muslisms, and Christians have found thousands of ancient manuscripts, archaeologists have yet to find an ancient Mormon manuscript.
StarWars_Revelation posted:It also seems odd that over 4,000 grammatical changes would be made to the Book of the Mormon since its release. Granted most of the changes were minor grammatical errors...yet it seems odd that Smith/an omnipotent God would make minor grammatical errors in the translation of God's very own word.
StarWars_Revelation posted:6. It also seems odd that the Book of Mormon contradicts the Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Covenants. For example, Mormons believe that Christ, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate, unique entities. Yet the Book of Mormon clearly states in III Nephi 11:36 "And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.”
StarWars_Revelation posted:7. The First Vision reportedly occurred when Smith was a teenager (most say 1820). Yet it seems odd that there is no written evidence of anyone mentioning the vision prior to Smith's publication of the Pearl of Great Price. Perhaps the strangest thing about his 1820 vision is the fact that in 1832 Smith had a “revelation” from God which stated a man could not see God and live unless the man was a priest. Not even Smith claimed to have received the priesthood by 1820...so how'd he live?
Lane_Winree posted:Goes to show that if you pander to the right professor, you can ace any class. KK is right. Had you done anything that even resembled research, your paper might have stood a chance to appear objective and factually accurate.
StarWars_Revelation posted:It wasn't a college thesis. That probably should explain everything. A lot of the questions I asked you guys were questions I wrote down while researching your faith that didn't necessarily make their way into my thesis. They were just peculiarities to me.