God in mormonism

[Netty]

Do you realize, BilliardsBall, that you haven't provided one single solitary canonical source? Not one. Furthermore, it's clear that none of this research is your own. You've simply copied and pasted from some non-Mormon website. Furthermore, I didn't see one single solitary statement in any of these quotations that was even close to this claim: "Believers will propagate endless children on private planets throughout the universe and women will be perpetually bearing children in a heaven where the men serve as gods."

No we do not. We do not seek to distance ourselves from what we actually teach. We believe in Eternal Progression. We do not deny for one minute that we believe our potential is to become like our Father in Heaven. Perhaps you believe that God is incapable of having created children that, with His guidance and blessing, will be capable of doing more than sitting on clouds and strumming harps. Perhaps you believe that He is so insecure that He is intimidated by the idea that His children might actually become like Him.

What we seek to distance ourselves from are the half-truths and parodies that people like you enjoy perpetrating with your pathetic attempt to paraphrase our doctrines. Before you return to continue to "debate" the issue, keep in mind that your perspective on this topic is not welcome here. You may ask respectful questions in the DIR, but you are not to debate the answers which you are given.

I don't know how you missed this in primary. I was taught in my LDS upbringing that if I entered a temple marage and if I was righteous then I would aceive "God hood". I and my husband would be able to create own planet upon witch we will create offspring and populate it. My parents belive this. My LDS family believes this. My LDS neighbors believe this. If I am understanding you correctly you are contradicting the what Mormon community as I know it.

Furthermore just because I web site isn't written and approved by the church doesn't mean it is inacrate.

 

[Katzpur]

I don't know how you missed this in primary. I was taught in my LDS upbringing that if I entered a temple marage and if I was righteous then I would aceive "God hood". I and my husband would be able to create own planet upon witch we will create offspring and populate it. My parents belive this. My LDS family believes this. My LDS neighbors believe this. If I am understanding you correctly you are contradicting the what Mormon community as I know it.

Furthermore just because I web site isn't written and approved by the church doesn't mean it is inacrate.

You just quoted a statement I made over a year ago and then tried to paraphrase it. You did so quite poorly, by the way. I stand by every word I said in what I just posted. (P.S. Learn to spell.)

 

[Netty]

Sorry. New to this site still in sure how all of this works. (Also I have a type of dyslexia spelling really difficult. So if I could have learned to spell I would have already. But I don't let this stop me from making an ads of my self. And I don't get discouraged by it.)

So did I miss something or are you denying that Mormons teach that Godhood and making other worlds?

 

[Katzpur]

So did I miss something or are you denying that Mormons teach that Godhood and making other worlds?

No, I do not deny the doctrine of Eternal Progression. I just don't put it quite the same way as you do. I think about it more along the lines of how C.S. Lewis put it:

“The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were “gods” and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him – for we can prevent Him, if we choose – He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said."

I don't think anyone -- Mormon or not -- has a particularly accurate idea of what eternal life holds for us. My objection was not with respect to what I believe our potential to be, but I believe BilliardsBall's way of explaining our beliefs was nothing more than a caricature.

And I apologize for the remark about your spelling.

 

[Netty]

You just quoted a statement I made over a year ago and then tried to paraphrase it. You did so quite poorly, by the way. I stand by every word I said in what I just posted. (P.S. Learn to spell.)

Also I was was kinda butt hurt about stuff you said to me yesterday. I thought if was really rude frankly. The the thread was deleted so j had no chance to reply. I don't aprecate you making assumptions about me. You don't even know me. I understand you sensitivity to your faith. But it seems to me that you be more open to the critsism about your faith on a thred about religious discussion. I.e. Feel free to correct me where I may be wrong but don't insult me. Thanks.

 

[Katzpur]

Also I was was kinda butt hurt about stuff you said to me yesterday. I thought if was really rude frankly. The the thread was deleted so j had no chance to reply. I don't aprecate you making assumptions about me. You don't even know me. I understand you sensitivity to your faith. But it seems to me that you be more open to the critsism about your faith on a thred about religious discussion. I.e. Feel free to correct me where I may be wrong but don't insult me. Thanks.

I apologize. Here's to a new start.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, I do not deny the doctrine of Eternal Progression. I just don't put it quite the same way as you do. I think about it more along the lines of how C.S. Lewis put it:

“The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were “gods” and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him – for we can prevent Him, if we choose – He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said."

I don't think anyone -- Mormon or not -- has a particularly accurate idea of what eternal life holds for us. My objection was not with respect to what I believe our potential to be, but I believe BilliardsBall's way of explaining our beliefs was nothing more than a caricature.

And I apologize for the remark about your spelling.

That's unfair. Is it not the LDS movement that has temple ceremonies and other things that are held secretly and only for initiates, or only for men, etc.? As long as it's a mystery religion, and as long as Mormons are dismissive of outside inquirers.. Note several posters remarked on this thread I'm sincerely seeking knowledge. I'm not threatened by questions, why should you be?

 

[Katzpur]

That's unfair.

There is nothing unfair bout it.

Is it not the LDS movement that has temple ceremonies and other things that are held secretly and only for initiates, or only for men, etc.?

Yes, we have temple ceremonies. So what? Private ceremonies and rites are the privilege of all religions. You seem to think that you are somehow entitled to be privy to exactly what ours entail. What on earth gives you that absurd and self-important idea?

As long as it's a mystery religion, and as long as Mormons are dismissive of outside inquirers.. Note several posters remarked on this thread I'm sincerely seeking knowledge. I'm not threatened by questions, why should you be?

Excuse me? I'm not threatened by questions, and I will answer questions on 99% of the topics that are raised on this forum. There are very, very few things I am not willing to discuss. I have made a promise to God that I will keep certain things sacred and not talk about them. I'm sorry if you don't like that, but it is what it is. And the idea that you think I should break a promise I have made to my Creator, just to satisfy your curiosity, says a whole lot more about you than it does about me.

As far as you being someone who is "sincerely seeking knowledge," that's a joke, right? You've made it quite clear that you are not "seeking knowledge." You have repeatedly misinterpreted both Clear's and Orontes' comments in the Nothing Short of Perfection thread. They are both articulate individuals, and even though they have explained LDS doctrine to you again and again and again, you continue to turn right around and twist their words into something they never even implied. I am incredulous at how patient they've been with you when you clearly have no intention of trying to understand Mormon beliefs. You want to argue, and that's your sole purpose of trying to engage any LDS posters in conversation.

 

[Prestor John]

That's unfair. Is it not the LDS movement that has temple ceremonies and other things that are held secretly and only for initiates, or only for men, etc.? As long as it's a mystery religion, and as long as Mormons are dismissive of outside inquirers.. Note several posters remarked on this thread I'm sincerely seeking knowledge. I'm not threatened by questions, why should you be?

We are not threatened by questions or anything you have said.

What we are is tired.

We are tired of hearing the same old, washed-out arguments and the retelling of misconceived "facts" about our faith.

If you really want to know what we believe, you could go to various websites that share just that.

We are tired of people claiming to want to know what we believe, but all they really want to do is argue with us, skew our doctrine and then try to tell us that we actually believe in the twisted version of "truth" they themselves have created.

We believe that we can become like our Father in Heaven one day. What that entails has not been revealed and I know it would be entirely impossible for us to comprehend if it were to be revealed.

That's it. That's all we got.

If you want to look for more, then you will enter into the realm of speculation and theory (which many members of the Church subscribe to), but that does not make any of it our actual doctrine.

You can't beat us over the head all our lives and then somehow blame us for not wanting to hang out with you anymore.

 

[BilliardsBall]

There is nothing unfair bout it.

Yes, we have temple ceremonies. So what? Private ceremonies and rites are the privilege of all religions. You seem to think that you are somehow entitled to be privy to exactly what ours entail. What on earth gives you that absurd and self-important idea?

Excuse me? I'm not threatened by questions, and I will answer questions on 99% of the topics that are raised on this forum. There are very, very few things I am not willing to discuss. I have made a promise to God that I will keep certain things sacred and not talk about them. I'm sorry if you don't like that, but it is what it is. And the idea that you think I should break a promise I have made to my Creator, just to satisfy your curiosity, says a whole lot more about you than it does about me.

As far as you being someone who is "sincerely seeking knowledge," that's a joke, right? You've made it quite clear that you are not "seeking knowledge." You have repeatedly misinterpreted both Clear's and Orontes' comments in the Nothing Short of Perfection thread. They are both articulate individuals, and even though they have explained LDS doctrine to you again and again and again, you continue to turn right around and twist their words into something they never even implied. I am incredulous at how patient they've been with you when you clearly have no intention of trying to understand Mormon beliefs. You want to argue, and that's your sole purpose of trying to engage any LDS posters in conversation.

Katzpur,

1. My response was because I read some thoughtless and hurtful remarks made about me months after participating on this thread.

2. As long as LDS are members of a mystery religion people will wonder about your ceremonies--and as long as LDS members who witness to me continue to say, "We don't believe such-and-such doctrine" when people on this forum, including Orontes and Clear, verify such belief as true, I will say you have a mystery religion.

3. Instead of taking your word for it, because I believe you are misstating the facts, I invite everyone to come to that thread and see for themselves. Orontes and Clear are certainly articulate, and I would not at all be surprised to find they are college faculty and/or seminarians with LDS. However, they continually ignore objections I raise to their statements including posts I make from the scriptures and LDS canon works. Anyone reading the last dozen posts can see me raise a dozen unanswered questions--so yes--I'm sincerely seeking knowledge in the form of answers.

PS. You haven't really read the thread if you see it as an assault on LDS doctrine. Most of the thread is their hijack away from my OP to say many evangelical doctrines are false. So if they and you are my clearest indication, Mormons do not desire harmony and conciliation with evangelicals. Even when I wrote, "please explain, you are saying something hard to understand," I was patronized.

 

[BilliardsBall]

We are not threatened by questions or anything you have said.

What we are is tired.

We are tired of hearing the same old, washed-out arguments and the retelling of misconceived "facts" about our faith.

If you really want to know what we believe, you could go to various websites that share just that.

We are tired of people claiming to want to know what we believe, but all they really want to do is argue with us, skew our doctrine and then try to tell us that we actually believe in the twisted version of "truth" they themselves have created.

We believe that we can become like our Father in Heaven one day. What that entails has not been revealed and I know it would be entirely impossible for us to comprehend if it were to be revealed.

That's it. That's all we got.

If you want to look for more, then you will enter into the realm of speculation and theory (which many members of the Church subscribe to), but that does not make any of it our actual doctrine.

You can't beat us over the head all our lives and then somehow blame us for not wanting to hang out with you anymore.

Hi Prestor,

This thread is your show, but as someone who has read in-depth on official LDS websites, your statement that I can learn what is believed there by you is untrue. For example, how you couch "We believe that we can become like our Father in Heaven one day," which for evangelicals means "partakers of the divine nature unto sinlessness" and for you, that you will become a god--that's how far you take theosis with the divine. How come I can't find THAT on LDS sites? Orontes and Clear were explicit in explaining this doctrine on another thread.

I have no problem with saying the scriptures don't support that belief and that LDS canon does. You are entitled to your beliefs, and Katzpur to his--therefore I need not continue in this thread if 1) you continue to respond to me with Christian charity and kindness as you have here and 2) I need not look to see "what's new" to find Katzpur speaking ill of me behind my back.

PS. If you are tired of hearing EVERY proselytizing Christian church or denomination tell LDS your doctrines are not biblical, what does that tell you? We are NOT the whore of Babylon. We're on your side, the Christian side. We want all people including LDS members to be saved, and are willing to offend for the sake of the historic gospel. Sometimes when the whole world is against you, you know you are on the side of right and Jesus. Sometimes, when the whole church is against you, your doctrine is funky.

 

[Katzpur]

2. As long as LDS are members of a mystery religion people will wonder about your ceremonies--and as long as LDS members who witness to me continue to say, "We don't believe such-and-such doctrine" when people on this forum, including Orontes and Clear, verify such belief as true, I will say you have a mystery religion.

You can say what you want. I am more than willing to acknowledge the things about Mormonism that are different from traditional Christianity. What I object to is your attempts to paraphrase what what we have said we believe, using verbiage that is insulting and ridiculing -- for example: "Believers will propagate endless children on private planets throughout the universe, that women will be perpetually bearing children in a heaven where the men serve as gods, etc." If that's what you genuinely think we believe, you need to start from square one to understand our beliefs. My feeling is that you don't understand our doctrines because you don't want to understand our doctrines. Furthermore, I think it's pretty evident to anyone who has been following your discussion with Clear and Orontes that you are in over your head intellectually. You claim they patronized you. I'd say they probably just got tired of repeating themselves while you ignored what they said time and time again. You have some very definite opinions about Mormonism, and you know as well as anybody else that none of them are likely to change. Initially, I really did think you were sincere in wanting to understand, but when you continue to misrepresent our beliefs, even after they've been explained to you by several different individual over a period of time, it's hard to continue to give you the benefit of the doubt. Here's how I addressed your statement (in boldface) the first time, and here's how I'm going to address it again:

"Propagate endless children" and "perpetually bearing children": No woman bears children in heaven. Copulation, conception and pregnancy are functions unique to mortal women. It's the way a mortal infant comes into existence. There is no reason in the world for anyone to imagine a heaven where millions of women are wandering around eternally pregnant. The Bible tells us that God, our Father in Heaven is the father of our spirits and that we are His offspring. It says absolutely nothing about how a spirit is created, but the creation of spirits is something that gods and goddesses obviously are capable of. We believe that if we are able to progress eternally, we may someday have the godly powers to create new spirits.

"Private planets": I can't count the times I've heard people say, "Mormons believe that when they die, they'll be given a planet to rule over." That's utter nonsense. If I ever attain goddesshood (and it's something that, quite frankly, I don't even really even know that I'd want), nobody's going to give me my own little "private planet" to play with. If my husband and I become like god, we will be creators ourselves. God will have given us the same power to create as He has, and I would imagine that we'll want to use those powers to further glorify Him.

"Men serve as gods": Okay, so what else would they serve as -- goddesses? Men serve as gods and women serve as goddesses. They become that together, not separately. They will be equal partners, and neither will rule over the other.

 

[Netty]

That's unfair. Is it not the LDS movement that has temple ceremonies and other things that are held secretly and only for initiates, or only for men, etc.? As long as it's a mystery religion, and as long as Mormons are dismissive of outside inquirers.. Note several posters remarked on this thread I'm sincerely seeking knowledge. I'm not threatened by questions, why should you be?

 

[Prestor John]

For example, how you couch "We believe that we can become like our Father in Heaven one day," which for evangelicals means "partakers of the divine nature unto sinlessness" and for you, that you will become a god--that's how far you take theosis with the divine. How come I can't find THAT on LDS sites?

If you go to www.lds.org and then go to the "Scriptures and Study" tab, then select "Gospel Topics", under the "B" category there is a page titled "Becoming like God" which I feel gives a very good explanation of our beliefs on this subject and it includes many references to the scriptures, both ancient and modern as well as the words of latter-day prophets. I'll share a small excerpt,

"Latter-day Saints see all people as children of God in a full and complete sense; they consider every person divine in origin, nature, and potential. Each has an eternal core and is “a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents.” Each possesses seeds of divinity and must choose whether to live in harmony or tension with that divinity. Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, all people may “progress toward perfection and ultimately realize their divine destiny." Just as a child can develop the attributes of his or her parents over time, the divine nature that humans inherit can be developed to become like their Heavenly Father's."

I believe you couldn't find it because you were looking on "other" "Mormon" websites for explanations of our beliefs rather than on our official websites.

You could also read the Doctrine and Covenants section 132 which covers this topic extensively.

I believe the Bible also touches on this topic in several places, but your interpretation of those verses would be different from mine. The "Becoming like Gods" page goes over a few Biblical examples and shares the LDS interpretation of them.

I have no problem with saying the scriptures don't support that belief and that LDS canon does.

This is because you interpret the scriptures differently than Latter-Day Saints do. You do not hold the same beliefs concerning the Great Apostasy and the need for the Restoration of Christ's Church.

You having "no problem" claiming that your interpretation of the Bible does not support the LDS interpretation means nothing more than you have "no problem" expressing your opinion in opposition to the opinion of someone else.

It does not mean that your interpretation is correct or that the other person's interpretation is incorrect.

You are entitled to your beliefs, and Katzpur to his--therefore I need not continue in this thread if 1) you continue to respond to me with Christian charity and kindness as you have here and 2) I need not look to see "what's new" to find Katzpur speaking ill of me behind my back.

I don't think this discussion can continue because I don't think there is anything left to discuss.

PS. If you are tired of hearing EVERY proselytizing Christian church or denomination tell LDS your doctrines are not biblical, what does that tell you?

We are not tired of that and I never said that we were.

What I said was that we are tired of, "hearing the same old, washed-out arguments and the retelling of misconceived "facts" about our faith" and "people claiming to want to know what we believe, but all they really want to do is argue with us, skew our doctrine and then try to tell us that we actually believe in the twisted version of "truth" they themselves have created."

People telling us that our interpretation of the scriptures does not agree with theirs is a cake walk. Our bread and butter. There is nothing wrong with that because it is a critique based on honesty.

However, those people who regurgitate the decade's old arguments found on anti-Mormon websites are not being honest. Their "arguments" are not their own and the answers to their questions have been available for longer than most of us have been on this planet.

Also, people claiming to want to learn about our faith, but really want to argue are also not being honest. They just want to satisfy their lusts.

Then those people who place a "twist" on our doctrine and our words (the worst kind of people) and then claim that we believe in the twisted version they have created are not being honest.

We can have honest discussions all day every day, but we are tired of all the dishonesty out there.

You do realize that you yourself just tried to twist my words about us being "tired" of all this dishonesty into a claim that we were tired of "Christians" sharing their interpretation of the scriptures with us?

That is a perfect example of the dishonesty we are tired of and of the type of person I personally feel are "the worst kind of people."

We are NOT the whore of Babylon. We're on your side, the Christian side. We want all people including LDS members to be saved, and are willing to offend for the sake of the historic gospel.

I can say the very same thing to you.

The big difference is that the LDS do not believe or tell other "Christians" that they are going to Hell for having different beliefs about the Bible and the Lord Jesus Christ.

That is a very big difference and I think it says a lot more about those "Christians" than it does about the LDS.

Sometimes, when the whole church is against you, your doctrine is funky.

What "church" are you speaking of?

If you actually knew what we and the original Christians actually believed, you'd soon see how "funky" your beliefs are.

 

[Netty]

I don't know that it is fair exactly. The people who do temple work and cerimonies spend a lot of time and give up a lot to get to the point to where they are 'worthy' enough to learn the things that are taught and practiced. So they have a right to be proud. And secretive.

Secrets don't stay secrets and promesses are made to broken. If you want to learn more about what goes on in the temple you can find out. There is numerous infromation online and videos on you tube where people have secretly recorded and explained temple ceremonies. Ex members telling all. The risk is that you get some misinformation. You must fact check. And take things with a grain of salt. Is this fair to the members that have worked hard to earn the right to know the secrets only to find them exposed online. Not really honestly. But they have the pure facts where as the rest is duluted or inaccurate. So in short ask former members who are willing to talk about it and let the current members keep it to them selves about it.

On the topic of non official LDS sites. There are anti Lds sites, member sites, ex member sites, and there are sites where all discuss Mormon topics and controversy. (I like Mormon think) All have truths, miss truths, and speculation (especially the anti sites I have read some pretty silly things on those.) It's nesscary to fact check. I like to go to LDS.Org and use the search tool to look up anything I want to fact check.

 

[Netty]

"I believe you couldn't find it because you were looking on "other" "Mormon" websites for explanations of our beliefs rather than on our official websites."

Not all Mormon sites are the same. Some of these 'other' sites are members dissuing issues and sharing information. While there are some harmful and misleading sites, there are some sites that are not official that are still very credible and take grate pains not to spread miss information.


"Then those people who place a "twist" on our doctrine and our words (the worst kind of people) and then claim that we believe in the twisted version they have crated are not being honest"

I hope you are not talking a bout church historians. And people who have questions about church history. Often they end up being correct and push the church to exsplain things (LIke Joseph Smith's polygamy) on LDS.org

 

[Katzpur]

I hope you are not talking a bout church historians. And people who have questions about church history. Often they end up being correct and push the church to exsplain things (LIke Joseph Smith's polygamy) on LDS.org

It's really unfortunate that the LDS Church's leadership has been so hesitant to address the "less faith-promoting" topics about the religion in the past. I think a lot of people who have left the Church during the past ten or so years have done so because of the Church's attempts to either whitewash or ignore certain aspects of the its history. People almost never get the truth about Mormonism from anti-Mormon websites, but members of the Church who frequent them learn enough to have their testimonies crushed. So much disillusionment and frustration could have been avoided if the "difficult issues" had just been addressed honestly all along. The Church does seem to be at least trying to be more transparent these past couple of years. Personally, I hope it's not just "too little, too late." I'm really grateful that my parents (particularly my dad) were so willing to encourage me to ask questions and that they never freaked out when I doubted something. I was always made to feel that asking questions was the way we learned, and that I didn't have to accept every last word I ever heard over the pulpit or in a classroom setting as official doctrine. I still can remember the look on my dad's face when I came home from Seminary and told him (back in 1964) that Christ was going to be returning in the year 2000, give or take a year or so.

 

[Netty]

It's really unfortunate that the LDS Church's leadership has been so hesitant to address the "less faith-promoting" topics about the religion in the past. I think a lot of people who have left the Church during the past ten or so years have done so because of the Church's attempts to either whitewash or ignore certain aspects of the its history. People almost never get the truth about Mormonism from anti-Mormon websites, but members of the Church who frequent them learn enough to have their testimonies crushed. So much disillusionment and frustration could have been avoided if the "difficult issues" had just been addressed honestly all along. The Church does seem to be at least trying to be more transparent these past couple of years. Personally, I hope it's not just "too little, too late." I'm really grateful that my parents (particularly my dad) were so willing to encourage me to ask questions and that they never freaked out when I doubted something. I was always made to feel that asking questions was the way we learned, and that I didn't have to accept every last word I ever heard over the pulpit or in a classroom setting as official doctrine. I still can remember the look on my dad's face when I came home from Seminary and told him (back in 1964) that Christ was going to be returning in the year 2000, give or take a year or so.

I have agree with you here. The white washing cases a grate deal of damage and leaves a lot of room for speculation. At least the church has come forth with essays. But as you said too little too late for a lot of people. In the end it comes down to your own faith and where speculation leads you. Indont think they anticipated the Internet and its role in spreading information. I would never condem anyone for there faith and what they belive it means to them. Just for my self I do not belive in it. And that is all.

My parents where the same as your in the respect that they encoraged questions and felt it would make stronger testimonies. Unforutaly for them in the case of me and all of my siblings we fell from the faith. Too little to late was the case for us I am afraid.

 

[Prestor John]

@Netty and @Katzpur

I find myself not being able to agree with either of you here.

I know Katz is probably thinking, "What else is new?"

I feel that Church leader's "glazing over" of certain historical facts was not an attempt to hide or obscure anything. I see nothing wrong with it for two key reasons:

1.) Being a Church leader does not magically make a person a Church historian or apologist, nor does someone need to be a Church historian or apologist to become a leader in the Church. No one should talk about historical facts or events if they do not know them or have no evidence to validate them.

You can understand this cautious attitude when you consider all the "opinions" shared by past leaders that give the Church such grief today.

2.) Leaders of the Church are called to preach the Gospel and call people to repentance. None of these "certain aspects" of the Church's history should make or break someone's testimony or membership in the Church because they have little or nothing to do with the core, Spirit-witnessing truth of the Restoration of the Church and Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Basically, if the "news" of the Prophet Joseph Smith using a seer stone in a hat to translate the Book of Mormon crushes someone's testimony of the Book of Mormon, then they never really had a testimony of the Book of Mormon.

 

[Katzpur]

@Netty and @Katzpur

I find myself not being able to agree with either of you here.

I know Katz is probably thinking, "What else is new?"

You're getting to be a real mind-reader!

Basically, if the "news" of the Prophet Joseph Smith using a seer stone in a hat to translate the Book of Mormon crushes someone's testimony of the Book of Mormon, then they never really had a testimony of the Book of Mormon.

But guess what? I do agree with you on that.