Uncle_Bud wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Just Reading wrote:

Also what is wrong with the Tanners??? did they do some thing wrong or dishonest???


wow, so you know nothing about the people you get your anti stuff from, but believe it all anyway?

I knew this, but it's funny to see some dar dar actually admit it.

No Dubbs I first posted the Documents from this site:

http://nowscape.com/mormon/hitler_temple_records.htm

but the "link" from the Tanners site had better pictures of it!!

One more thing Dubbs

HOW COME THE LDS RECORDS SHOW THAT EVA BRAUN WAS SEALED TO ADOLF HITLER, BUT THEN THEY SAY ON THE LDS SITE THAT THEY HAVE NO RECORD OF HITLER?????

LOOK FOR YOURSELF

http://www.familysearch.org/eng/default.asp

http://www.familysearch.org/eng/search/AF/individual_record.asp?recid=29508746&lds=0®ion=-1®ionfriendly=&frompage=99


The church said they have no record of hitler being sealed and work done is what I took it to mean.

But Dubbs it had been done!!!!


so says the Tanners and other anti's, does the church say that?

Adolp and Eva are located at familysearch.org. At one time, their temple work was done. That is indisputable. The church records on it have been published.

flip flop, flip flop, flippety-flop


Their genelogy has been done, yes.


Their temple work is not verified by any verfiable source.

"LOL" but Dubbs they have the file # 1903846 so go to Salt Lake and see if they will let you look at that record... "LOL"


The church does not release that information, therefore whoever claims they have it is a liar and a forgerer of false documents. The Tanners are known to do this.

Give one single example that the Tanners have ever forged anything, floppy.

You can't.

However, the LDS church spent more than a century covering up its errors.

Here's verifyable proof the Tanners are liars, and make things up, this can be checked by looking at their book, and the Jof Discourse reference they give.



The Tanners'citation of Brigham Young from their book...

Some of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon, who handled the plates and conversed with the angels of God, were afterwards left to doubt and to disbelieve that they had ever seen an angel. One of the Quorum of the Twelve—a young man full of faith and good works, prayed, and the vision of his mind was opened, and the angel of God came and laid the plates before him, and he saw and handled them, and saw the angel, and conversed with him as he would with one of his friends; but after all this, he was left to doubt, and plunged into apostacy [sic], and has continued to contend against this work. There are hundreds in a similar condition.4

previously noted that the Tanners had only cited the first sentence of the statement, giving the misleading impression that President Young had reference to the eleven official Book of Mormon witnesses, when, in fact, the next sentence explains that he was referring to a member of the Quorum of the Twelve. None of the eleven special witnesses of the Book of Mormon was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve.5

The Tanners now claim that the statement shows that Young felt that "two or more of the [three] witnesses had fallen into disbelief."6 But this ignores other statements by Brigham Young which affirm that the witnesses were always true to their testimonies of the Book of Mormon, even after they left the Church. "Martin Harris declared, before God and angels, that he had seen angels. Did he apostatize? Yes, though he says that the Book of Mormon is true. Oliver Cowdery also left the Church, though he never denied the Book of Mormon, not even in the wickedest days he ever saw."7 Abundant evidence from interviews and personal correspondence shows that David Whitmer staunchly adhered to his testimony of the Book of Mormon and never doubted the reality of the angel and the plates,8 a fact that was acknowledged by early Mormon leaders.9 Brigham's statement does not fit the Eight Witnesses either, since they only saw and handled the plates, while the doubters in question disbelieved "that they had ever seen an angel." This makes the Tanners' claim that Brigham had reference to one of the eleven difficult to sustain.

The Tanners, however, argue that Brigham Young's statement refers to "different cases of apostasy. First he spoke of some of the Book of Mormon witnesses having doubt and disbelief concerning the gold plates from which the Book of Mormon was supposed to be translated and also regarding the angel who showed them the plates. President Young then claimed that a member of the Quorum of the Twelve also had an experience in which 'an angel of God came and laid the plates before him.' "10 Once again, however, the Tanners' explanation does not accurately represent what Brigham Young said. He did not state that some of the Three or Eight Witnesses doubted that they saw or handled the plates, but only speaks of "some" unidentified witnesses of the Book of Mormon who doubted and disbelieved that they had "seen an angel." Moreover, the word "also" is not part of Brigham Young's statement.11 Consequently, the phrase "some of the witnesses" in the first sentence need only include the young member of the Twelve and one other unidentified individual, and not one of the official eleven witnesses, as the Tanners claim. Finally, President Young compares these doubters to unidentified "hundreds of others in a similar condition" of unbelief. Whether intentional or not, by emphasizing only the first sentence of the paragraph, the Tanners do in fact perpetuate a misleading and inaccurate interpretation of Brigham Young's statement, an interpretation which has little or no historical basis.


Events in the Mark Hofmann Case



March 1984: LDS Bishop Steven Christensen confirms existence of the "Salamander Letter," which he had purchased from Mark Hoffmann, a document dealer, for $45,000 (some accounts say $40,000) the previous January. This letter, which later turned out to be a forgery, was presented as being written by Martin Harris, one Salamanderof the "Three Witnesses" whose names and testimonies appear in the front of every Book of Mormon. Harris was also the person who financed the original printing of the BoM. The letter purports to speak of Joseph Smith's dealings with a magical salamander that appeared when he was trying to dig up the "golden plates" that were supposedly the source of the BoM, therby showing Smith's involvement in occult practices. Although the Salamander Letter was a forgery, many genuine documents and testimonies establish Smith's association with the occult. The LDS church, believing it to be genuine (since the higher authorities knew about Smith's early dealings in magic and deceptions), desired to suppress the document. To that end, Bishop Christensen was told to buy the document and then turn it over to the LDS authorities so that it would never be published.



Jan. 1985: Jerald Tanner, in the Salt Lake City Messenger (SLCM), presented a long argument about why the Salamander Letter and the 1873 Martin Harris letter (both obtained from Hofmann) did not look authentic.(1) The LDS church declared the Salamander Letter as "almost certainly authentic," as quoted in the Deseret News.(2) Gordon Hinckley, "also accepted the judgment of the examiners, that the letter was not forgery."(3) Hinckley was a member of the "Quorum of the Twelve Apostles" of the LDS church. He became the church's president in 1995, a position which he held until his death in 2008. As president, he was officially known as the prophet, seer, and revelator of the church. Hinckley had personally bought two documents from Hofmann.(4)



After publication of Gerald Tanner's doubts about the Salamander Letter, Hofmann came to the Tanners' house and said he was hurt that they were casting doubts on the letters.(5)



One of the forged documents purchased by Hinckley was a letter, allegedly from Joseph Smith. Hinckley paid $15,000 for this document.(6) Hofmann said Hinckley told him the letter "would never see the light of day again." The church exchanged valid documents for Hofmann’s forgeries.(7)



"The Prophet Will Never Lead the Church Astray" said Ezra Taft Benson, president of the church from 1985 to 1994.(8) Yet Mark Hofmann led astray the LDS leaders. Hoffman said that he may have been trying to change the history of the LDS church.(9) This was suggested earlier by Jerald Tanner.


Joseph Smith, Jr.

Hofmann decided to exploit a weakness that he perceived in the Mormon leadership: "that they were trying to hide the true history of the church from their people."(10) He thought the church leaders were "easy marks" for his blackmailing by means of forgeries. "His modus operandi was to profess great loyalty for the church leaders while he was in reality stabbing them in the back."



The purpose of Steven Christensen in purchasing the Salamander Letter was so it could be suppressed.(11) Christensen was very incensed when the Tanners published parts of it. The sale of the Salamander letter set the stage for Hofmann to try sell the McLellin Collection, a series of documents by one of the early Mormons who was well acquainted with Joseph Smith, but whose writings had somehow been lost in the course of time. McLellin was one of the original members of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles. The church prompted some individual to offer Hofmann $185,000 to try to obtain the McLellin Collection so it could never be made public.



In the Book of Mormon, Amulek in book of Alma had power of discernment to catch someone in a lie, as did Nephi in Heleman 9:25-41. So did Peter regarding Ananias and Sapphira.(12) Mormon leaders have claimed that they have all the power, discernment, and authority of the original apostles.



October 1985: Hoffman murdered Bishop Steven Christensen and Kathleen Sheets with package bombs. A third bomb exploded in Hoffman’s car. It may have been intended for the Tanners.



Detective Jim Baker, a chief investigator of the murders, said of the "cooperation" he got from LDS leadership: "They’re hiding something; the church is doing everything it can to make this as difficult as possible. I’ve never seen anything like this in a homicide investigation." (13)


Mark Hofmann

1992: In response to several books about the Hoffman murders which were very damaging to the LDS hierarchy, Richard Turley, Managing Director of the Church Historical Department, wrote a book attempting to absolve the LDS leaders in their handling of the Hofmann affair.(14) Nevertheless the book includes this bombshell: The church had an important part of the McLellin Collection in the First Presidency vault, where it had been since 1908. Church officials became aware of this in March 1986, according to Turley. At this time the government was trying to gather evidence to build its case against Hofmann. The church faced a dilemma: if they admitted they had the McLellin papers all along, it would prove the charge that the church suppresses historical information and important documents. On the other hand, the existence of the collection would be a great help to investigators in their case against Mark Hofmann. It would have given the motive for the murders: Hofmann did not have the collection to give to Christensen on the day appointed for their delivery. This was made known to Richard Turley, to Apostle Dallin Oaks, who had been a member of the Utah Supreme Court, and to members of the First Presidency, including Gordon Hinckley. Although the first two of these were trained as lawyers, no one revealed the existence of the collection to the prosecution to help them prepare their case for the coming trial of Hofmann. It was not until Turley’s book was published six years later that this information came out.



February 1986: Apostle Dallin Oaks expressed doubts that the prosecution case was strong enough to convict Hofmann. (15) This is according to Turley’s book, p. 243. This makes very culpable Oaks’ action in not disclosing that the church had the McLellin Collection when it was found in the next month. This would have provided the motive the FBI needed to indict Hoffman. The church’s hiding of this knowledge allowed a murderer (Hoffman) to continue free on the streets for a time.



If the existence of the McLellin Collection had been made known, the prosecution may not have settled on the plea bargain that avoided a trial and the possibility of a death penalty for Hofmann. The LDS hierarchy gained a lot by this plea bargain: Gordon Hinckley was never called to testify, and they were spared the embarrassment that cross-questioning would have produced regarding the church’s consistent cover-ups, stonewalling, and hiding of documents. The plea bargain was therefore a victory for the LDS church, and one has to wonder if it wasn’t brought about by undue influence of the church in the legal processes of the state of Utah.



In all, however, the entire Hofmann affair has greatly damaged the credibility of the Mormon church with many people. And if they are so open about everything as they claim to be, why don’t they publish the McLellin papers?



"Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie proclaimed that church leaders have the gift of discernment: "...the gift of the discerning of spirits is poured out upon presiding officials in God’s kingdom; they have it given to them to discern all gifts and all spirits, lest any come among the saints and practice deception...""(16) If this had been true of the church's leaders, they would have seen the character of Hofmann’s deception. Yet despite repeated meetings with him, none of them saw through it, and the chain of events led to the murder of two persons. Hofmann even met with Apostle Dallin Oaks just hours after Hofmann killed Steven Christensen and Kathleen Sheets, and Oaks still believed Hofmann was an honest friend.



The apostles of the church were therefore deceived regarding Mark Hofmann's character and his forged documents. These were not just any historical documents--they were documents dealing with the doctrines and "revelations" foundational to Mormonism (but, of course, not foundational to genuine Christianity). Since Mormon leaders were fundamentally wrong and deceived regarding the character of Mark Hofmann and his documents that dealt with the basis of their church, could they also be fundamentally wrong and deceived about Joseph Smith's character and his documents?



For more information about the Mark Hoffman murders and the multiple deceptions involved (Hoffman's of the LDS church leadership, and the LDS leadership's repeated deceptions of government investigators, the news media, and the general public), see the "Mark Hoffman" entry in Wikipedia.



+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=

(1) Salt Lake City Messenger (hereinafter SLCM), Salt Lake City, UT: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, No. 55 (January 1985) pp. 1-13. This issue and issue 57 are not available online.



(2) Deseret News for April 28, 1985, article "1830 Harris letter authenticated."



(3) SLCM 57 (June 1985) p. 12.



(4) SLCM 59, (Jan 1986) p. 14. This and the issues of SLCM subsequently cited are online, although the online version does not include page numbers. Use your browser's search facility to find quoted texts. To access issue 59, click here.



(5) SLCM 58 (January 1986) p. 4. For online version, click here.



(6) SLCM 83 (November 1992) p. 3. For online version, click here.



(7) SLCM 61 (October 1986) p. 9. For online version, click here.



(8) Ibid. p. 13.



(9) SLCM 64 (September 1987) p. 5. For online version, click here.



(10) Ibid., p. 7.



(11) Ibid., p. 12.



(12) Ibid., p. 18.



(13) SLCM 70 (January 1989) p. 12. For online version, click here.



(14) SLCM 83 (cited above), p. 2. Richard Turley's book is Victims: The LDS Church and the Mark Hoffman Case (Univ. of Illinois Press, 1992).



(15) Ibid., p. 7.



(16) Ibid., p. 12.

Great artical. The Mark, Gordon, Dallan thing all ways bugged me. I remember when the whole thing went down. I didn't believe the Salamander letter, and was so surprised when Gordon payed all that church money for them Shame on you Gordon. My tithing that month could have fed my kids. Instead he spent it on trash. anyway Will Gordon and Dallan be held acountable for the murders too??? A wise man once said: when one plays with poo It get on your hands too.

I posted about Mark Hoffmann a while ago. My husband and I knew Mark, his now ex-wife, and children. We visited their home and vice versa. Our children played together. My husband considered them to be our friends. . .I didn't, but I let my good manners prevail. My husband is very kind and extremely trusting. Mark showed him the Salamander letter, and because Mark's reputation was supposedly above reproach, MH (my husband) saw no reason to doubt the letter. Apparently, Mark's reputation in antiquities was well known to the general authorities also. They, too, had no reason to doubt his authenticity or the authenticity of his documents. Here's my point. . .If there is no reason to be mistrustful of people, we usually aren't. I don't know the reasons the GAs wanted the Salamander letter. They probably didn't have any indication of Mark's deception or his unstable mental status. Just because they are general authorities does not mean they are all-knowing. . .they're not God. Or maybe there were spiritual promptings about Mark and those promptings were ignored. . .all of us do that, sometimes with horrible consequences.

As I stated earlier, I didn't like Mark, never trusted him, didn't like being in his house, was very leery of the locked room in his house (we couldn't walk by this room unless he escorted us. . .the forgery room), and on and on. But you see, I DID mistrust Mark. . ."something funny" was written all over him. I am not like the general authorities and my husband in that I'm not always nice, not always spiritual. I do not always look for the good in people like they do. They always look for good, sometimes at their own peril. Maybe that's why Mark fooled them.

Before anyone else says it, I know these are my conjectures and opinions.

Lovie, I doubt tithing money was used for the purchase of that sorry letter. . .again, this is my most humble opinion.

Dubss said:

"Yes, man made degrees to do something God has to call you to do. He also get's paid for his writing of priestcraft and anti mormon writings."

Interesting...just a while back you were carrying on about the fact that you'd rather take the word of a PhD over that of a redneck.

Tell me Kent...is it possible that you don't know that the General Authorities receive royalties for the books they've written?

Those were terrible days as a murderer worked his wicked game.

Almost all forget the Tanners were very leery of the authenticity of the Salamander Letter and wrote so at the time.

One would have thought (only if one did not know the impeccable integrity of the two) that they would be quiet because such a letter would shatter treasured concepts of a genesis story of Mormonism.

Only one who does not them or their reputation for forthrightness would be silly enough to call them "liars" and "forgerers".

Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
KitKat wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
KitKat wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
KitKat wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Betzz wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Betzz wrote:
Sir John the Apostate wrote:
Percy you still haven't answered the question. What kind of accomodations did Jesus live in?



He can't answer the question because he knows if he answers truthfully, you'll have won the argument. And, by God, he can't let THAT happen!

Really eh Betzy? Let's see, you are now an apostate mormon that now goes to a "Christian" church correct?

So does your pastor work for free? Live in a Shack out back?


Don't be a hypocrite, your pastor works for filthy lucre, and priestcrafts his work. But hey, he got a degree from a university to preach, he must be right

That makes no more sense than for me to write your GAs work for fithy lucre and priestcraft is their work.

Go grow up, Dubbs.


There's a difference between making your living at preaching, and working for the Lord in your latter years as an apostle of the Lord, you've already worked your whole life in another career.

Filthy lucre is getting paid to preach incorrect doctrine also. Which they do.

Oh, so now you're saying the Bible is incorrect doctrine?

You're such an arrogant little SOB.

No, not what I'm saying.

what I'm saying is there "interpretation" of the bible is incorrect.
Interesting. That isn't what you've told me in the past. You've told me, quite bluntly, that you believe some of the Bible to be "incorrect". And you slammed me because I didn't agree with that.

Yes, some of the Bible is incorrect, and if you read Joseph Smith's edited footnotes in the LDS version of the KJ bible, you would know this.

Course you admitted you don't own one, so how would you know this?
Never admitted any such thing. You assume quite a bit, don't you?

Personally, I put the Bible above the Book of Mormon.


Fact remains, whether you put the Bible above the BofM (why a LDS person would do that is illogical, but that's you) The bible has many mistakes, and needed correcting, and that was done, that's the point, I have said it has many mistakes, but those mistakes if you study the Prophets have been corrected is the point.

KitKat is correct in putting the Bible above the Book of Mormon.

This is why the Book of Mormon is known as a SECOND witness of Jesus Christ...not the ONLY testament of Jesus Christ...or the REPLACEMENT to the Holy Bible.


Actually you are wrong here also, (surprise surprise) Get in bed Jaye.


The Book of Mormon is ANOTHER witness of Jesus Christ and the Most correct book of scripture on earth.

I wouldn't say either are ahead of the other, but the Bible is the one that is in need of interpretation because of the many errors, omissions, removal of doctrine, and mistakes. This has been done by the Prophets, they have replaced the plain and precious parts that were removed.

That is the LDS view on it.

Not a "second" witness, and nobody said it's the "only" testement, and it's not a "replacement"

Your views are so far off at times Jaye it's comical to see.

Joseph Smith's mother educated her sons using the Holy Bible as a primer. It was a great part of his emotional and psychological upbringing, contained most of his spiritual education, and the Book of Mormon borrows heavily at times from verses from the Holy Bible.

Don't forget...the Nephites originated in the Holy land. The knowledge, laws, and teachings of the Old Testament was their basic ancestry, and the core of their heritage.

The Bible comes first. Not only does it contain a record and genealogy of the people of the covenant,the House of Israel, it contains record of God's will and His laws for these people.

The very will, and the very laws that Lehi and his family carried with them from the Holy land.

The Old Testament also contains numerous prophesies regarding the coming of a promised Messiah, who would free Israel from the bonds of slavery, and oppression.

The New Testament contains record, within the Four Gospels, of Christ's birth, ministry, death, and resurrection.

The Bible is the primary testament to Jesus Christ.

And the Book of Mormon, is the secondary testament to Jesus Christ.

Or...as it is stated on the first page of the Book of Mormon...'ANOTHER TESTAMENT OF JESUS CHRIST'.

It does not say, nor is it meant to be considered to be a replacement for the Bible, nor to draw attention from the Bible, nor to gainsay the Bible.

Once again...you have GROSSLY misinterpreted and misrepresented my words and my beliefs.

But that is only par for the course with you.

From my understanding and readings, they are equal, one is not above the other.

Although the Book of Mormon is the cornerstone of our religion. And, the Book of Mormon is "Another" testement, that does not interpret to "secondary" in anyone's mind but yours.
You need to stop trying to speak for everyone else. As far as I am concerned, the Book of Mormon is secondary to the Bible. If I were to be stranded on an island, and could only take one Scripture with me, it would be the Holy Bible. I know you'll disagree, that's ok. But this is how I feel.

Another thing, dubs. When I took Seminary, it was a three year program. The courses were 1) Old Testament, 2) New Testament and 3) Church History. Now, if we wanted to, we could take an extra credit class after school. I did. That class was the Book of Mormon. And that's one more reason I hold the Bible higher.


If you can show me the church believes the Bible is more important, I'd like to see it, never seen that, I've always been taught their equal.

Here is a fact for you to chew on.

The Bible is of the utmost importance to the LDS Church.

Why?

Because if a certain young lad hadn't ever read a passage in the Holy Bible regarding seeking wisdom directly from the Lord...this Church might not have existed. At least not as we know it.

And again, as usual you are not comprehending what I have said, I know it's important, but it is no more important that the book they call the "keystone" of our religion, and the book you can get closer to God than any other book would also seem to be just as important, as would modern day revelations found in the D&C. One no more important than the other

And...again...not what you have said before.

Flippety-flop...flippety-flop...flippety-flop.

I have not flip flopped at all, show me where I have, I am merely teaching you some things the the LDS church believes about the BofM that you don't seem to know.

Fact is, no book of scripture is more important than another.

You? Teach ME?

Kent...you couldn't teach a bear to crap in the woods.

You have flip-flopped and a number of forum participants have already shown you where and how you've flip-flopped.