Mormons, do you realize that sharing your testimonies come across as passive aggressive attacks...?

Question

on nonbelievers to validate your feelings of supremacy. It makes people want to avoid you.

Answer 1

"The first is pertaining to the alleged varying accounts of the First Vision. Read one response at..."



Does that essay explain any of this:



* His accounts are contradictory and muddy the claim. They are not complimentary. In fact, the list of points they highlight were not shared between accounts.

* The age is different.

* The personages who appeared are different.

* The evil forces are different.

* The catalysts that caused him to seek God are different.

* The messages delivered by God are different.

* The message evolved over time and eventually acted as a foundation for him to change the religion.



Next, "President Monson has done both." Such as?



Finally, the muddled up embarrassing DNA topic for mormonism. They have been forced to change the introduction of the Book of Mormon which said this, "...all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians." It now says "...and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians." That's due to the DNA evidence which paints a clear picture of how ridiculous the historicity of the Book of Mormon is. The x haplotype has been discussed thoroughly by non-mormon DNA analysts. See Simon Southerton.



Hebraisms present in the Book of Mormon, you must be joking. http://wordtreefoundation.github.io/thelatewar/



Oh, 11 respectable men testified huh? Funny how all of their signatures were signed by the same person. Funny, how many of them actually stayed a member of the church?



And the classic Joseph Smith had nothing to gain by being a leader of a church movement in the 1800s. Oh really?



Someone needs to do more research...



Oh, I'm a hypocrite am I rrosskopf? You're wrong, him stating the same vision story consistently (and much earlier) is infinitely better than him stating conflicting reports, giving evidence of an evolution of competing ideas, of someone making something up because they are focusing on being an embellished people pleaser. I think I would remember pretty consistently if Jesus and Heavenly Father presented themselves to me.



I'll tell you what, if a lot of things went differently for mormonism, I would have a much different opinion of it. I bet you haven't even examined the different first vision stories though.



Why would you said that I need to get a life Don? Why are you afraid to brush up on the research that decimates the points you brought up? As soon as you said hebraisms, chiasmus, word-print studies, you proved right then and there that you're using outdated and incorrect apologetics as evidence to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. I provided the link to you which tackles your outdated information appropriately, I suggest reading through that material before you tell me how much of a life I need to get.



By the way, let me tell you about Joseph Smith's children. They grew up not knowing their father married over thirty wives because their mother, Joseph's first wife, lied to them saying he was not involved. That's how much she hated her husband's involvement in his illegal marriages. And Joseph Smith's own son, ended up becoming a prophet of another church that you reject as even belonging to mormonism. Your position about the witnesses would be better if a large portion of them didn't leave the church. Including Emma Smith, and their children. Show me where my allegations are incorrect though.



Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It - 1997? Here, let me fix this quote for you, "They're a couple of non LDS scholars who take a surprisingly candid position on the OUTDATED state of pro/con apologetics." I don't argue from an evangelical viewpoint, I argue from a rational one.

Answer 2

I can see that, if someone is doing it defensively. At its core, a testimony is just sharing what we have seen. People bear all kinds of testimony every day without offending people. Having a testimony doesn't give me feelings of supremacy. Anyone can get a testimony. In fact, everyone has a testimony about something. Having a testimony frees me from doubt, and helps me know when people are talking through their hat.



Michael, you are such a hypocrite. If Joseph told the exact same story every time you would use that as evidence against him. You can't have it both ways. Honest people seldom tell the same story the same way twice. It's the made-up stories that need to be memorized. The evidence is clear that Joseph Smith had no compunction to memorize any of the details; he had confidence that he would never forget the details of perhaps the greatest experience of his life.

Answer 3

You might want to review the definition of "passive aggressive". Personally, I think that anyone that considers a testimony to be a passive aggressive attack has mental/emotional issues to a greater or lessor degree. There are people like this out there, and we can't really do anything about that. We are not, however, going to huddle under our desks in silence just because someone gets offended when we open our mouths. It isn't our problem.

Answer 4

No, I had no idea. I understand that people choose to read all kinds of motives in the actions of Mormons, but passive aggressive attacks on non-believers is a new one. Thanks for enlightening us Mormons.



I also had no idea that you speak for every non-Mormon on earth.



But I am confused and maybe you will explain, but if all this makes people want to avoid Mormons, why do you spend so much time on here directing questions about Mormons to the point of obsession? It sounds like if anything, you just can't stay away.

Answer 5

A testimony, if borne in the right way, is not aggressive at all but an affirmation of personal belief offered in love and shared with those we care about. I certainly do not consider myself better than or above those who were not raised in the church but are converted in their adulthood. I admire those who have the open mindedness and honesty of heart to hear and accept the gospel message and embrace the change of heart and lifestyle required by the gospel. Each of us must be personally converted in our own lifetime in order to merit the atoning grace of Christ. Whether that comes earlier or later is all in the Lord's own due time if we are seeking to follow Him. The Spirit will guide us to truth in His own way.

Answer 6

Me telling people that I love my Saviour has nothing to do with you unless you make it something to do with you. Why do you make it something to do with you if you don't like it?



Mike 64--Actually, as a Lutheran child, I had to memorize the Nicene Creed and recite it when asked by my teachers at school.



And every other church I have attended or visited generally had some sort of time period or meeting when congregants shared their personal experiences which had solidified their beliefs. Why are LDS singled out as having "testimonies?"

Answer 7

As you can see from the many Mormon responses, they clearly don't realize it. I've been to Mormon "testimony meetings" where there were a few non-Mormons in attendance, and one of them was literally in tears by the end because he felt so attacked by all the people standing up and declaring that they "know that the church is true and is the only true church on the Earth today". The Mormons were just declaring their beliefs, without a thought for how a non-believer might perceive their declarations being rammed, over and over, down everyone's throats.



That's just one of the many problems with organized religion, in my opinion. It's more about being "part of a group" than about any real devotion to or relationship with God in most cases.



Another problem with the Mormon "testimony meeting" is that they are basically mentally programming themselves by getting up on a regular basis and declaring that they "know" that the Mormon teachings are true. They "Know" that Joseph Smith was a true prophet. They "Know" that the Book of Mormon is true. etc, etc. And all of this knowledge is based on what? A warm fuzzy feeling at best, but mostly just them telling themselves over and over again that they "know" it is true. After many years of that, of course they believe it. That's classic mental conditioning.

Answer 8

Bearing my testimony of truth is never an attack. If someone has an issue with it it's their problem, not mine. If the Spirit of God prompts me to say something I say it. I know I'm not superior to anyone so why do you assume we think we're supreme? You have some anger issues.

Answer 9

I'm a fan of irony so I really like this one.



So it's wrong to stand up and speak about what you personally think in an open forum in church, because somehow in some way that could be a passive aggressive attack and we shouldn't make people uncomfortable.



yet . . .



You seem to think it's fine to openly attack and mock our religion?



Wow, how about the pot calling the kettle black. Worry about your own sins and shortcomings buddy!

Answer 10

I am not ashamed for having a certainty that the gospel is true. You also have a right to decide if my testimony is a lie or not.

Answer 11

Sorry you feel that way. But what in the world is a "passive aggressive" attack? And I don't know Mormons who feel superior. If they do, they're not living their religion.



@ Vinni and beer: I think you're drunk. Don't make false claims while you're drunk. Because you'll end up wrong AND foolish.



EDIT: @ Vinni - sorry, but those weak attacks don't fly here buddy. I've studied these kinds of charges for most of my adult life...that's pretty weak stuff. Rather than waste my time rehashing out the answers, I'll provide some links so you can read up and educate yourself a little bit.



The first is pertaining to the alleged varying accounts of the First Vision. Read one response at https://www.lds.org/topics/first-vision-accounts?lang=eng.



Next - if your interpretation of a prophet is a fortune teller, then you're grossly mistaken. Prophets can and do prophesy of future events when called upon to do so. However, since Biblical times, prophets have been more of a forthteller than of a foreteller. President Monson has done both. You should pay a little more attention to his warnings and a little less attention to his detractors. It would do you well.



Finally, the DNA issue. First, what does "Lamanite DNA" look like? Answer that and we might be able to identify something. But if you're making the claim that Middle Eastern DNA has not been found in the Americas, you're sadly mistaken. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/11/131120-science-native-american-people-migration-siberia-genetics/ Although the DNA discovered predates BOM timelines, other possibilities also exist. And even before that discovery was announced, the X haplotype had been discovered in certain Amerindians. The X haplotype is indicative of Euro-Middle Eastern ancestry.



Finally, now that we have solid answers to your charges, how do you explain the fact that 11 respected men testified to seeing what they saw and the plates that they handled? How do you explain Hebraisms present in the BOM? Are you even aware of what word print studies have to say about the BOM? Ever hear of chiasmus? How'd it get in there? And don't try to give me the AB=BA circumstantial answer. BOM chiasmus is extremely complex. How did it get in there? Why was Joseph willing to suffer, be tortured, have his family killed and knowingly die to seal his testimony? How many people are willing to do that if they are perpetuating a fraud? You might want to look at both sides.



EDIT: @Michael: Dude, you really need to get a life. I'm not going to go back and do all of your research for you. The witnesses are well-documented. It doesn't matter if they were the ones who signed or not. They never denied their testimonies of what happened, in spite of very serious persecution. Find me a contemporary example of how that is possible in the event of fraud.



Joseph Smith lived an extremely difficult life. His children died as a result of mobs. I'm not even going to address that point further. Your allegations are ridiculous. YOU sir, are the one who needs to do some further research. I've done mine - and I've studied both sides. I can list the books and DVDs I've watched and studied, including Martin's Maze of Mormonism, Kingdom of the Cults, MRMs stuff, the Deckers and Tanners of the world, DeeJay Nelson (can't remember the spelling) and so on. I've countered that with the pro LDS positions and found the evidence to be overwhelmingly pro LDS. I realize you won't take my word for it. Neither will you study the info that's available because critics aren't interested in the truth. They're interested in furthering their own agenda and engorging their own pride.



Do a Google Search for "Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It" by Mosser & Owens. They're a couple of non LDS scholars who take a surprisingly candid position on the state of pro/con apologetics. So that's all I'm going to have to say about this. Have a nice day.

Answer 12

Thank you for going out of your way to avoid us. Ironic that you have to post a daily comment.

Answer 13

The Bible, which is full of testimony, must really offend you.

Answer 14

I hope that means that you don't share your faith with anyone. Or lack of faith.

Answer 15

I see it as a willful hope of the mormons to prove to them selves more than anybody that they should stay in the mormon church.



You don't have Christians come across professing the Nicea creed to everybody. We don't need to since we are confident in our believes.

Answer 16

Ah, the testiphony.

the foundation stone of mormon belief,... in fact the only stone of mormon belief



@don

Almost everything that makes mormons 'mormon' can be shown to be a crock.

JS first vision? 8 mutually conflicting versions

a prophet on earth? what is monson's most famous pronouncement? "Let's go shopping"

Lamanites? -----errr, DNA



the only thing it's impossible to show up to be a crock is when a mormons says "I believe that the church is true"



and that's what I mean by [it is] " in fact the only stone of mormon belief"

Answer 17

They think they're elitist duh. And they are passive aggressive.



As for them having a testimony and feeling the Holy Spirit, they all seem to be suffering from endorphin overload.