Have you read the Sealed Portion of the Book of Mormon Yet?

September 13, 2009
By

Christopher Nemelka has published the sealed portion of the Book or Mormon and has also translated the 116 pages of missing manuscript.  His website can be found here.  John the Beloved and the Three Nephites use him to present their message to the World.  Joseph Smith, himself, gave Christopher the Gold Plates so that he could translate the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon.  He believes that in 1987 he was called, in the same manner as Joseph Smith, to share a message with the world.  He believes that his organization is the only true message for the World today and has subsequently distanced himself from the LDS Church and actually sees his mission as undermining the power and influence of the Church. 

‘The Sealed Portion – The Final Testament of Jesus Christ’ is published free online.  The book is 655 pages long with 100 chapters, each divided into verses, and there are even Chapter headings.  Stylistically the text is similar to the Book of Mormon itself.  But from my brief  overview here are few samples from his translation that interested me.

Christopher expands on the vision seen by the Brother of Jared, he writes “Behold this is the Kingdom and Glory of our Father.  It was on this world that our Father begat his posterity, even the spirits of all men which lived upon the world which thou standest.  And this was once a world like unto the world on which thou livest, and is where our father learned the mysteries and responsibilities of godhood.  And behold, it is upon this same world where the Mother of the Spirits of all the children of God reside with the Father” (TSP: 2: 12-3). 

In Chapter 3 the Brother of Jared meets the Heavenly Father and his Heavenly Mother.  Here he provides the name of the Heavenly Mother.  This chapter shows that God practices polygamy.  Chapter 4 teaches how spirits are born from the various Heavenly Mothers.  In Chapter 8 we learn that Michael ruled Heaven when Jesus came down for his mortal ministry.  Furthermore we learn that “Michael is the other member of the Godhead, yea even the Holy Ghost” (TSP: 8: 17).  Michael can do this because when he died he refused to take upn him a resurrected body. 

In Chapter 10 the details of the Endowment are shown to have been taught.  The text teaches that Joseph Smith was a Prophet and received the Endowment but because of the wickedness of the people he was taken from the Church and that the Lord left this people to their own devices.  As a result the Endowment would be changed from the pure form revealed by Joseph Smith.  The leaders after Joseph Smith will do this because they seek the praise of the world.  Christopher reveals that the Lord wants all people to have this endowment without any keeping of the commandments.  He then continues to give the endowment in detail in the text.  Christopher also provides us with a revealed understanding of the Endowment in his book Sacred, Not Secret.

He has also published his ideas regarding how to overcome world poverty on youtube.

Unfortunately I do not have the time to read the whole text.  I guess I did not feel particularly inspired by it.  However, has anyone ever heard anything from Christopher before?  Being from England I may be a bit late to the game.  On the FAIR site there are some cursory details about his life and some quotations from interviews he has given.  They also try to show that the translation is a forgery. 

What do you think about the ideas that he includes at the beginning of the book.  I guess this raises important questions for us about how we can discern whether Christopher has a message for us.  I am not convinced, but I acknowledge that I am may be closed off from this.

Tags: , ,

248 Responses to Have you read the Sealed Portion of the Book of Mormon Yet?

  1. September 13, 2009 at 1:51 am

    Nope.

  2. Slim
    September 13, 2009 at 3:58 am

    “On the FAIR site there are some cursory details about his life and some quotations from interviews he has given. They also try to show that the translation is a forgery.”

    Ah, the irony.

  3. September 13, 2009 at 10:38 am

    Yes I have. Its called the Book of Revelations. Sure, its cryptic and condensed, but it is like the description of the sealed portions.

  4. MrQandA
    September 13, 2009 at 1:15 pm

    I find this post very interesting, not because of the content but my reaction to it. I have no interest in reading these books, my reluctance is almost an innate characteristic, the dye has been cast. I’m troubled by my reaction, how would I have responded to the news of the Restoration in Joseph Smith’s time? this is not intended to be a “thread jack” and so I expect no reply to this post.

  5. Rico
    September 13, 2009 at 2:31 pm

    4# – That is kinda one of the questions I raise at the end. The reason I even came across this was because my sister-in-law is dating a guy who is not a member of the Church but is interested in learning about it. He wanted to know more about the Temple and found Christopher’s book online. He asked me about it. I looked into it. I too wonder about this. Firstly, the book is about as long as the Book of Mormon and this guy is not particularly educated. IN fact he does emphasise these similarities between him and Joseph Smith.

    I did not really want to ask questions just to let people have their response. Whatever it is?

  6. September 13, 2009 at 3:39 pm

    Have you read the new manuals for priesthood and relief society yet? Already available, we discussed them today.

  7. Jen
    September 13, 2009 at 5:18 pm

    I personally don’t think that the person or people who translate the sealed portion of the BOM will be separated from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I think they will believe in the church and its doctrine and the translation of the sealed portion of the BOM will build upon the foundation that has already been established on the earth, not work against it.

    Also, when I briefly looked over the overview of his book Sacred, Not Secret, I don’t agree with the idea that things can be sacred, yet shared with everyone. There are many things that I feel are sacred to me and I don’t share them with just anyone because they will be spoken of in a light mannered way. In other words, I do think sacredness does correlate with not speaking of things or keeping things from others who would defile them in some manner.

  8. Ray
    September 13, 2009 at 6:07 pm

    Fwiw, I’m not bothered in the slightest about my own lack of interest in his claims.

  9. sxark
    September 13, 2009 at 7:20 pm

    It’s reasuring to have a living Prophet of the LDS Church, who can share revealed truths concerning the salvation of mankind. Should another claim to have something given to him from ‘God’ to share with mankind, then this claim would be in conflict with an established principle that only one person, at a time, has the authority to do so.
    It makes no sense that Christopher says he was called of ‘God’ to do something for mankind when someone else is allready [in place] to do the same thing – were it needed.

  10. September 13, 2009 at 7:32 pm

    **“On the FAIR site there are some cursory details about his life and some quotations from interviews he has given. They also try to show that the translation is a forgery.”

    Ah, the irony.**

    Ah, the lack of substance.

    OK, forgive my little tantrum over this little slight and allow me to let you all know that Namelka is now claiming to be the reincarnated Hyrum Smith in the flesh. From a recent press release (and I am not making this up):

    In a proclamation found at his MWAW yahoo discussion group, Christopher M. Nemelka answers the long standing historical curiosity of why the original Smith family split into two factions. Here is the simple and plausible explanation:

    “In the Carthage Jail where both of their lives ended, not only by the hands of non-LDS enemies, but by some so-called LDS “friends,” Joseph said something to Hyrum that was overheard and witnessed by both Willard Richards and John Taylor, who were both present in the jail with them. Not Richards, Taylor, or Hyrum himself, totally understood the implications.

    “Many have wondered why Hyrum’s family came west and Joseph’s family stayed behind.

    “When Willard Richards and John Taylor reported the events of the murders, they included some of the last words Joseph said to his older brother.

    “Joseph’s words in part were:

    “‘One day it shall be you who finishes what I could not. May the Lord’s work be cut short in the righteousness of what you will do for him.’

    “Joseph’s family, as well as a few other prominent leaders, believed the right of succession lay with Joseph Smith III.

    “The charismatic Brigham Young convinced people otherwise.

    “When Richards and Taylor testified of what they had heard, (something, for obvious reasons, the LDS Church, in times past and currently, would not discuss), this gave Brigham strong support to convince many that Joseph’s son should not be the successor.

    “Brigham and others felt the authority and succession of the church should remain with the lines of priesthood authority. Brigham persuaded Hyrum’s family to side with him, convincing them that their descendants would indeed be involved in the continuation of the “work of the Lord,” as Joseph testified, if they would follow him out west. John Taylor and Willard Richards were somewhat convinced that is what Joseph might have meant.

    “What LDS historians do not report, because they do not know everything that transpired at that time, is the turmoil Joseph’s and Hyrum’s family were in, particularly in light of what Taylor and Richards had reported.

    “Hyrum’s family wanted their fair share of succession authority, and with the support of Brigham Young, they knew they would receive it.

    “John Taylor supported Brigham because he knew he would succeed him as the next President of the LDS Church one day.

    “Brigham curried Willard Richard’s favor by making him Second Counselor in the First Presidency.

    “And what of HYRUM SMITH’s family?

    “Two of his descendants became Presidents of the LDS Church and many others held prominent positions of authority within the Church.

    “Of course, it is common knowledge that not one member of Joseph Smith’s immediate family or his descendants had any thing to do with the LDS Church, led by Brigham Young!

    ______________________________________________

    Christopher made another startling, bold and controversial pronouncement connected to the Smith family that will not sit well with LDS Church and its leaders:

    “In the Smith Family plot in the Salt Lake City Cemetery located by the large memorial shrine erected by his progenitors and dedicated to HYRUM SMITH, the faithful brother of Joseph who was killed by his side, there is only ONE corner burial plot remaining…

    “The owner of that burial plot is none other than CHRISTOPHER MARC NEMELKA, the translator of the sealed portion of the gold plates and the ONE chosen by the resurrected Joseph Smith Jr., to finish the work that he himself did not complete, while in the mortal flesh.

    “It is in this burial plot, this CORNER of the entire SMITH FAMILY legacy, that CHRISTOPHER MARC NEMELKA will one day be buried.

    “AND ON THE HEADSTONE IT WILL READ:

    (Front Heading)

    “SMITH / NEMELKA

    Hyrum Smith Christopher Marc Nemelka

    Born: February 9, 1800 Born: December 2, 1961

    Died: June 27, 1844 Died:

    “In the Carthage Jail on June 27, 1844, in the presence of Willard Richards and John Taylor, and just a few moments before Joseph and Hyrum Smith were murdered, Joseph smiled upon his older brother Hyrum, took his hand and said, ‘One day it shall be you who finishes what I could not. May the Lord’s work be cut short in the righteousness of what you will do for him. I love you my brother, my friend.’ With that prophecy, the resurrected Joseph Smith Jr. returned to the earth on June 16, 1987, and gave further instructions to his then reincarnated brother Hyrum, who was born into this world as Christopher Marc Nemelka, to finish the MARVELOUS WORK AND WONDER of the Lord, Jesus, the Christ, that his brother and friend, Joseph Smith Jr. had started.” (www.thesealedportion.com)

    (These exact words will appear on the headstone prominently placed on that burial plot sometime before the year 2012).

    Ida Smith is one of the most courageous women this world has ever known. She is unafraid to speak her mind or stand her ground whether against the machinations of her powerful LDS family and well connected LDS “friends” who abandoned and rejected her, or the behemoth LDS Church—regardless of the consequences that may follow.

    Ida Smith’s life will be memorialized by this MARVELOUS WORK AND WONDER, and her legacy made known to future generations through her up-coming memoirs entitled, MY JOURNEY TOWARDS THE LIGHT, the autobiography of Ida Smith, great, great granddaughter of HYRUM SMITH.

  11. Joe Geisner
    September 13, 2009 at 7:43 pm

    Rico,

    Interesting post. Thanks for the link to his book. I downloaded it and put it in my file. At some point I hope to give it a better look.

    The idea of some one presenting texts from ancient records who happened to be connected to Joseph Smith or the Restoration movement is not unique. James Strang and Francis Gladden Bishop come to mind. Strang had a vision where plates would be found and sent three or four followers to find the plates. Strang then translated the plates. For more information on Strang I suggest Vickie Speek’s very good book “God Has Made Us a Kingdom”. I reviewed the book and the review can be found on Signature Books website. Bishop claimed to have received the gold plates, breast plates, interpreters and sword of Laban. He described these in detail to a congregation in the Kirtland Temple 1851. Bishop also sent a Proclamation to Brigham Young with the details of these items. For information about Bishop I suggest the excellent book “Differing Visions” ed. by Launius and Thatcher.

    Two modern works that I know of that deal with sealed portions of the Book of Mormon can be found in “The Sealed Portion of the Brother of Jared”. Just do a search for this and it will pull up their website. Both volume 1 and 2 are available to download from their website. It appears they have some connection to Independence Missouri. I don’t know much about their group. I bought vol. 1 when it first came out and have only given it a cursory view. The other work is by Stan Johnson called “Translating the Anthon Transcript”. This is a document held in the Community of Christ archives titled “Caracters” and may be the actual Anthon Transcript Smith gave to Harris. Someone translated the Hofmann-Anthon Transcript and it was slated for publication in a BYU Studies. Unfortunately the article and translation was pulled because of suspicions about Hofmann.

  12. Cowboy
    September 13, 2009 at 8:14 pm

    Forgive my candor, but the answer to this question really seems quite simple, theologically speaking. The whole basis of Mormon epistemology, which is said to be the cause of why so many are able to accept Joseph Smith’s equally unbelievable story, is the claim that God communicated to each of them individually the truthfulness of the Mormon message. The Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith and the First Vision, the restoration of Christ’s Church and Authority, are all said to have been certified through the power/influence of The Holy Ghost. This witness is purported to be so convincing that Mormon recipients push the barometer of faith well beyond the mark of belief, to claim that they actually “know” that their religion is “true”, etc. If that is the basis by which Mormons have so compellingly learned to discern religious truth, wouldn’t this also be the logical means of approach for discerning Mr. Nemelka’s claims too?

  13. Heber13
    September 13, 2009 at 9:36 pm

    On my mission, I dealt with a woman in the church claiming to have visions, being called a prophetess to finish what Joseph started, where the church had gone wrong, and what needed to be “restored again”.

    It did make me think a lot about what i would do if I heard Joseph’s story, and if I would dismiss it as easily as I dismissed this lady I met, and as easily as I seem to dismiss these claims by Christopher.

    It is a matter of faith, of spiritual witnesses, not a matter of “could it be possible?” In my mind, it clearly could be possible…for with God, nothing is impossible. However, I feel no spiritual draw to the words being said. And that is what I must base my faith on, what I believe to be truth to me. I don’t dismiss Christopher all together based on one blog thread, but nothing seems to point me towards seeking it out any further.

    There were many during Joseph’s times that also proclaimed many marvelous visions and great things…but none have withstood the test of time nor built an organization so large and influential in the world than what Joseph claimed to recceive.

    There will always be false prophets. I think we are all entitled to know if prophets are from God or not.

    I agree with Cowboy, the Holy Ghost is what should be used to discern Mr. Nemelka…I believe it is no different than Joseph Smith’s remarkable claims. To date, I’ve receied a witness of Joseph Smith…I don’t feel that same way to Mr. Nemelka.

  14. sxark
    September 13, 2009 at 9:41 pm

    How many will loose their way following this well crafted pretty dribble?

  15. marks
    September 13, 2009 at 10:27 pm

    Where are the 2 or 3 witnesses required. Joseph had 11, 3 special.

  16. Awesome Dave
    September 13, 2009 at 10:31 pm

    I am reading through the intro right now, and I wanted share an excerpt:

    “I guess [Joseph Smith] perceived my doubts of his presence, because he reached out his hand, lifted me up, and placed me in one of the chairs”…”i wanted to embrace my grandfather, but was told I could not; because he had not yet received a body mortals could feel” pg 585

    Of course, there are errors in the B of M as well, so I guess (as cowboy said) it comes down to a spiritual witness to discern the truthfulness of his claims.

  17. Awesome Dave
    September 13, 2009 at 10:35 pm

    Strike that, reverse it. his grandfather appeared separately…I’ll go back to reading :-(

  18. September 13, 2009 at 10:44 pm

    Please view sealednot.wordpress.com

  19. Heber13
    September 13, 2009 at 11:23 pm

    To take these claims serious, you’d have to believe the LDS church is fallen or never carried on Joseph’s authority to believe these kinds of things would come from traditional channels. It this addressed in any of his writings?

  20. hawkgrrrl
    September 13, 2009 at 11:31 pm

    Rico – you and James do find some interesting stuff out there! Are we going to have a post from James on the Harold B. Lee murder conspiracy cover-up? Joking aside, I have met people like this (perhaps not to this extent) who felt that they alone really understood what the LDS church was supposed to be doing. In a few cases, they sent letters to the FP to course correct the church and received some form of rebuke as a result. Some published books and then pursued their own dogmas, ultimately leaving the church. I often suspected they either suffered from some form of mental illness or just lacked the judgment to hold their fanaticism at bay.

  21. sxark
    September 13, 2009 at 11:34 pm

    Here is a tricky part:

    Is Satan aware of some certain facts concerning the people of the Book of Mormon that we are not yet aware of today? And should some of these ‘details’ be revealed at a later date by the President of the LDS Church and some may match up with what Christopher has written, – would it not be a great test for investigators of the LDS Church, as well as many of it’s members?

  22. sxark
    September 14, 2009 at 12:22 am

    Heber13:

    Your #13 – interesting/good observation.

  23. Peter
    September 14, 2009 at 12:26 am

    I read parts of it. I’ve read a little on his biography. His initial claims seems interesting, but he his recent history shows him to have devolved into a clown and he’s really gone off the deep end. Christopher has claimed to some that he made it all up to show people how easy it was to be a Joseph Smith. – I have labeled it under “nice try.”

  24. sxark
    September 14, 2009 at 1:55 am

    Peter:

    re #23 I hope your right, but it does look like Christopher has put more than just a little effort by the looks of his web page. It’s just the thing to attract enemies of the LDS Church, especially atheists who could care less about any truthfullness Christopher might claim. To those non-members, who may be luke warm about religion in general, Christopher has provided enough information to stir up confusion concerning a topic that requires reading, studying, and pondering on a more concentrated level in order to discover truth.

    LDS members have enough problems dealing with what they currently have. – as evidenced by all the issues raised at Mormon Matters and other similar sights. Some LDS members proudly proclaim to be on the fringe of current LDS theology and practices as evidenced by their own web sights.

    Exposure to something like Christopher has created, provides new information that will challenge quite a few people. If you are correct that Christopher has said that he has made all this complicated stuff up, – could you provide a source where he stated that it’s all made up just to show how easy it was for Joseph Smith to do the same thing?

    It just seems to me, that if Christopher has gone thru this much effort, that he would not just give it all up. Why now? – when he is on a good role? He could make some money out of this.

  25. September 14, 2009 at 2:01 am

    re 24:

    sxark, see the FAIR page. It’s really quite comical what Chris’s history is. http://en.fairmormon.org/Christopher_Marc_Nemelka

    # “My whole purpose, though, was to write the sealed portion. Get the sealed portion done. Sell it to the church. My whole idea was to sell it to the LDS church. I was going to sell it to them, because all the Mormons are looking for the sealed portion to come back. I thought I had a good talent for writing. I was going to write it up and sell it to them. They could do with it what they wanted. They probably would have kept it off the market.”

    # “I set about in my own mischievous and arrogant way, of which I’m not proud of now, to prove that a person could actually write scripture and present it to people who were looking for certain scripture…I was playing on the belief that LDS people have that one day the gold plates would be returned and the sealed portion would be translated. Basically, I set about to write a fictitious version of the sealed portion as I thought Joseph Smith would have written it had he continued to perpetuate his translation of the gold plates. Much to the chagrin of the LDS church and others, what I wrote was indeed well versed and quite appropriate for the scripture I was trying to portray. Anybody who reads it would just be totally amazed.”

    # “My true intent was to somehow perpetuate a religion that would be based on true Christian principals of Christ-like love…Where I made my greatest mistake, for which I’m now extremely sorry for, is that I used deception to perpetuate what I proposed as the truth, assuming at the time that Joseph Smith had done the same thing.”

    among others

  26. sxark
    September 14, 2009 at 2:29 am

    AndrewS:

    Thanks,

    I was just referring to Christopher’s web page, provided in the preamble. It looked impressive to me – with no disclaimers.
    I thought his plan to eliminate poverty and inequality throughout the world with the “World Wide United Foundation” would be perfect for those who may want to make a few bucks. If he shuts everything down, based on what FAIR said he said, I would be happier. – But…it doesn’t look like he is shutting anything down.

  27. Rico
    September 14, 2009 at 4:54 am

    I should say that I read it because of my friend and wanted to give a considered answer. I would not have read it otherwise, but because I had not heard it before I thought I would put it up here.

    As for the witnesses issue he appears to have some followers, at least at one point.

    He does believe the Church has gone astray and has tried to sue the Church.
    #12-13 – I totally agree. I did not feel anything.

    #6 – I take your point, but as with most things we do in life, some can interest us briefly and still give us time to really read the new P/RS manual. I was not expecting anyone to read at length his work, moreover, I think from the evidence of what he has written and the other interviews he has given it is clear that Christopher is a little confused.

    #10 – Thanks BHodges I had not read that. It seems his ideas are moving on past his original claims.

    #7 – I agree with you as well. I felt particularly uncomfortable with his treatment of the temple and only read a little before I realised where it was going. What made me look elsewhere was that he quoted his own scripture to explain what he was doing. I then started reading that.

  28. Dan
    September 14, 2009 at 5:28 am

    um, this is false. Chapter 12 is where he begins the leading you down the path of apostasy, wherein he states that the latter day church leaders are not true. This doesn’t read at all like what Moroni would say, but rather like how a 20th century person would think Moroni would say. For example, chapter 15:

    6 And I, Moroni, would that ye should know that unto some the truth of these things was revealed. And this truth hath been corrupted and changed over the course of the history of the children of men. For some have written concerning a fallen angel who came down upon the earth and enticed the daughters of men to engage in sexual intercourse.

    7 And others have misinterpreted the words that are found in the book that proceeded out of the mouth of the Jew, in which they say: The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

    That’s not Moroni’s voice at all!

    In chapter 16, the writer goes from spelling Adam and Eve’s murdered son Able to Abel on several occasions. Chapter 18 supposedly highlights Moroni’s vision of the hypocrisy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Heh…

    In chapter 20, Adam supposedly expounds and explains the evils of the family unit. Ha! Like Adam would call it the “family unit.” It goes on and on and is generally best described as gobbledygook. Here’s the problem. This guy attempts to show that he’s the dude God called to translate the sealed portion, and most of what I saw came from Moroni’s stuff about the brother of Jared. But, that’s not quite right, at least according to Mormon. And remember, this is The Book of Mormon, not the Book of Moroni. Mormon is the one who was writing the history of his people. Moroni, from what you can see of Ether, wasn’t really that interested in history, or even theology. He wrote quickly and in short manner. Mormon is the real expounder. Anyways, here’s the scripture that puts a nail in the coffin of this piece of gobbledygook:

    http://scriptures.lds.org/en/3_ne/26/6-12#8

    6 And now there cannot be written in this book even a hundredth part of the things which Jesus did truly teach unto the people;
    7 But behold the plates of Nephi do contain the more part of the things which he taught the people.
    8 And these things have I written, which are a lesser part of the things which he taught the people; and I have written them to the intent that they may be brought again unto this people, from the Gentiles, according to the words which Jesus hath spoken.
    9 And when they shall have received this, which is expedient that they should have first, to try their faith, and if it shall so be that they shall believe these things then shall the greater things be made manifest unto them.
    10 And if it so be that they will not believe these things, then shall the greater things be withheld from them, unto their condemnation.
    11 Behold, I was about to write them, all which were engraven upon the plates of Nephi, but the Lord forbade it, saying: I will try the faith of my people.
    12 Therefore I, Mormon, do write the things which have been commanded me of the Lord. And now I, Mormon, make an end of my sayings, and proceed to write the things which have been commanded me.

    That states quite clearly that what is in the sealed portion, or what is given to us by our faith, is what Jesus taught the Nephites, not what the Brother of Jared saw.

  29. MrQandA
    September 14, 2009 at 8:07 am

    The BOM, teaches many great and important things, We would highlight the passages that point to Christ, and how we could live a more Christlike life. We would invite others to study with sincerity and ask God with real intent. “I doubt many have studied the teachings of Christopher with real intent.

    I agree God would reveal truth through his prophets in an organised manor, However the OT shows that God has not always followed this supposed line of authority when apostasy has set in.

    Dan, The BOM has had many changes including names and grammatical errors. The BOM is also full of colloquialisms that are very specific to Joseph’s time ie. Steel. finally the Bible teaches that we should not add or take away from it.

    I’m also not convinced by criticisms of Christopher’s personality, Joseph’s name is known for both good and evil. my point is that if judgements are made by a yard stick then that same yard stick should be made for other judgements.

    Swedenborg’s account also shows that he is willing to reveal truth outside of a Prophetic mantle.

    measure that fruits of his work if you want? ask for spiritual confirmation if you wish. I personally feel no desire to look into it further, this could be the spirit informing me their is no real worth to be found, or am I just being stubborn, prideful and closed minded similar to some long term investigators.

  30. jjackson
    September 14, 2009 at 8:15 am

    #14 sxark
    Sep 13th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
    “How many will loose their way following this well crafted pretty dribble?”

    Just to confirm, the above is a quote from a review in 1830, right?

  31. September 14, 2009 at 10:00 am

    re 26:

    sxark,

    Well, here’s the thing…those quotes he had were taken earlier in the whole scheme of things. AFTER he made those (rather incriminating) statements, he turned completely around and decided to fully act out the story as if it were 100% real. You can see this in the FAIR section “Later developments.”

    I find it so ironic that the apologists also go out of their way (throughout the FAIR site I linked) to try to “slam dunk” the case that the sealed portion is a forgery…when their task usually is to cook up unlikely sounding ad hoc defenses of writings.

  32. Think About It
    September 14, 2009 at 10:01 am

    All this poo-poo-ing of the Sealed Portion sounds awfully familiar to what we read in 2 Ne. 29, which was written for our day. Just like those who in Joseph’s day scoffed at the Book of Mormon, most commenters here thus far have reacted as if to say: “A Book of Mormon! A Book of Mormon! We already have a Book of Mormon! We have no need of any more Book of Mormon!” Think about it: are you who dismiss the Sealed Portion without having first approached it with an open mind, reading, pondering, and praying about it, then praying to God with a sincere heart and real intent if it is not true — how are you any different from those who scoffed at Joseph in his day?

    More parallels between you modern scoffers at the Sealed Portion and the scoffers at the Book of Mormon in Joseph’s day:

    1. Scoffers dismiss new claims unless they come from existing ecclesiastical authorities.
    2. Scoffers are easily offended by the idea that truth might come outside the power structure of their existing church.
    3. Scoffers are looking for someone worldly and wise, with professional accomplishments, college degrees, and dress nicely in a business suit rather than the clothes of a common man.
    4. Scoffers claim to believe in God and prayer, but don’t even bother to take the time to pray to God about things like this.
    5. Scoffers make a big deal over trivial errors of man in genuine translations by the power of God. FARMS and FAIR folks should especially be ashamed of themselves for taking the tactics of anti-Mormons and applying them to the Sealed Portion, disingenuously refusing to apply their own rules of apologetics to the Sealed Portion. If they had the will, FARMS and FAIR folks could find chiasmus and other evidences of the authenticity of the Sealed Portion.
    6. Scoffers take carnal security in the fact that they belong to a “big” church, whereas the person who brings new truth necessarily has a small church as it is planted as a seed.
    7. Scoffers look to their clergy to tell them whether their own clergy has gone out of the way, rather than listening to a chosen messenger outside their own tradition.

    I could go on and on. But just think about it: how are you who scoff at the Sealed Portion any different from those who scoffed at Joseph Smith in his day?

  33. brjones
    September 14, 2009 at 10:17 am

    #4 – MrQandA, I respect your intellectual honesty. At least you have self-awareness enough to recognize the intellectual inconsistencies in your initial reaction to this matter as compared to the Joseph Smith story. I don’t really know what you’re supposed to do with that, but I find the attitude of many comments in this thread distasteful for the sole reason that they refuse to even acknowledge that something like this would be possible, or to apply to it the very methods that they have long claimed are to be used in determining truth. That doesn’t mean I think it’s true, but from an outsider’s perspective, the inconsistency is glaring.

  34. Think About It
    September 14, 2009 at 10:22 am

    Also, have you guys ever stopped to think: enemies of righteousness made up all sorts of false, crazy stories about Joseph Smith in his day. If there was a true messenger for our day, wouldn’t you also expect the devil to inspire people to ridicule and spread lies about the true messenger? (Comment #10 above is a perfect example of lies being told about this true messenger.)

    Think about it: Satan is going to try to keep you away from the truth by telling lies about true messengers, like the translator of the Book of Mormon, or the translator of the Sealed Portion. They slandered Joseph with their poisoned pens, and they’re slandering the translator of the Sealed Portion now as well. And we’ve all been told thousands of times that persecution is a sure sign that the devil is trying to stop a divine work. So ironically, all of this persecution of the Sealed Portion and its translator only serves to validate its divine origin. And so once again, no unhallowed hand can stop the progress of the Lord’s work.

  35. Hypocrisy Abounds Here
    September 14, 2009 at 10:35 am

    brjones (33), right on!

    They mock and ridicule the Sealed Portion without giving it a fair chance, but you can bet that if someone in his 80′s or 90′s with the name Elder or President were to get up at General Conference and officially endorse the Sealed Portion, most of them would swallow it hook, line, and sinker without a second thought. Those members who would question the Sealed Portion on intellectual grounds would then be shunned, disfellowshipped, and excommunicated, and the gears of the FAIR and FARMS folks would immediately swing into action to find Hebraisms, linguistic similarities, and parallels between ancient Near East cultures and the Sealed Portion that the uneducated Marc Nemelka could have never known about. And if any anachronisms were to be found in the Sealed Portion, or anything unsupported by the archaeological record, or linguistics, or genetics, the FARMS and FAIR folks would come up with a way to make it all possible, or at least make it all seem so foggy and complex that none of us could hope to make sense of it all, causing us to abandon our critical analysis of the Sealed Portion and causing us fall back on the authority of the Prophet’s endorsement of it.

  36. Greg
    September 14, 2009 at 10:43 am

    “They slandered Joseph with their poisoned pens, and they’re slandering the translator of the Sealed Portion now as well.”

    Oh, please. The name Marc Nemelka will never be more than a very, very small blip in the world’s history. Joseph Smith Jr. is another story entirely.

  37. brjones
    September 14, 2009 at 10:51 am

    #36 – Greg, I happen to agree with you, but do you honestly not see the irony of your attitude?

  38. Think About It
    September 14, 2009 at 10:56 am

    Greg (36), Joseph Smith has a big head start on Marc Nemelka, so it’s no surprise his name isn’t as widely known. Indeed, you have a conflict of interest in making such an assertion because you, who now go about speaking ill of Marc Nemelka, then turn around and point to the fact that he is not more widely and well regarded as an evidence against his status as a true messenger. Do you not see how you are personally fabricating the evidence you are citing against him?

  39. Rico
    September 14, 2009 at 11:02 am

    ‘Think about it’ and ‘Hypocrisy abounds Here’ – I think it would be a good idea to post under the one name. It will enable everyone to discuss fairly.

    As I note in the original post I am not convinced by the claims because I was not inspired. I also recognise that I may close myself off from these impressions because I would not expect God to work in this way because of some of the views I already hold. The point at which I became uncomfortable, rather than just uninspired, was Christopher’s discussion of the Temple. I agree with Jen that some things which are sacred should not be shared publically.

  40. Greg
    September 14, 2009 at 11:14 am

    “…do you honestly not see the irony of your attitude?”

    Let’s see… The Book of Mormon was first published in March 1830 and Joseph Smith officially established the restored church in April 1830. Other relevant events like giving Joseph keys and priesthood authority happened in close proximity to those events. God apparently wanted Joseph to do more than just publish a book and whine about those who didn’t choose to follow him. Other things happened and the church quickly grew into a relevant and productive organization, giving plenty of weight to the idea that God really had something to do with it.

    So, no, there isn’t any irony in my dismissal of Marc Nemelka.

  41. brjones
    September 14, 2009 at 11:36 am

    #40 – Greg, there is plenty of irony in your dismissal of Marc Nemelka, and it has nothing to do with whether or not he speaks the truth. If you think for one second that the thoughts and feelings you are expressing about Nemelka are substantially different from those thought and felt about Joseph Smith by non-mormons in the 1800s, you’re deluded. Again, this has no bearing on the truthfulness of either JS or MN as prophets. But it’s a fact that the aspersions and dismissal that you are directing at MN are VERY similar, and in many cases identical, to those directed at JS in his day. It doesn’t mean you’re wrong, but it is, in fact, ironic.

  42. September 14, 2009 at 11:39 am

    Feel free to argue its worth on what it says. Are you in agreement with reincarnation, homosexuality, plurality of gods, you chose your god? Speak about the doctrine, we have them for all to see.

    sealednot.wordpress.com

  43. Clay Whipkey
    September 14, 2009 at 11:43 am

    “Other things happened and the church quickly grew into a relevant and productive organization, giving plenty of weight to the idea that God really had something to do with it.”

    I always cringe with these kinds of arguments. Mohamed revealed scripture quite a bit before Joseph Smith and Islam has certainly grown into a “relevant and productive organization” (largest religion on the planet, in terms of members, right?). Are you sure you want to use this criterion as your measuring stick for what God has “something to do with”?

  44. John M.
    September 14, 2009 at 12:02 pm

    Here is a link to an interesting article in City Weekly in which Nemelka admits he is a fraud.

    http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/article-2707-true-believer.html

    He has attempted to sue the Church multiple times for slander and defamation, but his own words always come back to bury him.

  45. Dan
    September 14, 2009 at 12:14 pm

    MrQandA,

    #29,

    Dan, The BOM has had many changes including names and grammatical errors. The BOM is also full of colloquialisms that are very specific to Joseph’s time ie. Steel. finally the Bible teaches that we should not add or take away from it.

    I’m also not convinced by criticisms of Christopher’s personality, Joseph’s name is known for both good and evil. my point is that if judgements are made by a yard stick then that same yard stick should be made for other judgements.

    My judgment against this “Sealed Portion” is that it is not the “Sealed Portion” as Mormon described it in 3 Nephi 26. If this attempt to create the “Sealed Portion” cannot even align itself with what the original author said, there’s absolutely no point in listening to anything this individual says. He is a liar. I’m sure he means well, and I’m sure he is passionate and sincere, however, he has been led astray by the devil in this matter.

    What indications are there from the Book of Mormon which Joseph Smith gave us that God intended for someone outside the Restored Church to bring forth the “Sealed Portion?” It seems to me that, according to the words of Mormon, the Sealed Portion will only be released when those who receive the unsealed portion (The Book of Mormon) are faithful to the covenants found therein. And the only individual who can make that kind of judgment is the Lord’s ordained, and anointed prophet on the earth. Today that man is Thomas S. Monson. There is no indication from the Lord that Thomas S. Monson is not His Prophet. Thus if someone is out there making an argument that the current church has gone astray, who has no verifiable authority besides the things he himself wrote, then he is a liar.

    I look forward to the day when I can read the actual sealed portion and see what words of wisdom Jesus Christ gave to the Nephites, which Mormon said was one hundred times more than what he wrote down. I look forward to that.

  46. Dan
    September 14, 2009 at 12:16 pm

    Clay #43,

    “Other things happened and the church quickly grew into a relevant and productive organization, giving plenty of weight to the idea that God really had something to do with it.”

    I always cringe with these kinds of arguments. Mohamed revealed scripture quite a bit before Joseph Smith and Islam has certainly grown into a “relevant and productive organization” (largest religion on the planet, in terms of members, right?). Are you sure you want to use this criterion as your measuring stick for what God has “something to do with”?

    It has been said by our modern day prophets that Mohamed was an actual prophet of God. The same with Siddartha.

  47. brjones
    September 14, 2009 at 12:26 pm

    “There is no indication from the Lord that Thomas S. Monson is not His Prophet.”

    This is a matter of opinion. Again, I’m not saying he’s not a prophet, but I think there are many, many people who feel that there has been plenty of indications that Thomas S. Monson is not his prophet; some of them even members or ex-members of the mormon church. How do you know that there hasn’t been any indicatio that Thomas S. Monson is not his prophet? Because the church would have told you so. According to the mormon concept of stewardship, you are not entitled to receive revelation pertaining to anything outside of your family or church sphere of authority, so you’re not entitled to receive revelation about who the prophet is. Therefore, the only way you can know whether Thomas S. Monson is the prophet is for the church to tell you so. This framework is inherently problematic. One of the enduring brilliances of Joseph Smith is that he told the people that they could know the truth of holy things through the holy ghost. I don’t see what the problem is in using that method to determine the truthfulness or falsehood of Nemelka, or anything else.

  48. Dan
    September 14, 2009 at 12:43 pm

    brjones,

    #47,

    If there were any doubt that Thomas S. Monson would not be the Lord’s prophet, there would have been serious alarm bells going off. Let me put it this way, there is only one time in the Restored Church’s history where there can be doubt as to who the Lord wanted to run the church, and that is after Joseph Smith’s death. The question was, which man should lead next? Brigham Young, or Sidney Rigdon. The two squared off for all to see, in a public matter, where all could have made a decision. For those who attended, the testimony is essentially the same: they saw that Joseph’s face fall on Brigham Young’s face, and they felt Brigham speaking in the same voice as that of Joseph. Those who thought Ridgon should have been prophet certainly have an argument to make that this was not a good way to shift the mantel. Obviously it would probably have been easier if God had been there to say “I choose Brigham,” but alas he didn’t. Since that time, I know of no other incident during transition that would question the right of the next individual to be prophet. Thus, since Brigham Young, all who have served as prophets have been truly God’s anointed on earth. Now, according to Joseph, people have a right to question whether someone is truly God’s prophet, and a vote is held, twice a year, in fact. When the overwhelming majority do not see a problem with the current prophet, I don’t either. The rationale being that most of the overwhelming majority are not necessarily blind, and if God truly did not want someone claiming he is prophet when he isn’t, then surely God would warn more than just a fringe of the population. Just look at the Renaissance period and the utter discontent the corrupt Catholic church bred. Generally speaking, most people are not stupid. If Thomas S Monson were not God’s prophet, there would be far more red flags and far more discontent than there is right now.

  49. Really?
    September 14, 2009 at 12:45 pm

    “There is no indication from the Lord that Thomas S. Monson is not His Prophet.”

    Is that really the standard? The default assumption is that someone is a prophet unless God provides positive proof that someone is NOT a prophet?

    There’s no indication from the Lord that Whoopi Goldberg or Fluffy the Clown or that you or I are not prophets either. So where does that leave us?

  50. Greg
    September 14, 2009 at 12:53 pm

    The fact that a religious leader has a significant following is not, in itself, proof that the religion is true. So Islam may or may not be true, by this standard. But if a “prophet” writes scriptures and has no sigificant following then I take that as a pretty good sign that God is NOT interested in having that person as a leader of a significant church.

    And then you say, “But wait! Moroni didn’t have a lot of followers either. So you must think he was a false prophet.” Nonsense. Moroni didn’t publish his writings and he knew he wasn’t supposed to lead a great church in his lifetime. By the time his words were published, the time was right for a great church to be established too.

  51. Dan
    September 14, 2009 at 1:03 pm

    Really?

    #49,

    There’s no indication from the Lord that Whoopi Goldberg or Fluffy the Clown or that you or I are not prophets either. So where does that leave us?

    Actually there is indication from the Lord that Whoopi Goldberg or Fluffy the Clown or you or I are not prophets. 1. Neither of these four individuals have received any calling to it. 2. Neither of these four individuals make a claim that they received a calling to it. 3. There already are individuals who make a claim that they received a calling to it. 4. God has, through His Holy Spirit, given us the answer as to which of them He considers His prophet.

    Greg,

    #50,

    The fact that a religious leader has a significant following is not, in itself, proof that the religion is true.

    Clearly, and my argument was not over the truth of a religion, but just an indication that when there is question over authority, there are clear and significant signs about whether that individual was to lead or not. Note that in the case of Mohammed, during his time, there was no question, but after his death, his sons and others squabbled to such a point that there is still a significant division within Islam as to who is authorized to speak for God for the Islamic world. In fact, there is no actual leader today. There is not one individual who speaks for all Islam. And it has to do with the fact that after Mohammed, there was no one who God had chosen to lead them further along.

    But if a “prophet” writes scriptures and has no sigificant following then I take that as a pretty good sign that God is NOT interested in having that person as a leader of a significant church.

    Can you name me an actual prophet of the Lord who has written scripture who never got a significant following? I can’t. Because it doesn’t exist. There are plenty of examples of false prophets, and within that category there are some who succeed in getting followers and others who utterly fail.

  52. Really?
    September 14, 2009 at 1:07 pm

    Greg,

    And then there are people like Samuel the Lamanite whose words should have been regarded as scripture, but weren’t, because his truth didn’t come through the channel that the Nephites expected. And so the Nephites mocked and ridiculed and tried to kill him, so Samuel wasn’t able to develop a following either, even though he was a true messenger.

  53. Dan
    September 14, 2009 at 1:27 pm

    Really?

    #52,

    So you are arguing that those who are discounting this dude who wrote this fake Sealed Portion are doing so because they are otherwise wicked, sinful, boastful and prideful? The Nephites who tried to kill Samuel the Lamanite were considered deep in sin. Is this the argument you are making now? That I am deep in sin? That I’ve raped people? That I’ve killed people? That I’ve trampled on the commandments of God?

  54. September 14, 2009 at 1:29 pm

    #47 BrJones,

    Dan answers all questions with one statement (#51) “4. God has, through His Holy Spirit, given us the answer as to which of them He considers His prophet.”

    God has already given us a way to know whether or not a man is a Prophet or if a book is true, that way is by the spirit. Go ahead, find out for yourself if this lost pages book is true or not. In my opinion, we don’t always have to kneel and pray to feel the spirit. Many times we can just look at something or study it a little bit to have the spirit confirm something’s truth.

    The spirit tells me that this is a fraud and that the truth is not there.

    ’nuff said.

  55. Dan
    September 14, 2009 at 1:43 pm

    One final note, Mr. Nemelka himself states the following:

    “My true intent was to somehow perpetuate a religion that would be based on true Christian principals of Christ-like love…Where I made my greatest mistake, for which I’m now extremely sorry for, is that I used deception to perpetuate what I proposed as the truth, assuming at the time that Joseph Smith had done the same thing.”

    “Yeah that’s, that’s all bull****,” Nemelka said from jail. “All the revelations are bull****, of course. I made ‘em up.”

    I don’t ever recall Joseph Smith ever, and I mean EVER making a claim that his revelations were bull****. No real prophet would ever joke about revelations from God.

    How could anyone take this guy seriously, even seriously enough to do a post like this at Mormon Matters?

  56. brjones
    September 14, 2009 at 2:11 pm

    #48 – Dan, thank you for demonstrating that you have read the history books produced by the church.

    I especially liked this part of your comment: “For those who attended, the testimony is essentially the same: they saw that Joseph’s face fall on Brigham Young’s face, and they felt Brigham speaking in the same voice as that of Joseph.” I appreciate someone who doesn’t let historical details stand in the way of a good faith promoting story.

    And to you and Ian Cook I reiterate my statement simply that Nemelka’s claims should be held to the standard that has been given by the church and the scriptures. Ian, if you feel you’ve received an answer from the spirit, that’s great. I’m not saying you have to spend the day on your knees in prayer over it. I think, though, that it’s tough to argue that the vitriol and hatefulness being evidenced by Dan are fruits of the spirit. I would just add that when I read an unvarnished history of Joseph Smith, the sick feeling I get in my stomach is similar to the one you feel when thinking about Nemelka’s claims. And for all of Dan’s rantings about how holy JS was and what a liar Nemelka is, I have yet to see any allegations of Nemelka’s behavior that come close to some of the things that Joseph Smith did in his lifetime. But go ahead, Dan, and continue to juxtapose Joseph Smith and his life of unblemished virtue against Nemelka, because Nemelka is a liar. And Joseph Smith was what? Not a liar? Maybe we should ask his wife about that.

  57. Really?
    September 14, 2009 at 2:40 pm

    Dan (53),

    Of course I’m not accusing you of any such evil, but you are not correct in asserting that all the Nephites who failed to accept Samuel the Lamanite were guilty of such sins. See 3 Nephi where Christ rebukes even the righteous Nephites who survived the calamities after Christ’s crucifixion and got to personally meet the Savior because they had failed to accept Samuel the Lamanite as a true messenger and had therefore failed to regard his inspired words as scripture.

    The lesson we see there is that even those who are righteous members of the true Church that are righteous enough even to meet the Savior are nonetheless capable of erroneously dismissing true messengers as being a fraud.

    Just as most of the world has done to Joseph Smith. It doesn’t make them evil; it just means their minds are not open to new truth because it does not come from a source that their religious traditions recognize as being valid.

  58. Dan
    September 14, 2009 at 2:57 pm

    Really?

    #57,

    I reject the notion that something authoritative from God is facilitated through a man who himself claims he is a fraud!

    #56,

    I went into reading (and yes I actually read Mr. Nemelka’s tome) with an open mind. Almost immediately I saw problems. Number one, the biggest reason to consider this piece false is that it doesn’t fit the description of what Mormon states are the “sealed portions” of the Book of Mormon he (Mormon) wrote! If you cannot even get past that, there’s no hope. The whole piece is the Brother of Jared and Moroni, and there is no indication in the Book of Mormon that that was what was in the “sealed portion.” It’s quite clear there in 3 Nephi 26. You may not like it, for some odd reason. You’ll plug your ears and say “la la la I can’t hear you.” I really don’t care. I went into this with an open mind. But this piece fails miserably at what it attempts to be. It is an insult to what Mormon describes to be the ‘sealed portion.’

  59. Really?
    September 14, 2009 at 3:31 pm

    Dan,

    I’m surprised it has not occurred to you that the story about Nemelka admitting to have made it all up is a lie authored by the devil and spread by the devil’s followers.

    Have you not likewise heard the story by Emma Hale Smiths’ father that when he cross-examined Joseph about all his treasure seeking activities that Joseph broke down and confessed to have never had any spiritual seeing abilities despite his telling people he did?

    Are you likewise unaware that one of JS’s friends claimed that JS told him that he’d made up this story about gold plates just to joke a little with his family and he was surprised they were falling for it so he was continuing the story just to have some fun with them?

    So as with Nemelka, there were people in Joseph’s day who claimed that Joseph had admitted his fraud to them. By what standard do you reject their testimony about Joseph but accept the testimony of Nemelka’s detractors?

    I see you grasping at straws to identify some clear-cut, black-and-white set of rules that you can consistently follow to validate Joseph Smith but invalidate Marc Nemelka. The problem is that each rule you offer gets disproven (most recently, I see you’ve abandoned your arguments re Samuel the Lamanite). Someone else erroneously suggested here previously that God has a clear-cut plan where there’s only one person speaking for God on Earth at a time. That’s obviously not the case because there were prophets and apostles both in Israel and in the Americas for hundreds of years according to the Book of Mormon.

    At some point, if you exercise enough intellectual honesty, you will realize that all of these supposed tests you’re trying to develop to validate Joseph Smith and invalidate Marc Nemelka don’t hold water, except one: The test of reading, pondering, and praying about the book of proposed scripture and seeking a spiritual confirmation from the Holy Spirit about its truthfulness. This obviously involves some subjectivity, but let’s just acknowledge that and move on.

    For all these other quasi-objective rules you’re trying to come up with, one could cite dozens of counter-examples to disprove them. So why try to develop additional tests to invalidate Nemelka that, if applied consistently and honestly to Joseph Smith, would invalidate him as well? This is the irony that a few of us here are amazed that you and a few others here apparently can’t recognize.

  60. Amos
    September 14, 2009 at 3:32 pm

    There’s a vibrant and long-running discussion and debate about Namelka’s Sealed Portion on an old blog post of mine:

    http://bookofmormononline.net/blog/the-sealed-portion#comments

  61. September 14, 2009 at 3:59 pm

    #59 Really?

    “Are you likewise unaware that one of JS’s friends claimed that JS told him that he’d made up this story about gold plates just to joke a little with his family and he was surprised they were falling for it so he was continuing the story just to have some fun with them?”

    I’m curious about this one, where are your sources? I don’t recall reading this in “Rough Stone Rolling” or anywhere else.

  62. Dan
    September 14, 2009 at 4:13 pm

    Ian #61,

    Probably in an anti-Mormon tract.

    #59,

    I believe you know something by its fruits. Jesus taught us that principle. I see several branches that have root in Joseph Smith. Sidney Rigdon’s branch split off and went nowhere. The RLDS lasted for some time, but eventually diminished into very little left. You’ve got polygamous groups whose branches are stuck 100 years in the past. And then you have Brigham Young’s branch, which has flourished into a magnificent creation. Sorry man, but Mr. Namelka’s attempt is a failed, dying branch.

    What does he think he is doing? He’s castigating the current Latter Day Saint church, and yet, his only audience is this very group who he is castigating. Currently the only ones who defend him are those who are critical of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. And their branches die quickly.

    Now, maybe if he sells his stuff to the Baptists… but the Baptists know not to touch this kind of radioactive stuff. They dismiss this kind of stuff outright. So how exactly is Mr. Namelka attempting to gain followers? What is he doing right now? Is he still in jail? Does he have followers who go out and preach his word? Does he call himself a prophet? Who is to lead if the current Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is wrong? Who is in charge?

    This is a dead branch, Really?

  63. Really?
    September 14, 2009 at 4:13 pm

    Ian,

    I believe that one is found in one of the affidavits gathered by Dr. Hurlbut and eventually published in E.D. Howe’s “Mormonism Unvailed”. It’s been quoted in non-Church biographies of Joseph Smith, such as No Man Knows My History, I believe.

  64. Heber13
    September 14, 2009 at 4:35 pm

    #59, Really?
    I like your argument and think that of all people, Mormons should be open to the idea of the heavens are opened and revelation of new scripture is clearly a possible way that the Lord works with his children. The heavens are not closed now that we have the BoM. Yet there is order to God’s work.

    I like Elder Wirthlin’s words when comparing access to informatin from the Internet to revelations:
    “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints declares boldly that through another type of window, the windows of heaven, we can access spiritual information from the Source of light and truth. “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.” In this dispensation of the fulness of times, the revelation superhighway has been carrying heavy traffic of eternal truth ever since that day in the spring of 1820 when the Lord answered a farm boy’s fervent prayer in the Sacred Grove and ushered in the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

    We are blessed to live in these, the latter days, when a loving Heavenly Father has called a great leader, President Gordon B. Hinckley, as prophet, seer, and revelator. Through him, the Lord opens windows of revelation to guide and bless all of our Father’s children who will heed the words of the prophet. Today, as in ancient times, God opens windows of gospel light and truth by revealing “his secret unto his servants the prophets.” Those who have “eyes to see, and ears to hear” can learn eternal principles; view majestic vistas of knowledge, foresight, and wisdom; and receive direction on how to live their lives.”
    Joseph B. Wirthlin, “Windows of Light and Truth,” Ensign, Nov 1995, 75–78.

    I think since the first days of the church, the reality that revelation was taught in the church, personal revelation for guidance in our personal lives, and an authorized prophet, seer, and revelator to receive God’s word for His established church. Anyone who has ever had a leadership calling should know that revelation comes from many sources, not always just the President. Counselors receive thoughts and promptings, members or councils also do. But it must always be ratified by one holding keys, or you must choose the person holding the keys is fallen or the person holding the keys to that office is speaking for the Lord when accepting or denying the proposed ideas.

    Certainly these same types of questions were difficult tests of faith in church history around polygamy and after Joseph’s death, and people had to make judgments based on faith if the church fell into apostacy or continued through Brigham Young.

    It is not impossible to think we will be faced with the same tests of faith today. I completely agree that Christopher’s story in theory is just as plausible as Joseph’s story, but doesn’t even seem close be being taken serious by the current church leadership nor the author himself (admitting he wrote it as a project to prove scripture could be man-made [my words, not his]).

    As true Mormons, we can’t dismiss this on a whim because it didn’t come from Pres Monson, as if God is going to remove tests of faith and make everything simple…just blindly follow the LDS leaders and all is well. No. We need our personal liahona today to guide us through a modern wilderness of uncertainty and doubt, just like families did in Lehi’s day, and in Joseph Smith’s day. Our faith will be tested, and we must be on watch to know the false teachings of those that cry “lo here and lo there” from true revelation from God (whether inside the church or out). This one just isn’t really that hard to tell, IMO. I give it no further thought until the church or the Spirit prompt me to search its words in more detail.

  65. Heber13
    September 14, 2009 at 4:45 pm

    #61 Ian:
    Bushman did address this in RSR, although accounts were sketchy and there was some conjecture that with pressures to provide for Emma and please the in-laws, that emotional things were said that could be construed to Joseph admitting things were made up. The sources are somewhat queationable if Emma’s father or brother were accurate in recording this, as they were never really believers of Joseph’s mission, and one could understand being protective of a daughter/sister.

    Besides that one sketchy account…nothing Joseph did or said throughout the rest of his life support such conjecture.

    It is something that should be considered, however.

  66. sxark
    September 14, 2009 at 4:52 pm

    Really re #59:

    Did the witnesses who touched the golden plates “joke a little” on their death beds when they confirmed again their experiences to be true? – even when they were no longer members of the Church?

    #45 Dan – Good points, – You hit the nail on the head and reinforce #9.

    #47 brjones – Sorry, you are completely wrong concerning revelation as to who is or is not a prophet etc.

    I think Christopher has done a pretty job and has provided enough info to stir up confusion. [see #24]
    And the possibility does exist that Christopher has recieved inspiration in his endeavor. – But from what source?

    re #21 – Is it not possible that Satan has information concerning certain events etc. about the people of the Book of Mormon as well as Joseph Smith that the LDS Church does not have today?

    Suppose, for a moment, that either something is revealed thru proper channels or discovered in Central America or where ever, that contains some info that Christopher has written that is currently not known to the LDS Church?

    Would this not then, be a wonderfull test for all?

    By far – the best comments yet to refute Christopher is [#45-Dan]. There can only be one at a time [prophet] that speaks for God concerning mankind in these latter days. There is a promise that the LDS Church would not be led astray and that it would survive until the 2nd comming.

    If Christopher was so special, – it would not have been a problem for God to move him into the line of succession. But why do that? – When a Prophet is ‘in place’ now. If the Church is corrupted, as Christopher claims, the ‘corruption’ would have been dealt with [by Heaven] at the time to prevent the Church from going astray.

    My advice to ‘Really’ and all his/her friends, is: – Hurry up! You still have time to junp on Christopher’s bandwagon and get yourself a new wheel barrel for the ‘ton of money’ you can make by being a Leader and Promoter of Christopher’s logic. [check out his World Wide United Foundation - its a gold mine]

    The rest of us will stick with our testimonies. – no matter how weak they may be.

  67. Cowboy
    September 14, 2009 at 4:54 pm

    I am totally unaware of any direct endorsement of Muhammmed by the Church. I am about the farthest thing from a scholar on Islam, but I have read substantially from an english rendering of the Qur’an. According to the Qur’an, Jesus was a great Prophet (second to Muhammed I believe), who was nearly executed. In order to protect him however, God placed Jesus’s likeness onto another man who then was crucified in Christ’s place. Doesn’t quite square with what The Book of Mormon teaches. I believe Neil A. Maxwell had a little to do with some Muslim officials in the late 90′s, where he offered some friendly remarks about God inspiring people all over the world throughout time, but I was never led to believe that this an official declaration on Islam from the Church. To be honest, unless I am misunderstanding Muhammeds take on Jesus, I find the notion quite unlikely.

    Joseph Smith mentions in his history that he was often guilty of “levity”, and offers very little explanation. Suffice it to say, I am not sure we can say that Joseph Smith didn’t trivialize his religious claims at some point in time. Lastly, I cannot think of any logic test that would pass scrutiny that could be applied to this situation, which would clearly demonstrate the errors of Nemelka, while giving high plausibility to Joseph Smith. Given the nature of their claims, I reiterate that the best we could hope for is a substantive divine manifestation from God. What confuses me, is that every sunday school child knows the sales pitch for properly bearing and LDS testimony, relate to Moroni 10:3-5. What is surprising is that very few writers seem go that route intuitively. What makes this even more surprising, is that Search, Ponder, and Pray, are the only protocols in this situation that satisfy a logical M.O.

  68. brjones
    September 14, 2009 at 4:58 pm

    Dan, you’re doing a great job of avoiding the point. You subscribe to a religion that teaches that you should determine truth by the power of the holy ghost, and yet you continue to defend your logically driven position that the unsealed portion doesn’t make sense. Well when I read the BoM and read about horses on the american continent, that’s factually inaccurate. It’s not true. That’s how I know I don’t need to bother reading on. I would guess you would have a slick answer to that problem, yet you declare this other work false based on a simple factual analysis. What’s the difference? Obviously the difference is that one case supports your preconceptions and one doesn’t.

  69. Really?
    September 14, 2009 at 4:59 pm

    Heber13,

    I think your response summarizes well the Church’s position: each of us individually can receive personal revelation from God through the Holy Spirit, but that our revelations must be in harmony with what those holding the priesthood keys have said.

    In my opinion, this is one of the more fascinating paradoxes in Mormon doctrine: the idea that each individual is a free spirit empowered to communicate directly with God through the Holy Spirit, coupled with the idea that there are “priesthood keys” that empower a select person or small group of men to say definitively what God’s will is, and that anyone who claims to have received personal revelation not in harmony with what those holding the priesthood keys have said, then such persons are, by that very fact, demonstrating that their personal revelation is wrong.

    In this way, the LDS concept of personal revelation becomes like the magic 8 ball we used to play with when we were kids, only the possible answers have all been altered to say that the Prophet is Right. Sure, we have the freedom to shake up the 8 ball and get an answer for ourselves, but the accepted and approved answers have already been determined for us by someone else holding authority.

    It’s an interesting epistemological system indeed, and it’s fascinating to me to watch how it plays out in various circumstances like this Sealed Portion example. In the end, when the Prophet holds the trump card of revelation, and our attempts to get personal revelation are like shaking the magic 8 ball to get the pre-determined, officially-approved answer, it seems like the idea that we get truth through a system of Authority wins out over the idea that we get truth directly from God through the Holy Spirit.

  70. lucidluck
    September 14, 2009 at 5:04 pm

    For those that have tried to find parallels to “Nemelka is being treated by you LDS the same way others treated Joseph Smith, God knows the devil will cultivate oppression and slander his name as did Josephs… etc.” Thats more then a stretch. Nemelka’s claims are entirely inconsisitent with the teachings of Joseph Smith. Rather then bring up these idiotic and pointless hypotheticals about Nemelka being rejected just as Joseph, how about you reconcile Nemelka’s claims with the teachings Joseph set forth in regards to authority, revelation, and the Kingdom of God. It cannot be done.

    Putting aside the ridiculous claims he has made in the past and his obvious denouncements, his claims cannot stand if he is to proclaim Joseph as the revealer… it is entirely contrary to what Joseph taught.

    As far as claims about the prophecy in Nephi in regards to “we have a Bible, and we need no more” those are entirely without a foundation. I doubt anyone here is claiming that we do not need any more scriptures and if they are they are ignorant of what the restoration is all about. The concern is not that we have no room for more scripture, its that when it is brought forth is will be brought forth in its proper channels.

    Nemelkas claims absolutely destroy the validity of the restoration and dispensation of fullness of times. He cannot claim Joseph to have taught him and revealed these things it simply undermines all that Joseph taught and revealed. He only has a credible argument logically if he claimed Joseph was a fallen prophet * hence Joseph would have no need to reveal these things to him.

    For those that entirely dismiss Nemelkas claims, Good Job, nothing to see there. Its idiotic. And for those that try to point out a double standard and shame those that know better then to fall for this crap or give it any credibility to it, you obviously don’t understand the position of the restoration as well as you should. Just because someone makes a claim similar to how the restoration began does not require our attention, in fact it should reject it.

  71. Jack
    September 14, 2009 at 5:05 pm

    Re: Getting a personal witness Nemelka’s writings–

    I tried. But I got tired of kneeling by the bed then having to get up to turn off the bullshit detector.

  72. brjones
    September 14, 2009 at 5:06 pm

    Sxark, you are dead wrong. I am absolutely correct as to who is entitled to receive revelation and for whom, according to the church. The only person/people who are EVER in a position to declare who is or is not the prophet on the earth is the Quorum of the 12 as a body. Even though the line of succession has been established, the 12 formally choose the new prophet each time there is an opening. They would be the only people ever on the earth who would be authorized to declare who is the prophet. Such a determination is outside the stewardship of any other living person.

  73. Dan
    September 14, 2009 at 5:13 pm

    Cowboy

    #67,

    http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=da79e2270ed6c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

    We believe that the fulness of the gospel of Christ has been restored, but this is no reason for anyone to feel superior in any way toward others of God’s children. Rather, it requires a greater obligation to invoke the essence of the gospel of Christ in our lives—to love, serve, and bless others. Indeed, as the First Presidency stated in 1978, we believe that “the great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.” 25 Thus, we have respect for the sincere religious beliefs of others and appreciate others extending the same courtesy and respect for the tenets we hold dear.

  74. Cowboy
    September 14, 2009 at 5:13 pm

    Jack:

    I know the feeling all to well.

  75. Really?
    September 14, 2009 at 5:14 pm

    Oh Dan (62), here we go again with another of your failed attempts to devise a rule that validates Joseph Smith but invalidates Marc Nemelka.

    You play the numbers game again, saying the LDS church must be true b/c of its numerical superiority to other JS-based restoration branches. But if numbers of followers is the test, why are you not a Catholic? Following your logic, isn’t the Catholic church’s numerical superiority proof positive that God wants Catholicism to succeed and thrive?

    Your appeal to numerical strength also fails because it is highly dependent on what point in time you’re examining the religious movement. Should people have concluded in April of 1830 that JS couldn’t have been a true prophet because there were only 6 members of his church? That’s the same argument you’re making against Nemelka now, when Nemelka is in the initial stages of trying to start a movement.

    Also, if you want to appeal to numbers, doesn’t it strike you as a little odd that God would create a One True Church that only the Israelites and the Nephites/Lamanites are able to belong to (only for a few decades at a time when there’s a true prophet around), then removes that Church altogether for the space of 1800 years, then re-establishes it in 1830 to eventually gather . . . I hope you’re sitting down here . . . less than .002% of the world’s population (most of whom are inactive) in the first 180 years of its existence? That’s our “fruitful branch”?! If you’re impressed by numbers, you’re better off siding with the Catholics or some other world religion like the Muslims.

    As for your attempt to discredit Nemelka for being in jail, do you recall that Joseph Smith was also in jail several times during his lifetime?

    Again, you need to read my comment #59. You’re grasping at straws in trying to come up with some quasi-objective rule to validate Joseph Smith and invalidate Marc Nemelka. Just say you prayed and God told you JS was a prophet but that God told you MN wasn’t. That’s the only rule that’s going to work in this situation.

  76. brjones
    September 14, 2009 at 5:17 pm

    Lucidluck, thanks for joining the parade of those who absolutely fail to grasp the point. Joseph Smith is not the final word on revelation, prophets, or any other point of mormon theology. I find it astounding that you all fail to see this. I happen to agree with you about the nature of this unsealed book, but that too is beside the point. It’s merely illustrative. The LDS church believes in ongoing revelation, and even that written scripture can be superceded if it’s the lord’s will. So maybe this doesn’t constitute the lord’s will, but you’re wrong to act like it couldn’t be. It could be if the lord wants it to be. Nothing joseph smith ever said precludes that. How can you deny this? The lord has backtracked on definitive, “final” declarations by prophets on numerous occasions, and could do it again any time he chose.

  77. Dan
    September 14, 2009 at 5:20 pm

    brjones,

    #68,

    Dan, you’re doing a great job of avoiding the point. You subscribe to a religion that teaches that you should determine truth by the power of the holy ghost, and yet you continue to defend your logically driven position that the unsealed portion doesn’t make sense.

    That’s because my religion also teaches me to ponder things first in my mind. If there’s no chance for something to make sense, then it is most likely not true. Now, it may end up being that if I discount something logically that that thing may end up being true in the end. I’ll grant you that. But everything about this Nemelka guy is just wrong. He’s a nobody. He’s got the littlest of influence, and he himself stated that he is a fraud. There is simply no need for me to even go further in judging that his tome is gobbledygook.

    Well when I read the BoM and read about horses on the american continent, that’s factually inaccurate. It’s not true. That’s how I know I don’t need to bother reading on

    Honestly I don’t care. Enough of the story made sense that I actually prayed and asked God if Joseph Smith was his prophet. The answer was a very strong affirmative. The rest falls into place. Do I really care if there were no actual horses in the BoM? Please, that’s nothing. My critique of Nemelka is substantive. He claims his piece is the “sealed portion” but it’s focus is on Moroni and the Brother of Jared, when Mormon clearly states that the “sealed portion” is Jesus’s teachings to the Nephites. I’m going to go with Mormon over Nemelka. That’s just me.

    Secondly, if you reject the Book of Mormon over horses, how could you even support Nemelka? After all, he is basing his story on the Book of Mormon you reject! Really dude, what are you doing here defending Nemelka?

    I would guess you would have a slick answer to that problem, yet you declare this other work false based on a simple factual analysis. What’s the difference? Obviously the difference is that one case supports your preconceptions and one doesn’t.

    The difference is reality. One adheres fairly closely to what it purports to be. The other does not. That’s as simple as it can be set.

  78. Dan
    September 14, 2009 at 5:21 pm

    Jack,

    #71

    Spot on dude!

  79. Really?
    September 14, 2009 at 5:25 pm

    LucidLuck (70)

    Oh brother, another attempt to create a quasi-objective rule to validate JS while invalidating MN. The rule being proposed this time: that the Sealed Portion is inconsistent with the statements of pre-existing authority (i.e., JS).

    This is exactly the same type of argument that Alexander Campbell, founder of the Campbellites, made to discredit Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. Like lucidluck is now arguing, Campbell argued that the new book of purported scripture in his day, i.e., the Book of Mormon, could not be true because it was inconsistent with the pre-existing authority in his day: the Bible. For example, Campbell pointed out Old Testament scriptures that make clear the Levites, and only the Levites forever and ever, have the authority to perform sacrifices, give thank offerings, etc. under the law of Moses. Yet in the first few chapters of the Book of Mormon, we find Lehi — who is from the tribe of Joseph/Manasseh not Levi — doing those very things that the Old Testament makes clear only Levites will ever be authorized to do! So Campbell dismissed the BOM for this and many other reasons due to its being inconsistent with the pre-existing authority of their day (i.e., the Bible). And in the same fashion, you’re trying to invalidate MN’s Sealed Portion for being inconsistent with the pre-existing authority in our day, i.e., Joseph Smith.

  80. Heber13
    September 14, 2009 at 5:26 pm

    #76: brjones: Well said.

    I don’t think there is any validity to the Sealed Portion … its actually humoruous to me.

    However, the bigger picture is not this specific issue, but what about the next…or the next, or the hypothetical high ranking church officer who speaks out against the prophet.

    The point is that it COULD happen, and we should understand the properties of revelation and how God works with His children, or we are no better than the 5 foolish virgins whose lamps were empty and tried desperately to get their fuel from others who were more prepared for the circumstances.

  81. Dan
    September 14, 2009 at 5:27 pm

    Really?

    #75,

    First off, can you get a better username please. :)

    Your appeal to numerical strength also fails because it is highly dependent on what point in time you’re examining the religious movement. Should people have concluded in April of 1830 that JS couldn’t have been a true prophet because there were only 6 members of his church? That’s the same argument you’re making against Nemelka now, when Nemelka is in the initial stages of trying to start a movement.

    Uh, didn’t he write this in the 1990s? I thought that’s what I saw in the various sources I looked at online. http://en.fairmormon.org/Christopher_Marc_Nemelka According to that, he completed his “sealed portion” in 1993. That was the year I graduated high school! I can’t believe how long ago that was! If we are to compare Nemelka’s timeline with Joseph Smith’s, by this time, Joseph is already dead and the movement has moved on to Brigham Young, numbering in the thousands, if not tens of thousands.

    As for your attempt to discredit Nemelka for being in jail, do you recall that Joseph Smith was also in jail several times during his lifetime?

    I wasn’t saying anything at all about him being in jail. I could care less his personal life. Note that I say not a thing about it (which from what I’ve seen is quite colorful). I’m talking solely about his work.

    Just say you prayed and God told you JS was a prophet but that God told you MN wasn’t. That’s the only rule that’s going to work in this situation.

    No prob. I prayed and God answered me that Joseph Smith was his prophet. And because of that, the rest of them down the line are prophets of God, down to Thomas S. Monson. As the Lord’s Spokesman on earth, Thomas S. Monson hasn’t said a thing about Nemelka, as such, I completely discount and dismiss Nemelka as a fraud and a liar. You happy now. :)

  82. Dan
    September 14, 2009 at 5:30 pm

    brjones,

    #76,

    The LDS church believes in ongoing revelation, and even that written scripture can be superceded if it’s the lord’s will. So maybe this doesn’t constitute the lord’s will, but you’re wrong to act like it couldn’t be.

    Speaking just for myself, I began reading this with an open mind. There’s no way for you to trust me that I did, but I did. I immediately hit upon problems with his text. The very first and most important one being that his “sealed portion” does not match what Mormon says about the “sealed portion” Mormon was commanded not to insert into his Book of Mormon. From that point, it just doesn’t matter what else is said. The rest is a fraud.

  83. Really?
    September 14, 2009 at 5:38 pm

    Dan, I wish you all the best in your spiritual journey. I can see from your writings that when the chickens of your fundamentalist mindset come home to roost, you’re going to fall, and you’re going to fall hard. When you do, just take comfort in the fact that many people who were equally as convinced as you of the absolute truthfulness of their position have since come to realize that the rules you’ve applied to discredit MN today do not bode so favorably for JS when applied with consistency, intellectual honesty, and open-mindedness, rather than insisting that any analysis of JS must reach the officially-mandated conclusion that decades of instruction and pervasive social expectations have conditioned us to reach.

  84. Dan
    September 14, 2009 at 5:42 pm

    whatever dude. I guess in the afterlife, I’ll come down to visit you in the Terestrial Kingdom. :)

  85. Really?
    September 14, 2009 at 5:51 pm

    Do you really think I’m actually Terrestrial material? I’m flattered by the compliment. :)

  86. Dan
    September 14, 2009 at 5:53 pm

    haha, don’t you remember the criteria for Terestrial?

    75 These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men.

    See, you’re an honorable person. :)

  87. Heber13
    September 14, 2009 at 5:58 pm

    Very crafty, Dan. Very crafty.

  88. lucidluck
    September 14, 2009 at 6:02 pm

    brjones you are the one that has completely failed to grasp my point. I never said anything like this “Joseph Smith is not the final word on revelation, prophets, or any other point of mormon theology”

    Pay attention, and try to comprehend my point this time. Its obvious Joseph is not the final word on revelation or theology. It is also obvious that Joseph laid out the Lords foundation and channel through which such revelation will come. That was the point of the restoration, to reveal the priesthood and keys of the priesthood, without those the church is nothing.

    What priesthood keys were restored again through Nemelka, and what authority does he really have? Why would Josephs mission be to restore the priesthood and establish the Kingdom of God NEVER to be taken away, only to suddenly contradict this exact mission just because Nemelka claims it so.
    Why should i give any heed to someone that works OUTSIDE the established outline and order of revelation that God has revealed in this final dispensation. The answer is I should not, and have no reason to if I believe the claims of the restored Gospel.

  89. Really?
    September 14, 2009 at 6:10 pm

    lucidluck said: “Why would Josephs mission be to restore the priesthood and establish the Kingdom of God NEVER to be taken away, only to suddenly contradict this exact mission just because Nemelka claims it so.”

    Ever wonder why Jesus’ mission would be to restore the priesthood and establish the Kingdom of God only for it to all apostatize within a few decades? From a Catholic’s perspective, our claim that their church became corrupt and that we later needed an obscure person like Joseph Smith is completely inconsistent with your position that it’s outside the realm of the possible that JS likewise established a church that eventually became corrupt, thereby needing people like MN to restore truth. Why is your mind so open to the idea that the church established by Christ could become corrupt, but that the church Joseph established could not? I know that LDS leaders have said the church won’t be corrupt, but how many Popes do you think have acknowledged their church could become corrupt and lose its authority? Don’t you see a conflict of interest there?

  90. Heber13
    September 14, 2009 at 6:14 pm

    #88 “Why should i give any heed to someone that works OUTSIDE the established outline and order of revelation that God has revealed in this final dispensation. The answer is I should not, and have no reason to if I believe the claims of the restored Gospel.”

    One reason is you could find some wonderful and beautiful things that enlighten your soul beyond just what is revealed within mormonism.

    Do you see how many times President Monson does, or Neal A Maxwell did, quote text from non-Mormon authors (CS Lewis, Thoreau, de Tocqeville)? I personally like a lot of Buddhism to compliment my mormon truths.

    Don’t get caught up thinking mormonism bottled up all truth, and nothing else is of value. That’s a small bottle in a big universe.

  91. MrQandA
    September 14, 2009 at 6:32 pm

    “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good”

  92. September 14, 2009 at 6:50 pm

    Here’s the guy that removed our posts from his thread:

    >>#60 Amos
    >>Sep 14th, 2009 at 3:32 pm

    >>There’s a vibrant and long-running discussion and debate about Namelka’s Sealed Portion on an old blog post of mine:

    You’re a sleeper for C.N.?

    sealednot.wordpress.com

  93. sxark
    September 14, 2009 at 6:53 pm

    Really:

    Interesting points you make in #89, but doesn’t #66 answer some of your points? It is a good question as to why Christianity did not take proper hold after Christ and His Apostles – according to LDS theology. Perhaps it was due to ‘freedom of choice’ all humans have.

    Christopher writes on his web page: “There is no religious or political group associated with this work”. What are your thoughts [Really] about Christopher? Would you consider joining his movement?

  94. Cowboy
    September 14, 2009 at 7:14 pm

    Dan:

    I am afraid that your quote from James E. Faust is little more than a polite smile and wave in effort to be neighborly with our religious competetion. You could stretch the meaning and argue from a loose position that in a sense, muhammed was a Prophet, in that God may have influenced some of the “good” things he contributed through Islam. You will be hard pressed to get a specific enumeration of what those things are, and more to the point this statement is not intended to suggest that Muhammed was a Prophet in any Mormon kind of way. In other words, that he held Priesthood keys, etc. It is further problematic to make a strong case here given that Islam in all of it’s forms (of which I am aware), as taught by muhammed, discounts the central point of Mormonism, ie, Christs Atonement.

    It is interesting however, that you will take this gesture towards Islam from President Faust, as an as matter of fact endorsement for Muhammed, and easily brush aside all of the theological inconsistencies and implications of such a notion. Yet, on the other hand, the claims made by Nemelka will not suffice given that they appear inconsistent with your reading of The Book of Mormon. Personally I don’t buy Nemelka’s claims either, but also don’t buy Joseph Smiths. I am having trouble seeing the logical case you are trying to make, where selectively some claims are accepted while other are rejected on no recognizable standard.

  95. Dan
    September 14, 2009 at 7:29 pm

    Cowboy

    #94,

    Put simply, as #71 states, it just doesn’t pass the bullshit detector.

  96. brjones
    September 14, 2009 at 9:14 pm

    Lucidluck, thanks for clarifying. I’ll admit that it can be moderately more difficult to follow someone saying the exact same thing when they say it in a slightly different way, but I think I managed. This is a boring discussion. You have stated plainly that you believe god is bound by the principles joseph smith expounded. Fine. Just admit it. Then admit that you don’t don’t truly believe in ongoing revelation, but merely a watered down version of revelation, whereby god is confined to the parameters of doctrines that he gave JS 170 years ago. I love how you apologists rush to disclaim every unsavory thing JS and BY did by claiming that “it was a different time so the rules were different,” but don’t hesitate to invoke the unalterability of mormon dogma when anyone advances an idea that makes you uncomfortable. For what it’s worth, there’s no part of me that believes the unsealed portion of the BoM is true. Frankly it makes your condescending hypocrisy seem all the more petty. You should save that side of your religion for something worth your time.

  97. brjones
    September 14, 2009 at 9:53 pm

    By the way, Dan, I have no problem believing that you gave this material a fair shot. I’m in no position to tell anyone else whether they are sincere or not. My point was never that if you’re sincere you’ll feel that maybe it’s true. Furthermore, I don’t think anyone, mormon or non, is obligated to give it a fair reading. My point was simply that it’s inappropriate to condemn it as false or evil without truly attempting to receive confirmation either way. I think this is especially true for mormons, whose entire religion was founded on the principle that individuals may commune with god and receive his will outside of accepted channels.

    In any event, Dan, I intuited from your posts that you had rejected this work out of hand simply based on its subject matter, so if I misinterpreted your motives, I apologize. I don’t think one person can judge another’s claim of spiritual confirmation of the truth or falsehood of a things.

  98. sxark
    September 14, 2009 at 10:17 pm

    Will any here, who lustfully went for the throats of those who were critical of Christopher’s writings, – now openly support Christopher and his quest to bring this new information to the world?

    Will you now go a step foward – and give a formal endorsement of Christopher Nemelka and his efforts?

  99. brjones
    September 14, 2009 at 11:01 pm

    Sxark, I don’t know that those supporting him were any lusty than those criticizing him. There were a number of personal aspersions cast against him. I personally have no idea who any of these people are, and make no endorsement of them, formal or otherwise. My gripe was with some people’s interpretation of mormon theology. And whenever I go for someone’s throat, I always try to do it lustily.

  100. brjones
    September 14, 2009 at 11:03 pm

    Last comment should say “any MORE lusty”

  101. lucidluck
    September 15, 2009 at 1:03 am

    #90 I have no idea what gave you that idea, but i am in complete agreement that we should seek truth out of the best sources, your idea that Mormonism is the only source of truth is no where represented in my post. With that said, it in no way addressed the issue of Nemelka. Nemelka has no truth in his claims, and the fruit he produces is of no value.

    #96 It is indeed boring and might I add rather irritating when you still cannot comprehend what I have stated. What I have said is clear, your understanding is not. Do not bring apologetics into the mix, I am not very fond of it. I understand you may be bored because you cannot see the simple conclusion I set forth earlier, but there is no need to make absurd lies and claims about me that are based on nothing but your ignorant view of myself.

    “You have stated plainly that you believe god is bound by the principles joseph smith expounded. Fine. Just admit it. Then admit that you don’t don’t truly believe in ongoing revelation, but merely a watered down version of revelation, whereby god is confined to the parameters of doctrines that he gave JS 170 years ago”

    I believe MEN are bound by what God reveals, and God has revealed how he works, and the principles of revelation. God has every right to REVEAL when and where he wants, but it will be consistent in the way he has since the beginning. You cannot give me one example of God revealing binding truth for the his people through anyone but a prophet with his authority, it cannot be done and never will. God has been clear on that, you apparently do not understand what he has taught on that principle. Nemelka is working against the laws that God has set forth, He has NO authority and no priesthood restored to him. As far as I know he does not even bother to claim as much. Nemelkas claims go against everything that was revealed by GOD in regards to the restoration. He is a liar and a coward if his claims are real and he denounced them all in order to get a lesser penalty by law, but I digress, his glaring contradictions to what God HAS revealed alone should raise a red flag even to the weakest of minds.

    #89 Really?
    Really? is a good way to begin my response to your absurd analogy and strawman. Your points are quite ignorant and your conclusions hold no water. Christ and the apostles made it clear the church would fall into apostasy. I appreciate the Catholic interpretation, but the popes and the catholic church were not formed until LONG after the death of Christ and the priesthood was corrupted and taken from the saints, they are entitled to their man made church and interpretation, but it is of no concern to me. God DID make it clear that this priesthood would not be corrupted and that this kingdom established through Joseph would remain through time and stand to welcome the savior in his second advent. Nemelka contradicts everything that God revealed AND that Joseph Smith taught. He has no foundation. If he were to claim Joseph was a fallen prophet early on etc. etc. and God called him to restore again the Gospel, and translate the sealed portion of the book of mormon, he would at least have a foundation. You are the close minded and are not willing to see the absurdity of his claims nor the ridiculous nature of it all. The fool dug his own grave basing a restoration off of the FINAL restoration.

    for those who continue to bring up ridiculous analogies and useless arguments, how about you “open my mind” and teach me contrary to what I have stated. For those that cannot grasp the ideas i put forth I will make a list of some of my arguments that way i do not have to see stupid responses that do not address any of the issues i presented.

    1. Where does God teach that he will reveal his priesthood and bindning doctrines for the his people to any one other than his prophet?
    2. Where does Joseph Smith teach that this dispensation of the fullness of times will apostatize and require ANOTHER restoration?
    3. Where does Joseph smith teach or God REVEAL that the kingdom of God will be taken away before the coming of the Lord again?

    I did not claim to be a restorer of the Kingdom JOSEPH SMITH restored, Nemelka did, whether you want to play the arrogant and silly ” JOSEPH TAUGHT THAT, BUT GOD CAN TEACH DIFFERENT ! ” card is of no concern, but Nemelka MUST reconsile what Joseph taught CLEARLY with what he claims, which cannot be done.

  102. sxark
    September 15, 2009 at 1:41 am

    lucidluck:

    I see this issue in more simpler terms. I’ll show my ignorance and admit that I don’t know how to set up a web site, so Christopher Nemelka’s site looks impressive to me. It looks like he went into depth and did alot of work on it.

    An investigator of the LDS Church will find it difficult to discern who is telling the truth. [see #24] And should Nemelka come up with something that is later discovered to be true, something that the present LDS Church has not shown yet,- then the problem becomes bigger and takes new form.

    The answer, so far is simple – as expressed in #34 and #9 and probably yourself. There can only be one Prophet at a time, to reveal those things that Nemelka claims and that Prophet was not Nemelka. The promise was made long before Nemelka, that the Church would not be permitted to stray – and if it would have strayed, Heaven would have allready intervened long before Nemelka.

    But all this means nothing to investigators, – they will just have to read, study, and ponder a little more to find truth.

    I think the critics of LDS members should embrace Nemelka and join his organization and should state so here. What a wonderfull opportunity for them.

  103. sxark
    September 15, 2009 at 1:46 am

    lucidluck:

    Your views on #21, please.

  104. MrQandA
    September 15, 2009 at 2:39 am

    I have made my feelings clear, I have no interest in Christopher’s teaching. My reaction is mealy a defence of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young.

    Brigham Young taught false doctrine in the “God Progresses and Adam God Theory”.

    Do you not see that your attacks on Christopher are echoed onto those we love and revere.

  105. Dan
    September 15, 2009 at 4:47 am

    brjones,

    #97

    In any event, Dan, I intuited from your posts that you had rejected this work out of hand simply based on its subject matter, so if I misinterpreted your motives, I apologize. I don’t think one person can judge another’s claim of spiritual confirmation of the truth or falsehood of a things.

    It is indeed the subject matter. It doesn’t add up to what it purports to be. The Fair Mormon website that I linked to earlier did a quick analysis of this man’s claim to the 116 page lost manuscript, which he wrote up as the Book of Lehi, and based on simple structure, they deduced that Mr. Nemelka had only 41% of the content actually needed in order to be a full 116 pages of written manuscript. He wrote at only 220 words per page, when Joseph’s Book of Mormon averaged like 580 words a page. These kinds of details will kill you, easily expose you as a fraud. There can’t be this kind of error if it was genuine. In terms of the “Sealed Portion” it must fit within the criteria that Mormon himself gave for what was the “sealed Portion” which it doesn’t. As such, it is dismissed as a fraud without even having to touch the content of the text.

    Anyway, I’ve said my peace.

  106. Heber13
    September 15, 2009 at 9:10 am

    #101. Thanks for clarifying, the way I read into your post, it sounded like you were saying that if it didn’t come through approved Priesthood channels that the Lord restored in our day, then there is no value in looking into the source. The Lord would only reveal truth through his servants, the prophets, which you were defining as LDS church leaders ordained as such.

    Do you agree with that statement?

    Regarding Nemelka, I haven’t spent very much time, but the small amount I did, I tend to agree with you that there is no fruit worthy of anything there.

    However, I think it is dangerous to close our minds to any source outside the church, which is what you did allude to when you said in #88:
    “What priesthood keys were restored again through Nemelka, and what authority does he really have? Why would Josephs mission be to restore the priesthood and establish the Kingdom of God NEVER to be taken away, only to suddenly contradict this exact mission just because Nemelka claims it so.
    Why should i give any heed to someone that works OUTSIDE the established outline and order of revelation that God has revealed in this final dispensation. The answer is I should not, and have no reason to if I believe the claims of the restored Gospel.”

    Please clarify your point. Do you find it of value to look at sources outside the church, or do you believe all truth will come through the church leaders?

  107. Cowboy
    September 15, 2009 at 9:12 am

    Dan: #95

    I’m with you, my reaction say’s not true. Though I must admit, that could probably be due to the fact that my gut says the same thing about Joseph Smith.

  108. Heber13
    September 15, 2009 at 9:52 am

    Cowboy, you raise an interesting point. If Joseph Smith was a fraud…there is no possible way Nemelka could be speaking the truth, if the rest of the “unsealed” portion was false. Nemelkas claims all hinge on JS. Joseph’s do not hinge on anything or anyone, other than standing on its own as either true or not, based on a promised witness from the spirit.

    Actually, Nemelka’s whole work is based on the assumption that gullible mormons who believe JS produced the BoM should be shown how any man can produce a book of scripture like the Sealed Portion. So there is no way to take him seriously. Either he is proving Joseph Smith was a fraud LIKE HE IS, or he fails at trying to do what Joseph actually did. Either way, Nemelka is a fraud.

    Joseph, on the other hand, produced something completely unique and different from any other spiritual leader in our country’s history.

  109. sxark
    September 15, 2009 at 10:08 am

    Nemelka may be a fraud, but he has not said anything like that on his web site. I think he sees the success of the LDS Church and he wants a part of that pie. He is setting himself up as a living martyr by just being a true messenger to mankind etc. And he wants to unite all religion. I say he has potential of being a nasty thorn if he doesn’t goof it up.

  110. Heber13
    September 15, 2009 at 10:44 am

    #109; did you read Andrew’s posts way back in post#25.

    He had an agenda in what he was doing.

    Joseph’s agenda was doing what he thought God wanted him to. Big difference.

  111. Awesome Dave
    September 15, 2009 at 10:49 am

    Dan #77 – Do you not see the contradiction in your reply? You defend your disbelief in Nemelka by stating: “my religion also teaches me to ponder things first in my mind.” But when faced with claims of falsehood of the BofM, you say you “don’t care”?! this is hypocrisy personified. I guess I don’t understand why it’s so hard for you to say his claims are just as valid as JS, but you prayed and didn’t receive a positive affirmation from the spirit.

  112. sxark
    September 15, 2009 at 10:58 am

    Heber13:

    Yes, I went to the FAIR site where those quotes came from. However, Nemelka has recanted. You are correct in your analysis, but that’s only my opinion. Check out Nemelka’s site with the link in the preamble here. We can call him a fraud but he has potential. Check out his ‘formal’ agenda at the bottom of his web site. – and I would like your opinion on #21, please.

  113. Dan
    September 15, 2009 at 11:34 am

    Awesome Dave,

    #111,

    Dan #77 – Do you not see the contradiction in your reply? You defend your disbelief in Nemelka by stating: “my religion also teaches me to ponder things first in my mind.” But when faced with claims of falsehood of the BofM, you say you “don’t care”?

    No contradiction at all. Lack of evidence of horses is very minor. That’s like going to Nemelka’s piece and saying it is false because there were no hats or something. The evidence against the Book of Mormon is minor. Logically, the whole story of the Book of Mormon makes sense. It fits within the general parameters of history. Nemelka’s does not. You apparently read my comments but apparently dismissed my number one critique of Nemelka. His tome is supposed to be the “sealed portion” of the Book of Mormon. If that is the case, it must fit the criteria for what Mormon says are the “sealed portions.” If you cannot even accomplish that, your tome is gobbledygook. End of story. He is a fraud. His piece a fraud. I won’t say anymore because every defender of Nemelka simply refuses to acknowledge my actual critique of the piece. It’s not worth my time. It is not worth any faithful member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to waste his or her time on Nemelka’s fraudulent drivel.

  114. Dan
    September 15, 2009 at 11:48 am

    One last point, that I want to reemphasize, which others have mentioned. The only way Nemelka’s story is believable is if Joseph Smith’s story is believable. Yet, the defenders of Nemelka, here at least, are strongly anti-Mormon. How can that be? How can non-believers in Mormonism take Nemelka’s story to be accurate if they don’t even believe the Book of Mormon to be accurate? Nemelka’s tome is irreconcilably tied to the fate of the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is its anchor! If the Book of Mormon is not true, if Joseph Smith was not a prophet, Nemelka has absolutely no leg to stand on. Yet here are the defenders of Nemelka railing on Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon! That just doesn’t make sense.

  115. sxark
    September 15, 2009 at 11:48 am

    Dan:

    Don’t give up/stop yet. – it’s only started. ‘Defenders’ of Nemelka cannot win against LDS members who know what they are talking about.

    ‘Defenders’ of Nemelka should think more about joining his movement – do the walk instead of just talk. – And then come here and defend their ‘new’ position.

  116. Heber13
    September 15, 2009 at 11:52 am

    Yes, I did check out his website. I’m not sure why, but it still comes across as comical to me. But whatever. If I feel a void in my life and need further enlightenment, I might check it out. Right now, I’m not interested in it, other than the fantasy of feeling what it must have been like for christians in Joseph’s day, wondering if such claims could really be true or just a crazy dude. Its a fun exercise for 10 minutes to think about…then I move on to serious discussions of truth.

    Regarding#21. The scenario could be possible, but I would assume God’s involvement also, which would direct the President of the LDS church to present things correctly and not set the church up for surprises or tests too great for most church members or investigators. I guess I would put it in a similar camp as the LDS temple ceremony revealed, and how prior masonic symbols and rituals could cause some people to be worried about the source…but true believers will be ok with truth revealed in a complete manner by appropriate authorities, despite if the adversary copies or mimicks truth for purposes other than the true purposes of God.

    I believe God can work through many sources to reveal truth, but it all comes together in one great whole, by God leading His church to correctly explain and apply the truths revealed.

  117. Heber13
    September 15, 2009 at 11:59 am

    #114: Dan, I agree and posted a similar line of thinking in post #108. The sealed portion could only be of value to expand mormonism, or correct it if you think think it has gone astray.

    Christopher claims Joseph appeared to have Christopher finish the work. So it is an extension of mormonism, not anti-mormon.

  118. sxark
    September 15, 2009 at 12:10 pm

    Heber13:

    I look at his web site in the sense of a study of the enemy. Now maybe LDS members shouldn’t do that – but it’s an old military adage – “know your enemy”.

    As Rico stated in his preamble,- he came across this because an invesitigator of the LDS Church came across Nemelka while on the internet.

    Several here, including yourself, have pointed out ‘errors’ in Nemelka’s position. My recommedation is in #115.

    And concerning any tests from God, in regards to #21, remember, all LDS members, or mostly all, will be tested as a metal is tested by fire.

    Perhaps this will only be a small test.

  119. Dan
    September 15, 2009 at 12:17 pm

    Heber

    #117,

    Yes, I was piggybacking on your point. As for your second point, what I was saying is that those who are defending Nemelka are defending him at the expense of Joseph and the Book of Mormon. For example, the claim that there were no horses in the Book of Mormon. Well if that destroys the credibility of the Book of Mormon, it also destroys Nemelka’s work too. It’s not that Nemelka’s work is anti-Mormon (at least based on what Mr. Nemelka claims), but those who are here on this website defending him show anti-Mormon bias. Why is that? If you don’t think there is any divine aspect of the Book of Mormon, how could you think Nemelka has any divine aspect? His work is directly tied to the fate of the Book of Mormon?

    My personal view, based on the debate here, and the scant research I’ve done is this:

    Mr. Nemelka is a talented writer who is, otherwise, a nobody. He wrote this, because he felt inspired (whether by the devil or not, it is not clear—seeing that Joseph taught us that the devil can take the shape of an angel, that would probably also include being able to take the shape of Joseph and appear to someone in a dream), and that he felt he could get some cash from the church for his work (blackmail essentially). When that didn’t work out, he chose the other route, to go public with his work and try and muster support from waning Mormons on the verge of leaving the church, or anyone else disillusioned with the church, or those who can’t think clearly and will follow any moron who says something unique. In terms of being a prophet, he’s not shown much in terms of stamina, endurance, or even desire, to be known as such to the world. I don’t think he really wants to take on the Mormon church, because if not for Mormonism, he’s got nothin’. His work is stuck in a rut. Unpurchased by the church and unable to get much traction beyond the disaffected, this is where his piece will remain for time and all eternity. Because eventually the actual “Sealed Portion” will be released by God. At that point, no one will even remember, or even care to remember that some nobody in the 1990s attempted a forged “Sealed Portion.”

  120. sxark
    September 15, 2009 at 12:36 pm

    Dan:

    One concern, I have, is when the “Sealed Portion” is released by the LDS Church, is that it might contain some minutia that Nemelka may have written. That would be a nice test.

    And, I’m sorry, I don’t care what the experts say, I still believe they had horses or I believe what Joseph Smith believed.

  121. Greg
    September 15, 2009 at 12:41 pm

    Judging from the past success of characters like Mr. Nemelka, I wouldn’t be surprised to see him on a site like this…

    http://www.codyjudy1.exploretalent.com/

    …within the next few years. The poor man wants attention and this is probably the only place where anyone serious about religion will give him any.

  122. sxark
    September 15, 2009 at 12:56 pm

    If I were a former LDS – now anti-LDS Atheist, I would jump on Nemelka’s bandwagon and become his advocate and get some ‘bucks’ in the process. Then again, does any former LDS – now anti-LDS Atheist have the ‘guts’ to do such a thing? Come to think of it, I think I would chicken out.

  123. Cowboy
    September 15, 2009 at 2:06 pm

    I am not sure that anybody here is suggesting belief in Mr. Nemelka. What is being noticed is the similarity between the extraordinary claims of Nemelka, as compared with Joseph Smith, this in light of the clear dismissal of Nemelka’s claims vs. Joseph Smiths. I have to wonder now, after thinking about, if the numbers and growth argument, ie – growth of the LDS Church, doesn’t work against you. Afterall is it possible that the only thing that Nemelka’s movement is lacking is the critical mass of the LDS faith. In other words, if he had a larger following, would that effect how we approach his message. The obvious corrallary then is, do we give Joseph Smith greater weight just because of the sheer numbers of people who claim Mormonism?

    On a side note, I am puzzled by the logic that suggests The Book of Mormon mentions horses which may not have actually existed on the America’s when the Books events were to have taken place, is minor compared to the notion that Nemelka’s book doesn’t apparently address greater depth into Christs supposed administration among the Nephites. After all, if the book claims to be a historical work, a fact in which there is no universal concensus, clear anachronisms certainly speak volumes about the works historical integrity. So I don’t think the horses argument is so minor. Incidentally, I think that bodes for most of the Church as well, that is why FARMS and other groups have tirelessly invested themselves in discovery which circumvents current understanding on anochronisms in The Book of Mormon Text.

  124. lucidluck
    September 15, 2009 at 2:41 pm

    sxark, I am in agreement with your #21 and #102. My comments were geared toward members of the LDS church and those very familiar with our teachings * or at least understand them. he he he. You are correct that an investigator will view the situation far differently then most members of the church.

    I think i have made my point clear that Nemelka’s position and claims are inconsistent and contradictory, but as you stated the typical investigator will not even know what I am talking about, or be able to decide the credibility of the claims Nemelka makes. An investigator rather would learn a little, be urged to read the unsealed portion of the book of mormon, dabble briefly (if at all) with the LDS church and then make their position based on the fruits of Nemelka. They will be urged and counseled to treat the unsealed portion with study, prayer and meditation and ultimately left to make their decision based on the results.

    Regarding your post in #21 and the potential of Satan influencing and mingling truth with the work of Nemelka I would have to respond that the situation is entirely probable. Satan is all about deception, confusion, and misleading. Personally I do not think Nemelka will ever gain much of a following or pose any substantial detractor to the LDS faith. I suppose if the hypothetical situation arose where we obtained the real unsealed portion and there were some striking similarities etc. the audience that would most likely be effected greatest would be apostates and those having trouble reconciling their faith or living with great doubt regarding the faith of the LDS church. Those effects would not be a push toward joining Nemelkars faith either, but a further disconnect with the “restoration movement” and LDS faith. I think it will do more for disaffected members, anti-mormons, and confuse typical members of the church then effect invistigators. I suppose if Nemelka obtained a substantial following and gained resources, then Investigators would probably have to resolve that issue.

  125. Dan
    September 15, 2009 at 4:27 pm

    Cowboy,

    What is being noticed is the similarity between the extraordinary claims of Nemelka, as compared with Joseph Smith, this in light of the clear dismissal of Nemelka’s claims vs. Joseph Smiths</blockquote.

    No, they are not similar. Not even close.

  126. Cowboy
    September 15, 2009 at 4:35 pm

    Former trustee of a holy book associated with the only true Church appears to a young boy of little consequence, who also has a penchant for the extraordinary, giving charge to write/translate a sealed portion of the book. Both men are of questionable character, as that was the reputation Joseph Smith by his neighbors despite he and his families clais to the contrary, who vascilate on their positions for a time, but ultimately attempt to restore a lost and apostatized Christianity/Mormonism. If that’s not similar I don’t know what is. In fact, if you wanted to raise an eye brow to Nemelka’s claim, you could suggest that it is too similar, ie, unoriginal. Then again, Joseph Smith entirely on an island with his claims either.

  127. Cowboy
    September 15, 2009 at 4:51 pm

    “Regarding your post in #21 and the potential of Satan influencing and mingling truth with the work of Nemelka I would have to respond that the situation is entirely probable. Satan is all about deception, confusion, and misleading.”

    While I can’t argue that it isn’t possible for Satan to decieve anyone, you have to realize that this a stick spokes of about every religious claim out there. After all, if it was possible for Nemelka to have been decieved, then why not Joseph Smith, and why not us? I don’t know that there is any rational way of ruling this possibility out if we are to take as one of our assumptions the notion that Satan can manipulate our senses. Even more problematic is to say that he can’t since such a declaration will have no basis other than a subjective expectation that he can’t because that could skew our world view. Unfortunately this is beginning to sound too much like the Matrix with all of the classic philosophical attempts of trying to establish “what really is”. Suffice it so say, I think that is where traditional concepts of faith and Christianity ultimately earn their paycheck for me, since I don’t know what really is, I can hope that Satan cannot influence decieve my senses, that God really is, and that the course I am pursuing is acceptable. I am not sure that we can argue more than this about either Joseph Smith or Nemelka. How the hell would I know if the first vision really happened, or if Nemelka was himself “visited”? Suffice it to say, my life experiences doesn’t bode for these types of interactions, so placing them both in the same basket isn’t much of a problem.

  128. brjones
    September 15, 2009 at 5:17 pm

    “You cannot give me one example of God revealing binding truth for the his people through anyone but a prophet with his authority, it cannot be done and never will.”

    I can’t argue with this, since if god ever revealed his binding truth to anyone, they would, by definition, be his prophet. The point is, and I don’t see that you’ve refuted this, that god can choose whomever he wants to be a prophet, and he can do it whenever and wherever he wants. Please give me some quote; some scripture that contradicts this logic. If god wants to speak to Nemelka or anyone else, he can do it as he pleases. Why is it so difficult for you to admit this? I’m not asking you to concede that Nemelka is a prophet or that Thomas S. Monson isn’t, only that god will choose whom he will choose. So maybe it’s monson; fine. But it doesn’t have to be as a result of anything that happened in the 19th century.

    #114 – Dan, are you really taking my comments to be affirmation of Nemelka’s authenticity? That couldn’t be further from the truth. I don’t believe he’s a prophet in the slightest. His, or Joseph Smith’s, or Thomas Monson’s prophetic mantle have nothing whatsoever to do with this. The issue, as I’ve stated before, is the unwillingness of some to admit that god could even produce a prophet outside the so-called authorized chain of mormon authority. This goes against everything that (young) Joseph Smith said about the nature of god and man. Granted, the ordained King of the Earth Joseph Smith might have had a slightly greater investment in the established chain of authority, but the fact remains. I don’t see how you can purport to tie god’s hands in such a matter. And I don’t think you can raise previous prophetic statements that seem to have closed the matter, because there are numerous prophetic declarations in this dispensation that have been cast in the rubbish bin of history with scarecely a second thought. Whether it was god’s will or just that of church leaders, there is no denying that there is plenty of precedent for god changing his mind about a so-called established principle.

  129. sxark
    September 15, 2009 at 5:20 pm

    Cowboy:

    re #127 Sounds like Nemelka’s organization is made just for you. Check out his website – its provided in the preamble. You’ll see that there is virtually no sacrifices required to be a part of his movement – and when you get down to the bottom you can see his great gifts to mankind – for free! and as he says “It all makes perfect sense” – or something like that. Imagine how you can really succeed getting in at the bottom level. Opportunities like this don’t come often.

  130. sxark
    September 15, 2009 at 5:30 pm

    brjones:

    If your an Atheist, you would be a fool not to involve yourself with Nemelka’s movement. It would almost be perfect….

    However, if your not an Atheist – then I apologize – just forget my suggestion.

  131. brjones
    September 15, 2009 at 5:54 pm

    Why should Nemelka’s organization appeal to me if I’m an atheist?

  132. Greg
    September 15, 2009 at 6:06 pm

    Try this story: A boy “of little consequence” receives a divine mission to translate ancient writings and organize a church. By divine intervention he comes into contact with men and women capable of supporting this mission. The group suffers through extreme persecution (because Satan cares enough to try to stop them) but God sees them through and the movement continues to grow. The details of that persecution are extreme and nobody denies they happened. The established church is so strong that when its leader is murdered it keeps growing and even has splinter groups trying to run in parallel of the main body.

    The similarities between this and Nemelka’s story are few and far between. If he were to die an untimely death, would there be anything left of his “movement”? And why would a wise God entrust such an important mission to someone who was completely incapable of making anything noteworthy out of it? Perhaps God’s an idiot. Perhaps God doesn’t exist. Perhaps Mr. Nemelka isn’t quite what he has claimed to be.

    I noticed one pro-Nemelka web site that tried to get traction on the idea that Christopher Nemelka was like Christ because that he’s “the One who bears the name of Christ” and blah blah blah. You know, the prophets have warned about false Christs in our day. And, while leaders of the Latter-day Saints have said some wacky stuff over the last 179 years, I don’t recall hearing any of the brethren claiming to be Christ.

  133. sxark
    September 15, 2009 at 6:11 pm

    brjones:

    Its a great cover. You already know enough about LDS theology and should pick up quickly any further developments Nemelka has ‘revealed’. As an Atheist, you wouldn’t care anyway – but you can rake in some bucks getting in on the ground level, so to speak. And who knows, maybe he’ll need some Apostles.

  134. brjones
    September 15, 2009 at 7:04 pm

    Ahh. Pull a little Mark Hoffman action, huh?

    I like you, Sxark. I like to think that maybe you and I know each other in real life and get along really well.

  135. Cowboy
    September 15, 2009 at 7:12 pm

    Sxark:

    Given that BrJones and I outright reject the notion that Joseph Smith was a Prophet, and therefore are not inclined to accept Nemelka either, I am not sure these diggs about either of us somehow aligning ourselves with him makes any sense. And that really is the point, that if you are so willing to accept the extraordinary claims of one person, how can you simultaneously dismiss with little consideration the similar claims of another. I understand that the typical response, God only works through his established chains of authority now, etc, yet those arguments are quite similar to the ones used by those who chose to reject Joseph Smith and Jesus.

  136. Awesome Dave
    September 15, 2009 at 7:18 pm

    Dan, I seriously do not understand how you are still not getting this. How can you so quickly write off any negative assessment of JS or the BofM as lies from “strongly anti-Mormon” people. and then place so much emphasis on Nemelka’s mistakes. If I am strongly anti mormon, then you are strongly anti Nemelka, and your claims a just as bunk. Look at it this way, There are several accounts of JS denying himself as a prophet, several conflicting stories from the first vision onward, anthropological, geographical, linguistic etc mistakes in the BofM. BUT God bore witness to you that JS was a prophet, which means (if you believe in prayer) that all that other stuff doesn’t matter. So despite all of Nemelka’s faults, why can’t you just say it’s possible he’s a prophet, but you prayed about it and god told you he isn’t. your not sacrificing any of your beliefs this way. You can’t have two standards for the same claims of these two men.

  137. Cowboy
    September 15, 2009 at 7:33 pm

    Greg:

    You must be familiar with a different Church history than I am. Wether or not God had a hand in leading those supporters to Joseph Smith is debatable. Thinking particularly of the Three witness, the credibility of these men is not universally set in stone the way Mormons would like to think they are. Even Joseph Smith challenged each of their honesty publicly. The current resistance and social distaste for Nemelka, including his arrests, could be spun into stories of persecution that come across just like Joseph Smith’s “trials”. Satan isn’t on record, so it is not helpful to try and argue whether or not he tried to stop Joseph Smith, and whether he is trying to impede Nemelka’s message. As for Church growth, yes it is impressive, really. However, it is not the largest, oldest, or unprecedented case for religion now, or through history. Ultimately we believe that all other religions are false, or incomplete (whatever version you prefer), and so arguing that God bolstered their growth is a weak argument. Obviously, this disqualifies the growth of the Church as reasonable indicator of it’s truthfulness given that other Churchs are even bigger. While Joseph Smith never declared himself Christ, BrJones is correct that it is likely he actually had himself declared King. Lastly, John Taylors sentiment isn’t far off in section 135, when he stated Christ only had done more for the Salvation of Man. There are also some early Church history speculations that some how Joseph Smiths martyrdom was an atonement of sorts, but whether this was a top down sentiment or not, Brigham did declare than any person seeking exaltation will also need the approval of Joseph Smith, along with Christ, if they are to recieve it. Joseph Smith might not have made the exact declaration Nemelka did, but our leaders have their own whoppers out there. Suffice it to say, there is more than enough similarities between the two to draw correlation, though admittedly, your perspective would first have to allow for that.

  138. sxark
    September 15, 2009 at 7:58 pm

    AwesomeDave:

    Please correct me if I’m wrong with my dates.
    Nemelka claims he was 1st ‘spoken’ to in 1984 and was informed that the LDS Church was corrupt and it was his duty to provide these new revelations.

    However, the ‘promise’ that the LDS Church would not be permitted to be led astray was made, by God, before Nemelka was born [help me with the dates - OK?] Therefore ‘God’ would have resolved any corruption problem at the time of occurance.

    The only ‘window of opportunity’ would be in 1984 when Nemelka received his revelation. So when and how did the corruption of the Church occur and why wasn’t Nemelka simply chosen to be an Apostle so he could be in the line of succession? – and the other ‘corrupt’ Apostles would, of course, die or resign – thus moving Nemelka into the office of President of the LDS Church.

    This last point, alone, shows how Nemelka could not be a valid Prophet. Do you see the problem?

    Cowboy and brjones:

    It would seem to me that you both would be like lions going thru a flock of ill informed sheep. Who knows what kind of action you could come up with. But, as I stated in #122 – I would chicken out. Maybe you two are different.
    So what say you? Want to give it a try?

    But I would only recommend this course of action to Atheists. Don’t ask me why. I don’t know.

  139. brjones
    September 15, 2009 at 8:13 pm

    Actually, sxark, I think it would make more sense for a believer. After all, isn’t the important thing to do good, regardless of truth? That seems to be the standard mormon refrain to the apostate: even if it’s not true, isn’t it a good way to live your life? Why is Nemenka taking so much heat over whether his book is true or not? Isn’t the important thing that it’s a good way of life?

  140. Awesome Dave
    September 15, 2009 at 8:25 pm

    sxark #138 once again, missing the point. it doesn’t matter what historical doctrinal or otherwise evidence against Nemenka there is. I[m not claiming he is telling the truth (btw neither is brjones or cowboy). The point is, JS has the same if not more against him, but because god has revealed to you through the spirit that JS is still a prophet, everything against him doesn’t matter. i have issues with this form of “fact” finding, but i’ll leave it to another discussion. If you believe god directs us through prayer as to where truth resides, even sometimes in direct opposition of scientific or historical evidence, then you should have no problem believing it’s POSSIBLE for nemenka’s claims to be true.

  141. Greg
    September 15, 2009 at 9:02 pm

    How many times do I need to say it? It’s not about how many millions are following a given religion. It’s just that there’s a big difference between a significant and productive flock and, essentially, no followers at all.

  142. brjones
    September 15, 2009 at 9:21 pm

    Well he’s got a big believer in Sxark.

  143. sxark
    September 15, 2009 at 9:37 pm

    AwesomeDave:

    Actually, I believe you and others are missing the point, in the sense of not having a testimony as to the truthfullness of things – such as Joseph Smith bringing forth [by revelation] the restored Gospel and Church of Jesus Christ in these last days.

    If you don’t have that testimony, then my comments, as well as others, will make no sense to you and you will see no difference between Nemelka and Smith. LDS members do have a testimony and the difference is easy for them to see.

    So, if you and brjones and cowboy are Atheists, I would say you have a golden opportunity to get rich by joining Nemalka’s movement. You can use your own creativity as to how to get rich from his movement.

  144. sxark
    September 15, 2009 at 9:39 pm

    brjones: re #139

    No…I don’t think so.

  145. Cowboy
    September 15, 2009 at 9:50 pm

    Sxark:

    I agree, the difference is strictly a matter of perspective. On another note, inspite of the fact that you are probably just joking, why are you so insistent upon our joining with Nemelka in order to commit religious fraud? Do you feel that it would help your case?

  146. sxark
    September 15, 2009 at 10:18 pm

    Cowboy:

    re #145 I don’t know if it would help or hurt the LDS position. I thought it is a great opportunity for anti-mormon Atheists to start ‘walking the walk, instead of, talking the talk’.

    The time is fast approaching where just talking will not be enough, – and we all are in the same boat with that one.

    Religious fraud? – well that’s only for Atheists – What would you be, should you become believers in Christopher’s powers of revelation?

  147. brjones
    September 15, 2009 at 10:33 pm

    Sxark, I appreciate that you include yourself in the “walking the walk” boat, but exactly what does that mean with respect to those who don’t believe as you do? Because I have a suspicion that walking the walk is only acceptable to you if it is walking your walk. But for those who disagree with you, that’s not going to happen. What’s interesting is that I’m “walking the walk” more now than I ever did as an active member of the church. I realize that means little to you because to you works without the ratification of the mormon church are dead, but there you go.

    I do think you should let the atheism as natural followers of Nemelka line go, though. Not only is it tired, but you’re bordering on offensive personal attacks, and I don’t think it’s warranted.

  148. sxark
    September 15, 2009 at 11:16 pm

    OK, you 3 help me out here. I don’t know if the 3 of you are Atheists or not and I only assume you are ex-mormons. I have read ‘disturbing’ scriptures – that I can’t find now, because I’m too lazy to look, that essentially say that when one leaves the Church,- they get worse and worse – loosing talents etc – and more worse – until they reach the point of no return and they become enemies to the LDS Church to the point where taking lives is no problem etc etc. and they loose any and all interest in returning to God.

    I have had the opportunity to work with the lowest ‘dregs’ of society for several years. These individuals did bad things -I mean VERY BAD THINGS. And yet, I have not met one who did not feel ‘bad’ about the things they did. Yes, there were some that felt bad about being caught – but when I met with them, they did feel bad about the things they did.

    My point is, I don’t think I’ve met anyone who is ‘pure evil’ – as the scriptures describe the final state of a person were they to leave or apostatize from the Church.

    You 3 don’t appear ‘evil’ to me. – You all may talk out of the back of your heads now and then. – but so do I.

    I just see Nemelka’s movement as a vehicle, an instrument, where an Atheist could start getting more serious about being anti-mormon and dragging as many as they can into Christopher’s web as well as – becoming rich, in the process.

    I was pushing you all, needling, challenging you – planting seeds – that you may have allready. – To get more serious about being a ‘real’ true Atheist. Was it presumptuous and condescending from me? Of course! – Is it borderline offensive personal attacks? – I don’t know. that’s up to you – it’s a relative concept.

    Is what I did against LDS principles? – I guess it is. I will not encourage anyone to join Nemelka anymore.

  149. brjones
    September 16, 2009 at 12:04 am

    Sxark, I don’t know why your prodding would be against anyone’s religion. There’s no harm done, and ultimately I don’t mind someone pushing me to analyze my beliefs. I think the question you eventually posed is a fair question. I just think it would have been more effective to come right out and ask it.

    First, I think you’re confusing atheism with anti-theism, and I do think there’s a difference, although if your scripture is accurate perhaps there isn’t. I don’t personally feel like I need to destroy the church, and I’ve never known an atheist who did not hold substantially the same core values of believers. According to your scriptures, if you leave the church you have set your foot on the path of satan (I don’t know if it’s scripture, but it’s been used by everyone from joseph smith to my father).

    The thing is, I don’t see any fundamental difference between an atheist wanting to share hus belief and a mormon or any other believer sharing his. I think it’s human nature that when a person finds what he or she considers to be truth, or a path to happiness, that he or she has a desire to share it with others. I can’t think of another context where someone would be expected to keep quiet about something that the believed in, but somehow ex-mormons are expected to silently go their way, speaking to no one, or else they’re labeled as anti-mormons, under the control of satan himself. It’s a little unfair.

  150. sxark
    September 16, 2009 at 1:39 am

    brjones:

    re #149 “I’ve never known an atheist who did not hold substantially the same core values of believers”. Almost sounds similar to what Elder James E. Talmage said in his book: ‘Jesus The Christ’ – where he expressed his opinion that a ‘true’ atheist does not exist. [can't find the p. # - but I read it].

    Being labeled….as ‘under the control of Satan himself as a little unfair’ – sounds like an understatment. It only makes sense that an atheist would never perceive that they were under such an influence – and to be labeled, as such, would sound unfair to the individual.

    Have you ever dealt with someone who felt they were under the control of Satan? I’ve encountered 2 types: The ‘Rosemary Baby’ type – confident, happy and they have no problems paying homage to Lucifer.

    The other type – gives new meaning of having ‘the Hell’ scared out of you. They believe they are under the control of Satan and they are not happy at all. The majority were mentally ill, – we gave them pills and the symptoms went away.- maybe.

    You have not given any indication of belonging to either of these 2 types. Yet I can bear witness, that I have been under the influence of Satanic forces on several occasions. But if I were an acknowledged atheist – and felt those same ‘Satanic forces’ – I don’t think I would remain an atheist – the internal fear would be just too great.

    So the label others may have given you, only seems a little unfair. Perhaps I’m naive, I’ve been accused as such, but I believe should you feel the same Satanic forces as I have felt, that you would no longer be anti-theist or an atheist.

    Indeed, it’s an interesting puzzle – [your type and my type] One last couple of questions: Would you die for your beliefs?
    Do you know any LDS members or any believers in God who would die for their beliefs? I know of such people. Do you believe me? – but I don’t know of any atheist who would die for their beliefs, – but I haven’t looked for any either.

  151. brjones
    September 16, 2009 at 7:43 am

    #150 – Another good question, sxark. I think you have to define what you mean by “beliefs.” As has been explained much better than I can do (most notably by Andrew S.), I don’t think it’s entirely accurate to talk about an atheist’s “beliefs.” Atheism is really just an absence of the belief in god. I don’t think an atheist’s actions are dictated by his or her lack of a belief in god. For such a person, I think some other overriding value or sense of morals will naturally fill the role that for believers would be filled by god or religion. For me personally, the real difference between me and a believer is that I obviously never find myself saying “I’m going to do X because god said so, and that’s enough for me.” The interesting thing about that is that I believe my morals and values have changed very little from when I was a believer. The difference is the source or motivation behind my behavior, which I believe to be much more sincere now than when I was a believer (just speaking for myself).

    So, to answer your question, I don’t know if I necessarily have a “belief,” per se, that I would die for, but there are many things I would absolutely die for. I would die not only for my children, but I believe that I would die for any other human being. I would die for the principles of freedom and liberty. I would die to protect the right of people to believe and think and say what they choose, even those things with which I strongly disagree. Without going into a laundry list of things, I hope I’ve made my point. I do believe in things greater than myself, and I think there are many things that are worth dying for.

    As for LDS or religious people, I know many who I am convinced would absolutely die for their beliefs. Unfortunately, and I’m not trying to be facetious, I know many who would also kill or do other things which I find morally offensive, for their beliefs, and for no other reason than that they believed god told them to. This is where I must part ways with the believer.

  152. Heber13
    September 16, 2009 at 12:55 pm

    brjones…you make some great points. I think many times in a religious groups (mormons most familiar to me but not exclusively) we think our faith is what drives us to be “good” and that equates to those not using that faith to be “bad” (not of God is the church of the devil). That is certainly not true. The church is a great support system to teach morals and through faith, improve the soul. However, the absence of church doesn’t equate to evil. Yes, the natural man is an enemy to God and righteousness, but atheists or any other group can fight the natural man’s selfish desires for something good and pure. It doesn’t have to be LDS theology to drive people to be good. I think there are many paths.

    Nemelka’s intentions, however, are trying to deceive, or at least trying to mimick God’s work. For that, he is not virtuous and is left in the grasp of Satan to do evil.

    The Dalai Lama, on the other hand, has published some great books that are virtuous. Because he is not LDS doesn’t mean he is of the devil…his books on love and service are of great value to a seeker after truth, because he is not claiming something that isn’t true.

  153. Cowboy
    September 16, 2009 at 2:18 pm

    Sxark:

    I think BrJones has responded well to your arguments so I don’t wish to belabor his points. So, in short answer to your questions, I am not an atheist. I fall most closely into the sphere of agnosticism, in that I don’t claim to speak for God or to actually know what his will is, nor do I have a certainty that he even exists. I don’t necessarily believe however, that these things are unknowable, and so I am not closed to the possibility that God could reveal himself. I choose to believe generally that he does exist, and that his nature is somewhat aligned with the most basic parameters of Christianity.

    As for the scriptures, there are some pointed references in the Doctrine & Covenants which talk about being enhanced with “light”, or having “light” taken from us. The rest of the standard works are somewhat vague to the argument that if you leave “the Church” you are destined to progress towards ultimate wickedness or evil. Such an argument sounds like a scare tactic, and there is more than enough examples of individuals who left the Church under severe apostasy, and yet never became the cold blooded devil you suggest.

    Lastly, how would a person who apostatized know if they are under the influence of Satan, if that influence were not directly manifested to them. But as we have already asked, how would you know if you are also not under the influence of Satan because of your adherence to a religious cult. To be clear, I am not calling the Church a cult as manifestation of my personal feelings, rather I am attempting to display the irony of your suggestion, as well as the absurdity of similar logic. After all, how can you have a conversation with a “true” Christian about the Mormon Church, if they are to operate under the assumption that you are blinded by the craftiness of Satan, or possesed beyond your own awareness. Point is the conversation doesn’t go very far, and we have no real empirical evidence of how Satan has ever influenced anything. He just get’s the credit when people behave immorally.

  154. sxark
    September 16, 2009 at 5:49 pm

    My question of – would anyone die for their beliefs? – is in the extreme. Assume we are all captured by a religious sect who worships ‘God’, by their standards. – And they now state – that if you don’t discard your present beliefs and accept theirs,- that you will loose your head.

    That’s what I mean. I don’t expect any of you to answer that scenerio – its just that we all know of people who would loose their heads instead of submitting. Would an Atheist do the same thing? – start believing or proclaiming a belief in ‘God’ – to save his head?

    My reference to someone who is totally evil is in #148. I’m saying, I don’t think I’ve encountered anyone who has the attributes ‘total’ evil – as described, in the scriptures, as the final state of one who turns against the Church.

    As I described in #150 [Cowboy] – it is most likely that the inlfuence of Satan would not be manifested, for if it were – people would scurry back to the Church.

    Ever notice how ‘happy’ many Atheists are? They are ‘free’ of guilt and other attributes associated with religion.
    And “Satan” – would like to keep it that way.

    Since I made a commitment in #148 – not to encourage anyone to Join Nemelka’s movement anymore. – I will simply refer to #143 as a good, almost final arguement to the critics of the critics of Christpher Nemelka.

  155. Cowboy
    September 16, 2009 at 7:53 pm

    Sxark:

    I think this conversation can go no further. I know this is hard for you to hear and understand, but Satan has decieved you. Every inspiration that you have ever had that convinces about Mormonism was actually Satan manipulating your senses, so that you think you are doing God’s will, but in reality you are not. Until you realize that it is Satan and not God who inspires your positive orientation towards Mormonism, the only thing I can do is pray for you. I pray that you will be able to eventually overcome this influence and recognize it for what it is. As I said in the beginning, I know this may be hard, even insulting to hear, but you need to understand that Satan is very clever. Only God can help you, and when he does I hope that he will lead you to understand who Jesus really is, inspite of the false religion in Mormonism.

  156. sxark
    September 16, 2009 at 9:49 pm

    Cowboy:

    Sorry, your entire arguement [#155] points back to yourself. And I couldn’t help but notice that you missed my last para. in #154 – directing you or anyone else – to the almost final arguement [#143] to the critics of the critics of Christopher Nemalka.

    But I do understand if you wish to ignore any of the questions raised in the preamble of this post. In reference to #143, you have simply run out of ammo. Sorry, your feeble attack in #155 was not backed up by evidence – just the ramblings of one slowly twisting in the wind.

  157. brjones
    September 16, 2009 at 10:20 pm

    Sxark, of course in that scenario I would pretend to believe anything they wanted to hear to save myself, as I have not sworn allegiance to anything or anyone and it would not be a betrayal. Luckily, I have the autonomy to make such a decision because my morals and values are not dictated to me.

  158. sxark
    September 16, 2009 at 10:45 pm

    Brjones:

    I brought up this question about dying for one’s beliefs in #150 but cannot recall why – for it has nothing to do with the main topic.

    At this point, I’ll stay with #143 and #138 and restate that it is easy for LDS members to refute Nemelka.

  159. Cowboy
    September 17, 2009 at 12:58 am

    Sxark:

    I should clarify the sarasm in my last post. The “you don’t know it, but you’ve been decieved by Satan” line, followed by “the rest of the world just cannot understand the things that Mormons understand” are the points that lack evidence, and that has been my argument to you. Those lines are particularly problematic when used on life long Mormons like myself, and likely others. Unless you are going to tell me that you have had literal dialogue with Angels or deity, I am not certain there is any facet of the Mormon experience with which I am not as deeply familiar as the next lifelong Mormon. I generally won’t challenge a persons personal spiritual claims that attempt to give reason to their faith, however when those same people want use those supposed and unsubstantiatable experiences as a license to challenge the credibility, sanity, and sense of self control or awareness, of those with whom they disagree, then you better have something hard and logical to work with. I can throw the Satan influence argument just like you can, yet we are all none the better.

  160. sxark
    September 17, 2009 at 1:20 am

    Cowboy: re #159

    “Yawn”…….see #156

  161. Cowboy
    September 17, 2009 at 8:27 am

    Sxark:

    Very good.

  162. Dexter
    September 17, 2009 at 11:47 am

    This discussion shows the poor logic of the church’s advice for determining truth. When dealing with materials published by the LDS church it invites you to search, ponder and pray no matter how many hours it takes, no matter how many prayers it takes, until you feel something that will then be described to you as the holy ghost confirming its truth. If after diligently searching you still feel nothing that can be attributed to the holy ghost, you will be told that you do not desire it enough, and that you must have the desire to believe, and then repeat the searching and pondering and praying. Faithful members encourage their friends and children to spend as much time as it takes to discover the truth. Even if that means years.

    Yet, if you happen to consider reading Nemelka’s works, or the Jehovah’s Witnesses, or anyone else’s, you will be advised to not waste your time. If you decide to read it, you (and many of you said this in your posts) will dismiss it based on not feeling a strong witness that it is true, without giving it the time and attention you gave to the LDS materials. If you treated JS and the BOM with such little time and little effort and little desire to believe you probably would have dismissed that religion as well.

    I agree with those who were intelligent enough to realize that a simple dismissal of Nemelka based on his character flaws makes no sense, bc JS had as many, if not more, flaws. I also agree with those who realized that (according to LDS doctrine) the only way to really know if Nemelka’s works are true is by a witness from the holy ghost after efforts to search, ponder, and pray over them. The problem is, though, that while hours or months or years were given to LDS works, a simple skimming and dismissing is done with regard to Nemelka’s work. Don’t you see? Whichever work you desire to believe, and pore over, and pray over, will eventually be the one you cling to. This does not make it true.

    Further, since the only way to know truth, according to the LDS doctrine, is by the holy ghost, through searching and pondering and praying, one could easily believe that the best way to spend one’s life would be by searching and pondering and praying over whatever new material one can get his hands on. For, it is possible, that one of these creators is the next JS, and truly is acting under god’s command. Sadly, this would lead to a wasted life full of wasted time. Think for yourselves, cease to search for someone to think for you. Think for yourselves. Question authority. Thank you, and may each of you find peace and joy in this life.

  163. sxark
    September 17, 2009 at 1:19 pm

    Dexter:

    How is it that you, brjones, Cowboy, and AwesomeDave have not responded to the arguements presented in #138 and #143 that clearly show the ‘errors’ of Christopher Nemelka from the LDS member’s point of view. There is enough ‘evidence’ against Nemelka that prayers are not neccessary to determine Truth – LDS members can see that Nemelka may have been inspired – but it was not from the God that LDS members worship.

    I take it that you do not have a testimony as to the truthfullness of Joseph Smith’ experiences, therefore, – for you – there is no difference between Nemelka and Smith.

    There are many ways to gain a testimony besides prayer. For some believers,- just the fact that they are still living – despite having close encounters with death – provides a ‘spark’ of belief that is later reinforced by sporadic periods of reading, studying, learning how to pray, and learning how to keep ‘God’ in ones heart – all the day long. And that is only one example.

    So tell me/us. Are you willing to take a more serious look at #138 and #143 and comment? – Because the only thing you are doing now is walking around and around in a circle. – But if you don’t have a testimony, that’s the only thing you can do.

  164. Dexter
    September 17, 2009 at 1:29 pm

    Regarding 138:

    The LDS Church’s history has plenty of similar issues that would make it seem illogical to believe it is true, just like the apparent contradiction you discussed in 138.

    Regarding 143:

    I disagree. One could believe JS was a prophet but then believe that Nemelka was called to do what he is doing. Similarly, one could have believed in the prophets of the old and new testament but then also believed that JS was a prophet called to do a new work. Why can’t the same be true of Nemelka?

  165. sxark
    September 17, 2009 at 2:19 pm

    Dexter:

    If one believes Joseph Smith was a Prophet, then the timeline in #138 comes into play. – which makes it impossible for Nemalka.

  166. brjones
    September 17, 2009 at 3:07 pm

    #62 – Dexter makes a very good point.

  167. sxark
    September 17, 2009 at 3:19 pm

    brjones:

    I don’t think so.

    My point in #163 is better.

  168. brjones
    September 17, 2009 at 3:25 pm

    That’s a good point.

  169. Cowboy
    September 17, 2009 at 3:49 pm

    Sxark:

    If you’re whole point is to try and demonstrate that Nemelka is most likely a fraud and that his position has inconsistencies to it, then I’m sold. I don’t believe Nemelka has an ounce of credibility to him. If your argument is to demonstrate that Nemelka’s “teachings” are inconsistent with Joseph Smith’s teachings surrounding the sealed sripture and future of the Church up until the second coming, then again I can agree with that. If your point is to demonstrate that Joseph Smiths claims are more credible than Nemelka’s, then this is where we start to part ways. In order for Nemelka’s claims and supposed prophecies to be of less weight than Joseph Smiths, on the basis of inconsistency, then you would need to demonstrate how inconsistencies within Joseph Smiths revelations and teachings are somehow a reasonable exception to this disqualifier on Nemelka. And since Nemelka is arguing that the Church has again fallen into apostasy, you would also be required to explain away the inconsistencies of all of Joseph Smith’s succesors in order to prove that the chains of authority have continued unbroken. Finally, in order to do this in a persuasive manner, you will need more to support your argument other than “anybody who doesn’t see it this way must be under the influence of Satan”, or “unfortunately only Mormons with a testimony can see this”, because any reasonable person would understand the subjective nature of such a claim for the purposes of settling an argument, even if it is what they truly believe. So while I agree, Nemelka’s claims are outside of what could be considered Mormon orthodox, you have not yet demonstrated how the nature of Nemelka’s claims are any more unbelievable than Joseph Smiths.

  170. sxark
    September 17, 2009 at 4:14 pm

    Cowboy:

    I think your wrong again. I don’t have to demonstrate anything but proclaim my testimony as to the truthfullnass of this restored Gospel in these last days, according to Joseph Smith.

    It is up to Nemelka to demonstrate the things you mention as well as the arguement in #138. He has to show when corruption began and he has to explain why God didn’t intervene etc. Most LDS members would have the same questions were they to receive a ‘revelation’ like Nemelka claims he did. Most would say: “Hey – wait a minute – This doesn’t make sense” – and the questions of #138, come into play.

  171. Cowboy
    September 17, 2009 at 11:59 pm

    Very good, case closed.

  172. Dexter
    September 18, 2009 at 12:29 am

    Sxarx, “hey wait a minute, this doesn’t make sense” applies to all religions. They just don’t make sense in different ways.

  173. sxark
    September 18, 2009 at 12:53 am

    Dexter:

    I think you know what I mean in #170. It wouldn’t make sense to LDS members because the questions of #138 would start coming to mind. I don’t know what you mean about including other religions because they have nothing to do with the questions of #138.

  174. sxark
    September 18, 2009 at 1:08 am

    But if you want to be cynical – is that all you have? – instead of contributing to the topic?

  175. Dexter
    September 18, 2009 at 1:50 am

    I have contributed greatly to the topic.

    If you want to apply reason and logic to say Nemelka’s work doesn’t make sense in light of LDS doctrine or timelines, perhaps you should take it a step further and apply reason and logic to the entire LDS religion, or to any religion.

    And what you call cynicism, is what I call truth. I am sorry if my view of the world appears cynical to you. Truth is truth, to the end of reckoning.

  176. sxark
    September 18, 2009 at 2:12 am

    Dexter:

    Sorry, I don’t see your contribution as having much significance.

    I do, as you suggest, want to apply reason and logic to say that Nemelka’s work doesn’t make sense in light of LDS doctrine.- And the timeline does become significant. But I don’t have to take it a step further. For what? – Just for you?

    If you are calling your cynicism ‘Truth’ – then I would suggest some error’s in thinking may be present – which may explain why you think I should take the arguement further and apply reason and logic to the entire LDS religion, or to any religion. – For that is another topic for another post – not this one.

  177. Cowboy
    September 18, 2009 at 9:23 am

    I know that I have bowed out, but I just want to clear something up for the record. I would like to know if there is anybody here who is seriously advocating the idea that Nemelka is a “true” Prophet, ie, Joseph Smith really visited him and charged him with translating the “sealed” portion.

  178. September 19, 2009 at 4:39 pm

    Notice that Amos #60 did not deny preventing a link to our site on his site and therefore must be a CN sympathizer.

    CN’s doctrine is simply laid out at sealednot.wordpress.com

  179. David Murphy
    September 20, 2009 at 12:39 am

    When did God change His mind about going through the profits for what he wants done in His church? Oh; He dosen’t change His mind… Then who is the new profit?

  180. September 23, 2009 at 6:18 pm

    I just want to say a few things. This thread sounds very familiar. I have had the same arguments with Christians trying to convince me that what I believe is wrong and that I will be condemned for my beliefs. And I have read the same arguments between people who believe in the Book of Mormon and those who don’t. Christopher Nemelka sounds like David with a pea shooter trying to take down Goliath. If the LDS Church was really concerned about his movement then they would have put up warnings to LDS members. (Unless they did. I may have missed it.) I have not read his book but to me if what he teaches is different than what we are taught about the basic principles of the Gospel, no matter if you are a Christian or a Mormon, then we should not be involved. Families are the basic unit of God’s plan and without families we will literally fall apart as a society. History itself has shown this. I will absolutely refuse to believe that God will reveal a doctrine to contradict this or any other doctrine that is taught in the Bible, Book of Mormon, etc. It amazes me that Joseph Smith is being compared to someone who has, as far as I know, done very little in this world and has very little influence in the LDS Church. Unless you are looking for other scriptures to read on the internet you would probably never know he even existed. I have plenty of scriptures and records to study, ponder and pray about without wondering if this record is true or not. We all will be taught line upon line according to what we can handle at the time. I strongly believe that if this LDS Church was as corrupted as some believe it is then God would have destroyed it and started over. We can nitpick on the details all day long for eternity but it will get us nowhere. Ask yourself if what I read will increase my faith in God and will it improve my relations with other people. In the end, on Judgement day, we will be judged according to our faith and how we conducted our lives.

  181. Raoul Fenderson
    October 2, 2009 at 1:07 pm

    I guess my question is, why the King James English? “Symbolizeth”??? Why isn’t this “translation” in a modern idiom? Would it not be “Mormon” enough to be convincing to anyone?

  182. Mom of 3
    October 26, 2009 at 8:33 pm

    Strangely – I don’t see a matter for debate in determining the validity of this text of his or not. Do as you do with the Book of Mormon – treat it the same and simply Ask God about the truth of it. I doubt he would lie and there you have your answer. It’s not really complicated. It’s why we are entitled to personal revelation so we can know for ourselves what is and is not truth. I don’t see this as a complicated issue at all.

  183. Simple Soul -really
    November 17, 2009 at 8:51 pm

    I am still in amazement if the last 2 weeks can’t show the snake under the lambs coat which Nemelka professes. For Heaven’s sake he was cast out from his family (all of his family), he was cast from the church, he was discredited in his city weekly article, he was sent to Valley Mental Health by a local Judge, he has multiple offenses/ charges against him (unsure or any current ones)(you can go to any District court house to see them free), he tried polygamy on for a while, he has more than 8 kids (child support doesn’t happen because he claims no income/ no job), his foundation is under his sole control (no receipts for donations either – just thanks), and if the dam hadn’t had enough to hold back he gets up and professes words into his late nephew’s mouth.

    Can anyone sit there at your screen and tell me this is what you should look for in a leader or a prophet?

    Lets say not to judge as this is how you will be judged! Then why is HE stirring it up with the US Government, the LDS church, and for mercy sweet mercy his family……. Can you still say he is your best bet?

    Have you read about his teachings on how YOU are the human form of the HOLY GHOST (because Adam was Micheal, one of three of the God Head). So if you rise up you can be at one with God. But ever quietly spoken is how Jesus’s Atonement (you don’t need it), Jesus’s baptism (you don’t need it), and if you believe deep enough you will get baptised by “fire” which is the confirmation of the Holy Ghost (like the Lamenites did and knew not).

    So the majority of the Christian believing world and literature says Jesus is the advocate to the Father, where does Christopher Nemelka get his revelations. I bet you are wondering like I do – Does Jesus know about this guy? Even if Nemelka’s Sealed Portion touts the claim the Final witness of Jesus Christ – Nemelka if you want to bypass Jesus in getting into Heaven you might want to rethink the title!

    Hard to say, what will come next. There still is no Christian or God references in his World Wide United Foundation site – I thought this was Heaven’s work he is doing? This might be a good first step BUT then really if I could see all of this nonsense in his teachings and ideas – why are you wasting you time pouring through his fictional creations?

    Try asking your questions to him before you waste you time like what missionaries are for, or articles of belief, or better yet a cohesive and “one minded” discussion group you could openly ask at. If you haven’t known there are at least 2 Yahoo group site where “readers only” can get new CMN reality slung at them. But be warned to stick around in there you need to stay or act subordinate – then they just love your “battery” support. The more power from his followers, the more GRAND the next step.

    You want Human Reality – try a past author/ doctor/ – Joseph Murphy – “The power of your Subconscious”. He wrote a far earlier version of internal perspective and purpose of Humans. You just might see the similarities in written theories.

    Last point – If the Sealed portion was Heaven motivated, why would it be print protected. It should be able to stand – just as it’s predecessor does “The Book of Mormon”. And why sell it for $30, if you want to have a bound copy??? Just call it said and why in the hell sell books due to your nephew’s untimely passing. There always are and will be more and more people wrongly killed, why make it a book selling point? Who is divinely doing the directing here, I was going to say Jesus (but Nemekla steps on him) so maybe God (but Jesus and God have better ties than Nemelka’s ideas) so then the 3 nephites (well they were chosen by Jesus, so unless they went rogue – no way) so maybe John the revelator (I think he has seen better than anyone – you cross Jesus, you’re going to pay, so probably not him).

    So where does one like Nemelka profess to get his “light” from most often – two stones claimed to be given to him by Joseph Smith (with future technology like a future cell phone (reminds me of Bill and Ted’s adventure sort of)) But keep in mind they match nothing to the descriptions my his mother or those who actually saw Joseph with them.

    Seems alot like fiction when you really write it out, so ASK before reading! And maybe Burn after reading, too! So many movie similarities.

    For those who haven’t experienced me,

    Got to go Getterdone! Arise and Awake foolish virgins, it’s not him.

  184. Simple Soul -really
    November 17, 2009 at 8:52 pm

    Did any one catch that I like this posting number.

    Getterdone481

  185. Hebron
    March 15, 2011 at 6:20 am

    I came across the “sealed portion” by Nemelka and read it for about 3 hours straight. I read some intriguing concepts and sat down and prayed about what I had read. I received a very clear and strong answer that Mr. Nemelka is a false prophet.

    I believe that some of the things he has revealed that are insightful to the unknown histories of scripture and the premortal existence are true. But I also believe that these things were given to him by Satan who knows far more about the untold stories in the scriptures than we do.

    I am someone who digs deep and always questions. I would encourage anyone that is interested in his work to pray and learn as much about his history as you can when researching his claims. As Jesus counciled concerning His disciples “By their fruits ye shall know them..”

    • firec
      December 31, 2013 at 5:24 pm

      strange youd say that… *cough* book of mormon *cough*

    • Ae911truth dot org
      January 29, 2014 at 12:07 am

      If The Lord says the other two thirds would be given at a later time, there’s nothing wrong with waiting.
      Besides, this “translation” does not follow the pattern of ancient Egyptian-Hebrew-Arabic writing and style as translated by the Prophet Joseph Smith.
      It would be great to have the true translation already in our hands, but, then again, the Holy Ghost can lead us spiritually to these great treasures that we shall have no need of sensationalistic uninspired imitations that the Spirit does not confirm as true.
      I prefer to read our Savior’s words regarding these lands in 3 Nephi 15:12-13 and 3 Nephi 17, the last few verses.
      I am delighted to introduce the Book of Mormon to the descendants of these people, perhaps of even the writers included in the Book of Mormon.

      • Sutekh
        April 30, 2014 at 7:03 pm

        Since all Nephites who would not deny the Christ were slaughtered, according to Moroni, it is extremely unlikely that there are any surviving descendants of the writers of texts abridged in the Book of Mormon. Even all the texts these writers wrote are totally gone, all destroyed. It is no exaggeration, assuming that the Book of Mormon is true, that only thing left of the Nephite civilization is the Book of Mormon itself..

  186. jbd
    June 7, 2011 at 6:34 pm

    I came across the “sealed portion” as well.  I read Nemelka’s testimony, and a siginificant portion of the “sealed portion.”  When deciding whether or not this is truly the work of God, one must determine whether the original Book of Mormon is the word of God.  One cannot accept the “sealed portion” of the Book of Mormon as true without considering the original Book of Mormon to be true.  With this in mind, I decided I would put it to the test set forth in Moroni 10:3-5 – I decided I would read and pray about it – trusting that the spirit would let me know whether it was in fact true.  Upon reading (I did not read it in its entirety – only a little over half) and praying about it, several things stuck out to me almost immediately.  First, the title claims it is the “Final Testament of Jesus Christ” … this claim is completely inconsistent with the Book of Mormon itself (see 2 Nephi 29: 12-14), which tells all who read it that the Jews will have the words of the Nephites, the Nephites will have the words of the Jews, and the Jews and the Nephites will have the words of the lost tribes … Where are the words of the lost tribes if this is the “Final Testament of Jesus Christ?”  Second, according to the eye witnesses who handled the plates, about half to two-thirds of the plates were sealed.  The original Book of Mormon is approximately 779 pages.  The “Sealed Portion” authored by Nemelka is approximately 668 pages.  When one considers that Nemelka’s work not only allegedly contains the sealed portion of the plates Joseph Smith did not translate, but also the 116 pages of lost manuscript and a history of how Nemelka obtained and translated the “sealed portion,” it becomes clear Nemelka’s work falls significantly short.  Lastly, true prophets of God present the message of Jesus Christ to the world, not the message of John the Beloved, the Three Nephites, Moses, Joseph Smith, or any other man.  Nemelka claims to have been visited by Joseph Smith, John the Beloved and the Three Nephites, and that he is presenting their message to the World.  If Nemelka were a true prophet of God, he would not claim to be presenting the messages of other prophets, but rather the message of Christ himself … I could go on but these points alone demonstrate that the “sealed portion” is merely a clever fraud. 

    • Diegocurt73
      July 18, 2012 at 11:06 am

      What???? You should try doing a critical review of Joseph Smith also. He was a fraud and a sexual preditor. The LDS side of Mormonism is guilty of so much but knows how to cover their tracks and claim they are Christian. Mormonism is anything but Christian!!!

      • Ae911truth dot org
        January 29, 2014 at 12:21 am

        Slander is what people drenched in porn use to attack clean men as sexual predators.
        If you fear the penal code of the United States, you should have even greater fear for the judgments of The Lord at the great and dreadful day for being a slanderer and taking upon yourself to teach and lead others into paths of perdition and spiritual decay.
        Christianity, anchored in the sliver of truth called Bible, a compilation of interpretations by roman pagan interpreters in Rome, who have never been in the holy land, which book was masterminded by a pagan roman emperor and smuggled into Rome by way of Pharisees and scribes that wanted to destroy Jesus’ legacy off Jerusalem and Israel.
        Moreover, this sliver of truth was created to transform the empire, by order of the roman emperor, from paganism into Christianity overnight, to become subjects of a Cathos ( to unite [the empire]) church that taught slivers of Hebrew teachings by the Savior mingled with pagan ideas.
        The first pagan Jesus Evolved: the Roman Catholic Jesus.
        Later, we have a Lutheran version, a first Church of England Jesus version, and in the USA, many forms of Jesuses, including a breakfast Jesus, the IHOP Jesus, the international house of prayer Jesus.
        I, as a former Roman Catholic, know the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the true and living church, and that light and truth will allow you to see what is hidden in plain sight, search my post name and open your eyes.

        • ZMAN
          February 12, 2014 at 8:09 am

          reading your comment really made me wish I had a gun handy so that I could blow my brains out. “Slander is what people drenched in porn use to attack clean men as sexual predators.” Really? do you have even the slightest idea of his extra/marital life? Marriage to (2) 14 year old girls, tared and feathered for fear that he would defile a local families daughter. Married to multiple teenagers, sent men off on missions afar so that he could marry in secret their wives, while they were still married to their husbands! This is not normal early america culture or behavior, simply the behavior of a man mad with power and perversions. google it.

          • Sutekh
            April 4, 2014 at 5:36 pm

            Joseph Smith, Jr. was ahead of his time. If he lived to day, he would either be in the White House, or at the very least, Speaker of the House. The charisma required to inveigle a silly woman into bed is exactly the same kind of charisma that makes voters flock to the polls, and then defend their choice to the death from all scandals — especially sexual escapades.

        • Ebullient2012
          February 13, 2014 at 3:59 am

          Greetings. Have you read ‘Letter to a CES director? http://www.cesletter.com/ What do you think of it?

    • Sutekh
      March 23, 2014 at 7:42 pm

      You do realize, of course, that Mr. Nemelka claimed he translated the Sealed Portion from a series of glyphs. The final, missing glyph that completed the set turned out to be a marking like a glyph he said that he discovered on the ventral surface of an insect (locust, I believe) exoskeleton.

  187. Mr. Kay D. Jenkins
    June 15, 2011 at 6:12 pm

    I attended the antics of Nemelka’s attorney at the City Cemetery and then his talk in the unique church house. In the 10 minute film you can see the back of my head and my white hair on the left of the screen. Christopher Marc Nemelia is a farce. He is not a prophet and never will be. If he ever got a revelation, it came from the devil and not God. It is almost laughable.

    I am a staunch member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and recently I just found out that I am a  sixth  cousin to Joseph Smith Jr. I read 30 chapters in the Book of Mormon each and every day. It takes me about 1 hr. and 30 minutes and I am not a fast reader. I have been doing this since March 1, 1996 which is over 15 years! Today on this June 15, 2011 I have read the Book of Mormon 565 times and everytime I read it I learn something new. It is the only book on this earth which has been brought forth by the hand of God and a man or a woman can get closer to God by reading this book, than any book on the face of this earth.

    Read about his history and you will blanche in disgust at what he has done and how he got started. I’ll bet anybody a million dollars that if you took his dna and matched it with Hyrum Smith’s dna, it will never in heaven’s name match. First of all I don’t believe in reincarnation at all. This is an Indian (from India) concept and I’ll bet Nemelka would never, never agree to any such dna match.

    The time will come when Christopher Marc Nemelka will cease to be. He will literally disappear from the minds of men and women for is deluded in his mind and I feel sorry for those who have been duped by him!

    • Jules
      October 7, 2011 at 1:08 am

      If you could reason with (“staunch”) religious people, there wouldn’t be any religious people.

      Dr. House

    • Ebullient2012
      January 3, 2014 at 7:53 pm

      Where does it say that someone who is a reincarnation of someone else will have the same dna? Surely, if you believe in reincarnation, you can make up your own rules to surround it.

      • David J LeBaron
        February 4, 2014 at 11:18 pm

        God does not want us focusing on Past Lives–He wants us to focus on This One. To speculate about such things, is a Violation Of Principle. It’s one of the reasons that the Bible, is almost completely silent on the Subject……

      • Sutekh
        March 23, 2014 at 7:40 pm

        When the rich man, upon learning he could not be freed from Sheol, begged to be allowed at least to return from the dead to warn his relatives about eternal damnation, he was told that his brethren had the Law and the Prophets.Abraham went on to say that these men would not believe, even if someone returned from the dead. A good interpretation of this would be that it is utterly unnecessary for anyone other than Jesus to return from the dead for any religious purpose, because no one would believe even a dead man if he were to tell the actual truth and not what they wanted to hear. Luke 16:20-31 (16:25-36, Joseph Smith Translation)

    • David J LeBaron
      February 4, 2014 at 11:13 pm

      crissy de’ milka, has not produced any revelation, that any other shameless person, could not produce, with a couple bowls of good old fashioned pinto beans.
      Unadulterated Flatulence……My Friends…..Unadulterated Flatulence!!!

  188. elias
    July 26, 2011 at 4:44 pm

    Realy I don´t know what to say. Hpefully you will be taken into something righteous, may God bless you.

  189. Hshubert
    July 31, 2011 at 10:51 pm

        Nemelka is beaten to the draw by Ron Wyatt and Ron Livingston. Each one has independently confirmed each other’s writings without ever having any acquaintance. Wyatt furnishes samples of Jesus’ dried blood scraped from the Ark of the Covenant hidden in a cave beneath Golgotha, analysed by Jewish haematologists. Accordingly Jesus’ blood is found to contain only 24 chromosomes including the Y factor which determines male identity, meaning Joseph sired Jesus. This evidence superceeds the Matthew Interpolation upon which the concept of “virgin birth” depends for its creation. Ron Livingston through the urim and thummim Jesus delivered to him transcribed from original source the Sealed Portion of the Brother of Jared which explains how those 24 chromosomes in Jesus’ blood were created by 24 Melchisedeck high priests Jesus personally called to bind upon fabric of the universe the 24 defining chromosomes which would determine Jesus’ utterly unique human identity.
       Livingston’s work just before turn of the 20th century followed immediately upon ministry of John the Baptist who personally returned 120 times between 1929-1994, thirty times to Otto Fetting and 90 times to W. A. Draves, to upgrade Restoration-Restitution work of Joseph Smith, Jr.  John the Baptist who ministered in the New World (accordingly visualised by Isaiah, Nahum, and  Habakkuk) as Quetzacoatal (among a few Indian names applied to him) wore golden sandals made for him by native Americans and white robe of the Essenes. After his resurrection with Jesus, John the Baptist delivered the book of Revelation to John the Beloved as John discloses in his messages delivered to W.A.Draves. Nemelka’s work is obviously counterfeit in accord with the work of Brigham Young who had Joseph and Hyrum Smith murdered by two elders at Carthage jail so Young could seize the church and practice polygamy. Nemelka’s writings will no doubt capture imagination of unwary minds already blinded by Luciferian deceits. The reason I understand John’s work to be valid is because John visited me in vision prior to my enjoining with Restoration-Restitution.
       There are three great works which have come forth in latter days to upgrade mainline Christianity: The Book of Mormon,  The Word of the Lord (John the Baptist’s 120 messages) and the Sealed Portion of the Brother of Jared. Each and all amplify Christianity and magnify the Bible in one way or another.
       Sorry, Mr. Nemelka but truth is stranger than fiction.

    • Chris Lilienthal
      September 18, 2013 at 5:44 am

      Where can I get a copy of this work

      • Sutekh
        March 23, 2014 at 7:32 pm

        Chris, to get a copy of this work, you must contact the Mormon sect broken of from the Temple Lot. It is called, “The Church with the Elijah Message,” I believe, due to the fact that the prophet Elijah is alleged to have returned from the dead on numerous occasions as Moroni did to Joseph Smith Jr., and provided the text of his “message” which, being later scripture, supercedes the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Commandments.

    • Sutekh
      January 4, 2014 at 11:15 pm

      I found the Axe of the Apostles buried under my garage, but you can’t see it because it is too holy for me to show you.

      • JB
        March 31, 2014 at 1:52 am

        We’re not interested about your Axe you claim to be of the Apostles.

        • April 1, 2014 at 10:56 am

          You people will believe anything. Amazing.

          • Sutekh
            April 4, 2014 at 5:26 pm

            Dr. Woodworth, JB was the only person who IS interested. IN three months time, he is the only one who has even said anything.
            But the “you people” expression is beneath your educational level. It is as offensive as “y’all.”

  190. Ken677
    August 14, 2011 at 8:31 pm

    The Missing 116 pages will turn up . They were never missing , it seems that Martin Harris after the publication of the Book of Mormon hid them , and put them in a wooden container , and placed the contents inside of his house in one of the walls .  There is a great fear if the missing papers would turn up , but  the text is in the hand writing  of Joseph  Smith . The Book of Lehi contained the first 40 chapters  of his “preaching” in Jerusalem , and gives a gemological  list of names going back to Abraham .

    • JB
      March 31, 2014 at 1:55 am

      Cristopher is just a great novel writer but not a prophet. He is a deceiver of mankind.

  191. SeraphJones
    December 12, 2011 at 4:43 am

    Dear Kent,
    At one time I considered that Joseph Smith and Martin Harris had changed their doctrinal ideas and wanted to make the 116 pages go away so that they could write a new version that was less down on polygamy. Editing the previous ms. would not do, because several people had read parts of it by that time.  I gave up that idea when I realized that if Joseph still had the ms, he could have looked up things such as the name of Nephi’s wife, etc., so that the Lesser Plates of Nephi would not be so lacking in detail.

    I do feel sad, though, that virtually every apologetic for the coming forth of the Book of Mormon is heavily dependent upon calling someone a deceiver or reliant upon some kind of conspiracy, either by Joseph himself, one of the charter members of the church, or Joseph’s enemies.

    In the case of Martin deliberately hiding the manuscript, he would have had to deceive in order to claim the ms. was lost.  The explanations get more complicated than many soap operas. I love the Book of Mormon and find the story a very inspirational Christian story, whether it be true or fictional.

    I just don’t know what to make of all the labor involved in making sequels to it.

    • Sutekh
      January 4, 2014 at 11:14 pm

      The “BBS” Book of Lehi dissed polygamy like you wouldn’t believe, but it also endorses Temple worship, and the “God is a man like you” doctrine. These two ideas work against each other in any consideration that the pages were eliminated to make polygamy go away.
      If the pages were eliminated to make polygamy possible, the names of Nephi’s wife, children, etc., and other missing details could have been cribbed from the “missing” ms. and put into the new one.
      There is no solution to the problem other than to believe that Joseph lost the ms. and was not certain that some enemy of his did not possess it — hence he not only could not use it to look up the names of personages in the text, nor could he make up new ones without fear that someone might produce the previous text and show that everything had changed.

      • David J LeBaron
        February 4, 2014 at 7:33 pm

        Polygamy was not even an issue, in 1830…..

        • Sutekh
          March 23, 2014 at 7:29 pm

          It was not an issue at the time the 116 pages were lost, because there were less than 5 men in whatever it was that could be referred to as “the church” at the time. They were still able to keep their thoughts entirely secret, since they had no opportunity at that date to practice anything they were thinking about that they had not yet preached.

  192. Harrdrawk
    January 29, 2012 at 6:45 am

    Nemelka contrived his Sealed Portion just to prove that what Joseph Smith did with the “unsealed portion” was humanly possible without any help from any God or Angels, because Nemelka just hates it that Mormons keep saying they know something that they don’t. There is nothing wrong with the concept that a Jewish family escaped Jerusalem before it was sacked and floated to the New World to begin a new life, and it would be swell if any of it had actually happened. Unfortunately there exists no empirical evidence to support the popular legend. . . Hence Nemelka’s crafty sequel of the same bullshit. The only God anyone will draw closer to by abiding by either of these books is the One Joseph Smith worshiped, which was pretty much like the narcissist that he himself was. Good luck with that hellacious eternity.

    • Sutekh
      January 4, 2014 at 11:10 pm

      Nemelka’s work cannot be the translation of the missing 116 pages, because it does not contain 116 pages worth of material. If Nemelka wants to claim that his translation of the missing pages is also missing some pages, then I could take it halfway seriously, but since he has not, I can’t.
      Nemelka’s work just provides us with a reductio ad absurdum argument against the Book of Mormon.
      The tacit argument expressed in words is this:
      If one can seriously accept that the Book of Mormon is an English translation of an authentic preColumbian manuscript without any scientific evidence of the original text (or the ms.,) , then it is perfectly plausible that one would accept his Book of Lehi as the authentic English translation made by Joseph Smith, Jr. without asking to see the 116 manuscript pages written by Joseph Smith, Jr. that it allegedly represents.
      That’s why the RLDS Church used to teach a religion course on J.J. Strang at Graceland College. Strang’s claims exactly mirrored Joseph Smith, Jr.’s, with the addition of a letter “from Joseph Smith,Jr.” appointing Strang president of the Mormon church. Then Strang proceeded to find more plates buried in Vorhee, and proceeded to translate them. Then he translated the Book of the Law of the Lord (another missing Biblical book) from the Brass Plates of Laban. Strang had no ms. evidence for any of this translations, either, but he did have some cool pictures of the graphics on the plates.
      The RLDS position was the same. If one actually, literally believes the claims of Joseph Smith, Jr., there is no substantive reason to deny the claims of Strang, since Strang had exactly the same evidence as Smith — nothing.

      • David J LeBaron
        February 4, 2014 at 7:30 pm

        I submit to you Sir, that none of the above mentioned, had a sliver of Joseph Smith Jr.’s Natural Intelligence. For starters: Joseph Smith Jr. was an Original–Not a Meer-copy-kat! LOL

        • Sutekh
          March 23, 2014 at 7:27 pm

          I do not know if that is such a complement to Mr. Smith. Many men, both extremely good and extremely bad, have had half-baked imitators.
          For instance, General Antonio Lopez de Santa Ana styled himself “The Napoleon of the West.”
          One Texas high school back in 1970 actually had a student nicknamed “Little Hitler.”
          And every president of every Mormon sect has been authoritatively pronounced only a legitimate successor to Joseph Smith, Jr. but his equal at the very least.
          Nemelka’s problem here, if he is serious, is simply that he has not yet persuaded someone other than himself to make the proclamation.

  193. Getterdone481
    March 31, 2012 at 1:55 pm

    When I sat across from Chris Nemelka in the SLC Library on year ago, HE said he said the Sealed Portion was made up to contradict the Book of Mormon which was made up to contradict the Bible. Can not eople see the falsehoods,wrongs or basis on wrongs don’t make anything right??? Chris Hansen – Getterdone

    • 19JohnJerdon67
      May 16, 2012 at 11:37 am

      Having read the BOM, I know that what the modern-day LDS church accepts as truth is condemned in the BOM: i.e – Polygamy (Jacob 2: 27) Fast & Testimony Meeting (Alma 31:21-22) restricting admission into houses of worship, etc. Now, that is contradiction isn’t it?  Do these contradictions make the BOM – “the keystone of the religion”  false and Joseph Smith a false prophet or indicate a state of apostasy? Is the United Order of Consecration anything similar to what the LDS observe today? What does Does D&C 85:3-4  say about those that choose the Law of Tithes over the Law of Consecration?

      3 It is contrary to the will and commandment of God that those who receive not their  inheritance by consecration, agreeable to his law, which he has given, that he may tithe his people, to prepare them against the day of vengeance and burning, should have their names enrolled with the people of God. 4 Neither is their genealogy to be kept, or to be had where it may be found on any of the records or history of the church.

      IF the LDS Church didn’t believe that the Law of Consecration is important to the spiritual progression of its people, then why are Endowed members required to covenant to live it if called upon? Why haven’t they been called to live something they already rejected once before? Maybe because what they currently accept/desire (Alma 12:9-10) contradicts or mocks the intent behind the United Order.

      D&C 104:52 The covenants being broken through transgression, by covetousness and feigned words— 53 Therefore, you are dissolved as a united order with your brethren,…

      Considering this, wouldn’t it make sense if the Sealed Portion of the gold plates re-emphasized a plan to institute a united order, even the Worldwide United Foundation plan to end inequality and poverty? Wouldn’t it also make sense that the Sealed Portion would explain where those that rejected the United Order went wrong and what how what they accepted in its stead falls short of what is required of them (D&C 105:2-10). Before the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was instituted, there existed a “Trustee in Trust”. The WUF was established through the Marvelous Work and a Wonder Trust. May God is the same yesterday, today and forever and doesn’t have forever to wait  on a church that chose to spend billions on a shopping mall (profit) instead of opening up its meeting houses to the homeless and feeding the hungry, as a true “prophet” would and has encouraged. (Acts 2:44-45 And all that believed were together, and had all things common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.)

  194. January 29, 2013 at 3:16 am

    I found it recently (three weeks maybe) and read much of it and found more things said by Nemelka. In the last week I left the ‘sealed’ book and came to Ether’s. Actually, my attention has been set in the sealed portion for years. I had selected scriptures that indicated it’s content (as long as I was able to see such content in the pages I was reading). When I started reading Nemelka’s work, I found those items that were supposed to be there. Then I got confidence and kept reading and I found new doctrines. One of them: there is no need of religion. Then I read again the Book of Ether (in the Book of Mormon) and realized that from Jared’s time to Ether’s, nobody talks about organized religion or ordinances, but in chapter 12 when Moroni (that lived in a civilization used to have religion) talks about baptism, he talks about the lamanites that were baptized wth fire. When Jesus arrives among the nephites he makes reference to these lamanites saying that they were baptized and knew it not. Jared’s brother was able to move a mountain, see Jesus, know all things (etc.) and there is no reference to religion in the book that tells his story. The point is that there are consistent doctrines in ‘the sealed portion’ that should be read attentively. Another point that is too important to be left aside is that the practical focus of the doctrine of Christ is that we must do good to find peace, happiness and eternal improvement. It is the main focus of true religion, of the law of Christ and it is somehow lost in many social and concerns we see everywhere. In the Book of Ether says that if the nations of America would only serve God (serve other people is serving God, as king Benjamin said) they would be really free. As I said there are many points to consider. I do not feel comfortable with some doctrines like reincarnation, the claim that there is no devil and that God himself does not hear or prayers but other beings do. I understand that in order to make a lie atractive, Satan puts it in true. Lucifer knows the truth (even mysteries for us) and can use it to deceive. I’m not sure about the veracity of ‘the sealed portion’ but I’m sure that there are many things that I did not see before that are there.

    • JB
      March 31, 2014 at 2:09 am

      Only LDS members who have no guidance of the Holy Ghost can be deceived by you and your false prophet Nemelka.

  195. March 19, 2013 at 9:17 pm

    Walking through the Salt Lake Cemetery today I saw Christopher Nemelka’s headstone. It marks his empty grave and has his website carved into the back of it. On it is written that he has translated the Sealed Portion of the Gold Plates and is Hyrum Smith reincarnated. Interestingly it’s in the same plot as Hyrum Smith’s descendants, and is not a stone throw away from several other important historical figures in the LDS Church, including Wilford Woodruff.

    • mr controversial pink
      February 9, 2014 at 2:58 am

      I do not believe in reincarnation the transfiguration of souls going to anither mortal.body.,there is only one resurrection from jesus christ for the righteous and the unrighteous. There is only one jesus christ who is God the creator of all worlds.there is only one hyrun smith one joseph smith and one christopher nemelka.not reincarnated sou going into another body.if thr sealed portion was translated by christopher nemelka through higher beings then it is possible that christopher nemelka,had the help of translation by God and by the spirit prescence of God and the prescence of hyrum smith.just as the spirit elijah returned in the temple. Or christopher nemelka coukd of had the help of satan and his demons who can masquetade themselves into.a angel.of light.also one third of the hosts in heaven.were satans demons that were kicked out of heaven.these fallen.angels that became demons have knowledge and intelligence and they have strenghth. GODS angels are called cheribums and seraphims as well

  196. Yami Shogun
    June 23, 2013 at 5:31 pm

    Christopher was just on a local talk radio program I’m interested in reading the sealed portion but more so with the Human Reality book they were talking about. The link is at http://www.bestdealsutah.com or http://www.marvelousworkandawonder.com interesting to read it all.

    • JB
      March 31, 2014 at 2:14 am

      We’re not interested in the talk show of a deceiver Nemelka.

  197. MWAW TV
    August 27, 2013 at 8:03 pm

    The sealed portion is part of the marvelous work and a wonder website. There is a weekly worldwide talk show that just started where anyone can call in with their questions to the Messenger. Just search for MWAW TV you will find links everywhere in every social network.

    • JB
      March 31, 2014 at 2:15 am

      Not interested in the talk show of a deceiver Nemelka.

  198. firec
    December 31, 2013 at 5:26 pm

    im Atheist, so i dont give a rats ass

  199. David J Lebaron
    February 4, 2014 at 4:04 pm

    This Numb Skull, has drawn, and, enlarged upon, some of the Inherent Doctrinal Flaws, contained in Mormonism. Therefore, he will share in their Ignominy, when the LDS Church, takes their Final Bow.

  200. David J LeBaron
    February 4, 2014 at 7:09 pm

    I can guarantee you, that cristy nemilka, comes far closer to being a Transsexual, than ever he will, a Translator. He simply does not have the Intelligence, nor the Character, to have been so called, and so anointed.
    At the moment, he is far more of a nuisance, than he is a real threat.
    Just as we will always have the poor–so, shall we always have the Intellectually Impaired–Who constitute the Grist for his type of Mill. It follows, that, crissy nemilka, too, is Intellectually Impaired–otherwise, IT would have claimed to be the Savior–and, had done with it. (chuckles)

  201. mr controversial pink
    February 9, 2014 at 2:35 am

    Life is all about sifting the wheat from the tares. In other words.sorting out whats true and whats false by using the brain that God gave us through our minds reasoning and logic and through discernment and intuition through the holy ghost. Nothinng is free and immune from error. Doc and cov 9.1 is a excample of the apocrypha having both truth and error and interpolitions of men which would apply to.other non canonical writings,that are not in the scriptures of the standard works of the holy bible the book of mormon and doc and cov and pearl of great price.there are many non canonical writings tbat have a mixture of truth.and error such as the oasphe kosmon bible by john new brough. This would also apply to the sealed portion translated by cgrustopher nemelka

  202. demi
    March 15, 2014 at 11:37 pm

    all this rude immaturity only makes me more curious about the ‘sealed portion’ promised us. Not much intelligent dialog here.

  203. mhodger
    March 20, 2014 at 3:42 pm

    Just a new fraud following an older fraud.

    • Sutekh
      March 23, 2014 at 7:22 pm

      That isn’t such a demolishing criticism. I could truthfully say it about the each occupant of the White House from 1989 to present. But apparently delusion is so popular, no one has noticed.

      • mhodger
        March 25, 2014 at 8:06 am

        You could, but then those White House occupants aren’t claiming to be Gods sole anointed on the earth are they? Not intended to be “demolishing criticism”…just fact.

        • Sutekh
          March 25, 2014 at 10:12 pm

          I hate to tell you this, but there are a lot of people who call Obama “the messiah.”
          A socialist government insinuates that it is Divine when it begins to claim that citizens don’t have any rights that the government doesn’t give them. Since the Declaration of Independence states that man’s inalienable rights come from his Creator, that put Socialism (in America, at least) in the position of insinuating that it is God without directly asserting so.

  204. JB
    March 31, 2014 at 2:25 am

    Christopher Nemelka, if you are a phophet, why is this web page asking for donations? are you the poorest among the poor false prophets?

    • Sutekh
      April 4, 2014 at 5:29 pm

      Is Christopher Nemelka actually participating in this conversation?

  205. Bradley Greenwood
    April 10, 2014 at 7:37 pm

    I am flabbergasted that anyone cannot see what an obvious fraud the BOM and Joseph are and were. He is lucky to have so many gullible people (like Martin Harris) he could swindle to get his book published, and the “church” founded. He was not even a good fraud. The only reason Mormonism continues is momentum. Any Mormon friend, who I have dared to ask, think the LDS church is Bull****. This new iteration is better written… but a fake built on a fake. And it came to pass.

    • Sutekh
      April 12, 2014 at 9:18 pm

      There is no real apologetic for Mormonism. However, anything that requires faith has no real apologetic where skepticism is concerned.
      No one saw the plates of Mormon who didn’t already believe they existed.
      No one saw the risen Jesus who was not already a convert.
      When I wonder why Joseph Smith didn’t show the plates and prove they existed, or at least provide pencil rubbings of the engravings, I also wonder why Jesus didn’t walk back into Jerusalem on Easter Sunday and drop in on Caiaphas for breakfast. In both cases, that would have settled the issue.
      I used to sing in church “Made like him, like him we rise,” but I still didn’t go out to the cemetery 36 hours after my father was interred to see him rise like Jesus, on the third day.
      Where Mormonism is guilty is in the fact that there is no historical setting for its claims. If there were, people could get “Zarahemla Syndrome” on the shores of Lake Erie, just as people get “Jerusalem Syndrome” in the Holy City.

      • Bradley Greenwood
        April 12, 2014 at 9:37 pm

        The difficulty the LDS church has is that their history is really rather short… and they seem to have documented EVERYTHING. Anyone criticizing the church need only look at the churches OWN documents. Some have been edited… but not that many. And the ones that were are still available from earlier printings.

        General Authorities have tried to hush things up… but have been ineffective.The internet has hurt ALL religions… but controversial ones, like the LDS, are taking a beating.

        It’s no longer the “anti’s” who are running the show, it’s ex-Mormons; that’s tough to defeat. It’s easy to tune out kooks wearing garments outside General Assembly, but when it’s one of your own people, it’s a killer.

        • Sutekh
          April 13, 2014 at 8:08 am

          Hello, Mr. Greenwood.
          The truth never really hurts any religion. Those who are gullible will believe anyway. The truth that has come out simply filters out those who will never be true blue Mormons. That helps the church avoid knock-down, drag out fights with Mormon dissidents like William Law and others.
          For gullibility, Geocalorianity is a case in point. All the academics’ e-mails about how to present the case to fool people into cooperating, plus the false prophecies of New York becoming like Florida by 1995 haven’t phased anyone. The really scary part is that, unlike Mormonism, Geocalorianity is very popular among educated people — those who turned away from the “illiterate” Mormon prophet. Had the U.S. Congress decided to promote Mormonism in the mid 1900′s, we’d live in a very strange world today. The only reason Geocalorianity is not recognized as a religion and excluded from government access is that it masquerades as science, in much the same way that the Book of Mormon claims to represent pre-Columbian history.

      • Sutekh
        April 13, 2014 at 8:59 am

        I’ve already been called on my Book of Mormon geography. The place identified by Vernal Holley as the vicinity of Zarahemla is near Lake Ontario, not Lake Erie.
        My apologies.

  206. Jerry
    April 18, 2014 at 9:30 pm

    Interesting that all the people here seem to know what the 116 pages are all about when their lost! How would you know if we have never had them except for Joseph and Martin? And if they talked about them, please let us all know where that information can be found!

    • Sutekh
      April 19, 2014 at 8:28 pm

      Other than rationalization based upon the vague comments in the Plates of Nephi about generic events [not] described by Jacob and the others, Lucy Mack Smith is the only source that I know of. And she had only one detail to provide.

  207. JoeJoseph
    October 1, 2014 at 8:45 pm

    Will this guy rewrite the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormons? If the Book of Mormons is as false as the Book of Abraham why doesn’t this dude rewrite both of them correctly?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *