A Book of Mormon tour

[zaffiroborant]

Strevel;3972131:

I believe that you challenged me about the death of JS’s children due to mob violence. I cannot find the thread but if I am mistaken, please forgive me. He lost one child to the mobbing in Kirkland, when he was tarred and feathered. The child’s name was: Joseph Murdock Smith. He had the measles and was weak. When the mob stormed through JS’ home, the child caught a cold

and died a short time later.

Ramping up the drama here I see.

Central Illinois is not Siberia at the end of March. And Emma was in the house caring for Joseph’s twin sister. What did she do just leave the child on his own? I doubt it. I’ve seen other LDS assert the Joseph died from exposure. Stop with the melodrama. Joseph died because he had the measles like so many others. Some made it through some didn’t. I can see it when I go through my own family’s history.

 

[RebeccaJ]

For the record, I never said any part of the Book of Mormon could be proven. I will honestly admit that I rely on those dreaded “feelings” (otherwise known as the Holy Spirit) in order to verify the truthfulness of what I read. That is how I know the Bible to be the word of God. It’s also how I know the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

And so feelings change and one day you may find yourself feeling less sure of what those feelings mean. Then, which feelings are you going to go with then? Feelings and emotions are a poor measurement of truth.

I wish any of you would have actually read the entire article by Hugh B. Brown and gotten over his use of the word “Superhuman.” That seems to have led you down some wild tangents that I would rather have not explored.

Why do you believe it was not read. I read it. And it is poppycock. The BoM is a plagiarism of the KJV, “A View of the Hebrews”, and a dose of good old fashioned imagination. Not to mention, it is much more in line with Trinitarian theology. There is more proof of the Trinity found in the BoM, which is proof that it was written by someone already familiar with the New Testament. Not some guy (or guys) who supposedly lived long before the birth of Christ.

Further, as JS progressed further into hell, his theology changed, from Trinitarian to a binarian and finally to the pagan theology you hold today. The D&C itself contradicts the BoM.

My original point that I am sticking with is this: There is logic and faith working together in my beliefs.

You have not demonstrated this.

Most of your counterexamples (ie. bigfoot, superman, tolkien, etc.) were completely out of context for what I was discussing. In other words, they were not examples of logic and belief mixing, but rather only belief. I am honestly not trying to argue with everyone, but rather am attempting to explain my beliefs and hopefully help to create an atmosphere where there is a little bit more respect between religions.

I am sorry, but I hold no respect for a religion of lies that actively seeks to lead people away from truth.

 

[why_me]

He received none of these things for simply writing the Book of Mormon. He received these things as a result of his behavior and actions subsequent to the writing of the Book of Mormon.

Actually this is not true. From the very beginning the book caused quite a stir among the locals.and its reception did not go down well with other faiths. The persecution began immediately and continued until JS’s death. Also, like today, there were many rumors being circulated by antimormons and former mormons with an axe to grind.

Without the book of mormon he would have been very successful leading a new protestant sect.

 

[why_me]

One reaps what one sows,eh?

 

[why_me]

why me;3983282:

that’s not even close to being “mob related”. children died from measles back then…without mobs.

Actually what happened was this: Young Joseph Murdock Smith was severely weakened by the measles. At the time of the mobbing he was still weak with the measles, When the mob stormed JS’s home, the door was broken and the child caught a draft that turned into a severe cold from which he eventually died.

He did not die from the measles but from the draft.

 

[why_me]

why me;3983282:

The mob did not kill this child, disease did. A sad occassion, no doubt, but if there is any “blame” to be placed it is squarely at the feet of JS himself. He was entering other people’s homes to try and entice their young daughters to polygamy, and in some cases, he was successful. He seduced those young girls, someone’s daughter, into a life of sin. Are you lamenting that loss or celebrating it as “righteous”?

Not true. There were many reasons for the mob violence and certainly many rumors formed a basis. The child died because the mob attacked JS’s home and the child, weakened by the measles caught a severe cold when the door was broken and died. Sidney was also beaten close to death at the same time. And so, it was just an antimormn attack by rumor mongers.

 

[why_me]

why me;3983282:

Ramping up the drama here I see.

Central Illinois is not Siberia at the end of March. And Emma was

in the house caring for Joseph’s twin sister. What did she do just leave the child on his own? I doubt it. I’ve seen other LDS assert the Joseph died from exposure. Stop with the melodrama. Joseph died because he had the measles like so many others. Some made it through some didn’t. I can see it when I go through my own family’s history.

No, he died from the experience of having experienced the cool or chilled air. The measles however were responsible for his weakened state. He died from exposure to the chill with the measles as a foundation for his weakened state of health.

 

[Christine_Blake]

So are you saying that people didn’t know that cities like Rome and Jerusalem and Antioch, and places like the Sea of Galilee, and the Temple, and Egypt, and on and on and on - people didn’t know those were real?

I was responding to the “archeology” comment, which would mean we were talking about Sodom, Gomorrah, Mount Sinai, the tomb of Jesus, etc…all of the places that archeology, historical record etc have “proven” to us…my point was that faith does not need these “proofs”

 

[ibkc]

You might disagree with his point that nobody has been able to prove the Book of Mormon false as many of you seem to believe that you have already done so.

It is not for us to “prove the Book of Mormon false.” It is up to Mormons to demonstrate even a tiny shred of evidence that there is even a scrap of historical truth to it.

So far, they have been unable to do that.

 

[ibkc]

I was responding to the “archeology” comment, which would mean we were talking about Sodom, Gomorrah, Mount Sinai, the tomb of Jesus, etc…all of the places that archeology, historical record etc have “proven” to us…my point was that faith does not need these “proofs”

It sure does help, though. If there was absolutely NO evidence whatsoever (archaeological, linguistic, genetic, historical or otherwise) for the existence of anyone or anything related in the Bible, I would not be a Christian, and it is largely why I am not a Mormon. Their story is so fantastical that if it could be shown to be true, it probably WOULD be the true church. But they have failed, and spectacularly, to show that anything or anyone in it ever existed. That is not the case with Biblical history.

I also appreciate that the Catholic Church does not do as the Mormons do, and try to tell us that we should discern the truth of her teachings via pure emotionalism. The Church wants us to use our brains as well as our hearts.

 

[dzheremi]

OK, now it’s my turn to be very late to the party, but regarding this “Reformed Egyptian” idea…it’s total malarkey! Egyptian began to be written in the Demotic script around 660 BC, then in Coptic starting in the 4th century AD. Coptic ceased to exist as an everyday spoken language sometime in the 17th century, but is still used by Coptic Christians in their liturgies.

Here is why this idea is ridiculously unbelievable for me: If Wikipedia has it correct, the plates bearing “Reformed Egyptian” were written sometime between 600 BC and 421 AD. Convenient dates, given how closely they mirror the facts known during Smith’s day about Egyptian language and writing systems. Unfortunately for Smith, as I wrote above, anything written in any form of Egyptian prior to ~660 BC would’ve been written in hierogylphs, whereas anything after that up to the 4th century would’ve been written in Demotic, and anything after that in Coptic which we really needn’t concern ourselves with (Coptic is written in an adapted Greek script, and besides it is mostly outside our time frame).

So, if these plates were really “Egyptian”, they more than likely would have been written in Demotic, since the majority of the BOM’s stated time frame was during the Demotic period. Here’s the clincher: Thomas Young deciphered the Demotic script in 1814! Smith claims to have received the plates in 1827, and didn’t publish his book until 1830, so all this “seer stone” nonesense is pretty laughable. Of course, it is possible that Smith could have not known about this INCREDIBLY FAMOUS piece of linguistic history, but considering how close his book just happens to give the dates of the Demotic script’s birth and death, I’m not willing to say that it’s more likely a coincidence than not. Egyptology was very much en vogue during Smith’s time, and discoveries made during his lifetime would’ve made interest in Egyptian language a much more popular topic among average people than it is today.

It should be noted, in case Mormons think they can use this in their favor, that the first complete translation of the Rosetta Stone (from which the Demotic was deciphered) was not published until 1858, but this was because Jean-Francois Champollion did not complete his work on the heiroglyphic portion of the Rosetta Stone until several years after Thomas Young’s translation of the Demotic. This is not a problem, however, as Champollion DID publish his translation of the heiroglyphs in 1822, still five years before Smith received the plates. So, no matter what was on the plates, if it was written in ANY kind of Egyptian that has ever existed anywhere on the face of the planet, it would have been readable in 1827 without the use of any special equipment, just an interest in Egypt and a newspaper from within the previous 5 to 13 years.

On the other hand, if Smith was just making it all up, I guess he could have done whatever he wanted…

Cheerfully,
jeremy

(Catholic, LINGUIST, easily annoyed curmudgeon)

 

[AMDGtoo]

I will honestly admit that I rely on those dreaded “feelings” (otherwise known as the Holy Spirit) in order to verify the truthfulness of what I read.

How do you know that those particular feelings are from the Holy Spirit? The Bible says that we should discern (test) the spirits? Is trusting your soul to feelings that come and go with the wind even logical? Is that how we are to know truth–no verifiable evidence, just have a “good feeling” concerning something?

 

[scipio337]

… I will honestly admit that I rely on those dreaded “feelings” (otherwise known as the Holy Spirit) in order to verify the truthfulness of what I read. That is how I know the Bible to be the word of God. It’s also how I know the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

But mandrew, the BoM states that the “Great and Abominable Church” has willfully

“…taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious…And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.”

How do you know it to be the Word of G*d, if it has been corrupted, and had items removed? Do you rely on logic on assesing what is true, what has been removed, and what has outright been planted via conspiracy? Its a question that neither faith nor logic can answer without extreme leaps in either or both.

mandrew:

My original point that I am sticking with is this: There is logic and faith working together in my beliefs. Most of your counterexamples (ie. bigfoot, superman, tolkien, etc.) were completely out of context for what I was discussing. In other words, they were not examples of logic and belief mixing, but rather only belief. I am honestly not trying to argue with everyone, but rather am attempting to explain my beliefs and hopefully help to create an atmosphere where there is a little bit more respect between religions.

Balderdash.

There is more evidence of Bigfoot than there is of the BoM, or any article of faith in the D&C. Is there a picture of the “golden plates”? There are puported ones of Bigfoot. Video, to boot. Footprints of G*d and Christ in the ever-changing first vision’s “sacred grove”? There are of Bigfoot, with some even with dermal ridges. I could go on, but you get the picture. I appreciate your efforts to increase understanding between faiths, but I feel many here already have a good grasp of LDS doctrine, as as far as “respect” goes, the LDS would go a long way in stopping the hideous practice of baptizing dead people, including former Popes, Cardinals, Holocaust Victims…etc, etc.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

You nailed it Bro!
Above all, The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth. The Holy Spirit will not testify to a lie. Because mormonism is based on lies, then I seriously doubt that the Holy Spirit of Christianity, the Holy Spirit that we know, is at work among mormons. I believe that the Father of Lies Himself, is the Spirit that deceives mormons.
So, that ol’ “burning in the bosom” probably smells like sulphur.

Yes, and frequent partaking of the Eucharist is just the tums to make that heart burn go away.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Jacob

I personally do not care if you pray to the Great Pumpkin, but please do not whine if I do not view it as True Worship. If you want to come on here and play with the Big Boys, you need to get your facts straight and your arguments very tight. Otherwise we will take you apart. I recognise that you are playing with a handicap, but that is your problem, not ours. Good luck.

Yes, it’s quite a problem to get into a gun battle with a leaky boat, thrown together with spare parts, which wasn’t up to code to begin with. Especially when much of your original crew abandoned ship (e.g. some, the majority?, of the “Witnesses” at the front of the BoM recanted if I am not mistaken).

You have to watch out whose bow you fire across. They might fire back with better guns.

 

[majick275]

RebeccaJ;3984358:

Not true. There were many reasons for the mob violence and certainly many rumors formed a basis. The child died because the mob attacked JS’s home and the child, weakened by the measles caught a severe cold when the door was broken and died. Sidney was also beaten close to death at the same time. And so, it was just an antimormn attack by rumor mongers.

it is now obvious that you don’t even bother to read the history of this. you just continue to quote mine and spin. JS was tared and feathered by MORMONS who KNEW that JS was sleeping around and were outraged. JS could never had run a protestant sect. Sidney did but there was much more power and money to be had in the mormon scam. JS didn’t encounter any persecution until he started defrauding people of their hard earned money and trying to sleep with their wives and daughters. mobsters didn’t kill his kid, disease did. mobs came because of JS dishonest actions.

 

[zaffiroborant]

zaffiroborant;3986243:

No, he died from the experience of having experienced the cool or chilled air

. The measles however were responsible for his weakened state. He died from exposure to the chill with the measles as a foundation for his weakened state of health.

Nonsense people don’t die from cool or chilled air. They die from disease as did this child.

 

[Stephen168]

My original point that I am sticking with is this: There is logic and faith working together in my beliefs. Most of your counterexamples (ie. bigfoot, superman, tolkien, etc.) were completely out of context for what I was discussing. In other words, they were not examples of logic and belief mixing, but rather only belief. I am honestly not trying to argue with everyone, but rather am attempting to explain my beliefs and hopefully help to create an atmosphere where there is a little bit more respect between religions.

There are folks who believe in Bigfoot that make the same argument. We can’t PROVE he doesn’t exist. We haven’t looked everywhere at the same time.

I was addressing logic and belief. Not religious belief, but belief and the logic they use to keep their belief.

 

[Strevel]

It seems we are at an impasse Strevel. You see no logic in the BoM while I do.

My friend, Thank you for your response. My quandry is with the word “logic”. Logic is for engineering manuals, 2=2+0, Calculus and thinking processes. The BOM is not intellectual in nature. No one is told to go think thru the BOM, but to “feel” about it. Just the basis of the idea sets the end up in the same way that Abbott sets up Costello. Any normal person that is in the position of questioning will be an easy mark when it comes to asking their view of Diety anything, They are satisfying a need and it has nothing to do with God or any communication. WSe as Missionaries just picked the low hanging fruit and called it a blessing.

I respect your opinion even though I disagree with it. You also make it sound like I am secretly trying to do missionary work or that I am saying that because I believe it to be true that everyone should/has to. I am not.

To have a person go into a Catholic forum, it is noted as such, and politely pedal an idea (no rudeness intended) is very much consistant with the belief and practice of “Every Member a Missionary”. There are ways to impress an idea into the structure of a situation. If I am discussing "soap’ and you just happen to have a sales brochure of all things convientient, SOAP, (GASP the convienience) we can logically know that it was no accident. Religion is the same way. To ask questions that serve the end needs of the fairy tale book called the Book of Mormon is never an acccident. I used to get my boys to drink milk by asking them to try the milk and tell me what they liked most. Each of the four would drink afull glass and share their view. …they drank their milk when giving them a glass wouod have alerted their mind and they would nt have done so.

…ding ding ding, …alarms… The Book of Mormon would be in discussion being lead by a Mormon in a Catholic forum. A sharkin a sea of Salmon would not have it bettter. Most of the fine Catholic Brothers and Sistes would not catch on, short of Priests and Nuns. The participant would just have to call their local Missionaries (!) with questions. PALEEZE! At meat processing plants do you know why they keep the parts that the animal enters nice, clean and dry??? They do not want the cattle to know what is going on untill it is tolate and noone can stampede the herd. I did these things, I was trained to do these things, how to start conversations in a very dissarming fashion to guide these people to my goals. No rudeness inrended, but we are Catholic yo the marrow of our bones here in this forum.

Your loving Missionary actions are anothers slughter house splitting families, confusing others. My Sister still believes a hybrid of Catholic faith and Mormon heracy she was given in her religious trnsition not completed by a 20 year old.

I really am just trying to clear up some of the misconceptions that many people have and am hoping to help create an atmosphere that is a bit more open and a little less hostile.

In all politeness, I think we are adulta, can think and even know how to operate computers. We know how to use a telephne directory if we have questions.

I was Mormon and a fantastic Missionary training others to do the same. Sorta like the Real Estate Guru that trains other Real Stte people to be successful. I am fortunate enough by the Grace of God and all the saints to havw met a lady that spoke ti me out of love. She was Mexican i think as she spoke with a strong accent in Spanish. She opened the door and hundreds of Angels floed out to save my soul. No mind games, no twisting words, no swithing emphasis from JS to Christ to be considered Christian. (Remember when we did nt consider ourselves Christians!)

So luckily I do not fall into any of your categories. In other words I know where I stand. Thank you for the cook book analogy by the way. Even though I disagree with your conclusion, it made me smile.

We live in a free country and we must all remember where and who we are. I am Catholic to the marrow of my bones. I love Christ, his Mother and his Father. I try to always reprove myself towards growth. Please respect the fact we are Catholic here and not fish in a pond for others fishing. I hope you find the solidness and strength I have found and will grow in untill the put me in the ground, in the Lords true faith, the Catholic Church. Look up Saint Laurance (Lawrence) the Deacon. Pretty tough codger that guy.

…with love and uncompromising Catholic practice.

Don in Vegas

 

[mjf001]

So I am probably a little late to the party and the conversation seems to have diverted from where it originally was but I think that it would be worthwhile for everyone to read this article (yes it was written by a member of the Latter-Day Saint church). While you may disagree with his points, I think it is important to understand that the Latter-Day Saint faith is not without logic. You might disagree with his point that nobody has been able to prove the Book of Mormon false as many of you seem to believe that you have already done so. I do not post this with the intent to prove that the Book of Mormon is true or to sway any of you from your current belief system. However, when asked why I believe that Joseph Smith was the prophet who translated the book of mormon I would like to be able to answer in such a way (quote from Hugh B. Brown):

I would invite any of you to read the entire article here: lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=836e092480e6c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

I’d like to reiterate, I’m not trying to “prove” the Book of Mormon is true or that Joseph Smith was a prophet but that there is a logic to what I believe and it is in no way a “blind” faith as I have so often heard.

This line of thinking really puzzles me. So no one can prove the Book of Mormon wrong, huh ? By this logic, I should be able to go into a bank, claim I make an annual salary of $1,000,000.00 and ask for a loan 0f $10,000,000.00. Then I should expect them to just give me the loan based on my claim to make this salary based on no proof other than my word.
The bank is obviously not going to take my word for it, they’re going to ask for proof of income. So am I going to say, no you need to give me a loan because you can’t prove i don’t make $1,000,000? I’d be laughed out of the building, because this is an illegitimate argument. I would have to prove my income. LDS make the claim the church is true. It is up to the LDS to come up with something in the real world to back up this claim. Faith is fine, blind faith just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
Issue after issue, the LDS stand all alone, the Trinity and the nature of God, the BOM, reformed Egyptian, DNA, historicity, Baptisms for the dead, the great apostacy. I for one need more than just a burning in the bosom that may be an evil spirit or a psychological manipulation, or my own desire to believe. I need some fact to confirm the feeling, if I were to get one, is true. I didn’t convert away from the LDS based on feelings and I didn’t convert to the Catholic church based on feelings. Have I had spiritual experiences? Of course, before and after I was convinced of the truth of Catholicism.