E
Eucharisted
Guest
The most damning evidence against Mormonism is the Book of Mormons.
- Status
T
ThuriferAcolyte
Guest
SO true. They put up chiasmus as evidence when a book that Mormon scholars say is false (Strang’s Brass Plates) also has chiasmus from the 1800s, showing that chiasmus isn’t proof of anything. I actually wrote about chiasmus in my blog last week, and mentioned Ovid, as dzheremi mentioned:The most damning evidence against Mormonism is the Book of Mormons.
onecatholic.wordpress.com/2009/09/07/chiasmus-briefly/
Maybe I should look into Mormon claims on DNA, Lamanites and Native Americans. I studied genetics and biochemistry in college, so it should be a good read and laugh. I’ll write about what I find later.
E
Eucharisted
Guest
Never be afraid to study things from other people’s point of view. Just make sure to research all claims, lest you be purswayed by fancy talk and pseudoscience. By studying other religions, and this from their point of view as well, you will come to know the truth, and so your faith in Christ will deepen, for you will find that Christianity is the true religion and God is the true Lord. But before seeking out the claims of others, it is necessary to first be anchored in the truth, for this will act as an armor against lies and half-truths - even those that some Catholics like to speak and write.
W
why_me
Guest
Here is the rub. The strang site was not that convincing. But since Strang joined the mormon church and was familiar with the book of mormon it is not uncommon to copy certain aspects of it. And that is what he did. He was proven false and his witnesses recanted and said that it was all a fraud.
Now we are dealing with two things: hebraisms and chiasmus. And both are a bulls eye for the book of mormon. JS could not have known it. And so the question remains: how did it come about in the book of mormon?
W
why_me
Guest
You would need to know the history of the word principal. It was added to the 1981 introduction of the book of mormon. The introduction had nothing to do with the book itself. During that time there was a debate as to whether that word should be included in the introduction. Certain people said no and others on the committee said yes. The yes won. Some said that it was Bruce R. McConkie who was a yes man.
Throughout the mormon church at various times there were two groups. Those that supported the hemispheric model and those that supported the Limited Geographic model. For some time, the hemispheric model won out but now it seems that the LGT is winning out. Such is the way it is.
W
why_me
Guest
We all want to believe what we want to believe. And we all have are own truth to stand upon. And at the end of day, it really doesn’t make much difference. The world still turns.
W
why_me
Guest
you will need to refute the experts that I posted in a previous page. It seems quite convincing. Without decontructing what they said, your words are meaningless.
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
I’ve done a preliminary Google search for this and can’t find anything. Do you have a link where I could read more? To what extent has Strang’s work been deemed fraudulent? To the same extent as the Book of Abraham, or to something a bit more stark?
I don’t think that’s the point. If chiasmi in the Book of Mormon is being relied upon as evidence of its validity, then surely the Strangites can do the same with their Book of the Law of the Lord. Moreover, if chiasmi are to be a reliable standard, then I should think it more readily points to the Strangite branch of Mormonism rather than the Brighamite. They do, after all, read both the BoM and the other chiasmi riddled books.
This has become a rather tiring claim. Contemporary Mormons seem so keen on what Joseph Smith didn’t know. Furthermore, you seem to be going on the assumption that Joseph Smith needed to have a cognizant understanding and recognition of chiasmi in order to use them. This follows about as well as claiming that a 5 year old must have studied the English language in order to conjugate the minimal number of verb (s)he knows. Considering that chiasmi exist in Elizabethan English as well, I don’t think it’s far fetched to say that Joseph Smith, at the very least was exposed to chiasmi.
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
Just for once can we please keep an LDS related thread relevant to the OP? Amerindian haplotypes have absolutely nothing to do with alleged Hebrew literary devices.
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
As I mentioned to WhyMe, I don’t think it’s necessary to research or to even fully understand language syntax or literary devices in order to use them.
My little niece can say “BOOM!” and “ZZZAAAPP!” but if you were to ask her what onomatopoeia is I’m sure it would evoke a rather confused look.
D
dzheremi
Guest
Excuse me, but WHAT experts? There are no experts who buy this garbage, only gullible Mormon rubes like yourself.
I don’t need to listen to Mormon “experts” with religious agendas who aren’t taken seriously by ACTUAL LINGUISTS. I was TRAINED in linguistics by experts. You know, people who actually get published in linguistics journals, not LDS publications full of lies.
YOU have to prove using acceptable academic sources that Chiasmus is evidence of LDS conclusions. So far, that hasn’t happened.
E
Eucharisted
Guest
Relatvism dosen’t help your case.
E
Eucharisted
Guest
Actually, it is relevant. Mormons are claiming the Book of Mormon is based off of Hebrew, in order to show that it is the Scriptures of the Twelve Tribes is correct. But since the book’s claim about Native Americans is incorrect, than its authenticity comes into question, which in turn brings into question how it came about, which includes the claim that the book is based off of Hebrew.
And the reverse is true too. Mormons claim the Book of Mormon was in reformed Egyptian, which is based off of Hebrew. But since there is no such thing as reformed Egyptian, than the book’s authenticity comes into question, which in turn brings into question how it came about, which includes the claim that it is the Scriptures of the Twelve Tribes.
So yes, the DNA story and the Hebrew tongue story are both connected.
L
LutheranDK
Guest
PWNED!
L
LutheranDK
Guest
I’m sorry, but…
Exchange a few names in the list above - and you have the basics of RC apologetics as viewed on this forum.
L
LDSGuy
Guest
True. However can your niece come up with the extended chiasmus seen in Alma 36 for example? It seems very odd that Joseph Smith would be able to recognize a structure that is found in the Bible (among other places) and be able to use it in many places throughout the Book of Mormon. None of the theories of Book of Mormon origin account for this (and others), as they really only touch on the plot, and not the writing.
T
ThuriferAcolyte
Guest
So Strang was able to recognize chiasmus and then copy it into his book? You aren’t proving your case, because if Strang was able to do so, then Smith could have just as easily recognized it in the Bible and copy it into the Book of Mormon, just like he copied whole passages. So which is it?
A
Arandur
Guest
What’s more interesting to me than Hebrew language structure is the absence of various important pieces of Hebrew culture and worship–such as explicit mention of Hebrew feasts. Language is comparatively easy to mimic.
Further, if, like the Koran, the BoM did have some supernatural influence (both by angels, no less), one might expect some things difficult to explain by mere human capacity. But if, like the Koran, the message comes from an angel of dark masquerading as one of light,* or a message comes from even an angel that defies the Gospel transmitted by the Spirit through the apostolic successors,* absence of certain customs that would have been offensive to such an entity might be well expected. As would the creation of fictions and confusions/redefinitions of terms and languages.
*I hope you recognize these NT references to passages that in and of themselves should be enough for believers to reject the works noted above.
Further, if, like the Koran, the BoM did have some supernatural influence (both by angels, no less), one might expect some things difficult to explain by mere human capacity. But if, like the Koran, the message comes from an angel of dark masquerading as one of light,* or a message comes from even an angel that defies the Gospel transmitted by the Spirit through the apostolic successors,* absence of certain customs that would have been offensive to such an entity might be well expected. As would the creation of fictions and confusions/redefinitions of terms and languages.
*I hope you recognize these NT references to passages that in and of themselves should be enough for believers to reject the works noted above.
T
ThuriferAcolyte
Guest
References please for this decision on the Introduction.
whether or not it was a committee, the Mormon church decided to add the word “principal”, which implies a stronger genetic contribution to the Native Americans than “among”. According to one overview of the issue, the Introduction was written by Apostle Bruce McConkie in 1981 (there was no Introduction until 1981). My copy of the Book of Mormon that I received in 2002 says “After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the** principal** ancestors of the American Indians”. Today, the Book of Mormon says “After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians”.Principal:
1 : most important, consequential, or influential : chief <the region’s principal city>
Among
1 : in or through the midst of : surrounded by
The words of various Mormon prophets and apostles also speak to the influence of the Lamanites on Native American ancestry. So while this isn’t a DNA conversation, this word change changes the reader’s understanding (at least initial understanding) of the relationship between Lamanites and Native Americans.
A
Arandur
Guest
Exchange a few names and you have sola scriptura Protestants, ignoring the assumption of infallibility of their own interpretations.
The difference with Catholics is that we have many proofs that the Church is a Divine Institution, ensouled by the Holy Spirit, with Jesus Christ as our High Priest, Head of the Church, Spouse, and Body, having guaranteed the Church’s transmission of essential truth through promise and prayer. There is simply no greater guarantee of truth in the world than what the Catholic Church has, which makes our claim transcend any “exchange” of names in that list as the exception. For when you hear the teaching of the Church, you hear Christ. No one else (Orthodox being included in this sense as apostolically Catholic) makes much less backs up such a claim.
- Status