Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons

  • Thread starter Thread starter Blade_and_Blood
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Stephen168 said:
And you still didn’t say anything about 1.

Could any ex-mormon answer this most difficult question for me:

Do mormons believe:
The Book of Mormon is a history of the American Aborigines translated by Joseph Smith?
Code: 
                           -and-
The Book of Mormon a history dating from 600BC to about 421 AD claiming the principal ancestors of the American Indians are Hebrews?
Click to expand...
It is a history of a group of people who came to America from Israel. To call it a “history” of all the pre-columbian peoples who lived on North and South America would be completely erroneous. Read it and see what it says.

If you are going to criticize a book, do you think it might be a good idea to read it?

Do you think maybe you have damaged your credibility just a tad as a critic of the Book of Mormon?

Why would you even ask such a question? “Hey you guys, what is David Copperfield about again? I want to disprove that it’s true!”

That is the quality of your argument.
 
Ferde_Rombola said:
I still say you don’t get it. That or you’re being disingenuous. The subject I’m dealing with is the legitimacy or not of Mormonism and the claims made on its behalf. Nothing else. If you post, as a fact, your screen name is ‘Snow’ I have no comment. The topic I’m discussing is the Mormon claim that Native Americans are the descendants of ancient Hebrews. That’s one of the facts stated in the BoM and alleged by Mormons Do you believe that ‘fact’ or not? Since you’re a Mormon, I presume you do. If you don’t, say that and I will apologize to you.

To drag in everything you ever said on this board and say I have no rebuttal is dishonest on its face.
Click to expand...
Where is that stated? Give me chapter and verse please. Good luck finding it, because it isn’t there. Oh and find that oxygen mask for Mary please while you’re at it.
 
mfbukowski said:
Let’s restrict the claims of the legitimacy of the catholic church to the eucharist. Papal succession isn’t on the table.
Click to expand...
Your first sentence is unintelligible. Your second is curious. What’s ‘papal succession?’ Are you sure you used to be Catholic? Did you get any instruction in the true Faith?
 
mfbukowski said:
It is a history of a group of people who came to America from Israel.>>>
Code: 
                ______________________
There’s the rub. Can you prove that? I mean PROVE it, not allege it.
Code: 
               __________________________
If you are going to criticize a book, do you think it might be a good idea to read it?>>>
Code: 
                 ___________________
Not necessarily. Mormon claims are a matter of common knowledge. What is there about the criticism that is inaccurate?
Code: 
        ______________________
Do you think maybe you have damaged your credibility just a tad as a critic of the Book of Mormon?>>>
Code: 
             _________________________
I don’t think he has. I think you have damaged yours by failing to offer any proof of your claims.
Code: 
             ___________________--
Why would you even ask such a question? “Hey you guys, what is David Copperfield about again? I want to disprove that it’s true!”

That is the quality of your argument.
Click to expand...
Code: 
                   ____________________
You’d like to think that, I’m sure. Flimsy argument, Bukowski. Change ‘disprove’ to ‘prove’ and it’s your argument.
 
mfbukowski said:
Where is that stated? Give me chapter and verse please. Good luck finding it, because it isn’t there.
Click to expand...
It isn’t? Then where did you get it?

It’s stated in your message #189 thus: “It is a history of a group of people who came to America from Israel.”

Now that’s out of the way, prove it!
 
mfbukowski said:
It If you are going to criticize a book, do you think it might be a good idea to read it?
Do you think maybe you have damaged your credibility just a tad as a critic of the Book of Mormon?
Why would you even ask such a question? “Hey you guys, what is David Copperfield about again? I want to disprove that it’s true!”
That is the quality of your argument.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you are talking about. I’ve made NO argument. I just wanted simple answers to what I thought was some simple questions.
Stephen168 said:
Do mormons believe:
The Book of Mormon is a history of the American Aborigines translated by Joseph Smith?
Code: 
                           -and-
The Book of Mormon a history dating from 600BC to about 421 AD claiming the principal ancestors of the American Indians are Hebrews?
Click to expand...
Which actually breaks down to four questions:
  1. Did Joseph Smith translate the Book of Mormon?
  2. Is the Book of Mormon a history of the American Aborigines?
  3. Does the history take place between 600BC and about 421AD?
  4. Does it claim the principal ancestors of the American Indians are Hebrews?
Snow answered the first question (YES) but seems unable to answer the other three.
mfbukowski said:
It is a history of a group of people who came to America from Israel. To call it a “history” of all the pre-columbian peoples who lived on North and South America would be completely erroneous.
Click to expand...
I assume you are telling me the answer to number 4 is NO; just some of the American Indians; and the answer to number 2 is No, just some of the American Aborigines.

Now I just have get the answer to number three.
 
RebeccaJ said:
History has become a belief system for the LDS. They discount historical fact as belief (or opinion) and they take their beliefs and try their hardest to get them presentable as historical facts.
Click to expand...
Ah yes, the “it’s true because it’s old” argument again. I remember that one.
 
I not even sure what you are talking about. The issue is that some people think that the DNA evidence of American Natives ought to reflect the ancient origin of the BoM people that migrated to the Americas.

So, from a non-vague and fluffy and scientific basis, please describe what the DNA evidence should look like given the existing American population of indigenous people at the time of the migration and the genetic make-up of the migrating party. I’m sure that you know that the migrating party was not Jewish but rather from the tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim - which were carried away by the Assyrians and so their genetic make-up does not currently contribute much to today’s Middle Eastern genetic make-up.

Do you think I will have to wait long for your non-fluffy, non-vague, scientific response?
 
Stephen168 said:
Cool.

So the Book of Mormon is a history of a few American Indians which had ancestors who were Hebrew. It was translated by Joseph Smith and the events took place between 600BC and 421AD.
Click to expand...
If you were Hebrew, would your descendents be American Indians? How does that happen?
 
mfbukowski said:
It is a history of a group of people who came to America from Israel. To call it a “history” of all the pre-columbian peoples who lived on North and South America would be completely erroneous.
Click to expand...
mfbukowski said:
If you were Hebrew, would your descendents be American Indians? How does that happen?
Click to expand...
Are you saying it is a history of Hebrew people that came to America in 600BC and then disappeared in 421AD?
 
paul_c said:
When did Abraham marry an already married woman?
Click to expand...
If you will recall, your complaint was about adultery, and my question was what was Abraham’s penalty for adultery.

You are right to be confused by it. The sanction against adultery was not man’s law. It was written by the Hand of God as part of the ten commandments. Therefore, you have to believe that God would have changed the law he gave earlier just for the benefit of Joseph Smith. This seems impossible.

You seem to be missing the issue. If a plural marriage is ordained by God, then according to God’s law, sex within the plural marriage wouldn’t be adultery.

The issue is not whether God changed his law about adultery but whether plural marriage must be a sin or may be ordained by God. Since God caused David’s polygamy by giving him plural wives, can we not assume that God may approve of at least some plural marraige?
“Peter, you are rock and on this rock I will build my church”. It can’t be much clearer than that. any alternative interpretation is clearly stretching to support a position contratry to scripture.
Click to expand...
As I am sure you know, but conveniently neglected to mention, may people interpret the verse in the context of the surrounding verses, which you conveniently neglected to post, and believe that the the foundation of Christ’s Church is not a fallible human being but rather revelation - God’s direct communication to his prophets.
This is not true. We can see God in his creation. We can see him as the maker of the physical laws such as gravity and the organization of the universe and even the creator of the Big Bang 13.7Billion years ago, where all matter was created from nothing.
Click to expand...
Feel free to post the proof that I am wrong. If you do, you’d be the first ever in history to do so.

I’m cheering for you - really.
Here’s the rub. You think of Jospeh Smith as much more than a Saint. You think of him as a wrold changer, equivalent to Abraham or Moses and maybe close to the level of Jesus Christ himself. He changed doctrines. None of the Popes changed doctrines, they were the custodians of doctrine passed to them by their predecessors and yes, some of them were personally corrupt but none of them changed doctrine…
Click to expand...
  1. I hardly think of Joseph Smith as anywhere close to the level of Christ so you are completely wrong about that.
  2. That the Catholic Church had doctrines not found in the Bible is news to no one - whether introduced by pope or theologians. The Church of Jesus Christ also has doctrines not found in the Bible. However, I dispute that we change doctrines found in the Bible. We just don’t agree with your interpretation of the Biblical doctrines.
 
I didn’t see your comment, however it is obvious to me that when JS got to parts of the BoM (plates) that were direct quotations of the Bible, for example Isaiah, he simply used the KJV with some variation, Interestingly, when JS substituted variatiants - 207 of them - there was a net improvement over the KJV version.

farms.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=2
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top