Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons

  • Thread starter Thread starter Blade_and_Blood
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MelanieAnne said:
Yes, and don’t forget that Joseph Smith claimed that he RAN while carrying this “couple of tons” of gold… :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
This is absurd. It was 5-60 pounds of thin gold sheets in hieroglypics, one character of which might have been several words.
 
mfbukowski said:
This is absurd. It was 5-60 pounds of thin gold sheets in hieroglypics, one character of which might have been several words.
Click to expand...
Others have calculated the weight much higher so just WHERE do you get 5-60 pounds? (and that’s also suspect ~ as if 60 pounds is easy to carry at a run…) but also you DO need to follow the thread…

And your mention of “hieroglyphics” is interesting since there is NO SUCH THING as “reformed Egyptian”. :rolleyes:
 
MelanieAnne said:
Others have calculated the weight much higher so just WHERE do you get 5-60 pounds? (and that’s also suspect ~ as if 60 pounds is easy to carry at a run…) but also you DO need to follow the thread…

And your mention of “hieroglyphics” is interesting since there is NO SUCH THING as “reformed Egyptian”. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You really know nothing about Mormonism, so your arguments have no credibility whatsoever. I would love to call you an anti-mormon, but you don’t qualify. Did your mommie teach you these things about Mormons?

I’ll talk to you when Catholics stop sacrificing babies in the convent basements.
 
MelanieAnne said:
By any objective analysis the so-called “Book of Mormon” is clearly the work of Joseph Smith,
Click to expand...
Please post the “objective analysis.”

By the way… this is just rhetorical. We both know that you can’t and won’t.

Now isn’t that right.
 
I know almost nothing about Mormons and never met one but many of their arguments resemble that of Muslims : Bible corruption, an angel visiting a man telling him he’s a prophet, and a new book that no one can challenge.
 
Stephen168 said:
Did someone other then Joseph Smith translate the plates into the Book of Mormon?.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what your question is, but I have read about scholarly analyses of the Book of Mormon, analyses that take into account many facets of the book. The conclusions reached identify the Book of Mormon as the work of Joseph Smith and not the supposed translation of a more ancient text

The information I have been provided by Mormons regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon is that Joseph Smith used glowing “seer stones” (sometimes more derisively called ‘magic rocks’) that he held at the bottom of a hat and by peering at these stones he was able to translate the “Reformed Egyptian” that the Book of Mormon was supposedly written in. I have never heard that there was anyone else who actually did the “translation”.

This business about the seer stones, of course, sounds a bit far fetched which is why this sort of information is usually withheld from persons investigating the Mormon faith.
 
inJESUS said:
I know almost nothing about Mormons and never met one but many of their arguments resemble that of Muslims : Bible corruption, an angel visiting a man telling him he’s a prophet, and a new book that no one can challenge.
Click to expand...
You can add:

polygamy, though Mormons believe God has instructed them to not practice it at this time. Both founders of the respective religions taught multiple wives as doctrinal.

non-Trinitarian belief of God, though, Mormons believe Jesus is a God, where Muslims believe He is a prophet only.
 
MelanieAnne said:
The information I have been provided by Mormons regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon is that Joseph Smith used glowing “seer stones” (sometimes more derisively called ‘magic rocks’) that he held at the bottom of a hat and by peering at these stones he was able to translate the “Reformed Egyptian” that the Book of Mormon was supposedly written in. I have never heard that there was anyone else who actually did the “translation”.
Click to expand...
Joseph Smith, Jr. was supposedly given stones known as Urim and thummim. He placed the plates in a hat and could “read” this reformed egyptian which he read aloud to Oliver Crowdery who wrote them down. From these they got the book of mormon less the book of 1 lehi which crowdery supposedly took home to show his wife and the “angel” then took the plates for that book so as not to leave another copy about to be used to check later translations.

It should be noted that the BoM has changed over time. References to black people bearing the mark of cain have been removed from it and from the original book Mormon Doctrine.
 
problem is nobody really knows what the Urim and Thummin were-some kind of divination by lots is all that’s know.Nor does anyone know what it looked like.If Joe Smith knew how it works and what it looked like,I really hope he passed that information down so us Gentiles might get some insight into this mystery. I’m sure Biblical Archaeology will be forever in debt to Joe:D
 
Blade_and_Blood said:
You know, from what I’ve read on a fair few threads, I feel like I can come to the theory that there is at least one beauty of the Mormon faith.

Now, originally, it’s always been Protestants vs. Catholics. But then, the Mormon church came into the picture…

I’ve seen one or two threads that are about Mormons or their church/practices/people, and along with those threads, some people have replied with reference to Protestants being our “brethren”–it’s definitely something I can get used to: Being alongside the Protestants after centuries of conflict.

So, although Protestants and Catholics are mortal rivals, when the Mormons get into the picture, it’s Protestants & Catholics vs. Mormons. It’s like politics: Dems vs. Reps to Dems & Reps vs. the Third Party. :rolleyes:

Anyways, my question is: Why is this? Is it because of differences in faith? Or History? Or is it just the threat of a dangerous competition?

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood
Click to expand...

Mormonism is Classical polytheism in Christian clothes, minus theology (it has doctrines, but that is not quite the same thing). Like Classical religions, it has also prophets, seers, sacred sex, a Heavenly Mother, rites forbidden to outsiders, gods of purely natural origin, a sacred mythology; & is amoral. As well as divination. As for sacred texts - fixity is a property of the Bible, because it is Jewish & Christian; pagan holy writings were not fixed (the Sibylline Books are an example), & neither are those of Mormonism. It is not careful of history, unlike Judaism & Christianity, so having two Elijahs is not a problem for it.​

Forget the Christian surface, think of it as the revived paganism it is, & you won’t go far wrong.

Protestant controversialists called Catholicism paganised Christianity - & paganised Christianity is what Mormonism is. People should not ask for things, unless they want them.
 
MelanieAnne said:
Others have calculated the weight much higher so just WHERE do you get 5-60 pounds? (and that’s also suspect ~ as if 60 pounds is easy to carry at a run…) but also you DO need to follow the thread…

And your mention of “hieroglyphics” is interesting since there is NO SUCH THING as “reformed Egyptian”. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

If - for the supposedly inferior revelation in the OT & NT - God “saw to it” (so to speak) that:​

  • grammars of Hebrew, Aramaic, & NT Greek
  • remains of the use of those languages
  • extensive & detailed info about those languages
  • writing materials using them
  • lexicons & dictionaries of them
  • linguistic groups that used these languages
    • over a long period
      should exist - why, for this suposedly superior revelation are there no:
  • lexicons of Reformed Egyptian
  • grammars of RE
  • papyri, tablets or other records of its use ?
  • dictionaries & glossaries of RE ?
  • Why is there no multi-volume Chicago Reformed Egyptian Dictionary in preparation ? Such things exist for Hittite & Akkadian - & they are not the vehicles of Christian holy books; but the BoM is meant to be one.
  • Why are there no professorships of RE, & no foundations for the better understanding of this sacred tongue ?
  • Why are there no publications of documents in RE ?
  • Why are there no traces of any linguistic groups using RE ?
    This supposed language has no CREDibility in any sense. When faced with genuine Egyptian, in what he saw fit to call the “Book of Moses” (it is in fact a funerary text from about 60 BC), Smith made an utter pig’s ear of translating it, as has been shown repeatedly. If his abilities did not extend to translating a single text correctly, what possible reason is there to credit him with being the translator of a long & complex text like the BoM from any form of Egyptian whatever ? His nonsense makes The Two Babylons look academically brilliant :mad: 😦 This supposed language has no CREDibility in any sense.
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:

If - for the supposedly inferior revelation in the OT & NT - God “saw to it” (so to speak) that:​

  • grammars of Hebrew, Aramaic, & NT Greek
  • remains of the use of those languages
  • extensive & detailed info about those languages
  • writing materials using them
  • lexicons & dictionaries of them
  • linguistic groups that used these languages
    • over a long period
      should exist - why, for this suposedly superior revelation are there no:
  • lexicons of Reformed Egyptian
  • grammars of RE
  • papyri, tablets or other records of its use ?
  • dictionaries & glossaries of RE ?
  • Why is there no multi-volume Chicago Reformed Egyptian Dictionary in preparation ? Such things exist for Hittite & Akkadian - & they are not the vehicles of Christian holy books; but the BoM is meant to be one.
  • Why are there no professorships of RE, & no foundations for the better understanding of this sacred tongue ?
  • Why are there no publications of documents in RE ?
  • Why are there no traces of any linguistic groups using RE ?
    This supposed language has no CREDibility in any sense. When faced with genuine Egyptian, in what he saw fit to call the “Book of Moses” (it is in fact a funerary text from about 60 BC), Smith made an utter pig’s ear of translating it, as has been shown repeatedly. If his abilities did not extend to translating a single text correctly, what possible reason is there to credit him with being the translator of a long & complex text like the BoM from any form of Egyptian whatever ? His nonsense makes The Two Babylons look academically brilliant :mad: 😦 This supposed language has no CREDibility in any sense.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

And then there is more ~ such as the fact that the modern DNA record does not support the Book of Mormon story in ANY WAY unless you believe that EVERY SINGLE descendant of the supposed middle-eastern origin immigrants that came to the Americas failed to survive to the present, an event that has astronomical odds against it. (The most LIKELY explanation for the utter lack of DNA evidence of middle-eastern origin DNA in the native American genetic makeup is because the Book of Mormon story is FALSE.)

There are other items, of course, indicating the falseness of the BOM, but the DNA evidence alone destroys any rational credibility for the story.
 
MelanieAnne said:
I’m not sure what your question is, but I have read about scholarly analyses of the Book of Mormon, analyses that take into account many facets of the book. The conclusions reached identify the Book of Mormon as the work of Joseph Smith and not the supposed translation of a more ancient text
Click to expand...
Let’s see the evidence.

Actually, I know that you can’t and won’t post any such thing. It’s a little to hard for some when you have to prove your claims.
 
MelanieAnne said:
Indeed.

And then there is more ~ such as the fact that the modern DNA record does not support the Book of Mormon story in ANY WAY unless you believe that EVERY SINGLE descendant of the supposed middle-eastern origin immigrants that came to the Americas failed to survive to the present, an event that has astronomical odds against it. (The most LIKELY explanation for the utter lack of DNA evidence of middle-eastern origin DNA in the native American genetic makeup is because the Book of Mormon story is FALSE.)

There are other items, of course, indicating the falseness of the BOM, but the DNA evidence alone destroys any rational credibility for the story.
Click to expand...
You are dishonest and are just making up nonsense to fit your agenda.

PROVE your assertion that “EVERY SINGLE descendant” had to fail to survive in order to explain the DNA record today.

Of course I know you won’t since you are just making it up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top