Evidence for or against "The Book Of Mormon".

  • Thread starter Thread starter wademann
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
wademann:
Wasn’t Jesus arrested? Is that your irrefutable evidence? I see these same old tired stories get thrown out, that have already been refuted, maybe not to your satisfaction, but to a few million mormons satisfaction. This is not irrefutable. Joseph Smith had many enemies in which satan could use to do his bidding. If this is the true church, wouldn’t you think that the forces of evil would do anything to stop it’s growth? But through all these years of persecution and anti-mormon reteric, it continues to grow. If you look at the history of the church there is no way it should have survived, but it has. How do you explain that? Look at the link in casen’s earlier post, in the section about BOM nuggets. Can you refute all of that?
Click to expand...
Sure. The orthodox church has existed for more than 950 yrs and have survived. Are they the “true” church? The Protestand churches, depending upon which denomination, have existed for more than 400 yrs and have survived. Are they the “true” church? Lastly, the Catholic Church has survived for more that 2000 yrs. Do you consider us to be the TRUE CHURCH? Are these churches, aside from the RCC, more true than your church? I don’t think so huh. Because if you would have said yes you would be a hypocrite to be staying with the LDS. Does the longevity of the existence of each one of these churches make them the true church which Jesus established? If it does, then you could conclude that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church established by Jesus. Of which I would definitely agree.

The RCC has gone through more persecutions than any of the churches in existence right now through the course of history. But has it ever crumbled? It couldn’t because she has been divinely protected by her own SPOUSE.

God Bless you.
 
40.png
DeFide:
Michael, I think perhaps you meant to ask someone else, right?
Click to expand...

No. 🙂​

I’m interested in the correct reading of the relevant passage of the Anthon Letter, and the meanings of the names of the scripts and languages in question.

The right understanding of that passage should be of great help in judging how credible the letter is.

I’m assuming that the Letter is a valuable testimony to the BoM. If the Letter, or that passage at least, is of little or no value from a Mormon POV - that is another matter. ##
 
mormon fool:
I don’t think it is all that helpful to get hung up too much on any one account. Anthon didn’t really have the ability to read Egyptian although he could identify types of writing.

A good take on the whole incident is:
*The Anthon Transcripts and the Translation of the Book of Mormon: Studying It Out in the Mind of Joseph Smith *
David E. Sloan
Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1996. Pp. 57–81
farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=124
Click to expand...

Egyptian is not the only language relevant here though 🙂​

Depending on the reading, Anthon was referring to:
  • the Syriac language or script
  • the language spoken in Assyria
  • the script used for writing the language spoken in Assyria
That is why the readings “Assyriac” & “Syriac” are both important - the understanding of what is meant in the Letter is dependent on them.

And the meaning to be put on “Chaldaic” is equally important - since it too could mean:
  • the Aramaic language
  • the language of Babylonia
  • the language of Babylonia & Assyria
    • and, possibly, the script used for these. ##
 
40.png
gryskull:
First of all I wouldn’t refer to BJ, who is one of your members, a dummy. Pretty harsh words you’ve used there for one of your own.

Actually, I thought that the question was aimed at me. I was referring to myself. I went back and looked and it just had me as the poster. I must have been tired or I’m dumber than I thought, besides I would never call my Mom a dummy.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
gryskull:
Sure. The orthodox church has existed for more than 950 yrs and have survived. Are they the “true” church? The Protestand churches, depending upon which denomination, have existed for more than 400 yrs and have survived. Are they the “true” church? Lastly, the Catholic Church has survived for more that 2000 yrs. Do you consider us to be the TRUE CHURCH? Are these churches, aside from the RCC, more true than your church? I don’t think so huh. Because if you would have said yes you would be a hypocrite to be staying with the LDS. Does the longevity of the existence of each one of these churches make them the true church which Jesus established? If it does, then you could conclude that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church established by Jesus. Of which I would definitely agree.

The RCC has gone through more persecutions than any of the churches in existence right now through the course of history. But has it ever crumbled? It couldn’t because she has been divinely protected by her own SPOUSE.

God Bless you.
Click to expand...
My point was, that I could throw out alot of circumstancial evidence that a person that was truly looking for the truth, should take into account, before they just brush off the whole Mormon religion and the people who suffered and died for their beliefs. I am not saying my evidence is irrefutable, but neither is what you have thrown out as proof for your side.
 
40.png
gryskull:
First of all I wouldn’t refer to BJ, who is one of your members, a dummy. Pretty harsh words you’ve used there for one of your own.

Second, the term christians was used only after 33 AD by St. Luke. Although in essence you can call the Apostles christians the term was never used. Not even by the old testament prophets. They used a different term like “the Son of Man” in the book of Daniel, etc. But the terms christians was not used. did the Jews believe in these prophecies. Sure they did. But were they ever called christians?

It’s quite obvious that Joseph Smith was using modern day info and terms. If the book of alma was written around 75 BC anyone inquiring about the truth of the BOM would certainly question it’s antiquity.

God Bless.
Click to expand...
Hey, I gave it a shot!!! I am not sure what the answer to that question is, that was just my humble theory. I will defer to some of the better read people, to answer from here.
 
Mormon Fool:

Thank you for the links to the Dan Vogel material. It is very interesting.

However, as I said before, I have more important things to deal with in my personal life at the present time, so I have to put it all on hold. If someone else beats me to it, I welcome that.

What I would do, if I were to write a book on “The Viking Troubles in North America”, would be to not directly confront the BOM except in a last, brief chapter drawing the parallels. As I have said before, direct and obvious attack on Mormonism is just not my style. (It lays bare my anger at what Mormonism, and the general sickness of white America have done to the Indian peoples.)

Such a book would require knowlege of linguistics-- particularly Irish and ancient Icelendic and Indian languages, DNA, study of Indian legends, a trip to the Vatican to unearth the nature of the apostasy of the Greenlandic settlements, which resulted in their being cut off from Europe, a visit with the archaeologists who did work on Greenland, and many other, very expensive research efforts. It would also require consultation with people, such as you, who have studied the BOM intensively, and have the intellectual openness to draw the parallels between the two stories.

I simply do not have the resources to do this at the present time.
 
In fact, from reading Dan Vogel’s work, he might be highly qualified, especially if he were to find a co-author qualified to take things form the Indian perspective. :cool:
 
40.png
Jerusha:
Mormon Fool:

Thank you for the links to the Dan Vogel material. It is very interesting.

However, as I said before, I have more important things to deal with in my personal life at the present time, so I have to put it all on hold. If someone else beats me to it, I welcome that.

What I would do, if I were to write a book on “The Viking Troubles in North America”, would be to not directly confront the BOM except in a last, brief chapter drawing the parallels. As I have said before, direct and obvious attack on Mormonism is just not my style. (It lays bare my anger at what Mormonism, and the general sickness of white America have done to the Indian peoples.)

Such a book would require knowlege of linguistics-- particularly Irish and ancient Icelendic and Indian languages, DNA, study of Indian legends, a trip to the Vatican to unearth the nature of the apostasy of the Greenlandic settlements, which resulted in their being cut off from Europe, a visit with the archaeologists who did work on Greenland, and many other, very expensive research efforts. It would also require consultation with people, such as you, who have studied the BOM intensively, and have the intellectual openness to draw the parallels between the two stories.

I simply do not have the resources to do this at the present time.
Click to expand...
So, I want to get this straight, if you did this, it would refute the authenticity of the BOM?
 
Not necessarily, for those who can believe it was imperfectly translated through divine intervention. 😉 Imperfectly translated because of the cultural context and limited knowlege of the “translator” and his friends.

Each person is allowed to come to their own conclusions. As it should be, rather than harrassed and hassled by persistant fundie Mormons. :bigyikes:
 
40.png
Jerusha:
Mormon Fool:

Thank you for the links to the Dan Vogel material. It is very interesting.

However, as I said before, I have more important things to deal with in my personal life at the present time, so I have to put it all on hold. If someone else beats me to it, I welcome that.

What I would do, if I were to write a book on “The Viking Troubles in North America”, would be to not directly confront the BOM except in a last, brief chapter drawing the parallels. As I have said before, direct and obvious attack on Mormonism is just not my style. (It lays bare my anger at what Mormonism, and the general sickness of white America have done to the Indian peoples.)

Such a book would require knowlege of linguistics-- particularly Irish and ancient Icelendic and Indian languages, DNA, study of Indian legends, a trip to the Vatican to unearth the nature of the apostasy of the Greenlandic settlements, which resulted in their being cut off from Europe, a visit with the archaeologists who did work on Greenland, and many other, very expensive research efforts. It would also require consultation with people, such as you, who have studied the BOM intensively, and have the intellectual openness to draw the parallels between the two stories.

I simply do not have the resources to do this at the present time.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
Jerusha:
Mormon Fool:

Thank you for the links to the Dan Vogel material. It is very interesting.

However, as I said before, I have more important things to deal with in my personal life at the present time, so I have to put it all on hold. If someone else beats me to it, I welcome that.

What I would do, if I were to write a book on “The Viking Troubles in North America”, would be to not directly confront the BOM except in a last, brief chapter drawing the parallels. As I have said before, direct and obvious attack on Mormonism is just not my style. (It lays bare my anger at what Mormonism, and the general sickness of white America have done to the Indian peoples.)

Such a book would require knowlege of linguistics-- particularly Irish and ancient Icelendic and Indian languages, DNA, study of Indian legends, a trip to the Vatican to unearth the nature of the apostasy of the Greenlandic settlements, which resulted in their being cut off from Europe, a visit with the archaeologists who did work on Greenland, and many other, very expensive research efforts. It would also require consultation with people, such as you, who have studied the BOM intensively, and have the intellectual openness to draw the parallels between the two stories.

I simply do not have the resources to do this at the present time.
Click to expand...
So, you are saying that Joseph Smith had all of this knowledge, or took all the time you say it would take to research everything that you mention above to gain this knowledge, and then he diguised it as a parallel story, which is the BOM?
 
No, you have GOT to be intentionally misunderstanding me.

My belief is that he (and friends) developed the story based on thier cultural context, ideas developed in the white community, what they had seen of archaeological evidence, Indian legends (thus “translation”), the Bible, and a vivid imagination.

If someone wants to believe that they also had a written text to work from, there is a loophole allowed for that. Personally, that strains my conception of what is realistic.

I really am not interested in your attempts to distort my words, or set an argumentative tone to this discussion. My beliefs are my choice.
 
Jerusha hasn’t even read the Book of Mormon. She thought it too boring.
 
I finally was able to get to the library to find the book. It is “No Man Knows My History;The Life of Jospeh Smith, the Mormon Prophet” by Birodie, Fawn McKay.

I only had thirty minutes, and a very impatient son to look, it over. My recollection turned out to be imperfect. However, the author did state that Joseph Smith was found guilty of disordely conduct which stemmed from his claim of finding treasurer by looking into rocks. In what I could find. Joseph Smith never found treasurer this way. The book also suggest that Joseph Smith used a natural gift of hypnoses.

One thing that has always struck me about the beliefs of “Mormons” is the claim of becomming gods. That was the promise to Adam and Eve by the devil to entice them to sin.
 
I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
(Psalms 82:6)

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
(John 10:34)

And you can do much better than “No Man Knows My History”.

Ray B. West, who also was born a Mormon but “lost my faith in the Mormon religion”, said of Mrs. Brodie’s book back in 1957.

*I do not say that Mrs. Brodies did not have a perfect right to hold such a belief herself, but it is an attitude which is destined to distort any religious figure–to reduce him to the level of comedy or of pathetic self-delusion. If the study is presented as a serious study of the Mormons, it results in bewilderment for anyone who knows anything about Mormon society. Was it no more than humbuggery or comic self-delusion which drove a whole society, numbering between fifteen and twenty-five thousand souls, from territory to territory, and eventually into the wasteland of the Far West? Was it for this that they suffered persecution and death? Was it upon such a foundation that they built a society and belief capable today of affecting amost a million and a half persons? * (West 1957, xviii)
 
*I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
*(Psalms 82:6)
Click to expand...
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
(John 10:34)
Click to expand...
The devil who is the father of lies deceived Adam and Eve by telling them “you will be like gods”. The simiarity of the LDS belief is striking to me as being the same one that satan promised. Your quotes did not answer this quandary for me.
 
I will unravel this mystery for you but first I want you to tell me what Psalms 82:6 and John 10:34 mean to you. And don’t say you don’t know.
 
40.png
Jerusha:
No, you have GOT to be intentionally misunderstanding me.

My belief is that he (and friends) developed the story based on thier cultural context, ideas developed in the white community, what they had seen of archaeological evidence, Indian legends (thus “translation”), the Bible, and a vivid imagination.

If someone wants to believe that they also had a written text to work from, there is a loophole allowed for that. Personally, that strains my conception of what is realistic.

I really am not interested in your attempts to distort my words, or set an argumentative tone to this discussion. My beliefs are my choice.
Click to expand...
I really have no Idea what you are talking about, but you sure come off as very authorative, for someone who has never read the BOM. Nevermind.
 
40.png
gryskull:
First of all I wouldn’t refer to BJ, who is one of your members, a dummy. Pretty harsh words you’ve used there for one of your own.

Second, the term christians was used only after 33 AD by St. Luke. Although in essence you can call the Apostles christians the term was never used. Not even by the old testament prophets. They used a different term like “the Son of Man” in the book of Daniel, etc. But the terms christians was not used. did the Jews believe in these prophecies. Sure they did. But were they ever called christians?

It’s quite obvious that Joseph Smith was using modern day info and terms. If the book of alma was written around 75 BC anyone inquiring about the truth of the BOM would certainly question it’s antiquity.

What? I read this whole thread and could not find anyplace where wademann referred to me(BJ) as a dummy. It was himself he called dummy. Oh well, maybe I am a dummy, cause I don’t get that statement. BJ
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top