Have you read the Book of Mormon?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pieman333272
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
:whistle: LOL. That’s what they said it was. Doesn’t look even close to any hieroglyphics I ever saw.
 
LongJourney said:
…This is what Martin Harris took to Charles Anthon.
Click to expand...
I see this comes from web site that describes it purpose as “…document problems with the claims of Mormonism and compare LDS doctrines with Christianity.”

What is the source of this picture? Is this something that the LDS church recognizes?
 
My understanding is that the RLDS church holds it in their archives.
Several copies of the Anthon transcript exist and have been published in various places. What appears to be the oldest version is in the possession of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints at Independence, Missouri. RLDS historians have reported that this copy of the characters is written on a piece of paper measuring 8 by 3¼ inches. The paper appears to be of the same quality and appearance as that on which the manuscript of the Book of Mormon was written. The sheet was in David Whitmer’s possession in 1884, he having obtained it along with the printer’s manuscript of the Book of Mormon from his brother-in-law, Oliver Cowdery, before the latter’s death in 1850.
Click to expand...
maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=8&num=1&id=188
 
I contacted Dr. Hasni Arwas, a noted Egyptologist, and sent him a copy of The “reformed Egyptian” paper as claimed by J. Smith. He responded by saying that first off there is no such thing as “reformed Egyptian” ( red flag ). Secondly, there is a shorthand, or script version, of the hieroglyphic Egyptian characters ( another red flag ). And thirdly, he has absolutely no idea what all the markings on the paper that I sent him are or mean ( a red, red flag ). So there you have it. I presented Dr. Anwar’s answer to various Mormons. The reactions were from complete silence to complete denial in response. So, there is only one conclusion, and except for Mormons, we all know what that is.

By the way, a revealing and complete expose about the Church of Latter-day Saints is in the book “Kingdom of The Cults” by Dr, Walter Martin. Dr. Martin has researched this subject thoroughly.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
 
I still wonder where the contemporary documents are in this so-called reformed Egyptian.

:yawn:
 
Well, you would think if it were a real language, someone would have recognized it by now.

Lacking any original object in this script really is an insurmountable obstacle IMHO.
 
Actually, some of the symbols may have been a form of shorthand, used by Irish monks in the 1600’s.

http://olivercowdery.com/smithhome/2000s/charatr1.gif

The left column is comprised of symbols from the Anthon Manuscript, the right is comprised of symbols from Tironian notes.
But was Anthon familiar with Tironian notes? In the 1825 edition of Lempriere’s Classical Dictionary “CORRECTED AND IMPROVED BY CHARLES ANTHON, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR OF LANGUAGES AND ANCIENT GEOGRAPHY IN COLUMBIA COLLEGE, NEW-YORK” is the following entry carried over from Lempriere’s original: “Tiro, Tullius, a freed-man of Cicero, greatly esteemed by his master for his learning and good qualities. It is said that he invented short-hand writing among the Romans…” (756) Further, Ulrich Friedrich Kopp’s Paleographia critica, a comprehensive dictionary of notae, had been published in Germany in 1817. It is not unlikely that a Latin and German scholar 50 such as Anthon would have had at least a passing familiarity with this work on Latin shorthand. As Coon notes, “It was Anthon who opened the eyes of English and American scholars to what was being done by the Germans.” (149)
Click to expand...
olivercowdery.com/smithhome/2000s/2001RBSt.htm#part3

What is really interesting is that a relative of Lucy Smith participated in the discovery of a “Detroit Manuscript,” written in Tironian notes, probably by a Jesuit Irish missionary.
 
I voted for “Other” on the grounds that there was no option for those who have yet to read it but plan to do so as some point in time.

To be quite honest, I don’t know when that will be since I’m far more interested in the histories of the Early Church and writings of the various Church Fathers as well as how certain traditions became dogmas and why. Henceforth, I’m not not as interested in things that are not essential to the article faith with regards to priorities.

Mormonism comes into existence 1700+ years later. It is much far removed than Orthodoxy and Catholicism with no Apostolic ties. You can see why it may not be a priority on my “books to read” shelf.
 
Before joining the Mormon Church I hope you have done some research concerning their doctrine. Mormons are not Christians as they claim to be.

Look up Joseph Smith. The founder of this church.
A great book to read by James R. Spencer, a former Mormon and why he left the church after a few years, also why he became a Mormon to begin with…
You may also want to check out www.mazeministry.com

God bless you,
bluelake
 
bluelake said:
Before joining the Mormon Church I hope you have done some research concerning their doctrine. Mormons are not Christians as they claim to be.

Look up Joseph Smith. The founder of this church.
A great book to read by James R. Spencer, a former Mormon and why he left the church after a few years, also why he became a Mormon to begin with…
You may also want to check out www.mazeministry.com

God bless you,
bluelake
Click to expand...
Hi

thank you for sharing.

This website is pretty informative.
If the person to whom you adress this post is interested in “Mormonism” - I’d also adivse him to have a look in the Community of Christ (RLDS) first. - Because they are “more Christian” than the LDS Church, Utah.

Esdra
 
BLUELAKE, I encourage people to study the BoM critically. There is a huge difference between those who read the book critically, and those who read it because LDS missionaries have asked them to read it in faith, looking for an emotional response divorced from reason. Those who have read it critically then have a better understanding of how much it departs from reality, and the warped meanings that LDS give it. This provides them with tools for resisting Mormonism, and facilitates communication with members of the LDS church.

Because the LDS church has infused a superstition into the American people, that reading the book leads to conversion, many simply refuse to read it. AND, many naive Mormons believe that anyone who has studied the BoM is either Mormon, or on their way to becoming Mormon. What we have going here is a chess game. And the Lord of the chess-board is? …
 
LongJourney said:
… I encourage people to study the BoM critically…
Click to expand...
I appreciate your point of view, and I can see value in understanding the major differences in orthodox Christianity and the Mormon system, however, it is hard to get past the fact that the BoM text has no historical provenance, other than J Smith’s English manuscript(s). There are no original texts, the alleged original language is unknown. We are left only with historical “witnesses” to testify that the amazing plates existed. At some point debating metallurgy, horses and camels, and miraculous translating rocks becomes quibbling.
 
I haven’t read all the posts in this thread, but I did reply to the poll. I chose “other” because I am a Catholic who is interested in reading what other denominations and/or religions believe. I haven’t yet read the Book of Mormon but plan to do so down the road, possibly after I’m done reading the Koran (that is a tough read, for me).
 
LongJourney said:
There are no camels in the BoM.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the correction. Is it the horses we debate? I had camels on the brain because they just found some ancient (- 300K - 1M years old) camel and horse fossils in Riverside, CA while digging to install a power substation. I just recall seeing posts on exactly what did and did not live in ancient north america.
 
Horses are a major debate. Another is elephants. This is rather humorous, also, because the texture of many parts of the BoM resembles that of I Maccabees, and elephants also occur in Maccabees.
 
LongJourney said:
Horses are a major debate. Another is elephants. This is rather humorous, also, because the texture of many parts of the BoM resembles that of I Maccabees, and elephants also occur in Maccabees.
Click to expand...
IIRC, pygmy elephants fossils were found on the Channel Islands. Here are the most recent camels and horses I mentioned:

cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/21/tech/main6887368.shtml

Note the timeline, however, -1.4M sediment - really old stuff.
 
Well, there are no Nephites or Lamanites, either. Unless you want to anthropomorphize llamas. :whacky:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top