Mormon missionaries tell me Native Americans are from Israel

[Hastrman]

Yes, but he read it a lot for its psuedo-KJV ironies (unintended of course)

Robert

So here’s a question: how come God inspired Jews to write in Aramaic and Hebrew, and Christians in Aramaic and Koine Greek, but Mormons to write in three-hundred-year outdated Midlands dialect English?

But to the original topic, Native Americans being the lost tribes: it seems unlikely to me that anybody who spoke a head-initial inflecting language with templatic morphology and two genders, that mark nouns, would somehow turn up not three millennia later speaking a head-marking agglutinating language with polysynthetic morphology and up to fourteen genders, that mark verbs–like Navajo.

It just seems odd, considering Samoyed and Lapp separated ten thousand years ago and both are still recognizably similar.

 

[RebeccaJ]

So here’s a question: how come God inspired Jews to write in Aramaic and Hebrew, and Christians in Aramaic and Koine Greek, but Mormons to write in three-hundred-year outdated Midlands dialect English?

But to the original topic, Native Americans being the lost tribes: it seems unlikely to me that anybody who spoke a head-initial inflecting language with templatic morphology and two genders, that mark nouns, would somehow turn up not three millennia later speaking a head-marking agglutinating language with polysynthetic morphology and up to fourteen genders, that mark verbs–like Navajo.

It just seems odd, considering Samoyed and Lapp separated ten thousand years ago and both are still recognizably similar.

I have no idea what you just said, but I know that you forgot Reformed Egyptian.

:whacky:

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

A certain ‘Profit’ peering through his ‘seer stone’ :banghead:

Robert

 

[Hastrman]

I have no idea what you just said, but I know that you forgot Reformed Egyptian.

:whacky:

If it’s any kind of Egyptian it’s an Afro-Asiatic language (semitic, egyptian, berber).

Someone ought to go through some writings of the Coptic Churches (where’s Isa Almisry when you actually want him?), and compare the construction to the BOM.

See, Coptic is descended from Ancient Egyptian.

Semitic and other Afro-Asiatic languages are head (usually verb) initial–the most important thing goes in front. It inflects–words are basically stem+a very few endings that express several things like plural, direct object, feminine. It has two genders, masculine and femine, that affect the nouns. And its morphology is templatic, whole slews of words form from comparatively few roots.

Navajo, my randomly selected Native American language (because I know the most about it) is a South Athabaskan language. It’s head marking, meaning it doesn’t have grammatical subject and determines most things by the verb. It agglutinates, meaning it puts on one thing meaning plural, another meaning object, another meaning “the,” etc. It has fourteen grammatical genders, like flat areas, round objects, people, concepts, that affect the verbs–specifically the verbs that have to do with moving things. And its morphology is polysynthetic, meaning it makes huge honkin’ words with lots of information: “The direction that he went off in at that time” is one word in Navajo.

 

[RebeccaJ]

If it’s any kind of Egyptian it’s an Afro-Asiatic language (semitic, egyptian, berber).

Someone ought to go through some writings of the Coptic Churches (where’s Isa Almisry when you actually want him?), and compare the construction to the BOM.

See, Coptic is descended from Ancient Egyptian.

Sorry, no comparisons can be made as apparently Smith gave the original documents to an angel who spirited them away to immortal safety.

 

[hosemonkey]

If it’s any kind of Egyptian it’s an Afro-Asiatic language (semitic, egyptian, berber).

Someone ought to go through some writings of the Coptic Churches (where’s Isa Almisry when you actually want him?), and compare the construction to the BOM.

See, Coptic is descended from Ancient Egyptian.

What Joe Smith identified as “reformed Egyptian” was actually a fragment of heiroglyphic script on papyrus, a common mass-produced burial document (Book of Breathings) of late Ptolemaic period. He claimed that it was “The Book of Abraham” and came from the hand of the prophet himself. He delivered a full translation of this document that was revealed by later translators as a complete hoax.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Ah!

A hoax within a lie wrapped around a scam.

Robert

 

[Hastrman]

What Joe Smith identified as “reformed Egyptian” was actually a fragment of heiroglyphic script on papyrus, a common mass-produced burial document (Book of Breathings) of late Ptolemaic period. He claimed that it was “The Book of Abraham” and came from the hand of the prophet himself. He delivered a full translation of this document that was revealed by later translators as a complete hoax.

Gee, and nobody even said, “Joe, buddy, in Ur of the Chaldees they wrote with Ur-period cuneiform. Hence the name.”?

 

[hashbaz]

I think I’ve learned all I need to know about Mormonism from reading this thread. It’s obviously a fraud and the Mormons are willing to say and do anything (even if it’s illogical) to defend it. The Book of Mormon simply can’t hold water – there were no ancient Israelites wandering through the Americas preaching Christianity.

It is sad when anyone forms an opinion of a religion (or any group, race, or culture for that matter) based on what its opponents have to say about it. While I am no historical expert, I have read the Book of Mormon in its entirety. I wonder how many in this thread can say the same? I am LDS and I challenge any of you to read through the whole text and then make conclusions about what it has to say. I am also curious about how you argue against all of the “scientific” evidence that “proves” that the Bible is a fraudulent text as well. Personally I believe in the Bible and the Book of Mormon because I have read and studied them and received answers to prayer; not because of what the scientific or historical community has to say about either of them. I am more interested in what God has to say on the topic. I thought that believing in God and His word was a matter of faith, not a matter of scientific inquiry. If you are unsure of what any faith, not just mine, says why not study it out from the source and ask God.

 

[majick275]

Catholic20064;3278944:

I think I’ve learned all I need to know about Mormonism from reading this thread. It’s obviously a fraud and the Mormons are willing to say and do anything (even if it’s illogical) to defend it. The Book of Mormon simply can’t hold water – there were no ancient Israelites wandering through the Americas preaching Christianity.

It is sad when anyone forms an opinion of a religion (or any group, race, or culture for that matter) based on what its opponents have to say about it. While I am no historical expert, I have read the Book of Mormon in its entirety. I wonder how many in this thread can say the same? I am LDS and I challenge any of you to read through the whole text and then make conclusions about what it has to say. I am also curious about how you argue against all of the “scientific” evidence that “proves” that the Bible is a fraudulent text as well. Personally I believe in the Bible and the Book of Mormon because I have read and studied them and received answers to prayer; not because of what the scientific or historical community has to say about either of them. I am more interested in what God has to say on the topic. I thought that believing in God and His word was a matter of faith, not a matter of scientific inquiry. If you are unsure of what any faith, not just mine, says why not study it out from the source and ask God.

i have read the entire BoM, and all of the other LDS “scriptures”. I have also read the bible and prayed. I believe what God said. That there is only one god ever anywhere, that he established ONE church that the gtes of hell will never prevail against and that he will always be with us. that makes me Catholic. Mormonism teaches false doctrines from false prophets.

 

[PaulDupre]

It is sad when anyone forms an opinion of a religion (or any group, race, or culture for that matter) based on what its opponents have to say about it. While I am no historical expert, I have read the Book of Mormon in its entirety. I wonder how many in this thread can say the same? I am LDS and I challenge any of you to read through the whole text and then make conclusions about what it has to say.

You’ll find that most of the opponents of whom you speak are former Mormons who, like myself, have read all of the LDS standard works and much more in their entirety.

I am also curious about how you argue against all of the “scientific” evidence that “proves” that the Bible is a fraudulent text as well.

I am not aware of any scientific evidence that disproves the bible, at least to honest scholars. Would you care to post yours so that we can discuss it?

Then perhaps we can discuss the Book of Mormon.

Paul

 

[hosemonkey]

hashbaz;3487735:

i have read the entire BoM, and all of the other LDS “scriptures”. I have also read the bible and prayed. I believe what God said. That there is only one god ever anywhere, that he established ONE church that the gtes of hell will never prevail against and that he will always be with us. that makes me Catholic. Mormonism teaches false doctrines from false prophets.

That is what it finally comes down to: mormon people are well-intentioned, but they have been duped by a bunch of 19th-century slickers who saw an opportunity to feather their own nests and gain power over a whole group of people. The present-day leadership continues that same practice, holding a large group of otherwise good people in spiritual bondage to an elaborate tissue of lies. Sad.