mormon prophet on Trinity

  • Thread starter Thread starter cestusdei
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CCM08 said:
The Urium and the Thirum were not originally part of the mythology of the BoM’s translation. One of Smith’s followers, years after he authored the BoM, starting using those terms for Smith’s peep stones. The original reference is obviously the Old Testament. Most scholars agree the Urium and Thirum were part of the priest’s vestments, the text itself doesn’t provide a great amount of details about them. There are no Jewish references to googles used to translate non-existant languages however.
Click to expand...
Earlier in this thread, I quoted a piece of D&C Section 10 in which the Urim and Thummim are specifically referred to in the so-called revelation, this way:

“”"“Now, behold, I say unto you, that because you delivered up those writings which you had power given unto you to translate by the means of the Urim and Thummim…”"

Also, doesn’t the BoM also refer to these? My understanding is that these were enclosed in the container housing the plates, and were intended to be used in the translation process.

Zerinus doesn’t appear eager to respond to hard questions that were put to him yesterday in this thread, about the veracity of the Bible vs the BoM. Let’s see if he will evaporate on this as he usually does.
 
Joseph Smith’s original stories on finding the plates do not include any references to the Urium and Thummim, they state there were two stones in the box with the plates. All of the early accounts of the “translation” are clear that most of it was accomplished not with the rocks that Smith supposedly found with the plates, but by dropping a brown peep stone that had been used ealier for his “money digging” scams into a hat.
 
zerinus said:
In the same way that we know that the book is true in the first place. Believing in the Book of Mormon is a matter faith to begin with. If anybody wanted to doubt that “plain and precious parts” were removed from the Book of Mormon, he would have no cause to believe in it in the first place. But having had the faith to believed that it is true in the first instance, he would not have any reason to doubt the integrity of the book either. It is an unjustifiable question.

zerinus
Click to expand...
That’s really not true. Believing that Jesus is God in the flesh and preformed the mircles described in the New Testament requires faith. I do not need faith however, to determine if the Roman Empire existed or not, there is a vast amount of evidence over the entire old world testifing to that fact. Many of their cities are still populated functioning cities. We have their literature, we have artifacts they left, we’ve found the sites of their battles. Nor do I need faith to know of the Jewish soceity that existed under Roman occupation during the first century. Given the fact that despite a great deal of effort on the part of the Mormon church nothing has ever been produced that would establish any of the claims of the BoM there is more that sufficent reason to question the validity of the book. Furthermore, if it really is what it reports to be (a historical account of ancient America) there is no reason not to believe that it wasn’t subject to the same document corruptions that Mormons alledge against the Bible.
 
CCM08 said:
Furthermore, if it really is what it reports to be (a historical account of ancient America) there is no reason not to believe that it wasn’t subject to the same document corruptions that Mormons alledge against the Bible.
Click to expand...
That is exactly right. Yesterday, when I posed that very question to Zerinus, our resident Mormon missionary, regarding the corruption of the BoM, assuming it to be what the Mormons claim it to be, here is how he replied:

*""That is an unreasonable, illogical, and unjustifiable question. I am not going to get into an endless back and forth with you in nonsensicalities. I am always ready to answer peoples’ reasonable questions. See my answers previously given.

zerinus""*

He refers in this reply to “answers previously given” but those answers do not respond to the question of BoM corruption resulting from human handling of the source documents from which it was “abridged” during the 1000 years before the plates were buried, nor to the obvious transcription/translation/transmission errors that are known to have taken place subsequent to Smith digging up the plates.

I wonder if Zerinus has checked out of this thread.
 
Of course we would need to see some manuscripts to see how the bom holds up. We do have some actually. Parts of the book of abraham papyrus were found. They were just copies of the Egyptian book of the dead and had nothing to do with Abraham or anything else. So the only original source we have doesn’t hold water and shows Joe was faking it.
 
Yes, I’ll bet the LDS leadership was horrified when that papyrus turned up in a NY museum and made available for study. I understand that it was assumed destroyed in a Chicago fire many years back. And, I just have to wonder how anyone with half a brain can hold to it being what JS claimed it was. Do the Mormons STILL accept it to be the writings of Abraham?
 
They claim the parts he translated were burned and this is just part of it. Proof? None, they just say it and expect you to buy it. But if you look at the plates at the beginning of the book of abraham you will find no non-mormon egyptologist accepts their interpretation. They are pagan images that have nothing to do with Judaism or Christianity or Mormonism. Unless Mormons now worship Anubis?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top