Mormonism

LittleSoldier · May 8, 2012

TexanKnight said:
To me, the worst part of the “church dying” is the cruelty Christ had to have.

Imagine…Christ knows what will happen in the future. So, assume the apostacy is true. Christ, knowing his apostles would all be killed, most by absolutely HORRIFIC methods, still sent his best friends out to die those horrible deaths KNOWING that the cause for which they would be killed by sword, being dragged thru the streets by horses, hanged, crucified, beaten with a club, beheaded, flayed, whipped to death, speared, shot with arrows, stoned and beheaded, and tortured and beheaded, was a cause that would die soon after their deaths.

I cannot imagine anyone more cruel than someone who would do that.

And Christ would never be that cruel.

I agree. The idea, the whole concept, horrifies me.

LittleSoldier · May 8, 2012

Wow. I leave for a few days and come back and my head is just spinning (I almost typed “literally” but then remembered *The Exorcist *and decided to not go there).

What I’m hearing (and I apologize for not responding to more individual posts at this time; it will take me awhile to catch up) is that God the Father was once a person because that taught Him how to be a person. Jesus couldn’t have known what human suffering was unless He became a human himself or perhaps becoming a human helped Him understand to a better extent. But God is omniscient! That is part of His being. I’ve read the Scripture passages allegedly backing up the idea that God became Incarnate so as to learn and I agree that on the surface they seem to support that idea (except for the one that is completely wrong and I have posted that it is wrong; probably just a typo).

But that is on the surface. I am no Bible expert but one thing I have learned is that it is a mistake to take a 19th or 20th or 21st century translation of Hebrew and Greek documents translated into Latin and then translated into English and discuss them unless one knows for certain that the words were translated correctly. And, unfortunately, there is always something lost in the translation.

So, at this time I am not ready to discuss Scripture and will leave that to those who have more education in this area. But I am always willing to learn (or attempt to learn).

However, God is omniscient. He knows us so well because He came up with the idea of us. He didn’t need to become one of what He created! Did God need to become a cat in order to understand cats? God developed the concept of cats; He designed them, He created each and every one of them, and He knows every atom of every bit of every cell in every cat’s body in the world.

It’s the same with human beings. God created them; He designed them and not only that, He created them in His own image. Why would He need to increase His knowledge of what He had created? That makes no sense to me. To me it makes it sound like the God of those funny old Cosby skits: “What’s a cubit? Well, I used to know what a cubit is!” Yes, they are funny but they’re meant to be funny. Of course God knows what a cubit is and He knows of human suffering because He created cubits and He created humans.

I don’t know how to put this any other way. The Creator does not have to become the created in order to further His understanding of the created. It isn’t logical; it makes no sense to me, especially when I know that God is omniscient. If He were not omniscient it might make some sense.

I would also like to submit something my Mom told me (and probably every Mom of every one participating in this thread also said): “I don’t have to jump off a cliff to know that it’s going to hurt when I land.” God knows that it would hurt us to land - even better than we know.

Keith_B · May 8, 2012

I’ve been reading the ongoing posts out of morbid curiosity. I’ve been trying to point out in previous posts the origin of mormons. It’s not something brought to us by god. We have only 1 true church of god the catholic church. Either something is of God or it’s not. We can’t pretend that there is some middle ground that’s possibly okay. As humans we struggle with staying away from the things that are not of God. Mormonism is not of god. If a mormon is truly interested in knowing the truth that’s 1 thing otherwise you’re wasting your time having any dialogue. It’s an evil thing that I’ve seen how young children are brainwashed to believe they’re mormon church is true. The children as young as 3 and 4 are coached to get up in front of their congregation and give their testimony ending by saying I know this church is true. And everyone repeats the same thing.

TexanKnight · May 8, 2012

Janderich said:
I’m not sure I understand 1Voice’s point. The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price are held to the same standard as the Bible. Where is the problem?

Actually, that is not true. Though Mormons SAY the Bible is equal, it really isn’t. I have seen many challenges from leaders while LDS, and even since, to read the Book of Mormon in a year, or in 6 months, etc. but NEVER have I seen a challenge to read the Bible in a year. Remember, Joseph said the Book of Mormon was the most perfect book EVER, despite all the changes they have needed make over the years.

As far as the words found in the Book of Mormon, if they were not a translation of ancient writings where did they come from? In almost 200 years no critic has come up with a good explanation. Perhaps because of this, the explanation changes from time to time and no one can really figure it out.

Again, not true. There have been very GOOD explanations. Spaulding comes to mind. Plus, whole chapters were lifted from the KJV of the Bible.

Pepband_Mom · May 8, 2012

Janderich:

Thousands of scholars have read the BOM. No one but the LDS gives it credence; it goes nowhere with anyone outside the Mormon realm. I too have heard linguists have discovered outright portions hi-jacked from the KJV which one could consider literary piracy, literary dishonesty & an copyright infringement against the original Author the Holy Spirit & it’s human authors.

Actually, the word is PLAGIARISM which we were warned about in middle school, high school & every college I attended.

Stephen168 · May 8, 2012

Janderich said:
As far as the words found in the Book of Mormon, if they were not a translation of ancient writings where did they come from? In almost 200 years no critic has come up with a good explanation. Perhaps because of this, the explanation changes from time to time and no one can really figure it out.

Seems like a false dilemma to me. One can be found innocent with having to find the guilty person. The Book of Mormon can be proven not to be the book Joseph Smith claimed it to be without finding its true source. It has been proven not to be the book Joseph Smith claimed it to be; where it came from doesn’t matter at this point.

LittleSoldier · May 8, 2012

Janderich said:
I’m not sure I understand 1Voice’s point. The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price are held to the same standard as the Bible. Where is the problem?

As far as the words found in the Book of Mormon, if they were not a translation of ancient writings where did they come from? In almost 200 years no critic has come up with a good explanation. Perhaps because of this, the explanation changes from time to time and no one can really figure it out.

Where did they come from? The obvious answer (which I am not claiming is the true answer but certainly a possibility) is that they came from the very fertile mind of Joseph Smith, who probably had some help with the wording and statements. As to a “good” explanation - well, “good” implies subjectivism. A good answer to one may not be a good answer to another.

LittleSoldier · May 8, 2012

hosemonkey said:
The BOM stems from the fertile imagination of Joseph Smith and liberal plagiarization from the KJV and from contemporary writers of the time. The only thing that I give Joseph Smith credit for was the ability to create whole worlds from nothing and the ability to sell his “scriptures” to gullible rubes . The mormon “church” has spent years and millions to authenticate the BOM and has failed. No way that you can authenticate a work of fiction.

Hmmm…

we both used the word “fertile.” I think we’re both correct.

Jerusha · May 8, 2012

All those works were plagiarized from material available in the early 1830’s. Joseph had plenty of help. I am not going to get into it right here and now, since I have discussed those issues extensively in this forum in the past. There is really nothing original about it.

tsw10 · May 8, 2012

I suggest looking up the “Articles of Faith” of Mormonism. It tells you that they do in fact believe in the Trinity. They have a slightly different view than Catholicism, but they worship Christ, The Father, and the Holy Spirit.

twopekinguys · May 8, 2012

Janderich said:
I’m not sure I understand 1Voice’s point. The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price are held to the same standard as the Bible. Where is the problem?

As far as the words found in the Book of Mormon, if they were not a translation of ancient writings where did they come from? In almost 200 years no critic has come up with a good explanation. Perhaps because of this, the explanation changes from time to time and no one can really figure it out.

The word “adieu” wasn’t around in ancient times now was it? It was however widely used at the time the book of mormon was written.

Explain that one.

garyo49 · May 8, 2012

Janderich said:
I’m not sure I understand 1Voice’s point. The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price are held to the same standard as the Bible. Where is the problem?

As far as the words found in the Book of Mormon, if they were not a translation of ancient writings where did they come from? In almost 200 years no critic has come up with a good explanation. Perhaps because of this, the explanation changes from time to time and no one can really figure it out.

Jan you must be trying to pull our legs, something mormons are very good at. Have you heard of B.H. Roberts? B H Roberts was one of the most respected and well-known LDS Historians. He also was a member of the First Council of Seventy (1888-1933). Roberts’ in-depth studies of Book of Mormon origins led him to doubt the authenticity of the book. Roberts’ honest research and study is uncommon to LDS Historians, who commonly seek to suppress and sanitize LDS-sanctioned historical information rather than critically analyze Mormon origins.

B H Roberts:

“One other subject remains to be considered in this division… viz. – was Joseph Smith possessed of a sufficiently vivid and creative imagination as to produce such a work as the Book of Mormon from such materials as have been indicated in the proceeding chapters… [Here he was talking about a book that proceeded the B of M by at least ten years, written by Ethan Smith, no relation.] That such power of imagination would have to be of a high order is conceded; that Joseph Smith possessed such a gift of mind there can be no question…
“In light of this evidence, there can be no doubt as to the possession of a vividly strong, creative imagination by Joseph Smith, the Prophet, an imagination, it could with reason be urged, which, given the suggestions that are found in the ‘common knowledge’ of accepted American antiquities of the times, supplemented by such a work as Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews [published in Palmyra in 1825], it would make it possible for him to create a book such as the Book of Mormon.”

Studies of the Book of Mormon, by B.H. Roberts, p. 243, 250

“There were other Anti-Christs among the Nephites, but they were more military leaders than religious innovators… they are all of one breed and brand; so nearly alike that one mind is the author of them, and that a young and underdeveloped, but piously inclined mind. ** The evidence I sorrowfully submit, points to Joseph Smith as their creator**. It is difficult to believe that they are a product of history, that they came upon the scene separated by long periods of time, and among a race which was the ancestral race of the red man of America.”

Studies of the Book of Mormon, by B.H. Roberts, p. 271

“If from all that has gone before in Part 1, the view be taken that the Book of Mormon is merely of human origin… if it be assumed that he is the author of it, then it could be said there is much internal evidence in the book itself to sustain such a view.
“In the first place there is a certain lack of perspective in the things the book relates as history that points quite clearly to an underdeveloped mind as their origin. The narrative proceeds in characteristic disregard of conditions necessary to its reasonableness, as if it were a tale told by a child, with utter disregard for consistency.”

Studies of the Book of Mormon, by B.H. Roberts, p. 251

Ethan Smith (no relation) wrote a book called View of the Hebrews. It was written in the early 1820’s, at least seven or eight years before the B of M. One of Smiths cousins that later became an apostle in the early mormon church went to church with Ehtan Smith, in a town near where Joseph Smith lived. The theme of View of the Hebrew is the same as the B of M. Ancient Hebrews leaving Jerusalem to come to this continent with dozens and dozens of parallels to the B of M. You can find View of the Hebrews online. Now what are the chances that the ideas for the B of M came from View of the Hebrews under these circumstances? 100 percent.

Jan, your credibility on this forum is gone.

hosemonkey · May 8, 2012

garyo49 said:
Jan you must be trying to pull our legs, something mormons are very good at.

Jan, your credibility on this forum is gone.

Click to expand...

mormons lose all credibility on these fora when they try to defend the historicity and origins of the BOM. Very convenient disappearance of the source text (Golden Plates? Right! Disappeared? UhHuh Looked into a hat? Sure) Too many errors, too many anachronisms, too many changes, no verifiable locations, too many identifiable plagiarisms, laughable prose and too much money spent trying to legitimize the unlegitimizable. What is really sad is that so many otherwise intelligent people believe such hokum. The blatant falsity of the BOM places all the other mormon “scriptures” in doubt also.

garyo49 · May 8, 2012

hosemonkey said:
mormons lose all credibility on these fora when they try to defend the historicity and origins of the BOM. Very convenient disappearance of the source text (Golden Plates? Right! Disappeared? UhHuh Looked into a hat? Sure) Too many errors, too many anachronisms, too many changes, no verifiable locations, too many identifiable plagiarisms, laughable prose and too much money spent trying to legitimize the unlegitimizable. What is really sad is that so many otherwise intelligent people believe such hokum. The blatant falsity of the BOM places all the other mormon “scriptures” in doubt also.

AMEN

Janderich · May 8, 2012

The first thing anyone should understand about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon is that Joseph had almost no schooling. Some of the first letters he wrote have quite a number of strike-outs and are written very poorly by almost any standard. His wife, Emma Smith, once stated, “Joseph Smith could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well worded letter; let alone dictating a book like the Book of Mormon.” (Edmund C. Briggs, “A Visit to Nauvoo in 1856,” Journal of History (Jan. 1916): 454). So, to say Joseph wrote the BofM holds absolutely no weight.

The Spalding theory is likewise flawed. The manuscript (which was lost for many years, then found and published in 1884) is an incomplete draft and bears almost no resemblance to the BofM. Thus critics have now claimed there was a second Spalding manuscript which has not been found.

As I said, all these theries fall flat. Anyone who actually reads and studies the BofM will find the level of writing, hebrew poetic forms, even the sheer volume of names and places suprising.

twopekinguys · May 8, 2012

Janderich said:
The first thing anyone should understand about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon is that Joseph had almost no schooling. Some of the first letters he wrote have quite a number of strike-outs and are written very poorly by almost any standard. His wife, Emma Smith, once stated, “Joseph Smith could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well worded letter; let alone dictating a book like the Book of Mormon.” (Edmund C. Briggs, “A Visit to Nauvoo in 1856,” Journal of History (Jan. 1916): 454). So, to say Joseph wrote the BofM holds absolutely no weight.

The Spalding theory is likewise flawed. The manuscript (which was lost for many years, then found and published in 1884) is an incomplete draft and bears almost no resemblance to the BofM. Thus critics have now claimed there was a second Spalding manuscript which has not been found.

As I said, all these theries fall flat. Anyone who actually reads and studies the BofM will find the level of writing, hebrew poetic forms, even the sheer volume of names and places suprising.

But yet, that doesn’t explain the word “adieu” in the book of mormon. It is a french word, and was not around in ancient times now was it?

Also, smith didn’t have to “write” anything, as he used a scribe correct? Unfortunately, your argument about his lack of schooling, and unable to write effectively has nothing to do with this, and is a red herring.

Jerusha · May 8, 2012

garyo49 · May 8, 2012

Janderich said:
The first thing anyone should understand about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon is that Joseph had almost no schooling. Some of the first letters he wrote have quite a number of strike-outs and are written very poorly by almost any standard. His wife, Emma Smith, once stated, “Joseph Smith could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well worded letter; let alone dictating a book like the Book of Mormon.” (Edmund C. Briggs, “A Visit to Nauvoo in 1856,” Journal of History (Jan. 1916): 454). So, to say Joseph wrote the BofM holds absolutely no weight.

The Spalding theory is likewise flawed. The manuscript (which was lost for many years, then found and published in 1884) is an incomplete draft and bears almost no resemblance to the BofM. Thus critics have now claimed there was a second Spalding manuscript which has not been found.

As I said, all these theries fall flat. Anyone who actually reads and studies the BofM will find the level of writing, hebrew poetic forms, even the sheer volume of names and places suprising.

He may not have been able to write, but like B H Roberts, his mother, and his contemporaries said of him, “he had a great imagination and could tell those stories about the indians and the burial mounds near his home for hours on end”. Smith said that when he translated by “hat lookin” a character would appear to him and when the translation appeared correct on the written page, and not until, he would be allowed to see the next character. Which means that God was making sure it was correct, or so Smith said.

There are so many flaws in the B of M. Is it possible that God could have been mistaken so many times and let Smith move on to the next character for translation. An example, one of dozens and dozens, Smith said that Elijah and Elias appeared to him at the same time. How could this be? Elijah and Elias are one and the same. Not the mistake of God, but the kind of mistake a man would make if he was writing it. Another thing. You’ve got to quit dragging out the B of M had to be translated by the “gift and power of God” because Smith was to dumb to write it. If that was the case you would have to believein the Koran also.

“To say Smith wrote the B of M holds absolutely no weight,” No weight to who? Mormons? Any one talking an objective look at it wouldn’t come to that conclusion, but I guess you have to. And, what about B H Roberts? :signofcross:

Jerusha · May 8, 2012

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=466414&highlight=Book+of+Mormon
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=462182&highlight=Book+of+Mormon
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=460644&highlight=Book+of+Mormon
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=462178&highlight=Book+of+Mormon

And this epic:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=352674&highlight=Book+of+Mormon

It does appear, from the last link posted on the other current thread on the papyri and the BoA, that BH Roberts and Bishop Spalding had a wager-- Spalding agreed to an objective review of the origins of the BoA, and Roberts agreed to do an objective review of the BoM. And they both honestly carried out the agreement.

Obviously, Jan won’t look through that thread and check the links.

Roberts did not leave because of his findings. He had too much to lose.

Wives, and caste within the LDS and SLC community.

TexanKnight · May 8, 2012

Janderich said:
The first thing anyone should understand about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon is that Joseph had almost no schooling. Some of the first letters he wrote have quite a number of strike-outs and are written very poorly by almost any standard. His wife, Emma Smith, once stated, “Joseph Smith could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well worded letter; let alone dictating a book like the Book of Mormon.” (Edmund C. Briggs, “A Visit to Nauvoo in 1856,” Journal of History (Jan. 1916): 454). So, to say Joseph wrote the BofM holds absolutely no weight.

Resonse- Always a nice try. but Joseph was not as uneducated as you try to claim. Second, he was with rigdon, who was very educated. Plus, when you copy other material, you do not need to be very educated.

The Spalding theory is likewise flawed. The manuscript (which was lost for many years, then found and published in 1884) is an incomplete draft and bears almost no resemblance to the BofM. Thus critics have now claimed there was a second Spalding manuscript which has not been found.

Response- Not true. In fact, a recent study at a university in California found that Joseph and rigdon wrote the book using Spaulding

As I said, all these theries fall flat. Anyone who actually reads and studies the BofM will find the level of writing, hebrew poetic forms, even the sheer volume of names and places suprising.

Nope…the truth never falls flat. Joseph was a fraud.

Mormonism

LittleSoldier

Guest

LittleSoldier

Guest

Keith_B

Guest

TexanKnight

Guest

Pepband_Mom

Guest

Stephen168

New member

LittleSoldier

Guest

LittleSoldier

Guest

Jerusha

Guest

tsw10

Guest

twopekinguys

Guest

garyo49

Guest

hosemonkey

Guest

garyo49

Guest

Janderich

Guest

twopekinguys

Guest

Jerusha

Guest

garyo49

Guest

Jerusha

Guest

TexanKnight

Guest