D
dianaiad
Guest
uh…thanks…I think?
- Status
D
dianaiad
Guest
No, this is the sort of thing that IS important to the argument, Xavier. In matters of religious faith, the basis for that faith is, most of the time, dismissed as fraudulent by those who do not believe. It HAS to be. I could say that St. Bernadette is 'exposed as a fraud…" because there is certainly no proof that her visions were real; certainly no more proof than Joseph Smith has for his claims.
Shoot, I could say the same for many of the biblical miracles; the water into wine thing, the walking on water thing, the feeding the multitudes thing…those who do not believe that Jesus was the Christ certainly consider those stories to be ‘proven’ wrong, because they are scientifically impossible. That they are miracles is something that is proven to the believer through his faith.
Of COURSE you believe Joseph Smith to have been proven a fraud. You have to–because if you ever started thinking he wasn’t, you’d have to become LDS.
And yes, I know that the above claim is a little circular. It’s nontheless true, because wherever you jump into that circle of 'I don’t agree with Mormonism" or the other circle of “my own faith is the true one,” the bit about Joseph Smith being a fraud HAS to be there–and you have to view the evidence against him as proof.
but I’m not you. I have been raised all my life as a Mormon. I have studied my own faith for over 4 decades, and nothing that happened to Joseph Smith strikes me as any different from the sort of thing that happened to Abraham, Isaac–or Peter, James and John. When I look at all this ‘proof’ of yours, it means nothing, just as any evidence against Jesus being the Christ would mean nothing to either of us. Just as I believe Paul was a prophet and an apostle (and c’mon…an atheist or non-Christian would look at his story and go…'seriously…Why?") so I believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet.
So his status as a proven fraud is NOT proven–to those who believe that it isn’t. Just as Bernadettes visions are very real to those who believe in them, and just as the miracles of Christ are proven and real to those of use who believe in them.
Going to a Catholic and declaring that Bernadette is a fraud, or to any Christian and saying that Paul was a fraud, or that Peter was, or that CHRIST was…is just plain rude. It’s a declaration of (at least) verbal war. Declaring that Joseph Smith was a fraud…to a Mormon…is the same thing.
Of course, putting 'I think…" in front of that declaration changes the whole thing. Nobody can argue the truth of what you think.
M
MrZetterlund
Guest
Yes, But the point is we’re finding mounds of evidence AGAINST Joseph Smith, unlike St. Bernadette! There’s no reason to “not believe” Bernadette, but there are mounds of reasons to not believe Joseph Smith!
No, we wouldn’t be able to consider these “proven wrong” because we have no evidence FOR or AGAINST Him! However, He did have millions of followers, so He must have been pretty convincing. However, Joseph Smith was clearly WAY OFFF on being able to translate "revised Eguptian."
I gave Joseph Smith a fair shot. he missed. I invited over the apologetics and we’ve disgussed it, but he contradicts the Bible EVERYWHERE. Not only that, he think Native Americans are Hebrews. He twists verses. sigh
How else am I supposed to interprit this epic fail of a translation? I can believe Joseph Smith AND keep my original faith. But I’M a better porphet then Joseph Smith.
AGRAVATING! So then what stops you from believing in Buddah? or Muhammed? or the great Ju-Ju under the sea? God gives evidence, he wouldn’t leave you EMPTY HANDED. Paul admitted several times he wasn’t a worthy apostle, that he was an apostle to the apostles! And no, HE WASN’T A PROPHET.
D
dianaiad
Guest
I think we have established that I’m a bit of a snot, actually.
Your question is an odd one, though. After all, is a Catholic nice because of Christ, or because of the Pope? Are you nice because of Christ, or because of the words of Peter and Paul? Ultimately, if we are ‘nice,’ it is because we obey the words of Christ to love one another. If one mortal teacher or other is better at communicating this principle, it’s still Christ’s principle.
I picked Bernadette (she of the grotto of Lourdes and of the 'Immaculate Conception) because she is a Catholic Saint whose life and visions happened fairly recently (within the last two hundred years) and because her importance to Catholicism is fairly profound. Her visions may be, and have been, dismissed as those of an hysteric; the result of a disordered mind. There is no proof that she actually had them–not the sort that people demand of Joseph Smith, certainly. As well, during her lifetime the Catholics around her were extremely critical of her, disbelieving everything. She had a very hard time.
As to your claim that “a lot of the accusations against Joseph Smith/ aren’t even debatable because they’re solid facts”…evidently…not.
Because 12 million people WILL debate them.
D
dianaiad
Guest
There are enough for you to disbelieve, of course. But obviously not enough for me.
We don’t think so…and yes, there is plenty of evidence against His doing those things. Most of them are scientifically impossible according to our present understanding of science. That’s why they are called ‘miracles.’ We believe in them because our faith is confirmed through other things than science. …and you have already been corrected once about the term used; it’s ‘reformed Egyptian,’ not ‘revised Egyptian,’ and your continued to use the correct term (as insignificant as the correction is) is pretty solid evidence that you wouldn’t believe it if the whole document appeared and was confirmed by fifty atheist linguists.
…and that, Mr. Z, is as much faith on your part as my beliefs are on mine.
We think you are the one twisting the verses, you realize.
I’m not certain you realize just how profound a statement it is that you just wrote. You are right; you can NOT keep your original faith and believe Joseph Smith. You are coming from an entirely different, and opposite, conviction. Evidence will not convince you…you need a Damascus event. Any evidence FOR Joseph Smith would have to be of the 'Jesus stands in front of you and points" variety. You would have to find a reason to dismiss anything lesser.
…and I know people who would dismiss the direct statement from Jesus. It’s called 'faith." You have it your way…and I have it mine. This doesn’t mean we are both right in what we believe, of course.
What stops you from believing in them?
M
MrZetterlund
Guest
What? You’re not a bad person, YOUR OVERWHELMING BIAS ANNOYS ME THOUGH.I think we have established that I’m a bit of a snot, actually.
I can hardly call Joseph Smith a good morral teacher since he believes that black people are cursed descendants of cain (by the way, Cain’s descendants perished in the flood.) and he was for segregation and believed the civil war would lead to Armaggedon.
I hear mormons testify that he gives proof by faith alone, but that’s kinda what the apostles warned about. You know, wolves in sheep’s clothing?
Ok, that’s great. I could care less about any visions that Joseph Smith had. But he can’t interprit “revised egyptian” like he said he could, native americans aren’t jews, there was no such thing as the “Jaredites,” (by the way, Jared is my first name) this is only scratching the surface.
No, we agree with one-another that he’s an obvious fraud while you hold the view that he’s not based off of circular reasoning.Because 12 million people WILL debate them.
[/quote]
D
dianaiad
Guest
Why? Yours doesn’t bug me much.
Actually, Joseph Smith wasn’t the racist in the mix. That would be Brigham Young. Joseph ran for president on an abolitionist ticket, believed that the slaves should be freed and either given land here or sent back to Africa and given land there, and he ordained black men to the priesthood. He wasn’t real happy about the prospect of civil war…and he hoped to avoid it by having the government buy all the slaves and set them free, possibly through the sale of public lands.
By the way, according to the tradition, Cain’s descendants lived on through Ham’s wife. Whether you believe that or not is completely up to you.
“reformed Egyptian.”
Those are quite the declarations, Mr. Z. I’m sure that you will be even further aggravated by my return volley of…probably not, and yes there were. And don’t blame me for your name. It’s a very nice name, but it’s not our fault your mom chose it.
We agree with that? Where did I agree to this? Who’s “we?” As to the reason that I beleive that he is not a fraud, …no sir, unless you believe that the bible is true because it says it is, circular reasoning doesn’t enter into it. Not on my side, anyway.
M
MrZetterlund
Guest
You’re killing me, you know that. I’m going to rip my hair out. ow!
I pray for you. You’re a victum of a compulsive liar, and brainwashing.
And THAT is what is so dangerous!
I pray for you. You’re a victum of a compulsive liar, and brainwashing.
No. Science disproved the “native Americans are Jews” theory, the civil war DID NOT lead to Armaggedon, and he failed at translating this papyre.
Well I’ll break it down for you, the Ju-Ju sounds like a demonic figure, Buddhism is a philosophy, a point-of-view, a baseless one as well. Muhammed is basically an Arab Joseph Smith. He claims to have revelation of the Hebrew God but is really just trying to play prophet. His “revelations” contradict the reality of God’s nature and carries gnostic ideas and I don’t trust an angel with a “dreadful voice” as described in the Qu’ran. coff Satan. See how rationality and thinking outside the box helps gather you’re beliefs?
A prophet is someone who PROPHECIES. Hence, PROPHET. Paul never prophecied, he testafied.
M
MrZetterlund
Guest
Because I can give you evidence that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. The image on the Shroud of Turin was created by a rapid de-oxydation and dehydration that only affected the top linial fibrils of the linen fiber. In other words, Jesus pulled a Hoodini.
Ok, it’s your turn. I may be bias, but I am also bias to rattionality.
Fine, whatever. But he WAS quoted saying:
“the north has no right to say whether the south is allowed to own slaves, no more than the south is allowed to (I forget after that.)”
Well ok, but if you TRULY believe in Joseph Smith then the correct term is “Revised Egyptian.”
D
dianaiad
Guest
Careful. We have too many men who are taller than their hair as it is.
How? It’s not like the Mormons have tossed you out of YOUR homes or invaded your towns, is it?
Standard viewpoint from anyone who is standing outside a belief system he doesn’t much like.
I pray for you. You’re a victum of a compulsive liar, and brainwashing.
Actually, Joseph said that war would be ‘poured out upon all nations’ beginning with the civil war. He didn’t mention anything about armaggedon, y’know. It’s hard to disagree with his view on this, when there hasn’t been a single day of world peace since that time.
…and of course, I don’t believe that he did fail to translate that papyrus properly…at least, not the one he had.
What you are telling me is that you don’t believe them because…you don’t believe them. You find excuses not to, of course–but the real reason you don’t, at least I HOPE this is the real reason you don’t, is because you have honestly looked at them, and had the Holy Spirit confirm to you that they aren’t ‘true.’
That’s why I don’t believe in them, anyway, though most religious systems have some truth in them–even yours–only one has the most Truth. I believe that’s mine, for reasons that are sufficient for me.
But I didn’t dismiss any of them completely out of hand as not worth examining.
Don’t read the NT much, Mr. Z? Paul prophesied quite a bit. 1 Thessalonians 4: 16-17, 1 Thessalonians 5:2-11,–in 1 Corinthians…all over the place.A prophet is someone who PROPHECIES. Hence, PROPHET. Paul never prophecied, he testafied.
Now it’s true, you are Baptist so you may not buy into this, but prophets are NOT simply those who predict future events, but also those who impart information about present matters and theological importance that he or she has recieved from God.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Unfortunately, the shroud of Turin has been proven to be a fraud. It was carbon dated to between 1260 and 1390. Now, I happen to believe that Jesus DID rise from the dead, but you are basing your faith in that on the shroud of Turin, you have a problem.
Interesting forgetfulness…especially since Joseph said no such thing. At one point early in his life and ministry he did declare that Mormons had no interest in freeing slaves, but that attitude changed very rapidly–in SPITE of the fact that his changing attitude about this, given where the saints were at the time–was not the most popular idea around. I will give you that he wanted to free them in a way that did NOT involve force, but being both abolitionist and anti-war is not exactly a character flaw, seems to me.
Not according to the only verse in which the term is used, Mormon 9:32., which reads:
“And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.”
since it is our scriptures, and you don’t believe in 'em anyway, then what we say goes where they are concerned.
It’s “reformed Egyption.” :egyptian:
so there.
T
TheosisM
Guest
History of the Church, Volume II:
“I do not believe that the people of the North have any more right to say that the South shall not hold slaves, than the South have to say the North shall.”
blakeclan.org/jon/greenoasis/joseph-smith-on-abolition/
boap.org/LDS/History/History_of_the_Church/Vol_II
M
MrZetterlund
Guest
No, it’s dangerous to the followers. What if Joseph Smith had said he is the new god exalted by Jesus Christ and him getting shot to death was his crucifixion? He’s playing with you’re mind, man. I’ve seen Mormons acuse God of lying. Parker (another LDS poster) said he’s thankful for the stumbling block of the lost book of Abraham because it separates those who TRULY believe from those who do not. Also, that in evolution, my friend Jared Cole believes creation and evolution do not correspond because God wanted to test our faith to the point of blind faith. So does God produce false evidence?
No, I listen to lectures from the BYU channel alll the time and think their points are quite learnable and beneficial, but I do not, nor will I ever accept anything the LDS church teaches on theology or history or prophecy to be litteraly true. Nor will I rely on blind faith. I wish it were true because my Mormon friend Jared Cole resents me for rejecting his religion, in all due respect. I never told him how I feel abut Joseph Smith because I didn’t want to offend his faith. But now he finds it strange that I didn’t convert. Seeiing as how I’m such a good faithful Christian.
Sounds like Armaggedon to me. But war didn’t “poor out” on all nations after the civil war. In fact, it did alot of good.
Why? the piece in the museum matches the one in his journal. And the pictures, and the hyraglyphs. If he has no problem ripping the head and hand off of Horus, then I’m sure he would have no problem ripping a few feet off the scroll.
No, I believe in Ju-Ju’s existance, and read imbetween the lines. Just as I do everything. The holy Spirit doesn’t confirm anything to be true. But the rewards you recieve for that faith is what makes it true.
Those quotes aren’t visions or prophecies. They are knowledge given by the disciples that Jesus tought them about the second coming.
“but also those who impart information about present matters and theological importance that he or she has recieved from God”
So then John the baptist would be a prophet since he prepared the way for the messiah. Then why did he deny being a prophet? (John 1:21)
They made a full documentory debuking the C-14 dating. History says the Shroud was around much before 1260. Coins over the eyes on the shroud were marked with symbols for the rule of Pontious Piolate from 27-32 A.D. The C-14 dating contradicts mounds of evidence. I pitty anyone who thinks they can actually get the correct date from an object that’s been burned, flooded on, re-woven, and preserved for many generations.
The Shroud of Turin is more authentic than the skin on my bones.
History of the Church, Volume II:
“I do not believe that the people of the North have any more right to say that the South shall not hold slaves, than the South have to say the North shall.”
blakeclan.org/jon/greenoasis/joseph-smith-on-abolition/
boap.org/LDS/History/History_of_the_Church/Vol_II
T
twopekinguys
Guest
Actually, that is not true.
In January, 2005, things changed. An article appeared in a peer-reviewed scientific journal Thermochimica Acta, which proved that the carbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin was flawed because the sample used was invalid. Moreover, this article, by Raymond N. Rogers, a well-published chemist and a Fellow of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, explained why the Shroud of Turin was much older. The Shroud of Turin was at least twice as old as the radiocarbon date, and possibly 2000 years old…What Rogers found was that the carbon 14 sample was taken from a mended area of the Shroud that contained significant amounts of newer material. This was not the fault of the radiocarbon laboratories. But it did show that the carbon dating was invalid.
shroudstory.com/
and
Based on . . .
a.Chemistry Today (vol 26 n4/Jul-Aug 2008), “Discrepancies in the radiocarbon dating area of the Turin shroud,”
b.Los Alamos National Laboratory findings (Ohio State Shroud of Turin Conference report (August 2008),
c.Thermochimica Acta (vol 425 2005) and
d. findings of Georgia Institute of Technology chemist John L. Brown,
. . . it can be stated that the 1988 carbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin is invalid.
innoval.com/C14/
M
Marie5890
Guest
Another shroud is found from time of Christ in Jerusalem. Much simpilier weave than Shroud of Turin. More doubt cast on Shroud of Turin
blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2009/12/jerusalem-tomb-discovery-casts-doubt-on-turin-shroud.html
blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2009/12/jerusalem-tomb-discovery-casts-doubt-on-turin-shroud.html
T
twopekinguys
Guest
The shroud is kind of a moot point anyway because the Church has never taken an official position one way or the other.
M
MrZetterlund
Guest
I read that thread. The gospels say there were several linen cloths. It could just be another one. The cloths in the gospels were meantioned to be expensive.
M
Marie5890
Guest
Our faith should be in Christ, not a piece of clothe.
T
twopekinguys
Guest
Bingo!!
M
MrZetterlund
Guest
My faith is in Christ. Whether or not the cloth is real is irrealavent to my faith. However, if it is real then it’s certainly a great gift. That’s one of the things about the Shroud, it’s just there. If you’re a Christian, you don’t really need the Shroud, if you’re an atheist you won’t be too compelled to believe it. It’s special to me for a reason, though. When I was younger, I was skeptical of the traditional depiction of Jesus, so I made my own. It wasn’t long after that, that I did that I saw a documentory on the Shroud of Turin and completely changed my interpritation. I believe it was by God’s grace that this was revealed to me. Out of his sheer kindness.
- Status