P
peary
Guest
dianaiad;6494537 said:
- Status
D
dianaiad
Guest
Actually, no. There is no such Spaulding manuscript. That ‘missing’ manuscript was FOUND, and it bears very little resemblance to the Book of Mormon. The only reason there is any speculation that a second Spaulding manuscript exists is BECAUSE this one was found and has been proven to bear little resemblance to the Book of Mormon. There is absolutely no evidence of there having been more than one–the one we know about and doesn’t prove your point at all.
And no, the Spaulding Manuscript does not mention gold plates. Sorry. In Spaulding’s story, 28 rolls of parchment were found. Their story was supposed to have been written in Latin, and was the story of a Roman legion that got lost and had dealings with the natives of the country. The story is entirely secular. There is nothing religious about it and there is no comparison of literary styles between it and the Book of Mormon.
You might want to get your facts straight.
That is the most assinine thing I have ever heard. There is nothing in any account of the story of Hirum Abiff that comes close to this, and frankly, you are exposing your sources a little too much. You might want to go do a little fact checking.
P
peary
Guest
D
dianaiad
Guest
Given that you claim that the one you read had gold plates in it, I have to conclude that the one you read was not the only Spaulding manuscript in existance…the one that I read. If you are curious for yourself, you can find the thing here.dianaiad:
Then the Spaulding manuscript you read and the one I read must be different. The similarities are quite apparent.
There is absolutely no comparison in style, in fact, in plot, in names…nothing at all except that the author claims to have found the records after lifting a rock. Unfortunately, even that is different: Spaulding claims to actually have uncovered a cave, and after entering it THEN finds the manuscripts under another rock. Joseph Smith claimed simply to have been led to a place (not a cave) where there was a stone box covered with a stone, which he lifted with a lever.
Of course, that detail was the same…the Spaulding character lifted HIS first stone with a lever, too. How very unusual to be certain–to have both characters lift a heavy stone with a lever. Of course, there is precious little in common between the two accounts after that; Spaulding tells the story of a Constantine era Roman soldier (who happened to be Christian) getting shipwrecked in the Americas while on his way to Britain, who meets (and describes) the natives if this land in very uncomplimentary and florid language, and then there is the Book of Mormon, which isn’t anything even close to that.
In fact, mentioning the Spaulding manuscript is a sure sign of anti-Mormon idiocy: it is only considered a viable option by the sort of folks who believe that Jack Chick has the truth about Catholicism.
Ah, my friend…I have. I will also note that I’m the only one who has actually posted references and proof for what I have said. You simply make weird, wild and inaccurate claims of dubious validity.
Actually, I’m the only one in this discussion who has actually provided the references, the links, and the accurate information…such as the one disproving your assinine claim that the Spaulding book makes the claim that it’s story came from gold plates. This alone proves that you did NOT do your homework.dianaiad:
I don’t have to. I did my homework. Unfortunately, it is quite apparent you haven’t.
Irrelevant. I have no argument against the Bible having been around a long time, y’know. I’m also going to remind you that I too believe in the miracles described therein. My point to you is that there is no archeological or scientific proof that those miracles actually happened as described.
The fact that these stories have been around awhile is NOT proof of their truth, y’know. If it were, we’d have a few problems, because other stories have been around a lot longer…and we don’t believe THEM.
You are confusing the book with what it contains. Don’t do that.
Oh, dear.
I take it that you have never heard of chiasmus?
No, actually, they don’t.
That’s true…so far. However, in spite of what the early Mormons fervently believed, the book itself never claimed that the people it talked about were the sole progenitors of all the peoples of the new world. In fact, quite the opposite; each one of the groups of people in the Book of Mormon that came TO the New World met folks who were already there…and there is quite a point in it of mentioning that eventually those folks were pretty much wiped out. What this means is…nothing much, except that it neither proves nor disproves the book.
No more than the miracles and religious events contained in the bible are disproved, peary.
It may well be irrelevent to Catholics (though if it is true how can it be irrelevent to anybody?)
But it is not irrelevent to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which, because Jesus Christ IS at the base and heart of our faith, is Christian by definition.
Whether you like it or not.
Stephen168
New member
Yes, I didn’t mean it as a funny joke. It is sad that you were put through that by Mormons. I wish people could see Moroni 10:4 as the set up that it is. The Book of Mormon is a work of 19th century American fiction, so it is not worth spending a second praying about it.
P
peary
Guest
If it is part of your faith belief, fine. That’s you, not me. To me, as a Catholic Christian, it’s irrelevent.
I am not going to get into a discussion about whether or not LDS members are Christian or not. Your denomination does have a devotion to Christ, but that is where it ends. And, by the very fact of your interpretation of baptism makes LDS members technically non-Christians. But that’s another discussion.
Stephen168
New member
I think this is one of the key facts which show the Book of Mormon to be a 19th century American document. I’m not sure a Mormon will even grasp what is meant by it.
Stephen168
New member
Grace, Faith, Reason, History
D
dianaiad
Guest
You just, uh, did, with your unequivical declaration that we are not, as if by making that declaration you have settled the matter for ME as well as for yourself.
And THAT is what makes us Christians, by definition. It doesn’t make us RIGHT, or SAVED…(though of course I do believe we ARE right, or I’d belong to a different belief system, and then I would believe that THAT one was right. It’s called 'not being a hypocrite.")
Does it? Oddly enough, we Mormons declared Catholic baptisms to be invalid a good century and a half before Catholicism declared ours to be so. However, we don’t figure that your invalid baptism disqualifies you from being Christian.
What we are not, is Catholic. Not a problem. We don’t want to be Catholic. We don’t claim to be Catholic. While we admire a great many things about Catholics and Catholic beliefs, we don’t think that you have the priesthood authority to perform ordinances in Christ’s name, nor do we believe that you understand all the truths about Him or His Father. If, as you seem to believe, “Christian” means “he who believes what I do about Christ” or even “he who is right about Christ,” then logic would dictate that WE are the Christians, and you—aren’t.
However, “Christian” simply means someone whose faith revolves around the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, and who claims to be one. It’s a classification of belief, not an imprimatur of salvation–and certainly anyone who has a personal relationship with Christ, be he Mormon, Catholic, Protestant or 'non-denominational," would qualify for that, no matter what weird and wonderful things he might believe ABOUT Him.
Even, I dare say, you.
That said, I don’t suppose you will ever be convinced that Mormons are Christians. That’s also fine—as long as you don’t make that declaration to ME, in the expectation that I would agree with you about it. I WILL set you straight, every single time.
W
why_me
Guest
When christ was crucified and rose from the dead and visited a select group of people he set in motioin the idea of faith, hope and doubt. Even Thomas doubted until he saw more tangible evidence.
But by christ visiting only a select group of people and not the general population where more evidence and testimony would now be gathered he more or less told his plan: by prayer and faith we will know the truth.
W
why_me
Guest
To an extent, yes, you are right. However, we do know much about the civilization of ancient america to know that they were a very warlike people. And the book of mormon is certainly warlike. Mel Gibson’s movie is a case in point.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypto
I wonder if Mel read the book of mormon before he made the film. It certainly decribes the atmosphere that existed among the people during the book of mormon times among the lamanites.
W
why_me
Guest
And yet some christians were disappointed in Paul because Paul was under the impression that christ would come in a short while and some got just a little tired of waiting. Paul knew that he was wrong and began to adjust accordingly.
Now why didn’t christ tell Paul his own timeline when he would come again and why did he let Paul believe that he would soon come? The certainly would have helped the early christians who were tested by Paul’s timeline which proved to be wrong. In fact, I think that if early christians could see the year 2010 and see that christ still did not come, they may have reconverted to paganism.
In fact, Joseph Smith’s prophecies did come true but not all of them. But then again, there are prophecies in the bible that did not come to pass either. Much depends on faith and situations.
N
napoli426
Guest
No it’s not biblical…next question please.
F
fkjuliano
Guest
What I like about Joseph Smith is that he is such a great oxymoron: a true false prophet.
A
AMDGtoo
Guest
For those wondering where the BOM really came from (and those who find the story of the disappearing golden plates–what Joseph Smith claimed)–highly improbable, might want to read Grant Palmer’s book An Insider’s Guide to the Origin’s of the Mormon Church. Mr. Palmer was once an LDS Institute teacher and is still LDS. (Of course the LDS put a disclaimer on the book saying that those considering converting to the LDS church shoulen’t read it.) Very interesting. Even Mr. Palmer admits that the origins of the BOM is not as the LDS say. He even notes how records show that Smith frequently took out the KJV from the town library during the time he supposedly “found” the golden plates.
S
sablouwho
Guest
Oh, sorry, I see I mistook your meaning. In any case, thanks for your comment of understanding. What is hard is that a particular LDS friend is such a True Believer that, while trying very hard to be loving and polite and not to blame me for “not getting it”, it feels to me that that is nonetheless what is happening.
X
Xavierlives
Guest
Well that isn’t KJV, it is more like, XLV.
T
twopekinguys
Guest
Hehe, that was funny.
D
dianaiad
Guest
And do you not, in your heart of hearts, blame him for not leaving and coming to Catholicism? Is it not, in your view, his fault that he can’t see the (in your view) falsity of his own beliefs?
Here is the problem, as I see it:
Either God guides us or He doesn’t…and if He does not then He may as well not be there.
If He guides us, and we all go different directions, then whose fault is that (please note the lower case ‘w’)?
No matter who is dealing with this issue, it is obvious that the majority of the world is wrong. There is, after all, no belief system that comprises the majority of the world population. So…either most of us are wrong, or everybody is.
…or, everybody is at least a little bit right. Not 'relatively" right, RIGHT. As in, everybody has a little bit of the “real” solid, absolute, truth.
For instance, I know of no religion (there might be one, but I don’t know it) that does NOT teach that it is wrong to steal. I know of none that do not teach that parents must teach their children, or that deity is worthy of worship, or that ‘do unto others as you would have others do unto you’ is a basic foundation of worthy living. If this is true, would God say that it is not true HERE, but it is true THERE–or would He simply confirm that it is truth no matter where it is found?
W
why_me
Guest
What I like about Joseph Smith is that all of it began when he was quite young. The book was published in 1830 when Joseph Smith was 25 years old. It would have taken him quite a few years to write the book of mormon if he wrote the book. And so, he was a very young man, and far from a mature man. After the book’s publication, he kept his eye on the ball and built a church that has become quite successful. He was murdered 14 years after the book of mormon’s publication. He died at 38. Quite amazing when you think about it.
- Status