L
Lemuel
Guest
I prayed after seeing “The Book of Mormon” and got a confirmation that it was the most correct of any musical upon the earth.
Last edited:
Questions about "the book of mormon is wrong" article from this website
- Status
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I am really am sorry for being insulting.TOmNossor:
That being said the above to me is proof of how much of conman Joseph Smith was. Feigning that he was surprised that Jerusalem has walls when scripture state that it had walls. I guess you might say that he didn’t know scripture and that is further proof of the BOM being true. …
Side note:
Thank you for your apology accept mine for any that I may have unintentionally poorly written.
Concerning your apology, I am very robot like (or so I tell myself, perhaps this is self-deception) and didn’t think I needed an apology from you, but thank you.
I chose this “evidence” because the test is: is there OBJECTIVE evidence that does not prove that the Book of Mormon is a fraud. That the BOM says Jerusalem had walls. Jerusalem does have walls. This is objective evidence in favor of what the BOM claims. It is not a “pearl” of a piece of evidence and I wanted to see how it would be received. Does it support the contention that all objective evidence does is prove the BOM is a fraud. I don’t believe it does and I don’t believe it supports the claim @OKComputer made. That is what I hoped to get from him. I did not.
Now, the “Jerusalem had walls” comment was said to and reported by Emma. I have a few thoughts about this.
- The objective evidence is what he asked about. There is no evidence that it was untrue. One must bring to this suppositions about how Joseph was a con man and how a con man might act.
- Emma was already acting as Joseph scribe. She was already bought in. And the only reports of this event that I have found suggest Joseph was long dead before they came to light.
- Emma reports that Joseph was afraid and concerned about being deceived. This question might help indicate that Joseph was not making up the text, but it would not solidify the confidence that is stock and trade of the con man.
This ignorance also fits the broader historical context. The original criticism of the Book of Mormon were that Joseph was too simple to author a book worth consideration. “Ignoramus” was popular and thus the Book of Mormon was “the most clumsy of all impositions.” Next Joseph Smith became the front man to any number of intelligent schemers because it was still clear to all that he was unlearned and unintelligent. It is a CHANGE that nonbelieving admirers (like Harold Bloom) and critics (like Dan Vogel) claim that Joseph was brilliant, but nobody did who knew him.
Anyway, I choose this “evidence” because it does little to demonstrate the BOM came from God (Jerusalem has a gate!), but does do SOME IMO to prove the BOM did not come from Joseph Smith.
Last edited:
L
lilypadrees
Guest
What’s the musical about? I didn’t see it when it came here. Does it tell the unvarnished truth? Or is it a fictional account?
L
Lemuel
Guest
I haven’t actually seen it. It was my silly attempt at sarcasm. Mormonites have this saying that the Book of Mormon is the most correct of any book on the earth. I just took it a step further in my mention of the Book of Mormon musical. Honestly, I wouldn’t waste my money on it. It’s not the unvarnished truth about anything. It’s simply Mormon parody.
H
hope
Guest
Thank you. I was enjoying the exchange but not the insults. This thread has exposed me to a lot of unknowns and for what I already knew a deeper look.
We of course will never agree. It is like the three blind men describing an elephant they are feeling. Each had their own perspective.
I see your point about objective evidence and it reminded me of arguments between men and women. Women will say you never have helped me with anything while the husband is listing off all that he indeed helped with.
I guess I wasn’t clear. What is wanting proof of is the major things that are claimed this is what is meant by nothing is provable or least the way I take it. Where is the independent evidence of “Nephites” and “Lamanites,” being in the New World ?
G
GKMotley
Guest
It was six men of Indostan,
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.
The First approach’d the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!”
The Second , feeling of the tusk,
Cried, -“Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear,
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!”
The Third approach’d the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
“I see,” -quoth he- “the Elephant
Is very like a snake!”
The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee:
“What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain,” -quoth he,-
“'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!”
The Fifth , who chanced to touch the ear,
Said- “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!”
The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Then, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
“I see,” -quoth he,- “the Elephant
Is very like a rope!”
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!
MORAL,
So, oft in theologic wars
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean;
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.
The First approach’d the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!”
The Second , feeling of the tusk,
Cried, -“Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear,
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!”
The Third approach’d the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
“I see,” -quoth he- “the Elephant
Is very like a snake!”
The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee:
“What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain,” -quoth he,-
“'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!”
The Fifth , who chanced to touch the ear,
Said- “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!”
The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Then, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
“I see,” -quoth he,- “the Elephant
Is very like a rope!”
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!
MORAL,
So, oft in theologic wars
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean;
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Why is it that when the BOM claims that there were walls around Jerusalem and archeology confirms there were walls around Jerusalem is this still an objective test that proves the BOM is a fraud?TOmNossor:
Yes. One piece, that’s all I ask. Point to a historical fact that is accepted by all scholars that shows that the events in the BOM actually happened. One piece, that’s it.
And I could pray after reading The Lord of the Rings to get confirmation that it’s true too, for the record.
D
DanielJT
Guest
I have little understanding of divinization past the fact that, within the context of the CCC, a creature (us) can never be considered equal with the Creator. When we come to know God fully through participation with His grace, we become the known- this is to say that we become like Him as much as our given nature is able to be perfected in His image and likeness. This is why the paragraph you reference begins with the quote from 2 Peter 1:4.
To comment on or give proper examination to the quote from St. Atanasius, I would have to see it in the context it was written, which maybe you can help me out with?
Regarding the Trinity and LDS belief, I am having trouble following you.
This might be a bit above my pay-grade, I admit, but can you please clarify for me - what exactly is it that you believe (regarding Trinity) and what do you believe the Catholic Church teaches?
H
Horton
Guest
It would have to be an independent claim Tom. Like something that supports Jesus came to the Americas. Something that supports the archeological claims in the BoM.
O
OKComputer
Guest
Yup. If this is the proof they have, then it’s truly time to pack it in.
I like Mormons. Wonderful people, very nice, very sweet and very moral. I feel sorry they’ve been lied to, but it’s time to grow up and realize that Mormonism is a fraud.
I like Mormons. Wonderful people, very nice, very sweet and very moral. I feel sorry they’ve been lied to, but it’s time to grow up and realize that Mormonism is a fraud.
Last edited:
L
lilypadrees
Guest
You do realize that the BOM was written long after the Bible, don’t you? Therefore, easy for Joseph Smith to state in the BOM that Jerusalem had walls around it. He got it from the Bible.
H
hope
Guest
Tom has told us that Joseph Smith was surprised that there were walls. This surprise is proof to him that Joseph did not write the BOM. Where as I see it as proof of him being a conman because I doubt if he didn’t read scripture that says Jerusalem had walls.
L
lilypadrees
Guest
That’s what I thought which is why I haven’t wasted my money on it. The clips I saw of the performances here were rather silly.
L
Lemuel
Guest
I’ve seen clips. I don’t think they are that funny. It seems also, you wouldn’t get a lot of the humor unless you were pretty familiar with the Mormon culture.
L
Lemuel
Guest
I like Mormons, too. I love them. My living Mormon relatives could easily fill a stake center. In fact, I honestly can’t think of a relative of mine who isn’t Mormon. Talk about being a black sheep
I noticed that people were talking about me in my absence. I may be wrong . . . my memory isn’t always the best, but I don’t think I ever said that I hated the Mormon church. I hate the Mormon cult. The church is very, very strange and I could write a book on that subject (but it’s already been done a number of times), but the cult(ure) is dangerous. It cost two of my children their lives. It nearly destroyed mine. How could I not feel emotional about the cult? I try not to hate anything. But I’m just being honest in my feelings.
Yeah, me too. But like I said, it’s a cult. Cults are difficult to leave.OKComputer said:
Last edited:
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I think there is a lot in the BOM that is beyond Joseph’s ability to produce. When all the evidence that the BOM is a complex ancient text beyond the ability of Joseph Smith to produce is placed next to all the problems critics site, it is not even close IMO. The BOM comes out as a book with inexplicable ancient connections beyond the ability of Joseph Smith to produce. The problems are minor relative to the difficulties the fraud theories must overcome.
Your question (and what I presume is OKComputer’s real question) are very similar. @OKComputer made a claim (too bold by 1.5x, not by 2x) that he refuses to modify or back off which makes it clear to me he is not interested in being dislodged from the things he says that I consider ridiculous. But, your question does not properly appreciate the landscape into which they are asked.
You may replace the name Philip Jenkins with your name (this is not intended to be offensive, I just think you ask a profoundly flawed question):
What would be the response of a Phillip Jenkins if he were to ask a historical linguist for the one piece of conclusive evidence that demonstrates that Mixe-Zoque was the language of the Olmec (and that is the current best hypothesis)? In the case of historical linguistics it is a nonsense question. There isn’t one and cannot be one because of the nature of the evidence. The evidence for Book of Mormon historicity similarly requires complex iterative development of evidence. The nature of the problem in the New World makes asking for that one conclusive piece of evidence directly parallel to asking for conclusive evidence that the Olmec (whatever they called themselves) spoke Mixe-Zoque (itself a constructed language known only through historical linguistics).
Brant Gardner was part of the Stake Sunday School presidency in my stake 2-3 presidencies before I was.
The documentary evidence for what happened in ancient Mesoamerica is very different than the documentary evidence for ancient Israel.
I think what I expect to see concerning the ancient evidence of the papacy is a more realistic expectation if the papacy is what the Catholic Church claims it to be TODAY (for Stephen, “there is ZERO empirical evidence the Pope is the Vicar of Christ.”);
than what you expect to see concerning ancient evidence of the Book of Mormon if the Book of Mormon is what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims it to be TODAY.
That being said, as Mosser and Owen pointed towards, LDS in the year 2000 were a long way towards showing that the BOM could not have been produced by in the 19th century by Joseph Smith or …. We have gained ground since then and 98%+ of the critics just keep saying, “where is the sign that say ‘here is Zarahemla?’”
Last edited:
O
OKComputer
Guest
On the contrary-when I was Mormon I begged, pleaded and prayed for the slightest evidence that would show me that the Mormon church was true. When I couldn’t find any, I was devastated.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
If you believe that the reports of Joseph Smith’s surprise are PROOF of him being a conman, you are wrong.
If you believe that I THINK the reports of Joseph Smith’s surprise are PROOF that he didn’t write the BOM you are again wrong.
What we have however is OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. That the BOM made claims that are in fact true, namely that Jerusalem had walls. This means that the only objective evidence we have demonstrates the BOM is a fraud is not a true or accurate statement.
Furthermore, for the reasons I outlined, I think that this tidbit does not support the Joseph Smith was a conman as well as the Joseph Smith was not the author of the BOM. That being said, let me ask you a question.
Are you willing to state:
Joseph Smith produced the BOM, knew that Jerusalem had walls, and feigned suprise because he is/was a conman
Last edited:
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I am sorry for your loss of the religion you practiced in the past and the pain it caused you.TOmNossor:
On the contrary-when I was Mormon I begged, pleaded and prayed for the slightest evidence that would show me that the Mormon church was true. When I couldn’t find any, I was devastated.
That being said, you are not responding to what I have claimed. That the BOM says ancient Jerusalem has walls AND that ancient Jerusalem does have walls undermines your claim that there is no objective evidence that doesn’t point to the BOM as a fraud. The book makes a true and ancient claim, this cannot be evidence that it is a fraud. That you do not see this means I cannot help you at all.
Concerning what you said:
If you do not receive answers to sincere prayers concerning God’s involvement in the BOM and/or the church, I would not tell you to be a LDS instead of a Catholic. It is clear to me that is painful.
If you do not receive answers to prayers concerning finding objective evidence for the BOM, the proper response is to read the Bible and understand what it says about such seeking such things, repent, and re-engage in BIblical practices.
Now, I speak as someone who believes the BOM is better explained by the claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints than by ANY explanation offered for the BOM by critics of the CoJCoLDS.
That being said, years after I was a member because of the application of reason, I received a testimony in response to prayer.
Today, I do not suggest that anyone should become a member of the church as I did without a spiritual testimony NOR should anyone who never received a spiritual testimony stay in the church if they feel convicted they should worship with the Catholics (the second best choice IMO).
The Catholic Church is a wonderful body of Christians who seek to follow God.
O
OKComputer
Guest
Indeed. We all know people who, as nice and pleasant as they might be, are stuck in levels of denial for this or that reason
- Status