Why are people mormon considering it is obvioulsy fabricated?

[Eliza10]

…
…I am asking why there is no evidence what so ever to support that these people existed. Given the civilisation that was meant to be there (cities, town & villiages, major battles, the technology ect) there should be something to show that these people existed…
If you cant answer what is asked, just say so instead of trying confuse things with pointless false statements.

I don’t think you’ll get an answer to this obvious question - just evasions.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[rbiaca]

With all of the evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that mormonism is a sham, why do people still buy into it? It almost makes me think that reason will not always work in apologetics. its as if mormonism (and islam among others) trivialize faith by making it appear unreasonable.

Please understand, that many people say the exact same thing about Catholicism.

Why such arrogance about your own set of supernatural beliefs, as being somehow better than someone else’s supernatural beliefs?

 

[dianaiad]

Didnt Moroni help with the translation?

Uh, no…Moroni did a great deal of abridging, and wrote in it himself; he hid the plates and delivered them to Joseph, but he didn’t have anything to do with the translation process.

That is what EVERY LDS that I have spoken to has said (aside form you possibly).

…add me and every LDS who you ask from here on in. I believe that you have misinterpreted what you were told. I can almost see where you get it, though.

Actually my question is if God wanted people to read and follow this, wouldnt he get the translator to get the translation correct?

Would He? Turn this around; if God wanted people to read and follow the Bible, wouldn’t he make certain that all the translations were the same, and that there were no errors or confusing bits in it?

When you pin biblical innerrantists down, they will all tell you that the bible is *inerrant in the original. * Well, we think that, too.

Different translations and word choices change intent and meaning—and sometimes things get put in or taken out in purest error. Off the top of my head, I refer you to the Johanine comma, which may or may not appear in modern translations depending upon whim. Free will operates here, and human error.

The first edition of the BoM was a hurry up publishing job, done by a young printer’s assistant on the cheap who had a spelling problem (and a punctuation problem.) In the editions since, those early printing errors were corrected; something upwards of 3,000 of them. What astounds me isn’t the number of spelling and punctuation errors there were. What astounds me is that there were only six changes made to the book that actually affect the meaning; four of those were printing errors, and two were corrections that changed the published text to match the written manuscript. Now THAT’S astounding.

Actually I dont think anything of the sort. I didnt make any assumptions about Mr Smiths grasp of english or about his level of education. Because it really has nothing to do with that.

Although I do believe that God would have given his apparent prophet the power to translate the book properly.

The problems weren’t in the translation, Eric. The problems lay in the penmanship and printing process.

Would you please stop accusing me of assertions that I did not make. Not once did I even suggest that God wrote it.

Actually that isnt true, things would still be left behind. Besides that, what on earth happened to the bodies?

you’re kidding, right?

There would still be evidence (but I have been told that they used stone as well).

They were apparently using steel and iron centuries before anyone else.

Actually not, Eric. you need to pay closer attention to the timelines involved.

Again you accuse me of things that I did not assert. I made no such comment about Native American cultures.

Eric, are you assuming that all my posts are aimed directly at you?

I wont say “isnt that convienent”, because it isnt entirely true. The BoM gives the area where these civilisations were, but there has not been anything found to prove these claims.

DOES it? Would you care to identify the exact quote and let us know precisely where, in the Americas, Nephi landed? What landmarks were identified? Mountain ranges? Rivers? Where is Zarahemla supposed to be?

The fact is that there should be something physical to show that these people were here, but there isnt a thing.

Pompeii and her sister cities were actually lost.

They were buried, but we knew where they were supposed to be. Even so, it took a considerable amount of centuries to find them, didn’t it?

You are expecting far too much. At least use the same standard of expectation for the BoM that you do for lost sites of the bible, which is—give it time, Eric. Just because it took many, many centuries to find Pompeii doesn’t mean it wasn’t there to be found. The same goes for Troy, Sodom and Gomorah, and other biblical sites mentioned but as yet not conclusively identified.

With the Book of Mormon, we don’t even have the advantages you have with the bible. We really don’t know the precise area in the Americas that the book covers, or indeed, the size of the civilization.

 

[Eliza10]

Please understand, that many people say the exact same thing about Catholicism.

Why such arrogance about your own set of supernatural beliefs, as being somehow better than someone else’s supernatural beliefs?

You judge the poster’s motivation to be arrogance. I saw it as an honest and sincere question - and from her further comments, it seems to be simply that.

.
http://www.learn-all-about-cats.com/images/funny-sleeping-cat-1.jpg

 

[jake23]

Yes, putting someone on ignore is very christian. I am sure that if christ had an ignore button he too would have used it. And saint therese too, not to mention mother theresa and dorothy day. I am sure that they would use an ignore button too.

And is defending mormonism a reason not to take communion? Where is it written?

You must be in bounds of Catholic rules and beliefs to take communion. The catholic church officialy aknowledges Mormonism as incorrect doctrine! As far as poeple speaking out against the LDS and proclaiming real thruths goes along with the Pope asking us to give the Charity of truth! Ones soul is more important than anything else and ones soul is subject to damnation following false doctrine, especaily one that teaches blasphemy like ‘God was once a man’ or a man can one day become a god’

You obviousley do not understand simple doctrine!
The more one thinks incorrectly, the more opinionated they become and all of your beliefs are opinions based on contradicting doctrines! stop riding the fense and love the mormons enough to procalim the truth before it is too late for them! That is what Christ and so on would do and did!

 

[Elric]

Uh, no…Moroni did a great deal of abridging, and wrote in it himself; he hid the plates and delivered them to Joseph, but he didn’t have anything to do with the translation process.

…add me and every LDS who you ask from here on in. I believe that you have misinterpreted what you were told. I can almost see where you get it, though.

No I didnt misrepresent anything.

Would He? Turn this around;

No lets not turn this around, we are talking about the BoM, nothing else.

if God wanted people to read and follow the Bible, wouldn’t he make certain that all the translations were the same, and that there were no errors or confusing bits in it?

See this wont work on me, because I already know that the bible is full of mis-translations and the rest. I recently saind why I couldnt be catholic in another thread because I believed that the bible/NT is unreliable.

When you pin biblical innerrantists down, they will all tell you that the bible is *inerrant in the original. * Well, we think that, too.

Even with my mistrust of the bible/NT, I can see that there is a major difference between the way that it was compiled and how the BoM was created.

Different translations and word choices change intent and meaning—and sometimes things get put in or taken out in purest error. Off the top of my head, I refer you to the Johanine comma, which may or may not appear in modern translations depending upon whim. Free will operates here, and human error.

The first edition of the BoM was a hurry up publishing job, done by a young printer’s assistant on the cheap who had a spelling problem (and a punctuation problem.) In the editions since, those early printing errors were corrected; something upwards of 3,000 of them. What astounds me isn’t the number of spelling and punctuation errors there were. What astounds me is that there were only six changes made to the book that actually affect the meaning; four of those were printing errors, and two were corrections that changed the published text to match the written manuscript. Now THAT’S astounding.

That explains one edition (kind of), not every one.

The problems weren’t in the translation, Eric. The problems lay in the penmanship and printing process.

Rubbish.

you’re kidding, right?

About what?

Nobody died?

There were no broken weapons, no burial sites, tombs ect?

Did all those charriots just disapear?

Actually not, Eric. you need to pay closer attention to the timelines involved.

Which ones?

Eric, are you assuming that all my posts are aimed directly at you?

Um, no. I was responding to a comment that the person that I was replying to made when he accused me of something that I didnt do.

DOES it? Would you care to identify the exact quote and let us know precisely where, in the Americas, Nephi landed? What landmarks were identified? Mountain ranges? Rivers? Where is Zarahemla supposed to be?

Well actually I couldnt. But I am not the one who made the claim.

They were buried, but we knew where they were supposed to be. Even so, it took a considerable amount of centuries to find them, didn’t it?

Yep.

You are expecting far too much. At least use the same standard of expectation for the BoM that you do for lost sites of the bible

Actually I dont have any expectations for things from the bible.

which is—give it time, Eric. Just because it took many, many centuries to find Pompeii doesn’t mean it wasn’t there to be found. The same goes for Troy, Sodom and Gomorah, and other biblical sites mentioned but as yet not conclusively identified.

What is it exactly that you think that I expect?

With the Book of Mormon, we don’t even have the advantages you have with the bible.

I dont have any advantage with the bible, although other things do support the existance of some “lost” cities.

We really don’t know the precise area in the Americas that the book covers, or indeed, the size of the civilization.

Going by the epic battles alone, it was quite big or at least had a large population. Mr Smith believed that it covered the whole of the United States, but that has been reduced somewhat.

By the By: its not Eric, its Elric.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

Please understand, that many people say the exact same thing about Catholicism.

Why such arrogance about your own set of supernatural beliefs, as being somehow better than someone else’s supernatural beliefs?

absolutely, that’s why i’m catholic. if i thought they were no better than someone else’s beliefs, why be catholic or anything for that matter. this is a catholic forum, most people here actually believe that catholic church is the one TRUE church.

mormonism is demonstrably false and i believe should be illegal like scientology. but i accept the fact we live in a relativistic secular materialistic culture that says religion is all subjective and therefore irrelevant. all that matters is that we all get along and keep our religion and politics to ourselves and be good sheep people for the media and government.

 

[dianaiad]

Are you my personal post monitor or what?

Eh, pretty safe bet I didn’t.

Well, yeah…

I understand the need to categorize people and file them orderly into the correct slot. Type A personality trait if there ever was one. Rock on.

Now THAT I only wish I were. Life would be easier. I’m a type B that has to be crammed into a type A life. But I wasn’t categorizing, just reacting to a comment that irritated me considerably.

Only because you have I don’t know how may posts that address me for whatever reason. I can only assume it is just another diversion.

From what?

I don’t know why it would be rude. You might learn something, and others might learn something about you. Not that!

It would be rude because those areas are devoted to Catholics meeting and fellowshiping with Catholics. It’s party crashing. At least I think so when all the anti-Mormons crash alt.religion.mormon.fellowship. I can’t demand that they stay out of our fellowshipping forums if I crash theirs, can I?

I can see your view, and OK, I can embrace the inner critic.

OK…and I can embrace the inner picky curmudgeon…

I’m fairly certain that I am not a habitual liar. Sometimes I might be too sarcastic for some people’s tastes. And, yes, I recognize I do have the Johnson trait of cutting to the chase. No beating around the bush. My husband tells me this intimidates people. I usually try to keep the fluffiness, just, I am not good at fluffy.

Well, “not speaking truth” does not mean 'liar." In order to be a liar, one must understand that one is not speaking truth, and telling the lie anyway. There are a great many people who claim that the holocaust did not happen. They are not speaking the truth—but since they honestly believe what they are saying, are they lying?

I understand from this that you don’t like something or other about how I say what I say. Critical? I suppose you can label me that if you like.

Ok. You are critical. Thank you for that permission.

The objection is the diversion, and the analyzing of Rebecca. Irritates the hell out of me.

Diversion from what, precisely?

I got that part–that analyzing Rebecca irritates the hell out of you, that is. I wasn’t analyzing you, though, except perhaps rhetorically. That is, I read what you wrote…and since you yourself wrote that you very carefully consider what you write and mean every word you put down, I think that’s fair.

This whole thing came about because I corrected you about the timeline regarding the Word of Wisdom and how we took certain aspects of a piece of health advice, and turned abstaining from them into a covenant with the Lord; a promise/sacrifice that we keep. Your comments were, as always, critical, and then you said “I’m not criticizing…” I answered with “Rebecca, you do nothing else.”

Then you wrote “So you want to believe.”

That sentence says several things; first, it reads as a denial that you are constantly critical, and that the only reason I could have for saying so is because I want to believe it. Since you have several times commented on my 'persecution complex" and “victim mentality,” I read it as just another example of that sort of comment; that I was reading into your posts something that wasn’t there, and that I was actually being unjust to you, accusing you of something you didn’t do because I somehow have it in for you and want to portray you as some sort of bully. I read it as a snide, offhand insult, dismissive and condescending.

Yep, all of that. It irritated the hell out of me. Of course, the only defense against that sort of thing is to prove that you are, indeed, actually constantly critical and haven’t said anything positive about Mormons or Mormonism.

So I did–and we went on to irritate the hell out of each other. You are more blunt in your comments, but I’m sneakier.

I think we can stop now; I don’t think either one of us is much good at holding grudges. Peace?

 

[Eliza10]

You must be in bounds of Catholic rules and beliefs to take communion. The catholic church officialy aknowledges Mormonism as incorrect doctrine! As far as poeple speaking out against the LDS and proclaiming real thruths goes along with the Pope asking us to give the Charity of truth! Ones soul is more important than anything else and ones soul is subject to damnation following false doctrine, especaily one that teaches blasphemy like ‘God was once a man’ or a man can one day become a god’

I agree that anyone who beleives these things should NOT be taking communion! He should see a priest and be up front about his beliefs. I don’t see how a priest would allow communion if he is aware.

You obviousley do not understand simple doctrine!
The more one thinks incorrectly, the more opinionated they become …

true
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.wow.com/media/2009/04/425_178765522_e76494e4ca.jpg

 

[dianaiad]

No I didnt misrepresent anything.

No lets not turn this around, we are talking about the BoM, nothing else.

See this wont work on me, because I already know that the bible is full of mis-translations and the rest. I recently saind why I couldnt be catholic in another thread because I believed that the bible/NT is unreliable.

Then why in the world are you holding the BoM to standards you don’t expect the bible to achieve?

Even with my mistrust of the bible/NT, I can see that there is a major difference between the way that it was compiled and how the BoM was created.

Of course there is. If it was compiled as WE claim it was, then the books were gathered, abridged and compiled by two men, Mormon and Moroni, who wrote additional books. These abridgments were then engraved and bound together in one book. The bible is a collection of (hopefully) individual unabridged works that were simply gathered and organized by a group of people into one volume. Lots of differences there.

That explains one edition (kind of), not every one.

Say what? Do you have any idea what you are talking about here? The first edition was full of printing and spelling errors. The second edition corrected many of those, as well as a few major contextual goofs, but the third and subsequent editions were based upon the first one, not the second one. It wasn’t until just recently that the final corrections were made. Elric, you really don’t know much about this, do you?

Rubbish.

Well now. That’s a debate ender. You lose.

About what?

Nobody died?

There were no broken weapons, no burial sites, tombs ect?

Did all those charriots just disapear?

Which ones?

Um, no. I was responding to a comment that the person that I was replying to made when he accused me of something that I didnt do.

Well actually I couldnt. But I am not the one who made the claim.

Yep.

Actually I dont have any expectations for things from the bible.

What is it exactly that you think that I expect?

I dont have any advantage with the bible, although other things do support the existance of some “lost” cities.

Going by the epic battles alone, it was quite big or at least had a large population. Mr Smith believed that it covered the whole of the United States, but that has been reduced somewhat.

By the By: its not Eric, its Elric.

Joseph believed that it did, but there is no textual evidence within the book itself that supports that. In fact, the disconnect between some of the things that Joseph believed about what it said, and what it actually says, is evidence that he didn’t actually WRITE the book himself; someone else did. The author of a book generally puts the textual evidence for his claims in that book.

 

[dianaiad]

absolutely, that’s why i’m catholic. if i thought they were no better than someone else’s beliefs, why be catholic or anything for that matter. this is a catholic forum, most people here actually believe that catholic church is the one TRUE church.

mormonism is demonstrably false and i believe should be illegal like scientology. but i accept the fact we live in a relativistic secular materialistic culture that says religion is all subjective and therefore irrelevant. all that matters is that we all get along and keep our religion and politics to ourselves and be good sheep people for the media and government.

I wasn’t aware that Scientology is illegal, Dee Dee.

By the way, the USA was founded in part to ensure that we all have the right to believe and worship as we wish. Making any religion illegal is a smashing of the constitution that really would not be all that wise.

I’m just sayin’, is all.

 

[Eliza10]

 

[RebeccaJ]

From what?

The subject, which, is not me.

I got that part–that analyzing Rebecca irritates the hell out of you, that is. I wasn’t analyzing you, though, except perhaps rhetorically.

Yes, I’ve had college English courses. There is choice, to analyze, or to listen.

This whole thing came about because I corrected you about the timeline regarding the Word of Wisdom and how we took certain aspects of a piece of health advice, and turned abstaining from them into a covenant with the Lord; a promise/sacrifice that we keep. Your comments were, as always, critical, and then you said “I’m not criticizing…” I answered with “Rebecca, you do nothing else.”

Last I checked, critical thinking is not a sin. Critical thinking is required to come to reasonable and accurate conclusions. I don’t find your conclusions to be accurate.

Then you wrote “So you want to believe.”

So instead of addressing what I say, you address how I say it. This is a diversion.

That sentence says several things; first, it reads as a denial that you are constantly critical, and that the only reason I could have for saying so is because I want to believe it. Since you have several times commented on my 'persecution complex" and “victim mentality,” I read it as just another example of that sort of comment; that I was reading into your posts something that wasn’t there, and that I was actually being unjust to you, accusing you of something you didn’t do because I somehow have it in for you and want to portray you as some sort of bully. I read it as a snide, offhand insult, dismissive and condescending.

Again, not everything is about you.

Yep, all of that. It irritated the hell out of me. Of course, the only defense against that sort of thing is to prove that you are, indeed, actually constantly critical and haven’t said anything positive about Mormons or Mormonism.

Which has the point of what?

So I did–and we went on to irritate the hell out of each other. You are more blunt in your comments, but I’m sneakier.

Yes, passive aggressive is something learned in the mormon culture.

I think we can stop now; I don’t think either one of us is much good at holding grudges. Peace?

Peace.

 

[ricko]

Who said that on this thread? I don’t see a single mormon who said that? Now I also know that lutherns have missionaries in africa and in other parts of the world. And catholics also have missions. How do you think that catholicism got so many members? I do believe that the catholic church exported missionaries to the new world and to other parts of the world. And Islam? I can say the same. The mormons, however, are late comers.

And if we look at history, christianity was not exactly fulled with love. It had aspects of hate, superiority, decay and evil. Just ask the American Indian or the aborginies. And we need to remember why many people came from Europe: to escape religious persecution from other christians. And jews? They were put into pogroms. What adjectives can we give that?

The only poster spreading hate is YOU!

Your posts are one sided and unfair. Give me a list of all the persecutions directed towards Catholics.

Also, the people who left Europe for the US were because of persecutions by the STATE. That is why our Constitution says that Congress shall make no law respecting a religion.

 

[cthulhubryan]

mormonism is demonstrably false and i believe should be illegal like scientology.

Scientology is not illegal. Several countries, Germany the most prominent, have refused to recognize them as a religion but now outlawed them.

 

[Religio71]

Scientology is not illegal. Several countries, Germany the most prominent, have refused to recognize them as a religion but now outlawed them.

Yeah, and I would not put Mormonism in the same category as Scientology.

 

[dianaiad]

The subject, which, is not me.

Yes, I’ve had college English courses. There is choice, to analyze, or to listen.

Last I checked, critical thinking is not a sin. Critical thinking is required to come to reasonable and accurate conclusions. I don’t find your conclusions to be accurate.

So instead of addressing what I say, you address how I say it. This is a diversion.

Again, not everything is about you.

Which has the point of what?

Yes, passive aggressive is something learned in the mormon culture.

Peace.

Oh, aRRRGGGHHH!!!

But I asked for peace, you can have the last word. Fair is fair. peace.

 

[PaulDupre]

I’ve read that, yes.

Now.

HOW long have we had the Old Testament? HOW long has it taken to find these cities?

Don’t you think it’s a little unfair to demand that we find all the cities of the Book of Mormon, when there has, quite literally, been a thousand year gap in the history portrayed (and not much of a hint as to where to look in the vast expanses of the Americas, plus several rather impressive civilizations that have come and gone since then) In less than 175 years? I mean, really…the bible has been always present, a great many of those cities have been constantly in front of us, and even so we have lost a few things.

Sorry Diana, but that is a non-sensical comparison. The science of archeology only started in the 1920’s. Before that no one was looking for anything. The only discoveries before the 1920s were purely accidental.

There are many, many LDS archeologists, both professional and amateur, looking for Book of Mormon sites for many decades. They have never found any, despite the fact that the BoM cities and battlefields are far more recent (and should be more easily identified) than most of the things discovered by archeologists.

 

[PaulDupre]

It was tens of thousands, but there were people around afterward and they carried everything off with them.

In the battle cited in Mormon 6:9-15, 230,000 soldiers on the Nephite side were killed. Mormon doesn’t report how many died on the Lamanite side.

That’s more than tens of thousands. And the civilizations needed to support armies of that size must have been huge - plenty big enough to leave a whopping big archeological footprint a mere 1600 years later. The year 421 AD was just this morning in archeological time.

It is ridiculous that the civilizations described in the BoM wouldn’t leave easily identifiable traces - especially their Hebrew and/or Reformed Egyptian writing. The Book of mormon reports several times that the Nephite people “searched the scriptures diligently”. If so, then

a) the people must have been highly literate
b) the scriptures must have been in wide circulation

Among literate peoples, written language provides a great advantage in commerce, warfare and every other facet of life, and so is used widely. A civilization as large and literate as the Nephites would have left behind enough Hebrew and/or Reformed Egyptian writing so as to be easily identified. The fact that no such writing has ever been found, nor are there any traces of Hebrew or Egyptian in any of the surviving Native American languages is very suspicious, don’t you think?

It’s almost as if those Nephites and Lamanites never existed at all.

 

[dianaiad]

Sorry Diana, but that is a non-sensical comparison. The science of archeology only started in the 1920’s. Before that no one was looking for anything. The only discoveries before the 1920s were purely accidental.

Tell that to Constantine’s mother, who managed to find a bunch of stuff. Or at least declare a bunch of stuff…

Besides, your claim isn’t exactly true, either. the SCIENCE of archeology may have advanced recently, but that nobody was looking? No, sorry. People looked all the time. Lots of people looked; for Mt. Ararat, for Sodom, for the route of the Exodus…for pretty much everything that was mentioned, but ‘mislaid,’ in the bible.

There are many, many LDS archeologists, both professional and amateur, looking for Book of Mormon sites for many decades. They have never found any, despite the fact that the BoM cities and battlefields are far more recent (and should be more easily identified) than most of the things discovered by archeologists.

You mean like archeologists finding tombs in the Valley of the Dead? Well, sure–but then they already knew where the Valley of the Dead was.

The bible describes an area about the size of the state of Connecticut, with a mention of Egypt (which is the size of Texas) The total expanse of the territory mentioned in the bible (excluding any trips to Rome and Greece) is about 300,000 square miles–and you’ve still misplaced a few cities and landmarks, important routes, wells and, y’know, stuff.

Yet you insist that we have to find, far more quickly, a civilization that may or may not have filled an area as big as Israel and Egypt combined, an area that is about 2% of the total land mass of South America and the United States? Two percent…definitely not much more than that–or if it was, far more spread out and thus even less likely to be found…and where do you suggest we start looking?

I mean, what specific 2% of the land mass do you suggest we investigate?

Here’s the deal, Paul: Just seven years ago a major archeological find was made less than 22 miles away from Machu Picchu, which happens to be the best known, and most thoroughly explored, Incan city to date. you’d think that, if your presumption that we’ve already found everything that is there to be found is true, that a settlement that was something like six square kilometres, that close to a long explored and well known archeological treasure like Machu Picchu, would have been found quite awhile ago…but no. It was found within the last decade.

There are over ten million square miles of land to look at, Paul. I think that it’s a little soon to declare that scientists have found everything there is to be found, and thus the Book of Mormon has been utterly disproved.

In other words, sir, "lack of proof is not proof of lack.’

But then, I am quite aware that no matter what IS found, you will not believe that it proves the Book of mormon to be true; you will find some alternate explanation.