No, it wasnt my claim at all. It is what other LDS have told me. Lets go with Moroni didnt help (its not important), the result is still the same.
Not really an excuse to put out a faulty copy of such an important work.
I thought the gold plates dissapeared.
Oh right then.
No, but given other things (ie: Kinderhook plates) it does add up.
Dianaiad,
This forum is moderated. You will find that your treatment is far better here, though it is a little one sided. (shrug)
You must not be an American. I love the constitution just the way it is, thank-you-very-much, and I don’t want it changed. If they outlaw someone else’s religion, what’s to say mine won’t be next? The founding fathers knew what they were doing when they wrote the 1st amendment. Amendments are for adding rights, not taking them away.
This is a very convincing report on all accounts. He sounds like an honest man more interested in the truth that what he has to lose, or how he comes off to others when he admits he was duped.
Actually, it is rather important, Elric. It indicates a communication breakdown that might cause issues in other areas. I’ve been around the block quite often, and have been around Mormons (and anti-Mormons and Mormon critics) for a long time. You are the absolutely first person to tell me that Moroni helped Joseph Smith translate the Book of Mormon. Something’s screwy somewhere.
Nothing much…a change of subject within the post. You ARE holding the Book of Mormon to a different standard than you are holding the bible to; in terms of archeology, it’s apples and oranges.
an excuse? perhaps not, but it is a reason. It doesn’t much matter whether you personally think that the reason is good enough, y’know. It is what it is.
Not before Joseph Smith was done looking at them, they didn’t.
Glad you see the light.
OK, educate me. How does Joseph’s non-translation of bogus plates relate to the Book of Mormon?
Hardly. Pure speculation.
Cool. Thanks.
Most of us don’t believe that Joseph Smith wrote the BoM; in fact, from Joseph’s statements it appears he never even read it,. The best evidence shows that Sidney Ridgon reworked the Spalding manuscript and inserted his own Campbellite theology into it, then used Joseph Smith as the Mohammed-like illiterate bumpkin who “could not possibly have written it”.
Actually there are a number of BoM prophecies specifically about Joseph Smith - very self-serving.
by the time that revelation became D&C 5, the meaning had completely changed:
It is obvious to the dispassionate observer that Sidney Rigdon originally planned to be the head of the church, and the BoC passage limits Joseph’s role to that of translator. But Sidney Rigdon was a weird old man that nobody liked, despite that fact that he was an accomplished bible scholar and the architect of LDS doctrine. By the time the D&C was published, the balance of power had shifted, and Joseph was firmly in control, with Sidney as an assistant (at best).
The missionaries that taught me in 1975 told me that very lie, along with a multitude of others. If only the internet had been around then…
You probably won’t be surprised to learn that not everybody considers Thomas Ferguson, the California lawyer and amateur archaeology enthusiast, the final authority on Book of Mormon authenticity:
No serious historian of Mormonism, believer or not, accepts the Spalding/Rigdon hypothesis. Not a single one. That should suggest something, I think.
Synneve, welcome to the forum. Just an fyi: It’s better to actually discuss your points instead of just posting articles from the maxwell institute. Chances are many of us have already read them or are at least aware of the major points in them. So why not bring up some important points from them?
If people have already read them, we can discuss them.
Yes I agree with both points, however sadly that’s not how forums work, since most will think “tl;dr” (internet speak for: too long didn’t read). I can’t even get people to read a 5 page article. It makes more sense to copy out certain parts of it, post them here, link to the full article, and bring up any points you think are important. Otherwise, most won’t read the full article, no matter how much they “should” read it. And I’m talking generally, not specific to Catholics or Mormons.
Self-serving is the first thing you think of when you read about Joseph Smith. “Self-serving” was the common thread in all his actions.
That is interesting. Wow, I guess they just focus on what he “discovered” before he discovered it wasn’t true. Strange.
And what, pray, have you read about Joseph Smith?