The Book of Mormon

[moses2792796]

For the Christians on the forum, is the Book of Mormon valid scripture? why/why not?

[David Hume]

Not a Christian, but come on. Joseph Smith was a con-man. He WAS convicted of fraud. He was never able to produce these so-called golden plates for public inspection. He was from the burnt-over district of w. New York, which was well-known in its day for producing such charlatans. Even his own (first) wife left him because she knew that the religion he was inventing was a fraud.

Based on just these few FACTS, what are the odds of him producing anything scripturally valid (which, even as I type it, looks like an oxymoron).

[Jaaaman]

For the Christians on the forum, is the Book of Mormon valid scripture? why/why not?


Absolutely not. Mormonism is a cult and a fraud. :shame:

[AnnEsthesia]

Hmm... what about all the other sects of christianity that view theirs as the only way and all others as false religions?

[PatrickHenry]

Hmm... what about all the other sects of christianity that view theirs as the only way and all others as false religions?
Name the ones you object to...

[mammalicious]

Religion (primarily Christianity) is a money maker....a funny thing, since Jesus lived contrary to that and relied on the kindness and generosity of others.

Although can a believer really deny that God may have revealed Him/Herself to anyone, just because God didn't speak to them? THAT is the sticking point of faith, isn't it? The arrogance that God might have contacted someone that YOU don't feel was worthy to hear it. What a test it is, huh? Everyone thinks THEY have it right..the good intentions of the ideas brought by the spirituality gets perverted to form the business of religion until one no longer resembles the other.

[Buck Laser]

Religion (primarily Christianity) is a money maker....a funny thing, since Jesus lived contrary to that and relied on the kindness and generosity of others.

Although can a believer really deny that God may have revealed Him/Herself to anyone, just because God didn't speak to them? THAT is the sticking point of faith, isn't it? The arrogance that God might have contacted someone that YOU don't feel was worthy to hear it. What a test it is, huh? Everyone thinks THEY have it right..the good intentions of the ideas brought by the spirituality gets perverted to form the business of religion until one no longer resembles the other.

If I were to claim to have a direct revelation from God (as CWN did, btw), everybody would write me off as psychotic. I'm pretty sure that was the reaction most people had to Jesus in his time. Religious fervor is a very chancy thing, be it Christian, Muslim, or the Church of His Noodly Appendage.

[BoogyMan]

The book of Mormon claims to be "another" testament of Jesus Christ.

Jude 3 points to the fact that the faith was only delivered once.

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

[mammalicious]

The book of Mormon claims to be "another" testament of Jesus Christ.

Jude 3 points to the fact that the faith was only delivered once.

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.


But that ''once'' could also mean 'at one time' not just as a singular occurance. And if the original 'word' was changed and Christianity branched off into too many splinters, each with their own little quirks...could not another 'revelation' be called for? Again, YOU feel that testament could not have been given to another...why?

[JohnM81]

For the Christians on the forum, is the Book of Mormon valid scripture? why/why not?


Absolutely not. Mormonism is a cult and a fraud. :shame:


Ditto

[Truth_and_Power]

For the Christians on the forum, is the [anything besides the normal christian bible] valid scripture? why/why not?

[BoogyMan]

The book of Mormon claims to be "another" testament of Jesus Christ.

Jude 3 points to the fact that the faith was only delivered once.

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.


But that ''once'' could also mean 'at one time' not just as a singular occurance. And if the original 'word' was changed and Christianity branched off into too many splinters, each with their own little quirks...could not another 'revelation' be called for? Again, YOU feel that testament could not have been given to another...why?


Sorry Momma, it isn't me, it is the text speaking here, and quite clearly so. Especially so since the books of the bible including Jude were written well before the 19th century musings of Joseph smith.

[Buck Laser]

For the Christians on the forum, is the [anything besides the normal christian bible] valid scripture? why/why not?


I'm not sure why this shows up in a quote from T&P. But yes, there ARE differences between Roman Catholic and general protestant views of the "official" (canonic) books of the Bible. In protestant churches, the following books are called The Apocrypha, and are unknown to most protestants:
1 & 2 Esldras
Tobit
Judith
Additions to Esther
Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus
Baruch
Letter of Jeremiah
Prayer of Azariah
Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
1 & 2 Maccabees

I read the Apocrypha many years ago, but it didn't make a profound impression on me. However, because Christians disagree about whether these books should be incuded in the Bible, I tend to take a different stand from many other Christians on this board regarding the literal truth of the Bible.

I have tried to read a bit of the Book of Mormon, too, but I always found it boring. Also, the absence of a historical record of the growth and development of the book, such as the recognized scriptures have, make it very difficult to take seriously. I'm sure Mormons would disagree strenuously with me, though.

[AnnEsthesia]

Hmm... what about all the other sects of christianity that view theirs as the only way and all others as false religions?
Name the ones you object to...


*I* have not objected to any, in particular. I asked about all the ones that feel only that are the true religion. Christianity, Mormon, JW's, etc.

[PatrickHenry]

Christianity is quite a crowded field, and I don't think all of the entrants qualify for your objections...

Jehova's Witnesses and Church of LDS are usually regarded by mainstream Christians as cults...

[AnnEsthesia]

And many Catholics view other religions as less than. So do other 'mainstream' christian groups.

[Buck Laser]

Christianity is quite a crowded field, and I don't think all of the entrants qualify for your objections...

Jehova's Witnesses and Church of LDS are usually regarded by mainstream Christians as cults...

And the Southern Baptists think Catholics are a cult. Same for Christian Scientists. A fair number of Xns think you're going to hell if you're not baptized by immersion, too. And the Church of Christ (not to be confused with the United Church of Christ) believes it's sinful to use musical instruments in a church service.

Once we get past all the Xns anathematizing each other, there really aren't many left. Pity, too: Jesus was a Real Nice Guy. :peace:

[moses2792796]

The book of Mormon claims to be "another" testament of Jesus Christ.

Jude 3 points to the fact that the faith was only delivered once.

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.


What about the Hebrew texts that preceded the Bible?

[mammalicious]

The book of Mormon claims to be "another" testament of Jesus Christ.

Jude 3 points to the fact that the faith was only delivered once.

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.


But that ''once'' could also mean 'at one time' not just as a singular occurance. And if the original 'word' was changed and Christianity branched off into too many splinters, each with their own little quirks...could not another 'revelation' be called for? Again, YOU feel that testament could not have been given to another...why?


Sorry Momma, it isn't me, it is the text speaking here, and quite clearly so. Especially so since the books of the bible including Jude were written well before the 19th century musings of Joseph smith.


You think that YOUR interpretation is the clear and obvious one of the text...I say that the word ''once'' has another meaning...like ''once upon a time'' rather than ''the only time.'' And the point that the Mormon text was written AFTER Jude kinda WAS the point. Maybe God had some clarifying to do when he saw things running amok in Christendom. What you are dismissing as 'musings' of one group...folks can call the same of the fantastical stories of the Bible. How are you to know the mind of God in that you are sure He DIDN'T reveal Himself to Smith?

[moses2792796]

You make a good point mammalicious, it is for precisely this reason that we cannot assume to know of a singular truth in form, because our judgment will always be limited by the individual. Every point of view appears to be right when viewed as separate from every other point of view. What we should do is attempt to see the higher truth in all things, the truth that transcends the individual. The transcendent principle that forms the basis of reality resolves all outward oppositions. So all points of view can be right, but they are only true when they are seen in their metaphysical context.

[Mia]

Christianity is quite a crowded field, and I don't think all of the entrants qualify for your objections...

Jehova's Witnesses and Church of LDS are usually regarded by mainstream Christians as cults...

And the Southern Baptists think Catholics are a cult. Same for Christian Scientists. A fair number of Xns think you're going to hell if you're not baptized by immersion, too. And the Church of Christ (not to be confused with the United Church of Christ) believes it's sinful to use musical instruments in a church service.

Once we get past all the Xns anathematizing each other, there really aren't many left. Pity, too: Jesus was a Real Nice Guy. :peace:


The difference is that few (from a % perspective) Christians call all other denominations cults for interpreting the Bible a bit differently, or even believing there are additional books not included in the traditional Bible.

However with Mormons, CS, and Jehovah's Witnesses, they have other books which directly contradict all the basic foundations of biblical Christianity.

Mormons have an entirely different God, that's much more striking than whether musical instruments are OK for humans to use.

They claim that Jesus came to them, the American Tribe, and revealed the truth to them only. They are calling Jesus a liar. He told one set of people there is only one God, he is the creater of and Lord over all, and he is his only son.

He told the Mormons God was once a man, exalted to God status over this planet, that he was 'a' son of God, Lucifer is his brother, and that Jesus was also a God, after going through the steps necessary as a man to accomplish this. They are taught they can all be Gods, equal to the one of this planet, and have their own planets to rule. and that Joseph smith decides who gets into heaven and who does not. Jesus told the rest of us he will determine that.

The differences of these three religions claiming to be Christians are staggering, so much so they cannot possibly be placed in the same category. Islam and Judaism have more in common with Christianity than they do.

I don't even know why they want to be called the same name as those who believe in an entirely different God, an entirely different Jesus, and an entirely different premise for the Universe.

[Pookie]

Well, to answer the original topic question: "For the Christians on the forum, is the Book of Mormon valid scripture? Why/why not?

Answer: To the Mormons it is. To the rest of the Christians (the non-Mormons) it probably isn't. And that would be because others think Mormonism is a cult or its teachings are so far off the beaten path they don't recognize it as being anything but a cult or at best, just another loony extremist offshoot of something else.

Purrs,
Pookie

[Deadshot]

Well, to answer the original topic question: "For the Christians on the forum, is the Book of Mormon valid scripture? Why/why not?

Answer: To the Mormons it is. To the rest of the Christians (the non-Mormons) it probably isn't. And that would be because others think Mormonism is a cult or its teachings are so far off the beaten path they don't recognize it as being anything but a cult or at best, just another loony extremist offshoot of something else.

Purrs,
Pookie


Good post, Pookie, and I agree. Here's another question though, how does Mitt overcome the Mormon religion. To be honest, I think as more and more things come out about the religion, more and more people of the Christian persuation will not vote.

They won't jump over to the Democratic camp, they'll simply stay home.

[HankSaint]

Joseph Smith was a con-man. He WAS convicted of fraud. He was never able to produce these so-called golden plates for public inspection. He was from the burnt-over district of w. New York, which was well-known in its day for producing such charlatans. Even his own (first) wife left him because she knew that the religion he was inventing was a fraud.

Based on just these few FACTS, what are the odds of him producing anything scripturally valid


Interesting strawman you bring up. The question was about the Book of Mormon and if it was valid scripture. Your argument addresses everything but the issue.


1). He was convicted of fraud --- you can't prove that statement so it gets thrown out.
(Need your documentation on this one).

2). Golden plates have the original eight wittness and their statement:

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the Author and Proprietor of this work, has shewn unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shewn unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.


3). Than we have the three witnesses:

Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris — affirmed that an angel had descended from heaven and presented the plates, which they saw but did not touch. Then they heard a voice from heaven declaring that the book was translated by the power of God and that they should bear record of it.

4). Gosh, did not know that Emma Smith left Joseph Smith and claimed he was a fraud.
Hate to bother you, but could you also document that one also. I won't hold my
breath waiting though.


You seem to be or try to come across as an expert on Joseph Smith and Mormonism, my question to you would be, have you read the B of M completely or do you get your information from outside sources. Maybe you would do well to check your facts first.

Have a great day. :thumbsup:[hr]
The book of Mormon claims to be "another" testament of Jesus Christ.

Jude 3 points to the fact that the faith was only delivered once.

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.


Revelation 14:6
6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.[hr]MIA wrote:
However with Mormons, they have other books which directly contradict all the basic foundations of biblical Christianity.

Mormons have an entirely different God, that's much more striking than whether musical instruments are OK for humans to use.

They claim that Jesus came to them, the American Tribe, and revealed the truth to them only. They are calling Jesus a liar. He told one set of people there is only one God, he is the creater of and Lord over all, and he is his only son.

He told the Mormons God was once a man, exalted to God status over this planet, that he was 'a' son of God, Lucifer is his brother, and that Jesus was also a God, after going through the steps necessary as a man to accomplish this. They are taught they can all be Gods, equal to the one of this planet, and have their own planets to rule. and that Joseph smith decides who gets into heaven and who does not. Jesus told the rest of us he will determine that.

The differences of these three religions claiming to be Christians are staggering, so much so they cannot possibly be placed in the same category. Islam and Judaism have more in common with Christianity than they do.

I don't even know why they want to be called the same name as those who believe in an entirely different God, an entirely different Jesus, and an entirely different premise for the Universe.

:shame: Mia, how does the Mormon, (other books), contradict the basic foundation of biblical Christianity.
First you must establish what the foundation is, now do not get off on peripheral doctrine, stay to the Gospel as found in the Bible. Example: Faith, repentance, forgiveness, baptism, these are the basics preached in the Holy Scriptures, these are the issues we should debate.

The other strawmen you sling around are out of context and would have to be addressed one at a time.
When shown how we believe, what we believe in the true context as shown in the history and doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS, it will point out to others that statements you carelessly bring up are points that to most will make sense. :innocent:

[bobbylien]

I don't even know why they want to be called the same name as those who believe in an entirely different God, an entirely different Jesus, and an entirely different premise for the Universe.
Because they are better able to convert others if they make them believe that their past views weren't completely wrong.

[I Like Beer]

I don't like to take the piss out of anyone's religion but I would say not. Let's look at the Translation of the Book of Abraham as one piece of actual evidence that we have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith,_Jr.#_note-69

Translation of the Book of Abraham

Smith stated that he translated the Book of Abraham from papyrus rolls.[70] Although it is accepted that Smith bought the papyri from an Irishman named Michael Chandler in 1835, these hieroglyphics were not able to be translated at the time until the discovery of the Rosetta stone. The originals were thought by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to have been destroyed in a Chicago fire, yet turned up in one of the vault rooms of the New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art. In November of 1967 the Deseret News of Salt Lake City reported the rediscovery of the papyri.[71] Egyptologists have pointed out that Smith's purported translation is not, in fact, a translation. Dr. Archibald Sayce noted, "It is difficult to deal seriously with Joseph Smith's impudent fraud....Smith has turned the Goddess [Isis] into a king and Osiris into Abraham." James H. Breasted, Ph.D. wrote, "To sum up, then, these three fac-similies of Egyptian documents in the 'Pearl of Great Price' depict the most common objects in the mortuary religion of Egypt. Joseph Smith's interpretations of them as part of a unique revelation through Abraham, therefore, very clearly demonstrates that he was totally unacquainted with the significance of these documents and absolutely ignorant of the simplest facts of Egyptian Writing and civilization." Dr. Arthur C. Mace, assistant curator of the Department of Egyptian Art of the Metropolitan Museum of Art wrote, "The 'Book of Abraham,' it is hardly necessary to say, is a pure fabrication....Joseph Smith's interpretation of these cuts is a farrago of nonsense from beginning to end." Samuel Alfred Brown Mercer, Ph. D., of the Western Theological Seminary, and author of an Egyptian grammar, stated, "[Smith] knew neither the Egyptian language nor the meaning of the most commonplace Egyptian figures....the explanatory notes to his fac-similes cannot be taken seriously by any scholar, as they seem to be undoubtedly the work of pure imagination". [72]

[Mia]

OK, to more directly answer the OP, no it is not Scripture. For the reasons I already stated. The BOM directly contradicts every basic premise of the Bible.

There is one God or there are many. I can be one or I can't. Jesus is the one and only son or he isn't. Either Jesus is the way to God and heaven or it's Joseph Smith.

These are mutually exclusive ideas, they cannot be used together, yet that is exactly what Mormons purport to do.

[bobbylien]

Mormonism isn't a cult anymore than the Catholic church is. But that being said, they are still idiots.
I thought it was funny that their home city of Salt Lake City was ranked as the Vainest City in the nation according to Forbes. Way ahead of New York and Los Angeles. HAH

[HankSaint]

OK, to more directly answer the OP, no it is not Scripture. For the reasons I already stated. The BOM directly contradicts every basic premise of the Bible.

There is one God or there are many. I can be one or I can't. Jesus is the one and only son or he isn't. Either Jesus is the way to God and heaven or it's Joseph Smith.

These are mutually exclusive ideas, they cannot be used together, yet that is exactly what Mormons purport to do.


Very nice, but you circled around the question I asked and went on to the peripheral stuff I said we could debate one at a time. If you're going to slam us use some documentation to back up your claims, need evidence, quotes to be able to debate at a higher level.

You reply no it's not scripture and leave it at that? Wow. :clapper:
BoM contradicts every basic bible premise, and you mention only Joseph Smith and something about God or many???? :unreal:
Mormons purport to do what??? Confusing statement, clarify :dizzy:

I always thought the Bible preached faith, repentance and Baptism. :help:
I'm a member for 50 yrs. and I did not know we preached something else :sadly:

[HankSaint]

I don't like to take the piss out of anyone's religion but I would say not. Let's look at the Translation of the Book of Abraham as one piece of actual evidence that we have.

Welcome Canada, but I hate to take the piss out of your post, or rain on your parade :embarrased: but your try at the Abraham papyri is only going to backfire in your face.

Michael D. Rhodes, a researcher in ancient scriptures from Brigham Young University counters the assertions made by various experts regarding the translation of the Book of Abraham. First off, he points out that the image greatest in question, called Facsimile 1, while accompanying the Book of Abraham, probably wasn't one that Smith translated from. Evidence supporting this include Smith's own account of the papyrus, stating that they were in an excellent state of preservation and were written with black and red ink. The source image for Facsimile 1 was in a very poor state of preservation (in fact, huge portions of it are missing) and contains no red ink. Secondly, the Egyptians "often placed vignettes next to texts that bore no relationship to them." Evidence for this practice comes from several secular scholars. Since we don't have all the papyrus Smith translated from—only a few—it is quite possible that Smith translated from materials we haven't recovered. Thirdly, Smith's method of "translation" was not the same as secular translations. He usually read the source material, but the original meaning of the text was revealed to him as he read, and that is what he recorded. Lastly, Rhodes states that several accounts of Abraham's life have been recovered since Smith's time and that The Book of Abraham compares favorably with them.

If you really are interested in the truth than read the evidence which I have documented from the following web site:

http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/LBOA.pdf

Get back to me if you want to debate this some-more. I kind of doubt you will since your argument is pretty lame. But I have time if you want to challenge me.

[I Like Beer]

Get back to me if you want to debate this some-more. I kind of doubt you will since your argument is pretty lame. But I have time if you want to challenge me.

Sorry if I hit a nerve but I don't like being insulted.... so...

Am I to assume that all experts you cite will be from the LDS church? I guess you can't find any non-partisan ones? The fellow above, Mr. Rhodes (not even a PhD) has an MS in Physics. According to his cv, he has no education in translation or working with ancient texts.
http://home.comcast.net/~michael.rhodes/

Why should I take his word over the doctors that I quoted? At least some of the people I quoted have no obvious vested interest in the outcome, unlike the Mr. Rhodes and Mr. McGuire. (What exactly is Mr. McGuire's credentials?)

Now, you ask me to take the words of these men for I see no actual evidence? I quote from Mr. Rhodes in a paper on Astronomy.
http://farms.byu.edu/publications/bookschapter.php?bookid=&chapid=162

As Moroni said, by the power of the Holy Ghost we can know the truth of all things (Moroni 10:5).

Thus, the basic principles governing this study are the following:

* The truths of revealed religion will agree with the truths of science.
* Emphasis must be on true religion and true science.
* The revealed word of God takes precedence.

In other words, when there is a conflict between God and Science, you must choose the revealed word of God. What do you think of Mr. Rhodes ideas? Do you think they carry over into this discussion? I wonder what Mr. Rhodes would say if scientific proof appeared showing that J Smith got it wrong? It would certainly conflict with the revealed word of God, wouldn't it?

As for your link, I read it. All 11 pages. I can't remember reading a more lamely presented refutation in a long time. This is what stands for a clear refutation of "The Lost Book of Abraham. Investigating A Remarkable Mormon Claim"?

By the way, if anyone wants to watch the video names above, see it here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcyzkd_m6KE

McGuire quibbles over the age of the papyrus and the definition of the word 'translation'. And neither of these actually refute charges, they just raise more questions.

Here's a question... McGuire 'reads into' Smith's comments that he was translating buried papyri in general and not the ones specifically in his possession. Do you agree with that statement? Simple question, yes or no?

Also, have you added this book to your Christmas shopping list?

Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar

Have an awesome day!

[HankSaint]

Didn't think you would be back, I give you credit for being persistent, even though your remarks are way off from being true.

The basic claim is that the fragmentary Book of Breathings the Church acquired from the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1967 is the actual text Joseph Smith used in-translating the Book of Abraham.

Since your claim is based on the above, yet has been soundly defeated with evidence showing that Joseph translated from papyri that does not exist anymore the proof is for you to show evidence that the Book of Breathings is what you claim it to be. All research and evidence points to the description left by Joseph and others of the papyri does not even come close to the fragments we now have.

"The Lost Book of Abraham. Investigating A Remarkable Mormon Claim"?
Your use of the video is humorous since we see the deceitful nature it presents, take for example the following:

Claim: "We have not found one non-LDS Egyptologist who supports [Joseph Smith's] translation [of the Book of Abraham papyri]." [Video cuts to Charles Larson, credited as "Historian, Author."] LARSON: "I first became aware that the Book of Abraham had a problem when I had been studying other Mormon literature and anthropology...."

By mentioning "non-LDS Egyptologists" and then immediately transitioning to Charles Larson, the video implies that Larson is, himself, an Egyptologist, or at least qualified to speak on Egyptology. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth—he has no training in these fields.
Larson is the author of the well-known but deeply flawed anti-Mormon book "By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus": A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri. This book has been reviewed by LDS Egyptologists who hold degrees in the field. One reviewer summed up Larson's work:
Larson's historical method is as follows: Invent evidence, read minds, attribute motives, misquote sources, argue from circumstantial evidence—or better yet—argue from no evidence....
If Larson stumbles as a historian, he falls flat on his face as an Egyptologist. He betrays no knowledge of any foreign language, yet offers to guide us through Egyptian, "a unique area of study that is extremely difficult to master."
—John Gee, "A Tragedy of Errors,"

Canada, your video is a wast of time and money, showing itself to be nothing more than anti-mormon and fraudulent misrepresentation. The only qualifications listed for Larson at his publisher's web site are "former Mormon and Brigham Young University graduate." If the producers of the video can dismiss trained Egyptologists only because they are Mormon, is it reasonable to likewise dismiss critics like Larson because of his religious beliefs? Or should we add to those critical religious beliefs the fact that he is not trained in Egyptology at all? The producers willingly apply a double standard here.

[quote]They want to keep it narrow. And then the video goes into the year 1912, Franklin. S. Spaulding, the Episcopal Bishop of Utah. He brought another round of scrutiny to the Book of Abraham. He asked noted scholars of Egyptologist to evaluate the three facsimiles, in his New Look at the Pearl of Great Price, trounced these guys – he beat them to bloody death. It’s fascinating. They were not Egyptologists, not all of them; most of them were Episcopal priests of Spaulding’s own church. See, what they want to do is build their foundation on other powerful philosophical interpretations of the Book of Abraham. But Nibley has shown that this isn’t the case at all.

None of them agree amongst themselves upon their own interpretations of Facsimile No. 1 when they were asked what it does represent, then; some of them said it was Osiris reviving on the funeral couch, some said it was Anubis bringing about the resurrection of Osiris. Others say that with the knife he was embalming the dead man. Others say that the bird was his sister, Isis. Others say the bird was something else. None of them agreed on what the facsimiles were when they were asked. I’ll read from Nibley in one of his papers , "Our experts haven’t told us much about the plate but what they have told us is interesting. First, they have told us is that is it is a familiar and well known scene so that nobody has any excuse whatsoever for getting anything wrong. Well, that is, as it were, the very ABC of Egyptology. Yet our experts don’t seem to agree very well, even in their casual and brief comments. For one expert the body on the couch is simply the body of a dead man. For another it is no less than the figure of the god Isiris himself. For Breasted Osiris is in the act of rising from the dead. Devéria also saw that. But others see in it the preparation of a man for burial, the very opposite process. According to some the bird is leaving the body, for others it is coming to it. For Devéria the hawk is nothing less than the soul of Osiris. For Petrie it is the hawk of Horus, a very different figure. For Breasted [?] the same is the bird Isis, the sister of Osiris For Peters it is simply the soul of a dead man flying away in the form of a bird. Von Bissing agreed with that, that it is flying away. Eduard Myers says that it is flying to the man on the couch. Von Billing says the soul is leaving the body and the moment when the priest cuts it open for mummification.9/quote]

Nice try Canada, but if you still want to debate, your going to have to show me some better evidence than some anti-mormon video deep in fradulent mud slinging and full or factual errors. Nice talking with you. :bye:

[BoogyMan]

You make a good point mammalicious, it is for precisely this reason that we cannot assume to know of a singular truth in form, because our judgment will always be limited by the individual. Every point of view appears to be right when viewed as separate from every other point of view. What we should do is attempt to see the higher truth in all things, the truth that transcends the individual. The transcendent principle that forms the basis of reality resolves all outward oppositions. So all points of view can be right, but they are only true when they are seen in their metaphysical context.


Moses the scripture handily disagrees with your assessment.

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

[I Like Beer]

Nice try Canada, but if you still want to debate, your going to have to show me some better evidence than some anti-mormon video deep in fradulent mud slinging and full or factual errors. Nice talking with you. :bye:


Nice attempt at trying to get out from answering my questions. However, if you're really interesting in defending your religion, you'll have to answer the questions I posed. Why didn't you?

Am I to assume that all experts you cite will be from the LDS church?

Yes or no?

What exactly is Mr. McGuire's credentials?

What is his field of expertise?

To quote Mr. Rhodes "When there is a conflict between God and Science, you must choose the revealed word of God".

Do you agree with that statement? He is your expert.

McGuire quibbles over the age of the papyrus and the definition of the word 'translation'. And neither of these actually refute charges, they just raise more questions.


Does McGuire do any more than that to refute the video? Shall we start taking his rebuttal apart piecemeal?

McGuire 'reads into' Smith's comments that he was translating buried papyri in general and not the ones specifically in his possession. Do you agree with that statement?

Simple question, yes or no?

What do you think of the book -
Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar?

Answer those and I'll get on with the rest of what you wrote.:evil:

[HankSaint]

Canada, lets get something straight. Number one, the topic is about the Book of Mormon. Second if you want to discuss The Book of Abraham, than start a new thread.
You barge in with an utterly lame statement, which I answered, and now you want to talk about Mr. McQuire, his expertise, Mr. Rhodes, age of the papyrus, the word translation, etc. I am very learned in the History and dealings of the Mormon Religion and have debated others, most of them more experienced than you. I am not going to waste my time with your scarecrow arguments. The fact I have addressed your original argument and shown good evidence refuting your anti-mormon claims is enough for that particular subject. Your argument about my using experts from the LDS church is an obvious yes, just as you copy and paste materials from those who have an agenda to discredit our religion. Your point is lame and without merit. A common characteristic of the anti-Mormon approach is to use sensationalistic terms and concepts to make the LDS faith appear to be strange and eerie.
Canada, I have learned much from conscientious scholars who are not Latter-day Saints. Many of their works are friendly, or neutral, or probing, willing to recognize complexity, willing to grant sincerity even when they might disagree with the religious faith of their subjects. I find your accusations typical of the closed minded, agenda driven and deceitful fools who when confronted with facts, evidence, and documentation, run off to the next straw-man they can set up. I haven't the time or inclination to play that fools game. If you are sincere and want an honest debate than ask singular question, I'm not inclined to go running after each new accusation you can come up with. Canada, I don't need to defend the truth as I believe it. If you're concerned about our religion than go to the source which can best explain our tenants, articles of faith, and how it came to be.

Something for you to think about yourself, and if you want to discuss it fine. Tell me where the Book of Abraham came from, and where did the Book of Mormon come from. You seem to have ready answers, now give me some new theories other than the same old tripe we constantly see pushed out as evidence which never seems to be documented with facts. This ought to calm you down since you won't be able to show any evidence to support your theories.

Member for 50yrs, joined when there was less than 1 million members to see it grow to over 13 million member today. Wonder why? Maybe, just maybe my friend the Book of Mormon really is a record and history of another time and another place. Maybe. :ponder:

[Pookie]

It would seem to me to be difficult in finding fault with a person's beliefs and faith. It is a good thing that people have faith in something other than themselves and I believe that those who have such strong beliefs are happy and successful folks.
Religion can be taught. Faith comes naturally, from the heart.
Keep the faith, all of you!
Purrs,
Pookie

[HankSaint]

It would seem to me to be difficult in finding fault with a person's beliefs and faith. It is a good thing that people have faith in something other than themselves and I believe that those who have such strong beliefs are happy and successful folks.
Religion can be taught. Faith comes naturally, from the heart.
Keep the faith, all of you!
Purrs,
Pookie


Merry Christmas Pookie, have a wonderful Holiday, and thanks for the really nice post. You seem to be a very positive individual, congratulations. :clapper:

Richard Hank Johnson (Saint) :innocent:

[Mia]

Very nice, but you circled around the question I asked and went on to the peripheral stuff I said we could debate one at a time. If you're going to slam us use some documentation to back up your claims, need evidence, quotes to be able to debate at a higher level.

You reply no it's not scripture and leave it at that? Wow. :clapper:
BoM contradicts every basic bible premise, and you mention only Joseph Smith and something about God or many???? :unreal:
Mormons purport to do what??? Confusing statement, clarify

I always thought the Bible preached faith, repentance and Baptism. :help:
I'm a member for 50 yrs. and I did not know we preached something else :sadly:


I am not slamming Mormons. If I were going to do that, I'd talk about how Joseph Smith was a con-artist, and perhaps make some derogatory comments about Jesus Jammies and such.

I do not claim to have any special power to decide which religion has it right and which doesn't.

My contention that one is not the same as another is not a claim of one's superiority.

I did not dodge anything. I focused on one aspect, and that alone is more than enough (though there are many more) to show that the Mormon religion is separate from the Christian.

'Something about one God or many'? This is a 'peripheral'?:shock:

From an objective point of view, whether there is one God or many, whether God was always God or was a man exalted, and whether I can be one myself,,,,,,,,'who is God', this is a very central point and premise of belief, one that defines and separates religions.

As a Christian, I am going to answer the OP that any book which contradicts the Bible cannot be Scripture (to me).

I don't care if Mormons believe their book is Scripture, I merely dislike the false claim it is somehow compatible with the Bible. I say be honest and admit it's a whole 'nother animal.

[HankSaint]

I am not slamming Mormons. If I were going to do that, I'd talk about how Joseph Smith was a con-artist, and perhaps make some derogatory comments about Jesus Jammies and such.

I do not claim to have any special power to decide which religion has it right and which doesn't.

My contention that one is not the same as another is not a claim of one's superiority.

I did not dodge anything. I focused on one aspect, and that alone is more than enough (though there are many more) to show that the Mormon religion is separate from the Christian.

'Something about one God or many'? This is a 'peripheral'?:shock:

From an objective point of view, whether there is one God or many, whether God was always God or was a man exalted, and whether I can be one myself,,,,,,,,'who is God', this is a very central point and premise of belief, one that defines and separates religions.

As a Christian, I am going to answer the OP that any book which contradicts the Bible cannot be Scripture (to me).

I don't care if Mormons believe their book is Scripture, I merely dislike the false claim it is somehow compatible with the Bible. I say be honest and admit it's a whole 'nother animal.


Thanks for the reply, and hopefully we can discuss a single issue, instead of the few that were confusing. My concern with you is the way you start. First you say your not slamming Mormons, (sounds reasonable), than you infer that Joseph Smith was a Con Artist. A bold statement, and you expect to get away with that fraudulent remark? MIA, I'm not defending my religion, but when someone makes a outlandish statement and does not back it up, than I will respond and ask you for documentation. I dare say MIA, as hard as you might try, the documentation is not there and me thinks you should take back the slander, or prove your point. Now remember you have to prove he was not only accused of conning but found guilty by evidence. Happy hunting MIA. :clapper:

Second MIA, the Godhead is confusing to the many denominations that proclaim they are Christians, you have the Oneness Pentecostalism, and the Trinitarian believers. Maybe you can decipher for me and many others how that works.
Mormons make it pretty plain that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are all individual and separate. God and Christ both having bodies of flesh and bone. All three being part of the God Head. Pretty easy for people to understand, maybe why this rings true to so many and they take a closer look at Mormonism, ya think. :ponder:

Maybe you can explain the following:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. 6 There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light. 9 There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 John testified about Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’" 16 For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. 17 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

[I Like Beer]

Canada, lets get something straight. Number one, the topic is about the Book of Mormon. Second if you want to discuss The Book of Abraham, than start a new thread.

Well, we had been discussing the Book of Abraham, why do you want to switch now? I would say that discussing BofA will take us back to the Book of Mormon because if one is found to be fraudulent, it would have impact on the other - wouldn't you say?

You barge in with an utterly lame statement, which I answered, and now you want to talk about Mr. McQuire, his expertise, Mr. Rhodes, age of the papyrus, the word translation, etc.

Look, my argument is not lame simply because you say it is, I'm sorry about that. I ask these questions because they are the experts YOU referenced. If you ask me Mr. McQuire's rebuttal is what qualifies as 'lame'.

As an example... (and again, I'm using the expert YOU referenced to refute the documentary).

From Joseph Smith's diary.
I returned home and spent the day translating the Eqyptian records...

Seems pretty clear, doesn't it?

Mr. McGuire goes on to say...
There is.... one specific entry which links the translation process to the Book of Abraham.

he adds...

...a mechanical translation process probably describes this additional material and not the contents of the Book of Abraham.

Now,this is his rebuttal, "PROBABLY"! This is the substance of it. I guess to you this passes the 'lame' test?

Smith himself says he translated the papyri. He wrote a book on Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar to aid in that translation.

Now tell me... what is 'lame' about my point? The sources I'm using are the words of Joseph Smith himself and the rebuttal that YOU posted.

Two other points... (for the lurkers reading this thread)

The Book of Abraham contains anachronisms. (I can list them if needed).

The Joseph Smith Papyri date 1500 years AFTER Abraham's death. However, I quote form fourth LDS president Wilford Woodruff Joseph the Seer has presented us some of the Book of Abraham which was written by his (Abrahams) own hand but hid from the knowledge of man for the last four thousand years but has now come to light through the mercy of God (Wilford Woodruff's Journal, p.155).

After 1967, when the papyri were found, LDS scholars started claiming, well when we said his own hand, we didn't mean that. However, prior to 1967 there is not reference that Smith translated scrolls written by someone other than Abraham himself.

Perhaps you find Wilford Woodruff's comments lame as well?

I am very learned in the History and dealings of the Mormon Religion and have debated others, most of them more experienced than you.

I'm sure you have since, a week ago, I couldn't tell you one thing about Joseph Smith other than he founded Mormonism. Now I know he was a general, a mayor, had a large army, was assassinated. That Mormonisms is really quite different than Christianity (it's not monotheistic). I'm a fan of Battlestar Galactica, so I understand that show better now. Thank you.

Canada, I have learned much from conscientious scholars who are not Latter-day Saints.

Who? I'd like to read what they say.

I find your accusations typical of the closed minded, agenda driven and deceitful fools who when confronted with facts, evidence, and documentation, run off to the next straw-man they can set up. I haven't the time or inclination to play that fools game.

Well, if that's the only way you can defend it by calling me 'closed minded', I understand. You are in a very difficult position and don't really have any legs to stand on. So, your only defense is to call my arguments 'lame' or call me 'closed minded', accuse me of creating strawman arguments. Ad hominem attacks are the refuge of those who cannot argue the facts on their own merit.

As for a strawman, perhaps you should look up what that means. How have I misrepresented YOUR position and attacked it? (My turn to challenge you) I've attacked your 'experts', but I have not put words in your mouth. If I have, show me where and I'll retract them.

You actually have provided little evidence or documentation - and what you have only raises more questions. Like Mr. Rhodes who puts the revealed word of God above science.

If you are sincere and want an honest debate than ask singular question, I'm not inclined to go running after each new accusation you can come up with.

Okay. If Smith's translation was not mechanical, but was divinely inspired through the use of the Urim and Thummim, why did he need the book Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar? And, why use it to translate the papyri?

If you're concerned about our religion than go to the source which can best explain our tenants, articles of faith, and how it came to be.

No, I'm not really concerned with your religion. I'm not concerned with any organized religion. None of them have anything to recommend themselves.

You know, you asked for me to challenge you, so I did. So far, your only defense is to call me lame. How 'lame' is that?

Member for 50yrs, joined when there was less than 1 million members to see it grow to over 13 million member today. Wonder why? Maybe, just maybe my friend the Book of Mormon really is a record and history of another time and another place. Maybe. :ponder:


Well, 30 million Americans believe Elvis is still alive. 120 million Americans believe the government had something to do with 9/11. Given those numbers, 13 million doesn't seem so impressive, does it? In fact, one might even go so far to say it's 'lame' :)

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/books/Books%20-%201998/Information%20Age%20Anthology%20-%20Sept%2098/ch06.html

[Mia]

Hank, I didn't not speak to the separation of the Trinity.

I spoke to the Mormon belief that God was once a man, exalted to 'a' God, over this planet, and that good Mormons can become a God and have their own planet too.

This is in direct contradiction to the Bible, which says there is one and only God, He has always been God, and he is the creator of all.

[HankSaint]

Canada, the text I wrote is as follows:

I find your accusations typical of the closed minded, agenda driven and deceitful fools who when confronted with facts, evidence, and documentation, run off to the next straw-man they can set up.

Never accused you personally of setting up a straw-man, the text reads --- next straw -man they can set up, key word is they. :thumbsup:

Sorry if you misread that, probably my mistake in wording. Enjoyed your comments, but the issue is still the BofM. My question ---- if this is of little interest to you, and religion offers nothing to recommend to you, why bother? You made me suspicious by your cut and pasting from some anti sources, the video is an obvious piece of slick propaganda and in its most basic sense presents half truth information in order to influence its audience.

For your information once again ---- the papyri that Joseph translated from is still lost --- the web site I gave you, and which you felt offered little information, dealt with the original papyri problem. If you are going to belittle that, than we really don't have an issue to debate.

Second, the faces and knife in the facsimile are gone, so the evidence cannot be proven either way. If this was a court of law it all would be thrown out because of lack of evidence to prove either side. The Egyptian scholars all differ in there interpretation of the facsimile, so whose to say who is right or wrong. Why argue over lost papyri and false accusations made by scholars and historians who really don't have the answers either.

Canada, I'm still suspicious of your agenda and proclaimed ignorance of Mormonism. Your points of debate are not from someone who just picked up a copy of the BoM or Book of Abraham. So the debate is not going to be about me having to address each and every accusation. If you want to continue debating this subject on this thread your free to do so.

If you want to debate the Book of Mormon which is the heading of this thread, than I will be more than willing.

Now since you claim to be new at this subject, lets find out a little history about Canada, (I like beer).

1). Have you read the Book of Mormon? This would be a great start since you claim to know nothing about Mormonism, and one can not talk intelligently without understanding the subject first.

2). Once you have read it, tell me how it came to be. This ought to be interesting since many have already failed to show evidence of their wild claims. :shock:

3). When you want to debate, or if you have the courage to continue. Documentation is required by both of us.

4). The debate should be civil and polite. Hence Hank will not call your remarks lame anymore, and Canada will not want to take the piss out of anyones religion.
:thumbsup:

5). Questions should be singular, (lets stay on the subject before moving on.

If this is more than you care to do, which is understandable, than lets you and I decide right now too agree to disagree. :peace:

I'm not here to make enemies, and I suspect your a great person and have no animosity towards me. So lets be civil, meaning especially me, and lets get a good old debate going.

You know, you asked for me to challenge you, so I did. So far, your only defense is to call me lame. How 'lame' is that?

Can't recall in any of my post of asking you to challenge me, debate yes.
Hope to debate with you soon. :fight:

[HankSaint]

From an objective point of view, whether there is one God or many, whether God was always God or was a man exalted, and whether I can be one myself,,,,,,,,'who is God', this is a very central point and premise of belief, one that defines and separates religions.

Sorry but you never spoke of God was once a man, exalted to a God, and that Mormons can become a God and have their own planet. That is why in a past post I mentioned my confusion regarding God or many Gods and answered the way I did. MIA, you're going to have to be more specific when posting, you're all over the place and very confusing.

Chapter 3 of Zechariah makes it clear that a righteous mortal man may be invited to enter into God's presence, participate in the proceedings of the heavenly council, and actually become a member of that body. I will use the trial of Joshua the High Priest as a foundation to show that there is an established belief in Judaic and early Christian thought of a Heavenly council, or council of the gods, that men can be invited to participate in this assembly, and that they may actually become permanent members of God's Heavenly court.

A scene similar to Zechariah chapter 3 is found in Psalms 82:1-8, when members of the heavenly council are judged by God and the assembled member of the heavenly court:

God standeth in the congregation of the mighty (adat 'el); he judgeth among the gods ('elohim)... I have said, Ye are gods ('elohim); and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.5

MIA, how am I doing so far? This is from the scriptures, I can hardly wait for your interpretations.

How about the Dead Sea Scrolls: In like manner the Dead Sea Scrolls show that Jews living at the time of Christ understood their future to be a part of the heavenly assembly.

[EI Elyon gave me a seat among] those perfect forever, a mighty throne in the congregation of the gods. None of the kings of the east shall sit in it and their nobles shall not [come near it]. No Edomite shall be like me in glory, and none shall be exalted save me, nor shall come against me. For I have taken my seat in the [congregation] in the heavens And none [find fault with me]. I shall be reckoned with gods <'elim> and established in the holy congregation. I do not desire [gold,] as would a man of flesh; everything precious to me is in the glory of [my God]. [The status of a holy temple,] not to be violated, has been attributed to me, and who can compare with me in glory? What voyager will return and tell [of my equivalent]. Who [laughs] at griefs as I do? And who is like me [in bearing] evil? Moreover, if I lay down the law in a lecture [my instruction] is beyond comparison [with any mans']. And who will attack me for my utterances? And who will contain the flow of my speech? And who will call me into court and be my equal? In my legal judgment [none will stand against] me. I shall be reckoned with gods. And my glory, with [that of] the king's sons. Neither refined gold, nor gold of Ophir [can match my wisdom].40

The trial of Joshua shows that there is a council of the gods over which God the Father presides. This council was not thought to be closed, as righteous women and men can be invited to participate in the assembly. These people will experience deification, actually becoming gods who will rule with God as a member of his council. Mormon doctrine, which likewise stresses a council of the gods and theosis, thus finds comfortable companionship in the virtually identical doctrine in the Judaeo/Christian tradition.

However, to accuse Latter-day Saints of polytheism as the critics are wont to do will just not suffice and to say Latter-day Saints moved from a teaching of one God to a plurality of Gods is simplification at best and totally inaccurate at the worst. Latter-day Saint Christians believed and believe in a Godhead that is made up of three individuals who all can be called God and who are separate and distinct while at the same time are one God. That Joseph Smith viewed the members of the Godhead as separate beings.

[I Like Beer]

My question ---- if this is of little interest to you, and religion offers nothing to recommend to you, why bother?

I found the issues surrounding BofA to be interesting. I would have then let it go except that your response to me was - I found - rather rude. You also dared me to challenge you. I quote from post #30.

Get back to me if you want to debate this some-more. I kind of doubt you will since your argument is pretty lame. But I have time if you want to challenge me.

I appreciate that that tone has gone away. :thumbsup:

You made me suspicious by your cut and pasting from some anti sources, the video is an obvious piece of slick propaganda and in its most basic sense presents half truth information in order to influence its audience.

I know you wish to leave BofA and the video out of this thread, but can you give me a time point in the video where a falsehood is made?

the papyri that Joseph translated from is still lost --- the web site I gave you, and which you felt offered little information, dealt with the original papyri problem. If you are going to belittle that, than we really don't have an issue to debate.

I quote you from post #32

Since your claim is based on the above, yet has been soundly defeated with evidence showing that Joseph translated from papyri that does not exist anymore...

Okay, I can accept that. You're saying that the papyri recovered from the Metropolitan Museum were NOT those used by Joseph Smith. Then, what is the Joseph Smith Papyri Project at BYU all about? Are you sure they're not the same ones?

On 7 February Michael D. Rhodes, associate professor of ancient scripture at BYU, reported on his work on the Joseph Smith Papyri project. This effort to provide translations of all surviving papyrus fragments once in Joseph Smith’s possession is expected to result in three volumes.
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=insights&id=201

It seems that your contention that the papyri Joseph Smith translated from is lost is not accurate since Mr. Rhodes is busily translating it now at BYU. What do you think? Could you have made a mistake? Maybe Mr. Rhodes is wrong about the papyri?

Canada, I'm still suspicious of your agenda and proclaimed ignorance of Mormonism. Your points of debate are not from someone who just picked up a copy of the BoM or Book of Abraham.

I was honestly telling the truth. I have never held the BofM or BofA or any other Mormon religious text in my hand. Until I contributed to this thread, I hadn't read a single word of it or had given it any consideration at all.

I'm just a very quick learner.

If I have an agenda, well it would be to find the truth. I like to learn new things and understand how and what people think.

If you want to debate the Book of Mormon which is the heading of this thread, than I will be more than willing.

Okay, let me ask this question. Is Mormonism monotheistic or polytheistic? According to Alma 11 27:39 it seems pretty clearly monotheistic, however, there is also talk of the "Godhead" (Doctines of the Gospel pg 6) that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are each Gods themselves (teachings Page 370), the 'Gods went down to organize man in their own image' Abraham 4:27.

I'm confused.

Now since you claim to be new at this subject, lets find out a little history about Canada, (I like beer).

1). Have you read the Book of Mormon? This would be a great start since you claim to know nothing about Mormonism, and one can not talk intelligently without understanding the subject first.

2). Once you have read it, tell me how it came to be. This ought to be interesting since many have already failed to show evidence of their wild claims. :shock:

3). When you want to debate, or if you have the courage to continue. Documentation is required by both of us.

4). The debate should be civil and polite. Hence Hank will not call your remarks lame anymore, and Canada will not want to take the piss out of anyones religion.
:thumbsup:

5). Questions should be singular, (lets stay on the subject before moving on.

If this is more than you care to do, which is understandable, than lets you and I decide right now too agree to disagree. :peace:

I'm not here to make enemies, and I suspect your a great person and have no animosity towards me. So lets be civil, meaning especially me, and lets get a good old debate going.

As I said, I hadn't read a single word of it a week ago.

I also am not here to make enemies and I appreciate the change in your tone. I will play by the rules you suggest except that I am not going to read the Book of Mormon.

[Mia]

Hank, which are you arguing? That Mormons are not in contradiction to the Bible when they believe that God was once a man, exalted to God status over this planet, and that they can be God's themselves,,,,,,,or claiming this is not the case?

[HankSaint]

On 7 February Michael D. Rhodes, associate professor of ancient scripture at BYU, reported on his work on the Joseph Smith Papyri project. This effort to provide translations of all surviving papyrus fragments once in Joseph Smith’s possession is expected to result in three volumes.
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=insights&id=201[/quote]

Canada, I feel you are a speed reader, fast but lack comprehension. The following pretty much explains your above question.

Joseph Smith Papyri Project

On 7 February Michael D. Rhodes, associate professor of ancient scripture at BYU, reported on his work on the Joseph Smith Papyri project. This effort to provide translations of all surviving papyrus fragments once in Joseph Smith’s possession is expected to result in three volumes. The first, which deals with the Egyptian Book of Breathings and will be published this year, features a translation and commentary and includes a description of the text, color digital images, a glossary, and texts of related Egyptian papyri. Rhodes’s second volume, to be published next year, will be a similar treatment of the remaining papyrus fragments, which include portions of the Tshemmin Book of the Dead. A proposed third volume by Rhodes and Egyptologist John Gee would be a comprehensive reference to the Joseph Smith Papyri that would look at the papyri and the Book of Abraham from an LDS perspective.

1). Translation of all surviving papyrus fragment.
2). The first is the surviving Book of Breathing (not Abraham)
3). Treatment of the remaining fragments, those in the possession of the Church.
4). Comprehensive Reference, this is not a translation, to the Joseph Smith
Papyri.


As for your link, I read it. All 11 pages. I can't remember reading a more lamely presented refutation in a long time. This is what stands for a clear refutation of "The Lost Book of Abraham. Investigating A Remarkable Mormon Claim"?

The site http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/LBOA.pdf answered most of the question
regarding the Abraham papyri and also the claims made in the video. The film did not address all of the fact but was very skewed and limited. The IRR is a mission set up mostly of ex-latter Day Saints and is geared to helping them abandon their faith.

I'm still dubious about your agenda, you promise that this is the first time you have studied Mormonism, yet right off the bat you promote materials against the Church, I would think most people would want to weigh in on both sides, hence your negative claim against the site I directed you to resulted in a quick analysts
of a well documented and researched piece on the half truths shown in the video.
You also start off your post with, "I don't like to take the piss out of anyone's religion but I would say not. Let's look at the Translation of the Book of Abraham as one piece of actual evidence that we have."

The key words here are ------ as one piece of actual, (actual), evidence we have.
This does not sound like someone who is being honest. So your telling me right off that before you know anything about the Abraham Papyri, you have actual evidence, ---- interesting :ponder:

Since your asking all the questions, and I really could care less about further discussion on the papyri, how about doing some research, documented, on how Joseph smith an uneducated man, came up with the Book of Abraham, something you refuse to read but are eager to trounce on. The book is called the Pearl of Great Price and it's a short book, but contains more than just a small amount of information, scripture.

Okay, let me ask this question. Is Mormonism monotheistic or polytheistic? According to Alma 11 27:39 it seems pretty clearly monotheistic, however, there is also talk of the "Godhead" (Doctines of the Gospel pg 6) that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are each Gods themselves (teachings Page 370), the 'Gods went down to organize man in their own image' Abraham 4:27.

Canada, the Latter-day Saints, who believe in the Godhead, are no more polytheistic than are Christians who believe in the Trinity. God and Christ are the objects of our worship. Even though Mormons believe in the ultimate deification of man, I am unaware of any reference in LDS literature that speaks of worshiping any being other than the ones within the Godhead. Latter-day Saints believe in "one God" in the sense that they love and serve one Godhead, one divine presidency, each of whom possesses all of the attributes of Godhood.

While it is true that Mormonism accepts the Biblical teaching that there are many Gods, it is equally true that it teaches there is but one Godhead which rules and directs the affairs of this earth. It is comprised of God the Father, his son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.

We keep it pretty simple :worship: many of our converts love the concept of a Godhead, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. All one in purpose, as Christ is one with the Father he tells us to be one with Him and the Father. Plain and simple doctrine. God the Father and Christ both have bodies of flesh and bone while the Holy Ghost is a spirt.

Wether you read the BoM or not is your choice and free will. But be careful of how you present evidence, and by whom the evidence come by. My belief system is such that truth comes by the spirit of revelation, a lazy person might ask God the Father without reading or studying the scriptures, Is The Holy Bible true and all its precepts and doctrine, and we would probably not get an answer. If God was to answer, what might he say ------- 'did you read and study it?'

Canada, you will never know for sure, since you have closed your mind to true Light and Knowledge from Heavenly Father, but He still loves you and promises he will never force you back to Heaven. Your gift from God is you agency to choose. :thumbsup:

[Mia]

>>>>>>the Latter-day Saints, who believe in the Godhead, are no more polytheistic than are Christians who believe in the Trinity. God and Christ are the objects of our worship. Even though Mormons believe in the ultimate deification of man, I am unaware of any reference in LDS literature that speaks of worshiping any being other than the ones within the Godhead. Latter-day Saints believe in "one God" in the sense that they love and serve one Godhead, one divine presidency, each of whom possesses all of the attributes of Godhood.<<<<<<

Well, it's hidden in the convoluted double-talk aimed at sounding enough like Christian doctrine to be included under the heading, but finally you admitted Mormons believe they themselves can being Gods.

This is not what Christians believe. Religions are defined and grouped based on shared belief, and Christians and Mormons share very little.

[bobbylien]

Chapter 3 of Zechariah makes it clear that a righteous mortal man may be invited to enter into God's presence, participate in the proceedings of the heavenly council, and actually become a member of that body. I will use the trial of Joshua the High Priest as a foundation to show that there is an established belief in Judaic and early Christian thought of a Heavenly council, or council of the gods, that men can be invited to participate in this assembly, and that they may actually become permanent members of God's Heavenly court.
So what does it mean to be "righteous?"

[HankSaint]

Well, it's hidden in the convoluted double-talk aimed at sounding enough like Christian doctrine to be included under the heading, but finally you admitted Mormons believe they themselves can being Gods.

This is not what Christians believe. Religions are defined and grouped based on shared belief, and Christians and Mormons share very little.

MIA, shame on you, "convoluted double-talk". Excessive complexity hardly, double-talk MIA? My gosh try googling Mormons, beliefs, Godhead, etc, and what do you get"? Any fact, evidence of belief is there for the taking.

Mormons believe in the ultimate deification of man, and that has been preached since Joseph Smith translated the Golden Plates, no new news, just a lot of angry folks upset with our religion for introducing something hinted at even in the scriptures as I pointed out earlier.

So tell me MIA, how does all this personally affect you. You have your religion, your a christian, and you can define scripture anyway you want.

What would a true church of God have in it? MIA, does your church or religion have a Prophet, Apostles, etc.
Does not your religion follow the scriptures. Are we so perfect today that there is no need of a Prophet.
Why do the many Christian Religions fight amongst themselves on doctrine?

1). King James Bible
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

2). King James Bible
Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

3). CORINTHIANS 28, And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

How about Baptism for the dead MIA, do you practice that, it's in the scriptures. And it was practiced in the early church.

1 Corinthians 15:29 (King James Version)
Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

MIA, is it by faith or by works you are saved, is baptism essential for salvation? All of this is in the scripture,

MIA, you asked me a pointed question and I did answer you truthfully, now it's your turn, put up or be quiet.

I have no anger with you, and feel you are sincere, so please take this in the format it was presented, a friendly debate.

[Mia]

I've already answered these questions. you are dying for LDS to be accepted by mainstream Christianity, and I say you shouldn't even want to be.

Your beliefs are very different, your prophets tell you that the Bible is faulty, the 'other Christians' are faulty.

Why am I angry? I dislike dishonesty. I would respect Mormons ten times more if they'd quit trying to make their beliefs sound like a majority group they can mainstream into.

Why do Christians argue about doctrine? Everyone is trying to get it right. Why do Mormons go door to door 'arguing' their idea of doctrine?

Do we have a prophet? Yes, Jesus Christ. And any person who comes after him and claims to be one is false. That is OUR scripture.

[HankSaint]

I've already answered these questions. you are dying for LDS to be accepted by mainstream Christianity, and I say you shouldn't even want to be.

Your beliefs are very different, your prophets tell you that the Bible is faulty, the 'other Christians' are faulty.

Why am I angry? I dislike dishonesty. I would respect Mormons ten times more if they'd quit trying to make their beliefs sound like a majority group they can mainstream into.

Why do Christians argue about doctrine? Everyone is trying to get it right. Why do Mormons go door to door 'arguing' their idea of doctrine?

Do we have a prophet? Yes, Jesus Christ. And any person who comes after him and claims to be one is false. That is OUR scripture.


MIA, you sound angry! If I truly believe in mormonism how is that dishonest, and if I defend false accusation how is that dishonest? You never answer the questions I ask, so you might as well agree to us disagreeing from now on. :peace:

As far as being accepted by having to change my beliefs is humorous, MIA. Why would I want to believe in the Trinity as outlined by you and others christian sects. If God is invisible, who do you pray to? If God, The Son and the Holy Ghost are one, who am I talking to. Many converts we talk to, say they have always felt God, The Son and the Holy Ghost were always separate and distinct, and when praying could visualize a personage to whom they addressed their prayers. Just a little common sense, ya think MIA.

MIA, debating with you is senseless, its a one way debate, you don't debate you just accuse. :fight:

[Mia]

I never said you should believe as I do. Quite the opposite. I have only asserted that Mormonism is not a denomination of Christianity. It is not the same religion. It does not even share the same God, and I am not, for the third time, talking about the Trinity united or three separate. I have no idea why you keep responding to me as if I had even mentioned it.

Let's agree to disagree, as you said.

[HankSaint]

you are dying for LDS to be accepted by mainstream Christianity, and I say you shouldn't even want to be.

This is exactly why you confuse me, it's your sentence structure. What the heck are you saying here. It sounds like I want to be accepted, and than I shouldn't want to be.

Your right, peace to you, and good luck.

[Mark L Hamburger]

She's saying that she doesn't agree that LDS is even a Christian church, not that hard to understand.

I don't really agree with her, but she knows my position :)

[Ralph]

The book of Mormon claims to be "another" testament of Jesus Christ.

Jude 3 points to the fact that the faith was only delivered once.

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.


But that ''once'' could also mean 'at one time' not just as a singular occurance. And if the original 'word' was changed and Christianity branched off into too many splinters, each with their own little quirks...could not another 'revelation' be called for? Again, YOU feel that testament could not have been given to another...why?


It could if......The apostles were not given divine inspiration by the "Spirit of Truth/Holy Spirit" as commissioned by Jesus Himself to be led into "ALL" truth (John 14:16-31, 16:13). Would it not seem to make Jesus/Word/God(John1:1, 1:14) a liar, if He promised the Apostles of that first century age to be led into "ALL" truth and then presented "another" truth a couple of thousand years later, or even sent another angel 700 years later to reveal more truth as claimed by the Islamic faith? How can "All" truth be presented more than "ONE" time? Would it not seem that the words that the apostles were led to speak and write by the Spirit of Truth would be All that was needed and delivered once and for "all" time? Simply due to the fact that after all the apostles were deceased, "ALL" the truth would then be only provided by the words that were inspired by that same Spirit of Truth IE, the Holy Bible....if not, why not? In fact the Holy Bible itself professes as much, consider, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for DOCTRINE, for REPROOF, for CORRECTION, for INSTRUCTION in RIGHTEOUSNESS; That the man of God may be PERFECT(complete), throughly furnished with "ALL" good works." (2Tim.3:16-17)

Personally I just don't see where that leaves room for any "Post" 1st century revelation or modern day revelation. Are we not supposed to "test the spirits" via use of our sword, that cuts shaper than any two edged sword(Hebrews 4:12), THE WORD OF GOD, as we are instructed to be sanctified in God's truth and His Word is truth? (John 17:17).

"But even if we, or an ANGEL(700 years later?) from heaven preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, LET HIM BE ACCURSED (Gal.1:8)

[David Hume]

Mormons are to Protestants as Protestants are to Catholics. But one thing all three groups share is a common belief that Jesus was divine. Thus making them all Christians. The rest is just semantics.

[Joshu]

I've already answered these questions. you are dying for LDS to be accepted by mainstream Christianity, and I say you shouldn't even want to be.

Your beliefs are very different, your prophets tell you that the Bible is faulty, the 'other Christians' are faulty.

Why am I angry? I dislike dishonesty. I would respect Mormons ten times more if they'd quit trying to make their beliefs sound like a majority group they can mainstream into.

Why do Christians argue about doctrine? Everyone is trying to get it right. Why do Mormons go door to door 'arguing' their idea of doctrine?

Do we have a prophet? Yes, Jesus Christ. And any person who comes after him and claims to be one is false. That is OUR scripture.


I think it's important to be precise in language in these types of forums. The idea that Mormons "go door to door 'arguing'" their doctrine certainly paints a dire picture of LDS evangelizing, especially in light of their strong tradition of conflict avoidance. The recent Wall Street Journal article on anti-Mormonism in America treats this topic nicely if you're interested. Also I'm confident that LDS Prophets has never referred to the Bible as faulty. They have long maintained that any modern translation of the Bible is reliable inasmuch as the translation is faithful. So while the translated Bible probably has faults of translation it has never been characterized as inherently faulty. Nor have the Prophets weighed in so negatively on other Christian faiths. They have long maintained that we do not subscribe to the creedal system which arouse in the centuries after Christs death but this is not the same as finding them intrinsically "faulty".

I'm not convinced that Mormons really want to be "mainstream" (whatever that means? Catholic I guess?) LDS leadership has gone to great lengths to articulate the differences they feel they have with other Christian faiths One reason you might be confused is because of the effort LDS folks have gone to to ameliorate certain discriminations which have been heaped upon them. It is to everyone's credit that Mormons are no longer killed for their faith but there are still prejudices they feel they need to overcome. These are usually manifested in social sanctioning and the "othering" of Mormons. Which is to say the emphasis on what's different about them or what makes them separate. This is seen in the representation of Mormons as weird or having weird beliefs. If the rise of secularism has revealed anything it's that the talking donkey in the Old Testament is no stranger than Joseph Smith's golden plates which were only seen by a dozen people.

I'm not sure any Mormon would explicitly claim to want to be mainstream they just want to be normalized in society, free from social stigma's. They especially do not want to be "mainstream Christians" if that means subscribing to trinitarian theology. I mean we in America do love an underdog but just because Athanasius had a come-from-behind victory at Nicea doesn't mean were obliged to his interpretation of the scriptures.

If I may say you seem to be having trouble with how LDS folks represent their faith, you called it "convoluted double-talk aimed at sounding enough like Christian doctrine to be included under the heading". There is certainly some similarities between how Mormons talk and how other Christians talk some of which can have different meanings. The LDS church just sent out a press release articulating this point with some examples of where some words might have different meanings. One way to think about it is to ask how the Mormons should talk about their faith in Christ? I mean there are only so many ways to say "we believe Christ to be the only begotten Son of God and to be the Savior of the world". Or to say "we worship the God of the Old Testament". Maybe you can see the dilemma Mormons are in here. They believe in the Bible and in the historical Jesus of Nazareth. If that sounds suspiciously Christian so be it I guess, but there's not really anyway to avoid it. There might be the argument that they could just come out and say we believe in a different conception of Christ and his relationship to God than evangelical Christians or that they believe in a "different Jesus" (another example of imprecise and confusing language) and while they don't say anything about a "different Jesus" mostly because they don't presume to tell others who they believe in, they do spend quite a bit of time talking about the things that make them theological unique.

I hope this helps you to understand where they're coming from. I wrote this entire post and then my computer froze so I had to re-write it, I'm afraid the second draft was a bit more hurried than the first so forgive me if I sound brisk.

Regards,

Joshu

[PostmodernProphet]

While I am sure that the revelation regarding polygamy, received the week that Joseph Smith's cleaning girl was discovered to be pregnant and specifically mentioning that his wife would burn in hell if she objected, was inspired.....

but I am not prepared to believe it comes from God.......

that being said, the Mormon church has had a reformation of theology in the last hundred years, and today it's doctrine varies little from mainstream liberal Christian theology......

[Joshu]

While I am sure that the revelation regarding polygamy, received the week that Joseph Smith's cleaning girl was discovered to be pregnant and specifically mentioning that his wife would burn in hell if she objected, was inspired.....

but I am not prepared to believe it comes from God.......

that being said, the Mormon church has had a reformation of theology in the last hundred years, and today it's doctrine varies little from mainstream liberal Christian theology......


Hi PMP, I thought your post was very interesting, I asked myself "doesn't this seem a little convenient"? I wanted to find out more so I thought about asking you for a citation on that but instead just started looking into it. Boy am I glad I did otherwise we'd both be misinformed, and who knows how many people we'd pass this on to.

Anyway it turns out that according to Todd Compton Joseph Smith received his first revelation about polygamy a full ten years before his first polygamous marriage to Fanny Alger. Who was not pregnant at the time and who didn't have children until her remarriage to Solomon Custer. Also just because I'm already here, Emma was told in the D&C that she was to be destroyed if she disobeyed the lord not to burn in hell, not that it matters just for the sake of accuracy. So anyway it looks like we got that little misconception taken care of, maybe you could pass it on to whoever you got it from and let em know you want facts from now on. See ya

Joshu

[underdawg]

I think most religions started out as a cult. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John could have had an over active imagination just like Joseph Smith. Given time even Elvis could become a God if people wanted to make him one.

[PostmodernProphet]

So anyway it looks like we got that little misconception taken care of, maybe you could pass it on to whoever you got it from and let em know you want facts from now on.

from page 65 of Another Gospel, by Ruth Tucker (Zondervan, 1989)

in which she quotes from The Mormon Enigma, Newell and Avery, pages 65-67

"What made Mormon polygamy so scandalous was the sordid nature of it, especially during the early decades.. In the case of Fanny Alger, the "sealing" alllegedly occurred in a hay mow, Emma found them there at least once, and forced Fanny to leave when it was learned she was pregnant."

This occurred in Nauvoo, where the Mormons settled in the summer of 1943....

Smith received his revelation that instructed "my handmaid, Emma Smith, to receive all who have been given unto my servant Joseph" at the risk of destruction sometime in the "early 40s", also while at Nauvoo.....Joseph Smith was hung in June, 1844....

so all of the above happened within 12 months, no?

you got facts?......

perhaps you misread Compton

Anyway it turns out that according to Todd Compton Joseph Smith received his first revelation about polygamy a full ten years before his first polygamous marriage to Fanny Alger. Who was not pregnant at the time and who didn't have children until her remarriage to Solomon Custer.

from Compton's text

"He [Joseph Smith, Jr.] was sealed there [in Kirtland] secretly to Fanny
Alger. Emma was furious, and drove the girl, who was unable to conceal
the consequences of her celestial relation with the prophet, out of her
house."
- Chauncey Webb, Ann Eliza's father, see
In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith
, by Todd Compton, pp. 34-35

[Joshu]

from page 65 of Another Gospel, by Ruth Tucker (Zondervan, 1989)

in which she quotes from The Mormon Enigma, Newell and Avery, pages 65-67

"What made Mormon polygamy so scandalous was the sordid nature of it, especially during the early decades.. In the case of Fanny Alger, the "sealing" alllegedly occurred in a hay mow, Emma found them there at least once, and forced Fanny to leave when it was learned she was pregnant."

This occurred in Nauvoo, where the Mormons settled in the summer of 1943....

Smith received his revelation that instructed "my handmaid, Emma Smith, to receive all who have been given unto my servant Joseph" at the risk of destruction sometime in the "early 40s", also while at Nauvoo.....Joseph Smith was hung in June, 1844....

so all of the above happened within 12 months, no?

you got facts?......

perhaps you misread Compton

Anyway it turns out that according to Todd Compton Joseph Smith received his first revelation about polygamy a full ten years before his first polygamous marriage to Fanny Alger. Who was not pregnant at the time and who didn't have children until her remarriage to Solomon Custer.

from Compton's text

"He [Joseph Smith, Jr.] was sealed there [in Kirtland] secretly to Fanny
Alger. Emma was furious, and drove the girl, who was unable to conceal
the consequences of her celestial relation with the prophet, out of her
house."
- Chauncey Webb, Ann Eliza's father, see
In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith
, by Todd Compton, pp. 34-35


Sorry it took me so long to respond to this. Your right I was misreading Compton. It wasn't ten years before his marriage that he developed his doctrine of plural marriage but only a year or two.

In the Journal of Mormon History. Volume 22, No. 1. Spring 1996, Compton recounts evidence that Joseph knew about the doctrine of plural marriage as early as 1831, noting that Daniel Bachman places the date in February of that year. Compton said it made sense as Joseph grew increasing interested in Abraham and the semitic tradition that he would restore a "valid Christian primitivist doctrine". He cites a couple different reasons to believe it was this early but seemed to find the testimony of Joseph Bates Noble in the July 16, 1883 Millennial Star to be compelling. There's a whole section in there called "Evidence of Polygamy Before Nauvoo", if anybody's interested.

So I guess I'm not clear on what you're saying. You previously asserted that "the revelation regarding polygamy, received the week that Joseph Smith's cleaning girl was discovered to be pregnant", assuming that the cleaning girl you were talking about was Fanny Alger, and If not please let me know, then Compton sums it up this way "since Joseph Smith had developed a doctrine of restoration of Old Testament plural marriage at least by 1831, a marriage to Fanny Alger in late 1832 or early 1833 would have occurred in a consistent historical context."

You then went on to say that Emma found Fanny pregnant and kicked her out in 1843 in Nauvoo, but in a letter to George S. Gibbs, Benjamin Johnson recorded that it occurred right before Joseph's flight to Missouri in the winter of 1837, and shortly after Fanny left and was soon married in Indiana. So that was about six years after she and Joseph were married. It is no secret that Emma struggled with plural marriage but it looks like your previous implication that Joseph developed plural marriage in order to cover up an illicit impregnation of his house cleaner is just unfounded.

Let me know if I have this all right.

Joshu

[Jonah]

Sticking to the origin of this post, the book of Mormon is not valid scripture, whether that validity is measured by scientists or the Bible.

The sciences of archeology and biology are heavyweight contenders vs. the validity and historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon. The book of Mormon speaks of vast and advanced civilization's here in North America for which there is a profound absence of proof. Archaeologists from the Smithsonian institute conclude that no advanced civilizations existed here akin to civilizations described in the book of Mormon. Prior to Europeans coming to this contintent, in North America there was no use of the wheel, use of steel, huge cities described in the BoM, or widespread use of grain crops described in the BoM (which would be easy enough for archeologists to locate). You know, and Smithsonian Institute archaeologists aren't in the business of bias and prejudice, just science. If the civilizations described in the book of Mormon ever existed in N. America, it was in a different dimension, or traces of that civilization have been supernaturally and inexplicably erased.

On to biology- The BoM contends that Jews came to this country a Milenia ago, and founded civilization here. Some followed God's way, the other's did not and consequently became darkened (the American Indians). Well, the good guys lost, leaving native Americans, who, the BoM contends, are actually of Hebrew descent. A compelling story during the time of Joseph Smith to be sure, but one that hasn't held up with advances in the science of DNA. If the tribes of Israel were actually, factually, the ancestors of the native Americans, genetic science would be able to verify it.

If the book of Mormon were valid scripture, there would not be such drastic departures from the doctrines of the Bible, which states that there is one God. At the core of BoM doctrine is polytheism (many gods) and self-deification (the notion that a follower can himself become a god). I think that the biggest reason for Christian ambivalence towards Mormon is that it seeks to piggy-back on mainstream Christian belief/doctrine.[hr]Sticking to the origin of this post, the book of Mormon is not valid scripture, whether that validity is measured by scientists or the Bible.

The sciences of archeology and biology are heavyweight contenders vs. the validity and historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon. The book of Mormon speaks of vast and advanced civilization's here in North America for which there is a profound absence of proof. Archaeologists from the Smithsonian institute conclude that no advanced civilizations existed here akin to civilizations described in the book of Mormon. Prior to Europeans coming to this contintent, in North America there was no use of the wheel, use of steel, huge cities described in the BoM, or widespread use of grain crops described in the BoM (which would be easy enough for archeologists to locate). You know, and Smithsonian Institute archaeologists aren't in the business of bias and prejudice, just science. If the civilizations described in the book of Mormon ever existed in N. America, it was in a different dimension, or traces of that civilization have been supernaturally and inexplicably erased.

On to biology- The BoM contends that Jews came to this country a Milenia ago, and founded civilization here. Some followed God's way, the other's did not and consequently became darkened (the American Indians). Well, the good guys lost, leaving native Americans, who, the BoM contends, are actually of Hebrew descent. A compelling story during the time of Joseph Smith to be sure, but one that hasn't held up with advances in the science of DNA. If the tribes of Israel were actually, factually, the ancestors of the native Americans, genetic science would be able to verify it.

If the book of Mormon were valid scripture, there would not be such drastic departures from the doctrines of the Bible, which states that there is one God. At the core of BoM doctrine is polytheism (many gods) and self-deification (the notion that a follower can himself become a god). I think that the biggest reason for Christian ambivalence towards Mormon is that it seeks to piggy-back on mainstream Christian belief/doctrine.

[Joshu]

You've made a number of interesting assertions here, I think this is a great start into what becomes even more interesting and complex. Of course you are aware that many of the things you have asserted here have been argued about for, in some cases, over a century, but I do applaud you for sticking to your guns on some of these cases especially considering the overwhelming (and what must seem oppressive) evidence against you. I realize you probably thought that the evidence that refutes your claims wasn't worth even presenting but it is important in these kinds of forums to let your audience decide what is important and what isn't. I am not myself interested in providing a point by point refutation of your claims but if others are interested there is a wealth of information on much of what Jonah has argued here at FAIR.com, it is of course an organization dedicated to the defense of mormonism against misinformation and therefore some might consider it "biased" but then again there can only be so many discoveries of the use of steel in the new world before it becomes an established fact, regardless of who finally presents the report.

[PostmodernProphet]

[ Let me know if I have this all right.




I am no longer sure....I made my statement based on my understanding of the Tucker text....it seems contradictory to what you quote from your source....

however, it does seem certain that Smith's revelation regarding the propriety of polygamy at least parallels if not stems from his inclination toward extra-Emma sex......

[Jonah]

Hmm...Joshu, Fair.com just shoves me into something else called yeah.com, which looks to be a strictly commercial site. I'd be happy to look at any literature either side of this issue has to offer up.

[Joshu]

I'm terribly sorry about that. The site is actually called www.fairlds.org my mistake on that. There's a number of interesting articles on many of the topics you mentioned, steel, DNA, archeology and otherwise. There's even something discussing the Smithsonian statement which I found interesting. Also I'm sure you're already aware of FARMS, out of BYU. The website there is, farms.byu.edu also a wealth of good information. If nothing else it will raise questions about the certainty of many of the claims you made and keep you up on the most recent research regarding the Book of Mormon. Good luck

[Joshu]

however, it does seem certain that Smith's revelation regarding the propriety of polygamy at least parallels if not stems from his inclination toward extra-Emma sex......


I'm not sure it is certain at all. I think the theory that Joseph just wanted to cheat on Emma is mitigated by his profoundly religious worldview. Obviously I don't mean a moral world view here, simply religious. Joseph was steeped in religion, from Egyptology, to studying Hebrew, his fascination with the concept of restoration, all of it. He just was entrenched in this historico-religious world, which he may have created himself of course but many people who are fairly antagonistic to the church have found it increasingly difficult to contend that he was a simple conman. For many the explanation that he was himself a believer in his own lies is much more easy to represent. Even if Joseph made the whole thing up plural marriage certainly fits in the world that he lived in. Committed as he was to the concept of restoration, he found ample justification for the practice in the scriptures and ancient custom.

This seems a much more reasonable explanation than that Joseph would suffer all the things he would suffer just so he could have a little fun on the side. Plural marriage almost destroyed his church and many have argued it's what got him killed. He must certainly have known the danger of sexual deviancy in his community. I don't think he would have created such a liability if all he wanted was to sneak a lady into his room every now and again.

Also, I've found that books like Tucker's that come from the "anti-cult" or "counter-cult" tradition are not paradigms of integrity or scholarship.

Regards,

Joshu

[Jonah]

Scientific Evidence Against the Book of Mormon

In an attempt to validate and justify the claims of the Book of Mormon, the highest authority in Mormonism, Joseph Smith Jr., the Mormon prophet, related an event which, if true, would add significant weight to some of the Mormon claims for their sacred book. Fortunately, it is a fact on which a good deal of evidence can be brought to bear. Smith put forth his claim in the book Pearl of Great Price (Joseph Smith—History, 1:62–64, 1982 edition), and it is worthwhile to examine it:
I commenced copying the characters off the plates. I copied a considerable number of them, and by means of the Urim and Thummim I translated some of them. Mr. Martin Harris came to our place, got the characters which I had drawn off the plates, and started with them to the city of New York. For what took place relative to him and the characters, I refer to his own account of the circumstances, as he related them to me after his return, which was as follows: “I went to the city of New York, and presented the characters that had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor Charles Anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments. Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated, and he said that they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters.”
According to Joseph Smith, then, Martin Harris, his colleague, obtained from the learned Professor Charles Anthon of Columbia University a validation of Smith’s translation of the reformed Egyptian hieroglyphic characters found on the plates that Moroni made available to him. The difficulty with Smith’s statement is that Professor Anthon never said any such thing, and fortunately he went on record in a lengthy letter to Mr. E. D. Howe, a contemporary of Joseph Smith who did one of the most thorough jobs of research on the Mormon prophet and the origins of Mormonism extant. Upon learning of Smith’s claim concerning Professor Anthon, Mr. Howe wrote him at Columbia. Professor Anthon’s letter reproduced here from Howe’s own collection is a classic piece of evidence the Mormons would like very much to see forgotten.
New York, N.Y.
Feb. 17, 1834
Mr. E. D. Howe
Painsville, Ohio

Dear Sir:

I received this morning your favor of the 9th instant, and lose no time in making a reply. The whole story about my having pronounced the Mormonite inscription to be “reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics” is perfectly false. Some years ago, a plain and apparently simplehearted farmer called upon me with a note from Dr. Mitchell of our city, now deceased, requesting me to decipher, if possible, a paper, which the farmer would hand me, and which Dr. Mitchell confessed he had been unable to understand. Upon examining the paper in question, I soon came to the conclusion that it was all a trick, perhaps a hoax. When I asked the person who brought it how he obtained the writing he gave me, as far as I can now recollect, [he gave] the following account: A “gold book,” consisting of a number of plates of gold, fastened together in the shape of a book by wires of the same metal, had been dug up in the northern part of the state of New York, and along with the book an enormous pair of “gold spectacles”! These spectacles were so large that if a person attempted to look through them, his two eyes would have to be turned toward one of the glasses merely, the spectacles in question being altogether too large for the breadth of the human face. Whoever examined the plates through the spectacles, was enabled not only to read them, but fully to understand their meaning. All this knowledge, however, was confined at the time to a young man, who had the trunk containing the book and spectacles in his sole possession. This young man was placed behind a curtain, in the garret of a farm house, and, being thus concealed from view, put on the spectacles occasionally, or rather, looked through one of the glasses, deciphered the characters in the book, and, having committed some of them to paper, handed copies from behind the curtain to those who stood on the outside. Not a word, however, was said about the plates having been deciphered “by the gift of God.” Everything, in this way, was effected by the large pair of spectacles. The farmer added that he had been requested to contribute a sum of money toward the publication of the “golden book,” the contents of which would, as he had been assured, produce an entire change in the world and save it from ruin. So urgent had been these solicitations, that he intended selling his farm and handing over the amount received to those who wished to publish the plates. As a last precautionary step, however, he had resolved to come to New York and obtain the opinion of the learned about the meaning of the paper which he brought with him, and which had been given him as a part of the contents of the book, although no translation had been furnished at the time by the young man with the spectacles. On hearing this odd story, I changed my opinion about the paper, and, instead of viewing it any longer as a hoax upon the learned, I began to regard it as a part of a scheme to cheat the farmer of his money, and I communicated my suspicions to him, warning him to beware of rogues. He requested an opinion from me in writing, which of course I declined giving, and he then took his leave carrying the paper with him. This paper was in fact a singular scrawl. It consisted of all kinds of crooked characters disposed in columns, and had evidently been prepared by some person who had before him at the time a book containing various alphabets. Greek and Hebrew letters, crosses and nourishes, Roman letters inverted or placed sideways, were arranged in perpendicular columns, and the whole ended in a rude delineation of a circle, divided into various compartments, decked with various strange marks, and evidently copied after the Mexican Calendar given by Humboldt, but copied in such a way as not to betray the source whence it was derived. I am thus particular as to the contents of the paper, inasmuch as I have frequently conversed with my friends on the subject, since the Mormonite excitement began, and well remember that the paper contained anything else but “Egyptian Hieroglyphics.” Some time after, the same farmer paid me a second visit. He brought with him the golden book in print, and offered it to me for sale. I declined purchasing. He then asked permission to leave the book with me for examination. I declined receiving it, although his manner was strangely urgent. I adverted once more to the roguery which had been in my opinion practiced upon him, and asked him what had become of the gold plates. He informed me that they were in a trunk with the large pair of spectacles. I advised him to go to a magistrate and have the trunk examined. He said the “curse of God” would come upon him should he do this. On my pressing him, however, to pursue the course which I had recommended, he told me that he would open the trunk, if I would take the “curse of God” upon myself. I replied that I would do so with the greatest willingness, and would incur every risk of that nature, provided I could only extricate him from the grasp of the rogues. He then left me.

I have thus given you a full statement of all that I know respecting the origin of Mormonism, and must beg you, as a personal favor, to publish this letter immediately, should you find my name mentioned again by these wretched fanatics.

Yours respectfully,

Charles Anthon, LL.D.
Columbia University
Professor Anthon’s letter is both revealing and devastating where Smith’s and Harris’ veracity are concerned. We might also raise the question as to how Professor Anthon could say that the characters shown to him by Martin Harris and authorized by Joseph Smith as part of the material copied from the revelation of the Book of Mormon were “Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic” when the Book of Mormon itself declares that the characters were “reformed Egyptian,” the language of the Nephites. Since the language of the Book of Mormon was known to “none other people,” how would it be conceivably possible for Professor Anthon to have testified as to the accuracy of Smith’s translation? To this date, no one has ever been able to find even the slightest trace of the language known as “reformed Egyptian”; and all reputable linguists who have examined the evidence put forth by the Mormons have rejected them as mythical.

[Joshu]

I'm sure you have already read these but again just to make sure people have all the information I'll post them here for people that have questions. The first one pretty much covers it, the other two are redundant but may be of interest.

http://www.shields-research.org/42_Questions/ques20.htm
http://en.fairmormon.org/Anthon_transcript
http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=17

[David Hume]

In March 1826 a court in Bainbridge, New York, convicted a twenty-one-year-old man of being "a disorderly person and an impostor." That ought to have been all we ever heard of Joseph Smith, who at trial admitted to defrauding citizens by organizing mad gold-digging expeditions and also to claiming to possess dark or "necromantic" powers. (In 1838, an arrest warrant was issued for Smith on a charge of bank fraud in Ohio, precipitating his move to Missouri.) However, within four years he was back in the local newspapers (all of which one may still read) as the discoverer of the "Book of Mormon." He had two huge local advantages which most mountebanks and charlatans do not possess. First, he was operating in the same hectically pious district that gave us the Shakers and several other self-proclaimed American prophets. So notorious did this local tendency become that the region became known as the "Burned-Over District," in honor of the way in which it had surrendered to one religious craze after another. Second, he was operating in an area which, unlike large tracts of the newly opening North America, did possess the signs of an ancient history.

A vanished and vanquished Indian civilization had bequeathed a considerable number of burial mounds, which when randomly and amateurishly desecrated were found to contain not merely bones but also quite advanced artifacts of stone, copper, and beaten silver. There were eight of these sites within twelve miles of the underperforming farm which the Smith family called home. There were two equally stupid schools or factions who took a fascinated interest in such matters: the first were the gold-diggers and treasure-diviners who brought their magic sticks and crystals and stuffed toads to bear in the search for lucre, and the second those who hoped to find the resting place of a lost tribe of Israel. Smith's cleverness was to be a member of both groups, and to unite cupidity with half-baked anthropology.

The actual story of the imposture is almost embarrassing to read, and almost embarrassingly easy to uncover. (It has been best told by Dr. Fawn Brodie, whose 1945 book No Man Knows My History was a good-faith attempt by a professional his