• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Does anyone know what happened to the golden plates?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bishka

Veteran Member
Polaris said:
You're full of empty accusations. We have provided ample evidence to suggest that the Book of Mormon, like the Bible, is of divine origin.

Just like Polaris said, we've provided ample evidence for your questions, and you have yet to back up a single thing you've put out.

Another question I have for you,

Why does it matter if we call ourselves Christians, but believe slightly differently then you.

  • We both believe that through Jesus Christ is the only way to be saved
  • We both believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God
Why do you vehemently attack us?
 

gnostic

The Lost One
katzpur said:
You do believe in the Bible, though, blueman -- in spite of the fact that we do not have a single original Biblical manuscript today. All we have is copies of copies of copies. How, in light of this, can you possibly accept the Bible as God's word?
That in itself is proof. The history of each copy be traced. But it is true, that some has been edited and redacted, but that doesn't lesser it's value as evidence.

The oldest extant edition of Homer's Iliad and Odyssey are also not The Originals too. It doesn't less than value.

My problem is the "needs" for this angel to take away the gold plates. Without the gold plates, people will continue to doubt and criticise the Book of Mormon's authenticit[FONT=&quot]y. There is no further translation can be made, by independence scholars, and no comparison to other writing systems. The evidences (ie gold plates) were stolen, lost or destroyed. For someone who don't believe in angel, the way it had disappeared, doesn't lead to a credible or valid argument. It may be logical in theistic way, but it lead only to more doubts and more unanswered questions.
[/FONT]
If my sister ever seen what I had post, I think I would get a "smack on the head" :slap: for questioning Mormons on this issue. *sigh* This is why I don't talk about any religion to my family and friends. There seemed no way to criticise a religion, without making it like an attack on one religion or another. I am sorry :sorry1: if any comment of mine may hurt any of you. I am not trying to make people turn away from their religions, just expressing my own doubts from my perspective on religion (not just LDS, but on all religion).

I have the same doubt on Muhammad and his divine revelation, from angels and the so-called "made in heaven" scripture, the Qur'an. I also have a lot of doubts on what is written in the Bible.
 

Bishka

Veteran Member
Gnostic,

It's about faith. God's not going to set Himself out in front of you and say HERE I AM, LOOK AT ME!
 

SoyLeche

meh...
gnostic said:
That in itself is proof. The history of each copy be traced. But it is true, that some has been edited and redacted, but that doesn't lesser it's value as evidence.

The oldest extant edition of Homer's Iliad and Odyssey are also not The Originals too. It doesn't less than value.

My problem is the "needs" for this angel to take away the gold plates. Without the gold plates, people will continue to doubt and criticise the Book of Mormon's authenticit[FONT=&quot]y. There is no further translation can be made, by independence scholars, and no comparison to other writing systems. The evidences (ie gold plates) were stolen, lost or destroyed. For someone who don't believe in angel, the way it had disappeared, doesn't lead to a credible or valid argument. It may be logical in theistic way, but it lead only to more doubts and more unanswered questions.
[/FONT]
If my sister ever seen what I had post, I think I would get a "smack on the head" :slap: for questioning Mormons on this issue. *sigh* This is why I don't talk about any religion to my family and friends. There seemed no way to criticise a religion, without making it like an attack on one religion or another. I am sorry :sorry1: if any comment of mine may hurt any of you. I am not trying to make people turn away from their religions, just expressing my own doubts from my perspective on religion (not just LDS, but on all religion).

I have the same doubt on Muhammad and his divine revelation, from angels and the so-called "made in heaven" scripture, the Qur'an. I also have a lot of doubts on what is written in the Bible.
I agree with pretty much everything you have said here. It would have been a whole lot easier if the Plates had not been taken, and if Joseph would have been permitted to show them to scholars. They were and he wasn't though. I can accept that there will always be people that question the authenticity of the BoM. That doesn't bother me in the slightest. I know what I believe, and I'm comfortable with it. At the same time, I can fully understand why you can't accept what I believe to be true. If I were just looking at physical evidence I would probably be there with you.

It does bother me when people try and tell me that I need to study my religion more (and I'm not saying you have done this, at least that I can remember :) ). I am an educated, intelligent man, and I have studied my religion, its scriptures and its founder more than most people on this forum, and I'm pretty sure the only ones that have studied more are also LDS.
 

blueman

God's Warrior
Polaris said:
Apparently you've been selectively reading the posts in this thread, Dan has provided several links that establish similar archealogical and scientific evidence for the Book of Mormon. You have to address those before you can begin to claim that we haven't provided any "valid comparable examples".



The exact same thing can be said for the Book of Mormon.



Again the same thing can be said for the Book of Mormon.

1. The Book of Mormon establishes the greatness, glory, and supremacy of God, our Father.
2. A major theme of the Book of Mormon is concerning the redemption of mankind.
3. In the Book of Mormon Jesus is repeatedly and emphatically declared to be our Savior.
4. The Book of Mormon teaches that Satan is the father of all lies and evil one who seeks our destruction.
5. The purpose of the Book of Mormon is to testify of Christ and glorify God.

You're full of empty accusations. We have provided ample evidence to suggest that the Book of Mormon, like the Bible, is of divine origin.
The references I made are plausible and I've got no issues with you disagree with them. I respect your faith and conviction, but even you must admit, there are some glaring fundamental differences concerning God, Jesus Christ and other aspects of our respective faiths.
 

Bishka

Veteran Member
blueman said:
The references I made are plausible and I've got no issues with you disagree with them. I respect your faith and conviction, but even you must admit, there are some glaring fundamental differences concerning God, Jesus Christ and other aspects of our respective faiths.

And?? We see Jesus and God a bit differently then you, is that really a matter of salvation?
 

Polaris

Active Member
blueman said:
The references I made are plausible and I've got no issues with you disagree with them. I respect your faith and conviction, but even you must admit, there are some glaring fundamental differences concerning God, Jesus Christ and other aspects of our respective faiths.

Just because we have fundamental differences in what we believe doesn't mean we (the LDS) are wrong.
 

dan

Well-Known Member
blueman said:
Dan,

With all due respect, archeaology has not been able to validate one iota of many things referenced in the BOM.

That wasn't the accusation you made, sir. If you're going to change the subject every time you find yourself ill-prepared to stand up for your assertions then maybe this isn't the right place for you. I will proceed to validate much of what the Book of Mormon says:

1) Read every single website I supplied for you. Each one shows a scientific corroboration for a Book of Mormon claim.

2) http://jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml#geography Archeological evidence that shows the first forty pages of the Book of Mormon could not have been more accurate, despite being written fifty years before any of this was known.

3) http://jefflindsay.com/bme5.shtml A recent archeological find shows that the previously considered "ridiculous" names in the Book of Mormon are actually dead on.

4) http://jefflindsay.com/bme23.shtml A grouyp of documents almost five hundred years old that show that the Mesoamericans knew more about Christianity when we got here than many Christians today.

5) http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=55 Some documents discovered this century that show Joseph Smith's "ridiculous" perspective on Christianity is actually closer to the original than anyone else's.

6) http://www.cometozarahemla.org/chiasmus/chiasmus.html The Book of Mormon is full of an ancient Semitic literary style completely unknown to Joseph Smith and anyone on this continent at the time of the publication of the Book of Mormon, but is represented there more comprehensively than many translations of the Bible.

7) http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=180&table=jbms An ancient stone found in Izapa, Mexico that shows a unique vision found in the Book of Mormon's opening chapters. Twelve Tribes of Israel represented.

I'll let you get through all this evidence before I give you more, but please don't say stuff like this

blueman said:
archeaology has not been able to validate one iota of many things referenced in the BOM.

unless you actually have a clue what you're talking about (with all due respect).
 

dan

Well-Known Member
blueman said:
I am always willing to approach and research things with an open mind.

Would you be so kind as to demonstrate some sort of manifestation of this willingness. Up till now you've just dodged every single opportunity that's come your way to get anywhere near an open mind.
 

blueman

God's Warrior
SoyLeche said:
I've read it - I can't figure out what the attributes are in this that you keep mentioning. Could you format it differently?
What do I have to restate? Written over a 1700 year period, by over 40 different authors, from different walks of life and the precision in which it was written based on the five themes I mentioned in my intial post. It has been supported by archeaology, it's prophecies continue to be fulfilled (the Old Testament prophecies related to Christ is the most amazing example). The fact that it is written in over 1/3 of the known languages in this world. No other book compares based on these facts.

I am curious regarding the BOM since the alleged origin of the book is stated to be written anywhere from 600 BC to 400 AD, but some of the scriptural passages seem to be analogous (with some content differences) to the style and verbatim language of the King James English Translation of the Holy Bible, which occurred in 1611??
 

Bishka

Veteran Member
blueman said:
I am curious regarding the BOM since the alleged origin of the book is stated to be written anywhere from 600 BC to 400 AD, but some of the scriptural passages seem to be analogous (with some content differences) to the style and verbatim language of the King James English Translation of the Holy Bible, which occurred in 1611??


That's because the Nephites had a acopy of Isaiah, that was in their holy records.

I'm assuming (MY OPINION ONLY), that when Joseph saw this, He recognized the passages and translated them as he knew them. Dan, Soyleche or Kathryn would be better able to answer this for you.
 

dan

Well-Known Member
blueman said:
It has been supported by archeaology,

The archeological evidence supports it as an historical document to a certain degree. Not a word of it as inspired text is supported by any archeological evidence whatsoever, but once you get past Hezekiah it gets pretty fuzzy, and most of it beyond that point is actually improbable to impossible in the eyes of archeology. The code of Hammurabi is more supported by archeological evidence than the Bible.

blueman said:
I am curious regarding the BOM

No you're not. You're just patronizing.

blueman said:
since the alleged origin of the book is stated to be written anywhere from 600 BC to 400 AD, but some of the scriptural passages seem to be analogous (with some content differences) to the style and verbatim language of the King James English Translation of the Holy Bible, which occurred in 1611??

The same can be said of the Bible and other Near Eastern texts. The code of Hammurabi contains verbatim certain laws from Exodus. Sargon of Akkad lived a thousand years before Moses and was said to be found as a baby floating in an ark in a river and raised by royalty. The "Two Brothers" from Egypt tells of a man who earned the loyalty of a superior, works as his second in command and is then framed by the man's wife for sexually assaulting her. You've never even looked into the Bible, have you?

Joseph Smith stated before the publication of the BM that he was writing it according to the same style as the King James translators so that it would fit more comfortably into the minds of the people as scripture. There are other spots where the author states in the text that he will quote verses out of Isaiah and other prophets.
 

blueman

God's Warrior
Polaris said:
Just because we have fundamental differences in what we believe doesn't mean we (the LDS) are wrong.
When have I ever stated that you were wrong? I've only raised some plausible doubts on my end.
 

dan

Well-Known Member
blueman said:
I gave you several reasons regarding the God-Inspired authenticity of the Bible and have repeatedly ask someone to make a valid comparable example regarding the attributes of the BOM. So far, no one comes close.

Excuse me? Have you looked at a single piece of evidence I've shown you? You certainly haven't responded to any of them. Why don't you do some research before you start slinging this filth around.
 

blueman

God's Warrior
beckysoup61 said:
And?? We see Jesus and God a bit differently then you, is that really a matter of salvation?
That is not a matter of you or I determining. I choose to put my faith and trust in the Holy Word of God in reference to the eternal nature and deity of God The Father, God The Son and God The Holy Spirit and am at peace with that conviction. May God continue to bless you and your family.
 

Bishka

Veteran Member
blueman said:
That is not a matter of you or I determining. I choose to put my faith and trust in the Holy Word of God in reference to the eternal nature and deity of God The Father, God The Son and God The Holy Spirit and am at peace with that conviction. May God continue to bless you and your family.

Then why tell us we are wrong, if it is not a matter of your or I determining.

I put my faith in the Holy Word of God just as much as you.

So, you are ending this debate? It's about time.
 

Bishka

Veteran Member
blueman said:
That is not a matter of you or I determining. I choose to put my faith and trust in the Holy Word of God in reference to the eternal nature and deity of God The Father, God The Son and God The Holy Spirit and am at peace with that conviction. May God continue to bless you and your family.

Okay, where in the Bible does it mention Trinity?:rolleyes:
 

blueman

God's Warrior
dan said:
Excuse me? Have you looked at a single piece of evidence I've shown you? You certainly haven't responded to any of them. Why don't you do some research before you start slinging this filth around.
I will reference the abundance of links you sent me and will get back to you later in the week. What I raised as issues are valid regarding the validity of the existence of the golden plates, the credibility of the Smith and Young and fundamental differences related to the doctrine. Let me analyze the information you sent me and we will continue the discussion.
 

Bishka

Veteran Member
blueman said:
Dan, your way too emotional. I will reference the abundance of links you sent me and will get back to you later in the week. What I raised as issues are valid regarding the validity of the existence of the golden plates, the credibility of the Smith and Young and fundamental differences related to the doctrine. Let me analyze the information you sent me and we will continue the discussion.
Emotional? Why are you calling Dan emotional, can you really sense the emotions that Dan, a member of the LDS church is feeling through a few simple words typed out on your computer screen? If so, I think you should become a professional, because that is a feat in itself.

All you've set forth blueman, is an ignorant diatribe against the doctrines and teachings of the LDS Church which you know nothing about. I suggest you actually figure out what you are talking about before you try to tell us what our Church is about.

You know your Church better then us, and we know ours better then you. Simple as that darling.
 

blueman

God's Warrior
beckysoup61 said:
Okay, where in the Bible does it mention Trinity?:rolleyes:[/quote) References to Father, Son and Holy Spirit are frequent throughout the New Testament. Does the word trinity have to appear for you to believe in the deity associated with the Godhead (eternal, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, holy, loving, merciful). All three members of the Godhead share these attributes and make up a unified God Almighty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top