Joseph Smith - Prophet of God

beckysoup61 said:

So I still don't understand what your point in participating in this thread is, do you like telling people that their wrong?

Click to expand...

I totally understand why it is nicer to have a conversation with somebody that isn't fixin to change your thinkin. But here's the rub, given that this is your preference, and since you willingly read this thread, you put yourself at risk of having your preferences denied when the OP asks the question: "So where do you stand?" Do you really think it is reasonable to ask people where they stand and then when they answer the question complain that they are answering the question? Surely you are not saying that the only people that can answer the question are the people that just want to learn from you. No, I don't think you are saying that. But what I can't figure out is why you think people can't try to convince you that your thinking is wrong - why is that so terribly offensive to you (or perhaps "annoying" is a better word to use, or perplexing ... or perhaps you can insert the right descriptor)? I'm guessing that the only motive you ascribe to the people that you perceive want to change your thinking is a terribly negative motive. These people (people like me?) are bad people and as bad people they should just go away, is that close to being true? Maybe you don't think I am bad, maybe you just think I am ill-motivated and you want me to confess that I am ill-motivated and/or realize that I am ill-motivated. If I just declared my black heart that would balance the RF universe. You already know my "type", you easily dismiss my ilk, do you know why it is so important that I confess my sin to you? Ya see, I always get the feeling that whenever you ask "why do you challenge my beliefs" that what you want is way to discredit my argument by discrediting me - but that's just a feeling and it might not be enlightened.

cardero said:

No fair, you were already prepared for my example.

Click to expand...

Of course I was. Just like I, and most other LDS on this site, am prepared for roughly 99% of the stuff that's thrown at us. It's all old hat to us, Patrick. We've seen the same old tired arguments for years. In all honesty, it would be almost impossible for someone to come up with a "gotcha" we haven't heard a million times before. A couple of years ago, there was a guy on RF (I can't remember his name) who actually came up with some new questions and challenges for Mormons. I used to really look forward to his posts because they required some research on my part. Most of the time, I know exactly where to go for my response. What a pity people aren't more creative.

Old hat or not, it's perfectly valid critique. Obviously you have the same old worn out counter-arguements which present absolutely nothing which adds up to tangible evidence, wheras the arguments against the Smith and BOM, are entirely consistent and within the realm of factuality.

~M

Bathsheba said:

I think lds-inc should stop saying ol joe translated the so-called ancient record and start saying that he dictated from words appearing on magical stones, ya know, since there really wasn’t any translating actually taking place. Now it is your turn to spin.

Click to expand...

You lost me. What do you believe is meant by the word "translate"? I've always thought it meant to render words from one language into another.

Melissa G said:

Old hat or not, it's perfectly valid critique.

Click to expand...

Sure it is, if you're willing to concede that the similar phrases from the Descent of Inanna, the Pyramid Texts and the Harris Papyrus were also plagiarized from each other or that Shakespeare plagiarized from one of them. Such a lot of fuss over such a simple phrase. One would think desperation was setting in.

Obviously you have the same old worn out counter-arguements.

Click to expand...

Well, I'll make you a deal. You come up with something I haven't heard a million times already, and I'll do my best to respond with something new myself.

(By the way, is that your picture that's posted with your sig?)

The pyramid texts are the oldest written religious texts in the world. It's not unatural that later texts built on them. There is though, a shift from the Stellar based sky religions, to the new Solar theology, which is reflected in the PT's. There's a world of difference bewteen an evolving religion and a modern copy of older texts.

~M

SoyLeche said:

I have no idea.

Who says that they don't? I don't know of any examples, but that doesn't mean there aren't any, or that there won't be any in the future.

Click to expand...

No, of course not. And just because no archeologist has ever found a single piece of archaeological evidence anywerhe in the New World doesn't mean that one won't, someday. Of course...it also doesn't mean they will.

After all, using that kind of argument, who says they won't find a letter dictated by Joseph Smith describing the precise fraud he intended to perpetrate and exactly how he did it? To quote Judy Tenuta: "It could happen."

SoyLeche said:

The Golden Plates, of course.

Click to expand...

Of course. The only logical way to translate a document is to stick your face in your hat and look at a rock. If I were translating plates, I'd look at the plates but then, I'm not the successful founder of one of the world's fastest growing religions.

Katzpur said:

You lost me. What do you believe is meant by the word "translate"? I've always thought it meant to render words from one language into another.

Click to expand...

Well, you know, usually, if one is translating a document, one looks at that document, not some other object. If nothing else, it's a very odd way to go about it. The appearance suggested is that he wasn't translating anything; he was making it up, whether deliberately or out of his own delusion.

Melissa G said:

The pyramid texts are the oldest written religious texts in the world. It's not unatural that later texts built on them. There is though, a shift from the Stellar based sky religions, to the new Solar theology, which is reflected in the PT's. There's a world of difference bewteen an evolving religion and a modern copy of older texts.

~M

Click to expand...

Cuneiform is older than hieroglyphics.

Regards,

Scott

Smith had to of made it up, because no such text as ' reformed Egyptian ever existed, and the fascimlie I've seen, is a mish mash of signs drawn from other texts. My Cambridge friend thought it was clearly the product of a fanciful imagination, and didn't consitute a logical text.

~M

Popeyesays said:

Cuneiform is older than hieroglyphics.

Regards,

Scott

Click to expand...

Well Scott, that's a mute point. Heiroglyphs, or pictographs were in use in the pre-dynastic period, but clearly they hadn't formed a developed phonetic system with them that eary, from around 3500bce.

~M

Ok Kaztpur, this is one for you...Church" and "Synagogue"

The word "church" first occurs in 1 Nephi 4:26, where a prophet named Nephi disguises himself as Laban, a prominent man in Jerusalem whom Nephi had slain:
And he [Laban's servant], supposing that I spake of the brethren of the church, and that I was truly that Laban whom I had slain, wherefore he did follow me. (1 Nephi 4:26) This exchange allegedly happened in Jerusalem, around 600 B.C. What Reformed Egyptian phrase would have been translated as "brethren of the church"? The entire concept is unfamiliar to Judaism of that era.
A similar difficulty occurs with the word "synagogue", found for example in Alma 16:13:
And Alma and Amulek went forth preaching repentance to the people in their temples, and in their sanctuaries, and also in their synagogues, which were built after the manner of the Jews. (Alma 16:13) Most biblical scholars believe that synagogues did not exist before the destruction of the temple and the Babylonian captivity, and hence would be unknown to the people of the Book of Mormon, said to have fled Jerusalem around 600 B.C. Church" and "Synagogue"

Reference: The Ultimate Church - American History Information Guide and Reference

Melissa G

Melissa G said:

Ok Kaztpur, this is one for you...Church" and "Synagogue"

The word "church" first occurs in 1 Nephi 4:26, where a prophet named Nephi disguises himself as Laban, a prominent man in Jerusalem whom Nephi had slain:
And he [Laban's servant], supposing that I spake of the brethren of the church, and that I was truly that Laban whom I had slain, wherefore he did follow me. (1 Nephi 4:26) This exchange allegedly happened in Jerusalem, around 600 B.C. What Reformed Egyptian phrase would have been translated as "brethren of the church"? The entire concept is unfamiliar to Judaism of that era.
A similar difficulty occurs with the word "synagogue", found for example in Alma 16:13:
And Alma and Amulek went forth preaching repentance to the people in their temples, and in their sanctuaries, and also in their synagogues, which were built after the manner of the Jews. (Alma 16:13) Most biblical scholars believe that synagogues did not exist before the destruction of the temple and the Babylonian captivity, and hence would be unknown to the people of the Book of Mormon, said to have fled Jerusalem around 600 B.C. Church" and "Synagogue"

Reference: The Ultimate Church - American History Information Guide and Reference

Melissa G

Click to expand...

One aspect of our understanding of biblical synagogues that has been reevaluated in the light of new research is the view that synagogues did not exist until after the Babylonian captivity. Lee I. Levine, a leading [non-LDS] scholar on the history of the synagogue, has suggested that synagogues did exist before the Babylonian captivity in the form of chambers in the city gates. Such gates have been excavated by archaeologists at such important Old Testament sites as Beersheba, Gezer, Lachish, and Megiddo. Each of these has

1. at least one chamber (which is nearly square) lined with stone benches around the interior walls (the benched chamber at Lachish has two tiers of benches),
2. a single doorway, and
3. where there is enough of the original wall left to determine it, a niche. I suggest that these niches were used for storing special ritual items, perhaps even sacred scrolls.

Levine concludes that since later synagogues closely mirror the architecture of the gate chambers, these chambers may well have been the original synagogues. This conclusion is supported by a number of biblical passages that indicate that the city gate and its vicinity were the hub of a community's life. The gate area served as

1. the market place (see 2 Kings 7:1),
2. the general court (see Genesis 23:10, 18; Deuteronomy 17:5, 21:19 and 22:24; Ruth 4:1–�12; Jeremiah 38:7; Daniel 2:48–�49; and Esther 5:9, 13; 6:10),
3. the royal court (see 2 Samuel 18:4 and 19:8; and 1 Kings 22:10, which equals 2 Chronicles 18:9), and
4. a place of worship (see 2 Kings 23:8 and Nehemiah 8:1).7

Support for Levine's conclusion is also found in the Old Testament terminology for worship service. Several Old Testament writers (see Hosea 2:11; Jeremiah in Lamentations 2:6; Ezekiel 44:24) link Sabbath worship with the Hebrew word mo‘ed which means "assembly, meeting."

If Levine is correct, then, before the captivity, a town's or city's social activities centered around the city gate, and it seems reasonable that these social activities included Sabbath worship in a chamber of the gate that resembled later synagogues and functioned similarly.

(Source: Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Volume 9 Issue 1)

Melissa G said:

Well Scott, that's a mute point. Heiroglyphs, or pictographs were in use in the pre-dynastic period, but clearly they hadn't formed a developed phonetic system with them that eary, from around 3500bce.

~M

Click to expand...

I suppose you mean a "moot" point?

Regards,
Scott

yes, moot lol lol.

Melissa G

Katzpur said:

Of course I was. Just like I, and most other LDS on this site, am prepared for roughly 99% of the stuff that's thrown at us. It's all old hat to us, Patrick. We've seen the same old tired arguments for years. In all honesty, it would be almost impossible for someone to come up with a "gotcha" we haven't heard a million times before. A couple of years ago, there was a guy on RF (I can't remember his name) who actually came up with some new questions and challenges for Mormons. I used to really look forward to his posts because they required some research on my part. Most of the time, I know exactly where to go for my response. What a pity people aren't more creative.

Click to expand...

My apologies Katzpur, though I was familiar with the redundant Biblical plagerism debates, I was unaware that LDS members had to continually endure the Shakespeare reference (an example I must admit I was unaware of since this winter).

Hey all!

I've been doing some research about Joseph Smith... I've been on websites such as JosephSmith.net and LDS.org ... even youtube is good Yet i can not find any Biblical evidance to back up that Joseph Smith is a prophet personally for example just off the top of may head... Isaiah 7:14- Mat 1:20-23 proves to me that Jesus was the Messiah. Is it just a matter of faith to believe that Joesph is a prophet? Is there any scriptures (Biblical) that any Latter Day Saints would like to share proving that Joseph is a true prophet? Or are there only two scriptures (which Polaris originally posted Eph 4:11-13 and Mat 7:16-18) I will be very gratefull for ya help.
Take is easy and don't stop the groove !x x x

An interesting Reply Katzpur, I quite enjoyed the Archeaoloogy there. However, given that they may of had places of assembly before 600bce, we do not know what they were called in Hebrew. One of the things about Biblical Archaeology is the dearth of extant inscriptions. So, unless you can say, what these possible assembly points were called, then the use of Synagogue and Church remain in the period much later than 600bce.

Melissa ~