nutshell
Well-Known Member
You didn't answer my challenge.
Why don't you create a Book of Mormon (or a Quran for that matter). Go for it. You make it sounds so easy. Come on, Toms. Do it.
-
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!
Christians: What in this Book do you Disagree With?
- Thread starter DeepShadow
- Start date
You didn't answer my challenge.
Why don't you create a Book of Mormon (or a Quran for that matter). Go for it. You make it sounds so easy. Come on, Toms. Do it.
tomspug
Absorbant
Why would I? I only joke about the idea of deceiving people. I wouldn't actually want to take advantage of people. And I never said that deception was easy, but it happens.
You say your book is true. What about the other books? Apparently, it's not easy to write a holy book, but it's easy enough to create other religions. You can't use the existence of a religion as proof that a religion is true.
The Bible wasn't written by one person. That is what makes it so incredibly well-defended from unbelievers. No matter how much you argue, your book was completely written by one person, and that makes it very difficult to differentiate from all of the other religious texts written by one person. Why does the Book of Mormon even bother saying that there are witnesses? Have you ever thought about that? If Joseph Smith was speaking the truth, why was it so necessary to make people write their names down saying "this is true!"?
(Ironically, one of the first things I thought to myself when I first read the Book of Mormon was "I could have written this!")
You say your book is true. What about the other books? Apparently, it's not easy to write a holy book, but it's easy enough to create other religions. You can't use the existence of a religion as proof that a religion is true.
The Bible wasn't written by one person. That is what makes it so incredibly well-defended from unbelievers. No matter how much you argue, your book was completely written by one person, and that makes it very difficult to differentiate from all of the other religious texts written by one person. Why does the Book of Mormon even bother saying that there are witnesses? Have you ever thought about that? If Joseph Smith was speaking the truth, why was it so necessary to make people write their names down saying "this is true!"?
(Ironically, one of the first things I thought to myself when I first read the Book of Mormon was "I could have written this!")
Francine
Well-Known Member
Jesus did that a lot. He said, "Verily, verily, today you will be with me in paradise," or "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was, I am."
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
You know, I've heard a lot of people say that. So far, I haven't seen anybody put his money where his mouth is.
When Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, he was twenty-three years of age and newly married. He had a third-grade education and a background primarily in farming. His entire life had been spent in the rural Eastern United States.
The book he claimed to translated was a history about an ancient civilization. It was more than 500 pages in length and contained roughly 150 words per page. Once he began translating, he completed the entire process in roughly ninety days. Due to a number of interruptions, he actually had closer to sixty days in which to finish this book. He used a vocabulary of fewer than 3500 words and yet introduced into the English language 180 new proper nouns.
The chronological time frame for this history was from about 2150 B.C. to 400 A.D. (with most of it covering the period from 600 B.C. on). The portion of the narrative covering the last 1000 years did not contain any large, unaccounted for gaps of time, and a number of interrelated local histories were going on at once. Integrated into the history of two separate and distinct great nations were accurate accounts of their warfare, their religious beliefs, and their economic, social and political cultures and institutions. Cultural and technical details were lavish and extensive. And yet, Joseph was not able to travel to the place where this history is to have taken place or even have access to research material of any kind.
I realize that you are entirely unimpressed by that information, but do you believe you could produce a similar book? Are you interested in trying? I'll pay you for your finished work. How much money would it take?
DeepShadow
White Crow
I think what Nutshell is referring to is how the Book of Mormon is written using large amounts of Semitic poetry. Can you write in megachiasmus? Remember, now, you need to stick to forms of poetry that have not been discovered yet.
Not to mention, your assertion that the Book of Mormon was written by one person is begging the question. The Book of Mormon claims to have been written by several people, and those claims have been validated in scientific tests by peer-reviewed third parties. What evidence can you provide that the Book of Mormon was written by one person?
But we're veering drastically off-topic. Tomspug, do you have any other statements to make about your disagreements with the text cited in the OP?
DeepShadow
White Crow
I've got one of those little medals, too, you know.
Oh dear, I hope I didn't offend anyone with my post.
And I'd more than support your decision.
Perhaps what equips me as a second ear on these rants is neither my mind nor my patience (hugs for the compliments anyway, though) but the fact that I'm not on here as often as other people. I miss the big fights, and then I come wandering through and wonder why people are so short with each other. I ask people to try it again, and things sometimes work better the second time.
And let's be clear, I don't think that's bad at all, to refuse to deal with someone who's being a jerk. I choose to do so, but I can't and won't make that choice for others.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Well... You sort of did. But not to worry. I'll get over it.Oh dear, I hope I didn't offend anyone with my post.
Well, you are more patient than most of us. You are also more knowledgable and a better debater. You already know you're my mentor,
but it is true that you miss a lot of the fights. In this particular instance, you also missed a bit of trolling on other threads. If someone announces his intention not to talk to any LDS poster ever again, it seems to me that posting negative comments about Mormon doctrines scattered randomly throughout various threads on the forum is pretty tacky. Well, it's good for the jerks that somebody does.
And there's one thing I will say for me: I am a very forgiving person. If someone apologizes for past behavior and says to me, "Let's be friends; let's start over," he can count on me to accept the offer.
emmaleebee
Member
just to give you some perspective into our point of view, if you'll take it--saying the Book of Mormon was written by Joseph Smith is like saying the Bible was written by King James
Francine
Well-Known Member
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
:biglaugh:Honestly, Francine, I didn't think you were quite that gullible. At any rate, since you appear to be on a roll, here's some good reading for you... Enjoy!
One Day in the Life of Joseph Smith, Amazing "Translator" of the Book of Mormon
DeepShadow
White Crow
Did Ethan Smith provide Joseph with megachiasm? Quellenlieder? The twenty points of a good Hebrew farewell speech? Evidence of roads, palisades, government systems, etc.?Did Ethan reveal to Joseph that ancient peoples had written on metal plates?
No. All these things were discovered after the Book of Mormon was published. So Ethan's role in these phenomenal predictions was negligible.
If you are serious about discussing the archaeological issues, start a new thread, and post or PM me a link. This thread is about the Gospel Principles book.
Francine
Well-Known Member
It was a mistake to try again. I withdraw from LDS issues once more.
DeepShadow
White Crow
When were you trying again?! You were posting about BoM authenticity on a thread that didn't have anything to do with the subject. I said similar things to Tomspug; what's wrong with trying to stay on topic?
I'd really like to discuss these thing with you, in a thread that has BoM authenticity as the topic. Can't we start such a thread?
Sola'lor
LDSUJC
Hahahah!!!! That's great!!!
Actually I might be up forthe challenge of writing a book similar to the Book of Mormon. What are the rules I need to stick to? How much will someone be willing to pay for it?
DeepShadow
White Crow
The more I keep thinking about this, the more I think it deserves to be answered. Of course, it's off topic, so I'll have to start another thread.
Wandered Off
Sporadic Driveby Member
* * * * * * * * STAFF ADVISORY * * * * * * * *
Please refrain from making derogatory and/or disrespectful comments about others' beliefs or holy texts. RF should be a civil environment for all members. Please also avoid going off-topic.
Several posts have been edited or deleted by the staff for noncompliance.
tomspug
Absorbant
Apologies. But to be fair, I was being egged on.
Anyways, I'll change the topic to something I was confused about earlier. Earlier in the topic (or another topic) it was brought up that the ordination of prophets is a major part of the LDS church, but then when I asked about prophecies since Joseph Smith I was told that there have only been two. I guess I need an explanation as far as the difference between "Prophets" in the congregation and major prophets.
Anyways, I'll change the topic to something I was confused about earlier. Earlier in the topic (or another topic) it was brought up that the ordination of prophets is a major part of the LDS church, but then when I asked about prophecies since Joseph Smith I was told that there have only been two. I guess I need an explanation as far as the difference between "Prophets" in the congregation and major prophets.
Scott C.
Just one guy
We refer to the President of the Church as a "prophet, seer, and revelator". Each of those have a little different connotation. The main idea is that the President is the Presiding High Priest for the entire church. He receives revelation from God to guide the church and the members (or non-members for that matter). His revelations may not be prophesies in the sense of predicting the future. His revelations also may not be doctrinal, such as establishing the nature of the Godhead, etc. Most of the revelations are to guide the church and guide the members through the troubled water and times in which we live. Also, a very important, in my opinion the most important role of those we consider prophets, seers, and revelators is to be special witness of Christ to the world. This means that the resurrected Lord has revealed himself to them and they are equally qualified with the ancient apostles to bear testimony to the world, based on perfect knowledge, more than faith, belief, or hope, or a strong conviction, but a perfect knowledge, as sure as they know anything, that Jesus Christ lives, is resurrected, and stands at the head of His church today.
When you listen to fifteen men (First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles) each of whom are intelligent, sincere, and good men, each bear independent testimony that through experience "too sacred to give utterance" that they have a perfect knowledge of the resurrected Lord, by revelation, it's a powerful testimony. One who pays close attention to what they say can conclude they are telling the truth, they are lying, or they are deceived. If you know them for who they are, you quickly throw out lying. If you consider their intelligence, competence, sincerity, humility, goodness, integrity, the Christian values they possess, and the fact they they each make the claims of revelation independent of one another, you can also determine that being deceived by Satan is a not conceivable. That leaves telling the truth. Think about it. You might be surprised what you would learn, if you would carefully study the words of the living prophets and apostles as they bear apostolic testimony of the risen Lord. Their witnesses, combined with my personal study, reflection, and spiritual answers to prayer give me a rock solid conviction that prophets walk the earth again. Were living in a day. as if we were in the days of and in the midst of Peter, James, John, and the others. It's great to be a part of it. I wish all Christians and all people everywhere could see it.