Does anyone know what happened to the golden plates?

[SoyLeche]

They could have been shown anything, and they genuinely thought they had been shown something wonderful, signed a piece of paper saying they had seen them and unwittingly started a whole new religion, if you believe in Jesus Christ why don't you just drop the Book of Mormon and get on with believing in Jesus Christ?

We'd have to deny the witness of the Holy Ghost - and that is more convincing than any evidence.

Why don't you get over the fact that we believe something you can't and get on with your life?

 

[Bishka]

They could have been shown anything, and they genuinely thought they had been shown something wonderful, signed a piece of paper saying they had seen them and unwittingly started a whole new religion, if you believe in Jesus Christ why don't you just drop the Book of Mormon and get on with believing in Jesus Christ?

They saw the plates, end of discussion, you cannot question someones experience because you did not experience it.


Why don't we drop the Book of Mormon? Heh, apparently you've never even opened it or looked at it, the official title is

"The Book of Mormon : Another Testament of Jesus Christ"


You apparently have a very limited knowledge of the LDS Church's theology, so leave it to us who actually know what we are talking about.

 

[Katzpur]

I am taking no further part in this thread.

And yet you continue to post.

 

[blueman]

I'm not sure they ever really existed, but that's up for debate.

 

[Bishka]

I'm not sure they ever really existed, but that's up for debate.

Actually the title of this debate is

"does anyone know what happened to the golden plates", it's not debating it's existense per-se, it's more debating what actually happened to them according to the wording of the authors title.

 

[royol]

Yes but when ignorance is bliss it's folly to be wise.

 

[blueman]

Understood, but there has never been any archeaological validation that they existed in the first place and that would be central to this discussion.

 

[Katzpur]

I am taking no further part in this thread.

I just thought you'd appreciate the reminder, since your memory seems to have failed you royoly. :biglaugh:

 

[Bishka]

Understood, but there has never been any archeaological validation that they existed in the first place and that would be central to this discussion.

Check out this page:

http://www.fairlds.org/

 

[Bishka]

Yes but when ignorance is bliss it's folly to be wise.

And this has to do with the discussion at hand because......?

 

[Katzpur]

Understood, but there has never been any archeaological validation that they existed in the first place and that would be central to this discussion.

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?

 

[blueman]

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?

What original manuscript of any ancient 1st century document exists today? 2 Timothy 3:16,17 tells us that scripture has been God inspired and throughout the past 100 years, the authenticity of the Bible has been validated through historical, arhceaoligical and circumstantial evidence. If you compare modern text of the Holy Bible with some of the 2nd century transcripts that exists today, the context is consistent regarding the message relayed in both the Old and New Testament. Books written 1500-1700 years ago are still valid today. Even when the Bible makes reference to scientific issues (Job 26:7, Jeremiah 33:22), it is valid in the 21st century. There are hundreds of prophecies regarding Christ (Psalms 22, Micah 5:2, Isaiah 7, 9 and 53, Zechariah 11:12) that have been fulfilled. Man has not changed these events, all we did throghout history has translated the Bible into over 1/3 of the known languages in this world so that millions may know the truth regarding God and His Word. The consistency regarding the theme is a miracle in itself due to the fact that God's Holy Bible was written by over 40 authors (prophets, kings, shepherds, poets, fisherman, tax collector, historians, military officials, princes, scholars, common laborers, etc.)tax from different walks of life over a 1700 year period focused on the following: (1) It is God-centric, (2) It's theme is redemption, (3) It's hero is Jesus, (4) It's villian is Satan and (5) It's purpose is to glorify the Almighty God.

 

[Bishka]

focused on the following: (1) It is God-centric, (2) It's theme is redemption, (3) It's hero is Jesus, (4) It's villian is Satan and (5) It's purpose is to glorify the Almighty God.

So is the Book of Mormon, so what's your point?

 

[royol]

And yet you continue to post.

You know I only say these things to irritate.

And the book of Mormon makes perfect sense, if you are a Mormon.

 

[nutshell]

They could have been shown anything, and they genuinely thought they had been shown something wonderful, signed a piece of paper saying they had seen them and unwittingly started a whole new religion, if you believe in Jesus Christ why don't you just drop the Book of Mormon and get on with believing in Jesus Christ?
And while I agree that it's a faith-based belief system, why is it always the ludicrous that requires the most faith? the more ludicrous the belief the more faith is required.

That's the whole point of the Book of Mormon...it testifies of Christ, bringing us closer to him and strengthening our faith in him.

Also, what makes belief in the Book of Mormon any more ludicrous than belief in the Bible or the Quran? It's only ludicrous because you choose to make it so.

 

[Bishka]

You know I only say these things to irritate.

And the book of Mormon makes perfect sense, if you are a Mormon.

Not necessarily, I've known a number of people in my life say it makes sense to them, the only reason why they won't convert is Joseph Smith being a prophet. I've known plently of those types in my life.

 

[blueman]

So is the Book of Mormon, so what's your point?

Not even close to the uniqueness and authenticity of the Holy Bible, based on the attributes I mentioned in the previous post. The Book of Mormon was a 19th century wannabe that would never stand up to the Holy Bible.

 

[Bishka]

Not even close to the uniqueness and authenticity of the Holy Bible, based on the attributes I mentioned in the previous post. The Book of Mormon was a 19th century wannabe that would never stand up to the Holy Bible.

Excuse me?

You have never read the BOM, and from this ignorant statement you obviously don't know much.

BTW, the BOM was not 'written' in the 19th century, it was just translated then, get your facts right and stop coming down on it.

 

[blueman]

Excuse me?

You have never read the BOM, and from this ignorant statement you obviously don't know much.

BTW, the BOM was not 'written' in the 19th century, it was just translated then, get your facts right and stop coming down on it.

When was it written and by whom? And also, based on what I stated in the previous post regarding the Bible, how is the Book of Mormon comparable as it relates to the attributes referenced?

 

[Bishka]

When was it written and by whom? And also, based on what I stated in the previous post regarding the Bible, how is the Book of Mormon comparable as it relates to the attributes referenced?

It was written from about 600 BC to 400 AD by various prophets and leaders for the Nephites and Lamanites.

It was compiled near 400 AD by the prophet Mormon


And why should the BOM be comparable to the Bible on those points? What if kind of criteria is that? It's ridiculous. You should be able to compare the message. The Bible isn't perfect, and neither is the Book of Mormon, both are another testament of Jesus Christ.