What is odd about the Book of Mormon?

[DavyCrocket2003]

What makes you think I'm not open to this possibility? I'm completely open to it. In fact, I used to be a theist. But the evidence right now indicates there isn't actually a God. Now, are you equally open to the possiblity that there isn't?

What makes you think I'm not curious? I spend huge amounts of my life learning about religion, including the fascinating question of why so many people believe in it.

Did you notice how you assumed that, because I disagree with you, it's because I'm close-minded? That would be convenient for you. What if the opposite is true? I disagree with you because I'm open-minded?

I see. So you're an agnostic? Maybe you're so arrogant that you assume you can tell me how to go about my discovery process, having gone ahead of me? But maybe I did all that and more, and actually have spent much more time than you on the subject, know more than you, and don't really need advice from you? Or maybe it makes more sense that there isn't. Actually, you must not tell me what I must do. Shees, religionists are so freaking arrogant. Or you might think, "What a crock of first-class bologna!! An angel showed him where to dig for the plates, but then, what a coincidence, took them back! And, lo and behold, everything in the book that we can verify, without exception, turns out to be wrong. No DNA, no metal tools, no horses, no chariots, no Egyptian, no nothing. Or, on the contrary, you will not.
snip more annoying arrogant preaching on what I need to do and how I need to conduct myself.

Tell you what, before you start preaching at me how to discover and grow, let's get you a consistent belief system.

So, as I was saying, why aren't you Muslim?

Obviously, because you weren't raised by Muslims. So, is truth dependent on where you were raised?

I'm really sorry. I didn't mean to be arrogant. I was rhetorically stupid and started using "you" to mean anyone halfway through my post that was talking to you. But I feel that that is not really what offended you. I think it was my belief that if someone else followed the process I have described, they would arrive at the same conclusions as me. Well, assuming I were to continue to gain knowledge and truth and said person also did. Yes, I believe we would arrive at the same destination.

Yes, the fact that I was not raised Muslim has a lot to do with why I am not one. But why have I not become a Muslim? The religion of Islam is too narrow to encompass my religious beliefs. I would have to let go of things that I know to be true. It contains some truth. That is why I am still a Mormon. The church puts no limit on the amount of knowledge you can receive. Many others put limits to the amount of knowledge that can be received. I believe that as people increase in truth and knowledge, they will outgrow the boundaries of their religions. Perhaps the claim the "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the only true and living church upon the face of the earth" should be amended to read "is the only church on the face of the earth that you won't be forced to abandon as you outgrow it."

 

[Autodidact]

Regarding my last post. You will probably wonder why, if this is true, are there so many different and varying beliefs out there.

No, actually what I wonder is why you think you know more about this than the rest of us. Can you enlighten us as to the source of your special knowledge and insight? Thanks.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

You actually go out of your way to follow the brainwashing you received as a child?!? And you want to give me lessons in growth and discovery?

What I did was to go out of my way to set aside my brainwashing and figure out the truth. Which one do you think is more likely to lead to the truth, the one that depends on where you happened to be born, or the one that steps back and is open to any outcome?

Yes, I have questioned the things I have been taught as a child. There comes a time when you stop accepting at face value everything you are told by your parents. That caused me to really want to find out if what I was being taught was true. Most of what I was taught I have found to be true. That is why I have tried hard to incorporate those things. There are some things that I think were just their opinions and interpretations. I don't buy everything they believe. But all of the important things they taught me are true.

 

[Rogue Cardinal]

Nobody said Joseph Smith "copied" the plates. He translated them (although the word "transcription" would probably be more accurate). In the case of the 2.5% of the Book of Mormon in which Nephi quotes Isaiah, Joseph was aware of another English translation that was available and decided to use it. It's not a verbatim translation, although much of it is very similar. There are additions and deletions, and in the few instances where the King James translation has been found to contain errors or at least words which may have been translated incorrectly. When these were incorporated into the Book of Mormon, so were the errors. They are definitely too few to warrant ignoring the whole book, or even the roughly 13 pages (of out a total of 531) that are roughly equivalent to parts of Isaiah. If Joseph took some kind of a shortcut, that may not have been the best decision he might have made. It does not, however, indicate that he was out to pass off someone else's words as his own or as the words of another prophet (i.e. Nephi).

Not a ton of truth there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Mormon_and_the_King_James_Bible

There exist 478 verses in the Book of Mormon which are quoted in some form or other from the book of Isaiah. Of these verses, one Mormon scholar notes that 201 of them match the King James version of the quote and another 207 show variations. In addition, 58 quotes from Isaiah found in the Book of Mormon are paraphrased versions of those found in the King James Bible.

Other significant connections between the two books include Book of Mormon words and phrases that only appear in their KJV usage, perpetuation of Bible passages considered by some scholars to have been mistranslated in the King James Version, and the possible presence of English homophones.

Bold sections= emphasis mine.

I'm not talking about just Nephi. He sprinkled Isaiah through out the BOM. 478 verses to be exact from Isaiah ALONE. Not only that but he managed to translate words that he shouldn't have been able to translate into modern terms especially when he borrows words from FRENCH. How does a word like "adieu" make it into the BOM?

HE also borrows from other sources and puts them into Nephi also. Sources that are lights years apart in origin. BUt shall deal with this later.

No, it doesn't mean that at all. Your understanding of the value we place on the Bible is extremely inaccurate. FFH might go along with what you've just said, but I can assure you that the leadership of the Church (either now or in years past) would not. One LDS General Authority described the Bible as "foremost among the Standard Works of the Church," and his statement has been quoted by many others. Not too long ago, Jeffrey R. Holland, one of our Apostles spoke on the Bible at a semi-annual Conference of the Church. Here are a few comments from that talk:

Blah blah blah blah

That's a nice modern day approach....but let's go back in time to see what the elders of your church state about the Bible.

"I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 327).

SO it is clear to me that Smith feels the BIble is translated very poorly. Yet he borrows heavily from none other than the KJV 1611. Word for word from the KJV 1611 many times...errors and all. Isn't that somewhat contradictory that he woudl do such a thing?

Orsan Pratt himself says:

No one can tell whether even one verse of either the Old or New Testament conveys the ideas of the original author" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 28).

Obviosly the BIble is dubious at best? So much so that we can't tell what the original intent of the author was. I must say that as an Atheist...I agree a lot with Mr. Pratt on this and given the dubious way the BOM was written can apply such thought to in kind.

Mormon Apostle Bruce McConkie:

McConkie continues: The Bible of the Old World has come to us from the manuscripts of antiquity - manuscripts which passed through the hands of uninspired men who changed many parts to suit their own doctrinal ideas. Deletions were common, and, as it now stands, many plain and precious portions and many covenants of the Lord have been lost. As a consequence, those who rely upon it [the Bible] alone stumble and are confused... (The Ensign, December 1985, p 55).

I must admit that given the BOM I find this quote beyond ironic.

Joseph Smith again:
{quote]Joseph Smith claimed: "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was more correct than any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding its precepts, than by any other book" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.194). [/quote]More correct than any other book and yet....it's had more corrections than any translation I'm aware of.

Oliver Cowdery
David Whitmer
Martin Harris
Christian Whitmer
Jacob Whitmer
Peter Whitmer, Jun
John Whitmer
Hiram Page
Joseph Smith, Sen
Hyrum Smith
Samuel H. Smith

Joseph Smith is not "highly suspect when it comes to credential." You just don't like him or what he taught. There's a difference.

You claim these twelve saw the plates, but not all of their stories check out.

Martin Harris claims that he didn't actually "see" the golden plates. HE had a vision of them.

David Whitmer says he saw them in vision only.

Oliver Cowderly said of his "witnessing" that it was through teh gift fo "second sight".

And it's Joseph Smith, of all people, that is the writer of the revelation of the 3 witnesses. So SMith's story contradicts their stories. In the grand scheme of things there are other contraditions of the stories but this suffices as enough to blow the first 3 out of the water.

OF the 8 witnesses they are all related. So to me this appears to be a "keep it in the family" moment and thus highly suspicious. Martin Harris is the soul person to my knowledge that is not in the family in some form or fashion. I could be wrong though.

Martin HArris also says that hte peopel that signed off on as seeing the Golden PLates were hesitant at first to sign but were persuaded to do so. I guess the reason they didn't want to sign was because they didn't actually see anything. It was all a vision.

John Witmer claism the plates were shown to him by "Super natural power". IF the plates were ACTUALLY there why did we need super natural power to show him anything? WOuldn't they be right there? Oh that's right....he was having a "vision".

Many of those witnesses LEFT the church. SMith would go on to attack their character.

Thre are different accounts of the weight of the plates by the witnesses that range from 40-60 lbs....if we go by the description given....the actual weight would be much more like 140 pounds.

You're going to have to be more specific than that. Tons of quotes? How about, from those tons of quotes, you provide a half a dozen or so?

This is from the book of Alma alone....I'll just refer you to this link as adequate borrowing from all over the bible and rehashing it into one story.

Plagiarism in Alma

You haven't even read the Book of Mormon. You through out statements like "He stole lines from all over the Bible" and provide no evidence to support what you say. The Isaiah portions account for roughly 1/40 of the total Book of Mormon, and is found near the beginning of the book. There are not lines stolen from all over the Bible reassembled in the Book of Mormon. Now it's your turn to come up with some proof.

Dealt with above.....learn it love it live it.

 

[silvermoon383]

Apparently you don't realize just how translation works. Allow me to detail the system.

Each language is unique. It has its own grammar rules and words. Many times a word in one language has a direct equivalent to a word in another language (rouge=red for example.) When translating, I have no other option for rouge, I must translate it as red. Oftentimes there are words that don't translate exactly, for various reasons. In English we only have 1 word for snow. One of the native American tribes up in Northern Canada/Alaska has multiple words for snow. Each one of those are unique, but English only has the 1 word, so they all get translated as snow. In other cases there are multiple translations for a word. Adieu is one of them.

We English speakers translate adieu as a simple goodbye. However, adieu is actually much more than that. It's a goodbye that also imparts a blessing. When translating into English that presents a problem since we don't have a form of goodbye that includes a blessing, so when adieu is translated that part is lost. Now here's an interesting tidbit: Hebrew DOES have a word for goodbye that also imparts a blessing: Lehitra 'ot.

I should point out now that none of the words you see in any copy of the Book of Mormon were on the golden plates. They were written in Reformed Egyptian, a unique language. Joseph had to take the meanings of the words that he was seeing and put them into English, but like said, things don't always have a direct translation. In this particular word's case Adieu fit the Reformed Egyptian/Hebrew/Nephite word better than English's goodbye.

In short, no translation is exact. Some things get changed, lost in translation. It's a fact of life, one we have to deal with.

 

[Humanistheart]

I should point out now that none of the words you see in any copy of the Book of Mormon were on the golden plates. They were written in Reformed Egyptian, a unique language. .

According to the only man outside the the mormon community to ever see a copy of the 'untranslated' plate, said it was a combination of several languages, not this reform egyptian. This is merely a false claim by people gullible enough to believe smith was a prophet. It's sad really.

 

[Katzpur]

Not a ton of truth there.

Every word I wrote is true, RC. I am not a liar. You tell me specifically what it was that I said that you believe to be a lie and then explain why.

I'm not talking about just Nephi. He sprinkled Isaiah through out the BOM. 478 verses to be exact from Isaiah ALONE.

Tell me where.

Not only that but he managed to translate words that he shouldn't have been able to translate into modern terms especially when he borrows words from FRENCH. How does a word like "adieu" make it into the BOM?

Simple. The word "adieu," although French, was commonly used in America during Joseph Smith's time to express a fond goodbye. He chose the word because he thought it fit. (That's a totally stupid question, by the way. The original manuscript was not written in French, so the word "adieu" was not found in it. Let's say I was translating something from any other language into English. If, in the original text, a person was described as having sneezed and someone he was with responded by saying something that might be translated as "Bless you!" I may translate it that way, or I may instead translate it as "Gesundheit!" since my family always used the German word when someone sneezed. Joseph's use of the word "adieu" is of no consequence whatsoever. You are using some way, way desperate arguments (and this one is one of the lamest).

That's a nice modern day approach....but let's go back in time to see what the elders of your church state about the Bible.

There are obviously errors in the Bible, RC. You're an atheist, so you don't believe the Bible at all. Consequently, it's kind of pointless for you and me to be arguing over whether it's a perfect record or not. Any reuputable scholar of the Bible will admit that they Bible contains errors in both transcription and translation. If you want to argue that it's God's word, down to the last letter, be my guest. Otherwise, why don't you just concede that Joseph Smith had a valid point when he said, "I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors." That is our opinion of the Bible today. To the extent that it was transcribed and translated correctly, we believe it. What possible approach to using the Bible can you think of that would be more logical?

SO it is clear to me that Smith feels the BIble is translated very poorly. Yet he borrows heavily from none other than the KJV 1611. Word for word from the KJV 1611 many times...errors and all. Isn't that somewhat contradictory that he woudl do such a thing?

No it isn't, and I've already explained why. I'm not going to explain it a second time.

You claim these twelve saw the plates, but not all of their stories check out.

Every one of their stories checks out.

Martin Harris claims that he didn't actually "see" the golden plates. HE had a vision of them.

That is not the case. Martin Harris never denied having seen the golden plates. He repeated the story many, many times during the last years of his life, during which time he was bedridden. Shortly before his death, he wrote a letter to a Mrs. Hannah Emerson, in which he stated one last time, "...concerning the plates, I do say that the angel did show to me the plates containing the Book of Mormon."

David Whitmer says he saw them in vision only.[/quote]In 1881, John Murphy, a Protestant minister, published a reconstructed conversation between him and David Whtimer, in which he made the accusation you are now describing. Two months later, David Whitmer published a denial of what Murphy had accused him of saying and insisted that his early printed testimony was completely accuate and that he had actually seen the plates.

Oliver Cowderly said of his "witnessing" that it was through teh gift fo "second sight".

You're going to have to give me a more complete quote than that. That could have had to do with any one of a number of different events.

And it's Joseph Smith, of all people, that is the writer of the revelation of the 3 witnesses.

Where did you come up with that?

OF the 8 witnesses they are all related. So to me this appears to be a "keep it in the family" moment and thus highly suspicious. Martin Harris is the soul person to my knowledge that is not in the family in some form or fashion. I could be wrong though.

It is "highly suspicious" to you for no logical reason. You do not believe these men were telling the truth, so you fall back on the fact that they all came from three families (which, incidentally, doesn't mean that they are all related, unless your family, my family and Barack Obama's family are all related). There were a total of eleven witnesses from five different families who all testified that they either saw the plates or saw the plates and an angel. If eleven people from five different families testified in court that they were eyewitnesses to an event, I think you'd find their testimonies to be sufficient.

Martin HArris also says that hte peopel that signed off on as seeing the Golden PLates were hesitant at first to sign but were persuaded to do so. I guess the reason they didn't want to sign was because they didn't actually see anything. It was all a vision.

I need a quote and a source.

John Witmer claism the plates were shown to him by "Super natural power". IF the plates were ACTUALLY there why did we need super natural power to show him anything? WOuldn't they be right there? Oh that's right....he was having a "vision".

John Whitmer was the editor of a newspaper in Ohio for a period of time. In his final editorial prior to moving back to Missouri, he wrote: "I desire to testify to all that will come to the knowledge of this address, that I have most assuredly seen the plates from whence the Book of Mormon is translated, and that I have handled these plates..."

Many of those witnesses LEFT the church. SMith would go on to attack their character.

Many of them did. Of those who did, many later returned to the Church. What is significant is that even during the period of time when they had very negative feelings towards Joseph Smith, they positively refused to deny having seen the plates. If they had made up the story in the first place, it would certainly have been logical for them to come up with some kind of an excuse as to why they had initially signed the statements that appear in the front of the Book of Mormon. The fact is that, regardless of their personal issues with Joseph Smith, they knew what they'd seen and had no desire to stoop to dishonesty in denying their original statement.

Thre are different accounts of the weight of the plates by the witnesses that range from 40-60 lbs....if we go by the description given....the actual weight would be much more like 140 pounds.

That's interesting. Would you mind telling me how you came up with that number (140 pounds)?

When are you going to figure out, RC, that you are simply rehashing criticisms that have been addressed by the Church for well over one hundred years? You seriously no nothing about Mormonism that you have not found on one anti-Mormon website or another. Isn't that the truth now? Is this just a game to you or what? I would think that you'd sooner or later get tired of posting nonsense that I could refute in my sleep. At least come up with one single argument that hasn't been refuted a hundred times. Can't you be the slightest bit original?

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to respond to my last post in our One-on-One.

 

[DadBurnett]

Such arguments have always interested me ... before I was LDS, while I was LDS and now that i am not LDS. Interesting, yes, but I see little profit in them. One side uses one solitary Joseph Smith statememnt of the Bible and its errors without putting it in the context of the time, when the primary Bible was the KJV and it certainly has its problems clearly displayed by the necessity of so may translations that followed. I must also echo some of the statements made regardinbg the difficulties of translation; I often had to translate documents and it was not unusal to encounter a word which had no direct counterpart in another language and one had to rely on one's personal perception of the context and intent in which the word seemed to be used.
The statement about the BoM being smore correct than ajny translation of the Biblical texts is, I think, relevant, in that the BoM had not undergone so many different retranslations, each with a particular spin, emphasis or bias....

 

[cardero]

Having experience in transcribing GOD's word, the translation part is an odd aspect for me. Why would a Supreme Being rely on a single human to translate his word from another language uncommon to the messenger? Why would God risk the error and embellishments of human nature by making it harder to transcribe the message? Wasn’t the reason why God created a reformation movement to correct past misunderstandings in the first place? Why make it harder for Joseph Smith by having him dig up plates, carry them, translate them and then return them?

 

[Humanistheart]

Having experience in transcribing GOD”s word, the translation part is an odd aspect for me. Why would a Supreme Being rely on a human to translate his word from another language uncommon to the messenger? Why would God risk the error and embellishments of human nature by making it harder to transcribe the message? Wasn’t the reason why God created a reformation movement to correct past misunderstandings in the first place? Why make it harder for Joseph Smith by having him dig up plates, carry them, translate them and then return them?

Good questions. Seems rather pointless doesn't it?

 

[Rogue Cardinal]

Apparently you don't realize just how translation works. Allow me to detail the system.

Each language is unique. It has its own grammar rules and words. Many times a word in one language has a direct equivalent to a word in another language (rouge=red for example.) When translating, I have no other option for rouge, I must translate it as red. Oftentimes there are words that don't translate exactly, for various reasons. In English we only have 1 word for snow. One of the native American tribes up in Northern Canada/Alaska has multiple words for snow. Each one of those are unique, but English only has the 1 word, so they all get translated as snow. In other cases there are multiple translations for a word. Adieu is one of them.

We English speakers translate adieu as a simple goodbye. However, adieu is actually much more than that. It's a goodbye that also imparts a blessing. When translating into English that presents a problem since we don't have a form of goodbye that includes a blessing, so when adieu is translated that part is lost. Now here's an interesting tidbit: Hebrew DOES have a word for goodbye that also imparts a blessing: Lehitra 'ot.

I should point out now that none of the words you see in any copy of the Book of Mormon were on the golden plates. They were written in Reformed Egyptian, a unique language. Joseph had to take the meanings of the words that he was seeing and put them into English, but like said, things don't always have a direct translation. In this particular word's case Adieu fit the Reformed Egyptian/Hebrew/Nephite word better than English's goodbye.

In short, no translation is exact. Some things get changed, lost in translation. It's a fact of life, one we have to deal with.

So at this point what I think you need to do is support your assertion that Adieu is the best word that could have been used.

I English he could have simply put "I commend you to God". Very odd that he woudl pick Adieu. It's understandable that a translater would take certain liberties. It's also understandable that the writer would keep the message in the tongue of his audience. To insert words outside of the native tngue of the audience only adds difficulty to the text.

 

[Rogue Cardinal]

Every word I wrote is true, RC. I am not a liar. You tell me specifically what it was that I said that you believe to be a lie and then explain why.

Tell me where.

Already been answered......

Simple. The word "adieu," although French, was commonly used in America during Joseph Smith's time to express a fond goodbye. He chose the word because he thought it fit. (That's a totally stupid question, by the way. The original manuscript was not written in French, so the word "adieu" was not found in it. Let's say I was translating something from any other language into English. If, in the original text, a person was described as having sneezed and someone he was with responded by saying something that might be translated as "Bless you!" I may translate it that way, or I may instead translate it as "Gesundheit!" since my family always used the German word when someone sneezed. Joseph's use of the word "adieu" is of no consequence whatsoever. You are using some way, way desperate arguments (and this one is one of the lamest).

Weak.....beyond weak. You translate into the language of your audience. You do not translate into multiple languages.

I would prefer if you rose above petty name calling. I have refused thus far to speak to how stupid I may think your answers are...instead I just retort your claims no matter how weak I think they may be. I'd have to have to report you for such unpleasantries.

I am fluent in Japanese. Were it I that were translating the BOM...would it have been prudent to substitute Japanese words in? OF course not. A translator cannot assume that the reader is fluent in other languages.

It is plain to see that in your case, you se fit to blindly allow such liberties if only to justify your position that the BOM is valid.

There are obviously errors in the Bible, RC. You're an atheist, so you don't believe the Bible at all. Consequently, it's kind of pointless for you and me to be arguing over whether it's a perfect record or not.

I have never said the Bible is perfect. I have always maintained that the Bible IS full of errors, contradicitons, and shoddy work.

What is really pointless is the double talk you use when discussing the bible. You are quick to point out it error and yet quick to point out its greatness in accuracy. Yet what you fail time and time again to do is support how you KNOW X in the bible is translated correctly or not. You cherry pick what you want to believe.

Any reuputable scholar of the Bible will admit that they Bible contains errors in both transcription and translation. If you want to argue that it's God's word, down to the last letter, be my guest. Otherwise, why don't you just concede that Joseph Smith had a valid point when he said, "I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors."

There is nothing to concede. I just find it interesting that a guy that would so quickly bash all other religions and the text which is at the heart of those religoins borrows so liberally from it. He is careful to use exact quotes and paraphrases liberally so much that I doubt we could ever get an accurate count of how much of hte bible he indeed ripped off.

He says he had special insight to his translations....so does every other schmuck that has done the same thing. So you need to support how his version, that is based on THEIR corrupt version, his words, is any better.

That is our opinion of the Bible today. To the extent that it was transcribed and translated correctly, we believe it. What possible approach to using the Bible can you think of that would be more logical?

Right...and yet you have leaders in the church that say it is impossible to figure out what is correct at all. More double talk from you on this subject. How do you KNOW what was accurate when you admit that you CANNOT know what is accurate?

Every one of their stories checks out.

No everyone of their stories has contradiction.

That is not the case. Martin Harris never denied having seen the golden plates. He repeated the story many, many times during the last years of his life, during which time he was bedridden. Shortly before his death, he wrote a letter to a Mrs. Hannah Emerson, in which he stated one last time, "...concerning the plates, I do say that the angel did show to me the plates containing the Book of Mormon."

SEEING the gold plates....for real....versus seeing them in a vision is two different things. The angel showed them to him in a VISION.

In 1881, John Murphy, a Protestant minister, published a reconstructed conversation between him and David Whtimer, in which he made the accusation you are now describing. Two months later, David Whitmer published a denial of what Murphy had accused him of saying and insisted that his early printed testimony was completely accuate and that he had actually seen the plates.

supply........

It is "highly suspicious" to you for no logical reason. You do not believe these men were telling the truth, so you fall back on the fact that they all came from three families (which, incidentally, doesn't mean that they are all related, unless your family, my family and Barack Obama's family are all related). There were a total of eleven witnesses from five different families who all testified that they either saw the plates or saw the plates and an angel. If eleven people from five different families testified in court that they were eyewitnesses to an event, I think you'd find their testimonies to be sufficient.

Are you telling me that I know more about these families than you do? They are RELATED. IT doesn't matter that the last names are different. All the witnesses except Harris are family members!

Their testimonies change over time.

John Whitmer was the editor of a newspaper in Ohio for a period of time. In his final editorial prior to moving back to Missouri, he wrote: "I desire to testify to all that will come to the knowledge of this address, that I have most assuredly seen the plates from whence the Book of Mormon is translated, and that I have handled these plates..."

Oh .....in his FINAL editorial.....so there were others and in those others he told something different?

It is also of note that the ones handling the plates often handled the "plates" sight unseen as they were under a cloth. So handled and seen cannot be used in the same sentence. Thus we have "soething covered" that was handled....and something else seen in vision only.

Many of them did. Of those who did, many later returned to the Church. What is significant is that even during the period of time when they had very negative feelings towards Joseph Smith, they positively refused to deny having seen the plates. If they had made up the story in the first place, it would certainly have been logical for them to come up with some kind of an excuse as to why they had initially signed the statements that appear in the front of the Book of Mormon. The fact is that, regardless of their personal issues with Joseph Smith, they knew what they'd seen and had no desire to stoop to dishonesty in denying their original statement.

It's also as valid to save face and never admit they lied.

That's interesting. Would you mind telling me how you came up with that number (140 pounds)?

There are specific dimensions given for the plates. There are facsimiles made by the church. There is a weight of gold. It's simple math really. Which by the way refutes your witnesses claims. Now the one thing we assume is the the plates are PURE gold....as in 24 karat. IF it was a lesser gold.....hen it might have weighed even more!

When are you going to figure out, RC, that you are simply rehashing criticisms that have been addressed by the Church for well over one hundred years? You seriously no nothing about Mormonism that you have not found on one anti-Mormon website or another. Isn't that the truth now? Is this just a game to you or what? I would think that you'd sooner or later get tired of posting nonsense that I could refute in my sleep. At least come up with one single argument that hasn't been refuted a hundred times. Can't you be the slightest bit original?

When are you goign to admit that in the face of the truth th eMormon church is very adept at side stepping the issues. It's of no surprise that a religion based on a fabrication is so amazingly awesome at fabricting story after story and ignoring the facts to prop up their own religion.

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to respond to my last post in our One-on-One.

I will get to I have had some business come up recently that has not allowed me to get to it yet.

 

[silvermoon383]

Check a history book. Adieu was in the common vernacular of the 1800's. It was a time period where European thought and influences dominated over everything. It's more than appropriate for people to use the French word "adieu". Just as much as the German "gesundheit", Afrikaans "apartheid", and Arabic "algebra" are commonly used today.

Go read a book about the English language. A large amount of our words are taken directly from other languages.

 

[Autodidact]

I'm really sorry. I didn't mean to be arrogant. I was rhetorically stupid and started using "you" to mean anyone halfway through my post that was talking to you. But I feel that that is not really what offended you. I think it was my belief that if someone else followed the process I have described, they would arrive at the same conclusions as me. Well, assuming I were to continue to gain knowledge and truth and said person also did. Yes, I believe we would arrive at the same destination.

I see. Not only do you think you're an authority on how to achieve spiritual truth, but you're also able to read my mind. I assure you, you don't have to wonder what I mean; I say it directly--haven't you noticed? What offended me was the hilarious idea that someone who subscribes to one of the silliest religions on earth, for the sole reason that he has never questioned the brainwashing he received as a child, and whose views contradict each other, is in a position to tell me how I should go about my own spiritual quest. The idea that someone starting from scratch, exploring the world's belief systems objectively, would end up Mormon, is risible. Since we know that your beliefs are a result of childhood indoctrination, pardon me if I don't give them much weight.

Yes, the fact that I was not raised Muslim has a lot to do with why I am not one. But why have I not become a Muslim? The religion of Islam is too narrow to encompass my religious beliefs.

No, Davy, you know that's not true. The reason you're not Muslim is that you weren't born into a Muslim family. Had you been born into a Muslim family, in a Muslim country, you would be a Muslim.

I would have to let go of things that I know to be true.

And how do you know those things to be true?

It contains some truth. That is why I am still a Mormon.

No, you've told us why you're still a Mormon. It's because you've worked hard to maintain your childhood indoctrination. And I'm sure it takes work, because so much of it directly conflicts with readily available evidence.

The church puts no limit on the amount of knowledge you can receive. Many others put limits to the amount of knowledge that can be received. I believe that as people increase in truth and knowledge, they will outgrow the boundaries of their religions. Perhaps the claim the "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the only true and living church upon the face of the earth" should be amended to read "is the only church on the face of the earth that you won't be forced to abandon as you outgrow it."

Or even better, "teaches a lot of things that directly conflict with reality." That would be more accurate.

Not only were you strongly indoctrinated with your religious beliefs when you were far too young to question them, by people you trusted to teach you everything, but you were indoctrinated against questioning them. You were taught (were you not?) that faith in Jesus, and following LDS religion, is how to guarantee a wonderful afterlife, and that you should safeguard that faith and keep it strong, even in the face of conflicting evidence, or risk your eternal afterlife.

The Muslim who was raised with a set of beliefs that you disagree with and do not follow, was indoctrinated in the same way, and told the same thing, about his beliefs.

Had you received that indoctrination, you would be just as convinced today that Islam is the only true path to God, that Muhammed is the prophet of Allah, that Jesus is not God, and so forth. You would be just as convinced, and believe equally strongly and stake your life on it, that all of these things are true. Indeed, we hear every day of devout Muslims who actually gave their lives based on these beliefs. (If you don't believe me, check out some of the threads on the quran, and substitute "Book of Mormon" for quran.

So, is following your childhood inodctrination the best way to find the truth?

Or does it make more sense to use evidence and logic?

Because if your religion was true, wouldn't it stand up to this test?

 

[Autodidact]

Yes, I have questioned the things I have been taught as a child.

Contradict yourself much? Have you worked hard to maintain your childhood beliefs, or have you questioned them? These are opposite, so both cannot be true.

There comes a time when you stop accepting at face value everything you are told by your parents. That caused me to really want to find out if what I was being taught was true. Most of what I was taught I have found to be true.

How? By what process?

That is why I have tried hard to incorporate those things. There are some things that I think were just their opinions and interpretations. I don't buy everything they believe. But all of the important things they taught me are true.

For example, how did you go about testing whether there is such a language as "Reformed Egyptian?" How do you know what is waiting for us after we die? How do you know whether Jesus is God or not? How did you go about determining whether Joseph Smith is a fraud or not? Did you read the scientific research to figure out whether the story in the BoM seems to conform to the evidence? Please share how you came to this conclusion.

 

[Katzpur]

RC, I've decided not to respond to your posts anymore. It's counter-productive and I'm very busy. I have my 96-year old mother living with me and she is not well. I frequent RF for enjoyment and for the challenge of a good debate, but conversations like the one I'm having with you just bring me down. That's just something I don't need right now.

 

[madhatter85]

RC, I've decided not to respond to your posts anymore. It's counter-productive and I'm very busy. I have my 96-year old mother living with me and she is not well. I frequent RF for enjoyment and for the challenge of a good debate, but conversations like the one I'm having with you just bring me down. That's just something I don't need right now.

I don't even have any elderly to care for and I know what you are talking about. They aren't here to learn or ask real questions. Instead they just spew out hateful accusations towards things they clearly ignorant of. They talk in circles and have already made up their minds.They are just trying to bring everyone down with them.

 

[Rogue Cardinal]

They aren't here to learn or ask real questions.

Sure they are. The difference is when we ask questions that should be an issue, such as failed prophesy.....you cut and run. Why would you do this? We are talking about your religion. In other religions....one failed prophesy means the person that was doing the prophesing.....is a false one. Yet Smith has several and this FACT doesn't seem to bother you.

You could easily say that someone from antoher religion was a false prophet and on the same grounds I can expose your guy as a false prophet you could do the same to other religoins. Yet when someone does it to your religion....you have a cow.

Why?

Instead they just spew out hateful accusations towards things they clearly ignorant of.

Is it hateful to call a false prophet a false prophet? Or is it just calling a spade a spade?

I don't hate Joseph Smith at all. There is nothing for ME to hate about him. I just think he is a phony. His own work bears this out.

They talk in circles and have already made up their minds.They are just trying to bring everyone down with them.

You guys....not all of you....but some of you use an incredible amount of double talk. Pot meet Kettle. You have your mind already made up....so much so that you can't allow yourself to see simple plain truths.

 

[LittleNipper]

You are so cute when you're ignorant
Number of times the word Jesus appears in the Book of Mormon: 64
Number of times the word Christ appears in the Book of Mormon: 99
Number of times the word Jesus appears in the Bible: 207
Number of times the word Christ appears in the Bible: 164
Number of Words in the Book of Mormon: ~30,000
Number of Words in the Bible: ~780,000

The Bible says the words Jesus or Christ one time for every ~2102 words
The Book of Mormon says the words Jesus or Christ one time for every ~184 words

This does not even include any other references to the Savior either.
Which Book is MORE about Jesus Christ now?

But does the book of Mormon portray CHRIST without error and as HE actually is? Does the book of Mormon seem to throw a shadow on what the Bible says? Just because People Magazine uses the name of JESUS CHRIST, doesn't make that magazine either truthful or scripture.

 

[Rogue Cardinal]

But does the book of Mormon portray CHRIST without error and as HE actually is? Does the book of Mormon seem to throw a shadow on what the Bible says? Just because People Magazine uses the name of JESUS CHRIST, doesn't make that magazine either truthful or scripture.

You know what is really ignorant about his comments? His deducation on the amount of times the word Jesus or or Christ appears in the bible....and then he goes and includes the Old Testament in there to pad his stats. That's ignorant.:foot: