FAQs About Mormonism - Discussion

[Kiritsu]

Darkslider

Laniston

I went ahead and read a bunch more of that website. It's got a lot of holes, and fills them with opinions. The part on the first vision is good. First of all, that wasn't the one and only vision Joseph Smith had. ((we'll say claimed to have had for your sakes)). He only saw God and Jesus together once, and in the grove of trees. The quote mentioning by the ministering of angels, is that a human body cannot withstand the glory of God and live, so his body would have had to be changed to be in their presence. Thus, angels were required. The holy angel is a common referrence in those days to Christ.

Other angels did visit Joseph, and they would repeat the same things that Christ said to Joseph over and over. Not only that, but many of those quotes sound quite different if you read everything before and after them, also filling in the numerous "..." that are there. Furthermore, the Journals aren't even texts that the Church uses to obtain doctrinal information. They also aren't published by the LDS church. The website I found that has them all on there have multiple spelling errors and odd glitches in font. Since copies of the book are reportedly scarce due to the high cost of them, you can't even confirm that they are accurately copied. With this medium, you can change anything you want to make anyone sound like anything, and then quote it. Even if it is copied properly((the referred quotes are at the least )), it still doesn't offer evidence as it doesn't use the entire section, just bits and pieces glued together from a few of the MANY talks those people gave.


I see nothing on that website that can conclusively prove any of it's theories.

Really? You know, I am a bit sceptical of anything of this nature, and I found to be as close to correct, as to not warrant second thought.

Let's pick your last post apart bit by bit.

Laniston

I went ahead and read a bunch more of that website. It's got a lot of holes, and fills them with opinions.

What opinions? Did you miss the site? Were you blinded by your inability to read English? Those are the only reason I can see that you would say something like this after actually reading the site.

Laniston

The part on the first vision is good. First of all, that wasn't the one and only vision Joseph Smith had. ((we'll say claimed to have had for your sakes)). He only saw God and Jesus together once, and in the grove of trees. The quote mentioning by the ministering of angels, is that a human body cannot withstand the glory of God and live, so his body would have had to be changed to be in their presence. Thus, angels were required. The holy angel is a common referrence in those days to Christ.

Again, I have to ask. . . . Did you miss the site? The point wasn't that angels were there, the point was that the story changed every time he told it. The point was that his family was told one thing, the general members where told another, and the patsy little vision that is now held so holy? It is a completely different "vision" than Joseph claimed to have had.

Laniston

Other angels did visit Joseph, and they would repeat the same things that Christ said to Joseph over and over.

The point is that he didn't claim to see Jesus. Not for many years. So, how does this pertain to the subject at hand?

Laniston

Not only that, but many of those quotes sound quite different if you read everything before and after them, also filling in the numerous "..." that are there. Furthermore, the Journals aren't even texts that the Church uses to obtain doctrinal information. They also aren't published by the LDS church. The website I found that has them all on there have multiple spelling errors and odd glitches in font. Since copies of the book are reportedly scarce due to the high cost of them, you can't even confirm that they are accurately copied. With this medium, you can change anything you want to make anyone sound like anything, and then quote it. Even if it is copied properly((the referred quotes are at the least )), it still doesn't offer evidence as it doesn't use the entire section, just bits and pieces glued together from a few of the MANY talks those people gave.

Yes, let's just ignore the fact that those Journals became the D&C. Let's just ignore the fact that the Church holds these journals up as doctrine. Yup, ignore those facts, and you are right on the money.

Laniston

I see nothing on that website that can conclusively prove any of it's theories.

Besides the math? Besides the Church coming out and saying it? Besides the scientific proof presented by mormon scientists? How much more proof do you need? I ran his numbers on the "Population of the People" Do you know that there is only a 0.0018% chance that any of his numbers are wrong? I ran them myself, and I found nothing to contradict them.

This wasn't some disgruntled, excommunicated member of the LDS faith who is going off because he is a sinner. This is a member who was in a position of Leadership, who did the research on his own, and came to the conclusion that "Based off of the facts" the church was wrong.

Darkslider, it is you who is missing the point. You can't just point a LDS to a site and expect them to revolutionize their whole belief system because of a few discrepencies which to them may or may not be true. If it were that simple, the Church would not have nearly so many members. Forget any ideas of getting [most] Mormons to question. It isn't going to happen. People will believe what they WANT to believe, whether it's fully true or not, if it makes them happy, if it gives them comfort. Keep doing what you're doing. I stick with Mormonism just because I love it... it fascinates me. Just forget any notions of making anyone "get it". Forget trying to win them and you'll be alot happier. I'm a good example as I nearly wrecked my college degree because I cared too much for this one LDS girl and was willing to do anything to get her to trust me and listen. I had to force myself to stop caring in order to feel happy again. It was hard. I had never been so depressed. I no longer have that angst as I have put an emotional distance between the LDS and myself and stopped caring, and I'm much better for it. Now it's just a continuing interest and fascination.

[Kiritsu]

I once held an email conversation with a High Priest of the LDS in Missouri, concerning the Utah Mormons. I wish I still had those crying stupid computer.

[TheTyro]

Woohoo! I finally found a Latter Day Saint thread on Gaia.

I'm Mormon! biggrin

[TheTyro]

Darn, well, I'll save this thread and visit back every now and then. blaugh

[The_NinjaGod]

Laniston

Takai_desu_yo

Laniston

um...that's slander right there. it's wrong, and you shouldn't have posted it.

It's only slander if it's a Lie. And you can't prove he was a good person, without using Church Documents. You would have a better chance proving WWII never happened...

As for Evidence that he was a Liar, allow me to point you towards a well respected Website, ran by a former Leader of the LDS church, and still Upstanding Christian.

For one, there are no former leaders of the LDS church alive today. so your claim that this website is run by one is an obvious fallacy. The section you also link to, is making Joseph Smith a liar how? From what I can gather, he was given plates, and thought they were authentic and wanted to translate them. So, he's human and not all-knowing all-seeing. That's not what a prophet is. In any case, in no point does it say the plates were translated INCORRECTLY, just that they were later revealed to be made by the men who wanted to trick Joseph Smith.

In fact, this is evidence FOR Joseph Smith, as since they were translated, and it doesn't say incorrectly so we must think they were done correctly, then they were translated by a man with a fourth grade education, who couldn't possibly know reformed egyptian (the language the gold plates of the book of mormon, and these forged plates were written in). Isn't that funny?

As for the scroll thing, Read this. http://www.bibleman.net/Joseph_Smith_Papyri.htm

And what makes you think the only documents I read are church ones? What makes you think that only the Church feels Joseph Smith was a good person?

god do you realize how idoitic that sounds, if the plates were forgeries. And it was written by someone who did not know egyptian, then it would obviously be garbldygook. It would be like a three year old using the alphabet to write. It certianly wouldn't be translated into anything that made sense, or had a centralizied concept as the translation conveyes.

[Kiritsu]

TheTyro

Darn, well, I'll save this thread and visit back every now and then. blaugh

Hey, welcome Tyro!

[Kiritsu]

woo go Ninjagod. I saw the same thing. wink



The following excerpt is from the book Early Mormonism and the Magic World View by Michael Quinn, who was regarded in his time by several as "one of the best historians in the Mormon Church":

"Likewise, early Mormonism was filled with religious and intelligent believers who perceived reality from a magic view and often practiced various kinds of folk magic. This included founding prophet Joseph Smith, his father and patriarch Joseph Sr., his mother Lucy Mack Smith, all Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon, most (if not all) of the Eight Witnesses, half the first Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Kirtland's first elder's quorum president Alva(h) Be(a)man, general Relief Society counselor Elizabeth Smith Whitney, Council of Fifty member Orrin Porter Rockwell, and the entire First Presidency as reconstituted in December 1847." ... "Evidences of interrelationship between early Mormonism and the magic world view are diverse. These include the possession of magic implements, and the use of these objects in ways that were consistent with their traditional occult functions. Possession was affirmed by members of the Smith family, and their use was reported by both Mormon and non-Mormon sources. Official publications repeatedly contained public endorsement by early LDS leaders of folk magic practices. The above sources provide correlation of Joseph Smith's religious activites as a young man with some of the ritual requirements of magic. Moreover, content analysis shows parallels in certain of Joseph Smith's teachings, translations, and revelations as a mature church founder with esoteric, occult, and magic traditions extending to the ancient world." (Quinn, "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View", 1998, Signature Books, SLC).

[Se Ga Takai]

Laniston

Takai_desu_yo

Laniston

um...that's slander right there. it's wrong, and you shouldn't have posted it.

It's only slander if it's a Lie. And you can't prove he was a good person, without using Church Documents. You would have a better chance proving WWII never happened...

As for Evidence that he was a Liar, allow me to point you towards a well respected Website, ran by a former Leader of the LDS church, and still Upstanding Christian.

For one, there are no former leaders of the LDS church alive today. so your claim that this website is run by one is an obvious fallacy.

Are you telling me that the Mormon Church, as it stands, has absolutely NOBODY leading it at all? What the Hell is Gordon B. Hinckley, then? Your Bishops? Simple Stupid FigureHeads? talk about being led astray...

Laniston

The section you also link to, is making Joseph Smith a liar how? From what I can gather, he was given plates, and thought they were authentic and wanted to translate them. So, he's human and not all-knowing all-seeing.

he Claims to be. He claimed that they were in fact great Wisdom, and You got the Pearl of Great Price from false Plates.

Laniston

That's not what a prophet is.

Then please, tell us what a Prophet is. Might want to tell the rest of your Brethren while you're at it.

Laniston

In any case, in no point does it say the plates were translated INCORRECTLY, just that they were later revealed to be made by the men who wanted to trick Joseph Smith.

They found the Damn Plates. They took them in to have them Translated. Guess what they said? Nothing. It was a Farce. GET IT THROUGH YOUR SKULL.

Laniston

In fact, this is evidence FOR Joseph Smith, as since they were translated, and it doesn't say incorrectly so we must think they were done correctly, then they were translated by a man with a fourth grade education, who couldn't possibly know reformed egyptian (the language the gold plates of the book of mormon, and these forged plates were written in). Isn't that funny?

Oh, It's ******** Hilarious. I'm laughing my a** off. The fact that you are such an Idiot is actually quite humurous to me. The reason it never states that they were translated incorrectly is because anyone with any sense of reason would find it obvious that it was.

Laniston

As for the scroll thing, Read this. http://www.bibleman.net/Joseph_Smith_Papyri.htm

And what makes you think the only documents I read are church ones? What makes you think that only the Church feels Joseph Smith was a good person?

Simple. I have found no Praise for the man outside of Church Documents. Any non-Mormon would either not have any feelings toward him whatsoever, or hate him. Simple as that.

[AutumnFalls89]

evilweevil04

I have a couple questions ... I've heard/learned that Mormons believe that after someone dies, they can still be baptized into the Mormon church. If this isn't true, then disregard the next part of this post.

As far as I know (again, this might not be true.) Mormons believe anyone who isn't Mormon goes to Hell. Does this mean that if a non-Mormon dies and goes to Hell, there's a chance that out of nowhere, they'll be lifted out of Hell and plopped into Heaven, because one of their ancestors or somethign had them baptized?

Well. I'm not sure if anyone answered this or not but..........

Yes, after someone dies they still can be baptised. It's called baptism for the dead. In other words, people here on earth get baptised "for and in behalf of" people who've died. When you (i'll say you to be generic i guess) have some be baptised for you on earth. You will then have the choice, while your in heaven to be baptised. (does that make sence?) There are missionaries in heaven who teach non Lds people the gospel as well.

And no people who aren't mormon don't go to hell. That would be like damning them for not being mormon. Many don't have the chance to leran the gospel. If all who weren't mormon went to hell then a stillborn baby would go to hell as well. No, only those who have commited the unpardinable (sp?) sin etc go too hell. (the unpardinable sin is to know god, truly know with all your heart that he's real, and then deny him)

i'm sorry i'm not explaining well i'm really tired.

[Kiritsu]

Dragonwarrior_Keltyr

evilweevil04

I have a couple questions ... I've heard/learned that Mormons believe that after someone dies, they can still be baptized into the Mormon church. If this isn't true, then disregard the next part of this post.

As far as I know (again, this might not be true.) Mormons believe anyone who isn't Mormon goes to Hell. Does this mean that if a non-Mormon dies and goes to Hell, there's a chance that out of nowhere, they'll be lifted out of Hell and plopped into Heaven, because one of their ancestors or somethign had them baptized?

Well. I'm not sure if anyone answered this or not but..........

Yes, after someone dies they still can be baptised. It's called baptism for the dead. In other words, people here on earth get baptised "for and in behalf of" people who've died. When you (i'll say you to be generic i guess) have some be baptised for you on earth. You will then have the choice, while your in heaven to be baptised. (does that make sence?) There are missionaries in heaven who teach non Lds people the gospel as well.

And no people who aren't mormon don't go to hell. That would be like damning them for not being mormon. Many don't have the chance to leran the gospel. If all who weren't mormon went to hell then a stillborn baby would go to hell as well. No, only those who have commited the unpardinable (sp?) sin etc go too hell. (the unpardinable sin is to know god, truly know with all your heart that he's real, and then deny him)

i'm sorry i'm not explaining well i'm really tired.

The problem with baptism for the dead is that there is no support for it in scripture. In fact there is mostly negative support. One verse in the bible mentions people being baptised for deceased persons and there is no indication that they were doing the right thing. Paul merely uses them as an example to make his point about the Faith resting upon whether there is life after death. He addresses them as "they", not "we", indicated that more likely it was a splinter group, not even Christian necessarily. If Paul was one of them he would have said "what shall WE do then who are baptized for the dead?", not "what shall THEY do..."

Anyway, that's the only scripture that even hints at such a practice. The Bible and especially the Book of Mormon even, teach that after you have lived this life there is only death and judgement. The Book of Mormon never says anything except that once you die, the game is over and your fate is sealed, for better or worse, in a couple different places. If I were a Mormon, I really don't see how I would reconcile this issue, but obviously they do rationalize it somehow, as with every issue. *sigh*

[Laniston]

Do you always need to use swears to make "intelligent arguments".

Takai_desu_yo

Oh, It's ******** Hilarious. I'm laughing my a** off. The fact that you are such an Idiot is actually quite humurous to me. The reason it never states that they were translated incorrectly is because anyone with any sense of reason would find it obvious that it was.

I'm sorry. How is this anything but your own opinion?

Takai_desu_yo

They found the Damn Plates. They took them in to have them Translated. Guess what they said? Nothing. It was a Farce. GET IT THROUGH YOUR SKULL.

It doesn't say they found them. It says they SAID they found them, but had actually had them made specifically.

Josephlied.com

Unfortunately for the Mormon position, it was later revealed that the plates were forgeries. On April 25, 1856, W. P. Harris, who was one of the nine witnesses to the discovery of the plates, wrote a letter in which he stated that the plates were not genuine: "...I was present with a number at or near Kinderhook and helped to dig at the time the plates were found... I... made an honest affidavit to the same.... since that time, Bridge Whitten said to me that he cut and prepared the plates and he... and R. Wiley engraved them themselves.... Wilbourn Fugit appeared to be the chief, with R. Wiley and B. Whitten." (The Book of Mormon? , by James D. Bales, pp. 95-96)

not found. made. an admitted hoax, yet the article in question says NOTHING of whether or not the characters written were false, or if they were improperly translated.

Takai_desu_yo

he Claims to be. He claimed that they were in fact great Wisdom, and You got the Pearl of Great Price from false Plates.

He claimed it was a geneology of ancestors of Ham. Not the Pearl of Great Price. Read your own material first before you make such comments as this one.

Takai_desu_yo

Are you telling me that the Mormon Church, as it stands, has absolutely NOBODY leading it at all? What the Hell is Gordon B. Hinckley, then? Your Bishops? Simple Stupid FigureHeads? talk about being led astray...

You said FORMER leader.

Takai_desu_yo

ran by a former Leader of the LDS church,

I said, there were no FORMER leaders alive. Did I say there was no CURRENT leader? hmm? no? i didn't?! wow!

Takai_desu_yo

Then please, tell us what a Prophet is. Might want to tell the rest of your Brethren while you're at it.

This is the definition of a prophet from the bible dictionary in the KJV bible.

"The work of a Hebrew prophet was to act as God's messenger and make known God's will. the message was usually prefaced with the words "Thus saith Jehovah" He taught men about God's character, showing the full meaning of his dealings with Israel in the past. It was therefore part of the prophetic office to preserve and edit the records of the nation's history; and such historical books as Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings were known by the Jews as the former Prophets. It was also the prophet's duty to denounce sin and foretell its punishment, and to redress, so far as he could, both public and private wrongs. He was to be, above all, a preacher of righteousness. When the people had fallen away from a true faith in Jehovah, the prophets had to try to restore that faith and remove false views about the character of God and the nature of the Divine requirement. In certain cases prophets predicted future events, eg., there are the very important prophecies announcing the coming of Messiah's kingdom; but as a rule a prophet was a forthteller rather than a foreteller.

In our articles of Faith it reads. We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth. Which means that a prophet for us today is the same as a prophet was for the Hebrew people.

[Laniston]

The biggest problem I'm having with all these arguments is that so many documents are being quoted. But seriously..I would think that obtaining original copies of documents such as newspapers from the 1800's, or each and every book mentioned. True, a lot of them can be found, but I must remain skeptical before I would even doubt my faith.

But what's funny, is that as much as you people are arguing against him, the more it makes me believe that you are wrong. I'm sure a lot of the examples used are true, if taken into the desired context of disproving Joseph Smith. Yet, why are there not other examples of things he said? Joseph Smith did many good things, and said many great things. Why ignore that?

My suggestion to all of you, is that you ask the one and only person who can tell you whether or not Joseph Smith was called of God to do what he had done. Ask God. I believe that if you sincerely want to know, and pray to Heavenly Father to find out that you will get an answer. I did...and I know that he was called of God.

Maybe that sounds "embarrasing" or "non-scientific"(which it is, but religion isn't scientific) but why not try?

At the very least, why bother trying to disuade those of us who do believe? It just makes me sad to see you target so vehemently this person. Out of all the churches in the world, you pick the LDS one. I would surmise that it is because the most opposition will be directed towards the most true of things...

[Keene Maverick]

Laniston

Do you always need to use swears to make "intelligent arguments".

Yes, bitchcock.

Laniston

Takai_desu_yo

Oh, It's ******** Hilarious. I'm laughing my a** off. The fact that you are such an Idiot is actually quite humurous to me. The reason it never states that they were translated incorrectly is because anyone with any sense of reason would find it obvious that it was.

I'm sorry. How is this anything but your own opinion?

It's pure and utter FACT. Lets use some logic, shall we?

1.) The Kinderhook plates were made my men (fact)
2.) The Kinderhook plates were admitted forgeries. (fact)
3.) Joseph Smith translated a goodly portion of the Kinderhook plates befor he knew they were forgeries (fact)

IF "1.)" + "2.)" = TRUE
THEN PRINT "There was nothing to be translated, as these men couldn't possibly have written anything worthwhile. Even if they did write something that /could/ be translated, they would have written anti-mormon writings, as they were trying to prove the church wrong."
END IF

IF "3.)" = TRUE
THEN PRINT "How could he have translated an admitted forgery? Correctly, even? There was nothing to be translated. Incorrectly or not. The fact that /any/ translation exists proves beyond a doubt that Joseph was making s**t up."
END IF

********! You just got logic raped!

Laniston

Takai_desu_yo

They found the Damn Plates. They took them in to have them Translated. Guess what they said? Nothing. It was a Farce. GET IT THROUGH YOUR SKULL.

It doesn't say they found them. It says they SAID they found them, but had actually had them made specifically.

Exactly. They made them specifically, which means it was a farce, which also means that Joseph Smiths translation is bullshit.

Laniston

Josephlied.com

Unfortunately for the Mormon position, it was later revealed that the plates were forgeries. On April 25, 1856, W. P. Harris, who was one of the nine witnesses to the discovery of the plates, wrote a letter in which he stated that the plates were not genuine: "...I was present with a number at or near Kinderhook and helped to dig at the time the plates were found... I... made an honest affidavit to the same.... since that time, Bridge Whitten said to me that he cut and prepared the plates and he... and R. Wiley engraved them themselves.... Wilbourn Fugit appeared to be the chief, with R. Wiley and B. Whitten." (The Book of Mormon? , by James D. Bales, pp. 95-96)

not found. made. an admitted hoax, yet the article in question says NOTHING of whether or not the characters written were false, or if they were improperly translated.

If it's an admitted hoax, how would the caracters be true, or possibly translated. ITS A HOAX! What the ******** is going on in your brain?

Laniston

Takai_desu_yo

he Claims to be. He claimed that they were in fact great Wisdom, and You got the Pearl of Great Price from false Plates.

He claimed it was a geneology of ancestors of Ham. Not the Pearl of Great Price. Read your own material first before you make such comments as this one.

The Pearl of Great Price was "translated" from the book of Abraham. These papyri that Joseph Smith bought off a traveling circus, and then translated into a new version of Genesis, on closer inspection, turned out to be burial rights for a random, unimportant mummy. Using the rosetta stone, lingual experts have proven that Joseph's translation was purely and totally made up out of thin air.

All that is also on the site. Read his sources before you claim he should read his sources.

Laniston

Takai_desu_yo

Are you telling me that the Mormon Church, as it stands, has absolutely NOBODY leading it at all? What the Hell is Gordon B. Hinckley, then? Your Bishops? Simple Stupid FigureHeads? talk about being led astray...

You said FORMER leader.

Former bishop? Forber stake president? Former quorom of the seventy? Former high priest? There's more than just one position of leadership in the church.

http://www.josephlied.com/bicentennialboy.html

Go ahead and read the man's testimony. You guys like to do that in your church, right? Bear testimony? That link has his.

Laniston

Takai_desu_yo

ran by a former Leader of the LDS church,

I said, there were no FORMER leaders alive. Did I say there was no CURRENT leader? hmm? no? i didn't?! wow!

********!

My uncle was a bishop. Now he's not. He's still alive. ******** YOUR WRONG AGAIN!

Laniston

Takai_desu_yo

Then please, tell us what a Prophet is. Might want to tell the rest of your Brethren while you're at it.

This is the definition of a prophet from the bible dictionary in the KJV bible.

"The work of a Hebrew prophet was to act as God's messenger and make known God's will. the message was usually prefaced with the words "Thus saith Jehovah" He taught men about God's character, showing the full meaning of his dealings with Israel in the past. It was therefore part of the prophetic office to preserve and edit the records of the nation's history; and such historical books as Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings were known by the Jews as the former Prophets. It was also the prophet's duty to denounce sin and foretell its punishment, and to redress, so far as he could, both public and private wrongs. He was to be, above all, a preacher of righteousness. When the people had fallen away from a true faith in Jehovah, the prophets had to try to restore that faith and remove false views about the character of God and the nature of the Divine requirement. In certain cases prophets predicted future events, eg., there are the very important prophecies announcing the coming of Messiah's kingdom; but as a rule a prophet was a forthteller rather than a foreteller.

In our articles of Faith it reads. We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth. Which means that a prophet for us today is the same as a prophet was for the Hebrew people.

Nowhere does it say it's a prophets job to translate.

And how could Joseph have been a preacher of righteousness? He would send men away on missions, and marry their wives. Often times, the men would come back to find their own wives pregnant with Joseph's baby. This is all properly documented and rather easy to find original copies of these documents.

Now, shut the ******** up, before I beat you to death with the "stupid a*****e" stick.

[Keene Maverick]

Laniston

My suggestion to all of you, is that you ask the one and only person who can tell you whether or not Joseph Smith was called of God to do what he had done. Ask God. I believe that if you sincerely want to know, and pray to Heavenly Father to find out that you will get an answer. I did...and I know that he was called of God.

You know what? I did that. You know what God told me? He said that Joseph Smith was an a*****e, and that your entire religion was bunk.

Honestly, I read the book of Mormon, and I prayed, with true and honest intent to know if it was true. I prayed constantly. I spent a good 7 years asking for truth, and all I got was a big, fat NO. And it came from God.

Yes, I was living the gospel when I prayed. Yes I prayed with pure intent in my heart. Yes, I read the scriptures every day, and yes, I went to church, and bore my testimony, and went to all the lessons. And God told me it was all false.

********.

[Laniston]

sheehandan

1.) The Kinderhook plates were made my men (fact)
2.) The Kinderhook plates were admitted forgeries. (fact)
3.) Joseph Smith translated a goodly portion of the Kinderhook plates befor he knew they were forgeries (fact)

IF "1.)" + "2.)" = TRUE
THEN PRINT "There was nothing to be translated, as these men couldn't possibly have written anything worthwhile. Even if they did write something that /could/ be translated, they would have written anti-mormon writings, as they were trying to prove the church wrong."
END IF

IF "3.)" = TRUE
THEN PRINT "How could he have translated an admitted forgery? Correctly, even? There was nothing to be translated. Incorrectly or not. The fact that /any/ translation exists proves beyond a doubt that Joseph was making s**t up."
END IF

********! You just got logic raped!

Why do you not mention, that they carved Egyptian on them? Why do you suppose that Joseph Smith would see these plates, and after spending so much time looking at hierroglyphics, not be able to tell if the symbols he saw were similar or not? Do you think they could have put whatever they wanted on there and have it work? no! In fact it doesn't say anywhere that they wrote gibberish on them. You are saying that. Just because it wasn't written by egyptians, doesn't mean it wasn't written in Egyptian. Find for me where it says "THE PLATES DID NOT HAVE EGYPTIAN OR ANYTHING SIMILAR WRITTEN ON THEM". and then I will take another look at this argument of your's. Also, I was using his words of anyone having any sense would know blah blah blah. Well that is opinion. It's like Hitler saying "Anyone with any sense would know that the Jews are inferior and in need of killing." Does that make him right? no. it makes him opinionated.

sheehandan

If it's an admitted hoax, how would the caracters be true, or possibly translated. ITS A HOAX! What the ******** is going on in your brain?

This is so strange. I will make the point again. What was written on the plates? Was it French? Spanish? Dutch? German? nope. none of those. It was a language that Joseph Smith recognized as he had seen the same kind of hieroglyphics on the plates of gold the Book of Mormon was translated from. The people making the hoax would have known this, and would have had to come up with some way to make the plates realistic enough to fool Joseph Smith. The articles on the website don't go into detail on this at all. They could have easily found an Egyptologist and asked him to help make some things up to put on it. Remember, a lot of scholars were upset at Joseph's claim to be translating egyptian texts. The Rosetta Stone had surfaced, and hieroglyphics were being studied now. So the knowledge to create the symbols was there.

I'm not saying that is what happened, but it is not documented is it? It doesn't say much on the actual production of the plates. I find that quite strange.

sheehandan

The Pearl of Great Price was "translated" from the book of Abraham. These papyri that Joseph Smith bought off a traveling circus, and then translated into a new version of Genesis, on closer inspection, turned out to be burial rights for a random, unimportant mummy. Using the rosetta stone, lingual experts have proven that Joseph's translation was purely and totally made up out of thin air.

The translation using the Rosetta stone was compared to scrolls which were thought to be the original papyri Joseph had. Since no one has any kind of conclusive evidence that they were the same scrolls other than some duplicate drawings and maps, I cannot fully accept this argument. It is impossible to argue that they were the same without modern forensics I would think. This one is left up to the opinion of the reader, I'm afraid. I hope you can at least agree on that. With today's forensic techniques and technology no one would say, "this piece of badly torn paper has the same drawing as the one we think it is had. They MUST be the same!" That's far too simple. If plates of brass could be forged to trick Joseph Smith, couldn't documents be forged as well? I'm not saying that they were, but again not enough information is presented.

Takai_desu_yo

he Claims to be. He claimed that they were in fact great Wisdom, and You got the Pearl of Great Price from false Plates.

Also I feel I have to point out, AGAIN, that he said PLATES. not PAPYRI. He says right here. "You got the Pearl of Great Price from false plates". you see? see it? right there! plates!!!

[********!

My uncle was a bishop. Now he's not. He's still alive. ******** YOUR WRONG AGAIN!

please read.

Takai_desu_yo

Are you telling me that the Mormon Church, as it stands, has absolutely NOBODY leading it at all? What the Hell is Gordon B. Hinckley, then? Your Bishops? Simple Stupid FigureHeads? talk about being led astray...

He was referring to Gordon B. Hinkley. He said a former Leader of the Church. A bishop isn't a leader of the church. He's the leader of the ward. Likewise it is the same. Leaders are called to lead smaller sections of the Church, but not the whole. The man called to lead the church is the President of the Church. He should have worded his argument better, as not to make that error. Though I am sure it was in his zeal to flame me.

He also called your uncle a simple stupid figurehead for being a bishop.

sheehandan

Nowhere does it say it's a prophets job to translate.

However it does say that he is responsible to make know God's will. If God's will is in ancient text, then they would need to be translated. That task was given to Joseph Smith by God.

sheehandan

And how could Joseph have been a preacher of righteousness? He would send men away on missions, and marry their wives. Often times, the men would come back to find their own wives pregnant with Joseph's baby. This is all properly documented and rather easy to find original copies of these documents.

Find me the documents. Mail them to me. Show me the results of genetic tests on babies that say they share the same DNA as Joseph Smith. Show me the unadulterated copies of journals of these people who make these claims. Give me their names. Show me their pictures. Show me pictures of these children, next to one of Joseph Smith. Find birth records for these babies. Find me anything that isn't just an in quotation with ... in front and behind it that can tell me that irrefutably Joseph Smith sent men on missions and slept with their wives. Until you do that, you're blowing hot air. Because that's exactly the kind of thing that people say when they want you to believe them, but can't get your attention without saying something blunt in a loud voice.


And..about the swearing and name calling. You are violating the agreement you signed to use Gaia at all. You're arguments are filled with not only your desire to prove your point, but your desire to make me feel stupid, ignorant, or just plain upset. You can't do it, and if you post one single swear in reply to this you will be reported to the mods. I don't care what you say about Joseph Smith, because I believe in him. I have that testimony. But you don't have the right to flame me for doing so. Notice that I am not using a single swear? I don't need to resort to petty swearing in order to make my voice heard. In fact, I don't need to be heard at all. There is nothing you can say to make me change my mind, and I think it very likely the same can be said of you people who are against my church.

If you're going to hate me for what I believe in, do it with some dignity and show me that you can argue without swearing, or any form of insulting.