Allow me to show you some logical conclusions.
Laniston
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.
Joseph Smith never showed the reformed egyptian alphabet to anyone. The rosetta stone was not uncovered until /after/ Josephs death. The egyptian writing would have been gibberish, because at the time, no one knew how to translate egyptian.
Logical conclusion? It was all bunk. It is such an insanely incredible leap of logic for you to not beleive this.
Anyone with any sense would see that the Kinderhook plates were bunk. It's a fact. It's past opinion. It's like a scientist saying "Anyone with any sense would see that things with mass attract eachother, due to gravitational pull." It's true, and you would have to be an idiot to not see it.
Quote:
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.
I'll make my point again. The rosetta stone was not discovered until after Josephs death. The egyptian they would have written wouldn't have been the reformed version that Joseph read. It was a few farmers and a blacksmith who made these plates.
Logical conclusion? It's bunk.
Quote:
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.
The scroll found matches the notes Joseph made. Egyptologists have looked over both the drawings Joseph made, Joseph's original sketchs, and the papyri found in Chicago. They match. There's plenty of evidence. You're just being a blind a**.
Quote:
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!!!
Arguing semantics. His point still stands. You lose.
[********!
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.
More semantics. Bishops, stake presidents, high priests, quorom leaders, quorom members. Basically anyone who holds the priesthood, is a church leader. You, on the other hand, were an a*****e and blatantly ignored his point, being that Mike used to be a church leader. ********.
And I agree. My uncle is a simple stupid figurehead. As are all church leaders.
Quote:
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.
By the urim and thummim. Have you ever researched the Urim and Thummim? I suggest you read Leviticus and Deuteronomy. The Urim and Thummim Joseph used definitely wasn't the same one talked about in the Bible.
And did you know he used seer stones, more often then he used the Urim and Thummim? Did you know he found these stones before he claimed to see his first vision? Did you know that he used these stones to divine the location of Gold and other precious metals?
Did you know that the Urim and Thummim made spelling and grammar mistakes? I'd've thought the power of God would have been a bit more accurate.
Divination, false urim and thummim, seer stones.... Even by the definition you gave, sounds an awful lot like a false prophet.
Quote:
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.
There is enough historical evidence to hold up in a court of law. You are asking the impossible, and that makes you not only annoying, but stupid and blind to fact. Go to a library, and do some research. Sources are listed, look them up. I did.
If you don't trust the quotes with elipses, look up the full context of the quote. I can assure you, they're all perfectly in context.
http://journals.mormonfundamentalism.org/ Here is an online copy of the journal of discourses. It's a mormon publication. You can cross reference all the quotes there.
Quote:
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.
******** off.
Have you ever read the TOS? I am in no way violating any rules or agreements. It is a public forum, that you have chosen to look at and post on. Part of that means reading what other people have to say. Don't like it? Dont' come here, asswipe. Otherwise, welcome to real life. Take a number, take a seat, and go ******** yourself.