The Book of Mormon (the book, not the musical)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
JFizzleRaider said:
Well she also gets a kick out of stories regarding joseph smith....I guess you can say she believes wesleyan idealogy more than mormonism.

I agree that most churches can be that way, I've been to multiple baptist and wesleyan churches like that.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm sad to have lost her from our fold, but I'm glad she's happier where she's at.
 
Mormoms are cultists. Some still believe in plural marriage. Thats why I call them mormoms. They also wear funny underwear. Which is why others call them morons.
 
mormons are still allowed to get high by hyperventilating, and thats a pretty good trip, especially if you press your palms against your eyes, you can start to see some really intricate and interesting patterns. not that you would be wise to talk about that at temple, but it can be OUR little secret
 
Mormonism is a bit different from all the other wacky religions in that there seems to be pretty conclusive proof that it's utter bullshit. This is the "Book of Abraham" business. Basically, as most people know, Joseph Smith claimed to be able to read the magic golden tablets that the Angel Moron(i) showed him because of his magic "seer stones" (or something - I've also heard Crystal Spectacles). According to Smith, the tablets were written in "Reformed Egyptian" but his mojo allowed him to translate. Then, later, when he was more famous, he procured an actual Egyptian Papyrus from a traveling exhibition and claimed to translate that, and said it was a lost book of the Bible called "The Book of Abraham". Now this happened after the Rosetta Stone had been found, but before it had been cracked, so nobody in the world knew how to read ancient Egyptian writing, so he knew he was safe from being found out. But now Egyptologists can read ancient Egyptian and have translated at least some of what Smith claimed was the Book of Abraham and it is nothing of the sort:

Egyptologist Dr. James H. Breasted, of the University of Chicago noted:

"... these three facsimiles of Egyptian documents in the ‘Pearl of Great Price’ depict the most common objects in the Mortuary religion of Egypt. Joseph Smith’s interpretations of them as part of a unique revelation through Abraham, therefore, very clearly demonstrates that he was totally unacquainted with the significance of these documents and absolutely ignorant of the simplest facts of Egyptian writing and civilization."
Click to expand...

So, I guess that undermines the entire Book of Mormon then, doesn't it?
 
Incidentally, what's with all the shit-stirring, KingSpeed? Bored?
 
JFizzleRaider said:
Well she also gets a kick out of stories regarding joseph smith....I guess you can say she believes wesleyan ideology more than mormonism.
Click to expand...

This reminds me of that Simpsons episode where Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel points at Lisa and says "You're goofy-looking!"
 
Rastapopoulos said:
Mormonism is a bit different from all the other wacky religions in that there seems to be pretty conclusive proof that it's utter bullshit.
Click to expand...

i think it's debatable whether it's really different. mormonism's bullshit claims are historically more recent, but otherwise i don't really consider there to be much difference between revelation by seer stones in hats or american indians being hebrews, and global floods or virgin birth etc.

certainly biblical literalist christianity is no less refuted by evidence than a literal interpretation of the founding texts of "wacky" religions such as mormonism or scientology.
 
The concept of a Prophet is nothing new. The mantle is passed on today just like it was in the days of Moses. We have the First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 Apostles, they all give council to the Church twice a year. General Conference in not broadcast to temples but rather to meeting houses and homes across the world in many different languages. We also have the Quorum of the Seventies as found in the bible.
 
JETBlack said:
The concept of a Prophet is nothing new. The mantle is passed on today just like it was in the days of Moses. We have the First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 Apostles, they all give council to the Church twice a year. General Conference in not broadcast to temples but rather to meeting houses and homes across the world in many different languages. We also have the Quorum of the Seventies as found in the bible.
Click to expand...

Hey Jet, nice to see you posting over here. I've asked you in O-live before but how come there isn't any archeological evidence that supports the Book of Mormon? Especially the battles between the Lamanites and Nephites.
 
Who says there isn't buddy? Just like I told you before, there is plenty of evidence to support the Book of Mormon. If you believe the Bible ( do you? ) then you must believe the Book of Mormon. Have you asked D-Rock about this? What is his response?
 
JETBlack said:
Who says there isn't buddy? Just like I told you before, there is plenty of evidence to support the Book of Mormon. If you believe the Bible ( do you? ) then you must believe the Book of Mormon. Have you asked D-Rock about this? What is his response?
Click to expand...

I'm more concerned about their views on Dark Skinned humans. So the race was punished because they stayed neutral in the war? Or is this just propaganda?
 
magnifier661 said:
I'm more concerned about their views on Dark Skinned humans. So the race was punished because they stayed neutral in the war? Or is this just propaganda?
Click to expand...

To be candid, there have been statements to that effect, but none of them have come under the mantle of official doctrine of the church. They were statements made in a time where racism was rampant and existed even in the Mormon church just as it did in pretty much every other church. The part I find interesting is that someone was trying to determine (from a religious perspective) why there was such a contrast in skin color. Not sure why that's the conclusion they drew, but it doesn't change the fact that it was mere speculation, and has never been given as church doctrine. There are references to white and dark skin in the Book of Mormon, but as I understand it, the "curse" has been and always will be separation from God as a result of sin, and not an indication that dark skin is synonymous with sin. There would be zero people of South American or African decent in the church if that were really what the church taught. As it stands, there are more members of the church outside America than inside; a great many of those in South America and Africa. As far as I'm concerned, and I believe this to be the official stance of the church, your skin color is simply a product of your heritage. I'm not aware of anything sinister. So to me, yes, it's complete propaganda. People conveniently forget that lots of people were racist long before Joseph Smith came along and long after the LDS church lifted its race based institutional restrictions. For some reason, we're the only ones still getting picked on for it.
 
Last edited:
D-Rock said:
To be candid, there have been statements to that effect, but none of them have come under the mantle of official doctrine of the church. They were statements made in a time where racism was rampant and existed even in the Mormon church just as it did in pretty much every other church. The part I find interesting is that someone was trying to determine (from a religious perspective) why there was such a contrast in skin color. Not sure why that's the conclusion they drew, but it doesn't change the fact that it was mere speculation, and has never been given as church doctrine. There are references to white and dark skin in the Book of Mormon, but as I understand it, the "curse" has been and always will be separation from God as a result of sin, and not an indication that dark skin is synonymous with sin. There would be zero people of South American or African decent in the church if that were really what the church taught. As it stands, there are more members of the church outside America than inside; a great many of those in South America and Africa. As far as I'm concerned, and I believe this to be the official stance of the church, your skin color is simply a product of your heritage. I'm not aware of anything sinister.
Click to expand...

Yeah I was trippin' on that view point because I was like "Wow I know African decent and latinos go to the Church. How do they feel about this belief?"
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Hey Jet, nice to see you posting over here. I've asked you in O-live before but how come there isn't any archeological evidence that supports the Book of Mormon? Especially the battles between the Lamanites and Nephites.
Click to expand...

http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeological_Evidence_and_the_Book_of_Mormon.html

It's from 2005, but I think it's an informative read. In particular, there are several links under the "Further Reading" section that are interesting. There's a link to an MP3 that I found enlightening. Unfortunately, John Clark isn't exactly the most engaging of speakers...
 
crowTrobot said:
i think it's debatable whether it's really different. mormonism's bullshit claims are historically more recent, but otherwise i don't really consider there to be much difference between revelation by seer stones in hats or american indians being hebrews, and global floods or virgin birth etc.
Click to expand...

But religious charlatans are usually careful to make non-falsifiable claims. Smith THOUGHT he was making a non-falsifiable claim, because he didn't know that people would shortly discover a way to translate Ancient Egyptian.

But, of course, falsifying a claim is never enough, because people don't believe in religions for rational reasons. I bet even Harold Camping still has followers.
 
Rastapopoulos said:
Mormonism is a bit different from all the other wacky religions in that there seems to be pretty conclusive proof that it's utter bullshit. This is the "Book of Abraham" business. Basically, as most people know, Joseph Smith claimed to be able to read the magic golden tablets that the Angel Moron(i) showed him because of his magic "seer stones" (or something - I've also heard Crystal Spectacles). According to Smith, the tablets were written in "Reformed Egyptian" but his mojo allowed him to translate. Then, later, when he was more famous, he procured an actual Egyptian Papyrus from a traveling exhibition and claimed to translate that, and said it was a lost book of the Bible called "The Book of Abraham". Now this happened after the Rosetta Stone had been found, but before it had been cracked, so nobody in the world knew how to read ancient Egyptian writing, so he knew he was safe from being found out. But now Egyptologists can read ancient Egyptian and have translated at least some of what Smith claimed was the Book of Abraham and it is nothing of the sort:



So, I guess that undermines the entire Book of Mormon then, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Umm no, actually it doesn't. For one, you've completely ignored the alternative explanations offered in what was not exactly an unbiased Wikipedia article (although there was an attempt to at least make it look like an unbiased presentation). Two, there have been many times people have claimed Joseph Smith got things wrong only to later be proven wrong themselves. Three, I don't see the connection between the Book of Abraham in the pearl of Great Price and the Book of Mormon. They are distinct books of scripture. Or are you insinuating that since Joseph "made up" the Book of Abraham that he made up the Book of Mormon too?
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Hey Jet, nice to see you posting over here. I've asked you in O-live before but how come there isn't any archeological evidence that supports the Book of Mormon? Especially the battles between the Lamanites and Nephites.
Click to expand...

Michael Moore has not made up...errrr made the movie yet?
 
Rastapopoulos said:
This is printed on some Christian site, but the important thing is, it's Twain's words: Mark Twain on the Book of Mormon.
Click to expand...

So Mark Twain thought it sounded an awful lot like the Bible. Sounds like it contains exactly what Joseph Smith and every other person claims it contains -- another testament of Jesus Christ. At least Mark Twain could see what most other Christians fail to acknowledge - that the Book of Mormon is pretty similar to the Bible. I can understand why he didn't think it was a literary masterpiece though, most history books aren't. I wonder if there's a quote from him about the literary virtue of the Bible?
 
Last edited:
Rastapopoulos said:
But religious charlatans are usually careful to make non-falsifiable claims. Smith THOUGHT he was making a non-falsifiable claim, because he didn't know that people would shortly discover a way to translate Ancient Egyptian.
Click to expand...

i was just pointing out that stuff dreamt up by superstitious (if sincere) primitive humans with zero scientific knowledge, and stuff dreamt up by a modern charlatan are equally refuted by evidence. 100% false is 100% false.

if by bullshit you mean 'was obviously created as a con', then yeah that might differentiate mormonism a bit, although it's a solid theory that a lot of the bible was fabricated or historically embellished by jewish priests, paul, and others who had motivations to be dishonest. presumably sai baba knows he wasn't born of a virgin even though he has a million followers believing it.
 
Rastapopoulos said:
But religious charlatans are usually careful to make non-falsifiable claims. Smith THOUGHT he was making a non-falsifiable claim, because he didn't know that people would shortly discover a way to translate Ancient Egyptian.

But, of course, falsifying a claim is never enough, because people don't believe in religions for rational reasons. I bet even Harold Camping still has followers.
Click to expand...

Wrong again, Rasta. I guess it's nice when you can pick a choose what you want to attack and believe who and what you want to believe when it's convenient for you and then make blanket statements as though they are universally true. Joseph Smith has made MANY bold claims, easily determined whether they would be true or not, you've just chosen not to look at any of them. Here's a couple for you:

The LDS church was founded with just 6 people in 1830. Before his death, Joseph made this statement amidst mob persecution and murder: “The Standard of Truth has been erected; no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done” (History of the Church, 4:540). To date, there are only a handful of countries when the LDS church doesn't have missionaries. Pretty ballsy statement by a guy whose congregation only consisted of about 48,000 North Americans at the time he was murdered. There's over 14 million members now.

"My name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people” (JS—H 1:33). I don't hear people talk crap about John Calvin, John Wesley, Martin Luther, the Pope or any other religious leader the way they do about Joseph Smith.

From December 25th, 1832 -
“(1) Verily, thus saith the Lord concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls;
(2) And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place.
(3) For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.
(4) And it shall come to pass, after many days, slaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall be marshaled and disciplined for war.” (D&C 87:1-4)
Click to expand...

When did the Civil War begin? 1860. Where did it begin? South Carolina. What happened during the Civil War? I think we all know.

So, actually, Joseph Smith made lots of claims that could be easily be disproved, but they've managed to turn out as being true.

Anyway, I don't have time to do tit for tat on all this stuff. If anyone has legitimate questions I'm happy to respond to them, but I'm not just going to go back and forth on every little thing someone thinks they've "got" the Mormon church or Joseph Smith on. It's not worth my time since I already know what the response will be when I supply an explanation.
 
Hey D-Rock, you have at least one brother in the Gospel in here. You've been doing a great job explaining our faith. Even I haven't seen some of this stuff before. Keep up the good work sir.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top