The Book of Mormon Joseph Smith and/or Moroni et. al.

[sleepyhead]

Hello,

In order to be involved in this discussion/debate you must register here:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/g ... php?g=7076

I am the group owner (so much power for one person to have). I was active LDS for about a year, inactive for a few years and presently an inactive member of the Chruch of Christ (temple lot). My posts will largely delve into certain moral teachings of the book. If others want to go through the book chapter by chapter or to only discuss the book of Ether that's also ok.

[The Ex-Mormon]

Oh, the overwhelming archaeological evidence, eh? Tell me, what do we know about Ancient American Societies BEFORE the Maya? Right, nothing. Indeed, much of the Maya were swallowed in the jungles and left undiscovered for centuries. So, the reasonable presumption is that the Maya ... emerged from nothing?

If somebody claims to be able to translate old documents/plates; and he cannot do it, he is a liar.
If somebody claims that the Indians are the descendants of the Jews; and it proves to be wrong, he is a liar, a swindler or a blockhead.
Either somebody is it a swindler convincedly, or what he itself and if shaft to make others of this believe.
Joseph Smith had done all this!
He claimed these things because nobody could contradict for him because science still was not ready. It looks different today!
The Kinderhook plates and the BoA impose, that Smith could not translate. He had this lied to the people and deceived. Was it about money and power? I think, perhaps however, it rather was for Smith about it; appearing to be "the greatest".

And of course, a good civil discussion begins with a demand that your opponents question their mental sanity, eh?

Do you feel you and your faith attacked verbally because I mention facts? Because your faith does not prove as a "real religion" but as religion product? From an archeological and historical proof your "church" alone is already exposed as a deceit.
But comfort yourself, this also applies to almost all Christian religions.

[stubbornone]

Oh, the overwhelming archaeological evidence, eh? Tell me, what do we know about Ancient American Societies BEFORE the Maya? Right, nothing. Indeed, much of the Maya were swallowed in the jungles and left undiscovered for centuries. So, the reasonable presumption is that the Maya ... emerged from nothing?

If somebody claims to be able to translate old documents/plates; and he cannot do it, he is a liar.
If somebody claims that the Indians are the descendants of the Jews; and it proves to be wrong, he is a liar, a swindler or a blockhead.
Either somebody is it a swindler convincedly, or what he itself and if shaft to make others of this believe.
Joseph Smith had done all this!
He claimed these things because nobody could contradict for him because science still was not ready. It looks different today!
The Kinderhook plates and the BoA impose, that Smith could not translate. He had this lied to the people and deceived. Was it about money and power? I think, perhaps however, it rather was for Smith about it; appearing to be "the greatest".

And of course, a good civil discussion begins with a demand that your opponents question their mental sanity, eh?

Do you feel you and your faith attacked verbally because I mention facts? Because your faith does not prove as a "real religion" but as religion product? From an archeological and historical proof your "church" alone is already exposed as a deceit.
But comfort yourself, this also applies to almost all Christian religions.

Well, lets take a look at those things, and postulate, how it is impossible for there NOT to be Jewish blood over here. You see, the tribes of Israel, the old ten lost tribes, were taken into captivity by the Babylonians. From ether alone, minus the Roman Diaspora, conquering armies would routinely fall across the landscape of Israel and its strategic cross roads - not the least of which would have been the Mongolians. Even Imperial Spain was loaded with Jews with centuries of, often forced, cross breeding. You think none of the Spanish that crossed over to the Americas had Jewish blood in them? You think none of the Mestizo Indians that are common placed have absolutely zero Jewish blood in them as some Mormon critics content? And how then do you eliminate those who are descended from later Europeans from those who, and it was a tiny bit, were there earlier? And the answer is ... you cannot.

So when people make claims such as that ... which side is lying?

Then we have the crossing do we not? Tell me, how is it that little pacific Islands, seperated by thousands of miles could be found by people (who had no idea that those Islands were there) who had little more than canoes? Is the idea that someone at roughly a paralleled time frame could find ... and entire continent?

And both Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdry translated plates. The book even claims that there are other recirds waiting for the correct time and place to be revealed. Yet you call this a lie without proof?

When your questions are answered freely and honestly, why do you immediately resort to having your questioned answered as if your claims are merely facts? Your statements are contradicted by the very doctrine you know.

To continue to stick to 'archeology' when we know that there is essentially NO RECORD before the Maya when the BoM is postulated to have taken place is, at best, silly.

And it detracts from the far larger issue, which is the the message - none of which you appear to actually be disagreeing with.

I will tell you what, I to can do what you are doing ... to any volume of history. Any of them. I can find records that seem to indicate a slightly different interpretation. In fact, its part of the profession to read as many books, from as many different points of view as are possible. That gives you access to as many different interpretations and documents as possible in which TO FORMULATE YOUR OWN OPINION. That doe snot mean that historian X is lying because historian Y disagrees with him.

Indeed, you point to the same unconvincing 'archaeological' evidence that groups like the God makers have for decades.

But there is a greater truth that I have found when checking out 'Mormon critics' particularly former Mormons who leave as adults. Its not the gospel they have a problem with, its accountability. Many of the most ferocious former Mormons have ... behavioral issues they do not acknowledge in their quest to discredit their former church. Very often these are issues with sexual sin, adultery in particular. I have had former stake Presidents lecture me about the wiles of the church, only to discover that the former stake president was an adulterer, and unapologetic one, who was excommunicated.

I am not sure what a quest for vengeance has to do with ... truth? Archeological evidence has little to do when the actual issue at hand is ... adultery and accountability.

[The Ex-Mormon]

@Stuppornone,

You wrote:

Well, lets take a look at those things, and postulate, how it is impossible for there NOT to be Jewish blood over here.

You are very stubborn!
It gives enough archeological proof cover this one; that the Indians of America (North and South America) are not Semitic but Asian origin. DNA gives proof which is definite. To deny these means to deny facts!

You see, the tribes of Israel, the old ten lost tribes, were taken into captivity by the Babylonians.

With the lost "tribes" of Israel you lure no more dog in front of the stove! Because the Jews hiked/traveled like at that time other folks also. They stayed, however, most under themself. Partial also, because laws did not let any other choice for them. No Jew has, however, come to America in the time then! Mormons interpret a little in because it shall strengthen their faith. Something which is not available.

From ether alone, minus the Roman Diaspora, conquering armies would routinely fall across the landscape of Israel and its strategic cross roads - not the least of which would have been the Mongolians. Even Imperial Spain was loaded with Jews with centuries of, often forced, cross breeding. You think none of the Spanish that crossed over to the Americas had Jewish blood in them? You think none of the Mestizo Indians that are common placed have absolutely zero Jewish blood in them as some Mormon critics content? And how then do you eliminate those who are descended from later Europeans from those who, and it was a tiny bit, were there earlier? And the answer is ... you cannot.

It is about ancient America, not about the America after Columbus' discovery. And there were no Jewish people on the American continent at this time before the 14th century.
One has by the way analyzed the text of the BoM with the help of computers. Do you want to know what the result was? Not many authors wrote it, but only three; how an author Salomon Spaulding, another Joseph Smith, and a third author Sidney Rigdon was. The same Sidney Rigdon who admitted himself to have stolen the manuscript of Spaulding. The same Rigdon who knew Joseph Smith already before the publication of the BoM as testimonies which were sworn to also ahead of a judge confirmed.
My result: The BoM is one deception of the masses laid out on deceit.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 3:53 pm Post subject:
The Ex-Mormon wrote:

stubbornone wrote:

Oh, the overwhelming archaeological evidence, eh? Tell me, what do we know about Ancient American Societies BEFORE the Maya? Right, nothing. Indeed, much of the Maya were swallowed in the jungles and left undiscovered for centuries. So, the reasonable presumption is that the Maya ... emerged from nothing?


If somebody claims to be able to translate old documents/plates; and he cannot do it, he is a liar.
If somebody claims that the Indians are the descendants of the Jews; and it proves to be wrong, he is a liar, a swindler or a blockhead.
Either somebody is it a swindler convincedly, or what he itself and if shaft to make others of this believe.
Joseph Smith had done all this!
He claimed these things because nobody could contradict for him because science still was not ready. It looks different today!
The Kinderhook plates and the BoA impose, that Smith could not translate. He had this lied to the people and deceived. Was it about money and power? I think, perhaps however, it rather was for Smith about it; appearing to be "the greatest".

stubbornone wrote:

And of course, a good civil discussion begins with a demand that your opponents question their mental sanity, eh?


Do you feel you and your faith attacked verbally because I mention facts? Because your faith does not prove as a "real religion" but as religion product? From an archeological and historical proof your "church" alone is already exposed as a deceit.
But comfort yourself, this also applies to almost all Christian religions.


Well, lets take a look at those things, and postulate, how it is impossible for there NOT to be Jewish blood over here. You see, the tribes of Israel, the old ten lost tribes, were taken into captivity by the Babylonians. From ether alone, minus the Roman Diaspora, conquering armies would routinely fall across the landscape of Israel and its strategic cross roads - not the least of which would have been the Mongolians. Even Imperial Spain was loaded with Jews with centuries of, often forced, cross breeding. You think none of the Spanish that crossed over to the Americas had Jewish blood in them? You think none of the Mestizo Indians that are common placed have absolutely zero Jewish blood in them as some Mormon critics content? And how then do you eliminate those who are descended from later Europeans from those who, and it was a tiny bit, were there earlier? And the answer is ... you cannot.

So when people make claims such as that ... which side is lying?

In this case the LDS, which stands for :

Lying

Denying, and

Stubbornness

And your nickname covered; that I am correct with my assumption.

But there is a greater truth that I have found when checking out 'Mormon critics' particularly former Mormons who leave as adults. Its not the gospel they have a problem with, its accountability. Many of the most ferocious former Mormons have ... behavioral issues they do not acknowledge in their quest to discredit their former church. Very often these are issues with sexual sin, adultery in particular. I have had former stake Presidents lecture me about the wiles of the church, only to discover that the former stake president was an adulterer, and unapologetic one, who was excommunicated.

With other words: We have left the church or were excluded because we would have committed adultery or other sins. You therefore blame the former members to keep her away from the LDS. Because the LDS never makes mistakes, or what?
I was excommunicated because I was transsexual; and the LDS did not accept this. And this although two doctors made this diagnosis independently of each other. Is it a sin to be transsexual? Is it a sin to want to live after depressions lasting for years and two suicide attempts? But to want to live woman because a life prepared me only physical and spiritual pains as a man? Hurt which ones would not have had to be if the LDS would appreciate that does not give only black and white!
Many other have left the LDS because they have discovered documents; these prove that the LDS lies to their members and the public. Not only proof concerning ecclesiastical history, but also that one of the modern time. I only say: Proposition 8 in California! And I mention the many cases of a sexual child abuse; done by Elders or High Priests; which ones were hidden with the help of the LDS in front of the courts and the police.
I myself am a survivor of sexualized violence done by my father and my uncle. Both members of the church. Nothing happened to the perpetrators, I was threatened with excommunication. I was fourteen years old at that time!

I am not sure what a quest for vengeance has to do with ... truth? Archeological evidence has little to do when the actual issue at hand is ... adultery and accountability.

Hereby I award the golden cup to you for ignorance and say in my talk that you have earned him for you honestly. Whom only believes the LDS apologists; and it is not ready to search independently; has honestly earns this cup!

[Passenger]

PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 3:53 pm Post subject:
The Ex-Mormon wrote:
(...)

If somebody claims to be able to translate old documents/plates; and he cannot do it, he is a liar.
If somebody claims that the Indians are the descendants of the Jews; and it proves to be wrong, he is a liar, a swindler or a blockhead.
Either somebody is it a swindler convincedly, or what he itself and if shaft to make others of this believe.
Joseph Smith had done all this!
(...)

So when people make claims such as that ... which side is lying?

In this case the LDS, which stands for :

Lying

Denying, and

Stubbornness

And your nickname covered; (..)

Well, I once read the following citation from Joseph Smith: "The gift has returned back again, as in former times, to illiterate fishermen."

It is from the book "No Man Knows My History" by Fawn M. Brodie, Chapt. VII (The Perfect Society). It is said he once met a female preacher traveling through Ohio in 1831, who asked Joseph bluntly, if he could give his word by oath, that ... he took the things contained in the BoM from the Plates and translated them. He said he wouldn't swear at all. Then she became quite furious and offended him as an ignorant ploughboy and wished shame over his face. He answered only by saying the above mentioned words.

In comparison: Who would say that the first book of the Holy Bible, Genesis, and the creation of our world has to be understood literally? We now know so much more about the universe, its origin and its extension, the galaxies, the solar systems and the planets and all its phenomenons. Would one say the Bible is full of lies? Would one say the things described there never happened? Would one say there is no Allmighty? I wouldn't, even if the Bible seems obviously not correct as an exact description of the act of the Creation.

And what about the String Theory or Super-String Theory? These theories contain the possibility of more dimensions and uncountable parallel-universes. And it's not a joke to ask who can say the events described in the BoM once happened in this universe...?... Or perhaps the described events and things were too difficult to imagine for us and had to be revealed in a different and easier form to understand, and all the events described in the BoM are some kind of periphrasis. I don't know, but I always try to read between the lines in the scriptures.

[The Ex-Mormon]

Joseph Smith had lied. And his successors as prophets also make it. I trust no more a Mormon.

[Passenger]

Joseph Smith had lied. And his successors as prophets also make it. I trust no more a Mormon.

I believe that many events in the BoM are allegorically told and the Gospel should be found between the lines. I can't see any proof on historical authenticity coming from the BoM, but on the other hand it contains many aspects of the Gospel. My favorite part is the 3rd Book of Nephi, and it's the only part in the BoM where Jesus appears. Actually, and in spite of some stylistic characteristics and its diction, it appears like a book within a book. You can't find out that difference when you read the BoM in German but only in its origin language, and that's English, of course.

There are many stylistic conspicuities in the BoM that might lead one to the awareness of some different authors. My English is certainly not the best, but I can decide between Old English and the more modern way of writing in an American English style at the time of the first half of the 19th century in New England and the Middle West. But it's not important for me, if Sidney Rigdon's Campbellit spirit is obviously visible in many chapters of the BoM. I'm not a man who combines or depends his faith with a scripture or parts of it. My faith goes fundamentally and long before I heard about the BoM I was believing in God.

On the other hand the BoM revealed some important views to me and granted some self-awareness on me, including being on strife with myself. So I've been concentrated on studying and thinking about the message given by the BoM.

[sleepyhead]

Joseph Smith had lied. And his successors as prophets also make it. I trust no more a Mormon.

I believe that many events in the BoM are allegorically told and the Gospel should be found between the lines. I can't see any proof on historical authenticity coming from the BoM, but on the other hand it contains many aspects of the Gospel. My favorite part is the 3rd Book of Nephi, and it's the only part in the BoM where Jesus appears. Actually, and in spite of some stylistic characteristics and its diction, it appears like a book within a book. You can't find out that difference when you read the BoM in German but only in its origin language, and that's English, of course.

There are many stylistic conspicuities in the BoM that might lead one to the awareness of some different authors. My English is certainly not the best, but I can decide between Old English and the more modern way of writing in an American English style at the time of the first half of the 19th century in New England and the Middle West. But it's not important for me, if Sidney Rigdon's Campbellit spirit is obviously visible in many chapters of the BoM. I'm not a man who combines or depends his faith with a scripture or parts of it. My faith goes fundamentally and long before I heard about the BoM I was believing in God.

On the other hand the BoM revealed some important views to me and granted some self-awareness on me, including being on strife with myself. So I've been concentrated on studying and thinking about the message given by the BoM.

Hello passenger,

When I first began this thread it was meant to be a discussion of topics from the book of mormon. It wasn't meant as a discussion of whether the book is true or false, whether any particular sect of Mormonsim is bad, or whether those who leave any particular sect are adulterers. You have expressed an interest in 3rd Nephi. I think that's the part that describes 3 full days of darkness which naturally correspond to the possibility that Jesus spent 3 full days in the tomb instead of just a weekend. Anyway if you would like to discuss 3 Nephi I'm open to it.

[Passenger]

[

Hello passenger,

When I first began this thread it was meant to be a discussion of topics from the book of mormon. It wasn't meant as a discussion of whether the book is true or false, whether any particular sect of Mormonsim is bad, or whether those who leave any particular sect are adulterers. You have expressed an interest in 3rd Nephi. I think that's the part that describes 3 full days of darkness which naturally correspond to the possibility that Jesus spent 3 full days in the tomb instead of just a weekend. Anyway if you would like to discuss 3 Nephi I'm open to it.

Hello sleepyhead,

Yes, I see. I would like to discuss parts of 3 Nephi. But please give me some time (one week, I think) to read 3 Nephi completely and with spiritual understanding to start a discussion. To be honest, this gives me a good reason to study the book more intensively. I'm not a member of the LDS or any Mormon sect but I've been interested in many aspects of their faith and had many discussions with the Elders / missionaries here in Hamburg (most of them came from Idaho / Utah / Arizona) In former times I was Ev.-Lutherian but left the church in 1980. The message the Mormons have brought to me opened a new view to Christianaty for me. Ok - first I will read 3 Nephi completely and then I will post here again.

But in the mean time there would be one question concerning 1 Nephi Chapter 4, where Nephi slayed Laban at the Lord's command to secure the plates. There is one problem for me: it's the same with Abraham who intended to slay (you can say to murder) his son as God commanded to him. Well, wasn't it God who revealed His commandments to mankind? One is that you shalt not kill (murder). If God commanded me to kill, I would refuse this command, and I would say to God: I will not act against your law. What would you think about my point of view?

In chapter 4:18 Nephi told that he obeyed the voice of the Spirit and killed him in the way he described. Well, this is my problem: How can the Spirit of God command such kind of a murder (and in America you would even call it a murder in the first degree). It wasn't necessary to kill Laban, because Nephi had already got the plates and Laban was unconcious. At that moment there came no danger from Laban. So the BoM starts with an event that I would describe as a misdeed that was against one of the the commandments of God. It's a dilemma for me.

[Passenger]

Joseph Smith had lied. And his successors as prophets also make it. I trust no more a Mormon.

Hi Ex-Mormon. Your location has changed surprisingly from Bern to Berlin...? Dann können wir ja auch Deutsch sprechen; wie ist das Wetter in Berlin? Kennen wir uns nicht aus einem anderen Forum...? Ich glaube schon...

(Then we can speak German; what about the weather there in Berlin? Haven't we met before in another (German) forum...? I think so...)

[The Ex-Mormon]

Joseph Smith had lied. And his successors as prophets also make it. I trust no more a Mormon.

Hi Ex-Mormon. Your location has changed surprisingly from Bern to Berlin...? Dann können wir ja auch Deutsch sprechen; wie ist das Wetter in Berlin? Kennen wir uns nicht aus einem anderen Forum...? Ich glaube schon...

(Then we can speak German; what about the weather there in Berlin? Haven't we met before in another (German) forum...? I think so...)

I still live and work in Berne. I have recently drive to Berlin and met there many nice people. But of course we also can speak German. It is only impolite in an American forum to use another language than English.
Have we met?
I don't think so, because I am rare at www.