Mormonism

Pointless Posts, Raves n Rants, Obscure Opinions

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
em200727
Student
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 3:05 pm
Contact:

Mormonism

Post #1

Post by em200727 »

Hey i would like to know more about Mormonism. I love researching other religions so if anyone has any questions, or would like to discuss that would be great :D

14results
Student
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 5:23 pm

Post #71

Post by 14results »

that is a good site.

i am also lds. i am a convert to the church, and was raised christian. i joined the lds church when i was 18, and have been a member for about 34 years.

i also had kind of a unique experience in that i was in a responsible position in probably one of the largest christian companies in the world for about 15 years.

i don't know if you've been able to get your questions answered or not, but i would certainly be able to discuss it.

just a couple notes, i have not found a single non-lds site that gives an accurate depiction of the church as most of them would probably more accurately come from a position of feeling threatened somehow by the church. i can understand what they are feeling from a number of various angles, but if you think about it, i think you would find it ludicrous that people outside the lds church would know more about what we believe than we do.

i don't know if you got your info or not, but the book of mormon was originally translated by dictation so you basically had one 500 page sentence as per the handwriting of the scribe. the changes you speak of were by in large to correct errors related to spelling, punctuation, misreading of the origingal that sort of thing, but of course hard core enemies of the church like the tanners would like to have you believe otherwise.

from my point of view the lds church believe implicitly in the principle of continuing revelation and authority and therein has the complete right to correct things that have come to their attention that are not as they should be. from what i understand, every effort has been make to make it in accordance with the original intention and in alignment with the original.

14results
Student
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 5:23 pm

Post #72

Post by 14results »

Dilettante wrote:
Tycho23 wrote:I myself find this very interesting...

http://www.comevisit.com/lds/bom-evid.htm
I find it interesting too, but not for the same reasons. As an attempt at rationalizing the Mormon faith, it is fascinating, but not at all convincing. Don't forget the BOM claims that Native Americans are descended from the Hebrews. DNA tests prove otherwise: Native Americans are of Mongolian ancestry. The BOM is not written in the language of Joseph Smith's day, but in 17th century English. Ancient documents are written in the original languages and are authenticated according to commonly accepted criteria. If the provenance of the document cannot be traced back to the original owner, if one link in the chain is missing or the track gets lost, the red flags of forgery are instantly raised. With the Golden Plates no such authentication process is even possible because the plates themselves vanished into thin air... Before I even consider those alleged coincidences (most of which can be explained otherwise) I need to see the remains of those civilizations that supposedly inhabited Mesoamerica according to the BOM. Unfortunately for the LDS Church, there is not a shred of evidence that those peoples existed. And we are talking about entire civilizations with cities and cemeteries and artifacts. Today we know lots of details about the Aztecs, the Toltecs, and many less important pre-Columbian cultures occupying the same land the BOM people allegedly lived in. By contrast, not a single archeological find points to the existence of such people as the Lamanites, Nephites or Jaredites.

Anyway, you may be interested in reading a critique of Nibley's approach to Mormon apologetics written by a BYU professor here:

http://www.lds-mormon.com/nibley1.shtml

As you can see, not all Mormons were impressed with Nibley's tactics.
why are you so venomous about this? look for scholarly approaches to this instead of relying and based on those who have an agenda to prove just their position to this, and you will find that a lot of your basic premises are not valid. if you try to stake your claims based on archaeology that hasn't happened, i don't think your position has much merit. meso american archaeology has barely touched the surface of known archaeological sites and assumptions about whose dna is what is such a long shot in talking about a people that covered an area of around 150 miles 1600 to 2600 years ago.

Post Reply