Proving that Mormonism is false

[Nickman]

I claim that it is a fact that the LDS faith is 100% false and I will back it up. I will use know facts that are extra-biblical. As well as the bible. I am an atheist and a humanist just so you know my background. I was a christian for most of my life and LDS for several of those years and I live in mormon central, SLC.

In this thread please make contributions for or againts the arguement.

Joseph Smith is the trunk of the tree known as mormonism so if you cut him out you make the tree fall.

Joseph claimed he was visited after a sincere prayer asking what church was the true church. He said he was answered by god and jesus. The bible says no man hath seen god, but I don't believe in the bible so I will move forward. Later he was visited by moroni which was an angel three times in one night depending on which version you read. He was told about some plates which he would receive when he was old enough. Age was a big deal back then when it came to truth. He said he received the plates when the time was appointed and they were gold. Note that the weight of the plates would have been 30-60 lbs. There were eight witnesses to the plates which later were excommunicated. They never denied but their affiliation was suspicious. Four were Whitmers and friends of the Smith's. The others were Smiths. So two families associated well. The witness selection is very sketchy. Smith went to translate and his efforts were secret. On one occassion Martin harris wanted to prove to his wife that the money they had loaned was not used in vain and asked for the copies. Smith obliged after some prodding and low and behold the 116 copies were lost so moroni took the plates back from july to sept 1828. Those 116 pages were dismissed because Smith couldnt reproduce them or if he could then harris's wife would alter the originals making Smith a liar. Sounds like a backup plan or a latter day cover up.

Ok past all that Joseph gave the plates back and could never produce them to anyone that could actually give any credit to them. What we are left with is the book of mormon, the most boring read I have ever come across. It was translated by a man with an eigth grade education and reads as such. It claims many things such as horses in south america, that werent there, spices and swords that were not there. Names of places that are not found.

With all this said the book of Abraham is the most damnable. Especially the facsimilies. These facsimilies were sold after Smiths death by his wife and lost for a while. Before and after that several Egyptologists reviewed them and reported as such all of which are sourced;

Wikipedia

Sometime in 1856, Theodule Deveria, an Egyptologist at the Louvre, had the opportunity to examine the facsimiles published as part of the Book of Abraham. [24] His interpretation, juxtaposed with Smith's interpretation, was published in T. B. H. Stenhouse's book The Rocky Mountain Saints: A Full and Complete History of the Mormons in 1873. [25] Additionally, later in 1912, Reverend Franklin S. Spalding sent copies of the three facsimiles to eight Egyptologists and semitists soliciting their interpretation of the facsimiles, the results of which were published in Spalding's work Joseph Smith, Jr. As a Translator. Deveria, and each of the eight scholars recognized the facsimiles as portions of ordinary funerary documents, and some harshly condemned Joseph Smith's interpretation: 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." [26]

Dr. W.M. Flinders Petrie of London University wrote:

"It may be safely said that there is not one single word that is true in these explanations" [27]

Dr. A.H. Sayce, Oxford professor of Egyptology,

“It is difficult to deal seriously with Joseph Smith’s impudent fraud.... Smith has turned the goddess [Isis in Facsimile No.[28]

The actual papyrus has was found... it is not what joseph translated. Joseph was a fraud but very smart. He made money from his followers. His legacy still does.

[Nickman]

Before I go on with this, Nickman, I need to get some ground rules straight here.

SO far I get the impression that:

Nickman may use any source he wishes...including 'peer reviewed' sources, to present his case. He may use apologetics sites for any position, from Judaism on.

I may not use any apologetics site that attempts to present the LDS position.

Nickman may use condescending and insulting language to refer to me and my beliefs,

I may not return the favor.

Nickman may invoke conspiracy theories, mockery and all manner of interesting (at least to him and those who are cheering for him) accusations.

I may not.

Nickman can use CARM, Martin, indeed, any and all anti-Mormon sources he wants to.

If I dare to use FARMS (a private...that is, NOT officially LDS site) apologetics site, I am to be ridiculed for doing so.

Hello, Nickman?

GIVE ME ONE GOOD REASON WHY I SHOULD ENGAGE IN A DEBATE WITH YOU UNDER THOSE RULES?

So now that I refuted your posts and showed how they were not correct in representing the church you belong to I am accused of all of the above?

You have refuted very little, and you HAVE been guilty of all the above.

Nickman, I frankly don't care what you think of me, or the church I belong to. However, if you are going to attack it, and honestly expect me to (as you have been waiting for me to do...your words, that waiting bit) respond, then there WILL be some ground rules.

If you don't agree to them, you can rant and rave to your heart's content. I will not respond.

You may even consider my lack of response to be a victory of some sort. I honestly don't care. You are not unique in my experience by any means.

But here are the rules....

1. Address the issue. Do not denigrate your opponent. Do not make snarky remarks regarding intelligence, gullibility or anything else.

2. Do not dismiss the sources used by your opponent unless you can PROVE that those sources are not credible. For instance, I will disparage your use of "The Godmakers" not because I don't like what Ed Decker says in it, but because there isn't a single religious scholar out there who gives Decker any respect for his scholarship. Appeal to ridicule is a fallacy, and I won't use it. If YOU do, I'm gone. That means I can use FAIR; if not as a primary source, certainly as a secondary one, inasmuch as the writers there use their own sources.

If you can't do this (and I'm not going to hold my breath, since your posts to me have invariably been snarkly, insulting and condescending) then....nevermind. You can chalk my departure as a victory for yourself.

Please tell me why I would use christian sources to refute mormonism. They have an agenda all on their own to convert your to the real Jesus as they say. I have used secular sources and on occasion when the material is not a flat out attack from a fundamentalist christian, have I used information that is pertinent to my case. Im not interested in converting anyone to atheism. I just want to shed some light on the topics I have raised. From an outside view and not an inside view that has been doctored by your leaders to make it seem digestible.

[Dantalion]

a bit offtopic here, but I can't resist asking, Nickman, why don't you apply the same skillset you used in your mormonism debunking to the investigation of people claiming to be psychics ? I don't assume you don"t apply them, your actual belief in the existence of a psychic would seem to tell me you just don't.
I ask this because it is my scepticism and demand for evidence, logic and reason that led me to atheism, and I use those same things when it comes to any supernatural claims, hence I found none to be anything other thn wishful thinking or just plain old bs.
(but by all means keep the on-topicness going)

I dpnt believe in psychics at all. Another member brought up Edgar Cayce and I said some of the things he said were impressive. This doesnt mean I have any care about psychics, and I would never ask one for a reading.

thn I misunderstood and I must apologise.

[sleepyhead]

Hello nickman and fustercluck,

I hit send before answering part of your post sleepyhead. The simple truth I found was that phrase, truth will always overcome scrutiny. What truth led me to my atheism? The simple truth that every faith I looked at I could see holes. The main thing was the lack of evidence for every deity to ever have been worshipped and the extinction of most all that have ever been. There are only a few endangered species of gods left.

In the marketing of any particular God, the natural tendency is to provide individuals with what they want to hear. The general assumption is that the average individual won't look to closely at the claims when those claims are beneficial to the individual. You have decided to think about faith systems and quite naturally have found holes. In looking at the basic faith of Judaism based on Genesis through deuteronomy I don;t see any holes.

a bit offtopic here, but I can't resist asking, Nickman, why don't you apply the same skillset you used in your mormonism debunking to the investigation of people claiming to be psychics ? I don't assume you don"t apply them, your actual belief in the existence of a psychic would seem to tell me you just don't.
I ask this because it is my scepticism and demand for evidence, logic and reason that led me to atheism, and I use those same things when it comes to any supernatural claims, hence I found none to be anything other thn wishful thinking or just plain old bs.
(but by all means keep the on-topicness going)

Hello fustercluck,

In the debate we had about Edgar Cayce,
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... sc&start=0
since it involved only a few individuals, I wasn't able to determine which arguments made by the negative side were significant to those reading the thread. Since you are of the opinion that all supernatural claims are wishful thinking or bs I was wondering if you could look through the EC thread and then post on what arguments you considered significant. Just post it on that thread instead of this one.

[Dantalion]

Hello nickman and fustercluck,

I hit send before answering part of your post sleepyhead. The simple truth I found was that phrase, truth will always overcome scrutiny. What truth led me to my atheism? The simple truth that every faith I looked at I could see holes. The main thing was the lack of evidence for every deity to ever have been worshipped and the extinction of most all that have ever been. There are only a few endangered species of gods left.

In the marketing of any particular God, the natural tendency is to provide individuals with what they want to hear. The general assumption is that the average individual won't look to closely at the claims when those claims are beneficial to the individual. You have decided to think about faith systems and quite naturally have found holes. In looking at the basic faith of Judaism based on Genesis through deuteronomy I don;t see any holes.

a bit offtopic here, but I can't resist asking, Nickman, why don't you apply the same skillset you used in your mormonism debunking to the investigation of people claiming to be psychics ? I don't assume you don"t apply them, your actual belief in the existence of a psychic would seem to tell me you just don't.
I ask this because it is my scepticism and demand for evidence, logic and reason that led me to atheism, and I use those same things when it comes to any supernatural claims, hence I found none to be anything other thn wishful thinking or just plain old bs.
(but by all means keep the on-topicness going)

Hello fustercluck,

In the debate we had about Edgar Cayce,
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... sc&start=0
since it involved only a few individuals, I wasn't able to determine which arguments made by the negative side were significant to those reading the thread. Since you are of the opinion that all supernatural claims are wishful thinking or bs I was wondering if you could look through the EC thread and then post on what arguments you considered significant. Just post it on that thread instead of this one.

Thank you for the link Sleepyhead, I will look into it !

[Nickman]

Hello nickman and fustercluck,

I hit send before answering part of your post sleepyhead. The simple truth I found was that phrase, truth will always overcome scrutiny. What truth led me to my atheism? The simple truth that every faith I looked at I could see holes. The main thing was the lack of evidence for every deity to ever have been worshipped and the extinction of most all that have ever been. There are only a few endangered species of gods left.

In the marketing of any particular God, the natural tendency is to provide individuals with what they want to hear. The general assumption is that the average individual won't look to closely at the claims when those claims are beneficial to the individual. You have decided to think about faith systems and quite naturally have found holes. In looking at the basic faith of Judaism based on Genesis through deuteronomy I don;t see any holes.

I agree that Judaism has their stuff together. It is hard to even debate. They have had years to get all their ducks in a row. It is when people add the NT that we see really big problems.

Still I have to be skeptical about any deity due to lack of evidence. Im not gonna go into that here. My main goal is to raise the problems of the LDS faith. So far no one has been able to provide a proper counter argument.

[Nickman]

a bit offtopic here, but I can't resist asking, Nickman, why don't you apply the same skillset you used in your mormonism debunking to the investigation of people claiming to be psychics ? I don't assume you don"t apply them, your actual belief in the existence of a psychic would seem to tell me you just don't.
I ask this because it is my scepticism and demand for evidence, logic and reason that led me to atheism, and I use those same things when it comes to any supernatural claims, hence I found none to be anything other thn wishful thinking or just plain old bs.
(but by all means keep the on-topicness going)

I dpnt believe in psychics at all. Another member brought up Edgar Cayce and I said some of the things he said were impressive. This doesnt mean I have any care about psychics, and I would never ask one for a reading.

thn I misunderstood and I must apologise.

no problem

[sleepyhead]

Still I have to be skeptical about any deity due to lack of evidence. Im not gonna go into that here. My main goal is to raise the problems of the LDS faith. So far no one has been able to provide a proper counter argument.

Hello nickman,

Ok. Since I was a convert to the LDS faith and active for about a year, and presently still a member of the temple lot group, I'll probably follow this thread and any other mormon threads that pop up.
From your picture, (even though your not as handsome as me), you appear to be involved in muscle building activities. Creating threads proving mormonism is false places you in the kindergarden of the debate between theists and non theists. Your free to continue proving mormonism is untrue as long as you like, however, doing so won't be of much value in strengthening your critical thinking muscles.

[Nickman]

Still I have to be skeptical about any deity due to lack of evidence. Im not gonna go into that here. My main goal is to raise the problems of the LDS faith. So far no one has been able to provide a proper counter argument.

Hello nickman,

Ok. Since I was a convert to the LDS faith and active for about a year, and presently still a member of the temple lot group, I'll probably follow this thread and any other mormon threads that pop up.
From your picture, (even though your not as handsome as me), you appear to be involved in muscle building activities. Creating threads proving mormonism is false places you in the kindergarden of the debate between theists and non theists. Your free to continue proving mormonism is untrue as long as you like, however, doing so won't be of much value in strengthening your critical thinking muscles.

Its not about that. Its about getting thru to people and stating facts. It is also fun.

[Dantalion]

Still I have to be skeptical about any deity due to lack of evidence. Im not gonna go into that here. My main goal is to raise the problems of the LDS faith. So far no one has been able to provide a proper counter argument.

Hello nickman,

Ok. Since I was a convert to the LDS faith and active for about a year, and presently still a member of the temple lot group, I'll probably follow this thread and any other mormon threads that pop up.
From your picture, (even though your not as handsome as me), you appear to be involved in muscle building activities. Creating threads proving mormonism is false places you in the kindergarden of the debate between theists and non theists. Your free to continue proving mormonism is untrue as long as you like, however, doing so won't be of much value in strengthening your critical thinking muscles.

Its not about that. Its about getting thru to people and stating facts. It is also fun.

Also, and i can be wrong here, but isn't the republican presidential candidate a mormon ?
So these kind of debates would seem important to have no ?

[Nickman]

Still I have to be skeptical about any deity due to lack of evidence. Im not gonna go into that here. My main goal is to raise the problems of the LDS faith. So far no one has been able to provide a proper counter argument.

Hello nickman,

Ok. Since I was a convert to the LDS faith and active for about a year, and presently still a member of the temple lot group, I'll probably follow this thread and any other mormon threads that pop up.
From your picture, (even though your not as handsome as me), you appear to be involved in muscle building activities. Creating threads proving mormonism is false places you in the kindergarden of the debate between theists and non theists. Your free to continue proving mormonism is untrue as long as you like, however, doing so won't be of much value in strengthening your critical thinking muscles.

Its not about that. Its about getting thru to people and stating facts. It is also fun.

Also, and i can be wrong here, but isn't the republican presidential candidate a mormon ?
So these kind of debates would seem important to have no ?

Very important in my eyes, yes. Awareness is key