It is currently Thu Dec 13, 2018 5:00 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 5:37 pm 
Analytics wrote:
The Book of Mormon teaches fire, hell, and brimstone. Mormonism doesn’t.


MG: yep. Nowdays it's all in the mind...not a real place. Does scare the hell out of you though, huh? <g>

Regards,
MG


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:34 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 14216
Quote:
MG: how do you account for the short translation timeframe and no crib notes? I'm quite interested in your take on this.


I can only offer my opinion, formed upon some reading I have done but this has not been my primary interest, so take it with a grain of salt.

No matter who the author of the Book of Mormon was, it was conceived at least four years before Joseph Smith began the dictation process. This is a long enough time not only to put together the book, but to spend time memorizing it, as well. Modern folks tend to underestimate the oral traditions of earlier cultures, in which oral recitation was important and relied on memorization. Human beings are capable of pretty impressive feats of memorization, and, IIRC, sources do claim that Joseph Smith was quite adept at the skill. So not only did he have time prior to the dictation to memorize the text, but he would also have had time to refreshen his mastery of passages slated to be dictated shortly.

Quote:
MG: I apologize. I would have to consider you more than an amateur. I have been impressed with both your writing and Brant's. From a lay person's POV I would give you both credit for having your act together.


You don't have to apologize for calling me an amateur, I am in that this is obviously not my profession. I just wanted you to note that my amateur status is the very reason I included so many lengthy citations from real experts.

Thanks for the compliment. I am going to put together a recommended reading list on ancient Mesoamerica that perhaps will interest you. They are the most fascinating culture/people I have studied. Totally aside from the Book of Mormon issue, I enjoy talking about them and seeing other people become interested in them. Their worldview was incredibly powerful, pervasive, and long-lived. I think that says something about human beings and what we need.

_________________
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:28 am 
beastie wrote:
Quote:
MG: how do you account for the short translation timeframe and no crib notes? I'm quite interested in your take on this.


I can only offer my opinion, formed upon some reading I have done but this has not been my primary interest, so take it with a grain of salt.

No matter who the author of the Book of Mormon was, it was conceived at least four years before Joseph Smith began the dictation process. This is a long enough time not only to put together the book, but to spend time memorizing it, as well. Modern folks tend to underestimate the oral traditions of earlier cultures, in which oral recitation was important and relied on memorization. Human beings are capable of pretty impressive feats of memorization, and, IIRC, sources do claim that Joseph Smith was quite adept at the skill. So not only did he have time prior to the dictation to memorize the text, but he would also have had time to refreshen his mastery of passages slated to be dictated shortly.


MG: thanks seven for your thoughts. I've heard others express similar views. This is a real stretch. When one considers the ramifications...well, just go to FARMS or FAIR and read some of their articles/essays dealing with some of the complex textual things going on in the BofM and well...it's a stretch. Now if it can be shown that Oliver Cowdery/Sidney and others were in cahoots and the whole text was written before hand and handed over to the printer without having been dictated first, then Houston, we have a problem. Or if Joseph Smith had a really awesome photographic mind thing going on.

Of course, your explanation is the only one that works from your point of view...unless...well, we won't go there.

fortigurn, what are your thoughts concerning Beastie's BofM production model? Do you think that at the end of the day it makes the most sense? Afterall, if we have some 15th-16th century stuff going on in the text and if it isn't angels and beings from another world helping out, it's got to be crib notes, photographic memory, or a consortium of collaborators that never admitted to their ruse. What makes the most sense to you?

Regards,
MG


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:38 am 
Holy Ghost

Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 918
mentalgymnast wrote:
fortigurn, what are your thoughts concerning Beastie's BofM production model?


I've invited you to the 'Spalding/Rigdon' thread. That should answer your questions.

Quote:
Do you think that at the end of the day it makes the most sense? Afterall, if we have some 15th-16th century stuff going on in the text and if it isn't angels and beings from another world helping out, it's got to be crib notes, photographic memory, or a consortium of collaborators that never admitted to their ruse. What makes the most sense to you?


What makes sense to me is Occham's Razor. It's clear that we can't look to the plates as the source of the Book of Mormon, because the eye witnesses rule that out directly. We must perforce look elsewhere. Since the eye witnesses also supply evidence of available alternative sources, evidence that at least one of those sources was used on at least one occasion, and describe a situation in which Smith had all the opportunity in the world to read from crib notes, I suggest to you that they've already done the spadework for the critic's case.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 1:00 pm 
Fortigurn wrote:
fortgurn: I've invited you to the 'Spalding/Rigdon' thread. That should answer your questions.

MG: Do you think that at the end of the day it makes the most sense? Afterall, if we have some 15th-16th century stuff going on in the text and if it isn't angels and beings from another world helping out, it's got to be crib notes, photographic memory, or a consortium of collaborators that never admitted to their ruse. What makes the most sense to you?


MG: all you had to do was pick one of three. <g> Ok, I'll take time to go over and read that thread. For now you couldn't you pick from one of the three? If not, oh well...

Quote:
What makes sense to me is Occham's Razor. It's clear that we can't look to the plates as the source of the Book of Mormon, because the eye witnesses rule that out directly.


MG: well, I'm not convinced of that for the reasons I've mentioned previously. Depends on how you define the word translate. Your definition is somewhat narrow/limiting. by the way, fortigum, there have been a couple of times when I've said something that you have taken as being insulting. That is not my intent. I hope your skin isn't paper thin. <g>

Quote:
Since the eye witnesses also supply evidence of available alternative sources, evidence that at least one of those sources was used on at least one occasion...


MG: would you review this or at least point to which page to go to in the Spalding thread that would adequately flesh out what you're referring to?

Quote:
...and describe a situation in which Smith had all the opportunity in the world to read from crib notes, I suggest to you that they've already done the spadework for the critic's case.


MG: would you review this also or at least point to which page to go to in the Spalding thread that would adequately flesh out what you're referring to? It's a long thread.

Thanks,
MG


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:58 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 14216
Quote:
MG: thanks seven for your thoughts. I've heard others express similar views. This is a real stretch. When one considers the ramifications...well, just go to FARMS or FAIR and read some of their articles/essays dealing with some of the complex textual things going on in the BofM and well...it's a stretch. Now if it can be shown that Oliver Cowdery/Sidney and others were in cahoots and the whole text was written before hand and handed over to the printer without having been dictated first, then Houston, we have a problem. Or if Joseph Smith had a really awesome photographic mind thing going on.

Of course, your explanation is the only one that works from your point of view...unless...well, we won't go there.

fortigurn, what are your thoughts concerning Beastie's BofM production model? Do you think that at the end of the day it makes the most sense? Afterall, if we have some 15th-16th century stuff going on in the text and if it isn't angels and beings from another world helping out, it's got to be crib notes, photographic memory, or a consortium of collaborators that never admitted to their ruse. What makes the most sense to you?


It's only a stretch, according to you, if you insist Joseph Smith was the sole author, which I did not.

The complexity of the Book of Mormon, IMO, is overstated. The Book of Mormon contains a very simplistic, almost cartoonish, plot and character construction. The Hebraisms that are much touted are often able to be replicated simply by mimicking the language of the KJV.

Moreover, one must remember the culture in which Joseph Smith lived. It was awash in the Bible - children often learned to read by memorizing lengthy passages from it. Joseph Smith' family, by their own admission, were fascinated by religion and attended many meetings about it. Some sermons from the time period dealt with the very topic of the Book of Mormon - the origins of the Indians. People often only look for written influences, but the possible influences far surpass written texts (particularly when believers demand proof of the text in Joseph Smith actual hands).

For these reasons, I think the Hebraic "hits" are irrelevant in regards to the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Too much was already known by his period. Instead, it is all about ancient America - is there any conceivable location for Book of Mormon events? Bar a series of dramatic findings that totally, and I mean totally, rewrite ancient America's history, the answer is a clear "no".

_________________
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 7:14 pm 
Holy Ghost

Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 918
mentalgymnast wrote:
MG: all you had to do was pick one of three. <g> Ok, I'll take time to go over and read that thread. For now you couldn't you pick from one of the three? If not, oh well...


The most credible argument to me is that the Book of Mormon was the product of a number of primary literary sources (such as Spalding and Hawke's works), and a couple of collaborating redactors (Smith included).

Quote:
MG: well, I'm not convinced of that for the reasons I've mentioned previously. Depends on how you define the word translate. Your definition is somewhat narrow/limiting.


I am using the standard definition of 'translate'. The normal, every day, English definition. That is the problem. As some Mormon apologists have acknowledged, LDS history uses the word 'translate' to describe something which is not in fact translation.

Quote:
by the way, fortigum, there have been a couple of times when I've said something that you have taken as being insulting. That is not my intent. I hope your skin isn't paper thin. <g>


On the contrary, I haven't been in the least insulted by anything you've written. I don't know why you think that I've taken anything you've written as insulting. I can assure you that as an Australian I have a very thick skin.

Quote:
MG: would you review this or at least point to which page to go to in the Spalding thread that would adequately flesh out what you're referring to?


Certainly, I give you the occasion on which Smith dictated a passage in which he described Jerusalem as having walls, and then asked for a Bible to check if Jerusalem did in fact have walls.

Quote:
MG: would you review this also or at least point to which page to go to in the Spalding thread that would adequately flesh out what you're referring to? It's a long thread.


Certainly, I give you the occasion on which Smith dictated to Emma from behind a curtain (giving him ample opportunity to read from crib notes), and the occasions on which he looked into a hat while dictating (giving him ample opportunity to read from crib notes). He could also have read from crib notes prior to dictating, at any time. He could also have read from crib notes in full view of the scribes, who may have chosen not to mention the fact.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:47 pm 
well, I've made it to page three on the Spalding thread so far. very interesting stuff. It's going to take a while to get through it. I find myself asking some of the same questions that WhyMe is asking on pgs. 1,2...but we'll see where it goes from there. I am really glad that this conversation is taking place. back to it...

Regards,
MG


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:50 am 
High Goddess of Atlantis
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:40 am
Posts: 4792
Just one little thing to insert here...

Apologists (Brant Gardner for example) have admitted that Joseph Smith most likely copied the passages from the Bible using the actual Bible during the process.

But, AFAIK, there are no eye witnesses to this process.

In other words, if Joseph Smith used a Bible to copy material without anyone actually witnessing this, could he not have copied other material?

There is really no good argument (IMO) as to why the HG would produce words directly from the Bible Joseph Smith used ... seems clear Joseph Smith just copied it. IIRC, apologists didn't have much of a problem with this and said something to the effect that it was just easier to copy the verses than it was to use the seer-stone-in-the-hat process.

Whatever.... ;-)

~dancer~

_________________
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 10:05 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm
Posts: 16719
Location: Northern Utah
truth dancer wrote:
Just one little thing to insert here...

Apologists (Brant Gardner for example) have admitted that Joseph Smith most likely copied the passages from the Bible using the actual Bible during the process.

But, AFAIK, there are no eye witnesses to this process.

In other words, if Joseph Smith used a Bible to copy material without anyone actually witnessing this, could he not have copied other material?

There is really no good argument (IMO) as to why the HG would produce words directly from the Bible Joseph Smith used ... seems clear Joseph Smith just copied it. IIRC, apologists didn't have much of a problem with this and said something to the effect that it was just easier to copy the verses than it was to use the seer-stone-in-the-hat process.

Whatever.... ;-)

~dancer~


I tend to view the "translation process" as a classic misdirect. I very much doubt that much of the book was produced with the rock-in-hat method. As you said, at least part of the text could only have been copied (or it doesn't make sense), and at least one person has suggested that the manuscripts bear some hallmarks of being copied, not dictated.

_________________
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 8:31 am 
mentalgymnast wrote:
well, I've made it to page three on the Spalding thread so far. very interesting stuff. It's going to take a while to get through it. I find myself asking some of the same questions that WhyMe is asking on pgs. 1,2...but we'll see where it goes from there. I am really glad that this conversation is taking place. back to it...


Well, I've made it to the end of page three. At the end of that page DB makes and interesting comment:

"Without some early sources, claiming to provide an explanation of how the two men might have met and became so psychologically intimate, as to be able to plan fraudulent methods to found a new church, I am pretty much lost.

I think both men were "true believers" in certain aspects of their religion and of "the Restoration," but how they could have ever joined such supernatural beliefs or delusions or paranormal experiences into a church-founding conspiracy, still eludes my grasp."

Spalding theory requires collaboration/conspiracy in things of a spiritual nature. And then keeping it quiet. I find that to be a real barrier to belief in Spalding even though there are interesting connections,etc.

To be honest, as I've read this and that written by those that are confirmed skeptics in regards to the origin of the BofM, I come away thinking that the ins and outs of accepting this or that theory as to how the BofM came to be, takes more mentalgymnastics to come to grips with and dovetail with all the conflicting evidence,etc., than looking at the possibility that what the book says about itself and how it came forth may in the end make the most sense and provide the greatest degree of cohesiveness.

One does have to accept the possibility of divine intervention/involvement though. Something that isn't being done over on the Spalding thread.

Regards,
MG


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 8:34 am 
He-Who-Has-Not-Sinned (Recently)
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:49 pm
Posts: 4627
Location: MI6-Private Quarters
mentalgymnast wrote:
Well, I've made it to the end of page three. At the end of that page DB makes and interesting comment:

"Without some early sources, claiming to provide an explanation of how the two men might have met and became so psychologically intimate, as to be able to plan fraudulent methods to found a new church, I am pretty much lost.

I think both men were "true believers" in certain aspects of their religion and of "the Restoration," but how they could have ever joined such supernatural beliefs or delusions or paranormal experiences into a church-founding conspiracy, still eludes my grasp."

Spalding theory requires collaboration/conspiracy in things of a spiritual nature. And then keeping it quiet. I find that to be a real barrier to belief in Spalding even though there are interesting connections,etc.

To be honest, as I've read this and that written by those that are confirmed skeptics in regards to the origin of the BofM, I come away thinking that the ins and outs of accepting this or that theory as to how the BofM came to be, takes more mentalgymnastics to come to grips with and dovetail with all the conflicting evidence,etc., than looking at the possibility that what the book says about itself and how it came forth may in the end make the most sense and provide the greatest degree of cohesiveness.

One does have to accept the possibility of divine intervention/involvement though. Something that isn't being done over on the Spalding thread.

Regards,
MG


You may wish to re-post your thoughts about the Spading thread in the Commentary thread. Here's the link:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... php?t=1151

_________________
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:10 am 
Bond...James Bond wrote:
mentalgymnast wrote:
Well, I've made it to the end of page three. At the end of that page DB makes and interesting comment:

"Without some early sources, claiming to provide an explanation of how the two men might have met and became so psychologically intimate, as to be able to plan fraudulent methods to found a new church, I am pretty much lost.

I think both men were "true believers" in certain aspects of their religion and of "the Restoration," but how they could have ever joined such supernatural beliefs or delusions or paranormal experiences into a church-founding conspiracy, still eludes my grasp."

Spalding theory requires collaboration/conspiracy in things of a spiritual nature. And then keeping it quiet. I find that to be a real barrier to belief in Spalding even though there are interesting connections,etc.

To be honest, as I've read this and that written by those that are confirmed skeptics in regards to the origin of the BofM, I come away thinking that the ins and outs of accepting this or that theory as to how the BofM came to be, takes more mentalgymnastics to come to grips with and dovetail with all the conflicting evidence,etc., than looking at the possibility that what the book says about itself and how it came forth may in the end make the most sense and provide the greatest degree of cohesiveness.

One does have to accept the possibility of divine intervention/involvement though. Something that isn't being done over on the Spalding thread.

Regards,
MG


You may wish to re-post your thoughts about the Spading thread in the Commentary thread. Here's the link:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... php?t=1151


MG: done. I hadn't noticed that additional thread. Thanks.

Regards,
MG


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Book of Mormon...a common thread?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:08 pm 
Star A

Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 6:15 pm
Posts: 80
mentalgymnast wrote:
From another thread:

mentalgymnast wrote:
If the BofM is true, so is the church.


Then we hear:

SatanWasSetUp wrote:
The church has gone through many changes, and it would survive losing the Book of Mormon.


Runtu wrote:
But then it's not true, so it really doesn't matter, does it? ;-)
Actually any teaching about the mound builders in the east was not known until the early 1900s, so it does more to proff the Book of Mormon then it does to contradict it. And the teaching of a river flowing into the Red Sea wasn't known in the United States until 1963 when the book of Josephus was published. So either Joseph Smith was inspired of God or he was a medium.
I would like to discuss what you don't believe that is written in the Book of Mormon rather than you just don't believe. And the Church most certainly could not do without the Book of Mormon. The members of the Church right now are not as well versed as they should be or they would also be inspired. There is no spirit birth. There is a new Savior for every earth. Man may become a God but that God would have to be a Savior too. I would like to discuss these teachings with a knowledable Mormon. I am a 7th generation Mormon.

grampa75


VegasRefugee wrote:
The book of Mormon is a drastically bad document ripped from old folk tales of the mound builders, literal straight up copying from the KJV and boring drawn out gore fests of chopped hands severed by nonexistent Steel Swords (or is that obsidian clubs, Dannyboy?).


Fortigurn wrote:
Given that there is no evidence (even from eyewitnesses), that the Book of Mormon was translated from golden plates, we must necessarily look for an alternative source.


MG: That's it folks. The final word. Like he said, let's look elsewhere!

marg wrote:
mentalgymnast wrote:

Does everything point towards the BofM being bogus?


Without a doubt, yes.


Runtu wrote:

MG: Are there any so called evidences [of the BofM] that you believe have some validity?

Runtu: Sure.


harmony wrote:
The church does not rise or fall on the Book of Mormon.


harmony wrote:
It's canonized, so it's scripture to LDS people, but even the canonization doesn't make it something it's not: God-breathed. But then, very little that is considered scripture is actually God-breathed. Man doesn't have a very high standard for his scriptures.


truth dancer wrote:
My loss of belief had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the issues surrounding the Book of Mormon.

Even if the Book of Mormon were true, (which I findly completely impossible at this point), it is no way means anything else is true.


Runtu wrote:
Yep, Book of Mormon issues were secondary to me as well. Rather, it's the totality of all the things one has to rationalize and make excuses for that makes the truth of Mormonism so unlikely for me.


SatanWasSetUp wrote:

Because the living prophet is more important than anything, even the Book of Mormon.


harmony wrote:
...the prophet could pitch it to the curb tomorrow, and the church would continue with hardly a blip. The words of the living prophet trump everything else.


Runtu wrote:
...the church would continue fairly unimpeded if it chucked the BofM.
The words of the living prophet trump everything else.


harmony wrote:
What do we use the Book of Mormon for? Not much. General Conference talks are the source of our teaching. So that's the living prophet, not the scriptures.


and finally...

Fortigurn wrote:
mentalgymnast wrote:
harmony wrote:
The church does not rise or fall on the Book of Mormon.


MG: I disagree. The Mormon story hinges on the validity of the BofM. That the BofM is what it says it is. If it is not, then the church is not what it says it is and does not have the authority of Jesus Christ that it claims to have.


You're absolutely right there.


then we come back to this:

harmony wrote:
The church does not rise or fall on the Book of Mormon.



MG: anyone see a common thread intermingling amongst these comments? I am less than impressed with the rationalization and short shrifting going on here. Sorry guys, the BofM is a big deal, and there's more to it than you are apparently willing to give. Why in the world do you think Pres. Hinckley encouraged the whole church to read the BofM in a year? Is there power in that book that comes into the hearts of those that feast upon its pages? Is it an artifactual testimony that God lives and Jesus is Lord of all?

Well, these questions can only be answered on an individual level. But when one takes on the so called testimonies of died in the wool doubters without really giving the BofM a full and balanced chance over a long period of time one has limited himself/herself to a restricted and narrow point of view.

I remember years ago when I first read Metcalfe's "New Approaches" I was stunned. I was also reading Compton, Van Wagoner, Thomas Stuart Ferguson, B.H. Roberts, Sagan, www.lds-mormon.com, and on and on. I ended up pretty much just putting the BofM on the shelf. Left my HC calling and considered jumping the good ship Mormon. I was a NOM for a while. Hung in there. Went to Sunstone, then FAIR. Hung in there. Sent a son on a mission. Hung in there. Now...I see reasons, valid reasons, to hang in there today. There's a LOT that doesn't make total sense, but there is a lot that makes partial and even more than partial sense when one turns things around, looks underneath and at the sides, and also takes into account that it may well be true that "God's ways are not always man's ways".

Like I said, for a long time the BofM pretty much sat on the shelf. Unopened except infrequently.

Is this the case for some of you?

I've gone back to the BofM. Yes, the apparent anachronisms are there. KJ Bible is there. You can go to my wikipedia references and elsewhere to find the rest...But there's more to the BofM than it appears that those I've quoted in this post are willing to admit. The only way to prove that this is so, however, is to one's self by living inside its pages with more than a cursory read/look now and then.

I still stand by my comment made earlier:

mentalgymnast wrote:
MG: The Mormon story hinges on the validity of the BofM. That the BofM is what it says it is. If it is not, then the church is not what it says it is and does not have the authority of Jesus Christ that it claims to have. Some on this thread have condemned the BofM for not having any basis for belief behind it simply by throwing out a comment or two to disparage it. I can empathize with that. For example, if one goes to these to sites:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic ... _of_Mormon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon

it is possible to find reasons to cast the BofM aside, but you can also find reasons to take a further look.

If you take that further look by visiting a site such as this one:

http://www.lightplanet.com/Mormons/book ... index.html

and take the time to investigate the material posted there, it is possible to come away thinking that it is possible that the BofM has something to it besides crock.

Those that have cast aside the BofM as being strictly a nineteenth century production have done so prematurely in my opinion.

The church does rise or fall on the BofM. Many churches teach about Jesus Christ. Saying that the LDS church would be able to continue its three fold mission if the BofM was proven to be false is wishful thinking.

If the BofM is a fabrication/fraud there is no reason to continue bearing testimony of the truth claims of the CofJCofLDS.


MG: If the Book of Mormon is true, as I said earlier, pretty much everything else discussed in these forums in regards to issues and controversies as to things "Mormon" takes a back seat.

There are many here who as I said earlier, "have cast aside the BofM as being strictly a nineteenth century production [and] have done so prematurely..."

I haven't come across anything that anyone on this forum has said to make me think otherwise.

Regards,
MG

_________________
Paul W. Burt


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:21 pm 
Star A

Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 6:15 pm
Posts: 80
mentalgymnast wrote:
Analytics wrote:
The Book of Mormon teaches fire, hell, and brimstone. Mormonism doesn’t.


MG: yep. Nowdays it's all in the mind...not a real place. Does scare the hell out of you though, huh? <g>

Regards,
MG

The fire and hell and brimstone taught in the Book of Mormon and any other scriptures, especially the Doctrine and Covenants, are true. Yet they way we interpret that fire and brimstone would only be correct IF and WHEN the Holy Spirit bears witness to what that actually means. There is most certainly a time when this earth is going to burn with fire and all those who will not believe the Prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ at that time shall be crispy critters. The sun is prophesied of changing into a Red Giant Sun, which of course is the natural change of any sun, and you would need a good shelter; Isaiah 26: 20 Come my people, enter into thy chambers and shut thy doors about thee. Hide thyself as it were for a little moment until the indignation be overpast when the Lord ariseth out of his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity. Mormons have a shelter that was built in 1937 by the Church. However, you need to stay in that shelter for about a year before earth's science is able to make the earth liveable again, so you would need at least one year's supply of food and plenty of water. There is an artesian well inside the Mormon's shelter, and all Mormons are supposed to have one year's supply of food.
What I am saying, is that is going to be the HELL we have long awaited for.
grampa75

_________________
Paul W. Burt


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:24 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:09 pm
Posts: 2455
Location: House of Lords cellar
grampa75 wrote:
What I am saying, is that is going to be the HELL we have long awaited for.


Sweet, sounds like a great show. I'll make sure and bring the popcorn.

_________________
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:26 pm 
He-Who-Has-Not-Sinned (Recently)
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:49 pm
Posts: 4627
Location: MI6-Private Quarters
Who Knows wrote:

Sweet, sounds like a great show. I'll make sure and bring the popcorn.


Do you think it'll be hot enough to cook Hot Pockets?

_________________
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:34 pm 
He-Who-Has-Not-Sinned (Recently)
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:49 pm
Posts: 4627
Location: MI6-Private Quarters
Quote:
There is most certainly a time when this earth is going to burn with fire and all those who will not believe the Prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ at that time shall be crispy critters.


That's bad news. Just one question: will Pokatator become tater tots or curly fries?

Quote:
Mormons have a shelter that was built in 1937 by the Church. However, you need to stay in that shelter for about a year before earth's science is able to make the earth liveable again, so you would need at least one year's supply of food and plenty of water. There is an artesian well inside the Mormon's shelter, and all Mormons are supposed to have one year's supply of food.


Where is this shelter? How big is it? Does it have wireless Internet capabilities?

_________________
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 6:11 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 14216
Quote:
To be honest, as I've read this and that written by those that are confirmed skeptics in regards to the origin of the BofM, I come away thinking that the ins and outs of accepting this or that theory as to how the BofM came to be, takes more mentalgymnastics to come to grips with and dovetail with all the conflicting evidence,etc., than looking at the possibility that what the book says about itself and how it came forth may in the end make the most sense and provide the greatest degree of cohesiveness.


In addition to what I, and many others including BH Roberts, perceive to be the simplistic, almost childish, cartoonish stories in the Book of Mormon that contain none of the complexities of comparable Biblical stories, did you read any of Uncle Dale's postings about the many inconsistencies within the Book of Mormon? He posted them last month or so at MAD. I'd do a search for you and link them but disabled my account so I can't log in.

IMO, many of these arguments you find persuasive remind me of chiasmus: much must be ignored in order to find it impressive. These are the type of arguments that sound good on the surface but scratch very easily.

_________________
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 11:17 am 
Star A

Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 6:15 pm
Posts: 80
Fortigurn wrote:
moksha wrote:
The Book of Mormon is an allegory, a sacred story, whose meaning is not dependent on any connection to actual history. To the extent that the Book of Mormon allegory reflects the dynamics of life, it is as true is it needs to be.

Attacking the Book of Mormon for its lack of evidence is like questioning Aesop's Fables.


Unfortunately the Book of Mormon does not describe itself in this way, and neither does the LDS church describe it in this way.

I can most certainly testify of the validity of the Book of Mormon. I discovered years ago that if you first read the Book of Mormon there is a spirit that goes with it that will enable us to understand ALL SCRIPTURE. My education only goes as far as a little college before I was called into the Military during the Korean War.
Quote:
1 John 2: 27 the anoiting which you have received of him abideth in you, and ye NEED NOT THAT ANY MAN TEACH YOU, but the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
St. John 8: 31 If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed. 32. And you shall know the TRUTH and the TRUTH shall make you free.
Quote:
Doctrine and Covenants 93: 24 And TRUTH is the knowlege of things as they were, as they are, and as they are to come.
I have discovered the future history of our world to the very last day of its existence, and I would like to hear from anyone of you who can make this same claim.
Because of some teachings of St. John, and Joseph Smith all Mormons should be able to tell you where life first began and where God, Himself came from and where we will be after this earth has reached its conclusion.
The LDS teaches of 3 degrees of glory. 1 The Telestial Kingdom of heaven, which is this earth right now in the condition it is. 2. The Terestrial Kingdom of Heaven, which is this earth as it shall be when Christ comes back to the earth. 3. The Celestial Kingdom of heaven is also this earth in its most glorified state which is after the great city is brought down out of heaven and completely covers the entire earth.
It doesn't matter if you believe what I said, but how many of you that is Mormon or non-Mormon that can come to the entire truth of these teachings?
They are ever learning and NEVER able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
And why is that? Because you have to believe in the Book of Mormon and receive that Holy Spirit to teach you all truth, and as the Bible informs us, we do not need any MAN to teach us.
grampa75

_________________
Paul W. Burt


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 12:57 pm 
beastie wrote:
Quote:
To be honest, as I've read this and that written by those that are confirmed skeptics in regards to the origin of the BofM, I come away thinking that the ins and outs of accepting this or that theory as to how the BofM came to be, takes more mentalgymnastics to come to grips with and dovetail with all the conflicting evidence,etc., than looking at the possibility that what the book says about itself and how it came forth may in the end make the most sense and provide the greatest degree of cohesiveness.


In addition to what I, and many others including BH Roberts, perceive to be the simplistic, almost childish, cartoonish stories in the Book of Mormon that contain none of the complexities of comparable Biblical stories, did you read any of Uncle Dale's postings about the many inconsistencies within the Book of Mormon?


MG: they're in the Bible too.

I haven't seen Unc's postings, but a few years ago I remember coming across some of them on an internet site somewhere. King Benjamin getting time warped with Mosiah, and some others that were interesting. The thing is, wouldn't you expect this to be the case if you have multiple personalities/minds working together to produce the BofM? They're not all going to get their story straight and on the same page...literally and figuratively. Whether you take the approach that those multiple personalities are Spalding and Co. or Moroni and Co. the effect would be much the same...no?

Similar to what we have going on in the Bible too?

Regards,
MG


Last edited by mentalgymnast on Fri Mar 16, 2007 1:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Doctor CamNC4Me, Fence Sitter, Meadowchik, Nomomo and 45 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group