Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 11, 2007 18:51:37 GMT -4
It's no secret that the Book of Mormon quotes from the Bible. Nephi says he's quoting Isaiah in many chapters in 1st and 2nd Nephi. In fact the Bible often quotes itself too - particularly the New Testament quoting from the old. What is more interesting is that the majority of the verses quoted do not exactly follow the King James text - there are changes, particularly in areas where the King James translation could be improved upon.
So is your whole argument that scripture (the Book of Mormon) sounds too much like other scripture (the Bible)? Sounds more like an argument in favor of both being inspired by the same source - namely God.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Apr 11, 2007 18:51:52 GMT -4
So it's smallness is supposed to be noteworthy. Then why were you calling attention to its size just a moment ago. Both are noteworthy. Both small size in comparison with the world at large and the quick growth in comparison with the dwindling numbers of many other faiths. Only because they do not wish to tell converts the whole story --such as Smith recited the BOM while behind a curtain at times and other times while his face was stuck in his hat and the golden book was nowhere around.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 12, 2007 10:58:02 GMT -4
Only because they do not wish to tell converts the whole story --such as Smith recited the BOM while behind a curtain at times and other times while his face was stuck in his hat and the golden book was nowhere around. I've already told you I don't believe that to be an accurate account. It is also second hand - the man who wrote it was not himself involved in the translation process.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 12, 2007 11:56:33 GMT -4
To add to my last post: The exact method Joseph used is open to speculation - he never gave a detailed account, whether he picked the english words to go with the meaning of the characters he viewed through the urim and thumim, or whether english text was revealed to him directly as he looked into the seer stone in his hat, or whether some other method was involved. The fact that he went back and made changes to the text after the first printing is evidence to me that Joseph was really translating - picking English words for the meanings he saw in the characters, and that with greater experience in translating and receiving revelation he could pick better words to convey the original meaning as it had been revealed to him during the translation.
What new investigators are told is that the Book of Mormon was translated through the power of God from golden plates revealed to Joseph by an angel. That's the truth. The exact details of the translation are really secondary to that one fact that it was accomplished through the power of God.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Apr 13, 2007 13:00:24 GMT -4
To add to my last post: The exact method Joseph used is open to speculation - he never gave a detailed account... This just simply is not so. There are many surviving interviews done by reporters with the witnesses.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 13, 2007 15:25:20 GMT -4
And none of them present details such as "did you see english text or have to come up with your own words for the meaning of the character that you were able to understand through your prophetic gift?". Some of those around Joseph speculated on this issue, but Joseph himself never answered it in that level of detail. At least, not as far as I know, and I've looked for it.
In fact perhaps the best account of how it may have been accomplished is in D&C 9 - a revelation received when Oliver Cowdery attempted to translate. It makes it obvious that it was difficult work and did involve effort on the part of the translator - not merely reading english text off.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Apr 15, 2007 21:20:13 GMT -4
And none of them present details such as "did you see English text or have to come up with your own words for the meaning of the character that you were able to understand through your prophetic gift?". Some of those around Joseph speculated on this issue, but Joseph himself never answered it in that level of detail. At least, not as far as I know, and I've looked for it. In fact perhaps the best account of how it may have been accomplished is in D&C 9 - a revelation received when Oliver Cowdery attempted to translate. It makes it obvious that it was difficult work and did involve effort on the part of the translator - not merely reading English text off. What are you talking about? Please be more specific. I don't understand what you are talking about here. It was difficult work because people only saw the golden book in dreams and visions and lies, perhaps? Experts I have heard of and read of say the whole thing is a sham. Do you have any experts who say otherwise? The only word supporting the BoM is t hat it is supposed to be "taken by faith and faith alone". I have heard of the "anti-Mormon" label you have made use of here. That is an interesting trick. Do all persons regardless of their expertise who think the BoM is a sham get this label and thus the brush off? I find this label to be telling of your lack of vision and ability to accept reality simply because I truly wanted to believe. The good people G. and I were living with after we were married presented me with this book. You say it was written by a 20 year old? I think it shows. This "and so it came to pass" trick where Smith would use whenever his language got to sound too modern was telling. So was his flagrant copying passage-by-passage from the Bible. I have to agree with Mark Twain. He thought the BoM was a sham. If you give him the "anti-Mormon" brush-off it is a reflection on you, not him.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Apr 15, 2007 23:27:04 GMT -4
Do you slam other religions too or just this one? If some people want to believe in it why must you try so hard to show that they are wrong? Do you give Scientologists the same treatment? Or Jehovah's Witnesses? Or Catholics?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 15, 2007 23:34:49 GMT -4
What are you talking about? Please be more specific. I don't understand what you are talking about here. You have implied many times that the church lies to new converts because it does not tell them how the Book of Mormon was translated. The fact of the matter is that the church does not know the exact process that was involved because Joseph Smith never gave a detailed account. Others around Joseph speculated on the exact process, but their accounts are not definitive. If the church doesn't know the exact details then it isn't lying about them. It repeats what Joseph himself said - that the Book of Mormon was translated by the power of God from the golden plates, and they leave it at that. Even if you disregard the testamony of the three witnessess because an angel was present when they saw the plates (and even though they maintained that they had seen the plates and an angel to their dying days, despite the fact that they all three left the church), eight seperate witnessess hefted the plates in the broad light of day with no angels or visions present. You continue to ignore their account, though it's printed right below the account of the three witnessess in the front of every copy of the Book of Mormon. What experts? Produce their names please so I can judge for myself if they are credible. If they're people you've already quoted from on this thread then they are not "experts". I have the word of the people who were there - who served Joseph as scribe and saw the plates themselves. I have the word of millions of other members who have read the book and felt its origin to be ultimately divine. And above and beyond that I have received my own personal revelation on the matter, as anyone who choses to may. No. People who don't believe the BoM are not necessarily Anti-mormons. They become anti-mormons when they begin to try to convince others that their faith is false. Just as someone who attempts to convince other Christians that Christ never existed can be described accurately as an anti-christian. I don't believe you. Actually this is a sign that the book is of ancient semitic origin. The structure is quite common in the Bible as well, except that the translators of the Bible chose not to write it out with the same phrase every time it occured in the text, so it's a little less obvious in most english translations of the Bible. The Bible quotes itself as well. Since they were originally seperate texts, I guess that means you believe the later books (including most of the New Testament) are frauds, since they quote extensively from the Old. I believe his words were something like "It's cloroform in print." Mark Twain was a good writer and a clever satarist, but he was wrong on this particular point. Was he an anti-mormon? I don't think so, since he didn't go much beyond that particular essay on the BoM, and anti-Mormon prejudice was extremely common at the time. He was more of a product of his times than an anti-mormon. And some of his other works have been refrenced or quoted in talks at the LDS General Conferance.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 15, 2007 23:35:34 GMT -4
Actually he does give Scientologists the same treatment, though I haven't heard him say much against the Jehovah's Witnessess yet.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Apr 24, 2007 1:09:02 GMT -4
Do you slam other religions too or just this one? If some people want to believe in it why must you try so hard to show that they are wrong? Do you give Scientologists the same treatment? Or Jehovah's Witnesses? Or Catholics? Scientologists too. The others you mentioined keep to themself and if their members were to leave they would not feel cut off from friends and families still within their faith. No, I would not "slam" the catholics. The word "catholic" means universal. There is not an american state that acts like a theoacracy and exculdes any persons who are not catholic like the LDS church does in Utah. But the subject of this thread is the Book of Mormon and Mormonism. So, keeping to this subject let me say that if were to write a book, let's say "the Alpha Centauri Bible" or "the Neanderthal Bible" there will be people who are looking for answers who will hold it up as the answer to all their problems. And it will not matter how many errors it will have -- people will only claim it has some special deeper meaning or find some elaborate excuse for the errors. And it will not matter if I plagiarize the bible or other stories or scriptures -- people will only say that the similarities are proof of my writings divinity. And it will not even matter if I even admit it is a hoax -- people will claim that it is a lie or conspiracy and I never said that or that I was possessed or my confession was an apparition. It does not have to be perfect. It only has to be good enough to get a movement going and it has to provide an answer that people are looking for. People will believe what they want and abandon all rational thought, scientific method, or reason to satisify this need. And once they are hooked, they are hooked perminantly. And their devotion will serve as inspiration to convince others to follow. It would not even matter if I had a history of conning people. People will somehow find a way to overlook this or claim that the stories of be being a con artist were "Anti-Thompsonian" It would only matter that my book and my lectures would have come at the right time and the right place. During the turbulence of the Vietnam war many people were drawn to the social conscious message of the charismatic preacher, Jim Jones. Jones rode the back-lash of the turbulent eras of the 60's and 70's. Whatever you were looking for, Jones and the People's Temple had it. What ever questions you had, Jones had the answers. It was powerful stuff. Likewise, Joseph Smith rode the back-lash to the industrial revolution. He provided answers to the questions that troubled people had. Jones fashioned himself to be a god-man and I have heard recordings of his sermons where he preached that he wanted others to attain the same sort of god-like status that he had. Smith was the same. I have read interviews and magazine articles written during Smith's time when he was visiting Saint Louis. Smith was an egomaniac. There was a lot more to Smith than the Book of Mormon. In every subject during any conversation, Smith made sure the topic returned back to him. He was a better horseman. He was a better military commander, He was a stronger wrestler. I can easily imagine how his mindset caused him to make that speech -- that last sermon -- where he put himself on the same footing as Jesus Christ and even said he had done more for mankind than Christ. But it is clear that Smith was in this game just for his own glory just as Jones was. To think otherwise is absurd. Nether of these men are saints and it is an insult to all humanity to consider them as such.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Apr 24, 2007 9:09:31 GMT -4
The others you mentioined keep to themself and if their members were to leave they would not feel cut off from friends and families still within their faith. Now that is BS. I have personally seen many in other religions cut off friends and family because they decide to leave or change religions. There is no one or two religions that it happens in. It is common to all. But it does not happen all the time in all religions either. There are people in all religions including Mormons that will still love, support, and associate with their friends and family if they they happened to change or leave a particular religion and there are people who wouldn't. For you to assign that particular character flaw to one or two religions is quite arrogant. And the question still remains, why, if one wants to believe in a particular religion and it is not hurting them or others, do you try so hard to convince them they are wrong. Forgive me in advance if I don't reply for a few months. I am deploying today to the middle east.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Apr 24, 2007 9:40:18 GMT -4
Forgive me in advance if I don't reply for a few months. I am deploying today to the middle east. Good luck & keep safe.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Apr 24, 2007 10:04:34 GMT -4
Forgive me in advance if I don't reply for a few months. I am deploying today to the middle east. Good luck & keep safe. That shouldn't be too hard. The closest I get to any action is 5 miles above it. I fly on the JSTARS aircraft.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 24, 2007 11:37:58 GMT -4
The others you mentioined keep to themself... Hogwash. The Jehovahs Witnessess in particular are well known for their missionary efforts. Faithful members of their religion are required to engage in proselyting some specific amount every month. I've had them at my own door at least twice in the last two years. And that is also completely untrue - again especially with the Jehovah's Witnessess, but I've seen members of just about any faith who were willing to cut off their family members when they converted to the LDS faith. And the Muslims execute those who stray from Islam as apostates. It would be more accurate to say the word "catholic" originally meant universal, but now more commonly refers to the Roman Catholic church. You have no idea what you're talking about. For instance, are you aware that the current mayor of Salt Lake is not LDS? In fact, he has had several scuffles with the church over property rights down town and whether the Church can restrict smoking or protests against it on its property. According to your views of the Church he should have been secretly murdered (or at least castrated) by the Danites the first time he dared to disagree with the Church, and there was no way he would have been re-elected. Somehow he has both avoided the church's secret assassins and managed to be re-elected to this point. JayUtah is a member of this board who lives in Utah but is not LDS. Has he given you the impression that he is somehow being "excluded"? The rest of Bill's post is not worth responding to. I have already covered several of his points in earlier posts on this thread and he hasn't presented anything new or more substantial.
|
|