Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mormon Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 52 of 264 (51428)
08-20-2003 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Jake22
08-20-2003 6:32 PM


Re: The skinny on Mormonism
I would be very careful about trusting Martin entirely - not because there aren't many issues on which Mormonism can be challenged but because it is not unusual for Christian anti-Mormon sources to "spin" the facts giving an unreliable picture. The bit about the "cofounders" for instance sounds very dubious to me.
A better source might be the web site About The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) – Perspective on all things LDS/Mormon/Latter-day Saint put together by a former Mormon. Everything I have seen about it suggests that it is more balanced than many pro- or anti- Mormon sources.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Jake22, posted 08-20-2003 6:32 PM Jake22 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 56 of 264 (63997)
11-02-2003 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by theOtter
11-02-2003 4:32 PM


Re: Some answers (quite long)
Just a point, but if you don't know that the LDS Church banned Blacks banned from the priesthood for a good part of their history, then that illustrates the point that relying solely on official sources is questionable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by theOtter, posted 11-02-2003 4:32 PM theOtter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by theOtter, posted 11-03-2003 6:44 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 70 of 264 (64199)
11-03-2003 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by theOtter
11-03-2003 6:44 AM


Re: Some answers (quite long)
What you are not saying is that negro blood WAS held as being evidence of descent from Cain. Indeed the black skin was held to be "the Mark of Cain".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by theOtter, posted 11-03-2003 6:44 AM theOtter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by theOtter, posted 11-03-2003 4:35 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 71 of 264 (64200)
11-03-2003 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by theOtter
11-03-2003 1:05 PM


Well I've tried Moroni's promise as best I can and I did not get any sort of sign that the Book of Mormon is at all true.
But then again, despite FARM's apologetics archaeology has not found any of the BoM civilisaitosn and it is quite apparent form the text where and when it was written.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by theOtter, posted 11-03-2003 1:05 PM theOtter has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 73 of 264 (64206)
11-03-2003 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by theOtter
11-03-2003 4:35 PM


Re: Some answers
The fact is that negroes used to be banned from the priesthood on the spurious grounds that their skin colour was a sign of descent from Cain.
I have in fact read most of the Book of Mormon but the poor imitation of Jacobean English was very wearing. I would have thought that a divinely inspired translation could have managed rather better.
And it's not the case that there have been hundreds - or even one dig - in the Americas confirming the Book of Mormon.
And yes it is quite apparent from the Book of Mormon that the text in it's current form dated from after the time the "Golden Plates" were supposedly discovered. The American nationalism itself dates it to the late 18th Century at the earliest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by theOtter, posted 11-03-2003 4:35 PM theOtter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by theOtter, posted 11-04-2003 8:10 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 82 of 264 (64398)
11-04-2003 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by theOtter
11-04-2003 8:10 AM


Re: Some answers
So your answer is that since the LDS church has fooled a lot of people that the Book of Mormon must be true ? And then you go on to repeat the claims of Mormon Apologists - none of them yet supported - as if they were fact.
The fact is that mainstream archaeologists (and even some Mormons !) have found no sign of the Book of Mormon civilisations. Mormon apologists typically refer to things like the Bat Creek Stone - while not mentioning the fact that if the stone is genuine and if script IS "Paleo-Hebrew" (i.e. Canaanite or Phoenician) - and both are far from certain - the letter forms are closest to those of the first century BC to first century AD, far too late to have anything to do with the Nephites or Lamanites (who would have been using Joseph Smith's fictional "Reformed Egyptian" instead).
The Bat Creek Stone: Judeans in Tennessee?"
The Bat Creek Stone: A Final Statement"
It is obivous that one of us has made his mind up and will not hear the truth - and it is equally obvious that it is you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by theOtter, posted 11-04-2003 8:10 AM theOtter has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 129 of 264 (166449)
12-09-2004 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by arachnophilia
12-09-2004 2:41 AM


The Plates were supposedly taken back. Only a very few people - all of them dead - have even claimed to have seen them as actual physical objects.
At this point I'm convinced that they never existed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by arachnophilia, posted 12-09-2004 2:41 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by arachnophilia, posted 12-09-2004 3:37 AM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 139 of 264 (167141)
12-11-2004 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Justice
12-10-2004 1:44 PM


Re: Question
Isn't it true that in LDS theology GOd started as a mortal human much like us ? And if so where is it stated that He was the only one to achieve Godhood ? Because if it is not there could be any number of Gods, all entirely consistent with LDS doctrine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Justice, posted 12-10-2004 1:44 PM Justice has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 175 of 264 (168394)
12-15-2004 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by arachnophilia
12-15-2004 1:17 AM


I think that the fake "documents" referred to were the Kinderhook plates. There's no doubt that the plates were fake - and the evidence indicates that Smith at first believed them to be genuine and claimed to have at least partially translated them. Smith never completed or published his translation
While I recognise the need to be careful in examining anti- as well as pro-LDS sites this looks reasonable:
http://www.xmission.com/~research/central/trans15.htm
This pro-Mormon reply concedes the factual evidence but denies that there was any translation:
How Do We Explain Early Comments about the Kinderhook Plates? - FAIR

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by arachnophilia, posted 12-15-2004 1:17 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024