Okay okay,im LDS and what these ppl think we are Is stupid? really? Do they SERIOUSLY THINK WERE CHURCH FANATICS? Or that were old fashoned freaks that dont no what the hek a TV is? Really WTH! whats up with these ppl! There on crack seriously ON CRACK! Idiots:P
If Blacks are descendants of Cain, then according to the Bible, we are all descendants. In the story of Noah God destroyed the Earth with water, so therefore, Cains relatives were destroyed then....'less Noah was a descendant of Cain, then we all are.
Um... none? One of our bases is that we claim the right to believe what we believe and we don't trash other people. You saying its a con, okay, thats your opinions. Have you ever MET a mormon? We're pretty nice people.
I used to be Mormon, now I'm a gay atheist, that is all. Once I learned it was all a farce, I said Fuck Mormonism, buncha liars, posers and religious fraudsters.
All Mormons are Morons.
Sorry to be the one to reveal facts, but if you're still an active member and believer in Joseph Smith, then you're stupid and I can't help you.
FUCK MORMONISM, NOT ITS STUPID SHEEP! They can't help that they're dumb for they know not what they do.
Famous Mormons:: John D Lee, Wild Bill Hickman, O.P. Rockwell, all the perps at the Mountain Meadows Massacre like George A Smith, Hamblin, Haight, Dame, Brigham Young. Guilty of some 1000 murders between them. Probably more. Especially if we consider the compulsion under which others were to Briggy
what makes a mormon? a freak who thinks they are better then everyone. and someone who is a compleat fag and a know it all and holds them self hight then everyone oh and did i metion a fucking turd thats what a mormon is :}
yall keep saying the mormons are out of the mainstream from the rest of the vvorld, right? vvell tell me, is that a bad thing since the rest of the vvorld drinks, cheats on spouses, drugs, sexual pleasures. and etc. and yall r making fun of the mormons haha. r yall sure being in the mainstream is vvorth it?
I tried re-reading the book of mormon again today. What a piece of crap. That is a subjective statement of course, but I think it's objectively true, by any litterary standards, that it's no masterpiece. I'm sure everyone here values my opinion ;)
Your statement that the book is crap is subjective. Your statement that you actually tried to re-read it purports an objective fact, which I doubt. Since you cast your own good faith into doubt when you flouted your pledge that you were not trying to be a prick.
I can't have a serious conversation with some jerk that calls me a "bigot" without backing it up with any facts. You're a joke, mag.
What is your take on the Book of Abraham? Is has been proven that Joseph Smith's translation is 100% wrong. What is your take on this? I really want to know.
To prove that the Smith translation was 100% wrong, they'd need to be 100% certain that they have the original documents that Smith was translating from. And since they only recovered some of the papyri, while others known to exist were lost in the fire, you are clearly wrong again, Mag.
This is the straw-clutching that I was talking about. Some of the documents have been recovered, and we know that Joe got it wrong. Take the traditional burial scene for example. Joe Smith messed that one up badly. Mormonism due to its short history, is a highly historically testable religion, making many unbelievable claims about the world, for which evidence is sorely lacking. There is no evidence of the veracity of the claims of mormonism. Dude, face facts.
This is a total fallacy: that the possiblity of a civil war could erupt was common knowledge back then. In fact, a Mormon newspaper, Evening and Morning Star, Jan 1833, p 64 published an article named "Rebellion in South Carolina."
And Smith conveniently received his "revelation" one month and one day AFTER South Carolina's tariff nullification notice, didn't he? What a coincidence! And then the newspaper article a month after that.
That's not the only thing I use in my conclusion that Mormonism is a lie; I use the fact that there's never once been a single artifact that can be shown to be from a Nephite or Lamanite, constant changing of the texts, contradictions in your own works, and the fact that the Book of Abaraham has been comclusively proven false.
And yes, I read them all in context and they are, no matter what, false by any standard I apply to them.
But discovery of gold alloy plates in South America that happen to have the density described by the witnesses who hefted the plates (a density considerably less than gold even though the alloy has the appearance of god) does constitute a corroborating artifact.
I absolutely agree with you, but does it make any sense that three major civilizations lived, thrived, and died without leaving a trace of themselves? Of course not, and since Smith never made a correct prediction or prophesy, you have no help there either. How about that BOA? Even Hugh Nibley had to distance the church from it because he, too, knew it to be a sham.
And how about citing your source for these gold plates? I assume a Mormon archaeologist from BYU found them, right?
Sorry -- typo here. Various artifacts were discovered made of this alloy, Tumbaga, which looks like gold, but has the precise density and other properties attributed by JS and the witnesses to the plates. Plates themselves not found yet.
Mopster, how would you know whether any particular ruin was or was not a Jaredite, Nephite, or Lamanite city?
There are murals in Mexico depicting people of different skin colors.
No conclusive proof, but you can't say there's nothing corroborating. The use of cement & concrete at teotihuacan, for example ... when JS wrote that cities were built of that stuff, people jeered him for decades until they started digging those cities up.
I agree here, but there would be "Reformed Egyptian" everywhere, right? Or better yet, Hebrew.
Different skin colors doesn't go far here. That's normal for people to vary, depending on their ancestry.
So we agree that the BOM locations are most likely Central America, right? Fair enough; they really couldn't be anywhere else, but again, you have the same problems with no evidence anywhere to be found.
I would also point out that there's no evidence of Christianity or Judaic customs prior to European colonization. Not only that, but if the ancent Americans had horses back then, why didn't they when Henry Hudson sailed into the harbor? Or when Columbus landed? Horses would've been vital to such a civilization, would they?
You're mistaken re evidence of Christianity, since the Spaniards burnt a library for precisely that reason. Not to mention the feathered serpent motifs associated with the legend of Quezatcoatl.
And wasn't there some paleohebrew found in New Mexico, or was that debunked?
Again not conclusive proof, but enough to keep us in the game.
There was a stone found some 50 years ago with Hebrew on it, but the archaeologist who "discovered" it had been known to fabricate things before. As far as I know, he wasn't LDS. I can't remember the name of the stone, but I saw close-up pictures of it and the carvings were entirely too neat to be ancient. They showed no weathering or eroded characters, indicating that they were much more recent than he claimed.
You're right on the Aztec library portion; only a few of those books still exist because to the Catholic Spaniards, the snake motifs represented Satan. The few that exist, however, have nothing to do with anything in the BOM.
Reports say they destroyed one library in southern Mexico/Central America because they found emblems with the cross, stuff that looked frankly Christian, which freaked them out because they thought they were the ones bringing Christianity.
Can you at least admit that Joe PROBABLY got the translations wrong? Ok leave some doubt in order to sustain your faith, but any reasonable man should be able to look at the evidence and concede that the BOA is most likely pure fiction.
That's the classic emperor's new clothes fallacy. "If you disagree with me, you're not reasonable." That's not an appeal to logic. If the facts are on your side, then lay out the facts. Don't try to persuade me by saying that you'll say mean things about me if I don't concede your argument. Talk about intellectual laziness!
I think you already know what the evidence is. That's why I'm not spelling it out for you. That's also the reason why I was hoping you could admit to the probability of JS making the whole thing up.
I'm saying, we HAVE parts of the original papyri and we know that JS got the translation wrong. So although we can't say for sure that ALL of BOA is a fabrication, we can say that some of it certainly is. Some of it is not a correct translation. So what's the reason for believing that the rest of it is correct?
How do you "translate" an image, Maggy? Think, man. there is no legend in the original, so the notes aren't "translation." Any other brilliant arguments ?
The vast majority of egyptologists would say that JS did not have any idea what the papyri depicted, but nevermind eh?
So why did I call you a bigot?
1. You're obstinate: Resisting the common sense conclusion that men who spout hate speech are not prophets of a benevolent god, I would define as obstinate.
2. You follow a faith that displays animosity toward people for completely irrational and unjustified reasons (blacks (until 1978) and gays specifically).
The LDS church didn't give blacks the priesthood until 1978. You still don't give them the priesthood. If that makes us bigots, then what does it make you, maggy? :P
You have no evidence for the existence of your god, so your belief is based on either personal experience of god (god talks to you), upbringing or fear.
So, you're either delusional, brain washed or acting like a little child who can't face reality. Actually, I don't even think you really do believe the stuff you claim to. No thinking person could. But then again, maybe I'm giving you too much credit.
In fact, we don't even have the original, how convenient, though we do have the Book of Abraham papyrus, confirmed as being the one translated by Smith himself and you know what? Nothing he claimed was there really is.
"we don't even have the original, how convenient, "
Convenient to Maggy and Moppy, since it lets you make ugly claims that can't be proved or disproved.
I haven't tried to convince you the BoA is true, so the burden of proof is on you if you want to convince me that it's false. I don't have to justify my beliefs to you.
Well, since we know where some 2.5 million Jaredites, Nephites, and Lamanites died, at the Hill Cumorah, conveniently located on the Smith family farm, why hasn't one artifact ever been recovered? That flies in the face of reason that even Mormon plausible deniability cannot explain away.
And now you make as if to take your bat and ball and go home, humiliated and defeated?
I'll talk to you, Mopster; it's Magster I'll not talk to since he abandoned civil dfscourse for personal insults.
I'll agree with you that JS was probably wrong about the location of the hill Cumorah. The geography of the BoM itself proves that Cumorah couldn't have been in New York. Moroni probably moved the plates to a hill on the Smith farm (a hill because of the properties of Tumbaga) after finishing the plates. JS assumed that it was the same hill.
If what you say is correct, Mormoni would've moved the book over 5,000 miles to upstate New York from Central America. Does that make sense? No, for the above reasons.
"f what you say is correct, Mormoni would've moved the book over 5,000 miles to upstate New York from Central America."
Yup. Since Moroni was a prophet, knew about JS before he was born, and had about 1500 years between the death of his civilization and the birth of JS. Why not?
Hell, as far as the B of M text goes, it could have been some other continent. That would be a pretty good joke on us. :D
Come now, does that make sense? Really? I think you're smarter than that, honestly, I do. Again, since Moroni was reasonably in fear for his own life, and the plates were weighing him down, he likely would've buried them at the first convenient place in order to keep from losing them to the Lamanites. Does that make a lot more sense? And therefore, that place had to have been what would later be the Smith property.
He did. He buried them in the actual hill Cumorah. He had 1500 years after that to come back, get them, & bury them in the NY hill that Smith erroneously called Cumorah. If you've read what I've said and thought about it, it makes perfect sense why there's no multiple hill Amnihus, Riplah, or Mantis.
"Moroni was still writing as of Moroni 10"
I answered that already. He wrote Moroni 10 into the plates around AD 600. He moved the plates afterwards. He never died.
see page 14, describing gold plates found in 1926 matching JS' description, even down to a stone box, but in Persia, circa 500 BC. (Lehi left in 600 BC). The fact that method was used is a pretty good guess by JS if not true. I thought there had been some similar plates found in the Americas but can't find it now ...
It won't let me post links, so run a google search on this phrase: "Old Persian studies got a new lease on life in 1926, when an inscription of Darius was found at Hamadan, in duplicate on gold and silver tablets"
Kinderhook plates were a fraud. And some LDS twit published hearsay purporting to be the teachings of Joseph Smith, when in fact the source was a journal of one person saying that another unknown person had told him that Joseph Smith said that the kinderhook plates were real. There's no first hand evidence that JS ever began to translate the plates. We do know that he refused to purchase them from the fraudster that made them. That says something.
"Monday, May 1--... Iinserted fac-similies of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook...I have trabslateda portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the Ruler of heaven and earth." (HOTC vol 5, p 372)
Yes, that's my point. This "LDS twit" was Smith's personal assistant, a trusted member of the church who, if he truly believed that Smith were what he claimed to be,wouldn't have made a mistake about something so important to the history of mankind.
Ha. You've never lived in Utah. Mormons are so bloody trusting, it's scary. I recommend you see the movie "Brigham City." Good show, and yes I know that the director is an exmormon. It's still a damned good show.
Do you see the way you had to make an end run around logic and reason to make this work? You've done a ton of work to get around the obvious fact that there's only one Cumorah and that's where the battle occurred and where the plates were buried.
But I can refute all of this with one point: Moroni couldn't have never died because he was an exalted being, right? If Jesus set the standard, Moroni had to die before becoming exalted.
Fair enough. I'm not here to insult you nor would I want to.
I have you say you're wrong in this assertion because never, in the BOM text, do we find Cumorah in the plural sense. It's always in the singular and if Moroni were being hunted by the victorious Lamanites, would he want to be lugging a very heavy book around with him? Of course not; he'd bury it quickly because if he were captured, the book would've been lost.
Moroni stopped writing the book in AD 600, when he was about to bury the plates in the original Cumorah. He probably later received instructions to move them to New York, where JS found them, and mistakenly assumed that hill was Cumorah hill. And so we still call it that. Just because we misunderstand scripture from time to time does not iinvalidate the scripture..
Yet again, we find no indication of multiple Hill Amnihus, Hill Riplahs, or Hill Mantis, and thus it follows suit with the Hill Cumorah; there's no indication that there's more than one.
Moroni was still writing as of Moroni 10 and there's no mention of him going anywhere to do anything in the last two chapters. Therefore, you can't say that he went all that way to bury the book because it doesn't make sense that such a journey wouldn't be recorded, does it?
it makes perfect sense that the journey would not be recorded. Have you read the BoM? Not that much detail. The book was done.
Does an autobiography contain a post-script describing the publishing and delivery process? That would make no sense. Look, if you assume that Moroni lived 1500 years after (and that's JS' story) then why would he not have returned to the hill once the immediate threat of death was past? Within generations the Nephites would have been forgotten. No more threat.
Yes, I've read it, but I've also read the student manual and there's still no mention of a journey anywhere to do anything. The book breaks down a lot of passages, either individually or in groups and there's no indication that this ever happened.
Where did Smith claim what? Smith assumed that his hill was Cumorah. But the Book of Mormon geography makes clear that the last battle did not take place in New York, but rather in Central America or thereabouts. Narrow Neck of land between the eastern and western seas. Think. Joseph Smith was translatiing stuff that he did not understand.
You have yet to show that there was more than one. You claim to know where the battle wasn't, but can't tell me where it was. Based on the "narrow neck of land," it could easily refer to Massachusetts, couldn't it? Or Florida, yet the BOM student manual clearly implies that it all happened in one place.
He was translating stuff he couldn't understand? That's because he couldn't translate ancient languages at all, as evidenced by the stellar job he did on the Book of Abraham.
"You have yet to show that there was more than one."
??? When did I say tha I'd showed or proved it? I simply offered that as a possibility consistent with all the known facts and testimony by Joseph Smith.
Joseph Smith was familiar with the geography of his own land, and if he wanted to create a fraud purporting that a great battle occurred in a hill in his back yard, then he'd have written the BoM to describe that geography.
Your "possibilities" are running short on facts and reason.
I respond by saying that if he wanted to vreate a fraud making himself a prophet of god, he would've written himself into the text by name.
Oh, yeah, he did do that.
And since you likely haven't been to the Smith family farm any more than I have, how do either of us know that the geography wasn't his own family property?
It does, and that's that there was only one Hill Cumorah and that Moroni most likely buried the plates on it, only to be found by Smith millenia later. Your conclusions aren't based on the text.
Not based on the text? Do you have alzheimers or something? Please tell me where, near the Smith family farm, there's a "narrow neck of land" between the western and eastern oceans?
Not to mention the absence of any weapons or any sign of a tremendous final battle between two civilizations.
Moroni never said that the hill near the Smith home was Cumorah. That was Smith's mistaken inference.
Do you get this wound up about the west indies? Clue: someone found land, mistakenly thought the land was the indies, and the name stuck. So now we have the east indies and the west indies. This really isn't that hard to understand if you apply yourself.
Moroni never had to say that. He buried the plates in a place that Smith would later find them. Since we have no record of Smith having travelled to any place outside of the family property, it's reasonable to assume that they are, indeed, one in the same.
We have great new things called maps. I recommend you pick one up sometime. A "narrow neck of land" could easily apply to Florida, could it not? How about the strip of land that creates Boston Harbor? How about the numerous estuaries of Rhode Island?
Face it; you can't put the BOM events down anywhere that doesn't create a major problem for you. Given all of the other problems facing it, the only reasonable conclusion is that it was all fiction.
No, I think you already know, based on our conversations, that there are major problems with Mormonism. You are reluctant to face them because you know what it might lead to.
I get it; I understand, but there's no way around them. You can dodge and weave all you like, but you can't ever escape these problems.
I admitted frankly that I don't know what to do with horses. You've ducked and weaved to avoid the problem of golden plates being found in a stone box out from near Lehi's time out in Persia, where the discovery occurred nearly 100 years after Joseph Smith described his similar find. You acted as if the stone box was the only issue. That's dodging and weaving.
You are correct that the author of HotC was not a twit. I was referring to the so-called "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith" which are essentially hearsay. That's where that language re Kinderhook was published. I'll have to look up HotC to see if that's there.
I haven't read that, only the relevent passages from the HOTC, comissioned, authorized, printed,and distributed by the church that Jesus Christ himself sits at the head of.
My evidence is Joseph Smith's description which matches an archeological find from Darius' reign. Golden plates containing writings and contained in a stone box. Not conclusive, but certainly outweighs my concerns re horses.
Read the PDF about what it says re other similar plates found, and how some were rescued from looters after being cut up for scrap gold ... and how many likely were lost to looters. The latter would appy in the new world as well.
How could it match anything? In rereading the BOM, it's not described as anything but a "stone box" with cement and "two stones crossways" at the bottom.with a rock over the top.
If you're going to take that over the concerns about horses, fine, but Mormonism has lost entire civilizations and everything they owned, used, made, or discarded. Your concern should be there instead.
To have the text say what it supposedly does would be like have a recipe for shrimp vindaloo (yummy!) in the middle of the Declaration of Independence. It wouldn't make sense, would it?
Also, I don't care how mormon scripture explains shit. I want to know how YOU as a morally serious and hopefully reasonable human being would answer these questions.
Mag, surely you're aware that the universe as we perceive it makes no sense on its own, period. Otherwise lots of theoretical physicists would be out of a job. If physicists can postulate dark matter and various unobserved particles in order to make sense out of the world, then why can't theologians do the same?
Because we can make predictions based on the notion that dark matter exists. Also, quantum physics, which seems to make no sense sometimes, enables us to make astonishingly accurate predictions about the world. What you're doing on the other hand, is called "making shit up". And the stuff you've made up does not explain anything, and does not contribute to the discussion. How about I postulate that a giant panda from the galaxy Asshat, created life on earth. That would be silly wouldn't it?Yeah.
Francis Collins comes to mind. A great scientist who, after observing a frozen waterfall while hiking, fell to his knees and accepted JC as his savior. If you watch interviews with the guy, he just refuses to honestly blend his knowledge of the universe with his belief in god. He keeps them seperate because they can't coexist any other way.
Also, I feel "stoopider" all the time by having this discussion. The stupidity and profound illogic of mormon scripture seems to be endless. I can't even imagine the kind of intellectual paralysis required to believe this stuff. Now, you seem like a good guy, but the fact that you believe this stuff (or at least, you claim that you do), certainly indicates that the mind has an amazing ability for compartmentalization.
Now it seems like you *are* trying to be a dick, Magnus. :D But you're not doing a good job of it though because your natural curiosity and honesty keeps getting in the way. If you want to piss me off, pretend you don't understand what I'm saying and then misrepresent me, like the anti-mormon clowns here usually do. You're not one of them. You're more interesting to talk to. You're smart enough that if i really was stupid or brainwashed you could show it rather than just saying it.
One more thing: If god did not create the universe, what did? By saying that your god did not create the entire universe, you've completely removed the need for your "god". After all, how the universe came into existence is the one big enigma that makes some rational people call themselves deists.
That's answered in Genesis. God created everything that was created. LDS scripture is more specific explaining that he "organized" matter rather than creating it out of nothing.
What God didn't create, no one created. It was always there. Matter can't be created or destroyed; it can only change form. That's one LDS doctrine that the science has since substantiated.
If god organized the universe, he did an apalling job. A universe PERFECT for creating the largest amount of black holes possible. And what do we see on earth? A world full of suffering that boggles the mind. If this is the work of your god he certainly is not omnibenevolent. He is cruel. I didn't know that your god was subject to the natural laws of the universe. He can't ccreate matter. Strange. A god that can not create anything. Is your god also not infinite? Has god always existed?
Yes. So have you and I. We just don't remember it.
"If this is the work of your god he certainly is not omnibenevolent. He is cruel."
He seems so because you're only seeing part of the picture. We're immortal beings going through a temporary experience. From that perspective the suffering here is no more real than watching a movie. Is Spielberg evil for putting fictional characters through hell in Saving Private Ryan or Schindler's List?
Come on, man! Do fictional characters feel pain? No, they don't. Do we? yes, we do. There's a difference here. You took a giant leap from "temporary" to "fictional". I'm sure you see the flaw. What you're saying is enormously immoral. You're claiming that human suffering (or the suffering of any sentient being) should not concern us, as it does not matter anyway. Seems your church thinks differently. After all, they were great after Katrina hit.
Fictional characters feel fictional pain. You ever play an RPG, mag? Here, you're the character. Your spirit is the player. There's nothing immoral about it. The suffering concerns you, but does not matter in the sense that you think it matters. It's just part of a story that's either heroic or tragic, depending on how you choose to play.
What I'm saying is, we're not fictional. If we have a spirit, it's made of nerurons. What you're saying is, suffering on earth does not matter because god is simply jerking off and using us a characters in his weekly celestial Dungeons & Dragons geek-off (presumably playing against satan, if the sillyness of other mormon doctrine is anything to go by). If suffering does not matter, why should we care about morality at all?
Not fictional precisely, but we are playing a role.
I don't think that D&D is adversarial. But most mormons would probably find the analogy offensive. And I didn't say suffering doesn't matter; I said it doesn't matter in the way that you think it matters.
Oh, not in the way I think it matters. I see. But YOU know in what way it matters, right? That's so f'ing arrogant, I don't even know what to say. It's also ignorant, so the mix is pretty foul. That solipsistic attitude is actually rather disgusting. It reminds me of Carrie Prejean's bullshit. We're the chosen ones, we know what's right, god's got a plan for me, I'm going to get eternal life, but non-believers won't (or maybe they will...in hell). Can't you see how bad that attitude is?
"We're the chosen ones, we know what's right, god's got a plan for me, I'm going to get eternal life, but non-believers won't (or maybe they will...in hell). Can't you see how bad that attitude is? "
Don't be an ass. If you've had half the exposure to the LDS church that you claim you've had, you already know that we absolutely reject that Calvinist bullshit. Don't you dare impute that to us.
Oh, but I do dare. You don't believe that those who believe in the one true god get to go to heaven? And that those who do not, go to hell? If you do not believe this nonsense, then I come back to my point about you not being christians. These are the teachings of Jesus Christ (alledgedly) who introduced the concept of hell. So what's it going to be? You can't have it both ways, sir.
I think that mormons are like christians: They all have differing beliefs. They all share some rediculous assumptions about the nature of the universe, but when you get into the details they believe different things.
If you deny that, then you deny Jesus. He said that the only way to heaven is through him, and those who do not believe will go to hell. Your denial of the veracity of the teachings of christ is fine by me, as I'm not a believer. I'm just pointing out your bigotry and intellectual laziness.
Jesus said that the only way to heaven is through him, correct. That does not mean that everyone who does not believe in Jesus during THIS MORTAL LIFE will go to hell.
"Bigotry" Where did you get that accusation from? I said nothing to deserve that. I must have been mistaken about you -- you've shown yourself to be a common fool and I have no more time for you.
Garbage. That's what it all boils down to: right and wrong. Jesus said that he would rather someone be against him than luke warm, didn't he? And that's the reason the missionaries come to my door and tell me that I don't know the true Jesus. And obviously, my Bible is missing many "plain and precious things."
Why are you playing the victim here? Do you enjoy seeing yourself as being persecuted, ostracized?
I then suggest you reread 1 Nephi 13:26-42 and JS-History 1:18 because both say that all other churches on the face of the earth are an abomination before god and are founded by Satan.
And then tell me, with a straight face, that your church didn't cast the first stone in this battle.
Second, even if it was, words aren't stones. Didn't your mother ever teach you that ditty about sticks, stones, and words?
You don't burn down churches, have people tarred and feathered, deprive them of their right to vote, and then cry as an excuse that they carry some book that says your church isn't true. That's really lame, mopper.
Um, that's exactly what it says and we both know it. Do you want to be part of the church founded by Stana? Yeah, me neither.
I really don't care what you say about me, but it needs to be accurate. And what Mormons say about themselves and what they believe also needs to be correct.
Also, if the dna evidence does not convince you that JS was a freud, what about the book of abraham? You see, as long as one single thing is proven false, the BOM and JS's house of cards collapse. That's what's so risky about claiming celestial inspiration. The fact that so many of your prophets have been spouting racist and generally prejudiced and ignorant beliefs, should make you pause and reexamine your faith. But it won't because you need the church. Or at least, you think you do. Too bad.
"Oh HAHAHA! That's so cute!! They don't know anythng about mormons." OMFG!
How about the fact that the mormon church was an officially racist organization until 1978? How about the fact that the second prophet said that race mixing should be punishable by death? The church may also have killed Michael Jackson since he said he'd come out of the closet if Prop8 wasn't passed. Imagine the relief he would have felt after coming out! Maybe he'd be able to cut back on pills. Damn you for killing MJ!!
I don't want to get in an augment, but i beg to differ. Yes we did not allow the Blacks to receive the priesthood until after the 1970's, but that doesn't make us racist.... it was of God, and i know that is hard for you to see. as for the second comment about "race mixing" I am not sure... but Brigham young did preach some opinions... which are NOT doctrine. You don't always need to have physical proof to know if something is true or not. Neither does that lack of evidence prove something wrong
1. You say it was of god, so are you saying that god's a racist? Because whoever made the law that black people should not be allowed to recieve the priesthood, is a racist. To claim anything else would be rediculous.
2. Was BY a prophet? If so, does not god speak to him? Or do you decide that only the things he said which sound good to you were recieved from god?
3. Yes, in this case ones does need physical proof.If not you're going on nothing but 'a whim' which says nothing about what's true
Well God can not convince you whether or not something is true, and neither can I. An open heart and mind is required, faith is required. That is why prayer is so important, to make sure and gain knowledge that what is being told is of God.
White noise. Nothing but nonsense. Did god speak to Deanna Laney before she killed two of her children? She was certainly convinced that "he" did. But you don't think god spoke to her, because god wouldn't ask someone to kill. Well, we both know that's not true (Abraham). It wouldn't be out of character for god either. After all The Bible is full of murder, much of it ordered by god. If god exists, he gave you the capacity to reason. Use that gift for all it's worth. There's a lot of BS around.
There is a lot of crap out there, but that crap was distorted by man. Which is what I believe. through the witness of the holy ghost by the "fruits of the spirit" I know what I know. (Gal: 5)
Yes I do have thoughts of my own, I know than Man can err in his ways and distort truth. But it is God and prayer, faith and all that is good that I know what I know.
I understand that facing facts can be hard. If you're intellectually honest, you'll quickly find out that the church is a freud. However to do this can be difficult for people. Even so, I really think you owe it to yourself to look at the evidence as objectively as possible. Book of Abraham is a complete fabrication. We can translate egyptian now, so we know for a fact that JS made it all up. You are ignoring facts to preserve your faith, and it's a terrible think to look at. And the flood... :)
God is an all-knowing being, He can do all things, things which are beyond our comprehension at this time. God does things that we might not now, or understand how they work, but they are done....
You know you're making no sense, right? Do you have any thoughts of your own? Nothing you just said contributed anything valuable to this discussion. You're not helping the debate, and you're not helping in general.
You don't think this is racist? LDS MORMON PROPHET Joseph Smith stated the following:
"....The Lamanites, through transgression, became a loathsome, ignorant and filthy people, and were CURSED with a SKIN of DARKNESS yet, they have the promise, if they will believe, and work righteousness...they shall become a WHITE and DELIGHTSOME people..."
:The Latter-Day Saints Millennial Star, vol. 14, p. 418 "
Racism is a "hatred or intolerance of another race or other races." We did, not never had a hatred toward that race, it was just a curse that was placed upon them in ancient times, which was lifted later. They were allowed everything but the priesthood until then.
They were treated in a way that you would not treat the "white skinned" people. You discriminated against them. That's racism, dude. Face it. And god, if he existed, would probably not be racist. The fact that your god has so many of our human shortcomings, seems to me to indicate that "he" is indeed our own creation. I have higher morals than the god of the scriptures, and so do you. Pretty much everyone does.Doesn't that make you pause and think?
I guess all I can say is that what you think of as shortcomings, I don't. My God, and your God, Does things for a reason, which might be beyond our comprehension. That term racism (not trying to make an excuse) was created by man. Everyone is equal but certain things happen to certain people for certain reasons. It is case a certain people were cursed because of their wickedness (which denoted black skin). This curse prevented them from the priesthood, which was later lifted. I believe that.
Joseph Smith translated that from the writings of book of Mormon prophets. Some of those prophets, like the apostle Peter in the Bible, were racist. Jesus even pointed that out in the book of mormon when he asked why Nephite prophets had failed to record the prophetic words of Samuel the Lamanite.
Fact: over the last few thousand years, modern-day Jews and modern-day Native Americans do not share common ancestors. If they did, then genetic markers would be found in Natives identical to those in the descendants of ancient Hebrews.
the Israelites who came to america came before the tribes were scattered over all the earth. this is actually one of the reasons God sent Lehi to America- because of the upcoming Babylonian Captivity. So if the Lamanites are Israelites, (manasseh) it would follow that they aren't quite so closely related to modern day 'jews' (Judah)
No peoples answers were all wrong. We actually don't like women or the bible !!!!
walmarticus 1 year ago
Okay okay,im LDS and what these ppl think we are Is stupid? really? Do they SERIOUSLY THINK WERE CHURCH FANATICS? Or that were old fashoned freaks that dont no what the hek a TV is? Really WTH! whats up with these ppl! There on crack seriously ON CRACK! Idiots:P
TheNinjachick13 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
If Blacks are descendants of Cain, then according to the Bible, we are all descendants. In the story of Noah God destroyed the Earth with water, so therefore, Cains relatives were destroyed then....'less Noah was a descendant of Cain, then we all are.
smokeizfire 1 year ago
Dont fight with these people that are making fun of the only fully true religion becasue thay are TROLLS
Lordmanify 1 year ago
this is so dumb people just say things with out knowing...im lds
SELLY165 1 year ago
@SELLY165 hey me too! your cool :)
InfamousGod4 1 year ago
@InfamousGod4 yes, yes i am...lol...jk
SELLY165 1 year ago
ha ha... people have no idea what the church really is.
youngbono18 1 year ago
@Blockygraphics
Ya, and that shows in all the charity and money we give in world aid right?
lol
youngbono18 1 year ago
I loved this movie... it was so funny. I get the weirdest questions being Mormon myself.
P.S. Don't feed the trolls.
nightshadow73 1 year ago 2
i k what mormon mean and i think that it's really better to be idiots that mormon : ) with love a real christian
lore287 1 year ago
Obviously most of you idiots no nothing of Mormons so just keep your mouth SHUT!!!
Myckul1234 1 year ago
So many trolls in these comments.
How to respond to a troll: Don't, they just feed on your anger, so it is best to ignore them.
Mitagitsu 1 year ago
google Doe's Account.
Nevyfling 1 year ago
All Mormons are brainwashed, ignorant liars. End of.
RandomBackground 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RandomBackground What religion are you?
luv1776 1 year ago
Smith was convicted as an 'impostor'.
How appropriate!
thesignsoflife7 1 year ago
he was never convicted keep spouting mouth u just sound like a stupid fool
hawaiianjake 1 year ago
@Blockygraphics he was tried never convicted get your facts straight
hawaiianjake 1 year ago
@Blockygraphics Did you know that Joseph Smith died trying to save people? Who did he kill? No one.
Lysje13 1 year ago
Um... none? One of our bases is that we claim the right to believe what we believe and we don't trash other people. You saying its a con, okay, thats your opinions. Have you ever MET a mormon? We're pretty nice people.
BTW- It's not fictional.
Have a fantastic day! :)
Kaityfried 1 year ago
@Kaityfried
Don't trash other people?!
You mean like saying my church and every Christian church is an "abomination"?
That's what your founder said.
thesignsoflife7 1 year ago
@Blockygraphics reliable sources please.
SiLvErSnYpEr 1 year ago
Blockygraohics: answer to your question, none. :)
FallingIceCrystals 1 year ago
I used to be Mormon, now I'm a gay atheist, that is all. Once I learned it was all a farce, I said Fuck Mormonism, buncha liars, posers and religious fraudsters.
All Mormons are Morons.
Sorry to be the one to reveal facts, but if you're still an active member and believer in Joseph Smith, then you're stupid and I can't help you.
FUCK MORMONISM, NOT ITS STUPID SHEEP! They can't help that they're dumb for they know not what they do.
Then again, fuck every religion, it's all fake!
assfuckt 1 year ago
@assfuckt credibility: 0
SiLvErSnYpEr 1 year ago
Famous Mormons:: John D Lee, Wild Bill Hickman, O.P. Rockwell, all the perps at the Mountain Meadows Massacre like George A Smith, Hamblin, Haight, Dame, Brigham Young. Guilty of some 1000 murders between them. Probably more. Especially if we consider the compulsion under which others were to Briggy
IExposeMormonism 1 year ago
what makes a mormon? a freak who thinks they are better then everyone. and someone who is a compleat fag and a know it all and holds them self hight then everyone oh and did i metion a fucking turd thats what a mormon is :}
laxgod100 1 year ago
yall keep saying the mormons are out of the mainstream from the rest of the vvorld, right? vvell tell me, is that a bad thing since the rest of the vvorld drinks, cheats on spouses, drugs, sexual pleasures. and etc. and yall r making fun of the mormons haha. r yall sure being in the mainstream is vvorth it?
ashescrack 1 year ago
Mormons are such idiots
alexrad1 1 year ago
What makes Mormons different?
Most fundamentalists know they are way outside the mainstream (and don't worry too much about it because they think the mainstream is going to hell).
Mormons are way outside the mainstream too and mistakenly believe that other people admire them for what they believe (but check the polls).
iqlusionblogspot 2 years ago
What makes a Mormon is that they belong to the church of Jesus Christ.
RiffSeekers 2 years ago
You guys are funny.
tr8k 2 years ago
I tried re-reading the book of mormon again today. What a piece of crap. That is a subjective statement of course, but I think it's objectively true, by any litterary standards, that it's no masterpiece. I'm sure everyone here values my opinion ;)
magnusjsolberg 2 years ago
Your statement that the book is crap is subjective. Your statement that you actually tried to re-read it purports an objective fact, which I doubt. Since you cast your own good faith into doubt when you flouted your pledge that you were not trying to be a prick.
I can't have a serious conversation with some jerk that calls me a "bigot" without backing it up with any facts. You're a joke, mag.
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
nutlawatgmail, please answer this:
What is your take on the Book of Abraham? Is has been proven that Joseph Smith's translation is 100% wrong. What is your take on this? I really want to know.
magnusjsolberg 2 years ago
To prove that the Smith translation was 100% wrong, they'd need to be 100% certain that they have the original documents that Smith was translating from. And since they only recovered some of the papyri, while others known to exist were lost in the fire, you are clearly wrong again, Mag.
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
This is the straw-clutching that I was talking about. Some of the documents have been recovered, and we know that Joe got it wrong. Take the traditional burial scene for example. Joe Smith messed that one up badly. Mormonism due to its short history, is a highly historically testable religion, making many unbelievable claims about the world, for which evidence is sorely lacking. There is no evidence of the veracity of the claims of mormonism. Dude, face facts.
magnusjsolberg 2 years ago
"making many unbelievable claims about the world, for which evidence is sorely lacking"
Claims like that the us civil war would start in south carolina, or that matter cannot be created or destroyed, but can be "reorganized"?
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
This is a total fallacy: that the possiblity of a civil war could erupt was common knowledge back then. In fact, a Mormon newspaper, Evening and Morning Star, Jan 1833, p 64 published an article named "Rebellion in South Carolina."
And Smith conveniently received his "revelation" one month and one day AFTER South Carolina's tariff nullification notice, didn't he? What a coincidence! And then the newspaper article a month after that.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Comment removed
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
That's not the only thing I use in my conclusion that Mormonism is a lie; I use the fact that there's never once been a single artifact that can be shown to be from a Nephite or Lamanite, constant changing of the texts, contradictions in your own works, and the fact that the Book of Abaraham has been comclusively proven false.
And yes, I read them all in context and they are, no matter what, false by any standard I apply to them.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Absence of proof does not make something a "lie"
But discovery of gold alloy plates in South America that happen to have the density described by the witnesses who hefted the plates (a density considerably less than gold even though the alloy has the appearance of god) does constitute a corroborating artifact.
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
I absolutely agree with you, but does it make any sense that three major civilizations lived, thrived, and died without leaving a trace of themselves? Of course not, and since Smith never made a correct prediction or prophesy, you have no help there either. How about that BOA? Even Hugh Nibley had to distance the church from it because he, too, knew it to be a sham.
And how about citing your source for these gold plates? I assume a Mormon archaeologist from BYU found them, right?
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Sorry -- typo here. Various artifacts were discovered made of this alloy, Tumbaga, which looks like gold, but has the precise density and other properties attributed by JS and the witnesses to the plates. Plates themselves not found yet.
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
Do you have a link to this? Wiki, maybe?
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Mopster, how would you know whether any particular ruin was or was not a Jaredite, Nephite, or Lamanite city?
There are murals in Mexico depicting people of different skin colors.
No conclusive proof, but you can't say there's nothing corroborating. The use of cement & concrete at teotihuacan, for example ... when JS wrote that cities were built of that stuff, people jeered him for decades until they started digging those cities up.
The Spaniards destroyed libraries ...
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
I agree here, but there would be "Reformed Egyptian" everywhere, right? Or better yet, Hebrew.
Different skin colors doesn't go far here. That's normal for people to vary, depending on their ancestry.
So we agree that the BOM locations are most likely Central America, right? Fair enough; they really couldn't be anywhere else, but again, you have the same problems with no evidence anywhere to be found.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
I would also point out that there's no evidence of Christianity or Judaic customs prior to European colonization. Not only that, but if the ancent Americans had horses back then, why didn't they when Henry Hudson sailed into the harbor? Or when Columbus landed? Horses would've been vital to such a civilization, would they?
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
You're mistaken re evidence of Christianity, since the Spaniards burnt a library for precisely that reason. Not to mention the feathered serpent motifs associated with the legend of Quezatcoatl.
And wasn't there some paleohebrew found in New Mexico, or was that debunked?
Again not conclusive proof, but enough to keep us in the game.
Horses have me stumped, I admit.
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
There was a stone found some 50 years ago with Hebrew on it, but the archaeologist who "discovered" it had been known to fabricate things before. As far as I know, he wasn't LDS. I can't remember the name of the stone, but I saw close-up pictures of it and the carvings were entirely too neat to be ancient. They showed no weathering or eroded characters, indicating that they were much more recent than he claimed.
I'll see if I can find it again.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Please do. It did sound too good to be true. II'm glad it's not one of our members that produced it, whether it's fraud or real.
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
I'll see if I can find it again tomorrow.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
You're right on the Aztec library portion; only a few of those books still exist because to the Catholic Spaniards, the snake motifs represented Satan. The few that exist, however, have nothing to do with anything in the BOM.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Reports say they destroyed one library in southern Mexico/Central America because they found emblems with the cross, stuff that looked frankly Christian, which freaked them out because they thought they were the ones bringing Christianity.
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
What reports? That makes no sense.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
magnusjsolberg 2 years ago
I didn't assert anything, you jackass. You're the one trying to persuade me. Not vice versa.
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
JS certainly made plenty of assertions with not a shred of evidence.
magnusjsolberg 2 years ago
Wow. That's....amazing.
magnusjsolberg 2 years ago
Can you at least admit that Joe PROBABLY got the translations wrong? Ok leave some doubt in order to sustain your faith, but any reasonable man should be able to look at the evidence and concede that the BOA is most likely pure fiction.
magnusjsolberg 2 years ago
That's the classic emperor's new clothes fallacy. "If you disagree with me, you're not reasonable." That's not an appeal to logic. If the facts are on your side, then lay out the facts. Don't try to persuade me by saying that you'll say mean things about me if I don't concede your argument. Talk about intellectual laziness!
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
Incorrect. I can show, using facts and the common sense that the real God gave me that what your chuch claims is unfounded bullshit.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
I think you already know what the evidence is. That's why I'm not spelling it out for you. That's also the reason why I was hoping you could admit to the probability of JS making the whole thing up.
magnusjsolberg 2 years ago
I'm saying, we HAVE parts of the original papyri and we know that JS got the translation wrong. So although we can't say for sure that ALL of BOA is a fabrication, we can say that some of it certainly is. Some of it is not a correct translation. So what's the reason for believing that the rest of it is correct?
magnusjsolberg 2 years ago
How do you "translate" an image, Maggy? Think, man. there is no legend in the original, so the notes aren't "translation." Any other brilliant arguments ?
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
The vast majority of egyptologists would say that JS did not have any idea what the papyri depicted, but nevermind eh?
So why did I call you a bigot?
1. You're obstinate: Resisting the common sense conclusion that men who spout hate speech are not prophets of a benevolent god, I would define as obstinate.
2. You follow a faith that displays animosity toward people for completely irrational and unjustified reasons (blacks (until 1978) and gays specifically).
magnusjsolberg 2 years ago
The LDS church didn't give blacks the priesthood until 1978. You still don't give them the priesthood. If that makes us bigots, then what does it make you, maggy? :P
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
You do know I'm an atheist, right?
magnusjsolberg 2 years ago
How does being an atheist excuse you from being a bigot for not giving blacks the priesthood, maggy?
:P
(waiting for you to get the joke)
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
Yeah...good one, dude.
magnusjsolberg 2 years ago
You have no evidence for the existence of your god, so your belief is based on either personal experience of god (god talks to you), upbringing or fear.
So, you're either delusional, brain washed or acting like a little child who can't face reality. Actually, I don't even think you really do believe the stuff you claim to. No thinking person could. But then again, maybe I'm giving you too much credit.
I'm done. I'll be praying for you ;)
magnusjsolberg 2 years ago
In fact, we don't even have the original, how convenient, though we do have the Book of Abraham papyrus, confirmed as being the one translated by Smith himself and you know what? Nothing he claimed was there really is.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
"we don't even have the original, how convenient, "
Convenient to Maggy and Moppy, since it lets you make ugly claims that can't be proved or disproved.
I haven't tried to convince you the BoA is true, so the burden of proof is on you if you want to convince me that it's false. I don't have to justify my beliefs to you.
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
Well, since we know where some 2.5 million Jaredites, Nephites, and Lamanites died, at the Hill Cumorah, conveniently located on the Smith family farm, why hasn't one artifact ever been recovered? That flies in the face of reason that even Mormon plausible deniability cannot explain away.
And now you make as if to take your bat and ball and go home, humiliated and defeated?
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
I'll talk to you, Mopster; it's Magster I'll not talk to since he abandoned civil dfscourse for personal insults.
I'll agree with you that JS was probably wrong about the location of the hill Cumorah. The geography of the BoM itself proves that Cumorah couldn't have been in New York. Moroni probably moved the plates to a hill on the Smith farm (a hill because of the properties of Tumbaga) after finishing the plates. JS assumed that it was the same hill.
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
If what you say is correct, Mormoni would've moved the book over 5,000 miles to upstate New York from Central America. Does that make sense? No, for the above reasons.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
"f what you say is correct, Mormoni would've moved the book over 5,000 miles to upstate New York from Central America."
Yup. Since Moroni was a prophet, knew about JS before he was born, and had about 1500 years between the death of his civilization and the birth of JS. Why not?
Hell, as far as the B of M text goes, it could have been some other continent. That would be a pretty good joke on us. :D
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
Come now, does that make sense? Really? I think you're smarter than that, honestly, I do. Again, since Moroni was reasonably in fear for his own life, and the plates were weighing him down, he likely would've buried them at the first convenient place in order to keep from losing them to the Lamanites. Does that make a lot more sense? And therefore, that place had to have been what would later be the Smith property.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
He did. He buried them in the actual hill Cumorah. He had 1500 years after that to come back, get them, & bury them in the NY hill that Smith erroneously called Cumorah. If you've read what I've said and thought about it, it makes perfect sense why there's no multiple hill Amnihus, Riplah, or Mantis.
"Moroni was still writing as of Moroni 10"
I answered that already. He wrote Moroni 10 into the plates around AD 600. He moved the plates afterwards. He never died.
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
see page 14, describing gold plates found in 1926 matching JS' description, even down to a stone box, but in Persia, circa 500 BC. (Lehi left in 600 BC). The fact that method was used is a pretty good guess by JS if not true. I thought there had been some similar plates found in the Americas but can't find it now ...
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
It won't let me post links, so run a google search on this phrase: "Old Persian studies got a new lease on life in 1926, when an inscription of Darius was found at Hamadan, in duplicate on gold and silver tablets"
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
If you're relying on a stone box, you have a long way to go to make your case.
There have been other plates found, but they were frauds which Smith began to translate. Look up Kinderhook Plates.
Send links to my PM if you like.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Kinderhook plates were a fraud. And some LDS twit published hearsay purporting to be the teachings of Joseph Smith, when in fact the source was a journal of one person saying that another unknown person had told him that Joseph Smith said that the kinderhook plates were real. There's no first hand evidence that JS ever began to translate the plates. We do know that he refused to purchase them from the fraudster that made them. That says something.
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
"Monday, May 1--... Iinserted fac-similies of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook...I have trabslateda portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the Ruler of heaven and earth." (HOTC vol 5, p 372)
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Comment removed
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
The source is History of the Church (HOTC). Should we also scrap the JOD, Gospel Principles, Mormon Doctrine, and the JST as well?
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Yes, that's my point. This "LDS twit" was Smith's personal assistant, a trusted member of the church who, if he truly believed that Smith were what he claimed to be,wouldn't have made a mistake about something so important to the history of mankind.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Ha. You've never lived in Utah. Mormons are so bloody trusting, it's scary. I recommend you see the movie "Brigham City." Good show, and yes I know that the director is an exmormon. It's still a damned good show.
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
Never heard of it.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Golden plates in a stone box. Don't forget the golden plates, Mopster.
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
Okay, I found it. It's called the Los Lunas Decalogue Stone, "found" in New Mexico in 1933 by Frank Hibben.
Even Hugh Nibley said it was a fraud, based on crisp characters and overall "newness" of it.
I'll PM you the link.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Do you see the way you had to make an end run around logic and reason to make this work? You've done a ton of work to get around the obvious fact that there's only one Cumorah and that's where the battle occurred and where the plates were buried.
But I can refute all of this with one point: Moroni couldn't have never died because he was an exalted being, right? If Jesus set the standard, Moroni had to die before becoming exalted.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Moroni was a translated being, which means immortal for most purposes but not an exalted being.
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
Translated into what? "Refromed Egyptian" or Elizabethan English?
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
:D Nice.
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
Fair enough. I'm not here to insult you nor would I want to.
I have you say you're wrong in this assertion because never, in the BOM text, do we find Cumorah in the plural sense. It's always in the singular and if Moroni were being hunted by the victorious Lamanites, would he want to be lugging a very heavy book around with him? Of course not; he'd bury it quickly because if he were captured, the book would've been lost.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Moroni stopped writing the book in AD 600, when he was about to bury the plates in the original Cumorah. He probably later received instructions to move them to New York, where JS found them, and mistakenly assumed that hill was Cumorah hill. And so we still call it that. Just because we misunderstand scripture from time to time does not iinvalidate the scripture..
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
Yet again, we find no indication of multiple Hill Amnihus, Hill Riplahs, or Hill Mantis, and thus it follows suit with the Hill Cumorah; there's no indication that there's more than one.
Moroni was still writing as of Moroni 10 and there's no mention of him going anywhere to do anything in the last two chapters. Therefore, you can't say that he went all that way to bury the book because it doesn't make sense that such a journey wouldn't be recorded, does it?
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
it makes perfect sense that the journey would not be recorded. Have you read the BoM? Not that much detail. The book was done.
Does an autobiography contain a post-script describing the publishing and delivery process? That would make no sense. Look, if you assume that Moroni lived 1500 years after (and that's JS' story) then why would he not have returned to the hill once the immediate threat of death was past? Within generations the Nephites would have been forgotten. No more threat.
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
Yes, I've read it, but I've also read the student manual and there's still no mention of a journey anywhere to do anything. The book breaks down a lot of passages, either individually or in groups and there's no indication that this ever happened.
Where did Smith claim this? What is your source?
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Where did Smith claim what? Smith assumed that his hill was Cumorah. But the Book of Mormon geography makes clear that the last battle did not take place in New York, but rather in Central America or thereabouts. Narrow Neck of land between the eastern and western seas. Think. Joseph Smith was translatiing stuff that he did not understand.
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
You have yet to show that there was more than one. You claim to know where the battle wasn't, but can't tell me where it was. Based on the "narrow neck of land," it could easily refer to Massachusetts, couldn't it? Or Florida, yet the BOM student manual clearly implies that it all happened in one place.
He was translating stuff he couldn't understand? That's because he couldn't translate ancient languages at all, as evidenced by the stellar job he did on the Book of Abraham.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
"You have yet to show that there was more than one."
??? When did I say tha I'd showed or proved it? I simply offered that as a possibility consistent with all the known facts and testimony by Joseph Smith.
Joseph Smith was familiar with the geography of his own land, and if he wanted to create a fraud purporting that a great battle occurred in a hill in his back yard, then he'd have written the BoM to describe that geography.
Think about it.
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
Your "possibilities" are running short on facts and reason.
I respond by saying that if he wanted to vreate a fraud making himself a prophet of god, he would've written himself into the text by name.
Oh, yeah, he did do that.
And since you likely haven't been to the Smith family farm any more than I have, how do either of us know that the geography wasn't his own family property?
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Cut the posturing if you want to continue the discussion.
"running short on facts and reason."
Bla bla bla. There's a character limit, silly boy.
As for the geography, read the damned book. That makes it obvious enough.
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
It does, and that's that there was only one Hill Cumorah and that Moroni most likely buried the plates on it, only to be found by Smith millenia later. Your conclusions aren't based on the text.
And I have read it. It was awful.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Not based on the text? Do you have alzheimers or something? Please tell me where, near the Smith family farm, there's a "narrow neck of land" between the western and eastern oceans?
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
Not to mention the absence of any weapons or any sign of a tremendous final battle between two civilizations.
Moroni never said that the hill near the Smith home was Cumorah. That was Smith's mistaken inference.
Do you get this wound up about the west indies? Clue: someone found land, mistakenly thought the land was the indies, and the name stuck. So now we have the east indies and the west indies. This really isn't that hard to understand if you apply yourself.
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
Moroni never had to say that. He buried the plates in a place that Smith would later find them. Since we have no record of Smith having travelled to any place outside of the family property, it's reasonable to assume that they are, indeed, one in the same.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
We have great new things called maps. I recommend you pick one up sometime. A "narrow neck of land" could easily apply to Florida, could it not? How about the strip of land that creates Boston Harbor? How about the numerous estuaries of Rhode Island?
Face it; you can't put the BOM events down anywhere that doesn't create a major problem for you. Given all of the other problems facing it, the only reasonable conclusion is that it was all fiction.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
"I think you already know what the evidence is."
You think I know? What are you, a cop or something? Go beat up a witness and plant some evidence. Leave the arguing to the adults.
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
Comedy's not your strong suit.
No, I think you already know, based on our conversations, that there are major problems with Mormonism. You are reluctant to face them because you know what it might lead to.
I get it; I understand, but there's no way around them. You can dodge and weave all you like, but you can't ever escape these problems.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
I admitted frankly that I don't know what to do with horses. You've ducked and weaved to avoid the problem of golden plates being found in a stone box out from near Lehi's time out in Persia, where the discovery occurred nearly 100 years after Joseph Smith described his similar find. You acted as if the stone box was the only issue. That's dodging and weaving.
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
Your evidence is a box? Your points are getting weaker and weaker.
If this box is so important to your point, let's go to the Smithsonian Institute and look at it, shall we?
You're not going to tell me that we don't even have the box that you're making such a stink over, are you?
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
You are correct that the author of HotC was not a twit. I was referring to the so-called "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith" which are essentially hearsay. That's where that language re Kinderhook was published. I'll have to look up HotC to see if that's there.
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
I haven't read that, only the relevent passages from the HOTC, comissioned, authorized, printed,and distributed by the church that Jesus Christ himself sits at the head of.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
My evidence is Joseph Smith's description which matches an archeological find from Darius' reign. Golden plates containing writings and contained in a stone box. Not conclusive, but certainly outweighs my concerns re horses.
Read the PDF about what it says re other similar plates found, and how some were rescued from looters after being cut up for scrap gold ... and how many likely were lost to looters. The latter would appy in the new world as well.
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
How could it match anything? In rereading the BOM, it's not described as anything but a "stone box" with cement and "two stones crossways" at the bottom.with a rock over the top.
If you're going to take that over the concerns about horses, fine, but Mormonism has lost entire civilizations and everything they owned, used, made, or discarded. Your concern should be there instead.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Mopsy, I have a very hard time believing that you are seriously confusing the stone box with book of Mormon geography. That's very cute, but stop.
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
Okay, I'll tell you what: let's compare the boxes side-by-side and we'll have our answer, okay?
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
To have the text say what it supposedly does would be like have a recipe for shrimp vindaloo (yummy!) in the middle of the Declaration of Independence. It wouldn't make sense, would it?
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
mormon = fag hater
jerrydoubleu 2 years ago
Also, I don't care how mormon scripture explains shit. I want to know how YOU as a morally serious and hopefully reasonable human being would answer these questions.
magnusjsolberg 2 years ago
Which questions? Have I missed any?
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
The Universe makes no sense if you postulate a benevolent creator. Get rid of that idea, and things make sense.
magnusjsolberg 2 years ago
Mag, surely you're aware that the universe as we perceive it makes no sense on its own, period. Otherwise lots of theoretical physicists would be out of a job. If physicists can postulate dark matter and various unobserved particles in order to make sense out of the world, then why can't theologians do the same?
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
Because we can make predictions based on the notion that dark matter exists. Also, quantum physics, which seems to make no sense sometimes, enables us to make astonishingly accurate predictions about the world. What you're doing on the other hand, is called "making shit up". And the stuff you've made up does not explain anything, and does not contribute to the discussion. How about I postulate that a giant panda from the galaxy Asshat, created life on earth. That would be silly wouldn't it?Yeah.
magnusjsolberg 2 years ago
Francis Collins comes to mind. A great scientist who, after observing a frozen waterfall while hiking, fell to his knees and accepted JC as his savior. If you watch interviews with the guy, he just refuses to honestly blend his knowledge of the universe with his belief in god. He keeps them seperate because they can't coexist any other way.
magnusjsolberg 2 years ago
Also, I feel "stoopider" all the time by having this discussion. The stupidity and profound illogic of mormon scripture seems to be endless. I can't even imagine the kind of intellectual paralysis required to believe this stuff. Now, you seem like a good guy, but the fact that you believe this stuff (or at least, you claim that you do), certainly indicates that the mind has an amazing ability for compartmentalization.
magnusjsolberg 2 years ago
Now it seems like you *are* trying to be a dick, Magnus. :D But you're not doing a good job of it though because your natural curiosity and honesty keeps getting in the way. If you want to piss me off, pretend you don't understand what I'm saying and then misrepresent me, like the anti-mormon clowns here usually do. You're not one of them. You're more interesting to talk to. You're smart enough that if i really was stupid or brainwashed you could show it rather than just saying it.
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
One more thing: If god did not create the universe, what did? By saying that your god did not create the entire universe, you've completely removed the need for your "god". After all, how the universe came into existence is the one big enigma that makes some rational people call themselves deists.
magnusjsolberg 2 years ago
"If god did not create the universe, what did?"
That's answered in Genesis. God created everything that was created. LDS scripture is more specific explaining that he "organized" matter rather than creating it out of nothing.
What God didn't create, no one created. It was always there. Matter can't be created or destroyed; it can only change form. That's one LDS doctrine that the science has since substantiated.
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
If god organized the universe, he did an apalling job. A universe PERFECT for creating the largest amount of black holes possible. And what do we see on earth? A world full of suffering that boggles the mind. If this is the work of your god he certainly is not omnibenevolent. He is cruel. I didn't know that your god was subject to the natural laws of the universe. He can't ccreate matter. Strange. A god that can not create anything. Is your god also not infinite? Has god always existed?
magnusjsolberg 2 years ago
"Has god always existed?"
Yes. So have you and I. We just don't remember it.
"If this is the work of your god he certainly is not omnibenevolent. He is cruel."
He seems so because you're only seeing part of the picture. We're immortal beings going through a temporary experience. From that perspective the suffering here is no more real than watching a movie. Is Spielberg evil for putting fictional characters through hell in Saving Private Ryan or Schindler's List?
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
Come on, man! Do fictional characters feel pain? No, they don't. Do we? yes, we do. There's a difference here. You took a giant leap from "temporary" to "fictional". I'm sure you see the flaw. What you're saying is enormously immoral. You're claiming that human suffering (or the suffering of any sentient being) should not concern us, as it does not matter anyway. Seems your church thinks differently. After all, they were great after Katrina hit.
magnusjsolberg 2 years ago
Fictional characters feel fictional pain. You ever play an RPG, mag? Here, you're the character. Your spirit is the player. There's nothing immoral about it. The suffering concerns you, but does not matter in the sense that you think it matters. It's just part of a story that's either heroic or tragic, depending on how you choose to play.
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
What I'm saying is, we're not fictional. If we have a spirit, it's made of nerurons. What you're saying is, suffering on earth does not matter because god is simply jerking off and using us a characters in his weekly celestial Dungeons & Dragons geek-off (presumably playing against satan, if the sillyness of other mormon doctrine is anything to go by). If suffering does not matter, why should we care about morality at all?
magnusjsolberg 2 years ago
"What I'm saying is, we're not fictional."
Not fictional precisely, but we are playing a role.
I don't think that D&D is adversarial. But most mormons would probably find the analogy offensive. And I didn't say suffering doesn't matter; I said it doesn't matter in the way that you think it matters.
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
Oh, not in the way I think it matters. I see. But YOU know in what way it matters, right? That's so f'ing arrogant, I don't even know what to say. It's also ignorant, so the mix is pretty foul. That solipsistic attitude is actually rather disgusting. It reminds me of Carrie Prejean's bullshit. We're the chosen ones, we know what's right, god's got a plan for me, I'm going to get eternal life, but non-believers won't (or maybe they will...in hell). Can't you see how bad that attitude is?
magnusjsolberg 2 years ago
"Oh, not in the way I think it matters. I see. But YOU know in what way it matters, right? That's so f'ing arrogant,
You think that it's "arrogant" for me to have an opinion that differs from yours?
" I don't even know what to say."
Then I'm dissapointed that you've decided to terminate our conversation by cloaking your fear in loathing.
We're all chosen, magnus. If God doesn't speak to you in this life he will in the next. Hope to continue this conversation in a better place.
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
"We're the chosen ones, we know what's right, god's got a plan for me, I'm going to get eternal life, but non-believers won't (or maybe they will...in hell). Can't you see how bad that attitude is? "
Don't be an ass. If you've had half the exposure to the LDS church that you claim you've had, you already know that we absolutely reject that Calvinist bullshit. Don't you dare impute that to us.
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
Oh, but I do dare. You don't believe that those who believe in the one true god get to go to heaven? And that those who do not, go to hell? If you do not believe this nonsense, then I come back to my point about you not being christians. These are the teachings of Jesus Christ (alledgedly) who introduced the concept of hell. So what's it going to be? You can't have it both ways, sir.
magnusjsolberg 2 years ago
Dude, if you don't know the answer to that, you don't know shit about mormons.
The essence of Christianity isn't about sending unbelievers to hell. Whatever with that.
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
I think that mormons are like christians: They all have differing beliefs. They all share some rediculous assumptions about the nature of the universe, but when you get into the details they believe different things.
magnusjsolberg 2 years ago
If you deny that, then you deny Jesus. He said that the only way to heaven is through him, and those who do not believe will go to hell. Your denial of the veracity of the teachings of christ is fine by me, as I'm not a believer. I'm just pointing out your bigotry and intellectual laziness.
magnusjsolberg 2 years ago
Jesus said that the only way to heaven is through him, correct. That does not mean that everyone who does not believe in Jesus during THIS MORTAL LIFE will go to hell.
"Bigotry" Where did you get that accusation from? I said nothing to deserve that. I must have been mistaken about you -- you've shown yourself to be a common fool and I have no more time for you.
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
Garbage. That's what it all boils down to: right and wrong. Jesus said that he would rather someone be against him than luke warm, didn't he? And that's the reason the missionaries come to my door and tell me that I don't know the true Jesus. And obviously, my Bible is missing many "plain and precious things."
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Why are you playing the victim here? Do you enjoy seeing yourself as being persecuted, ostracized?
I then suggest you reread 1 Nephi 13:26-42 and JS-History 1:18 because both say that all other churches on the face of the earth are an abomination before god and are founded by Satan.
And then tell me, with a straight face, that your church didn't cast the first stone in this battle.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
First of all, that's not quite what it says.
Second, even if it was, words aren't stones. Didn't your mother ever teach you that ditty about sticks, stones, and words?
You don't burn down churches, have people tarred and feathered, deprive them of their right to vote, and then cry as an excuse that they carry some book that says your church isn't true. That's really lame, mopper.
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
Um, that's exactly what it says and we both know it. Do you want to be part of the church founded by Stana? Yeah, me neither.
I really don't care what you say about me, but it needs to be accurate. And what Mormons say about themselves and what they believe also needs to be correct.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Also, if the dna evidence does not convince you that JS was a freud, what about the book of abraham? You see, as long as one single thing is proven false, the BOM and JS's house of cards collapse. That's what's so risky about claiming celestial inspiration. The fact that so many of your prophets have been spouting racist and generally prejudiced and ignorant beliefs, should make you pause and reexamine your faith. But it won't because you need the church. Or at least, you think you do. Too bad.
magnusjsolberg 2 years ago
"Oh HAHAHA! That's so cute!! They don't know anythng about mormons." OMFG!
How about the fact that the mormon church was an officially racist organization until 1978? How about the fact that the second prophet said that race mixing should be punishable by death? The church may also have killed Michael Jackson since he said he'd come out of the closet if Prop8 wasn't passed. Imagine the relief he would have felt after coming out! Maybe he'd be able to cut back on pills. Damn you for killing MJ!!
magnusjsolberg 2 years ago
wow, thats a bit of a stretch!
tylermatthewmarz 2 years ago
Haha! I know, but my first two points are valid.
magnusjsolberg 2 years ago
I don't want to get in an augment, but i beg to differ. Yes we did not allow the Blacks to receive the priesthood until after the 1970's, but that doesn't make us racist.... it was of God, and i know that is hard for you to see. as for the second comment about "race mixing" I am not sure... but Brigham young did preach some opinions... which are NOT doctrine. You don't always need to have physical proof to know if something is true or not. Neither does that lack of evidence prove something wrong
tylermatthewmarz 2 years ago
1. You say it was of god, so are you saying that god's a racist? Because whoever made the law that black people should not be allowed to recieve the priesthood, is a racist. To claim anything else would be rediculous.
2. Was BY a prophet? If so, does not god speak to him? Or do you decide that only the things he said which sound good to you were recieved from god?
3. Yes, in this case ones does need physical proof.If not you're going on nothing but 'a whim' which says nothing about what's true
magnusjsolberg 2 years ago
Well God can not convince you whether or not something is true, and neither can I. An open heart and mind is required, faith is required. That is why prayer is so important, to make sure and gain knowledge that what is being told is of God.
tylermatthewmarz 2 years ago
White noise. Nothing but nonsense. Did god speak to Deanna Laney before she killed two of her children? She was certainly convinced that "he" did. But you don't think god spoke to her, because god wouldn't ask someone to kill. Well, we both know that's not true (Abraham). It wouldn't be out of character for god either. After all The Bible is full of murder, much of it ordered by god. If god exists, he gave you the capacity to reason. Use that gift for all it's worth. There's a lot of BS around.
magnusjsolberg 2 years ago
There is a lot of crap out there, but that crap was distorted by man. Which is what I believe. through the witness of the holy ghost by the "fruits of the spirit" I know what I know. (Gal: 5)
tylermatthewmarz 2 years ago
Yes I do have thoughts of my own, I know than Man can err in his ways and distort truth. But it is God and prayer, faith and all that is good that I know what I know.
tylermatthewmarz 2 years ago
I understand that facing facts can be hard. If you're intellectually honest, you'll quickly find out that the church is a freud. However to do this can be difficult for people. Even so, I really think you owe it to yourself to look at the evidence as objectively as possible. Book of Abraham is a complete fabrication. We can translate egyptian now, so we know for a fact that JS made it all up. You are ignoring facts to preserve your faith, and it's a terrible think to look at. And the flood... :)
magnusjsolberg 2 years ago
God is an all-knowing being, He can do all things, things which are beyond our comprehension at this time. God does things that we might not now, or understand how they work, but they are done....
tylermatthewmarz 2 years ago
You know you're making no sense, right? Do you have any thoughts of your own? Nothing you just said contributed anything valuable to this discussion. You're not helping the debate, and you're not helping in general.
magnusjsolberg 2 years ago
You don't think this is racist? LDS MORMON PROPHET Joseph Smith stated the following:
"....The Lamanites, through transgression, became a loathsome, ignorant and filthy people, and were CURSED with a SKIN of DARKNESS yet, they have the promise, if they will believe, and work righteousness...they shall become a WHITE and DELIGHTSOME people..."
:The Latter-Day Saints Millennial Star, vol. 14, p. 418 "
magnusjsolberg 2 years ago
Racism is a "hatred or intolerance of another race or other races." We did, not never had a hatred toward that race, it was just a curse that was placed upon them in ancient times, which was lifted later. They were allowed everything but the priesthood until then.
tylermatthewmarz 2 years ago
They were treated in a way that you would not treat the "white skinned" people. You discriminated against them. That's racism, dude. Face it. And god, if he existed, would probably not be racist. The fact that your god has so many of our human shortcomings, seems to me to indicate that "he" is indeed our own creation. I have higher morals than the god of the scriptures, and so do you. Pretty much everyone does.Doesn't that make you pause and think?
magnusjsolberg 2 years ago
I guess all I can say is that what you think of as shortcomings, I don't. My God, and your God, Does things for a reason, which might be beyond our comprehension. That term racism (not trying to make an excuse) was created by man. Everyone is equal but certain things happen to certain people for certain reasons. It is case a certain people were cursed because of their wickedness (which denoted black skin). This curse prevented them from the priesthood, which was later lifted. I believe that.
tylermatthewmarz 2 years ago
Likewise remember that God knows everything, like I said before, and He does things in ways that we cannot comprehend.
tylermatthewmarz 2 years ago
Joseph Smith translated that from the writings of book of Mormon prophets. Some of those prophets, like the apostle Peter in the Bible, were racist. Jesus even pointed that out in the book of mormon when he asked why Nephite prophets had failed to record the prophetic words of Samuel the Lamanite.
nutlawatgmail 2 years ago
Fact: over the last few thousand years, modern-day Jews and modern-day Native Americans do not share common ancestors. If they did, then genetic markers would be found in Natives identical to those in the descendants of ancient Hebrews.
DNA proves that Joseph Smith was wrong.
Hermetiqa 2 years ago 2
the Israelites who came to america came before the tribes were scattered over all the earth. this is actually one of the reasons God sent Lehi to America- because of the upcoming Babylonian Captivity. So if the Lamanites are Israelites, (manasseh) it would follow that they aren't quite so closely related to modern day 'jews' (Judah)
Laffopuritain 2 years ago
The problem with your Religious theory is that you assume that I'm ignorant of how genetics work. You wo