• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

LDS II: The Mormons

Billy Baxter said:
The problem with the skeptics' approach to the BOM's authenticity is, it focuses on the nitpicky details, while the true believer focuses on the doctrines instead.
Click to expand...

The doctrines in the Book of Mormon are Christian only if you can show they have something to do with Jesus Christ. The book satisfies this claim prima facie by claiming Jesus visiting the people living in the Americas shortly after his death. That is the only basis upon which a claim of Christianity can be made, and its historicity is not therefore merely a nitpick. You bear the burden to prove that there existed a people for Christ to visit, and that he actually did so, before you can claim a Christian origin for what the book claims as doctrine. That burden is made immovably heavy by the wealth of archaeological information about the Americas and the complete lack in it of anything whatsoever supporting the Book of Mormon. Mormon scholars admit this lack, even if the church leaders do not.

And again you seem to be young enough in the Mormon curch not to remember (or know at all) that the issue of Book of Mormon historicity supported by archeology was first affirmed by the Mormon church. It was their attempts to equate ancient sites and artifacts to those in the Book of Mormon, and concepts such as the feathered serpent to Christian ideas like angels or the resurrected Jesus, that first raised this issue. The demand to prove historicity is not just some stunt dreamed up by critics to discredit Mormonism by any "nitpicky" means at their disposal. It is a direct rebuttal to claims made by the church, but now abandoned.

There was an article this week in the Salt Lake Tribune investigating the reasons why some become disaffected with Mormonism. It turns out a leading factor is not that church history and doctrine are not as sanitary as they were taught, but rather that questioning Mormons had to learn about the facts from outside sources. People leave the Mormon church because the leadership lies to them and teaches only a cherry-picked version of church history and practice. Before railing against your critics for their allegedly improper approach to challenging church claims, you should consider that you don't know as much about your own church as outsiders do.
 
JayUtah said:
The doctrines in the Book of Mormon are Christian only if you can show they have something to do with Jesus Christ. The book satisfies this claim prima facie by claiming Jesus visiting the people living in the Americas shortly after his death. That is the only basis upon which a claim of Christianity can be made, and its historicity is not therefore merely a nitpick. You bear the burden to prove that there existed a people for Christ to visit, and that he actually did so, before you can claim a Christian origin for what the book claims as doctrine. That burden is made immovably heavy by the wealth of archaeological information about the Americas and the complete lack in it of anything whatsoever supporting the Book of Mormon. Mormon scholars admit this lack, even if the church leaders do not.

And again you seem to be young enough in the Mormon curch not to remember (or know at all) that the issue of Book of Mormon historicity supported by archeology was first affirmed by the Mormon church. It was their attempts to equate ancient sites and artifacts to those in the Book of Mormon, and concepts such as the feathered serpent to Christian ideas like angels or the resurrected Jesus, that first raised this issue. The demand to prove historicity is not just some stunt dreamed up by critics to discredit Mormonism by any "nitpicky" means at their disposal. It is a direct rebuttal to claims made by the church, but now abandoned.

There was an article this week in the Salt Lake Tribune investigating the reasons why some become disaffected with Mormonism. It turns out a leading factor is not that church history and doctrine are not as sanitary as they were taught, but rather that questioning Mormons had to learn about the facts from outside sources. People leave the Mormon church because the leadership lies to them and teaches only a cherry-picked version of church history and practice. Before railing against your critics for their allegedly improper approach to challenging church claims, you should consider that you don't know as much about your own church as outsiders do.
Click to expand...
Nice answer but I think it's wasted. Billy may have actually left the building this time. We'll have to wait and see, though.

This signature is intended to irritate people.
 
Pixel42 said:
According to his user profile he accessed the forum within the last 24 hours. So he still seems to be reading, even if he's stopped posting.
Click to expand...

I suspect he's either waiting for someone to post something he feels like responding to, or he's praying the DropBear Epistle doesn't reach the 11 endorsers that would put it on par with the Book of Mormon in terms of evidence.
 
Pixel42 said:
According to his user profile he accessed the forum within the last 24 hours. So he still seems to be reading, even if he's stopped posting.
Click to expand...
I normally access the forum through Tapatalk and user info is limited.

So, he reads the forum but seems to have given up posting. Maybe that translates to something like shut up and listen?

This signature is intended to irritate people.
 
halleyscomet said:
I suspect he's either waiting for someone to post something he feels like responding to, or he's praying the DropBear Epistle doesn't reach the 11 endorsers that would put it on par with the Book of Mormon in terms of evidence.
Click to expand...
I'd like to witness, but I'm afraid it would conflict with my FSM ordination. I'll have to consult a stripper about it.

This signature is intended to irritate people.
 
Billy Baxter said:
Are we talking about the same book??? The BOM mentions Christ and his doctrine on virtually every page.
Click to expand...

I want to revisit this because Zivan has made some excellent points in another thread that are relevant here. The fact that 600 BCE Jews were expressing not only an overtly Christian concept of a messiah but the concept of a messiah at all, is proof the Book of Mormon is a forgery.

Billy Baxter said:
The BOM mentions Christ and his doctrine on virtually every page.
Click to expand...

If the BoM were legitimate, then this would not be the case.

Zivan said:
The concept of "The Messiah" is post-tanakh. Jews in 600 bce did not even have the concept because it was not invented yet. Josef smith was smoking something..........:D
Click to expand...

The concept of a messiah expressed by the Jews depicted in the BoM simply did not exist at the time. In the quotes below Zivan explains how the concept of a "messiah" would eventually be understood by Jews, but not until a few huncred years AFTER the time period claimed by the BoM.

Zivan said:
Radically different than the xian "prophecies".

There is no virgin birth "prophecy", no born in bethlehem "prophecy", no dying/resurrection "prophecy", no sacrificial savior from sins "prophecy", no god-man "prophecy", no from nazereth "prophecy", no second coming "prophecy", etc., etc.

The word translated to english as "messiah" is the hebrew word, "mashiakh", which simply means, "anointed with oil". (Specifically, the special oil used according to the recipe as described in tanakh).

In tanakh, all the jewish kings were anointed with the oil, and they were all messiahs. Some of the priests and prophets were anointed with oil as well and were also messiahs. Additionally, even inanimate objects, such as the temple and various objects used in the temple, were also anointed with the special oil.

The word "mashiakh" (messiah) is used 39 times in tanakh. But xian translations only translate it as "messiah" twice, both in the book of daniel, and both times with a capital "M" to make it appear to be a "prophecy about jesus". They even use the definite article "the" (which is not in the hebrew). Also, the translations make it look like there is only one "messiah" ("The Messiah") when the hebrew is actually speaking of two different anointed ones, living about four centuries apart. Some translations also translate "anointed" as "Messiah" in one or two of the psalms, again to make it appear as a "prophecy about jesus".

The rest of the 35-37 times the word "mashiakh" is found in tanakh, xian translators translate it correctly as "anointed", because they can not make jesus "fit" into the verse.

A fun one is where cyrus the great of persia is called god's anointed (isaiah 45:1). I wonder why xian translators do not translate THAT one as "God's Messiah". :D

Jesus did not meet any of the messianic prophecies. I think about the only "messianic" prophecy judaism and xianity have in common is the "descend from king david" one. But jesus did not even qualify for that one according to the nt geneaologies.

Do you mean the "dual prophecy" idea? Or "multiple fulfillment"? That is also a xian concept, but not a jewish one.
Click to expand...

Zivan said:
Then she is definitely among the vast majority of jews! (Most are secular anyway). Among jews it is just a minor issue, rarely thought about. It is not a "big deal" like the xian version of "the messiah" is. Among jews it is usually mentioned as a passing comment, if talked about at all. It only becomes an "issue" when talking to xians trying to convert us.
...
Basically, judaism is not concerned with who The Messiah is. It is not important. He will simply be the anointed king/ruler during the Messianic Era, a time of world peace where "swords will become plowshears". No war, the 12 tribes will be re-united, he will be a just and wise ruler. He will be a mortal, born of two human parents, in the normal way, will live and die like a normal person. He will be married with children. He will be of the tribe of judah, a descendent of king david through solomon. There is no specific time or place of his birth. No mention of how he will die. No one has to "believe in" him. He will not "save us from our sins" nor will he be "sacrificed as atonement" for anyone. He will not be "divine" or a god, or a god-man. There will be no "second coming". Either he accomplishes everything the first time (world peace, re-uniteting the tribes, etc) or he is not The Messiah.

Judaism is about this life, an "afterlife" is not important and is not even defined in tanakh. We are to focus on this life, and tikun olam---"repairing the world". Tikun olam can be any act of kindness, helping others, helping the planet, giving charity (which is actually called "justice". There is no word for "charity" because it implies superiority on the giver, and both the giver and receiver are considered equal. It is considered justice for one who has more to help one who has less, not considered "charity").

(Sorry is this was not explained very well. Just ask for me to clarify any/all the confusing/badly worded parts)..............
Click to expand...

Zivan said:
I learned about this stuff to counter the obnoxious missionaries always harrassing us. Otherwise I would not have known.

One of their favorite "proof text" is daniel 9:25-26. The kjv was the usual one used by protestant xians until all the various newer translations came out. The missionaries use one of the newer translations but tell us it is "about jesus".

I just looked at "bible hub" and many of the translations have "anointed" but it is still with a capital "A", has a definite article, "the" and still makes it look like one person, instead of two.

http://biblehub.com/daniel/9-25.htm
Click to expand...

The theology of the Book of Mormon and the time period in which it claims to occur are proof that it is a fabrication. It expresses a theology that would not exist anywhere in the world until a good 40 to 100 years AFTER the death of Christ. 100 CE to 150 CE theology is being discussed by 600 BCE Jews. It's about as plausible as the scenes in Disney's Alladin where the genie is making 20th-century pop culture references.
 
halleyscomet said:
Mormons have so far failed to penetrate the pickup artist community. This is why:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/pickup-artistry
Click to expand...

But you can't make this stuff up. About five years ago there was a controversy at BYU involving students who would drive to Las Vegas for the weekend, get married, have all the sex they wanted, and then get divorced before returning home to Utah. "What happens in Vegas..."
 
halleyscomet said:
I suspect he's either waiting for someone to post something he feels like responding to, or he's praying the DropBear Epistle doesn't reach the 11 endorsers that would put it on par with the Book of Mormon in terms of evidence.
Click to expand...

Um, do I have to be witty and/or funny in order to testify to the DropBear Epistle? I did have a beer with dinner last night, so that can't hurt, right? I mean, with the whole witnessing thing?
 
GuitKitty said:
Um, do I have to be witty and/or funny in order to testify to the DropBear Epistle? I did have a beer with dinner last night, so that can't hurt, right? I mean, with the whole witnessing thing?
Click to expand...

Having a beer definitely helps the whole witnessing thing!

Now there are four witnesses!:thumbsup: :D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom