Flaw in LDS doctrine

[SoyLeche]

Isnt that what we're asking?

The difference is that I am assuming that it happened, you are assuming that it didn't. You ask why God would have done it, I'm asking why Joseph Smith would have written it.

 

[Buttons*]

The difference is that I am assuming that it happened, you are assuming that it didn't. You ask why God would have done it, I'm asking why Joseph Smith would have written it.

I'm not asking why god would have done it, i dont think he had anything to do with the migrational patterns of ancient tribes.

My opinions come from the discovery channel.

i'm asking for any rational reason Mr. Smith wrote down the things he did about the Native Americans.

 

[SoyLeche]

I'm not asking why god would have done it, i dont think he had anything to do with the migrational patterns of ancient tribes.

My opinions come from the discovery channel.

i'm asking for any rational reason Mr. Smith wrote down the things he did about the Native Americans.

Halcyon asked it, and you are on the same "team"

The only rational reasons I can give you are that they are true, and that he translated them instead of writing them from his own head. You aren't going to accept that one though.

 

[Squirt]

well, i'm not here to attack anyone for their beliefs, i'm just asking if it makes any rational sense. To me, this aspect of the LDS faith doesnt. But this is why i'm asking for opinions, links, and ideas on the subject so maybe i can see where you're coming from better even if I do have my mind made up already.

I didn't mean to accuse your of attacking our beliefs, Buttons, even though the title of your thread sort of did imply that you were. I don't think any of us have any real problems addressing questions such as you have asked. It's just that they can't be answered adequately with a few quick statements. There is actually a tremendous amount of evidence to support the claims made in the Book of Mormon. While no conclusive proof has been found that it is what it purports to be, I personally find it fascinating that to date, the vast majority of the so-called proofs against it have actually been addressed. Year by year, new archeaological finds shed light on Book of Mormon claims that people had previously assumed to be "proven" false.

I'll give you just quick example of something I've found interesting. Back in 1830, when Joseph Smith completed the Book of Mormon translation, he stated that the ancient record had been written on metal plates "which had the appearance of gold" and that he'd found them buried in a stone box. Back in 1830, this story was seen as absolutely preposterous (and I'm not even talking about the role of an angel in the events). The concept of ancient people making records on metal plates and hiding them in stone boxes was nonsense -- for the simple reason that no such evidence existed anywhere in the world. Well, guess what? Nearly a hundred years later, plates closely resembling the ones Joseph Smith described began to be discovered in various places throughout the world. Some of these plates were even made of gold. Some were buried in stone boxes like the one Joseph described. A half dozen or more sets of ancient records engraved on metal plates can be seen in museums today. Now that there is hard evidence that this particular method of record-keeping was not so unusual after all, one favorite anti-Mormon argument no longer hold up.

I don't care all that much about archeological evidence for this very reason. Gold plates with ancient writing on them existed between 1830 and 1930 just as surely as they existed after 1930. They just hadn't been discovered yet. My faith is not based on such evidence (though it is admittedly interesting to me when I read of another discovery). Likewise, I don't think archealogical evidence would be able to convince someone who thought the whole thing was a big hoax, either.

Squirt

 

[Buttons*]

Halcyon asked it, and you are on the same "team"

oops...sorry about that...

The only rational reasons I can give you are that they are true, and that he translated them instead of writing them from his own head. You aren't going to accept that one though.

but archeologically and genetically, they conflict with the writings

 

[Buttons*]

I didn't mean to accuse your of attacking our beliefs, Buttons, even though the title of your thread sort of did imply that you were. I don't think any of us have any real problems addressing questions such as you have asked. It's just that they can't be answered adequately with a few quick statements.

well, i put the thread name like that to attract attention... shouldnt have done that though... sorry
I dont think that a few quick statements will be enough either, but i'm just throwing this idea out there to see what we can come up with. Just as I dont take everything anyone says as fact, I know that you dont (and shouldnt) take the things i say to be valid without your own thorough investigation.

I'll give you just quick example of something I've found interesting. Back in 1830, when Joseph Smith completed the Book of Mormon translation, he stated that the ancient record had been written on metal plates "which had the appearance of gold" and that he'd found them buried in a stone box. Back in 1830, this story was seen as absolutely preposterous (and I'm not even talking about the role of an angel in the events). The concept of ancient people making records on metal plates and hiding them in stone boxes was nonsense -- for the simple reason that no such evidence existed anywhere in the world. Well, guess what? Nearly a hundred years later, plates closely resembling the ones Joseph Smith described began to be discovered in various places throughout the world. Some of these plates were even made of gold. Some were buried in stone boxes like the one Joseph described. A half dozen or more sets of ancient records engraved on metal plates can be seen in museums today. Now that there is hard evidence that this particular method of record-keeping was not so unusual after all, one favorite anti-Mormon argument no longer hold up.

Yes, artifacts like that existed and been found.
However, the gold plates are a different story... i think we should just focus on the native americans at this point.

I don't care all that much about archeological evidence for this very reason. Gold plates with ancient writing on them existed between 1830 and 1930 just as surely as they existed after 1930. They just hadn't been discovered yet. My faith is not based on such evidence (though it is admittedly interesting to me when I read of another discovery). Likewise, I don't think archealogical evidence would be able to convince someone who thought the whole thing was a big hoax, either.

Squirt

I find all religions interesting even if i do find some of the "evidence" to be false. I dont think anything is a hoax, but I do think Joseph Smith gave another revelation that talks about the love Yeshua imparted. Anything that talks about God and his love surely cant be false, right?

 

[tnutz]

The links to the Jeff Lindsey site address the archeologcial and genetic questions. The things you are asking really are too complex to answer in a few words. If you are really interested you can research the links.

 

[Super Universe]

I'm sorry, but this is totally off-topic. I don't object to your beliefs, but if I were to interject a post on LDS teachings into a thread dealing questioning a point of doctrine in the Urantia Book, I believe you'd see it as out of line.

I would not object especially if you answered a question that I had.

Do you think I am afraid of words? Afraid that you will somehow put together a sentence that suddenly crumbles what all of my beliefs are based upon?

That is why religion has been so slow to evolve. And that is why the church sentenced people to death (Galileo) who were right.

The only thing I am absolutely sure of is that God exists and that He created the universe, everything else is subject to change.

My belief's are an open door. I challenge anyone to point out a more logical approach toward the conflicting ideas in the bible. If they do I will surely thank you and accept it as truth.

Do you only use the Book of Mormom to find answers? Do you ever open the bible? Why?

Because they come from the same source?

Don't you see that that same source gave us the Koran? The Urantia Book. The Baghavad Gita. Buddha...

 

[Buttons*]

I would not object especially if you answered a question that I had.

Do you think I am afraid of words? Afraid that you will somehow put together a sentence that all of my beliefs are based upon?

That is why religion has been so slow to evolve. And that is why the church sentenced people to death (Galileo) who were right.

The only thing I am absolutely sure of is that God exists and that He created the universe, everything else is subject to change.

My belief's are an open door. I challenge anyone to point out a more logical approach toward the conflicting ideas in the bible. If they do I will surely thank you and accept it as truth.

Do you only use the Book of Mormom to find answers? Do you ever open the bible? Why?

Because they come from the same source?

Don't you see that that same source gave us the Koran? The Urantia Book. The Baghavad Gita. Buddha...

please take your argument to another thread, this is not the point of the OP

 

[Buttons*]

The links to the Jeff Lindsey site address the archeologcial and genetic questions. The things you are asking really are too complex to answer in a few words. If you are really interested you can research the links.

I really will when i have more time!

 

[nutshell]

Of course, a simple excavation of the Hill Cumorah area would give us a pretty conclusive answer, i mean 2,000,000 bodies and weapons of war don't just vanish.

I didn't see this addressed yet so I thought I'd take a shot.

After the war that wiped out the Nephites, Moroni wandered around for a long long time. He didn't expect to. He was surprised God preserved his life. Since he was being hunted by the Lamanites, he would have traveled as far away from them as he could. So, you see, the Hill Cumorah is not the same site as the terrible wars that wiped out a nation of people.

 

[Buttons*]

I didn't see this addressed yet so I thought I'd take a shot.

After the war that wiped out the Nephites, Moroni wandered around for a long long time. He didn't expect to. He was surprised God preserved his life. Since he was being hunted by the Lamanites, he would have traveled as far away from them as he could. So, you see, the Hill Cumorah is not the same site as the terrible wars that wiped out a nation of people.

so where was it? and how does that explain the missing artifiacts or residue of war?

 

[nutshell]

so where was it? and how does that explain the missing artifiacts or residue of war?

Well, we don't know for sure. Some believe the Book of Mormon peoples were around the isthmus at the bottom of Mexico and the top of South America.

 

[Buttons*]

Well, we don't know for sure. Some believe the Book of Mormon peoples were around the isthmus at the bottom of Mexico and the top of South America.

... is there any archeological evidence for this?

 

[Squirt]

I was just hoping there might be a logical explaination, since its something that bugged me while i was reading it.

That's kind of funny, really. You are asking me why God chose a particular travel route for the Nephites? How would I know that?

Of course, a simple excavation of the Hill Cumorah area would give us a pretty conclusive answer, i mean 2,000,000 bodies and weapons of war don't just vanish.

You think? Well, consider this: Living at more or less this same period of time (400 A.D.) in Central Asia and Eastern Europe were the Huns. You know, they were those nomadic people for whom horses heavily represented the basis of their military power. Many scholars estimate that each Hun warrior may have had has many as ten horses. Nevertheless, according to S. Bokonyi, a foremost authority on the subject, "We know very little of the Huns' horses. It is interesting that not a single usable horse bone has been found in the territory of the whole empire of the Huns." We're talking thousands and thousands of horses and "not a single usable horse bone... found." Does this bit of knowledge convince you that the Huns never had horses after all? Obviously, they didn't just vanish.

 

[Squirt]

Yes, artifacts like that existed and been found.
However, the gold plates are a different story...

Sure they are. But don't you find it even a little bit odd that Joseph Smith would have just invented a means of record-keeping that wasn't even known by scholars for another hundred years? You can dismiss it as mere coincidence or just attribute it to a great imagination on Joseph's part. If that were the only "coincidence," I might even go along with you (probably not, though -- it actually strikes me as quite remarkable). But he hit the target so many times (without even aiming for it) that I've got to go with the idea that he was telling the truth.

i think we should just focus on the native americans at this point.

I'm sure you are. After all, why would we want to bother with evidence you can't actually question?

Anything that talks about God and his love surely cant be false, right?

Well, that's debatable. Just ask "aggravatus_exasperatus." The God we worship isn't even the right one.

 

[Buttons*]

Sure they are. But don't you find it even a little bit odd that Joseph Smith would have just invented a means of record-keeping that wasn't even known by scholars for another hundred years? You can dismiss it as mere coincidence or just attribute it to a great imagination on Joseph's part. If that were the only "coincidence," I might even go along with you (probably not, though -- it actually strikes me as quite remarkable). But he hit the target so many times (without even aiming for it) that I've got to go with the idea that he was telling the truth.

I'm glad that it works for you!

I'm sure you are. After all, why would we want to bother with evidence you can't actually question?

because it wasnt the purpose of the OP, we can discuss the plates on another thread if you like.

Well, that's debatable. Just ask "aggravatus_exasperatus." The God we worship isn't even the right one.

Hey now! Be kind, rewind!

 

[Squirt]

I'm glad that it works for you!

because it wasnt the purpose of the OP, we can discuss the plates on another thread if you like.

No, I don't particularly care to discuss the plates in any greater detail. I didn't realize that you wanted to narrow the Book of Mormon evidence down to the subject of the American Indians. I was just thinking in terms of general archealogical evidence. I'll see if I can find any more good links for you... that is if you actually do intend to read them.

 

[Bishka]

No, I don't particularly care to discuss the plates in any greater detail. I didn't realize that you wanted to narrow the Book of Mormon evidence down to the subject of the American Indians. I was just thinking in terms of general archealogical evidence. I'll see if I can find any more good links for you... that is if you actually do intend to read them.

I think she does, but she's probably just been busy with school. We all know how that can be.:banghead3

 

[Buttons*]

No, I don't particularly care to discuss the plates in any greater detail. I didn't realize that you wanted to narrow the Book of Mormon evidence down to the subject of the American Indians. I was just thinking in terms of general archealogical evidence. I'll see if I can find any more good links for you... that is if you actually do intend to read them.

yesh, links on the subjects would be greatly appriciated

I WILL read them, i just need to have a clear objective mind when i do... and school isnt helping with that! *ugh*