I wish mormonism would be the dominant religion

[outhouse]

Just curious... Who are you referring to -- the Bible or Mormonism?

Sorry I stand corrected.

I was confusing morman and amish

 

[Katzpur]

Sorry I stand corrected.

I was confusing morman and amish

:biglaugh:Are you serious? :biglaugh:

Just to make sure that no one makes that mistake in the future, I would like to point out that among the LDS Church’s fifteen highest ranking leaders (the “First Presidency” and the “Quorum of the Twelve Apostles") are eight men with doctorate degrees from Harvard, Yale, Purdue, and Duke. Three are lawyers, one of them a former Supreme Court Justice and law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, Earl Warren, one a heart surgeon and the former president of the Society for Vascular Surgery and chairman of the Council on Cardiovascular Surgery for the American Heart Association, several who were professors at Stanford, Texas Tech and the University of Chicago, one of them being a university president. One was the former senior vice president and chief pilot of Lufthansa Airlines. One was on the staff of Adm. Hyman Rickover, developing military and private nuclear power reactors. One was the CEO of a California health care system, another the associate general counsel of what is now Bank of America in Charlotte, N.C.

Mormons are into education -- big time!

 

[Sapiens]

This is a moot point, since Mormon scripture itself does not contain "oppositional ideas about race."

That's just it... There was no revelation instituting the priesthood ban. It was an entirely man-made policy.

In The Pearl of Great Price (is that not scripture that relates revelation?), Joseph Smith wrote:

"...the Lord shall curse the land with much heat...and there was a blackness (2) came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people." (Moses 7:8)


and

​

"And Enoch also beheld ...the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it were the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not a place among them." (Moses 7:22)​

Was it not Mormon belief was that Cain's curse of black skin would be carried through Noah's son, Ham:​

"Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth. From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land. The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden. When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land..." (Pearl of Great Price, Abraham 1:21-24, 26c)​

Is it not scripture concerning Native Americans (indicating that the shade of skin color determines a person's righteousness):

"...after they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations." (I Nephi 12:23)

​

"...Behold, they had hardened their hearts against him...wherefore, as they were white, and exceeding fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticingunto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their sins." (2 Nephi 5:21-22)

​

"And the skins of the Lamanites(4) were dark...which was a curse upon them because of their transgression against their brethren...therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them. And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preservehis people..." (Alma 3:6,8)

​

"And then shall they [Lamanites] rejoice...and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and delightsome people" (2 Nephi 30:6, 1830, 1920, and 1977 editions)​

Was not the Book of Mormon ("the most correct book in all the earth," according to the Mormon Church) officially altered in 1981so that 2 Nephi 30:6 now reads, "a pure and delightsome people"? I believe that the word "pure" now in 2 Nephi 30:6 is also found in the 1840 edition, but "pure" is not in the original edition, and does not agree with 2 Nephi 5:21-22 which is about the same subject, and the word "white" is used. It seems to me that the line between sacred texts, scripture and revelation is not too clear and shifts with the inconvenience of the moment.


​

Please remember that I am not suggesting that Mormons today are racist ... many may Mormons may not even be aware of the items we are discussing here.

 

[Norman]

Im guessing its viewed as primitive beliefs based on severe willful historical biblical ignorance, lack of education and knowledge, with no contribution to advancing humanity.

Basically, they choose to go backwards, not forwards. Favoring fanaticism and fundamentalism over reality.


But me? Your not violent so as long as I don't see you or hear you, I ignore you. Carry on but please stay at least a 1/4 mile away from my child on any given day or we have problems.

Outhouse, What in the world are you talking about?

 

[Katzpur]

In The Pearl of Great Price (is that not scripture that relates revelation?), Joseph Smith wrote:

"...the Lord shall curse the land with much heat...and there was a blackness (2) came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people." (Moses 7:8)​

and​

"And Enoch also beheld ...the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it were the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not a place among them." (Moses 7:22)​

​

Was it not Mormon belief was that Cain's curse of black skin would be carried through Noah's son, Ham:

"Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth. From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land. The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden. When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land..." (Pearl of Great Price, Abraham 1:21-24, 26c)
​

Is it not scripture concerning Native Americans (indicating that the shade of skin color determines a person's righteousness):

"...after they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations." (I Nephi 12:23)​

"...Behold, they had hardened their hearts against him...wherefore, as they were white, and exceeding fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticingunto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their sins." (2 Nephi 5:21-22)​

"And the skins of the Lamanites(4) were dark...which was a curse upon them because of their transgression against their brethren...therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them. And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preservehis people..." (Alma 3:6,8)​

"And then shall they [Lamanites] rejoice...and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and delightsome people" (2 Nephi 30:6, 1830, 1920, and 1977 editions)​

​

Was not the Book of Mormon ("the most correct book in all the earth," according to the Mormon Church) officially altered in 1981so that 2 Nephi 30:6 now reads, "a pure and delightsome people"? I believe that the word "pure" now in 2 Nephi 30:6 is also found in the 1840 edition, but "pure" is not in the original edition, and does not agree with 2 Nephi 5:21-22 which is about the same subject, and the word "white" is used. It seems to me that the line between sacred texts, scripture and revelation is not too clear and shifts with the inconvenience of the moment.​

Please remember that I am not suggesting that Mormons today are racist ... many may Mormons may not even be aware of the items we are discussing here.

I don't have time to respond tonight since I'll be away for the entire evening. I'll get back to you tomorrow. Before I do, though, could clarify just one thing for me? Are we talking specifically about the priesthood ban or something else? I was of the impression that we were talking about whether the policy prohibiting Black men from holding the priesthood was scripturally based or simply racial prejudice on behalf of those who had the authority to establish Church policy?

 

[Sapiens]

There are a number of issues in play. The priesthood ban is interesting, in and of itself, but really is just serving, as an example, of the church's unwillingness to come to public grips with its true history (LDS is not the only one with the problem, by any means). We got here via a discussion of "lying for the Lord" promulgated church practice when it comes to "embarrassments" such as the history of attitudes towards blacks in the church and claims of wheeled vehicles and various plants and animals and lost tribes of Hebrews in the new world.

 

[Norman]

Normally I'd make an effort to address such points, but in as much as you seem to enjoy jumping to conclusions of all colors, and I'm in no mood to prob your questionable indignity, and am already gagging on your irrelevant tidbits of "learning," I'm just going to ignore it all. Have a good day.

Do you always post and run Skwim?

 

[Norman]

"In 1842, just two months after being initiated into Freemasonry, Joseph Smith introduced the wearing of garments to a select group of men. On Wednesday, May 4th, 1842, Joseph Smith initiated nine men into his new inner-circle called the "Holy Order," the "Quorum," the "Holy Order of the Holy Priesthood," or the "Quorum of the Anointed." This ritual would later come to be known as the LDS temple endowment.

Since you like to post and run I will comment again with the same response.
The original garment was designed only for priesthood men, after the pattern of mid-nineteenth century longjohns. It was originally a one-piece garment made of plain, unbleached cotton cloth that covered the body from ankles to wrists. No buttons were used on the garment. Four to five tie-strings took their place to hold the front closed.Mormon LDS Garments The garment had little collars which were not visible from the outside of the shirt worn over it.

​

In the crotch area was a large flap, which ran from the back below the waist all the way under the body and met the front tie closing. The flap was completely double so the men had to pull it apart in order to expose themselves.

Ceremonial markings on the garment were originally snipped into the cloth as part of the man's washing and anointing ceremony. This helped keep the markings secret from those who had not been through the ritual, including the women who sewed the garments. These marks made during the endowment were much more prominent than the marks in garments today."
source

​

What I found interesting was that,

" In 1965 for the first time, Mormon women received temple garments modified for them.

The approved modified design for women has a button front rather than string ties, a brassiere top patterned after the brassiere top of garments used for day-time wear, a helanca stretch insert in the back at the waist, and widened overlapping back panels with a helanca stretch piece at the top of each panel and a button to assure panels remaining closed. All other features of the garment, including the collar, long legs, and long sleeves, remain the same as heretofore."
Source: ibid.

​

And just as interesting is the reason the underwear was constructed in the first place.

"Purpose

The original purpose of wearing garments was to remind Smith's priesthood brethren of their sacred oaths - especially oaths of secrecy regarding the plural marriage doctrine.
Source:ibid.
​

Which, you have to admit, is a very curious way to remind a person of their sacred oaths. Special underwear?!?

And considering its original purpose, why not update it to present day fashion?

Why wouldn't these work?
​

Skwim, I do not understand why you are so disrespectful, ignorant and arrogant of those things that other’s hold to be sacred? I do not know why you posted that photo? Are you trying to gain Disciples to follow you? What you posted is disparaging and evidence of incipient intolerance for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. You were quick to decry the claims of sacred clothing of the LDS church. You definitely missed the omphalos of what sacred clothing is and why it is important to us and others. It seems to me in posting that photo you reacted to a breach of etiquette with a supercilious grin on your face. Skwim, do you always use devious behavior to dissent yourself from reality at the expense of others?
Skwim I will try to explain to you in regards to sacred clothing. Too many religious organizations, ecclesiastical dress is an important symbol of religious identification of an outward appearance. Some religions have sacred garments that are not visible to outsiders, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints sacred clothing is worn under rather than outside of our street clothes. To the Latter Day Saint the under garment represents sacred covenants. It fosters modesty and becomes a shield and protection to the wearer.
Religions create dress codes to overtly define morality and modesty. Jews wore girdles to make the division between pure and impure visibly clear. Ecclesiastical clothing represents a level of religious involvement. Symbols such as clothing are used as evidence that the member of the religious group is on the "right and true path."
Sacred clothing will be worn in the hereafter and will be so important that, "He that overcomes, the same shall be clothed in white raiment and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels" (Rev. 3:4-5).
In Luke 8: 43 the woman with the issue of blood for twelve years, came and touched THE BORDER OF HIS GARMENT and was healed. That word BORDER comes from the Hebrew word tzit tzit meaning twisted coils, fringe, or tassel. Remember the commandment of the Lord from Deuteronomy 22: 12 to wear the twisted coils? What did she touch? The twisted coils on the border of the garment (His Prayer Shawl) that Jesus being Jewish, was wearing. Jesus did wear clothing that was sacred to him like any other practicing Jew in his day. The Jews including Jesus wore a tallith, the garment that reminds a Jew of the covenants and commandments he has bound to himself.
Why do people wear clothes and shoes? The answer seems obvious; to hide their nakedness. Clothing is important whether it is religious clothing or street clothes. Latter Day Saint sacred clothing is just that ‘sacred’ Period.

 

[Sapiens]

And I do claim that to be the case. There is often a pretty good sized gap between the truth and "the whole truth and nothing but the truth." People on both sides are guilty of filtering what they want their readers to know. I once heard a sermon (we don't typically use that word, but I will do so for the sake of making myself clear) in church where the speaker said that when a person intentionally makes a misleading statement, it's lying. Intentionally either leaving out part of the truth or embellishing the truth are lying, as far as I'm concerned.

True.
[/quote=Sapiens]
2. The church's official position was that it was a doctrine revealed to Joseph Smith by the Lord. (making the idea that Brigham Young formally instituted the ban on priesthood to males with African blood of questionable veracity).

False.

So you are saying that it the Church did not claim that it was a doctrine revealed to Joseph Smith by the Lord?

So ... where did it come from? There are only three possibilities: Scripture, Smith or Young.

And this is where you're wrong. LDS scripture actually teaches the opposite. I don't have time right now to dig in and find the passages I'm thinking of, but I would certainly be happy to do so tomorrow.

Note the past tense in my statement and the present tense in yours.

This is a moot point, since Mormon scripture itself does not contain "oppositional ideas about race."

Note the past tense in my statement and the present tense in yours.

That's just it... There was no revelation instituting the priesthood ban. It was an entirely man-made policy.

So, you would have us believe that Smith and/or Young were, "off the reservation" so-to-speak.

Mormon is claimed to be: God's one, true church, led by prophets that communicate with God about important doctrinal matters. How could the founder Smith, and the every prophet since Young till Kimball be so wrong about something so important? Why would this not be challenged by any of the prophets since Young, if they were indeed prophets?

Why did a change in doctrine have to wait until the US Government was threatening to revoke BYU's and perhaps even the LDS Church's tax exempt status, until the new temple in Brazil was causing major issues since most Brazilians have some black blood and thus couldn't use the temple, until members of the LDS Church themselves were very embarrassed by the policy and were expressing their concern if all God had to do was whisper in the current Prophet's ear?

 

[Norman]

There are a number of issues in play. The priesthood ban is interesting, in and of itself, but really is just serving, as an example, of the church's unwillingness to come to public grips with its true history (LDS is not the only one with the problem, by any means). We got here via a discussion of "lying for the Lord" promulgated church practice when it comes to "embarrassments" such as the history of attitudes towards blacks in the church and claims of wheeled vehicles and various plants and animals and lost tribes of Hebrews in the new world.

Sapiens. Some black men did hold the Mormon Priesthood before 1978! But except in the case of Elijah Abel and his descendants, all men of Hamitic lineage (bloodline) were forbidden to hold the LDS Priesthood before 1978. However, there are black-skinned men of non-Hamitic lineages, like the Dravidians of India, the Aborigines of Australia, the Melansians of Fiji and Melanesia, and the Negritoes of the Philipines and Indonesia, all had a right to the Priesthood, and those who were worthy Members of the Church held it before 1978.
Also, white-skinned Hamites could not hold the Priesthood or partake of the higher ordinances of Mormon Temples until 1978.
There are black-skinned men of non-Hamitic lineages, like the Dravidians of India, the Aborigines of Australia, the Melansians of Fiji and Melanesia, and the Negritoes of the Philipines and Indonesia, and their are white-skinned Hamites in Africa. Mulatto (white-skinned and dark-skinned Brazilians with mixed European and African ancestry)
Some black men did hold the Mormon Priesthood before 1978! But except in the case of Elijah Abel and his descendants, all men of Hamitic lineage (bloodline) were forbidden to hold the LDS Priesthood before 1978. However, black-skinned men of non-Hamitic lineages, like the Dravidians of India, the Aborigines of Australia, the Melansians of Fiji and Melanesia, and the Negritoes of the Philipines and Indonesia, all had a right to the Priesthood, and those who were worthy Members of the Church held it before 1978. Also, white-skinned Hamites could not hold the Priesthood or partake of the higher ordinances of Mormon Temples until 1978
The 1978 Revelation given to Spencer W. Kimball in the Salt Lake City Temple was just that "Revelation."

 

[outhouse]

Mormons are into education -- big time!

YOU also forgot the high health range in children and adults, as well as higher graduation rates of high school students.

Low smoking stats as well.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Ultimately, I just see Mormonism in the same way as I see all organized religion. As a mixture of both good and bad, because that's also how I see people in general... again, a mixture of both good and bad.

 

[Sapiens]

Sapiens. Some black men did hold the Mormon Priesthood before 1978! But except in the case of Elijah Abel and his descendants, all men of Hamitic lineage (bloodline) were forbidden to hold the LDS Priesthood before 1978. However, there are black-skinned men of non-Hamitic lineages, like the Dravidians of India, the Aborigines of Australia, the Melansians of Fiji and Melanesia, and the Negritoes of the Philipines and Indonesia, all had a right to the Priesthood, and those who were worthy Members of the Church held it before 1978.
Also, white-skinned Hamites could not hold the Priesthood or partake of the higher ordinances of Mormon Temples until 1978.
There are black-skinned men of non-Hamitic lineages, like the Dravidians of India, the Aborigines of Australia, the Melansians of Fiji and Melanesia, and the Negritoes of the Philipines and Indonesia, and their are white-skinned Hamites in Africa. Mulatto (white-skinned and dark-skinned Brazilians with mixed European and African ancestry)
Some black men did hold the Mormon Priesthood before 1978! But except in the case of Elijah Abel and his descendants, all men of Hamitic lineage (bloodline) were forbidden to hold the LDS Priesthood before 1978. However, black-skinned men of non-Hamitic lineages, like the Dravidians of India, the Aborigines of Australia, the Melansians of Fiji and Melanesia, and the Negritoes of the Philipines and Indonesia, all had a right to the Priesthood, and those who were worthy Members of the Church held it before 1978. Also, white-skinned Hamites could not hold the Priesthood or partake of the higher ordinances of Mormon Temples until 1978
The 1978 Revelation given to Spencer W. Kimball in the Salt Lake City Temple was just that "Revelation."

Thank you for those details, but they hardly change the reality.

 

[Skwim]

Do you always post and run Skwim?

Not at all. Normally I'd make an effort to address such points, but in as much as you seem to enjoy jumping to conclusions of all colors, and I'm in no mood to prob your questionable indignity, and am already gagging on your irrelevant tidbits of "learning," I'm just going to ignore it all. Have a good day.

 

[Norman]

Joseph Smith is an embarassment. Why anyone would follow into a cult that was founded by such a person is beyond me. Oh and in before you say "but he was a martyr".. no he wasn't. He was a coward who shot and was shot.

Ultimatum, you should learn the definition of the word "Cult" before you use the word so freely. Cult…formal religious veneration: worship…a system of religious beliefs and ritual…a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious…a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator…great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work [Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary: Tenth Edition] Ultimaturn, the word cult is not a bad word like you are trying so hard to make it sound like it is. You do not know anything about the great Prophet Joseph Smith Jr.

Joseph Smith Jr.
It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

Here is a promise in the Book of Mormon:
Moroni 10:3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts. 4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. 5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

I bare you my testimony that Joseph Smith Jr. was and still is a true Prophet of God. The Book of Mormon is truly another Testament that Jesus is the Christ. The Holy Ghost witnessed to my spirit that this is true. Spirit to my Spirit of which there is no greater witness than from the Holy Ghost. I do this in the sacred name of Jesus Christ Amen.

“what is hateful to thyself do not do to another. This is the whole Law, the rest is commentary. (Jewish Rabbie Hillel; 70 BC-10AD)

 

[psychoslice]

Ultimately, I just see Mormonism in the same way as I see all organized religion. As a mixture of both good and bad, because that's also how I see people in general... again, a mixture of both good and bad.

Yes I agree, no one religion could ever claim to be perfect, or even the right one.

 

[Norman]

"Good man"... Here we go:

1. "The Book of Abraham, one of the central texts of Mormonism, is a poor translation of Egyptian papyri. Fragments of the original text were found and studied by renowned historians with credentials and experience. These experts discovered the fragments to be scraps of funeral spells used to help spirits move on to the afterlife. There were no resemblances between the text and the supposedly divinely-inspired translation that Smith invented. "

Ultimatum, you are so wrong on your comments about the book of Abraham.
There is a difference between the date of a text and the date of a particular manuscript of a text. For example, biblical scholars recognize that even though our earliest manuscripts for the books of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) are currently found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, which date to circa 200-100 BCE, the date of the composition of the text of the books themselves go back many centuries.
The same point applies to the Book of Abraham. As Professor Kerry Muhlestein explains:
Critics like yourself say that if this papyrus was written in the second century BC it could not possibly have been written by Abraham himself. In regard to this assumption, I ask, who said this particular papyrus was written by Abraham himself? The heading does not indicate that Abraham had written that particular copy but rather that he was the author of the original. What these critics have done is confuse the difference between a text and a manuscript. For example, many people have a copy of J. R. R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings; each has a manuscript copy of the text that Tolkien originally wrote. A text, regardless of how many copies of it exist in the world, is written by one author. However, each copy of that text is a manuscript.
The earliest known copies of the book of Isaiah date to hundreds of years after the prophet’s death. Yet this has not led to the conclusion that Isaiah was not the author of the book of Isaiah. Clearly the manuscripts we have are copies of the original text that he wrote during his lifetime. We all know that when an author of the ancient world wrote something, if those writings were to survive or be disseminated, the text had to be copied again and again and again, for generation upon generation. When the heading states that the text was written by Abraham’s own hand, it notes who the author is, not who copied down the particular manuscript that came into Joseph’s possession. If critics had carefully thought through this issue, they would never have raised it.
These issues also highlight the question of how the Book of Abraham came to be in Egypt in the first place. There are a dizzying number of possibilities. Abraham himself was in Egypt, as was his great-grandson Joseph and all of his Israelite descendants for hundreds of years thereafter. After the Exodus, Israelites continued to travel to and live in Egypt. After the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem, large groups of Jews settled in Egypt and created longstanding and thriving communities, even to the point that they built a temple. It was during this time period that Joseph Smith Papyri 1, 10, and 11 were created. Copies of these papyri could have moved back and forth between Egypt and Israel during any of these eras.
Experts on Egyptian say that Joseph Smith couldn't translate Egyptian at all
Joseph couldn't translate Egyptian. At that time, nobody could translate Egyptian. Joseph was able to receive the text of the Book of Abraham in the same manner that he did for the Book of Mormon, by revelation.
It is crucial to note that besides just apologetic work defending the Book of Abraham from criticisms, LDS scholars have actually mustered considerable evidence for the antiquity of the text. This evidence ranges from authentic ancient cultural, linguistic, and geographical details in the text, to authentic ancient cosmological concepts, to ancient stories about Abraham not found in the Bible that share common themes and details with the Book of Abraham.
This isn't to say that this evidence proves the Book of Abraham is true, but rather that before critics merely dismiss it, they should first consider the evidence in favor of the Book of Abraham.

You might say (and all Mormons do) that these renowned historians were wrong in their translation of these scraps. By saying that, you imply that Joseph Smith was/is the only human to have lived that could properly decipher hieroglyphics... Seems legit. Mr. Smith knew what he was doing- lying.

Yes, the Egyptian historians were wrong in there translations.

2. I'm guessing that you believe that Mr. Smith died a martyr? Not quite! "He shot and was shot and fell out of a window. He used a smuggled pistol to shoot at a mob and did not die a martyr’s death in any case, as is claimed by many Mormons. There is quite a stark contrast between Christian martyrs who – in virtually every case – trusted God enough to welcome their death and Joseph Smith who so lacked belief in his own “religion” that he was terrified of dying."

I would use the term "coward" over "martyr".

Learn your facts about what happened in regards to his assassination.
Joseph Smith freely went to that jail knowing that his blood would be shed and yes, he died a martyr. He sealed his testimony and the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ with his blood.
3.

A thief, also?

What did He steal?

4. "The first forty years of Mormonism involved plural marriage, a form of harem-keeping by men who were taught by Joseph Smith that it was a doctrine worth following. Smith then proceeded to marry half a dozen women in 1843, yet he denied to the public that he practiced this polygamy. He had at least forty wives in his lifetime, some of whom were thirteen years old, and Brigham Young had fifty wives. Now, the modern view is that polygamy is unacceptable, which seems to be a revelation brought about by the illegality of polygamy. The Mormon god can has changed his mind, it seems!"

You are ignorant of the facts about plural marriage in Joseph's day. I will give all these facts in another post because I can only post 1000 words at a time in a post. Plural marriage in the bible could be an a adiaphoraian doctrine but I don't believe it was and the bible clearly shows that it was not. Joseph Smith did not invent plural marriage it is a biblical doctrine that was practiced.

It seems as if this Mormon god wasn't very organised. It is most likely that Joseph Smith was a deceptive man. It is actually beyond me how it spread and became so widespread. The fact that ONE man, Smith, wrote 584 pages over a period of about three months and called it TRUTH is ridiculous.

Ridiculous? Take this challenge and if you can do it you will have a best seller.
Below is the Book of Mormon Challenge, an assignment that Professor Hugh Nibley at BYU sometimes gave to students in a required class on the Book of Mormon. Though it is several decades old, it still offers a challenge worth pondering. (Recently discovered evidences for Book of Mormon authenticity should be consulted for some real excitement.) The following text is taken from the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Vol. 8, Ch. 11, pp. 221-2:
"Since Joseph Smith was younger than most of you and not nearly so experienced or well-educated as any of you at the time he copyrighted the Book of Mormon, it should not be too much to ask you to hand in by the end of the semester (which will give you more time than he had) a paper of, say, five to six hundred pages in length. Call it a sacred book if you will, and give it the form of a history. Tell of a community of wandering Jews in ancient times; have all sorts of characters in your story, and involve them in all sorts of public and private vicissitudes; give them names--hundreds of them--pretending that they are real Hebrew and Egyptian names of circa 600 b.c.; be lavish with cultural and technical details--manners and customs, arts and industries, political and religious institutions, rites, and traditions, include long and complicated military and economic histories; have your narrative cover a thousand years without any large gaps; keep a number of interrelated local histories going at once; feel free to introduce religious controversy and philosophical discussion, but always in a plausible setting; observe the appropriate literary conventions and explain the derivation and transmission of your varied historical materials.
"Above all, do not ever contradict yourself! For now we come to the really hard part of this little assignment. You and I know that you are making this all up--we have our little joke--but just the same you are going to be required to have your paper published when you finish it, not as fiction or romance, but as a true history! After you have handed it in you may make no changes in it (in this class we always use the first edition of the Book of Mormon); what is more, you are to invite any and all scholars to read and criticize your work freely, explaining to them that it is a sacred book on a par with the Bible. If they seem over-skeptical, you might tell them that you translated the book from original records by the aid of the Urim and Thummim--they will love that! Further to allay their misgivings, you might tell them that the original manuscript was on golden plates, and that you got the plates from an angel. Now go to work and good luck!

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

I am curious to know, however, how the LDS church explains why the facsimiles of "Abraham's sacrifice" in the "Book of Abraham" look nearly identical to the funerary papers of ancient Egypt.

 

[outhouse]

You do not know anything about the great Prophet Joseph Smith Jr

Didn't the criminal die in jail?

Prophet :biglaugh:


South park did it justice :yes:

 

[ChristineES]

Christianity and Islam moves away for Joseph Smithreach:

I thought Mormonism was a denomination of Christianity.