Joseph Smith Fraud

[Dan4reason]

No, because I don't see that debating that is going to bring any knowledge or anything that would impact my life in anyone way or another. If people believe in it and it doesn't affect the way the treat others, who really cares?

If you do not see a good reason to debate this topic then I suggest that you do not debate this topic and let those who want to debate this topic debate it.

Mormonism affects the way they treat gays. If a society or a group of people believe in a lie, there are bound to be negative consequences for society. Falsehood rarely leads to betterment and the betterment it sometimes brings is usually temporary.

 

[Quiddity]

Yes, like most groups. Does this mean they have the special ticket to not have their beliefs contested? No. I do not see how the honesty and goodness of mormons means that their ideas should be debated. Mormons themselves send out missionaries to convince others of their ideas so I can come out and point out a few of their inconsistencies. That is not the reason I debate mormonism. I debate mormonism for the same reason I debate any topic. Debating is fun.

Not to stop hate or intolerance? Or simply because people deserve to know the truth?...............but..........because it's fun.

Gee, atleast **** people off for a greater good or something.

 

[Dan4reason]

Not to stop hate or intolerance? Or simply because people deserve to know the truth?...............but..........because it's fun.

Gee, atleast **** people off for a greater good or something.

Debating mormonism in a respectful manner like debating any topic is not only benficial for ourselves and society, but can also be quite fun and intellectually stimulating.

 

[Autodidact]

So... another I hate LDS attacks...
be warned ... we have seen these time and time again...
and get very bored by them.

You will find that the LDS on here are Christian and accepted as such.

We who are not LDS, are also aware of the Book of Mormon and their other church writings. We do not feel the need to believe or have faith in them as the LDS do, or we would no doubt be member of that church. We respect their faith.

There is nothing to be gained by attacking other faiths and beliefs, at the most, it shows ones own lack of charity , wisdom and strength of faith.

Because, after all, who cares about the truth?

 

[Autodidact]

To what purpose ?
It is very unlikely to change either your or their beliefs.

As a Christian I have written off a majority of the books of Moses and the entire Book of Revelation as Myth or fantasy.
were I a LDS I would probably do the same for much of the BOM.

Then this may not be a thread that interests you.

 

[Autodidact]

People are free to fund and support and vote for bills on any subject.
This include the LDS.

Of course, people are free to do all sorts of things; that doesn't make them either right or beneficial.

 

[TEXASBULL]

Read Leviticus and compaire to the 'Law of the Land'.

:clap

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Of course, people are free to do all sorts of things; that doesn't make them either right or beneficial.

No one said they were.

The principal is that we may all have an opinion and a right to vote on it.
we also have a right to be wrong.
Countries also have the right to pass shameful laws and often do so.

 

[Autodidact]

No one said they were.

The principal is that we may all have an opinion and a right to vote on it.
we also have a right to be wrong.
Countries also have the right to pass shameful laws and often do so.

Why are you bringing up the question of rights? Did someone deny it?

If anything, you seem to be having a problem with the OP exercising his rights.

 

[gnomon]

Not to stop hate or intolerance? Or simply because people deserve to know the truth?...............but..........because it's fun.

Gee, atleast **** people off for a greater good or something.

What astute commentary.

Someone raises a legitimate discussion point. Rather than allowing for a discussion of the OP those members who claim to be respectful have diverted the thread in which the commentary has generalized the LDS. Which was not the purpose of the OP as I read it. Dan4Reason raised a specific point. An action pretty much lacking among all discussions.

There is actually something of interest in the nature of the development of this thread.

 

[Dan4reason]

You do understand that you most likely wont find that truth, correct? The Earth's History is so large that we could never really know every detail. Most of us may seek truth but it doesn't mean we will find it. We may never know truth after death either (especially if there is no afterlife and we just rot in the ground). Why love something that may never be seen? Plus, what makes you think that your belief is the truth? Is that what you love? Your own belief that it's the truth?

Truth is not one thing. There are many truths or possible truths. Truth depends on the question you are asking. I may not be able to know all the truths and the things I may think of as true may turn out to be wrong, but that does not invalidate the search for truth. We see AND experience what we consider to be truths all the time. Gravity and light are examples.

Truth is that which is and that which really exists, and I generally like that which really exists. There may be truths that are unfortunate, but at least having a knowledge of them may help me deal with them.

If I thought that all my beliefs were true, I would not be in this debate forum. It is my wish for making my perspective more accurate and extensive that partly drives me to debate.

 

[Dan4reason]

I have noticed that this debate has become very side tracked. Currently we are debating whether mormons are tolerant, gay marriage, the philosophy of debate, whether we should contest religious ideas that are obviously wrong but many believe, and what kind of people mormons are. This was not the specific topic of my debate.

What I originally wanted to debate was whether Joseph Smiths translation of the papyri which supposedly hold the book or Abraham is accurate and what implications this has on the validity of mormon doctrine. I am going to give you links to all three facsimiles and a link to just facsimile 3.

Abraham
Facsimile No. 3

I am arguing that Smith claimed that the two of the people in facsimile 3 where the pharoah and his son. This is obviously wrong because these two people are obviously women. Ancient Egypt portrayed women this way.

A problem I recently found is that Egyptologists translate all facsimiles totally differently.

 

[hummingbird09]

Yes, like most groups. Does this mean they have the special ticket to not have their beliefs contested? No. I do not see how the honesty and goodness of mormons means that their ideas should be debated. Mormons themselves send out missionaries to convince others of their ideas so I can come out and point out a few of their inconsistencies. That is not the reason I debate mormonism. I debate mormonism for the same reason I debate any topic. Debating is fun.

What's funny is, I haven't said much, but you seem to put words in my mouth.

 

[Dan4reason]

What's funny is, I haven't said much, but you seem to put words in my mouth.

What words are you talking about?

 

[hummingbird09]

What words are you talking about?

You seem to think I'm accusing you or saying things that I'm not. I'm simply pointing out things and playing devil's advocate.

 

[Dan4reason]

You seem to think I'm accusing you or saying things that I'm not. I'm simply pointing out things and playing devil's advocate.

What things do I think you are saying that you are not saying?

 

[Autodidact]

There are many reasons we know the purported "translation" of the Book of Mormon is completely bogus, not just a fraud, but a poor one. It's amazing and sad to me that anyone can buy it. Here's one of the other reasons:

Some farmers in Kinderhook devised a hoax in 1843 and made up some copper plates which they claimed contained ancient writings. They planted them in an Indian burial mound and later dug them up again. When Smith saw the plates, he immediately "translated" part of them, which (he claimed in his diary) identified the writings as from "a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh...". Here is the exact quote from the Documentary History of the Church: "I insert fac-similes of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook, in Pike county, Illinois, on April 23, by Mr. Robert Wiley and others, while excavating a large mound. They found a skeleton about six feet from the surface of the earth, which must have stood nine feet high. The plates were found on the breast of the skeleton and were covered on both sides with ancient characters."
"I have translated a 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. "
For many years, the church claimed that these plates were authentic ancient writings, in spite of the fact that the farmers later admitted the hoax - evidently the fact that Smith had translated part of them made it too embarrassing to accept the hoax. After resorting to more and more implausible and desperate arguments, the church flip-flopped about 10 years ago, and now admits that the plates are phony. The 1981 August Ensign has the statement where the church admits that the plates were a hoax. Of course, this leaves them with the embarrassing quote from Smith's diary.... In spite of the fact that this quote is confirmed by contemporary newspaper reports, they conclude that THIS has to be a false report (indeed, many supposed entries in Smith's diary are generally regarded as fraudulent -- something that church historians don't like to emphasize).
The essential problem here is not the Kinderhook plates themselves, of course. The problem is that since Smith is revealed as credulous or deceitful in cases where he CAN be checked, the Book of Mormon translation, where he cannot be checked, is rendered highly suspicious.


from here, because it's a clearer and more concise explanation than I could provide.

 

[linwood]

If good people are living good lives, why take all the time and effort to disprove it?

Because they are not.

The LDS church is a stain on humanity.

It is a political power that seeks to control the lives of others.

This is not "Good" by any definition I`m aware of .

To the Op:

BASH AWAY!!

 

[AxisMundi]

I am a former member of the LDS church and will like to display one thing that convinced me that religion is not true. The mormon church was founded in America in the early 1800s by a man named Joseph Smith who claimed to had seen a vision from God and Jesus. He claimed to be a prophet and was supposedly appointed to lead God's church. He managed to convert thousands of people but they were having to move from place to place because of bad relations with other people.

He was later shot in a jail by a mob and the mormons moved out west to Utah. Joseph Smith supposedly translated the Book of Mormon which is supposedly a record of the previous inhabitants of the Americas. These people supposedly had technology and resources such as iron, swords, steel, silk, ships, armor, walled cities, and horses.

He claimed to be a seer which means that he can translate documents in unknown languages with the gift of the spirit. Joseph Smith found some papyri found among Egyptian mummies and claimed that these papyri contained the Book of Abraham. He then preceeded to translate them. He actually made some copies of some of the things on these papyri and translated them. These facsimiles are given in this link Abraham.

One facsimile I want to focus on is this below.

EXPLANATION
Fig. 1. Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh’s throne, by the politeness of the king, with a crown upon his head, representing the Priesthood, as emblematical of the grand Presidency in Heaven; with the scepter of justice and judgment in his hand.
Fig. 2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.
Fig. 3. Signifies Abraham in Egypt as given also in Figure 10 of facsimile 3.
Fig. 4. Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand.
Fig. 5. Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.
Fig. 6. Olimlah, a slave belonging to the prince.
Abraham is reasoning upon the principles of Astronomy, in the king’s court.

Notice that he incorrectly thought that the two women in the picture were Pharoah and his son. What do you think?

Religion is based on faith, not facts, and even Christianity was considered quite the cult when it started. Smith merely didn't have a Constantine to elevate his religion's status and power.

But what really grabs me by the shorts are these Mormon "archeaologists". Every single piece of their "evidence" is so clearly fraudulent, either crafted like their Ioun Stones and claimed as ancient, or rather messy examples like their Sword being the MesoAmerican macuahuitl, a wood and stone weapon.

These quite obvious fraudsters only do their relgiion the greatest of disservices.

 

[Autodidact]

The "Book of Abraham" flim flam. Smith had some church supporters buy an Egyptian papyrus from a peddler, claiming to be able to translate it. He translated it as being written by the patriarch, Abraham. At the time, no one on earth could read Ancient Egyptian, so there was no one to say different. However, eventually, scholars did learn how to translate Ancient Egyptian. After being lost for a century, the original papyrus was found and translated. It turned out to be funerary documents having nothing whatsoever to do with Abraham.

Finally, the Latter Day Saints can be vindicated on the question of Joseph Smith's ability as a translator. Or could they? The Mormon Church, to it's own dismay, released the news in 1968 that the Joseph Smith Papyri (JS pap) were indeed part of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. (More specifically, the Book of Breathing.) The critics who charged that the facsimiles from the Book of Abraham were taken from funerary texts that spoke of Osiris, Hor, and other Egyptian gods and goddesses were correct all along.

from here.

Obvious conclusion: Joseph Smith was a con man.

Unless you're the LDS leadership, then you have to come up with some sort of way to reconcile this story. One popular one is that somewhere there is "the rest" of the documents, which will match Smith's "translation." This seems unlikely, to say the least, as the part we do have dates from around the birth of Christ, not the time of Abraham.

And what would Abraham be doing writing in Egyptian anyway?