Joseph Smith - Prophet of God

[Autodidact]

Your cynical and arrogant tone is getting irritating. You don't have to agree with Mormons, but at least you could attempt to discuss the issues you have with some amount of respect.

Brigham was referring to intra-racial fornication, not marriage, hence the statement "in an unguarded moment should commit such a transgression". Granted it was still an extremely harsh punishment -- Brigham tended to take a more hardline OT approach to punishment for sins like that. Again this is something that was really only expressed by Brigham and was likely based more on his opinions than on revealed doctrine or policy.

Sorry, racism and murder really chap my thighs. In combination, they make me downright irritable.

 

[Melissa G]

Translated into English from what? Non-existent discredited bogus phony "Reformed Egyptian?"

Kinda nifty, that. When it's shown to be completely wrong, you just decide that it meant something else in the first place. For example, my holy book, which is inerrant, says that dogs have trunks. Of course, the word "trunks" is a mistranslation from Reformed Yugoslavian meaning "tails."

Hehe, actually as I pointed out in the one to one debate with Dark Shadow, whose source was Nibly, a pro-mormon writer. There is no such text as ' Reformed Egyptian'. Never was, there are no exmples existing from the ancient world, it is a fabrication which uses all manner of signs, from reversed Roman, to Chinese pictographs, really quite amusing

Melissa G

 

[KingM]

I think it's a lot more likely that the words translated into English as "horses" and "chariots" don't actually mean what we think of when we say "horses" and "chariots". That happens quite often when going from one ecosystem/culture to another.

Were they tapirs pulling sleds or what?

 

[lilithu]

And I suppose he wasn't a true Scotsman either? Remember, we're talking fruits here, not whether it had a Tabernacle seal on it.

Selected fruits. Cherry-picking, I think it's called.

I judge religions by their fruits too. But I look at ALL of the fruits, not just the ones that support my biases. And when I look at the fruits of Mormonism, I see for the most part: stable families, well-adjusted kids, conscientious citizens, industrious communities... To be perfectly honest, it's sometimes too darn wholesome for me , but I can find no fault in their faith from looking at its fruits.

 

[Aqualung]

With all due respect, those are apologists. They know the answer, now they're looking for evidence to support it. Most people need to see independent, peer-reviewed research to believe this sort of claim.

Unfortunately, those things are very few. The only people who really give a crap about the mormon church are apologists (who know the answers and are looking for evidence) or haters (who know the answers and are looking for evidence). It's very hard to find truly independent research in this area.

 

[Autodidact]

Selected fruits. Cherry-picking, I think it's called.

I judge religions by their fruits too. But I look at ALL of the fruits, not just the ones that support my biases. And when I look at the fruits of Mormonism, I see for the most part: stable families, well-adjusted kids, conscientious citizens, industrious communities... To be perfectly honest, it's sometimes too darn wholesome for me , but I can find no fault in their faith from looking at its fruits.

That's a good one...cherry picking.

Yes, when I was in Utah, the people there were very nice, as well as honest.

I guess if I was just looking at fruits, I'd go with those Mennonites. Those are the nicest people around.

 

[Autodidact]

Unfortunately, those things are very few. The only people who really give a crap about the mormon church are apologists (who know the answers and are looking for evidence) or haters (who know the answers and are looking for evidence). It's very hard to find truly independent research in this area.

But there's tons of independent research about say, early American cultures, with no particular attitude toward Mormonism, just an interest in learning more about these peoples. Those are the people who just didn't happen to find iron or steel or wheat or horses or chariots...or a genetic relationship to the Jews. Basically almost nothing in the Book of Mormon about American pre-history turned out to be correct. I don't know why that doesn't bother the Mormons. Maybe some Mormons could tell us?

 

[Aqualung]

But there's tons of independent research about say, early American cultures, with no particular attitude toward Mormonism, just an interest in learning more about these peoples.

That's true. And, coincidentally, none of those either help or harm the mormon position.

Those are the people who just didn't happen to find iron or steel or wheat or horses or chariots...or a genetic relationship to the Jews.

Well, now you must just be being sarcastic. I like it.


Either that or you are hopelessly ill-informed (perhaps by those non-independent, non-peer reviewed sources mentioned earlier?).

 

[SoyLeche]

Hehe, actually as I pointed out in the one to one debate with Dark Shadow, whose source was Nibly, a pro-mormon writer. There is no such text as ' Reformed Egyptian'. Never was, there are no exmples existing from the ancient world, it is a fabrication which uses all manner of signs, from reversed Roman, to Chinese pictographs, really quite amusing

Melissa G

I'm not quite sure why you would expect to find examples. It seems pretty clear from the text that the language was "reformed" by the Nephites - and most likely by a very small subset of the Nephites.

Heck, all that term probably means is that they used egyptian-like characters to write with. They don't even have to be all that close to actual egyptian characters - they really just need to be the basic "style" for it to work.

 

[SoyLeche]

Were they tapirs pulling sleds or what?

Possibly

 

[robtex]

Can a prophet be quantified? If so what prophecies did Joseph Smith accurate predict that would have been improbable (as opposed to the more likely outcome) and qualified by a non-Mormon? Maybe if we have a predict instance to look at this issue might be less abstract than it is right now.

 

[lilithu]

Can a prophet be quantified? If so what prophecies did Joseph Smith accurate predict that would have been improbable (as opposed to the more likely outcome) and qualified by a non-Mormon? Maybe if we have a predict instance to look at this issue might be less abstract than it is right now.

But being a prophet isn't about predicting the future; it's about revealing the will of God.

 

[robtex]

But being a prophet isn't about predicting the future; it's about revealing the will of God.

prophet - definition of prophet by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

1. A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed.
2. A person gifted with profound moral insight and exceptional powers of expression.
3. A predictor; a soothsayer.
4. The chief spokesperson of a movement or cause.

In regards to 1,2,

if God is the greatest force of the universe than if the prophet's voice was true and God had a plan for the world than the two should correspond as opposed to conflict.

 

[Autodidact]

That's true. And, coincidentally, none of those either help or harm the mormon position.


Well, now you must just be being sarcastic. I like it.


Either that or you are hopelessly ill-informed (perhaps by those non-independent, non-peer reviewed sources mentioned earlier?).

Are you asserting, for example, that archeologists have found evidence of use of steel in North America before the 14th century? Or wheat? Or horses? Because I believe you are mistaken.

O.K., let's just take one simple example. Chariots. Archeologists tell us that no American civilization used wheeled vehicles.

There is no extant archaeological evidence to support the use of wheeled vehicles in Mesoamerica.

wiki
Hence, the Book of Mormon is incorrect when it refers to chariots. You claim I am ill-informed? Please cite your source for the contrary assertion. As I said earlier in this thread, show us, don't tell us.

 

[Autodidact]

But being a prophet isn't about predicting the future; it's about revealing the will of God.

Well in that case there's no way to corroborate the prophecy, so there's no way to know who is and is not a prophet. For all we know it may be God's will that you all believe there is no God, and I'm the only true prophet.

 

[Bathsheba]

Don't be so sure. The majority of murders takes place among family members. Families hurt each other worse than strangers are capable of. Loving one's family is not easy. It's difficult.

You make a really good point. Even loving our family can be difficult.

Earlier I was commenting on how Mormons are commanded to love their enemies and be perfect (perfect housewives no less). How on earth do they live with these commandments when clearly they don't come close to living up to them? It is wrong to expect this level of discipleship.

What Christian will let me hit them on the cheek and then turn the other cheek for me to hit it again? Does anybody know anybody like this?

"They draw near to me with their lips."


..."families hurt each other worse than strangers are capable of"
I don't know, have you thought about this in the context of war?

 

[lilithu]

prophet - definition of prophet by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

1. A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed.
2. A person gifted with profound moral insight and exceptional powers of expression.
3. A predictor; a soothsayer.
4. The chief spokesperson of a movement or cause.

In regards to 1,2,

if God is the greatest force of the universe than if the prophet's voice was true and God had a plan for the world than the two should correspond as opposed to conflict.

Um... so? You'd have to prove they conflict.

All I was saying is that a prophet in the religious sense is not 3. It's not about predicting the future; it's about speaking the will of God to the people.

 

[Aqualung]

Are you asserting, for example, that archeologists have found evidence of use of steel in North America before the 14th century? Or wheat? Or horses? Because I believe you are mistaken.

No, I am asserting that for most of those, there has been no evidence either way. That is, no corroborating evidence, but certainly no evidence upon which to dismiss the book of mormon. As for the last claim, the horse is a north american animal.

The fact that you would lump the horse in there for things for which there is no archaelogical evidence indicates (to me) one of two things: You either knew it and were trying to trick me, or you didn't know it and you were just repeating what others have told you. I hope it's not one of those two things, perhaps you can set me straight, because this is a fairly fun debate but I don't debate with those who are that intellectually dishones.

 

[!Fluffy!]

No, I am asserting that for most of those, there has been no evidence either way. That is, no corroborating evidence, but certainly no evidence upon which to dismiss the book of mormon. As for the last claim, the horse is a north american animal.

The fact that you would lump the horse in there for things for which there is no archaelogical evidence indicates (to me) one of two things: You either knew it and were trying to trick me, or you didn't know it and you were just repeating what others have told you. I hope it's not one of those two things, perhaps you can set me straight, because this is a fairly fun debate but I don't debate with those who are that intellectually dishones.

Horses disappeared from North / South America during the Ice Age and there is no evidence of domestication prior to their extinction from the continent. I thought everyone learned this in 7th grade biology class

Wiki: Equus caballus disappeared from North America around 10,000 years ago, at the end of the last Ice Age.​

The earliest evidence for the domestication of the horse comes from Central Asia and dates to approximately 4,500 BC. ​

Horse in North America ...between 10,000 and 8,000 years ago, Equus disappeared from North and South America. Various theories have been advanced including destruction by drought, disease, or extinction as a result of hunting by growing human populations. At any rate, the horse was gone from the western hemiphere. The submergence of the Bering land bridge prevented any return migration from the Old World or Asia, and the horse was not seen again on its native continent until the Spanish explorers brought horses by ship in the sixteenth century. ​

 

[KingM]

He already said that maybe "horse-drawn chariots" could mean "tapir-drawn sleds." According to this theory, they had no word for "tapir" when they arrived in the New World, so they started calling them horses.