Joseph Smith - Prophet of God

[Polaris]

So if I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that in this passage, silk doesn't mean silk, linen doesn't mean linen, gold doesn't mean gold, silver doesn't mean silver, cattle doesn't mean cattle, oxen doesn't mean oxen, cows doesn't mean cows, sheep doesn't mean sheep, swine doesn't mean swine and goats doesn't mean goats? Is that your position? Just trying to clarify.

Nope. All we're saying is that we don't know. Did those animals/materials/etc actually exist at that time and place or are they transposed ideographs? We simply don't know and neither do you.

Let me repeat, our belief in the BoM is not based on the changing tides of archealogical discovery and postulation (even though there exists evidence that support certain claims of the book), rather our belief is based on the gospel message that it contains. Our belief is based on our conviction that there is a God in heaven, that he is our Father who loves us, and that he communicates his will to us and governs his church through prophets and apostles. Our belief is based on our conviction that God the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ, appeared to Joseph and called him to be a prophet just as he had done in times past in calling prophets and apostles to govern his church.

My belief in these things is based more on spiritual confirmations than on physical evidences. I am fully confident that the physical/archealogical/historical questions/controversies will eventually work themselves out. You can continue to get hung up on the horses and chariots all you want and I can understand that. Spiritual confirmation is difficult to describe and is often difficult to receive and discern, but I firmly believe that is how God intends for us to come to know the truth.

 

[Bathsheba]

Nope. All we're saying is that we don't know. Did those animals/materials/etc actually exist at that time and place or are they transposed ideographs? We simply don't know and neither do you.

Let me repeat, our belief in the BoM is not based on the changing tides of archealogical discovery and postulation (even though there exists evidence that support certain claims of the book), rather our belief is based on the gospel message that it contains. Our belief is based on our conviction that there is a God in heaven, that he is our Father who loves us, and that he communicates his will to us and governs his church through prophets and apostles. Our belief is based on our conviction that God the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ, appeared to Joseph and called him to be a prophet just as he had done in times past in calling prophets and apostles to govern his church.

My belief in these things is based more on spiritual confirmations than on physical evidences. I am fully confident that the physical/archealogical/historical questions/controversies will eventually work themselves out. You can continue to get hung up on the horses and chariots all you want and I can understand that. Spiritual confirmation is difficult to describe and is often difficult to receive and discern, but I firmly believe that is how God intends for us to come to know the truth.

When all else fails tell em you know it is true because you feel it.

 

[sojourner]

Reformed Egyptian is a joke, it doesn't exist, never did, never could. There are no examples any where other than the fascimlie of a portion of the non-existent plates. The text is nonsense, a mixture of latin, shorthand, and creative strokes. There is no rhythm, and it appears to be what it is, a random collection, a mish mash of signs which are no way related to either of the three egyptian scripts, of which demotic, wasn't even around in 600bce.

Melissa G

I understand that Mormon religious practice is close to masonic practice. I believe I remember reading that Smith (or someone close to him) was a Mason. I wonder if these "ancient Egyptian" characters could be derived from the ancient masonry marks used in Operative Masonry, and preserved in Speculative Masonry? (There is also the connection in Masonry that the Masonic Art began in ancient Egypt [but that's largely refuted as legend only]).

 

[SoyLeche]

I understand that Mormon religious practice is close to masonic practice. I believe I remember reading that Smith (or someone close to him) was a Mason. I wonder if these "ancient Egyptian" characters could be derived from the ancient masonry marks used in Operative Masonry, and preserved in Speculative Masonry? (There is also the connection in Masonry that the Masonic Art began in ancient Egypt [but that's largely refuted as legend only]).

Joseph Smith didn't become a Mason for a decade or so after the BoM was translated - so probably not (although his brother was a Mason at the time, so there may be a connection).

 

[SoyLeche]

When all else fails tell em you know it is true because you feel it.

Well, if it is why you believe it's true - why not?

 

[Autodidact]

Well, if it is why you believe it's true - why not?

It would certainly be more honest than asserting that there is any evidence to support it. Or spending people's money on FARMs and FAIRs and the like devoted to that purpose.

 

[Autodidact]

Nope. All we're saying is that we don't know. Did those animals/materials/etc actually exist at that time and place or are they transposed ideographs? We simply don't know and neither do you.

What we do know is:
--what animals the Europeans found when they got to the Americas. (not the ones in the BoM.)
--what animals we have any kind of fossil evidence for. (not the ones in the BoM.)
--that we have a lot of evidence for a lot of animals, and none of it comports with the BoM.
--that if there were any such animals here, they somehow disappeared without a trace.
--that you are making two conflicting arguments:
1. There were cows, horses, goats, elephants, etc. etc. in America, and we just don't happen to have found a shred of evidence of them.
2. There were NOT cows horses etc., and the BoM doesn't say that there were, even though it does.

Let me repeat, our belief in the BoM is not based on the changing tides of archealogical discovery and postulation (even though there exists evidence that support certain claims of the book), rather our belief is based on the gospel message that it contains. Our belief is based on our conviction that there is a God in heaven, that he is our Father who loves us, and that he communicates his will to us and governs his church through prophets and apostles. Our belief is based on our conviction that God the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ, appeared to Joseph and called him to be a prophet just as he had done in times past in calling prophets and apostles to govern his church.

If you think there is any evidence to support anything the BoM says about America, its people, animals, plants, history or geography, please produce it. I say there is not, and a lot of evidence to the contrary.

Your belief is based on your conviction? But conviction means belief. So what you're saying is that you believe because you believe? I'm sure you do, but that happens to be a ridiculous reason, really no reason, to believe something. Further, you believe what you believe despite it actually conflicting with the evidence. It's not just that evidence doesn't support or prove it, but there is tons, literally tons of evidence, that it is in fact not true. That's irrational.

Which calls into serious question whether Joseph Smith was a prophet. If his vision doesn't comport with reality, doesn't it look more likely that he was just plain wrong?

My belief in these things is based more on spiritual confirmations than on physical evidences. I am fully confident that the physical/archealogical/historical questions/controversies will eventually work themselves out. You can continue to get hung up on the horses and chariots all you want and I can understand that. Spiritual confirmation is difficult to describe and is often difficult to receive and discern, but I firmly believe that is how God intends for us to come to know the truth.

Right. We haven't found any evidence to support it, and tons to refute it, but you just believe this situation is going to be reversed in the future.
btw, I had one heck of a spiritual confirmation myself, every bit as strong as yours, so I've got two things going for me, spiritual confirmation plus the evidence. You've only got one, in fact, zero, spiritual confirmation ( = + 1) and evidence against.
(= - 1) 1 -1 = 0.

 

[Bishka]

It would certainly be more honest than asserting that there is any evidence to support it. Or spending people's money on FARMs and FAIRs and the like devoted to that purpose.

Spending people's money?

Would you care to elaborate?

 

[Autodidact]

All these things cost money, and someone provides it. My understanding, (correct me if I'm wrong) is that for example FARMS is part of BYU, which is largely funded by the LDS church, which in turn gets most of its money from the 10% of their income that many Mormon families tithe, right? So basically ordinary Mormons are paying to find and promote evidence that, according to SoyLeche, has nothing to do with their faith. (and is a hopeless enterprise, because it doesn't exist.)

 

[SoyLeche]

All these things cost money, and someone provides it. My understanding, (correct me if I'm wrong) is that for example FARMS is part of BYU, which is largely funded by the LDS church, which in turn gets most of its money from the 10% of their income that many Mormon families tithe, right? So basically ordinary Mormons are paying to find and promote evidence that, according to SoyLeche, has nothing to do with their faith. (and is a hopeless enterprise, because it doesn't exist.)

I would expect that FARMS is run mostly by private contributions or at most by gains off of church run enterprises. I would be very surprised if they even saw a dime of tithing money.

I never said it has nothing to do with our faith, it just isn't the basis of our faith.

 

[Autodidact]

I'm sure you know more than I, but doesn't the church fund BYU? In any case, it's some devout Mormon's money.

Do you have no substantive response to the veritable reams of information and argument I have presented?

 

[SoyLeche]

I'm sure you know more than I, but doesn't the church fund BYU? In any case, it's some devout Mormon's money.

Do you have no substantive response to the veritable reams of information and argument I have presented?

Just because the Church funds BYU doesn't mean that it funds every aspect of BYU. From what I understand, though, even BYU is getting less "tithing" money now than it used to.

I stopped reading your posts in general a long time ago.

 

[Bathsheba]

Do you have no substantive response to the veritable reams of information and argument I have presented?

Unlikely, cause they be "spiritual" daddy mack! :drool:

YouTube - Diddly Wack Mack Mormon Daddy

Joseph is rolling in his grave.

 

[Bathsheba]

I stopped reading your posts in general a long time ago.

I feel the spirit of your post.

 

[Autodidact]

Just because the Church funds BYU doesn't mean that it funds every aspect of BYU. From what I understand, though, even BYU is getting less "tithing" money now than it used to.

I stopped reading your posts in general a long time ago.

I can understand why.

 

[Bishka]

it's some devout Mormon's money.

And????

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Vikings reported grapes in North America. I you might recall they named the continent Vinland.

Acutally, "vin" referred to plains or meadows (source):

In citing Scandinavian sources it is important to keep the above spellings as in many cases dropping the accents or umlauts [umlaut is a modified vowel], the meaning of a word can change drastically. An example is the word vin or vín in Vinland. While vin means 'meadow', vín means 'wine'. As we will see in the discussion of Vinland, the spelling is of major importance for where we should seek Vinland. Similar situations exist in other languages using umlauts and accents.

It was only later on that the original meaning was lost and the story developed of a mythical "land of wine".

At the same time the climate for grapes was very good in England of all places, which was renowned for the quality of its wines.

England is warmed by ocean currents from the south. Even though Newfoundland (i.e. the location of all discovered Viking settlements North America and the most probable location for "Vinland") is around the same latitude, it's much colder than Britain.

Also, have you ever been to Newfoundland? I wouldn't call the soil there "grape-growing soil"... and that's where there is soil and not just bare rock.

It's got plenty of open country, though, because not a lot grows there... hence "vinland": land of plains.

 

[Autodidact]

And????

I don't know, why did you ask?

 

[Autodidact]

My research (aka Google) tells me that there is a species of grape native to North America, Vitas labrusca, which we know as the Concord grape. Figs however were introduced to America by the Spanish and Portuguese. This seems to make the Mormon problem with this passage even thornier: Smith quotes verbatim a biblical passage, and means the same thing with "grape", but something entirely different with "fig?"

 

[Autodidact]

DNA evidence refutes the idea that the BoM peoples were entirely alone, and/or entirely Hebrew. Since over 20 points between the Jaredite/Mulekite branch and Asians have been discovered, this is yet another straw man fallacy.

Not sure what this is referring to, since the DNA evidence seems to indicate that there never was any such thing as the BoM peoples. What it shows is that all the people living in America in 1500 appear to have descended from Asian people, and none from Near Eastern People, that there is no closer connection between Native Americans and Jews than there is between either group and Maori, and that there is no DNA support for any theory that there has ever been any immigration from the Near East to America (before the 16th century), let alone of a population that swelled to the millions.

If you're going on the hypothesis that these mythical people died out, then you have to show that they could have grown from a few settlers to millions of people, with cities, farms, metal weapons, chariots, wheat, barley, cows, horses, etc., and then died out again, all within 1000-2000 years, all without leaving a trace. That's what you would have us believe.