Joseph Smith Was Not A Martyr

[McBell]

How many changings are happen in the Book of Mormon since 1830 (over 3000 in this "most correct book on earth" most of them to change cause of changed doctrines)? Did you know that?

Please cite your source.

 

[Sola'lor]

So, what did you think is better? To use american or German stuff which i must translate first (and my english is lousy)?

I think it's best to use sources that convey accurate information.

 

[McBell]

I use a lot of sources, but I quote the source which I found it is best. For example: Did you know the following names:

Mösner
Raethel
Hauth?

They are Germans, noone would know them. All of them wrote books about the Mormons from a different point of view . Hauth is a protestant pastor, Mösner a historican and Raethel a professor for americanistic. They all had used for their books different sources, such as German web pages of former Mormons, Church publications (especially Journal of Discourses and Times and Seasons) and also the Tanner stuff.
So, what did you think is better? To use american or German stuff which i must translate first (and my english is lousy)?

How about when you make a claim you site your cite your source?
Do not worry about your source being in German.
Just worry about your source being reliable.

Seems to me that your sources are more like ratifications.
But I will have to actually see your sources for myself before I can make that determination.

Now how can I check your sources if you do not present any source other than the Tanners, who have been shown to be highly suspect and unreliable?

 

[Vasilisa Jade]

How on earth is it "an excuse" for us to want to use our Church's official doctrine? What an absolutely stupid comment!

I know right!

Hence, stupid ridiculous analogy for stupid ridiculous comment. It is meant to highlight the stupid ridiculousness.

Filth?

Meh...

I'm done though. I've have my fill. I'm gonna take my immature happy behind to happier places to waller in my happy filth.

It is sad that there are heathen "god haters" in here defending a christian church from the onslaught of other christians, when those of us defending don't even follow the god whose church we are defending.... (The Witch doesn't count).

Tootles.

:nightcraw:

 

[Katzpur]

[Mormons say] that Joseph Smith was almost perfect. He was it not. He was human. With all the good and bad stuff humans did.

You're right. Joseph Smith was human. He had good qualities and he had bad qualities. And Mormons do not claim he was "almost perfect." That is what I meant when I accused you of lying.

By the way, what is a "BS detector"?

Es ist ein Gerät verwendet, um zu sagen, wenn you'e voller Gülle Bullen.

 

[Witch of Hope]

Have you never written more than one account of a single event in your life, or even verbally recounted an event to several different people at different times in your life? If you have, you know as well as the next person that unless you have memorized the story and make a point of telling it vertabim each time, it's not going to be exactly the same each time. Sometimes you may remember to mention one thing. At other times, you may mention something else entirely. There may appear to be inconsistencies between your stories since your emphasis will change depend based upon your audience. Don't be a silly witch. You know that kind of thing happens all the time.

It is NOT about me, it is about the first Vision of Joseph Smith!
One time he said, that he only saw Jesus, than that he saw God, and than, that he saw both, and at another time, that he just saw angels (no God or Christ)
If a wittness in front of a court would say something different about the same issue, he would be not credible.
You don't believe me?
It is your right, to do this. But see this quote.

"... I received the first visitation of angels, which was when I was about fourteen years old ..." (Deseret News, May 29, 1852)

In this Church Newspaper was the story of Joseph Smith. This stuff was changed in later editions and in the Church History in:

"... I received my first vision, which was when I was about fourteen years old ..." (History of the Church, vol. 2, p.312).

To quote Wesley P. Walters:

"... the shift from an angel to Christ, then to angels, and finally to two personages introduced such haziness that even the Mormon leaders appeared confused as to the nature of the story itself" (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1969, p.73).

Uh... yes, I believe that juicy little tidbit has been mentioned about 3000 times by anti-Mormons and responded to about 3000 times by Mormons. But since you raise the question again, why don't we just start at the beginning of the most recent edition of the Book of Mormon and compate it to the 1830 edition, which is readily available to anyone who is interested in reading it. We can start on page 1 and identify as many of the 3000 changes to see how significant they really are. My guess is that after about the 10th one, people will be able to judge for themselves the extent to which they altered the essential doctrines in the book. You go first...

I would do it, if I had a copy at my PC or as book. I just have some older Book of Mormon in German (the oldest is from 1957) and not in English. Send me an old one from 1830 or a link to it, and we can make it.

 

[ljam49]

How about when you make a claim you site your cite your source?
Do not worry about your source being in German.
Just worry about your source being reliable.

Seems to me that your sources are more like ratifications.
But I will have to actually see your sources for myself before I can make that determination.

Now how can I check your sources if you do not present any source other than the Tanners, who have been shown to be highly suspect and unreliable?

Since the Tanners are taking a beating from posters on here (of which only one post was made with "proof" of unreliability) lets just give them a leg up. The Tanners wrote a book on the falsehood of the Book of Abraham as wrote and translated by Joseph Smith. They showed through their book that everything that JS supposedly translated was false and the Book of Abraham was not true in any sense. Now, lets see if that is highly suspect and unreliable by letting some experts into the debate:

In 1912, Reverend Franklin S. Spalding sent copies of the three Facsimiles from the Book of Abraham to some of the world's leading scholars of Egyptology. All eight of the scholars that responded were unanimous in their condemnation of Joseph's translations as being incorrect. For example, Dr. Arthur Mace, Assistant Curator for the Department of Egyptian Art of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York explained:

"The Book of Abraham, it is hardly necessary to say, is a pure fabrication. Cuts 1 and 3 are inaccurate copies of well known scenes on funeral papyri, and cut 2 is a copy of one of the magical discs which in the late Egyptian period were placed under the heads of mummies. There were about forty of these latter known in museums and they are all very similar in character. Joseph Smith's interpretation of these cuts is a farrago of nonsense from beginning to end. Egyptian characters can now be read almost as easily as Greek, and five minutes' study in an Egyptian gallery of any museum should be enough to convince any educated man of the clumsiness of the imposture." (F.S. Spalding, Joseph Smith Jr., As a Translator, 1912, p. 27)
​

Dr. A. H. Sayce from Oxford, England concurred:

"It is difficult to deal seriously with Joseph Smith's impudent fraud. The fac simile from the Book of Abraham No. 2 is an ordinary hypocephalus, but the hieroglyphics upon it have been copied so ignorantly that hardly one of them is correct. I need scarcely say that Kolob, &c., are unknown to the Egyptian language. Smith has turned the goddess into a king and Osiris into Abraham." (Ibid., p. 23)
​

Dr. Flinders Petrie of London University wrote:

"They are copies of Egyptian subjects of which I have seen dozens of examples. They are centuries later than Abraham. The attempts to guess a meaning for them in the professed explanations are too absurd to be noticed. It may be safely said that there is not one single word that is true in these explanations." (Ibid., p. 24)
​

Dr. James H. Breasted of the Haskell Oriental Museum, University of Chicago, declared:

"It will be seen, then, that if Joseph Smith could read ancient Egyptian writing, his ability to do so had no connection with the decipherment of hieroglyphics by European scholars...The three fac-similes in question represent equipment which will be and has been found in unnumbered thousands of Egyptian graves...The point, then, is that in publishing these fac-similes of Egyptian documents as part of an unique revelation to Abraham, Joseph Smith was attributing to Abraham not three unique documents of which no other copies exist, but was attributing to Abraham a series of documents which were the common property of a whole nation of people who employed them in every human burial, which they prepared...
Fac-simile Number 2 represents a little disc...commonly called among Egyptologists a hypocephalus...These did not come into use until the late centuries just before the Christian era. They did not appear in any Egyptian burials until over a thousand years after the time of Abraham. They were unknown in Egypt in Abraham's day. Fac-simile Number 3...This scene again is depicted innumerable times in the funeral papyri, coffins and tomb and temple walls of Egypt. No representation of it thus far found in Egypt, though we have thousands of them, dates earlier than 500 years after Abraham's age; and it may be stated as certain that the scene was unknown until about 500 years after Abraham's day." (Ibid., pp. 24-27)
​

Thus, based on the evidence provided by the Facsimiles alone, scholars overwhelmingly concurred that Joseph's translation of these Facsimiles was incorrect. Further, it was determined that Abraham could not have possessed these Facsimiles because at least in the case of Nos. 2 and 3, they did not exist until long after Abraham's day.

This has been known for close to a 100 years. Mormons just have no way to get out of the corner. Now we can see that the Tanners are not the highly suspect and unreliable sources as some want to say, just for the opportunity to throw out opinions. Move forward with using the Tanners in the arguement, this proves there is some solid and valid information coming from them.

 

[Witch of Hope]

You're right. Joseph Smith was human. He had good qualities and he had bad qualities. And Mormons do not claim he was "almost perfect." That is what I meant when I accused you of lying.

In LDS Magazines like Ensign or Liahona (German Ensign) they talk/write about Joseph Smith as he was a "Superman". Why said Brigham Young that without hm noone can come to God (Journal of Discourses [FONT=&quot] vol. 7, S. 289 ,1869[/FONT]) or Heber C. Kimball who said that people would see to Joseph Smith as they would see to a GOD ( [FONT=&quot]Journal of Discourses, 5:88[/FONT])Or D&C 135: 3, which says that except Jesus, noone had more done for mankind.

Es ist ein Gerät verwendet, um zu sagen, wenn you'e voller Gülle Bullen.

This is not a correct German. Try it again, or better, write in English, it is more understandable to everyone here.

 

[LoTrobador]

That is just not true.

Just one historical source that says the First Council of Nicaea did deal with the canon of the Scripture?

Theodoret, Historia Ecclesia, Book I, ch.6-13. This mentions that the definitions of Nicaea were drawn up with reference to Scripture; and the argument about whether phrase x or y was or was not in scripture formed the basis of much of the argument.

So? No mention of the canon of the Scritpture. Looking up whether a particular phrase was in the Scriptures? Sure, why not. But not a word about the canon of the Bible itself.

Sozomen, Historia Ecclesia, Book 1, ch.21. This describes the results of the council. (Chapter 17 onwards describes the council). Constantine writes to all the cities ordering the destruction of the works of Arius and his followers, and the penalty of death for any who refused to destroy them. The letter is not quoted. There is also an anecdote where a Novatianist bishop is interviewed by the emperor. The bishop agrees to sign the creed but not to resume communion with the Catholics. Constantine tells him to get a ladder and ascend into heaven alone, then; but there is no mention of action against the Novatianists.

So? Still nothing about the canon of the Scriptures. The Council itself did not set or affirm, not even speak of a canon of the Scripture. Could have used one of the 'canons' that were in use by that time, sure; but the canon itself wasn't a matter of interest to the Council.

The first Canon was actually the Muratorian Canon that was compiled in A.D. 170. This Canon included all of the NT books with the exception of Hebrews, James, and 3 John. This was further solidified through the Council of Carthage in A.D. 397.

Yes, the canons did vary, various councils did deal with the canon of the Scriptures - but not the First Council of Nicaea.

With further study you will also find that through these councils that all was drawn together without a doubt that it was completed and error free.

Sure, why not, but still - these were other councils and synods. The First Council of Nicaea did not deal with the canon of the Scripture.

 

[Katzpur]

In LDS Magazines like Ensign or Liahona (German Ensign) they talk/write about Joseph Smith as he was a "Superman". Why said Brigham Young that without hm noone can come to God (Journal of Discourses [FONT=&quot]vol. 7, S. 289 ,1869[/FONT]) or Heber C. Kimball who said that people would see to Joseph Smith as they would see to a GOD ( [FONT=&quot]Journal of Discourses, 5:88[/FONT])Or D&C 135: 3, which says that except Jesus, noone had more done for mankind.

He was a prophet. He is admired as the Old Testaments were admired. That doesn't make him Superman.

This is not a correct German.

Well, a lot of what you say is not a correct English, Witchy. But until now, I haven't brought that to your attention. Perhaps I should start doing so.

Try it again, or better, write in English, it is more understandable to everyone here.

English speakers already know what a "BS detector" is. I don't have to explain it to them.

 

[Witch of Hope]

About the Book of Abraham case is a good documentary film found at Google to see and to download. Even modern Scientists told that this Book of Abraham was wrong. I got for it only a German qoute:

Dr. John A. Wilson ist der erste Zeuge gegen das Buch Abraham. Er war ein emerierter Professor für Ägyptologie an der Universität von Chicago, wurde 1936 Leiter des Orient-Instituts, und war zwischen 1960 und 1961 ihr Direktor. Er verstarb am 30.August 1976. Zwar veröffentlichte er zu dem Thema nichts, aber er untersuchte den Buch-Abrahm-Papyrus, und wies mit als Erster darauf hin, dass es sich um das Buch der Atemzüge handelte. (siehe Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Sommer 1968. Seite 68)​

[FONT=&quot]: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Das Buch Abraham - Drei Zeugen gegen das Buch[/FONT]

Translation (I try my best):

Dr. John A. Wilson is the first witness against the Book of Abraham. He was an retired professor for egyptology at the university of Chicago, became 1936 leaders of the East institute, and was between 1960 and 1961 their manager. He passed away 30th of August, 1976. Though he published on the subject nothing, but he examined /investigated the Abrahm papyrus, and pointed out with as a first to the fact that it concerned the book of the breath. (see Dialogue: A journal of Mormon Thought, summer, 1968. Page 68)

And even LDS Scholars know it: [FONT=&quot](Book of Abraham Symposium, 3. April 1970, p. 72) [/FONT]

They know that this papyri was younger than Abraham was, and that he never could write it.

 

[ljam49]

About the Book of Abraham case is a good documentary film found at Google to see and to download. Even modern Scientists told that this Book of Abraham was wrong. I got for it only a German qoute:

Dr. John A. Wilson ist der erste Zeuge gegen das Buch Abraham. Er war ein emerierter Professor für Ägyptologie an der Universität von Chicago, wurde 1936 Leiter des Orient-Instituts, und war zwischen 1960 und 1961 ihr Direktor. Er verstarb am 30.August 1976. Zwar veröffentlichte er zu dem Thema nichts, aber er untersuchte den Buch-Abrahm-Papyrus, und wies mit als Erster darauf hin, dass es sich um das Buch der Atemzüge handelte. (siehe Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Sommer 1968. Seite 68)​

[FONT=&quot]: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Das Buch Abraham - Drei Zeugen gegen das Buch[/FONT]

Translation (I try my best):

Dr. John A. Wilson is the first witness against the Book of Abraham. He was an retired professor for egyptology at the university of Chicago, became 1936 leaders of the East institute, and was between 1960 and 1961 their manager. He passed away 30th of August, 1976. Though he published on the subject nothing, but he examined /investigated the Abrahm papyrus, and pointed out with as a first to the fact that it concerned the book of the breath. (see Dialogue: A journal of Mormon Thought, summer, 1968. Page 68)

And even LDS Scholars know it: [FONT=&quot](Book of Abraham Symposium, 3. April 1970, p. 72) [/FONT]

They know that this papyri was younger than Abraham was, and that he never could write it.

Yep. Good points. The problem lies in the fact that this religion is fought for tooth and nail even when you show them that they are being taught falsehoods. They just tell you they have a burning in their bosom and that is good enough. Its flat out denial of the truth.

 

[Katzpur]

Katspur should I be surprised that when I posted things from your religion earlier that are not disputable due to the fact that they are authorized writings of your church, your refused to answer them with the excuse that they were off subject. Judging by this post that is off subject, I don't think it would be out of place to say that the real reason you did not answer my post is because you have no defense and in actuality it looks to be proven by the fact that you are willing in this post to chase off subject matter here because you feel you can answer up for it.

Does not say much for those who fight so vehemitly for beliefs that they cannot back up?

Would you like to engage in a One-on-one debate with me, ljam? Because there is nothing I would enjoy like having you for lunch. We'd have to agree on the rules before we got started, and you would actually have to respond to my questions as well as the other way around. You seem to have had some difficulty with that in the past. Just say the word, and I'll start the thread. I'm warning you, though, you start going against the rules the two of us decide on and I quit on the spot. I don't have time to put up with crap.

 

[Witch of Hope]

He was a prophet. He is admired as the Old Testaments were admired. That doesn't make him Superman.

What is a prophet? A man of God which tells for example prophecies.
But none of his prophecies get fullfilled.
For example:

New York shall be destroyed (D&C 84: 114-115
Joseph Smith will see the Resurection of Christ as a living Person at the age of 85 (D&C 130: 14-17)
The Kirtland Bank would be successfull (History of the Church, Vol.2, p. 509-510)

Is that a proof for a true prophet as the bible said it in [FONT=&quot]Deut.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 18:19-21[/FONT]?

Well, a lot of what you say is not a correct English, Witchy. But until now, I haven't brought that to your attention. Perhaps I should start doing so.

I know that my English is lousy, and i would be glad if someone correct it. Maybe you as LDS?

English speakers already know what a "BS detector" is. I don't have to explain it to them.

Yeah, but other folks didn't kno it. Or did you know for example, what a Gynäkologenstuhl" is? In Germany knows every women it. It means "Gynecologist's chair". Or what a "homophober Stinker" is? It means "homophobic skunk".
I'm from Germany. English isn't my mother tongue. Don't forget it!

 

[ljam49]

Would you like to engage in a One-on-one debate with me, ljam? Because there is nothing I would enjoy like having you for lunch. We'd have to agree on the rules before we got started, and you would actually have to respond to my questions as well as the other way around. You seem to have had some difficulty with that in the past. Just say the word, and I'll start the thread. I'm warning you, though, you start going against the rules the two of us decide on and I quit on the spot. I don't have time to put up with crap.

Start it. By the way, I feel the same, lets set some rules. You have shown just a few posts back and on some of the recent posts that you ran from questions you could not answer. We can play by the same rules, so know that it goes the same for you that when you break the rules, I leave the playground. Lets agree on some rules, and I will wait long enough for you to pack a lunch. You will need it.

 

[Witch of Hope]

Yep. Good points. The problem lies in the fact that this religion is fought for tooth and nail even when you show them that they are being taught falsehoods. They just tell you they have a burning in their bosom and that is good enough. Its flat out denial of the truth.

Yeah. Evidences? Who need evidences. i have the truth in my mind and the Holy ghost in my pocket, i need no evidences. In German the psychologist mentioned it Dissonanz-Management". That means that they put all evidences away what is proofed as fact against their church. Sadly but true.

 

[Katzpur]

Start it. By the way, I feel the same, lets set some rules. You have shown just a few posts back and on some of the recent posts that you ran from questions you could not answer. We can play by the same rules, so know that it goes the same for you that when you break the rules, I leave the playground. Lets agree on some rules, and I will wait long enough for you to pack a lunch. You will need it.

I propose that I start one thread just to lay down the ground rules. Once we agree on them, you can begin the actual debate thread, since you obviously have in mind some points you want to focus on.

 

[McBell]

Now we can see that the Tanners are not the highly suspect and unreliable sources as some want to say, just for the opportunity to throw out opinions. Move forward with using the Tanners in the arguement, this proves there is some solid and valid information coming from them.

How about instead of pointing out something you claim they got right, you address the evidence that shows how unreliable they are?
Here it is again:

One non-Mormon scholar, Lawrence Foster, who has studied Mormonism in depth, says that "The Tanners have repeatedly assumed a holier-than-thou stance, refusing to be fair in applying the same debate standard of absolute rectitude which they demand of Mormonism to their own actions, writing, and beliefs... [They] seem to be playing a skillful shell game in which the premises for judgment are conveniently shifted so that the conclusion is always the same--negative... [Until they] are prepared to abide by accepted standards of scholarly behavior and common courtesy, they can expect little sympathy from serious historians."

Take Michael Quinn, for instance. As a former LDS historian who was excommunicated from the Church, he had the following to say about them: "Jerald and Sandra Tanner have read widely enough in the sources of LDS history to provide [a larger] perspective, but they do not. Although the most conscientious and honest researcher can overlook pertinent sources of information, the repeated omissions of evidence by the Tanners suggest an intentional avoidance of sources that modify or refute their caustic interpretation of Mormon history."

​

 

[McBell]

Yeah. Evidences? Who need evidences. i have the truth in my mind and the Holy ghost in my pocket, i need no evidences. In German the psychologist mentioned it Dissonanz-Management". That means that they put all evidences away what is proofed as fact against their church. Sadly but true.

What a load of self serving bull ****.

 

[McBell]

What is a prophet? A man of God which tells for example prophecies.
But none of his prophecies get fullfilled.
For example:

New York shall be destroyed (D&C 84: 114-115
Joseph Smith will see the Resurection of Christ as a living Person at the age of 85 (D&C 130: 14-17)
The Kirtland Bank would be successfull (History of the Church, Vol.2, p. 509-510)

Is that a proof for a true prophet as the bible said it in [FONT=&quot]Deut.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 18:19-21[/FONT]?

so your claim is that at best his track record mimics the Bibles?
Good argument...not.