What is odd about the Book of Mormon?

[misanthropic_clown]

While that sounds like a nice idea, I'm curious what viable argument there is for the book of mormon? As has been established on this thread, there does not seem to be one single viable argument for the BoM, so what are you reffering to?

I'm referring to the fact that for every criticism, there is an apologetic response to be had. While unconvincing to one inclined to scepticism, such arguments can be enough, combined with faith, to retain belief. That is why I said I don't anticipate this exercise panning out to paint Mormonism in a particularly favourable way on an academic level. I just hope to demonstrate there is always a response to be had.

 

[Humanistheart]

I'm referring to the fact that for every criticism, there is an apologetic response to be had. While unconvincing to one inclined to scepticism, such arguments can be enough, combined with faith, to retain belief. That is why I said I don't anticipate this exercise panning out to paint Mormonism in a particularly favourable way on an academic level. I just hope to demonstrate there is always a response to be had.

I see, well, good luck with that.

In the mean time it would seem that the people trying to defend smith and the BoM are giving up. Perhaps this would be a good time for everyone to achknowlege that no one has been able to defend the BoM, and Smith was, at best, a false prophit.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

In the mean time it would seem that the people trying to defend smith and the BoM are giving up. Perhaps this would be a good time for everyone to achknowlege that no one has been able to defend the BoM, and Smith was, at best, a false prophit.

Hmmm....no.

How's about a 1 on 1? It will doubtless help me in making my compilation, and that format is far less messy.

 

[Humanistheart]

Hmmm....no.

.

You say no but you, nor anyone else, has offered anything to defend smith that wasn't easily countered by various posters.

I refer you to my previous suppoistion, no defence = no legitimacy. Smith's a false prophet and thus the lds church is false. Any future mormon discussions should be avoided as who cares about a debunked religion?

 

[Autodidact]

Hmmm....no.

How's about a 1 on 1? It will doubtless help me in making my compilation, and that format is far less messy.

I'll give it a shot.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

I'll give it a shot.

Ok then - Ladies first?

 

[Humanistheart]

Ok then - Ladies first?

How is auto going to start? She already listed a plethera of evidences against the BoM and the church. You simply want her to repeat herself? Or perhaps come up with more evidences not listed for the lds to ingnore?

I thought you already admitted there was no evidence to support the lds church, just the apologetics weak responces. Did I understand that inccorectly?

 

[misanthropic_clown]

How is auto going to start? She already listed a plethera of evidences against the BoM and the church. You simply want her to repeat herself? Or perhaps come up with more evidences not listed for the lds to ingnore?

I thought you already admitted there was no evidence to support the lds church, just the apologetics weak responces. Did I understand that inccorectly?

Yes. I want the discussion to start fresh, and I think it is fair for her to make a considered list of criticisms, then for me to respond to them. I don't want to unintentionally misrepresent the arguments she makes.

And there are interesting things to be found in the Book of Mormon which can be argued to suggest authenticity, but I anticipate the meat of the debate will be on criticism response.

 

[Autodidact]

Is there a forum for one-on-one..tell you what, you open the thread, and I'll post.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/one-one-debates/87880-autodidact-vs-clown-problems-book-mormon.html#post1748147

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Well, it sure doesn't mean it's true. That's your best argument? You have a lack of evidence?

Actually, we don't have a lack of evidence. We have the supposed script, and the Egyptian experts who've looked at, who say it looks like Reformed Baloney.

No non-Mormon scholars acknowledge the existence of either a "reformed Egyptian" language or a "reformed Egyptian" orthography as it has been described in Mormon belief. For instance, in 1966, John A. Wilson, professor of Egyptology at the University of Chicago, wrote, "From time to time there are allegations that picture writing has been found in America… In no case has a professional Egyptologist been able to recognize these characters as Egyptian hieroglyphs. From our standpoint there is no such language as 'reformed Egyptian'."[8] Klaus Baer, another Egyptologist at the University of Chicago, called the characters of the "Caractors" document nothing but "doodlings".[9] [wiki]

So your problem isn't a lack of evidence, it's an abundance of evidence that there is no such thing.

And I'm not sure if I mentioned it here but research "Ancient Irish"......It is NOT a semitic language but you will see that a lot of the characters of "Reformed Egyptian" are the same or very, very to it...but is interesting to seem Farms and Fairlds explain them away....

 

[Watchmen]

Auto's Anthon argument in the opening of the one-on-one is so lame. It is proof of nothing. Lets see if clown knows how to respond.

 

[madhatter85]

Auto's Anthon argument in the opening of the one-on-one is so lame. It is proof of nothing. Lets see if clown knows how to respond.

I'm sure he will respond well He's intelligent enough to do so. I would take on Auto myself but I not only have her on ignore, I really just don't want to put forth the energy, she, humanist, little nipper, and jabberwocky are just lost causes who talk in circles all day long. Reminds me of Alma Chapter 10:

13 Nevertheless, there were some among them who thought to question them, that by their cunning devices they might catch them in their words, that they might find witness against them, that they might deliver them to their judges that they might be judged according to the law, and that they might be slain or cast into prison, according to the crime which they could make appear or witness against them.
14 Now it was those men who sought to destroy them, who were lawyers, who were hired or appointed by the people to administer the law at their times of trials, or at the trials of the crimes of the people before the judges.
15 Now these lawyers were learned in all the arts and cunning of the people; and this was to enable them that they might be skilful in their profession.
16 And it came to pass that they began to question Amulek, that thereby they might make him cross his words, or contradict the words which he should speak.
17 Now they knew not that Amulek could know of their designs. But it came to pass as they began to question him, he perceived their thoughts, and he said unto them: O ye wicked and perverse generation, ye lawyers and hypocrites, for ye are laying the foundations of the devil; for ye are laying traps and snares to catch the holy ones of God.
18 Ye are laying plans to pervert the ways of the righteous, and to bring down the wrath of God upon your heads, even to the utter destruction of this people.

 

[LittleNipper]

Oh man this is laughable. The Jews are the Lord's ancient covenant people. Israel is Jewish. Abraham was Jewish, Christ was Jewish. Yep. there's no unrining that bell, sorry bud.

Actually, even though the Jews rejected Christ, the covenant still stands if they accept him, meaning they will become part of Israel. Anyone who accepts Christ becomes part of Israel.


Fortunately, there are no contradictions between the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Have you even read the Book of Mormon for yourself?

Yes, I have read the book of Mormon twice and read portions of it again. So I have read it about 2 1/2 times...

 

[LittleNipper]

The Book of Mormon was translated from Reformed Egyptian. The bible was translated from Greek (Paul) and Hebrew, etc. Claiming that two different volumes of scripture sounds different is like saying the Romanian sounds different from English. People in different places often have different ways of speaking. That doesn't seem very odd to me, in fact, I would expect them to sound different. What's more important than the nature of the text is the content--is the content consistent--does it equally testify of Christ and his mission.

Translated from "Reformed Egyptian" (whatever that is) into King James English. I'd better hold onto my bonnet.

 

[Humanistheart]

Auto's Anthon argument in the opening of the one-on-one is so lame. It is proof of nothing. Lets see if clown knows how to respond.

If it was lame then surely you'd be able to offer a counter argument *looks around* Oh, but none has been. Interesting.

 

[Humanistheart]

I'm sure he will respond well He's intelligent enough to do so. I would take on Auto myself but I not only have her on ignore, I really just don't want to put forth the energy, she, humanist, little nipper, and jabberwocky are just lost causes who talk in circles all day long. Reminds me of Alma Chapter 10:

Right, the ability to articulate real arguments instead or resorting to petty name calling like watchmen or clear makes others a lost cause, lol. Perhaps you can put a little more effort into your posts hater. Oh wait, you'd have to have put some in to begin with for you to put more in.

 

[Watchmen]

What Clown failed to mention is we basically have two accounts we can believe: Martin Harris or Anthon's. It begs the question: If Anthon said the symbols Harris showed him for fake, why would Harris continue following Joseph Smith and continue to pour his own money into the LDS cause? If you found out someone was a fraud do you give them money? Doubtful.

 

[Katzpur]

What Clown failed to mention is we basically have two accounts we can believe: Martin Harris or Anthon's. It begs the question: If Anthon said the symbols Harris showed him for fake, why would Harris continue following Joseph Smith and continue to pour his own money into the LDS cause? If you found out someone was a fraud do you give them money? Doubtful.

I already asked HumanistHeart that question, Watchmen. His answer left me speechless. It was on another thread and would take me forever to find.

 

[Watchmen]

I already asked HumanistHeart that question, Watchmen. His answer left me speechless. It was on another thread and would take me forever to find.

What was the gist of it? Or, perhaps I should wait and see what he says here.