LDS Joseph Smith's Claim of an Apostasy is a Lie

[Peter1000]

FAITH. I think that is key.

When one thinks that God is glorified man, like themselves, than they think God makes mistakes and has poor judgment. Faith is the element that separates our two religions.

How did you logically go from Glorified Man to: this Glorified Man makes mistakes and has poor judgment. You must sit up all night and try to make stuff up.

So is it true then, that a God that has no form, has no shape, is immaterial, with no body, parts, or passions and is invisible, unapproachable and unfathomable will make no mistakes, and will have perfect judgment?

Faith does not separate our religions. We both have great faith.

 

[Peter1000]

God did not need a sperm or an egg to create Adam and Eve. Eve was created from Adam's rib, not fluid from his genitals.

While Mary, being a human female, could be assumed to have had a human egg in her, but God did not need to "deposit" a sperm to create Jesus' human body. He did not even need Mary's egg and we have no information that He used such an egg. God is the Creator and spoke the world into existance, He doesn't need help. But that flies in the face of lds theology about not creating something from nothing and, therefore, you have to go with the incorrect sperm/egg theory.

You first say, we have no information that He used such an egg. Then you say, therefore, you have to go with the incorrect sperm/egg theory.

If we don't know what really happened, then the sperm/egg theory is not necessarily incorrect.

God wanted His Son Jesus to be a complete human. In order for that to happen, He had to do things in a natural way. The one miracle that came from this birth is that Mary remained a virgin after she was pregnant. This would eliminate any form of sexual intercourse with man or with God the Father.

The only natural way that I know of to grow a flesh body is for a sperm and an egg to unite and that fertilized egg would then grow until 9 months later the baby Jesus was born. This is what ToBeLoved was trying to say in
post #1162. There was a supernatural depositing of sperm into Mary's body, and this sperm then naturally fertilized the egg. 9 months of natural pregnancy and then a natural birth.

If it had been done any other way than natural, critics could make a point that Jesus was not a human like other humans. Jesus needed to be 100% human to make his sacrifice complete.

The sperm/egg theory is the only way I get Jesus to 100% human, while retaining his divinity too.

 

[Peter1000]

God never created Jesus, Jesus is God and is not a creation but rather He is the Creator. The Father begot the Son, but there is no creation involved in that.


Because Jesus was fully man and other than Adam and Eve men are born of women.


That's the normal term for a pregnancy but we don't know that Mary's term was 9 months.


It's part of Christ being born as fully man.


Jesus is God and couldn't "create" Himself.

The bigger issue is that where the Bible doesn't say something we can't presume something, especially when it comes to what God does. Mary's birthing of Christ is a "virgin birth" - Mary was and remained a virgin while being pregnant and giving birth to Christ. This means that Christ's birth does not follow our scientific knowledge of pregnancy. When we are presented with phenomena that does not fit into our scientific (natural) knowledge, it is outside or above the natural, aka "supernatural". Supernatural phenomena performed by God are known as miracles.

Jesus' incarnation (and Mary's pregnancy) is a miracle. Why would someone want to explain it with our scientific knowledge? We don't try to explain the parting of the Red Sea, or the burning bush, or Jesus walking on water, or the other miracles - we accept them as the work of a supernatural God who is above the laws of our science and nature.

So, to try to understand Christ's birth as something natural is to ignore what God's Word actually says and what it doesn't say and then to try to explain that miracle in a way that we wouldn't try to explain other miracles.

You say: God never created Jesus, Jesus is God and is not a creation but rather He is the Creator. The Father begot the Son, but there is no creation involved in that.

You would be right about the spirit of Jesus. It is uncreated and is immortal and there was no creation involved.

Jesus's flesh and bone body is another issue entirely. It had to be created. It was created by impregnating Mary and growing the body for 9 months and then giving birth. You can call it what you want, creating, begetting, or sireing. There was a miraculous pro-creation process that took place to make Jesus's flesh and bone body.

You first say, God never created Jesus, Jesus is God and is not a creation but rather He is the Creator.
Then you say, The Father begot the Son, but there is no creation involved in that. I know that in your religion that is common talk, and you have taken class after class on how to say what you just said. But in my religion, and in my world, what you said was pure doubletalk.

To say Jesus is God and was not created, but was the Creator, but then turn right around and introduce God the Father and that He begot His Son Jesus, who you say is the Creator. What do you think begot means. I know you have taken many religion classes to be able to sidestep the begotten issue, so you don't have a problem with it. (The concept that Jesus was begotten before the ages, was brought forth hundreds of years after the apostles died, and is not supported by the bible.) In my religion, and my world, begotten means that a man and a women have a sexual encounter and from that encounter a child is "begotten" and brought forth into the world. Where there was 2, now there are 3.

You say: Because Jesus was fully man and other than Adam and Eve men are born of women.

I agree. Jesus was fully man because his flesh and bone body was pro-created exactly like every other human man was created (except Adam and Eve). Notwithstanding the virgin birth miracle.

You say: That's the normal term for a pregnancy but we don't know that Mary's term was 9 months.

9 months would be a pretty good guess.

You say: Jesus is God and couldn't "create" Himself.

You say, Jesus is God, but which of these answers is the truth about Jesus?
Jesus is:
1) God the Father
2) God the Son
3) God the HS

You say: This means that Christ's birth does not follow our scientific knowledge of pregnancy.

Like I said, except for the miraculous conception, as far as we know, Jesus's growth in the womb and his birth followed the normal scientific path for the creation of the flesh and bone body.

 

[Peter1000]

Mormons always seem to need explanations, rather than accept on faith the things of God. JS was not comfortable with the mysteries of God, which is why they follow their leader, fully accepting his limited "knowledge" which openly contradicts what God's Word says in the bible.

Are you kidding, JS is the one that said, God is a Glorified, Exalted Man. You couldm't delve into a deeper mystery than that and he was very confortable with saying that and it does not conflict with the bible, no matter how many times you say it.

 

[Peter1000]

He asked for my theory on how Mary MAY have become impregnated without a physical intercourse with the Father as Mormons believe.

What I said was that what the Bible says is that "the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary". My statement was that this COULD HAVE BEEN as simple as placing a sperm or fertilized egg in her body and it happening somewhat naturally.

So, if you want to read into that that I am saying that is what happened, you may do that. What I said is in contrast to any physical contact with Mary that is sexual and intercourse related.

I really hope this clarifies what I was saying. I did not say this is what happened.

Some ignorant Mormons may believe that God the Father had a sexual incounter with Mary. The vast majority cannot reconcile having sexual intercourse with any man or God and remaining virgin. So the logical answer to the emaculate conception is NOT sexual intercourse, but is more like what you said. A supernatural deposit of sperm that naturally fertilized an egg. OR a supernatural deposit of a fertilized egg.

Your explanation is a reasonable explanation that eliminates the sexual intercourse need.

I agree with you.

I do not agree that God the Father had sexual intercourse with Mary to impregnate her. 90% of Mormons agree with me and you.

 

[BigDaddy4]

You first say, we have no information that He used such an egg. Then you say, therefore, you have to go with the incorrect sperm/egg theory.

If we don't know what really happened, then the sperm/egg theory is not necessarily incorrect.

God wanted His Son Jesus to be a complete human. In order for that to happen, He had to do things in a natural way. The one miracle that came from this birth is that Mary remained a virgin after she was pregnant. This would eliminate any form of sexual intercourse with man or with God the Father.

The only natural way that I know of to grow a flesh body is for a sperm and an egg to unite and that fertilized egg would then grow until 9 months later the baby Jesus was born. This is what ToBeLoved was trying to say in
post #1162. There was a supernatural depositing of sperm into Mary's body, and this sperm then naturally fertilized the egg. 9 months of natural pregnancy and then a natural birth.

If it had been done any other way than natural, critics could make a point that Jesus was not a human like other humans. Jesus needed to be 100% human to make his sacrifice complete.

The sperm/egg theory is the only way I get Jesus to 100% human, while retaining his divinity too.

That would make God the Son, Jesus, a different human being if Mary's DNA is mixed in with wherever this mysterious sperm donor came from.

"The only natural way that I know of..." Human reasoning and logic cannot explain it. That's why it was a miracle.

As I said before, God did not need a human egg and sperm to create Adam and Eve. He used dirt and a rib. Were they not 100% human in your eyes? That's where your logic fails.

 

[mmksparbud]

Who was Jesus Himself before he became human?

What form was Jesus before the incarnation?

Do you know what incarnation implies?

Jesus always was---He was never created, He is the one that created. The bible does not specifically say what form Jesus had----incarnation is not a word used in the bible.


http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2012/12/23/the-meaning-of-incarnation/

"Incarnation is a big word, and sadly, not a lot of Christians either use it, or know what it means. It does not refer to the same thing as the virginal conception, though the latter is the means by which the incarnation of the Son of God took place. Incarnation refers to the choices and acts of a pre-existent divine being, namely the Son of God, that the Son took in order to become a human being. He took on flesh, and became fully, truly human without ceasing to be fully, truly divine. Divinity is not something Jesus acquired later in life, or even after his death and resurrection. According to the theology of Incarnation he had always been the divine Son of God, even before he became Jesus, a human being. Strictly speaking the name Jesus only applies to a human being. It is the name the Son of God acquired once he became a human being in the womb of Mary, a name which he maintains to this day as he continues to be a human being. "

 

[Peter1000]

That would make God the Son, Jesus, a different human being if Mary's DNA is mixed in with wherever this mysterious sperm donor came from.

"The only natural way that I know of..." Human reasoning and logic cannot explain it. That's why it was a miracle.

As I said before, God did not need a human egg and sperm to create Adam and Eve. He used dirt and a rib. Were they not 100% human in your eyes? That's where your logic fails.

Adam, as far as we know was made from dirt and Eve, as far as we know was made from Adams rib (may be metaphoric). So God can apparently choose how humans are brought forth. Point well taken.

However, God, apparently chose a natural birth for His only begotten Son Jesus. Miraculous conception and natural pregnancy and natural birth as a baby and grew naturally to adulthood.

Did Jesus have any DNA?

Adam came full grown. Did he have any DNA? I believe he passed DNA to produce Cain and Able? Where did that DNA come from? Where did Eve's DNA come from? Does dirt have DNA?

It goes again to why did God chose natural for His only begotten Son Jesus?

 

[Peter1000]

Jesus always was---He was never created, He is the one that created. The bible does not specifically say what form Jesus had----incarnation is not a word used in the bible.


http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2012/12/23/the-meaning-of-incarnation/

"Incarnation is a big word, and sadly, not a lot of Christians either use it, or know what it means. It does not refer to the same thing as the virginal conception, though the latter is the means by which the incarnation of the Son of God took place. Incarnation refers to the choices and acts of a pre-existent divine being, namely the Son of God, that the Son took in order to become a human being. He took on flesh, and became fully, truly human without ceasing to be fully, truly divine. Divinity is not something Jesus acquired later in life, or even after his death and resurrection. According to the theology of Incarnation he had always been the divine Son of God, even before he became Jesus, a human being. Strictly speaking the name Jesus only applies to a human being. It is the name the Son of God acquired once he became a human being in the womb of Mary, a name which he maintains to this day as he continues to be a human being. "

You say: Jesus always was.

I agree

You say: He was never created.

It depends on what He your talking about. His spirit was not created (his form before his mortal life).
But Jesus's flesh body had to be created, because it did not exist before his mortal life.
There was a supernatural conception, but a natural growth process in the womb and the natural birth of a baby Jesus, and a natural growth process to adulthood.

The closest word that doctors and scholars of religion have been able to come up with to explain the conception and birth of Jesus is "incarnation", which means that a divine spirit enters into a mortal being and takes over that body for as long as it wishes. Well, this is not quite what happened, but not too far off. So I am willing to use the term "incarnation".

The fact is that Jesus's uncreated spirit was eventualy placed in his newly created body of flesh and bone. So that his form now was flesh and bone and spirit.

When he died on the cross, he cried out to the Father to accept his spirit. (Luke 23:46) As soon as Jesus's spirit left his body, he died. 3 days later Jesus's spirit returned to the flesh and bone body in the tomb and he is the first to experience the resurrection. The form that Jesus was in after the resurrection was a perfect, immortal, resurrected, and exhalted body of flesh and bone and spirit. The spirit would never again leave the flesh and bone body.

So once again, Jesus's spirit was uncreated, but his flesh and bone body did have to be created. But before his mortal life and during his mortal life and after his resurrection, he was fully divine.

 

[ToBeLoved]

There's not much of a defense, because it's a non-event. Others would like to make it a big event, but there is no evidence of a big event. The truth is, JS was given 6 or so plates, he took a few minutes to see if by his knowledge he could find any information. He did find 1 figure that he thought meant something. He told his secretary about it and it was recorded, then things got hot in Nauvoo and the plates were eventually lost except for 1 and that was proven to be fraudulent. So what does that say about JS. Just what I said. He did not claim that these plates were real and from God. He did not translate them and create another book of scripture. He recognized 1 figure and that is all, no other anouncements except what his secretary wrote.

It is a non-event. It did not go anywhere.

But combined with the false BOA it shows his pattern. Just like the hat. Not translating, but seeing.

 

[mmksparbud]

You say: Jesus always was.

I agree

You say: He was never created.

It depends on what He your talking about. His spirit was not created (his form before his mortal life).
But Jesus's flesh body had to be created, because it did not exist before his mortal life.
There was a supernatural conception, but a natural growth process in the womb and the natural birth of a baby Jesus, and a natural growth process to adulthood.

The closest word that doctors and scholars of religion have been able to come up with to explain the conception and birth of Jesus is "incarnation", which means that a divine spirit enters into a mortal being and takes over that body for as long as it wishes. Well, this is not quite what happened, but not too far off. So I am willing to use the term "incarnation".

The fact is that Jesus's uncreated spirit was eventualy placed in his newly created body of flesh and bone. So that his form now was flesh and bone and spirit.

When he died on the cross, he cried out to the Father to accept his spirit. (Luke 23:46) As soon as Jesus's spirit left his body, he died. 3 days later Jesus's spirit returned to the flesh and bone body in the tomb and he is the first to experience the resurrection. The form that Jesus was in after the resurrection was a perfect, immortal, resurrected, and exhalted body of flesh and bone and spirit. The spirit would never again leave the flesh and bone body.

So once again, Jesus's spirit was uncreated, but his flesh and bone body did have to be created. But before his mortal life and during his mortal life and after his resurrection, he was fully divine.

As I said---no need for sperm-----Jesus, the Divine from always, was, by God through the Holy Spirit, transformed into what could be placed into Mary's womb where He grew in the normal manner of humans thus mixing His divinity with humanity. He was fully human and fully divine. More than that is not stated.
o·ver·shad·ow
[ˌōvərˈSHadō]
shade · darken · conceal · obscure ·
screen · dominate · overlook

• cast a gloom over:
  "it is easy to let this feeling of tragedy overshadow his story"
  synonyms: cast gloom over · blight · take the edge off · mar ·
  spoil · ruin

• appear much more prominent or important than:
  "his competitive nature often overshadows the other qualities"

Mat_17:5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.
Mar_9:7 And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.
Luk_9:34 While he thus spake, there came a cloud, and overshadowed them: and they feared as they entered into the cloud.

 

[ToBeLoved]

How did you logically go from Glorified Man to: this Glorified Man makes mistakes and has poor judgment. You must sit up all night and try to make stuff up.

So is it true then, that a God that has no form, has no shape, is immaterial, with no body, parts, or passions and is invisible, unapproachable and unfathomable will make no mistakes, and will have perfect judgment?

Faith does not separate our religions. We both have great faith.

Faith is walking with Christ each day in dependance upon Him.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

You say: God never created Jesus, Jesus is God and is not a creation but rather He is the Creator. The Father begot the Son, but there is no creation involved in that.

You would be right about the spirit of Jesus. It is uncreated and is immortal and there was no creation involved.

Jesus's flesh and bone body is another issue entirely. It had to be created. It was created by impregnating Mary and growing the body for 9 months and then giving birth. You can call it what you want, creating, begetting, or sireing. There was a miraculous pro-creation process that took place to make Jesus's flesh and bone body.

You first say, God never created Jesus, Jesus is God and is not a creation but rather He is the Creator.
Then you say, The Father begot the Son, but there is no creation involved in that. I know that in your religion that is common talk, and you have taken class after class on how to say what you just said. But in my religion, and in my world, what you said was pure doubletalk.

To say Jesus is God and was not created, but was the Creator, but then turn right around and introduce God the Father and that He begot His Son Jesus, who you say is the Creator. What do you think begot means. I know you have taken many religion classes to be able to sidestep the begotten issue, so you don't have a problem with it. (The concept that Jesus was begotten before the ages, was brought forth hundreds of years after the apostles died, and is not supported by the bible.) In my religion, and my world, begotten means that a man and a women have a sexual encounter and from that encounter a child is "begotten" and brought forth into the world. Where there was 2, now there are 3.

If we were only dealing with the word "begotten" I could understand where you would reason that Jesus had to have been created because our human understanding of nature/science tells us that this is the only way a being can come into existence. However, "begotten" simply means "unique" or "only". Jesus is God's Son in the sense that He is the only person to come from God but it is explained to us that Jesus doesn't simply come from God but that Jesus actually IS God and IS the Creator.

John 1:1-3 says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made."

That's pretty clear that Jesus existed from the beginning and was both with God and WAS God. It's also clear that He is the Creator of all things.

Colossians 1:15-17 explains further "15 He is the image of jthe invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 6 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. he is before all things, and in him all things hold together."

It can't be much clearer than that for our limited human understanding. God is invisible, Christ is His image. Christ created all things in heaven and on earth. These verses can't be correct if Christ didn't exist until He was "born". That's why we like to use the word "incarnated" because He didn't come into existence when He was born, He simply took on human form. That human form may have been created but we don't know how the incarnation worked other than what we do know and to speculate further is folly.

You say: Because Jesus was fully man and other than Adam and Eve men are born of women.

I agree. Jesus was fully man because his flesh and bone body was pro-created exactly like every other human man was created (except Adam and Eve). Notwithstanding the virgin birth miracle.

Well then it's not "exactly like every other human man" if there was indeed a "virgin birth miracle". The miraculous natur of his birth makes it different in that there is a melding of divine and human in one being.

You say: That's the normal term for a pregnancy but we don't know that Mary's term was 9 months.

9 months would be a pretty good guess.

An excellent guess, but a guess nonetheless since no facts are recorded.

You say: Jesus is God and couldn't "create" Himself.

You say, Jesus is God, but which of these answers is the truth about Jesus?
Jesus is:
1) God the Father
2) God the Son
3) God the HS

God the Son

You say: This means that Christ's birth does not follow our scientific knowledge of pregnancy.

Like I said, except for the miraculous conception, as far as we know, Jesus's growth in the womb and his birth followed the normal scientific path for the creation of the flesh and bone body.

The key words here are "as far as we know", which correctly asserts that we don't know any more than what we already know; due to that, I am loathe to fill in the gaps based on my own knowledge of things because there are other parts of scripture that make it clear that Jesus is God, Jesus is eternal, Jesus is the Creator and this goes against his being "created" in any way.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Adam, as far as we know was made from dirt and Eve, as far as we know was made from Adams rib (may be metaphoric). So God can apparently choose how humans are brought forth. Point well taken.

However, God, apparently chose a natural birth for His only begotten Son Jesus. Miraculous conception and natural pregnancy and natural birth as a baby and grew naturally to adulthood.

This is where you start assuming things not given in scripture.

Did Jesus have any DNA?

Unknown. No evidence either way.

Adam came full grown. Did he have any DNA? I believe he passed DNA to produce Cain and Able? Where did that DNA come from? Where did Eve's DNA come from? Does dirt have DNA?

God created Adam and Eve with the means to "be fruitful and multiply", and DNA is His design for that process to happen.

It goes again to why did God chose natural for His only begotten Son Jesus?

God's plan as foretold by the prophets. His ways are beyond our ways; His thoughts are higher than ours.

 

[tickingclocker]

The kinderhook plates was a non-event because JS took a very small amount of time and translated one symbol and then the plates were lost. His secretary mentions that he heard or was told a miniscule amount of information about it and he records it. End of story.

Maybe JS knew they were not true and so he spent no more time on them, who knows. He did not spend much time at all on them. Non-event. Plates scattered and lost. Non-event. What different reason do you think give this non-event?

Nobody knows how many "characters" JS used to "translate" the information he said was there, Peter. There is no record of it anywhere, not even on sites that reject mormonism or on LDS sites. I have never looked into the "typical" amount of characters used for Egyptian hieroglyphs it takes to create that amount of information, and I don't intend to. Maybe you should? Your choice. You seem to have more interest in it than I.

The plates were NOT lost nor scattered as you claim. One remaining plate was found within the Chicago Historical Society, and its been verified, including by LDS sources, as being part of the original set. The others were destroyed in acid tests various people, including the LDS, previously used for crude authenticating purposes. For decades the LDS published precise replicas of them in its official "History of the Church" (as being authentic according to JS). To their own undoing..... The one that came to light had the exact same markings on it that the LDS had been openly displaying, even down to the same precise dent on the edge. Using updated accurate scientific methods it was proven to consist of modern metals. Not ancient like JS and the LDS had assumed. So there is proof, after all. Whether you wish to accept it is based on the level of your faith. In your church? Or in God.

"In 1980, one of the plates was brought for testing to Professor D. Lynn Johnson of the Department of Materials Science and Engineering at Northwestern University, who performed [non-damaging] scanning electron microscope and an X-ray fluorescence analysis. Because the amount of copper and zinc used (73% and 24% respectively) in the plate was found to be consistent with 19th century manufacture, in addition to other results obtained during the testing, it was determined the plate is not of ancient origin. Stanley B. Kimball, LDS history professor, stated: "The conclusion, therefore, is that the Chicago plate is indeed one of the original Kinderhook plates, which now fairly well evidences them to be faked antiquities."
---Kimball, Stanley, B., “Kinderhook Plates Brought to Joseph Smith Appear to Be a Nineteenth-Century Hoax,” Ensign, Aug 1981, 66.

"'James Henry Breasted (1865-1935), University of Chicago ancient Egyptian expert, who wrote the five volume set Ancient Records of Egypt: Historical Documents from the Earliest Times to the Persian Conquest, reported his analysis of the Kinderhook plates in a letter. Dr. Breasted wrote in 1906, while the LDS was still claiming that Smith had begun to translate the plates: "The Kinderhook Plates are, of course, childish forgeries, as the scientific world has known for years.... "Smith tried to deceive people into thinking that he had translated some of the plates.... "Where we can check up on [Joseph] Smith as a translator of plates, he is found guilty of deception. How can we trust him with reference to his claims about the Book of Mormon? "As Charles A. Shook well observed … Only a bogus prophet translates bogus plates.'"
---[LDS] Church News, Jan. 16, 1982. Pp 4-6; Eastern Standard Times, June 1983, p. 10.

Don't you find it even remotely interesting that your own church admits in 1982 that the plates are forgeries, after they were scientifically determined to be in 1980, after 137 years of their promoting them as authentic antiquities? Me neither, but for very different reasons than you do.

"Minuscule"? Really? A full statement about the "owner" of the plates is considered "minuscule" to you? Is that like a prophet proclaiming 99% truth, yet one "prophecy" he claims is from God doesn't prove true like he said? Then he is a false prophet according to scripture, if that's the case. One false prophecy is cause for being stoned to death. The words of a true prophet should be able to stand up to honest examination. Smith believed these were genuinely discovered in an archaeological dig. No written record has appeared so far in his defense that he ever thought they were forgeries or something fishy was afoot. The reality of the Kinderhook plates tell a very different story than JS told, even the "minuscule" amount he "translated".

How about if I concede the point to you that there is no proof come to light thus far that JS ever claimed "God told him the info from the forged plates". Instead, he "translated them in his own power". So, which is more damning for someone who claims to be a prophet of God, to you?

Conform beliefs to what the truth is, not conform truth to what you wish to believe. That is good advice. It also benefits to be honest and humble enough to accept it instead of excuse its very existence.

 

[ViaCrucis]

How did you logically go from Glorified Man to: this Glorified Man makes mistakes and has poor judgment. You must sit up all night and try to make stuff up.

It may be a good idea to reflect on these words of yours, and consider how in our own conversation on the other thread you have jumped to certain conclusions such as God's immateriality meaning "God doesn't exist"; and if that might mean that you "sit up all night and try to make stuff up".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Peter1000]

But combined with the false BOA it shows his pattern. Just like the hat. Not translating, but seeing.

With the BOA he translated it and put it in book form. With the kinderhook plates he translated 1 figure and did not put it in book form. Where is the pattern?

What does the "hat" have to do with the pattern?

What do you mean "not translating, but seeing"?

 

[Peter1000]

It may be a good idea to reflect on these words of yours, and consider how in our own conversation on the other thread you have jumped to certain conclusions such as God's immateriality meaning "God doesn't exist"; and if that might mean that you "sit up all night and try to make stuff up".

-CryptoLutheran

I have not necessarily jumped to a conclusion. If you have an immaterial object, what do you have? Please explain to me what you have?

 

[Peter1000]

Nobody knows how many "characters" JS used to "translate" the information he said was there, Peter. There is no record of it anywhere, not even on sites that reject mormonism or on LDS sites. I have never looked into the "typical" amount of characters used for Egyptian hieroglyphs it takes to create that amount of information, and I don't intend to. Maybe you should? Your choice. You seem to have more interest in it than I.

The plates were NOT lost nor scattered as you claim. One remaining plate was found within the Chicago Historical Society, and its been verified, including by LDS sources, as being part of the original set. The others were destroyed in acid tests various people, including the LDS, previously used for crude authenticating purposes. For decades the LDS published precise replicas of them in its official "History of the Church" (as being authentic according to JS). To their own undoing..... The one that came to light had the exact same markings on it that the LDS had been openly displaying, even down to the same precise dent on the edge. Using updated accurate scientific methods it was proven to consist of modern metals. Not ancient like JS and the LDS had assumed. So there is proof, after all. Whether you wish to accept it is based on the level of your faith. In your church? Or in God.

"In 1980, one of the plates was brought for testing to Professor D. Lynn Johnson of the Department of Materials Science and Engineering at Northwestern University, who performed [non-damaging] scanning electron microscope and an X-ray fluorescence analysis. Because the amount of copper and zinc used (73% and 24% respectively) in the plate was found to be consistent with 19th century manufacture, in addition to other results obtained during the testing, it was determined the plate is not of ancient origin. Stanley B. Kimball, LDS history professor, stated: "The conclusion, therefore, is that the Chicago plate is indeed one of the original Kinderhook plates, which now fairly well evidences them to be faked antiquities."
---Kimball, Stanley, B., “Kinderhook Plates Brought to Joseph Smith Appear to Be a Nineteenth-Century Hoax,” Ensign, Aug 1981, 66.

"'James Henry Breasted (1865-1935), University of Chicago ancient Egyptian expert, who wrote the five volume set Ancient Records of Egypt: Historical Documents from the Earliest Times to the Persian Conquest, reported his analysis of the Kinderhook plates in a letter. Dr. Breasted wrote in 1906, while the LDS was still claiming that Smith had begun to translate the plates: "The Kinderhook Plates are, of course, childish forgeries, as the scientific world has known for years.... "Smith tried to deceive people into thinking that he had translated some of the plates.... "Where we can check up on [Joseph] Smith as a translator of plates, he is found guilty of deception. How can we trust him with reference to his claims about the Book of Mormon? "As Charles A. Shook well observed … Only a bogus prophet translates bogus plates.'"
---[LDS] Church News, Jan. 16, 1982. Pp 4-6; Eastern Standard Times, June 1983, p. 10.

Don't you find it even remotely interesting that your own church admits in 1982 that the plates are forgeries, after they were scientifically determined to be in 1980, after 137 years of their promoting them as authentic antiquities? Me neither, but for very different reasons than you do.

"Minuscule"? Really? A full statement about the "owner" of the plates is considered "minuscule" to you? Is that like a prophet proclaiming 99% truth, yet one "prophecy" he claims is from God doesn't prove true like he said? Then he is a false prophet according to scripture, if that's the case. One false prophecy is cause for being stoned to death. The words of a true prophet should be able to stand up to honest examination. Smith believed these were genuinely discovered in an archaeological dig. No written record has appeared so far in his defense that he ever thought they were forgeries or something fishy was afoot. The reality of the Kinderhook plates tell a very different story than JS told, even the "minuscule" amount he "translated".

How about if I concede the point to you that there is no proof come to light thus far that JS ever claimed "God told him the info from the forged plates". Instead, he "translated them in his own power". So, which is more damning for someone who claims to be a prophet of God, to you?

Conform beliefs to what the truth is, not conform truth to what you wish to believe. That is good advice. It also benefits to be honest and humble enough to accept it instead of excuse its very existence.

I'm done with the kinderhook plates, I have satisfied myself that it is a non-event. I will not respond again on this subject.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

I have not necessarily jumped to a conclusion. If you have an immaterial object, what do you have? Please explain to me what you have?

Exactly that - an immaterial object, an immaterial thing. Do you have love? Love is immaterial. Do you have fear? Fear is immaterial. Or do you have nothing in lieu or love or fear or other feelings/emotions (since they "don't exist" on account of their being immaterial)?