TO THOSE WHO ARE INVESTIGATING "MORMONISM"

[sracer]

I am an attorney in Las Vegas working at a lawfirm where all the attorneys except for me are Mormons (LDS). They are very nice people and do not try to convert me to their church. They know I am a devout Catholic and respect that.

Since joining the firm, I have investigated the Mormon church and have been surpised how their beliefs are so different from mainstream Christianity. I think they try to underplay those differences when they approach people.

I guess it is a matter of perspective. Because many will claim that Catholicism is quite different from "mainstream" Christianity as well... not AS far off as the LDS, but still pretty far off.

(but that is a topic for another thread.)

 

[Serapha]

In 1823 Joseph had another heavenly visitation, in which an angel named Moroni
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Though I think that Moroni is a beautiful strong name, I rather like that name, I had a angel visit me once when I was younger so I believe this could be true, yet, it did not give me its name and did not tell me to start a church. But, I am not going to say that some sprite visited Joseph.I could be mistaken but, I think Jesus was not white himself.


Still keeping my Lipton, but, sure learning so much.
jennifer
adoption search and reunion
http://givenright.tripod.com

Hi Jennifer


May I make an interesting observation?


In the Bible, the archangel is identified as "Michael", translated "who is like God". Another angel is the messenger, "Gabriel", translated "man of God" or "Strength of God". And in a noncanonized book of the Bible is the angel, Raphael, translated, "healing of God".


All the names of angels in the Christian teachings have the "-el" ending....


except Moroni. Now, I don't think that reformed Egyptian has an "-el" ending.... so I have to wonder what kind of angel Moroni is?



~malaka~

 

[givenright]

. Now, I don't think that reformed Egyptian has an "-el" ending.... so I have to wonder what kind of angel Moroni is?
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello Malaka,

I do not believe the Bible tells us what angel he is, What kind of angel do you think he is?

The Mormons believe there are many different things yet, as we all know most of their beliefs can sometime be twisted up in what is in the Bible, I have read the Book of Mormon and I thought all the thous and thees sounded a lot like it was copied from the bible, I do not know but, it sounded a lot like it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess it is a matter of perspective. Because many will claim that Catholicism is quite different from "mainstream" Christianity as well... not AS far off as the LDS, but still pretty far off.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not think many Catholic people know about the Roman Catholics, I was in Italy for 4 years and seeing if the blood of a saint turns is crazy to me, There is a saint and his bolood is in a case if it turns then no bad things will happen to the italian people, if it does not turn then bad things will happen like the volcano will explode or something, rather different.

jennifer
http://givenright.tripod.com

 

[sracer]

. The Mormons believe there are many different things yet, as we all know most of their beliefs can sometime be twisted up in what is in the Bible, I have read the Book of Mormon and I thought all the thous and thees sounded a lot like it was copied from the bible, I do not know but, it sounded a lot like it.

W need to take care with regard to the use of "thee" and "thou" in religious texts. The use of "thee" and "thou" fell out of common use before (50-75 years?) the first official publication of the KJV. Some detractors will attempt to use that fact to try to discredit the accuracy of it.

However, there is a real linguistic reason for using "thee" and "thou"... it is to help distinguish between a familiar/personal "you" and a formal "you". The original languages of the Bible had those distinctions, so to use the non-specific "you" is not as technically accurate.

The original manuscripts, letters, etc. of the Bible were written using the common languages at that time, using common linguistic constructs. It was in the natural language of those days. Translations like the KJV had to resort to older English linguistics because of the limitations of the English language at that time.

As we non-LDS folks know, the BoM was a man-inspired, man-written book originally written in English. So the use of "thee" and "thou" was artificial and to attempt to lend some credibility to the "authenticity" that it was a God-inspired book. If it were a truly God-inspired book, God would've given Smith the words that would convey His "revelation" in English as it was used at that time.

I just wanted to draw the distinction between the KJV's use of "thee" and "thou" and the BoM.

 

[explorerofmind]

I don't know, I like the way that the Bible speeks, and if God were to give someone in my religion the purpose of translating another book like it, I'd just assume that they write it in the way that I'm used to reading scriptures.
Some people still talk like that in homish comunitys. A theary could be that God wanted it written for the people who were currently used to bible language. You know, who already had a taste for scripture.

Then again, if what that religion believes is true, then why assume that God would give him the exzact words? I think they only claimed that god gave him the ability to translate. Translaters now of days translate things into whatever comes to thier minds that gets thier message across. Prophets in the Bible had thier own free will most of the time. Mabe it was the translater's Idea to write it in that form, but a divine purpose to write it?

 

[twhite982]

I don't know, I like the way that the Bible speeks, and if God were to give someone in my religion the purpose of translating another book like it, I'd just assume that they write it in the way that I'm used to reading scriptures.
Some people still talk like that in homish comunitys. A theary could be that God wanted it written for the people who were currently used to bible language. You know, who already had a taste for scripture.

Then again, if what that religion believes is true, then why assume that God would give him the exzact words? I think they only claimed that god gave him the ability to translate. Translaters now of days translate things into whatever comes to thier minds that gets thier message across. Prophets in the Bible had thier own free will most of the time. Mabe it was the translater's Idea to write it in that form, but a divine purpose to write it?

Great post! You're closer to the right answer than you think.
The Book of Mormon was not translated into common street language, it was more like the common religious language, which still used the "thee" and "thou".

I speak a little spanish and when I translate into english I don't use an exact word for word translation. This would sound pretty wierd if I did that. Rather I try my best to preserve the idea and intent of what was said in spanish and put it into language that my audience will understand.

Since this is a religious document, the KJV language would be most appropriate!

TW

 

[RevKidd]

Great post! You're closer to the right answer than you think.
The Book of Mormon was not translated into common street language, it was more like the common religious language, which still used the "thee" and "thou".

I speak a little spanish and when I translate into english I don't use an exact word for word translation. This would sound pretty wierd if I did that. Rather I try my best to preserve the idea and intent of what was said in spanish and put it into language that my audience will understand.

Since this is a religious document, the KJV language would be most appropriate!

TW

What

Common religious language. Does that mean that pastors and bishops should start each sermon off with "Verily, Verily I say unto you......" Actually JS was just trying to make the BOM look and sound religious. I will give JS alot of credit for being an intelligent man with the ability to cover up his mistakes with great story telling.

 

[Isaiah 53]

Awesome thread!! Thanks!

PEACE IN CHRIST!!!

 

[twhite982]

What

Common religious language. Does that mean that pastors and bishops should start each sermon off with "Verily, Verily I say unto you......" Actually JS was just trying to make the BOM look and sound religious. I will give JS alot of credit for being an intelligent man with the ability to cover up his mistakes with great story telling.

Could you please demonstrate how Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon?

I have evidence to the contrary. The book of Mormon is not perfect, but the evidences for the authenticty in my view far outweigh the objections.

TW

 

[Serapha]

Could you please demonstrate how Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon?

I have evidence to the contrary. The book of Mormon is not perfect, but the evidences for the authenticty in my view far outweigh the objections.

TW

Hi there!





Could you post your evidence?


~malaka~

 

[twhite982]

Hi there!





Could you post your evidence?


~malaka~

I'm not going into details right now, but I'll list a few of the topics that are evidence to me:

1. Internal evidence in the Book of Mormon, such as chaisums, stylometry, hebrew names, and archaelogical evidence found that appears to be related to the Book of Mormon.

2. The 11 witnesses to the Book of Mormon who have NEVER once denied their testimony of the Book of Mormon, even when some were dis-enchanted with Joseph Smith or the church.

3. The Book of Mormon actually powerfully fufills its original intent of testifying to the world that Jesus is the Christ and also to the covenants made to Israel. The Book of Mormon has more references to Christ than the Bible does. I don't like putting the two head to head in competition for this isn't the Book of Mormon's purpose. It is another witness of Christ, but very powerfully does witness of Him.

4. The Book of Mormon was written by an "uneducated" farm-boy in less than 70 working days and has stood as a foundational scripture for the LDS church for over 170 years and withstood critisicim of all. Ask yourself if you could write a historical narrative containing facts of an ancient civilization's rise and fall with religious themes inter-laced between the history and have them resemble similiar verifications and attacks from the most learned religious scholars as the Bible has and do this with a 3rd grade education in only 70 working days.

5. Most powerfully of all, promise all who humbly seek to know of its truthfulness that they can ask God if it is true or not and that God will indeed stand behind this pormise.

These are a few of my evidences. Evidence is what it is and to you it might not mean anything at all. Treasure is only in the eye of the beholder.

I invite your comments and would also like to know if any are able by using evidence internal to the Book of Mormon itself to prove it false. This should be easy considering how it only took a 20 yr old farm boy with a 3rd grade education under 70 working days to translate.

TW

 

[Doc T]

Hi there!



Could you post your evidence?

~malaka~

Doc: Great post TW, but if I may invite you and Malaka over to the Book of Mormon thread. That is where I would like us to discuss evidences for the BofM.

Thanks

Doc




~

 

[Serapha]

Doc: Great post TW, but if I may invite you and Malaka over to the Book of Mormon thread. That is where I would like us to discuss evidences for the BofM.

Thanks

Doc




~

Hi there!




Could you be specific in which thread? I would like to participate in this discussion as long as it is "professional" and "professional" materials are presented. "I feel" or "I think" just won't hack it as evidence.


~malaka~

 

[Serapha]

I'm not going into details right now, but I'll list a few of the topics that are evidence to me:


1. Internal evidence in the Book of Mormon, such as chaisums, stylometry, hebrew names, and archaelogical evidence found that appears to be related to the Book of Mormon.



...


TW

Hi there!



Could you be a little more specific, please. And, I don't use Tanner or Decker or any other information that is considered "anti-mormon", and I recommend that you avoid Jeff Linsay's site when you gather your information also. I don't find his materials and information current.



~malaka~

 

[Rejoice]

4. The Book of Mormon was written by an "uneducated" farm-boy in less than 70 working days and has stood as a foundational scripture for the LDS church for over 170 years and withstood critisicim of all. Ask yourself if you could write a historical narrative containing facts of an ancient civilization's rise and fall with religious themes inter-laced between the history and have them resemble similiar verifications and attacks from the most learned religious scholars as the Bible has and do this with a 3rd grade education in only 70 working days.

Even if the Book of Mormon was true, the idea of Joseph Smith writing the Book of Mormon this quickly seems impossible. I don't know if the Mormons here consider anything that disagrees with their beliefs anti-Mormon, but I think the following offers a more plausable explanation of the time that it took to write the Book of Mormon.

I am interested in the Mormon opinion of this explanation.

Translation Time

Joseph Smith began to translate the B. of M. on April 12, 1828, with Martin Harris acting as scribe (D.H.C., Vol. I, pp. 20-21). They worked until June 14, 1828, when Harris took the translation home with him. Somehow it disappeared and has never been found. Many assume that Harris' wife destroyed the translation because she did not want him to invest in it. Smith kept no copy and claimed if he re-translated the same section his enemies would alter the missing copy, and then they would produce it after he had re-translated that section in order to prove he could not re-translate it exactly as before. But, an altered copy could easily be detected, so this could have been an excellent opportunity for Smith to prove the book was really being translated by the gift and power of God!

Furthermore, Harris had already taken a copy of some of the "caractors" found on the gold plates to Professor Anthon, who "stated that the translation was correct," according to the LDS story. In order for Anthon to pronounce Smith's translation correct, he had to be able to read the original. Thus, if the translation taken home by Harris had been altered, Professor Anthon should have been able to verify the correct copy. Professor Anthon, however, also wrote about Harris' visit, and called the "gold plates" story a hoax to cheat Harris out of his money (letter to E.D. Howe, a Painsville, Ohio, newspaper editor).

Instead of re-translating the 116 pages lost by Harris, Smith translated an "abridgment" of the same material. It was certainly convenient for Smith that there was an abridgment of exactly the same material Harris had lost! This abridgment is mentioned in The Words of Mormon 1:3-6.

Smith began to translate this abridgment of the B. of M. on April 7, 1829, with Oliver Cowdery, one of the three witnesses of the B. of M., acting as scribe (D.H.C., Vol. I, p. 32). By May 15, 1829, 38 days later, he had completed 69 pages. That was excellent speed considering the fact that only about six pages of the King James Bible had been copied in that section. But, the Wayne County, New York, records show that the B. of M. was registered on June 11, 1829. If a week is allowed to process the application (and it would be difficult to do it in less time), then Smith translated the remaining 519 pages in 20 days! Just to hand-copy p. 69 to p. 588 in the original 1830 B. of M. would be an exhausting, if not impossible job in 20 days!

But, David Whitmer, Martin Harris, and others claimed that Joseph Smith read God's translation to Cowdery who wrote it down and then read it back to check it - and that takes time! Of course, if LDS reject that method, as B.H. Roberts and others have, then they are left with the method mentioned in D. & C. 9:7-10 which was to "study it out in your mind," and if the translation was correct, "your bosom shall burn," otherwise "you shall have stupor of thought." If Smith translated this way it may explain the poor grammar in the 1830 B. of M. But, translating that way would be so time consuming that it would be impossible to translate 519 pages in 20 days!

Something must have happened between Smith's translation of the 116 pages that Harris lost and when he translated the entire B. of M. It took 63 days to translate the 116 pages, but only 58 days to translate all 588 pages! The translating was done by the gift and power of God both times, but the last time it operated five times faster! Apparently there were no more abridgments of the B. of M., since Joseph had a duplicate copy made of the entire manuscript prior to taking it to the printer (D.H.C., Vol. I, p. 75).

 

[twhite982]

Hi there!




Could you be specific in which thread? I would like to participate in this discussion as long as it is "professional" and "professional" materials are presented. "I feel" or "I think" just won't hack it as evidence.


~malaka~

There is no absolute physical evidence that can compell anyone to believe anything, so I state that I believe this or that to be proof as it is evidence to me. I don't just try and take a wild guess on anything that I hold as evidence. If I'm unsure either way, I usually say that its my opinion and that typically only if asked to express it.

Other than you feel Jeff Lindsey's site is out of date, what else do you feel is wrong with it?

I personally feel he does a great job, although much of his answers don't go into great detail, but for a start to a discussion they suit my needs very well.

Anyways lets continue this under the Book of Mormon thread.

TW

 

[Doc T]

Hi there!



Could you be specific in which thread? I would like to participate in this discussion as long as it is "professional" and "professional" materials are presented. "I feel" or "I think" just won't hack it as evidence.

~malaka~

Doc: The thread can be found at: http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=1251759#post1251759

I intend to keep the discussions professional. I would also ask that the thread be kept on topic as much as possible and if peripherial issues come up that new threads be started to discuss those issues.


~

 

[Doc T]

Hi there!



Could you be a little more specific, please. And, I don't use Tanner or Decker or any other information that is considered "anti-mormon", and I recommend that you avoid Jeff Linsay's site when you gather your information also. I don't find his materials and information current.

~malaka~

Doc: I'm glad that you avoid using the Tanners and Mr. Decker. I am curious about what specifically you find outdated at Jeff Lindsay's website. Perhaps we can discuss that here as this seems to be a generic thread about Mormonism.


~

 

[Rejoice]

Since it was requested that the Book of Mormon not be discussed here, I will copy my post to the other thread. As far as I know, it has nothing to do with the Tanners or Mr Decker.

 

[baker]

Could the lds posters explain why they use this Lindsay website in all their defenses? Does he speak officially for your church or is what he presents merely his opinion? Is he a trained theologian, an archealogist or genetisist? He just seems to be used to cover any topic as if he is an authority in each and every field!

The reason I ask is because of the couple of links to his site that I have checked, it seems that much of what he does is merely link or cross reference to what other lds apologists have stated or written. To me, this is like one big "do-loop".

If he is merely expressing his opinion, why not express your own.

If you want to show what your church believes, why not reference to an official statement or explanation from your church.