Posted on 11/14/2007 8:28:07 AM PST by fortcollins
Everything you said is a misrepresentation of actual history. In most cases there was no divider between Smith and the scribe. The plates were at times wrapped in a table cloth likely to keep the scribe from being distracted by them or being tempted to take them for gain. But 11 people were shown the plates and not one ever recanted that claim even though several fell away from the church. How do you explain that?
As for the pages that were taken, it was not by some “secretary” who stormed in as claimed. They were taken by one of the scribes to show his wife and they disappeared. As the Lord then told Joseph, those who took it altered them to claim Joseph didn’t have the ability to translate. The claim of there being other plates from which Joseph then re-translated the first part of the Book of Mormon was found throughout the Book of Mormon and was extant prior to the time of pages coming up missing.
It’s a friggin’ cult by all accounts. How does it feel to blindly follow a ‘religion’ founded on hill-people folk magic?
Put a rock in a hat and tell me your answer.
How? I'd like to see your answer.
Excellent history lesson. I’m convinced that if you look carefully at the history of Mormonism, you’ll see if for what it is — a fable.
Well you know I could show some impressionable persons some plates too, and tell some fantastic stories to boot.
I could also have an angel friend appear and show my plates to some scared teenage boys. Boo!
I mean why not?
Earth calling L.Ron ........
Oh, so I guess you were there and a first-hand witness, eh? You must be getting on in years.
I do remember from My RCIA Class, the Priest said that they do recognize the Greek Orthodox Baptismal./Just Asking - seoul62...........
“Which version? If the Bible is the infallible Word of God then I want to make sure I have the infallible version. Nobody has yet been able to tell me which it is. Why is that? And if the Bible is infallible then why do we keep getting new and updated translations that say different things?”
Oh man, are you hititng a hot button with me.
(1) The translation explosion has SOMETHING to do with money, but that’s not the whole story.
(2) There are some churches (i.e. the Southern Baptists) who think they got cheated on the NIV translation when it went raving moonbat gender-neutral crazy, so to save money on copyright fees and in order to safegueard their publications, they created a fresh, ownable translation.
(3) The Bible travesty called “The Message” is a cash cow for Emergent-friendly groups like the Navigators.
In short, there are money issues invovled and also the fact of people twisitng the Word to suit their own purposes.......
sigh.....
Luke 24
30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.
32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?
I’m all for people debating theology. And I don’t want to cast any blame here since this is apparently an ongoing thread which I’ve not read, but.....
I’m extremely uncomfortably making judgments about somebody elses faith in a political forum. Maybe there is no other place to do this but is this solely for the purpose of debating Mitt Romney?
In the event that this whole Mormon debate is solely about Romney (who is not my guy, btw), I’d like to know how his Mormon believes interfered with or helped him with the start up of Staples or the lobbying and managing of the SCL olympics? Did they keep the guy from going the job or show some signs of insanity which were just too obvious to ignore? Or, like more politicians, do things based on polls and pragmatism or the goal of getting elected or completing the task instead?
If somebody can point out some substantial way that Romney would be unqualified because he is Mormon or some way that he would govern or lead which is contrary to conservatism based on his faith, then THAT would be of interest to me. Reagan was a whole different kind of Christian than GWB but they both did good and bad things. (You could argue that GWBs faith is one of the main reasons that he won’t do anything substial about illegals). But I don’t know that I could have predicted that based on what brand of Christian he was.
And let me pose a whole different question. What is Romney was Jewish? Does that mean that 40M Christians in the GOP are going to stay home? Or vote for Hillary because she is Methodist? Just asking here since some people seem to be getting kinda sensitive about all this.
I’ve fought lots of people out in the real world to protect religious rights for people whose beliefs I don’t share. But if they aren’t free to believe then neither am I.
(Fortcollins, I’ve noted that your post didn’t contain any judgments about romney or politics. Your post was scholarly and that’s why I didn’t want to cast judgment without some perspective first.)
You’re asking a lot of questions. This is good. Unless you’re playing a socratic rhetorical game with us.
Keep asking questions. Just be open to receiving the answers.
South Park featured the definitive history of Joseph Smith.
I think what Joseph Smith did was to create for America what the Aeneid was for Rome - a founding myth.
That said, I could easily vote for Mitt if it’s him or Hillary.
Nice try. Imagine if Christ came down himself and spoke a page's worth of comments in French to some folks there.
The comments were recorded faithfully in French. But since some of the words used didn't translate easily into English, Chinese, Swahili, etc. some variations of "translations" pop up.
For folks like you, these "variations" are enough for you to try to bring the entire document into question.
And if the Bible is infallible then why do we keep getting new and updated translations that say different things?
If you had a German great grandfather who left a "legacy" document for "generations to come" (English translation), and his son, your grandfather, translated it around World War I; but then you take the opportunity to replace some of the words & phrases with more contemporary German phrases to capture the equivalency of what he was getting at...(because you want YOUR document to be more understandable to your kids, grandkids, etc.)...it doesn't render the original statement as questionable.
The Bible even gets top billing in our Articles of Faith. We consider the King James Version the most correct translation of the Bible.
As all of this discussion applies to Mormons, if they want to keep adding the disqualifier that the King James Version is correct "in so far as correct translated," then
(1) Why do they have TV ads offering giveaways of the KJV if it is so suspect?
(2) Why do they bring into open question a good chunk of the KJV when even Joseph Smith's "translation" of the Bible doesn't correct it?
(3) Why would a Mormon god give a new "translation" of the Bible to a prophet, only to then fail to ensure that the "only true church" on earth would have copyrights for it? (The JST version) It seems this is a direct testimonial against the sovereignty of the mormon god, who by Mormons' own admission, is but one of thousands or perhaps millions of gods out there. Nobody has yet been able to tell me which it is. Why is that? And if the Bible is infallible then why do we keep getting new and updated translations that say different things?
Baldfaced Lie.
I was baptized at age 14 in a Nazarene Church. I joined my current Baptist church 2 years ago and my Nazarene baptism was recognized and accepted.
The first thing Judaism did was to de-sexualize God: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” by his will, not through any sexual behavior. - Dennis Prager -
This interesting article discusses the subject:
The Da Vinci Code: Reviving Religious Sex?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1628568/posts
Correct. Martin Harris and another "witness" say they saw them with "eyes of faith."
“Put a rock in a hat and tell me your answer.”
Obviously your anger and hatred show you to be a true Christian, don’t they? Vitriol was Christ’s prefered method, wasn’t it? By their fruits ye shall know them. Remember that before you declare yourself the true Christian and others cults.
And by “All accounts they are a cult” means in your opinion they are a cult, as it is pejoratively defined. They are a cult by a definition you cooked up, no doubt with the help of some minister.
And go ask atheists what they think about some of your beliefs and how out there they think they are, like the idea of man having come out of one couple, Adam and Eve, or the entire earth having been flooded at the time of Noah or the sun stopped in its orbit during the Israelites battling the Philistines or Jonah being swallowed by a whale. How about the idea of bread and wine becoming literally the body and blood of Christ, or the idea of God, Christ and the Holy Ghost being one being when they are clearly shown operating separately during Christ’s life? Atheists would attack all these oddities and inconsistencies. If you think your beliefs, most of which I share by the way, are unassailble, then you’ve got another thing coming. Go talk to atheists who make very good arguments against them and find them just as weird as you think the Lord’s method of having provided Joseph with the ability to translate seems weird to you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.