Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

" width="8" height="8"/> Mormons (part 2), Relgious question
Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+
 
Objectively speaking, is the book of Mormon inherently less valid than the Bible?
Yes [ 5 ]  [55.56%]
No [ 4 ]  [44.44%]
Total Votes: 9
Guests cannot vote 
JLord
post Jan 9 2006, 05:27 PM
Post #1


Listen.
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,683
Joined: 1-December 04
Member No.: 816



To clarify the question a bit more, I understand that if you are not mormon and follow the bible you will think the bible is more valid. However, I am asking even religious people to think of any reasons why the book of Mormon is objectively less valid than the bible. And by valid I mean is it any less worthy to place one's belief in this book compared to that of the bible?

I ask this question because many people seem to dismiss the book of Mormon not because of its content, but because of the way it came about.

So what did you answer and why?
Top
User is offlinePM
Quote Post
Dakyron
post Jan 9 2006, 06:52 PM
Post #2


The Promised One
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 4,329
Joined: 2-July 04
From: Peoria, Arizona(Phoenix)
Member No.: 739



The obvious answer would be it was written so much later than the Gospels...

The next logical answer would be the trust, or lack thereof, put in the founder of the Mormon religion, since at the time he existed, there was much more written history and accounts of his life and what not...

The final logical answer would be that it is much more of a human created add-on teaching rather than an account of the life of Christ, thus is automatically insignificant in the eyes of the average Christian.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
gnuneo
post Jan 9 2006, 07:25 PM
Post #3


Nenemo Ari
********

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 17-June 02
From: over..... there.
Member No.: 42



i would have to read both, and find bits i agree/disagree with, then compare.

but why the fuck would i want to do that? :blink:
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
gnuneo
post Jan 9 2006, 07:29 PM
Post #4


Nenemo Ari
********

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 17-June 02
From: over..... there.
Member No.: 42



option 3: don't give a shit.


its like asking, whats more valid, harry potters 'philosophers stone', or the famous five's '5 go fishing' or whatever.

just ridiculous, although i do kinda know why you ask.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
JLord
post Jan 9 2006, 07:33 PM
Post #5


Listen.
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,683
Joined: 1-December 04
Member No.: 816



QUOTE(Dakyron @ Jan 9 2006, 11:52 AM)
The obvious answer would be it was written so much later than the Gospels...
*



What difference does that make? The gospels were written so much later than the Torah.

QUOTE
The next logical answer would be the trust, or lack thereof, put in the founder of the Mormon religion, since at the time he existed, there was much more written history and accounts of his life and what not...


What do you mean by that? Why is there a lack of trust?

QUOTE
The final logical answer would be that it is much more of a human created add-on teaching rather than an account of the life of Christ, thus is automatically insignificant in the eyes of the average Christian.


An add-on to what? I couldn't have been written at the time of the gosples because the events in the book of Mormon take place after the events of the NT. Second, all the writings of the NT are human created. Humans wrote them, and then humans went through and decided which ones would be "holy." Third, the book of Mormon *is* an account of the life of Christ.
Top
User is offlinePM
Quote Post
Dakyron
post Jan 9 2006, 08:58 PM
Post #6


The Promised One
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 4,329
Joined: 2-July 04
From: Peoria, Arizona(Phoenix)
Member No.: 739



QUOTE(JLord @ Jan 9 2006, 12:33 PM)
What difference does that make?  The gospels were written so much later than the Torah.


JLord, dont be stupid... the Torah was written prior to Jesus... The gospels were written post-Jesus... I am hoping you can see the significance there... The book of Mormon was written in, what... 1730 or so? later than that actually... right? Like 1830? I dont remember, but I know it was written in America, so that at least means post 1492, roughly 1300 years after the gospels... Im thinking that he probably did not discover new information which led to the creation of the book of mormon in the new world, so you can obviously see why I would have reservations, right?

QUOTE
What do you mean by that?  Why is there a lack of trust?


First, the founder of the Mormon religion was a nutcase. He was a heretic, a murderer, someone who fled west because people wanted him dead... He also *hated* native americans/indians(my knowledge of the mormon religion, while greater than the average person, is still not that great, Ill admit) and he believed that God painted them red because of all the European blood they had spilled or some such crap...(that might be an urban myth, admittedly...)

QUOTE
An add-on to what?  I couldn't have been written at the time of the gosples because the events in the book of Mormon take place after the events of the NT. 


Exactly. It is an addition to the original story, or what not, thus must be given additional scrutiny.

QUOTE
Second, all the writings of the NT are human created. 


OK, I didnt phrase that correctly... umm... it is inspired by the life of Christ, but is inaccurate and somewhat contradictory to that of the other gospels and thus gives rise to the belief that the founder of the mormon religion made it up...

QUOTE
Humans wrote them, and then humans went through and decided which ones would be "holy." 


Yes. Point is...

QUOTE
Third, the book of Mormon *is* an account of the life of Christ.
*



It is an account of the visit of Christ in the new world... written on gold plates or some such crap... Why would gold write on gold plates? That is contradictory to any other story, where he would choose something more practical...

This post has been edited by Dakyron: Jan 9 2006, 09:00 PM
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
JLord
post Jan 9 2006, 09:24 PM
Post #7


Listen.
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,683
Joined: 1-December 04
Member No.: 816



QUOTE(Dakyron @ Jan 9 2006, 01:58 PM)
JLord, dont be stupid... the Torah was written prior to Jesus...
*



Right, but being later than the Gospels doesn't mean anything. If Jesus returned to earth again today would any writings about it be invalid because they came after the gospels? I could see your point if the book of Mormon was talking about the same events as the gospels. In that case, why would we believe writings from 2000 years after the fact, when we already have writing from 60-100 years after the fact.

The point is that Joseph Smith obviously didn't have any say in the time that God chose to send an angel to visit him. So you can't knock the fact that it came later. Look at the Gospel of John for example. It was also written long after the time of Christ based on divine revelation.

QUOTE
Im thinking that he probably did not discover new information which led to the creation of the book of mormon in the new world, so you can obviously see why I would have reservations, right?


No, he did discover new information, thanks to God and Jesus.

QUOTE
First, the founder of the Mormon religion was a nutcase. He was a heretic, a murderer, someone who fled west because people wanted him dead...


Look at the followers and disciples of Jesus in the NT. Were they all outstandingly good people before Jesus came along?

QUOTE
He also *hated* native americans/indians(my knowledge of the mormon religion, while greater than the average person, is still not that great, Ill admit) and he believed that God painted them red because of all the European blood they had spilled or some such crap...(that might be an urban myth, admittedly...)


Well I don't know if he personally hated natives. But the book of Mormon, which he translated, does tell the story of how God darkened the one tribe's skin as a punishment for their sins. This tribe killed off the other tribe, of which Moroni was the last survivor (I think), so God punished them like he has to millions of people before. Just look at the Bible for more examples of this.

QUOTE
Exactly. It is an addition to the original story, or what not, thus must be given additional scrutiny.


What do you think the Gospels were?

QUOTE
OK, I didnt phrase that correctly... umm... it is inspired by the life of Christ, but is inaccurate and somewhat contradictory to that of the other gospels and thus gives rise to the belief that the founder of the mormon religion made it up...


By that logic, you should believe that much of the Bible is made up. Even looking at the gospels there are contradictions and oddities. But this does not mean they are made up.

QUOTE
It is an account of the visit of Christ in the new world... written on gold plates or some such crap... Why would gold write on gold plates? That is contradictory to any other story, where he would choose something more practical...


I think it was stone tablets that had to be translated by looking through a magic jewel. But anyways, why is this contradictory? It's like saying "why would god talk through a burning bush?" That is equally as wierd. Clearly God is not concerned with doing what is practical.
Top
User is offlinePM
Quote Post
Dakyron
post Jan 9 2006, 09:47 PM
Post #8


The Promised One
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 4,329
Joined: 2-July 04
From: Peoria, Arizona(Phoenix)
Member No.: 739



QUOTE(JLord @ Jan 9 2006, 02:24 PM)
Right, but being later than the Gospels doesn't mean anything. 


Yes, it does. Why wouldnt it?

QUOTE
If Jesus returned to earth again today would any writings about it be invalid because they came after the gospels? 


No, mainly because I am alive today and could see Jesus if I choose in order to validate my opinion on the matter?

QUOTE
I could see your point if the book of Mormon was talking about the same events as the gospels.  In that case, why would we believe writings from 2000 years after the fact, when we already have writing from 60-100 years after the fact.


Exactly.

QUOTE
The point is that Joseph Smith obviously didn't have any say in the time that God chose to send an angel to visit him.  So you can't knock the fact that it came later.  Look at the Gospel of John for example.  It was also written long after the time of Christ based on divine revelation.


200 years is a long time... 1700+ years is ridiculous...

QUOTE
No, he did discover new information, thanks to God and Jesus.


It was 1700+, if there are gold tablets, where are they?

QUOTE
Look at the followers and disciples of Jesus in the NT.  Were they all outstandingly good people before Jesus came along?


Maybe not, but Christianity teaches forgiveness, and the appearance of Jesus can certainly change ones life. There is also quite a difference from being someone of ambiguous character, and a nutcase... You can see where a criminal could be rehabilitated, where as a nutcase is always a nutcase...

QUOTE
Well I don't know if he personally hated natives.  But the book of Mormon, which he translated, does tell the story of how God darkened the one tribe's skin as a punishment for their sins.  This tribe killed off the other tribe, of which Moroni was the last survivor (I think), so God punished them like he has to millions of people before.  Just look at the Bible for more examples of this.


Yes, in the other examples, is it not all pre-Jesus punishment? Id have to read the Book of Mormon to give a better accounting, but, in my mind, there are simply too many discrepancies and contradictions... too many instances where it seems God is just... out of character... for me to take it seriously.

QUOTE
What do you think the Gospels were?


Writings of the life and teachings of Jesus as seen through the eyes of his disciples...

QUOTE
By that logic, you should believe that much of the Bible is made up.  Even looking at the gospels there are contradictions and oddities.  But this does not mean they are made up.


I do not see contradictions(I swear, JLord, one, just ONE mention of a contradiction from the OT to the NT and I will personally hunt you down and torture until you sign a written confession stating that you now understand the difference between the OT and the NT and why there might be such contradictions/oddities) that rival those of the Book of Mormon...

QUOTE
I think it was stone tablets that had to be translated by looking through a magic jewel. 


Nah... it was gold tablets, Im pretty sure... regardless... gold tablets, magic jewell... both are out of character for the God of the NT...

QUOTE
But anyways, why is this contradictory?  It's like saying "why would god talk through a burning bush?"  That is equally as wierd.  Clearly God is not concerned with doing what is practical.
*



Let me ask you this, before you spout out some more old testament... if Jesus came down to the natives in America and taught them about God and what not, why did *none* of them remember this or have stories about this prior to the arrival of the Europeans?
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
JLord
post Jan 9 2006, 11:10 PM
Post #9


Listen.
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,683
Joined: 1-December 04
Member No.: 816



QUOTE(Dakyron @ Jan 9 2006, 02:47 PM)
Yes, it does. Why wouldnt it?
*



Because most of the writings in the NT come after the gospels. What significance does this have? are they all invalid?

QUOTE
No, mainly because I am alive today and could see Jesus if I choose in order to validate my opinion on the matter?


Say he came back and dies again without you seeing it personally.

QUOTE
Exactly


But the book of Mormon is about different events that came after the gospels. So how could anyone have written about them at the time of the gospels?

QUOTE
It was 1700+, if there are gold tablets, where are they?


Any remaining artifacts are kept by the Mormons somewhere I presume.

QUOTE
Maybe not, but Christianity teaches forgiveness, and the appearance of Jesus can certainly change ones life. There is also quite a difference from being someone of ambiguous character, and a nutcase... You can see where a criminal could be rehabilitated, where as a nutcase is always a nutcase...



What? You mean criminals can be rehabilitated? I'll have to remember that...

Anyways, why is a nutcase always a nutcase? Do you mean to say that Jesus can't cure a person from mental illness?


QUOTE
Yes, in the other examples, is it not all pre-Jesus punishment? Id have to read the Book of Mormon to give a better accounting, but, in my mind, there are simply too many discrepancies and contradictions... too many instances where it seems God is just... out of character... for me to take it seriously.


Ok... I guess that is just personal taste then. If God seems out of character to you that's fine.

QUOTE
Writings of the life and teachings of Jesus as seen through the eyes of his disciples...


Ok, well what about the actions of Jesus that occured centuries later? Is it not the same thing?

QUOTE
I do not see contradictions(I swear, JLord, one, just ONE mention of a contradiction from the OT to the NT and I will personally hunt you down and torture until you sign a written confession stating that you now understand the difference between the OT and the NT and why there might be such contradictions/oddities) that rival those of the Book of Mormon...


What about ones from the NT only? There are plenty. Just look at the faith vs. works debate in the NT. Even back then, people were not 100% unanimous on many aspects of Christian theology. Or the account of Jesus' trial (Jn 18 vs. Mt 27).

QUOTE
Let me ask you this, before you spout out some more old testament... if Jesus came down to the natives in America and taught them about God and what not, why did *none* of them remember this or have stories about this prior to the arrival of the Europeans?


It's all explained in the book of Mormon. The people who are today known as native americans are the descendants of the "evil" tribe from the book of Mormon. The rejected God and killed off everyone from the "good" tribe that did follow God. So it makes sense that nobody remembers.
Top
User is offlinePM
Quote Post
Dakyron
post Jan 9 2006, 11:28 PM
Post #10


The Promised One
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 4,329
Joined: 2-July 04
From: Peoria, Arizona(Phoenix)
Member No.: 739



QUOTE(JLord @ Jan 9 2006, 04:10 PM)
Because most of the writings in the NT come after the gospels.  What significance does this have?  are they all invalid?


Yes, they are all invalid... you caught me in my logical contradiction... *sigh*

QUOTE
Say he came back and dies again without you seeing it personally.


The next time Jesus comes back, theoretically, is judgement day, is it not? Lets say its not, Jesus comes back, I dont personally see him, and you want to know if I will take the accounts of his teachings and what not to be more sound than those of the gospels, less sound, or of equal value. This depends greatly on what the new teachings are, what I perceive of the "new disciples", etc... unfortunately its just not something I can give a definitive answer too...

QUOTE
But the book of Mormon is about different events that came after the gospels.  So how could anyone have written about them at the time of the gospels?


The point is JLord, the events occurred around 0-300 AD and were never even heard of until 1700-1900 AD... That is just too long a time frame...

QUOTE
Any remaining artifacts are kept by the Mormons somewhere I presume.


Where? Utah? Ive never seen them or heard of where they are kept...

QUOTE
What?  You mean criminals can be rehabilitated?  I'll have to remember that...

Anyways, why is a nutcase always a nutcase?  Do you mean to say that Jesus can't cure a person from mental illness?


Jesus could cure a person of mental illness, sure... but if he insane, then produces the mysterious Mormon writings, but still acts insane... Im going to question that he ever found them... wouldnt you?

QUOTE
Ok...  I guess that is just personal taste then.  If God seems out of character to you that's fine.


You asked the question, Im answering...

QUOTE
Ok, well what about the actions of Jesus that occured centuries later?  Is it not the same thing?


(What are you talking about?)

QUOTE
What about ones from the NT only?  There are plenty.  Just look at the faith vs. works debate in the NT.  Even back then, people were not 100% unanimous on many aspects of Christian theology.  Or the account of Jesus' trial (Jn 18 vs. Mt 27).


You know as well as I do that two people who see the exact same events can come away with two distinct impressions of the events... That explains the NT "discrepancies", but it cannot explain the Book of Mormon... its like this... imagine reading a really good book, then 2/3 of the way into the writing style changes and suddenly the characters in the book seem to have undergone personality changes not consisten with the story. You would notice.

QUOTE
It's all explained in the book of Mormon.  The people who are today known as native americans are the descendants of the "evil" tribe from the book of Mormon.  The rejected God and killed off everyone from the "good" tribe that did follow God.  So it makes sense that nobody remembers.
*



^ is really rather ridiculous, isnt it... considering the tribe splintered into what... 1000 other tribes each with unique cultures and languages in 2000 years? There is enough evidence to me to prevent myself from converting to Mormonism... If you want to, go ahead...

Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
JLord
post Jan 9 2006, 11:47 PM
Post #11


Listen.
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,683
Joined: 1-December 04
Member No.: 816



QUOTE(Dakyron @ Jan 9 2006, 04:28 PM)
There is enough evidence to me to prevent myself from converting to Mormonism... If you want to, go ahead...
*



So you would convert religions if you found another one that had strong evidence supporting it?

QUOTE
You know as well as I do that two people who see the exact same events can come away with two distinct impressions of the events... That explains the NT "discrepancies", but it cannot explain the Book of Mormon


It's more than that. The faith vs. works is obviously a theological debate for which the NT gives no clearl answer. The trial of Jesus is different. How could two people watch the same event and come up with such drastically different stories. They can't both be right as far as I can see. And it would be pretty hard to say that they are just different points of view.

QUOTE
Jesus could cure a person of mental illness, sure... but if he insane, then produces the mysterious Mormon writings, but still acts insane... Im going to question that he ever found them... wouldnt you?


I guess so, but what makes you think he is insane?


QUOTE
The point is JLord, the events occurred around 0-300 AD and were never even heard of until 1700-1900 AD... That is just too long a time frame...


How could they be heard of? There were no europeans in america until centuries after the events of the book of mormon. The only possible way for us to find out about these stories is through divine revelation. Same as the stories in genesis. God told the prophet Joseph Smith about them when he chose to. You can't fault God for doing what he did. It may be mysterious, but remember, God probably has a reason.
Top
User is offlinePM
Quote Post
Dakyron
post Jan 9 2006, 11:58 PM
Post #12


The Promised One
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 4,329
Joined: 2-July 04
From: Peoria, Arizona(Phoenix)
Member No.: 739



QUOTE(JLord @ Jan 9 2006, 04:47 PM)
So you would convert religions if you found another one that had strong evidence supporting it?


Yes, though I dont see that happening...

QUOTE
It's more than that.  The faith vs. works is obviously a theological debate for which the NT gives no clearl answer.  The trial of Jesus is different.  How could two people watch the same event and come up with such drastically different stories.  They can't both be right as far as I can see.  And it would be pretty hard to say that they are just different points of view.


You lack imagination. It is very easy to see how two different stories could be created... it was 100 years and probaly 3 generations after all...

QUOTE
I guess so, but what makes you think he is insane?


"The people who are today known as native americans are the descendants of the "evil" tribe from the book of Mormon. The rejected God and killed off everyone from the "good" tribe that did follow God. So it makes sense that nobody remembers."

Oh, and because he claims an angle told where to find gold plates that had a 800 page book written on them... the gold alone would have made him ridiculously wealthy... Lets say it wasnt gold though, thats alot of stone/wood/whatever... where did he find these? He was also accused of murder and on the run too, remember...

QUOTE
How could they be heard of?  There were no europeans in america until centuries after the events of the book of mormon.  The only possible way for us to find out about these stories is through divine revelation.


Or storytelling, etc... Its not like this tribe was nothing but brutes who didnt talk, draw, etc... They didnt just club everyone, laugh, and go eat raw meat...

QUOTE
Same as the stories in genesis.  God told the prophet Joseph Smith about them when he chose to.  You can't fault God for doing what he did.  It may be mysterious, but remember, God probably has a reason.
*



OK, well... to be 100% honest... I think Joseph Smith was a wacko. I might, *might* be able to rationalize all of the discrepancies and what not, but why would I?
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
JLord
post Jan 10 2006, 12:07 AM
Post #13


Listen.
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,683
Joined: 1-December 04
Member No.: 816



QUOTE(Dakyron @ Jan 9 2006, 04:58 PM)
Yes, though I dont see that happening...
*



Don't you have any faith in your religion? How could you just decide to change based on new evidence? I didn't expect that answer from you and it seems very strange.

QUOTE
You lack imagination. It is very easy to see how two different stories could be created... it was 100 years and probaly 3 generations after all...


I can see how the contradictions can be created. But you must agree that there are contradictions.

QUOTE
I guess so, but what makes you think he is insane?


If someone said "anyone who works on the sabbath should be put to death" or "the world was created in seven days" an objective person might think they were insane as well. I bet lots of prophets had to deal with people thinking they were insane.

QUOTE
Or storytelling, etc... Its not like this tribe was nothing but brutes who didnt talk, draw, etc... They didnt just club everyone, laugh, and go eat raw meat...


For a civilization that doesn't have any way of permanently recording their history, I don't think it's unreasonable that stories would change or disappear after several centuries.


QUOTE
OK, well... to be 100% honest... I think Joseph Smith was a wacko. I might, *might* be able to rationalize all of the discrepancies and what not, but why would I?


Well I'm not saying you have to. But I'm sure you could, as is possible with Christianity or any other religion. The point is that you should realize that the Mormons are not all that different from most Christian sects and you shouldn't say "it's all bullshit" because you could say the same thing about the rest of Christianity for most of the same reasons.
Top
User is offlinePM
Quote Post

Reply to this topicTopic OptionsStart new topic

 


Lo-Fi Version
Time is now: 6th March 2006 - 08:50 AM