Angel took em to heaven. I believe that’s how the story goes.
They’re gold plates and were returned to Moroni. What Moroni did with them is not known.
From here[url=http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/jsphsmth]:
{Ahem} From here.
So, do you feel that an uneducated person was able to create the bom.
If you read post # 72 you’ll have an idea what I think. I don’t recall Smith’s formal education but formal education doesn’t always indicate intelligence or savvy. Smith obviously had considerable interpersonal skills. It’s not impossible that he wrote the Book of Mormon borrowing ideas from several sources. Since Cowdery seems to have published a book about the Indians being one of the lost tribes of Israel it seems more likely that he helped Smith.
I believe the bom to be the truth. They even had scholars try to write a mock bom in the amount of time JS translated the gold plates and they couldn’t do it.
I think it’s safe to say three things at the moment.
1: The Book of Mormon exists.
2: The Book of Mormon makes certain claims that are verifiable, in relation to the origin of the native american tribes.
3: Archelogical evidence tends to… not match the claims the Book of Mormon makes.
Many things have happened to the America’s since the gold plates that has changed Archelogical evidence. The same goes for the Bible. Neither the BOM or Bible was designed to be proven true or false. These are books of Faith, which is the keyword.
Who’s they? What scholars? If the stories are true about Joseph reporting his first vision years before he actually took possession of the plates, that means he had years to plan or even write the BOM before the alledged translation began.
No disrespect to your beliefs but do you realize you just contradicted your previous post. When people claim a book is the word of God and that book makes historical claims it should be challenged and verified or proved false if possible. That’s how we discover the truth, which is what Jesus said would set us free.
Faith is the substance of things not seen. A book that makes historical claims is definitely seen and so is the archaeological evidence that points to the veracity of those claims.
Sincerely. I think there’s some great stuff in the Book of Mormon. I have a couple of copies myself. Whatever spiritual insight it offers isn’t diminished if Smith and others borrowed the ideas from some place else.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
That was not my intention at all. I was more interested in hearing a cite for the section I bolded just as I asked for. I am somewhat familar with the NT and don’t recall the romans considering Jesus a heretic or charlatan. Thats all. //snip// I did not attempt to refute the existence of Jesus in any way. You read too much into my statement.
[QUOTE]
We understand each other very well. The post above was directed at tomndebb and the comments he made regarding my wording.
Now, I do agree I can’t provide cite where Jesus was called a heretic. Hence my apology. You did say, however, that we have no evidence that Jesus even existed. ( See my quote of your post, from # 75. ). Yet now you are saying you did not attempt to refute the existence of Jesus in any way.
Which is it?
Bolding mine
No, I did not say that. Considering your response that seems to be how you read it.
in post 74. I said
I did not say no evidence
I explained it in post 80
To refute the existence of Jesus would be to claim that he did not exist. I made no such claim. I actually acknowledged that their is historical evidence {the opposite of the statement you just made} and that that evidence is inconclusive.
You however made claims there is an incredible cross referenced plethora of independent written accounts testifying to the existence of Jesus.
Care to provide a cite for that or were you throwing out more info that you have no backing for? I’ve done a little research in that area and would say there is just a smattering of non biblical references to Jesus in other writing of that era. I’d be happy for you or anyone else to show me more.
Monty’s source is an abreviation of the full Joseph Smith First Vision which can be read here.
This narrative forms one of the key beliefs of Mormonism; known by all and taught to prospective members. This simple, but powerful account is taken as the literal history of Joseph Smith. It reflects the Mormon idea of the Deity with a separate God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Ghost, and the arch adversary, the devil, who is active in the world.
What is less known among the faithful is that this clearly written prose is itself the result of Joseph Smith’s evolution in his concept of god, starting from his monotheism, through a “binitarianism” (a new word for me), phase, in which JS taught there were only two persons within the Godhead and finally ending with a concept of a plurality of Gods, where there are other Gods besides the three in the Trinity. Interestingly, the Mormon Church is much less vocal these days about God’s God, and seems to be backing off from that, at least publicly. That wasn’t the case in my days, and I hope that current Mormons aren’t cheated from this experience.
The First Vision account itself was written many years after the fact, but – unlike biblical events – contains elements which can be historically examined. According to the orthodox version, the key event which triggered JS to start searching and set in motion the events in God’s appearance and the restoration of the true gospel was a religious revival which Smith said happened in his 15th year. This great revival was said by Smith to have caused upheavals, and involved the whole town. Because of the scale of the event, the young Smith studied the bible, read a scripture which invited people to pray to god, and then, as they say, the rest is history.
Unfortunately for the story, there are independent historical sources, such as newspapers, from which we find out that in this year there wasn’t such a revival. There was a revival several years later, but this would have conflicted with his storyline.
This is where we come back to the OP. Scholars can say this or that about the Bible, (and they do) but that was a couple of thousand years ago. OTOH, Mormonism started less then 200 years ago, and there are enough documentation to provide strong evidence that Mr. Smith was a fraud. There isn’t anyway of going back 1900+ years ago and recovering documentation about if Christ actually lived or not, but the documentation which casts doubts oh the sanitized version of early Mormonism is too well preserved.
So, what about the bit in the Bible about the sun standing still? Doesn’t that make it a fraud?
Claiming that the Bible is the word of God and that it was God’s divine plan that we have it, is as demonstratably false from the evidence as the evidence against Joseph Smith.
It isn’t the Bible that is a fraud. It’s that certain beliefs about the Bible are simply wrong and IMHO that limits spiritual development and in some cases creates a gulf between people which certainly is not what Jesus preached.
As I mentioned before, I think The Book of Mormon is pretty significant spiritually and historically , but I don’t believe Smith’s story of where it came from. I don’t think it’s necessary to believe the story to appreciate what the BOM and D&C has to offer.
Personally I see all “holy” writings" as part of man’s spiritual search. Their meaning is determined by how they resonate within the individual not by any claim of spiritual authority. If we open our hearts and minds a little to at least consider what different paths offer and then have the courage to choose our own {while allowing others to do the same} Open discussion {not competition} of spiritual ideas and how that applies to our lives is a beautiful thing.
Gosh, one would have hoped for a stronger defence of the most important person messanger of god, save Christ himself, but I guess that’s par for the course.
So what is your take on the Old Testiment? Do you stand by everything in there?
How old is the earth? Was it created 7,000 years ago?
Sure. As has been discussed, until about 300 C.E., there WERE no “Biblical references” because various writings had not been chosen as canon upon which to found the new religion. Therefore, I assert that everything written in the Four Gospels is not in fact biblical writings, but writings that were written between the time of the death of Jesus and about 170 years after his death. Me, I don’t cotton to the idea that someone writing 170 years post mortem can say anything in the way of a direct quote, but someone writing 20 or 30 years hence? Sure. You bet. At least SOME of the Gospels were written down oral histories of what occurred and were witnessed firsthand.
If I set out to create a religion and, oh, say, call it the religion of Cecil then I have plenty of canon from which to compose the Book of Cecil. His first published book came out in what, 1973 or something? Earlier than that of course are the columns themselves. In any event, I get to take written words that were not composed and chosen solely to create a religion, and I get to create a religion out of them.
Such was the case with the earliest-written of the Gospels. Those who witnessed and worked with Jesus were in a position to write about it. Whether or not said writings became a part of the Four Gospels of Jesus and were the foundation for a religion is largely besides the point. Cecil wrote columns. I base a religion upon them. Did he write them just so I could do this? No, he did not. Were the earlier of the Gospels composed solely to serve the needs of a few powerful Romans? No, sorry, but they were not- nobody can look into the future. The Gospel written 30 years after the death of Jesus could not have been created solely to become canon and a part of the Bible now used in Christianity- history doesn’t work that way and we all know it.
Therefore it is reasonable for me to say that citing the earlier of the Gospels as authentic writings attesting to the existence of the man Jesus Christ is valid. Writings created more than a century after his death stretches the accuracy thing to the limits in my view.
A perusal of Wikipedia yielded this :
Let’s say that the first one or two were written about 50 years after the death of Jesus. That does not invalidate them as accurate texts, as oral history was much more the norm back then opposed to now.
What the heck are you talking about?
Cartooniverse writes:
> If I set out to create a religion and, oh, say, call it the religion of Cecil then I
> have plenty of canon from which to compose the Book of Cecil. His first
> published book came out in what, 1973 or something? Earlier than that of
> course are the columns themselves. In any event, I get to take written words
> that were not composed and chosen solely to create a religion, and I get to
> create a religion out of them.
Blasphemer! Any true devotee of the Master knows that the first columns came out in 1973 (although Cecil underwent two changes of bodily form between then and 1978, at which time he achieved his Perfect Form) and that the first book came out in 1986. You will now not be allowed to become one of the Inner Circle of the Master’s disciples. Indeed, you are now in the running to become the Great Satan.
Well, maybe Mephistopheles. I’m pretty sure that Marilyn has the Great Satan job secured.