I’m familiar with the theory, though not that specific work. Frankly I think it’s full of holes, and the idea is simply an attempt to “un-deify” Christ–he’s much more palatable to many as a simple moral teacher than as Son of God.
You’re welcome. I’m always happy to answer and discuss at length my beliefs with honest questioners.
All we know is that some time after the translation was finished and the witnesses gave their testimony, Moroni returned for the plates and took them back.
The book describes it as a modified Egyptian writing, which we refer to as “Reformed Egyptian”.
The word you’re looking for is “stones”–and the item is called a “Urim and Thummim”. There is very little recorded about that, but here’s something.
Frankly, God doesn’t seem to like to leave irrefutable evidence of himself. The only “scholarly” claim made about the book is that Martin Harris took a few pages of characters copied down from the book to a scholar by the name of Howard Anthon. Harris claimed that Anthon said that the characters were genuine. Later when questioned about those wacky Mormons, Anthon denied Harris’ claim.
Harris mortgaged his farm to pay for the publication of the book. You judge that one.
IMO there are many evidences for the Book of Mormon. Many claims about Mesoamerica it makes were considered silly at the time it was published, yet have since been shown to be true (just writing on metal plates for instance). Since we don’t have the plates themselves, we can’t present them as evidence. However, the strongest evidence for me comes from personal revelation from God. That is, I have asked him in prayer about the veracity of the story and it has been confirmed to my satisfaction. Indeed, members of the LDS church are encouraged to study all the doctrine of the church and seek independent verification from the Lord.
Okay, Parker and Stone are off the hook on that one.
I’ve seen the clip, but I don’t know where it’s from. It’s doubly ironic, because Mormons don’t believe this, and Hell a la Dante is not part of our theology.
It’s no surprise we disagree about this, or you’d probably be an active LDS member. I’ve read a significant portion of the claims of the anti-LDS out there, and have yet to see anything compelling.
I’m familiar with at least some of your objections (and your penchant for entering any thread with the word ‘mormon’ in it to criticize). If you’d like to rehash this in a different thread, feel free to start one and I’d be happy to participate.
In the meantime, I was stating my belief, and you’re free to state yours, but I have yet to see two different denominations of Christianity agree that the Bible says what the Bible says, so I’d be careful about assertions of what the Bible says if I were you.
Frankly, compared to what the show has made of Catholics, atheists, muslims, and so on, the mormons are actually pretty beloved. I don’t think anything on that show has been quite as funny as the atheist ep, though the Martha Stewart sequence is nigh unwatchable.
The reason they have a thing for Mormons is because of where they are from, and because of where the show is “set.”
Their version of heaven is not meant to reflect what mormons believe, but rather that in their world, mormons “win” and go to the SP version of heaven. It’s just a joke, and one at the expense of the idea of competative religious belief in general rather than one aimed at Mormons.
emarkp & vanilla: I think it’s fair(er) to say that mine & emarkp’s opinion is that the Book of Mormon and the Bible do not disagree & that vanilla’s opinion is that the Book of Mormon and the Bible do disagree.
I saw it, and my first reaction was OH MY GOD! I KNOW THAT PERSON! (meaning the character)
Of course, it wasn’t based on any one person…but it was a pretty damned good composite of every missionary I’ve ever met. It was downright eerie in some instances…one of the creators was either raised a Mormon or spent many, many years living in Utah. I mean, the way he talked, the mannerisms, the "oh my heck!"s…kinda made me homesick.
Just finished a great book on this subject- “Under the Banner of Heaven” by Jon Krakauer. Very interesting, and a bit unflattering, look at the history of Mormonism. Anyone interested in the subject should check it out.
Is there any archaeological evidence to support this claim (specifically, that people from Israel came to the Americas ~600BC, not whether the Book of Mormon is their record)?
It was the movie that showed all the newly damned souls going to hell. When one of them asked a demon what the true religion was the demon answered, “The correct answer is…the Mormons, the Mormons.”
emarkp,
While Orgazmo was a pretty bad movie, the Mormon stuff was fairly light and restrained. It didn’t address doctrine it basically just showed an LDS character on a mission who falls into making porno movies. The Mormons were acually portrayed in a pretty good light, not crazy or anything, it just sort of showed them in an exaggerated, squeaky clean, Osmond sort of way.
Well folks, thanks for the many replies. While they won’t make me change my personal beliefs, they at least taught me quite a bit about a religion I knew close to nothing about.
And y’all ain’t as whacked as South Park makes you out to be. grin (Though it was still a funny episode!!) I’ll check out some of the books mentioned above and see what I can find out.
As for mentioning the Simpsons, saw an interview on Bravo with the actors in which they point out that the Simpsons have been around long enough to have started out being called “anti religion” by many churches across the U.S., and now there are church classes that delve into the religious and spiritual aspects of the show. LOL. I’d love to see South Park there in another decade…
Please check out also the book by Jan Shipps, Mormonism: the Story of a New Religious Tradition. Shipps is not LDS and has written what’s regarded as a fair treatment of the Church.
I thought the episode was pretty interesting. On the one hand, the South Park episode does ridicule the bizarre nature of theology. If you really read religious texts, sorry, they’re all pretty freaky.
More importantly IMO, but easily missed, Parker and Stone make it clear that the Mormons are better adjusted, happier, and at the end content to leave everyone else alone. The last comment is a huge dig on people who cannot tolerate the hyper-religious.
Personally, I found it ironic, paradoxical, and vexing – much like life itself.
Does anyone know why the South Park crew chooses Mormons for everything? Grudge? Pure luck of geography? Humor possiblities? All of the above?
You sure? I was pretyt sure that this doesn’t happen in the movie, it happens in the TV sequel: the one in which Satan and his new boyfriend Greg are accosted by a revived Saddam. I think the two part ep is called “Do retarded people go to hell?” and the conclusion “…probably.”
It’s also the one in which Satan visits God (who is one of the most hilarious looking characters this side of the taco that craps ice cream) to get some advice on his love life: we definately see the Mormons up in heaven singing tunes and generally being happy at this point. I think the “hell welcoming committee” that tells people that the correct answer was Mormanism was in the first ep, and the vision of heaven is in the second ep.
