Originally posted by Draenor
 

ps. to compare this to changes of translation and interpretation of the Bible itself is to compare apples to oranges.  The Book of mormon was written in modern English and has dozens of things in it that are just plain wrong or completely without evidence or Biblical support (believing that jesus and Satan were brothers, beleiving that Jesus came to America hundreds of years after the cross)  You're talking about translations of a book written mostly in ancient Greek and Hebrew, of course there are going to be some disagreements about exact translations.

Not to mention that in the case of the bible there are actually available texts in the original languages for scholars to be able to debate the translations at all.

Originally posted by Draenor

Joseph Smith made dozens of prophecies, only a few of which came true, and several of which have proven to be completely false (he said that there would be people on the moon, similar to humans no less)  The fact that they have had to change their doctrine in the Mormon church to rectify what they now know to be completely incorrect is only adding to the pile.  The Mormon church is, for all intents and purposes, a cult.  It is insulting to me that these people have the nerve to refer to themselves as followers of Christ, when anyone who has actually read the Bible would easily see that Joseph Smith was a fraud.

 

ps. to compare this to changes of translation and interpretation of the Bible itself is to compare apples to oranges.  The Book of mormon was written in modern English and has dozens of things in it that are just plain wrong or completely without evidence or Biblical support (believing that jesus and Satan were brothers, beleiving that Jesus came to America hundreds of years after the cross)  You're talking about translations of a book written mostly in ancient Greek and Hebrew, of course there are going to be some disagreements about exact translations.

I really wonder on what grounds you call the LDS church a cult though? Do you consider all religions to be a cult? How is it insulting that they say they are followers of christ? Now yes everything in the book of mormon and possibly the whole book is fake but so is much of the bible. I don't see how someone can be Catholic and be a follower of christ with some of the horrbile things the church has done or how about that you could pay money for sins they even had it where you could pay in advance for a sin. You can tear down all other religions in the same way. I say they can call themselfs followers of christ because for the most part they try and live by christs teachings.

I served in the Army for 6 years and I have seen nearly every state in the united states and lived in 6 different states and been to many countries so I have seen much of the world. Here in utah we enjoy a very nice lifestyle due to most people here follow the teachings of christ and for the most part are a great society. Utah has some of the lowest crime rates in the world we don't really have too many homeless people because we take care of them and pretty much anyone else that needs help.  

Originally posted by Walakea

It may only be one word but this only serves to remind me that all religious texts were written by humans, translated from one language to another by humans and can be altered at any time by humans. So even if your deity exists, I don't believe that one should completely trust the religious texts of their religion.

Valid point.  it's well known that the Roman church discarded hundreds of gospels in order to create the existing bible - which is based on the belief structure they wanted.  All religious guidebooks have been altered in some way.  The main difference with the LDS church is it's so young so the changes are obvious to the rest of technological world.

Originally posted by Dauthix

 

Originally posted by Walakea

It may only be one word but this only serves to remind me that all religious texts were written by humans, translated from one language to another by humans and can be altered at any time by humans. So even if your deity exists, I don't believe that one should completely trust the religious texts of their religion.

 

Valid point.  it's well known that the Roman church discarded hundreds of gospels in order to create the existing bible - which is based on the belief structure they wanted.  All religious guidebooks have been altered in some way.  The main difference with the LDS church is it's so young so the changes are obvious to the rest of technological world.

Ya that is a great point everything has been written by man so who knows what is all true and what isn't. I think the bible is a great thing to base your daily morals off of though. I just think there are problems when people say that the bible is absolute.

www.lifeafter.org/centennialpark.asp

Hmm that is a intresting link not that webpage but some of the stats on crime in utah. It is sad to hear that utah is above the nations average for rape and property damage but we are much under the average in all other crimes. Oh and BTW there are 17 states with a higher rape rate then utah. Utah is around 37.1 per 100,000 there are states that are 50 or higher per 100,000. Also just for fun Arizona is the highest with 81.1 per 100,000.

Originally posted by xplororor

The funny thing is:

 

1. "Nephites" were supposivly one of the main EVILS why the god of the Bible caused the flood to destroy EVERYONE execept for Noah and his clan. Check out the King James Version. Genesis 6:4

The majority of newer Bibles have ERASED this passage putting the adjective "giants" in place of the noun "Nephilim" (ahh back to the main subject of this thread LOL! How easily Bible makers "change" and "re-change" wording in their "holy books".)

ummmm yeah... ok... Nephites is the name of the tribe.. but a direct translation is "mighty men" or "giants"

lets not be silly... The point here is that the origins of LIFE in america has been changed with the change of that word in the book of mormon... The changes as you call it in the bible.. although they change words.... the meaning of the sentence/statement/verse/chapter.. remains the same..

lets not be silly here..

I live in utah and I used to be LDS aka mormon. I don't believe Joseph smith was a prophet and I really don't believe there is a modern day prophet but I really don't believe in much of the bible either since most of it can be disproved anymore. I don't have any problems with people that do believe though for the most part it benifts most peoples lifes.

what in the world? please expound...

I really wonder on what grounds you call the LDS church a cult though? Do you consider all religions to be a cult? How is it insulting that they say they are followers of christ? Now yes everything in the book of mormon and possibly the whole book is fake but so is much of the bible. I don't see how someone can be Catholic and be a follower of christ with some of the horrbile things the church has done or how about that you could pay money for sins they even had it where you could pay in advance for a sin. You can tear down all other religions in the same way. I say they can call themselfs followers of christ because for the most part they try and live by christs teachings.

What in the heck? First of all.. the catholic believe it or not does NOT own the bible.. you do not have to be catholic in order to be a christian either... contrary to your beliefs...

secondly.. No one is attacking the mormon church here... No one is digging into their closet and bringing up stuff to denounce the religion... THE MORMON CHURCH THEMSELVES have changed their doctorine... and in doing so.. changed one of the foundations of some of their beliefs.... I'm not going to defend bad people in the catholic church... But why in the world did you bring that up? Catholics aren't changing the bible randomly to give it a totally different interpretation...

Originally posted by methane47

 

Originally posted by xplororor

The funny thing is:

 

1. "Nephites" were supposivly one of the main EVILS why the god of the Bible caused the flood to destroy EVERYONE execept for Noah and his clan. Check out the King James Version. Genesis 6:4

The majority of newer Bibles have ERASED this passage putting the adjective "giants" in place of the noun "Nephilim" (ahh back to the main subject of this thread LOL! How easily Bible makers "change" and "re-change" wording in their "holy books".)

 

ummmm yeah... ok... Nephites is the name of the tribe.. but a direct translation is "mighty men" or "giants"

lets not be silly... The point here is that the origins of LIFE in america has been changed with the change of that word in the book of mormon... The changes as you call it in the bible.. although they change words.... the meaning of the sentence/statement/verse/chapter.. remains the same..

lets not be silly here..

I live in utah and I used to be LDS aka mormon. I don't believe Joseph smith was a prophet and I really don't believe there is a modern day prophet but I really don't believe in much of the bible either since most of it can be disproved anymore. I don't have any problems with people that do believe though for the most part it benifts most peoples lifes.

what in the world? please expound...

I really wonder on what grounds you call the LDS church a cult though? Do you consider all religions to be a cult? How is it insulting that they say they are followers of christ? Now yes everything in the book of mormon and possibly the whole book is fake but so is much of the bible. I don't see how someone can be Catholic and be a follower of christ with some of the horrbile things the church has done or how about that you could pay money for sins they even had it where you could pay in advance for a sin. You can tear down all other religions in the same way. I say they can call themselfs followers of christ because for the most part they try and live by christs teachings.

What in the heck? First of all.. the catholic believe it or not does NOT own the bible.. you do not have to be catholic in order to be a christian either... contrary to your beliefs...

secondly.. No one is attacking the mormon church here... No one is digging into their closet and bringing up stuff to denounce the religion... THE MORMON CHURCH THEMSELVES have changed their doctorine... and in doing so.. changed one of the foundations of some of their beliefs.... I'm not going to defend bad people in the catholic church... But why in the world did you bring that up? Catholics aren't changing the bible randomly to give it a totally different interpretation...

Sorry if it seemed like I was attacking any religion but what my point was in referance to was first someone called LDS church a cult and then they said it was insulting that they claimed to follow the teachings of christ so I was showing if they have done so wrong by following an idiot named jospeh smith then many other religions have done things wrong too. Sorry if you felt like I was attacking the catholic church I respect it like I respect must people beliefs.

Originally posted by Mizab

 

First to expound on things wrong with bible um first off noah had 2 of every animal, insect and freshwater fish on his ark? I don't think so. All I was doing with that point was saying how yes a lot of the book of mormon is wrong but so is the bible.

 

 

Sorry if it seemed like I was attacking any religion but what my point was in referance to was first someone called LDS church a cult and then they said it was insulting that they claimed to follow the teachings of christ so I was showing if they have done so wrong by following an idiot named jospeh smith then many other religions have done things wrong too. Sorry if you felt like I was attacking the catholic church I respect it like I respect must people beliefs.

Your reasoning says that he couldn't have had all the creatures on board... But does your reasoning mean its false....

Just like because the reasoning of the jury in a court case finds a person guilty.. doesn't mean that he really committed the crime..

anyways.. thats another discussion... But the fact remains.. that there is no way to empirically prove that a man didn't build a large ark and had two of all TYPES of creatures on board for a flood.. thousands upon thousands of years ago

Originally posted by methane47

 

Originally posted by Mizab

 

First to expound on things wrong with bible um first off noah had 2 of every animal, insect and freshwater fish on his ark? I don't think so. All I was doing with that point was saying how yes a lot of the book of mormon is wrong but so is the bible.

 

 

Sorry if it seemed like I was attacking any religion but what my point was in referance to was first someone called LDS church a cult and then they said it was insulting that they claimed to follow the teachings of christ so I was showing if they have done so wrong by following an idiot named jospeh smith then many other religions have done things wrong too. Sorry if you felt like I was attacking the catholic church I respect it like I respect must people beliefs.

well... the noah thing is part of the "Miracle" of it happening... just because something seems very unlikely.. doesn't mean its false (not true)..

 

Your reasoning says that he couldn't have had all the creatures on board... But does your reasoning mean its false....

Just like because the reasoning of the jury in a court case finds a person guilty.. doesn't mean that he really committed the crime..

anyways.. thats another discussion... But the fact remains.. that there is no way to empirically prove that a man didn't build a large ark and had two of all TYPES of creatures on board for a flood.. thousands upon thousands of years ago

Well you could be right I have to say there is a possibitly but very unlikely but you are right that is for another discussion I just wanted to make it clear I wasn't trying to disrepct any religion just explaining many other religions have faults and even the bible since all was wrote by man.

I also wanted to explain I am not an atheist. I do believe there is a pretty good chance there is some kind of higher power but to quote constantine I think at most god is a kid with an ant farm he really doesn't give a shit.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=51NzP64uyz0

Hmm, well as I recall, Mr. Smith was being chased by a group of law men for cattle rustling and paligamy, and some other confidence scams, when at the time of his capture he had this experience. The reading as Ive heard it was done with a pair of magic glasses,. And considering that no one saw the glasses or the plates, Im sure his transcription was hurried and possibly flawed. OH FFS its all bull anyway. The guy was a brilliant con man that even converted some of the people that caught him. He would marry rich widows and sell their property and livestock then go to another state and doit it all again. The most sucessfull Snake Oil salesman in history, period.

Originally posted by Byrom

Hmm, well as I recall, Mr. Smith was being chased by a group of law men for cattle rustling and paligamy, and some other confidence scams, when at the time of his capture he had this experience. The reading as Ive heard it was done with a pair of magic glasses,. And considering that no one saw the glasses or the plates, Im sure his transcription was hurried and possibly flawed. OH FFS its all bull anyway. The guy was a brilliant con man that even converted some of the people that caught him. He would marry rich widows and sell their property and livestock then go to another state and doit it all again. The most sucessfull Snake Oil salesman in history, period.

I think the founder of scientology is much more successful than Smith ever was...

"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists."

I have a question to ask the Christians in this forum.
If, tomorrow, we were to discover documents on the same scale as the Dead Sea Scrolls, and in those documents was proof that something in the bible had been misrepresented. What would, in your opinion, be the reaction of your particular church ?

Would the new discovery just be 'tricks of the devil' ?
Would the Bible be changed to reflect the new evidence ?
Would the entire thing be glossed over and forgotten ?

While i do not share the beliefs of the Mormons. I applaud them for actually being dynamic in this ever-changing society.

Bottom line is, you dont need a stupid ass book (any of them) to be able to see and appreciate the glory of Christ, so i really do not understand the whole 'my book is better than yours' argument from either side.

Im not going to accuse Smith of being a fraud, or a conman. I was thought the same of Jesus Christ, and i know that that gets you no-where.
Poke around, i think Jesus may have written something about it. I do find the mormon religion odd, but i find a lot of things odd, atleast until i get used to them.

Originally posted by Nasica

I have a question to ask the Christians in this forum.
If, tomorrow, we were to discover documents on the same scale as the Dead Sea Scrolls, and in those documents was proof that something in the bible had been misrepresented. What would, in your opinion, be the reaction of your particular church ?

Would the new discovery just be 'tricks of the devil' ?
Would the Bible be changed to reflect the new evidence ?
Would the entire thing be glossed over and forgotten ?

 

I guess it would depend what the new information was. I think the Dead Sea Scrolls stuff has had little impact on most churches as the new gospels (which tend to be sayings rather than stories, from what I've read) are considered to be texts from a different sect and are generally thought to carry less authority.

My guess is that you'd see all three in different churches, if there was some major new revelation found.

I think a key difference here though than with the book of Mormon is that a change in a new translation of the bible is based on (often many) original texts, and can be verfied by various scholars (often with alternative translation added to the margin). I'm not sure who had authority to change the BoM or what they would base such a change on.

---

Originally posted by EggFtegg

---

Originally posted by Nasica

I have a question to ask the Christians in this forum.
If, tomorrow, we were to discover documents on the same scale as the Dead Sea Scrolls, and in those documents was proof that something in the bible had been misrepresented. What would, in your opinion, be the reaction of your particular church ?
Would the new discovery just be 'tricks of the devil' ?
Would the Bible be changed to reflect the new evidence ?
Would the entire thing be glossed over and forgotten ?
 

---

Actually, to my knowledge, various documents have been found which have added new light to certain parts of the bible and newer translations have reflected such texts. Probably nothing on the scale that you are referring to.
 
I guess it would depend what the new information was. I think the Dead Sea Scrolls stuff has had little impact on most churches as the new gospels (which tend to be sayings rather than stories, from what I've read) are considered to be texts from a different sect and are generally thought to carry less authority.
My guess is that you'd see all three in different churches, if there was some major new revelation found.
I think a key difference here though than with the book of Mormon is that a change in a new translation of the bible is based on (often many) original texts, and can be verfied by various scholars (often with alternative translation added to the margin). I'm not sure who had authority to change the BoM or what they would base such a change on.

---

Basically, all im asking is. If completely new information was added to the bible, not refinement of translation, but new literary text from known sources which do not fit with our current understanding of Christ, would we be so quick to change our ways.
And what does that say to the true meaning of the bible ?

Originally posted by Nasica

 

 

Basically, all im asking is. If completely new information was added to the bible, not refinement of translation, but new literary text from known sources which do not fit with our current understanding of Christ, would we be so quick to change our ways.
And what does that say to the true meaning of the bible ?

I think that after 1600 years, the structure of the bible is pretty much fixed, no matter what is found.