by cofty 39 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
All things considered, I think that, like the RCC, the LDS has actually made considerable progress (strange doctrines notwithstanding) since back in the day.
x
Lately, I think of them as the WTS's weirder but nicer older cousin.
And I say this as a completely nonreligious agnostic.
Its been 9 hours since I asked CS about the gold plates for the third time. I'll try again....
You made the following two points.
1. God didn't leave the plates because he doesn't like giving anybody proof. Therefore he took the plates away.
2. If we still had the plates it would not have been proof of anything.
Which is it?
By the way I see you have a Masonic symbol as an avatar. Interesting that the video explained the Masonic influence in your cult.
@ Cold Steel:
"But as an atheist, you lack a moral dimension about such things because you don't see the harm in it."
I haven't been following this thread but that statement caught my attention. It's a false, arrogant statement and an insult to atheists. In the moral dimension atheists are no more, no less moral than their theistic counterparts. Morality and ethics are to one extent or another intrinsic to human nature. Some have it, some don't, others have a small amount. It's something that has evolved in us as a social creature in other to get along with each others.
"I brought up this rationalization problem and shifting ethics that change to accommodate society. It shifts because it's not grounded in a firm and moral foundation."
Christians have done a lot of shifting throughout the past 2,000 years.
Cold Steel - You falsely accused me of making a hit-and-run attack on your cult. That was a big mistake. I intend to make a long, detailed and sustained attack on your cult.
I have been trying to engage you in a discussion about the facts presented in the video.
Specifically I would like to hear about why god took the gold plates away. You claimed that this was because if he had left them on earth it would have proved that Mormonism is true and, for some reason you didn't specify, this is a bad thing. Apparently god doesn't value healthy skepticism.
Then in the next sentence you claimed that god didn't leave the gold plates because it wouldn't prove anything if we still had them.
I have asked you 4 or 5 times over the last 24 hours to clear up this contradiction. You have been posting within the last hour.
I have lots and lots of questions about the facts presented in the video that seems to suggest the Mormon church is built on a web of lies and deceit. Thanks.
Even in your responses you are trite and you misrepresent the facts.You made the following two points.
1. God didn't leave the plates because he doesn't like giving anybody. Therefore he took the plates away.
2. If we still had the plates it would not have been proof of anything.
Which is it?
As stated previously, two-thirds of the plates were sealed (Isaiah 29:18-29), which means that no one -- not even Smith -- was permitted to view them. Also, the Lord, for whatever reason, doesn't _ever_ provide anyone with proof of His work until they have built an adequate foundation of faith. Why? Because you would then be obligated to accept it and comply to the Lord's will or be condemned for rejecting it. And apparently the Lord feels that this would violate your free agency.
But He left plenty of evidence for the Book of Mormon.
http://youtube.com/?#/watch?v=YL-NXToiksQ
Your video also sought to impugn the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. Perhaps you would like the entire story rather than the baseless misrepresentations on your video.
http://youtube.com/?#/watch?v=V38jsyMnyIs
Evidence, yes, but definitive proof, almost never. So hypothetically, even had Smith _produced_ the plates for all to see, would that have proven his translation correct? No, all it would have proven was that he was in possession of an ancient artifact, and a valuable one at that. And do you believe he would have been able to keep them? How about the man upon whose land Smith found them? Wouldn't he have claimed a right to them? “After all, ol' Joe Smith found them on my land! He only came up with that 'translation' after he found them on my property!“ The stone box was still intact on the hill as well as the large rock covering it. Some of the early saints reported seeing them for some time and said they were there for all to see. But of course anyone could have constructed such and no one would have been the wiser.
But then why didn't the Lord let the plates be inspected? I _suspect_ it was that He eventually wanted the two-thirds to be translated, and I _suspect_ they would have fallen out of the hands of the Church. Archeologists would have undoubtedly broken the seal, as well, in an attempt to read it's contents.
So there you have it. That's my answer. You'll have to ask the Lord for _His_ answer. But since we're asking questions, let me ask you this: If there were _actual PROOF_ that the Book of Mormon was what it claimed to be, you would be forced to reject atheism, right? Would you then cease to be a skeptic regarding it and dedicate yourself to its precepts?
If you want evidence, there is plenty. Back in the 90s, two guys with a video camera, a land rover, a compass and a Book of Mormon set out to follow Nephi's directions by going down the coast by the Red Sea, turning east when where the mountains meet the sea. Figuring 25 miles per day by camel, they found themselves following an ancient caravan route. As they approached the 75-mile mark, they had still not dead-ended in a wadi or found themselves blocked by a mountain, but then it was still seemingly still out in the middle of nowhere. At mile 73, things suddenly began to change. They came to a beautiful oasis with springs of water, grain and fruit and then, miraculously, a stone passage that led to a deep valley of granite that rose to 2,000 feet and, more significantly, a perennial river of water that flowed through the valley -- just as described by Nephi. They also found the remains of an ancient campsite which, according to the Saudi Ministry of Antiquities, dated back to 600 B.C., the year Nephi and his family found that same valley. The Book of Mormon said that Lehi built an “altar of stones,“ and they found two, one higher than the other. Additionally, other researchers found a tribal area called Nahom (NHM), which was an ancient burial site. It was exactly where Nephi said they buried one of their party named Ishmael. After that, the account says they travelled east, across one of the most treacherous deserts on Earth, the Empty Quarter. But when they reached the coast, they found a beautiful, lush, tropical area they called Bountiful, where they built their ship.
The valley, the “river of water“ and such a place as Bountiful were all considered the utmost fantasy. Yet if you begin at Nahom and travel due east, you reach a beautiful coastal area in the Dhofar region in Oman near Khor Rori (anciently, Sumhuam). Joseph Smith couldn't have known about this area because it wasn't discovered by Western explorer James Theodore Bent until 1894 and really wasn't publicized until much later. This means that no one in 1830 could have incorporated it into the text. This region has bird life, honeybees, trees, rocks rich in iron ore, grain, fruit, several protected harbor areas where a ship could be built in safety, water, several mountains and an area with cliffs overlooking the sea. There also were workers who could have been employed too help build ships. It's also an area where frankincense was shipped from the east. There are, according to our scholars, more than 170 points where Joseph Smith could have been wrong, yet he was not wrong in one of them. Only someone who had been there anciently could have written it.
they don't have crazy ideas about the future
Yes they do.
They are going to be gods ruling over their own planets.
Why?
Isn't reality satisfying enough?
