Mike

Kind Bud wrote:

"I'll have plenty of time to catch up on that in the Telestial (yeah, that's it) Kingdom...

"You realize of course that this archaeological discussion, while it might be fascinating as a SciFi Channel special, is exceedingly irrelevant to the Existence of God theme (I saved the thread!)...

"...But you guys are almost like pod people. Really, it creeps me out a little sometimes."

I'll admit, I was a bit apprehensive about engaging in a discussion with you because of your sometime disrespect, but I'm starting to enjoy this as you seem to have a good sense of humor (I mean that sincerely).

The characters and their comparisons are copied in the second volume of the book I mentioned (1000 evidences), 500 evidences for the book of Mormon. This book is a compilation from other sources, though, sort of a reference book, so the sources exist elsewhere. I'm not sure how much of it is available on-line, but I'll see what I can find when I can find the time.

Archaeological evidence is relevant, though. There are many, many examples of information that was contained in the Book of Mormon as well as in the Pearl of Great Price (and not in "A view of the Hebrews")that crops up almost verbatim years later from other sources such as the Dead Sea Scrolls that were completely unknown at the time the Book of Mormon was published. Since this information was nowhere else available in 1830 we can only draw a couple of possible conclusions: Joseph Smith must have in fact had access to authentic ancient documents that no one else yet had access to (not necessarily divinely inspired though), and/or he was given information directly from a divine source. If he did in fact have ancient documents as he claimed, it would not necessarily substantiate the claim that they were holy documents, unless of course you take into account the problem of translation. How would an uneducated young man translate a language that no living person had studied without divine help? How would he know about historical and religious information that was not to be discovered from other sources for at least another 50 years?

You see, the claims of Mormonism are very relevant to a thread about the existence of God, because only with ongoing revelation and prophecy can claims of divine revelation be substantiated.

Most other Christians claim that the Bible is a closed book, and since it has been around so long, it is difficult to substantiate its claims; but the Book of Mormon, P. of G.P., etc. are relatively recent finds and we know fairly accurately what information would have or not have been available to Joseph Smith at the time.
Yes, spiritual confirmation of the book's authenticity is most important for conversion, but archaeological confirmation is extremely relevant as well, especially for folks like you.

Autonemesis

And I don't doubt your sincerity, and thanks for the compliment. But I am at a loss to discover where I have been disrespectful in this thread. I avoid ad hominem attacks in a serious discussion, even though I like locking horns with a troll sometimes. But would hope it is apparent that I am not serious when I do that (and that I don't see you as a troll). I give the readers here a lot of credit for figuring that sort of thing out on their own. I feel no need to disclaim everything I say by preceeding it with "In my opinion..." as if that will soften the blow, or as if it wasn't obvious that I'm, not speaking someone else's opinions. And I feel no need to pull any punches when criticizing an idea or theory, and expect no one to pull any for me when they are pillorying mine (and I have never been disappointed on that last count. ). But if I have seemed to be attacking you, it was not intentional and I will apologize and retract what I said if you point it out to me.

It's not really important, save your efforts for someone you have a chance of converting. I am really most interested in the core Mormon cosmological beliefs, which are much more easily impeached. Once that is accomplished, the difficult and tedious archaeological debate becomes moot. I think you recognize this too, since you studiously avoid responding to my critiques of the Plan of Salvation, and keep coming back to the archaeology bits. That was a mild personal swipe, meant in good humor.

Now this is an angle I can sink my teeth into. The gay Mormon group Affirmation believes that being gay Saints is a special calling for which no one in the church can give them counsel. This is just the same as the situation Joseph Smith found himself in. HF told JS not to seek out any of the churches that were organized in his day, that they all fell short of the truth, and that in time the fullness of the Gospel would be revealed and JS would be the instrument to restore the true church. Affirmation believes essentially the same thing. Who are you to gainsay them when they have word directly from Heavenly Father? Twenty years from now same sex couples may once again be sealed for time and all eternity in the temples, just as they were in the early days. The revelation is coming, and it is Affirmation's calling to prepare the Bodyof Christ for it. This will be no more remarkable when it occurs than when HF revealed the time had come to abandon polygamy, or that the curse of Cain had been lifted and blacks could at long last be ordained into the Melchizedek priesthood. Revelation does not beget certainty. Quite the opposite: it begets expediency.

No, it isn't. I have no motivation to reconcile BOM anomalies with the rest of the body of archaeology. There is nothing to reconcile: the BOM is the product of a pious fraud and is not to be taken seriously by any archaeological investigation, any more than the Weekly World News or Hubbard's Dianetics books.

Mike

Well, I too would rather discuss the plan of salvation, as it is a subject I know much more about (than archaeology). But, I was doing my darndest to keep this discussion relevant to the thread. If you want to discuss the plan of salvation, I am willing, but do you think we should move? ...or not.

Some phrases like pious fraud, and plagiarist, and such smart a bit when applied to a person or persons that I highly respect, even if they are opinions. I would prefer to say of someone like, say, the president of Affirmation, that "I don't believe his claims." Rather than some other disparaging and possibly libelous remark. But, to each his own.

Mike

ex-preacher

From ex-mormon.com

----------

Mormon Mythology
"All Lies Lead To The Truth"

The following article was found on the LDS World web site. I found it interesting and thought that maybe you would also. From time to time, you may see a comment or two from me.

Neighbor of Elder Nelson converted by Book of Mormon
This message being passed around by many LDS members is titled "REFLECTIONS OF SAMI HANNA - as recorded by Elder Russell M. Nelson." It purports to be a first-hand account written by Elder Nelson of his neighbor who was a native Egyptian, and was asked to translate the Book of Mormon into Arabic (which the account says is "the original language of the book" - obviously not). During the process of translation, Hanna was converted by the profound internal evidences he saw in the book which could not have been written by an American.
Elder Nelson did not write this account, according to his office in Salt Lake. However, he did have a neighbor named Sami Hanna many years ago, who was converted to the Church after translating the Book of Mormon.

ex-preacher

Wait a minute - is this him?

Dr. Sami Hanna, D.M.D. / Dental Surgeon / Chirurgien Dentiste -

A dentist in Canada?

ex-preacher

Wait a minute - I think I found him here:
<a href="http://www.thedistancelearning.com/canada/of122.htm" target="_blank">http://www.thedistancelearning.com/canada/of122.htm</a>

Is this him, Mike?

Could you give an e-mail for him so I can contact him?

Autonemesis

I think the Plan of Salvation, since it is ineluctably tied to the Mormon conception of what it means to be God, or to become like God, is appropriate to discuss here. The archaeological discussion isn't on topic in EoG, to my mind. I am not a moderator (nor do I wish to be one), but I'd put the archaeology discussion in Misc. or Biblical Criticism & Archaeology. If we stray, the mods will tell us.

Well, I meant it to be descriptive, not an ad hominem attack against JS. A pious fraud is someone who believes his deception is necessary for the greater good. The "pious" was meant to mitigate the "fraud" somewhat by accepting that he probably meant well. I find the anti-Mormon arguments that conclude he was a schemer out to make money, or that he was a deluded psychotic, to be much less convincing than the pious fraud explanation. In any event I apologize for the distress, I thought I had chosen a relatively neutral term, given what I think of the subject at hand. I really wanted to convey a dispassionate attitude. Plagiarism might be too strong I admit, I'll address it in different terms if it comes up again.

ex-preacher

Rather than give us snippets of supposed Mormon "evidence," let's focus in depth on any one of these claims. You pick.

I'd like to more about this Sami Hanna guy. I've found a person named Sami Hanna who is an Egyptian immigrant and priest in the Coptic Orthodox Church. Is this your man? I would think that if your story is true, Dr. Hanna would be a huge figure in the world of Mormonism. Have you ever seen or heard him? More likely, this is a small kernel of truth in the story which has multiplied into a massive urban legend. The LDS itslef is even trying to debunk parts of the myth surrounding him.

My bias: I'm convinced that your religion is a total and complete sham. Of course, every religion is based on legend, fabrication and falsehood. The unique things about Mormonism are:
1. It is so obviously fake.
2. It is growing rapidly (not due to doctrine, I think, but to aggressive evangelism among the uneducated and poor).

If any of this needs to be moved to a different forum (like MRD), so be it.

Jobar

Mike, Kind Bud, ex-preacher et al.- yes, this has wandered very far from the topic. I am going to lock the thread for a day; please take the specifically Moronic- harumph! excuse me, Mormonic- portion to a new thread, in MRD or R&R. I will re-open this sometimes Friday, and anyone interested can continue the original discussion.

Jobar

Topic re-opened.

Please, if you wish to discuss the specifics of any particular religion, the Existence of God(s) forum is normally not the right place. Go to MRD for that.