Reasons Joseph Smith Is More Important Than Jesus [Mormon Merry Smithmas!]

Mormon Curtain.com ^ | Feb. 10, 2005

[daniel1212]

It wasn’t your fault but the page you took it from. Quick fix though, thank God.

[Cvengr]

Outstanding post.

[Elsie]

God knows alcohol sometimes works.

Ya THINK??

---

1 Timothy 5:23 (kjv)
Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.

[Elsie]

(reference to the Anthon Transcript?)

The "Caractors" are the only tangible evidence in existence related to Smith's story. No gold plates, no brass plates, no peep stones, no Urim and Thummim... only these "Caractors," not a single one of which is in the purported languages.

---

 

Smith's translation of the Caractors. According to Martin Harris (Joseph Smith - History, 1:64), "I went to the city of New York, and presented the characters which had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor Charles Anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments. Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated,* and he said they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters."

Speak right up now in all truthfulness. Isn't it revealing how Smith started out making a stab at creating believable "caractors" but quckly gave up and produced nothing but squiggles, ending up wih a series of nothing more than crude little scribbles? Yet Professor Anthon supposedly translated them!

---

*Harris must have had two or three pieces of paper with him—one with characters and a translation of them (on the same paper or a separate one) and one with untranslated characters—quite likely the "Caractors." Some Mormon "scholars" have gone out on a limb, sawed it off, and knocked themselves out trying to translate from these true Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic characters a segment that would correspond with a verse from 1 Nephi.

---

Modern-day experts in Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic. In 1829, any knowledge of these languages possessed by U.S. scholars would have been rudimentary at best. Expertise in them has vastly improved since then. So go ahead, do it. Get any modern expert in these languages to identify which of these "Caractors" are Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac and Arabic. Better still, accept the claim of Mormon apologists that Anthon did indeed so testify and that his appraisal of the Caractors was correct. (Op. cit, pp. 73-75)

Save your money! Samples of Assyriac/Aramaic and Arabic writing:

     .
 

     .
 

      .

 

What say you? Which of Smith's "Caractors" resemble the Assyriac and Arabic ones? No need to pay experts for their analysis. A child could accurately check this out. These writing systems have remained constant for well over 3000 years.

[daniel1212]

Actually, i was not following the thread and do not understand the issue, but disagree with the “character” of Smith.

[Elsie]

As regards hindering Bible reading:

Whether religion or politics or whatever; if SOMEone tells you NOT to read, or see or listen to someone or something; you can pretty well bet that they want to CONTROL you in some way.

[Elsie]

As regards unity you may want to see:

I'm a MORMON ...

 

 

 

http://www.affirmation.org/

[Elsie]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2010/05/patrick-madrid-is-evil.html

The way you can tell is that, while serving the Church, he actually wants to feed his family too. Anybody who tries to do something for the Church and seeks to get remuneration for the fruits of their labor is just a huckster. This is one of the more common memes one hears from the Truly True spectrum of Reactionary Catholicism. And one of its most ardent proponents is self-declared Expert on the Problem of Protestant Converts, Janice Kraus. Madrid isn’t a convert, of course. But he helps make converts and he is dangerously open to the idea that converts–especially Evangelical converts–are a good thing, if you please, and not the plague and scourge that Kraus believes them to be. Because of that, there is only one rational conclusion: he’s given his life to Catholic evangelization for no other purpose than filthy lucre. Indeed, Janice declares Madrid guilty of nothing less than simony.

Yeah...

This is what we get from MORMON, Inc. as well.

Right Sandy??

[Elsie]

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2009/12/special-pleading-of-sola-ecclesia-ists.html

A favored argument against Sola Scriptura frequently used by our friends in the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church is "Just look at Protestantism! It's a mess, of 22,000 25,000 30,000 33,000 58 gazillion denominations!"

Yeah; we get this from MORMON, Inc. as well.

Right Sandy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sects_in_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement

[Elsie]

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/07/vicious-circle.html

Roman Catholics will tell us that we need to consult the Magisterium in order to know what Scripture is, to understand it and to settle the various debates over its meaning and interpretation. But when we ask them why we should believe the Magisterium has the authority to establish the canon and produce the correct interpretations of Scripture, we are often treated to a series of Scriptural proofs, which presuppose the Scriptures are clear and authoritative.

Dang!

I'm beginning to think that MORMONism is re-packaged Catholicism!

Right Sandy!!?

[Elsie]

It makes a thinking person wonder.

 

Indeed it does...

 

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/12/dome-of-rock-inscriptions-why-no.html

 

Right Sandy?

 

Oh..
Wait...
nevermind......

[Elsie]

[MarkBsnr]

I'm beginning to think that MORMONism is re-packaged Catholicism!

'Tis the season for a little antiCatholicism...

[daniel1212]

The issue is the supremacy of Scripture versus the Church being the supreme authority (sola ecclesia). The former does not claim assured infallibility (though it must allow that one and even Rome can speak infallible Scriptural truths, which even affirming there is a Creator can be considered), but seeks to persuade others by “manifestation of the truth,” (2Cor. 4:2) and depends upon conformity to Scripture Scriptural attestation, as did the apostles.

This method presumes that their magisterium is assuredly infallible and equal in authority to Scripture, which is a mark of cults like the LDS, but in Romanism it is more formalized, by which she declares that she alone is the OTC© (and then cries victim when challenged).

While determining which of the potentially hundreds of infallible interpretations really are such requires interpretation, the assurance that such is infallible does not rest upon the weight of Scriptural support, nor does the claimed charism of infallibility necessarily render the arguments or reasoning behind them to be infallible, but they are held as infallible when in conformity with Rome’s infallibly defined formula.

That is, Rome has infallibly defined herself to be infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined subject and scope-based formula, thereby rendering her declaration that she is infallible to be infallible, as well as whatever conforms to this criteria.

Thus we have statements like this:

It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine...

I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228. archive.org/stream/a592004400mannuoft/a592004400mannuoft_djvu.txt

[Elsie]

Is there a bag limit?