GoodK wrote:I have been bored with this DB lately (and the internet in general, for that matter) and found myself browsing the Mormoninformation.com link. Shades, is this your website?
Yes, it is.
I asked my Dad about it and he said that (along with all the other arguments by "anti-mormons" who prefer to be ill-informed) this has been addressed by competent scholars conclusively.
That's what Mormons always say. It's almost never true, however.
I would be very interested to the hear the opinions of those that have encountered this specific issue in depth, specifically, the good Doctor.
It's pretty simple. Joseph was in a hurry to make up for the lost 116 pages, and he got a little sloppy and called Him "Jesus" even though Jesus wasn't scheduled to be born--and thereafter named by his mother--for a few more centuries.
I could be wrong, but didn't God tell Marry to name him Jesus? Doesn't God know all, past, present, future? We do have revelations that are to tell the future, and these are supposed to have come from God. Is it possible that God told Nephi that his son's name would be Jesus?
"… Do you believe Jesus Christ and the gospel of salvation which he revealed? So do I. Christians should cease wrangling and contending with each other, and cultivate the principles of union and friendship. I am just as ready to die defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination." Joseph Smith jr. Sermon, 1843
This is no worse than what's in the Book of Ether. Ether 2:12 has the name Jesus Christ, and Ether 3:14 actually has the as-yet unembodied Jesus actually introducing himself to the Brother of Jared as Jesus Christ. And this was supposedly a couple of thousand years earlier.
One LDS apologetic response to expect is that from the days of Adam, God's true prophets have known the whole plan of salvation, not just the stuff we read in the Old Testament, and they knew about Jesus, including his name, and so forth, right from the beginning. These Book of Mormon authors, as prophets and people to whom God revealed all things, would therefor have known it too.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
Doctor Steuss wrote:If I were to put on my apologist hat, I would point out that rooted in older Jewish traditions, the Shem ha-Mephorash was identified as the Son of G-d and in some traditions as Metatron (which is conceptually Jesus -- and the fact that Jews leaned away from the equivalent usage derived from synthronos due to the potential of containing Christian connotations in later years gives it additional credence, in my opinion), and as such, it is possible that Nephi here recorded the Shem ha-Mephorash, or a variant thereof, and Joseph translated it into what it more commonly became known as during later Christian generations.
Right, but "Jesus" was His given name.
And MTTRWN and IHCOYC were His shamanistic names.
Turns out my apologist hat doesn’t fit well…
"Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead." ~Charles Bukowski
Sethbag wrote:One LDS apologetic response to expect is that from the days of Adam, God's true prophets have known the whole plan of salvation, not just the stuff we read in the Old Testament, and they knew about Jesus, including his name, and so forth, right from the beginning. These Book of Mormon authors, as prophets and people to whom God revealed all things, would therefor have known it too.
Isn't it interesting that the Old World prophets had no such detailed prior information? Or perhaps they were just more tight-lipped about it, preferring not to blab the details. After all, I imagine disclosing the name would allow Herod to easily seek out the child in the manger and slaughter just him, instead of all those innocent bystander babies.
I'd be surprised if Dr. Shades is behind this[mormoninformation.com]; he is supposedly somewhat erudite and careful (from what I've heard -- I don't know much about him from direct experience...
Well at least you have the reputation of being "somewhat erudite" :)
Hey GoodK, where did you find that quote, and who typed it?
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
I have a special viewpoint about so-called translation.
As You know (or as You don't know but who cares), I can understand everything on this site after I have translated it to my native language.
If one look at the Book of Mormon as a translation, it appears as a special witness about Reformed Egyptian. This language has three different word for anointed, ("felkent" in hungarian).
There is a word which should be translated to "Messiah" (hebrew word).
There is another word which should be translated to "Christ" (greek word).
There is a third word which should be translated to "anointed" (english word) or different words in the languages the Book of Mormon was translated.
For example, 2Ne 26:16 and 2Ne 26:19 use the word Christ and Messiah in one and the same verse.
Additionally, one can find twelve occurence of the words anoint/anointing/anointed, which - according to the translations in any language - should be translated differently.
We have two opportunity.
1. Reformed Egyptian is an existing and very versatile language with abilities specified above
2. Reformed Egyptian doesn't exist and Joseph Smith didn't know that the words Messiah, Christ and anointed mean the same idea.
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco - To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
ludwigm wrote:I have a special viewpoint about so-called translation.
As You know (or as You don't know but who cares), I can understand everything on this site after I have translated it to my native language.
If one look at the Book of Mormon as a translation, it appears as a special witness about Reformed Egyptian. This language has three different word for anointed, ("felkent" in hungarian). There is a word which should be translated to "Messiah" (hebrew word). There is another word which should be translated to "Christ" (greek word). There is a third word which should be translated to "anointed" (english word) or different words in the languages the Book of Mormon was translated.
For example, 2Ne 26:16 and 2Ne 26:19 use the word Christ and Messiah in one and the same verse. Additionally, one can find twelve occurence of the words anoint/anointing/anointed, which - according to the translations in any language - should be translated differently.
We have two opportunity. 1. Reformed Egyptian is an existing and very versatile language with abilities specified above 2. Reformed Egyptian doesn't exist and Joseph Smith didn't know that the words Messiah, Christ and anointed mean the same idea.
The bolded example above is a killer point.
You simply can't maintain the 'He said Christ because it means the same as Messiah' point when 2Ne 26:16 and 2Ne 26:19 use the two words together in the same verse.
And of course the references to 'Jesus' make the apologists' task impossible - no, I'll rephrase that: the apologists' task is never completely impossible, since there is always a way out - I'll just say that it makes the apologists' task even more intellectually degrading than it usually is.
I'd be surprised if Dr. Shades is behind this[mormoninformation.com]; he is supposedly somewhat erudite and careful (from what I've heard -- I don't know much about him from direct experience...
Well at least you have the reputation of being "somewhat erudite" :)
Hey GoodK, where did you find that quote, and who typed it?
It was from a personal email from an LDS apologist.
Sethbag wrote:One LDS apologetic response to expect is that from the days of Adam, God's true prophets have known the whole plan of salvation, not just the stuff we read in the Old Testament, and they knew about Jesus, including his name, and so forth, right from the beginning. These Book of Mormon authors, as prophets and people to whom God revealed all things, would therefor have known it too.
Isn't it interesting that the Old World prophets had no such detailed prior information? Or perhaps they were just more tight-lipped about it, preferring not to blab the details. After all, I imagine disclosing the name would allow Herod to easily seek out the child in the manger and slaughter just him, instead of all those innocent bystander babies.
Exactly. Plus, you gotta give Mary the chance to learn from the angel what Jesus' name ought to be. Can't just have her sitting there thinking "hmm, what should I name him?" And then go "Oh yeah, it's Jesus, LOL!"
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
In spite of it all, I'm happy that there was at least one item in the "party line" which I never bought, not even for a second. The Church teaches that its members shouldn't read "anti-Mormon" literature. I didn't fall for that, since if the Church is true, it'll stay true no matter what one reads, right?
Right. So how come I am still a TBM after having read more antiMormon literature than you can shake a stick at? What do you think you have that would shake my faith?
In other words, Shades' testimony is a very weak argument.