Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah and Korash ...Really?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Stormy Waters

Re: Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah and Korash ...Really?

Post by _Stormy Waters »

BrianH wrote:More nonsense. Just because Mormons cannot stay on topic or answer direct challneges to the claims of their organization is no reason to pretend that the rules somehow give them an excuse to avoid dealing with such challenge.


So why is it when you challenge the belief system of the Mormons and they don't respond they are 'cowards', but you're free to run from every challenge to your own belief system? By your own standards you're a coward.
_RockSlider
_Emeritus
Posts: 6752
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:02 am

Re: Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah and Korash ...Really?

Post by _RockSlider »

BrianH wrote:Nonsense. Do try to follow here, Darth. The veracity of the Bible is not only NOT "directly on point", it is entirely irrelevant to the challenge I have placed before Mormons here.


Nonsense. Do try to follow here, BrianH. You have been challenged to participate in another thread. You continue to ignore and fail to respond to all of these challenges.

Are you the God of Challenges around here? Are you above participating in any thread/discussion which you do not have control of the OP? Why should anyone here even give you the time of day on your challenge when you refuse to participate in others?
_Darth J
_Emeritus
Posts: 13392
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:16 am

Re: Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah and Korash ...Really?

Post by _Darth J »

BrianH wrote:
Darth J wrote:
BH>>Even if that was true, it would simply be irrelevant to this topic. Even IF the Bible, for example, was proven to be a total fraud, invented by the Roman Catholic Church in 1492, when Columbus sailed the ocean blue, that STILL would not in any way even vaguely hint at any kind of support for the claims of the LDS church regarding the truthfulness of their "prophet's" translation of the LDS "scriptures".

Darth>The veracity of the Bible is directly on point. If the Bible is not true, then Mormonism cannot possibly be true. The uncomfortable fact that your cherished beliefs also go down with the ship is just too bad.


Nonsense. Do try to follow here, Darth. The veracity of the Bible is not only NOT "directly on point", it is entirely irrelevant to the challenge I have placed before Mormons here.


If Abraham never existed, as claimed in the Bible, then the rest of the discussion about the Book of Abraham is moot. Just because you want to frame the issue in a self-serving way does not mean anyone else is bound by your question-begging.

I am not asking about the truth of Mormonism in general, I am asking about the veracity of claims that a twice-convicted occult con artist supposedly translated the Egyptian Book of Breathings into the so-called "Book of Abraham" (which is as absurd as claiming that the Magna Carta was translated into a Chinese cook book).


When and of what was Joseph Smith convicted "twice"? He was not convicted of anything in the New York glass-looking proceeding. A magistrate simply found probable cause to bind him over for trial. That is not a conviction.

He was convicted of illegally running a bank in Ohio. There is one. Where is this other conviction?

MY belief pertaining to this subject is the only one that is relevant and I have good reason to believe that Smith was a total fraud. Among those reasons is the way Mormons flee from the challenge of simply providing any reason to believe them.


If there was no such person as Abraham, or if the story of Noah's ark is a myth, then necessarily the Book of Abraham is a fraud.

You put your beliefs at issue by coming here and posting. The truth value of other religious traditions is necessarily at issue with regard to Mormonism, since the LDS Church claims to be the one, true church. Also, the scope of this board is not defined by its name alone:

http://mormondiscussions.com/

Mormon Discussions. . . Because we all want the truth.

Here is a place of free discussion. Whether you want to discuss the finer intricacies of doctrine, or whether you want to discuss the truthiness of the church in general, your word will be heard here.

Pro, anti, investigator, questioner, critic, apologetic, no matter what you call yourself, what you have to say, or what your agenda is, you have a place here. We pride ourselves on a minimalistic moderation policy, so that your voice is always heard.


More nonsense. Just because Mormons cannot stay on topic or answer direct challneges to the claims of their organization is no reason to pretend that the rules somehow give them an excuse to avoid dealing with such challenge.


There is almost nobody with whom you have interacted on this board who believes that Joseph Smith was a prophet or that any branch of Mormonism is the true church. That includes me.

Don't get me wrong. Mormons are indeed welcome to continue to avoid answering my challenge by trying to make ME the topic of the debate. In fact I love it when Mormons do that because they prove by their own behavior that they are unable to deal with even the simplest and most obvious questions. But by the same rules, I have the right ignore the usual hand-waving distractions and evasions and to point out their failure to address, much less answer my challenge here.


Similarly, I love it when evangelical Christians continue to avoid my challenge by making claims unique to Mormonism the topic of the debate. In fact, I love it when evangelical Christians do that because they prove by their own behavior that they are unable to deal with even the simplest and most obvious questions about their own cherished beliefs. But by the same rules, I have the right to ignore the usual hand-waving distractions and evasions, and to point out their failure to address---much less answer---my challenge to the foundation they share with Mormons (the Bible).

I think believing Mormons should find comfort that they are not the only ones who find zealots desperately clinging to double standards, special pleading, and begging the question in their midst. Nearly every person you have addressed conceded your point long before you decided to use this board as your forum for vacuous babbling. The reason you are not being taken seriously by anyone is that many formerly believing Mormons have determined that much of what is in the Bible is also myth and superstition by the same kind of critical thinking that led them to reject the truth claims of Mormonism. Nobody is ever going to take you seriously on this board, either, because:

(1) you are demanding that formerly believing Mormons defend ideas that they have already rejected; and

(2) you are trying to draw a line in the sand where formerly believing Mormons have to stop questioning religious truth claims, a limitation not found either in this board's rules or in any meaningful approach to intellectual honesty.
_RockSlider
_Emeritus
Posts: 6752
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:02 am

Re: Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah and Korash ...Really?

Post by _RockSlider »

Darth J wrote:(1) you are demanding that formerly believing Mormons defend ideas that they have already rejected; and

(2) you are trying to draw a line in the sand where formerly believing Mormons have to stop questioning religious truth claims, a limitation not found either in this board's rules or in any meaningful approach to intellectual honesty.


These BrianH OP's have indeed been about the most bizarre threads I've seen here.

We have seen some out of touch posters before, but BrianH has to be in the running for the new village idiot.
_Mike Reed
_Emeritus
Posts: 983
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 7:28 pm

Re: Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah and Korash ...Really?

Post by _Mike Reed »

BrianH wrote:LOL !!!

Keep reaching, Mike ...and learn to read English a little better - the sources you cited (without actually READING, apparently) do not even hint at your identification of me as a "house church" pastor.

Um... If the links I gave did, I would've had no need to preface my remarks with "I could be wrong, but I vaguely remember..."

So, my vague memory was wrong. Do you remember me expressing doubt over whether you were pastor at all? As I said, "I don't believe BrianH is a pastor (not in any meaningful sense of the word). It seems unlikely that he could even retain a congregation (under his leadership)--even if it be a small house church."

But maybe I am wrong about this too.
Last edited by Hawkeye on Tue Jan 03, 2012 5:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
_mfbukowski
_Emeritus
Posts: 1202
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:35 pm

Re: Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah and Korash ...Really?

Post by _mfbukowski »

RockSlider wrote:
Darth J wrote:(1) you are demanding that formerly believing Mormons defend ideas that they have already rejected; and

(2) you are trying to draw a line in the sand where formerly believing Mormons have to stop questioning religious truth claims, a limitation not found either in this board's rules or in any meaningful approach to intellectual honesty.


These BrianH OP's have indeed been about the most bizarre threads I've seen here.

We have seen some out of touch posters before, but BrianH has to be in the running for the new village idiot.

He has been told again and again and he just ignores it. I bet you could lock him in a padded cell and he would continue raving and preaching to the buttons on the padding.

And so continues the wacky legacy of Walter Martin.
_Mike Reed
_Emeritus
Posts: 983
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 7:28 pm

Re: Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah and Korash ...Really?

Post by _Mike Reed »

mfbukowski wrote:And so continues the wacky legacy of Walter Martin.

In all fairness to the WMM forum, they banned him.
_consiglieri
_Emeritus
Posts: 6186
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:47 pm

Re: Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah and Korash ...Really?

Post by _consiglieri »

BrianH wrote:The challenge you (and/or actual Mormons) face here is the challenge of showing that Joseph Smith actually translated the Book of Abraham correctly -BH


At bottom, I think this comes down to the definition of "correctly."

Pretty much any relatively well informed person, Mormon or not, recognizes that the Book of Abraham is not a transliteration of the Breathing Permit.

If you insist that the only "correct" translation of the Breathing Permit is one that yields an English equivalent of the Breathing Permit, you are correct.

I like to think it is possible that a "correct" translation of the Breathing Permit could yield spiritual truths lying behind it, and could even use the Breathing Permit as a launching pad for authentic scripture having absolutely nothing to do with the original meaning of the Breathing Permit itself.

The challenge to you (and/or actual Christians) is to set forth a cogent argument as to why God would want his people to have an English transliteration of an Egyptian breathing permit.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)
_RockSlider
_Emeritus
Posts: 6752
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:02 am

Re: Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah and Korash ...Really?

Post by _RockSlider »

consiglieri wrote:The challenge to you (and/or actual Christians) is to set forth a cogent argument as to why God would want his people to have an English transliteration of an Egyptian breathing permit.


Seems a strange challenge. It makes me want to ask ... Why would God use such an Obscure document as a catalyst? At this point in the game, Joseph Smith had much experience with direct revelation (i.e. D&C). If it would have been stated more along the lines as "I looked upon the scrolls and my eyes were opened …"

But it just was not presented this way.
_consiglieri
_Emeritus
Posts: 6186
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:47 pm

Re: Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah and Korash ...Really?

Post by _consiglieri »

RockSlider wrote:But it just was not presented this way.


I hear what you are saying, Relief Society.

I can envision a scenario where Joseph Smith mistakenly thought he actually was translating writings of Abraham, and the breathing permit served as a catalyst. (And an expensive catalyst, at that.)

By means of this catalyst, Joseph Smith's prophetic imagination may have been fired, allowing him to perform the functional equivalent of revising his inspired "translation" of the Bible so as to incorporate new understandings into the story of Abraham.

Here I find helpful the actual manner in which Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon, with his head in a hat and without looking at the plates.

Which raises the interesting question of whether Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Mormon bears a similar relationship to the contents of the plates as his translation of the Abraham bears to the contents of the papyrus.

It is certainly a puzzle I never expect to resolve from a believing perspective.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)
Post Reply