Glass & Steel in the Book of Mormon, why a problem?

[_Runtu]

That's really the case with all Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham anachronisms, isn't it.

It is. If you're not an apologist, you don't have a problem with saying:

There weren't horses in the Americas after Pleistocene times until the Spanish arrived.

The Breathing Permit of Hor has no relationship to the ancient Israelite myth of Abraham.

Native Americans did not use high-heat technologies to create metal weapons and tools.

Adam's altar was not still standing in Missouri in 1837.

There is no evidence of the existence of a 9-foot tall "white Lamanite" named Zelph.

[_Tobin]

You asked if Joseph had something in mind when he wrote the Book of Mormon. That's closest match to Book of Mormon names and places you'll find anywhere in the world - Joseph Smith's back yard.

It's interesting, but again I still ask the question, "If that is what he had in mind, why wander off of it and state later that Zarahemla was in Central America?" Also, Ramah/Cumorah isn't where it is suppose to be if the Book of Mormon was buried in that hill. I think it is clear that he just had no idea where it occurred and latched on to anything he ran across.

Read Isaiah 40–55. You'll notice it addresses many (then) current events, including some of the actions by Cyrus the Great. References to current events are quite helpful in establishing when a document was written.... Again, it's clear that you're quite ignorant about this subject. I suggest you look into it before attempting to refute it.

Again, it is speculation and it may be informed speculation, but unless you can produce a copy of the original, that is all it is. I'm not here to debate which words of Isaiah are his and which aren't. I'm neither qualified, nor do I think any of the current scholars (concensus or no) are either. I would have to wonder this however. Jesus Christ had these exact word available to him (supposed additions included). I wonder why the son of God didn't put down his foot and say knock it off and don't be screwing around with what Isaiah had to say? In fact, the Jesus of the New Testament supposedly fulfilled quotes from both halves of Isaiah - both chapters 53 and chapter 6. Now according to you, someone else made up chapters 40-55. That is really an odd position to take?

[_Buffalo]

Again, it is speculation and it may be informed speculation, but unless you can produce a copy of the original, that is all it is. I'm not here to debate which words of Isaiah are his and which aren't. I'm neither qualified, nor do I think any of the current scholars (concensus or no) are either. I would have to wonder this however. Jesus Christ had these exact word available to him (supposed additions included). I wonder why the son of God didn't put down his foot and say knock it off and don't be screwing around with what Isaiah had to say? In fact, the Jesus of the New Testament supposedly fulfilled quotes from both halves of Isaiah - both chapters 53 and chapter 6. Now according to you, someone else made up chapters 40-55. That is really an odd position to take?

Duetero-Isaiah contains the "suffering servant" passage that Christians often use as a messianic prophesy, but the scholarly consensus is that the suffering servant is in fact Israel itself, who by that time were in captivity.

It's not an odd position to take. Deutero-Isaiah is an example of pseudepigrapha. It's all over the Bible. Something like half the epistles of Paul were not authored by Paul, either.

Again, this is the scholarly consensus. You'd do well to educate yourself on the matter before trying to poo poo it.

[_Tobin]

Duetero-Isaiah contains the "suffering servant" passage that Christians often use as a messianic prophesy, but the scholarly consensus is that the suffering servant is in fact Israel itself, who by that time were in captivity. It's not an odd position to take. Deutero-Isaiah is an example of pseudepigrapha. It's all over the Bible. Something like half the epistles of Paul were not authored by Paul, either. Again, this is the scholarly consensus. You'd do well to educate yourself on the matter before trying to poo poo it.

Ok, so just be clear. Jesus Christ was himself fooled and is not the son of God. He fulfilled parts of Isaiah not written by Isaiah. Your facts just disproved Christianity as well. Poor Joseph Smith. Not only is Christianity a hoax but as a result, so is Mormonism. Well, if that is what you feel you must do to disprove Mormonism, have at it.

[_Runtu]

Ok, so just be clear. Jesus Christ was himself fooled and is not the son of God. He fulfilled parts of Isaiah not written by Isaiah. Your facts just disproved Christianity as well. Poor Joseph Smith. Not only is Christianity a hoax but as a result, so is Mormonism. Well, if that is what you feel you must do to disprove Mormonism, have at it.

Why would Jesus care who wrote Isaiah? If it's scripture, who cares who wrote it?

[_Tobin]

Why would Jesus care who wrote Isaiah? If it's scripture, who cares who wrote it?

Ah I see. So Jesus (the son of God supposedly) couldn't recognize what was written by Isaiah and what wasn't. He just felt the need to fulfill some unknown author's words to demonstrate he was the son of God as prophesied by Isaiah (but we know it wasn't *wink* *wink*, it was just some guy parading around as Isaiah and oh by the way that guy was NOT a prophet of God) for the fun of it? As you can see, this gets more and more absurd the further I go with it so I"ll stop here. You both have provided me a good laugh today though and I do appreciate that.

[_Runtu]

Ah I see. So Jesus (the son of God supposedly) couldn't recognize what was written by Isaiah and what wasn't. He just felt the need to fulfill some unknown author's words to demonstrate he was the son of God as prophesied by Isaiah (but we know it wasn't *wink* *wink*, it was just some guy parading around as Isaish and oh by the way that guy was NOT a prophet of God) for the fun of it? As you can see, this gets more and more absurd the further I go with it so I"ll stop here. You both have provided me a good laugh today though and I do appreciate that.

Clearly, you are not interested in discussing anything, as that requires, you know, listening to people. You prefer to create ridiculous strawmen and then laugh about how easy it is to knock them down.

Color me totally unimpressed.

[_Tobin]

Clearly, you are not interested in discussing anything, as that requires, you know, listening to people. You prefer to create ridiculous strawmen and then laugh about how easy it is to knock them down.

Color me totally unimpressed.

Oh, I think I got the gist of what you were trying to say and I know you don't think I listen, but I really do try. My criticism of you is that you seem to be willing to swallow utterly terrible assumptions without the slightest thought about the ramifications of those assumptions. This often leads you to absurd conclusions. I know you really want me to agree with you that chapters 40-55 couldn't have been written by Isaiah because it speaks to current events (the whole Cyrus-thing). But, as you said so eloquently, "Color me totally unimpressed" and the reason is simple. Isaiah could see the future, after all, he was a prophet of God including seeing the whole Cyrus-thing no matter the tense of how things were expressed. I was simply just trying to teach you lesson that when you fall for one bad assumption, hilarity ensues. And, yes, I know you can't see that.

[_Runtu]

Oh, I think I got the gist of what you were trying to say and I know you don't think I listen, but I really do try. My criticism of you is that you seem to be willing to swallow utterly terrible assumptions without the slightest thought about the ramifications of those assumptions. This often leads you to absurd conclusions. I know you really want me to agree with you that chapters 40-55 couldn't have been written by Isaiah because it speaks to current events (the whole Cyprus thing). But, as you said so eloquently, "Color me totally unimpressed" and the reason is simple. Isaiah could see the future, after all, he was a prophet of God including seeing the whole Cyprus thing no matter the tense of how things were expressed. I was simply just trying to teach you lesson that when you fall for one bad assumption, hilarity ensues. And, yes, I know you can't see that.

I suppose that's the hallmark of a true believer: mocking other people. You treat me as if I were just some guy who one day decided not to believe and then grasped for excuses (lame ones at that) to rationalize my unbelief.

You don't know me, and you don't know how long I've wrestled with the issues you so glibly dismiss. I was once where you are, though I've never been good at sneering, which seems to be a practiced art among some Mormon apologists. I'm glad I have enough apologist friends who actually do acknowledge the problems and deal with them instead of waving them off as speculation and then mocking me. Who needs that?

If Mormonism works for you, good for you. It doesn't for me. It was much less traumatic for me to realize that the church wasn't really true than it was to acknowledge a few months later how unhappy I'd been in the church. I haven't lost my faith in God, just in things I know aren't true and aren't morally right. Life is better with a clean conscience and an empty shelf.

[_Tobin]

I suppose that's the hallmark of a true believer: mocking other people. You treat me as if I were just some guy who one day decided not to believe and then grasped for excuses (lame ones at that) to rationalize my unbelief.

You don't know me, and you don't know how long I've wrestled with the issues you so glibly dismiss. I was once where you are, though I've never been good at sneering, which seems to be a practiced art among some Mormon apologists. I'm glad I have enough apologist friends who actually do acknowledge the problems and deal with them instead of waving them off as speculation and then mocking me. Who needs that?

If Mormonism works for you, good for you. It doesn't for me. It was much less traumatic for me to realize that the church wasn't really true than it was to acknowledge a few months later how unhappy I'd been in the church. I haven't lost my faith in God, just in things I know aren't true and aren't morally right. Life is better with a clean conscience and an empty shelf.

Runtu, I have been exactly where you are. I was both an ex-mormon (I believed Mormonism was a fairy tale) and an atheist and living far from Utah, where I was born. In fact, I lived in New York City for 10 years. And don't get me wrong when I express passionately why I think you are mistaken. From my perspective, I have had an experience with God and so you need to understand that I have had to re-examine many of my positions including many that you express now. And in many ways, I agree with you. I think the Mormon church is in general a terrible thing and makes people incredibly unhappy. It is NOT the way it is suppose to be and it should let people freely explore the truth and wrestle out the answers with God and their own best reason. The truth is there is a God and I hope you will pursue that belief. I am only discussing these topics on here for fun (and to wrestle some of my own demons) and I don't take what you have to say personally. I hope I understand your doubts and positions and am just trying to get you to think about them a little bit. If you still feel they are true at the end of the day and feel justified with God, then GREAT! If you feel what I have to say is helpful, that is good too.