The Instigator
InkSlinger4
Pro (for)
Losing
30 Points
The Contender
Mangani
Con (against)
Winning
51 Points

The Book of Mormon is Scripture

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/7/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,301 times Debate No: 3947
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (46)
Votes (17)

 

InkSlinger4

Pro

Challenging because of your comment on Mormons are Christian. Not mine, but the other one. I would debate about the rest of Mormon scripture, but because you're so adamant about reading their entirety and I'm only working on the other two, I thought I'd keep it to the one I've read and our church is named after.

The Book of Mormon: Another Testimony of Jesus Christ is written by several ancient prophets in America and edited by Mormon, another prophet, who it's named after. While my potential opponent claims it's like a 'comic book', in addition to recounting the tale of ancient Americans and the spread of the church there (you know, like a history book), it constantly teaches doctrine, testifies of truth, and is written to the people of our time to teach us. It also does not include pictures.

Frankly, I'm surprised that my potential opponent got through 2 Nephi and still thinks it's as action-y as a comic book. Congrats on that, I suppose, but did you also read where Jacob handles that guy who denies Jesus yet has read the scriptures? You know, and then Jacob said he didn't understand it and the guy felt so guilty he wanted to die?

It may be hard to believe in miracles, (especially when you're cynical) but that doesn't necessarily mean they didn't/don't exist.
Mangani

Con

First off, I thank my opponent for posing this challenge. As I stated in the comments section of that "other debate" it is not my intention to "win", rather to inform. I know every Mormon on Debate.org, and at your local temple will jump on here to vote for you, but logic and truth will prevail and "someone" will learn and accept the truth. It is also not my intention to offend your religion, nor to convert you to any other religion. Let me start by addressing some of your points:

"I would debate about the rest of Mormon scripture, but because you're so adamant about reading their entirety and I'm only working on the other two, I thought I'd keep it to the one I've read and our church is named after."

-This is one of my points in that comment. Mormons claim to be Mormon without knowing their entire religion- you can't believe in Mormonism without examining every aspect and measuring it against past scripture. You must compare the Book of Mormon to the bible, then to Doctrines and Covenants, and all three to The Pearl of Great Price before you can honestly say you "believe" what the Mormons teach. Otherwise you will have incidents like the one I described where I pointed out theology the missionary had not yet examined, and ,in his own words "who would believe that"?

Though your premise says "The Book of Mormon is Scripture" and you go on to refer to it as "Mormon scripture", I will argue my point from the views of Judaism and Christianity from which your belief in "Scripture" should spring. Every comparison to "new Christian scripture" should be made against the Old and New Testaments, so as to examine the words of past prophets, accepted theology and doctrine, and the beliefs of other believers in Jesus Christ. The Book of Mormon also makes claims against accepted anthropology and history, and so I will use science to debunk the historical points.

"Another Testimony of Jesus Christ is written by several ancient prophets in America and edited by Mormon, another prophet, who it's named after."

-Prophets according to whom? What qualifies these figures as prophets? Is there any historical and/or anthropological correlation between their teachings and that of accepted anthropology and history? What nationality are these men?

"While my potential opponent claims it's like a 'comic book', in addition to recounting the tale of ancient Americans and the spread of the church there (you know, like a history book), it constantly teaches doctrine, testifies of truth, and is written to the people of our time to teach us. It also does not include pictures."

-This was not a claim to be proved by me, rather I referred to it as a "comic book" because it is fictional and makes fantastic claims. It includes non-historic characters, makes historical claims not grounded in truth, and was written by a child.

"Frankly, I'm surprised that my potential opponent got through 2 Nephi and still thinks it's as action-y as a comic book."

-I never claimed it contained "action" like a comic book. Read above statement.

"It may be hard to believe in miracles, (especially when you're cynical) but that doesn't necessarily mean they didn't/don't exist."

-This isn't an examination as to whether or not miracles happen. This is an examination of scripture, and I will treat this debate as such. My beliefs are irrelevant as I will maintain a purely logical stance against the premise and your subsequent arguments.

Lets examine certain aspects of the Book of Mormon, and claims made within it:

Moroni is the "angel of revelation" in this "scripture"- There are several problems with this. First off, the "angel of revelation" generally accepted in Judaism and Christianity is Gabriel. He first appears in "The Book of Daniel", and appears several times throughout historical scriptures (Jewish, Christian, and Muslim) as the primary messenger of God. This is a consistency departed from in Mormonism which claims a man who died came back as an angel of revelation. Again, this is inconsistent with Abrahamic religions which reject outright the "consultation of the dead", and treat human spirits who speak to the living as "undesired".

The book was written in "reformed Egyptian"- Again, several problems. No Egyptologist or linguist recognizes this as a "real" language, much less a historically "Egyptian" language. Furthermore, it would be the first "scripture" ever written originally in Egyptian of any form (except for maybe Ancient Egyptian which was known to Moses, and some of his writings "may" have originally been written in Ancient Egyptian, but that was 4,000 years before the time claimed by the Mormons in their own writings).

Seer Stones- the "seer stones" Smith later claims to have used to translate the "golden tablets" were a novelty used in his area at the time, in a local culture known for a "craze for treasure hunting". Smith was occasionally hired to "act" as a "seer" for local treasure hunters. He later found his own "treasure"...

Writings on metal plates- Though there are sporadic examples of "some" writings on metal plates, the plates are relatively thin when compared to the description of those supposedly translated into the Book of Mormon. The longest of these writings is eight pages, and no ancient examples support a scriptural tradition or precedent, and there are no examples of this being done in Egyptian whatsoever. The metal plate theory just does not fit history...

Conflict in messenger- Joseph Smith contradicted himself. He says the angel "Moroni" revealed the Book of Mormon in some writings, and in others claims it was "Nephi".

Cumorah and Moroni- Though there is doubt risen by "believers", there is too much logical coincidence between the writings about William Kidd (a pirate) who purportedly buried treasure on Comoros Island, Joseph Smith's past "treasure hunting" experience and knowledge, and the fact that Moroni is a town on Comoros Island (Cumorah-Comoros, Moroni-Moroni, buried treasure, treasure hunting???).

Nephites- According the the Book of Mormon, Nephites are decedents of a Hebrew prophet Nephi who left Jerusalem for America ca. 589bc. Several problems: there is no DNA correlation between ancient Hebrews and Native Americans. There is no anthropological, cultural, or otherwise physical evidence of their existence. There is no physical, circumstantial, or otherwise historical proof that Judaism was practiced in the Americas at the time, and later Christianity which Mormons claim the Nephits converted to in the 4th century AD.

Lamanites- The Book of Mormon describes Lamanites as having "skin of blackness". It is often accepted that the Lamanites referred to in the Book of Mormon are "blacks" which are generally accepted as decendants of Africans, not Native Americans. There is no anthropological evidence of their existence, and all claims in the Book of Mormon as to their nature, culture, etc. are in direct contrast to accepted science and history.

Jaredites- The Jaredites supposedly migrated to the Americas around the time of the Tower of Babel. This would mean there were Middle Eastern decendants in the Americas for thousands of years- a claim directly in contrast to accepted anthropology and history.

Mulekites- Again, no physical, cultural, religious, or geneological evidence of their existence other than claims made in the Book of Mormon.

It is important to note that nearly every claim of historical veracity in the Book of Mormon is not challenged outright by personal belief, rather by accepted history and anthropology. Though Judaism makes references to religions, cultures, geographical locations, historically verifiable persons (Rameses, Xerxes, Israel and his decendants, Egypt, Tigris and Euphrates rivers, Babylon, Mesopotamia, etc. etc. etc.) as well as does Christianity (Rome, Paul, Caesar, Pontius Pilate, Egypt, Greece, Thesalonica, etc. etc. etc.), the Book of Mormon does not.
Debate Round No. 1
InkSlinger4

Pro

My temple? What? It seems to me that you have no understanding of Mormon culture, yet profess to know all. The church is not divided into temples, but into wards, then stakes. Also, if you're going to base your entire opinion of the church on your deliberate confusion of a possibly new missionary, I doubt there's anything anyone can do to change your mind at all.

In reference to the prophets, I was speaking from my own beliefs. If you want to disagree with them, that's another debate that I don't have time for. Their nationality was, respectively, Nephite and Lamanite.

And, saying that it is like a comic book because you believe it's fictional- wouldn't fiction, indeed, be more accurate? Also, I challenge you to find a comic book written by a child. Poor metaphor, in my opinion.

As to Moroni, we believe that certain beings, when dead, were soon resurrected to become messengers of God. Thus, they are not dead.

The fact that scholars don't believe in a language that was changed over many years on a different continent from the one it originated does not surprise me. Same thing with the plate thickness. You're trying to compare a completely different culture with one from a different continent. Furthermore, science once disagreed with it because Nephi used a steel bow and they said they didn't have steel. Unfortunately, they later found that they did. So, I'm inclined to hold out.

And your 'seeing stones'? In actuality, it was the Urim and Thummim, a breastplate and bow, I think. In any case, no crystal balls going on. In fact, later in the history of the church, a group of church members were excommunicated and were involved with a funky seeing stone.

Before I take any heed at all to your claims of contradiction, I'd like to see a source. You're dumping all this junk on me, but not lending any real credit to your sources.

To the racial stuff: The Nephites died out, if you recall. Same with the Jaredites. I'm shocked that you're making such an error, since you're so infallible (and vocal about it.) You claim the Lamanites are descendants of africans? Read it again, because they're descendants of Lemuel, Laman, and the daughters of Ishmael.

You say that Judaism and Christianity reference recognizable features? Have you considered the fact that all of our history is from basically the same view point as them? The peoples in the Book of Mormon left no record except for it, and the Lamanites didn't keep any records, being less technological and more tribal. If we had as many other records from their time as we do from the religions you refer to, no doubt it would be much more clear as well.

And you're welcome for posing the challenge.
Mangani

Con

The topic of debate is whether or not the Book of Mormon is "scripture". My arguments are not ad-hominem, nor are they subjective, rather in response to your premise.

Indeed Mormons do have temples as places of worship...

"Also, if you're going to base your entire opinion of the church on your deliberate confusion of a possibly new missionary, I doubt there's anything anyone can do to change your mind at all."

-Again, my arguments are directed at and about the topic at hand. Your attempts at making this a personal issue will not detract the readers from seeing the clear picture I framed in my arguments.

"Their nationality was, respectively, Nephite and Lamanite."

-As I pointed out in my last argument, neither culture exists according to accepted science, and it is your burden to prove they do if you are going to make claims that rely on this possibility. Furthermore you fail to prove why anyone who believes in the God of Abraham should accept these men as prophets.

fic.tion-a. An imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality but has been invented.
b. The act of inventing such a creation or pretense.

"Also, I challenge you to find a comic book written by a child. Poor metaphor, in my opinion."

-I already explained my comic book reference, and my reference to The Book of Mormon being written by a child was a reference to the fact that Joseph Smith was 14 when he began writing it, and 18 when he finished- indeed a child. I mentioned his being a child so as to allude to the fact that most of the teachings contained within the Book of Mormon can be rather childish when compared to accepted science AND scripture.

"As to Moroni, we believe that certain beings, when dead, were soon resurrected to become messengers of God. Thus, they are not dead."

-This is not accepted theology amongst Abrahamic religions. Among these religions, angels, seraphs, and cherubs are beings created by God, and according to Hebrew belong to the order of "elohim" which are not resurrected humans. Abrahamic theology in general accepts that resurrected humans are transformed, and posses "exalted" forms of their physical bodies, but nowhere in scripture are resurrected humans referred to as angels. Furthermore, you fail to address the issue with his being as a "messenger of revelation", when Abrahamic religions generally apply that role to Gabriel. Another issue you fail to address is the etymology of his name. Gabriel, Michael, and other angels mentioned by name have an etymological link to the word used for God (el) through the Hebrew language. Moroni would be the first angel in religious history to have a name unassociated to God etymologically (even prophets have etymological links to God through their names)...

"The fact that scholars don't believe in a language that was changed over many years on a different continent from the one it originated does not surprise me."

-It should surprise you because the people you claim spoke that language weren't of the race of people that spoke that language in the first place. There is no remnant of that language in the Americas, and only the claims of Joseph Smith that it ever existed. He couldn't provide any texts, or etymological links in "reformed Egyptian" to any historically Egyptian or Semitic language. No ancient peoples of the Americas have named their civilizations through any etymological link to ancient Egyptian (which, given the dates Joseph Smith claims it was spoken, would include variations of "reformed Egyptian"). No such traces of the language exist ANYWHERE in the Americas.

Apparently you haven't read the Book of Mormon. The claims in this book are #1- that these "separate cultures from a different continent" were descendants of Israel. That would mean they were Hebrew by ethnicity, and Jewish by religion. There would be SOME remnant of that culture amongst the four cultures mentioned in the Book of Mormon, especially if they claim such a link that they even cared to mention it. We are not talking tens of thousands of years ago, rather 2500 or so... I can tell you stories, and even speak to you using words from people who lived in my geographical home 2500 years ago... why would this language spoken by 4 great nations that were technologically advanced enough to cross the Atlantic and is a continuation of the language of another great civilization be completely wiped off the planet???

"Furthermore, science once disagreed with it because Nephi used a steel bow and they said they didn't have steel..."

-They who? What are you talking about? Can we get some reference or are you just going to throw out unfounded arguments??? Do you know what you're talking about? Do you really want to get into metallurgy???

" In actuality, it was the Urim and Thummim, a breastplate and bow, I think."

-You think, but they are also referred to as "seer" stones.

"You're dumping all this junk on me, but not lending any real credit to your sources."

-Are we going to play this game? The only claims I've made are of your lack of evidence, and the lack of evidence on any of the points I brought up about the Book of Mormon, hence attacking your argument that it is "scripture". As the arguer for pro, you have the burden of proof. I have made no claims that would need proving would you provide any evidence supporting your premise in the first place. Indeed I made arguments that are mostly based on second grades science, and I don't think our audience is that ignorant to common knowledge. When you issue a proper challenge to my arguments by providing some kind of proof supporting your premise, then we can have a debate. As of yet you have made absolutely no claims supporting your premise.

"The Nephites died out, if you recall. Same with the Jaredites."

-As I pointed out, there would be some sort of genetic connection or some remnant of their DNA amongst the American Indians. Indeed it is the Church of LDS that claims these civilizations were the fore bearers of the Native Americans.

"I'm shocked that you're making such an error..."

-Try to stay unemotional. I have made no personal attacks against you, rather have remained purely focused on your premise. Am I supposed to not say anything in defense of my position in a debate???

"You claim the Lamanites are descendants of africans? Read it again, because they're descendants of Lemuel, Laman, and the daughters of Ishmael."

-You're mixing science with fantasy. I gave you the science- the reference made to Lamanites regarding their racial characteristics are supportive of a reference to descendants of Africans, not Israelites (or Ishmaelites for that matter). In context this statement is part of a broader statement placing the position of the Book of Mormon in doubt with regard to the existence of Lamanites in the first place.

"You say that Judaism and Christianity reference recognizable features?"

-Yes, and I mentioned some.

"Have you considered the fact that all of our history is from basically the same view point as them?"

-My reference is not in support of the divinity of Judaic and Christian scripture, rather in reference to the (at least some) accuracies in their historical content. The Book of Mormon provides almost no historical content. Historical claims made in the Talmud, Bible, and Qur'an can be compared to and verified amongst the writings of other cultures (indeed these even refer to each other). The Babylonians, Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, etc. all wrote about the Hebrews, Christians, and vice versa.

"The peoples in the Book of Mormon left no record except for it, and the Lamanites didn't keep any records, being less technological and more tribal."

-So they conveniently become "less technologically advanced" once they cross the Atlantic on boats??? They write in "reformed Egyptian", forge golden tablets, wage wars, and leave no physical, written, or DNA record? How convenient..
Debate Round No. 2
InkSlinger4

Pro

Al of your responses to your metaphors leave much to be desired. Though temples are places of ORDINANCES, they are not groups of people, nor are specific groups of people assigned to them. Churches and then Stakes are.

And just because you believe Joseph Smith was a child doesn't mean comic books are written by children.

By the way, Christianity as a whole IS an Abrahamic religion. Whether or not YOU believe Mormons are Christian is a debate I've already won, and will not repeat with you. We, though, DO believe in being resurrected- and, because, as you've already stated, no one knows their language, for all you know it could be etymologically connected. If your status as a messenger of God has to be judged by your name, though, it seems that science has little to do with it.

Joseph Smith was not allowed to share the Plates with anyone- when he shared even a portion with a loyal and trusted friend, it was lost forever. Though he did bring it to a language specialist somewhere.... but it's meaningless anyway.

Also, if you remember, there were huge wars, earthquakes, fires, cities sinking into seas... all kinds of destruction that you must have read about, and we don't know what else the Lamanites did, or even what happened to them.

With the steel connection, many have criticized the Book of Mormon for containing references to steel- for example, in this article: "Steel in Antiquity: A Problem in Terminology" [by Lenore O. Keene Congdon in Studies Presented to George M. A. Hanfmann, ed. David G. Mitten et al., Harvard University, Fogg Art Museum Monographs in Art and Archaeology, vol. 2 (Mainz, West Germany: Verlag Philipp Von Zabern, 1971), pp. 17-27]. However, steel is often mentioned in the bible (2 Sam. 22:35, Psalms 18:34, Job 20:24, and Jeremiah 15:12 in the Old Testament). Steel is a very close step after smelting Iron, and the Iron age began as early as the 12th Century BC.

Actually, if we look at that, Steel is a metal almost exclusively European. It started with the experiments of Neolithic peoples, and the dry climate of the Fertile Crescent then could succor long fires, further progressing technology.

I've made claims, but you haven't asked me for any more evidence. I asked you, and if you have a problem with mine, fix yours and ask me. Fortunately for you, I've attempted to remedy it- though it not only my responsibility, if you want to win.

And we're not taking Science and changing it around to fit science, or taking only its descriptions instead of its facts. So please spare me the 'Lamanites are African' argument. That opens up a really odd and unpleasant can of completely unnecessary worms.

And the Jaredites and Nephites did not intermingle with the Lamanites, the actual forbears of the Native Americans. Actually, the Nephites and Lamanites never even interacted with the Jaredites- they just found their bones and a book.

In the Book of Mormon they refer to other plates, brought from Europe- and, actually, as I said before, a great deal of information was tragically lost. We lost the entire History section, retaining only the religious section. Also, a large part of the plates were bound, so there IS more information- we just don't yet have al of it.

The Lamanites were not under the favor of God at all, and didn't make any discoveries since all good stems from his inspiration. This is a belief held by more than just Mormons, and would happen after the close of the Book o Mormon.

Finally, you said miracles don't have anything to do with this- I say they do. The Scriptures are the word of God, and what God does is miracles. I've fought this on your scientific turf, but you have not taken miracles at all into account. We don't know all the will of God, some, indeed, he conceals from us, so it makes sense that he would not yet reveal to the entire world the whole of the Ancient American history. I mean, look already at what our science has done to mutilate religion.

Thanks for debating.
Mangani

Con

"Though temples are places of ORDINANCES, they are not groups of people, nor are specific groups of people assigned to them. Churches and then Stakes are...And just because you believe Joseph Smith was a child doesn't mean comic books are written by children."

-It is foolish of you to attempt to even imply this has anything at all to do with this debate. I understand you are probably angry because you cannot address my points, but that doesn't mean you should grab at the most casual statements I have made in analogy- especially when they in no way impact the veracity of my arguments.

"By the way, Christianity as a whole IS an Abrahamic religion."

-Ummm... I am the one who made that assertion. Thanks for letting me know you are at least skimming through my responses.

"Whether or not YOU believe Mormons are Christian is a debate I've already won, and will not repeat with you."

-Again, you are implying this implied statement(implied by your own inference, not mine) has anything to do with my arguments. This was your last argument... you should have at least tried to have substance rather than bring up things very impertinent to this debate.

"We, though, DO believe in being resurrected- and, because, as you've already stated, no one knows their language, for all you know it could be etymologically connected."

-We do have traces of their language- their names and what they called the places they frequented. I have already shown how the names- ie. Moroni, have no etymological link to ancient Hebrew (at least none implied by any prior scripture, and/or my opponents own assertions). The claim that these Hebrews from the first century BC spoke an unknown, undocumented, and previously unheard of variation to a very known language- Egyptian- and there is absolutely no trace of this language is just not rational.

"If your status as a messenger of God has to be judged by your name, though, it seems that science has little to do with it."

-Etymology is the science or study of words, and has everything to do with the lack of veracity to the claims made by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and variations thereof. Your entire religion is based on a translation, and you will deny the importance of knowing the origins of language, words, and names???

"Joseph Smith was not allowed to share the Plates with anyone- when he shared even a portion with a loyal and trusted friend, it was lost forever."

-That's not true. You are adjusting the story to fit your argument. Joseph Smith "revealed" the plates to a "group" of trusted individuals under pressure to provide proof of the origin of his claims (the 11 Witnesses: 3 Witnesses, 8 Witnesses). According to early church leaders like Oliver Cowdrey, Joseph Smith and a few others returned the plates to a cave in Cumorah Hill after the translations. They are not "lost forever" as you claim. What was lost was "the Book of Lehi" which was written on 116 pages that were "lost" and "destroyed". Because Joseph Smith felt he was being baited into retranslating the book, he refused to ever translate the Book of Lehi and instead replaced it with an abridgement from yet another plate. Mmmhmm...

"Though he did bring it to a language specialist somewhere.... but it's meaningless anyway."

-You mean the language specialist that later denounced him? You mean Professor Charles Anthon who on Feb. 17, 1834 wrote a letter denouncing the claim by Joseph Smith and others that he had validated the language on the golden plates as "reformed egyptian hieroglyphics"?

"Also, if you remember, there were huge wars, earthquakes, fires, cities sinking into seas... all kinds of destruction that you must have read about, and we don't know what else the Lamanites did, or even what happened to them."

-But yet we have much evidence of the Olmecs who existed around the same time frame claimed in the BoM about these other civilizations! Not only that, but the LDS claims that the Native Americans are descendants of these civilizations, not that these civilizations were erased off the face of the earth! The BoM peoples have a seven day week- inconsistent with any Mesoamerican calendar. The BoM refers to the following things that did not exist in Pre-Columbian America, and would have been here when the Spaniards arrived: mule, bull, calf, cattle, cow, domestic goat, horse, ox, domestic sheep, sow, swine, elephants, wheat, and barley. They had: chariots, steel swords, bellows for blacksmithing, and silk. Yet none of these things were present in America and NO anthropological evidence of their existence has ever been found.

"Actually, if we look at that, Steel is a metal almost exclusively European."

-First of all, the Old Testament is translated from a known language. The fact that the translators knew of steel only allowed for them to substitute that word for what they knew metallurgists to use in weapons making. As you said- Steel is almost exclusively European- your argument which serves my point. The bible was translated by Europeans. The actual word translated as steel is "copper"(Heb. kesheth-nehushah) as there was not a word for brass (though they probably were referring to brass). Since we can' examine "reformed egyptian", noone can say if Joseph Smith made the same mistake (except for his claim that his translation was divine, and therefore infallible). Thanks for bringing this up!

"Lamanites, the actual forbears of the Native Americans"

-Let's examine THIS claim then, because earlier you stated the civilizations were destroyed and therefore there would BE no trace of them. But if they are the forebears and they are descendants of Laman, which the BoM claims to have been a Hebrew, why do the Native Americans have no Semitic DNA??? Why do they in fact have Siberian/Asian DNA as science and anthropology actually suggest they should???

"a great deal of information was tragically lost."

-How convenient...

"The Lamanites were not under the favor of God at all, and didn't make any discoveries since all good stems from his inspiration."

-Then they couldn't have been the "forebears of the Native Americans" who had very advanced technology. Native Americans built great Pyramids like the Egyptians, they created the most accurate calendar, and they mapped the stars accurately. Either they were not on bad terms with God, or they were not Lamanites. Either way the truth contradicts your statement.

"Finally, you said miracles don't have anything to do with this- I say they do....I mean, look already at what our science has done to mutilate religion."

-This isn't about miracles because miracles don't have to be irrational. God would not create the irrational miracle of erasing every trace of 4 different civilizations descended from his chosen people in another land (as he did not erase the existence of any civilization named or referred to in the bible). It would be an irrational "miracle" to say there are animals in America that did not exist here until recently. Your miracle argument is irrational, as you would have to believe the entire BoM is a magical book of mystical beings long gone and that is not what your church teaches. You are simply altering the scope of the argument because you have no rational answers to my questions and findings.

Look, it is historical fact that Joseph Smith was a "treasure hunter", and that he had previously swindled people out of money using "seer stones". Joseph Smith even translated "The Kinderhook Plates" which were a forgery. The Plates are mentioned in the History of your Church, and it is documented that they were a forgery. There is a host of things inconsistent with reality found in the BoM: culture, metallurgy, animals, crops, geography, script, races- all things that have scientifically verified at least SOME claims in nearly every religion. Science has not verified ANY of the above named items in the BoM.

To Be Continued...
Debate Round No. 3
46 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by InsertNameHere 7 years ago
InsertNameHere
Sure, the Book or Mormon can be considered scripture to those who want to believe it is. I certainly wouldn't equate it to the status of the Torah, Bible, or Qur'an though.
Posted by Mangani 7 years ago
Mangani
Hmmm... I just looked at my profile and didn't find where I "claimed to be an intellectual".

Being closed minded does not equal to rejecting Mormonism. I have studied Mormonism since I was 15 years old. I read the Pearl of Great Price, Doctrines and Covenants, AND the Book of Mormon. I also studied the life of Joseph Smith through different sources. I've studied the claims made in all the books, and about half is automatically a common sense dismissal. Like the name Moroni having a Semitic origin. It does not. Neither do a great deal of the other comic book characters featured in Joe Smith's little collection.

"By the way, translation of the Book of Mormon did not start until Joseph was 18. Your timing is 4 years off"
-No. He 'discovered' the tablets when he was 14, and the rest of the story begins when he was 18. In other words he began writing his comic book novela when he was 14.

As far as being proved wrong- I challenged you to a debate. How is that being afraid of being proved wrong???
Posted by wheelhouse3 7 years ago
wheelhouse3
Wow. I find it hard to believe that anyone claiming to be an intellectual can be as ignorant and close-minded as you are. The reason you won't read those articles is because you're too afraid of being proved wrong-- not because you'd be bored. Any intelligent person can follow the logic of those articles-- they are NOT incoherent. Your "comic book" theory is ridiculous and immature. The Bible has just as much, if not more, action and war scenes as the Book of Mormon.
By the way, translation of the Book of Mormon did not start until Joseph was 18. Your timing is 4 years off.
Go ahead and challenge me to a debate if you think your logic can defeat mine.
Posted by Mangani 7 years ago
Mangani
@wheelhouse3- No thanks. I don't wish to be bored with the incoherent nonsense compiled by those wishing to justify their comic book as a holy book. Call it what you want. I don't really care, but at least acknowledge the truth- the book was written by a young boy over the period of four years (14-18) after he learned a bit of "treasure hunting", which was popular scam in those days, and read a couple of comic books written by one of his treasure hunting mentors.

If you really want me to read your otherwise useless references, challenge me to a debate. This website is not for friendly discussion amongst those who disagree. It is for those who disagree to debate. So challenge me, or continue trolling. Peace.
Posted by wheelhouse3 7 years ago
wheelhouse3
Mangani,
As most of your arguments were to the effect that the Book of Mormon has no correlation to historical or archaeological facts, I would like to offer you some links to some reading that I believe greatly diminish and dismiss your arguments. I hope that you will be kind enough to read them all through. There are many articles on this site that prove first and foremost that, at least, the Book of Mormon was NOT written by Joseph Smith, as you so claim. In fact, many of the articles, prove that to be impossible. Religious experts (Mormon and non-Mormon alike) have proved that even the most educated men of that day and age could not have written that book. They would need to have extensive knowledge of writing style (which was not studied at that time), the Hebrew language and it's varieties, the cultures of countless South American people (which, again, people hadn't even begun to study at that time), and the Bible. Joseph Smith had only a third grade education and could hardly write a letter, let alone the Book of Mormon. Therefore, I ask that you read these articles and then we will see what is "logic and truth" and who is the "someone" that "will learn and accept the truth."
http://mi.byu.edu...
Posted by cooljpk 7 years ago
cooljpk
any religious idea is implausible!!!
Posted by Freeman 7 years ago
Freeman
Mormonism is just regular Christianity plus some rather implausible ideas.
Posted by thisoneguy 8 years ago
thisoneguy
God bless
Posted by cooljpk 8 years ago
cooljpk
i meant that statement as if it is against god why is it so well off.
The Church use it money for the welfare of human kind which is alot more than a lot of other churches. which in turns make them more "spiritual". Almost all religions sacrifice, but they follow Christ more than any other. they teach it which is more than any one else does. and 17% that is alot less than U.S.'s 50%. And Deuteronomy 7:3-4 is why outer religions fail. Outer religions are extremely hard to keep control over. Utah not Mormon, Get Some More Reliable and specific sources to win over people because yours Suck!!! they Praise him For what he Did not him!
You are so biter it makes me laugh!!! Get over your self righteousness and go out and serve other not rebuke them i am done with your patheticness. when you have reliable source, complete information and can look at it with an open mind i will reply. until then i will respect the Mormons and thier crist like ways and book Of SCRIPTURE which is just as good as the bible!
Posted by thisoneguy 8 years ago
thisoneguy
Why is it that The LDS Church so Rich and loving?, Is being "rich" a financial thing?, No, it's spiritual, can money have eternal life?, can a spirit have eternal life?, so if the truth be told they are really quite poor. and you know why they have money, because they teach it is required as part of the plan of salvation, and this is Christianity?,, loving?,,, Mormonism teaches high family values, well lets look closer into the fruits of Mormonism, divorce rates in Mormonism are shocking, it goes from 17% for a Temple wedding to 40% for a marriage that has one member and one non member, these are State figures, and they show that when compared to others, Mormonism does more harm to the people they help, Fact ! also Utah, has more bankruptcies than any other State, has more than twice as many people on antidepressants than any other state, more Internet porn than any other state, they are the only church I know who sing praises to a man on a Sunday, "praise to the man" (Joseph Smith) they are certainly loving to him. and this is Christianity?, we are taught that we shall know false prophets by their fruits, well that's just some of their fruits, LDS Membership figures in the USA are dropping in a downward spiral,they are hemorrhaging, despite missionaries attempts to shore it up, Catholic church, 1 billion members, much the same as the LDS church, both part of a weak religious mass movement, weak in truth, self belief, spirit, knowledge, scripture, etc, "the easily corruptible"= "the weak". all mass religious movements provide a service for the Lord, they separate the wheat from the chaff, "wheat"= "the Elect", as described in the Bible, Christians do not need churches,let alone Temples with 12 Ft thick walls (SLC), our sabbath is in Christ, seven days a week = amplified, but we go and share in the word, for we love the Lord, no other reason or reward,
I hope I've answered all your questions, Hate the sin, love the sinner.
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by apologia101 6 years ago
apologia101
InkSlinger4ManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by headphonegut 7 years ago
headphonegut
InkSlinger4ManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by BellumQuodPacis 7 years ago
BellumQuodPacis
InkSlinger4ManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by NYCDiesel 7 years ago
NYCDiesel
InkSlinger4ManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by 18freckles 8 years ago
18freckles
InkSlinger4ManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by cooljpk 8 years ago
cooljpk
InkSlinger4ManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by thisoneguy 8 years ago
thisoneguy
InkSlinger4ManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
InkSlinger4ManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Crust89 9 years ago
Crust89
InkSlinger4ManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by huntertracker6 9 years ago
huntertracker6
InkSlinger4ManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03