A Book of Mormon tour

[RebeccaJ]

This line of thinking really puzzles me. So no one can prove the Book of Mormon wrong, huh ? By this logic, I should be able to go into a bank, claim I make an annual salary of $1,000,000.00 and ask for a loan 0f $10,000,000.00. Then I should expect them to just give me the loan based on my claim to make this salary based on no proof other than my word.
The bank is obviously not going to take my word for it, they’re going to ask for proof of income. So am I going to say, no you need to give me a loan because you can’t prove i don’t make $1,000,000? I’d be laughed out of the building, because this is an illegitimate argument. I would have to prove my income. LDS make the claim the church is true. It is up to the LDS to come up with something in the real world to back up this claim. Faith is fine, blind faith just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
Issue after issue, the LDS stand all alone, the Trinity and the nature of God, the BOM, reformed Egyptian, DNA, historicity, Baptisms for the dead, the great apostacy. I for one need more than just a burning in the bosom that may be an evil spirit or a psychological manipulation, or my own desire to believe. I need some fact to confirm the feeling, if I were to get one, is true. I didn’t convert away from the LDS based on feelings and I didn’t convert to the Catholic church based on feelings. Have I had spiritual experiences? Of course, before and after I was convinced of the truth of Catholicism.

The bank analogy is good. It is exactly the problem that has led to our mortgage and housing crisis (bad loans, including to people who’s income claims were never verified).

Possibly ADDS to your analogy…hmmmmm.

 

[mjf001]

The bank analogy is good. It is exactly the problem that has led to our mortgage and housing crisis (bad loans, including to people who’s income claims were never verified).

Possibly ADDS to your analogy…hmmmmm.

Thank you.

 

[tommiatkins]

Amazing how someone can make claims without a shred of evidence, I mean NONE, and have thousands upon thousands of people believe it. At least the Bible is supported by Archaeological evidence and is attested to by contemporary authors. It’s amazing to me how we’re supposed to believe that these people were advanced enough to make a ship to cross the Atlantic, but didn’t leave behind any verifiable trace of their supposed civilization.

The Bible has no archological evidence of any note, in fact the massive absence of evidence of 6000000 people living in a tiny desrt for 40 years makes a mockery of it.

Jo Smith had contempory authors. Himself and his witnesses.

The staggering thing is millions of people not seeing the irony!

 

[hosemonkey]

The Bible has no archological evidence of any note, in fact the massive absence of evidence of 6000000 people living in a tiny desrt for 40 years makes a mockery of it.

Jo Smith had contempory authors. Himself and his witnesses.

Where did you get the figure of 6,000,000 people living in the desert? The Sinai desert covers a fairly large area, it would not be hard to get lost in it.
The Jews were wandering nomads and nomads leave little evidence of their presence.

 

[Strevel]

This line of thinking really puzzles me. So no one can prove the Book of Mormon wrong, huh ? By this logic, I should be able to go into a bank, claim I make an annual salary of $1,000,000.00 and ask for a loan 0f $10,000,000.00. Then I should expect them to just give me the loan based on my claim to make this salary based on no proof other than my word.
The bank is obviously not going to take my word for it, they’re going to ask for proof of income. So am I going to say, no you need to give me a loan because you can’t prove i don’t make $1,000,000? I’d be laughed out of the building, because this is an illegitimate argument. I would have to prove my income. LDS make the claim the church is true. It is up to the LDS to come up with something in the real world to back up this claim. Faith is fine, blind faith just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
Issue after issue, the LDS stand all alone, the Trinity and the nature of God, the BOM, reformed Egyptian, DNA, historicity, Baptisms for the dead, the great apostacy. I for one need more than just a burning in the bosom that may be an evil spirit or a psychological manipulation, or my own desire to believe. I need some fact to confirm the feeling, if I were to get one, is true. I didn’t convert away from the LDS based on feelings and I didn’t convert to the Catholic church based on feelings. Have I had spiritual experiences? Of course, before and after I was convinced of the truth of Catholicism.

Beautifully and well said.

Don in Vegas:thumbsup:

 

[BartBurk]

The Bible has no archological evidence of any note, in fact the massive absence of evidence of 6000000 people living in a tiny desrt for 40 years makes a mockery of it.

Jo Smith had contempory authors. Himself and his witnesses.

The staggering thing is millions of people not seeing the irony!

Wait a minute – the Bible has no archaeological evidence? Have you ever seen the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem? They’ve excavated quite a few archaeological sites in the ancient world which have direct relation to the Bible. Nobody is saying there may not be some myth mixed in with the true in the Old Testament. Catholics aren’t fundamentalists when it comes to the Biblical record.

But Mormons claim everything in the Book of Mormon actually happened. If you make the claim the Book of Mormon might be inspired myth you’re likely to get tossed out on your ears. I think the New Testament is much more reliable than either the Old Testament or the Book of Mormon, and my faith revolves around Jesus, not the possibly mythical stories of the Tower of Babel or the Great Flood. Of course if you are Mormon than the Tower of Babel and world wide flood have to be taken literally. And I suppose the Mormons are forced to take everything else in the Old Testament literally as well, but don’t force that upon us Catholics!

 

[why_me]

It is not for us to “prove the Book of Mormon false.” It is up to Mormons to demonstrate even a tiny shred of evidence that there is even a scrap of historical truth to it.

So far, they have been unable to do that.

Let me put it this way: If historical truth was discovered, what would you do? Most likely become mormon. And why? Because the book has been proven true based on evidence.

This is no proof that Jesus performed mircles except by what is written in the Gospels. No evidence outside the gospels. It takes faith to believe in Jesus as the son of god. Now the book of mormon is a different egg. If proven true, it would mean that there is a god based on evidence and thus, a problem would arise.

 

[why_me]

why me;3986597:

it is now obvious that you don’t even bother to read the history of this. you just continue to quote mine and spin. JS was tared and feathered by MORMONS who KNEW that JS was sleeping around and were outraged. JS could never had run a protestant sect. Sidney did but there was much more power and money to be had in the mormon scam. JS didn’t encounter any persecution until he started defrauding people of their hard earned money and trying to sleep with their wives and daughters. mobsters didn’t kill his kid, disease did. mobs came because of JS dishonest actions.

Unfortunately you are missing something. Sidney was dragged through the streets by the same mob and left for dead. First they went for Sidney and then Joseph. This destroys your sleeping around comment.

Yes, former mormons were stirring up the mobs. No doubt about it. But the reasons for the tar and feathering went much deeper. It was an antimormon act based on false rumors and innuendos.

 

[why_me]

why me;3986603:

Nonsense people don’t die from cool or chilled air. They die from disease as did this child.

At that time they did. I said that the child was weak with measles. The chill or exposure added to the problem and the child died. There was a reaon why children always wore nightcaps at that time.

 

[BartBurk]

Let me put it this way: If historical truth was discovered, what would you do? Most likely become mormon. And why? Because the book has been proven true based on evidence.

If I were to find out that some Native Americans descended from Israelis it would still not prove the Book of Mormon true. It would certainly provide me greater reason to believe in it, but it wouldn’t be enough for me to embrace the Book of Mormon. There might be a tipping point where the Book of Mormon would be proved to be true beyond a reasonable doubt, but that would take a lot of evidence that just isn’t forthcoming at this point. But even a little evidence might at least give it a little credibility. It wouldn’t prove it true beyond a shadow of a doubt.

This is no proof that Jesus performed mircles except by what is written in the Gospels. No evidence outside the gospels. It takes faith to believe in Jesus as the son of god. Now the book of mormon is a different egg. If proven true, it would mean that there is a god based on evidence and thus, a problem would arise.

I don’t see what the problem would be. Mormons have always said the Book of Mormon is a second witness for Jesus which proves the resurrection. A little evidence of its veracity would be a wonderful thing if it would bring people closer to the truth.

Some people tend to see the New Testament as one witness. It is actually a collection of several different witnesses who separately testify of the same thing – Christ is risen! I really don’t need another witness added to the witnesses which have already been provided. No problem has arisen – I can have faith based on the testimony of several writers to the story of Christ as found in the New Testament. Adding the Book of Mormon as a sixth, seventh, eighth or ninth witness does little to bolster the faith I already have in Jesus.

God left us the witnesses of the New Testament to bolster our faith. There is real evidence there of several people who claim generally the same experience. No problem has arisen. There already is a God based on the evidence without the Book of Mormon. The only thing the Book of Mormon does is tell us whether or not to believe in Joseph Smith, not Jesus. Joseph Smith is found wanting.

 

[Christine_Blake]

I agree, the historical information* deepens* my faith as well; however, I do hope I would be Christian without it… I recall Thomas - Jesus says to him, “Blest are they who do not see and yet believe”…

However, to contradict myself, it is in the academic study that I too find deeper faith…you are right, it is the God-given gift of reason and intelligence that allows us to deepen our understanding of the events through archeology, historical record, etc.

The Catholic Church is a beautiful example of this - we are to study the Bible in the context of history, science, etc. Only with all of this can we truly understand the experiences of the people recorded in the Bible…

In contrast, the BOM is not a record of a people, it is the fantasies of a person…it is hard to compare the two…the Bible was written by the people who lived the experience, so, while there is some subjectivity in the oral tradition of the Jews, they are, in essence, recording their experiences…the BOM was written by a man who imagined a past and a future, not lived it, so I don’t know how there could be any archeological/historical evidence to back it up. Further, the Bible is recorded by communities, the BOM relies on one man…even in format it does not fit as a continuation of the work of the Bible…

 

[majick275]

majick275;3987045:

Unfortunately you are missing something. Sidney was dragged through the streets by the same mob and left for dead. First they went for Sidney and then Joseph. This destroys your sleeping around comment.

Yes, former mormons were stirring up the mobs. No doubt about it. But the reasons for the tar and feathering went much deeper. It was an antimormon act based on false rumors and innuendos.

no it doesn’t. sidney was JS number two in the presidency of the LDS church at that time. Sidney was also the official spokesman of the LDS church. he was JS main apologist and enabler. also…they didn’t go for sidney “first”. he was just in the way. they were after Joseph. the “rumors” weren’t false. we know now that Joseph WAS acquiring wives and concubines.

 

[AMDGtoo]

Let me put it this way: If historical truth was discovered, what would you do? Most likely become mormon.

No. I believe in Jesus–not just in the testimonies of men–even the eyewitness accounts of His apostles. (Why would I want to call Him a liar?) The fact that there is evidence is “icing on the cake”, but that’s only to be expected, Catholics don’t “check our brains at the door”. Catholicism is faith and reason.

 

[majick275]

zaffiroborant;3987176:

At that time they did. I said that the child was weak with measles. The chill or exposure added to the problem and the child died. There was a reaon why children always wore nightcaps at that time.

we still have chill air today. why don’t children without nightcaps die? this is beyond ludicrous. the child died from measles.

 

[zaffiroborant]

zaffiroborant;3987176:

At that time they did. I said that the child was weak with measles. The chill or exposure added to the problem

and the child died. There was a reaon why children always wore nightcaps at that time.

So Emma did leave the child alone and exposed to cold air then. Sounds more like neglect.

See I can take a situation and spin it for melodrama too. If people died from getting chilly there’d be a lot less people in the world today.

 

[Strevel]

why me;3991713:

So Emma did leave the child alone and exposed to cold air then. Sounds more like neglect.

See I can take a situation and spin it for melodrama too. If people died from getting chilly there’d be a lot less people in the world today.

I think the truth behind all of this romantic fall-di-rall is that we, as Catholics, should be spending our time and energy studying the lives of the Saints, what skills did they use during their lives to increase their worth as a human. How did they handel this issue, this crisis, how did they hold their family together, how did they teach their kids the precepts of Christ. Some book that is equal to Grimms Fairy Tales or a Cook Book is silly…and a waste of limited time.

Sometimes we are so open minded, so slow to tell others no thanks and go away, so willing to consider the other side that we loose ourself in the wash of ideas. Hold to what has held us for these many years. Run with that. Let the other run off the deck like so much sea water.

I teach a webmaster class / Internet. I have one student that is missing the class because he is more concerned with missing “a” cell phone call that he does miss the info, and I will not go back. If his life is so unimportant to him, it is equally so to me. Live and work in the moment as we are, proud and strong Catholics. Let others, …eh, …blow away.

Don in Vegas, but in Memphis for the day…yawl.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Look, the BoM describes a bronze & iron age tech civilization being established inthe Americas–with domesticated draft animals (including honey bees) paved roads (stone?) and the ability to man million-man plus armise that wiped each other out–something the ancient world NEVER could do (Herodotus was exagerating about the Persian armies–with ancient logistics, it was 100,000 tops for fighting men, maybe that or half that support and camp followers) Just by digging up roads we come across the undeniable evidence of such civilizations.

In the americas–nothing but Indian stuff–some quite impressive–but NOT of middle eastern origin.

178 years from the BoM’s publication and NO evidence of any such civilizations

 

[tommiatkins]

it would mean that there is a god based on evidence and thus, a problem would arise.

God has a lot of problems with shreds of evidence. He can send angels and split seas and cleave the moon and move mountains.

He cant make the pen on your desk wiggle a bit though. Try it now. (ahh, but we should not test him…any reason why? Thomas if he existed, tested jesus, if he existed, and got proof. But nobody else can? Apart from Moses, and David and dozens of other “prophets”)

The BOM at least had , at the time, several people who clubbed together to sign in currently veiwable documentation, that they had seen the angel. Christianity and Islam fail on that account.
Im not saying Smith wasnt making it all up, he obviously was. Just as the older scriptwriters did.

Mormonism is on a perfectly equal footing. It draws such hatred, because it underlines the falsity of all scripture.

 

[RebeccaJ]

He cant make the pen on your desk wiggle a bit though. Try it now. (ahh, but we should not test him…any reason why? Thomas if he existed, tested jesus, if he existed, and got proof. But nobody else can? Apart from Moses, and David and dozens of other “prophets”)

First, regarding miracles and witnesses, will 70,000 or so do: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Fatima

Second, and more importantly, God’s presence is here, every Christian is called to represent Him and live in us, quite literally. Sure, we often fail quite miserably at it, but then, we aren’t gods, we are humans.

 

[dzheremi]

Mormonism is on a perfectly equal footing. It draws such hatred, because it underlines the falsity of all scripture.

No, it draws so much criticism because it is demonstratable false. It makes claims about historical facts that are actually falsifiable because we do now know the real, archeologically-supported stories behind the people it talks about. We know for a fact that Native Americans did not originate in Israel, for istance, and that there has never, ever been a language known as “Reformed Egyptian” (I debunked that in this thread several pages ago). I’m sure there are other easily falsifiable claims to be found in the BoM, but I don’t want to have to read it to come up with more.