W
why_me
Guest
There are certainly scenes from the bible that we could laugh at too and many do laugh at the bible because of the stories inside that book.How about reading-glasses, in Mosiah 28:
- Status
W
why_me
Guest
Here is the problem in a nutshell. True, archaeological sites have been found, but no one and I mean no one can prove that Christ was god or that he performed miracles. The only account that we have is the bible. It takes faith to believe in the bible.
Now in the book of mormon, we do not have much archealogical evidence, but what we do have is a claim that it is a second witness of Christ. The bible being the first. Now just for the sake of argument, suppose evidence is found and it is conclusive that the book of mormon is what it says it is. What do you do? Do you believe that book because of evidence or faith? It would be evidence that would convince you that it is true and that god exists. But the gospel does not work that way. We all live by faith and not evidence because no evidence as conclusively proven that the bible is what it says it is and that god exists.
J
Jerusha
Guest
And, according to the standard LDS interpretation these glasses were the “urim and thummim” from I Samuel, with a"Yes" -“No” answer? Like flipping a coin?
Oh-c’mon---- you gotta see the humor in it.
Oh-c’mon---- you gotta see the humor in it.
J
JLFuller
Guest
A
aquabatix
Guest
My original point was that if a book says it is true and of historical events, it makes it very hard to believe in it if you can’t find ANYTHING from what it says. No cities, scraps, shards, nothing. One’s faith has to start somewhere. If not, it is no more real that Santa Claus. To be able to see where the events took place, where Christ walked and see faith passed down uninterrupted from that time, even the other faiths of the area (ie Judaism) helps one faith be firmly grounded and grow further.
Believe what you want to believe. Whatever helps you be a good person and live a good life is great. But saying that it’s event are real and physically happened as a grounding of your faith puts big holes on the ground your standing on.
J
JLFuller
Guest
I have not been following the subject on the other thread so I do not know if someone else has posted the following You Tube presentation by Dr. Peterson. Go here if you find the topic interesting. There are others who post as well. But to make broad sweeping statement such as you make is just ignoring the evidence that exists. Continuing to make them after they have been refuted time and time again is just flaming. I and others continue to respond because we know that for every flamer there are likley ten or so readers who don’t follow the subject closely and would really like an answer to the underliying question.I’m sorry, but I wanted to get the topic back on track. When dealing with the archaeological evidence (or lack there of), most people will have a hard time believing that the events found in the Book of Mormon actually happened. Unlike the Bible, which many, many archaeological sites have been found, excavated and many artifacts found, the BOM has nothing to show. If these mighty battles in which thousands used advanced metallurgy made swords with hilts, weapons and carriages happened, then there would be SOME evidence of anything, somewhere. But there isn’t. Also the BOM says that there were animals there and used that didn’t exist, plants that flora that didn’t exist and languages used that we have no evidence of written anywhere on anything. No shards of pottery, no carvings with these Hebrew of Egyptian writings, nothing.
The bottom line is, when you can’t find any of the barley, figs, grapes, wheat, ***/donkey, bull, calf, cattle, cow, goat, horse, ox, sheep, sow, elephants, bellows, brass, breast-plates, chains, copper, gold, iron, mining ore, plowshares, silver, metal swords, swords with hilts, engraving, steel, cuneiform, carriages, carts, chariots or glass mentioned, you start to seriously doubt. That is one of the many reasons why I left to Mormon faith.
W
why_me
Guest
Religion takes faith. That is what I am trying to say. Here is a debate about BoM geography on the mormon apologetic site:My original point was that if a book says it is true and of historical events, it makes it very hard to believe in it if you can’t find ANYTHING from what it says. No cities, scraps, shards, nothing. One’s faith has to start somewhere. If not, it is no more real that Santa Claus. To be able to see where the events took place, where Christ walked and see faith passed down uninterrupted from that time, even the other faiths of the area (ie Judaism) helps one faith be firmly grounded and grow further.
Believe what you want to believe. Whatever helps you be a good person and live a good life is great. But saying that it’s event are real and physically happened as a grounding of your faith puts big holes on the ground your standing on.
mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=41998&st=0&start=0
J
JLFuller
Guest
Gen. 4: 15
15 And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a amark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
Gen. 9: 25
25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
We didn’t make it up Paul. God said it. Given He makes the rules He can change them or set limits on them. They are His rules and His statements and we just follow His word and do as we are told by the living prophet. We are all encouraged to take whatever the prophet says to God in prayer for a confirmation to get our own testimony of it.
J
JLFuller
Guest
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion Rebecca, even apostles of God. But they are not always entitled to have them considered as doctrine. That is why the Church is so insistant that only the Twelve acting in concert as a quorum or the First Presidency can make that determination.
J
JLFuller
Guest
BladeVery well.But, considering your response, you seem to be a… (dare I say it?) liberal. Rationalization–and speaking for an entire religious group–is (surprisingly, one of many) first steps to Agnosticism.
Not that that’s bad. I’m Agnostic.
Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood
I am afraid I don’t quite understand your comment about speaking for everyone. I have no voice of authority beyond that of anyone else in the church. But I can point out a few things of interest to those who find the topic intersting. As always, the authority to speak for the Church lies with the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apsotles.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
JLFuller, tell me instead how you determine a prophet is really a prophet.
J
JLFuller
Guest
That is a good question. How does one know anything of Christ’s doing? For me it happened over time. It was not an event. At some point I was faced with deciding if what I believed was true enough for me to say so openly. It was a trial of my my faith. I concluded that yes, I really did believe what the Church taught and said so. It was then that I understood that I really had known for a long time. It was a confirmation. After that I began to recognize the reality and truth of things as they happened or after asking for confirmation. When I read scripture I knew it was true I didn’t just believe anymore. The sensation of knowing was stronger when I lived the gospel and weaker when I didn’t. It never was an emotion it was a sense of intelligence or of new knowledge. Some say they had an emotional experience but that never happened to me. We have been cautioned that emotional experiences are not always a sign of a manifestation of the Holy Ghost so I am a bit skeptical of those who claim it is.
Some of my tradtional Chrisitan friends said I must first read the bible to know and then apply what the scripture says to understand intellectually. That this intellectual understanding is the only way to know truth. But there was always a huge hole in the middle of that reasoning. That hole was how one knows whether thier understanding is correct given the scriptures are just an interpretation of an interpretation? They repleid that God was sovereign and that He would see to it that the correct interpretation was the only one. But then I looked aorund and saw 1200 different Christian denominations and each had its own ways of thinking about scripture and that theory went down in flames too. To me at the time it had to be that only God could tell us which one was right.
J
Jash
Guest
Rebecca you know very well that that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. That subject has been hashed in many other places.
L
LAMBOFGODGIRLY
Guest
1 Timothy 4:1-2
“Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the last times some will turn away from the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and demonic instructions
through the hypocrisy of liars with branded consciences.”
It never states a full apostasy, it states SOME , which is why we have all these thousands and thousands of religions. What were they going to turn away from if it was a personal revelation?
Matthew 18:15-17 “Tell the church”
which church was he talking about if it was just personal revelation?
Matthew 5:14
“You are the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden”
What can not be hidden?
1 Timothy 4:1
“holding fast to the true message as taught so that he will be able both to exhort with sound doctrine and to refute opponents.”
Why would he teach a personal revelation, or even care about what they were teaching if he wasn’t preparing the Church to be a physical body?
These 2 things you stated contradict each other.
you say it was personal revelation, but then you obviously realize there was physical church because you just said the 5th century church dropped.
P
PaulDupre
Guest
Look at the text. The bible does not say that the mark set upon Cain was “the flat nose and the black skin” as your prophets have taught. The racists of past centuries created that myth and Joseph Smith codified it in his new “scriptures”. The bible also does not say that Canaan (son of Ham) was black. In fact, the descendents of Ham were well known in the bible as great builders of cities like Ninevah, and yet the residents of these cities are never identified as being black. Neither are the Jebusites, Amorites, or the other Canaanites ever identified as black. Evil, yes - black, no.
Your false prophets merely reflected the hateful racism of 19th century America. God did not say it, the Mormons did.
P
PaulDupre
Guest
Oooh, Rebecca, looks like you touched a sore spot.
J
JLFuller
Guest
The fifth century church is not the same as the first century church. There were a few early Church fathers who realized what was happening as it was taking place and commented on it. Read Dr. Ehrman’s book Misquoting Jesus.
J
Jash
Guest
Can you support these two statements? Specifically which prophet, exactly what was said, where, and by what record?
Also what do Catholics believe about the mark of Cain? What sort of mark did the Lord set Cain to separate him from other men “lest any finding him should kill him.”
D
Dchsknight
Guest
People tend to think that the Mark of Cain was a bad thing…I dont think it was.
T
tundramom
Guest
ROFL! You obviously have been talking to Danny boy himself if you actually think he’s “highly respected”. His ego knows no bounds!
- Status