Book of Mormon?

[why_me]

I suppose that we can say that mormonism is a pagan faith that just happens to have christ and heavenly father at its center of belief. And a pagan faith that stresses the commandments of god as found in the old and new testaments.

 

[why_me]

Also this letter from the Smithsonian states that many of the animals and materials mentioned in the BOM did not exist in the New World.

irr.org/mit/smithsonian.html

If the smithsonian says so, it must be true…

But here is my take on it: Conclusive evidence will probably never be found. Let me put it this way: if conclusive evidence is found that verifies the book of mormon many people would certainly join the lds church and the existence of god would certainly be confirmed by such a find. But…in such a find that would conclusively verify the book of mormon, there would be no need for faith. And no need for god’s plan.

To believe in the bible or in the book of mormon or in the koran, one must have faith. There is no evidence that god exists regardless of the holy book.

 

[dianaiad]

Well, yes…it speaks volumes about something, but you aren’t reading them. My claiming that Mormonism is a Christian faith says that I believe that the belief system Mormonism is based upon the teachings of Jesus Christ as Mormons believe them to be.

…and I’m not questioning the veracity of the bible or its description of God. I’m asking how you know that the bible’s description of anything religious is accurate. I already know why I believe it is–and why I think it says one thing while others might disagree.

In other words, I’m asking you a very important question. I already know why I believe the bible to be scripture. I’m asking you why you do. It’s a simple question.

How do you know?

 

[dianaiad]

If the smithsonian says so, it must be true…

But here is my take on it: Conclusive evidence will probably never be found. Let me put it this way: if conclusive evidence is found that verifies the book of mormon many people would certainly join the lds church and the existence of god would certainly be confirmed by such a find. But…in such a find that would conclusively verify the book of mormon, there would be no need for faith. And no need for god’s plan.

To believe in the bible or in the book of mormon or in the koran, one must have faith. There is no evidence that god exists regardless of the holy book.

It is with the Book of Mormon as it is for the Bible–or for Deity itself; for those who have had the witness of the Holy Spirit, no physical proof is required. For those who have not, no physical proof will be sufficient.

While faith is always based upon some evidence, religious faith is always based upon things that science can’t touch–and that’s always very personal to the believer.

 

[ralphinal]

Of course you do.

…How do you know "that there is a God and only One God as described in the OT? "

What empirical proof do you have of that? WHY do you believe it?

Let me start with how I know that there is some form of god at all.

Statistically speaking, I find it highly unlikely, if not downright improbable, that we could exist as we do by a series of acts that are each long shots. This applies to the nature of the earth, the nature of the solar system, and the way life exists. Though it is not impossible for life as we know it to have developed on its own, the fact that it is against such odds that the other possibility, that the universe was created and life was placed on earth, seems more likely.

Now, I accept that it is likely that there is some higher power that put it all together. Is it possible that this (or these) powers started it all and then left? Yes, but I see evidence to the contrary. First, there are religions all over the earth, leading me to think that there is something within the mind of man that craves some form of faith. Some could say that it is the fear of the unknown. Others could say that it is a desire to have something bigger than us to hold us together and force social morality on us. I see another option: the creator or creators of the universe desire a relationship with us and so we were hard-wired with an innate desire to worship.

Alright, someone put us here and they want us to worship them. How can we know who this is that did it? First, the likelyhood of a pantheon is right out. There is too much order, too much symetry in the universe to have gods that have conflicts. Sooner or later, the sun god would be mad at the water god and we would have a problem. Now, is it possible that these gods are of the same purpose? Yes, and they may never fight? Yes. So I must find another option.

From what I have studied, the creation story in the Bible is the only one from ancient peoples that did not have the universe created from a struggle. All others, that I know of, have it created from war or from some sort of sexual union that ended badly. Why is that important? Because it points to something that the other faiths do not claim: one God who is all-good and all-powerful, all-knowing and eternal, who is Love. Now, this God, according to the text of those who worship him, desires a relationship with us. He goes so far as to helping his people by creating a nation and a religious system for them. This God claims to be ONE AND ONLY ONE God.

So, by this, I accept the claims of the OT God. You are welcome to disagree.

 

[dianaiad]

Now this is a prime example of what I have spoken of before: here is a man who is telling me what I really believe. Wanna bet that when I tell him that no, we do not believe that God had sex with Mary, he’ll breathe a sigh of relief and say 'I’m glad that this was a mistake?"

Nope. He’ll come back with a whole lot of quotes purporting to prove that we do believe that. I will then show him that there is no where anywhere that says ‘God had sex with Mary.’

He’ll get frustrated and huffy, and keep insisting upon this, heaven alone knows why.

But the thing is, we DO NOT BELIEVE that God had sex with Mary. We believe that God the Father is the physical Father of Christ…that ‘only Begotten Son’ thing…and that the Holy Ghost is not the Father of Christ (in other words, it’s a trinitarian issue, not a prurient one). In fact, every single quote that he can come up with will be taken from that context; showing that God the Father is the Father and the Holy Ghost is not.

So how about this: I do not believe that God had sex with Mary. I don’t know any Mormons (except maybe my grandfather, who was a little strange) who do. Nor do we need to believe that in order to make all those quotes that can be found ‘true’.

After all, I know of a woman who not only gave birth to her sister’s child, she was a virgin when she did it.

If WE can pull something like that off, then don’t you think it’s silly to assume that God could NOT?

 

[Stephen168]

I’m asking how you know that the bible’s description of anything religious is accurate. I already know why I believe it is–and why I think it says one thing while others might disagree.

In other words, I’m asking you a very important question. I already know why I believe the bible to be scripture. I’m asking you why you do. It’s a simple question.

How do you know?

I know the New Testament is true because:

1. it was written by the same generation who witnessed the events described in it.
2. the events have been passed on to each generation, since they took place, to the present day.
3. Except for the resurrection, there is no scientific or historical reason to believe they did not happen.
   Of course claim (1) requires claim (2). The Book of Mormon can not make the same claims.

It is ‘scripture’ because the Catholic Church declared it to be so in the 4th century.

 

[why_me]

I know the New Testament is true because:

1. it was written by the same generation who witnessed the events described in it.
2. the events have been passed on to each generation, since they took place, to the present day.
3. Except for the resurrection, there is no scientific or historical reason to believe they did not happen.
   Of course claim (1) requires claim (2). The Book of Mormon can not make the same claims.

It is ‘scripture’ because the Catholic Church declared it to be so in the 4th century.

There is no evidence that the words of the bible are true. And that is the rub. It takes faith to believe in the bible. Nor is there any proof that anyone witnessed the events that the bible claims to have happened. We only have their words to be a judge over.

 

[Jerusha]

Now, if someone were to re-write the Book of Mormon as a restoration of the way Solomon Spalding probably originally wrote it, as a satire on the Jewish Origins theory, Mormons might convert to Catholicism overnight. :newidea:

(That does not make it into sacred scripture. But they certainly like the word “restoration”. )

 

[Stephen168]

There is no evidence that the words of the bible are true. And that is the rub. It takes faith to believe in the bible. Nor is there any proof that anyone witnessed the events that the bible claims to have happened. We only have their words to be a judge over.

Using this irrational ‘mormon logic’ there is no such thing as history. Yet our universities are full of historians.

 

[truthsilence]

Now this is a prime example of what I have spoken of before: here is a man who is telling me what I really believe. Wanna bet that when I tell him that no, we do not believe that God had sex with Mary, he’ll breathe a sigh of relief and say 'I’m glad that this was a mistake?"

Nope. He’ll come back with a whole lot of quotes purporting to prove that we do believe that. I will then show him that there is no where anywhere that says ‘God had sex with Mary.’

He’ll get frustrated and huffy, and keep insisting upon this, heaven alone knows why.

But the thing is, we DO NOT BELIEVE that God had sex with Mary. We believe that God the Father is the physical Father of Christ…that ‘only Begotten Son’ thing…and that the Holy Ghost is not the Father of Christ (in other words, it’s a trinitarian issue, not a prurient one). In fact, every single quote that he can come up with will be taken from that context; showing that God the Father is the Father and the Holy Ghost is not.

So how about this: I do not believe that God had sex with Mary. I don’t know any Mormons (except maybe my grandfather, who was a little strange) who do. Nor do we need to believe that in order to make all those quotes that can be found ‘true’.

After all, I know of a woman who not only gave birth to her sister’s child, she was a virgin when she did it.

If WE can pull something like that off, then don’t you think it’s silly to assume that God could NOT?

Unfortunately, I, and my husband and my daughter sat through a Gospel Essentials class several years ago, where, in his lesson, the teacher used something close to these exact words:

“The Holy Ghost overshadowed Mary, and God the Father had sexual intercourse with her and she conceived his son. But, God would not disobey his own law, so he married her first.”

There was a member of the Bishopric in the room, so I raised my hand and asked him: "Where is this in the Scriptures!?’ His reply was: “You won’t find it in the scriptures.” He did not refute what the teacher was telling us. Neither did my Bishop, whom I discussed the matter with later.

There was one woman in the class who said something about how what she had just learned had really helped her with answers to some questions she’d been having in the temple. She thought the class was great. My family and I didn’t share her enthusiasm.

So Dianne, I believe you when you say YOU don’t believe God had sex with Mary. But after that incident, I learned that there are quite a number of LDS who DO. I asked around, a lot. It was important to me to try and find out where this was coming from.

The really ironic thing was, when I mentioned the class to someone who was not in attendance, they said the instructor was “a convert from Catholicism”, and, “perhaps he was carrying some of his Catholic beliefs with him into the church”. I had no idea at the time, just how ridiculous that observation was!

 

[BartBurk]

It is with the Book of Mormon as it is for the Bible–or for Deity itself; for those who have had the witness of the Holy Spirit, no physical proof is required. For those who have not, no physical proof will be sufficient.

While faith is always based upon some evidence, religious faith is always based upon things that science can’t touch–and that’s always very personal to the believer.

Unfortunately, there is no evidence available which would support any faith in the Book of Mormon. There is a lot of evidence that people in the New Testament were real people. For one thing historians accept that the the people who wrote the New Testament were real people who existed at the time the events in the New Testament took place. We don’t have any evidence the authors of the Book of Mormon existed earlier than its 19th century authors.

 

[Stephen168]

Now, if someone were to re-write the Book of Mormon as a restoration of the way Solomon Spalding probably originally wrote it, as a satire on the Jewish Origins theory, Mormons might convert to Catholicism overnight. :newidea:

(That does not make it into sacred scripture. But they certainly like the word “restoration”. )

I understand there was a great infatuation with the lost tribes of Israel during the time the Book of Mormon was written.

 

[Jerusha]

James Adair, Ethan Smith, Elias Boudinot. Interesting men, and oh, so wrong. Yet it was commonly accepted.

Spalding was very frustrated, knowing it was a crock, but that SOMETHING happened. Once he got it figured out, the underlying plot was of the Vikings in North America, with plenty of details added from more recent history to make the point that the English were culturally similar to the Vikings. In the meantime, the people of Denmark overcame their Viking heritage much better than the English did.

Spalding’s sense of humor was subtle. And Mormons just don’t get it.

 

[truthsilence]

It is with the Book of Mormon as it is for the Bible–or for Deity itself; for those who have had the witness of the Holy Spirit, no physical proof is required. For those who have not, no physical proof will be sufficient.

While faith is always based upon some evidence, religious faith is always based upon things that science can’t touch–and that’s always very personal to the believer.

I agree that God calls us, to Himself. “Our hearts are restless until they rest in You”. He has touched my heart and my life in a way that has changed everything for me. That is my witness.

My prayer is that I will always have the desire to know him and love him more. To know His Truth. I pray that He will never leave me… and then I realize that He is the one drawing me to Himself in the first place.

But Faith and Reason must work together in our journey. Without that, we lose something of our freedom, I believe.

 

[zerinus]

It seems to me that the original poster was just a troll looking to fan the antimormon fire. The thread would best be ignored or the original poster will get their way.

I agree.

Here are two videos:

youtube.com/watch?v=FtqaeCo6rTY

youtube.com/watch?v=O2X-QiKaFpI

Your second link is part 4 of a 5 part series on YouTube that doesn’t make much sense by itself. You have to start with part 1 for the whole lot to make sense. Here are links to the entire series:

pt 1 Linguistical evidence for The Book of Mormon
pt 2 Linguistical evidence for The Book of Mormon
pt 3 Linguistical evidence for The Book of Mormon
pt 4 Linguistical evidence for The Book of Mormon
pt 5 Linguistical evidence for The Book of Mormon

Didn’t you just recommend that this thread be ignored?

Yes; but since many people have already replied to the thread (which they probably shouldn’t have done), a reply to some posts may become necessary.

zerinus

 

[RebeccaJ]

If it is, then you have to throw everything that pretends to be scripture out. You have to throw the whole idea of God out.

Of course, if you are an atheist that’s not a problem. However, if you have religious faith at any level, it is.

It very much is.

This is the false dichotomy that unfortunately is rampant in Mormonism. Either you are Mormon, or atheist.

Having been both, for about the same number of years (not concurrently of course), I say you are making wild *** guesses.

Also, Mormons are taught and believe that it is all about feeling. Mormonism has co-opted your own feelings. Joe Smith has defined for you what your feelings mean. Don’t believe me? Tell me the feelings you have and tell me what they mean.

Feeling humble while reading the BoM? How about peaceful? How about nothing at all? What does this mean?

I have good news for all you Mormons, God is here, always. Including when you aren’t “feeling the spirit”.

 

[ricko]

Most of the Mormons are very nice people but this is not about you, it’s that religion of yours. As far as that “feeling” goes, well I’ve seen that at Amyway meetings. There has to be more than just that “feeling” in the breast. How about some common sense and reasoning? When J. Smith found the stone it was protruding above the ground and the edges were covered with dirt. Now using my common sense I found it remarkable that this stone was still exposed at all after 1500 years. Any archaeological student will tell you that is impossible due to the fact that material falls on the earth every year in the millions of metric tons, becomes soil and covers everything. That is why it is called a “dig”.

 

[why_me]

Most of the Mormons are very nice people but this is not about you, it’s that religion of yours. As far as that “feeling” goes, well I’ve seen that at Amyway meetings. There has to be more than just that “feeling” in the breast.

It has never been about a feeling. But it has been about having the holy ghost as a companion that can cause a person to feel his pressence. Most mormons would claim that as long as one is faithful, the holy ghost will reside inside that person.

 

[why_me]

When J. Smith found the stone it was protruding above the ground and the edges were covered with dirt. Now using my common sense I found it remarkable that this stone was still exposed at all after 1500 years. Any archaeological student will tell you that is impossible due to the fact that material falls on the earth every year in the millions of metric tons, becomes soil and covers everything. That is why it is called a “dig”.

What about the dead sea scrolls? How could it be that after 1,947 years, someone found those scrolls?