po18guy
Well-known member
Mormons are permitted to use “holy lies” and deception in the furtherance of their organization. This is against all scripture, and must be kept in mind during all exchanges with them.
- Status
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Yes, I know. Have you noticed he still has not provided any sources for his unfounded accusations?
M
mfbukowski
Guest
To C2M2C:
See what I mean?
Do you really want to be associated with these kind of people?
Be sure to read that post “Mormon Stumpers” and you will see how distorted it is.
See what I mean?
Do you really want to be associated with these kind of people?
Be sure to read that post “Mormon Stumpers” and you will see how distorted it is.
J
JRKH
Guest
The most interesting post I think I’ve seen by you.
It could be applied just as equally to Mormons as to Catholics.
There are still some questions that you have not answered, and sources you have not posted.
There is a lot of information supplied on this thread. C2M2C will have to sort it out in prayer and study. May God guide C2 to Truth.
Peace
James
M
mfbukowski
Guest
You don’t seem qualified to speak about the Book Of Mormon, which is essential here; it becomes a question of scriptural interpretation. You present data that we must still interpret, and we have no way of knowing if your data or his is better. All we really have are your assertions.
As in many things in life, you have your views, the writer of the post has his views and I cannot tell which is true or even analyze the arguments because I know so little on the subject. Both obviously have their own “axe to grind”
The real question remains unanswered: How far does one trust reason in matters of faith? Especially in technical areas like this, how do we know who is correct without becoming experts ourselves? And then we have warring credentials battles about who is more “expert”.
This is the same problem of “history” I discussed before. There are still debates about who killed Kennedy and whether OJ is guilty, as mentioned in the post. History is never “certain”.
It’s like the question of “who discovered america?” or “when did the apostasy happen” or “when did Rome fall?”.
We still get to choose which “expert” is right. So where does that leave us when our salvation is at stake?
To me, it comes down to faith and testimony. What other choice is there?
1
1holycatholic
Guest
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Again, here’s a video full of ‘experts’. The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon.
There’s nothing wrong with faith and testimony as long as you’ve truly tried to discern the truth.
M
mfbukowski
Guest
I haven’t answered because logically all this question does is shift the same question to another level. All you are doing here is relying on your church to answer the question for you. The question has not changed - how do I know that the catholic church is right? (Which has been discussed at length - the answers are history, history and history)
I COULD assert (WHICH I AM NOT) that the Catholic church is the church of satan, so that relying on your church is not reliable.
AGAIN, I have had experience with you guys distoritng what I say, so let me again for the umpteenth time, say that I am not saying the catholic church is satanic. My point is merely one of logic – all your suggested strategy does is change the point of view of the questioner, but does not answer the question
Ultimately you are being “properly guided” by other people just like you. Remeber the Inquistion? Other people sometimes make mistakes on what is correct.
R
Rolltide
Guest
That is a fair statement. I do not pretend to know much about the Book of Mormon.
This is not a fair statement.
We certainly DO have ways of knowing whether his data is better or not. All I have done is point out that many of your author’s facts are just plain WRONG. For the most part, I haven’t interpreted anything. However, I have demonstrated that his interpretation is using completely flawed data, so it is not reliable either.
So, it’s fair to say that you don’t seem qualified to talk on the subject either, since you’re not an expert on Latin American history and archeology? By your logic, only those people who were Mormons AND Latin American experts would be qualified to talk on the subject. This is certainly not so.
Well, I’m certainly willing to supply my credentials. I hold a Ph.D. in Latin American history from a top Southeastern University (which you can probably guess from my screen name.), and I hold the rank of Assistant Professor of History at a private college in Alabama. I am fortunate to belong to an online network of experts which connects all of the top names in the fields of history and archeology from across the globe, so it would be easy enough to get a consensus opinion about most of what we’re talking about here.
Although there are uncertainties in history, it is far from true that history is NEVER certain. History can be revised as new evidence comes in, but certain facts remain. For example, is there any serious debate that Julius Caesar took over the Roman Republic, transforming it into an empire? What about Napoleon taking over Europe? Many facts are INDEED certainties. Now, what historians DO attempt to do is analyze those facts and provide an interpretation, based on the best knowledge of the time. By citing our sources and presenting the evidence, we allow our readers to see HOW we reach our conclusions, and formulate their OWN opinions. A good historian should be broadly read, and know all of the different opinions about a subject. One of the most important series of classes I took in graduate school was “historiography”, or the history of history. We examine the most important historians throughout time and their writings, and look at how trends have changed in history and why.
Two of these three questions are ABSOLUTE certainties. We know for a fact that Columbus discovered America. Although Vikings did beat him here by 500 years, and perhaps others did too, it was Columbus that “discovered” America in the sense that it permanently opened contact between Europe and the Americas. No other contact did this in a meaningful way.
Rome fell in 476 AD in the West, and in 1453 AD in the East. How is this up for debate???
Because history has shown time and time again that faith can lead people astray. How else do you explain the many cults that have arisen throughout the world? Did the followers of Jim Jones in Suriname not believe they had faith? The promise of Jesus was to give us a visible institution, so that we could NOT be led astray. Otherwise, private interpretation would run rampant, as it has in the Protestant faiths. This is NOT to say that faith is not critically important, for it is, but it is simply the most important tool among many in discerning the truth.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Please post your source for your assertion that Catholics do not believe the Holy Spirit leads them.
J
JaMc
Guest
I don’t think these are specifically “Mormon traditions.” I’ve heard and read Catholic priests and bishops recommending such practices all the time. And the “Family Home Evening” thing seems to make more sense on Sunday anyway, as it is a way to “remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.”There are a lot of Mormon traditions that I will still follow no matter where end up. My wife and I don’t watch rated R movies (which keeps my mind out of the gutter), we pray “often” together as a family, and individually, we have “Family Home Evening” every Sunday (even though it’s supposed to be Monday) where we talk about “church & family stuff” and a whole host of other things that aren’t necessarily doctrine but just good common sense things and good ideas that keeps my family (or any family for that matter) tight knit and close to God…
C
C2M2C
Guest
Fair enough. They’re just things that I learned as a Mormon and not as a Catholic. I value a lot of what the Mormon church teaches, in the way of tradition more so than doctrine, such as these “little” things.
J
JRKH
Guest
Your right the question has not changed. Is determining truth solely on “Revelation” more reliable than truth determined by “Revelation” (The guidance of the Holy Spirit) backed up by the authority, history, and teachings of the Church?
The Question Remains how do you know that your “Revelation” is of God and not of the Devil? What is the criteria? Where does it come from?
We are not being “Guided by other people” but by the sum total of the teachings of the Holy Spirit through the Church established and protected by Christ from that time to this.
Peace
James
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I got the following information by taking notes from the video, “The Bible vs. the Book of Mormon.” So, I am open to corrections if anyone cares to watch the video and let me know. Besides ex-LDS anthropologists, there are many archaeologists and anthropologists that have nothing to gain one way or the other that offer facts as they see them.
There were Caananites and Philistines evidence was found without exact locations being known. Capernaum, Bethsaida and Chorazin were destroyed and easily found and identified by the ruins.
Of the 30+ fortified cities named in the Book of Mormon, no evidence can be found.
Biblical evidence of scriptures dating to the 7th century, BC have been found. The Dead Sea scrolls contain the Old Testament and are dated to between 200 and 100, BC. There is evidence from the New Testament dating back to a few years after they were written. That’s evidence from 2000 to close to 3000 years old.
**There is no evidence of any transcripts from the Book of Mormon. The events of the Book of Mormon ended, supposedly,around 400, AD. The first documentary trace was 1400 years later giving the appearance that the book itself was “constructed” in the 19th century. **
Where is the history? Where are the documents? There has been an abundance of history traceable when it comes to the Bible.
Evidence of the Bible, like the Dead Sea scrolls is on display for people to see for themselves.
Where are the plates the Book of Mormon came from? If they were true, wouldn’t they be on display for others to see?
Coins mentioned in the Bible have been found dating back to the first century.
No coins spoke of in the Book of Mormon have ever been found. Those coins would have been in use for almost a thousand years.
Wars and battles recorded in the Bible, the Assyrian Empire dating 911–612 BC for example, not cities that might be easily found but battlefields, are evidenced by arrowheads and spearheads that have been found.
The huge battle told of in the Book of Mormon between the Lamanites and Nephites between 400 and 421AD, nothing is found.
A much smaller event in the first century AD, in Palestine, produced evidence of skeletal remains, coins and other artifacts. This event was written about by Josephus, a Roman general, who told of hundreds committing suicide rather than being taken captive. According to him, there were approximately 900 people that died.
In the Book of Mormon, there were millions of Jaredites slain, including the women and children, yet no skeletal remains, no swords or any other evidence has ever been found. Centuries later the Lamanites destroyed the Nephite nation at the same hill, Cumora. Tens of thousands of people were slain according to the Book of Mormon. Again, no skeletal remains, bones, steel swords, shields, chariot parts, etc. were found. Why doesn’t the LDS allow an archaeological dig on the Cumora Hill? This would prove the Book of Mormon, or disprove it which could be quite embarassing.
Herod’s built the wall, known as the wailing wall, about 2030 years ago. It was destroyed 50 years later by the Romans. The temple in Jerusalem was also destroyed in 70AD. There is evidence there to this day.
According to Nephi, another temple was built in the Americas similar to Solomon’s temple. Jews are not allowed to build temples anywhere except Mount Moriah. The next problem is the Book of Mormon identifies Lehi as a descendant of Joseph. Lehi appoints his two sons, according to the Book of Mormon, as priests of the new temple. According to the Old Testament, which I assume, Lehi would have lived by forbid any priests except Aaronic priests. Doesn’t the Book of Mormon claim to uphold the Old Testament law?
There is no evidence that the prophets that, supposedly wrote the Book of Mormon, existed. This is unlike the high priests and prophets from the Old Testament. Not only are they in the Bible, there are other evidences available showing these men existed.
There is much evidence of the existence of Jesus in the middle East. The Jews, Romans and other non-Christians wrote about Jesus, even though some writings are not favorable.
According to Mormons, Jesus came to the Americas and converted thousands to Christianity, yet again no evidence exists in any source other than Mormon sources, written by Mormons.
There is a quote on the video from the late LDS President, Gordon B. Hinkley that I thought everyone would find interesting, even though it more of a topic of another thread:
There were Caananites and Philistines evidence was found without exact locations being known. Capernaum, Bethsaida and Chorazin were destroyed and easily found and identified by the ruins.
Of the 30+ fortified cities named in the Book of Mormon, no evidence can be found.
Biblical evidence of scriptures dating to the 7th century, BC have been found. The Dead Sea scrolls contain the Old Testament and are dated to between 200 and 100, BC. There is evidence from the New Testament dating back to a few years after they were written. That’s evidence from 2000 to close to 3000 years old.
**There is no evidence of any transcripts from the Book of Mormon. The events of the Book of Mormon ended, supposedly,around 400, AD. The first documentary trace was 1400 years later giving the appearance that the book itself was “constructed” in the 19th century. **
Where is the history? Where are the documents? There has been an abundance of history traceable when it comes to the Bible.
Evidence of the Bible, like the Dead Sea scrolls is on display for people to see for themselves.
Where are the plates the Book of Mormon came from? If they were true, wouldn’t they be on display for others to see?
Coins mentioned in the Bible have been found dating back to the first century.
No coins spoke of in the Book of Mormon have ever been found. Those coins would have been in use for almost a thousand years.
Wars and battles recorded in the Bible, the Assyrian Empire dating 911–612 BC for example, not cities that might be easily found but battlefields, are evidenced by arrowheads and spearheads that have been found.
The huge battle told of in the Book of Mormon between the Lamanites and Nephites between 400 and 421AD, nothing is found.
A much smaller event in the first century AD, in Palestine, produced evidence of skeletal remains, coins and other artifacts. This event was written about by Josephus, a Roman general, who told of hundreds committing suicide rather than being taken captive. According to him, there were approximately 900 people that died.
In the Book of Mormon, there were millions of Jaredites slain, including the women and children, yet no skeletal remains, no swords or any other evidence has ever been found. Centuries later the Lamanites destroyed the Nephite nation at the same hill, Cumora. Tens of thousands of people were slain according to the Book of Mormon. Again, no skeletal remains, bones, steel swords, shields, chariot parts, etc. were found. Why doesn’t the LDS allow an archaeological dig on the Cumora Hill? This would prove the Book of Mormon, or disprove it which could be quite embarassing.
Herod’s built the wall, known as the wailing wall, about 2030 years ago. It was destroyed 50 years later by the Romans. The temple in Jerusalem was also destroyed in 70AD. There is evidence there to this day.
According to Nephi, another temple was built in the Americas similar to Solomon’s temple. Jews are not allowed to build temples anywhere except Mount Moriah. The next problem is the Book of Mormon identifies Lehi as a descendant of Joseph. Lehi appoints his two sons, according to the Book of Mormon, as priests of the new temple. According to the Old Testament, which I assume, Lehi would have lived by forbid any priests except Aaronic priests. Doesn’t the Book of Mormon claim to uphold the Old Testament law?
There is no evidence that the prophets that, supposedly wrote the Book of Mormon, existed. This is unlike the high priests and prophets from the Old Testament. Not only are they in the Bible, there are other evidences available showing these men existed.
There is much evidence of the existence of Jesus in the middle East. The Jews, Romans and other non-Christians wrote about Jesus, even though some writings are not favorable.
According to Mormons, Jesus came to the Americas and converted thousands to Christianity, yet again no evidence exists in any source other than Mormon sources, written by Mormons.
There is a quote on the video from the late LDS President, Gordon B. Hinkley that I thought everyone would find interesting, even though it more of a topic of another thread:
M
mfbukowski
Guest
Because I am lame at figuring out how to do multiple quotes, I will respond in a different color
I am no expert, but even in the little I have read, these points are easily refutable.
M
mfbukowski
Guest
That was a terrible choice of color. I will do better next time.
M
mfbukowski
Guest
Well I am sure you are a qualified historian, but I think you are not the very best philosopher
“Absolute certainty” is something that can only be found in propositions which are not very interesting, like those of mathmatics and symbolic logic.
There are two types of histoical propositions, or “facts”, those about which we can be fairly certain and those which allow for a judgement call, or a definition of a process. One example of the first type would be a statement like “Julius Caesar died in 44BC” which is not really debatable unless further evidence shows otherwise, and the other is like “Columbus discovered America” which is debatable because the “fact” must always be put into a context. You notice that when you cited the “ABSOLUTE certainty” that Columbus discovered America, you had to put that statement into a context and qualify it with the words “in the sense that it permanently opened contact between Europe and the Americas.”
If you change the context, the “ABSOLUTE certainty” goes away.
If you are Native American, and you ask “who discovered America” the answer might be quite different, because they might be interested in who opened up the Americas to others like themselves, just as your context may show interest in others like yourself culturally. And your statement “No other contact did this in a meaningful way.” really proves the point. If you were Native American it could be HIGHLY “meaningful” for you that it was YOUR ancestors that were here first and YOUR land that was stolen by the white man. So that “ABSOLUTE certainty” suddenly does not look so absolute any more.
Another possibility is that new facts come to light, and classifications change. Pluto used to be a planet. That “was” a fact, but scientists recently changed what defines a planet, so “Pluto is a planet” is no longer a fact.
What is true has changed.
So evaluating the historic evidence of the truth of the Book of Mormon also relies upon a context. In a previous post someone took the ridiculous position that the BOM could be disproven because there were no coins found archaeologically, presuming that coins are mentioned in the BOM. But that person never read the BOM and so did not know that there are no coins mentioned in the BOM. There are coins mentioned in some of the headers which were put in by later editors, but they are not mentioned in the text itself.
So knowledge of the BOM is HIGHLY relevant to examining the evidence of its veracity.
I am not sure myself why Pluto is no longer a planet, because I don’t know the context that redefined that judgement call. But I am not going around shooting off my mouth saying “there is plenty of evidence that Pluto is a planet” when I don’t have a clue about why that has been recently re-defined.
Context is everything in truth statements, especially highly complex ones
R
Rolltide
Guest
Hmmm… you sound like a Sophist, or at least a follower of Protagoras. The Sophists of ancient Greece believed that there was no absolute truth or certainty. The most famous quote of Protagoras was “Man is the measure of all things”. In other words, there is no definitive truth, or definitive right or wrong. It all depends on our point of view. The great Greek philosopher Socrates spent most of his life attacking the Sophists, because he did indeed believe in absolute truth. He believed that without absolute truth, society would fall apart, because there would be no way to enforce law of any kind. He also despised the democracy of his own Athens, as he felt it was the chaotic rule of amateurs. How better would it have been to be ruled by professional, educated scholars, an idea picked up by his student Plato in The Republic, when he suggests the idea of “philosopher-kings”.
Plato goes on to illustrate his ideas in the famous “Allegory of the Cave”, where he suggests that the judgment of people can be clouded by pure faith or superstition without the benefit of facts. Imagine that people live in a cave, facing away from the entrance. Behind us is both the entrance, with light shining in, and a fire. All we see of the real world are the shadows on the wall. Some of them are real reflections from outside, giving us a glimpse of the truth, and some of them are deceiving, caused by the fire. Only by educating ourselves do we turn around and get closer to the entrance of the cave and see reality. We will never get to the entrance, because we are not God and can’t know everything, but we can use this knowledge to confirm our faith and discern that which is false.
By the way, it is through Plato’s invention of the “dialogue” that future Christian philosophers, such as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, were able to present their ideas.
http://www.meditationsight.com/Documents/Cave_files/image001.jpg
This is exactly what I stated above. The facts are absolutely certain. We know that Columbus made it to America in October of 1492. We know that Vikings made it to America around 1000 AD, and we know that Native Americans made it to America at least 14,000 years ago (and archeologist readily admit that they do not know how much earlier before 14,000 years ago they arrived.) Interpretation is NOT fact, and I never claimed that it was.
Not at all. A good historian presents all the points of view and lets the facts speak for themselves. They do provide an interpretation, but the evidence leads readers to decide whether that interpretation has any merit. When I talk about the discovery of America, I do put it into the context of the Native American, the Vikings, and Columbus. I also present opposing theories, and the latest research into other possible encounters that may have occurred.
Not exactly. The new classification does not change the fact that a man by the name of Lowell discovered Pluto early in the twentieth century, and that it’s a little over 1000 km across. What has changed is our discovery of many other similar sized bodies to Pluto, and that Pluto, like these other bodies, is primarily made out of ice. Because of these new discoveries, our language must now be more precise, but none of the original facts have changed.
I agree that good knowledge of the Book of Mormon would be helpful and relevant to an apologetics discussion.
Several other small planets were discovered in our solar system approximately the same size and composition of Pluto. They include Sedna, Quaoar, Eris, and Makemake. A number of others have yet to be named. These bodies also tend to have highly irregular orbits. Although many argued that they should be still considered planets because unlike asteroids, they are large and spherical, others argued that they are significantly different enough to form a sub-category. That said, there’s nothing really incorrect about calling Pluto a planet. It still fits the definition.
Well yes, but you’re not talking about facts now, you’re talking about the analysis of facts.
C
Contrabass101
Guest
“Who discovered America” is an ambiguous question - of course it must be made more precise before one can give a satisfactory answer.
- CB
1
1holycatholic
Guest
Enlighten us, Mr. Philosopher: Why is God necessarily atemporal?
- Status