How come archeologists cannot find a trace of..?

[Stephen168]

If LDS claimed the BOM was allegorical they would have a much stronger argument.

What would that do for the status of Joseph Smith who claimed the Book of Mormon was a history of the source of all the people of America?

 

[WarriorAngel]

You’re making the Catholic argument here. Much of the Old Testament, especially prior to Moses was oral history. And much of that oral history was allegorical in nature. The OT is NOT historical and we don’t expect it to be accurate in that sense. If LDS claimed the BOM was allegorical they would have a much stronger argument. To claim that it’s historical really shows great ignorance or a strong case of intellectual dishonesty IMHO.

The claim was made and vigorously taught not long ago that ALL Native Americans were in fact, Lamanites. I’m glad to see the LDS Church has moved off of that indefensible position. It would be nice if they would just go all they way and state that the BOM is inspired allegory.

Archaeologists use the Bible all the time to discover the ‘inhabitants’ and they haven’t been disappointed as of yet.

Now - the LDS - they have been.

youtube.com/watch?v=yV1C6UdOUbc&feature=related

%between%

 

[WarriorAngel]

mormonchallenge.com/

 

[ReligiousQuest]

Archaeologists use the Bible all the time to discover the ‘inhabitants’ and they haven’t been disappointed as of yet.

Now - the LDS - they have been.

youtube.com/watch?v=yV1C6UdOUbc&feature=related

%between%

How many times do we have to show that archaeology actually supporting the Bible has been debunked? Archaeology supporting it is an assumption that religious conservatives make. Without any evidence, what you’re saying is just an assumption. NOVA, the Smithsonian, and all the other non-religious conservative organizations say archaeology doesn’t support the Bible’s history before King David’s time.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

What would that do for the status of Joseph Smith who claimed the Book of Mormon was a history of the source of all the people of America?

And what will it do for the Catholic Pope who says that he believes in Jesus Christ and the Bible after archaeologists have what they say about the Bible before King David’s time? Genesis 5&11 and Luke 3 is worded in a way to sound a lot more literal than your Pearl of Great Price scripture that only you care about. If Joseph Smith said it was raining cats and dogs, some like you would take it a certain way, LDS on the other hand interpret scriptures differently than you. All the DNA evidence says that the mitochondrial DNA is just a “fraction” of all the women who came across the land bridge and a fraction of all ancestry. Your link you gave even stated that several times and I had to keep on pointing that out. On the other hand, Genesis 5 & 11 and Luke 3, which are worded in a lot more literal way, are not said to go well with mitochondrial and Y-Chromosome DNA.

LDS have to use their critical thinking. When we notice that you still believe in the Bible after “Genesis 5 & 11 and Luke 3” vs. archaeology/genetics, Jesus Christ after the accusations of plagiarism from other pagan mythology and the earliest New Testament scrolls dating hundreds of years later, the Pope after the Galileo incident and Inquisition where they would roast people on sticks, then we have to become suspicious when you demand that LDS give up their beliefs.

 

[Jerusha]

What would that do for the status of Joseph Smith who claimed the Book of Mormon was a history of the source of all the people of America?

The whole purpose of the BOM, according to my reading of View of the Hebrews, by Ethan Smith, was to solve the “Indian Problem” by convincing them that they are Jews, and then deporting them to Palestine, to be eaten alive by the Muslims. (that is figurative, to our Muslim friends.)

 

[Stephen168]

If Joseph Smith said it was raining cats and dogs, some like you would take it a certain way, LDS on the other hand interpret scriptures differently than you.

Mormons believed exactly what Joseph Smith said until science showed him to be a liar.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

You’re making the Catholic argument here. Much of the Old Testament, especially prior to Moses was oral history. And much of that oral history was allegorical in nature. The OT is NOT historical and we don’t expect it to be accurate in that sense. If LDS claimed the BOM was allegorical they would have a much stronger argument. To claim that it’s historical really shows great ignorance or a strong case of intellectual dishonesty IMHO.

The claim was made and vigorously taught not long ago that ALL Native Americans were in fact, Lamanites. I’m glad to see the LDS Church has moved off of that indefensible position. It would be nice if they would just go all they way and state that the BOM is inspired allegory.

Good point, and I think post 443 sheds light on where LDS are coming from.

All the mitchondrial studies I’ve found say they linked it to just a few females who came across the Bering Straight, and the archaeological evidence says it was much more than just a few women who walked across at the time, and that mitochondrial DNA only gives an extremely small fraction of your DNA. Most LDS are aware of this. But thanks for your concern for us anyway.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

Mormons believed exactly what Joseph Smith said until science showed him to be a liar.

Earlier in the 1900’s, many LDS scholars said they believed many other peoples were over in the Americas besides the the Lamanites. The LDS Church also said that could be true, and was many years before any of this genetics hype, just like the current Pope sounds wishy washy about Evolution.

… I don’t want to bash and want to sound respectful, but I’m just confused why we should bash our own religion and join yours? So what about what Science said about the Catholic Church? In the past they used the part in the Bible where it said “the four corners of the Earth”, “the Earth was made in a week’s time”, Galileo’s trial, “our priests don’t molest little boys” (until it was discovered otherwise)? The Galileo and Catholic priests vs. little innocent boys parts makes many very nervous. I hear many bring those last two up a lot, especially Protestants.

 

[NewSeeker]

Earlier in the 1900’s, many LDS scholars said they believed many other peoples were over in the Americas besides the the Lamanites. The LDS Church also said that could be true, and was many years before any of this genetics hype, just like the current Pope sounds wishy washy about Evolution.

… I don’t want to bash and want to sound respectful, but I’m just confused why we should bash our own religion and join yours? So what about what Science said about the Catholic Church? In the past they used the part in the Bible where it said “the four corners of the Earth”, “the Earth was made in a week’s time”, Galileo’s trial, “our priests don’t molest little boys” (until it was discovered otherwise)? The Galileo and Catholic priests vs. little innocent boys parts makes many very nervous. I hear many bring those last two up a lot, especially Protestants.

Some Mormon bishops molest little boys. They also embezzle tithing funds. Does that make Mormonism untrue? No. It just makes those men sinners.

Regarding science, the scientific method was first developed by Catholic priests. The university system was created in medieval Europe - by the Catholic Church. Catholicism has always been comfortable with science, reason, and the facts. Some popes were not, it’s true. But many more were quite comfortable with science than were not.

Regarding biblical vs. Book of Mormon archeology, it’s true that most of the OT is unverifiable, as is much of the NT. The gospel narratives are also based on oral history. We’ll never know which parts are historically accurate and which parts are embellished and/or allegorical. But the fact is, the Bible - both OT and NT - contains references to certain individuals and locations that have been verified archeologically. We know Rome existed; we know Jerusalem existed; we know there was a Herod; we know there was a people called Israelites; we know there was a Babylon; we know there was crucifixion. We have inscriptions, coins, manuscripts dating back nearly 2000 years that demonstrate these persons and places existed at least that long ago. These are all established facts that no reasonable person would dispute. But what does the Book of Mormon have in the New World by comparison? NOTHING! Not a coin, not an inscription, no bones, no manuscripts, no writing or hieroglyphics, nothing at all whatsoever. We know Roman, Jewish, and Babylonian civilizations existed anciently since we’ve found traces of their cities and writings. All of that evidence supports the Bible. But we have absolutely nothing at all from Nephite or Lamanite civilization. The BoM has zero archeological evidence to support it. That’s why it’s easy for Catholics to disregard the BoM. I know Rome, Jerusalem, and Babylon existed anciently. I can look in my Bible see reference to those cities and know that the Bible really is based on ancient documents. When I read the BoM, I see references to fictional cities that never existed. If they were real, where’s the evidence? You can’t show me any since there is none. Nephites never existed. Joseph Smith made it all up in his head.

Ns

 

[Stephen168]

I hear many bring those last two up a lot, especially Protestants.

Because a lot of Mormon beliefs have no historical, scientific, rational defense; I noticed Mormons bring these things up as some irrational attempt to defend their beliefs. Why have you not been able to list any archeological remains that prove the Book of Mormon is true history as Joseph Smith claimed it to be?

 

[NewSeeker]

Because a lot of Mormon beliefs have no historical, scientific, rational defense; I noticed Mormons bring these things up as some irrational attempt to defend their beliefs. Why have you not been able to list any archeological remains that prove the Book of Mormon is true history as Joseph Smith claimed it to be?

Mormons like ReligiousQuest keep missing the point. The point is not whether the Bible or the Book of Mormon can be proved to be true. That is a matter of faith. The real issue is whether the Bible or the Book of Mormon can be proved to be ancient. If they are ancient, then that lends credibility to the claim that they are true. The Bible has lots of evidence to prove that it is ancient. The Book of Mormon has none, not a single shred of evidence in its favor. The Book of Mormon is not an ancient record. It is a modern fictional work, written in the late 1820s.

NS

 

[NewSeeker]

To put it yet another way…

If the Bible and Book of Mormon are not ancient, they can’t be true. If they’re ancient, then they might be true (it’s at that point that faith enters the picture). The Bible has evidence that proves that it is ancient; therefore, it’s reasonable and rational to put your faith in it. The Book of Mormon has zero evidence to prove it is ancient. It is unreasonable and irrational to put your faith in it. That is why Mormonism is a purely faith-based religion and explains why Mormons always discount science when push comes to shove.

NS

 

[ricko]

Amen. The bible has ancient documents including the Dead Sea Scrolls to prove that it is ancient.

The Book of Mormon has…witnesses whose testimony would not stand up in a court of law due to their character and relationship with Joseph Smith. In actuality there is no evidence for the Book of Mormon.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

Some Mormon bishops molest little boys. They also embezzle tithing funds. Does that make Mormonism untrue? No. It just makes those men sinners.

Regarding science, the scientific method was first developed by Catholic priests. The university system was created in medieval Europe - by the Catholic Church. Catholicism has always been comfortable with science, reason, and the facts. Some popes were not, it’s true. But many more were quite comfortable with science than were not.

And so how do you explain why we hear on the news about Catholic priests molesting little boys more than we hear about Mormon problems or Protestant pastors doing things like that? I’m not trying to bash, I just don’t understand why you guys use similar arguments to bash LDS, but then say that it doesn’t apply to Catholics and that we should all join your religion?

And the Catholic Church still put Galileo on trial back then and house arrest. Some Catholics say that the Catholic Church told him he could teach if he presented it like a speculation rather than a fact, so that made it right, but the fact remains that they went after him when he used his telescope to “find the truth”. Every scholarly source says so. Maybe they didn’t roast him on a stick like many others in the Inquisition, but it was still a Catholic Church endeavor, of resisting truth. Not trying to bash, but why are all of you using similar criticisms against LDS but ignore the criticisms used against your religion?

Some Catholics made discoveries? Many of those during the Scientific Revolution were considered heretics and not abiding to mainstream Catholic beliefs. There are LDS who have made advances also. adherents.com/largecom/fam_lds_inv.html Also, Philo Farnsworth may not have been the first to invent television, but he was the one who invented the first completely electronic television. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo_Farnsworth

I don’t understand why you guys are attacking us on your boards?

 

[ReligiousQuest]

Regarding biblical vs. Book of Mormon archeology, it’s true that most of the OT is unverifiable, as is much of the NT. The gospel narratives are also based on oral history. We’ll never know which parts are historically accurate and which parts are embellished and/or allegorical. But the fact is, the Bible - both OT and NT - contains references to certain individuals and locations that have been verified archeologically. We know Rome existed; we know Jerusalem existed; we know there was a Herod; we know there was a people called Israelites; we know there was a Babylon; we know there was crucifixion. We have inscriptions, coins, manuscripts dating back nearly 2000 years that demonstrate these persons and places existed at least that long ago. These are all established facts that no reasonable person would dispute. But what does the Book of Mormon have in the New World by comparison? NOTHING! Not a coin, not an inscription, no bones, no manuscripts, no writing or hieroglyphics, nothing at all whatsoever. We know Roman, Jewish, and Babylonian civilizations existed anciently since we’ve found traces of their cities and writings. All of that evidence supports the Bible. But we have absolutely nothing at all from Nephite or Lamanite civilization. The BoM has zero archeological evidence to support it. That’s why it’s easy for Catholics to disregard the BoM. I know Rome, Jerusalem, and Babylon existed anciently. I can look in my Bible see reference to those cities and know that the Bible really is based on ancient documents. When I read the BoM, I see references to fictional cities that never existed. If they were real, where’s the evidence? You can’t show me any since there is none. Nephites never existed. Joseph Smith made it all up in his head.

Ns

So what would you say about me using Occam’s Razor? In Science you go with the theory that uses the “least amount of assumptions” to explain “the most amount of facts”. The theory that would use the least amount of assumptions is that the Bible is a historical fiction mixed with some real events; and as the Smithsonian said, “Better thought as a religious document than a completely accurate historical document”; that many of the stories from the New Testament were plagiarized from pagan mythology, no life after death outside the biological brain, etc. Then Christians come along saying they don’t believe in Occam’s Razor to critics, and that it doesn’t necessarily bring you to truth, since things can change with new evidence. Saying that the same concerns don’t apply to Christianity, but should apply to the LDS Church, requires an extra assumption rather than just saying that either the concerns apply or they don’t. The classic example (I’ll get back to archaeology in a second) is critics of Christianity say the New Testament/Jesus Christ said the Second Coming will be in this generation, 2000 years ago. Then Christians say that Jesus meant something else by that word. Then Christian critics say that’s BS. I used to be agnostic-like and brought up that concern with non-LDS Christians and they said, “That’s the stupidest reason why someone would reject Christianity.” Then in return, non-LDS Christians often say that Joseph Smith said a temple would be built within this generation. Then LDS say that the word generation meant something else. Then it goes back and forth. After discussions with that back and forth I’ve had with atheists and non-LDS Christians, it seems like it would use less assumptions just to say either all of Christianity is false, or that these same criticisms shouldn’t apply either to Mormonism but not Christianity, and saying it applies to one but not the other requires the most assumptions.

I just use Occam’s Razor and tell myself that I can’t just be choosy and reject LDS while accepting Christianity. Personally, it seems reasonable that I would have to either choose and reject them both - the least amount of assumptions - or say that these same criticisms don’t apply to LDS - less assumptions than only picking Christianity and rejecting LDS). Here are some examples that I can’t let leave my mind:

Linguistic evidence is used to bash the Bible’s Tower of Babel by secular linguists. Linguistic evidence is also used to bash everything before 600 B.C. Organizations like the Institute of Religious Research are not critics of the LDS Church, but rather Anti-Mormon. It would take less assumptions just to say the Bible is false. Then next in line is it would take less assumptions to say that either linguistic evidence has to be used against both the Bible and BOM, or not at all. To say it has to be used against one but not the other requires “even more” assumptions.

 

[NewSeeker]

And so how do you explain why we hear on the news about Catholic priests molesting little boys more than we hear about Mormon problems or Protestant pastors doing things like that? I’m not trying to bash, I just don’t understand why you guys use similar arguments to bash LDS, but then say that it doesn’t apply to Catholics and that we should all join your religion?

And the Catholic Church still put Galileo on trial back then and house arrest. Some Catholics say that the Catholic Church told him he could teach if he presented it like a speculation rather than a fact, so that made it right, but the fact remains that they went after him when he used his telescope to “find the truth”. Every scholarly source says so. Maybe they didn’t roast him on a stick like many others in the Inquisition, but it was still a Catholic Church endeavor, of resisting truth. Not trying to bash, but why are all of you using similar criticisms against LDS but ignore the criticisms used against your religion?

Some Catholics made discoveries? Many of those during the Scientific Revolution were considered heretics and not abiding to mainstream Catholic beliefs. There are LDS who have made advances also. adherents.com/largecom/fam_lds_inv.html Also, Philo Farnsworth may not have been the first to invent television, but he was the one who invented the first completely electronic television. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo_Farnsworth

I don’t understand why you guys are attacking us on your boards?

No one’s attacking you. And we’re not ignoring criticisms. We know our history very well, better than you do since it’s our history. We don’t make apologies for sinning popes. We know who they are and their lives are not celebrated. They comprise a small minority of all popes, by the way, an important fact that Catholic haters never acknowledge. So, we’re not attacking you and we don’t ignore our history. There’s a difference between attack and disagreement. Mormons confuse the two and think someone who respectfully disagrees is attacking. It’s understandable given persecution of Mormons in the 19th Century ( a topic I know all about; I was a Mormon for 43 years - if you include the 8 years before my baptism in the number). But that persecution complex makes it hard for Mormons to admit the skeletons in their own closet.

Your post betrays another misunderstanding. The presence of sinners in an institution does not make an institution unholy. Christ’s church is a church where saints and sinners reside side by side, much like Mormonism. The vast majority of Mormon bishops are righteous men; but a few are great sinners (molesters, embezzlers). The same goes for Catholic priests. The reason Catholicism makes the international news is because it’s gigantic and accounts for 1 billion souls. The Catholic Church has an international influence. Mormonism is tiny by comparison, with only 13 million souls. That explains why molesting Mormon bishops only make local news. Most of the world doesn’t care about the Mormons or know much about them. Almost everyone knows about the Catholic Church. It’s been around for 2,000 years and is the driving force behind Western civilization. And yes, that includes the development of modern science. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the first scientists in the modern sense were all Catholic priests. That’s an established, historical fact. Saying that doesn’t mean that LDS contributions to science aren’t important. I’m only saying that you shouldn’t judge the Church by isolated instances such as Galileo. The Catholic Church has more heroes of science than it does sinning popes and bishops that suppressed scientific truths. Despite the occasional wickedness at the top (much of which was quite spectacular), there has been much more good brought into the world by Catholicism and Christ’s Church has continued to exist and give human souls the means of salvation for 2,000 years. So, in the end I suppose I could say to you “why are you here on a Catholic board attacking us?” with your reference to sinning priests, but I won’t. What purpose would that serve?

 

[ReligiousQuest]

The Dead Sea Scrolls are used by Jews to bash verses from the “Book of Isaiah”, where in the New Testament it says that Jesus fulfilled such and such prophecy. Jews say that if the New Testament is the Word of God, it wouldn’t be quoting mistranslated verses as prophecies. And I’m talking about more than just Isaiah 7:14 where the Dead Sea Scrolls say the young woman is already pregnant (700 B.C., how could Marry be pregnant then?). Christians say that the Dead Sea Scrolls aren’t the original writings, so we can’t know for sure. Then they criticize the Book of Mormon for a few minor differences, etc. (I use Occam’s Razor)

Genesis 5 & 11 and Luke 3 give very matter-of-the fact worded genealogies, which if taken literally mean that Adam & Eve were 6,000 years ago. Looking at how it’s worded and saying that it’s not to be taken literally requires more assumptions. “Genetics” doesn’t support Christianity’s Book of Genesis where it says we came from Noah’s Ark out of the Middle East, and instead says our most common father was 60,000 years ago from black African DNA (supports out of Africa, not the Middle East 5,000 years ago). Why shouldn’t Christians who criticize the LDS Church for genetics, but still believe in the Bible, be called Anti-Mormons rather than critics?

All the non-Christian scholarly evidence says that people were not crucified by Romans for religious reasons, but rather being rebels and hard core criminals. Some critics say this proves that if Jesus Christ was really crucified, he was a criminal/rebel and his followers were trying to twist things around to save face. The Bible also talks about Paul having trouble with the Law, and Moses was a murderous fugitive on the run. Christians say that naturally God’s leaders get persecuted. Then these non-LDS Christians say, “Hey look, Joseph Smith was in prison!” This is why I have to evaluate the evidence. I’m not going to be led mindlessly by anti-Mormons!

Archaeological evidence is also used by most secular archaeologists to bash most everything in the Bible before King David’s time. Moses, Joshua’s Conquest, etc. Secular archaeologists don’t believe in the Bible’s history before King David. religioustolerance.org/chr_arhs.htm
Also refer to posts # 431, 16, and 4

Evidence of Mormonism going against the Bible? What about all the backed up Old Testament scriptures that Jews constantly use against the New Testament and Christianity? Just like non-LDS Christians would feel out of place rejecting Christianity because of these scriptures, the same can be said for Mormons. ( whatjewsbelieve.org/ for some Jewish bashing of Christians)

For example, Jews say the Old Testament (their Tanakh) specifically says:

1. One person cannot die for the sins of another (Many Jews say Jesus didn’t read the scriptures, just like many Christians say that about Joseph Smith).
2. We do not need blood sacrifice for forgiveness of sins, like Jesus Christ.
3. God hates human sacrifices, and Christianity goes against this with the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Abraham also never did sacrifice his son because he was stopped because God is consistent in eternal truths. That’s not what Christians believe happened with Christ. Jews say Christians should have read the Bible.
4. Many Christians believe in original sin. Jews say this goes against the Old Testament.
5. Jews say the Trinity is contradicted by the Old Testament. Jews say the verses saying “God is one” (instead of a “three persons in one spiritual being” non-Monotheistic Trinity). Very ironic how some Christians use some of these same verses against the LDS Church’s Godhead.
6. Satan being a fallen angel Devil in opposition to God is not scriptural in the Old Testament; he’s a righteous angel of God who is commanded to test us instead. They say that’s a threat to God’s power.
7. The Old Testament says God is not a man, and so that goes against Christians believing God came to Earth being born to Marry (like the Greek gods were), then dying on the cross (like some pagan myths), in the form of Jesus Christ.
   ETC whatjewsbelieve.org/

Non-LDS Christians say that Mormons add to scripture, last chapter of Revelations. Jews say that the Book of Deuteronomy talks about the Law of Moses, and Deut. 4:2 says “not to add or take away from” the Law. Jews say the New Testament did just that. Just like Christians would feel awkward saying that’s why they left Christianity, so would Mormons.

Jews say that Christians go against scripture. Obviously you can make the Bible mean whatever you want. Just like a Christian would feel silly rejecting Christianity because of all these verses, Mormons would feel silly to reject their religion for “apparent” scripture that go against (although they don’t believe they contradict). Mormons feel that non-LDS Christians trying to bash them is exactly like the Pharisees going against Christ.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

Regarding biblical vs. Book of Mormon archeology, it’s true that most of the OT is unverifiable, as is much of the NT. The gospel narratives are also based on oral history. We’ll never know which parts are historically accurate and which parts are embellished and/or allegorical. But the fact is, the Bible - both OT and NT - contains references to certain individuals and locations that have been verified archeologically. We know Rome existed; we know Jerusalem existed; we know there was a Herod; we know there was a people called Israelites; we know there was a Babylon; we know there was crucifixion. We have inscriptions, coins, manuscripts dating back nearly 2000 years that demonstrate these persons and places existed at least that long ago. These are all established facts that no reasonable person would dispute. But what does the Book of Mormon have in the New World by comparison? NOTHING! Not a coin, not an inscription, no bones, no manuscripts, no writing or hieroglyphics, nothing at all whatsoever. We know Roman, Jewish, and Babylonian civilizations existed anciently since we’ve found traces of their cities and writings. All of that evidence supports the Bible. But we have absolutely nothing at all from Nephite or Lamanite civilization. The BoM has zero archeological evidence to support it. That’s why it’s easy for Catholics to disregard the BoM. I know Rome, Jerusalem, and Babylon existed anciently. I can look in my Bible see reference to those cities and know that the Bible really is based on ancient documents. When I read the BoM, I see references to fictional cities that never existed. If they were real, where’s the evidence? You can’t show me any since there is none. Nephites never existed. Joseph Smith made it all up in his head.

Ns

So what would you say about me using Occam’s Razor? In Science you go with the theory that uses the “least amount of assumptions” to explain “the most amount of facts”. The theory that would use the least amount of assumptions is that the Bible is a historical fiction mixed with some real events; and as the Smithsonian said, “Better thought as a religious document than a completely accurate historical document”; that many of the stories from the New Testament were plagiarized from pagan mythology, no life after death outside the biological brain, etc. Then Christians come along saying they don’t believe in Occam’s Razor to critics, and that it doesn’t necessarily bring you to truth, since things can change with new evidence. Saying that the same concerns don’t apply to Christianity, but should apply to the LDS Church, requires an extra assumption rather than just saying that either the concerns apply or they don’t. The classic example (I’ll get back to archaeology in a second) is critics of Christianity say the New Testament/Jesus Christ said the Second Coming will be in this generation, 2000 years ago. Then Christians say that Jesus meant something else by that word. Then Christian critics say that’s BS. I used to be agnostic-like and brought up that concern with non-LDS Christians and they said, “That’s the stupidest reason why someone would reject Christianity.” Then in return, non-LDS Christians often say that Joseph Smith said a temple would be built within this generation. Then LDS say that the word generation meant something else. Then it goes back and forth. After discussions with that back and forth I’ve had with atheists and non-LDS Christians, it seems like it would use less assumptions just to say either all of Christianity is false, or that these same criticisms shouldn’t apply either to Mormonism but not Christianity, and saying it applies to one but not the other requires the most assumptions.

I just use Occam’s Razor and tell myself that I can’t just be choosy and reject LDS while accepting Christianity. Personally, it seems reasonable that I would have to either choose and reject them both - the least amount of assumptions - or say that these same criticisms don’t apply to LDS - less assumptions than only picking Christianity and rejecting LDS). Here are some examples that I can’t let leave my mind:

Linguistic evidence is used to bash the Bible’s Tower of Babel by secular linguists. Linguistic evidence is also used to bash everything before 600 B.C. Organizations like the Institute of Religious Research are not critics of the LDS Church, but rather Anti-Mormon. It would take less assumptions just to say the Bible is false. Then next in line is it would take less assumptions to say that either linguistic evidence has to be used against both the Bible and BOM, or not at all. To say it has to be used against one but not the other requires “even more” assumptions.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

The Dead Sea Scrolls are used by Jews to bash verses from the “Book of Isaiah”, where in the New Testament it says that Jesus fulfilled such and such prophecy. Jews say that if the New Testament is the Word of God, it wouldn’t be quoting mistranslated verses as prophecies. And I’m talking about more than just Isaiah 7:14 where the Dead Sea Scrolls say the young woman is already pregnant (700 B.C., how could Marry be pregnant then?). Christians say that the Dead Sea Scrolls aren’t the original writings, so we can’t know for sure. Then they criticize the Book of Mormon for a few minor differences, etc. (I use Occam’s Razor)

Genesis 5 & 11 and Luke 3 give very matter-of-the fact worded genealogies, which if taken literally mean that Adam & Eve were 6,000 years ago. Looking at how it’s worded and saying that it’s not to be taken literally requires more assumptions. “Genetics” doesn’t support Christianity’s Book of Genesis where it says we came from Noah’s Ark out of the Middle East, and instead says our most common father was 60,000 years ago from black African DNA (supports out of Africa, not the Middle East 5,000 years ago). Why shouldn’t Christians who criticize the LDS Church for genetics, but still believe in the Bible, be called Anti-Mormons rather than critics?

All the non-Christian scholarly evidence says that people were not crucified by Romans for religious reasons, but rather being rebels and hard core criminals. Some critics say this proves that if Jesus Christ was really crucified, he was a criminal/rebel and his followers were trying to twist things around to save face. The Bible also talks about Paul having trouble with the Law, and Moses was a murderous fugitive on the run. Christians say that naturally God’s leaders get persecuted. Then these non-LDS Christians say, “Hey look, Joseph Smith was in prison!” This is why I have to evaluate the evidence. I’m not going to be led mindlessly by anti-Mormons!

Archaeological evidence is also used by most secular archaeologists to bash most everything in the Bible before King David’s time. Moses, Joshua’s Conquest, etc. Secular archaeologists don’t believe in the Bible’s history before King David. religioustolerance.org/chr_arhs.htm
Also refer to posts # 431, 16, and 4

Evidence of Mormonism going against the Bible? What about all the backed up Old Testament scriptures that Jews constantly use against the New Testament and Christianity? Just like non-LDS Christians would feel out of place rejecting Christianity because of these scriptures, the same can be said for Mormons. ( whatjewsbelieve.org/ for some Jewish bashing of Christians)

For example, Jews say the Old Testament (their Tanakh) specifically says:

1. One person cannot die for the sins of another (Many Jews say Jesus didn’t read the scriptures, just like many Christians say that about Joseph Smith).
2. We do not need blood sacrifice for forgiveness of sins, like Jesus Christ.
3. God hates human sacrifices, and Christianity goes against this with the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Abraham also never did sacrifice his son because he was stopped because God is consistent in eternal truths. That’s not what Christians believe happened with Christ. Jews say Christians should have read the Bible.
4. Many Christians believe in original sin. Jews say this goes against the Old Testament.
5. Jews say the Trinity is contradicted by the Old Testament. Jews say the verses saying “God is one” (instead of a “three persons in one spiritual being” non-Monotheistic Trinity). Very ironic how some Christians use some of these same verses against the LDS Church’s Godhead.
6. Satan being a fallen angel Devil in opposition to God is not scriptural in the Old Testament; he’s a righteous angel of God who is commanded to test us instead. They say that’s a threat to God’s power.
7. The Old Testament says God is not a man, and so that goes against Christians believing God came to Earth being born to Marry (like the Greek gods were), then dying on the cross (like some pagan myths), in the form of Jesus Christ.
   ETC whatjewsbelieve.org/

Non-LDS Christians say that Mormons add to scripture, last chapter of Revelations. Jews say that the Book of Deuteronomy talks about the Law of Moses, and Deut. 4:2 says “not to add or take away from” the Law. Jews say the New Testament did just that. Just like Christians would feel awkward saying that’s why they left Christianity, so would Mormons.

Jews say that Christians go against scripture. Obviously you can make the Bible mean whatever you want. Just like a Christian would feel silly rejecting Christianity because of all these verses, Mormons would feel silly to reject their religion for “apparent” scripture that go against (although they don’t believe they contradict). Mormons feel that non-LDS Christians trying to bash them is exactly like the Pharisees going against Christ.