God gifted us with the ability to know him my natural means. He wills that we know Him. Wants us to know Him. It is a good faith to have.
We have the right to believe how we believe and be left unmolested, not accosted in our homes or lives and told that we are wrong and need to believe otherwise. But some will come and knock to tell us that what we believe is an abomination, maybe even try to entice our children away under false pretenses.Religious arguments don’t change anyone. We have the right to believe how we believe.
I find this post somewhat sad. History plays a very important role in understanding the bible and the various LDS scriptures. In the former, history tends to support the claims of the bible. In the latter, history destroys the credibility of the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham. History is the enemy of Mormonism, so I can see why some Mormons would choose to “be bored” with history, when it clearly demonstrates that Joseph Smith was a complete and utter fraud, a conman who deceived many and did many terrible things. Ignoring history is a way to keep the fantasy intact.
Your signature is appropriate.
(Bolding mine) So the bible is just some book that wasn’t translated correctly for close to 2000 years until some guy named Joe looked in a hat with rocks and “saw the light”? So more than 2000 years of theological study of the Word of God is just old boring history?
Zaffiroborant, I was unaware I had offended you. If that was the case, I sincerely apologize. I’m here on friendly terms, and trying to be open, honest, and respectful about things. Please let me know if I am not achieving those goals.
LOL!!! “Mormons don’t like history”. That’s funny. I’ll have to go tell my sister (an ultra-orthodox Mormon getting a Bachelor’s in mid-eastern history/culture) that she should change her major
.Horton, please be respectful. As I told Zaffiroborant, I’m here on friendly terms, and would like to have a civil conversation without blatantly insulting someone’s deeply held beliefs.
No, History is the enemy of Mormonism. Which means history shows Mormonism to be false.
I find history to be inspiring because it shows the Catholic Church to be grounded in the faith of Christ and the Apostles.
Then I would ask the same as you. Do not insult my deep and firmly held faith and knowledge of our Catholic Church. Jesus is NOT just some guy who lived 2000ish years ago. He is our Savior, Lord, Redeemer and the reason we have salvation. You speak of passion for the bible but I would bet the only bible you’ve read from is an “approved” LDS version of the KJV.
Of course the Jesus is the Son of God, Savior of the World, Redeemer, etc!!! I believe that with all my heart and did not mean to imply otherwise.
I do prefer the KJV, because I’m fond of the old-school English style. I’m cool with other translations, and even own a few (NIV, The Message, non-LDS KJV, and another I can’t remember right now).
Statement: I’m not interested in trying to convince you of the validity of the BoM, so I’m just not going to go there at all. Sorry if this disappoints you.
Shrug Why not?
Ms. Doe, are you supportive of the LDS missionary program? Have you ever encouraged someone to serve an LDS mission or assisted in financing one? Have you served one yourself?
I highlighted the section in Chris-WA’s post that is in question. As you can see, you have mischaracterized what he said, and have arbitrarily redefined the word some to mean all. By definition, some does not mean all. Some isn’t even a generalization as it often refers to a minority. Then you use your sister’s interest in history as a means to defeat this straw-man argument that you have created by changing what was said.LOL!!! “Mormons don’t like history”. That’s funny. I’ll have to go tell my sister (an ultra-orthodox Mormon getting a Bachelor’s in mid-eastern history/culture) that she should change her major
But again this is a straw man argument. No one said anything about proving faith in Jesus via archaeology. The original argument presented is about historical veracity of scriptures. Scriptures cannot provide or prove faith, they are instructional, inspirational, or spiritual nourishment for the already faithful. They can either maintain the integrity of the doctrines of a church or if tampered with jeopardize that integrity. The initial argument I put forth was that any new scripture to be introduced must bear the burden of proof for itself (least heretical doctrine be formed from non-inspired scripture). Meaning that it is not our job to disprove the BoM as it is the job of the BoM to pass the tests for itself. Which it doesn’t, as there are too many valid questions to it’s authenticity as a work (as outlined in post 19). To clarify this has nothing to do with archaeology and historical research in general proving Jesus, it has to do with it (via the dead sea scrolls) proving scriptural veracity. Very different subjects!
That’s fine, and it doesn’t disappoint, but you have interpreted what was previously said to mean things they didn’t. Hopefully now you understand what was being presented and how it had nothing to do what it was turned into.
I’m now seven years removed from being a part of the LDS church and I still am harassed. I have repeatedly asked to not be contacted and yet twice weekly I have a message on my voicemail, every Saturday Missionaries knocking on my door, and my children approached and preached too without my consent.
The other thing to this that is important: no actual translation of the plates was made. Smith stared at a seer stone in a hat behind a curtain and “received” the words. Translation implies study of something or reading of something - which is not what happened. It’s not even what the LDS church teaches. They teach that a man looked at a stone in a hat behind a curtain and the result was the BoM. This is not translation. Further, unlike the books of the Bible, we have nothing to compare it too to verify the veracity of the translation. He would have been better off taking Muhammad’s story about revelation/dictation from an Angel than to call it translation, because at least with Muhammad’s story there is no reasonable expectation of a source document.
Wow. I was giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Not disappointed at all with your response. It was predictable. Why do you think Joe used the old English style of writing when he wrote the BoM?