L
lax16
Guest
Is there a Mormon forum that would permit non-Mormons to say such things?
- Status
H
Horton
Guest
I have no idea. I’ve never tried to participate on a LDS forum. I’ve never seen the need as I am very convicted in my belief in the faith Christ established on earth, which has remained true for more than 2000 years. What I know of the LDS is sufficient for my needs and learned from living in communities with large population of LDS.
T
Tarquin
Guest
As in Sunday School classes, which I have attended, and other meetings, so also on the Mormon websites I have participated in for short periods of time - questioning is discouraged. Questions are okay: “What do Mormons believe about …?” But questioning is not: “How do you reconcile the contradictions in those two doctrines?” “Why do you say that happened in history when it was actually this?”
You certainly would not be able to say Mormonism is a false religion, as Jane Doe has done with the Catholic religion here, and not be at risk of being banned. Some of the sites have since disappeared. There was one on “ning” and there is something like “further light and” something - the latter might be more open to “insults”.
You certainly would not be able to say Mormonism is a false religion, as Jane Doe has done with the Catholic religion here, and not be at risk of being banned. Some of the sites have since disappeared. There was one on “ning” and there is something like “further light and” something - the latter might be more open to “insults”.
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
Almost every time I make an rational factually based argument against Mormonism, she called me rude or offensive or prideful or arrogant or simply uninteresting. All she had been doing is attacking me ad hominem. When I pointed out she had no evidence for any of her claims, she basically called me ignorant for thinking she has no evidence… But she doesn’t… she hasn’t even presented a single shred of evidence! All she has done is called me rude or arrogant…As in Sunday School classes, which I have attended, and other meetings, so also on the Mormon websites I have participated in for short periods of time - questioning is discouraged. Questions are okay: “What do Mormons believe about …?” But questioning is not: “How do you reconcile the contradictions in those two doctrines?” “Why do you say that happened in history when it was actually this?”
You certainly would not be able to say Mormonism is a false religion, as Jane Doe has done with the Catholic religion here, and not be at risk of being banned. Some of the sites have since disappeared. There was one on “ning” and there is something like “further light and” something - the latter might be more open to “insults”.
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
When I thought we were going to have an actual meaningful discussion, after sending her a rebuttal of arguments she made against my argument she responds with:
"There is a reason I’m not presenting arguments to you: because I’m not interested in arguing (which I stated before). Why am I uninterested in arguing? Because you obviously already believe that you already know everything, and hence there’s no reason for me to waste my time talking to you."
… :doh2: …This pretty much shows everything I was saying before is true…
"There is a reason I’m not presenting arguments to you: because I’m not interested in arguing (which I stated before). Why am I uninterested in arguing? Because you obviously already believe that you already know everything, and hence there’s no reason for me to waste my time talking to you."
… :doh2: …This pretty much shows everything I was saying before is true…
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
It’s a forum, randomness happens.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
So ironic…
I
iepuras
Guest
It is doubtful.
I
iepuras
Guest
I have tried to participate in forums for former Mormons and my patience inevitably wears thin because even though posters have all left Mormonism in some form or fashion, many still haven’t left the culture, per se, at least with regards to how they behave and treat others. I was never a huge fan of the prevailing culture even when I was LDS, so I don’t really feel the need to get back into that culture at all.
T
truthseeker32
Guest
Appealing to lack of evidence for LDS claims is an inadequate starting point because the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Furthermore, the same criticism can be made against Judeo-Christian beliefs since there is no archaeological evidence for many of the people, places, and events recorded in scripture.
Fortunately for Catholics (and unfortunately for Mormons), there is evidence that contradicts LDS claims, ranging from soil, plant, DNA, and animal evidence in North and South America (which is why Mormons are constantly changing their theories about where the Book of Mormon events took place) to seeing just how influenced Joseph Smith was by his environment. Names found in the Book of Mormon can either be found in the King James Bible or in the area where Joseph Smith lived. Ideas that were popular in 19th century America (Materialism, American concept of liberty) are prevalent both in the Book of Mormon and Smith’s theological speculations.
The big crack in my faith came not from the lack of evidence for the Book of Mormon. I had no problem imagining the possibility that someday a stone temple buried in Mesoamerica would be discovered and validate the Mormon narrative. I lost faith because I saw just how much the Mormon movement was a product of its time, shaped by ideologies that I found existentially superficial. The only answer to the angst of human history is the God who is the foundation of all that is and who unites Himself with His creation.
Fortunately for Catholics (and unfortunately for Mormons), there is evidence that contradicts LDS claims, ranging from soil, plant, DNA, and animal evidence in North and South America (which is why Mormons are constantly changing their theories about where the Book of Mormon events took place) to seeing just how influenced Joseph Smith was by his environment. Names found in the Book of Mormon can either be found in the King James Bible or in the area where Joseph Smith lived. Ideas that were popular in 19th century America (Materialism, American concept of liberty) are prevalent both in the Book of Mormon and Smith’s theological speculations.
The big crack in my faith came not from the lack of evidence for the Book of Mormon. I had no problem imagining the possibility that someday a stone temple buried in Mesoamerica would be discovered and validate the Mormon narrative. I lost faith because I saw just how much the Mormon movement was a product of its time, shaped by ideologies that I found existentially superficial. The only answer to the angst of human history is the God who is the foundation of all that is and who unites Himself with His creation.
H
Horton
Guest
I’m glad I didn’t waste my time trying to communicate through PM. While participating on a public forum I rarely use PM unless I’m going to communicate with someone about a deeply personal issue. I think here on CAF it’s only happened twice.
H
Horton
Guest
Bolding mine.
While there isn’t archaeological evidence for every event described in the bible there is some. Probably more than some. For the BoM there is none, not one item, to lead scholars to indicate that it is possible for the BoM to be true. The BoM is a fictional tale written by a young man with a vivid imagination.
I understand your point of view and am glad you found a way to the truth.
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
I agree. Besides, Catholics don’t take every in the Bible literally. I’m sure there was no literal Tower of Babel and perhaps there wasn’t even a literal battle of Jericho. Mormons on the other hand have to take the Book of Mormon literally or else their faith crumbles.
And as said there is also much archaeological evidence for things that are described in the Bible. The most obvious (mainly because a small portion of it still stands) is the second temple. We also have evidence for individuals such as King David and King Solomon. The Tel Dan inscription, found in the 90’s talks about the “House of David.” It’s dated to the 9th century. Israelite archaeological remains have been dated no earlier than the 8th century. So this was a huge find. Mormonism on the other hand has… well… no archaeological evidence of any kind…
And as said there is also much archaeological evidence for things that are described in the Bible. The most obvious (mainly because a small portion of it still stands) is the second temple. We also have evidence for individuals such as King David and King Solomon. The Tel Dan inscription, found in the 90’s talks about the “House of David.” It’s dated to the 9th century. Israelite archaeological remains have been dated no earlier than the 8th century. So this was a huge find. Mormonism on the other hand has… well… no archaeological evidence of any kind…
M
Marie5890
Guest
As a general statement, Mormons look to their testimonies for the source of truth and don’t , to the best of my knowledge are they encouraged to, use our God given ability to reason and utilities critical thinking skills. (Again very general statement).
I will say this, it’s my understanding that the LDS leadership has backed off the focus of the BoM being a historical book, and rather, now in the 21 century, holds it up as a spiritual book.
When I was LDS, it was held up as both historical and spiritual and claimed to be “the most correct book on the face of the planet”…
I don’t think they claim that anymore…But I don’t know.
I will say this, it’s my understanding that the LDS leadership has backed off the focus of the BoM being a historical book, and rather, now in the 21 century, holds it up as a spiritual book.
When I was LDS, it was held up as both historical and spiritual and claimed to be “the most correct book on the face of the planet”…
I don’t think they claim that anymore…But I don’t know.
T
Tarquin
Guest
Still has some growing to do.
T
Tarquin
Guest
Maybe she also doesn’t want to “argue” (whichever definition she is using for that) because she herself believes she “already knows everything” and thus we are a waste of time to her.
M
mtolympus
Guest
We believe that our physical life is a test of our faith. It was never intended that the physical evidence of the Book of Mormon would be the thing that would bring conversion. It is only for those who are willing to diligently search, read and pray to God and ask if it is true.
In my opinion “blind faith” is an oxymoron. The only time there is blind faith is when there is no faith. Faith is seeing into the spiritual world:
"Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (For we walk by faith, not by sight).” (2 Cor. 5:6-7)
In the physical world we see through our eyes by the light of the sun or other forms of light energy. In the spiritual world we see through faith by the light of Christ.
“Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.” (John 8:12)
In the physical world we discover truth by observing with our physical senses or though seeking physical evidence. However, we are told in Hebrews 11:1 that when seeking (spiritual) truth, that “faith… is the evidence”. “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Heb11:1)
Paul teaches us the folly of trying to understand our spiritual world by using the tools of the physical world when he writes in 1 Corinthians 2:14:
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Cor. 2:14)
I hope this helps you with your question of why physical evidence is not the main concern of Mormons. However, if you want to find the physical evidence for Mormon truth, CAF is probably not the best place to look.
T
Tarquin
Guest
“Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth (“testeth”) he any man” James 1:13
The question for me is not whether or not Mormons rely on evidence to support their beliefs (“not the main concern of Mormons”) but whether or not there *is *any evidence to begin with and if so *how persuasive or how inconclusive *such evidence is. There seems to be virtually no evidence at all to support the claim that the Book of Mormon was written by and about American Indians or even by and about Israelites who migrated to North and South America and “the islands of the sea” (good old Hagoth)
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
The problem is is that the so called “history” in the Book of Mormon has been disproved by historians and scholars. There is no archaeological, linguistic, or DNA evidence that suggest anything the Book of Mormon tells us. It paints a much different story truthfully.
The ancient Native Americans origin lies mostly in Mongolia and Siberia, as well as eastern China and possibly as far down as South East Asia and Polynesia. To put it simply, Native Americans came from Asia not from Levant in the Middle East. There is nothing in their DNA to suggest a Semitic origin. They arrived in North America about 15,000 years ago (13,000 B.C), most seemed to have crossed over the Bering Strait which at the time had a glacier land bridge allowing people to cross over. From there they spread south through Canada and built up many empires and civilizations. The most notable of which include the Incas, the Mayas, and the Aztecs. This is actually simple history and can be learned in a high school history textbook. But then of course there is the Book of Mormon which offers a much different picture. Though, I’d prefer to take the word of scholars and historians who have been studying this thoroughly for decades rather than from one Book written in the 1830’s by a single man who knew little on the subject. But hey, I don’t know about you but that’s just me!
Even if you don’t need evidence right off the bat for something to be necessarily true, when you do actually have evidence for something that contradict a previous notion about something than we can’t just keep believing that notion because it has been shown to be false. People use to believe that the earth was the center of the universe and that the sun revolved around it. But upon further study and the gathering of evidence and proof, it has been shown that the previous notion is false. If it is false than we cannot continue to believe in it. Simple logic.
Blind faith is in no way an oxymoron. There are two kinds of faith. There is blind faith, and there is justifiable faith. The definition of faith is: complete trust or confidence in someone or something. Blind faith is a blind trust in something with lack of evidence, and in many cases (such as Mormonism) with sufficient evidence that contradicts that faith. Justifiable faith starts from a certain proof or evidence (such as the resurrection in Christianity) and branches out into faith. Things in our faith would include the very existence of God which is most obvious, the Trinity, the truth of the Bible from start to finish etc. The resurrection is our foundation.
And again to make this clear not everything needs physical evidence to be true. Only a hardcore materialist would say that. But certain things do need material evidence. Such as archaeology. Not only is there no archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, there is also archaeological evidence that contradicts the Book of Mormon. The primary goal of the Book of Mormon is to present a history of pre-Colombian Americans. We need historical evidence for this, which there are many forms of. Archaeology is one. Archaeology disagrees with the Book of Mormon. In those 2 Corinthians 5:7, Paul is not undermining the use of proof and evidence for something. On the contrary, he is undermining the belief that everything in faith must have some kind of direct and concrete evidence. Paul does argue that we do indeed need some kind of backup, some kind of proof and evidence for the foundation of our faith. “If Christ has not been raised from the dead, than your faith is in vain and you are still in your sins.”- 1 Corinthians 15:17 In fact, in the start of this chapter Paul notes “and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.” - 1 Corinthians 15:5-10 Paul notes how Jesus appeared to the disciples and to five hundred brethren and then to him. Christ appeared to them and proved he was raised from the dead. They being the witnesses to this can now pass what they saw on to others. It is the ultimate proof. Verses such as Hebrews 1:11 do not speak of blind faith.
In conclusion, faith is important. Faith is trust in God. But blind faith is not worth believing. It has no foundation. Mormonism has no foundation for its faith like Christianity does.
The ancient Native Americans origin lies mostly in Mongolia and Siberia, as well as eastern China and possibly as far down as South East Asia and Polynesia. To put it simply, Native Americans came from Asia not from Levant in the Middle East. There is nothing in their DNA to suggest a Semitic origin. They arrived in North America about 15,000 years ago (13,000 B.C), most seemed to have crossed over the Bering Strait which at the time had a glacier land bridge allowing people to cross over. From there they spread south through Canada and built up many empires and civilizations. The most notable of which include the Incas, the Mayas, and the Aztecs. This is actually simple history and can be learned in a high school history textbook. But then of course there is the Book of Mormon which offers a much different picture. Though, I’d prefer to take the word of scholars and historians who have been studying this thoroughly for decades rather than from one Book written in the 1830’s by a single man who knew little on the subject. But hey, I don’t know about you but that’s just me!
Even if you don’t need evidence right off the bat for something to be necessarily true, when you do actually have evidence for something that contradict a previous notion about something than we can’t just keep believing that notion because it has been shown to be false. People use to believe that the earth was the center of the universe and that the sun revolved around it. But upon further study and the gathering of evidence and proof, it has been shown that the previous notion is false. If it is false than we cannot continue to believe in it. Simple logic.
Blind faith is in no way an oxymoron. There are two kinds of faith. There is blind faith, and there is justifiable faith. The definition of faith is: complete trust or confidence in someone or something. Blind faith is a blind trust in something with lack of evidence, and in many cases (such as Mormonism) with sufficient evidence that contradicts that faith. Justifiable faith starts from a certain proof or evidence (such as the resurrection in Christianity) and branches out into faith. Things in our faith would include the very existence of God which is most obvious, the Trinity, the truth of the Bible from start to finish etc. The resurrection is our foundation.
And again to make this clear not everything needs physical evidence to be true. Only a hardcore materialist would say that. But certain things do need material evidence. Such as archaeology. Not only is there no archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, there is also archaeological evidence that contradicts the Book of Mormon. The primary goal of the Book of Mormon is to present a history of pre-Colombian Americans. We need historical evidence for this, which there are many forms of. Archaeology is one. Archaeology disagrees with the Book of Mormon. In those 2 Corinthians 5:7, Paul is not undermining the use of proof and evidence for something. On the contrary, he is undermining the belief that everything in faith must have some kind of direct and concrete evidence. Paul does argue that we do indeed need some kind of backup, some kind of proof and evidence for the foundation of our faith. “If Christ has not been raised from the dead, than your faith is in vain and you are still in your sins.”- 1 Corinthians 15:17 In fact, in the start of this chapter Paul notes “and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.” - 1 Corinthians 15:5-10 Paul notes how Jesus appeared to the disciples and to five hundred brethren and then to him. Christ appeared to them and proved he was raised from the dead. They being the witnesses to this can now pass what they saw on to others. It is the ultimate proof. Verses such as Hebrews 1:11 do not speak of blind faith.
In conclusion, faith is important. Faith is trust in God. But blind faith is not worth believing. It has no foundation. Mormonism has no foundation for its faith like Christianity does.
C
Chris-WA
Guest
To be correct, none of the witnesses actually physically saw the golden the plates. Closer study reveals that they saw these things through “spiritual eyes” or the “eyes of our understanding.” This refers to a concept known in the early nineteenth century as second sight. Very commonly, people of the time described seeing visions of spiritual and temporal things, a concept Joseph Smith was very familiar with and used not only in his new religion, but also about other things such as the guardians of hills who watched over buried treasure. It’s not actually seeing, it’s perceiving. LDS historian Grant Palmer does a good job describing this in this talk:
youtube.com/watch?v=kHsvZooc4Bc
If you skip forward to about minute 26 he discusses second sight and the role it played in early Mormon history.
- Status