Questions about "the book of mormon is wrong" article from this website

[whatistrue]

OKComputer:

TOmNossor:

Do you still believe you were correct when you claimed, “every single objective test fails to prove the BOM is anything but a fraud?”

Big difference between a small easily checked (even by JS) fact about the presence or absence of walls around Jerusalem and something significant that actually speaks to the request for evidence of the described events being factual.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

OKComputer:

TOmNossor:

Do you still believe you were correct when you claimed, “every single objective test fails to prove the BOM is anything but a fraud?”

Big difference between a small easily checked (even by JS) fact about the presence or absence of walls around Jerusalem and something significant that actually speaks to the request for evidence of the described events being factual.

No disagreement from me, but I am responding to a specific claim about the only thing objective evidence proves is that the BOM is a fraud. This is OBJECTIVE. It aligns with the claims of the BOM.
If @OKComputer is not willing to acknowledge this then it is he/she who is under mind control IMO.

I have offered a lot more in this thread than this “wall” thing. Furthermore, I would think that my discussion around the wall issue would have already made it clear that I agree with your statement.

 

[whatistrue]

discussion around the wall issue would have already made it clear

No, what your focusing on the wall issue makes clear to me is that you are deflecting by reference to minutia. The clear request was for evidence that the events in the BOM actually happened, which you have not and apparently have no wish to address. Peace to you and that is all I have to say on this matter.

 

[Horton]

That the BOM says ancient Jerusalem has walls AND that ancient Jerusalem does have walls undermines your claim that there is no objective evidence that doesn’t point to the BOM as a fraud. The book makes a true and ancient claim, this cannot be evidence that it is a fraud. That you do not see this means I cannot help you at all.

Are you the only one who does not see how ridiculous this statement is. The fact the Jerusalem had walls, much like most ancient cities, is made very clear all over the bible. It isn’t some little tidbit tucked away in an obscure chapter & verse. We assume Joseph could read, correct? We assume Joseph could read the bible, correct? We could then assume Joseph would know Jerusalem had walls.

I think there is a lot in the BOM that is beyond Joseph’s ability to produce.

Can you be more specific? Name some of the “a lot”, provide proof the “a lot” are truth, and then show how Joseph could not have known about them.

And Tom, for once try not to use your disdain for the Catholic Church as a deflection.

 

[OKComputer]

Thank you!

 

[lilypadrees]

Are you willing to state:
Joseph Smith produced the BOM, knew that Jerusalem had walls, and feigned suprise because he is/was a conman

I don’t know about @hope. But I’m willing to state it. I believe that Joseph Smith produced the BOM, knew that Jerusalem had walls and feigned surprise because he is and was a con man.

 

[lilypadrees]

but I don’t think I ever said that I hated the Mormon church. I hate the Mormon cult.

You were very clear about hating the Mormon cult, @Lemuel. You never said you hated the Mormon church. NONE of us hate the Mormon church or its members. TOm made the accusation based on a comment you made 3 months ago that I and another poster “liked”. He was playing the victim and trying to start trouble over it. I told him he needed to take it up with you.

 

[OKComputer]

More and more people are realizing this, even inside the Mormon church. That’s why the church is falling apart. The leaders know this, and are terrified.

 

[lilypadrees]

Oh, that every Mormon would wise up and leave Mormonism forever.

 

[Lemuel]

More and more people are realizing this, even inside the Mormon church. That’s why the church is falling apart.

One of my favorite callings when I was a Mormon was being the Primary chorister. Your above comment reminded me of a Primary song I taught my Primary kids:

The wise man built his house upon the rock,
The wise man built his house upon the rock,
The wise man built his house upon the rock,
And the rains came tumbling down.

The rains came down, and the floods came up,
The rains came down, and the floods came up,
The rains came down, and the floods came up,
And the house on the rock stood still.

The foolish man built his house upon the sand,
The foolish man built his house upon the sand,
The foolish man built his house upon the sand,
And the rains came tumbling down.

The rains came down, and the floods came up,
The rains came down, and the floods came up,
The rains came down, and the floods came up,
And the house on the sand washed away.

The Mormon church is built on a foundation of sand and it’s eroding away.

 

[OKComputer]

The Mormon church is built on a foundation of sand and it’s eroding away.

We’ve never seen it before in history. Sure, cults come and go, but for one that was so successful for years to be on the verge of total collapse is unprecedented.

 

[hope]

I thought I did state it.

Where as I see it as proof of him being a conman because I doubt if he didn’t read scripture that says Jerusalem had walls.

 

[hope]

In reading your post, I see a side step. Not your intention maybe and may be due to a lack of precision on my part. I will try to restate.
Here is part from the article that is the subject of this thread.

The awkward part for the Mormon church is the total lack of historical and archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon . For example, after the cataclysmic last battle fought between the Nephites and Lamanites, hundreds of thousands of men and beasts had allegedly perished, and the ground would have been strewn with weapons and armor. It should be easy to locate and retrieve copious evidence of such a battle. After all, the Bible tells of similar battles that took place long before A.D. 41 but that have been documented by archaeology. .

Perhaps I should also ask if you believe that the Book Of Mormon is historically true?

 

[lilypadrees]

You did in your own way, hope. But TOm wanted these words:

Are you willing to state:
Joseph Smith produced the BOM, knew that Jerusalem had walls, and feigned suprise because he is/was a conman

I guess if it’s not said that exact way, he can claim you didn’t say it.

 

[Stephen168]

Hello!

It is not true that LDS believe there is no objective evidence for the Book of Mormon. It is also not true that “every single objective test fails to prove the BOM is anything but a fraud.”

I have told Stephen, he is misrepresenting Richard Bushman (who I met and who attended the class I taught last year). Bushman’s point is that he once expected his Protestant friends to be sympathetic to a “faith alone” reason for embracing the BOM, but they condemned this. Bushman however does note that LDS are searching for empirical evidence that PROVES the BOM. He and I agree that there is no proof. He and I probably agree that PROOF is unlikely to happen not because the BOM isn’t true, but because if the BOM is what it claims to be it means that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and such is no longer a matter of faith.

But, there is plenty of objective evidence. 2 Evangelical Scholars wrote “Loosing the Battle and not Knowing it: Mormon Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect.”

To summarize:

There is objective evidence the Book of Mormon is true.

There is no proof that the Book of Mormon is true.

There is objective evidence the Book of Mormon is true.

I would say that Objective evidence is proof. This seems like sophistry to me.

 

[TOmNossor]

To comment on or give proper examination to the quote from St. Atanasius

There are great online resources for the ECF. The books are very expensive. I usually search for the quote and find the context.

I was commenting on “qualifiers” not deification, but I will offer this:

No ECF before the fourth century places limitations on the FINAL state of deified man. They boldly claim that Christ became what we are so that we may become what He is.

Regarding the Trinity and LDS belief

what exactly is it that you believe (regarding Trinity) and what do you believe the Catholic Church teaches?

I am saying that two components of Paulsen’s discussion with Modern Reformation are pertinent to our discussion of the LDS Trinity. This is what I said about them:

1 This is Social Trinitarian language. “God is love.” There is a mutually indwelling (perichoresis / circumincession) love that exists between three eternal persons. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct divine persons and one Godhead in virtue of oneness of indwelling unity of presence, glory, and oneness of mind purpose, power and intent. Three wills exist, but the Son and the Holy Ghost freely, perfectly, and always choose to submit their will to the Father’s (the Son and Holy Ghost are subordinate to the Father, but they are fully divine). b. The Father is the fount of divinity. The Son and the Holy Ghost are united to the Father. There are aspects (such as love) that emerge through the union of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and aspects that are shared because the Father is the fount of divinity. The unity of the divine persons falls short of identity, but is much more intimate than merely belonging to the same class. There are distinct divine persons, but could not be separated or independent divine persons.

2 Monarchical monotheism of the Father. When the Bible or St. Irenaeus or many of the ECF speak of One God, they often speak of the Father (and never call the Son “the One God.”) This is because God the Father is the “fons divinitatis” or fount of divinity. Catholics can and must acknowledge that there is ONLY One who is non-begotten and non-proceeding. As a LDS (in concert with many Easter Orthodox theologians and the Greek Father’s, I say that the oneness of God is associated with the Father.

I suppose it might help for me to say that when the scriptures (LDS centric scriptures and the Bible) say there is one God, it means one of two things. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God because of #1 which pre-supposes #2. Or #2 God the Father is one God.

I am saying that Catholics, especially in dialogue with LDS, claim that God is one because God is homoousian in the numeric sense. God is one being. This can be called a mystery beyond human understanding or it can be dissected until it violates the law on non-contradiction making it simply illogical.

 

[whatistrue]

No, I am doing precisely what I said I was doing. @OKComputer cannot even acknowledge that the BOM claiming there are walls around Jerusalem is not providing evidence the BOM is a fraud. If he (and it would seem you) cannot acknowledge that there is no point in offering other evidence.

Okay, so he got one minor detail right (of course that detail was easily findable to anyone who could actually read, but we will leave that alone for now). Big whoop. Now will you answer the actual question about evidence of the events described in the BOM being factual? Or will you continue to cherrypick and prooftext?

 

[hope]

No ECF before the fourth century places limitations on the FINAL state of deified man. They boldly claim that Christ became what we are so that we may become what He is.

I have a feeling, which may not be true, that you mean something different than what was meant by the ECF.

I suppose it might help for me to say that when the scriptures (LDS centric scriptures and the Bible) say there is one God, it means one of two things. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God because of #1 which pre-supposes #2. Or #2 God the Father is one God.

This make no sense to me? >

BTW, there is ZERO “objective evidence” the Pope is the Vicar of Christ.
Off topic.

And, to the extent that the science of archeology and anthropology determine “historical facts” the BOM as a document that authentically describes ancient peoples and their travels, the BOM has objective evidence. And unlike “walls around Jerusalem,” this objective evidence that corelate> with facts
is something Joseph Smith couldn’t REASONABLY have known.

This is what has been asked of you to provide. Facts other than the BoM.

 

[OKComputer]

Now will you answer the actual question about evidence of the events described in the BOM being factual?

I think we all know the answer to that.

 

[OKComputer]

It’s interesting how claiming that Jerusalem had walls around it somehow is a point in favor of the BOM historicity but all the evidence against it (and oh boy is there a lot) is dismissed by Mormons. They can’t apply the same critique to opposing evidence because they know it would crumble and crush their beliefs.