See the Smithsonian Letter on the Book of Mormon.

[why_me]

The show does not “document” it speculates.

That can be true. However, they do use proof of what would happen. But yes, it is speculation since it hasn’t happened yet.

But evidence vanishes over time and it vanishes quickly.

 

[zaffiroborant]

That can be true. However, they do use proof of what would happen. But yes, it is speculation since it hasn’t happened yet.

But evidence vanishes over time and it vanishes quickly.

No they don’t use “proof” of what would happen, they model, extrapolate and, interpret none of which is “proof”. Not to argue whether Life After People is accurate just that there is no “proof” involved.

 

[Javl]

Why do you accept and believe in Catholicism, when theologians, scholars and scientists have railed against it?

I ask this, not to be impertinent…but in all seriousness. Over the centuries Catholicism has claimed many things that science has proven false; in fact, Catholic authorities have tried…and executed for heresy…people who claimed things that have later been proven true; yet you still believe.

The Reformation came along and a WHOLE bunch of people railed against Catholicism, and still do. Yet you still believe.

When you answer the question you asked for your own faith, you will have some hint as to why I accept and believe my own faith.

Catholics (and indeed all Christians…and theists, for that matter) have long been used to dealing with seeming contradictions, conundrums and paradoxes, and yet have been able to say 'well, I know that to some this MIGHT look contradictory, but I have faith that it is not and that eventually the answers will come. When they do, everything will fit."

The thing that astounds me is that people who are so comfortable with the paradoxes and apparant dillemas in their own faiths insist that mine have none.

That said, I don’t pay attention to anybody who actually ‘rails’ against beliefs not his own. Doing so is a dead giveaway of bias and an agenda that allows dishonesty and misrepresentation. I don’t care who the target is, I have found that a person who actually rails has, as the first priority, the defeat of the target group. Honesty ABOUT that group comes in at a poor second—easily and willingly discarded if being honest could possibly be seen as a positive statement about the group being targeted.

Thank you, dianaiad ror your response. I Understand your statements. I believe and accept Catholicism as the true faith after many years of study of all religions. I accept it as the Church that was instituted by Christ. I also heed Paul’s warning of not accepting another gospel.

Although the clergy ( Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, and priests ) have tried their darndest to destroy the Church, it has remained true in its teaching and loyalty to Christ. Every generation down through the ages ( 2000 years ) has produced someone who has been faithful and has kept and protected the truth, for the Church’s teaching have not changed.

The Church has survived many scandals ( and will survive the latest ) proving Christ’s words of protection. Christ also said that Satan will try to destroy the Church from within, and this has been proven true. Also keep in mind that the Catholic Church has been attacked for its teachings ( Christ’s and the Apostles ) more than all other religions combined. The Catholic Church is Satan’s worst enemy and try as he might, he will not and can not ever destroy it.

I hope you understand why I am Catholic and always will be. Peace.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[dianaiad]

Thank you, dianaiad ror your response. I Understand your statements. I believe and accept Catholicism as the true faith after many years of study of all religions. I accept it as the Church that was instituted by Christ. I also heed Paul’s warning of not accepting another gospel.

Thank you. Substitute “Mormonism” for “Catholicism” in the above statement and you have my answer to your question.

Although the clergy ( Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, and priests ) have tried their darndest to destroy the Church, it has remained true in its teaching and loyalty to Christ. Every generation down through the ages ( 2000 years ) has produced someone who has been faithful and has kept and protected the truth, for the Church’s teaching have not changed.

The Church has survived many scandals ( and will survive the latest ) proving Christ’s words of protection. Christ also said that Satan will try to destroy the Church from within, and this has been proven true. Also keep in mind that the Catholic Church has been attacked for its teachings ( Christ’s and the Apostles ) more than all other religions combined. The Catholic Church is Satan’s worst enemy and try as he might, he will not and can not ever destroy it.

I hope you understand why I am Catholic and always will be. Peace.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Your answer is comprehensive…and I certainly understand it! By the same token, I think you have just explained why I am a member of the CoJCoLDS…and always will be. I have a personal theory of why people find such strong faith in such seemingly disparate beliefs…(and it has nothing to do with ‘relativism’). The point is that it is really important to be careful of the arguments one uses against another faith, because more times than not that same argument may be turned against one’s own faith.

…and yes, that goes for any Mormon who attacks Catholicism for the current scandal, too!

 

[lax16]

There has been a documentary on television that shows the earth after humans. It documents what would be left after humans depart this earth after a **thousand years, ten thousands **etc. Finally, all traces of our existence will disappear after a certain amount of time. But what was striking is just how much can disappear in a short time after humans vanish from the earth or civilizations. .

However, let me state again: if conclusive proof was found for the book of mormon through archaelogical evidence, you would not be catholic. You would be mormon and you would have absolute knowledge that god exists. No faith required. And we all can breathe a sigh of relief that there is a god and a heaven.

But it doesn’t seem that god works that way. Faith is required.

whyme - just how long ago did the Book of Mormon people live?

This isn’t about conclusive proof for the Book of Mormon it’s about conclusive against the Book of Mormon.

 

[lax16]

Archaelogical evidence does not lend suppport to the proposition that jesus actually performed miracles or that he was the son of god. What it does show is that people who wrote the bible had knowledge of the area. The only support that we have for jesus being who he was is from the four gospels and at times they give a different story. Now it would be wonderful if something was discovered from that time frame to confirm what is in the bible. But nothing has ever done so. It all takes faith.

As far as mormons and archealogical evidence:

youtube.com/watch?v=mjDAu8PZRco&feature=related

youtube.com/watch?v=nw7fW19Sk1A&feature=related

google.com/cse?cx=006480910542272568972%3Adjiv3kx8zqo&ie=UTF-8&q=archealogical+evidence+for+the+book+of+mormon&siteurl=www.fairlds.org%2F&sa.x=10&sa.y=13

Have you seen the Shroud of Turin? The Olviedo Cloth?

It will make believers out of athiests my friend!

Talk about a miracle!!!

 

[lax16]

There has been a documentary on television that shows the earth after humans. It documents what would be left after humans depart this earth after a thousand years, ten thousands etc. Finally, all traces of our existence will disappear after a certain amount of time. But what was striking is just how much can disappear in a short time after humans vanish from the earth or civilizations. .

However, let me state again: **if conclusive proof was found for the book of mormon through **archaelogical evidence, you would not be catholic. You would be mormon and you would have absolute knowledge that god exists. No faith required. And we all can breathe a sigh of relief that there is a god and a heaven.

But it doesn’t seem that god works that way. Faith is required.

Isn’t the Book of Mormon: (from the Introduction)

1. a **record **of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas
2. the record gives an account of two great civiliations
3. **the record **is now published in many languages
4. the most correct of any book on earth
5. all men everywhere are to read the BoM…and then to ask God…if the book is true

If it is meant to be a record then there would be some proof that it existed.

 

[AtticusFinch]

There has been a documentary on television that shows the earth after humans. It documents what would be left after humans depart this earth after a thousand years, ten thousands etc. Finally, all traces of our existence will disappear after a certain amount of time. But what was striking is just how much can disappear in a short time after humans vanish from the earth or civilizations. .

However, let me state again: if conclusive proof was found for the book of mormon through archaelogical evidence, you would not be catholic. You would be mormon and you would have absolute knowledge that god exists. No faith required. And we all can breathe a sigh of relief that there is a god and a heaven.

But it doesn’t seem that god works that way. Faith is required.

I do not believe anyone is asking for absolute proof. We do not require absolute proof for the Bible. But the Bible claims to be a record of God’s people. We can go to many of the places Jesus walked. We can see the places he visited. Is it absolute proof that He was God? No, but the fact we can see where he lived and died certainly adds credibility to our beliefs.

Hundreds of thousands of people were allegedly killed in various battles in the Book of Mormon, yet no battlegrounds have been found. Huge cities were allegedly built, but no evidence exists. We can travel to cities much older than Book of Mormon cities everywhere in the world…except wherever the Book of Mormon took place.

Every claim Joseph made has been disproved. He claimed blacks would become white…nope. He claimed the indians were decendants of the Book of Mormon…nope. He claimed the world would end in the in the 1800s…nope. He claimed there were men on the moon dressed as quakers…nope.

We do not want absolute proof. But the fact that there is not ANY proof is certainly troubling.

 

[Javl]

Thank you. Substitute “Mormonism” for “Catholicism” in the above statement and you have my answer to your question.

Your answer is comprehensive…and I certainly understand it! By the same token, I think you have just explained why I am a member of the CoJCoLDS…and always will be. I have a personal theory of why people find such strong faith in such seemingly disparate beliefs…(and it has nothing to do with ‘relativism’). The point is that it is really important to be careful of the arguments one uses against another faith, because more times than not that same argument may be turned against one’s own faith.

…and yes, that goes for any Mormon who attacks Catholicism for the current scandal, too!

OK Diana. We have both been honest with each other and we both now understand each other’s position. I thank you very much, you have earned my deep respect. I also agree with you as far as the arguments go, we, and all, should be careful and think more than twice before making any statements.

Now, that that’s all settled, on with the battle! I wish you the best.

PAX DOMINI signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem

 

[MelanieAnne]

Isn’t the Book of Mormon: (from the Introduction)

1. a **record **of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas
2. the record gives an account of two great civiliations
3. **the record **is now published in many languages
4. the most correct of any book on earth
5. all men everywhere are to read the BoM…and then to ask God…if the book is true

If it is meant to be a record then there would be some proof that it existed.

Maybe.

As long as you understand it is a work of 19th century fiction.

 

[catharina]

There has been a documentary on television that shows the earth after humans. It documents what would be left after humans depart this earth after a thousand years, ten thousands etc. Finally, all traces of our existence will disappear after a certain amount of time. But what was striking is just how much can disappear in a short time after humans vanish from the earth or civilizations. .

However, let me state again: if conclusive proof was found for the book of mormon through archaelogical evidence, you would not be catholic. You would be mormon and you would have absolute knowledge that god exists. No faith required. And we all can breathe a sigh of relief that there is a god and a heaven.

But it doesn’t seem that god works that way. Faith is required.

I am Catholic and I do have absolute knowledge that GOD exists.
(Not ‘god’ exists, of whom I know nothing.)

My absolute knowledge comes from Faith, a certain gift of God Himself.
In fact God gives freely of this gift to all who ask Him for it.

Again, it is not from “god” of whom I know nothing.

 

[catharina]

Maybe.

As long as you understand it is a work of 19th century fiction.

Just as a poster’s point: “There has been a documentary on television that shows the earth after humans. It documents what would be left after humans depart this earth after a thousand years, ten thousands etc” is reference to a work of fiction, not to a documentary.

A point of reality cannot be supported by a picture of non-reality.
(That is, “documented” by a ‘non-documentary?’ No.)

 

[MelanieAnne]

Just as a poster’s point: “There has been a documentary on television that shows the earth after humans. It documents what would be left after humans depart this earth after a thousand years, ten thousands etc” is reference to a work of fiction, not to a documentary.

A point of reality cannot be supported by a picture of non-reality.
(That is, “documented” by a ‘non-documentary?’ No.)

Yes, I saw those shows. I even recommended them to others. They’re interesting. They’re also speculative. The speculations may be based on some sort of rational supposition, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are speculative.

And just as you say, speculation does not supplant truth. And it is unclear to me why someone trying to assert the validity of the Book of Mormon would resort to speculation. Perhaps that’s all that’s left?

The fact of the matter is that the Book of Mormon story has been proven to be demonstrably false. No matter how anyone might wish to believe it to be otherwise, it has been proven to be without factual foundation. There are a variety of reasons for this, all of which have been addressed in other posts and other threads in this forum.

It is likely that Joseph Smith and his cohorts never imagined that it could be disproven in all the ways that it has been (although I will concede that is speculation on my part!) The fact remains that the Book of Mormon has been proven to be a work of fiction and the only persons who believe otherwise are those who have a vested interest in believing it is somehow true, despite all rational evidence to the contrary…

 

[Javl]

Archaelogical evidence does not lend suppport to the proposition that jesus actually performed miracles or that he was the son of god. What it does show is that people who wrote the bible had knowledge of the area. The only support that we have for jesus being who he was is from the four gospels and at times they give a different story. Now it would be wonderful if something was discovered from that time frame to confirm what is in the bible. But nothing has ever done so. It all takes faith.

As far as mormons and archealogical evidence:

youtube.com/watch?v=mjDAu8PZRco&feature=related

youtube.com/watch?v=nw7fW19Sk1A&feature=related

google.com/cse?cx=006480910542272568972%3Adjiv3kx8zqo&ie=UTF-8&q=archealogical+evidence+for+the+book+of+mormon&siteurl=www.fairlds.org%2F&sa.x=10&sa.y=13

I may be a bit late in answering your statement about Jesus. There is ample secular evidence that Jesus existed and performed the miracles stated in the gospels. Clio, Herodian, Seutonius, Josephus, Roman Chronicles, etc. all have commented on Jesus
existence and His miracles. There is even evidence in Jewish documents of the age ( although not complimentary ) about Jesus.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[dianaiad]

I may be a bit late in answering your statement about Jesus. There is ample secular evidence that Jesus existed and performed the miracles stated in the gospels. Clio, Herodian, Seutonius, Josephus, Roman Chronicles, etc. all have commented on Jesus
existence and His miracles. There is even evidence in Jewish documents of the age ( although not complimentary ) about Jesus.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Which of these sources provides first hand (as in, eye witness) statements about the miracles and the nature of them?

In fact, though I don’t have all those documents and references in front of me, I seem to remember that they are all third and fourth hand accounts…“It is said that…” sort of thing.

 

[lax16]

I may be a bit late in answering your statement about Jesus. There is ample secular evidence that Jesus existed and performed the miracles stated in the gospels. Clio, Herodian, Seutonius, Josephus, Roman Chronicles, etc. all have commented on Jesus
existence and His miracles. There is even evidence in Jewish documents of the age ( although not complimentary ) about Jesus.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

I know that there is evidence of Jesus’ existence found by archaelogists. (I can provide if someone wants me to).

Evidence of his miracles? Seems to me that the number of people who became believers following his miracles are proof of miracles. It is hard to imagine people would have followed Him based on His words alone. Miracles were necessary to prove He was/is indeed the Son of God.

I think people would have laughed him right out of town if He didn’t continue to perform miracles that affected people everywhere He went.

I don’t know if the apostles would have believed Him had they not experienced His miracles, especially seeing Him after He rose from the dead. Otherwise, I definitely think they would have dropped the ball and not endured persecution in order to move the Church forward.

Also the fact there is nothing to refute the fact that Christianity was growing and people were following “a man that had risen from the dead.”

 

[dianaiad]

I know that there is evidence of Jesus’ existence found by archaelogists. (I can provide if someone wants me to).

Evidence of his miracles? Seems to me that the number of people who became believers following his miracles are proof of miracles. It is hard to imagine people would have followed Him based on His words alone. Miracles were necessary to prove He was/is indeed the Son of God.

er…

That goes back to argumentum ad numerum, lax. A great many people believed in the miraculous nature of what Mohamad did, in miracles provided by Roman, Grecian, Egyptian and Norse deities, as well. Obviously, since we believe in a very contraditory system of beliefs, we cannot believe that Mohammad, Roman, Grecian, Egyptian and Norse deities actually provided those miracles, can we?

If we cannot believe in them, then we certainly can’t believe that there is any proof to support them—yet many, many people believed,

I personally haven’t noticed that scientific fact has a whole lot of correlation with religious belief.

For instance: in all honesty—would you believe that the Book of Mormon was true if someone came to you with a properly carbon dated freeway offramp sign saying 'Zarahemla, 12 uinics."

Think about it…the vast majority of anti-Mormons would not; they would find SOME way to dismiss it/ignore it/ something. In fact, I had one guy stand in front of me and tell me, quite seriously, that he would accept a time traveler going back to plant it sooner than he would the idea that Zarahemla actually existed, and thus the Book of Mormon is true.

Speaking with him was enlightening.

I think people would have laughed him right out of town if He didn’t continue to perform miracles that affected people everywhere He went.

I don’t know if the apostles would have believed Him had they not experienced His miracles, especially seeing Him after He rose from the dead. Otherwise, I definitely think they would have dropped the ball and not endured persecution in order to move the Church forward.

Also the fact there is nothing to refute the fact that Christianity was growing and people were following “a man that had risen from the dead.”

 

[AtticusFinch]

er…

That goes back to argumentum ad numerum, lax. A great many people believed in the miraculous nature of what Mohamad did, in miracles provided by Roman, Grecian, Egyptian and Norse deities, as well. Obviously, since we believe in a very contraditory system of beliefs, we cannot believe that Mohammad, Roman, Grecian, Egyptian and Norse deities actually provided those miracles, can we?

Do you believe the miracles proclaimed by Catholics?

I personally haven’t noticed that scientific fact has a whole lot of correlation with religious belief.

Then you maybe have missed some really cool things. For example, can you walk the streets of Bethlehem. You can visit shops in Jersualem, you can see the tomb where Jesus was born and shed tears where He died. You can ride a boat in the sea that Jesus calmed and walked on, you can see the mountaIn where the Ark landed, and so much more.

For instance: in all honesty—would you believe that the Book of Mormon was true if someone came to you with a properly carbon dated freeway offramp sign saying 'Zarahemla, 12 uinics."

Maybe. Bring one to us and we can see. Do you have any idea where Zerehamla is?

Think about it…the vast majority of anti-Mormons would not; they would find SOME way to dismiss it/ignore it/ something. In fact, I had one guy stand in front of me and tell me, quite seriously, that he would accept a time traveler going back to plant it sooner than he would the idea that Zarahemla actually existed, and thus the Book of Mormon is true.

It would not be an issue if you had any idea where Zerehamla is. In fact, you have no idea where any of the Book of Mormon lands are. I have heard Mormon scholrs claim the Book of Mormon lands were in Central America, South America, The United States (various parts). Conversely, I can point you to EXACT location of Bible lands.

I don’t know if the apostles would have believed Him had they not experienced His miracles, especially seeing Him after He rose from the dead. Otherwise, I definitely think they would have dropped the ball and not endured persecution in order to move the Church forward.

Not really relevant since the Apostles DID spread His word and those Apostles taught those who taught those who taught those and all of mthose down the line ordained until we have an unbroken line of authority from Peter till now.

 

[lax16]

er…

That goes back to argumentum ad numerum, lax. A great many people believed in the miraculous nature of what mohamad did, in miracles provided by roman, grecian, egyptian and norse deities, as well. Obviously, since we believe in a very contraditory system of beliefs, we cannot believe that mohammad, roman, grecian, egyptian and norse deities actually provided those miracles, can we?

That would be true if the very first Christians were the majority or great in number, however they were not. I don’t know if it is accurate to say a great many people believed in Jesus in the beginning.
Also, there is argument against Mohammed from St. Thomas Aquinas. (cross reference)
And, Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament that were in existence. (cross reference)
Was there a prophecy of Mohammed, or other pagan gods that was fulfilled?
There are other references to Jesus other than the Bible. (cross reference)
There is an early Church that was recently found that had several inscriptions including one naming Jesus Christ and there was also an altar that archaeologists say point to the sacrifice of the mass (the Eucharist). This would infer a belief in the miracle of Transubstantiation. (archaelogical proof)

if we cannot believe in them, then we certainly can’t believe that there is any proof to support them—yet many, many people believed,

We don’t believe because they “happened” in isolation. They did not fulfill a well-known prophecy. They didn’t cultivate a following of people willing to die to preserve the beliefs.
Their legacy has not survived for 2,000 years.
Many people may have believed, but they do not believe anymore. (except Islam, however he does not fulfill a prophecy as far as I know)

i personally haven’t noticed that scientific fact has a whole lot of correlation with religious belief.

The Shroud and the Olviedo Cloth!!!

for instance: In all honesty—would you believe that the book of mormon was true if someone came to you with a properly carbon dated freeway offramp sign saying 'zarahemla, 12 uinics."

I wouldn’t definitely look into it!

think about it…the vast majority of **anti-mormons **would not; they would find some way to dismiss it/ignore it/ something. In fact, i had one guy stand in front of me and tell me, quite seriously, that he would accept a time traveler going back to plant it sooner than he would the idea that zarahemla actually existed, and thus the book of mormon is true.

There are a great number of educated and good people who have looked into Mormonism with an open mind and have decided it was not true. They are not anti’s. Good, intelligent people are usually open to information. Angry, ignorant people have issues that, IMHO, have nothing to do with religion.

speaking with him was enlightening.

I think people would have laughed him right out of town if he didn’t continue to perform miracles that affected people everywhere he went.

I don’t know if the apostles would have believed him had they not experienced his miracles, especially seeing him after he rose from the dead. Otherwise, i definitely think they would have dropped the ball and not endured persecution in order to move the church forward.

Also the fact there is nothing to refute the fact that christianity was growing and people were following “a man that had risen from the dead.”

 

[dianaiad]

]
for instance: In all honesty—would you believe that the book of mormon was true if someone came to you with a properly carbon dated freeway offramp sign saying 'zarahemla, 12 uinics." !

I wouldn’t definitely look into it

…and that, my friend, is what is known as a Freudian slip.