The New Mormon Threat!

[Elric]

I am talking about faith.

No you are not.

You are using the same rubbish line of “If you attack the BoM, then you are attacking the Bible”. If you were talking about faith, you would not need to bring the mis-direction tactics into it and you would allow the BoM to stand on its own.

It sounds like you dont have much faith at all if you need to discredit the Bible to make the BoM appear valid.

It takes faith to believe in the bible as it does in the book of mormon. No where in the bible does it prove that Jesus was the son of God. And no where does it prove that he performed miracles. What we do have are stories that say so but no proof. We have no evidence that jesus was actually the son of god.

The same holds true for the book of mormon. We have pieces and we have witnesses but no surefire proof that it is true. Thus, both the bible and the book of mormon depend on faith, not scientific evidence.

Mate, the two are not even close.

For starters the Bible wasnt translated by a person with the assistance of an angel from gold plates that disapeared, that talks about tribes of people that left no evidence that they even existed and has its wording changed every now and then.

And the BoM doesnt have any of the original script that it was translated from so that people can check the translation against the original, or any evidence of what language it was originally written in. It doesnt provide any chance to study it to make sure that Mr Smith translated it correctly (which apparently he didnt)

Their origions are completly different.

Christianity will not be proven by scientific evidence. If so, there would be no need for faith.

But we are not talking about christianity, we are talking about the religion that is based on the BoM.

 

[ibkc]

why me: the places in the Bible existed and for the most part, still exist. The people in the Bible existed, and the many of people in the New Testament are proven to exist because multiple contemporary sources name them. John the Baptist was famous in his time, for instance. Theorists who claim that Jesus himself never existed are regarded as crackpots by serious scholars.

So, for me and for billions of people, the only real leap of faith that has to be made is: was Jesus the Son of God?

To follow the Book of Mormon, one has to take thousands of leaps of faith. The only person mentioned in the BoM who was real is Jesus, but he has been put into a fictitious setting. Nothing else about it can be shown to be factual, and in fact, most of it can be shown to be not only fictional, but impossible. As I mentioned, the stuff about the animals which were not native to the New World, and the technology - that sort of thing is very damning.

 

[RebeccaJ]

No question that the story takes place in the areas that it claims to be. But that in itself does not prove that Jesus was the son of god, performed miracles and was executed for the sins of the world. It takes faith to believe that jesus was the son of god and that the New Testament is what it claims to be. We have no evidence, just accounts written many years after the events took place.

And here is the main difference whyme. Christians base their faith on exactly what you describe.

Christ clearly pointed out more than once that He is the Word we live by.

 

[zerinus]

If by “many years after” you mean “written by the witnesses themselves or their immediate pupils, and while other living witnesses to those events were still around, who (i.e., the other witnesses) rather than disputing the accounts instead assisted in copying and distributing them” yes, I’ll agree.

If, however, by “many years later” you mean 100 to 200 years later after Jesus’ living witnesses were quite dead, you need to spend some time on the main Catholic Answers website. There you’ll find that the testimony of the Early Church Fathers dates the gospels between 15 years and 50 years after Jesus’ resurrection, well within the lifetimes of living witnesses who corroborated the accounts.

The written Gospel accounts testify to Jesus’ miracles. His living witnesses accepted and spread the Gospel accounts. Many others who had heard of Jesus found in the written accounts ratification of what they had heard, not contradiction. Certain well-respected (even today) ancient historians who were contemporaries of Jesus, who themselves did not believe, still validated the Gospels’ testimony of miracles.

The Gospels themselves were not disputed, except by some of those who were NOT actual witnesses and also did not want to believe. Furthermore, Jesus’ living witnesses willingly accepted torture and death as the price for spreading the Gospels.

Short of using a time-machine to teleport a CNN news crew and cameras to the scene, you really can’t get any more reliable evidence than this.

Come to think of it, if CNN were reporting Jesus’ miracles I probably would want to send another news crew in to verify their story…

During the past 2000 years there have been millions of people (in the Christian part of the world) who have not accepted the mission of Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and the Savior and Redeemer of the World. If the “evidence” for these things are so compelling, why have there been so many sceptics in the world?

Indeed, there are many churchmen in the world today who question the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the “empty tomb,” and the Virgin Birth; or who try to rationalize them away. If the evidence is so compelling, why don’t you go and convince them?

zerinus

 

[MHalsey]

I am talking about faith. It takes faith to believe in the bible as it does in the book of mormon. No where in the bible does it prove that Jesus was the son of God. And no where does it prove that he performed miracles. What we do have are stories that say so but no proof. We have no evidence that jesus was actually the son of god.

The same holds true for the book of mormon. We have pieces and we have witnesses but no surefire proof that it is true. Thus, both the bible and the book of mormon depend on faith, not scientific evidence.

Christianity will not be proven by scientific evidence. If so, there would be no need for faith.

I’ve heard of people who believe there once was a place called Middle Earth and its history real based on the Lord of the Rings and the Silmarilion. Based on your arguments, their faith is valid as any Mormon’s faith.

Proof that places in the Bible exist and its people did exist, do not necessarily prove the Bible is the Word of God or that Jesus is God, but they do lend credence to these things. However, the BOM cannot claim the same. There is nothing in it that lends credence to its validity. Therefore it belongs in the same category as Tolkien’s works.

 

[ibkc]

Therefore it belongs in the same category as Tolkien’s works.

Hey, Tolkien’s work is well-written and internally consistent. It would be a much better basis for a made-up religion, IMO.

 

[NewSeeker]

WhyMe,

You are correct that the Bible cannot prove Jesus’ divinity. That must be taken on faith, as based on the eyewitnesses’ testimony recorded therein. But there is evidence external to the Bible that Jesus and Jerusalem existed 2000 years ago. There is ZERO evidence outside the BoM that Nephi and Zarahemla EVER existed. Zip. The Bible must be accepted on faith, based on the avilable empirical evidence. The BoM must be accepted on faith, based on the absence of empirical evidence. That’s the issue here.

NS

 

[Lehl]

why me: the places in the Bible existed and for the most part, still exist. The people in the Bible existed, and the many of people in the New Testament are proven to exist because multiple contemporary sources name them. John the Baptist was famous in his time, for instance. Theorists who claim that Jesus himself never existed are regarded as crackpots by serious scholars.

So, for me and for billions of people, the only real leap of faith that has to be made is: was Jesus the Son of God?

To follow the Book of Mormon, one has to take thousands of leaps of faith. The only person mentioned in the BoM who was real is Jesus, but he has been put into a fictitious setting. Nothing else about it can be shown to be factual, and in fact, most of it can be shown to be not only fictional, but impossible. As I mentioned, the stuff about the animals which were not native to the New World, and the technology - that sort of thing is very damning.

Excellent post. Very well articulated.

 

[Booklover]

Mormons, as a group, are among the most decent and honourable of mankind; and their leaders are known to have led exemplary lives. If you want a specific example, I can give you one:

“Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it. In the short space of twenty years, he has brought forth the Book of Mormon, which he translated by the gift and power of God, and has been the means of publishing it on two continents; has sent the fulness of the everlasting gospel, which it contained, to the four quarters of the earth; has brought forth the revelations and commandments which compose this book of Doctrine and Covenants, and many other wise documents and instructions for the benefit of the children of men; gathered many thousands of the Latter-day Saints, founded a great city, and left a fame and name that cannot be slain. He lived great, and he died great in the eyes of God and his people; and like most of the Lord’s anointed in ancient times, has sealed his mission and his works with his own blood.” (D&C 135:3.)
zerinus

Now I understand why some people compare Mormonism to Islam!

Vickie

 

[ApostateRLDS]

Now I understand why some people compare Mormonism to Islam!

Vickie

That, and little gems like these from Smith:

“I will be to this generation a second Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was ‘the Alcoran [Koran] or the Sword.’ So shall it eventually be with us—‘Joseph Smith or the Sword!’ --Joseph Smith, Jr.

 

[why_me]

WhyMe,
There is ZERO evidence outside the BoM that Nephi and Zarahemla EVER existed. Zip. The Bible must be accepted on faith, based on the avilable empirical evidence. The BoM must be accepted on faith, based on the absence of empirical evidence. That’s the issue here.

NS

What about Nahom and Bountiful?

BOM Geography Old World:
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5358813362888703041

 

[majick275]

no non-LDS scholar accepts those extreme reaches as evidence of either of those places being BoM places.

 

[why_me]

no non-LDS scholar accepts those extreme reaches as evidence of either of those places being BoM places.

I don’t know. It is quite a coincidence and the explanation from the video made some sense.

 

[why_me]

That, and little gems like these from Smith:

“I will be to this generation a second Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was ‘the Alcoran [Koran] or the Sword.’ So shall it eventually be with us—‘Joseph Smith or the Sword!’ --Joseph Smith, Jr.

Yes, I must say that being a famous person is not easy. One can paste anything from anywhere and make that person look ridiculous. But ApostateRLDS, we both know the anti game. Can you post something wonderful that JS said or wrote? Probably so, but you won’t.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yes, I must say that being a famous person is not easy. One can paste anything from anywhere and make that person look ridiculous. But ApostateRLDS, we both know the anti game. Can you post something wonderful that JS said or wrote? Probably so, but you won’t.

Let’s all quote happy things, even from the worse people. That will make EVERYTHING true.

 

[why_me]

Let’s all quote happy things, even from the worse people. That will make EVERYTHING true.

Every famous person has said strange things. To quote out of context and without the history of the quotation is disingenuious. To have a person weigh each word said because of some individual pasting it on youtube etc is certainly a daunting thought. It wouldn’t be human. If I looked for someone who always spoke perfectly and logically, I would find no one except Spock from Star Trek and he wasn’t human.

 

[majick275]

I don’t know. It is quite a coincidence and the explanation from the video made some sense.

it’s only a coincidence if you want it to be. this is much like interpreting Nostradamus writings to fit subsequent events. erik von daniken made much more sense in looking at south america and he was completely wrong.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Every famous person has said strange things. To quote out of context and without the history of the quotation is disingenuious. To have a person weigh each word said because of some individual pasting it on youtube etc is certainly a daunting thought. It wouldn’t be human. If I looked for someone who always spoke perfectly and logically, I would find no one except Spock from Star Trek and he wasn’t human.

Spock is a fictional character.

If you are looking for perfection, look to Christ.

Putting Smith into context makes him look worse, is my opinion. Quotes here and there, he sound a little crazy. In context, you realize he isn’t crazy, he’s over the top nihilistic.

 

[PaulDupre]

During the past 2000 years there have been millions of people (in the Christian part of the world) who have not accepted the mission of Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and the Savior and Redeemer of the World. If the “evidence” for these things are so compelling, why have there been so many sceptics in the world?

Indeed, there are many churchmen in the world today who question the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the “empty tomb,” and the Virgin Birth; or who try to rationalize them away. If the evidence is so compelling, why don’t you go and convince them?

zerinus

Again, you Mormons are confusing the issue - deliberately I think. The issue under discussion is not belief in Jesus as the Son of God, but acceptance of the Book of Mormon as an historical document.

The bible has been proven to be true history. Whether or not that history leads an individual to faith in Christ, it is at least a firm jumping-off point, and the testimony of its witnesses is compelling because we know that they are real people who saw and heard real events in a real place and time.

The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, is a 19th-century work of fiction with not one scrap of evidence to recommend it as an ancient historical document, and much to prove it not historical. We can ignore the purported “witnesses” it contains because they are not real people, but fictional characters, and very shallow ones at that.

The Book of Mormon was written with the intent to deceive - perhaps for a pious purpose - but to deceive nonetheless. Do not be deceived.

Paul

 

[zerinus]

What about Nahom and Bountiful?

BOM Geography Old World:
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5358813362888703041

Thank you why me, that is a compelling video to watch. The argument that most modern scholars won’t buy it is rubbish. Most modern scholars also don’t believe in Genesis, or in Exodus, or in the miracles of Moses, or in the resurrection of Jesus, or in His Virgin Birth.

I was particularly interested in their explanation of Jesus “born at Jerusalem” verse in the Book of Mormon. The argument they gave is a good one, and valid as far as it goes. But there is an even stronger and more consistent internal explanation within the Book of Mormon for that verse. I had already discussed that in my Blog post. I have just revised that blog, and added more scriptural verses to it which makes the case even more compelling. To those who have already read it, I recommend them to read it again, because it presents an even stronger argument for it than before.

zerinus