Why are people mormon considering it is obvioulsy fabricated?

[dianaiad]

I have seen this too - and don’t know what to make of it.

I have two explanations, directly from my own life.

1. When we send missionaries out, they are told not to discuss the religion/beliefs of the people they contact. They are told to present their message and let the ‘investigator’ do the comparing. After all, no matter how much the Mormon might know about the other faith, the believer in that faith knows more; nobody knows more about his beliefs than the believer, and nothing gets people irritated faster than being told what he ‘really’ believes.
2. I’m about to turn 60. I’ve been active on the internet ‘defending the faith,’ for close to twenty years, and have been very active in debates and have worked with members of other faiths for considerably longer than that. Here is what happens when the conversation turns to comparative religion…I"ll give you an actual example, typical of such conversations.

MaryEllen Evangelist: Oh, Diana, I was saved last week, praise Jesus! I’m a CHRISTIAN now!

**Me. ** That sounds wonderful, MaryEllen. What church are you attending?

MaryEllen Evangelist:(gives the name of the specific church, then asks: ) What church do you go to? Are you saved?

**Me. ** I’m LDS–Mormon. I go to the church just down the block from yours (trust me, with her I’m trying to avoid the whole ‘born again’ conversation, but I know it’s going to be a lost cause)

**MaryEllen Evangelist:**Oh, Diana, you have to come to Jesus with me and be saved yourself!

**Me. ** Actually, MaryEllen, I’m happy where I am…but I’m also very happy for you. What was that experience like for you? How do you know that you were ‘born again’ at that very moment?

MaryEllen Evangelist: Well, it wasn’t any ‘burning bosom’ feeling, that’s for certain!

**Me. ** Ok. ( I can see what this is going to be like, and attempt to get the conversation on her beliefs) …I don’t know much about your church, except that I’ve heard that it prefers adult baptism to infant baptism. Were you baptized?

MaryEllen Evangelist: No, that’s going to happen later, but it doesn’t matter, I’m saved anyway! It’s not like your church, where you think that works will save you. They won’t, you know.

**Me. ** Well, that’s not quite what we believe, MaryEllen. We believe that 'faith without works is dead," and the faith that saves WILL result in works; if the works aren’t there, neither is the faith. I’d like to know more about what you believe about baptism. Why do you do it?

MaryEllen Evangelist: (interupting…and about to roll me over…) Oh, no, you are being tricky about your real beliefs! My pastor’s sister’s mother-in-law’s cousin told me that you believe that (insert your choice of typical anti-Mormon idiocy here) and that’s what you really believe! And we don’t believe that! So you just repent!

**Me. ** (sigh)

Some version of this conversation is what happens almost every single time I talk to someone about their faith. The conversation always, ALWAYS, turns to mine–and some version of “you believe this and we don’t and that’s all you need to know about the truth.”

If I didn’t know better, I could be left with the idea that the whole of Christian doctrine is defined by Mormonism. They all decide that we believe this thing or that thing (quite often contradictory) and they don’t and that’s all I need to know about their doctrines.

Not helpful, or conducive to finding out what other people believe, y’know?

Now if this sort of thing happens so often to people like me, who actually go out to find out what other people’s doctrines might actually be, can you imagine what it’s like to be a Mormon who doesn’t LIKE to debate religion with rude people?

Of course we don’t know what other people believe. You won’t TELL us. You tell us what WE believe, and then define your beliefs by that. Since most of you are dead wrong about what our beliefs actually are, it leaves us no more knowledgeable than we were before, and far less interested.

 

[dianaiad]

The book and its creation is proof enough. Why would God inspire someone to create a book that had needed so many corrections and editions?

Why would he get an angel who would such a terrible job at translating, especally when God wanted this new word (ie: the BoM) to be followed by everyone?

God created the universe and everything in it but if you believe that the BoM is true, God cant get a simple book right. Not only that, you are saying that God isnt perfect but borders on the incompetent.

It has to be false, otherwise you are saying that God isnt God.

Add to the that the complete lack of evidence that the people mentioned in the BoM and their civilisation existed. The are details of MASSIVE battles where tens of thousands (or was it hundreds of thousands) fought, yet there isnt even a single arrow head to confirm this (much less bodies, armour, weapons, chariots ect).

Where are the ruins of the cities, towns & villiages that they lived in?

Their metal working was far superior to their contemparies in Europe (well pretty much everywhere) for their time, no culture in the whole of America even reached their level. Yet there is nothing to show that such an advanced culture even existed.

We can find Pompeii, but nothing about the civilisations from the BoM.

Pompeii isn’t exactly hidden, historically. However…

Sodom and Gomorah. Where are they, precisely?

 

[PaulDupre]

Pompeii isn’t exactly hidden, historically. However…

Sodom and Gomorah. Where are they, precisely?

Actually, archaeologists have recently discovered what they believe to be the remains of the five “cities of the plain” including Sodom and Gomorah. There was cool National Geographic special on TV not too long ago, Sulfer and brimstone and all.

 

[Religio71]

I have two explanations, directly from my own life.

1. When we send missionaries out, they are told not to discuss the religion/beliefs of the people they contact. They are told to present their message and let the ‘investigator’ do the comparing. After all, no matter how much the Mormon might know about the other faith, the believer in that faith knows more; nobody knows more about his beliefs than the believer, and nothing gets people irritated faster than being told what he ‘really’ believes.
2. I’m about to turn 60. I’ve been active on the internet ‘defending the faith,’ for close to twenty years, and have been very active in debates and have worked with members of other faiths for considerably longer than that. Here is what happens when the conversation turns to comparative religion…I"ll give you an actual example, typical of such conversations.

MaryEllen Evangelist: Oh, Diana, I was saved last week, praise Jesus! I’m a CHRISTIAN now!

**Me. ** That sounds wonderful, MaryEllen. What church are you attending?

MaryEllen Evangelist:(gives the name of the specific church, then asks: ) What church do you go to? Are you saved?

**Me. ** I’m LDS–Mormon. I go to the church just down the block from yours (trust me, with her I’m trying to avoid the whole ‘born again’ conversation, but I know it’s going to be a lost cause)

**MaryEllen Evangelist:**Oh, Diana, you have to come to Jesus with me and be saved yourself!

**Me. ** Actually, MaryEllen, I’m happy where I am…but I’m also very happy for you. What was that experience like for you? How do you know that you were ‘born again’ at that very moment?

MaryEllen Evangelist: Well, it wasn’t any ‘burning bosom’ feeling, that’s for certain!

**Me. ** Ok. ( I can see what this is going to be like, and attempt to get the conversation on her beliefs) …I don’t know much about your church, except that I’ve heard that it prefers adult baptism to infant baptism. Were you baptized?

MaryEllen Evangelist: No, that’s going to happen later, but it doesn’t matter, I’m saved anyway! It’s not like your church, where you think that works will save you. They won’t, you know.

**Me. ** Well, that’s not quite what we believe, MaryEllen. We believe that 'faith without works is dead," and the faith that saves WILL result in works; if the works aren’t there, neither is the faith. I’d like to know more about what you believe about baptism. Why do you do it?

MaryEllen Evangelist: (interupting…and about to roll me over…) Oh, no, you are being tricky about your real beliefs! My pastor’s sister’s mother-in-law’s cousin told me that you believe that (insert your choice of typical anti-Mormon idiocy here) and that’s what you really believe! And we don’t believe that! So you just repent!

**Me. ** (sigh)

Some version of this conversation is what happens almost every single time I talk to someone about their faith. The conversation always, ALWAYS, turns to mine–and some version of “you believe this and we don’t and that’s all you need to know about the truth.”

If I didn’t know better, I could be left with the idea that the whole of Christian doctrine is defined by Mormonism. They all decide that we believe this thing or that thing (quite often contradictory) and they don’t and that’s all I need to know about their doctrines.

Not helpful, or conducive to finding out what other people believe, y’know?

Now if this sort of thing happens so often to people like me, who actually go out to find out what other people’s doctrines might actually be, can you imagine what it’s like to be a Mormon who doesn’t LIKE to debate religion with rude people?

Of course we don’t know what other people believe. You won’t TELL us. You tell us what WE believe, and then define your beliefs by that. Since most of you are dead wrong about what our beliefs actually are, it leaves us no more knowledgeable than we were before, and far less interested.

HAHA those are the conversations I have over at CARM. And it’s not just the pastor’s sister’s, etc. It’s “I’ve been Catholic/Mormon for 40 years, I KNOW EVERYTHING!!”

 

[why_me]

I have seen this too - and don’t know what to make of it.

If I were to ask my catholic friends to tell me something about Islam, Hinduism, Buddhaism etc, they would not be able to tell me much. And considering what is said on this thread about mormonism, the posters here do know very much. And if I were to ask my catholic friends what they know about mormonism, they would not know very much.

How much does anyone know about other religious faiths? Most people just try to live their faith and take it from there.

 

[why_me]

Well of course we can’t know what is in the minds of total strangers, but were I to guess, I would strongly suspect that the reason many Mormons are not particularly interested in the doctrines of other faiths is that they believe Mormonism has the “fullness of truth” and that all other faiths are lacking, so what’s the point?

Generalized statements are fun to make about a large group of people. Actually some mormons know much about other faiths, especially about the faith they used to belong to. Others know from studying in the university various cultures. Others study a particular religion out of curiosity. And some do not know much. But I can say the same for catholics, especially American catholics. And I can say the same about lutherns, methodists etc. And in the case of fullness of truth, it would not make a difference. I haven’t met a single person yet, who claims to worship in a church that does not have the fullness of truth.

 

[dianaiad]

Actually, archaeologists have recently discovered what they believe to be the remains of the five “cities of the plain” including Sodom and Gomorah. There was cool National Geographic special on TV not too long ago, Sulfer and brimstone and all.

I’ve read that, yes.

Now.

HOW long have we had the Old Testament? HOW long has it taken to find these cities?

Don’t you think it’s a little unfair to demand that we find all the cities of the Book of Mormon, when there has, quite literally, been a thousand year gap in the history portrayed (and not much of a hint as to where to look in the vast expanses of the Americas, plus several rather impressive civilizations that have come and gone since then) In less than 175 years? I mean, really…the bible has been always present, a great many of those cities have been constantly in front of us, and even so we have lost a few things.

Like Mt. Ararat, for instance. Or–Sodom and Gomorrah, found (possibly) nearly three thousand years later. There are quite a few places mentioned in the bible that we don’t really have much clue about.

At the same time, we do find archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon–not that proves it to be true (that won’t happen…after all, science can’t prove that the bible is scripture, either!) However, I have noticed a distressing tendency in those who criticize the Book of Mormon and claim that science disproves it. They will make some claim about it, like, oh…that the BoM mentions cities made of cement, and that since cement wasn’t used in the ancient Americas at the time claimed, that proved the book to be wrong, or that there was no barley in the New World and THAT proves the book to be wrong.

Then we find cement cities. And wild barley. Then the critics, instead of saying oops, we were wrong, I guess the BoM was right about those things, they pretend they never said anything and simply come up with other stuff.

There is a ‘joke’ about this issue; if you believe the Book of Mormon to be false, then no amount of archeological evidence will prove it to be true; you could find a properly carbon dated freeway offramp sign saying “Zarahemla, two miles” (or cubits or whatever, leave me alone…) and you wouldn’t believe.

This discovery of the probable site of Sodom and Gomorah will not prove to the sceptics that Lot’s wife had a sodium problem, either.

however, those who have a witness from the Holy Ghost as to the proof of either book will find that these discoveries are fun…but not at all required to prove the truth.

With that witness, no archeological evidence is required. Without it, none is sufficient.

 

[why_me]

Whyme,

I agree that the thread’s subject, spelling of obvioulsy–nor withstanding, can be seen as an attack, and the fact that it’s directed toward both the the people who are Mormon as well as the church itself seems to be a double whammy. But I suspect (hope, really) that an attack was not the intention. I think it was simply a not-very-diplomatic expression of incredulity. (But I’ do have some reservations.)

Meanwhile, some defense of one faith is almost by definition an attack on another, (or at least a repudiation of another faith). For example, the notions of a three person/three being godhead and a three person/one being godhead are mutually exclusive, and therefore to accept one is to deny the other. And to deny ones beliefs is an attack (of sorts). Some of your defense of Mormon beliefs fall in this category. So I think it’s not unreasonable to question a seemingly lack of commitment to the Catholic church by a stated member of the church.

–kc

The name of the thread is an obvious giveaway. On this thread mormons and their faith have been attacked rather viciously. In fact, it smells of hate. If what was said here was about the jews, people would be guilty of a hate crime and there would be no question that the moderators would have banned some posters. Since doctrine is always up to interpretation, there can never be any winners to such arguments. There have been many of them, with posters repeating the same mantra. But one thing I do know: the way catholic posters have treated the mormon posters and their faith, has not been a plus for the catholc faith.

Thus, the spirit of saint therese and mother theresa need to requested so the catholics can truly understand the essence of their faith.

 

[why_me]

No? How about those 50,000 missionaries knocking on doors all over the world, delivering the message that our beliefs are an abomination, and that those of us who profess them are corrupt?

abomination: n; anything filthy, hateful and disgusting

corrupt: a; rotten, decayed, perverted, evil, depraved

Who said that on this thread? I don’t see a single mormon who said that? Now I also know that lutherns have missionaries in africa and in other parts of the world. And catholics also have missions. How do you think that catholicism got so many members? I do believe that the catholic church exported missionaries to the new world and to other parts of the world. And Islam? I can say the same. The mormons, however, are late comers.

And if we look at history, christianity was not exactly fulled with love. It had aspects of hate, superiority, decay and evil. Just ask the American Indian or the aborginies. And we need to remember why many people came from Europe: to escape religious persecution from other christians. And jews? They were put into pogroms. What adjectives can we give that?

 

[ParkerD]

Elric,
In response to your questions, I suppose you might as well think about the following considerations:

The book and its creation is proof enough. Why would God inspire someone to create a book that had needed so many corrections and editions?

Why would he get an angel who would such a terrible job at translating, especally when God wanted this new word (ie: the BoM) to be followed by everyone?

When Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon text as he read it, he was dictating from an ancient language and text and was bringing that ancient text into English translation, by the power and gift of the Holy Spirit. The book has a foundational premise that to be fully understood, a person needs the Holy Spirit to understand it or accept it. Your question seems to be asking, “why would God use an imperfect process through imperfect people to convey truths to the world, when a perfect process would be more convincing?” If you think God wants people to be convinced because of proving He is involved through showing off His power and His perfection, then I suggest you have gotten a wrong impression of how God works with humankind. God doesn’t convince people by showing off His power. Neither would an angel attempt to do that. (An angel wasn’t involved in the translation, by the way.)

God created the universe and everything in it but if you believe that the BoM is true, God cant get a simple book right. Not only that, you are saying that God isnt perfect but borders on the incompetent.

God didn’t “get the simple book” right or wrong, and is not incompetent, nor was Joseph Smith incompetent. Joseph Smith was, however, unschooled and learned as he went along in life. Evidently, you may think God needed to have waited until Joseph Smith was perfectly skilled in English usage to have translated the Book of Mormon, but I see no reason for that necessity. What good purpose would that have served for the world, if God wants humankind to progress using our own intellect and the resources He has given us to progress with? If He wanted each of us to be “perfect” right now, do you really think He would use some super-power method to make it so? That would contradict His intent and purpose for this world.

you are saying that God isnt God.

If you thought Mormons have said God wrote the Book of Mormon, then you have had a totally wrong impression.

Add to the that the complete lack of evidence that the people mentioned in the BoM and their civilisation existed. The are details of MASSIVE battles where tens of thousands (or was it hundreds of thousands) fought, yet there isnt even a single arrow head to confirm this (much less bodies, armour, weapons, chariots ect).

It was tens of thousands, but there were people around afterward and they carried everything off with them. There was continuous warfare for centuries after, with scavenging for weapons and everything else needed for survival. Guess what happens under those circumstances? Everything is gone–nada is left, not one thing that would demonstrate where a battle had taken place.

Where are the ruins of the cities, towns & villiages that they lived in?

We’re talking wood ruins, of perhaps 5,000 - 10,000 people per village. Can you p(name removed by moderator)oint all of the places on earth where every civilization on earth ever existed? I think not.

Their metal working was far superior to their contemparies in Europe (well pretty much everywhere) for their time, no culture in the whole of America even reached their level. Yet there is nothing to show that such an advanced culture even existed.

I don’t think your premise is correct here at all. Their metal working wasn’t “superior”. It was what they brought with them from the Old World, but that cultural knowledge would also have deteriorated over time after 200 AD. If you’re saying there was no use of metal ore in the ancient Americas, then I think archeology has demonstrated that you are incorrect.

We can find Pompeii, but nothing about the civilisations from the BoM.

Pompeii had a known location, and excavation was bound to find the remains when it was seriously attempted. The villages talked about in the Book of Mormon do not have a known location for attempting an excavation to find them. You will say “isn’t that convenient” but the fact is, that’s the reality.

 

[Elric]

Pompeii isn’t exactly hidden, historically. However…

Sodom and Gomorah. Where are they, precisely?

No its not hidden now, thats because it has been found. I dont undersand why you made such a comment.

What exactly has Sodom and Gomorah got to do with what I wrote?

It certainly doesnt answer any of the questions that I asked.

 

[Elric]

Elric,
In response to your questions, I suppose you might as well think about the following considerations:

When Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon text as he read it, he was dictating from an ancient language and text and was bringing that ancient text into English translation, by the power and gift of the Holy Spirit. The book has a foundational premise that to be fully understood, a person needs the Holy Spirit to understand it or accept it. Your question seems to be asking, “why would God use an imperfect process through imperfect people to convey truths to the world, when a perfect process would be more convincing?” If you think God wants people to be convinced because of proving He is involved through showing off His power and His perfection, then I suggest you have gotten a wrong impression of how God works with humankind. God doesn’t convince people by showing off His power. Neither would an angel attempt to do that. (An angel wasn’t involved in the translation, by the way.)

Didnt Moroni help with the translation?

That is what EVERY LDS that I have spoken to has said (aside form you possibly).

Actually my question is if God wanted people to read and follow this, wouldnt he get the translator to get the translation correct?

God didn’t “get the simple book” right or wrong, and is not incompetent, nor was Joseph Smith incompetent. Joseph Smith was, however, unschooled and learned as he went along in life. Evidently, you may think God needed to have waited until Joseph Smith was perfectly skilled in English usage to have translated the Book of Mormon, but I see no reason for that necessity. What good purpose would that have served for the world, if God wants humankind to progress using our own intellect and the resources He has given us to progress with? If He wanted each of us to be “perfect” right now, do you really think He would use some super-power method to make it so? That would contradict His intent and purpose for this world.

Actually I dont think anything of the sort. I didnt make any assumptions about Mr Smiths grasp of english or about his level of education. Because it really has nothing to do with that.

Although I do believe that God would have given his apparent prophet the power to translate the book properly.

If you thought Mormons have said God wrote the Book of Mormon, then you have had a totally wrong impression.

Would you please stop accusing me of assertions that I did not make. Not once did I even suggest that God wrote it.

It was tens of thousands, but there were people around afterward and they carried everything off with them. There was continuous warfare for centuries after, with scavenging for weapons and everything else needed for survival. Guess what happens under those circumstances? Everything is gone–nada is left, not one thing that would demonstrate where a battle had taken place.

Actually that isnt true, things would still be left behind. Besides that, what on earth happened to the bodies?

We’re talking wood ruins, of perhaps 5,000 - 10,000 people per village. Can you p(name removed by moderator)oint all of the places on earth where every civilization on earth ever existed? I think not.

There would still be evidence (but I have been told that they used stone as well).

I don’t think your premise is correct here at all. Their metal working wasn’t “superior”. It was what they brought with them from the Old World, but that cultural knowledge would also have deteriorated over time after 200 AD. If you’re saying there was no use of metal ore in the ancient Americas, then I think archeology has demonstrated that you are incorrect.

They were apparently using steel and iron centuries before anyone else.

Again you accuse me of things that I did not assert. I made no such comment about Native American cultures.

Pompeii had a known location, and excavation was bound to find the remains when it was seriously attempted. The villages talked about in the Book of Mormon do not have a known location for attempting an excavation to find them. You will say “isn’t that convenient” but the fact is, that’s the reality.

I wont say “isnt that convienent”, because it isnt entirely true. The BoM gives the area where these civilisations were, but there has not been anything found to prove these claims.

The fact is that there should be something physical to show that these people were here, but there isnt a thing.

Pompeii and her sister cities were actually lost.

 

[ParkerD]

Elric,

Didnt Moroni help with the translation?

He had conversations with Joseph Smith before the translation took place, telling about his people and also quoting many Old Testament prophecies. I don’t call that helping with the translation.

That is what EVERY LDS that I have spoken to has said (aside form you possibly).

Actually my question is if God wanted people to read and follow this, wouldnt he get the translator to get the translation correct?

Your question implies that God would be involved forcing the will or forcing behavior, and the answer is no.

Actually I dont think anything of the sort. I didnt make any assumptions about Mr Smiths grasp of english or about his level of education. Because it really has nothing to do with that.

It has everything to do with that.

Although I do believe that God would have given his apparent prophet the power to translate the book properly.

In order to show the world what?

Would you please stop accusing me of assertions that I did not make. Not once did I even suggest that God wrote it.

I think your questions imply that you thought God either was or should have been involved to the extent that for all intents and purposes, He wrote the book by directing Joseph Smith minutely with every word and phrase.

Actually that isnt true, things would still be left behind. Besides that, what on earth happened to the bodies?

I don’t understand this question. Are you saying there are bodies or skeletal remains of every person who has ever lived, somewhere on the outer surface of the earth such that people can find the remains of every single body?

There would still be evidence (but I have been told that they used stone as well)

.

I suggest you take a known ancient group, such as the Incas and their civilization, and read about it, and figure out if archeology really has the premise that it can figure out every single migration pattern and every single place where every single tribal group in the ancient Americas lived.

They were apparently using steel and iron centuries before anyone else.

Steel means processed iron ore, and your statement here is not true.

Again you accuse me of things that I did not assert. I made no such comment about Native American cultures.

OK.

I wont say “isnt that convienent”, because it isnt entirely true. The BoM gives the area where these civilisations were, but there has not been anything found to prove these claims.

No, it does not “give the area where these civilizations were.”

The fact is that there should be something physical to show that these people were here, but there isnt a thing.

So, again, you really think you could p(name removed by moderator)oint the locations and migration patterns of every single ancient American tribal group, of which there are hundreds, throughout their history back to the beginning of their history?

Pompeii and her sister cities were actually lost.

They were written about, and their locations could be generally figured out from what was written about them, especially in relation to other known cities. Then archeology dug in the right spot, and there were the finds!

 

[Elric]

Elric,

He had conversations with Joseph Smith before the translation took place, telling about his people and also quoting many Old Testament prophecies. I don’t call that helping with the translation.

Well other LDS would not agree with you.

Your question implies that God would be involved forcing the will or forcing behavior, and the answer is no.

No it isnt.

It has everything to do with that.

No, it doesnt. God would give him the tools that he requires.

You are contradicting yourself.

In order to show the world what?

Um, the word that God wanted everyone to follow.

I think your questions imply that you thought God either was or should have been involved to the extent that for all intents and purposes, He wrote the book by directing Joseph Smith minutely with every word and phrase.

I don’t understand this question. Are you saying there are bodies or skeletal remains of every person who has ever lived, somewhere on the outer surface of the earth such that people can find the remains of every single body?

Actually I think that you do understand the statement and that you are being evasive by making broad, absurd statements.
.

I suggest you take a known ancient group, such as the Incas and their civilization, and read about it, and figure out if archeology really has the premise that it can figure out every single migration pattern and every single place where every single tribal group in the ancient Americas lived.

Again with the evasive statements. It really doesnt help.

Steel means processed iron ore, and your statement here is not true.

Not according to other LDS that I have spoken to.

No, it does not “give the area where these civilizations were.”

Really?

Its not a very reliable book then. Besides that, there would still be evidence. Something would have been found.

So, again, you really think you could p(name removed by moderator)oint the locations and migration patterns of every single ancient American tribal group, of which there are hundreds, throughout their history back to the beginning of their history?

Aside from the point that I never made such an assertion (or even hinted at one), it still doesnt answer why there is a complete lack of evidence to support the BoM claims.

They were written about, and their locations could be generally figured out from what was written about them, especially in relation to other known cities. Then archeology dug in the right spot, and there were the finds!

This is getting things side tracked. The point was that there are plenty of things that have been lost that archeologists have found years/centuries later, yet this doesnt seem to be the case for the BoM civilisations.

 

[ParkerD]

Well other LDS would not agree with you.

No it isnt.

No, it doesnt. God would give him the tools that he requires.

You are contradicting yourself.

Um, the word that God wanted everyone to follow.

Actually I think that you do understand the statement and that you are being evasive by making broad, absurd statements.

Again with the evasive statements. It really doesnt help.

Not according to other LDS that I have spoken to.

Really?

Its not a very reliable book then. Besides that, there would still be evidence. Something would have been found.

Aside from the point that I never made such an assertion (or even hinted at one), it still doesnt answer why there is a complete lack of evidence to support the BoM claims.

This is getting things side tracked. The point was that there are plenty of things that have been lost that archeologists have found years/centuries later, yet this doesnt seem to be the case for the BoM civilisations.

Elric,
I wanted you to know that I read your reply here. We have a complete failure to communicate going on. You think evidently that if the peoples of the Book of Mormon existed, there should be ample proof archeologically that they existed, and it should be easily findable.

You exist, and your ancestors existed. Are you saying that you could make a chart showing every single one of your ancestors going back to 600 BC, show where they lived and where their remains are located on earth, and demonstrate by going to the spot where they lived by finding archeological proof that they actually lived where you say they lived?

 

[Eliza10]

Well of course we can’t know what is in the minds of total strangers, but were I to guess, I would strongly suspect that the reason many Mormons are not particularly interested in the doctrines of other faiths is that they believe Mormonism has the “fullness of truth” and that all other faiths are lacking, so what’s the point?

I suppose that’s it.
…http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_h6jkiaFXPkY/SQTVCV5XiLI/AAAAAAAABzM/htZ_UfJw-f4/s400/sleeping_cat_1.jpg

 

[RebeccaJ]

No, it’s not a slam at all.

It is an observation, followed by a compliment. As I mentioned, Rebecca has not had anything positive to say about Mormonism or Mormons in her last 150 posts (yes, I looked at them to see), and those 150 posts have all been on threads regarding Mormonism.

Are you my personal post monitor or what?

I have been posting on CAF non-Catholic religions for seven months, now, and in all that time, I have very seldom seen Rebecca say anything positive about Mormons or Mormonism. I honestly do not remember anything, but since I didn’t take the time to look at each and every post she has written since January, I’m not going to say that she absolutely hasn’t said anything positive.

Eh, pretty safe bet I didn’t.

At the same time, I have very seldom seen her cross the line from ‘critic’ to 'anti."

To me, a ‘critic’ is simply someone who disagrees with a belief system and says so. A critic has definite opinions and doesn’t hesitate to express them, and a critic is, generally civil in that disagreement. I wish more people were critics, rather than antis.I like critics; they keep the mind sharp and the questions coming. Critics make me work and do the research.

An anti, on the other hand, is someone who is willing to lie about the target belief system, misrepresent the beliefs, is willing to insult, degrade, mock, demonstrate…who will publish books, articles and pamphlets critical of the target faith that are inaccurate, insulting and mocking. An anti-Mormon, for instance, would applaud (if not join) the guy who put the “The deceased is in hell and you will soon follow if you don’t leave the Devil Mormon church!” under the windshield wipers at my husband’s funeral.

I understand the need to categorize people and file them orderly into the correct slot. Type A personality trait if there ever was one. Rock on.

Rebecca doesn’t do that. She gets really irritated at me, and can sometimes lose her cool, but that’s understandable. I’m irritating. I don’t MEAN to be, but…

Only because you have I don’t know how may posts that address me for whatever reason. I can only assume it is just another diversion.

Eliza, I’m a Mormon. It would be extremely rude of me, not to mention stupid, to join threads that discussed Catholic beliefs in any forum but non-Catholic religions. The only time I address Catholic beliefs is when I am a: defending what they are and b: absolutely certain that there is an honest to goodness Catholic right there to keep me out of trouble. I’m SUPPOSED to be only on threads that discuss Mormonism. Rebecca is a Catholic. It’s OK for her to post elsewhere, too. Really.

I don’t know why it would be rude. You might learn something, and others might learn something about you. Not that!

You are looking at it from a different perspective, Eliza. However, whether you approve of her posts or not, the fact is, she is constantly critical. I was simply responding to her claim that she wasn’t.

I can see your view, and OK, I can embrace the inner critic.

Eliza, you are begging a question here. The thing is, she is not “speaking the truth.”

I’m fairly certain that I am not a habitual liar. Sometimes I might be too sarcastic for some people’s tastes. And, yes, I recognize I do have the Johnson trait of cutting to the chase. No beating around the bush. My husband tells me this intimidates people. I usually try to keep the fluffiness, just, I am not good at fluffy.

She is critical. Always critical. That’s not a sin—but her claiming that she is NOT always critical is inaccurate. Since you and she both believe that she is “speaking the truth,” why do either one of you object to my saying that she is always critical?

I understand from this that you don’t like something or other about how I say what I say. Critical? I suppose you can label me that if you like.

The objection is the diversion, and the analyzing of Rebecca. Irritates the hell out of me.

 

[Eliza10]

I have two explanations…

1. When we send missionaries out, they are told not to discuss the religion/beliefs of the people they contact. …
2. …an actual example, typical of such conversations…
   …"Oh, no, you are being tricky about your real beliefs! My pastor’s sister’s mother-in-law’s cousin told me that you believe that (insert your choice of typical anti-Mormon idiocy here) and that’s what you really believe! And we don’t believe that! So you just repent!
   **Me. **(sigh)
   Some version of this conversation is what happens almost every single time I talk to someone about their faith. The conversation always, ALWAYS, turns to mine–and some version of “you believe this and we don’t and that’s all you need to know about the truth.” …
   …They all decide that we believe this thing or that thing (quite often contradictory) and they don’t and that’s all I need to know about their doctrines.
   …

That was an interesting candid example of your experience. Thanks for sharing it.

One of the more recent places I learned about the Mormon faith was from a book from here at Catholic Answers, when Mormon’s call. My friend wanted to know where I learned some things about the Mormon faith and when I said that book she was quick to discount it purely on the basis that he was Catholic then Mormon the Catholic, and said emphatically that I need to look at Mormon sources. I disagree competely! One certainly does not need to look at only Mormon sources.

…Of course we don’t know what other people believe. You won’t TELL us. You tell us what WE believe, and then define your beliefs by that. Since most of you are dead wrong about what our beliefs actually are, it leaves us no more knowledgeable than we were before, and far less interested.

But this is not the case with me, or any of the Catholics I know.

…http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_h6jkiaFXPkY/SQTVzfbe7KI/AAAAAAAABz0/JkhLfRQIycg/s400/sleeping_cat_7.jpg

 

[Elric]

Elric,
I wanted you to know that I read your reply here. We have a complete failure to communicate going on. You think evidently that if the peoples of the Book of Mormon existed, there should be ample proof archeologically that they existed, and it should be easily findable.

No I most certainly am not.

There is no failure of communication going on. You know what was meant and what is implied, you are simply trying to confuse things by exadurating what I wrote to evade the issue. You are accusing me of things that I didnt assert or even imply.

You exist, and your ancestors existed. Are you saying that you could make a chart showing every single one of your ancestors going back to 600 BC, show where they lived and where their remains are located on earth, and demonstrate by going to the spot where they lived by finding archeological proof that they actually lived where you say they lived?

Yet again with the evasive and absurd statements.

I am asking why there is no evidence what so ever to support that these people existed. Given the civilisation that was meant to be there (cities, town & villiages, major battles, the technology ect) there should be something to show that these people existed.

That is really a far cry from what you claim that I mean.

If you cant answer what is asked, just say so instead of trying confuse things with pointless false statements.

 

[dianaiad]

No its not hidden now, thats because it has been found. I dont undersand why you made such a comment.

What exactly has Sodom and Gomorah got to do with what I wrote?

It certainly doesnt answer any of the questions that I asked.

Actually, it does.

It is believed that Sodom and Gomorah have been found–within the last century. Indeed, within the last fifty years.

Yet we have been reading about these two cities for over three thousand years, in a book that has been growing and identified with areas that people have been living in for all that time. We know where Jerusalem is because people have been living there; there is a continuity of existence that we can see; a timeline of living.

However, even in the bible there are cities and landmarks that, because we do NOT have that continuity of living there, are ‘lost,’ or at least argued about. Sodom and Gomorah, Mt. Ararat, even Jesus’ tomb. It has taken many, many years to find them, and some are not yet definitively identified even yet—and we have known landmarks and cities to work from for them.

Yet for some reason people think that we should be able to positively identify all the cities and landmarks mentioned in the Book of Mormon, complete with the archeological proof that they are what we claim for them–in less than two hundred years. Less than a hundred years, actually, since nobody was actively looking for any BoM sites until well into the twentieth century.

My point, sir, is this: if not being able to positively identify and locate every city mentioned in the bible does not disprove it, even after three or four millenia, then not being able to definitively find BoM sites after several decades doesn’t disprove the BoM.

Come talk to us in a century or two. THEN you can criticize, if we still have found nothing.

Here’s the bigger problem: if we ever DO find a city that is positively identified as a BoM site, it will be planet shaking. Therefore the level of proof required is going to be astounding, and quite frankly, I don’t expect anybody but people who are already Mormons to believe it, no matter how convincing the evidence is.