LDS Joseph Smith's Claim of an Apostasy is a Lie

[fatboys]

I have no idea what you are trying to say here, or how this addresses my post at all. My post was about how it is not logical to compare arguments about religious doctrine to scientific inquiry because one is a rule inherently biased and not subject to peer review, while the other is the exact opposite, and you responded with this.

I'm bloviating

 

[Peter1000]

What discoveries, where were they reported, and how do they corroborate Mormonism? I am unaware of any such thing in any relevant field (linguistics, anthropology, etc.) that even slightly corroborates anything in Mormonism but that Mormon writers and spectators claim that it does, which is a very, very low standard.

The problem with this approach is it is easily leads one to manipulate whatever evidence they find in order to reach certain conclusions that just so happen to be in line with their faith, because they're not really about doing science in the first place; they're about corroborating their faith. It's called confirmation bias and it invalidates basically everything Mormons have to say on any academic topic, since they don't really seem too keen on getting published outside of the LDS world, where people don't take the BOM as a starting point in investigations and have higher and impartial standards by which they postulate their conclusions.



See, you're doing it right here. Despite the complete lack of evidence for the LDS narrative regarding Jesus coming to the Americas, you assume that it happened because of your belief in the narrative and then conclude that anyone who does not take this claim as the a priori truth is the one pretending. This is not an acceptable way to approach things. I don't talk to non-Christians and say "You can feel free to not believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead after three days, in confirmation of the scriptures, but it still happened", because that is just assuming that I'm right because I happen to believe that. A responsible Christian will admit that this is a faith claim that is outside of the realm of falsifiability and argue accordingly by other means (i.e., from various philosophical precepts about God that can be pointed to without having to attempt to scientifically validate the resurrection, since that's literally impossible). There's a reason why the Orthodox Creed has all of these statements that begin "I believe...", and not "I know" or "I am scientifically supported in believing".

And again, all of this would be fine if Mormons, like the rest of us, would admit that this is what they're doing, and stop their futile search to prove the unprovable by scientific or quasi-scientific means. But instead they fund extremely questionable archaeological expeditions, give out dubious Ph.D.s in Linguistics and ancient languages to obviously ideologically-motivated researchers who will never do anything of value (or seek those same degrees from reputable non-LDS institutions, so as to give their non-scientific research an air of legitimacy it wouldn't otherwise have had they gone to BYU, a college that is literally owned by the LDS corporation and staffed with its cadres), and generally continue to perpetuate the lie that there is scientific evidence either presently or forthcoming to support the LDS narrative regarding various things for which there is in fact no evidence in any sense, either presently or realistically forthcoming.



Where? Please link to the relevant academic journals which discuss this evidence and how it supports the veracity of the BOM/LDS claims.



This is just a vague and somewhat arrogant-sounding threat. "You'd better do this, because my church says a thing that no other churches say!" Uh...so what that your church says that? Why does anyone who isn't LDS have to do anything based on what the LDS say? The belief that Christ probably spoke Coptic is found in some quarters in my Church (as far as I can tell, only in my particular church; I doubt the Armenians would have any reason to believe this, and certainly the Syriacs wouldn't, since the consensus among actual scholars is that Christ spoke Aramaic, which is the parent of their own Syriac language and the modern Neo-Aramaic languages -- an understandable point of pride for the Syriacs in particular), but there's no evidence for that, it's only by inference from particular local legends put in the context of Egypt's linguistic situation in the early Roman period when Coptic emerged (most scholars working on the linguistic situation in pre-Islamic Egypt don't seem to place the Coptic period that far back anyway, though there is certainly room for debate on that). It's not exactly compelling, but it's also not hurting anything since we're not telling people "You'd better do/believe this, because we (some of us; not me) say this!" That'd be silly in the extreme.

You say: What discoveries, where were they reported, and how do they corroborate Mormonism? I am unaware of any such thing in any relevant field (linguistics, anthropology, etc.) that even slightly corroborates anything in Mormonism but that Mormon writers and spectators claim that it does, which is a very, very low standard.

One of the funny things that JS said in 1830 is that people from Jerusalem sailed in a ship to the Americas. He was laughed at for this ridiculous statement. Everybody that knew anything knew that ancient America was populated by Asians coming across the Bering Straight. JS was stupid for putting that in the BOM. That kind of stupid talk worked until a few years ago, when science found so much evidence of seafaring ancients, it became an embarrassment to them to not acknowledge that ancient America could have been populated by both land and SEA.

So now JS does not look so stupid after all. Science has caught up with JS and corroborates the BOM. This major announcement is an evidence that corroborates the BOM because for 150 years JS said people from Jerusalem came to the Americas by ship. Only lately science begrudgingly says that is possible.
Read the following non-Mormon site:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/28/world/americas/phoenician-christopher-columbus-america-sailboat/

You say: It's called confirmation bias and it invalidates basically everything Mormons have to say on any academic topic.

I hope you know that confirmation bias can go both ways. IOW an evidence that is extremely valuable to corroborating the BOM can be resisted by non-Mormon scientists as stupid, for no other reason than their negative bias towards Mormons, and willing attitude to trash anything the Mormons say or anything non-Mormons say that corroborates the BOM.

Heaven forbid a Ph.D Mormon should find a corroborating piece of evidence for the BOM. Sound like Ph.D doesn't mean much unless you are a biased non-Mormon. Kind of doesn't sound right.

You say: And again, all of this would be fine if Mormons, like the rest of us, would admit that this is what they're doing, and stop their futile search to prove the unprovable by scientific or quasi-scientific means. But instead they fund extremely questionable archaeological expeditions, give out dubious Ph.D.s in Linguistics and ancient languages to obviously ideologically-motivated researchers who will never do anything of value (or seek those same degrees from reputable non-LDS institutions, so as to give their non-scientific research an air of legitimacy it wouldn't otherwise have had they gone to BYU, a college that is literally owned by the LDS corporation and staffed with its cadres), and generally continue to perpetuate the lie that there is scientific evidence either presently or forthcoming to support the LDS narrative regarding various things for which there is in fact no evidence in any sense, either presently or realistically forthcoming.

We Mormons are fine in saying that it is by faith that we believe the BOM. And if left alone, we could be happy with our Bible and our BOM. But you will not leave us alone.
You demand evidence that the BOM is true, not a spiritual and faith based evidence, but a scientific evidence. Therefore, to meet that demand, we look for evidence and acknowledge it when it appears, but we do not really care if you believe it or not, it is just a curiousness for us, and we live our lives in faith about the BOM, but if something comes along that is interesting, or our or any other Ph.D comes along and says, look at this, we discovered this the other day and it is interesting. We are willing to look at it and decide if it does or does not corroborate the BOM. The same way we look for evidences that corroborates the bible.

You say: See, you're doing it right here. Despite the complete lack of evidence for the LDS narrative regarding Jesus coming to the Americas, you assume that it happened because of your belief in the narrative and then conclude that anyone who does not take this claim as the a priori truth is the one pretending.

I am not one to blindly follow. I need to know the truth as well as the next guy. I have found that my testimony of the BOM is based on prayer to God. But I like the idea that there is some solid evidence to back me up. There is plenty of evidence that Jesus Christ did visit the Americas. There is not a complete lack of evidence. So put your scientific hat on and start googling "Jesus in America" and start your research.

You say: This is just a vague and somewhat arrogant-sounding threat.

This was not intended to be a threat. But I stick to what I say. If Jesus Christ did visit the Americas after his resurrection and ascension, there is only 1 source for that information at the present, and that is the BOM and the Mormon church. If this turns out to be true, it would be prudent to listen what other things JS said, since he is probably a true prophet. If the BOM turns out to be scientifically proven, you will know that Jesus is the Christ, and that JS is a prophet of Jesus Christ. Is this not right?

 

[ToBeLoved]

One who lives in a glass house, ought not to throw too many stones. The bible that we so preciously hold to is a book that needs to have a lot of faith to believe. There are many, many aspects of the bible that do not line up with science and common sense. But we don't worry that there is never a mention of Moses and no evidence to any degree that there was 2,000,000 people that left Egypt and traveled 40 years in the wilderness, only to settle in Israel. No evidence worth writing home to mother about.

Well why don't we get to the problems then. What are your problems that you say defy science and common sense?

If you do not have any specifics then you just put that in there to make the BOM seem to look better than the Bible. Also I would be careful to start a conversation about writings that go against sceince and common sense. Don't bite yourself, now;

 

[mmksparbud]

Well, then, you seem to be saying that neither the BOM or the bible have much, if any, evidence to claim either of them as true. Just wondering, according to you, which has the most?

 

[dzheremi]

Hi Peter1000,

Can I ask firstly in a friendly fashion that you please use the quote function properly, should you wish to continue future conversations concerning my posts? Putting things in differently colored text or other means of distinguishing quotes from responses is really not necessary when we have the quote function built into the reply screen of this messageboard. The way that you've done it in this post makes more work for me to properly reply to you in a way that is readable to everyone. Thank you.

One of the funny things that JS said in 1830 is that people from Jerusalem sailed in a ship to the Americas. He was laughed at for this ridiculous statement. Everybody that knew anything knew that ancient America was populated by Asians coming across the Bering Straight. JS was stupid for putting that in the BOM. That kind of stupid talk worked until a few years ago, when science found so much evidence of seafaring ancients, it became an embarrassment to them to not acknowledge that ancient America could have been populated by both land and SEA.

So now JS does not look so stupid after all. Science has caught up with JS and corroborates the BOM. This major announcement is an evidence that corroborates the BOM because for 150 years JS said people from Jerusalem came to the Americas by ship. Only lately science begrudgingly says that is possible.
Read the following non-Mormon site:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/28/world/americas/phoenician-christopher-columbus-america-sailboat/

Again, how does this corroborate Mormonism? It really doesn't (the link that you give doesn't claim that it does, and even points out that actual historians dispute this idea that the Phoenicians landed in the Americas).

And it would not have been as revolutionary in Joseph Smith's time as you apparently think it was to suggest that ancient seafaring people could've traveled to other lands. For example ancient Greek historian Herodotus noted that the Phoenicians, the people discussed at your link, were the first to circumnavigate the African continent. Herodotus died in 425 BC. Just for reference, the distance from Tyre, Lebanon -- the one-time capital of Phoenicia -- to Cape Town, South Africa is about 6,649 miles. This is much more than the 5,729 miles from Jerusalem to Palmyra, New York. So clearly such a voyage would have been possible (since one of even greater length had already happened, according to Herodotus), but this is not evidence for Mormonism at all. There is still no evidence for ancient Hebrew/Israelite habitation of the Americas.

As I have written before, the people of Joseph Smith's era may have been particularly gullible or ignorant, but they are not the standard by which we can say whether or not something was known in a particular time. Again, Herodotus died in 425 BC, and he is but one ancient witness to the knowledge of the exploits of ancient seafaring people. If people of Joseph Smith's time and place would reject out of hand that an ancient people could've made a long journey from one continent to another by boat, then that really just makes those people look dumb, since it was clearly known to the ancients that this did happen; that doesn't make Mormonism look better, and it certainly doesn't prove that Joseph Smith had some kind of visionary foreknowledge of things that would later be confirmed by science. He didn't. The fact that people could travel long distances by boat was not some amazing discovery or assertion (and all your link even claims is that some adventurer guy wants to prove that the Phoenicians could have done this; actual historians have many problems with the assertion that therefore they did travel to the Americas, because there's no evidence of that...kind of like how there's no evidence for anything the BOM says about the ancient peoples that supposedly inhabited the Americas).

I hope you know that confirmation bias can go both ways. IOW an evidence that is extremely valuable to corroborating the BOM can be resisted by non-Mormon scientists as stupid, for no other reason than their negative bias towards Mormons, and willing attitude to trash anything the Mormons say or anything non-Mormons say that corroborates the BOM.

Heaven forbid a Ph.D Mormon should find a corroborating piece of evidence for the BOM. Sound like Ph.D doesn't mean much unless you are a biased non-Mormon. Kind of doesn't sound right.

You are imagining a world by which all claims are equally plausible, thereby making those who dismiss Mormon claims in the areas of linguistics, history, geography, etc. equally guilty of confirmation bias as the Mormons are for claiming every scrap of evidence or pseudo-evidence as validation of the BOM. This is not how things actually are. In any academic discipline, there are means of testing the plausibility of a given claim, such that some are taken more seriously than others (so that we're not wasting our time listening to every theory out there just because it exists). This is why, for instance, actual historians can publish with prestigious academic publishers and teach at reputable universities, whereas "ancient aliens" theorists and UFO believers cannot. No one in their right mind would claim that the two should be treated with equal weight, or that not doing so would reveal some kind of confirmation bias against the claims of the UFO people. The problem is that the UFO people have no evidence. In discussions in all relevant fields, Mormon pseudo-scholarship is more akin to "ancient alien" theorists and UFO people than to actual scholarship, and for much the same reason: the complete lack of compelling, scientifically-valid evidence to support their claims, and the way that they reinterpret things so as to fit their own baseless theories.

We Mormons are fine in saying that it is by faith that we believe the BOM. And if left alone, we could be happy with our Bible and our BOM. But you will not leave us alone.

No, I will not, so long as you are making scientific claims about the world that are demonstrably false. If they were merely faith-based claims and declared as such, I wouldn't care. What business is it of mine that Mormons believe whatever they do? None. It is only when you claim that there is actual evidence for your narrative that is really not there that you hear a peep from the outside world. You don't see anyone in academia working to disprove Rastafarians' belief that Haile Selassie is God, do you? Of course not. That's not a claim about the phenomena of the natural world, as Mormon claims about language, human migration, DNA, etc. are.

You demand evidence that the BOM is true, not a spiritual and faith based evidence, but a scientific evidence.

To be fair, I also demand scientific evidence from Christians, Hindus, Baha'i, etc., should they make claims about the natural world that are likewise falsifiable. That's why I don't believe in Young Earth Creationism, for instance.

Therefore, to meet that demand, we look for evidence and acknowledge it when it appears, but we do not really care if you believe it or not, it is just a curiousness for us, and we live our lives in faith about the BOM, but if something comes along that is interesting, or our or any other Ph.D comes along and says, look at this, we discovered this the other day and it is interesting. We are willing to look at it and decide if it does or does not corroborate the BOM. The same way we look for evidences that corroborates the bible.

In other words, you're not actually doing science at all. You're looking to corroborate your faith by any means necessary, whether there is evidence for it or not. Fine. That's what I already wrote many posts ago. The problem is when it is presented as scientific evidence when it is really not that. This is an abuse of science and the principles by which inquiry is undertaken. Again, you have no evidence, and you ought to admit that rather than claim for pages and pages that the BOM and its narrative is supported by this or that archaeological or linguistic discovery. The criticism comes when you try to muddy the waters by mixing scientific claims with faith claims, and then say that whoever rejects your faith-based/biased pseudo-scientific conclusions is therefore guilty of bias themselves. That's simply not reality. This is not how things work. If I claim that the moon is made of cheese because God told me it is, and you claim that the moon is made of rock, you're not wrong to point out that we've actually been there and observed no cheese, only rock. That's not "bias" against my idea that it is actually made out of cheese -- that's recognition that you have actual evidence, whereas I have a story based on faith that is directly contradicted by all available evidence. Therefore, you are right and I am not, and no amount of protesting that I am not being given a fair hearing is going to change that. Not everything is of equal merit just because it exists. Science has actual boundaries and if you do not want to operate within them, then you need to acknowledge that and stick to only making faith claims.

I am not one to blindly follow. I need to know the truth as well as the next guy. I have found that my testimony of the BOM is based on prayer to God. But I like the idea that there is some solid evidence to back me up.

Sure, but liking the idea that there is or that there could be doesn't make actual evidence materialize out of nothing.

There is plenty of evidence that Jesus Christ did visit the Americas. There is not a complete lack of evidence. So put your scientific hat on and start googling "Jesus in America" and start your research.

No. You make the claim, so you have to back it up.

There is zero evidence of Jesus ever visiting the Americas. Mormon claims are not in themselves evidence of anything.

This was not intended to be a threat. But I stick to what I say. If Jesus Christ did visit the Americas after his resurrection and ascension, there is only 1 source for that information at the present, and that is the BOM and the Mormon church. If this turns out to be true, it would be prudent to listen what other things JS said, since he is probably a true prophet. If the BOM turns out to be scientifically proven, you will know that Jesus is the Christ, and that JS is a prophet of Jesus Christ. Is this not right?

That is indeed incorrect. The BOM is not a source of anything but what Joseph Smith's imagination dreamed up as religious scripture. It is certainly not a starting point in any academic inquiry outside of those specifically dedicated to the study of Mormonism as a topic (i.e., non-scientific study of the development of the religion in a sociocultural sense), in which it is perfectly sensible that LDS scholars participate (who would know the relevant sources better?), should they be able to rise to the standards of impartiality required of non-LDS academic publications in order to be published in academic journals on the development of religion and philosophy (as I'm sure many already do). That's the thing that it seems like you're missing in your reply to me: I'm not saying that LDS people cannot contribute in various fields to the advancement of scientific knowledge because they are LDS people. I'm saying that they can't do that while working under the presumption that the LDS narrative and the BOM are scientific (/historical/linguistic/etc.) sources and tailoring their work accordingly, because that biases their conclusions. By contrast, Coptic people have contributed greatly to the study of the Coptic language and other matters directly related to their own history and identity, and they were able to do that precisely because they submitted their ideas to relevant non-Coptic authorities in the field and their work was found to have merit.

Unless Mormons do the same, then what you have is not scientific evidence or theory, but an echo chamber for people who are already convinced of the same conclusions by virtue of sharing the same religious faith. That is almost the exact opposite of science on every level, because the claims are usually not falsifiable, not subject to peer review, and so on.

As a person of faith evaluating faith-based claims, I must also reject your premise that if the BOM narrative is scientifically proven, then we will know that Jesus is the Christ, and Joseph Smith a true prophet. First and most obviously, no Christian anywhere in any age needs to believe or even know about the BOM to know that Jesus is the Christ. Mormonism is the late-comer on the scene, and despite how it sees itself as the restoration of true Christianity in a world full of apostasy, it is not able to escape the fact that a plurality of the world's churches existed long before it did, and hence have no use for it. (It reminds me of the oft repeated story, found in many Coptic books, of the bishop of Asyut in the 1860s who responded to calls to conversion by recently arrived Presbyterian missionaries in Egypt by asking them rhetorically "We have been living with Christ for almost 2000 years; how long have your people been living with Him?") Secondly, scientific validation does not play a part in the confirmation of Jesus' messiahship. There isn't really even anything to add to that. That's just not part of it, because that is purely a faith claim. There is no scientific test for messiahship.

 

[fatboys]

Hi Peter1000,

Can I ask firstly in a friendly fashion that you please use the quote function properly, should you wish to continue future conversations concerning my posts? Putting things in differently colored text or other means of distinguishing quotes from responses is really not necessary when we have the quote function built into the reply screen of this messageboard. The way that you've done it in this post makes more work for me to properly reply to you in a way that is readable to everyone. Thank you.



Again, how does this corroborate Mormonism? It really doesn't (the link that you give doesn't claim that it does, and even points out that actual historians dispute this idea that the Phoenicians landed in the Americas).

And it would not have been as revolutionary in Joseph Smith's time as you apparently think it was to suggest that ancient seafaring people could've traveled to other lands. For example ancient Greek historian Herodotus noted that the Phoenicians, the people discussed at your link, were the first to circumnavigate the African continent. Herodotus died in 425 BC. Just for reference, the distance from Tyre, Lebanon -- the one-time capital of Phoenicia -- to Cape Town, South Africa is about 6,649 miles. This is much more than the 5,729 miles from Jerusalem to Palmyra, New York. So clearly such a voyage would have been possible (since one of even greater length had already happened, according to Herodotus), but this is not evidence for Mormonism at all. There is still no evidence for ancient Hebrew/Israelite habitation of the Americas.

As I have written before, the people of Joseph Smith's era may have been particularly gullible or ignorant, but they are not the standard by which we can say whether or not something was known in a particular time. Again, Herodotus died in 425 BC, and he is but one ancient witness to the knowledge of the exploits of ancient seafaring people. If people of Joseph Smith's time and place would reject out of hand that an ancient people could've made a long journey from one continent to another by boat, then that really just makes those people look dumb, since it was clearly known to the ancients that this did happen; that doesn't make Mormonism look better, and it certainly doesn't prove that Joseph Smith had some kind of visionary foreknowledge of things that would later be confirmed by science. He didn't. The fact that people could travel long distances by boat was not some amazing discovery or assertion (and all your link even claims is that some adventurer guy wants to prove that the Phoenicians could have done this; actual historians have many problems with the assertion that therefore they did travel to the Americas, because there's no evidence of that...kind of like how there's no evidence for anything the BOM says about the ancient peoples that supposedly inhabited the Americas).



You are imagining a world by which all claims are equally plausible, thereby making those who dismiss Mormon claims in the areas of linguistics, history, geography, etc. equally guilty of confirmation bias as the Mormons are for claiming every scrap of evidence or pseudo-evidence as validation of the BOM. This is not how things actually are. In any academic discipline, there are means of testing the plausibility of a given claim, such that some are taken more seriously than others (so that we're not wasting our time listening to every theory out there just because it exists). This is why, for instance, actual historians can publish with prestigious academic publishers and teach at reputable universities, whereas "ancient aliens" theorists and UFO believers cannot. No one in their right mind would claim that the two should be treated with equal weight, or that not doing so would reveal some kind of confirmation bias against the claims of the UFO people. The problem is that the UFO people have no evidence. In discussions in all relevant fields, Mormon pseudo-scholarship is more akin to "ancient alien" theorists and UFO people than to actual scholarship, and for much the same reason: the complete lack of compelling, scientifically-valid evidence to support their claims, and the way that they reinterpret things so as to fit their own baseless theories.



No, I will not, so long as you are making scientific claims about the world that are demonstrably false. If they were merely faith-based claims and declared as such, I wouldn't care. What business is it of mine that Mormons believe whatever they do? None. It is only when you claim that there is actual evidence for your narrative that is really not there that you hear a peep from the outside world. You don't see anyone in academia working to disprove Rastafarians' belief that Haile Selassie is God, do you? Of course not. That's not a claim about the phenomena of the natural world, as Mormon claims about language, human migration, DNA, etc. are.



To be fair, I also demand scientific evidence from Christians, Hindus, Baha'i, etc., should they make claims about the natural world that are likewise falsifiable. That's why I don't believe in Young Earth Creationism, for instance.



In other words, you're not actually doing science at all. You're looking to corroborate your faith by any means necessary, whether there is evidence for it or not. Fine. That's what I already wrote many posts ago. The problem is when it is presented as scientific evidence when it is really not that. This is an abuse of science and the principles by which inquiry is undertaken. Again, you have no evidence, and you ought to admit that rather than claim for pages and pages that the BOM and its narrative is supported by this or that archaeological or linguistic discovery. The criticism comes when you try to muddy the waters by mixing scientific claims with faith claims, and then say that whoever rejects your faith-based/biased pseudo-scientific conclusions is therefore guilty of bias themselves. That's simply not reality. This is not how things work. If I claim that the moon is made of cheese because God told me it is, and you claim that the moon is made of rock, you're not wrong to point out that we've actually been there and observed no cheese, only rock. That's not "bias" against my idea that it is actually made out of cheese -- that's recognition that you have actual evidence, whereas I have a story based on faith that is directly contradicted by all available evidence. Therefore, you are right and I am not, and no amount of protesting that I am not being given a fair hearing is going to change that. Not everything is of equal merit just because it exists. Science has actual boundaries and if you do not want to operate within them, then you need to acknowledge that and stick to only making faith claims.



Sure, but liking the idea that there is or that there could be doesn't make actual evidence materialize out of nothing.



No. You make the claim, so you have to back it up.

There is zero evidence of Jesus ever visiting the Americas. Mormon claims are not in themselves evidence of anything.




That is indeed incorrect. The BOM is not a source of anything but what Joseph Smith's imagination dreamed up as religious scripture. It is certainly not a starting point in any academic inquiry outside of those specifically dedicated to the study of Mormonism as a topic (i.e., non-scientific study of the development of the religion in a sociocultural sense), in which it is perfectly sensible that LDS scholars participate (who would know the relevant sources better?), should they be able to rise to the standards of impartiality required of non-LDS academic publications in order to be published in academic journals on the development of religion and philosophy (as I'm sure many already do). That's the thing that it seems like you're missing in your reply to me: I'm not saying that LDS people cannot contribute in various fields to the advancement of scientific knowledge because they are LDS people. I'm saying that they can't do that while working under the presumption that the LDS narrative and the BOM are scientific (/historical/linguistic/etc.) sources and tailoring their work accordingly, because that biases their conclusions. By contrast, Coptic people have contributed greatly to the study of the Coptic language and other matters directly related to their own history and identity, and they were able to do that precisely because they submitted their ideas to relevant non-Coptic authorities in the field and their work was found to have merit.

Unless Mormons do the same, then what you have is not scientific evidence or theory, but an echo chamber for people who are already convinced of the same conclusions by virtue of sharing the same religious faith. That is almost the exact opposite of science on every level, because the claims are usually not falsifiable, not subject to peer review, and so on.

As a person of faith evaluating faith-based claims, I must also reject your premise that if the BOM narrative is scientifically proven, then we will know that Jesus is the Christ, and Joseph Smith a true prophet. First and most obviously, no Christian anywhere in any age needs to believe or even know about the BOM to know that Jesus is the Christ. Mormonism is the late-comer on the scene, and despite how it sees itself as the restoration of true Christianity in a world full of apostasy, it is not able to escape the fact that a plurality of the world's churches existed long before it did, and hence have no use for it. (It reminds me of the oft repeated story, found in many Coptic books, of the bishop of Asyut in the 1860s who responded to calls to conversion by recently arrived Presbyterian missionaries in Egypt by asking them rhetorically "We have been living with Christ for almost 2000 years; how long have your people been living with Him?") Secondly, scientific validation does not play a part in the confirmation of Jesus' messiahship. There isn't really even anything to add to that. That's just not part of it, because that is purely a faith claim. There is no scientific test for messiahship.

Let me see if I can put this in perspective. Your wrong. The church has never looked at archeology as a way to prove the Book of Mormon is true. It is based on faith that it is true the same way one has to look at the bible. None of the physical evidences prove that either is the word of God. When evidence appears it is only interesting.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Let me see if I can put this in perspective. Your wrong. The church has never looked at archeology as a way to prove the Book of Mormon is true. It is based on faith that it is true the same way one has to look at the bible. None of the physical evidences prove that either is the word of God. When evidence appears it is only interesting.

Well the Bible is very different from the BOM. It is proven that places in the Bible exist and certain facts are cooperated by other sources. Such as the Egyptians recording Israelite slave captivity at the time of Moses and Josephus a famous Roman historian documenting part of the life of Christ and His followers.

Old maps confirm town and peoples names and places as correct, as well as the 2000 year old Dead Sea Scrolls.

So the Bible is at a higher level than JS writings


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[fatboys]

Well the Bible is very different from the BOM. It is proven that places in the Bible exist and certain facts are cooperated by other sources. Such as the Egyptians recording Israelite slave captivity at the time of Moses and Josephus a famous Roman historian documenting part of the life of Christ and His followers.

Old maps confirm town and peoples names and places as correct, as well as the 2000 year old Dead Sea Scrolls.

So the Bible is at a higher level than JS writings


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That may be the basis of your faith but mine is based n spiritual evidence

 

[mmksparbud]

Spiritual evidence??---Please explain--

 

[fatboys]

Spiritual evidence??---Please explain--

Are you kidding? Is your faith totally based on mans wisdom of evidence? You don't know what spiritually evidence is?

 

[mmksparbud]

Answer the question, please. Remember, I'm a corrupted Christian and don't know any better.

 

[ToBeLoved]

That may be the basis of your faith but mine is based n spiritual evidence

Before anything get's spiritual, you believe in a prophet who wrote false books and could not interpret anything.

Then AFTER getting those books you say you have 'spiritual evidence'. But only God provides true prophets and true spiritual evidence.

Now the Bible, many evidences in there that have been cooberated by other sources.

You have the evidence in front of you, no Hebrew DNA in America, yet you still hold on to falsehoods.

 

[fatboys]

Answer the question, please. Remember, I'm a corrupted Christian and don't know any better.

Lol okay you got me. I had a desire to know if God was real and if he was real then why did he create this earth and the billions and billions of people that have lived died and gone back to the dust. Why did he create me and what is my purpose here? If God has a purpose for me then am I fulfilling that purpose? If God is real how do I contact him? Can God truely hear my voice out of all others who are communicating at the same time. So having this desire to know I knelt down I prayer and asked "O God if you are real I beg you to let me know". When I asked this in a secluded place where I wouldn't be interrupted I was enveloped in what seemed like loving arms and felt a great peace. I knew then that God was real because before this happened I had an experience with the other side who could see that I wanted to change my life from the path I was heading. I came to find out that it was similar experience to what Joseph Smith had when he went to pray to know what church he should join. So I had had knowledge of the power of Satan before I knew God was real. And even though I had been baptized at the age of eight I really didn't know that God was real. I knew my mom believed but my dad not so sure. They rarely went to church although we had to go when I was young. When I was eleven I said that I was not going to church. My dad said if I didn't go then we would work. And that is what we did. The very first spiritual experience was when I was right after I was baptized. They gave me the gift of the Holy Ghost and while I was under the hands of that bestowel a feel I got of peace and comfort came upon me like I had never felt before or after until I was praying if God was real. I know God is real. I know that he has called prophets to guide us both in ancient and modern times. People can make fun of the burning in my chest or I like to say my heart. It is a peaceful feeling that isn't heart burn.
Surely in order for you to have faith in what you believe you had had to have similar feelings. Surely you have felt an assurance that Jesus is then Christ. The Holy Ghost testifies of truth and even though we do not agree on many things the Holy Ghost would not deny you the feeling that he is God and that he sent his Son not not why follow anything at all because your saying that you know because of words in a book. People at the time of Christ didn't have a book saying that Jesus was the Christ. The followed him because they felt he was. Any way that is what I mean by spiritual evidence. Since that time I have had many more experiences that have continued to reafirm my path.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Lol okay you got me. I had a desire to know if God was real and if he was real then why did he create this earth and the billions and billions of people that have lived died and gone back to the dust. Why did he create me and what is my purpose here? If God has a purpose for me then am I fulfilling that purpose? If God is real how do I contact him? Can God truely hear my voice out of all others who are communicating at the same time. So having this desire to know I knelt down I prayer and asked "O God if you are real I beg you to let me know". When I asked this in a secluded place where I wouldn't be interrupted I was enveloped in what seemed like loving arms and felt a great peace. I knew then that God was real because before this happened I had an experience with the other side who could see that I wanted to change my life from the path I was heading. I came to find out that it was similar experience to what Joseph Smith had when he went to pray to know what church he should join. So I had had knowledge of the power of Satan before I knew God was real. And even though I had been baptized at the age of eight I really didn't know that God was real. I knew my mom believed but my dad not so sure. They rarely went to church although we had to go when I was young. When I was eleven I said that I was not going to church. My dad said if I didn't go then we would work. And that is what we did. The very first spiritual experience was when I was right after I was baptized. They gave me the gift of the Holy Ghost and while I was under the hands of that bestowel a feel I got of peace and comfort came upon me like I had never felt before or after until I was praying if God was real. I know God is real. I know that he has called prophets to guide us both in ancient and modern times. People can make fun of the burning in my chest or I like to say my heart. It is a peaceful feeling that isn't heart burn.
Surely in order for you to have faith in what you believe you had had to have similar feelings. Surely you have felt an assurance that Jesus is then Christ. The Holy Ghost testifies of truth and even though we do not agree on many things the Holy Ghost would not deny you the feeling that he is God and that he sent his Son not not why follow anything at all because your saying that you know because of words in a book. People at the time of Christ didn't have a book saying that Jesus was the Christ. The followed him because they felt he was. Any way that is what I mean by spiritual evidence. Since that time I have had many more experiences that have continued to reafirm my path.

And what in any of that supports the Mormon view? Because JS also SAID he prayed about God?

We all believe that God exists. That doesn't mean you have the Holy Spirit, because your Christ has not always been God.

Your Christ is a different Christ from the Christian Jesus. So how do you know this Mormon version of Jesus is THE JESUS? Sounds like you put your eggs all in one basket that has a big hole at the bottom.

Why would you bother praying if God is real, if the sacrifice that God sent to atone for your sins was not God until after He died. That would mean that Jesus was not good enough until after His death, which would mean He could not atone for sin.

Why is this such a hard concept for you guys to understand? You think the Father would demand a sacrifice that could never exist? That God would leave all His children without hope?

That is what your God does. The God you believe in is going to leave you with nothing.

Didn't Satan always want to be God? He's giving you the same line he gave Adam and Eve and your following the same lie. But at least Adam was smart enough to repent of his evil. Think about it. You're no smarter than Adam. Your buying the same lie.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Answer the question, please. Remember, I'm a corrupted Christian and don't know any better.

Me too.

Six months ago they were going to reveal some big truth to us corrupt Christians. What if I die before the big reveal?

 

[fatboys]

And what in any of that supports the Mormon view? Because JS also SAID he prayed about God?

We all believe that God exists. That doesn't mean you have the Holy Spirit, because your Christ has not always been God.

Your Christ is a different Christ from the Christian Jesus. So how do you know this Mormon version of Jesus is THE JESUS? Sounds like you put your eggs all in one basket that has a big hole at the bottom.

Why would you bother praying if God is real, if the sacrifice that God sent to atone for your sins was not God until after He died. That would mean that Jesus was not good enough until after His death, which would mean He could not atone for sin.

Why is this such a hard concept for you guys to understand? You think the Father would demand a sacrifice that could never exist? That God would leave all His children without hope?

That is what your God does. The God you believe in is going to leave you with nothing.

Didn't Satan always want to be God? He's giving you the same line he gave Adam and Eve and your following the same lie. But at least Adam was smart enough to repent of his evil. Think about it. You're no smarter than Adam. Your buying the same lie.

Satan is certainly a liar. He can tempt us and he can whisper into our minds that can put us in bad situations if we listen. He can also help change our understanding and accept evil things that we wouldn't have ever thought of. Satan can cause feelings and mask it as good. But I have to ask if Satan can do these things why can't God do them in a more positive and undeniable? Why is it always easier believe the negative?

 

[ToBeLoved]

Satan is certainly a liar. He can tempt us and he can whisper into our minds that can put us in bad situations if we listen. He can also help change our understanding and accept evil things that we wouldn't have ever thought of. Satan can cause feelings and mask it as good. But I have to ask if Satan can do these things why can't God do them in a more positive and undeniable? Why is it always easier believe the negative?

What was the lie that Satan told Eve?

I'm sure you'll never answer this one with any truth.

 

[fatboys]

What was the lie that Satan told Eve?

I'm sure you'll never answer this one with any truth.

That eating the fruit won't kill you

 

[ToBeLoved]

That eating the fruit won't kill you

Didn't Satan tell Eve that if she ate of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil that she would become like God?

Seems Satan is telling the same lie to human beings 4,000 years later.

I think you must have forgotten that part or did JS rewrite it for you? Like I said, I knew you wouldn't answer that one with any truth.

 

[fatboys]

Didn't Satan tell Eve that if she ate of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil that she would become like God?

Seems Satan is telling the same lie to human beings 4,000 years later.

I think you must have forgotten that part or did JS rewrite it for you? Like I said, I knew you wouldn't answer that one with any truth.

If was a lie then God is lying as well?