Mormon Apologists

[TasteForTruth]

It is different to see people smiling on this forum. We seem to be a rather gloomy and contentious crowd.

Well, you reap what you sow. If you want to reap smiles and laughs and giggles, then you ought not plant posts about other people's religions which give them cause to be gloomy and contentious. I mean, was the following post intended to make Mormons feel good about something? Was it written to make us smile and say, "Oh ho ho... Yeah, that makes me smile, too! Ho ho ho!"

I always smile when I read or hear the term "Restored Gospel".

By definition "restored" means:

<LI style="LIST-STYLE-TYPE: decimal">Brought back; reinstated.2. Returned (someone or something) to a former condition, place, or position.

At this point in history there is absolutely no doubt that the gospel proclaimed by Joseph Smith came to him only through revelation and never existed prior to his proclamation of it. If it was actually restored, there would be verifiable historical evidence of it.

Of course it wasn't! It was made, as was the thread in which it was posted, to challenge the validity of the Restored Gospel, and to convey that you think that it is historically, and by very definition, ridiculous.

No, I don't believe that you invest a whole lot in the kind of smiles and laughs which are intended to be shared and enjoyed by all. You mock the principles, historicity, and what not of other people's religions and when the seeds you plant bear fruit you point out that the forum is a gloomy garden! So in the same way you "smile" when you hear "Restored Gospel," I actually think that's kinda "funny"! (All I have to do is add a smiley, and it makes everything fun, right? )

 

[Ran77]

Well, you reap what you sow.

What kind of radical, unorthodox thinking is that? Reaping what you sow. As if!


:o

 

[Albion]

Could you please give me verifiable historical evidence which proves that Jesus is the Son of God?

Certainly. That's why I said I could.

Did you think I'd say that I provide verifiable historical evidence when asked...just to toy with you???

 

[TasteForTruth]

Certainly. That's why I said I could.

Did you think I'd say that I provide verifiable historical evidence when asked...just to toy with you???

Mine was a request for "verifiable historical evidence." I was not asking if you were able to produce such evidence. Let me, therefore, rephrase:

Since "whenever people ask [you] for verifiable historical evidence... [you] provide them with the verifiable historical evidence," and since you don't "toy with" people when they make such requests, please now present the verifiable historical evidence you possess which proves that Jesus is the Son of God.

Muchas Gracias

 

[Albion]

Mine was a request for "verifiable historical evidence." I was not asking if you were able to produce such evidence. Let me, therefore, rephrase:

Since "whenever people ask [you] for verifiable historical evidence... [you] provide them with the verifiable historical evidence," and since you don't "toy with" people when they make such requests, please now present the verifiable historical evidence you possess which proves that Jesus is the Son of God.

Muchas Gracias

Look, we both know that this is not something that is subject to being proven or settled with a one-sentence answer. Maybe "What's the capitol of Illinois?" is, but this question is not. And, by the way, the question you originally asked was whether Jesus is my Savior, not whether he is the Son of God.

In any case, yes, this is answerable and I have answered it before on these fourms. I am not about to explain it in detail because of the time involved, and because I doubt very much that you are really interested anyway, but I will explain HOW I am able to answer the question.

First, recognize that almost nothing can be "proven" absolutely--not that man walked on the moon, that Amundsen was the first to reach the Pole, whether Grant is buried in Grant's tomb...nothing. So we deal in probabilities, and, in short, the Bible is the book that has been criticized more frequently by more determined skeptics than any other in history, and it has stood up, proving its reliability again and again. Where once it was fashionable to say that Jesus never actually lived, even the most ardent doubters today would be thought nutcases to argue that point. The Bible, then, taken as ordinary historical evidence is as true as any other historic document that we accept as true.

There is more to explain, of course, so don't make a big deal out of its absence in this post, but this is already long enough as a summary of the issue to demonstrate why the full and detailed answer you demanded is not going to be spelled out precisely, although it has been done before.

 

[Ran77]

Look, we both know that this is not something that is subject to being proven or settled with a one-sentence answer. Maybe "What's the capitol of Illinois?" is, but this question is not. And, by the way, the question you originally asked was whether Jesus is my Savior, not whether he is the Son of God.

In any case, yes, this is answerable and I have answered it before on these fourms. I am not about to explain it in detail because of the time involved, and because I doubt very much that you are really interested anyway, but I will explain HOW I am able to answer the question.

First, recognize that almost nothing can be "proven" absolutely--not that man walked on the moon, that Amundsen was the first to reach the Pole, whether Grant is buried in Grant's tomb...nothing. So we deal in probabilities, and, in short, the Bible is the book that has been criticized more frequently by more determined skeptics than any other in history, and it has stood up, proving its reliability again and again. Where once it was fashionable to say that Jesus never actually lived, even the most ardent doubters today would be thought nutcases to argue that point. The Bible, then, taken as ordinary historical evidence is as true as any other historic document that we accept as true.

There is more to explain, of course, so don't make a big deal out of its absence in this post, but this is already long enough as a summary of the issue to demonstrate why the full and detailed answer you demanded is not going to be spelled out precisely, although it has been done before.

This response seems to be in conflict with your earlier statement. It doesn't appear at all that you can provide verifiable historical evidence.



:o

 

[TasteForTruth]

Look, we both know that this is not something that is subject to being proven or settled with a one-sentence answer. Maybe "What's the capitol of Illinois?" is, but this question is not. And, by the way, the question you originally asked was whether Jesus is my Savior, not whether he is the Son of God.

In any case, yes, this is answerable and I have answered it before on these fourms. I am not about to explain it in detail because of the time involved, and because I doubt very much that you are really interested anyway, but I will explain HOW I am able to answer the question.

First, recognize that almost nothing can be "proven" absolutely--not that man walked on the moon, that Amundsen was the first to reach the Pole, whether Grant is buried in Grant's tomb...nothing. So we deal in probabilities, and, in short, the Bible is the book that has been criticized more frequently by more determined skeptics than any other in history, and it has stood up, proving its reliability again and again. Where once it was fashionable to say that Jesus never actually lived, even the most ardent doubters today would be thought nutcases to argue that point. The Bible, then, taken as ordinary historical evidence is as true as any other historic document that we accept as true.

There is more to explain, of course, so don't make a big deal out of its absence in this post, but this is already long enough as a summary of the issue to demonstrate why the full and detailed answer you demanded is not going to be spelled out precisely, although it has been done before.

Thanks for your detailed response. You note that I changed the evidence I was asking for. I didn't notice that I had done so, and I fail to see how that change makes any difference at all, in spite of the fact that you believe it does. In fact, your explanation makes it quite clear that you cannot provide me "verifiable historical evidence" either to prove that Christ is your Savior (or mine), that He is the Son of God, or that God exists in the first place. Nor can you produce verifiable historical evidence to "prove" any other spiritual thing to me. No, as you pointed out, we both know that you cannot provide any verifiable historical evidence which could prove to me any of these things (yes, I am aware that you said "with a one-sentence answer"). The best you could possibly hope to accomplish, as far as evidence is concerned, is provide me with the only evidence of them you could actually possess&#8212;your faith on these matters, which is neither historical nor verifiable and yet is&#8212;if we accept the testimony in Hebrews 1&#8212;the evidence that God has given you of these unseen, spiritual truths. Are we agreed?

If so, then this statement is, in reality, false, if by "belief" you actually mean "truth," for it seems a safe assumption that you believe that it is the truth:

...whenever people ask me for verifiable historical evidence for this belief, I provide them with the verifiable historical evidence.

And although bbbbbbb did not see fit to accept my challenge as you did (to your credit, and thank you), he cannot produce the evidence I asked for either. Of course, he suggests that there is a difference between "proving" Christ's divinity (or other, similar, spiritual things) and "proving" that the Restored Gospel is, indeed, a "restored" Gospel. I'm hoping he'll explain the difference.

At any rate, I hope you can see how ironic it is (at best), or how hypocritical it is (at worst) that a Christian would demand proof of the spiritual truth that is the Restored Gospel. Or, in other words, it is ironic that said person would require "verifiable historical evidence" before he could or would believe the Restored Gospel, since that is not (presumably) the foundation of his belief in the Savior, the Bible, etc.

Thank you again for your detailed response. Please follow-up if I misunderstood your point, or if you have some other comment.

 

[Albion]

Thanks for your detailed response. You note that I changed the evidence I was asking for. I didn't notice that I had done so, and I fail to see how that change makes any difference at all

Well, of course, it DOES make a difference when you are asking someone to answer your question. And the two issues are not identical, either, in case there's any uncertainty about that.

In fact, your explanation makes it quite clear that you cannot provide me "verifiable historical evidence" either to prove that Christ is your Savior (or mine), that He is the Son of God, or that God exists in the first place.

I knew that that's what you were prepared to say--no matter what I answered. That's why you got the shorter answer that mainly indicated where the complete answer would come from and how I would prove my answer.

 

[TasteForTruth]

Well, of course, it DOES make a difference when you are asking someone to answer your question. And the two issues are not identical, either, in case there's any uncertainty about that.

OK. I admit that when it comes to the evidence in question, I do not see a real difference. But I would appreciate hearing what you believe the difference is.

I knew that that's what you were prepared to say--no matter what I answered. That's why you got the shorter answer that mainly indicated where the complete answer would come from and how I would prove my answer.

In spite of whatever stereotype you think I might fit, I responded to you based on the content of your post. If you do not want to explain why you differ in your opinion that is fine. If you have already given others the long version, then point me to the long version. That will save you the time.

Thanks.

 

[Albion]

OK. I admit that when it comes to the evidence in question, I do not see a real difference. But I would appreciate hearing what you believe the difference is.

Jesus as Savior vs. Jesus as Son of God? Sure, it matters. Those are two different concepts. Jesus could be one of them without being the other one, right?

In spite of whatever stereotype you think I might fit, I responded to you based on the content of your post. If you do not want to explain why you differ in your opinion that is fine. If you have already given others the long version, then point me to the long version. That will save you the time.

Thanks.

To tell the absolute truth, I can't figure what you're after. The Bible, just as history, has been shown by innumerable studies and experience to have been right again and again when challenged. Nothing in life can be proven 100%, but as history, the Bible has a track record that is impressive. So, are its most elusive spiritual claims credible? I think so...if the rest of the work is. We would have to examine every claim everywhere in the OT and NT that bear upon either one of those allegations in order to decide, but it could be done.

 

[TasteForTruth]

Jesus as Savior vs. Jesus as Son of God? Sure, it matters. Those are two different concepts. Jesus could be one of them without being the other one, right?

Sure.

To tell the absolute truth, I can't figure what you're after.

How did you know how I would answer if you didn't understand what I was asking?

The Bible, just as history, has been shown by innumerable studies and experience to have been right again and again when challenged. Nothing in life can be proven 100%, but as history, the Bible has a track record that is impressive. So, are its most elusive spiritual claims credible? I think so...if the rest of the work is. We would have to examine every claim everywhere in the OT and NT that bear upon either one of those allegations in order to decide, but it could be done.

I assumed that your witness of the Savior came from the Holy Spirit. I don't see any mention of such an endowment. Lots about studies and historical credibility of spiritual claims and Biblical track records among scholars (presumably). So I guess if you depend on those things to establish the truth about God (to the extent you believe such knowledge can actually be obtained), I can see why you would want to establish a similar track record where the Restored Gospel is concerned.

 

[Albion]

Sure.
How did you know how I would answer if you didn't understand what I was asking?

I understood what you were asking; I don't know why you are asking it.

I assumed that your witness of the Savior came from the Holy Spirit.

It does. The Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and this is God's means of revealing his will and intentions to mankind. We do not agree with the idea that every individual gets a personal (and different) communication from God in lieu of relying upon His word in Scripture.

I guess if you depend on those things to establish the truth about God (to the extent you believe such knowledge can actually be obtained), I can see why you would want to establish a similar track record where the Restored Gospel is concerned.

I wouldn't say that exactly. The Bible has a credibility that the BOM, D&C, etc. do not have. The question is whether spiritual matters treated in even the Bible can be shown to have a high enough probability of being correct to justify believing them. But if we were instead discussing a book that has only a minimal probability of being anything but fiction, we would be way ahead of ourselves to bypass that issue in favor of examining the truth or falsehood of particular claims somewhere or other in the text.

 

[TasteForTruth]

I understood what you were asking; I don't know why you are asking it.

I asked in order to make a point, but it is being deflated by our differing manner of establishing spiritual truth.

It does. The Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and this is God's means of revealing his will and intentions to mankind. We do not agree with the idea that every individual gets a personal (and different) communication from God in lieu of relying upon His word in Scripture.

Ah. I see. So your witness is kind of a vicarious witness.

I wouldn't say that exactly. The Bible has a credibility that the BOM, D&C, etc. do not have.

I don't agree, but I understand your point.

The question is whether spiritual matters treated in even the Bible can be shown to have a high enough probability of being correct to justify believing them. But if we were instead discussing a book that has only a minimal probability of being anything but fiction, we would be way ahead of ourselves to bypass that issue in favor of examining the truth or falsehood of particular claims somewhere or other in the text.

Interesting. Foundation seems a little shaky. I mean, suppose some great discovery proved the Bible to be fiction? Where does that put you? For example, there have been some who have to stripped the miraculous and divine out of the Bible because they were convinced those elements were, indeed, fiction. Whereas the moral lessons it contained were accepted as truth.

 

[Albion]

I asked in order to make a point, but it is being deflated by our differing manner of establishing spiritual truth.

Probably so.

Ah. I see. So your witness is kind of a vicarious witness.

I don't see how my witness has been part of our discussion. (?)

I don't agree, but I understand your point.

Well, that's something.

Interesting. Foundation seems a little shaky. I mean, suppose some great discovery proved the Bible to be fiction?

I'd probably have to change my mind about it in that case, but of course there's nothing that suggests this is likely.

Where does that put you? For example, there have been some who have to stripped the miraculous and divine out of the Bible because they were convinced those elements were, indeed, fiction. Whereas the moral lessons it contained were accepted as truth.

My response is that there have been many attempts to do just that, but they have not been successful. Some information--that Jesus was God incarnate, for instance--cannot be either proved or disproved absolutely, but the Deluge, the Ark, the Red Sea parting, and many more items that have been assailed as mythical have been shown to be entirely explainable. As a result, every other passage and event becomes more probably true.

 

[TasteForTruth]

I don't see how my witness has been part of our discussion. (?)

One's witness of the Savior is the result of his quest for truth, and we've been discussing how you, personally, obtain spiritual truth. So whether or not we have directly addressed your witness, it is part of the discussion, in my mind.

I'd probably have to change my mind about it in that case, but of course there's nothing that suggests this is likely.

I don't believe so, either. But I'm glad to see that you would remain true to your means of obtaining truth, although I'm glad in a sideways kind of way.

My response is that there have been many attempts to do just that, but they have not been successful. Some information--that Jesus was God incarnate, for instance--cannot be either proved or disproved absolutely, but the Deluge, the Ark, the Red Sea parting, and many more items that have been assailed as mythical have been shown to be entirely explainable. As a result, every other passage and event becomes more probably true.

I understand.

 

[Albion]

One's witness of the Savior is the result of his quest for truth, and we've been discussing how you, personally, obtain spiritual truth. So whether or not we have directly addressed your witness, it is part of the discussion, in my mind.

As I see it, the two are distinct--as you described them. One's witness is indeed related to one's perception of the truth, but so far it's identifying the truth that has been the whole of our discussion.

Anyway, I'm feeling concerned about this sidebar possibly being considered a departure from theme of the thread (although I've enjoyed the exchange we've had). Should we allow things to now go back to the bigger topic?

 

[TasteForTruth]

As I see it, the two are distinct--as you described them. One's witness is indeed related to one's perception of the truth, but so far it's identifying the truth that has been the whole of our discussion.

Anyway, I'm feeling concerned about this sidebar possibly being considered a departure from theme of the thread (although I've enjoyed the exchange we've had). Should we allow things to now go back to the bigger topic?

Sure, we can go back to the OP.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Well, you reap what you sow. If you want to reap smiles and laughs and giggles, then you ought not plant posts about other people's religions which give them cause to be gloomy and contentious. I mean, was the following post intended to make Mormons feel good about something? Was it written to make us smile and say, "Oh ho ho... Yeah, that makes me smile, too! Ho ho ho!"
Of course it wasn't! It was made, as was the thread in which it was posted, to challenge the validity of the Restored Gospel, and to convey that you think that it is historically, and by very definition, ridiculous.

No, I don't believe that you invest a whole lot in the kind of smiles and laughs which are intended to be shared and enjoyed by all. You mock the principles, historicity, and what not of other people's religions and when the seeds you plant bear fruit you point out that the forum is a gloomy garden! So in the same way you "smile" when you hear "Restored Gospel," I actually think that's kinda "funny"! (All I have to do is add a smiley, and it makes everything fun, right? )

Well, be grumpy for all I care.

The reality is that I do smile when I see improperly used words. One that also makes me smile is the Catholic noun, Religious. For the majority of the world religious is an adjective, but in the Catholic Church it has been transformed into a noun. I see Catholic billboards from time to time admonishing me to "Pray for the Relgious."

 

[bbbbbbb]

Thanks for your detailed response. You note that I changed the evidence I was asking for. I didn't notice that I had done so, and I fail to see how that change makes any difference at all, in spite of the fact that you believe it does. In fact, your explanation makes it quite clear that you cannot provide me "verifiable historical evidence" either to prove that Christ is your Savior (or mine), that He is the Son of God, or that God exists in the first place. Nor can you produce verifiable historical evidence to "prove" any other spiritual thing to me. No, as you pointed out, we both know that you cannot provide any verifiable historical evidence which could prove to me any of these things (yes, I am aware that you said "with a one-sentence answer"). The best you could possibly hope to accomplish, as far as evidence is concerned, is provide me with the only evidence of them you could actually possess—your faith on these matters, which is neither historical nor verifiable and yet is—if we accept the testimony in Hebrews 1—the evidence that God has given you of these unseen, spiritual truths. Are we agreed?

If so, then this statement is, in reality, false, if by "belief" you actually mean "truth," for it seems a safe assumption that you believe that it is the truth:


And although bbbbbbb did not see fit to accept my challenge as you did (to your credit, and thank you), he cannot produce the evidence I asked for either. Of course, he suggests that there is a difference between "proving" Christ's divinity (or other, similar, spiritual things) and "proving" that the Restored Gospel is, indeed, a "restored" Gospel. I'm hoping he'll explain the difference.

At any rate, I hope you can see how ironic it is (at best), or how hypocritical it is (at worst) that a Christian would demand proof of the spiritual truth that is the Restored Gospel. Or, in other words, it is ironic that said person would require "verifiable historical evidence" before he could or would believe the Restored Gospel, since that is not (presumably) the foundation of his belief in the Savior, the Bible, etc.

Thank you again for your detailed response. Please follow-up if I misunderstood your point, or if you have some other comment.

In order for something to be restored, there must be an earlier, surviving form of it which has been altered over time. My profession is architectural restoration and I restore buildings all of the time. I have never restored a building which did not exist. It is literally impossible. Moreover, I have not received any revelation in my line of work informing me as to the previous form of a building. Architectural restoration is a forensic science.

There are times when buildings are reconstructed, as in the case of many structures in Nauvoo, Illinois, not the least of which is the new LDS temple there. There is no doubt that this building was demolished decades prior to its reconstruction. Although the exterior does closely resemble photographic evidence of the former building, it is, nevertheless a reconstruction, and not a restoration.

You yourself have asserted that the ECF's do not play a role in Mormon apologetics and that the Restored Gospel came by revelation. Mormon apologetics rests firmly on that assertion. There is absolutely no evidence in the historic record of the Restored Gospel until Mr. SMith came on the scene, is there?

 

[TasteForTruth]

Well, be grumpy for all I care.

The reality is that I do smile when I see improperly used words. One that also makes me smile is the Catholic noun, Religious. For the majority of the world religious is an adjective, but in the Catholic Church it has been transformed into a noun. I see Catholic billboards from time to time admonishing me to "Pray for the Relgious."

I'm not grumpy. I made my point and I stand by it—you reap what you sow. Honestly, I don't know what you expect, though I do understand laughing when you see improperly used words. I think that is funny. But I didn't find your post funny.