Mormon Historocity - A Reflection of Irony?

[baker]

.

OK

1 I was once asked on a test whether Evolution of the species (man evolving from apes) was a fact or theory according to my teacher it was fact.

2 Once we were told the Neanderthals came before modern man

Just two I can think of off the top of my head.

I learned along time ago not to care what anyone thought about me (whatever that may be) but I will tell you, you would probably be surprised, and wrong.




I do not deny it happens inside the church or even sometimes outside, I have always been told, and told others the focus of the BOM is Christ and his gospel.

To all other lds posters: him

It was a joke you really need to lighten up alittle or was the joke that bad?

You're right. I need a sense of humor. (BTW, did you ever learn about "run on" sentences?)

Really if history was so absolute why don’t you accept Mormon historians

Ok, if I tell you I accept that mormon history goes back to about 1830, will that work for you.

I never saw the superbowl so all I would have to go on is your word. If no physical evidence existed there was a superbowl does that mean it didn’t happen? We only know about it because there is alot of evidence around, but you will have to admit a lot of history is filling in the blanks between things we think are fact.

Second call to all other lds posters : him

Now you’re the one who claims to speak for all of the academic community.

No, I merely pointed out a fact. If I'm wrong, show me.

I would not want them to teach anything where there wasn’t overwheming evidence also.

"OVERWHELMING"? How about "any"?

Those who know he BOM to be true feel no need for academic community to prove them right.

Can't argue with that!
.

 

[twhite982]

You're missing the point. Nobody expects archaeologists to say "this confirms the BoM!"

Rather, what you need is a claim that couldn't be known by Smith (eg, there was a city named Nahom 100 miles from Jerusalem in 600 BC) that was unknown by scientists at his time. Then, you need archaelogists today to find proof, saying something like "we've found all this evidence that there was a city about 100 miles from Jerusalem named Nahom, that apparently was in existence from 1000 BC until 350 BC when it was destroyed by invaders." You don't need them to reference the BoM - in fact, if the archaeologists involved didn't even know of the BoM, so much the better.

I don't think you've followed this discussion too well.
I've already stated what you've said.

Saying there was a rock with NHM on it, by itself, is very weak and proves nothing. And the countless historical claims made by the BoM that have been proven false (eg, the horses, Native Americans are Hebrews) have already settled the matter to any reasonable person's satisfaction.

Have you even read any of the articles?
Are you an expert?
I'd leave what the name means up to the experts.

There is evidence for horses in the new world.

You have the wrong presupposition with the Native Americans and Hebrews.

There are some points in the Bible that have been "disproven" by history and science. For example, creationism and heliocentrism have been disproven. Also, the falling of the walls of Jericho is no longer believed, with the city haven fallen long before the Hebrews arrived there. That's different from a book where the author is submitting the existence of an entire civilization that he knows nothing about, and where his religion can only be true if the history facts he suggests are true.

The word of God is verified by the spirit.
These other "evidences" only add to that and are not the foundational source for spiritual truth.

Tom

 

[twhite982]

The BoM is blatantly false. It's not the particular fault of Smith. Anyone trying to create a false history and a false religion today would encounter the same problems. The Bible was relating actual historical events and putting a religious twist on them. The BoM, on the other hand, was inventing historical facts to house its religious beliefs, based upon the idea of "The View of the Hebrews" or some such fiction book of the time. I couldn't have done any better than Smith in creating a false history. How could he have known that DNA evidence would prove him a liar, and that the animals he assumed existed in the Americas did not exists here? Anyone creating a false religion would do well to avoid having the beliefs be scientifically and historically disprovable.

If Joseph Smith was creating a work of fiction, 1-3 things right would be a lucky guess, 3-5 would make you ponder, 5-8 would make you to take a serious look at what was wrote.

To many critics just want to wave their hand and brush aside the BofM as if its all blatantly false as you've just said.

There are many such evidences, textual, theological, archaelogical, historical, etc..., which alone may seem insignificant, but together they add much weight to the truthfulness.

And while the archaelogical evidence is scant and vague when compared to the Bible there are still evidences. Then again comparing the archaelogical evidence to the Bible is like comparing apples to oranges.

However there are internal evidences to the Bible that one would assume to be present in the BofM. When in fact they are. You might reply that they are only in the parts which are similiar to Isaiah, but not so there all over the BofM.

Beyond that, and of most importance is the "outrageous" claim of Moroni, that this book is from God and if we humbly approach Him about it then He will manifest the truth to us. You can't get any bolder than that.

So for you brushing aside the BofM as an after thought tells me you don't even care whether it may be true or not because your mind is already made up.

Tom

 

[dabum2004]

Quotes from Baker:

==To all other lds posters: him

Hi Baker.

You believe the Bible to be true, right? Well, several things in the Bible have not been proven as of yet. Does this mean that the Bible is false, because the evidence of everything within it is not proven by non-biblical scholars to be completely 100% percent true?

Granted, there is much within the Bible that is proven to have happened and have existed. Actually, I think that someone within this forum mentioned a number, like 50% percent of it's historocracy to be correct. This still doesn't stop athiests and agnostics to not believe in the Bible.

Actually, I think that some of these people use their "logic" and "intelligence" to prove their theory. They may even do research and studies to find evidence of it's falsity. Whatever they find, as long as it supports their theory, they accept as truth, whether everybody else agrees or not.

This thing that stops them from believing the Bible, as well as the doctrines within it to be true, is either pride, or lack of wanting to believe (faith). They may even argue that they do not need faith to believe in the Bible, because there is much "truth" against it's truthfulness staring them in the face.

The point that I think that TheWay was trying to relay, is that the only way to accept its truth (of its history claims, as well as its spiritual claims) at this point in time, is to have faith. Faith will get you in the door. Persistance and study of its truth will strengthen your faith for the rest.

The whole idea of the scripture of God, is not to prove that He is real, but to have faith in Him. If one cannot accept the Bible as real or true, one has built his own wall against any belief contrary to his. He has closed his mind to other paths. He will not search for for evidence of the Bibles truth knowingly.

If this man had faith in the Bible, that it may be true, then he could move forward in faith, to prove his faith, and upgrade some of his faith to knowledge. This will only strengthen his faith in God, because he has "proof" of its truth.

Our claim (the LDS Church), is that the history of the BoM is true, because we have faith that it is true. Likewise, when the apostles went out to spread the word of God, he asked them to have faith. At the time, when they would preach, there was not very much evidence that what they preached was true. The apostles knew, that the only way that they could believe in their words, was by faith. The events that they spoke to people about, could only be ackowledged as truth, if they had faith that what they heard was not a lie.

People back then didn't have all of the gifts of communication that we have to today. They had absolutely no idea of things that happened around them, except through the words of others. They based their "knowledge" on other peoples words. If they could not accept the words of an apostle to be fact, then they could not assume that Jesus Christ died, and was risen again. The reason for this, was that reason told them that it was not possible.

Just like the Church of Jesus Christ that was upon the earth 2000 years ago, the religion was based on their faith--not on their knowledge. We are now very blessed to be living in a world that has proven the history of the Bible to be true. This will bring many more to investigate God's words. This will bring many more to accept Christ to have died, and risen again.

Back then, the people in the Bible did not have as much knowledge of its truthfulness as we do now. This did not stop them from joining God's Church in faith. This did not stop them from believing that Jesus Christ arose. This did not stop them from believing that the things prophesied, and the events talked about, happened or will happen.

What I am trying to say here, is that the knowledge of man will not always lead to truth. What I am trying to say here, is that only through faith, we may trust our source(s). Without faith, we may never trust our source(s).





==Ok, if I tell you I accept that mormon history goes back to about 1830, will that work for you.

I appreciate your humor. It livens the board a bit.

Actually, we believe that the mormon history dates back to about 600 BC.

We hope, and cross our fingers so that some more evidence of its truth will be revealed of its historical truth. When that evidence comes forth, it will be very strengthening to our testimonies of its truth. However, I do hope that when that day comes, that people within our Church will not base their beliefs upon the knowledge of its truth, but rather on their faith that what is written is true. After all, isn't that what God would want?

I know that this may still happen, but, I hope anyway.


Second call to all other lds posters : him

I personally think that TheWay is doing a pretty good job expressing his mind. I think that more comments from him will help other people in the board to open their minds to his thoughts as well.

I commend you TheWay for standing up out of the fog.


=="OVERWHELMING"? How about "any"?

There is some evidence of ithe BoM's truthfulness.

That's not the point, though. TheWay was trying to relay a thought, that our core beliefs of truth, should be based on Christ, and his teachings. If need be, we must answer certain questions (ie. evolution) from our teachers (etc.), of their "truth", through our teeth to get by.



==Can't argue with that!

Me neither!

And to Baker, and anyone else who reads this, I wrote this response as a reflection of my own thoughts. If I have offended anyone, please do not hold it against me, because it was not the intention of writing it.

If I have offended anyone, I invite you to PM me, so that you may tell me what I said that has bothered you. I will try to be as helpful as possible.

As always, Be happy and Prosper!

-Diego.

 

[baker]

History teachers at the University of Utah see no "intellectual or cultural merit in Mormonism," says U. religious historian Colleen McDannell.


An appropriate article for this thread. The above quote needs to be read in context with this entire article:

http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Feb/02062004/utah/136242.asp