Blind Faith?

[Hughes]

I wanted to continue this topic as I thought it was going somewhere...

Hughes, on 13 December 2010 - 10:13 PM, said:

Vance, I referenced the lack of historical basis for the Mormon beliefs as the basis for the charge. You refute with a question about inerrancy? How does that help the historicity of the mormon documents?

For example. Let's say that the biblical text is completely without historical basis. Does that help the complete lack of historical basis for the Mormon beliefs?

It doesn't. The two issues stand alone.

You made an accusation of "blind faith" as if it was somehow a giant negative. Yet, that is EXACTLY the basis for inerrancy. If "blind faith", as you falsely claim Mormons are basing their belief in the Book of Mormon on, is so horrible, why is "blind faith" in inerrancy so acceptable?

Can you smell the stench of a double standard?

Ok.. again, let's say that you are correct, and the basis for the doctrine of inerrancy is blind faith. How does that mitigate or explain or refute the idea that Mormons use blind faith for their belief in the Book of Mormon?

[Hughes]

Hughes, on 13 December 2010 - 10:13 PM, said:

Vance, I referenced the lack of historical basis for the Mormon beliefs as the basis for the charge. You refute with a question about inerrancy? How does that help the historicity of the mormon documents?

For example. Let's say that the biblical text is completely without historical basis. Does that help the complete lack of historical basis for the Mormon beliefs?

It doesn't. The two issues stand alone.

maklelan replied:

They stand alone, but your refusal to apply the same methodology to your own worldview evinces a double standard. On the other hand, there is historical basis for some Book of Mormon events and toponyms. Most non-Mormons just reject it offhand, and I see no indication that you're responded any differently. There is, for example, linguistic evidence provided by Brian Stubbs for 30% lexical and grammatical overlap between Uto-Aztecan languages and Afro-Asiatic/Semitic languages; NHM and its orientation to Wadi Sayq and Khor Rori; numerous onomastic parallels in texts discovered after Smiths's lifetime (including some to New World figures); the etymology of Irreantum; parallels in Old World and New World temple ideologies; a variety of Old World inscriptions found in the New World (not the spurious ones); and several others. In the end, though, we, just as you and all other Evangelicals, must accept on faith a number of issues which conflict with what we know of the ancient world. You obviously make the choice to accept those things on faith, and as long as you do, we would appreciate the same courtesy.

Courtesy? I'm not sure I understand. You can believe what you want, ultimately it doesn't really matter to me.

You see obviously we both accept things on faith. But, it seems to me that even the idea that Joseph Smith translated anything is to be taken on blind faith. At least with the Biblical Text we have ancient texts we can examine, and ancient sites that can be pointed to as corroborating the text. It just seems to me that even your explanation, from Brian Stubbs doesn't in anyway change the basis for the mormon religion, that of blind faith in Joseph's claims.

[Vance]

Ok.. again, let's say that you are correct, and the basis for the doctrine of inerrancy is blind faith.

You were provided both historical and scriptural evidence AGAINST inerrancy, yet you remained unmoved. So yes, it is rather apparent, that blind faith is the basis for inerrancy.

How does that mitigate or explain or refute the idea that Mormons use blind faith for their belief in the Book of Mormon?

It doesn't. But it does expose the double standard that you are using.

Aside from that, blind faith, isn't the only basis for our belief in the Book of Mormon, (assuming that you are calling the witness of the Spirit "blind faith").

As Mak responded to you,

On the other hand, there is historical basis for some Book of Mormon events and toponyms. Most non-Mormons just reject it offhand, and I see no indication that you're responded any differently. There is, for example, linguistic evidence provided by Brian Stubbs for 30% lexical and grammatical overlap between Uto-Aztecan languages and Afro-Asiatic/Semitic languages; NHM and its orientation to Wadi Sayq and Khor Rori; numerous onomastic parallels in texts discovered after Smiths's lifetime (including some to New World figures); the etymology of Irreantum; parallels in Old World and New World temple ideologies; a variety of Old World inscriptions found in the New World (not the spurious ones); and several others. In the end, though, we, just as you and all other Evangelicals, must accept on faith a number of issues which conflict with what we know of the ancient world. You obviously make the choice to accept those things on faith, and as long as you do, we would appreciate the same courtesy.

[ELF1024]

At some level all faith is blind.

If the belief/person that you had faith in could be proven by logical or other means, it would not be faith, it would be a perfect knowledge.

There is no single means by which to satify all critics when you that your faith is not blind. How do you prove that you faith is not blind, when in and of itself to have faith you must believe in the something that cannot be proven?

Faith

Faith is to hope for things which are not seen, but which are true (Heb. 11:1; Alma 32:21), and must be centered in Jesus Christ in order to produce salvation. To have faith is to have confidence in something or someone. The Lord has revealed himself and his perfect character, possessing in their fulness all the attributes of love, knowledge, justice, mercy, unchangeableness, power, and every other needful thing, so as to enable the mind of man to place confidence in him without reservation. Faith is kindled by hearing the testimony of those who have faith (Rom. 10:14

[Vance]

Courtesy? I'm not sure I understand. You can believe what you want, ultimately it doesn't really matter to me.

You see obviously we both accept things on faith. But, it seems to me that even the idea that Joseph Smith translated anything is to be taken on blind faith.

This is, of course, neglecting the numerous eye witness accounts, the actual contents of the Book, etc.

At least with the Biblical Text we have ancient texts we can examine, and ancient sites that can be pointed to as corroborating the text.

And what evidence do you have of the miracles described? Of the resurrection of Christ. Just like us, all you have is the eye witness accounts.

It just seems to me that even your explanation, from Brian Stubbs doesn't in anyway change the basis for the mormon religion, that of blind faith in Joseph's claims.

Even IF that were true, which it isn't, why is that a problem for us, but not for you and some of your doctrine/beliefs?

[Hughes]

You were provided both historical and scriptural evidence AGAINST inerrancy, yet you remained unmoved. So yes, it is rather apparent, that blind faith is the basis for inerrancy.

It doesn't. But it does expose the double standard that you are using.

Aside from that, blind faith, isn't the only basis for our belief in the Book of Mormon, (assuming that you are calling the witness of the Spirit "blind faith").

As Mak responded to you,

Yes, I don't think the witness of the spirit can be called anything but blind faith.

[Hughes]

At some level all faith is blind.

If the belief/person that you had faith in could be proven by logical or other means, it would not be faith, it would be a perfect knowledge.

There is no single means by which to satify all critics when you that your faith is not blind. How do you prove that you faith is not blind, when in and of itself to have faith you must believe in the something that cannot be proven?

You can say that the Bible is word of God, but how do you know? How do you prove this? If you say that God told you... you are either considered delusional by those who disbelieve or brainwashed, or worse. There is no way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the bible is word of God. The same is true for the Book of Mormon. You cannot prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

That is why it is faith, and not a perfect knowledge.

The faith found in historical/evangelical christianity is based on actual eye-witness accounts. As Paul says, if Christ is not raised, our faith is in vain.

This is where mormonism differs greatly with christianity. Mormonism (or so it seems to me) is based solely on the claims of Joseph Smith, and him alone.

[Vance]

The faith found in historical/evangelical christianity is based on actual eye-witness accounts.

Ditto, with the LDS.

As Paul says, if Christ is not raised, our faith is in vain.

Ok.

This is where mormonism differs greatly with christianity.

Not at all.

Mormonism (or so it seems to me) is based solely on the claims of Joseph Smith, and him alone.

This statement reveals more about you state of knowledge than about anything Mormon.

[BCSpace]

Ok.. again, let's say that you are correct, and the basis for the doctrine of inerrancy is blind faith. How does that mitigate or explain or refute the idea that Mormons use blind faith for their belief in the Book of Mormon?

In the gospel sense, the witness of the Spirit is not blind faith. Now I think it can possibly be blind faith when one first starts on the journey such as when you can no more but desire to believe as per Alma 32 (or John 7:17); which chapter could be said to detail the transition from blind faith to actual faith (evidence of things not seen). But one should consider the reasons one would desire to believe in the first place. If any reasons exist at all, is that not evidence that one who has such reasons has evidence to back their faith? Simple trust in what someone else says is not blind faith imho.

[Hughes]

This is, of course, neglecting the numerous eye witness accounts, the actual contents of the Book, etc.

The numerous eye witness accounts aren't objective, or so it seems to me. They were fellow believers right? It still boils down to Joseph Smith's claims. I mean we're talking 1830's right? What is the difficulty of having texts to examine from that time period, when we have texts that are over 2,000 years old? Unless someone has something to hide?

And what evidence do you have of the miracles described? Of the resurrection of Christ. Just like us, all you have is the eye witness accounts.

The interesting thing about the NT accounts is that they also contain hostile witnesses. James the brother of Jesus wasn't a believer until after the resurrection. And Paul of course. But, you are correct, it's all based on eye-witness testimony. however, the nature of the faith is different. It's faith founded in history.

Even IF that were true, which it isn't, why is that a problem for us, but not for you and some of your doctrine/beliefs?

It may be true for me. If blind faith isn't a problem for you then it's not a problem. It would be for me.

[ELF1024]

The faith found in historical/evangelical christianity is based on actual eye-witness accounts. As Paul says, if Christ is not raised, our faith is in vain.

This is where mormonism differs greatly with christianity. Mormonism (or so it seems to me) is based solely on the claims of Joseph Smith, and him alone.

How do you think that? Joseph Smith, while an important person, was not the "end all or be all" of the Church.

We believe in the Bible, as it is translated correctly. We also believe in the Book of Mormon.

What historical account do you have, other than the Bible? What other records do you have that prove that Jesus was the Christ, and that he raised?

[Hughes]

Ditto, with the LDS.

Ok.

Not at all.

This statement reveals more about you state of knowledge than about anything Mormon.

So you claim that mormonism is based on historical documents?

[Vance]

So you claim that mormonism is based on historical documents?

Actually, Mormonism is based upon revelation and priesthood (God's) authority. We do have actual eye-witness accounts and documentation.

[ELF1024]

So you claim that mormonism is based on historical documents?

I would say that the Bible and Book of Mormon are both histrorical documents, yes.

[Hughes]

Actually, Mormonism is based upon revelation and priesthood (God's) authority. We do have actual eye-witness accounts and documentation.

By saying that Mormonism is based upon revelation aren't you saying blind faith at that point?

As for the priesthood (God's) authority. Might you be referring to the resurrected James, Peter, John account and them laying hands on JS? Who exactly witnessed that again?

A link to that documentation would be great.

[Hughes]

I would say that the Bible and Book of Mormon are both histrorical documents, yes.

I didn't get to reply to your previous comment. I can point to various extra-biblical documentations, much has been written about the historicity of the Bible.

I can't say the same about the historicity of the mormon book however. Maybe you could help fill in the gaps of my knowledge.

[ELF1024]

I didn't get to reply to your previous comment. I can point to various extra-biblical documentations, much has been written about the historicity of the Bible.

I can't say the same about the historicity of the mormon book however. Maybe you could help fill in the gaps of my knowledge.

I would suggest you start, here... http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeological_Evidence_and_the_Book_of_Mormon.html

[Vance]

The numerous eye witness accounts aren't objective, or so it seems to me.

Neither are the eyewitness accounts in the Bible. So what? Objectivity is an illusion any way.

They were fellow believers right?

So are the eyewitness accounts in the Bible. So what?

It still boils down to Joseph Smith's claims.

He is not the only one.

I mean we're talking 1830's right? What is the difficulty of having texts to examine from that time period, when we have texts that are over 2,000 years old? Unless someone has something to hide?

Again, this statement reveals more about your knowledge, than anything Mormon.

The interesting thing about the NT accounts is that they also contain hostile witnesses. James the brother of Jesus wasn't a believer until after the resurrection. And Paul of course. But, you are correct, it's all based on eye-witness testimony. however, the nature of the faith is different.

No, it is exactly the same.

It's faith founded in history.

No, it is faith founded upon eyewitness accounts. The subjective accounts of believers. The case for non-LDS faith is no different from LDS faith.

It may be true for me. If blind faith isn't a problem for you then it's not a problem. It would be for me.

You have blind faith that the accounts recorded in the Bible are accurate. The standard you are arguing for also applies to historical fiction novel. Why don't you believe them?

[Vance]

By saying that Mormonism is based upon revelation aren't you saying blind faith at that point?

I realize that you are using "blind faith" to impute a negativity to score rhetorical points. The problem you have is that your faith is no different with regard to evidence and eyewitness accounts, you accept them base upon blind faith.

As for the priesthood (God's) authority. Might you be referring to the resurrected James, Peter, John account and them laying hands on JS? Who exactly witnessed that again?

Oliver Cowdery.

A link to that documentation would be great.

D&C 27

[Vance]

I didn't get to reply to your previous comment. I can point to various extra-biblical documentations, much has been written about the historicity of the Bible.

Do these accounts record the miracles of Jesus. Do they record the resurrection of Jesus?

[Hughes]

I would suggest you start, here... http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeological_Evidence_and_the_Book_of_Mormon.html

Thanks. I glanced at the page (not having time right now to read through it and check facts.) I did notice this quote at the bottom.

"Those who make claims that there is no archaeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon are right in one respect--we don't know where the cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon are located."

To me this basically supports my contention.

[Hughes]

Neither are the eyewitness accounts in the Bible. So what? Objectivity is an illusion any way.

Not so fast. Some of the events didn't have many eye-witnesses, I agree to a point there. However, to major events there were hundreds that witnessed them.

So are the eyewitness accounts in the Bible. So what?

Why is it important? Because we don't know if they are reliable at that point. The fact that not just believers saw the events in the Biblical text gives credence to the idea that it wasn't just made up by believers.

He is not the only one.

Without Joseph Smith, there is no mormonism.

No, it is faith founded upon eyewitness accounts. The subjective accounts of believers. The case for non-LDS faith is no different from LDS faith.

Yet there's no archeological evidence of any of the cities mentioned. No mention of Mormons before Joseph Smith started talking about it. Quite a different situation.

You have blind faith that the accounts recorded in the Bible are accurate. The standard you are arguing for also applies to historical fiction novel. Why don't you believe them?

I don't need faith to see that the Biblical record is accurate as far as it can be corroborated. Many of the kings and rulers mentioned have extra biblical corroboration.

The same cannot be said of a work of fiction.

[ELF1024]

Thanks. I glanced at the page (not having time right now to read through it and check facts.) I did notice this quote at the bottom.

"Those who make claims that there is no archaeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon are right in one respect--we don't know where the cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon are located."

To me this basically supports my contention.

So... since we know where Troy is, the Illiad is a true account? Huh?

We have an idea of where Soddom and Ghommorah are, but we don't have proof of the existance of Angels, or proof of God's Wrath at those locations. We found a place that had been named "Lot's cave", yet we cannot prove the existance of Lot, or the supposed "incest" that happened there.

We know where Egypt is, we know where the Red Sea (and the Sea of Reeds) is, but can you prove that God parted the waters?

We believe we know where Christ's body was entombed, can you prove he is risen?

[Hughes]

I realize that you are using "blind faith" to impute a negativity to score rhetorical points. The problem you have is that your faith is no different with regard to evidence and eyewitness accounts, you accept them base upon blind faith.

I don't need or care to score points. To me it's not a game.

And no. It's not the same. I agree to a degree, that I have some unfounded blind faith, but and here's where there's a huge difference. Christianity is nothing if not historical. The writers always referred to real events, witnessed by the viewing public.

Oliver Cowdery.

So two guys? Is it your contention that the mormon religion is based on two guys?

D&C 27

Not quite sure what this is documentation for? A vision? Which proves what exactly?

[Hughes]

So... since we know where Troy is, the Illiad is a true account? Huh?

We have an idea of where Soddom and Ghommorah are, but we don't have proof of the existance of Angels, or proof of God's Wrath at those locations. We found a place that had been named "Lot's cave", yet we cannot prove the existance of Lot, or the supposed "incest" that happened there.

We know where Egypt is, we know where the Red Sea (and the Sea of Reeds) is, but can you prove that God parted the waters?

We believe we know where Christ's body was entombed, can you prove he is risen?

Your points don't help the contention that mormonism isn't based solely on blind faith.

Sure there are many things in the bible taken on faith. But, there are also many things that faith isn't needed at all.

The same isn't true of Mormonism.