Blind Faith?

[Gervin]

Does it? Really?

It does, really. Do I have to go and find examples where it's claimed?

BTW, LDS writers, being better educated than EV's, can usually construct better sentences than that.

Your genuis LDS friends would probably tell you that "than that" can be deleted; it's redundant.

Really?

Really.

So you are saying that there is a plausible explanation for The Book of Mormon as an authentically ancient document without accepting its claimed miraculous provenance?

I'm saying that a discovery of an ancient element mentioned in the Book of Mormon does not validate a miraculous provenance. Think of it this way. You believe that the ground contains artifacts of a Hebrew culture as described in the Book of Mormon, but why would the Book of Mormon be the only narrative description of this Hebrew culture? There should probably be reference in Mayan wall paintings or on Olmec carvings, or evidences within Nephite burials to affirm this ancient culture. The strictly followed Mosaic Law for centuries - would this not be reflected in any artifacts? I would think so. Why should I assume that Jos Smith, from plates that can't be verified, wrote the one and only interpretation of what happened in ancient america? I don't. The trick, of course, would be to find something to tie to the Book of Mormon. If that happens then we'll see what matches up to the Book of Mormon.

Your mindreading is as defective as your argument. I don't "see it" because there's no "it" to see.

Riiiight.

It's more than a little presumptuous for you to presume to speak for the whole world. In my experience "the world" is largely, if not entirely, ignorant of The Book of Mormon.

It was presumptuous. To put it another way, I don't see the world at large paying any attention to the LDS claims of authentic ancient history in the Book of Mormon.

There are really only three groups of people who have read it enough to be able to claim to have informed opinions on the subject. By far the largest group consists of believing Latter-day Saints who accept the book as inspired scripture, and study it to learn what it really has to say.

The second, much smaller, group consists of a little coterie of highly motivated haters who would unhesitatingly sell their own children for medical experiments if they could discredit it thereby; being entirely uninterested in anything but debunking, they are really almost compeltely ignorant of what it actually says.

Interesting and rather sad (not the 2nd group .... you). What would you make of this, Tao?

The third group, the smallest of the lot, is a small but growing group of serious non-LDS scholars who don't accept its truth claims, but who nevertheless approach it with cautious respect.

CFR: person names.

You "contend" no such thing. You've come up with an obviously desperate ad hoc argument to forestall a discovery that has not been made, and is as yet not even on the horizon!

Not on the horizon?? It could have been discovered today, for all you know. You don't seem to have a strong belief that there is any strong evidence to be found ...

Could any more eloquent commentary upon the utterly cynical, opportunistic and anti-truth nature of your anti-Mormonism be found anywhere?

Well, thanks. I've gone from being a poor write to being eloquent, all in one post.

Which means that Nahom is a real hit, and therefore your claim that it was "manufactured" is an out-and-out gervinism.

If Nahom is real then why do you put it on the finding of Zarahemla to confirm the miracle of the Book of Mormon. Why doesn't Nahom work?

CALL FOR REFERENCES, Gervin: what evidence do you have that NHM is not Nephi's Nahom?

NHM is an inscription on an altar piece, it is not a city - it is not a place name. Anyone with Google can see this. It's not a sign post. It's not a record of some land transaction. If NHM is Nahom then I'm sure the LDS church leaders have affirmed this great find. Lead on and link on, please.

[LeSellers]

We have nothing to demonstrate that what JS translated was actually on the plates he found.

Sorry. your bald assertion is simply false.

THE TESTIMONY OF THREE WITNESSES

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.

Oliver Cowdery

David Whitmer

Martin Harris

We do know that the translation of the Book of Mormon is an accurate English version of the Hebrew (written in characters the ancients called "reformed Egyptian") record. The three witnesses testified that God was involved in the translation, and unless you assert that God would give us an incorrect translation, then what He caused to happen must have been true.

Lehi

[Nathair/|\]

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

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?

I started a new thread to discuss whether belief in the Book of Mormon was solely based on blind faith or not.

No evidence for the Book of Mormon?

[Avatar4321]

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

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?

Could you explain why relying on the Holy Spirit, the Source of all truth, would be blind faith?

I mean seriously, How many times would the Spirit have to share the truth before it's not blind faith? How many miracles would you have to see?

How many witnesses does there have to be before it's not blind?