Blind Faith?

[Vance]

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.

Well, at least according to the very few written accounts we have. You are exhibiting blind faith in the accuracy of those few accounts.

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.

ONLY believers provide the accounts. Believers CLAIM that non-believers were witnesses. We don't have the accounts of the supposed non-believers. So you are accepting on blind faith the account of the believers. This is different how?

Without Joseph Smith, there is no mormonism.

Joseph has been dead for some time now. Yet.

Yet there's no archeological evidence of any of the cities mentioned.

Your being unaware of the evidence isn't evidence.

No mention of Mormons before Joseph Smith started talking about it.

Irrelevant.

Quite a different situation.

You just saying so, doesn't make it so. You need to provide some actual support, which you haven't yet.

I don't need faith to see that the Biblical record is accurate as far as it can be corroborated.

Please provide non-Biblical evidence of the resurrection of Jesus. Please provide non-Biblical (or even Biblical) evidence of inerrancy.

After you have completed that task, you might have something to talk about.

Many of the kings and rulers mentioned have extra biblical corroboration.

Historical fiction novels also mention ancient kings and rulers. That doesn't mean the story within is true.

The same cannot be said of a work of fiction.

On the contrary! Historical fiction novels also mention ancient kings and rulers. That doesn't mean the story within is true.

[ELF1024]

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.

I disagree... as I said in my first post; Faith, by it's very nature, is blind faith at some point.

You were not there in Bibical times, so you have to take it on faith, perhaps even blind faith, that the bible is the word of God. Sure you have witness, but there is nothing showing that those witnesses were not manufactured.

The same is true of the Book of Mormon.

There is no absolute proof that either Book is true, or is the word of God. There is nothing about either book that would convince your average run of the mill atheist that either is the word of God, or that God exists. The mere fact that Atheists exists proves that there is nothing about these two books that PROVES beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists, or that the Book is his word.

You have blind faith in the bible, Congrats! That's a wonderful thing.

However you dismiss the Book of Mormon for the same reasons one could just as easily dismiss the Bible. That's a double standard.

[ELF1024]

Yet there's no archeological evidence of any of the cities mentioned.

There is no archeological evidence that gives the NAMES of the cities. There is plenty of archeological evidence of cities, we just don't have the names. That is much different from saying that there is no archeological evidence.

There is as much, or as little, archeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon as there is supporting the Bible.

[ELF1024]

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.

Show me one thing out of the Bible that doesn't require faith... Show me just one thing.

[Deborah]

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?

Considering that the books of the Bible were written several years after the events, how do you know the "eye-witness" accounts were true? We have witnesses who actually handled and saw the plates from which the BOM was translated. We have eye witnesses to several of the revelations Joseph received as others also were there and saw what he saw. Joseph Smith was an eye-witness to Moroni who played a part in the events of the BOM. You may not believe his story, but likewise others don't believe the accounts in the Bible, and there is no way you can prove those events, even if some of the geographical points can be identified. There were several eye-witness accounts to Joseph Smith healing people, to angels appearing at the dedication of the temple etc. This argument is pointless if you are trying to show the BOM isn't true just because we don't know exactly were certain things took place.

[Hughes]

Well, at least according to the very few written accounts we have. You are exhibiting blind faith in the accuracy of those few accounts.

Agreed. I have blind faith in many areas.

ONLY believers provide the accounts. Believers CLAIM that non-believers were witnesses. We don't have the accounts of the supposed non-believers. So you are accepting on blind faith the account of the believers. This is different how?

Both James and Paul weren't believers at the time of the resurrection. With the case for the resurrection, we have no one claiming they have the body, we have an empty tomb, and numerous eye witnesses to his resurrection.

How is this different?

These are public events. Experienced by many. Witnessed by many at the same time.

Joseph has been dead for some time now. Yet.

And yet the religion is still based on his teachings and supposed translations.

Irrelevant.

Maybe to you. Not only that, who is the angle Moroni? Never heard of him in scripture before. Heard of Gabriel, and Michael. Not heard of Moroni before.

Please provide non-Biblical evidence of the resurrection of Jesus. Please provide non-Biblical (or even Biblical) evidence of inerrancy.

After you have completed that task, you might have something to talk about.

Never claimed there was. Fact remains we're not talking about a specific claim in the bible, but in general as compared to the book of mormon.

Historical fiction novels also mention ancient kings and rulers. That doesn't mean the story within is true.

True.

On the contrary! Historical fiction novels also mention ancient kings and rulers. That doesn't mean the story within is true.

True, but the difference is that fiction doesn't claim to be historically factual as the biblical account does.

[Hughes]

I disagree... as I said in my first post; Faith, by it's very nature, is blind faith at some point.

You were not there in Bibical times, so you have to take it on faith, perhaps even blind faith, that the bible is the word of God. Sure you have witness, but there is nothing showing that those witnesses were not manufactured.

The same is true of the Book of Mormon.

There is no absolute proof that either Book is true, or is the word of God. There is nothing about either book that would convince your average run of the mill atheist that either is the word of God, or that God exists. The mere fact that Atheists exists proves that there is nothing about these two books that PROVES beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists, or that the Book is his word.

You have blind faith in the bible, Congrats! That's a wonderful thing.

However you dismiss the Book of Mormon for the same reasons one could just as easily dismiss the Bible. That's a double standard.

The only way one could think that the Bible and the book of Mormon are on an equal playing field is by ignoring the vast amounts of corroborating historical data that supports the accuracy of the biblical text as history.

[Hughes]

There is no archeological evidence that gives the NAMES of the cities. There is plenty of archeological evidence of cities, we just don't have the names. That is much different from saying that there is no archeological evidence.

There is as much, or as little, archeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon as there is supporting the Bible.

Ok. So there's no names of cities? And so explain to me how anyone can tell that they are archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon?

Given what you've just said, I have a hard time believing the second statement is even rational, because you're certainly not claiming that the Book of Mormon has as much or as many archeological or historic documentation are you?

[Hughes]

Show me one thing out of the Bible that doesn't require faith... Show me just one thing.

One thing? You mean like Pontius Pilate was the fifth Prefect of the Roman province of Judaea from AD 26

[Hughes]

Considering that the books of the Bible were written several years after the events, how do you know the "eye-witness" accounts were true? We have witnesses who actually handled and saw the plates from which the BOM was translated. We have eye witnesses to several of the revelations Joseph received as others also were there and saw what he saw. Joseph Smith was an eye-witness to Moroni who played a part in the events of the BOM. You may not believe his story, but likewise others don't believe the accounts in the Bible, and there is no way you can prove those events, even if some of the geographical points can be identified. There were several eye-witness accounts to Joseph Smith healing people, to angels appearing at the dedication of the temple etc. This argument is pointless if you are trying to show the BOM isn't true just because we don't know exactly were certain things took place.

Here's the biggest problem.

the bible is based on historical eye-witness accounts. Those accounts were written down and copied and passed down. We have 25,000 ancient copies of the NT alone.

The Book of mormon is supposedly based on eye-witness accounts, and supposedly not written by Joseph Smith, but someone else very ancient, right? So how many copies do we have of the original text? None.

Now why wouldn't that bother people? It would bother me. Why would the angel need a physical set of gold plates back? Does he need them in Heaven?

So, sure it requires faith to believe both accounts. The difference is one can be checked out quite a bit more than the other because of the historical documentation that is left behind.

[Pahoran]

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.

You are wrong, of course; but I shall leave it to others to address that fact. I wish to address the notorious canard which I have highlighted.

The implied claim that "mormonism"[sic] and "christianity"[sic] are non-overlapping criteria, such that it is meaningful to talk about the two things "differing greatly," is a proven falsehood. It is repeated by two groups of people, and only these two:

1. Intentional purveyors of propaganda; and
   
2. Those who have been deceived thereby.

Which one are you?

There is a very fine book which deals with this subject. Is title is, Offenders for a Word: How anti-Mormons Play Word Games to Attack the Latter-day Saints. It has been in print for 15 years. It has never been refuted or even seriously engaged, by those who make their living by attacking the Church of Jesus Christ.

If you feel you are up to refuting it, then by all means, have a go. In the meantime, to baldly assert -- or slyly imply -- that Mormonism is not Christian is to tie one's credibility to a proven falsehood.

I'd advise against it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Hughes]

You are wrong, of course; but I shall leave it to others to address that fact. I wish to address the notorious canard which I have highlighted.

The implied claim that "mormonism"[sic] and "christianity"[sic] are non-overlapping criteria, such that it is meaningful to talk about the two things "differing greatly," is a proven falsehood. It is repeated by two groups of people, and only these two:

1. Intentional purveyors of propaganda; and
   
2. Those who have been deceived thereby.

Which one are you?

There is a very fine book which deals with this subject. Is title is, Offenders for a Word: How anti-Mormons Play Word Games to Attack the Latter-day Saints. It has been in print for 15 years. It has never been refuted or even seriously engaged, by those who make their living by attacking the Church of Jesus Christ.

If you feel you are up to refuting it, then by all means, have a go. In the meantime, to baldly assert -- or slyly imply -- that Mormonism is not Christian is to tie one's credibility to a proven falsehood.

I'd advise against it.

Regards,

Pahoran

If Mormonism is doesn't differ greatly with Christianity then why start a new religion?

Even Joseph Smith was told not to go any of the churches of his day.

[TAO]

If Mormonism is doesn't differ greatly with Christianity then why start a new religion?

Even Joseph Smith was told not to go any of the churches of his day.

So the work of God could come to past.

It doesn't differ greatly - but it differs enough.

[Vance]

Agreed. I have blind faith in many areas.

Which is fine by me, as long as you are willing to freely admit it and that you don't pillory others for it.

Both James and Paul weren't believers at the time of the resurrection.

Irrelevant, even if true. They were in fact beleivers when they supposedly wrote there works. So the point remains. You are accepting the word of believers that they were once unbelievers.

With the case for the resurrection, we have no one claiming they have the body, . . .

According to believers.

. . . we have an empty tomb, . . .

According to believers.

and numerous eye witnesses to his resurrection.

According to believers.

Also, what you are saying here is lack of evidence is somehow proof of your belief. So again we are back to your blind faith.

How is this different?

It isn't.

These are public events.

According to believer.

Experienced by many.

According to believers.

Witnessed by many at the same time.

According to believers.

And yet the religion is still based on his teachings and supposed translations.

No, it is based on revelation and priesthood (God's) authority.

Not only that, who is the angle Moroni? Never heard of him in scripture before. Heard of Gabriel, and Michael. Not heard of Moroni before.

He is a messenger from God. And you not knowing about him is your loss.

True, but the difference is that fiction doesn't claim to be historically factual as the biblical account does.

So, if a hictorical fiction novel claimed to be historically factual as the Biblical account does, you would believe it?

[Vance]

If Mormonism is doesn't differ greatly with Christianity then why start a new religion?

It wasn't a new religion, it was a new church.

Even Joseph Smith was told not to go any of the churches of his day.

True. It was the churches that were the problem, not the religion.

[Bernard Gui]

Hughes...Congratulations!

Your argument is the literal fulfillment of

Book of Mormon prophecy.

Bernard

[ELF1024]

One thing? You mean like Pontius Pilate was the fifth Prefect of the Roman province of Judaea from AD 26

[ELF1024]

Ok. So there's no names of cities? And so explain to me how anyone can tell that they are archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon?

Given what you've just said, I have a hard time believing the second statement is even rational, because you're certainly not claiming that the Book of Mormon has as much or as many archeological or historic documentation are you?

If you had read the whole article I sent you to, you would understand.

[ELF1024]

Here's the biggest problem.

the bible is based on historical eye-witness accounts. Those accounts were written down and copied and passed down. We have 25,000 ancient copies of the NT alone.

The Book of mormon is supposedly based on eye-witness accounts, and supposedly not written by Joseph Smith, but someone else very ancient, right? So how many copies do we have of the original text? None.

Now why wouldn't that bother people? It would bother me. Why would the angel need a physical set of gold plates back? Does he need them in Heaven?

So, sure it requires faith to believe both accounts. The difference is one can be checked out quite a bit more than the other because of the historical documentation that is left behind.

There are sealed portions of the plates which have not yet been translated. Those portions will be translated at some point in the future. It is very likely that once the entire set of plates is translated that they will be able to be shown to the world.

You don't have original copies of the Bible, just copies of copies of copies of copies. Copies which don't agree with the other copies, but all are true and correct and "inerrant". Seems like blind faith to me.

[Hughes]

Which is fine by me, as long as you are willing to freely admit it and that you don't pillory others for it.

Not pillorying am I? So sorry to be pointing out that all of Mormonism is based on Blind faith. I'd figure that those who were believers would rejoice in that fact.

No, it is based on revelation and priesthood (God's) authority.

Which was started or claimed to be restored by Joseph Smith. Like I said it's all based on him.

He is a messenger from God. And you not knowing about him is your loss.

Since I only need to know Jesus, I'm certain I've lost nothing. The reason it interests me is because even the bible talks about satan coming as an angel of light. How do we know this angle is trustworthy?

So, if a hictorical fiction novel claimed to be historically factual as the Biblical account does, you would believe it?

No. I would only believe it if I was able to corroborate many or most of the facts.

[Vance]

No. I would only believe it if I was able to corroborate many or most of the facts.

So, if the author of the historical fiction novel is better than you at research, AND makes the claim that it is "historically accurate" then you would believe the historical fiction novel to be, in fact, true.

So your approach isn't foolproof.

So basically, the Bible could be historical fiction, but because some of its content can be corroborated, you believe it to be true.

[Pahoran]

Not pillorying am I? So sorry to be pointing out that all of Mormonism is based on Blind faith.

You misspelled "willfully or ignorantly misrepresenting."

I'd figure that those who were believers would rejoice in that fact.

It's not a "fact." It's yet another canard.

You seem to have an inordinate fondness for them.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Vance]

Not pillorying am I?

Yes.

So sorry to be pointing out willfully or ignorantly misrepresenting that all of Mormonism is based on Blind faith.

Fixed your misspelling.

I'd figure that those who were believers would rejoice in that fact canard.

Correction.

Since I only need to know Jesus, . . .

Then you better get about it. It is obvious that you are severely lacking here.

I'm certain I've lost nothing.

Your certainty is your problem. Often wrong, but never in doubt you are.

The reason it interests me is because even the bible talks about satan coming as an angel of light.

True, but irrelevant.

How do we know this angle is trustworthy?

Because it isn't obtuse.

[SilverKnight]

So sorry to be pointing out that all of Mormonism is based on Blind faith.

Do you really think that your piles of evidence for the historicity of the Bible and the empirical reality of Christian doctrine are recognized by anyone outside of your faith?

No. Not one shred.

What you call evidence would be called faith, perhaps even blind faith, by anyone outside your immediate faith.

[ElfLord]

Since I only need to know Jesus, I'm certain I've lost nothing.

Paul would certianly disagree.