Blind Faith?

[ELF1024]

2nd Nephi 29

6 Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?

7 Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?

8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.

[Obiwan]

Who ever said mormons use "blind faith" on anything in relation to the Gospel of Christ???

The "mormon standard" of Faith is not blind, it is based on EVIDENCE.

"Faith is the Evidence of things not seen, but which are true."

[Obiwan]

Critics and anti-mormons from other religions are always "weird" to me. Because, mormonism is the ONLY organized religion that exists today in which nearly every single basis of it's establishment has numerous witnesses, numerous records, angels visitations, healings, new ancient scripture, modern scripture and revelations, records recording all the various events and occurrences, etc. etc.

All other religions are significantly lacking in all or multiple aspects. They nearly all were created by men who have their own interpretations from a book that either the Catholic or English Churches created, not to mention all the other "translations" sense then, all different from one another, no visions, no angels, no priesthood, no witnesses establishing the various things, no new scriptures, no revelations, etc. etc. And the fringe ones that might have some of those things have not the evidences nor the witnesses for the most part, or otherwise, be it Islam, Mary Becker Eddy, L. Ron Hubbard, or several others.

Yet, anti's have the gal to be critical of us, claiming that there "is not" any such "external" evidences validating the legitimacy of the restoration. Such people clearly haven't objectively studied mormonism, gone to it's churches, studied it's materials, studied it's historical records and events related to it's establishment, etc. in order to make an accurate judgment. They likely have simply read anti-mormon bearing false witness websites and books, and now think they are experts on all things mormon, not realizing they've been led astray by LIARS.

I came into mormonism from the various religions, went to it's churches, studied it's materials, history, etc. etc. to KNOW FOR MYSELF what was true and not true, and to see for myself that there were TONS of "evidences" and "witnesses" of it's establishment, NONE of whom denied their witness even when leaving the Church itself for a time or permanently, compared to the other religions I'd already been a part of. The vanity and arrogance of some people such as this Hughes character.

[Hughes]

The fact that Pilate existed doesn't mean that he did the things he supposedly did in the Bible. Julius Ceaser existed, but that doesn't mean that Shakespear's Julius Ceaser is an eyewitness account.

It also doesn't mean *he didn't do* the things he is said to have done in the biblical account.

And I don't recall Shakespeare claiming he was a historian.

[ELF1024]

It also doesn't mean *he didn't do* the things he is said to have done in the biblical account.

And I don't recall Shakespeare claiming he was a historian.

Lack of evidence is not evidence.

[Hughes]

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.

I have read the article now. And it didn't help.

For example, It says, "we find that only slightly more than half of all place names mentioned in the Bible have been located and positively identified."

Which could mean 52 or 51 percent. Let's say 51 percent

Then it says, "we don't know where the cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon are located. Such information may yet be discovered, but not discovering it is just as likely given the lack of cultural continuity and toponyms, as well as the epigraphic and iconographic uncertainties."

So, based on this article, it looks like we have 51 percent of all place names mentioned in the biblical text located and positively identified, compared to zero percent of the place names mentioned in the book of Mormon.

Did I get that correct?

If so, How can you claim in all rationality, that, "There is as much, or as little, archeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon as there is supporting the Bible."?

[ELF1024]

I have read the article now. And it didn't help.

For example, It says, "we find that only slightly more than half of all place names mentioned in the Bible have been located and positively identified."

Which could mean 52 or 51 percent. Let's say 51 percent

Then it says, "we don't know where the cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon are located. Such information may yet be discovered, but not discovering it is just as likely given the lack of cultural continuity and toponyms, as well as the epigraphic and iconographic uncertainties."

So, based on this article, it looks like we have 51 percent of all place names mentioned in the biblical text located and positively identified, compared to zero percent of the place names mentioned in the book of Mormon.

Did I get that correct?

If so, How can you claim in all rationality, that, "There is as much, or as little, archeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon as there is supporting the Bible."?

William Dever is a non-LDS biblical archaeologist, a professor of Near Eastern archaeology and anthropology at the University of Arizona, and head of the university's Near Eastern Studies Department. He claims that archaeology should never be supposed to prove the Bible in any sense.¹⁰ "After a century of modern research," writes Dever, "neither Biblical scholars nor archaeologists have been able to document as historical any of the events, much less the personalities, of the patriarchal or Mosaic era."¹¹After more than a century of modern research, archaeology has never substantiated a variety of biblical narratives, including the existence of Abraham, Joseph of Egypt, Moses, or an Israelite presence in Egypt.

(additional)

What does a name prove? That a place existed? So what! It doesn't prove what happened there. We have a good idea of where Sodom is, but we cannot confirm "God's Wrath" destroyed the place.

We can confirm that the place Jesus was rumored to be buried exists, but we cannot confirm he was actually buried there, or that he rose from the grave. We know where the Garden is, but we cannot prove that he bled from every pore.

You cannot prove that the Bible is anything more than collection of historical fiction, any more than we can prove that the Book of Mormon is anything more than historical fiction.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I have read the article now. And it didn't help.

Let's lay this out.

Hughes believes that Abraham is a real person solely because Egypt is a real place. Yet scholars claim that they can find no evidence that Abraham was a real person.

And that is not blind faith how?

Note:I am using blind faith according to Hughes definition.

Hughes has a problem because we believe that Nephi was a real person yet archaeologists say he is not.

[Vance]

If so, How can you claim in all rationality, that, "There is as much, or as little, archeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon as there is supporting the Bible."?

So, the location of cities is the only kind of "archeological evidence" there is? Who knew?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So, the location of cities is the only kind of "archeological evidence" there is? Who knew?

Welp, that must mean that Homer was correct about his writtings as they have now found Troy.

[Hughes]

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.

So what you're saying is these are equal?

Here's what we have so far:

Mormonism:

1) Joseph Smith received plates

2) translated them correctly

3) They were inspired when originally written

4) all without any sort of direct examination of even one copy in their original languages.

Christianity:

1) 8 authors of 26 documents making up the New Testament.

2) We don't have to trust they were translated correctly since we can read them in their original languages, 25, 000 copies.

3) They were inspired when originally written

The only similarity I see is the faith based on inspiration. Other than that, I couldn't honestly say that 8 authors verses 1 witness (or 2 if you count Oliver?) are on equal footing. Nor could I ever say that having copies (however flawed you think they might be) verses having no copies are equal.

[ELF1024]

So what you're saying is these are equal?

Here's what we have so far:

Mormonism:

1) Joseph Smith received plates

2) translated them correctly

3) They were inspired when originally written

4) all without any sort of direct examination of even one copy in their original languages.

Christianity:

1) 8 authors of 26 documents making up the New Testament.

2) We don't have to trust they were translated correctly since we can read them in their original languages, 25, 000 copies.

3) They were inspired when originally written

The only similarity I see is the faith based on inspiration. Other than that, I couldn't honestly say that 8 authors verses 1 witness (or 2 if you count Oliver?) are on equal footing. Nor could I ever say that having copies (however flawed you think they might be) verses having no copies are equal.

If you want to compare apples to apple then there are at least 14 different authors of the Book of Mormon.

And you can say that a majority of those "originals" of the Bible differ in places as to the translation.

You also have more than two witnesses... ( http://lds.org/scrip...uction?lang=eng )

Oliver Cowdery

David Whitmer

Martin Harris

Christian Whitmer

Jacob Whitmer

Peter Whitmer, Jun.

John Whitmer

Hiram Page

Joseph Smith, Sen.

Hyrum Smith

Samuel H. Smith

Joseph Smith Jr.

and None of these men ever recanted their witness.

[SilverKnight]

Here's what we have so far:

Christianity:

1) 8 authors of 26 documents making up the New Testament.

The Norse Sagas have hundreds of authors, ergo Thor and Odin must be real.

2) We don't have to trust they were translated correctly since we can read them in their original languages, 25, 000 copies.

The Quran has never been directly translated into anything besides Arabic, the original language, ergo Allah is God and Muhammad is his prophet.

3) They were inspired when originally written

So is every holy text - especially when carefully evaluated by those who already believe in the book's divinity.

[Hughes]

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.

Any hypothetical straw man can be created if you only wish to denigrate my method then you've now done that. Congrats.

The problem with your little argument is that when it's applied to the Book of Mormon, it's found wanting, with no historical corroboration at all.

[Hughes]

Because it isn't obtuse.

Not sure how the Angel Moroni being non-obtuse has anything what so ever to his being trustworthy.

[Hughes]

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.

Even your apologists admit that 51% of the names and places have been found, yet non of those in the Book of Mormon have. Yet you attack the bible? How does that help your position?

[ELF1024]

Even your apologists admit that 51% of the names and places have been found, yet non of those in the Book of Mormon have. Yet you attack the bible? How does that help your position?

Luckily, there is just more to it that just names and places...

As the efforts of archaeology have shed light on the ancient New World, we find in 2005 that forty-five of those sixty items (75%) have been confirmed. Thirty-five of the items (58%) have been definitively confirmed by archaeological evidence and ten items (17%) have received possible--tentative, yet not fully verified--confirmation. Therefore, as things stand at the moment, current New World archaeological evidence tends to verify the claims made by the Book of Mormon.²⁰

[Hughes]

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

Paul would certianly disagree.

Not sure what you might be referring to?

Paul: 1 Cor. 2:2 "For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified."

[Hughes]

2nd Nephi 29

6 Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?

7 Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?

8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.

Interesting the book of Mormon is criticizing the use of the Bible only? (I'm only guessing as you didn't offer any commentary).

I did notice the phrase: "Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also."

Which is patently false. For if they were the same words, we most probably wouldn't be having this and many other disagreements about those very words, now would we? And it seems to me that there wouldn't be a criticism from the Book of Mormon if they were actually the same words (or teaching for that matter).

[Hughes]

Who ever said mormons use "blind faith" on anything in relation to the Gospel of Christ???

The "mormon standard" of Faith is not blind, it is based on EVIDENCE.

"Faith is the Evidence of things not seen, but which are true."

Oh... evidence that isn't seen and can't be tested isn't called evidence. Sorry.

[Deborah]

Once again, to iterate, my faith is not blind. It is based on study and prayer and a great deal of historical evidence that the events which led to the publishing of this remarkable work actually happened. Each time I read the BOM, my faith is strengthened by the power of the words found there. One can try to rationalize it away but it is an inane venture.

[Pahoran]

Even your apologists admit that 51% of the names and places have been found, yet non of those in the Book of Mormon have. Yet you attack the bible? How does that help your position?

This is another notorious canard. Are you going for some sort of record?

Nobody has attacked the Bible. Perhaps your idolatrous veneration thereof causes you to react irrationally when others show less zealotry towards it than you would like.

What is being attacked is manifestly not the Bible; it is the double standards employed by Bible-worshippers as they lash out at the Book of Mormon.

What you fail to grasp is that the existence of Jerusalem is no greater evidence for the miraculous claims of the Bible than the existence of King's Cross Station is for the Harry Potter books.

And for those who worship God, as opposed to those who worship idols, the Bible's miraculous claims are the only ones that actually matter.

By contrast, however, the existence of Zarahemla would be direct corroborative evidence for the miraculous claims of the Book of Mormon.

So you are actually demanding a far higher standard of evidence for the Book of Mormon than what you are willing to accept for the Bible.

Just so you know.

Incidentally, the Book of Mormon mentions Jerusalem too.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Hughes]

Critics and anti-mormons from other religions are always "weird" to me. Because, mormonism is the ONLY organized religion that exists today in which nearly every single basis of it's establishment has numerous witnesses, numerous records, angels visitations, healings, new ancient scripture, modern scripture and revelations, records recording all the various events and occurrences, etc. etc.

All other religions are significantly lacking in all or multiple aspects. They nearly all were created by men who have their own interpretations from a book that either the Catholic or English Churches created, not to mention all the other "translations" sense then, all different from one another, no visions, no angels, no priesthood, no witnesses establishing the various things, no new scriptures, no revelations, etc. etc. And the fringe ones that might have some of those things have not the evidences nor the witnesses for the most part, or otherwise, be it Islam, Mary Becker Eddy, L. Ron Hubbard, or several others.

Yet, anti's have the gal to be critical of us, claiming that there "is not" any such "external" evidences validating the legitimacy of the restoration. Such people clearly haven't objectively studied mormonism, gone to it's churches, studied it's materials, studied it's historical records and events related to it's establishment, etc. in order to make an accurate judgment. They likely have simply read anti-mormon bearing false witness websites and books, and now think they are experts on all things mormon, not realizing they've been led astray by LIARS.

I came into mormonism from the various religions, went to it's churches, studied it's materials, history, etc. etc. to KNOW FOR MYSELF what was true and not true, and to see for myself that there were TONS of "evidences" and "witnesses" of it's establishment, NONE of whom denied their witness even when leaving the Church itself for a time or permanently, compared to the other religions I'd already been a part of. The vanity and arrogance of some people such as this Hughes character.

The vanity and arrogance of some people like myself to say it's all based on Joseph Smith. Wow.

Just like Christianity is all based on the Jesus Christ alone.

Just like Lutheranism is based on Martin Luther.

If the key figure is not there, the religion (or Church for Vance) isn't there.

[Hughes]

It also doesn't mean *he didn't do* the things he is said to have done in the biblical account.

And I don't recall Shakespeare claiming he was a historian.

Lack of evidence is not evidence.

Hmmm... it's the same argument used by the author of the article you posted that you said had archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon.

So you accept the argument for the book of mormon, but not for the Biblical text?

[Hughes]

(additional)

What does a name prove? That a place existed? So what! It doesn't prove what happened there. We have a good idea of where Sodom is, but we cannot confirm "God's Wrath" destroyed the place.

We can confirm that the place Jesus was rumored to be buried exists, but we cannot confirm he was actually buried there, or that he rose from the grave. We know where the Garden is, but we cannot prove that he bled from every pore.

You cannot prove that the Bible is anything more than collection of historical fiction, any more than we can prove that the Book of Mormon is anything more than historical fiction.

Ok, so you're still saying that the Bible and the book of mormon are on equal grounds?

Yet, you criticize the bible, because we can't "prove" what it says is accurate. Yet, we can establish that the places and names are accurate right? Your article said 51% of the Biblical text has been corroborated thus far of names and places, right?

So, if you see fit to criticize the bible with it's 51%, how come you don't have the same criticism for the book of mormon that has 0% corroboration by comparison.

I mean, you guys seem like you're all over me when I appear to hold a double standard, yet what about when you hold this double standard?

Or am I misinterpreting what you're saying? Maybe you're really rejoicing in the blind faith in Joseph Smith that you have. I don't know. It doesn't quite sound like that.