Blind Faith?

[Hughes]

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.

No. Hughes has a problem because archaeologists can find nothing in the book of Mormon that is corroborated by anything they find.

[Vance]

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

First, it wasn't a strawman. Please feel free to look up the definition.

Second, your method is so easily "denigrated" because it is so weak and pathetic. If you want to believe that exposing the weakness of your method as "denigrating" it, then, feel free to do so.

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.

Not at all, your lack of information, whether willful or ignorant, doesn't a strong argument make.

There is very strong historical corroboration, your ignorance of it, not withstanding. There are also very large amounts of internal evidences and corroborations.

[Hughes]

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.

And an apples to apples comparison would be your few here, and the over 500 that witnessed Jesus' resurrected appearances.

Which doesn't change the fact that it's still all based on Joseph Smith.

[Hughes]

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

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

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

Since I was comparing the christianity with mormonism, your points, while interesting aren't relevant.

[Hughes]

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

Lucky?

I don't believe in luck.

Further, the argument is empty and specious. Just because these artifacts have been confirmed (75% of them!) means what?

Why don't we compare that with what the Bible has? Oh wait, that wasn't done in that article now was it? So, it must be that the Book of Mormon is equal to the bible archeologically? Right?

Sorry. No one could rationally conclude that. It's further proof that Mormonism is based on blind faith. Which I continue to be surprised that you guys are agreeing with me and singing Hallelujah!

[Hughes]

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.

Since you can't prove that Joseph Smith actually translated anything correctly, it's blind faith in him. Sorry. No amount of study or prayer will change that fact. Only producing the original plates would.

[TAO]

Since you can't prove that Joseph Smith actually translated anything correctly, it's blind faith in him. Sorry. No amount of study or prayer will change that fact. Only producing the original plates would.

That's very similar to saying, "since you can't prove that God exists, it's blind faith in him. No amount of study or prayer will change that fact". The results of that conversation would not be to your liking, I think.

[Nathair/|\]

Hughes;

Why exactly is none of this evidence for the Book of Mormon? Please answer for each item individually.

Yours under the logical oaks,

Nathair /|\

[Vance]

Since I was comparing the a false notion of christianity with mormonism, your points, while interesting aren't relevant.

There, fixed it for you.

[Vance]

Since you can't prove that Joseph Smith actually translated anything correctly, it's blind faith in him. Sorry. No amount of study or prayer will change that fact. Only producing the original plates would.

Since you can't prove that the Bible is true, it's blind faith in it. No amount of study or prayer will change that fact. Only producing the original authors would.

[Vance]

Since you can't prove that Joseph Smith actually translated anything correctly, it's blind faith in him. Sorry. No amount of study or prayer will change that fact. Only producing the original plates would.

Since you can't prove that the Bible is inerrant, it's blind faith to believe it. Sorry. No amount of study or prayer will change that fact. Even producing the autographs wouldn't.

[Vance]

Since you can't prove that Joseph Smith actually translated anything correctly, it's blind faith in him. Sorry. No amount of study or prayer will change that fact. Only producing the original plates would.

Since you can't prove that the apostasy didn't accually occur, it's blind faith to reject it. Sorry. No amount of study or prayer will change that fact. Only showing a continuous line of authorized servants would.

[Pahoran]

No. Hughes has a problem because archaeologists can find nothing in the book of Mormon that is corroborated by anything they find.

Clearly you've never heard of Nahom.

And an apples to apples comparison would be your few here, and the over 500 that witnessed Jesus' resurrected appearances.

Since we're doing apples to apples comparisons, we need to discard the 500, since we don't have first-hand statements from any of them. We don't even know who they were; all we have is a hand-wave from Paul. Thus, they are of no value for evidentiary purposes.

Which doesn't change the fact that it's still all based on Joseph Smith.

Mere repetition does not change a dogmatic assumption into a "fact". Sorry.

Lucky?

I don't believe in luck.

You don't believe in it, but you keep right on pushing it. Funny, that.

Sorry. No one could rationally conclude that. It's further proof that Mormonism is based on blind faith. Which I continue to be surprised that you guys are agreeing with me and singing Hallelujah!

We're not agreeing with you, because we're not gullible enough to agree with an anonymous accuser arrogantly presuming to tell us(!) what our(!) faith is based upon.

Especially when said accuser remains so arrogantly, presumptuously and dogmatically wrong.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Gervin]

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

A canard of the highest order and utter nonsense.

[Pahoran]

Gervin,

You wrote:

A canard of the highest order and utter nonsense.

And so you did. Your statement was self-referential, you see.

Given that there is at present no naturalistic explanation for the Book of Mormon with pretensions of cogency that allows for it being an uninspired human artifact and a genuinely ancient document, you really ought to offer some sort of argument, instead of mere arrogant pontifications.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Gervin]

Given that there is at present no naturalistic explanation for the Book of Mormon with pretensions of cogency that allows for it being an uninspired human artifact and a genuinely ancient document, you really ought to offer some sort of argument, instead of mere arrogant pontifications.

The most cogent argument for a naturalistic origin of the book is the book itself. You probably realize this, offering the discovery of Zarahemla (it could really be anything - a Hebrew temple, an Old World inscription, a steel sword, etc) as confirmation of the book's miraculous claims. However, LDS claims of finds to date (NHM = Nahom, Bountiful, etc.) certainly haven't confirmed anything miraculous. New World claims are no different. Find something then we can debate whether it is truly represented in the Book of Mormon and miraculous. Until then, understand that such miracle claims are worth less than zero.

[ELF1024]

Lucky?

I don't believe in luck.

Further, the argument is empty and specious. Just because these artifacts have been confirmed (75% of them!) means what?

Why don't we compare that with what the Bible has? Oh wait, that wasn't done in that article now was it? So, it must be that the Book of Mormon is equal to the bible archeologically? Right?

Sorry. No one could rationally conclude that. It's further proof that Mormonism is based on blind faith. Which I continue to be surprised that you guys are agreeing with me and singing Hallelujah!

The point, is that anything you can use to say that "it's by blind faith alone" for the Book of Mormon equally applies to the Bible. So the reality of it is that you're just a pot, calling the kettle black.

The fact that you seem to think that you can somehow prove that your "invisible best friend" is somehow better than our "invisible best friend" show your unique prospective on reality.

[Hughes]

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

Everytime this is brought up the supposed lack of support for the bible is brought up. How is that not an attack on the bible?

And you're right. There is at least 1% of the cities found since Jerusalem is mentioned.

[Hughes]

First, it wasn't a strawman. Please feel free to look up the definition.

Second, your method is so easily "denigrated" because it is so weak and pathetic. If you want to believe that exposing the weakness of your method as "denigrating" it, then, feel free to do so.

Not at all, your lack of information, whether willful or ignorant, doesn't a strong argument make.

There is very strong historical corroboration, your ignorance of it, not withstanding. There are also very large amounts of internal evidences and corroborations.

Then please be my guest and help me find these large amounts of internal evidences and corroborations.

[Vance]

Everytime this is brought up the supposed lack of support for the bible is brought up. How is that not an attack on the bible?

Promoting the truth is an attack on the Bible?

Nah, it is just an attack on the false notions some have about it.

[Hughes]

That's very similar to saying, "since you can't prove that God exists, it's blind faith in him. No amount of study or prayer will change that fact". The results of that conversation would not be to your liking, I think.

Since God isn't a book, the comparision isn't quite fair.

However, since there are many proofs that God exists, the comparison fails.

[Vance]

Then please be my guest and help me find these large amounts of internal evidences and corroborations.

Others have already provided this information to you. If giving it to you a second time will help your condition, I will be glad to do so.

[ELF1024]

However, since there are many proofs that God exists, the comparison fails.

Oh, really Einstein... I would LOVE to hear how you think you can prove that God exists.

[Hughes]

Since you can't prove that the Bible is true, it's blind faith in it. No amount of study or prayer will change that fact. Only producing the original authors would.

So, I'm hearing that you agree with me that all of mormonism is based on blind faith in Joseph Smith?

[SilverKnight]

Everytime this is brought up the supposed lack of support for the bible is brought up. How is that not an attack on the bible?

Hughes,

Please list one piece of evidence from the bible that demonstrates it is anything more than a piece of Near-Eastern regional folklore and cultural pseudo-history.

I expect that any piece of historic or archeological evidence you produce will suggest one thing: the bible was a book written around the dates, and places, historians have suggested it was.

As for evidence supporting the supernatural claims of Christianity (such as the miracles of Jesus, the resurrection, the flood, the plagues of moses, the garden of eden, etc) you will be able to produce exactly nothing.