Blind Faith?

[ELF1024]

You might be correct, I haven't talked to anyone from that time period. However, Luther held to Historical truths, such as the Trinity, the validity of the creeds and the major theological teachings of the Apostles. Which Joseph Smith rejected.

You are incorrect.

Joseph Smith did reject the nicean version of the trinity, and the man made creeds, but he did not discard or reject major theological teachings of the Apostles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

Non-orthodox TrinitarianismSee also: Godhead (Latter Day Saints)The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) identify the Trinity (or Godhead) as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, but with a different intention than the Nicene faith. They regard these three as individual members of a heavenly triumvirate, completely united with one another in purpose

[Vance]

Yeah, your faith is in what Joseph Smith taught about Jesus... If you agree with JS then it's a different Jesus.

Only to the ignorant.

[Hughes]

Actually, if Brother Joseph had been unavailable, The Lord would have chosen someone else.

Yours under the Heaven-reaching oaks,

Nathair /|\

Right. This is your opinion based on your blind faith. There is no way to verify what was on those plates, that's the point.

Let me ask you this. Is Jesus God's *only* son.

[ELF1024]

Right. This is your opinion based on your blind faith. There is no way to verify what was on those plates, that's the point.

Let me ask you this. Is Jesus God's *only* son.

Jesus is God's only Begotten Son.

[Vance]

Too bad your statement doesn't match reality. The reality is there only 1% supporting the book of Mormon compared to 51% percent for the Biblical account.

Please explain how 51 equal 1?

There are ZERO supporting the miraculous events described in the Bible.

The score is tied.

[Hughes]

It's not supposed to be a defense of the Book of Mormon - which indeed has almost no archaeological support.

It's a challenge for you to defend the Bible - which I claim has not one shred of evidence supporting it as anything more than a work of historic folklore written over several centuries in the Near East.

Its a challenge that directly illuminates the monstrous double standard you are operating under: the critical tools you use to discard the book of mormon as fiction do the same thing when turned upon the bible.

So you are saying that the Book of Mormon is fiction and nothing more than historic folklore?

I'm just trying to understand what you're saying.

[Vance]

You might be correct, I haven't talked to anyone from that time period. However, Luther held to Historical YET NOT BIBLICAL truths, such as the Trinity, the validity of the creeds and the major theological teachings of the Apostles. Which Joseph Smith rejected.

There, fixed it for you.

[Hughes]

I believe that Faith in God, the Christian God, the LDS God, being the same God, is required to know if both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are the word of God. I have recieved a witness that they are both the word of God, and are true accounts.

There is no other proof that can prove either the Bible or the Book of Mormon to be true accounts and the Word of God.

Right. So why not say that? Why not rejoice in the blind faith of the witness? Wahoo! We have nothing to demonstrate that what JS translated was actually on the plates he found. We don't have anyway of proving it one way or another. All we have is blind faith in Joseph Smith and of course believing that our witness somehow corroborates that truth in reality.

[Vance]

So you are saying that the Book of Mormon is fiction and nothing more than historic folklore?

I'm just trying to understand what you're saying.

Obviously NOT. You need to read it again.

Reading comprehension.

Reading comprehension.

[ELF1024]

Right. So why not say that? Why not rejoice in the blind faith of the witness? Wahoo! We have nothing to demonstrate that what JS translated was actually on the plates he found. We don't have anyway of proving it one way or another. All we have is blind faith in Joseph Smith Jesus Christ and of course believing that our witness somehow corroborates that truth in reality.

Fixed it.

The exact same is true of the bible, enjoy your own blind faith.

[Vance]

Right. So why not say that? Why not rejoice in the blind faith of the witness?

Why don't you rejoice in your blind faith.

Inerrancy. Wahoo!

Jesus resurrected. Wahoo!

Turning water to wine. Wahoo!

Rejoice in your blind faith.

[Hughes]

And this seems to be what Hughes is having a promblem understaing.

Just saying that Egypt is real, or that there is a Jerusalem is real, in no way supports that Jesus really was resurrected or any of the other mircales.

His faith in the bible is absoutlty no different than my faith in the BoM. I think you have done a great job in demonstrating this.

Right. I haven't got any archeological evidence or historical documentation. Right none at all. Not even one copy exists of the original writings. Right. Got it.

Here's where it gets interesting.

One is it's obvious by the responses that blind faith isn't something you guys proclaim and rejoice in.

Two, if you honestly think that we have the the same blind faith, why is it that the biblical text always refers to actual historical events? "If you don't believe me believe the works I do..."

Three, why is it that Mormons keep looking for more archeological evidence? Seems it's all blind faith as you say, then what's the point of finding archeological evidence?

[ElfLord]

Right. So why not say that? Why not rejoice in the blind faith of the witness? Wahoo! We have nothing to demonstrate that what JS translated was actually on the plates he found. We don't have anyway of proving it one way or another. All we have is blind faith in Joseph Smith and of course believing that our witness somehow corroborates that truth in reality.

The same could be said for Ezra who when the old scriptures were lost was called in to "rewrite" all of it by the "gift and power of God"... yet we have absolutley nothing to verify if what he restored was actually what was on the scriptures he supposedly had before him.

TALK ABOUT BLIND FAITH!

[Hughes]

LOL!!! It was never intended to be a defense! It was to show you the double standard! You accept the Bible on BLIND FAITH in Jesus Christ. We accept the Bible and Book of Mormon on BLIND FAITH in Jesus Christ. (See post #151 & #157 from Mola)

This is your opinion. It isn't reality since the Bible has much more connection to reality than anything in the BoM.

As I've said, I believe that the core of Christianity is based on the historicity of the claims. It's unique that way. You may claim that you have the same blind faith as I do, but I reject that, thanks.

I couldn't actually ever believe what Joseph Smith said or taught without having seen at least copies of the text he supposedly translated.

In essence, following Joseph Smith is no different than following Brian Mitchell who also claims to hear revelations directly from God.

[Hughes]

Wait, most of those that testified of Christ can not even be verified. Infact lets say they claimed what happened is true. How do you know that Jesus rose from the grave? You have not seen him.

Wait, what we have agrees with what we can verify, this lends support to what we can't verify. This principle is why Joseph Smith is equal to those who set out to deceive, who don't want you to look at what they are "translating".

"of course it's translated correctly, why do you ask? Why would you want to look the plates? Don't you trust me? Hmmm?"

It continues to come up blind faith in JS.

[Nathair/|\]

Right. This is your opinion based on your blind faith. There is no way to verify what was on those plates, that's the point.

Let me ask you this. Is Jesus God's *only* son.

So you are suggesting that God might give up on his plan because one key person isn't available? If Moses hadn't been available, noone would have led Israel out of Egypt? And I haven't seen a response to my question in that post or the one in post 83.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Wait, what we have agrees with what we can verify, this lends support to what we can't verify.

Which is what? What can we verify? That Egypt is a real place? That really means that Jesus really rose from the grave? India is a real place therefor Shiva is a real God. Do you see the problem with your logic yet?

This principle is why Joseph Smith is equal to those who set out to deceive, who don't want you to look at what they are "translating".

What are you talking about? We don't have any original autographs from the bible. You cannot even verify that most poeple in the bible even exsisted.

"of course it's translated correctly, why do you ask? Why would you want to look the plates? Don't you trust me? Hmmm?"

I didn't ask. You are the one chasing this red herring.

It continues to come up blind faith in JS.

ACtually no, my faith comes from the comfirmation of the HG. My faith is no more blind than your faith is.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Right. So why not say that? Why not rejoice in the blind faith of the witness? Wahoo! We have nothing to demonstrate that what JS translated was actually on the plates he found. We don't have anyway of proving it one way or another. All we have is blind faith in Joseph Smith and of course believing that our witness somehow corroborates that truth in reality.

I tell you what. I well demonstrate this. I promise I will, I only require you to do one thing first. Deomstrate that Jesus rose from the grave.

We have nothing to demonstrate that Jesus rose form the grave. We don't have anyway of proving it one way or another. All we have is blind faith in Jesus and of course believing that our witness somehow corroborates that truth in reality.

My name is Hughes and I have blind faith.

[Hughes]

Dude, you are really missing this. Maybe a 4th time will be the charm. We are not trying to defend the BoM dude. We are pointing out your vastly huge double standard.

Ok... and that proves what exactly?

I have a double standard? Ok... so that means the Joseph Smith was correct?

Sorry, proving that I have a double standard (no matter how large) is irrelevant to the idea that belief in Mormonism is based solely on blind faith in Joseph Smith.

[Skylla]

Gervin: The question has been answered. Stop badgering or you will be removed from the thread.

Skylla

[ELF1024]

Wait, what we have agrees with what we can verify, this lends support to what we can't verify. This principle is why Joseph Smith is equal to those who set out to deceive, who don't want you to look at what they are "translating".

"of course it's translated correctly, why do you ask? Why would you want to look the plates? Don't you trust me? Hmmm?"

It continues to come up blind faith in JS.

Your refusal to accept that it's not Joseph Smith, but Jesus Christ in no way invalidates it.

It is not blind faith in J Smith, but Faith in Jesus Christ.

[Hughes]

I always get a chuckle when, against their Hero Paul's council, self-professed Christians drive a wedge between themselves and their fellow man.

This whole Chapter (14) of Romans refutes the attitude Hughes is demonstration in this Post.

All men, both beleiver (living) and non-beleiver (dead) will stand before Christ and he will be the Judge (v10-12). He purchased the entire Human race with his own blood afterall (v8-9). And none of us are lost, all of us are securely IN him. He is the Lord over all afterall.

He is the Lord of both Mormon and Evangelical and all the shenanigans being pulled by Evapogists is completely unbiblical. The whole of chapter 14 is about difference of beleifs among those IN Christ and how it really doesn't matter.

Actually the chapter is about difference of beliefs that don't matter.

You think that the differences between mormons and christians don't matter? Seems they mattered to JS he was told not to go to any of their churches. What was it called "apostate"?

Tell me, you think you'll be married in heaven?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Ok... and that proves what exactly?

That you ahve a double standard and every one that is reading this thread except you sees that.

I have a double standard? Ok...

Yes, you do have a double standard. Some how I don't believe that you see this yet.

so that means the Joseph Smith was correct?

Who has suggested anything of the sort?

Sorry, proving that I have a double standard (no matter how large) is irrelevant to the idea that belief in Mormonism is based solely on blind faith in Joseph Smith.

What it means is that you are not willing to look at your own faith first and apply that same standard. Basically your critisim is not made in good faith. When things are not done in good faith people don't take you seriously. If we don't take you seriously then this is just a waste of time. You do have a point to prove don't you?

The idea that the LDS faith is based on blind faith is absurd. The only thing you ahve done in this thread is assert baldly that LDS faith is blind and you have shown that you ahve a huge double standard.

[Nathair/|\]

Actually the chapter is about difference of beliefs that don't matter.

You think that the differences between mormons and christians don't matter? Seems they mattered to JS he was told not to go to any of their churches. What was it called "apostate"?

Tell me, you think you'll be married in heaven?

They matter exactly as much as the difference between Evangelicals and Christians.

Yours under the Venn oaks,

Nathair /|\

[Hughes]

I joined the LDS church on blind faith; accompanied of course by a very powerful spiritual confirmation.

Through the years my faith has been supported by historical study, testimony of witnesses and reading the Book of Mormon over and over and over.

Everyone may start with blind faith, but such faith cannot continue without some kind of assurance that it is not in vain and therefore not blind but faith based on the on-going confirmation that faith works and gives us strength and comfort and guidance.

Is it possible to have on-going confirmation is something that feels good but is based on a completely fabricated and false teaching?