Blind Faith?

[ELF1024]

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

James 1:

5If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

6But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

7For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.

8A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

Alma 32

27But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.

28Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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

What are you trying to say here? I have no idea what you are saying as your sentance structure is lacking.

[Deborah]

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

It's not just something that feels good. This is the fallacy of people who don't understand the Holy Ghost.

But then you might ask yourself the question.

[ELF1024]

What are you trying to say here? I have no idea what you are saying as your sentance structure is lacking.

I think he is trying to allude to the idea that we are deluding ourselves. We believe we have received a witness from Christ, but it really isn't Christ, because it can't be Christ, because Christ is an evangelical... or something.

Personally, I think if anyone has a claim to Christ, other than us, it's the Catholics... so the evangelical will need to get in line.

[ELF1024]

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?

Matthew 16:

18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this ^arock I will build my ^bchurch; and the gates of ^chell shall not ^dprevail against it.

19And I will ^agive unto thee the ^bkeys of the ^ckingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt ^dbind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I think he is trying to allude to the idea that we are deluding ourselves. We believe we have received a witness from Christ, but it really isn't Christ, because it can't be Christ, because Christ is an evangelical... or something.

Personally, I think if anyone has a claim to Christ, other than us, it's the Catholics... so the evangelical will need to get in line.

Ok if this is true, can't I say the same thing back to Hughes?

[ElfLord]

Why is Hughes quickly devolving into a typical anti-mormon rant of the posters of the CARM message board?

[ELF1024]

Ok if this is true, can't I say the same thing back to Hughes?

True, but he is unlikely to understand. He's hasn't understood anything else... why start now...

[ElfLord]

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

Skylla

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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?

Whoa, you are all over the map here. WE are talking about blind faith and how mormunz yews it butt yew downt.

However to your last question, yes I do think that I will be married in heaven. There is not a single verse in the bible that claims that people who live rightess lives and joined together by the Lord will not be married in heaven.

Go ahead and quote your proftext in Matthew that "they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are as the angles in heaven."

If you notice that "neither marry nor are given in marriage" is a future state. Essentally if you are not married by the proper authority before the time of the resurrection, it will be to late as you neither marry nor are given in marriage at that time.

For those verse to mean what you think they mean it would need to say "Those that have been married and were given in marriage will no longer be married but are as the angles in heaven".

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Why is Hughes quickly devolving into a typical anti-mormon rant of the posters of the CARM message board?

Double standard? That doesn't matter.

[ELF1024]

Why is Hughes quickly devolving into a typical anti-mormon rant of the posters of the CARM message board?

It would be nice to have an honest discussion with someone instead of having the CARM-Weasels show up.

[ElfLord]

I think he is trying to allude to the idea that we are deluding ourselves. We believe we have received a witness from Christ, but it really isn't Christ, because it can't be Christ, because Christ is an evangelical... or something.

Personally, I think if anyone has a claim to Christ, other than us, it's the Catholics... so the evangelical will need to get in line.

Well... by all accounts John was a Baptist.

[Gervin]

Fail. Your bibliolatry utterly prejudices you against it, but the book itself is evidence of miraculous origin.

Besides, you are deflecting from my actual point. There is no cogent argument for The Book of Mormon having a naturalistic origin that also allows for it to be authentically ancient.

I happen to agree that there is no cogent argument for the Book as both natural and authentically ancient. It shows no signs of ancient authenticity and bears all the hallmarks of naturalistic, modern, origin. As one who has a testimony of the book I know you disagree, but those who believe in the book are unable to convince those who don't believe or even have knowledge of the book's claims that it has ancient roots.

If Zarahemla were to be found and positively identified (by inscription, naturally) then that would prove The Book of Mormon to be authentically ancient. If authentically ancient, then of miraculous origin.

If authentically ancient? If Zarahemla, a steel sword, a Mosaic implement of worship, or a pottery sherd with a Hebrew word were to be found then it would certainly open up the dialogue of ancient influences, but I can assure you that no one but those who already believe in the Book of Mormon would see it as a confirmation of a miraculous book. Since there are no golden plates available for perusal, perhaps Jos Smith obtained an ancient record from some source and modified it to his liking. Perhaps others had knowledge of ancient Hebrews and used Smith to use it to insert 19th c issues into a fractured KJV-style writing. Etc. Finding a reference to Zarahemla is no slam dunk that the book has miraculous origins.

That wouldn't stop diehards from scrambling to find an alternative explanation, of course; but the fact is that the discovery of Zarahemla would immediately explode all extant attempts at a naturalistic explanation for The Book of Mormon.

Sorry, but your wrong. Even a manufactured hit, like NHM, has hardly had a ripple effect on the world.

Which would make them almost as worthless as your opinions; but only almost.

As good as a personal attack must feel it shows a weakness of, among other things, argument. Thanks for affirming what I suspected.

Notice, however, that I made no "miracle claims" at all. You are playing a shell game, and you are playing it with the practiced skill that shows you to be accustomed to such verbal legerdemain. I was, as you perfectly well know, speaking of a hypothetical case.

Uhm, I'm perfectly aware that this is hypothetical; nothing has been found. In truth, the miracle - really the only miracle of value for the LDS - is that God chooses to hide from the modern eye any evidence of the ancient authenticity of the Book of Mormon. And He will continue to do so, forever. On the other hand, if it's all there - the verification of the miraculous, the physical ties to ancient history, the remains of cultures once so strong upon this land - if it's all there, won't someone please find it?

[Pahoran]

Hughes,

You started this thread with what appeared to be a question: "Blind Faith? Is it the basis or not?"

However, it is beyond abundantly clear that you have no intention of even considering the alternative: that it is not. Thus, the "question" was merely a pretence, a rhetorical device intended to get an audience so that you could start declaiming. For example:

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

And:

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.

And:

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?

And:

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.

And:

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.

And:

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.

Again, and again, and again, the same untiring mantra: "belief in Mormonism is based solely on blind faith in Joseph Smith."

Only one little problem with it: it's false.

Which doesn't slow you down, of course. In fact, I've come to the conclusion that you prefer your accusations that way.

But, in a forum in which ideas are discussed and debated, the fact that it's false is actually less important than the utter incivility of it. The arrogance by which you(!) presume to tell us(!) what our(!) faith is based upon, is breathtaking.

You are stretching our tolerance beyond its breaking point and rapidly wearing out your welcome, Hughes.

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"?

You've been told already: "mormons and christians"[sic] are not mutually exclusive categories. You have failed entirely to even attempt to engage the argument.

Therefore you lose by default.

I recommend you don't repeat that falsehood.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

I happen to agree that there is no cogent argument for the Book as both natural and authentically ancient.

Thank you.

In which case you knowingly made a false accusation, in the best tradition of anti-Mormons in general (and Protestant anti-Mormons in particular) when you accused me of making "A canard of the highest order and utter nonsense," you were intentionally making a deliberately false accusation.

IOW, a gervinism.

It shows no signs of ancient authenticity and bears all the hallmarks of naturalistic, modern, origin.

There are places for you to bear your un-testimony and proselyte for your hate-based ideology; I regret to inform you that this isn't one of them.

If authentically ancient? If Zarahemla, a steel sword, a Mosaic implement of worship, or a pottery sherd with a Hebrew word were to be found then it would certainly open up the dialogue of ancient influences, but I can assure you that no one but those who already believe in the Book of Mormon would see it as a confirmation of a miraculous book.

As you perfectly well know, Gervin, you are falsely implying that unequal evidences are equal. As you perfectly well know, Gervin, steel swords, mosaic artifacts and potsherds with Hebrew writing could all be explained away without reference to the Book of Mormon. For example, I'm unaware of any LDS scholars who hold that the Bat Creek Stone was inscribed by Nephites. Zarahemla, however, would clearly corroborate the Book of Mormon's historical claims, and thus its miraculous provenance.

Clearly you know this, which is why you are trying to downplay it.

Sorry, but your wrong. Even a manufactured hit, like NHM, has hardly had a ripple effect on the world.

The finding of Book of Mormon Nahom made enough of a ripple that haters try to find ways to discredit it, such as projecting their own dishonesty onto others by calling it a "manufactured hit."

Which it was not.

But the point of all this is simply this: you accused me of making "A canard of the highest order and utter nonsense."

In this, you lied.

And with the comfort that demonstrates customary usage.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Chaos]

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.

You may disagree with someone's religious beliefs but if you compare anyone to a criminal you will be banned from the board. Right now you are banned from this thread. Go read the board policy.

[Gervin]

In which case you knowingly made a false accusation, in the best tradition of anti-Mormons in general (and Protestant anti-Mormons in particular) when you accused me of making "A canard of the highest order and utter nonsense," you were intentionally making a deliberately false accusation.

IOW, a gervinism.

It was and remains a canard of utter nonsense. I've seen you and others use it, seen it in LDS writing, and seen it offered up as some kind of verification in absentia. It usually goes like this: we've found all these great evidences for the Book of Mormon but the bad old world refuses to see the evidences and the reason they ignore all the obvious evidence is that by accepting it they would have to accept the LDS religion because Jos Smith brought the book forth via claims of the miraculous, therefore the de facto position is acceptance of the evidence = acceptance of the miraculous. Your variation has to do with the discovery of Zarahemla. If you found Zarahemla tomorrow you would get plenty of press and coverage, but it would not affirm the miraculous. You can't see it because you accept the miraculous as a starting point. The world sees a book of 19th c origins, issues, and language - repetitive and poorly conveyed. Fractured KJV-style writing with nothing ancient as it relates to the New World. I contend that Jos Smith was given an ancient history describing Zarahemla but he manipulated it to address religious concerns of the 1800's. So, finding Zarahemla would verify my, not your, belief about the book.

There are places for you to bear your un-testimony and proselyte for your hate-based ideology; I regret to inform you that this isn't one of them.

A lack of historicity is part and parcel of the book. Your reaction that disbelief is hate-based evidences some of your problems, but they're of no concern to me.

Zarahemla, however, would clearly corroborate the Book of Mormon's historical claims, and thus its miraculous provenance.

It would corroborate historical claims, for sure. It would affirm your claim of miraculous provenance. It would affirm my claim of manipulated history. See how you have nothing?

The finding of Book of Mormon Nahom made enough of a ripple that haters try to find ways to discredit it, such as projecting their own dishonesty onto others by calling it a "manufactured hit."

There's nothing to discredit; the letters NHM were found on two or three altars. Nahom has not been found. If you have evidence that the world cannot ignore bring it forth.

[TAO]

It was and remains a canard of utter nonsense. I've seen you and others use it, seen it in LDS writing, and seen it offered up as some kind of verification in absentia. It usually goes like this: we've found all these great evidences for the Book of Mormon but the bad old world refuses to see the evidences and the reason they ignore all the obvious evidence is that by accepting it they would have to accept the LDS religion because Jos Smith brought the book forth via claims of the miraculous, therefore the de facto position is acceptance of the evidence = acceptance of the miraculous. Your variation has to do with the discovery of Zarahemla. If you found Zarahemla tomorrow you would get plenty of press and coverage, but it would not affirm the miraculous. You can't see it because you accept the miraculous as a starting point. The world sees a book of 19th c origins, issues, and language - repetitive and poorly conveyed. Fractured KJV-style writing with nothing ancient as it relates to the New World. I contend that Jos Smith was given an ancient history describing Zarahemla but he manipulated it to address religious concerns of the 1800's. So, finding Zarahemla would verify my, not your, belief about the book.

And sir, I see a world which has been turned inside out. Instead of looking for reasons to live, they look for reasons to lie and manipulate. Instead of looking for the positive, they prefer the critical, negative, cynical, and sarcastic. I see a world in which boasting has control over people, and they have lost the spirit of service and enjoy their self-gratifications. I don't like that world at all.

As a defender of the church - I am not so sure I am an apologist - I don't look to unknown evidences or suspected causes. I don't look to assume, nor do I put interest in that which will never give a straightforward answer. I don't look to prove my religion correct - merely to show that critics cannot prove it incorrect. History, and that associated, will never provide a straightforward answer, it will never give pure fact, it will never prove anything; because we did not live during that time, there is always a margin for error. I don't look to history when talking about religion - I look to God. Critics look to history, and make claims, but they are nothing more than dust which obscures the rod standing in front of me - it will not affect me; I will steadfastly move forward.

A lack of historicity is part and parcel of the book. Your reaction that disbelief is hate-based evidences some of your problems, but they're of no concern to me.

Your use history too much Gervin, that you do. Let me tell you - history will never give you a reason to live, and it will rarely provide knowledge which is pure and always correct. It is a mish-mash of things we assume make sense, and yet, over the years, new revolutions of things reveal more mish-mash that still does not unravel the mysteries of the past. You say, a lack of history. There is history for the book. There is also history against the book. There is history going every which way mish-mashing together. Looking at the book through the lenses of history is a rather purposeless thing to do.

It would corroborate historical claims, for sure. It would affirm your claim of miraculous provenance. It would affirm my claim of manipulated history. See how you have nothing?

As said, I don't desire to prove my religion to you. I don't desire to find historical claims, if you don't wish to believe, that choice is yours, I am not going to manipulate knowledge like others will. I am far more interested in thinking about important questions rather than quibbling over history which leads nowhere. I don't know why you put so much weight in history when it is such an unsolid subject.

There's nothing to discredit; the letters NHM were found on two or three altars. Nahom has not been found. If you have evidence that the world cannot ignore bring it forth.

Just as critics cannot provide enough DNA evidence to attempt to show the BoM false. They claim, but they fall short in delivering. It is the same with all other things I see them claiming. They say 'this shows this', but I see alternatives, and much of the time, they just dismiss them or say 'do you have evidence'. They don't realize that evidence doesn't equate to truth though.

History is really mundane.

[Vance]

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

Since you (and Gervin) are the ones here that have actually experienced this, you will have to ask yourselves.

[Gervin]

History is really mundane.

Thanks for your thoughtful post. I was simply replying to an LDS-member's claim that the discovery of an artifact would affirm the miraculous. Re: "I don't know why you put so much weight in history when it is such an unsolid subject: - I don't know that I put that much weight in history - I'm more of a live for (play the guitar for, plant the tree for, work the chainsaw for, hang with the family for) the moment type of person. But, I'm on page 800 or so of the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and it is anything but mundane ... fascinating and scary.

[Gervin]

Since you (and Gervin) are the ones here that hasve actually experienced this, you will have to ask yourselfves.

there, fixed it for you

[Vance]

there, fixed it for you

Wow Gervin, You are cruel, leaving Hughes out in the cold like that.

So, when are you converting to Mormonism?

[Pahoran]

It was and remains a canard of utter nonsense.

No. It was and remains entirely true.

I've seen you and others use it, seen it in LDS writing, and seen it offered up as some kind of verification in absentia. It usually goes like this: we've found all these great evidences for the Book of Mormon but the bad old world refuses to see the evidences and the reason they ignore all the obvious evidence is that by accepting it they would have to accept the LDS religion because Jos Smith brought the book forth via claims of the miraculous, therefore the de facto position is acceptance of the evidence = acceptance of the miraculous.

Does it? Really?

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

Your variation has to do with the discovery of Zarahemla. If you found Zarahemla tomorrow you would get plenty of press and coverage, but it would not affirm the miraculous.

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?

What is it?

You can't see it because you accept the miraculous as a starting point.

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

The world sees a book of 19th c origins, issues, and language - repetitive and poorly conveyed. Fractured KJV-style writing with nothing ancient as it relates to the New World.

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.

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. 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.

I contend that Jos Smith was given an ancient history describing Zarahemla but he manipulated it to address religious concerns of the 1800's. So, finding Zarahemla would verify my, not your, belief about the book.

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!

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

There's nothing to discredit; the letters NHM were found on two or three altars.

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

Nahom has not been found.

He asserted, in truly Miltonian defiance of the evidence.

Okay then: prove it. You know what our evidence is: you have opposed it with nothing but bare denial, based entirely in your stubborn unfaith. CALL FOR REFERENCES, Gervin: what evidence do you have that NHM is not Nephi's Nahom?

Regards,

Pahoran

[TAO]

Re: "I don't know why you put so much weight in history when it is such an unsolid subject: - I don't know that I put that much weight in history - I'm more of a live for (play the guitar for, plant the tree for, work the chainsaw for, hang with the family for) the moment type of person. But, I'm on page 800 or so of the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and it is anything but mundane ... fascinating and scary.

Indeed it is somewhat fascinating and scary - but it's not history that is important, in the case of such, it would be psychology, imo. Psychology is where it is really fascinating.