Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Taken At Face Value...Is The Book Of Mormon True


Recommended Posts

Aren't there witnesses to the golden plates also?

Yes there are. Unlike Paul, Peter and John who were eyewitnesses to the resurrected Christ, who among the witnesses recognized and could verify that Joseph's translation of reformed Egyptian was accurate? Seeing the plates (whatever they were) doesn't equate that the Book of Mormon came from them (not to mention that Joseph's source was the seer stone).

Did they not witness to seeing the golden plates?

What was on them?

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.

OLIVER COWDERY

DAVID WHITMER

MARTIN HARRIS

'Tappears to me that God told the witnesses that the translation of the Book of Mormon, if not "perfect" (as attested by the Title Page and Joseph's own denials of perfection, not least of which was his significant editing), met the minimum standard He had set for the messages He desired the Book of Mormon to carry: i.e., that Jesus is the Christ, and that Satan actively destroys the freedoms of mankind through secret combinations which undermine legitimate governments.

There is no greater witness than that of the voice of God.

Lehi

Link to comment

Did they not witness to seeing the golden plates?

Why is that relevant? There were many who saw the Kinderhook plates.

The OP question assumes that "nuance" is something only needed in order to make false claims appear true, when in fact nuance is needed to explain the real world.

Are relativity and quantum physics true at face value, or do they need to be nuanced to make them so? They each make predictions about the world (e.g., on light being a particle or a wave) that must be qualified, yet each is one of our best models for understanding the world and simply cannot be jettisoned.

Our best model for understanding something is often, if not always, provisional and of limited scope. That's not apologetics. That's reality.

Don

Huh? The nuance here adds nothing to our understanding of the real world.

I think its more accurate to say the nuance is necessary in order to RECONCILE the text of the BOM with our current knowledge of the real world.

Link to comment

Actually it does Jaybear. Now maybe in "your" world it doesn't explain anything. But nuance often provides context that allows for greater understanding. Witnesses who may or may not know the full context, in the very least offer a postion that these things exist and therefore present evidence of their existence. Do they need to know the full context? Did the original apostles have to know the full context of the atonement to testify of Christ? No. In fact the atonement itself remains very much a complicated and incredibly loving act.

One can state that all must be known before anyone can be a witness. But then there would be almost no witnesses in the world testifying to anything. The gold plates were found, the spirit testified to their truthfulness, and they saw the physical manifestation of the source.

And you say it adds nothing. You will of course see what you want to see, in your world. But it isn't the "real world" the rest of us live in.

Link to comment

Yes there are. Unlike Paul, Peter and John who were eyewitnesses to the resurrected Christ, who among the witnesses recognized and could verify that Joseph's translation of reformed Egyptian was accurate? Seeing the plates (whatever they were) doesn't equate that the Book of Mormon came from them (not to mention that Joseph's source was the seer stone).

It was mentioned before, but perhaps it needs to be repeated.

Methinks you forget that the voice of the Lord Himself declared to the three witnesses that it was translated correctly. Perhaps you should look at the Joseph Smith story before you make your next post, in to get your facts straight.

You are in an LDS forum, you know. We really do know this stuff.

Edited by cdowis
Link to comment
How does God talk to you?

It differs from person to person. Hasn't He ever spoken to you? Have you never had a feeling or a thought, telling you to do something that went against your better judgment, but you felt urged to do it regardless? And then you did it and it turned out to be a better choice than the one you had in mind, and you felt closer to Christ as a result of it? Have you ever been praying and then been inspired to open your Bible to find a verse that answered a question on your mind?

How do you know its God?

That's not a question I can answer. You have to learn that for yourself.

Suppose I do receive a feeling that the Book of Mormon is true, there are dozens of organizations that consider it scripture... how does that tell me which church to join?

A spiritual confirmation of the Book of Mormon is not always a feeling. For me it wasn't. But you should ask God that question, too, with "real intent" and with "faith in Christ." Keep in mind, though, that I have no problem believing that God inspires people to join other religions. I actually believe that sometimes He does, for various reasons known only to Him. But if the Book of Mormon is true, then so is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You can't say that with any of the other faiths of the LDS movement, as many of them deny certain aspects and principles taught in the book to varying degrees. But the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has its foundation rooted within the central message taught in the Book of Mormon, "that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, making himself manifest unto all nations." I know of no religion that declares this with more power than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does.

Ok then... what are the reasons we should conclude the Bible to be true?

If God tells you it is, then it is. Like LeSellars said, there is no greater witness than the voice of God.

Well, I think the truth and healthy society go hand in hand.

Interesting. Please explain and elaborate. Also, please tell me what about Buddhism does not "produce healthy culture." What is so "unhealthy" about Buddhist teachings? While you're at it, please tell me what it is exactly about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that does not "produce healthy culture." And how is it that your brand of Christianity produces more "healthy culture" than any other faith?

What criteria did you apply to conclude that Buddhism isn't true?

By "not true," I meant "not the Church of Jesus Christ." Keep in mind that I believe there are many true and great things taught within Buddhism, as in all other religions and philosophies. But the criteria I applied was the fact that Jesus is the Christ and the Savior and Creator of the universe, and that Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is His Church. Therefore, Buddhism, which does not even accept the divinity of Christ, is not.

. . . it's disingenuous to lump all of the gospel accounts together and then demand yet more beyond them.

This is merely your opinion, and one that I strongly disagree with. Latter-day Saints search for and accept, rather than demand, truth outside of what others believe to be the "final word," the "final authority," about the teachings of the Savior. I see this as a sincere love for Christ and desire for knowledge. Your view, on the other hand, that Latter-day Saints are "disingenuous" for doing this, is interesting. Please expound on this a little.

We have FOUR accounts. How many do you need to satisfy your criteria?

I, for one, will accept however many accounts the Lord desires to give us.

Edited by altersteve
Link to comment

How many independent scientists, archaeologists and the like have found evidence of a Hebrew based civilization in the Americas that correlate to the Book of Mormon times?

Many Biblical locations and events can be found in the old world in ruins, writings and histories. Many by independent scholars and scientists.

How many independent finds are there in the Americas?

If the book is a history of these people wouldn't you expect to have independent researchers and scientists turning up records/remnants that directly point to them?

Link to comment

How many independent scientists, archaeologists and the like have found evidence of a Hebrew based civilization in the Americas that correlate to the Book of Mormon times?

Many Biblical locations and events can be found in the old world in ruins, writings and histories. Many by independent scholars and scientists.

How many independent finds are there in the Americas?

If the book is a history of these people wouldn't you expect to have independent researchers and scientists turning up records/remnants that directly point to them?

Two thoughts.

First, what would archeological evidence of the BOM look like?

Second, how many scholars and scientists have found ruins, writings and histories of troy or other locations that correspond to the greek or roman pantheon? Do their discoveries make their religion more likely to be true?

Link to comment

How many independent scientists, archaeologists and the like have found evidence of a Hebrew based civilization in the Americas that correlate to the Book of Mormon times?

Please help clarify.

Did the Nephites speak Hebrew? Egyptian? The BOM answers that question.

Did the Nephites have a "Hebrew" culture? What specific "hebrew" artifacts are you looking for, since they left Jerusalem 600BCE, prior to the Babylonian captivity, and lived in the New World for 1000 years with no contact with the Jews or jewish culture.

So, pixie, what are the archeologists looking for. Hebrews in America, or ****nephites and lamanites***? What does the BOM tell us. For example, they used towers for religious rites. Not very hebrew, is it. But do we find such towers in mesoamerica.

My dear deceived friend, we do not look for hebrews in America, but should be looking for nephites and lamanites.

Many Biblical locations and events can be found in the old world in ruins, writings and histories. Many by independent scholars and scientists.

How many independent finds are there in the Americas?

"writings and histories". My dear, deceived friend, how many written records do we find from the preClassic period in mesoamerica? Thousands.... hundreds.... fifty.... ten....one....less than one?

Tell us about those "histories and records" from ancient America and what they contain.

If the book is a history of these people wouldn't you expect to have independent researchers and scientists turning up records/remnants that directly point to them?

Tell us about those independent researchers who have actually read the BOM, who have made an extensive study of the history and culture that is found in that book. Now give us a list of those archeologists who have the courage to risk ridicule from their colleagues, and have researched and made a study of that "mormon Bible", that book "delivered by an angel", who have published their detailed analysis.

Give us that list.... please, my poor, deceived friend who thinks he know something... but actually knows nothing about these things.

You are so clever, aren't you. So please answer my questions.

Edited by cdowis
Link to comment

Nope. Not even close. This implies that God the Father and Jesus Christ only appeared to Joseph to prove that they exist. It was a bit more than that.

That is not what I'm implying. That they appeared before Joseph and spoke to Joseph is the foundation of the LDS church. If the event did not happen then the LDS church is moot. You are not answering my questions.

That's like asking, "How does China exist without having a map to prove it?" and assumes that without proof of something, it cannot be true, which is fallacious logic.

Again, you make assertions, when I ask you to prove them, you then claim I'm asking faulty question.

I asked you "Is the Book of Mormon true without a spiritual confirmation," and you replied, "yes." I then asked you how you came to that conclusion... and you don't answer. Let's try this again.. how does one arrive at the conclusion the Book of Mormon is true... without a spiritual confirmation?

To prove that Jesus is the Christ...

Why do you need the scriptures to prove that Jesus is the Christ, when revelation from God will suffice? After all, it wasn't the scriptures that proved to you that the resurrection was real... but revelation, correct?

Interesting how you say "as defined by the biblical apostles and prophets." As if to imply that I don't. Although, what, if I may ask, is the biblical definition of prayer and revelation (i.e., what is your interpretation of what the Bible says about these subjects)?

My emphasis on biblical is not to contrast our definitions, but rather reinforce that these concepts are defined in the biblical texts. LDS it seem appeal to revelation and prayer as defining that the scriptures are true, but then have to point to the scriptures to define what these are. That's circular. I'd be happy to discuss my interpretation of revelation and prayer if you want to open a new thread.

When did I say I am "confident of BoM evidences"? I'm not saying that I'm not, but you're putting words in my mouth. Again.

Well... when I simply ask for BoM evidences, you lecture me to do more homework. Ok, so you are not confident of BoM evidences. Point taken.

Mesoamerica.

Now that you've sided with the Mesoamerica theory, care to get granular and mention any particular locations? In particular, I'd be interested in Zarahemla, the River Sidon and Cumorah.

Well, first of all, it's "reformed Egyptian," not "Reformed Egyptian." Second, I can't do that. A very, very small portion of Mesoamerica has been excavated, and most of the records were destroyed by the Spanish when they invaded, like cdowis said.

So what is it you wanted me to read up on?

What cdowis said. We have no way of knowing if something was a Book of Mormon site or artifact, since the records containing the original names of these places have been lost or destroyed. All we have are the Spanish names...

So nothing on any language, nothing on any specifics sites... again, what study did you want me to do?

However, there is evidence of Christian and Jewish principles being taught and believed by some in ancient Mesoamerica, as discussed in books and articles that you can find produced by FAIR and other such organizations.

I'll look at that. Would you mind giving me a specific article to check out.

I never said that the historical records prove that Joseph Smith did not write the Book of Mormon. I said that the historical records don't support that theory. Your habit of putting words in my mouth is annoying.

The rest of your questions are answered by me five posts down.

My bad... so if they don't prove anything... you should retract your criticism of skeptics.

Edited by jmordecai
Link to comment

It was mentioned before, but perhaps it needs to be repeated.

Methinks you forget that the voice of the Lord Himself declared to the three witnesses that it was translated correctly. Perhaps you should look at the Joseph Smith story before you make your next post, in to get your facts straight.

You are in an LDS forum, you know. We really do know this stuff.

That's assuming it was God. Muhammed claimed that God spoke to him too... and wallah... the Koran. How do we arbitrate whose telling the truth?

This is the shortcoming of experience/testimony-only criteria. As the experiential is subjective. Anyone can say "God told me". We could have three sign a document testifying that God told them that He did not say anything to the three Book of Mormon witnesses and cancel each other out.

This is why a holistic approach is needed to filter the truth from the almost truth.

Link to comment

How many independent scientists, archaeologists and the like have found evidence of a Hebrew based civilization in the Americas that correlate to the Book of Mormon times?

Many Biblical locations and events can be found in the old world in ruins, writings and histories. Many by independent scholars and scientists.

How many independent finds are there in the Americas?

If the book is a history of these people wouldn't you expect to have independent researchers and scientists turning up records/remnants that directly point to them?

So what percentage of things needs to be found? Is 1% enough, 10%, 25%, 40%, 75%? Where is the cutoff point before we say that it is false because archaeologists find no support of it. What about individual stories in the Bible or the Book of Mormon; if archaeological support is not found, should that part of scripture be rejected?

Be careful with your answers. If you are not careful you will find you might need to throw out most of the OT and all of the NT. Are you prepared to live by the same standard for the Bible that you seek to propose for the BofM? As far as being history books supported by other secular history books, both books of scripture fail.

Where most people fail is that because they know that Jerusalem exists they therefore assume all the Bible is supported by science. Because we don't know where Zarahemla is found it is obviously false history. Do some research and find out how much of the Bible cannot be supported by science or archeology.

Link to comment

So what percentage of things needs to be found? Is 1% enough, 10%, 25%, 40%, 75%? Where is the cutoff point before we say that it is false because archaeologists find no support of it. What about individual stories in the Bible or the Book of Mormon; if archaeological support is not found, should that part of scripture be rejected?

Be careful with your answers. If you are not careful you will find you might need to throw out most of the OT and all of the NT. Are you prepared to live by the same standard for the Bible that you seek to propose for the BofM? As far as being history books supported by other secular history books, both books of scripture fail.

Where most people fail is that because they know that Jerusalem exists they therefore assume all the Bible is supported by science. Because we don't know where Zarahemla is found it is obviously false history. Do some research and find out how much of the Bible cannot be supported by science or archeology.

Well let's start with the basics: identify reformed Egyptian, confirm ancient Jews lived in the Americas and that their culture matches that as recorded in the Book of Mormon. With that, we at least have tangibles to work with. Without that, all of the "tapirs are horses" arguments will never convince skeptics that the Book of Mormon is anything other than fiction.

Link to comment

Well let's start with the basics: identify reformed Egyptian, confirm ancient Jews lived in the Americas and that their culture matches that as recorded in the Book of Mormon. With that, we at least have tangibles to work with. Without that, all of the "tapirs are horses" arguments will never convince skeptics that the Book of Mormon is anything other than fiction.

You are ignoring the problem on your side. What is the standard we will use and are you prepared to use it for the Bible or not?

Link to comment

Well let's start with the basics:

I like that approach.

identify reformed Egyptian,

As best as we can tell, it is a combination of Hebrew language and Egyptian characters.

confirm ancient Jews lived in the Americas and that their culture matches that as recorded in the Book of Mormon.

Clearly you have never read the BOM. Getting to the basics, as you say, what language did the Nephites speak, according to the BOM.. hebrew, egyptian, or something else.

The point is that we need to look at the culture described in the BOM and look for it. We need to be looking for nephite and lamanite culture. The nephites were 1000 years in mesoamerica, with no contact with "hebrew culture".

Now YOU get back to the basics, and actually read the BOM.

With that, we at least have tangibles to work with. Without that, all of the "tapirs are horses" arguments will never convince skeptics that the Book of Mormon is anything other than fiction.

I have no interest in convincing anyone of anything. Whether someone believes the BOM is not my problem at all.

Just curious, but why did you mention the horse = tapir? Did someone actually use that argument here on this forum. If so, I want to talk with that individual, because I strongly disagree with that argument.

Edited by cdowis
Link to comment
How many independent scientists, archaeologists and the like have found evidence of a Hebrew based civilization in the Americas that correlate to the Book of Mormon times?

What, pray tell, would a "Hebrew based civilization" look like?

Link to comment

That's assuming it was God. Muhammed claimed that God spoke to him too... and wallah... the Koran. How do we arbitrate whose telling the truth?

This is the shortcoming of experience/testimony-only criteria. As the experiential is subjective. Anyone can say "God told me". We could have three sign a document testifying that God told them that He did not say anything to the three Book of Mormon witnesses and cancel each other out.

This is why a holistic approach is needed to filter the truth from the almost truth.

Why would this be any different than the Bible?

Link to comment
That is not what I'm implying. That they appeared before Joseph and spoke to Joseph is the foundation of the LDS church. If the event did not happen then the LDS church is moot. You are not answering my questions.

It is the fact that Jesus is the Christ that is the "foundation of the LDS church," actually. And yes, God the Father and Jesus Christ spoke to Joseph "in the flesh." Your point being?

I asked you "Is the Book of Mormon true without a spiritual confirmation," and you replied, "yes." I then asked you how you came to that conclusion... and you don't answer. Let's try this again.. how does one arrive at the conclusion the Book of Mormon is true... without a spiritual confirmation?

One cannot arrive at the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is true without a spiritual confirmation.

Why do you need the scriptures to prove that Jesus is the Christ, when revelation from God will suffice? After all, it wasn't the scriptures that proved to you that the resurrection was real... but revelation, correct?

Once again, it was the Spirit who confirmed to me that the scriptures teaching the truth of the Resurrection were true.

LDS it seem appeal to revelation and prayer as defining that the scriptures are true, but then have to point to the scriptures to define what these are. That's circular.

It's a good thing that we have more than just the scriptures to tell us. And if you do not believe that we must ask God if the scriptures are true, then you do not believe the Bible, because this is exactly what the Bible teaches.

Well... when I simply ask for BoM evidences, you lecture me to do more homework. Ok, so you are not confident of BoM evidences. Point taken.

Are you for real? I specifically said, "I'm not saying I'm not [confident of Book of Mormon evidences]." Wow. Nice of you to replace that part of what I wrote with "..."

Now that you've sided with the Mesoamerica theory, care to get granular and mention any particular locations? In particular, I'd be interested in Zarahemla, the River Sidon and Cumorah.

How can I do that when we don't have the original Mesoamerican names of these places? They have been lost, and even if we did have them, we do not know their language and can therefore not pronounce them. All we have are the Spanish names for these places. There are theories, of course, but archaeology is a little more difficult to study than you apparently think it is, especially in a place where all the historical records have been destroyed. We have nothing to guide us in this instance other than what the Book of Mormon says.

I'll look at that. Would you mind giving me a specific article to check out.

FAIRMormon.org

There's a lot of good stuff on there. Type in "Book of Mormon" and read the articles that you find.

My bad... so if they don't prove anything... you should retract your criticism of skeptics.

My criticism of skeptics is that they consistently go around claiming that there is no evidence for the Book of Mormon. This is 100% false. It is true that it cannot be proven that the Book of Mormon is what we claim it is, but it also cannot be proven that it is not. This means that it can only be found to be true by asking God, since He is the only one who can tell you.

That's assuming it was God. Muhammed claimed that God spoke to him too... and wallah... the Koran. How do we arbitrate whose telling the truth?

By asking God, with real intent and with faith in Christ, and He will give you the knowledge you're looking for. Honestly, it's not that difficult to understand. Latter-day Saints believe in an obviously more approachable God than you do. Do you ever ask God these types of questions? Why not, when Jesus clearly commands it? And by the way, Latter-day Saints have never claimed that God never spoke to Muhammed. We believe that He actually did, and that Muhammed was raised up by the Lord for the express purpose of founding Islam to fight against the polytheism and idolatry. The destruction of these practices was one of the instances that helped pave the way for the Restoration in 1830.

This is the shortcoming of experience/testimony-only criteria.

If you do not believe that a testimony by itself is reliable, then you do not believe the words of Christ in Mathew 16:15-18.

We could have three sign a document testifying that God told them that He did not say anything to the three Book of Mormon witnesses and cancel each other out.

They most certainly do not "cancel each other out." One is simply right and the other is wrong. How do we know which is true? I think you know what I'm going to say to answer that question by now.

Well let's start with the basics: identify reformed Egyptian, confirm ancient Jews lived in the Americas and that their culture matches that as recorded in the Book of Mormon. With that, we at least have tangibles to work with. Without that, all of the "tapirs are horses" arguments will never convince skeptics that the Book of Mormon is anything other than fiction.

Your ignorance of what the Book of Mormon actually says is glaring, and so is your ignorance of what the Church teaches. When you study the Book of Mormon, it's best to study everything about the Church, to see how the Church of Jesus Christ all fits together. That's one thing that critics don't understand. Since we're on this subject, though, what do you think evidence that "ancient Jews lived in the Americas" would look like? What should we be expecting to find? The Book of Mormon certainly is not about Jewish culture. It helps to read the Book of Mormon objectively, paying attention to what it says and does not say.

Edited by altersteve
Link to comment
One cannot arrive at the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is true without a spiritual confirmation.

There's another criterion, as well: the Book of Mormon must be true, irrespective of how one arrives at that conclusion.

It is true, as you said, that the only way to know of its truth is by means of the Spirit, but this does not negate the necessity of its being true before the Spirit testifies of that truth, for the Spirit does not testifiy falsely.

As I have received that testimony (along with countless others), it is, therefore true. That others still, in their millions, have not recieved that witness does not change the fact of its truthfulness, nor does it mean my mitness is in error. They, in psite of the ir protestations to the contrary, have not applied the correct test to the matter. Either they lacked faith in Christ, they did not ask in sincerity, or they did not act (and I believe this to be the biggest stumbling block for the majority) with real intent. "Real intent" means what Lamoni's father did when he prayed "... I will give away all my sins [to know the truth]."

Lehi

Link to comment

There's another criterion, as well: the Book of Mormon must be true, irrespective of how one arrives at that conclusion.

It is true, as you said, that the only way to know of its truth is by means of the Spirit, but this does not negate the necessity of its being true before the Spirit testifies of that truth, for the Spirit does not testifiy falsely.

Ummm...actually people get false witnesses all the time. So who, if not the individual claiming to receive this witness is the final arbiter of said spiritual witness? Yet there are countless cases of individuals who have claimed to have received a witness of some truth only to be told that it was a false witness because it did not conform to someone else’s standard of a spiritual witness. In fact a spiritual witness is probably one of the least reliable experience to base a major decision upon...because it is based on feelings and emotions and feeling and emotions CAN and ARE manipulated.

Mormonism is NOT unique in the spiritual witness business...while from the Mormon perspective all "other" witnesses are false...just as from some other religions perspective Mormonism witnesses are false. Even within Mormonism, members receive false witness of the spirit all the time only later to reinterpret their once firm witness once they realize that their so-called witness didn't result in the desired blessing.

As I have received that testimony (along with countless others), it is, therefore true. That others still, in their millions, have not recieved that witness does not change the fact of its truthfulness, nor does it mean my mitness is in error. They, in spite of their protestations to the contrary, have not applied the correct test to the matter. Either they lacked faith in Christ, they did not ask in sincerity, or they did not act (and I believe this to be the biggest stumbling block for the majority) with real intent. "Real intent" means what Lamoni's father did when he prayed "... I will give away all my sins [to know the truth]."

Lehi

This is circular reasoning at its finest and it drives me crazy. Because we KNOW the answer to the question before the question is even asked we know that if you don't come to the same answer that we did, you didn't follow the correct steps sincerely enough, with enough faith or with enough intent. It is one continuous round. Millions of people have asked sincerely, with faith in Christ AND with real intent and NOT received the promised results...it happens every day in the mission field...maybe just maybe it isn't the individual that is at fault but the content of the product or the circular reasoning that is flawed. Particularly knowing that people receive false witnesses all the time...

Edited by Craig Paxton
Link to comment
Ummm...actually people get false witnesses all the time. So who, if not the individual claiming to receive this witness is the final arbiter of said spiritual witness?

If it's not the Holy Spirit, who never falsely testifies, then who do you think it is? Who lies so much he is referred to as "the father of lies" in scripture?

Link to comment
Ummm...actually people get false witnesses all the time. So who, if not the individual claiming to receive this witness is the final arbiter of said spiritual witness?

If it's not the Holy Spirit, who never falsely testifies, then who do you think it is? Who lies so much he is referred to as "the father of lies" in scripture?

Millions of people have asked sincerely, with faith in Christ AND with real intent and NOT received the promised results

CFR please. And what are the "promised results"?

Link to comment

You are ignoring the problem on your side. What is the standard we will use and are you prepared to use it for the Bible or not?

I apply the same standards to Mormonisms as I do Christianity, or any religion for that matter. The first criteria I ask is if the spiritual teachings are rooted in authentic ancient history.

With the Bible I can answer "probable" so that allows me to move forward.

I can't answer "yes" with the Book of Mormon, so the whole thing is moot to me.

Link to comment
cdowis

Clearly you have never read the BOM.

So ancient Jews never lived the Americas?

Getting to the basics, as you say, what language did the Nephites speak, according to the BOM.. hebrew, egyptian, or something else.

"the language of the Egyptians" (1 Ne. 1:2).

Now YOU get back to the basics, and actually read the BOM.

I've read it. Do you offer any data points other than insults?

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...