8 Strong Arguments / 8 Evidences Of Mormonism

[DBMormon]

With the statement that one actual proof that the Book of Mormon is real will likely never be allowed by Heavenly Father. We will never find a artifact that states Nephi.... son of Lehi in an indian language because Faith would then be off the board.

[Buzzard]

With the statement that one actual proof that the Book of Mormon is real will likely never be allowed by Heavenly Father. We will never find a artifact that states Nephi.... son of Lehi in an indian language because Faith would then be off the board.

Glad to see you coming over to the light, reel. I love reading about evidences of the BOM, but if we could "prove" it, then the entire world would be accountable for not responding to that. Given the state of the world these days, most folks have plenty to be accountable for already. Heck, most of us LDS have a lot to be accountable for, but that's another thread.

[theplains]

no Is it a thousand years in God's Time or mine. Did the time begin at the completion of the creation or once Adam fell?

According to what is taught in Doctrines of Salvation, it would appear the time is literal earth years in our reckoning.

I'll quote some passages:

AGE OF THE EARTH SINCE ADAM

"We have evidence beyond dispute that Adam was driven out of the Garden of Eden about 6,000 years

ago ...In the Book of Revelation, chapters 5 to 10, we have the story of the opening of the seven seals

by the Lamb, each seal representing 1,000 years of the temporal existence of this earth. In the

Doctrines and Covenants, section 88:92-116, we have the confirmation of this ... in section 77:6-15,

we have more information in relation to the opening of these seals" (page 79).

TEMPORAL EXISTENCE OF EARTH

"Here is a definite statement by revelation to us that this earth will go through 7,000 years of temporal

existence" (page 80).

MEANING OF THE MERIDIAN OF TIME

"Moreover, our Saviour came in the meridian of time. That dispensation is called the dispensation of the

meridian of time. This means that it was about half way from the beginning of time to the end of time.

Anyone who desires can figure it for himself that the Lord came about 4,000 years from the time of the

fall. The millennium is to come some time following the 2,000 years after his coming. Then there is to

be the millennium for 1,000 years, and following that a little season, the length of time of which is not

revealed, but which may bring time to its end about 8,000 years from the beginning" (page 81).

Question for you - referring to the second coming, Christ prophesied

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."

Was Christ wrong?

In my opinion, this is a reference to the generation in the future that sees those things come to pass.

Regards,

Jim

[theplains]

The seven thousand years refer to the time after the fall of Adam, specifically to the seven prophetic periods, and not to a precise number of years. A thousand years refers to a single day, for example. This revelation refers to the six days prior to the return of Christ.

The "creation periods" were six days, and so will the "temporal periods".

What time do you believe the 7th period (7th seal, D&C 77:12) is a reference too? The 1,000 years before the

Second Coming or the 1,000 years commencing with his return?

Thanks,

Jim

[ERayR]

Back in my investigating days, this seemed like the best physical evidence for the BoM. For Catholicism, I always thought the best physical evidence for Catholics are the Incorruptible Saints. I've learned long ago that there needs to be some degree of wanting the physical evidence to be true for it to be accepted. I've seen enough board members not to be moved by the 'incorruptible saints' evidence. For myself, the NHM evidence gives the possibility that the BoM story may be possible but the incredible part of the story is that the voyage could even be made at that time and need the evidence in the Americas so I've noted the discovery but need further relevent evidence. It's all a matter of faith what one accepts for members and non-members.

If any precept, religion or scientific, were required to stand or fall on one piece of evidence they would all fall. For me the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is the preponderance of all the small things. Indeed some are more convincing than others but to me when added together makes a very solid physical affirmation of the spiritual confirmation that I have received.

[blueadept]

If any precept, religion or scientific, were required to stand or fall on one piece of evidence they would all fall. For me the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is the preponderance of all the small things. Indeed some are more convincing than others but to me when added together makes a very solid physical affirmation of the spiritual confirmation that I have received.

That sounds like the similar journey that has strengthened me in regards to my own Catholic faith along with the spiritual confirmation that I received. This was the point I was trying to make. A similar journey with a different conclusion on our part.

[ERayR]

That sounds like the similar journey that has strengthened me in regards to my own Catholic faith along with the spiritual confirmation that I received. This was the point I was trying to make. A similar journey with a different conclusion on our part.

We are all the sum of our personal experiences. While it is my belief that there are some saving ordinances that must be attended each will come to them in his/her own way, in his/her own time. To me the point is to be be coming to God and living a God like life to the very best of our own capabilities.

[blueadept]

It's through those saving ordinances/sacraments that we receive HF's grace which is a gift that cannot be earned. It's what you do with those gifts in this life that matters. Of course, we believe we only receive these gifts through our own respective church.

[ERayR]

It's through those saving ordinances/sacraments that we receive HF's grace which is a gift that cannot be earned. It's what you do with those gifts in this life that matters. Of course, we believe we only receive these gifts through our own respective church.

True but we are not that far apart. If you would only listen.

[DBMormon]

True but we are not that far apart. If you would only listen.

As a thirdparty I agree you are both on the same page, just from different faiths which sometimes is a barrier to finding commonality

[blueadept]

As a thirdparty I agree you are both on the same page, just from different faiths which sometimes is a barrier to finding commonality

As a "Former Dual-Faith Household Masochist", I would definitely agree. One would hope that finding commonality would be the #1 goal. But as the sayings go about a house being divided....

[ERayR]

As a thirdparty I agree you are both on the same page, just from different faiths which sometimes is a barrier to finding commonality

With the banter put aside I don't find it at all hard to be friends with someone of a different faith. I merely follow the 11th Article of Faith: "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." If I find someone who adheres to that precept and allows me the same privilege without denigrating either my sanity or my religion we do well.

However a marriage is a little different. In a marriage the two are partners and as such should be working for the same goals which is very difficult when the can't agree on the path that leads to those goals. As friends you can agree on goals and disagree on what gets you there. In a marriage you not only need to agree on goals but also on how to accomplish them because you are going there together. As friends if one path or the other is incorrect you can still be friends at different places but as a couple if one path fails you are no longer a couple.

[Hamilton Porter]

Ah! You said it first. You beat me to it.

Just glad someone else noticed it was a piss poor comparison.

[DBMormon]

Is this the paradigm that must be dealt with? If you look at the OP is there any other way to get to the root of the church's truthfulness without having to rely wholly upon faith and the Spirit?

[noel00]

If LDS accept a universal flood, then one wonders how many and what animals Noah placed on the boat. Two Lions? What did he feed them? frozen deer? Or where they temporary vegetarians? Two kangaroos and Koala bears made it to Australia without being eaten by the Lions, and the Koala bears were provided with their own supply of gum tree leaves. If the flood was local, why then did one of Noah's sons have to marry a descendant of Cain? Surely there were plenty of Cain's descendants outside the floodzone? Imagine forty days and nights, all that waste matter?

[blueadept]

Is this the paradigm that must be dealt with? If you look at the OP is there any other way to get to the root of the church's truthfulness without having to rely wholly upon faith and the Spirit?

From hearing my fair share of LDS testimonies given in F&T meetings, a very small percentage of them get to the root of the church's truthfulness without having to rely wholly upon faith and the Spirit. They are the exception and not the rule IMHO.

I have the utmost respect for those testimonies even if I don't agree with their conclustions.

[DBMormon]

According to what is taught in Doctrines of Salvation, it would appear the time is literal earth years in our reckoning.

I'll quote some passages:

Doctrines of Salvation = Joseph Fielding Smith & Bruce R McConkie? No thank you, I will never base my reality on a book by a church leader again and especially these two. I love their grit and passion, but usually when they declared doctrine they were wrong. Too much chance of error. Principles and testimony.... fine. Doctrine and new theology..... never again

Edited June 6, 2012 by reelmormon

[ERayR]

Doctrines of Salvation = Joseph Fielding Smith & Bruce R McConkie? No thank you, I will never base my reality on a book by a church leader again and especially these two. I love their grit and passion, but usually when they declared doctrine they were wrong. Too much chance of error. Principles and testimony.... fine. Doctrine and new theology..... never again

One should never base your own testimony on someone else. One should always seek personal revelation.

[DJBrown]

Buzzard,

You wrote:

By this reasoning, God should not have allowed archaeological finds confirming the historicity of so many figures, geographical locations, and events mentioned in the Old and New Testaments. Yet he did. Such finds do not "prove the gospel true," but they do substantiate the credibility of the texts.

There is an important distinction to recognize.

It is possible to believe many of the historical claims of the Bible without also believing the religious, spiritual claims and history found in the Bible.

The Book of Mormon is different. It is not possible to believe in the historical claims of the Book of Mormon without also believing the miraculous means by which it was brought about. It is black and white, no gray. And I think God wants it that way. There is only one way for the historical claims of the Book of Mormon to be valid and true- and that way is what Joseph outlined and claimed.

So it is not necessarily a logical conclusion that if God did not desire to prove the Book of Mormon through physical evidences, he would also prevent equivalent historical evidences for the Bible. Because believing (all or in part) the historical evidences (towns, places, people) of the Bible does not prove any of the spiritual claims of that book of scripture.

Make sense?

[Robert F. Smith]

There is an important distinction to recognize.

It is possible to believe many of the historical claims of the Bible without also believing the religious, spiritual claims and history found in the Bible.

The Book of Mormon is different. It is not possible to believe in the historical claims of the Book of Mormon without also believing the miraculous means by which it was brought about. It is black and white, no gray. And I think God wants it that way. There is only one way for the historical claims of the Book of Mormon to be valid and true- and that way is what Joseph outlined and claimed.

So it is not necessarily a logical conclusion that if God did not desire to prove the Book of Mormon through physical evidences, he would also prevent equivalent historical evidences for the Bible. Because believing (all or in part) the historical evidences (towns, places, people) of the Bible does not prove any of the spiritual claims of that book of scripture.

Make sense?

By George, I think you've got it!

[cdowis]

To put it in another light.

One can be an atheist and still accept many parts of the BIble as historical.

But that is not possible with the BOM.. To accept ANY aspect of the BOM as authentic history, one must also accept that angels may exist, as well as translation through divine means, and Deity speaking to man.

Most/all archeologists and historians are unwilling to read the BOM text, much less to seriously examine its claims. To do so would admit the story of JS is possible, and the possibility of the existence of angels

[CASteinman]

It is not possible to believe in the historical claims of the Book of Mormon without also believing the miraculous means by which it was brought about.

What you said here so much, I wish I had thought of it. (the whole post not just the bit I have quoted) But not being quite that bright, I am going to do the next best thing and steal this for my own!

Edited June 10, 2012 by CASteinman

[DBMormon]

It is not possible to believe in the historical claims of the Book of Mormon without also believing the miraculous means by which it was brought about.

Actually you can. It is possible that the book was actually written 600 BC - 421 AD and that joseph got it by other means (satanic, pyschic powers, ext...) While perhaps a bigger stretch then the story he gave we have already gone down the rabbit hole.

[DBMormon]

back to the opening thread

Does the strength of Mormonism or the strength of the critics arguments really boil down to the 16 points in the opening thread. Is there more to it then that or in essence is that the dichotomy of the prediciment?

It just seems like there should be more to it then that. Some way of mounting the evidence and coming to a definitive decision. Obviously i know it boils down to FAITH but Mormonism always felt like a shoe in to me for anyone who really wanted to know

Edited June 11, 2012 by reelmormon

[Anti-NOMunistJackMormon]

I still find it hard to except any scientific/historical evidence that "proves" the BoM because it's simply not there and much of it is weak.

It is a spiritual text and must be judged upon those merits. It's a leap of faith to accept it. There is some pseudo-science and archeaology that has shown many visits to the Americas by many different cultures and even some that shows the Olmec civilization to be a melting pot society. In addition there are many feats of engineering that we still cannot explain or replicate to this day among the ancient societies. I believe in the BoM even though I am not practicing nor orthodox in many of my beliefs.

It is possible for some discovery or "proof" that may vindicate the BoM but I have seen nothing that I would call overwhelmingly supportive of secular "proof".

When Joseph called the BoM 'the most correct book" I think one must take that statement as the most correct in principles and teaching rather than it being perfect grammatically or historically.

We also don't know how he "translated" it. Tranlasted may mean he "channeled" it or was simply given visions as to what happened in the BoM. There are so many mysteries as to the BoM that no one not even secular critics and non-believers can prove it's origin as a falsehood. One can only look upon it with faith, probability and reason in any combination.