Witness For The Plates Vs. Witnesses For Resurrection

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Pa Pa,

You asked:

Does this matter? If it had turned out that one of the three had denied his testimony, would that have any bearing at all on the question of the truth of that testimony from your point of view? There's no point in arguing over something unless it matters.

Rob...what you forget is that each of these men where exed, I cannot think of a better reason to recant. Alos their standing within their new communities. Instead as did the Apostles, remained true to the end of their lives...two returned and went West with the Saints. You also have the testimonies of 11 others, and the lives of those lost on the trek West, who knew Joseph and loved him...each grave along the Mormon trail was a testament to the truth.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Your philosophy continues to fascinate me. Your statement is as modern as it gets, but then most modernists continue on and say that religion is irrational and therefore should be discarded or is no longer useful, etc (the "God is dead" crowd).

Honestly, it's not very often that someone who is thoroughly modern/post-modern is also a staunch religious believer. Thank you for showing us that all combinations are possible

It is man's ability to compartmentalize (hope I spell that right) that makes it possible to be in the world and not of the world. That is why it is called "Faith"...this allows us to believe in that which is not seen, but hoped for.

[Calm]

I don't think mfbukowski would claim to be mainstream in his religious belief and (if I understand him) takes even the Book of Mormon's coming forth in a slightly non-literal way.

In my view mfb is very mainstream in all areas that most members think about, he's just thought things through a bit deeper than most members take the time to do and at that point along with pretty much everyone else who has taken it further, they have left the mainstream...not because they differ from it but because the mainstream doesn't flow in that area.

[Rob Bowman]

mathonihah,

You wrote:

I did not fail to reply to your post. That was my reply to your post.

My original comment on the matter was as follows:

"After seeing your posts #226 and #230, I think canard78's comment on the former has some merit. I myself am now curious what criteria you use to determine which posts of mine are appropriate for discussion in this venue and which are not. "

You still have not explained yourself in this regard, your word game not withstanding.

[mathonihah]

mathonihah,

You wrote:

My original comment on the matter was as follows:

"After seeing your posts #226 and #230, I think canard78's comment on the former has some merit. I myself am now curious what criteria you use to determine which posts of mine are appropriate for discussion in this venue and which are not. "

You still have not explained yourself in this regard, your word game not withstanding.

You have just convinced me that my strategy of dealing with your posts is the right one. I reply (or not reply) to posts according to their merit as I see fit. The one thing that I do have control over is deciding which post to reply to and which ones not to. That is my decision, not yours. You are free to do the same.

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

You wrote:

OK, with your statement that the Lord can call a prophet today, that the Bible does not preclude additional revelation, I can now clarify my view of your argument.

That's not exactly what I said, but it probably doesn't matter for the matter at hand. You continued:

JS received revelation from the Lord to wait for the proper time to show the plates, and that the plates were not to be placed on permanent display. The Lord has his own time and methods, even if it makes it appear to the public and critics that JS was a fake. The critics mock, "if the plates are real, put them on public display"

A similar situation when the critics demanded that Christ come down from the cross, and they mocked "he cannot even save himself." The Lord has His own will and methods.

So, JS was being obedient to the commandments and revelations of the Lord, to the will of the Lord.

I know Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is my Friend as well as my Lord and Savior...and Joseph Smith was no Jesus Christ.

It is true that sometimes the way God does things looks foolish to unbelievers. But (a) I am not an unbeliever and (b) more often than not what people claim is the work of God is simply human foolishness. Therefore, appealing to the biblical precedent of unbelievers mocking Jesus on the cross does nothing to address my arguments against Joseph Smith's claims.

Jesus "looked like a fake" only for a few days and only in the sense that he did nothing at the time to demonstrate that he had the power to stop the injustice being done to him. But the charge that Jesus was a fake was never very persuasive. After all, it was public knowledge that he had performed many miracles, including casting out demons and raising the dead. The mockers at Jesus' crucifixion admitted that he had performed such miracles. It was also public knowledge that Jesus had refused to take up the cause of using force to inaugurate God's kingdom on earth; he had taught his Jewish followers to love their enemies and do good to them, even to pay their taxes. So there was no rational excuse for the mockers' unbelief, given the public knowledge available to them about Jesus.

The situation with Joseph Smith is very, very different. His whole career as a prophet was full of actions and behaviors that devout believers in Christ widely agree call his claims into question. Things went from bad to worse, with Joseph ending his inglorious ministry teaching explicit polytheism and practicing polygamy (including with other men's wives!).

The business about the gold plates goes beyond the fact that they were never put on public display. You keep harping on this one point out of the context of the whole story within which that fact adds fuel to the fire. Read, for starters, just two of my early posts in this thread, #16 and #33.

[Rob Bowman]

mathonihah,

I'll take that response to mean that you didn't have a good substantive answer to the post you dismissed from consideration. That is certainly the best explanation for your evasiveness over the past several rounds of this exchange.

You have just convinced me that my strategy of dealing with your posts is the right one. I reply (or not reply) to posts according to their merit as I see fit. The one thing that I do have control over is deciding which post to reply to and which ones not to. That is my decision, not yours. You are free to do the same.

[Rob Bowman]

Pa Pa,

Sigh. You didn't answer my question.

Rob...what you forget is that each of these men where exed, I cannot think of a better reason to recant. Alos their standing within their new communities. Instead as did the Apostles, remained true to the end of their lives...two returned and went West with the Saints. You also have the testimonies of 11 others, and the lives of those lost on the trek West, who knew Joseph and loved him...each grave along the Mormon trail was a testament to the truth.

[canard78]

In my view mfb is very mainstream in all areas that most members think about, he's just thought things through a bit deeper than most members take the time to do and at that point along with pretty much everyone else who has taken it further, they have left the mainstream...not because they differ from it but because the mainstream doesn't flow in that area.

True - I appreciated his clarification above

[canard78]

You have just convinced me that my strategy of dealing with your posts is the right one. I reply (or not reply) to posts according to their merit as I see fit. The one thing that I do have control over is deciding which post to reply to and which ones not to. That is my decision, not yours. You are free to do the same.

Would you consider it fair that some would take that as an admission that points/arguments have been made that you not are able to answer? It seems odd to enter a debate and then duck questions that are awkward. As someone who finds some of Rob's points compelling (some, not all) I would welcome your perspective and rebuttal.

[mfbukowski]

In my view mfb is very mainstream in all areas that most members think about, he's just thought things through a bit deeper than most members take the time to do and at that point along with pretty much everyone else who has taken it further, they have left the mainstream...not because they differ from it but because the mainstream doesn't flow in that area.

Thanks.

Actually the postmodern/Pragmatist world view allows for many many interpretations of what we call "reality" and one of those includes a very classical understanding of Mormonism. Mormonism can easily be understood in such a postmodern/Pragmatist world view.

But that in no way implies that the classical "TBM" understanding is "incorrect" and the other "correct". As far as I am concerned, God might indeed have created the world in 6 days or 6 minutes or 6 billion years or for that matter 60 billion years. On the other hand, the Bible might be literally true in every respect, or a completely scientific, Godless view might also be "correct"

The entire problem is how we can know how anything is true and what that even means. I am extremely skeptical by nature. Whenever someone tells me something, I question in detail how and why they think that what they believe is right, or how they know a given fact. I think this is just my nature. And unfortunately or fortunately I have studied philosophy and know that indeed all we know is based on human experience of one kind or another and that science indeed ignores much of human experience which is perfectly "valid" in other spheres.

So how do we decide between these positions?

But for whatever reason, I believe that God has seen fit to give me a couple of profound spiritual experiences in my life which I cannot explain except to believe that indeed they are from God.

So what I personally choose to believe is a model of "reality" which is compatible with religious positions and with philosophical positions as well, since I think both world views clearly have merit and are personally important to the way I see reality. I think we all construct these models for ourselves and indeed the construction of such models is not only what humans naturally do, but that is also what Mormons mean by the idea of a human God organizing the world from matter unorganized. We operate as mini-gods in helping Him to do that, and this view is highly compatible with both Mormonism and a philosophy called "linguistic constructivism".

So for me, my natural extreme skepticism is resolved in the view that since there is very little we can be certain about, and since there are so many ways of understanding and defining "truth" and since none of them are really much better than any others, we might as well go with what works for us, and makes our lives happy, and which help us to fulfill our fullest potential as human beings. I think we all have a sense that these values are important.

So for me, on one hand believing is a choice of which description of the world I choose to adopt. On the other I am constrained by my personal experiences throughout my life, and those experiences include profound religious experiences which I cannot deny. If I had never had such experiences, I probably would be an agnostic or atheist, pretty much as I was before I had them.

But I HAVE had them, and I cannot deny that. That changes everything.

[Vance]

It is true that sometimes the way God does things looks foolish to unbelievers. But (a) I am not an unbeliever . . .

But you are an unbeliever.

Therefore, appealing to the biblical precedent of unbelievers mocking Jesus on the cross does nothing to address my arguments against Joseph Smith's claims.

It fits perfectly.

Jesus "looked like a fake" only for a few days and only in the sense that he did nothing at the time to demonstrate that he had the power to stop the injustice being done to him.

He was still considered a fake by the disbelieving.

But the charge that Jesus was a fake was never very persuasive.

To the believeing.

After all, it was public knowledge that he had performed many miracles, including casting out demons and raising the dead.

Yet the disbelieveing still didn't believe. And it wasn't public knowledge that He was resurrected. Room was left for faith.

The mockers at Jesus' crucifixion admitted that he had performed such miracles.

Yeah, by the power of the devil or some other rational explanation.

So there was no rational excuse for the mockers' unbelief, given the public knowledge available to them about Jesus.

Sure there was.

John 12:37 ¶ But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him:

38 That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?

39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,

40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

41 These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.

42 ¶ Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:

43 For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.

The situation with Joseph Smith is very, very different. His whole career as a prophet was full of actions and behaviors that devout believers in Christ widely agree call his claims into question.

Just like the Pharisees and lawyers. You do remember that in the end they KILLED Jesus, right.

The business about the gold plates goes beyond the fact that they were never put on public display.

Neither was the resurrection. The resurrected Christ didn't go "on public display" either.

[mathonihah]

Would you consider it fair that some would take that as an admission that points/arguments have been made that you not are able to answer? It seems odd to enter a debate and then duck questions that are awkward. As someone who finds some of Rob's points compelling (some, not all) I would welcome your perspective and rebuttal.

If you would be kind enough to restate in your own words what points Rob made (and where he made them) that in your opinion I failed to respond to, or that you are interested in obtaining my opinion on, I will try again.

[canard78]

If you would be kind enough to restate in your own words what points Rob made (and where he made them) that in your opinion I failed to respond to, or that you are interested in obtaining my opinion on, I will try again.

Hi Mathonihah, thanks for your gracious response. It wasn't my intention to goad you, I simply think that it is not only for Rob that we need to answer challenging questions, but the many site visitors who read but don't participate.

As I understand it, Rob was addressing the use of the phrase Urim & Thummim by Joseph and raising the issue that sometimes what we take as Joseph's statements today don't always reflect what was said at the time. He gave an example of what is now D&C 27. CDowis also replied to his post saying revelation is a living document so can be changed if needed.

The original revelation was received in 1830 (Aug or Sep) by Joseph while on his way to buy wine for the sacrament. He was stopped by an Angel who gave instruction on what wine to use.

I've coped below the full D&C 27 as it is today. This matches the 1835 version (section 50). When we go back to the earliest version of the revelation it has no reference to the Priesthood restoration. Revelation Book 1 (started 1830 or 1831) has a handwritten copy of the revelation. In 1833 the Book of Commandments has an identical version put into print (still no Priesthood references).

Here's the version we use today. I've underlined the parts that don't appear in the 1830 original and 1833 printed version and added two words in brackets that were in the original but omitted in the 1835 version:

1 Listen to the ^avoice of Jesus Christ, your Lord, your God, and your Redeemer, whose word is ^bquick and powerful.

2 For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall^aeat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my ^bglory—^crememberingunto the Father my ^dbody which was laid down for you, and my^eblood which was shed for the ^fremission of your sins.

3 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, that you shall not purchase ^awine neither strong drink of your enemies;

4 Wherefore, you shall partake of none except it is made ^anewamong you; yea, in this my Father’s kingdom which shall be built up on the earth.

5 Behold, this is wisdom in me; wherefore, marvel not, for the hour cometh that I will ^adrink of the fruit of the ^bvine with you on the earth, and with ^cMoroni, whom I have sent unto you to reveal the Book of Mormon, containing the fulness of my everlasting gospel, to whom I have committed the keys of the ^drecord of the^estick of ^fEphraim;

6 And also with ^aElias, to whom I have committed the keys of bringing to pass the restoration of all things spoken by the mouth of all the holy prophets since the world began, concerning the last days;

7 And also John the son of Zacharias, which Zacharias he ^a(Elias) visited and gave promise that he should have a son, and his name should be ^bJohn, and he should be filled with the spirit of Elias;

8 Which John I have sent unto you, my servants, Joseph Smith, Jun., and Oliver Cowdery, to ordain you unto the first ^apriesthoodwhich you have received, that you might be called and ^bordainedeven as ^cAaron;

9 And also ^aElijah, unto whom I have committed the keys of the power of turning the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to the ^bfathers, that the whole earth may not be smitten with a ^ccurse;

10 And also with Joseph and ^aJacob, and ^bIsaac, and Abraham, your ^cfathers, by whom the ^dpromises remain;

11 And also with Michael, or ^aAdam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ^bancient of days;

12 And also with Peter, and James, and John, whom I have sent unto you, by whom I have ^aordained you and confirmed you to be^bapostles, and especial ^cwitnesses of my ^dname, and bear the keys of your ministry and of the same things which I revealed unto them;

13 Unto whom I have ^acommitted the ^bkeys of my kingdom, and a^cdispensation of the ^dgospel for the ^elast times; and for the ^ffulnessof times, in the which I will gather together in ^gone all things, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth;

14 And also with all those whom my Father hath ^agiven me out of the world.

15 Wherefore, ^alift up your hearts and ^brejoice, and ^cgird up your loins, and take upon you my whole ^darmor, that ye may be able to withstand the evil day, having done all, that ye may be able to^estand.

16 Stand, therefore, having your loins ^agirt about with ^btruth, having on the ^cbreastplate of ^drighteousness, and your feet shod with the preparation of the ^egospel of ^fpeace, which I have sent mine ^gangels to commit unto you;

17 Taking the shield of faith wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the ^afiery darts of the wicked;

18 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of my ^aSpirit, which I will pour out upon you, and my word which I reveal unto you, and be agreed as touching all things whatsoever ye ask of me, and be faithful until I come, and ye shall be ^bcaught up, that where I am ye shall be ^calso. (even so) Amen.

Although Rob's question and example is relevant to the Gold Plates and the U&T, I would imagine a drawn out discussion on D&C 27 would get off-topic to the issue of Witnesses. As such I'm going to create a new thread for further discussion. Feel free to answer here or over on the new thread.

For reference, here are the original posts by Rob, you and cdowis (some cuts for brevity):

Rob said:

It is when the editing is misleading. In this case it is misleading because it makes it appear to the reader that Joseph knew in 1829 that he had something called the Urim and Thummim. As I have shown, this is not the case. The name was actually suggested by one of Joseph's followers, not something he received by divine revelation.

There are other even more egregious examples of misleading editing of Joseph's revelations. The best example is the supposed earliest revelation concerning the appearances of John the Baptist and of Peter, James, and John to bestow the priesthood orders on Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in D&C 27:5-13, a three-hundred word text added in 1835 to what was Book of Commandments 28 by being literally spliced into the middle of a sentence. By inserting this material into that earlier text Joseph back-dated to 1830 his revelation concerning these supposed events of 1829, even though no one had ever heard of these events or of Joseph and Oliver having these priesthood orders in 1830 or even for the following three years or so. Joseph not only inserted this three-hundred word text into the middle of a sentence, he did so in a revelation that had nothing to do with priesthood or visitations; it was originally a "revelation" not to buy wine for the sacrament!

You replied:

If you genuinely think that you are onto something, the answer is to write a paper or article, and present your evidence properly resourced and documented, so it can be examined carefully, and (if need be) responded to. I don't have all the relevant fact at my fingertips to be able to do that right now, and I am not particularly interested in investing the time required to acquire it at the present time.

cdowis replied:

Once again, we ask you about your assumptions on revelation. Is a revelation received as a single event, and no changes or additions made, or are you able to see the possibility that a revelation is a living document. Additions and corrections are made as new information and light is discovered. As the revelation goes to the world, goes into publication, those changes are encorporated into the published revelation, as opposed to its "raw" form.

[mathonihah]

Hi Mathonihah, thanks for your gracious response. It wasn't my intention to goad you, I simply think that it is not only for Rob that we need to answer challenging questions, but the many site visitors who read but don't participate.

As I understand it, Rob was addressing the use of the phrase Urim & Thummim by Joseph and raising the issue that sometimes what we take as Joseph's statements today don't always reflect what was said at the time. He gave an example of what is now D&C 27. CDowis also replied to his post saying revelation is a living document so can be changed if needed.

The original revelation was received in 1830 (Aug or Sep) by Joseph while on his way to buy wine for the sacrament. He was stopped by an Angel who gave instruction on what wine to use.

I've coped below the full D&C 27 as it is today. This matches the 1835 version (section 50). When we go back to the earliest version of the revelation it has no reference to the Priesthood restoration. Revelation Book 1 (started 1830 or 1831) has a handwritten copy of the revelation. In 1833 the Book of Commandments has an identical version put into print (still no Priesthood references).

Here's the version we use today. I've underlined the parts that don't appear in the 1830 original and 1833 printed version and added two words in brackets that were in the original but omitted in the 1835 version:

Although Rob's question and example is relevant to the Gold Plates and the U&T, I would imagine a drawn out discussion on D&C 27 would get off-topic to the issue of Witnesses. As such I'm going to create a new thread for further discussion. Feel free to answer here or over on the new thread.

For reference, here are the original posts by Rob, you and cdowis (some cuts for brevity):

Rob said:

You replied:

cdowis replied:

Thank you. I have replied to your post in the other thread which you have started.

[cdowis]

Rob has now revealed the assumption behind this and other threads. While he concedes that modern revelation is possible but the bottom line argument is that JS was such a dispicable person, that he does not have the character necessary to be a prophet. Rather than called from the Lord, he was a deceiver and a fake focusing on his own evil desires.

Bottom line -- all Christians agree that JS was a very evil person and could not have been a prophet due to his flawed character.

May I suggest that Rob focus his discussions to JS character, rather than these other sideshows.

Edited December 26, 2012 by cdowis

[Bernard Gui]

Wouldn't the testimonies of the resurrection have been more convincing had they come

from credible, historical, and reputable figures such as Herod, Pilate, the chief priests and elders, the scribes and the entire Sanhedrin? Seems to me these would have been more powerful witnesses than

obscure fishermen, tradesmen, and a few women, all of whom were already His followers and had

considerable vested interest in proving the veracity of His predictions. Appearing before the

Romans who crucified Him would have convinced the most powerful political force in the world,

and appearing to all the Jews in Jerusalem would have irrefutably confirmed His claims to be their God

and King.

Edited December 27, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

So for me, my natural extreme skepticism is resolved in the view that since there is very little we can be certain about, and since there are so many ways of understanding and defining "truth" and since none of them are really much better than any others, we might as well go with what works for us, and makes our lives happy, and which help us to fulfill our fullest potential as human beings. I think we all have a sense that these values are important.

I am not trying to be difficult, but am asking this out of curiosity of your philosophies more than anything. What if "what works for me" and fulfills my "fullest potential" according to my definition of truth is money, sex, and power by whatever means necessary? If he claims that it makes him happy (even though it may hurt others), how can I bemoan his lifestyle if he is simply following the rules which you define? It seems that a "whatever floats your boat" philosophy and life style would give too much credence and promotion of self-centeredness over cooperation and common good.

Edited December 27, 2012 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

I am not trying to be difficult, but am asking this out of curiosity of your philosophies more than anything. What if "what works for me" and fulfills my "fullest potential" according to my definition of truth is money, sex, and power by whatever means necessary? If he claims that it makes him happy (even though it may hurt others), how can I bemoan his lifestyle if he is simply following the rules which you define? It seems that a "whatever floats your boat" philosophy and life style would give too much credence and promotion of self-centeredness over cooperation and common good.

Well this is a very common question, but it has been shown again and again that cultures which promote that approach to not last. That is the short answer.

Businessmen who give no care to helping their customers/clients and are strictly in it to steal as much money as possible as quickly out of possible are quickly out of business. The word spreads and they end up in jail.

Those who are interested soley in sex, money and power often do quite well sometimes for extended periods, but eventually people catch on. The track record of corrupt dictators all over the world attest to the fact that they live lives of fear and can trust no one, and can never find peace. That is not a life many would desire regardless of the "rewards" of riches and power.

Those who are made "happy" by hurting others eventually end up in jail or out of business.

Businesses everywhere have learned that customer service and excellence in designing products and a reputation for quality is the way to build something of value- you see this everywhere in business. Apple computer is tremendously successful based on this philosophy, Ford with the slogan "Quality is Job One" is prospering; the Better Business Bureau rating system is used by probably millions, and it is based on these principles.

The Golden Rule is a recognized ethic by societies everywhere, indeed it is seen as a universal good.

Yes there are genocides, there are murdering psychopaths and dictators and fraudulent get rich schemes, but they are universally condemned as well. There will always be evil and those who use it to get ahead, but in no way does that indicate that it is the "best" long term strategy in any way.

The US has become prosperous offering the freedom necessary to the people of the world to seek what is best for themselves within the law and within rules of morality which have become codified and clearly this has been a successful strategy as a path to prosperity.

I think the idea is unassailable; clearly "it works".

[Rob Bowman]

Vance wrote:

But you are an unbeliever.

Compare the above statement by TBM Vance to the ubiquitous Mormon hand-wringing over "anti-Mormon" condemnations of Mormonism. Why should evangelicals worry about Mormons taking offense at evangelicals saying Mormons are not "Christians" if Mormons are comfortable saying that evangelicals are "unbelievers"?

[Rob Bowman]

Charles wrote:

Rob has now revealed the assumption behind this and other threads.

That would be some trick, since I didn't start this thread and the thread, having participants from at least four different belief stances, has no since "assumption."

Charles continued:

While he concedes that modern revelation is possible but the bottom line argument is that JS was such a dispicable person, that he does not have the character necessary to be a prophet. Rather than called from the Lord, he was a deceiver and a fake focusing on his own evil desires.

Bottom line -- all Christians agree that JS was a very evil person and could not have been a prophet due to his flawed character.

May I suggest that Rob focus his discussions to JS character, rather than these other sideshows.

Once again Charles opines as to my opinion and gets it wrong. "Flawed character" as such disqualifies no one from being a prophet of God. It is the kind of specific evils committed in context that can mark someone as a false prophet. For example, hypothetically speaking it is imaginable that a prophet of God might stumble sexually and commit adultery. That would be evidence of a "flawed character" that is so common that exceptions evoke wonder and admiration. On the other hand, if a supposed prophet of God uses his office of prophet to manipulate married men into handing over their wives to him to be his plural wives in the name of God, we are clearly on solid ground in viewing such behavior as evidence against his claim to be a prophet of God. Or we might suppose that a prophet of God might on some days find himself unable to function as God's mouthpiece and have no revelations to impart; after all, no one bats a thousand. On the other hand, if someone claims to translate ancient Egyptian papyri by the gift and power of God but mistakes a pagan funeral text for an autobiography of the patriarch Abraham, we are surely justified in concluding that the purported prophet is no such thing.

Since Charles steadfastly refuses to address arguments I have actually presented to him -- and even redirected him to see repeatedly -- evidently we are not going to have a fruitful discussion. Vance and Bukowski, of course, will blame this on me.

[mfbukowski]

Vance and Bukowski, of course, will blame this on me.

Nice to know that you care so much what we think.

[Tacenda]

Nice to know that you care so much what we think.

deleted

Edited December 27, 2012 by Tacenda

[why me]

To mfb and Nathair (believing Jesus to be a tribal deity without the Book of Mormon).

This is riddled with illogical thinking. We believe The Book of Mormon is true based on no reliable scientific evidence. It claims to be 'another,' but not only testimony of Christ. We believe because we have had a spiritual witness of it's divinity.

And yet... Without the BoM you would dismiss the Bible and Jesus Christ, the saviour of the world, to be a tribal deity? You don't think you could get a similar, unprovable witness of Christ's atonement without the BoM?

However did the Christians pre-1820s manage it?

I hope your comments are ironic. Otherwise it's a sad reflection of the narrow mindedness we Mormons can stoop to.

I think that both books, the bible and the book of mormon require faith. I see no scientific evidence for the bible either. True, the people who wrote the gospels certainly wrote it knowing some aspects of geography but I see no evidence for the divinity of christ outside the bible from a primary source. Do you? Is there first hand testimony outside the bible? And this is the problem.

We should all hope that the book of mormon is true because it is the second witness for Christ. But it does take faith to believe it. What is amazing is just how many christians attempt to disprove it or refuse to believe it. I see no reason to believe the bible either if I base it on scientific evidence.

Edited December 27, 2012 by why me

[why me]

Wouldn't the testimonies of the resurrection have been more convincing had they come

from credible, historical, and reputable figures such as Herod, Pilate, the chief priests and elders, the scribes and the entire Sanhedrin? Seems to me these would have been more powerful witnesses than

obscure fishermen, tradesmen, and a few women, all of whom were already His followers and had

considerable vested interest in proving the veracity of His predictions. Appearing before the

Romans who crucified Him would have convinced the most powerful political force in the world,

and appearing to all the Jews in Jerusalem would have irrefutably confirmed His claims to be their God

and King.

And the character of some of the apostles involved were not exactly wonderful when they were first called by christ. I find it amazing that christians can be critical of mormonism and its "lack" of evidence when the bible also has a lack of evidence outiside the testimony of a few.

Edited December 27, 2012 by why me