 |
Business Directory |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coupons |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Classifieds |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| | Author | Messages | |
joe_2007
Posts:83
 | | 10/21/2007 9:22 PM |
 Alert | Posted By qwerty on 10/20/2007 7:17 PM
I especially like the part "To dismiss the Book of Mormon on archaeological grounds is short-sighted, as continuing discoveries provide ever more evidence that is consistent with the book. Archaeology is not a dead science, and it continues to make new inroads that are applicable to Book of Mormon studies."
Qwerty,
Please provide one piece of evidence that has been found to show that anything in the BOM actually happened.
Thank you,
Joe
| | | |
|
| | qwerty
Posts:171
| | 10/21/2007 10:01 PM |
Alert | Posted By joe_2007 on 10/21/2007 9:22 PM Posted By qwerty on 10/20/2007 7:17 PM
I especially like the part "To dismiss the Book of Mormon on archaeological grounds is short-sighted, as continuing discoveries provide ever more evidence that is consistent with the book. Archaeology is not a dead science, and it continues to make new inroads that are applicable to Book of Mormon studies." Qwerty, Please provide one piece of evidence that has been found to show that anything in the BOM actually happened. Thank you, Joe
Sorry Joe. I've never spent the time to do any research to try to find actual proof. But like I've said before...archeological evidence has no bearing on the belief that I have in the Book of Mormon. Just like even though I've never SEEN Christ, I believe he lives. If I come across anything though I'll let you know. | | | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:382
| | 10/21/2007 10:12 PM |
Alert | Posted By qwerty on 10/21/2007 10:01 PM
Sorry Joe. I've never spent the time to do any research to try to find actual proof. But like I've said before...archaeological evidence has no bearing on the belief that I have in the Book of Mormon. Just like even though I've never SEEN Christ, I believe he lives. If I come across anything though I'll let you know.
The BOM versus Jesus of Nazareth?! This is a categorical relationship error of the highest degree. One is a person and the other is a book! One has more documentary and archaeological evidence for not only the person but the book written of Him, while the other has nothing but error and inconsistency.
What you believe in your heart needs to make sense in your mind. God's gift of faith is not the gift of ignorance. Please do not be alarmed by that word ... I use it in the strictest sense of simply "not knowing something". Everyone is ignorant of something but we should not revel in it. | | | |
|
| | joe_2007
Posts:83
| | 10/22/2007 5:12 AM |
Alert | Posted By qwerty on 10/21/2007 10:01 PM Posted By joe_2007 on 10/21/2007 9:22 PM Posted By qwerty on 10/20/2007 7:17 PM
I especially like the part "To dismiss the Book of Mormon on archaeological grounds is short-sighted, as continuing discoveries provide ever more evidence that is consistent with the book. Archaeology is not a dead science, and it continues to make new inroads that are applicable to Book of Mormon studies." Qwerty, Please provide one piece of evidence that has been found to show that anything in the BOM actually happened. Thank you, Joe Sorry Joe. I've never spent the time to do any research to try to find actual proof. But like I've said before...archeological evidence has no bearing on the belief that I have in the Book of Mormon. Just like even though I've never SEEN Christ, I believe he lives. If I come across anything though I'll let you know.
Qwerty,
That is exactly my point. You believe statements like this, "as continuing discoveries provide ever more evidence that is consistent with the book", without ever checking to see if they are true. There are no continuing discoveries, because there has never been one discovery.
Why would there not be just as much archeological evidence for the BOM as there is for the Bible if it is also true.
Also, how do you explain the anachronisms in the BOM? | | | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:554
| | 10/22/2007 5:53 AM |
Alert | Veritas:
"So never mind the fact that there is not one piece of archaeological evidence for the story that the Book of Mormon promotes? Nothing.
You're telling me that I should judge the belief system because it has survived? because its people are nice? That is preposterous! A belief system must be judged on the character of its central figure(s) and the teachings of the same."
moinmoin:
What position are you in to evaluate Mesoamerican archaeology or Book of Mormon geography, Veritas (and joe_2007)? Are you even aware of any of the scholarship and research put forth in favor of the historicity of the Book of Mormon, in order to critique it? You indicate that you would, in fact, refuse to consider or accept evidence and arguments from Mormon researchers or non-Mormons that corroborates the historicity of the Book of Mormon (“Perhaps if someone OUTSIDE of Mormonism had made the connection that Roberts attempts to make, it could be taken seriously . . .”). Wouldn’t you need to be aware of evidences and arguments put forth in favor of the Book of Mormon before making your sweeping claim (“not one piece of archaeological evidence . . . Nothing”)?
The late Mormon scholar Hugh Nibley hit the nail on the head back in 1957 regarding critics who clamor for “proof” about the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, etc.:
“You cannot prove the genuineness of any document to one who has decided not to accept it. The scribes and Pharisees of old constantly asked Jesus for proof, and when it was set before them in overwhelming abundance they continued to disbelieve: "O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?" (Matthew 16:3).When a man asks for proof, we can be pretty sure that proof is the last thing in the world he really wants. His request is thrown out as a challenge, and the chances are that he has no intention of being shown up. After all these years the Bible itself is still not proven to those who do not choose to believe it, and the eminent Harry Torczyner (famous for his work on the Lachish Letters — moinmoin) now declares that the main problem of Bible study today is to determine whether or not ‘the Biblical speeches, songs and laws are forgeries’ [Harry Torczyner, "Das literarische Problem der Bibel," Zeitschrift der Deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft 10 (1931): 287-88.] So the Book of Mormon as an ‘unproven’ book finds itself in good company” (Hugh Nibley, “An Approach to the Book of Mormon,” [Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1988],p. 4).
Veritas:
"EVERY belief system, or lack thereof, is OPEN to questioning. It is entirely unsound logic to claim immunity from investigation for any reason, much less the movement has survived and has lots of nice people in it."
moinmoin:
Of course. I wasn't claiming immunity from investigation. I was just pointing out that attempts to tie Mormonism's founding and growth to mental illness are ridiculous. That says nothing about its ultimate truth claims.
| | | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:554
| | 10/22/2007 5:56 AM |
Alert | Veritas:
"What I am I to think of the more than 3,000 changes to the text of the Book of Mormon? Why is there a continuous need for god to get the revelation correct by having the council correct, edit, omit, add things to the BOM?"
-------------------
You’re kidding, right? Are you remotely aware of the huge field of biblical textual criticism? Are you willing to apply this same standard of hyper-criticism to the Bible? How do you reconcile your “sola scriptura / sola fide” belief system with the history of changes to the biblical text and discrepancies between Bible manuscripts?
Looking at the “3,913 changes” to the Book of Mormon charge (the number claimed by Sandra and Jerald Tanner in the 1960s and mockingly perpetuated by critics) is instructive:
1. The assumption that true scripture has to be perfect in every way, with no textual errors, is a requirement imposed by modern fundamentalists with no basis in scripture. While Mormons regard the Book of Mormon to be a divine translation of an ancient record of God’s dealings with prophets and people in the Western Hemisphere, the Book of Mormon text itself makes it clear that this does not mean that it is “100% error free:”
a) End of the title page, written by Moroni, last prophet in the Book of Mormon: “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.”
b) Mormon 8:12 — “And whoso receiveth this record, and shall not condemn it because of the imperfections which are in it, the same shall know of greater things than these.”
c) Mormon 9:30-32, 34 — Behold, I speak unto you as though I spake from the dead; for I know that ye shall have my words. Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him . . . And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech . . . But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof.
d) Ether 12:23-27 — And I said unto him: Lord, the Gentiles will mock at these things, because of our weakness in writing; for Lord thou hast made us mighty in word by faith, but thou hast not made us mighty in writing; for thou hast made all this people that they could speak much, because of the Holy Ghost which thou hast given them; And thou hast made us that we could write but little, because of the awkwardness of our hands. Behold, thou hast not made us mighty in writing like unto the brother of Jared, for thou madest him that the things which he wrote were mighty even as thou art, unto the overpowering of man to read them. Thou hast also made our words powerful and great, even that we cannot write them; wherefore, when we write we behold our weakness, and stumble because of the placing of our words; and I fear lest the Gentiles shall mock at our words. And when I had said this, the Lord spake unto me, saying: Fools mock, but they shall mourn; and my grace is sufficient for the meek, that they shall take no advantage of your weakness; And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them.
While you may mock these as convenient “escape clauses,” your underlying assumption that true scripture must be transmitted by God in a manner similar to a fax machine (with prophets acting as passive vessels for the perfect transmission of scripture) has no basis in scripture or anyone’s experience, and doesn’t appeal to anyone other than those with fundamentalist mindsets.
The Book of Mormon text was dictated by Joseph Smith to scribes over the course of about 65 working days. According to the testimony of these scribes, many of whom ended up later becoming disaffected with Joseph Smith and the Church for various reasons (but who never altered their testimony of the translation/transcription process), no books or notes were used, and once the text had been approved by Joseph Smith upon being read back by a scribe, the text stood. A second copy of the text was made by hand to give to the printer (there being no Xerox machines back then). To claim that there should be absolutely no errors in transcription or copying is absurd, and examination of both the extant original manuscript (of which about 27% is still in existence) and the printer’s manuscript (of which all but about three lines is in existence and well-preserved) reveals exactly the sort of minor errors one would expect: there is strong evidence of minor errors related to mishearing words in the original, while errors one might expect to crop up through hand-copying appear in the printer’s manuscript. John Gilbert, the non-Mormon printer who did the typesetting for the Book of Mormon, understandably made human errors in the printed text in the first edition. Joseph Smith corrected many grammatical errors in the 1837 edition of the Book of Mormon, and he made further minor corrections (mainly by way of clarification) in 1840 and 1842 editions. The 1879 edition used the first European edition (1852), which used the 1837 edition. Joseph Smith’s corrections in 1840 and 1842 were then included in the 1981 edition.
A detailed look at specific changes made to the text published in 1830 makes the “3,000 changes” charge look desperate and hyper-critical. You do the math:
Homophones: Oliver Cowdery, the primary scribe, always spelled both “strait” and “straight” as “straight.” The two words have different meanings, especially in context, and “straight” was changed to “strait” ten times in later editions.
Handwriting: Cowdery’s “r” and “n” are very similar, as are his “b” and “l.” Hence, “Gadianton the nobler” (p. 414 in the 1830 edition, cf. Helaman 3:23) was changed to “Gadianton the robber” in subsequent editions. Cowdery’s “rm” was mistaken by Gilbert for a “un.” “Formation” was misread by the printer as “founation,” and John Gilbert added a “d” to spell “foundation” so it would make sense. This was one of the minor errors corrected in 1981 (cf. 1 Nephi 13:4-5).
Typographical: Too numerous to list. Examples: aaswer, bacause, mnltitude. Do you honestly insist that correcting these printing/typesetting mistakes in later editions is damning evidence against the Book of Mormon? Do you honestly insist that God would have never allowed John Gilbert to make typesetting mistakes? Speaking of typesetting mistakes: John Gilbert omitted a 26 word chunk of text in Alma 32 in the first edition. He inadvertently skipped some lines while scanning the text and omitted a repetitive section (an error that all who have transcribed anything relate to: we read ahead and our brain’s sometimes anticipate and fill in details that aren’t there, etc.). Replacing the missing text in later editions contributes “26 changes” to your running-up-the-score tally.
Grammatical changes: “Which” was changed to “who” 891 times; “exceeding” to “exceedingly” 177 times; “was” to “were” 162 times; “is” to “are” 74 times; “done” to “did” 10 times. Colloquialisms, such as “a’going,” were updated to reflect modern speech. Yet, you insist that God would certainly have seen that a book dictated and transcribed by semi-literate men and printed in upstate New York in 1830 would perfectly reflect year 2007 grammatical and colloquial standards? Come on!
Deletions: “that” was deleted 188 times; “the” 48 times; “it came to pass” 46 times (you can chalk up 184 towards your “3000 +” list for that one); “a/an” 40 times; “had” 29 times.
Additions: “of” 12 times; “and/is/the” 7 times.
That leaves us essentially with a handful, less than ten, of changes that were made by Joseph Smith in 1837 by way of clarification. NONE of the changes in the Book of Mormon introduced any doctrinal changes. The Book of Mormon is similar in size to the New Testament. Do you have any idea how many changes one could tally from the New Testament alone, using standards and assumptions used to reach your “3000 +” number?
Would such hyper-criticism affect the authenticity and veracity of the New Testament? | | | |
|
|  | Veritas
Posts:382
| | 10/22/2007 7:35 AM |
Alert | Posted By moinmoin on 10/22/2007 5:53 AM
What position are you in to evaluate Mesoamerican archaeology or Book of Mormon geography, Veritas (and joe_2007)? Are you even aware of any of the scholarship and research put forth in favor of the historicity of the Book of Mormon, in order to critique it? You indicate that you would, in fact, refuse to consider or accept evidence and arguments from Mormon researchers or non-Mormons that corroborates the historicity of the Book of Mormon (“Perhaps if someone OUTSIDE of Mormonism had made the connection that Roberts attempts to make, it could be taken seriously . . .”). Wouldn’t you need to be aware of evidences and arguments put forth in favor of the Book of Mormon before making your sweeping claim (“not one piece of archaeological evidence . . . Nothing”)?
1. Yes, I am aware of "scholarship" advanced in favor of the BOM, but so far, every so-called piece of research has been invalidated by a lack of evidence. Mormon researchers are seen searching for a theory in a sea of data that has nothing to do with them. There is not a shred of evidence to indicate that two people-groups made their way from Central America to North America and ultimately completely wiped out one of the people-groups. IF that ever happened, there would be evidence.
2. I DID NOT refuse all evidence. My statement was that Roberts could not be taken seriously because he is alone in a crowd of Mormon apologists. In addition to this, the basic elements of his statement is just sort of nutty.
3. When I read the literature regarding Mormon archeology, I see that it is the laughing stock of that field because of a claim made by a religion that has no basis in fact, in history and therefore in reality.
God DOES NOT reveal Himself in a way that cannot be tested! He reveals Himself in order to be found, not hidden!
Posted By moinmoin on 10/22/2007 5:53 AM
The late Mormon scholar Hugh Nibley hit the nail on the head back in 1957 regarding critics who clamor for “proof” about the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, etc.:
“You cannot prove the genuineness of any document to one who has decided not to accept it. The scribes and Pharisees of old constantly asked Jesus for proof, and when it was set before them in overwhelming abundance they continued to disbelieve: "O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?" (Matthew 16:3).When a man asks for proof, we can be pretty sure that proof is the last thing in the world he really wants. His request is thrown out as a challenge, and the chances are that he has no intention of being shown up. After all these years the Bible itself is still not proven to those who do not choose to believe it, and the eminent Harry Torczyner (famous for his work on the Lachish Letters — moinmoin) now declares that the main problem of Bible study today is to determine whether or not ‘the Biblical speeches, songs and laws are forgeries’ [Harry Torczyner, "Das literarische Problem der Bibel," Zeitschrift der Deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft 10 (1931): 287-88.] So the Book of Mormon as an ‘unproven’ book finds itself in good company” (Hugh Nibley, “An Approach to the Book of Mormon,” [Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1988],p. 4).
4. You have a real problem using the New Testament and the BOM together because they contradict one another; in fact, their contradiction makes Jesus a liar IF He is the inspiration behind them.
5. So because atheists don't believe the lines of evidence that validate the Bible, then everyone else should believe that the BOM is valid in the absence of evidence? You are trying to support your belief in mid air ... it's called "the argument from ignorance".
6. The only people that reject the authenticity of the Bible are unqualified "scholars" from the Jesus Seminar, etc. who essentially assert that Jesus didn't say anything. These people have also been discredited int he literature, but this is not as newsworthy as the sensational claim that was debunked.
Posted By moinmoin on 10/22/2007 5:53 AM
Of course. I wasn't claiming immunity from investigation. I was just pointing out that attempts to tie Mormonism's founding and growth to mental illness are ridiculous. That says nothing about its ultimate truth claims.
No, you still have not shown that Mormonism is insulated from the critique. I agree that mental illness is a ridiculous basis for the discussion area that we are in, and I've made a separate post indicated that clearly. But the lack of evidence and the contradiction with the Bible DOES IN FACT say something about the truth claims of the BOM ... namely that they are false. | | | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:382
| | 10/22/2007 7:53 AM |
Alert | Posted By moinmoin on 10/22/2007 5:56 AM
Veritas:
"What I am I to think of the more than 3,000 changes to the text of the Book of Mormon? Why is there a continuous need for god to get the revelation correct by having the council correct, edit, omit, add things to the BOM?"
-------------------
You’re kidding, right? Are you remotely aware of the huge field of biblical textual criticism? Are you willing to apply this same standard of hyper-criticism to the Bible? How do you reconcile your “sola scriptura / sola fide” belief system with the history of changes to the biblical text and discrepancies between Bible manuscripts?
Would such hyper-criticism affect the authenticity and veracity of the New Testament?
1. Yes, I am aware of textual criticism, its strengths and its failures and that the New Testament excels under that "microscope". I think that you are the one who may not understand textual criticism. Since you mentioned it, under what model in textual criticism does the NT fail? In what way? Did this assertion make it into the mainstream of that field of literature? What are the names of those scholars? When did they write their claims?
2. The amount of documentary evidence supporting the New Testament is overwhelming. No other document from antiquity even comes close. What have they found in this documentary evidence? Good question ... I'm glad that you asked. They've found that the changes that you speak of did not happen in the transmission of the Bible through time, but rather that the message is intact and reliable; in fact 99.6% accurate according to Bruce Metzger of Princeton.
3. Please describe what you think I mean by "sola sciptura sola fide". I have the sense that not only do you not understand that on its face, but you certainly don't understand what I think of it.
4. Even IF all of the changes to the BOM were as trivial as you suggest, WHY is God such a bad speller, grammarian, etc.? When we look at the original documents of the Bible, we do not find these sorts of errors, much less a pattern of change that has made it into the current translations. | | | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:554
| | 10/22/2007 8:22 PM |
Alert | Veritas:
"You have a real problem using the New Testament and the BOM together because they contradict one another; in fact, their contradiction makes Jesus a liar IF He is the inspiration behind them."
-------------
moinmoin:
Can you name one contradiction between the Book of Mormon and the New Testament? I would be very interested to see any contradictions you think you can find between the New Testament and the Book of Mormon.
Or, do you mean that the very existence of the Book of Mormon is a contradiction? I assume you’re referring to these verses from the end of the New Testament:
“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book” (Revelation 22:18-19).
Mormons have no problem or quarrel with this passage at all, holding that the passage forbids MAN from adding to God’s word. God, of course, can add to His word, and if He uses prophets to do that, it’s still He who does it.
Of course, as I’m sure you know, the passage also clearly places the proscription on adding or taking away “from the words of the book of this prophecy.” As I’m sure you know, the Bible as we know it, was not yet assembled when most scholars date the writing of Revelation (ca. 96 A.D.), and John’s Gospel is held to have been written after Revelation. Did John violate his own warning? And should those who believe the New Testament regard it as being in violation of similar proscriptions from the Law of Moses?
“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you” ( Deuteronomy. 4:2)
“What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it” ( Deuteronomy. 12:32)
The answer, of course, is no. Divinely authorized prophets may continue to receive and record scripture. In fact, doesn’t the Book of Revelation demand that latter-day scripture come forth?
“And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people” (Revelation 14:6).
Aside from Mormonism (one of whose fundamental beliefs is that God restored the fulness of the Gospel through the ministering of angels), I have never heard a satisfactory explanation as to why it would be necessary for an angel to bring “the everlasting gospel” if God worked through an infallible, all-sufficient, closed-canon Bible. Would what this angel brings also not be allowed to be “added” to what God has revealed?
| | | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:554
| | 10/22/2007 8:27 PM |
Alert | Veritas:
"Please describe what you think I mean by "sola sciptura sola fide". I have the sense that not only do you not understand that on its face, but you certainly don't understand what I think of it."
-----------
moinmoin:
By “sola scriptura,” I meant that I perceive you believing in a closed-canon, infallible Bible that is all-sufficient.
By “sola fide,” I meant that I perceive that you believe in salvation through faith/grace alone, and regard Mormonism as believing in salvation through works.
Whether or not these gel with the technical sectarian usage of the terms, this is what I meant by them.
Along these lines, though, Veritas:
1. What do you believe the age of the earth to be?
2. Do you believe Adam and Eve to have been the first humans? When do you think they lived?
3. Do you believe in a literal, world-wide Flood?
I think I know what you believe, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth or misrepresent. Please elaborate and correct any of my above statements where needed.
Thanks!
| | | |
|
| | EEE
Posts:404
| | 10/22/2007 8:35 PM |
Alert | Posted By moinmoin on 10/22/2007 8:22 PM
-------------
Can you name one contradiction between the Book of Mormon and the New Testament? I would be very interested to see any contradictions you think you can find between the New Testament and the Book of Mormon.
 New Testament huh? This explains the dead silence every time I bring up Psalms 90:2 and quote Joseph Smith.
I love how God's Word even warns us early about the Mormon religion and the made up angel Moroni's:
Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. | |
Yeah, it's true- He allowed the fall of man/
But He used it now to exalt the Lamb/
The Lord, who's wise, permits existence of sin/
to be glorified in His forgiveness to men/ | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:382
| | 10/22/2007 11:01 PM |
Alert | Posted By moinmoin on 10/22/2007 8:22 PM
Can you name one contradiction between the Book of Mormon and the New Testament? I would be very interested to see any contradictions you think you can find between the New Testament and the Book of Mormon.
Sure ... hmmm ... where to begin. Here's one...
Helaman 14:27 states that "darkness should cover the whole earth for the space of three days" after the death of Jesus. The Gospels (Matthew 27, Mark 15 and Luke 23) are very clear that this was a matter of three hours not three days.
Posted By moinmoin on 10/22/2007 8:22 PM
Or, do you mean that the very existence of the Book of Mormon is a contradiction? I assume you’re referring to these verses from the end of the New Testament:
Yes. No.
Posted By moinmoin on 10/22/2007 8:22 PM
Of course, as I’m sure you know, the passage also clearly places the proscription on adding or taking away “from the words of the book of this prophecy.” As I’m sure you know, the Bible as we know it, was not yet assembled when most scholars date the writing of Revelation (ca. 96 A.D.), and John’s Gospel is held to have been written after Revelation. Did John violate his own warning? And should those who believe the New Testament regard it as being in violation of similar proscriptions from the Law of Moses?
Both restrictions, OT & NT are specific to the books themselves, not the entire Bible ... at least that's the plain reading. As a matter of practice, we extend that to the entire cannon because it makes sense. Whether John's Gospel was written before/after the Revelation is irrelevant, especially under the model that you espouse where God's prophet can amend the continuum of revelation at His discretion.
Posted By moinmoin on 10/22/2007 8:22 PM
“And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people” (Revelation 14:6).
Aside from Mormonism (one of whose fundamental beliefs is that God restored the fulness of the Gospel through the ministering of angels), I have never heard a satisfactory explanation as to why it would be necessary for an angel to bring “the everlasting gospel” if God worked through an infallible, all-sufficient, closed-canon Bible. Would what this angel brings also not be allowed to be “added” to what God has revealed?
Interesting interpretation ... but ultimately wrong. First, God is simply telling the inhabitants of the Earth one last time. This is a simple and straightforward reading of the text that essentially all biblical scholars agree on. Second, since it was predicted by the Revelation of God to John, it must necessarily happen in the fullness of time so that Scripture is fulfilled. Did the gospel writer "add to scripture" by reporting that "no bone in Jesus body was broken" so that "Scripture might be fulfilled"? This is the second time that your logic absolutely breaks down. | | | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:382
| | 10/22/2007 11:03 PM |
Alert | Posted By moinmoin on 10/22/2007 8:27 PM
1. What do you believe the age of the earth to be?
2. Do you believe Adam and Eve to have been the first humans? When do you think they lived?
3. Do you believe in a literal, world-wide Flood?
I am glad to answer these questions, but I'll first need to know why they are important to this conversation. | | | |
|
| | qwerty
Posts:171
| | 10/23/2007 7:00 AM |
Alert | Posted By EEE on 10/22/2007 8:35 PM Posted By moinmoin on 10/22/2007 8:22 PM
-------------
Can you name one contradiction between the Book of Mormon and the New Testament? I would be very interested to see any contradictions you think you can find between the New Testament and the Book of Mormon.
New Testament huh? This explains the dead silence every time I bring up Psalms 90:2 and quote Joseph Smith. I love how God's Word even warns us early about the Mormon religion and the made up angel Moroni's: Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. Gal 1:9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
Please don't mistake silence in regards to "God was once a man" doctrine as an admission of "defeat". It's mostly because this doctrine is very difficult to have a discussion around in a forum setting. Also, I don't think we can fully understand the doctrine at this point nor is it essential to this life. You won't find that doctrine in the BOM and it's not frequently discussed in Church. Again, please don't mistake that for us believing that the doctrine is incorrect. I do believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet and therefore anything he taught under the direction of God must be true regardless of whether I can fully comprehend it or not. If Moses would have taught it, I'm sure we wouldn't be having this discussion because you would take it as truth because you believe Moses was a prophet.
There are many things we don't understand in relation to God. Even doctrine within the Bible can be difficult to understand. For example, the idea of God being without beginning and without end...eternal. Can you really fathom and explain how that works? Probably not, and it doesn't matter for us now. I guarantee there is so many more wonderful things that we will learn after this life. But right now we need to focus on beleiving in Christ and following his teachings. God will reveal more as we need it.
This debate could go on forever and honestly, my work is really busy right now so I don't have the time to come up with elaborate responses. So again, please don't take the lack of my postings as an admission of "defeat". I respect you guys for what you believe in even though we disagree on many things. That's what makes life interesting. | | | |
|
| | leefamily
Posts:0
| | 10/23/2007 9:09 AM |
Alert | Well, I think maybe I should share this with all of you...
last night, my rosemary bush started to burn - just caught on fire.
appearing to me was an 'angel' (not to be mistaken for a demon, mind you) and he babbled all this stuff to me and it is written on these golden plates (weird, I know!) so I will do this: I will rewrite his words and publish it and before you know it, you all will be leefamily followers.
I have a feeling that M Mountain is the new Cumorah...
The man was insane! He founded a religion on insanity. I give LDS this: they breed some pretty white folk with great morals and great values. But when I have missionaries at my door that have 'forgotten' to bring their Holy Bible with them - tells me a lot about the cult of Mormonism.
Yep, I said it! | | | |
|
| | Jason
Posts:3378
| | 10/23/2007 9:33 AM |
Alert | I do believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet and therefore anything he taught under the direction of God must be true regardless of whether I can fully comprehend it or not.
Whether or not you can fully comprehend it, God clearly intends people to be able to decide if what they're listening to is actually His word or not. If the words you're reading don't agree with the original, you need not wait for some later "revelation" that somehow makes three days into three hours... | |
Joined: Jul 2005 | |
|
| | photogirl
Posts:19
| | 10/23/2007 10:42 AM |
Alert | | All this intellectual foder is fine, but for me, it all boils down to this. I have read the Book of Mormon, prayed to God with a sincere desire to know if it is true, and received a confirmation by the Spirit of the Holy Ghost that it is completely true. I have also done the same as I read the bible, and through the same process I believe the bible to be true. Out there many may despise me for that and spit out all the "fact" and "wisdom" that they would like, but nothing will change my testimony that God has restored the fullness of his truth on the earth through the Prophet Joseph Smith; that the Book of Mormon is another Testament of Jesus Christ and that through reading and studying the teachings of the Book of Mormon, along with the Bible I have come closer to my Savior; that there is a prophet on the earth today and that I can and will be with my family for eternity. Those truths are precious to me because I asked God if they were true, in prayer, and he confirmed that they were, through the spirit. I have lived the teachings and I have had even further confirmation through the spirit that the principles I have been taught are true. I have been to many other churches and spoken to leaders of many different faiths and I respect those beliefs, but I have never felt the spirit from them as I have when I read and study and worship in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I know it is true because I have tested it and lived it, and I will continue to test it and live it through study, prayer and application of its principles. | | | |
|
| | Jason
Posts:3378
| | 10/23/2007 11:01 AM |
Alert | All this intellectual foder is fine, but for me, it all boils down to this. I have read the Book of Mormon, prayed to God with a sincere desire to know if it is true, and received a confirmation by the Spirit of the Holy Ghost that it is completely true.
Then the Holy Spirit wouldn't mind giving you a few words to explain the differences. | |
Joined: Jul 2005 | |
|
| | leefamily
Posts:0
| | 10/23/2007 11:10 AM |
Alert | I must say that through all my 'debates' with atheists, I never really understood why they couldn't grasp the concept of Christians believing so wholy in the word of God and why they thought us crazy - until now.
Mormons are nuts. There is absolutely no proof that any of the stories, the land, or anything existed. You can find evidence of Christ, but you can't find evidence of anything related to the LDS church except some whacko's who founded a religion based on one man's IMAGINATION. NICE!!!
If it were to come out that Jesus himself never existed, there was no proof in anything that The Bible said, I think most Christians would have to scratch their heads and perhaps rethink some things. WHY DON'T MORMONS DO THAT??????
oh, wait, it's called 'only hearing what you want to...' That's the basis of the Mormon Cult | | | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:554
| | 10/23/2007 11:16 AM |
Alert | Posted By Veritas on 10/22/2007 11:03 PM Posted By moinmoin on 10/22/2007 8:27 PM
1. What do you believe the age of the earth to be?
2. Do you believe Adam and Eve to have been the first humans? When do you think they lived?
3. Do you believe in a literal, world-wide Flood? I am glad to answer these questions, but I'll first need to know why they are important to this conversation.
Sure. I'm just trying to make sure I understand where you are coming from better, and whether my read on what you believe is accurate or not. I also wonder if there might be inconsistencies in evidence that is emphasized or discounted in considering/defending the Bible or Book of Mormon (i.e., double standards).
I think that it's a given that you believe in creatio ex nihilo! 
Thanks!
| | | |
|
| |
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.6 |
|
|
|