How come you use that faith to look past the lack of evidence in the Book of Mormon? You can believe God any way you want to. But the Book of Mormon has no credible proof to back it up. Not one place described in the book is known, Not one coin, honey bees, metal smithing. Not one. I am comparing it to the Bible which has 1000's of backup archaeologically, geographically, historically. I am not saying one is less of a lie than the other. But can't you tell the difference?LDS / Mormon : I know you have faith in your religion and find it to be true but how come you use that faith..?
The BOM storyline is that a group of Lehites (a group of Hebrews from Jerusalem) make it to the promised land (the American continent), and they grow into a mighty nation of hundreds of thousands of people, occupying the land for a thousand years (not to mention the preceding Jaredites, who allegedy arrived circa 2500 B.C. and grew to number in the millions.) The Lehites divide, and war against each other.
The BOM gives very specific details about its characters' culture, religion, politics, flora and fauna, etc. The BOM people speak/write Hebrew and some form of Egyptian. They worship the Old Testament God, follow the law of Moses, and even preach and worship Christ both before and after His ministry.
They train horses and use them to pull chariots as Old World people did. They develop metalworking skills and smelt ';swords of finest steel'; and other metal tools and weaponry.
They grow into a population as vast ';as the sands of the sea'; and build great cities which ';cover the land with buildings from sea to sea.'; Early in the 5th century A.D., the wicked Lamanite faction battle and eliminate the entire opposing Nephite nation which numbers more than 300,000.
Where is the evidence for the existence of any person, place, or event unique to the Book of Mormon? IF the book were actual history, then numerous artifacts of that Christ-worshipping, horse-training, Hebrew-writing, steel sword-making culture should be scattered all over the region in which Mormons claim the BOM took place (Central America.)
But of course, there aren't any. None, zip, nada. Mormons cite tantalizing ';possible evidence'; such as a few horse bones, meteoric iron ornaments, the Bat Creek stone, etc. They propose excuses for lack of evidence such as ';Maybe the horses were deer'; etc. But they cannot show a single, unambiguous, confirmed item of physical evidence to show that the BOM occurred anywhere in the Americas .
No trace of such a civilization has ever been found. This is the ';a priori'; approach. This is the approach that real science uses in testing theories. First decide what would result if your theory were true then see if that is the way things really are.
The Book of Mormon evidences that are presented are all ';a posteriori'; pieces of evidence. They are only considered ';evidence'; because someone found a way to view them as supporting the Book of Mormon claim of historicity. Thousands of ';misses'; (which are every bit as significant as the ';hits';) are ignored in compiling the lists of ';evidence.';
In such an approach the sheer number of the ';parallels'; that are found is a reflection of the amount of time spent trying to dig them out rather than because of any real validity of the ';theory'; being considered. And there is no question that millions of man-hours have been spent by Mormons trying to find ';evidences'; for the historicity of the Book of Mormon.
When viewed from this standpoint the list of sporadic parallels that are presented by Lindsay and others is strong evidence that the proposition they are trying to prove is, in reality, false. These kinds of lists of sporadic, ';a posteriori'; parallels are exactly what is to be expected when a crackpot theory is presented by its adherents. It is not the kind of evidence that real scientists collect to objectively test a theoryLDS / Mormon : I know you have faith in your religion and find it to be true but how come you use that faith..?
Actually, there have also been many archaelogical finds regarding the Book of Mormon. I don't know all of them, but I know for sure there have been very many finds. Besides there being that proof, there is faith that it is true, despite the supposed proof the it is wrong (DNA Evidence Versus the Book of Mormon, most idiotic documentary ever. I haven't watched it though) and the people who persecute mormons for their beliefs. Also consider that despite the geographical, historical, archaelogical, and just plain logical proof that the Bible is true, there are still atheists. There is actually a documentary just loaded with plenty of proofs regarding the Book of Mormon, but I don't remember it's full name.
Honey bees are not to be considered evidence? There's honey bees all over the place, duh.
Dude, they are finding evidence every day of the great civilization that once dwelled in the Americas.
The Book of Mormon could have taken place any people on any continent--I find all of that irrelevant. Regardless of culture or geography, the precepts found in the Book of Mormon are absolutely true.
If you think that there isn't any scientific evidence to corroborate the Book of Mormon, then you haven't bothered to look. There is far more than can be chalked up to chance. The first 40 pages alone are sufficient to prove its accuracy and authenticity.
I recommend reading
';Since Cumorah'; by Nibley
';Mesoamerica and the Book of Mormon, Is this the Place?'; by Lund
';Discovering Lehi'; by Hilton and Hilton
';The Lives and Travels of Mormon and Moroni'; by Ainsworth
';An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon'; by Sorenson
';Ten More Amazing Discoveries'; by Potter
';Voices From the Dust'; by Calderwood
';Lehi in the Desert and There Were Jaredites'; by Nibley
Read these and then tell me that there is no archaelogical evidence supporting the Book of Mormon. Someone has lied to you, but it isn't the LDS church.
http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.s鈥?/a>
http://www.deseretstudies.com/BookOfMorm鈥?/a>
http://www.the-book-of-mormon.com/dna-ev鈥?/a>
http://www.the-book-of-mormon.com/photo-鈥?/a>
http://www.the-book-of-mormon.com/photos鈥?/a>
http://www.the-book-of-mormon.com/photos鈥?/a>
Even if they did find a city mentioned in the Book of Mormon, would everyone all of the sudden convert to Mormonism? No. Did discovering the city of Jericho make everyone want to become a Jew? Nope. I believe the Bible AND Book of Mormon because I prayed about them and received a witness from the Holy Ghost that they are true. As I continue to study those book, I receive peace and clarity in my life. There is no more credible evidence than from God.
EDIT: We weren't born yesterday either. You aren't actually interested in any evidence. You've decided there isn't any evidence before even asking the question and anything we do give you, you will just subjectively say it's ';not credible.'; What's the point.
I'm sorry you have been misinformed. There is a lot of physical evidence supporting the Book of Mormon.
There are plenty of things that have not been found, but there are plenty of things that have been found, and I think it is about the right proportion considering how much longer we have been documenting and researching the area around Palestine where the Bible story takes place.
One of the greatest confirming facts about the Book of Mormon is that when Joseph Smith translated it, there was very little knowledge about ancient Mesoamerica. The book describes thousands of things that Joseph Smith could not have known, that have later turned out to be true.
For one example, the Book of Mormon describes them fortifying their cities with defensive walls and moats. Moats around entire cities totally didn't fit with our understanding of ancient America. But then along comes the Carnegie Institution in 1934 and discovers the city of Becan. Check out http://mayaruins.com/becan.html
Take a look at the list of books recommended above. There is a LOT of well-documented, peer-reviewed physical evidence to support the Book of Mormon.
No proof of existance is not proof of non-existance.
Although I actually live in SouthAmerica and have seen the evidences, I obviously know that the so-called american scholars are not too smart. The history of the 2 groups of people are very different and if the Jews and Arabs had been exterminated and all their records destroyed, after 500 years you would find it hard to prove the bible's archeology if it was found just 500 years later because of the loss of knowledge. Even with civilizations that have endured like the Greek, scholars cant reach an agreement of the veracity or evidence for some of their history (Troy etc)
Have you read the Popol Vuh ? you're too proud and if you found your bee or coin you'd have another excuse to not even contemplate the possibility of it being true...
To paraphrase a guy here..you know when the spaniards Cuba had estimated 3 million natives, some were white ...what archaeology, artifacts, writing do we have of them.. pretty much zip, zero, nada, and that was 500 years ago qith thousands of witnesses that saw them , they were real cause the spaniards killed them.
To be frank - since you don't believe in either - why does it matter at all to you?
Additionally, perhaps you aren't understanding the definition and power of ';FAITH'; to all that believe. EVIDENCE does not convert a soul. EVIDENCE is for he who LACKS the faith to believe. It's pretty much that simple. If I required EVIDENCE of all the spiritual matters that by faith I do believe - I'm afraid I would really not believe in ANYTHING. MY faith brings me belief not world evidence and PROOF. To those who have no faith or understanding of it's reality - that is rather ridiculous no doubt. But then doubters and nonbelievers really are of little consequences to me from a standpoint of FAITH. I don't NEED to prove anything to you or anyone else, nor explain my faith. It is enough for me.
Your future proof, if not before, is stated in the Book of Mormon in 2 Nephi 33:10-12 :
10 And now, my beloved brethren,
and also Jew, and all ye ends of the
earth, hearken unto these words and
believe in Christ; and if ye believe
not in these words believe in Christ.
And if ye shall believe in Christ ye
will believe in these words, for they
are the words of Christ, and he hath
given them unto me; and they
teach all men that they should do
good.
11 And if they are not the words
of Christ, judge ye - for Christ will
show unto you, with power and
great glory, that they are his words,
at the last day; and you and I shall
stand face to face before his bar;
and ye shall know that I have been
commanded of him to write these
things, notwithstanding my weak-
ness.
12 And I pray the Father in the
name of Christ that many of us, if
not all, may be saved in his kingdom
at that great and last day.
a. there is more than ample evidence FOR the Book of Mormon.
b. all evidence ';against'; it has been refuted.
c. just because there is perfectly viable information in a book does not make the central story valid. What scientific evidence is there to prove that Jesus is the Christ?
d. DNA doesn't prove a thing, one way or the other.
e. we can't show you proof of anything. You have no proof of anything.
The bible does have much more archeological support, but there is no evidence to support the miracles of the bible. There is no proof that Jesus was gods son or that Moses parted the red sea. There is a reason for this. God wants us to have faith. The book of mormon itself is a miracle. If it is proven to be true, then Joseph Smith would be proven to be a prophet, God would be proven to exist, and faith would no longer be possible. Faith depends on the unknown. If there is proof of something, then you don't need faith because you then have knowledge. God wants it this way. If he didnt, then he would just show himself to us. Faith is necessary to make sure we are doing the right thing for the right reasons. Would anyone sin if they knew they would live in endless torment in the next life? Doing the right thing for the right reasons makes us better people.
Also, if you accept the argument based on history and tradition than you you have to accept the traditions of all other cultures and their myths. Mormons believe in the confirmation of the Holy Ghost.
I have already answered that question. You can read it here. That need not be written again and again.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;鈥?/a>
To your other questions about the anachronisms I advise you to visit http://www.fairmormon.org
or http://www.fairlds.org
The very first principle of the gospel IS faith.
And that my friend IS what FAITH is, the evidence of things unseen.
Without faith, it is impossible to please God.
Christ has told me the truth, and that settles it for me.
i feel the spirit when i read the Book of Mormon sorry you ';need'; proof, take it on faith, or leave it alone
Wow...if you are honest, you will have a hard time choosing from Josh or Kerry's posts...they both did very well. You should really research better.
M
Calling something ';credible'; is in the eye of the beholder.
God telling me that the Book of Mormon is true is fully credible to me while it isn't to you; but it's also relevant to me.
You obviously assume that I wonder about the lack of evidence, despite the fact that I'm a skeptic by nature and earn a living finding proofs of theories and interactions for other people, I don't have a single doubt in my mind about the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.
You can accept or cast aside what people bring to you as proofs of the bible and you can do the same for the book of Mormon; but your acceptance of those proofs isn't empirical, it's personal.
Truth is that I can claim that every city found thus far in central america is a Book of Mormon city - and there is no proof against it, I can't back that up, but you can't disprove that. so rather than saying that we don't have proof let's be fair and say that we don't know - neither side knows.
Also, out of the locations mentioned in the bible we know of 12% to 18% by location (depending on who you ask) with another roughly equal number theorized to be known. Given that the Book of Mormon happened somewhere in the Americas and the bible happened in a smaller area, and that billions of people have been looking for biblical evidences over 1800 years while few have cared about the Book of Mormon which is more recent, one can hardly call that an equal comparison.
Saying ';the Book of Mormon has no credible proof to back it'; is a pessimistic outlook as many people accept many ';proofs'; about the Book of Mormon. Either way absence of evidence isn't evidence of it's absence.
However even with such data and documentation the bible has stories that can't be true in it based on archeology like cities that Joshua destroyed that were in fact destroyed 1200 years earlier. So you have people who have done archeology saying it's true, and some saying it disproves the bible. (and here come the fundie thumbs down)
Here's the ingredient to finding proof, look at relativity in the topic.
To find out how fast a car is going you don't need to know if it's uphill or downhill, speed isn't relative to incline and so even though it's harder to go uphill that question has no bearing on the answer. Likewise a mathematical proof can be written by a man barely literate in English, yet there is no lack of it's proof even if his proof contains thousands of grammatical errors because he's not proving English composition, just math.
The Book of Mormon isn't a geography book or history book, it states that such records did exist - we don't have them though so we can't speak of their accuracy. what we have is a spiritual book and you can't disprove spiritual matters by geography.
The purpose of the book is to convince Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.
So what kind of evidence exactly do you expect to find that could possible prove that statement false?
So, I presume you've seen the Tablets that the original 10 commandments were written on, right?
What about the Ark of the Covenant? Noah's Ark?
Do you realize that only 18% of Biblical locations have been definitivly found and confirmed? Does that mean that only 18% of the Bible is true? How do we know that the Bible isn't simply a historical fiction. You can't even prove that Christ was the son of God or that he walked on water.
So, you can't hardly hold the Book of Mormon to a standard that even the Bible can't stand up to.
As for supporting evidences, why is it that you choose to blatantly ignore every single piece of evidence that does emerge???
Comparing what's in the Book of Mormon to what was known when it was published vs today, it is MUCH more accurate and true today than it was 170+ years ago. Try writing a book that will go directly against what is known today, only to have it prove to be correct in 170 years.
A few examples:
-pre-Colombian horse remains
-extensive chiasmuses
-The 10 commandments written in Hebrew in the Americas (dated and authenticated to pre-Colombian times)
-The existence of highways, cities, and massive civilizations
-The use of cement
-the existance of pre-colombian barley
-The Title of the Lords of Totonicapan details that their ancestors traveled across the waters, were fair-skinned, and sons of Abraham.
-The Channes have a similar ledgend
-Quetzalcoatl (or Kulkulcan to the Maya) was a person who descended from heaven, instructed them to write, healed them, and promised to return. He was the son of the ';high God';. The parallels to the Book of Mormon account are uncanny.
-Coins have been found (contrary to your statements).
-Haplogroup X is found in Semitic populations and about 3% of Native American populations.
-The Maya were very violent. They participated in human sacrifice, aggressive warfare, and cannibalism. This was described int the Book of Mormon. It was discovered to be true about 30 years ago. Before that they were believed to be peaceful and generally neighborly.
-buried cities. Once we began flying and diving we began to found underwater cities in Latin America.....Just as the Book of Mormon describes.
-The book of Mormon has been studied and the number of authors has been authenticated. When compared to Joseph Smiths writing style, it was concluded that he didn't write any of it. These studies were initially performed by people trying to prove the Book of Mormon false. (Oops!)
We could go on and on. Books have been written on the topic. Here are some massive differences between Bible Archeology vs Book of Mormon Archeology:
-A starting Point or two (Imagine if all we knew about the bible was that it took place somewhere in Asia, Africa, or Europe).
-Continuous written language. We still can't decifer Olmec writings. Most Mayan and Aztec writings were purposefully destroyed by the Spanish along with language, religion, and culture.
-Assuming it took place in Central America, the moisture and the jungle destroy nearly everything except for stone and clay (and even quite a bit of that). The Holy Land preserves things much better than the jungles of Guatemala
-The largest city in Central America, El Mirador, has yet to be excavated. Many of those that have been excavated have only been 15% or so excavated.
-There are roughly 1 Billion Christians on the planet. There has been continued interest in the holy land for the past 4000 years. Compare that to 170 years and 13 Million members in the LDS church.
-There are many Christian archeologists and anthropologists who make their studies try to fit into the context of the Bible. This is generally accepted. The same is not true in pre-colombian American studies. One has an accepted bias, the other does not.
I suspect you will not be ';eating your words';. Every time a new supporting evidence is brough forth, it's quickly swept asside and ignored. This is precisly the reason the church doesn't dwell on these or emphasis them.
Each year Jerusalem sees hundreds of thousands of visitors. Most of them show up, take pictures, and leave about the same way they arrived. Visiting Jerusalem does not make someone a Christian.
The truths of the Book of Mormon must be found in your heart in order for them to make a meaningful and lasting change.
We encourage everyone to learn of our teachings, worship with us, read the Book of Mormon and then, sincerely and humbly, ask God if it is true or not.
It really is that simple.
It's not that we're using faith as an excuse to gloss over the lack of scientific evidence. It's just that we believe that the Book of Mormon was inspired by God, and as such, we're willing to wait until science can prove the rest. Faith doesn't have to be blind to be faith, but our acceptance does have to be based on study and prayer.
I'm not sure if you're Christian or not, but to me, believing in the Book of Mormon isn't any more ridiculous than believing in Christ in the first place. Sure, we can prove He actually existed, but can science prove that He was the Son of God? Can we even prove that God exists at all? As for the Biblical proof--again, we can prove that these people existed and that the places in the Bible were real, but can we prove that Paul raised a man from the dead or that Moses parted the seas? Of course not. Science can't prove any of it, though having felt God's love and Christ's guidance in my life, of course I believe. One day, whether in this life or the next, I'll be given all the scientific proof I need (though don't really require). Until then, I simply have to study the doctrines and see how they affect my life, commune with God through prayer, and do my best to live as I believe they have asked me to. The rest will come in time.
How much more ';credibility'; can a person get than having God tell you it is true...?? By the power of the Holy Ghost, I have received a witness of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. I know that I have received such a witness, I know that God knows it. And I know that I cannot nor will not deny that I have received that witness.
To me, God is the ultimate, credible source. And millions of other LDS members know this too. That is why we believe.
And you and anyone else can get that same witness, because God loves ALL of his children and wants ALL of them to know his truths.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment