Sound Familiar Anyone?

A Mormon negatively commented on the skeptical book, Joseph Smith and the Origins of the Book of Mormon. Read on:
You know, I could probably spend a few years of my life trying to find dirt on the author of this book and likely, I would find some. The question is: why would I? It seems to me a pretty sad way to spend my life. It also seems to me that if I wanted to learn about someone, I should ask someone who loves them... if I went to someone who hates you and asked them, "what's this person like?" what kind of an answer would I get? Yes it's very easy to find dirt on someone if that's what you are looking for because the bottom line is: people believe what they want to believe. If you want to KNOW something, why not ask the only one who truly knows... God? That was Joseph Smith's message. That was the message of the Book of Mormon. It was also the message of our Savior who said: "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:" (Matt. 7:7). Or you can refer to the scripture quoted by the prophet himself: "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. (I would like to continue on through the next couple of verses-) "But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord." (James 1:5-7).

I know Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. Not because some person told me, and not because some man showed me a book full of evidence (there is much evidence for those who want to find it). I know, because like Joseph Smith, I got down on my knees, in faith, and asked my Heavenly Father if it was true. You cannot know anything, but by God. What do you have to lose? I'm not giving you my opinions. I only invite those who wish to know the truth, and who are not trying to simply reinforce their budding hatred for a man that they simply do not know. If you want to know, ask God, I promise you that He will answer if you honestly seek only the truth. Link
This Mormon claims people who don't believe don't want to believe. He's not offering his opinions. He knows because he has the inner witness of God in his heart. Does any of this sound familiar? ;-)

48 comments:

Matto the Hun said...

So when some one of another faith gets on their knees and asks god about Joseph Smith and they get the reply "Blah, Joseph Smith was Koo-Koo for Coa-Coa Puffs" what then?

According to this fellow's arguement, that's the answer.

I'm sure we don't need to get into what happens when someone asks god what to do and it says to kill or harm people...

ahswan said...

The big difference between Mormonism and Christianity is that there is both logical and historical evidence supporting Christianity.

With Mormonism, you have to rely solely on the "inner witness" and avoid any fact.

John W. Loftus said...

*ahem* ahswan, he also said the same thing you did: there is much evidence for those who want to find it.

Rob said...

For sure! Just look at all of the UFO evidence! If someone WANTS to believe in something, I am sure they will find "evidence" to support their beliefs. Even the O J Simpson lawyers had "evidence" of his innocence! Evidence is easily contrived.

Corky said...

You have to want the Book of Mormon to be true if you go so far as to pray that God will show you that it's true.

What a person is really doing is convincing their own selves that the book is true. The more one prays about it the more convinced they become. After all, you are asking God to show you that the book is true and not asking God to show you the book is false.

The book is not true. Where there were known mistranslations in the parts of the OT (KJV) that the BoM quotes the same mistranslations are repeated in the BoM.

Mark said...

All evidence needs to be tested for truth (correspondence with reality). The problem with skeptics, and Mormons, for that matter, is they discount, out of had, any evidence that falls outside of their world view.

deusdiapente said...

The problem with everyone is that they discount everything that falls outside of their worldview. It's called confirmation bias.

Imagine if someone came up to you and said "You have to first believe that black people are inferior and THEN you'll see all of the evidence"? Of course, that will just keep someone in a racist mindset, but somehow it's a totally legitimate methodology to "prove" the "truth" of Christianity/Mormonism/Islam/etc (e.g. "first you have to believe that Jesus died for your sins and THEN you'll see all of the evidence").

The only way to really combat our inherent confirmation bias is to try to prove our pet superstitions/beliefs wrong.

Anthony said...

Mark: The problem with skeptics, and Mormons, for that matter, is they discount, out of had, any evidence that falls outside of their world view.

Speaking for the skeptical side, I think you need to demonstrate your accusation. And seriously, you do not think Christians are guilty of this? What about creationism?

DevinWL said...

I would have to say in being a skeptic myself all evidence is subject to scrutiny and evaluated for truth. Once proven truthfull most skeptics take in to account its truthfullness or else they wouldnt be skeptical of it in the first place...so really anything proven truthfull falls into a skeptics worldview by default of being a skeptic whether they want to except it or not...im being skeptical of your skepticism towards skeptics...and as Anthony said please demonstrate your accusations.

Corky said...

I can't believe people are arguing about the Book of Mormon. It's so obvious a fake...

There is genetic evidence. The Labanites could not be the Meso-AmerIndians - no Jewish bloodline.

No evidence of cities built. No evidence of chariots. No evidence of steel weapons. No evidence of steel smelting plants - nothing.

The animals are all wrong, the plants are all wrong. There were no horses, no wheat and barley fields, no elephants etc.

It's just a stupid made up book by a man who wanted more than one wife, and really, that's all it amounts to and nothing more.

That there are 20 million Mormons just testifies to human gullibility.

DevinWL said...

Gullibility and pure stupidity.

edson said...

Now this is what I always think about that actually human gullibility is the fifth collumn to our spiritual development. At this no one is less vulnerable, not even christians. You will only be sad at how today christians are swayed by these pseudo-apostles/prophets imposters all around the world.

But this gullibility stems from the lack of knowledge of scriptures. Even Prophet Hosea and Jesus lamented when they observed of their people being in a state of disarray and destruction for they rejected true knowledge in favor of their manmade principles.

A lot of imposters came and will keep coming but you'll only marvel at human gullibility. You know a self-proclaimed prophet is a charlatan through their typical narcissist attitudes of seeking personal glory of being praised for whatever they do, their hedonistic doctrines of unlimited orgy on earth (legalizing polygamy)and cultic mentality. The prophet of Islam and Mormon are example of this.

True prophets and Apostles do not seek glory. They are always bent at serving others even at the expenses of their lives. Biblical prophets and Apostles are example of this. I'm sure even today, no matter how much true christian doctrines are corrupted, still there are some church clergies whose lives are relics of Apostles creed.

Raul said...

"You know, I could probably spend a few years of my life trying to find dirt on the author of this book and likely, I would find some."
=
"I would probably resort to ad hominem atacks,but I just don't feel like it"

Owlmirror said...

«"But this gullibility stems from the lack of knowledge of scriptures.

No, gullibility stems from the fact that humans are fallible.

Those who know the scriptures know that the scriptures contradict themselves and reality.

«"You know a self-proclaimed prophet is a charlatan through their typical narcissist attitudes of seeking personal glory of being praised for whatever they do,

Sounds like every prophet in the bible, including Jesus

«"their hedonistic doctrines of unlimited orgy on earth (legalizing polygamy)

In the OT, polygamy was already "legal".

«"and cultic mentality.

Sounds like every prophet in the bible, including Jesus.

«"The prophet of Islam and Mormon are example of this.

And Jesus.

«"True prophets and Apostles do not seek glory.

Obviously, all religious figures claim to be true prophets. We remember them precisely because they were glory hounds.

«"They are always bent at serving others even at the expenses of their lives.

Obviously not.

«"Biblical prophets and Apostles are example of this.

Nah.

Reuben said...

Thanks for posting this John. I am perpetually surprised when I read stuff like this in defense of what my younger self considered "cults," and how the evangelical me would have reasoned similarly.

Rob said...

Anthony,

You asked: "What about creationism?"


What about it? The order and complexity of the universe is great evidence for creation.

Anthony said...

Rob: "What about creationism?"

What about it? The order and complexity of the universe is great evidence for creation.


A couple of things here. First, creationism and the doctrine of creation are separate issues, liberal and even some conservative theologians will attest to that. Secondly, the context of my comment dealt with the issue of someone discounting evidence that doesn't fit with their worldview. I believe creationism is just such a position where evidence for evolution is denied or discounted because it doesn't fit their fundamentalist Christian worldview.

Rob said...

Anthony,

I thought you were talking about the creation of the universe.

And the so called evidence for evolution, like chromosome #2 being a fused chromosome, is pathetic. We get 23 pairs from each parent. Fuse one pair of the apes or common ancestor's 48 pairs and you end up with 47 chromosomes. So both parents would need to have their chromosomes fused to end up with 46 like humans have. How and when did this fusion take place in male and female at the same exact time before conception? Ken Miller's explanation does not even attempt to answer any of the tough questions about this so called fusion event. Also, fusing chromosomes would cause dysfunctions.

Anthony said...

Rob: And the so called evidence for evolution...

Thank you for proving my point. Mark claims that skeptics (and others) discount evidence that would lie outside of their worldview. My counter was that Christians do exactly that, my example was creationists and here you go demonstrating my point better than I could have.

Rob, are you a scientist? Do you have a PhD in biology? Why don't you write a critical paper on the issue of the fused chromosome and have it peer reviewed and published. Why don't you contact Ken Miller and refute him. Problem is, you can't. You don't have the expertise to do so. Do I have the expertise? No. But then again I can simply point to the scholars who know better. When you make such claims against scholarship and you do not have the expertise to do so you show yourself to be a hack.

Rob said...

The math is simple - start with 24 pairs of chromosomes or 48 chromosomes and then fuse one pair, and you end up with 47 chromosomes.

I will debate Ken Miller any time and any place with my very limited knowledge and, make him squirm like a worm in a hot frying pan. I have seen his videos on Youtube and they are easily debunked.

Owlmirror said...

«"How and when did this fusion take place in male and female at the same exact time before conception?

You're confused. Synteny is a genetic trait that occurs in a single parent and spreads through a population, just like any other genetic trait.

«"Ken Miller's explanation does not even attempt to answer any of the tough questions about this so called fusion event.

You mean tough questions like "why would an infinitely powerful and knowledgeable God shove two chromosomes together in such a way as to make it blindingly obvious that this fusion occurred, and supports the additional genetic evidence that humans are related to apes?"

«"Also, fusing chromosomes would cause dysfunctions.

Obviously, not necessarily.

Rob said...

Owl,

You are assuming that chromosome #2 is fused because it LOOKS like it is fused! If it is NOT fused then evolution goes right down the tubes! You are FORCED to say that this is a fused chromosome or else common ancestry is proven wrong.

Prove to me that chromosome # 2 is fused, and then tell me how and why it got fused. Did it fuse before or after the start of the human race? If before, then why no apes with this fused chromosome? If we were to UNFUSE this chromosome, then we would all have 47 chromosomes - not 48!

Owlmirror said...

«"I will debate Ken Miller any time and any place with my very limited knowledge and, make him squirm like a worm in a hot frying pan. I have seen his videos on Youtube and they are easily debunked.

Ah, the blind confidence of the utterly incompetent.

I suppose that what you don't know isn't knowledge.

Rob said...

I do not need to be an expert on space alien theory to debate and debunk the theory. Common sense will do it readily.

Owlmirror said...

«"Prove to me that chromosome # 2 is fused

All that science can do is provide the evidence that the synteny occurred; the fact that the sequences match (on both sides) with two separate chromosomes on apes, and the center contains telomere sequences, which are found only on the ends of all other chromosomes.

  http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

«"and then tell me how and why it got fused.

It occurred because the DNA copying and crossover mechanism is not perfect.

«"Did it fuse before or after the start of the human race?

Almost certainly before, obviously, if all humans have it. If there was a species of Homo that did not have it, that species is long since extinct.

«"If before, then why no apes with this fused chromosome?

Because apes are not humans, and split from humans before the synteny occurred.

«"If we were to UNFUSE this chromosome, then we would all have 47 chromosomes - not 48!

Your math is as terrible as your logic.

Owlmirror said...

«"I do not need to be an expert on space alien theory to debate and debunk the theory. Common sense will do it readily.

Since evolution, like all of science, is supported by evidence, and "space alien theory" is not, you will need a little more than what you laughably call "common sense" to say anything intelligible about evolution.

Rob said...

I said: If we were to UNFUSE this chromosome, then we would all have 47 chromosomes - not 48.

"Your math is as terrible as your logic."

It is said that our commom ancestor had 48 chromosomes - 24 pairs. We humans have 23 pairs. If we UNFUSE chromosome #2 - that gives us ONE extra chromosome equaling 47 total, not 48 like the gorillas have. Do you wish to correct my math?

Rob said...

Owl,

The evidence for evolution is even more pathetic that the UFO videos! The fossil evidence especially! Transitional fossils???? Says who? THE EVOLUTIONISTS! That's who! Talk about information selection bias! A pygmy fossil or a midget or dwarf fossil would be called "transitional". Evolution takes much more blind faith that any religion!

And of course atheists are FORCED to believe in evolution! They have no other choice!

Owlmirror said...

«"It is said that our commom ancestor had 48 chromosomes - 24 pairs. We humans have 23 pairs. If we UNFUSE chromosome #2 - that gives us ONE extra chromosome equaling 47 total, not 48 like the gorillas have. Do you wish to correct my math?

The problem with your math arises from your stone ignorance of genetics. It was a chromosome pair that fused (there are two centromere remnants); splitting the pair would of course give two pairs.

«"Transitional fossils???? Says who? THE EVOLUTIONISTS!

Of course. Palaeontologists dug up the fossils and demonstrated the evidence of the transitional characteristics. Creationists do nothing.

«"Talk about information selection bias!

You mean, actually knowing something is a bias against ignorance? Yes, I agree.

«"A pygmy fossil or a midget or dwarf fossil would be called "transitional".

Are you Jim Pinkowski?

«"Evolution takes much more blind faith that any religion!

Understanding and accepting evolution requires knowledge and intelligence. Religion requires blind faith and ignorance.

«"And of course atheists are FORCED to believe in evolution! They have no other choice!

Only inasmuch as you are "forced" to believe that 1+2=3.

Owlmirror said...

«"It was a chromosome pair that fused (there are two centromere remnants); splitting the pair would of course give two pairs.


That should read: It was two chromosome pairs that fused (there are two centromere remnants); splitting the pair would of course give two pairs back again.

Anthony said...

Rob, I'm starting to wonder if you might be Dennis Collis, aka DenCol, DRC or a host of other names that was used.

The simple fact is that you have not examined the evidence for evolution, you have not objectively read any substantial books or articles that present the evidence. You are a creationist hack who's only source of knowledge are from Youtube videos, the bible and creationist literature. If you can offer something else more substantial than what you have already stated (which isn't much) then there just isn't much more to discuss.

And besides, the topic of this particular blog entry isn't evolution.

Rob said...

Chromosome fusion would cause a dysfunction. Also, the fusion would have had to take place in both males and females at the same exact moment in time because we get 23 pairs from mom and 23 pairs from dad.

So once again, why did only #2 fuse? When did it fuse? Why did it fuse? Are chromosomes fusing population wide today? Why not? Is this not repeatable today nor obsevable today? None of the studies that I have read answer these questions.

Rob said...

This thread was about EVIDENCE. EVIDENCE can be manufactured, just like the space alien buffs or Big Foot buffs. Evolution also floats the same boat with their so called fossil "evidence" and DNA "evidence". It is nothing but pure conjecture, speculation, and assumption. Evolution is pseudoscience at it's finest.

I am done. I did not realize this was a sacred thred that had to stay on a specific point. Most of theses sacred threads get about 10 comments on average anyway, so what is the big deal? I do not see any threads on here that specifically deal with evolution. The subject came up, and we discussed it. Big fat hairy deal.

Good riddance to this precious thread.

Owlmirror said...

«"Chromosome fusion would cause a dysfunction.

Are you blind? As I already wrote, obviously not necessarily.

«"Also, the fusion would have had to take place in both males and females at the same exact moment in time because we get 23 pairs from mom and 23 pairs from dad.

Wrong again. If you don't understand genetics -- and it's obvious you know nothing beyond faintly-remembered high-school biology -- don't spout off about it.

The fusion took place in a single individual and was a trait that was transmitted to descendants; chromosome number mismatches are not complete barriers to reproduction.

«"So once again, why did only #2 fuse?

Who says that was the only fusion ever? Why should more than one particular fusion occur at any given time?

«"When did it fuse?

The best estimate is a few million years ago.

«"Are chromosomes fusing population wide today?

To some extent, yes. Read up on chromosomal translocations.

«"Is this not repeatable today nor obsevable today?

Chromosomal translocations are indeed observable in the human population and the wider populations of organisms.

«"None of the studies that I have read answer these questions.

What have you bothered to read? You didn't read the study I pointed you at. You haven't read up on advanced genetics and genomics. You can try and argue from your profound pathetic ignorance, but nobody smart and sane will take you seriously.

«"EVIDENCE can be manufactured, just like the space alien buffs or Big Foot buffs.

And there is evidence that the evidence was manufactured in those cases, moron. You have nothing.

«"Evolution also floats the same boat with their so called fossil "evidence" and DNA "evidence". It is nothing but pure conjecture, speculation, and assumption. Evolution is pseudoscience at it's finest.

Now you're just flat-out lying. Typical creationist -- not just ignorant and proud of it, but also dishonest and proud of it.

«"I am done.

Good riddance. Leave, and either learn something about what you are pathetically ignorant of and lie about, or just never return.

RichD said...

Hi Corky,

The Book of Mormon is said to be set between 400 BC to about 600 AD and I bet I can come up with evidence that is on par with the bible.
No evidence of cities built

No evidence of steel weapons

Also as far as elephants, there is some evidence, which I can't find a link to yet, which puts some "elephants in the american continent maybe up to 3000 BC. The mention of elphants in the BofM is close to this time, around 2500 BC.

Ross said...

For my take on Mormonism, have a look at this. Comments are welcome, as always.

http://roscoeland.blogspot.com/search?q=mormonism

Owlmirror said...

«"The Book of Mormon is said to be set between 400 BC to about 600 AD and I bet I can come up with evidence that is on par with the bible."»

You mean as contradictory and made-up as the bible? I suppose so.

«"No evidence of cities built»

You can have MesoAmerican cities -- but you can't have cities built by recently-arrived Semitic immigrants. No Semitic inscriptions, languages, or technology. And of course, no Semitic DNA.

«"No evidence of steel weapons»

And indeed, bronze is not steel.

«"Also as far as elephants, there is some evidence, which I can't find a link to yet, which puts some "elephants in the american continent maybe up to 3000 BC.»

Nah. All such megafauna died out, at the very latest, around the Quaternary-Holocene boundary, about 10,000 BCE.

«"The mention of elphants in the BofM is close to this time, around 2500 BC.»

There were no cities in the New World, MesoAmerican or otherwise, around 2,500 BCE.

Rational Jen said...

He knows because he has the inner witness of God in his heart. Does any of this sound familiar? ;-)

Sounds a lot like WLC's "self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit."

Jen

RichD said...

Hi Owl,

You mean as contradictory and made-up as the bible? I suppose so.

That was basically my point. Evidence for the bible that is always pointed to isn't as solid as believers would like, same goes for the BofM.

but you can't have cities built by recently-arrived Semitic immigrants.

Didn't ask for it, but there is certainly evidence of large cities, which is an answer to the "no evididence of cities built" claim made by Corky.

And indeed, bronze is not steel.

Agreed, but they certainly had the ability to make metal weapons, so that steel hasn't been found, that may still be forthcoming. Also several times during the accounts of wars, it says that the their swords were stained with blood. Metal doesn't tend to become stained but wood certainly does.

There were no cities in the New World, MesoAmerican or otherwise, around 2,500 BCE

First, I didn't claim that there were cities. Second, You might want to look harder before you so quickly dismiss that there were no cities.
The claim that there is no evidence to support the bofm is demonstratibly false. That it is going to be controversial and some of it made up, granted.

Owlmirror said...

«"Agreed, but they certainly had the ability to make metal weapons, so that steel hasn't been found, that may still be forthcoming.

Um, no. No jumping from "bronze axes" to "steel swords" without evidence, please.

«"Also several times during the accounts of wars, it says that the their swords were stained with blood. Metal doesn't tend to become stained but wood certainly does.

Which is irrelevant to the point of metal swords.

«"There were no cities in the New World, MesoAmerican or otherwise, around 2,500 BCE

First, I didn't claim that there were cities. Second, You might want to look harder before you so quickly dismiss that there were no cities.

Sigh. I brought up cities because elephants were mentioned in the context of cities. And I concede the existence of a city -- but not one built by Near Eastern immigrants, or with elephants.

«"The claim that there is no evidence to support the bofm is demonstratibly false. That it is going to be controversial and some of it made up, granted.

But since the "evidence" is all made up, there is indeed no evidence to support the book of mormon.

BIuemongoose said...

Rational Jen:

Self-Authenticating Witness. What's wrong with it? It is irrefutable. Try to refute, it can't be done. Hope you have lots of time on your hands.

Anthony:

Creationists. Why do you presuppose they are wrong?

Why do people have to pick on me when they can't refute me? I have the best arguments on this site but no one engages me! Why?

Evolution. Have you read Ken Ham's demolitions of evolution? He knows the inside scoop. Him, Philip Johnson, and Francis Collins are the most credible biologists out there.

Owlmirror said...

«"Self-Authenticating Witness. What's wrong with it? It is irrefutable. Try to refute, it can't be done. Hope you have lots of time on your hands.

LOL! So you agree that Mormons are irrefutable too!

«"Why do people have to pick on me when they can't refute me?

You have been refuted, many times. You just refuse to admit it, out of sheer perversity.

«"I have the best arguments on this site

LOL! Only inside your own head.

«"but no one engages me!

You've been engaged, and your worldview has been sunk, but you bob back up like a weeble.

«"Have you read Ken Ham's demolitions of evolution? He knows the inside scoop.

Ken Ham knows nothing, and lies constantly about evolution. Kind of like you lie about everything, come to think of it.

«"Him, Philip Johnson, and Francis Collins are the most credible biologists out there.

LOL. Ken Ham is not a biologist. Philip Johnson is not a biologist. Francis Collins is a biologist, but only a stone-ignorant moron would think that Francis Collins would agree with either Philip Johnson or Ken Ham on biology.

Dr. Francis Collins established The BioLogos Foundation to address the escalating culture war between science and faith in the United States.

  http://biologos.org/about

Many different measurements have established that the Universe and the Earth are billions of years old.

BioLogos accepts that evolution is true

  http://biologos.org/questions/category/science/

See? I engaged you, refuted you, and your argument tanked -- but you will never admit it.

Anthony said...

Blue: Creationists. Why do you presuppose they are wrong?

I do not presuppose they are wrong, I am convinced they are wrong because of the scientific and historical evidence. Remember Blue, I was a creationist most of my life (I'm approaching my mid 40s). I wasn't a creationist simply because that's what my church believed, I was one because I read their writings, received their literature (like Acts & Facts) and subscribed to their journals (such as the Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal and later Origins & Design from Access Research Network).

Why do people have to pick on me when they can't refute me?

No one is picking on you, but if you post something here, you need to be prepared to be engaged by others.

I have the best arguments on this site but no one engages me! Why?

Talk about being blind and arrogant. I see very little in the way of argument from you.

Evolution. Have you read Ken Ham's demolitions of evolution? He knows the inside scoop.

Are you serious? I have read Ken Ham's books and articles on the web, he is in fact very ignorant of science and history. He hasn't demolished anything. Nor does he have any inside scoop, just bad ideas all based upon a literal reading of the Bible.

I am also very familiar with Johnson and the intelligent design movement, I was a big advocate when I discovered their movement back in the mid to late 90s. ID has tried to redefine science and push it's ideas into the public schools (like the creationists before them).

Him, Philip Johnson, and Francis Collins are the most credible biologists out there.

Ham isn't a scientist, Johnson is (sorry, was) a lawyer, neither are biologists. Collins is a true scientist but has unfortunately compromised his science due to his ID views.

Anthony said...

Collins is a true scientist but has unfortunately compromised his science due to his ID views.

I need to correct myself. Collins is not an advocate of ID, what I meant was that he compromises his science with his religious views.

RichD said...

Um, no. No jumping from "bronze axes" to "steel swords" without evidence, please.

I'm not jumping to anything. There is clear evidence that metal working was know to mesoamerican societies.

Which is irrelevant to the point of metal swords

Not in this case because that critic has changed because of findings of weopons made of wood with metal edges dating back to times of th BofM. First the problem with the accounts was that metal swords don't get stained with blood. Since wood/metal swords have been discovered, which can be stained, we move onto the steel problem.


Sigh. I brought up cities because elephants were mentioned in the context of cities


I guess i missed how this is related to there being elephants. First you state that there were no cities anywhere, which I showed that to be not true and you concede to there being a city. As for the particular people in question, they are not the near eastern immigrants the BofM mainly talks about. Its a much earlier time and there origen is not clearly given. Dr. Hugh Nibley, a Mormon scholar, has suggested that they are asian or mongol. I am not a scholar so I am just relating what I have heard.

But since the "evidence" is all made up, there is indeed no evidence to support the book of mormon.

What made up evidence are you specifically refering to?

Here is a link to an apologist's web page dealing with bofm evidence. He also has a blog with a current post about evidence.

Owlmirror said...

«"I'm not jumping to anything. There is clear evidence that metal working was know to mesoamerican societies.

You are indeed jumping if you're going from bronze existing to steel existing. "Metal working" is far too broad of a term.

«"Since wood/metal swords have been discovered,

Where?

«"we move onto the steel problem.

There was no steel in Mesoamerica before the Europeans brought it.

«"As for the particular people in question, they are not the near eastern immigrants the BofM mainly talks about. Its a much earlier time and there origen is not clearly given. Dr. Hugh Nibley, a Mormon scholar, has suggested that they are asian or mongol.

Only in the sense that all Mesoamericans, like all first Americans, are ultimately Asians that crossed over the Bering land bridge.

«"What made up evidence are you specifically refering to?

All of it.

«"Here is a link to an apologist's web page dealing with bofm evidence.

The only thing that proves is that Mormons have a lot to apologize for.

radd_d81 said...

Its kinda hard to debunk something you don't even really understand. And won't try to because you hate it, and just blow it off as rubbish. There are even Christians who don't fully understand Christianity, and would definitely rethink a hell of a lot if they truly did. If you think Christianity was born in Europe (the Roman Catholic Church) then that is the first mistake, and why you don't understand a lot about Christianity.

So try to actually really learn about it, before you try to "debunk" it I have yet to see anyone debunk anything with Christianity, and I'm an open minded and fair guy, if someone comes to me with proof that this is all just rubbish, great show me. It hasn't happened yet.

As for the whole Obama being the Antichrist thing this is very very interesting. For starters there is no one Antichrist. It is called the Antichrist spirit, and many people do have it. Its basically anyone who rejects the teachings of Christ, and wishes, or does harm against those who have love for Jehovah god.

The man who is supposed to have total rule over the world, and bring about the whole new world order thing, is the Beast. The bible talks a lot about the events that are to come in the last days, how people will become, how nations will become. And I have to say, when I look at the way the government has become, and look at a lot of these people Obama has placed in position of power namely the so called "Csars". You learn about these people, which most Americans on a whole know nothing about,or are too lazy to actually learn about these people.

These people definitely without a doubt fit the bible's description 100% as the men/women, who bring about things that are more in line with the Antichrist agenda. A lot of people feel the country is changing, and they aren't too comfortable with it, some people just can't exactly explain it, but they know it doesn't feel right, and some people are afraid to actually say anything, because they fear being shot down as loons, or haters.

Its not so much about Obama, because these people in the government were about when Bush was president, and when Clinton was president, they've been growing in power, more so now under Obama due to his policies.

The Beast, or Antichrist as people call him, is a man of great charisma, everyone is supposed to love this man, and later on view him as some sort of Messiah, he'll even have men of religion behind him, and when he shows his true self, its too late. There are some people who believe this fits Obama with the reaction of some people not just in this country, but all over the world.

My whole thing is just watch and see, most of all if you're really interested in knowing, I suggest you really study Christianity, and carefully, and keep your eyes open to the things going on around you in the world, which the bible clearly does talk about.

Anthony said...

radd_d81: Its kinda hard to debunk something you don't even really understand. And won't try to because you hate it, and just blow it off as rubbish.

What makes you think that we do not understand Christianity? Many of us were once believers thoroughly convinced that what we believed was true. Spend a little time reading what we have written here or perhaps read some of the books from this list.

Skipping over the silly comments about the Beast and all.

radd_d81: I suggest you really study Christianity, and carefully...

Many of us have and found it wanting. See John's Outsider Test for Faith.

radd_d81: ...and keep your eyes open to the things going on around you in the world, which the bible clearly does talk about.

No, the Bible does not talk about events going on in the modern world.