Scott C.
Just one guy
I'll do that a little later. Thanks.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Book of Mormon vs. DNA
- Thread starter Blentyn chan Celi
- Start date
I'll do that a little later. Thanks.
Hope
Princesinha
Young Earth Creationist/ism.
While I admit I have not seen autodidact debate on the core doctrines of Christianity, rest assured she fires away just as much against the beliefs of mainline Christians as she does against Mormonism. I have been on the receiving end of her sharp intellect many, many times, in debates regarding the historical validity of the Bible. She especially loves to tear apart those YECs.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Oh, duh! I knew I'd feel stupid! The funny thing is, hardly any LDS I know are YECs.
No kidding? I guess I just hadn't noticed. I just love it when people spread the love around.While I admit I have not seen autodidact debate on the core doctrines of Christianity, rest assured she fires away just as much against the beliefs of mainline Christians as she does against Mormonism. I have been on the receiving end of her sharp intellect many, many times, in debates regarding the historical validity of the Bible. She especially loves to tear apart those YECs.
Hope
Princesinha
Most Christians I know are.
No kidding? I guess I just hadn't noticed. I just love it when people spread the love around.
You should visit the Science vs. Religion and Evolution vs. Creationism sections more.
To be fair, I'm grateful for people like autodidact who challenge what I believe. Because, ultimately, I just want to know the truth. So far, there has been no substantial discovery to discredit Christianity, but if something like Jesus' bones being found ever happened, I would be forced to reevaluate my beliefs and worldview.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
You know, the reason I don't, is because to me it's a pointless thing to argue about. I believe that God is the greatest scientist who has ever lived. I figure that when God reveals everything He wants us to know about how He created the world and when science uncovers all of the evidence He has left lying around, there will be no conflict at all. I have no problem whatsoever reconciling the argument between scientists and creationists, but I also have no unrealistic ideas about changing anybody else's point of view on the subject. That's why I never get into arguments with atheists about whether there is or is not a God. Nobody is going to change anybody's mind. I'd rather spend my time on forums where there's a possibility I can influence someone to rethink his opinion.
Hugh Nibley, probably the greatest LDS scholar who ever lived, once said, "We need more anti-Mormon literature. It keeps us on our toes." I agree with him and I know where you're coming from. I just get tired of rehashing the same old arguments over and over and over and over again. That's why I pretty much stopped posting on threads like this one. I've got to say, though, that arguing with anti-Mormons has strengthened my belief in my religion more than pretty much anything else, for no other reason than that it has forced me to do my research.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
You're quite mistaken. I'm going at it with the Muslims at this very moment. Also the Catholics. I wish we had some Scientologists here--that would be a real party. But my #1 debate partners are the YECs. You've missed a lot.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Well, it depends. If the truth they pull from the texts is that there is an objective reality to the history, then anyone who can examine the evidence can examine that. If it's more in the realm of myth, a Joseph Campbell type thing, then anyone is entitled to an opinion. I would recommend that they investigate some other myths that are beautiful and embody spiritual truths. No harm, right?
***MOD POST***
As much as I, personally, am enjoying this exchange, there have been quite a few posts that have strayed
quite a bit from the thread topic. Let's stay on-topic, y'all.
quite a bit from the thread topic. Let's stay on-topic, y'all.
Peace,
Mystic
Mystic
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Sure, just scroll up. Also at this very moment I'm arguing with the Muslims in "Who Stole My Freedom?" and the Catholics in "Catholics and Condoms." But if you visit any thread about Evolution vs. Creationism, there you will find me happily plying my trade.
In any case, as someone pointed out, even if all I did all day long was argue with Mormons, it would not invalidate my points. As in my frequent discussions with YECs, I have only begun to present the evidence, and no one has engaged with it yet.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
To me as an atheist who was raised as a Jew these beliefs appear extremely silly. However, Christian doctrine seems more vague and slippery. No two Christians seem to interpret it the same way, and when you take it on, they tend to laugh and say, "That's not what I believe, you silly, ignorant atheist." However, when they do manage to make a specific factual assertions, I do like to debate them. This includes such as for example that there is archeological evidence supporting the Jesus legend, or that the Bible's translation and manuscript remain accurate throughout history. Or, here's an easy one: The NT was written by eye-witnesses.
Mormonism is just so fascinating, though, because it's relatively recent and specific, and you can trace its origin to a single person who was so transparently a con-man. Of course, Scientology is the most dramatic example, but I've never had one come in here and try to defend their odd beliefs.
I would never say this. On the contrary, extremely intelligent people believe extremely silly things. That's what makes the phenomenon so interesting. It's obvious that just being smart is no defense against a good religious meme.
Exactly. I've given this a lot of thought, both how millions of normal people can be persuaded to believe silly, demonstrably false stories, and how difficult it is to persuade them otherwise. When their belief system has a built-in defense against reality (they have been taught to maintain their faith despite any evidence to the contrary), that is a very difficult defense to breach. For me this discussion can go off into meme theory and evolutionary psychology, both of which I find helpful in understanding the phenomemon, and it's too great a de-rail for the thread to bear, but I would love to explore it further in a separate thread.
I don't know if this is true or not. Certainly the Jews have them beat all to Hell, pound for pound. I think they do fine, as long as it doesn't go into archeology, which has a tendency to de-convert Mormons.
Well, hope springs eternal. Mormons do deconvert, and there are support groups and websites and so forth for former Mormons. I think that for those who do, it often starts with the realization that they've been lied to about something significant, which then raises doubts about the whole house of cards.
Nah, it's fun.
Your motivation for these discussions. Surely you don't expect to persuade me or anyone like me that these stories are true, so what's your motivation in defending them?
Popeyesays
Well-Known Member
Autodidact,
"To me as an atheist who was raised as a Jew these beliefs appear extremely silly. However, Christian doctrine seems more vague and slippery. No two Christians seem to interpret it the same way, and when you take it on, they tend to laugh and say, "That's not what I believe, you silly, ignorant atheist." However, when they do manage to make a specific factual assertions, I do like to debate them. This includes such as for example that there is archeological evidence supporting the Jesus legend, or that the Bible's translation and manuscript remain accurate throughout history. Or, here's an easy one: The NT was written by eye-witnesses. "
Well there is archeological evidence supporting the New Testament, but its scanty. There is even historical record--Josephus, etc. There is plenty of historical record to show the effects of Christianity in place.
By the way, historical record and archeological record are really two different things.
That the Gospels were compiled from oral tradition is fairly obvious, That the oral tradition hit paper before the appearance of what we call the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is pretty obvious--no one has found a Q document, but the existence of that document is pretty obvious.
Shakespeare's plays exiosted as entire documents, even though the parts transcribed for the actors remain in framentary evidence for those complete scripts. Considering the tedium of transcribing by hand, one can surmise that revisions were made in the parts that were not present in the original script.
Maybe the Quelle Document will still show up some day. After all we did not have any of Menander's surviving comedies until one copy of a single entire play was found in a paper grave.
Regards,
Scott
"To me as an atheist who was raised as a Jew these beliefs appear extremely silly. However, Christian doctrine seems more vague and slippery. No two Christians seem to interpret it the same way, and when you take it on, they tend to laugh and say, "That's not what I believe, you silly, ignorant atheist." However, when they do manage to make a specific factual assertions, I do like to debate them. This includes such as for example that there is archeological evidence supporting the Jesus legend, or that the Bible's translation and manuscript remain accurate throughout history. Or, here's an easy one: The NT was written by eye-witnesses. "
Well there is archeological evidence supporting the New Testament, but its scanty. There is even historical record--Josephus, etc. There is plenty of historical record to show the effects of Christianity in place.
By the way, historical record and archeological record are really two different things.
That the Gospels were compiled from oral tradition is fairly obvious, That the oral tradition hit paper before the appearance of what we call the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is pretty obvious--no one has found a Q document, but the existence of that document is pretty obvious.
Shakespeare's plays exiosted as entire documents, even though the parts transcribed for the actors remain in framentary evidence for those complete scripts. Considering the tedium of transcribing by hand, one can surmise that revisions were made in the parts that were not present in the original script.
Maybe the Quelle Document will still show up some day. After all we did not have any of Menander's surviving comedies until one copy of a single entire play was found in a paper grave.
Regards,
Scott
nutshell
Well-Known Member
Personally, I find that it doesn't matter whether or not the Book of Mormon is an objective reality to history. The importance of the Book of Mormon is the truths it teaches. You may not accept these truths because you've found another mythology that appeals best to you. For the millions of LDS people out there (who you've acknowledged are highly intelligent) the Book of Mormon is beautiful and embodies spiritual truths.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Most experts consider the Josephus reference to be either a forgery or an interpolation. And of course, no one doubts that Christianity exists; that is another issue entirely.
Of course.
Few Christians know this, however.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
As you may have noticed, I actually don't spend much time discussing Book of Mormon archeology, for the simple fact that I recognize that it would be a waste of my time. My faith doesn't rest of the discovery of a ancient garage full of chariots, but on a relationship with my Heavenly Father. And that's something that's purely personal; I couldn't give it to someone else no matter how hard I were to try. I'm generally willing to respond to any question, no matter how challenging, at least once, particularly if I can sense that the person who's asking it is seriously looking for an answer as opposed to an argument. What I've given up doing is spending hours on end presenting evidence that is simply going to be dismissed as irrelevant anyway. You'll notice that I almost never participate in threads where athiests challenge thiests to prove the existance of God (or visa versa). Nobody's going to change anybody else's mind, so I've stopped trying. I just try to be selective in what I debate.
I'm here primarily to respond to questions from people who really want to know what Mormonism is all about. I'm here to correct misinformation about our doctrines, and to help build bridges between people of all faiths (or no faith at all). For the most part, I think I do a pretty decent job of it. I've had to learn over the years that there are simply certain debates not worth having.
me too
Melissa G
Non Veritas Verba Amanda
Yes, it is dangerous. And the anti-scientific stance equally so. As Damian Thompson points out( Counterknowledge, 2008, Atlantic Books, London) ' Attempts by Latter Day Saint academics to reconcile their scriptures with recent Archaelogical findings are comparable in their mock scholarship to ' creation-science'. '
Melissa G
Melissa G
Sola'lor
LDSUJC
What facts do you think they are?