Christians: What in this Book do you Disagree With?

[Sola'lor]

It would be intersting if we reversed roles. We have all th LDS people attack the doctrines of the Church. Then all those who aren't LDS defend the doctrines of the church.

 

[Francine]

It would be intersting if we reversed roles. We have all th LDS people attack the doctrines of the Church. Then all those who aren't LDS defend the doctrines of the church.

It would be too easy. All I'd have to do is pick one of these standard defenses:

1. That doctrine isn't listed in the Standard Works.
2. That doctrine not in the main body of the inspired text.
3. That refers to spiritual skin color.
4. That's talking about a different Nephi/Joseph/Moroni.
5. Sure the living prophet said that, but it was never confirmed by the other Apostles.
6. That's a human error. It could not have been on the original plates.
7. If you ran really fast all day and all night you could get your family 250 miles from Jerusalem to the Red Sea in three days. It could happen.
8. I know the bible says different, but the bible was translated incorrectly.
9. They were Nephite bees, they all died out in 400 BC and had to be re-introduced by Columbus.
10. You must have been a real irritant in the pre-existence.

 

[Sola'lor]

It would be too easy. All I'd have to do is pick one of these standard defenses:

1. That doctrine isn't listed in the Standard Works.
2. That doctrine not in the main body of the inspired text.
3. That refers to spiritual skin color.
4. That's talking about a different Nephi/Joseph/Moroni.
5. Sure the living prophet said that, but it was never confirmed by the other Apostles.
6. That's a human error. It could not have been on the original plates.
7. If you ran really fast all day and all night you could get your family 250 miles from Jerusalem to the Red Sea in three days. It could happen.
8. I know the bible says different, but the bible was translated incorrectly.
9. They were Nephite bees, they all died out in 400 BC and had to be re-introduced by Columbus.
10. You must have been a real irritant in the pre-existence.

Hehehe. Classic. 7 and 10 are hilarious. 3 is ridiculus.

 

[sojourner]

Well, come to think of it, I never said you did.

When you said that they come from the same "source," I thought you meant that God was the source.

 

[sojourner]

Of course, it's not scripture.

Why not? What constitutes the criteria for scripture?

That means there might be something in there that is not correct and in a later edition could be corrected.

You mean, like the Bible? "Inasmuch as it is correctly translated..."

I would rank LDS publications as follows, in order of certainty as to their correctness:

1. Scriptures
2. Official statements and proclamations of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve

So...the Bible is a publication of the LDS???
Apparently, nothing is too reliable, as there seem to be a lot of provisos and a lot of doctrines coming from the presidency that change over time, such as polygamy, the status of blacks, etc. These are your top two reliable sources -- and they apparently aren't too reliable.

 

[sojourner]

It would be intersting if we reversed roles. We have all th LDS people attack the doctrines of the Church. Then all those who aren't LDS defend the doctrines of the church.

Hmm. Isn't that what really happened? Joseph Smith came along, said that the Church was not on earth anymore, usurped authority from those in the Apostolic Succession, and started changing the theology, the eschatology, the christology, that the Church has held dear from the beginning. Then the LDS claimed that they were the only ones with proper authority, and that, if we wanted to join the real Church, we'd all have to become Mormon.

Sounds like all the LDS attacking the doctrines of the Church, and those who aren't LDS having to defend those doctrines agains usurpation.

You're wrong. It's not at all interesting. It's a travesty.

 

[Katzpur]

ot

The Gospel Principles book is a great reliable source for teaching LDS doctrine. That's why the Church published it. Of course, it's not scripture. It's a lesson manual. That means there might be something in there that is not correct and in a later edition could be corrected. Nevertheless, the Church asks the teachers of the Gospel Principles Sunday School class to use this manual and the scriptures to teach the class. The Church specifically asks these same teachers to not use sources that are not Church publications, such as the private writings of individual members, be they leaders or not.

I would rank LDS publications as follows, in order of certainty as to their correctness:

1. Scriptures
2. Official statements and proclamations of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve
3. Current General Conference addresses
4. Publications of the Church, such as the Gospel Principles Manual.
5. Personal writings (not church publications) of individual members of the Church, be they academics, leaders, or others.
6. Walking down the street with my missionary companion and he says "Hey Elder, did you hear that we believe ..."
9,482,113. Something I read on an anti-Mormon website.

That is a perfect list! I'd just like to add one more.

7. My friend's 95-year old grandmother told her that when she was a very young girl, they had a General Authority ("or somebody like that") come to their ward, and he said that we believe...

 

[tomspug]

So dawny's post got totally ignored...

You know what I think is interesting. The Bible's timeline spans thousands of years, and there are only a handful of prophets within it. Yet in the LDS Church's lifetime (less than 200 years) there have been HOW MANY divine revelations?

Not only that, but most of the 'history' of the Bible is made up of historical documents produced by the nation of Israel. Whereas the Nephites and the Lamaanites left not a SINGLE TRACE of history on the Americas. They were either inconsiderate of preserving their history (which is odd considering how much humans LOVE to talk about themselves) or built everything out of biodegradable material.

Is there even ONE piece of evidence for the existence of the Nephites and Lamaanites? I mean, if they can find archaeological evidence of King David and the Egyptians, why not civilizations supposedly later than that?

 

[sojourner]

So dawny's post got totally ignored...

You know what I think is interesting. The Bible's timeline spans thousands of years, and there are only a handful of prophets within it. Yet in the LDS Church's lifetime (less than 200 years) there have been HOW MANY divine revelations?

Not only that, but most of the 'history' of the Bible is made up of historical documents produced by the nation of Israel. Whereas the Nephites and the Lamaanites left not a SINGLE TRACE of history on the Americas. They were either inconsiderate of preserving their history (which is odd considering how much humans LOVE to talk about themselves) or built everything out of biodegradable material.

Is there even ONE piece of evidence for the existence of the Nephites and Lamaanites? I mean, if they can find archaeological evidence of King David and the Egyptians, why not civilizations supposedly later than that?

details!

 

[Katzpur]

When you said that they come from the same "source," I thought you meant that God was the source.

When I first responded (post #265), that's what I meant. When I realized that's not how you were using the word, I clarified my statement (post #269).

 

[sojourner]

When I first responded (post #265), that's what I meant. When I realized that's not how you were using the word, I clarified my statement (post #269).

Just so you know, I do not dismiss out of hand the possibility that the BOM is God-inspired. I find the archaeology upon which its veracity depends to be alarmingly questionable. But I have no problem with you revering it. I choose not to.

 

[Katzpur]

Why not? What constitutes the criteria for scripture?

We believe that all scripture is given by God through His chosen prophets. If any new scripture were to be added to the Doctrine & Covenants, it would have to have been received by the Prophet and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles collectively, and sustained by the general Church membership.

You mean, like the Bible? "Inasmuch as it is correctly translated..."

Yes. Have you ever heard of the Chicago Statement on Bible Inerrancy? It says much the same thing as our Article of Faith, and is accepted by most Protestant Churches, whether their members are aware of it or not.

So...the Bible is a publication of the LDS???

A lot of different groups publish the Bible. Surely you know that.

Apparently, nothing is too reliable, as there seem to be a lot of provisos and a lot of doctrines coming from the presidency that change over time, such as polygamy, the status of blacks, etc. These are your top two reliable sources -- and they apparently aren't too reliable.

They are entirely reliable. The fact that practices change over time has nothing to do with whether the scriptures are reliable or not. That much is easily demonstrated by looking at the Bible alone. You don't need the uniquely LDS scriptures to see how God authorizes a practice among one group of people at one period of time and prohibits it among a different group of people at another period of time.

 

[Katzpur]

So dawny's post got totally ignored...

So there's a time limit now?

You know what I think is interesting. The Bible's timeline spans thousands of years, and there are only a handful of prophets within it. Yet in the LDS Church's lifetime (less than 200 years) there have been HOW MANY divine revelations?

Once the foundation was restored by Joseph Smith, there have been very, very new new revelations. In the last roughly one hundred and fifteen years, there have been two.

Not only that, but most of the 'history' of the Bible is made up of historical documents produced by the nation of Israel. Whereas the Nephites and the Lamaanites left not a SINGLE TRACE of history on the Americas. They were either inconsiderate of preserving their history (which is odd considering how much humans LOVE to talk about themselves) or built everything out of biodegradable material.

Obviously, you are unaware of the archeological findings in Mesoamerica. Great civilizations did flourish in the Americas for hundreds and hundreds of years prior to the Spanish conquest. The people whose histories are recorded in the Book of Mormon may very well been a part of the people whose existance is now being discovered and studied. I'm really not sure why you would say that they have not left a SINGLE TRACE of their history, when that's simply not the case.

Is there even ONE piece of evidence for the existence of the Nephites and Lamaanites? I mean, if they can find archaeological evidence of King David and the Egyptians, why not civilizations supposedly later than that?

Certainly there's evidence. If you really meant to say, "Is there proof?", then the answer is "no." Nobody has found an ancient road sign saying "Zarahemla 10km," if that's what you mean. How much longer have archeologists been looking for evidence of the Egyptians than they've been looking for evidence of the Nephites and Lamanites? Have you stopped to ask yourself that question? Do you know how recently the first evidence of lions was found in the Holy Land? I'd have to check to give you an exact year, but I can tell you that it was very recently. Considering the fact that we know the Bible refers to lions, what does that do to your faith? Or don't you base your faith in the Bible on archeological evidence?

 

[sojourner]

You don't need the uniquely LDS scriptures to see how God authorizes a practice among one group of people at one period of time and prohibits it among a different group of people at another period of time.

Like homosexuality, for example?

 

[doppelganger]

Do you know how recently the first evidence of lions was found in the Holy Land? I'd have to check to give you an exact year, but I can tell you that it was very recently. Considering the fact that we know the Bible refers to lions, what does that do to your faith? Or don't you base your faith in the Bible on archeological evidence?

This argument doesn't really work all that well. Organized and systematic Archaeology is a rather new discipline, actually. So while the historical artifacts of ancient Egypt have been sitting under the sand for a long time, there hasn't been a careful discipline geared toward finding, preserving and interpreting them until the last two centuries.

Archaeology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[DeepShadow]

It would be too easy. All I'd have to do is pick one of these standard defenses:

You mean straw men?

1. That doctrine isn't listed in the Standard Works.

Yeah, and Catholics STILL insist the Malleus Malifecarum isn't part of the canon. What gives?

2. That doctrine not in the main body of the inspired text.

What, you couldn't make ten strawmen, so you make nine and use one twice?

3. That refers to spiritual skin color.

That's a stupind answer of course, and I'd laugh in the face of anyone who gave it, Mormon or not. Find it on the forums, I dare you.

4. That's talking about a different Nephi/Joseph/Moroni.

Ditto.

5. Sure the living prophet said that, but it was never confirmed by the other Apostles.

Pope Innocent the III said that it was okay to murder Turks, too. That wasn't added to the canon, was it? Why do you think we have these safeguards? It's so the prophet can have opinions without swaying the church.

6. That's a human error. It could not have been on the original plates.

Considering that the original plates say they contain errors, this one is only standing because it's propped up by the rest of the list.

7. If you ran really fast all day and all night you could get your family 250 miles from Jerusalem to the Red Sea in three days. It could happen.

Point me to the original argument, and I'll be happy to give you a far better argument. This would, of course, be the third time I've asked you to point me to these arguments you keep referencing, so I can give you a proper answer. Given the circumstances, I'm starting to wonder if you even want a proper answer. Could it be that you prefer to argue with strawmen than to address the real issues?

8. I know the bible says different, but the bible was translated incorrectly.

Can you show me the translation error? Then this is a stupid excuse. Ask them for the JST. Call them on it.

9. They were Nephite bees, they all died out in 400 BC and had to be re-introduced by Columbus.

Or they were africanized bees, which existed in South America. The Mayans had a bee cult before Columbus, after all!

10. You must have been a real irritant in the pre-existence.

Y'know, for someone who hides behind humor a lot, you sure get your feelings hurt easily. What entitles you to sling around half-propped strawmen under the pretext of joking, only to be offended when we call you on it?

 

[DeepShadow]

This argument doesn't really work all that well. Organized and systematic Archaeology is a rather new discipline, actually. So while the historical artifacts of ancient Egypt have been sitting under the sand for a long time, there hasn't been a careful discipline geared toward finding, preserving and interpreting them until the last two centuries.

Archaeology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But doesn't that go for both continents equally?

Moreover, I think the point is that faith does not--and should not--rest on archaeology. One doesn't need to see the original Ten Commandments in order to have faith in the Bible, after all.

 

[doppelganger]

But doesn't that go for both continents equally?

Well . . . that's rather my point actually . . . which is why the lack of archaeological evidence of a developed society with Semitic roots and written language in the New World is a bit of a problem. We have tons of evidence from all around the world of similarly old (and even much older) cultures as those imagined in the BOM, from which we can deduce much about their language and culture. While it's almost certainly the case that there were civilizations in the New World around the time period in which the BOM is purportedly set, there is no evidence linking these civilizations to the stories recorded in the BOM. One could just as easily say these are the artifacts left from survivors of the lost continent of Atlantis.

While any particular individual is the ultimate arbiter of what they believe to be the "truth" or what they find more or less convincing, there is an established methodology for disciplines like history, anthropology and archeology that practitioners of those disciplines are expected to apply before reaching conclusions.

 

[DeepShadow]

So dawny's post got totally ignored...

On the contrary, Dawny answered the OP so well that I found nothign to argue with. She disagrees with what we actually BELIEVE, rather than what others say we believe. Am I supposed to invite Dawny in here to tell me what she disagrees on, and then jump all over her? Of course not!

I'm only arguing with some of you because you a)insist there's no Biblical backing for the beliefs in the OP book, or b) skip the book altogether and argue with what we DON'T believe. It's like someone saying, "I disagree with you Baptists because you believe that there are separate heavens for Blacks and Whites!" and Baptists respond by saying, "No, we don't" and then someone dredges up the wiki article on what SOME Baptists used to believe.

You know what I think is interesting. The Bible's timeline spans thousands of years, and there are only a handful of prophets within it. Yet in the LDS Church's lifetime (less than 200 years) there have been HOW MANY divine revelations?

Ummmm....two. What's the point here?

Not only that, but most of the 'history' of the Bible is made up of historical documents produced by the nation of Israel. Whereas the Nephites and the Lamaanites left not a SINGLE TRACE of history on the Americas. They were either inconsiderate of preserving their history (which is odd considering how much humans LOVE to talk about themselves) or built everything out of biodegradable material.

Huh? So you don't believe that the Mayans had forts surrounded by wooden palisades? Or that they built roads and houses made of cement? Or that they had a city-state relationship with kings and sub-kings, instead of emporers?

If you stick to the things that are missing, that's a cherry-picking fallacy. Try to take in the things that Joseph Smith inexplicably got right, too. How did he know that the Native Americans had built roads? Nobody knew that when he wrote the Book of Mormon. By the same argument, the Bible is on shaky ground because we can't find the iron chariots it mentions. We just need to be fair.

Do I need to start another thread about archaeology and the Book of Mormon?

 

[DeepShadow]

While any particular individual is the ultimate arbiter of what they believe to be the "truth" or what they find more or less convincing, there is an established methodology for disciplines like history, anthropology and archeology that practitioners of those disciplines are expected to apply before reaching conclusions.

Granted. Do you think that religious faith should follow the same methodology?