LDS

Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe there are valid objections/criticisms in regard to the Book of Mormon, and not all are "anti-Mormon propaganda". I don't believe apologetics answers all the critical questions either, but it does answer many. I don't expect that these answers will be satisfactory to many skeptics, and I'm okay with that. Some of them in current form are not satisfactory to me, and I don't intend to defend something that I'm not convinced about myself. That doesn't mean I consider the Book of Mormon fraudulent - I don't. Perhaps there are "good answers", "plausible answers", and "no answers". I can go with any of the three depending on the situation.
If you really want to believe something you will always be able to find a way to explain away contradictory evidence to your own satisfaction, if to no one else's. Anyone who wants to know the truth will look at all the evidence as objectively as they can manage, with no preferred conclusion in mind, and decide which one best explains it. In the case of the Book of Mormon there really is no reasonable doubt as to what that explanation is, and no amount of wanting it to be otherwise will change it.
 
If you really want to believe something you will always be able to find a way to explain away contradictory evidence to your own satisfaction, if to no one else's. Anyone who wants to know the truth will look at all the evidence as objectively as they can manage, with no preferred conclusion in mind, and decide which one best explains it. In the case of the Book of Mormon there really is no reasonable doubt as to what that explanation is, and no amount of wanting it to be otherwise will change it.

Have you looked at all of the evidence? Including the evidence "for"? If you have, then that would mean you've spent many years investigating it thoroughly.

In regard to the historicity/language of the Book of Mormon, you might want to consider, for example, Blake Ostler's The Book of Mormon as a Modern Expansion of an Ancient Source (pdf)

Or you can visit Ostler's website exploring the philosophical, doctrinal, historical, cultural and theological implications of Mormonism. There isn't necessarily one, or even a "final explanation" in these matters. But yes, we do tend to choose based on what we know and understand.
 
halleyscomet didn't say anything about BY being a YEC, simply that he believed in the Genesis story.

I was replying to the statement in the link she posted: "(So Mormons know Evolution is false.)"

Halley didn't say anything; she asked for replies to the questions posed in the link she pasted.
 
Lehi's brass plates told the story of Adam and Eve "who were our first parents." (So Mormons know Evolution is false.)

Brigham Young/As Young Earth Creationist


Ray Agostini, would it be too much to ask that you provide some substantive comments in these types of posts? Simply providing a link as you have done several times is as intellectually bankrupt as the copy-and-pasting of which Janadele was so fond, only lazier.
 
They come to a place that they call Bountiful, "because of its much fruit and also wild honey." But the Arabian coastline does not abound in fruit or honey, and hasn't for many thousands of years.

Warren P. Aston, ARABIA’S HIDDEN VALLEY A unique habitat in Dhofar captures Arabia’s past (pdf)

What lay hidden from the view of all those passing ships still surprises the visitor today, for reaching
the sea in the midst of those mountains is a valley almost defiantly lush with greenery, Khor Kharfot. Its name encapsulates its two main features: the Arabic Khor refers to a sea inlet; while Kharfot is an
expression in the pre-Arabic Mahri tongue, meaning that “abundance” has arrived following the annual monsoon rains.
 
Ray Agostini, would it be too much to ask that you provide some substantive comments in these types of posts? Simply providing a link as you have done several times is as intellectually bankrupt as the copy-and-pasting of which Janadele was so fond, only lazier.

What's "intellectually bankrupt" is the link to the Skeptic's website, because it's very superficial and misleading.

Is that sufficient commentary?
 
What's "intellectually bankrupt" is the link to the Skeptic's website, because it's very superficial and misleading.

Kind of like the book of mormon and the whole mormon religion. In fact, just like all religions.

I seems a very human thing.
 
Well I am human, just like you.

I belonged to the church for many years, sealed in the temple, etc.......
 
Ok.

So, what are your personal, specific, beliefs about the book of mormon?

I believe it is inspired, and revelation. Joseph Smith did not write it, and I don't say that lightly. It is my well considered view/belief over the past 38 years, and 20-plus readings (and study) of the Book of Mormon. I frequently get into trouble with "Exmos" because of this. Such is life.
 
I believe it is inspired, and revelation. Joseph Smith did not write it, and I don't say that lightly. It is my well considered view/belief over the past 38 years, and 20-plus readings (and study) of the Book of Mormon. I frequently get into trouble with "Exmos" because of this. Such is life.

Prove anyone cultivated barley in the New World prior to the arrival of Columbus.

What is your view of the Book of Abraham?
 
Prove anyone cultivated barley in the New World prior to the arrival of Columbus.

The Lehites may have used the terms translated in the Book of Mormon as barley and wheat to refer to other New World plants or species of grains that resembled barley and wheat. "It is a well-known fact," writes Professor Hildegard Lewy, a specialist in ancient Assyrian and Babylonian (Akkadian) languages, "that the names of plants and particularly of [grains] are applied in various languages and dialects to different species." Lewy notes that this often poses a challenge in interpreting references to cereals in Near Eastern documents. When doing so, "the meaning of these Old Assyrian terms must be inferred from the Old Assyrian texts alone without regard to their signification in sources from Babylonia and other regions adjacent to Assyria."1 Other Assyriologists have observed that the ancient Assyrian term sheum was used at various times to refer to barley, grains generally, and even pine nuts...

In the New World many Spanish names were applied to American plants following the Conquest, because of the plants' apparent similarity to European ones, even though the New World plants were, from a botanical perspective, often a different species or variety. For example, the Spanish called the fruit of the prickly pear cactus a "fig," and emigrants from England called maize "corn," an English term referring to grains in general. A similar practice may have been employed when Book of Mormon people encountered New World plant species for the first time.

Barley and Wheat in the Book Mormon

That doesn't mean that I agree with Sorenson that a horse was really a deer. I don't necessarily buy that one, and a few others. But I think the above explanation is quite reasonable. I originally come from the Caribbean, and some of the exotic flora there would have no name in other countries.



What is your view of the Book of Abraham?

Likewise, I believe it is inspired revelation. The debates about the GAEL and the Book of Breathing text don't move me to a conclusion of fraud, I'm afraid, though I'm sure that won't be satisfactory to you.
 
I believe it is inspired, and revelation. Joseph Smith did not write it, and I don't say that lightly. It is my well considered view/belief over the past 38 years, and 20-plus readings (and study) of the Book of Mormon. I frequently get into trouble with "Exmos" because of this. Such is life.

Well, it was clearly written by someone imaginative, with poor writing skills and no understanding of the history of the Americas. Sounds like JS to me, but if you have another candidate, I'd love to hear it.
 
I believe it is inspired, and revelation. Joseph Smith did not write it, and I don't say that lightly. It is my well considered view/belief over the past 38 years, and 20-plus readings (and study) of the Book of Mormon. I frequently get into trouble with "Exmos" because of this. Such is life.

Am I understanding correctly?

1. You are not a member of the Mormon Church.
2. You believe the Book of Mormon to be the genuine Word of God?

How do you reconcile these two facts (if they are facts).

Do you believe in a God or Gods?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom