"don't embarrass yourself by asking about metallurgy..."

[_Tobin]

That depends on what rock solid evidence you demand. The point of the Book of Mormon is to gain rock solid evidence of God and use that as the basis of your faith. If a man of faith pursued this to its logical conclusion, he would be shown all things by the Lord much as the prophets of old were. So it is not an either-or type of thing, but an exercise in faith in God.

I think you are overstating what faith is all about. Faith is NOT rock solid evidence of anything. Faith is believing in something that is not seen -- to believe in something that is not proven. The Book of Mormon cannot prove the existence of God. Do you think those thoughts in your head and warm feelings prove there is a God? That's not proof, that's just thinking and feeling. It proves nothing.

The prophets of old were liars. They made claims and made up stories much like Joe Smith's Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 and his Book of Mormon. That's about how much credit I give your prophets, dead and alive. They are all a bunch of religious nuts.

So don't tell me about faith. Offer proof, or get lost.

Paul O

Where did I state you should have faith based on feelings? I said have rock solid evidence of God and use that as the basis of your faith. Mormonism, by design, is based on a high bar of preposterous notions that do not occur everyday. For example, Joseph Smith saw God, angels, and a gold book. I would imagine any investigator of Mormonism would demand similar evidence before having faith in Joseph Smith or the book he produced, wouldn't you?

[_Shulem]

Where did I state you should have faith based on feelings? I said have rock solid evidence of God and use that as the basis of your faith. Mormonism, by design, is based on a high bar of preposterous notions that do not occur everyday. For example, Joseph Smith saw God, angels, and a gold book. I would imagine any investigator of Mormonism would demand similar evidence before having faith in Joseph Smith or the book he produced, wouldn't you?

Faith is based on feelings and belief in things not seen, Tobin. That is the nature of faith -- to believe in what is not seen but based on feelings and beliefs on what others profess. You cannot base faith on rock solid evidence because that is not what faith is. Rock solid evidence is not faith but knowledge of facts that can be proved and measured by all parties examining the evidence.

Joe said he saw God and angels. He lied. So did his friends. Joe lied about the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 too.

There is no rock solid evidence in this world to prove the God of the Bible is true. It's all faith. It's in your mind.

Paul O

[_DarkHelmet]

I said have rock solid evidence of God and use that as the basis of your faith.

Nobody has rock solid evidence of God. If they did, there would be no need for faith. You can't have rock solid evidence and also have faith. They are mutually exclusive.

[_Tobin]

t

Where did I state you should have faith based on feelings? I said have rock solid evidence of God and use that as the basis of your faith. Mormonism, by design, is based on a high bar of preposterous notions that do not occur everyday. For example, Joseph Smith saw God, angels, and a gold book. I would imagine any investigator of Mormonism would demand similar evidence before having faith in Joseph Smith or the book he produced, wouldn't you?

Faith is based on feelings and belief in things not seen, Tobin. That is the nature of faith -- to believe in what is not seen but based on feelings and beliefs on what others profess. You cannot base faith on rock solid evidence because that is not what faith is. Rock solid evidence is not faith but knowledge of facts that can be proved and measured by all parties examining the evidence.

Joe said he saw God and angels. He lied. So did his friends. Joe lied about the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 too.

There is no rock solid evidence in this world to prove the God of the Bible is true. It's all faith. It's in your mind.

Paul O

A singular experience does not make you all knowing or even knowledgable. It gives you the faith to continue to seek additional evidence and experiences. Without such evidence, how do you know you have faith in the right ideals? Do you really suppose God wants us to grope around in the dark all our lives not knowing which way to go? The scriptures are plain in this account in that we should build our faith up on the rock of Christ and not upon sand. I would characterize feelings and mere belief as sand. A rock is something you can experience, heft, weigh, and remember as being distinct and tangible. This the sort of evidence to base true faith upon.

[_Tobin]

I said have rock solid evidence of God and use that as the basis of your faith.

Nobody has rock solid evidence of God. If they did, there would be no need for faith. You can't have rock solid evidence and also have faith. They are mutually exclusive.

Not really. You can experience God, know that he exists, and pursue your faith based on that experience. Such experience does not prove to others your faith is correct, but should be sufficient for any individual to follow their beliefs and have faith they are correct.

[_Buffalo]

It wouldn't make any difference. If tomorrow they discovered pre-columbian horse remains, iron swords, and identified the ancient city of Zarahemla, you still wouldn't be Mormon. Mormonism requires faith and a personal witness of Jesus Christ inorder to believe and follow it. That is what the Book of Mormon asks of its readers and so finding things like horse remains means nothing at all.

That is one of the beautiful things about Mormonism. It has always been proven true in the studies that have not been written, research that has not been conducted and archeological evidence that has not been dug.

[_Shulem]

A singular experience does not make you all knowing or even knowledgable. It gives you the faith to continue to seek additional evidence and experiences. Without such evidence, how do you know you have faith in the right ideals? Do you really suppose God wants us to grope around in the dark all our lives not knowing which way to go? The scriptures are plain in this account in that we should build our faith up on the rock of Christ and not upon sand. I would characterize feelings and mere belief as sand. A rock is something you can experience, heft, weigh, and remember as being distinct and tangible. This the sort of evidence to base true faith upon.

Not buying your comebacks. I'm not talking about becoming all knowing or possessing all knowledge. I'm simply talking between the differences of having faith in that which is not seen and having knowledge based on what's seen as fact. If the golden plates were in the museum and contained the story of the Book of Mormon in deciphered text (as science would be able to do) there would be no faith involved. It would just be fact as understood like all other facts we see and process in our lives.

I think the scriptures are BS and the god of the Bible is a monster. I'd never put my faith and trust in a murderous being who gets angry and slaughters people a hundred different ways. I don't give a damn what that god wants or thinks. To hell with him. And building my faith on the rock of Christ is fruitless. He didn't die for me. He is not my savior. I don't want or need such a being in my life. I am my own savior and my own rock! I am my own god! I can heft myself but not a god from the Bible who is hidden in yonder heaven. I trust myself. I don't trust Bible prophets or Mormon leaders.

So, have you hefted Christ and reached your finger into his side? Have you looked into his eyes and been transported to Kolob for an afternoon visit? Don't try and pawn you ideas of faith on me as if they are facts or rocks to be hefted. You're peddling garbage and I ain't buying it.

Paul O

[_Tobin]

A singular experience does not make you all knowing or even knowledgable. It gives you the faith to continue to seek additional evidence and experiences. Without such evidence, how do you know you have faith in the right ideals? Do you really suppose God wants us to grope around in the dark all our lives not knowing which way to go? The scriptures are plain in this account in that we should build our faith up on the rock of Christ and not upon sand. I would characterize feelings and mere belief as sand. A rock is something you can experience, heft, weigh, and remember as being distinct and tangible. This the sort of evidence to base true faith upon.

Not buying your comebacks. I'm not talking about becoming all knowing or possessing all knowledge. I'm simply talking between the differences of having faith in that which is not seen and having knowledge based on what's seen as fact. If the golden plates were in the museum and contained the story of the Book of Mormon in deciphered text (as science would be able to do) there would be no faith involved. It would just be fact as understood like all other facts we see and process in our lives.

I think the scriptures are BS and the god of the Bible is a monster. I'd never put my faith and trust in a murderous being who gets angry and slaughters people a hundred different ways. I don't give a damn what that god wants or thinks. To hell with him. And building my faith on the rock of Christ is fruitless. He didn't die for me. He is not my savior. I don't want or need such a being in my life. I am my own savior and my own rock! I am my own god! I can heft myself but not a god from the Bible who is hidden in yonder heaven. I trust myself. I don't trust Bible prophets or Mormon leaders.

So, have you hefted Christ and reached your finger into his side? Have you looked into his eyes and been transported to Kolob for an afternoon visit? Don't try and pawn you ideas of faith on me as if they are facts or rocks to be hefted. You're peddling garbage and I ain't buying it.

Paul O

Having the Gold plates in a museum somewhere would not cause people to believe in Mormonism. That requires faith in God. It would make little to no difference (and would in fact be couter productive) in people's faith. The reason it would be counter productive is that people would instead believe the party line taught by men instead of seeking and speaking with God, which is what God is after.

[_Shulem]

I said have rock solid evidence of God and use that as the basis of your faith.

Nobody has rock solid evidence of God. If they did, there would be no need for faith. You can't have rock solid evidence and also have faith. They are mutually exclusive.

Tobin doesn't understand the first principle of Mormonism as it relates to evidence -- he doesn't understand what faith is all about. Little wonder he is so confused. I can't help him. Maybe you can, DarkHelmet.

Paul O

[_Tobin]

I said have rock solid evidence of God and use that as the basis of your faith.

Nobody has rock solid evidence of God. If they did, there would be no need for faith. You can't have rock solid evidence and also have faith. They are mutually exclusive.

Tobin doesn't understand the first principle of Mormonism as it relates to evidence -- he doesn't understand what faith is all about. Little wonder he is so confused. I can't help him. Maybe you can, DarkHelmet.

Paul O

Or maybe I understand what to base real faith on, as do other Mormons. This is the true basis of Mormonism and why those who are the opponents of Mormonism will never prevail because it is based on God.