Posting 95 LDS Theses on the Church Doors

[_why me]

What do you all think of this modern-day LDS Martin Luther?

http://mormonreformation.blogspot.com/

Luther's thesis was more about doctrine than history or shortcomings in catechism class. Luther disagreed with the catholic church over indulgences, baptism and absolution etc. But it was not the kind of criticism of this or that pope as you have done with Joseph Smith in outlining behavior or history. Matin's thesis and your thesis have no comparison at all.

[_ludwigm]

Answer the question Tobin.

He doesn't know that word.

[_KevinSim]

Ok. Can you answer the following questions then?

2. There is no archaeological evidence of the Book of Mormon, a fact that seriously undermines its authenticity claims.

Please point out one single piece of tangible evidence that supports the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

"Can you ... then?" I've always found that an interesting English construct. It seems like what you're saying is, "KevinSim disagrees with #2, #3, and #4, and therefore should be able to point out at least "one single piece of tangible evidence that supports the historicity of the Book of Mormon." Is that what you're saying, Thews?

For the record I know of absolutely no tangible evidence that supports the historicity of the Book of Mormon. So what? I don't see how my ignorance "undermines its authenticity claims" at all.

I also know of absolutely no tangible evidence that a good deity has been active in the history of the human race. Should I therefore stop believing in God? One does not have to have tangible evidence for the historicity of something to have good reasons for believing in that something.

3. The Book of Mormon is filled with anachronisms that also damage credibility as a Divine record.

So many to choose from. I'll let someone else handle this one if they want. Which one listed in this Wiki entry do you disagree with most?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anachronis ... achronisms

So, Thews, are you saying that when God puts together a book of scripture, we can be certain that He won't let His scribes put an abundance of anachronisms in it? If so, how can we be certain of that? Why would God care?

The list is long, and I don't have enough knowledge to deal with every single item in the list. But I think it's completely possible that "traditional biblical belief" could be right about when Isaiah was written, and modern scholars could be wrong.

Baptism "as a ritual as described in the Book of Mormon ... is widely believed to be unknown until its institution in early Christianity." So what? The history of mankind is full of widely held beliefs that later turned out to be wrong. Are you saying that God didn't know His prophet John would baptize before He created the world? Perhaps God didn't care how people were cleansed from their sins, and just assumed John would come up with something? I think it's much more likely that God knew from the beginning the means He wanted His prophets to use to symbolically cleanse people, and revealed that means to the Book of Mormon prophets.

The Book of Mormon says there were horses in America, but if you take a close look at the Book of Mormon story as a whole it doesn't indicate that there were ever large numbers of them. Several Book of Mormon accounts would have turned out differently if Nephites and/or Lamanites had large numbers of horses at their disposal. My impression is that there were only small numbers of them, possibly just kept by the rulers, and they may have died out. Also, someone who wasn't LDS at one point told me that there's no more evidence of the existence of bison in America than there is of horses. Some animals just don't leave an awful lot of evidence that they were there.

4. DNA evidence shows that Native Americans do not come from Middle Eastern heritage. Recently, the Church changed its claim that "the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the American Indians" to the Lamanites "are among the ancestors of the American Indians".

This one isn't my area either, so I'll let someone else take it if they want to. What part of the enclosed link do you disagree with?
http://20truths.information/Mormon/dna.html

"Natives of North and South America (and Pacific Islanders) have genetic alleles that can be traced exclusively to Asia. Mitochondrial DNA is transmitted unilineally, and is therefore not watered down by intermarriage--even the mitochondria of a single remote ancestor of a group would likely show up at least occasionally in tests." I think this data is out of date. If the television program NOVA is scientifically accurate, then researchers have made discoveries since the ones mentioned in this website that have changed the conclusions considerably. The statements on this website implying that the DNA shows the Native Americans "can be traced exclusively to Asia" are dated, I think, 2000 and 2002, or something like that. In 2008 I watched a NOVA program with my father that said that yes, much of the DNA of the Native Americans can be traced to Asia, but there was also a significant amount of DNA that didn't come from Asia, that came from an unknown source. The researchers simply didn't know where that DNA came from. Let me point out too, that while the DNA of Jews might be easily recognizable, I'm not convinced that the DNA of the descendants of Manasseh is. The NOVA researchers certainly did not say that they were certain the unknown DNA did not come from the descendants of Manasseh.

Out of curiosity Kevin, can you tell me exactly what the Urim and Thummim is?

No, I can't. All I know about the Urim and Thummim comes from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urim_and_Thummim", and I have no idea how accurate that website is.

[_Tobin]

Tobin wanna cracker? As you continue to parrot the same tired distortion, "your" theory that the Urim and Thummim were separate from the Nephite spectacles and Joseph Smith's seer stones is incorrect. Answer the question Tobin. What did you theorized Urim and Thummim look like? What happened to them?

This is just more incoherent rambling from you. I've stated no such thing and given your proven lack of understanding and distortion of the facts, I feel no need to discuss this topic with you any longer.

[_KevinSim]

Granted John's Gospel does at one point call God omnipotent, but it isn't at all clear to me what exactly that Gospel meant.

My bad. It's Revelation that calls God omnipotent, not John's Gospel.

[_thews]

Tobin wanna cracker? As you continue to parrot the same tired distortion, "your" theory that the Urim and Thummim were separate from the Nephite spectacles and Joseph Smith's seer stones is incorrect. Answer the question Tobin. What did you theorized Urim and Thummim look like? What happened to them?

This is just more incoherent rambling from you. I've stated no such thing and given your proven lack of understanding and distortion of the facts, I feel no need to discuss this topic with you any longer.

Fine Tobin, since you obviously can't answer simple questions regarding your concocted Urim and Thummim theory, quit speaking for me.

[_thews]

Ok. Can you answer the following questions then?

2. There is no archaeological evidence of the Book of Mormon, a fact that seriously undermines its authenticity claims.
Please point out one single piece of tangible evidence that supports the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

"Can you ... then?" I've always found that an interesting English construct. It seems like what you're saying is, "KevinSim disagrees with #2, #3, and #4, and therefore should be able to point out at least "one single piece of tangible evidence that supports the historicity of the Book of Mormon." Is that what you're saying, Thews?

Yes Kevin... that is what I'm saying. You claimed to disagree with #2, which states there is no archaeological evidence of the Book of Mormon.

For the record I know of absolutely no tangible evidence that supports the historicity of the Book of Mormon. So what? I don't see how my ignorance "undermines its authenticity claims" at all.

You aren't making sense. What you've basically said supports the assertion in #2, that there is no tangible evidence to support the historicity of the Book of Mormon. If you disagree with this, I think it would be reasonable for you to present some type of counter argument. Is that asking too much?

I also know of absolutely no tangible evidence that a good deity has been active in the history of the human race. Should I therefore stop believing in God? One does not have to have tangible evidence for the historicity of something to have good reasons for believing in that something.

This is a common LDS apologetic tactic, which is to argue a point that has no relevance to the question asked. What you said was you disagreed with point #2, so I assume you have a reason. There isn't one city, artifact, nothing.. that's what point #2 is stating.

3. The Book of Mormon is filled with anachronisms that also damage credibility as a Divine record.
So many to choose from. I'll let someone else handle this one if they want. Which one listed in this Wiki entry do you disagree with most?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anachronis ... achronisms

So, Thews, are you saying that when God puts together a book of scripture, we can be certain that He won't let His scribes put an abundance of anachronisms in it? If so, how can we be certain of that? Why would God care?

Another common LDS apologetic tactic is to answer (respond) to questions with questions. You didn't answer the question.

The list is long, and I don't have enough knowledge to deal with every single item in the list. But I think it's completely possible that "traditional biblical belief" could be right about when Isaiah was written, and modern scholars could be wrong.

In a nutshell, you disagree with #3, yet can't find one point to contend is incorrect. There are many rabbit holes in #3 and this isn't a topic I like to discuss because of them, but you have to be specific about something in order to discuss what it is you supposedly disagree on.

Baptism "as a ritual as described in the Book of Mormon ... is widely believed to be unknown until its institution in early Christianity." So what? The history of mankind is full of widely held beliefs that later turned out to be wrong. Are you saying that God didn't know His prophet John would baptize before He created the world? Perhaps God didn't care how people were cleansed from their sins, and just assumed John would come up with something? I think it's much more likely that God knew from the beginning the means He wanted His prophets to use to symbolically cleanse people, and revealed that means to the Book of Mormon prophets.

Ok, your answer is "So what."

The Book of Mormon says there were horses in America, but if you take a close look at the Book of Mormon story as a whole it doesn't indicate that there were ever large numbers of them. Several Book of Mormon accounts would have turned out differently if Nephites and/or Lamanites had large numbers of horses at their disposal. My impression is that there were only small numbers of them, possibly just kept by the rulers, and they may have died out. Also, someone who wasn't LDS at one point told me that there's no more evidence of the existence of bison in America than there is of horses. Some animals just don't leave an awful lot of evidence that they were there.

That's pretty convenient isn't it? There were a small number of them, but they died out, leaving no trace.

4. DNA evidence shows that Native Americans do not come from Middle Eastern heritage. Recently, the Church changed its claim that "the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the American Indians" to the Lamanites "are among the ancestors of the American Indians".
This one isn't my area either, so I'll let someone else take it if they want to. What part of the enclosed link do you disagree with?
http://20truths.information/Mormon/dna.html

"Natives of North and South America (and Pacific Islanders) have genetic alleles that can be traced exclusively to Asia. Mitochondrial DNA is transmitted unilineally, and is therefore not watered down by intermarriage--even the mitochondria of a single remote ancestor of a group would likely show up at least occasionally in tests." I think this data is out of date. If the television program NOVA is scientifically accurate, then researchers have made discoveries since the ones mentioned in this website that have changed the conclusions considerably. The statements on this website implying that the DNA shows the Native Americans "can be traced exclusively to Asia" are dated, I think, 2000 and 2002, or something like that. In 2008 I watched a NOVA program with my father that said that yes, much of the DNA of the Native Americans can be traced to Asia, but there was also a significant amount of DNA that didn't come from Asia, that came from an unknown source. The researchers simply didn't know where that DNA came from. Let me point out too, that while the DNA of Jews might be easily recognizable, I'm not convinced that the DNA of the descendants of Manasseh is. The NOVA researchers certainly did not say that they were certain the unknown DNA did not come from the descendants of Manasseh.

So you think the data is out of date. Do you have published data to support what you think is up to date? Again, this isn't my area, so if anyone want to take over the DA discussion, please do.

Out of curiosity Kevin, can you tell me exactly what the Urim and Thummim is?

No, I can't. All I know about the Urim and Thummim comes from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urim_and_Thummim", and I have no idea how accurate that website is.

Really? You place faith in Joseph Smith's truth claims, but the tools he used to translate the supposed golden plates aren't important? Let me help you out here, just in case you ever want to research the truth. You're allowed to read FairMormon aren't you?

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon ... nd_Thummim

The Nephite interpreters

The Lord provided a set of seer stones (which were formerly used by Nephite prophets) along with the plates. The term Nephite interpreters can alternatively refer to the stones themselves or the stones in conjunction with their associated paraphernalia (holding rim and breastplate). Some time after the translation, early saints noticed similarities with the seer stones and related paraphernalia used by High Priests in the Old Testament and began to use the term Urim and Thummim interchangeably with the Nephite interpreters and Joseph's other seer stones as well. The now popular use of the term Urim and Thummim has unfortunately obscured the fact that all such devices belong in the same class of consecrated revelatory aids and that more than one were used in the translation.

[_KevinSim]

"Can you ... then?" I've always found that an interesting English construct. It seems like what you're saying is, "KevinSim disagrees with #2, #3, and #4, and therefore should be able to point out at least "one single piece of tangible evidence that supports the historicity of the Book of Mormon." Is that what you're saying, Thews?

Yes Kevin... that is what I'm saying.

How does that follow? How does it follow that if I disagree with #2, #3, and #4, then I therefore should be able to point out at least "one single piece of tangible evidence that supports the historicity of the Book of Mormon"?

You claimed to disagree with #2, which states there is no archaeological evidence of the Book of Mormon.

No, #2 states that there "is no archaeological evidence of the Book of Mormon, a fact that seriously undermines its authenticity claims." It says two things; it says (1) that there is no archaeological evidence of the Book of Mormon; and (2) that that fact seriously undermines the authenticity claims of the Book of Mormon.

In all honesty I do not know whether there is any archaeological evidence of the Book of Mormon or not. I would tend to think that there is no archaeological evidence for the simple reason that if there were some archaeological evidence I probably would have heard about it. But if that is true, I firmly disagree with the assertion that that absence of evidence "seriously undermines" the Book of Mormon's "authenticity claims."

In a nutshell, you disagree with #3, yet can't find one point to contend is incorrect.

The statement on baptism as an anachronism is incorrect.

Ok, your answer is "So what."

My answer is that John the Baptist didn't choose the ordinance of baptism in the First Century; God chose the ordinance of baptism before the creation of the world. He revealed baptism to John in the First Century, and to the Nephite prophets considerably earlier than that.

That's pretty convenient isn't it? There were a small number of them, but they died out, leaving no trace.

Thews, I'm not making this up; it's all in there in the Book of Mormon. I'm thinking of two particular stories that indicate horses in Book of Mormon times were not plentiful. If you'd like me to explain in more detail I'd be happy to.

So you think the data is out of date. Do you have published data to support what you think is up to date?

No, I don't have "published data to support" my assertion that the published theories are out of date. Racial DNA is not my area of emphasis, so while my dad and I were watching the NOVA episode I didn't take notes. It was just encouraging to find out that a scientific study used to argue the Book of Mormon was wrong, had managed to reverse itself.

Should my inability to point to published data result in me concluding that racial DNA studies do still contradict LDS claims about the ancestors of the Native Americans? I know I watched that NOVA episode, regardless of my lack of taking notes on the actual research it was based on. People trying to honestly find out if the Book of Mormon is the word of God won't be deterred by my lack of taking notes; either they will look up 2008 NOVA episodes, or perhaps they can just do a Google search on the latest discoveries regarding ancestors of the Native Americans.

Thews, do you think it's likely that NOVA would do a program without having research to support it? Or do you think that I hallucinated the whole episode? It would seem that one of those two would have to be true in order for the published data to not be there somewhere, if someone wanted to look for it bad enough.

Really? You place faith in Joseph Smith's truth claims, but the tools he used to translate the supposed golden plates aren't important?

I have never placed faith in any of Joseph Smith's truth claims in my life.

[_thews]

How does that follow? How does it follow that if I disagree with #2, #3, and #4, then I therefore should be able to point out at least "one single piece of tangible evidence that supports the historicity of the Book of Mormon"?

As is typical with LDS apologists, you spend so much time avoiding the question you lose track of what it was. You said you disagreed with point #2, yet everything you've said thus far agrees with point #2.

You claimed to disagree with #2, which states there is no archaeological evidence of the Book of Mormon.

No, #2 states that there "is no archaeological evidence of the Book of Mormon, a fact that seriously undermines its authenticity claims." It says two things; it says (1) that there is no archaeological evidence of the Book of Mormon; and (2) that that fact seriously undermines the authenticity claims of the Book of Mormon.

In all honesty I do not know whether there is any archaeological evidence of the Book of Mormon or not. I would tend to think that there is no archaeological evidence for the simple reason that if there were some archaeological evidence I probably would have heard about it. But if that is true, I firmly disagree with the assertion that that absence of evidence "seriously undermines" the Book of Mormon's "authenticity claims."

You've already stated there is no archaeological evidence to support the historicity of Book of Mormon, and now you choose to argue that the lack of evidence doesn't seriously undermine its authenticity. This is a game of semantics and one which shows just how poorly structured your "disagreement" of #2 is.

Just in case you forgot what your supposed point entails:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical ... _of_Mormon

The Book of Mormon gives an account of two civilizations formed by families who migrated to the Americas. One group of families came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C. and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. Another group came much earlier, when God confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel; that group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites. Latter Day Saints claim that these Lamanites are among the ancestors of the American Indians.

If there is no archaeological evidence to support the historicity of the Book of Mormon, regardless of what you claim warrants "seriously undermines" is moot, as it's now based on fact. You are wrong Kevin... #2 is a correct assertion, regardless of the mental gymnastics you've internally found to ignore it.

That's pretty convenient isn't it? There were a small number of them, but they died out, leaving no trace.

Thews, I'm not making this up; it's all in there in the Book of Mormon. I'm thinking of two particular stories that indicate horses in Book of Mormon times were not plentiful. If you'd like me to explain in more detail I'd be happy to.

If I did chose to engage you in this one, you'd find some picture on a cave wall to attempt to make your point. It's an exercise in futility, as your arguments from silence are a painful exercise. To summarize, claiming "they all died out" is about as weak as claiming the supposed papyrus that is known to exist, isn't the one Joseph Smith really translated. Arguments from silence based on what isn't is the weakest stance you can take.

So you think the data is out of date. Do you have published data to support what you think is up to date?

No, I don't have "published data to support" my assertion that the published theories are out of date. Racial DNA is not my area of emphasis, so while my dad and I were watching the NOVA episode I didn't take notes. It was just encouraging to find out that a scientific study used to argue the Book of Mormon was wrong, had managed to reverse itself.

So you watch one TV show and now you've seen the light? You easily question DNA data as wrong and outdated, yet you have nothing... zero... nada to base your claim on. At what point does logic enter into your thought process?

Should my inability to point to published data result in me concluding that racial DNA studies do still contradict LDS claims about the ancestors of the Native Americans? I know I watched that NOVA episode, regardless of my lack of taking notes on the actual research it was based on. People trying to honestly find out if the Book of Mormon is the word of God won't be deterred by my lack of taking notes; either they will look up 2008 NOVA episodes, or perhaps they can just do a Google search on the latest discoveries regarding ancestors of the Native Americans.

And another reference to a TV show... not very convincing Kevin. There's so much distortion out there to paint DNA evidence as flawed, but you have nothing to reference to voice your disagreement.

Thews, do you think it's likely that NOVA would do a program without having research to support it? Or do you think that I hallucinated the whole episode? It would seem that one of those two would have to be true in order for the published data to not be there somewhere, if someone wanted to look for it bad enough.

If you have data to post then please do... something tangible. If you don't, then keep touting your TV show that makes you an expert and see how convincing you come across... without data, it's just another opinion. Unless you post something I can't counter, so until you do, I'm not going to watch a tv show to point out where you're wrong... it's too time consuming. To summarize, your disagreement is based on nothing... again.

Really? You place faith in Joseph Smith's truth claims, but the tools he used to translate the supposed golden plates aren't important?

I have never placed faith in any of Joseph Smith's truth claims in my life.

Wow! ...really? So part of your mental gymnastics is to discount Joseph Smith as telling the truth? Do you know what critical thinking is?

[_Brackite]

Well, Tomorrow is the Day that these 95 LDS Theses are supposed to be Posted onto the doors of LDS church Buildings around the world, but I won't be going to an LDS Church Building tomorrow. I haven't been to an LDS Church Building in a long time. There are some of these 95 LDS Theses that I agree with, and some of these 95 LDS Theses that I don't really agree with.


For example:

I agree with this LDS Theses:

4. DNA evidence shows that Native Americans do not come from Middle Eastern heritage. Recently, the Church changed its claim that "the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the American Indians" to the Lamanites "are among the ancestors of the American Indians".

However, I don't really agree with this LDS Theses:

3. The Book of Mormon is filled with anachronisms that also damage credibility as a Divine record.

I do agree that the Book of Mormon has a few anachronisms within its pages, however, I don't really believe that it damage its credibility as coming from a Divine Being. I believe that one can believe the Book of Mormon to be inspired fiction, as I basically do now in my journey.