Posting 95 LDS Theses on the Church Doors

[_KevinSim]

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.

Let's try this. How do you go from the observation that there is no archaeological evidence to support the historicity of the Book of Mormon, to the conclusion that that seriously undermines its authenticity?

God doesn't want us to believe the Book of Mormon is authentic because archaeological evidence supports it; God wants us to believe the Book of Mormon is authentic because God says it is authentic!

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.

Okay, the Book of Mormon says there were horses in America. You observe there weren't any horses in America when Columbus got here, and that the fossil record doesn't show horses exist. Therefore what?

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.

Thews, you didn't answer my question. Which is it? Do you think "that NOVA would do a program without having research to support it," or "do you think that I hallucinated the whole episode"?

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

I have "never placed faith in any of Joseph Smith's truth claims"; I also don't discount "Joseph Smith as telling the truth"; can you think of some alternate description of my position on Smith's truth claims?

He that I have faith in is God, only God. Joseph Smith taught that the way to establish a sure foundation for one's beliefs about God is to ask God a yes or no question, ready to base the whole rest of one's life on whatever answer God might provide, and then wait for God to give His answer. I agree with that teaching, not because I have faith in Smith, but because that teaching makes sense. What good is there in believing in God if you can't know anything about God? And what better way is there to find things out about God than asking God Himself a question and getting His answer?

[_KevinSim]

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.

Well, I did, and there weren't any theses nailed (or otherwise attached) to my chapel's doors. Was someone assigned to nail them to that chapel's door, and perhaps forgot to do it?

[_thews]

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.

Let's try this. How do you go from the observation that there is no archaeological evidence to support the historicity of the Book of Mormon, to the conclusion that that seriously undermines its authenticity?

To you, the fact that the Book of Mormon is pure fiction and completely untrue doesn't undermine its authenticity. There is no counter here Kevin, as you believe in fiction and see no problem with it.

God doesn't want us to believe the Book of Mormon is authentic because archaeological evidence supports it; God wants us to believe the Book of Mormon is authentic because God says it is authentic!

This is simply more rhetoric to find a way to believe in something that is historically false. By the way Kevin, you may have an opinion of what God wants, but it's just your opinion as you don't know this.

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.

Okay, the Book of Mormon says there were horses in America. You observe there weren't any horses in America when Columbus got here, and that the fossil record doesn't show horses exist. Therefore what?

It's not true... it's fiction.

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.

Thews, you didn't answer my question. Which is it? Do you think "that NOVA would do a program without having research to support it," or "do you think that I hallucinated the whole episode"?

You said you disagreed with point #3 and used one television show as evidence. If you have some actual data to present to back up your DNA claims, then please do, but asking me to defend a TV is just another rabbit hole to paint the ruse you're actually making a point.

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

I have "never placed faith in any of Joseph Smith's truth claims"; I also don't discount "Joseph Smith as telling the truth"; can you think of some alternate description of my position on Smith's truth claims?

You're contradicting yourself in stating you don't place faith in Joseph Smith's truth claims and, at the same time, supposedly don't discount Joseph Smith was telling the truth. Can you choose a more ambiguous stance here? Either Joseph Smith was telling the truth, or he was a liar... you can't have it both ways.

He that I have faith in is God, only God. Joseph Smith taught that the way to establish a sure foundation for one's beliefs about God is to ask God a yes or no question, ready to base the whole rest of one's life on whatever answer God might provide, and then wait for God to give His answer. I agree with that teaching, not because I have faith in Smith, but because that teaching makes sense. What good is there in believing in God if you can't know anything about God? And what better way is there to find things out about God than asking God Himself a question and getting His answer?

Choose the path that works for you Kevin, but praying for answers to questions that don't require God to answer is an exercise in finding confirmation bias to support what you want to believe. Joseph Smith's interpretations of the Book of Abraham papyrus is wrong, yet he claimed to translate it. He didn't claim to be inspired by it. He didn't claim to encrypt it... he was wrong. Do you need to pray to confirm this, or pray to confirm there's some other explanation? Joseph Smith used his power to wed young girls. The letter written to Sarah Ann Whitney clearly shows this. Do you need to pray for an alternative answer? Would a person being guided by God choose this path and claim it was God's will, or, is it more logical that a con man who knew it had nothing to do with God choose this path? I can't argue what you don't find issues with, but I can point out that if the doctrine of Joseph Smith is pure fiction and not of God, you've wasted a lot of precious time studying the words of a false prophet of God. The Bible is very specific of what constitutes a false prophet, but if the facts and simple logic aren't good enough to derive an answer, then self-hypnosis to obtain an answer you feel is from God works for you, be happy... it doesn't make sense and lacks critical thought.

[_KevinSim]

To you, the fact that the Book of Mormon is pure fiction and completely untrue doesn't undermine its authenticity. There is no counter here Kevin, as you believe in fiction and see no problem with it.

You're skipping logic steps, Thews. I never said that to me, "the fact that the Book of Mormon is pure fiction and completely untrue doesn't undermine its authenticity," or that I "believe in fiction and see no problem with it." I said that I suspect "there is no archaeological evidence to support the historicity of the Book of Mormon." It is by no means trivial to go from suspecting there is no archaeological evidence to support the historicity of something, to concluding that that something is fictional. As a matter of fact I don't believe the Book of Mormon is fictional; I believe the peoples of the Book of Mormon existed somewhere on the American continents just like the book says they do.

By the way Kevin, you may have an opinion of what God wants, but it's just your opinion as you don't know this.

My opinion is irrelevant; I wasn't referring to my opinion; I was referring to every person's need to find out directly from God what books of scripture He considers authentic and which He doesn't.

You're contradicting yourself in stating you don't place faith in Joseph Smith's truth claims and, at the same time, supposedly don't discount Joseph Smith was telling the truth. Can you choose a more ambiguous stance here? Either Joseph Smith was telling the truth, or he was a liar... you can't have it both ways.

Wow, you do have a polarized view of things. Why do you think that having faith in Smith's truth claims and discounting "Smith as telling the truth" are the only two options?

I agree that Smith was either "telling the truth, or he was a liar"! That doesn't mean that if I think he was telling the truth then I must of necessity be having faith in him.

The Bible is very specific of what constitutes a false prophet, but if the facts and simple logic aren't good enough to derive an answer, then self-hypnosis to obtain an answer you feel is from God works for you, be happy... it doesn't make sense and lacks critical thought.

What does what the Bible has to say have to do with anything we've been talking about?

[_thews]

To you, the fact that the Book of Mormon is pure fiction and completely untrue doesn't undermine its authenticity. There is no counter here Kevin, as you believe in fiction and see no problem with it.

You're skipping logic steps, Thews. I never said that to me, "the fact that the Book of Mormon is pure fiction and completely untrue doesn't undermine its authenticity," or that I "believe in fiction and see no problem with it." I said that I suspect "there is no archaeological evidence to support the historicity of the Book of Mormon." It is by no means trivial to go from suspecting there is no archaeological evidence to support the historicity of something, to concluding that that something is fictional. As a matter of fact I don't believe the Book of Mormon is fictional; I believe the peoples of the Book of Mormon existed somewhere on the American continents just like the book says they do.

If you believe the people of the Book of Mormon existed, then there should be some evidence to prove it... there isn't any. When you state you "suspect" there is no no archaeological evidence to support the historicity of the Book of Mormon, your suspicion is correct. Remember Kevin, this all started with you disagreeing with point #2, yet everything you've stated agrees with point number two. If, in absence of evidence you choose to believe the historicity of the Book of Mormon is true, you've yet to explain why. You don't have to, as I know you can't produce any tangible evidence to support why you do, but it still doesn't explain why you disagreed with point number 2.

By the way Kevin, you may have an opinion of what God wants, but it's just your opinion as you don't know this.

My opinion is irrelevant; I wasn't referring to my opinion; I was referring to every person's need to find out directly from God what books of scripture He considers authentic and which He doesn't.

Actually Kevin, when you lump every person into one bucket, I would be included in it; I don't need to find out anything directly from God, because God doesn't converse directly with me. God gave me a brain and I use it.

You're contradicting yourself in stating you don't place faith in Joseph Smith's truth claims and, at the same time, supposedly don't discount Joseph Smith was telling the truth. Can you choose a more ambiguous stance here? Either Joseph Smith was telling the truth, or he was a liar... you can't have it both ways.

Wow, you do have a polarized view of things. Why do you think that having faith in Smith's truth claims and discounting "Smith as telling the truth" are the only two options?

Because it makes sense. What you said was as follows: "I have never placed faith in any of Joseph Smith's truth claims in my life." This argument of what does or doesn't constitute a lair is moot, as the choice is binary. If you choose to believe in Joseph Smith's truth claims without placing faith in Joseph Smith's truth claims, then I simply must give you a perfect 10 for the mental gymnastic dismount.

I agree that Smith was either "telling the truth, or he was a liar"! That doesn't mean that if I think he was telling the truth then I must of necessity be having faith in him.

Your argument rests on placing faith in someone you believe is lying to you... it lacks critical thought as it's not logical.

The Bible is very specific of what constitutes a false prophet, but if the facts and simple logic aren't good enough to derive an answer, then self-hypnosis to obtain an answer you feel is from God works for you, be happy... it doesn't make sense and lacks critical thought.

What does what the Bible has to say have to do with anything we've been talking about?

I assume you place faith in the Bible along with the Book of Mormon. If I'm incorrect please correct my mistake, but assuming I am correct, one test of a false prophet is that what he states is true. Since you've no regard for the truth in placing belief in Joseph Smith's truth claims, I find it hard to believe you can discount what the Bible states regarding false prophets:

http://biblelight.net/false-prophets.htm

Deu 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
Jer 14:14 Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart.
Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Mat 24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
2 Pet 2:1 [NIV] But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves.
2 Pet 2:2 [NIV] Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.
2 Pet 2:3 [NIV] In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

For reference:

http://carm.org/false-prophecies-of-joseph-smith

Prophecy about Jesus' return within 56 years - "President Smith then stated that the meeting had been called, because God had commanded it; and it was made known to him by vision and by the Holy Spirit. He then gave a relation of some of the circumstances attending us while journeying to Zion--our trials, sufferings; and said God had not designed all this for nothing, but He had it in remembrance yet; and it was the will of God that those who went to Zion, with a determination to lay down their lives, if necessary, should be ordained to the ministry, and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, for the coming of the Lord, which was nigh--even fifty-six years should wind up the scene." (History of the Church, vol. 2, p. 189). See context.
Jesus did not return within fifty-six years when 1891 arrived.

Your choice Kevin. You can keep asking God what is true vs. what isn't, but ignoring the truth is a conscious choice. What I wonder about when people are constantly praying for answers, is what happens when the prayer isn't answered? Is it answered every time? If not, does that constitute a negative response?

[_KevinSim]

You're skipping logic steps, Thews. I never said that to me, "the fact that the Book of Mormon is pure fiction and completely untrue doesn't undermine its authenticity," or that I "believe in fiction and see no problem with it." I said that I suspect "there is no archaeological evidence to support the historicity of the Book of Mormon." It is by no means trivial to go from suspecting there is no archaeological evidence to support the historicity of something, to concluding that that something is fictional. As a matter of fact I don't believe the Book of Mormon is fictional; I believe the peoples of the Book of Mormon existed somewhere on the American continents just like the book says they do.

If you believe the people of the Book of Mormon existed, then there should be some evidence to prove it... there isn't any. When you state you "suspect" there is no no archaeological evidence to support the historicity of the Book of Mormon, your suspicion is correct. Remember Kevin, this all started with you disagreeing with point #2, yet everything you've stated agrees with point number two. If, in absence of evidence you choose to believe the historicity of the Book of Mormon is true, you've yet to explain why. You don't have to, as I know you can't produce any tangible evidence to support why you do, but it still doesn't explain why you disagreed with point number 2.

My opinion is irrelevant; I wasn't referring to my opinion; I was referring to every person's need to find out directly from God what books of scripture He considers authentic and which He doesn't.

Actually Kevin, when you lump every person into one bucket, I would be included in it; I don't need to find out anything directly from God, because God doesn't converse directly with me. God gave me a brain and I use it.

Wow, you do have a polarized view of things. Why do you think that having faith in Smith's truth claims and discounting "Smith as telling the truth" are the only two options?

Because it makes sense. What you said was as follows: "I have never placed faith in any of Joseph Smith's truth claims in my life." This argument of what does or doesn't constitute a lair is moot, as the choice is binary. If you choose to believe in Joseph Smith's truth claims without placing faith in Joseph Smith's truth claims, then I simply must give you a perfect 10 for the mental gymnastic dismount.

I agree that Smith was either "telling the truth, or he was a liar"! That doesn't mean that if I think he was telling the truth then I must of necessity be having faith in him.

Your argument rests on placing faith in someone you believe is lying to you... it lacks critical thought as it's not logical.

What does what the Bible has to say have to do with anything we've been talking about?

I assume you place faith in the Bible along with the Book of Mormon. If I'm incorrect please correct my mistake, but assuming I am correct, one test of a false prophet is that what he states is true. Since you've no regard for the truth in placing belief in Joseph Smith's truth claims, I find it hard to believe you can discount what the Bible states regarding false prophets:

http://biblelight.net/false-prophets.htm

Deu 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Thews, you included other Biblical passages on false prophets, but this Deuteronomy verse is the only one that explicitly says how to detect one. It comes from the Pentateuch, the English translation of the Hebrew Torah. You expressed amazement that I would think a book as clearly fictional as you say the Book of Mormon is, might still have authenticity given it by God. And yet here you appear to think that I should consider another, no less fictional, book so much divinely authentic that I should listen to what it says about false prophets.

Note that I didn't come out and explicitly say that the Pentateuch is fictional. I don't believe it is. I believe that it's just as historically accurate as the Book of Mormon is. But Deuteronomy is the record of God's revelations to the descendants of Israel while they were making their way from Egypt across the Sinai wilderness, and there's just as much evidence that the group of people described in Exodus actually crossed that wilderness as there is evidence that the Book of Mormon peoples existed as described in the Americas, namely none.

So I guess I would ask you, does the fact that there is no evidence that the descendants of Israel crossed the Sinai wilderness seriously undermine the authenticity claims of the Torah?

[_thews]

Thews, you included other Biblical passages on false prophets, but this Deuteronomy verse is the only one that explicitly says how to detect one. It comes from the Pentateuch, the English translation of the Hebrew Torah. You expressed amazement that I would think a book as clearly fictional as you say the Book of Mormon is, might still have authenticity given it by God. And yet here you appear to think that I should consider another, no less fictional, book so much divinely authentic that I should listen to what it says about false prophets.

As you ignore all the points I pointed out in your flawed logic, you retort is to throw the Bible under the bus. Finding a way to appease your cognitive dissonance by throwing the Bible under the bus to explain Joseph Smith's myth is typical. Why do you believe in either the Bible or Book of Mormon?

Note that I didn't come out and explicitly say that the Pentateuch is fictional. I don't believe it is. I believe that it's just as historically accurate as the Book of Mormon is. But Deuteronomy is the record of God's revelations to the descendants of Israel while they were making their way from Egypt across the Sinai wilderness, and there's just as much evidence that the group of people described in Exodus actually crossed that wilderness as there is evidence that the Book of Mormon peoples existed as described in the Americas, namely none.

And again you find a way to appease your cognitive dissonance by claiming the Bible is wrong, so Joseph Smith can also be wrong. What you continue to fail to acknowledge is your disagreement with point #2. You are wrong, as everything you've said agrees with point #2 and there is nothing to support the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

So I guess I would ask you, does the fact that there is no evidence that the descendants of Israel crossed the Sinai wilderness seriously undermine the authenticity claims of the Torah?

Is this the point you start asking me questions to attempt to divert? It's so obvious Kevin. If you choose to discount the Bible in support of the Book of Mormon fiction, I don't wish to engage you. You either believe in the Bible or you don't. If you don't, just say so, but just quit the diversion already. There is nothing to support the historicity of the Book of Mormon and that is a fact... it's fiction, which is what point #2 contends.

[_KevinSim]

As you ignore all the points I pointed out in your flawed logic, you retort is to throw the Bible under the bus.

Thews, you are the one who brought up the Bible in the first place. I never had any intent to bring it up at all, and wouldn't have brought it up if you hadn't. You ripped the Book of Mormon up one side and down the other, and then gave me a quote from the Pentateuch in an attempt to pin a label on Joseph Smith. You could hardly expect me to pretend that the Pentateuch had some sort of moral superiority over the Book of Mormon when I knew it did not.

When I read your response, I find it hard to believe you really paid any attention to my last post at all. I didn't throw the Bible under the bus; you did. I'm the one that has gone on the record saying I can believe a book is true even when there's no evidence to support it; you're the one that says if a book has no evidence to support it then it must be fiction. All I did was point out that respected scholars have concluded that the Pentateuch has no evidence to support it. That is a fact. I take that fact and maintain my belief that the Pentateuch is true, as I said in my last article. What you do with that fact remains to be seen.

[_thews]

As you ignore all the points I pointed out in your flawed logic, you retort is to throw the Bible under the bus.

Thews, you are the one who brought up the Bible in the first place. I never had any intent to bring it up at all, and wouldn't have brought it up if you hadn't. You ripped the Book of Mormon up one side and down the other, and then gave me a quote from the Pentateuch in an attempt to pin a label on Joseph Smith. You could hardly expect me to pretend that the Pentateuch had some sort of moral superiority over the Book of Mormon when I knew it did not.

When I read your response, I find it hard to believe you really paid any attention to my last post at all. I didn't throw the Bible under the bus; you did. I'm the one that has gone on the record saying I can believe a book is true even when there's no evidence to support it; you're the one that says if a book has no evidence to support it then it must be fiction. All I did was point out that respected scholars have concluded that the Pentateuch has no evidence to support it. That is a fact. I take that fact and maintain my belief that the Pentateuch is true, as I said in my last article. What you do with that fact remains to be seen.

To the OP, you said you disagreed with point #2. What you've basically stated is that you agree with point #2, but don't conclude that the lack of any tangible evidence to support the historicity of the Book of Mormon undermines its authenticity. If that's your argument, it's weak at best and uses semantics to make the assertion point #2 is incorrect. If I acknowledged there is no evidence to support the existence of the Loch Ness monster, yet argued it doesn't undermine its existence, it would be the same thing and wound be wrong, as absence of evidence does undermine the claim of its existence, regardless of whether or not I chose to believe it. Conversely, if I claimed pictures of the Loch Ness monster were valid, even if you disagreed with me, the argument would be based on something... you've got nothing but wishful thinking to base your objection to point #2 on, even going as far as admitting there is no evidence. We can go round and round on this, but, just like bcspace's continued claims that points of contention have been "answered" previously, they haven't... it's simply an intentional ruse.

http://rlv.zcache.com/i_believe_in_the_ ... dd_325.jpg

[_KevinSim]

The Bible is very specific of what constitutes a false prophet, but if the facts and simple logic aren't good enough to derive an answer, then self-hypnosis to obtain an answer you feel is from God works
for you, be happy... it doesn't make sense and lacks critical thought.

I assume you place faith in the Bible along with the Book of Mormon. If I'm incorrect please correct my mistake, but assuming I am correct, one test of a false prophet is that what he states is true. Since you've no regard for the truth in placing belief in Joseph Smith's truth claims, I find it hard to believe you can discount what the Bible states regarding false prophets:

http://biblelight.net/false-prophets.htm

Deu 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
Jer 14:14 Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought,
and the deceit of their heart.

To the OP, you said you disagreed with point #2. What you've basically stated is that you agree with point #2, but don't conclude that the lack of any tangible evidence to support the historicity of the Book of Mormon undermines its authenticity. If that's your argument, it's weak at best and uses semantics to make the assertion point #2 is incorrect. If I acknowledged there is no evidence to support the existence of the Loch Ness monster, yet argued it doesn't undermine its existence, it would be the same thing and wound be wrong, as absence of evidence does undermine the claim of its existence, regardless of whether or not I chose to believe it. Conversely, if I claimed pictures of the Loch Ness monster were valid, even if you disagreed with me, the argument would be based on something... you've got nothing but wishful thinking to base your objection to point #2 on, even going as far as admitting there is no evidence. We can go round and round on this, but, just like bcspace's continued claims that points of contention have been "answered" previously, they haven't... it's simply an intentional ruse.

Thews, you replied to the mentioned OP, and we had a few exchanges there pretty close to how you described them. Then you made the two posts quoted up above where you referred to the Bible. You referred to the Bible. I didn't start it. You started it. Then ever since then you've been desperately back-peddling, trying to get back to the OP.

Honest discussions simply don't work that way. You can't simply hit the rewind button. Having made your two posts on the Bible, you can't expect me to just ignore everything you said about the Bible.

You've got three choices. You can either (1) admit that there is no evidence to support the history of the Israelites crossing the Sinai wilderness as the Torah says they did, and admit that therefore the quote you gave me is fictionally attributed to God, or (2) explain how there is solid evidence that the Israelites crossed the Sinai wilderness, and tell me what it is, or (3) tell me that I'm right, that it does make sense sometimes to believe something is historically accurate even when there's no external evidence to back it up.

But pretending you never said anything about the Bible and expecting the discussion to go on as if you've never mentioned the Bible, is simply not an option. You mentioned the Bible. That is a fact. You need to take responsibility for what you said by making one of those three choices.