Posting 95 LDS Theses on the Church Doors

[_thews]

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.

Kevin, I made the reference to the Bible with regard to false prophets. You claim to place no faith in Joseph Smith's truth claims, yet, in spite of no evidence to support the historicity of the Book of Mormon, believe its people existed. The point was made to show how many things you have to take into consideration when placing belief in Joseph Smith's truth claims. Again, this is a tangent and the point of contention was wis your supposed disagreement with point #2, while agreeing with it.

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 continue to ignore the discussion and now wish to divert. This is a very typical Mormon apologetic tactic.

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.

I have many choices Kevin, but a debate throwing the Bible under the bus isn't one of them. As I stated before, if you question the Bible to give Joseph Smith an out then by all means do... it's a very weak stance as you place the Book of Mormon over the Bible and throw Jesus Christ under the bus. As Tobin stated in another thread, the Mormon God is an alien who orbits planet Kolob... good luck with that.

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.

Here's the problem Kevin, as you continue to attempt to divert, you can't just admit you agree with point #2. If you don't wish to discuss your supposed disagreement, I understand why, as everything you've said solidifies point #2 as valid. I'll make a deal with you... continue to divert in your next response and I'll let you have the last word as this attempted diversion isn't even remotely interesting. If you wish to stay on topic, then acknowledge you have no foundation other than blind faith to support your supposed disagreement, and that it doesn't even include Joseph Smith's truth claims as part of why you disagree. Or, you can, for once, just admit you were wrong and Point #2 is valid.

[_KevinSim]

Here I'll step in and do Tobin's task. I'm not exactly sure what the problem is about #1 so I'll skip it. I personally disagree with the assertions made in #2, #3, and #4.

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.

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

Did Mormon Think (or somebody else) modify the original list of 95 LDS theses? I just took a look at them, and each of the quoted #2 and #3 have been modified to take away the last phrase ("a fact that seriously undermines its authenticity claims" and "that also damage credibility as a Divine record" respectively).

Here's the problem Kevin, as you continue to attempt to divert, you can't just admit you agree with point #2. If you don't wish to discuss your supposed disagreement, I understand why, as everything you've said solidifies point #2 as valid. I'll make a deal with you... continue to divert in your next response and I'll let you have the last word as this attempted diversion isn't even remotely interesting. If you wish to stay on topic, then acknowledge you have no foundation other than blind faith to support your supposed disagreement, and that it doesn't even include Joseph Smith's truth claims as part of why you disagree. Or, you can, for once, just admit you were wrong and Point #2 is valid.

You want me to stay on topic; okay, I'll stay on topic. You want to know if I agree with Point #2. Which version of #2? The one that's currently out there? I have no disagreement with it whatsoever. Or do you mean the version that I quoted you as quoting up above? Yes I disagree with that and I'll tell you why. I concede (once again) that the part that states the lack of archaeological support of the Book of Mormon may very possibly be true. But I adamantly disagree that any such lack of archaeological support "undermines its authenticity claims." The reasons why I disagree are precisely the same reasons why you think the lack of any archaeological or antrhopological (or any other kind of scientific) support for the Hebrew Torah doesn't undermines its authenticity claims. I'm kind of going out on a limb here, because after spending a considerable amount of time trying to figure out just what your reasons are for believing that lack of support for the Torah doesn't undermine its claims, you haven't given me anything at all to work with.

But I suspect those reasons are not hugely different from each other. I suspect that your reasons are something to the effect that Jesus Himself endorsed the Torah. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) If a book gets Jesus' endorsement, then it's kind of immaterial whether it has scientific support for it. But see, that's precisely the reason I think the Book of Mormon is the Word of God, because the Holy Spirit endorsed it. You might disagree with me over whether the Holy Spirit did in fact actually endorse the Book of Mormon, but I could also point out that you don't know that Jesus did in fact endorse the Torah with any more certainty than I have that the Holy Spirit endorsed the Book of Mormon.

Of course I could be wrong. But we won't know that I'm wrong until you explain to us what precisely your reasons are for believing that the lack of scientific support for the Torah doesn't seriously undermine its authenticity claims.

[_Bazooka]

I concede (once again) that the part that states the lack of archaeological support of the Book of Mormon may very possibly be true. But I adamantly disagree that any such lack of archaeological support "undermines its authenticity claims."
<snip>
But see, that's precisely the reason I think the Book of Mormon is the Word of God, because the Holy Spirit endorsed it.

The Holy Spirit also endorsed the tales of Paul H. Dunn.
The Holy Spirit also endorsed George P. Lee as a General Authority.
The Holy Spirit also convinced the then Prophet that Mark Hoffman had original Mormon documents that he should pay for out of Church funds.
The Holy Spirit convinces lots of people the Book of Mormon is true, mind you, He also convinces a lot more that it isn't true.
The Holy Spirit convinces lots of people that Catholicism and <insert other spirituality based religion> is true.
The Holy Spirit convinced people that flying planes into buildings is the right thing to do.
The Holy Spirit convinced people that Bishop <insert name of money laundering Bishop> was on the level and they should give him their savings.
The Holy Spirit convinced the Prophet Joseph that selling the Book of Mormon copyright in Canada was the right thing to do.

Can you see the flaw in the 'evidence' that you rely upon yet?

[_KevinSim]

I concede (once again) that the part that states the lack of archaeological support of the Book of Mormon may very possibly be true. But I adamantly disagree that any such lack of archaeological support "undermines its authenticity claims."
<snip>
But see, that's precisely the reason I think the Book of Mormon is the Word of God, because the Holy Spirit endorsed it.

The Holy Spirit also endorsed the tales of Paul H. Dunn.
The Holy Spirit also endorsed George P. Lee as a General Authority.
The Holy Spirit also convinced the then Prophet that Mark Hoffman had original Mormon documents that he should pay for out of Church funds.
The Holy Spirit convinces lots of people the Book of Mormon is true, mind you, He also convinces a lot more that it isn't true.
The Holy Spirit convinces lots of people that Catholicism and <insert other spirituality based religion> is true.
The Holy Spirit convinced people that flying planes into buildings is the right thing to do.
The Holy Spirit convinced people that Bishop <insert name of money laundering Bishop> was on the level and they should give him their savings.
The Holy Spirit convinced the Prophet Joseph that selling the Book of Mormon copyright in Canada was the right thing to do.

Can you see the flaw in the 'evidence' that you rely upon yet?

Not at all. Bazooka, how do you know that He that spoke to me back in 1976 about the truthfulness of the LDS Church, is the same person that "endorsed the tales of Paul H. Dunn," that "convinces a lot more that" the Book of Mormon isn't true, that "convinces lots of people that Catholicism and" other spirituality based religions are true, that "flying planes into buildings is the right thing to do," etc.?

[_Bazooka]

Not at all. Bazooka, how do you know that He that spoke to me back in 1976 about the truthfulness of the LDS Church, is the same person that "endorsed the tales of Paul H. Dunn," that "convinces a lot more that" the Book of Mormon isn't true, that "convinces lots of people that Catholicism and" other spirituality based religions are true, that "flying planes into buildings is the right thing to do," etc.?

How do you know it wasn't?

[_KevinSim]

Not at all. Bazooka, how do you know that He that spoke to me back in 1976 about the truthfulness of the LDS Church, is the same person that "endorsed the tales of Paul H. Dunn," that "convinces a lot more that" the Book of Mormon isn't true, that "convinces lots of people that Catholicism and" other spirituality based religions are true, that "flying planes into buildings is the right thing to do," etc.?

How do you know it wasn't?

I don't. I'm not in any kind of position to know who God has spoken to and who S/He hasn't.

So what do we have? I say that when I asked God in Autumn 1976 (at age 17) if the LDS Church was true, God knew full well that if S/He didn't give me a direct answer that I would have no way in the world of ever knowing anything for certain about Her/Him. I have faith in a good God who wants each person like me to know Her/His will, so I conclude that when I was overwhelmed by an enormously affirmative feeling, that had to be God's answer.

People have said that just as the Holy Spirit answered me and told me that the LDS Church was true, so it answered all the other mentioned people, with messages that were at odds with mine. But we have apparently established that neither do those people know that the Holy Spirit so answered them, nor do I know that the Holy Spirit didn't answer them. Those people and I appear to know nothing whatsoever about God's communication with those other people. I still maintain that I spoke with God in Autumn 1976.

[_thews]

So what do we have? I say that when I asked God in Autumn 1976 (at age 17) if the LDS Church was true, God knew full well that if S/He didn't give me a direct answer that I would have no way in the world of ever knowing anything for certain about Her/Him. I have faith in a good God who wants each person like me to know Her/His will, so I conclude that when I was overwhelmed by an enormously affirmative feeling, that had to be God's answer.

I was 14 in 1976, so we're close in age. I was electrocuted when I was in my early 30's and saw my dead body outside of it... to this day, I'm still not convinced it was real. If that happened when I was 17, it would be far less less convincing than some sort of "feeling" I supposedly had that solidified the experience as truth. At what point do you question this experience as something that can be explained?

People have said that just as the Holy Spirit answered me and told me that the LDS Church was true, so it answered all the other mentioned people, with messages that were at odds with mine. But we have apparently established that neither do those people know that the Holy Spirit so answered them, nor do I know that the Holy Spirit didn't answer them. Those people and I appear to know nothing whatsoever about God's communication with those other people. I still maintain that I spoke with God in Autumn 1976.

I strongly suggest you go see a hypnotist show Kevin. It's absolutely amazing what people will do when the power of the mind is manipulated.

[_KevinSim]

So what do we have? I say that when I asked God in Autumn 1976 (at age 17) if the LDS Church was true, God knew full well that if S/He didn't give me a direct answer that I would have no way in the world of ever knowing anything for certain about Her/Him. I have faith in a good God who wants each person like me to know Her/His will, so I conclude that when I was overwhelmed by an enormously affirmative feeling, that had to be God's answer.

I was 14 in 1976, so we're close in age. I was electrocuted when I was in my early 30's and saw my dead body outside of it... to this day, I'm still not convinced it was real. If that happened when I was 17, it would be far less less convincing than some sort of "feeling" I supposedly had that solidified the experience as truth. At what point do you question this experience as something that can be explained?

People have said that just as the Holy Spirit answered me and told me that the LDS Church was true, so it answered all the other mentioned people, with messages that were at odds with mine. But we have apparently established that neither do those people know that the Holy Spirit so answered them, nor do I know that the Holy Spirit didn't answer them. Those people and I appear to know nothing whatsoever about God's communication with those other people. I still maintain that I spoke with God in Autumn 1976.

I strongly suggest you go see a hypnotist show Kevin. It's absolutely amazing what people will do when the power of the mind is manipulated.

So my experience in 1976 can be explained. So what? Hypnotists can manipulate the mind. So what?

Do you know what I want explained, Thews? Please explain to me why God didn't answer me back in 1976, when I asked Her/Him if the LDS Church was true?

I don't think the answer I got in 1976 was from God because there's no other explanation for the feelings I felt. I think the answer I got was from God because I believe there's a God, and because at the time I needed information from God. I needed the information from God; I got information. If I can't conclude that God will give me something that I most need, what conclusion can I come to about God?

[_thews]

So my experience in 1976 can be explained. So what? Hypnotists can manipulate the mind. So what?

Well Kevin, the point is the mind can be manipulated. If you're told you'll feel a burning in the bosom when you feel the spirit, and you do, then it's a positive affirmation that it was real. What most fail to realize in this scenario is the bait... you were told in advance what you'd feel. Sitting in church for numerous hours and hearing "I know the church is true" reaffirms what should happen. To discount the fact that the mind can be manipulated is ignoring fact.

To Descartes' meditation where he throws out all things he once believed were true and reexamines them, if it is true it will hold up to sound logic. If it's not true, well, let's just say logic based on the facts will dictate what is actually true.

Do you know what I want explained, Thews? Please explain to me why God didn't answer me back in 1976, when I asked Her/Him if the LDS Church was true?

I'm not you, so I can't tell you what is or isn't true based on your experience. What I can state are numerous facts that discount Joseph Smith's truth claims. If you don't place faith hinging on Joseph Smith's truth claims, it says a lot about how your mind has found a safe haven to believe in Joseph Smith's truth claims in spite of the evidence that proves it's not true (cognitive dissonance). I'm not telling you what is or isn't true regarding your experience, but rather to reexamine it without bias.

I don't think the answer I got in 1976 was from God because there's no other explanation for the feelings I felt. I think the answer I got was from God because I believe there's a God, and because at the time I needed information from God. I needed the information from God; I got information. If I can't conclude that God will give me something that I most need, what conclusion can I come to about God?

I believe in God as well. I define my beliefs as Christian because I believe Jesus Christ was God, but I also discount things as false... like hell. Hell is such a stupid concept. It's all fear-based, but in the end I don't believe anyone wins... it's all a tie. If you're a devout Mormon or an Atheist, I don't think it matters when the time comes to meet your maker. You weren't given all the data required to base an informative opinion on God's existence, so how can you possibly be held accountable? Outer darkness is so damn scary... is it not? Outer darkness is a manufactured product of one man.. Joseph Smith. Either Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, or a charlatan who used his concocted religion to get what he wanted. If you really think God "threatened" Joseph Smith with a flaming sword for not engaging in polygamy, then by all means accept his doctrine as truth. If this doesn't make sense to you, along with the bogus "translation" of the Book of Abraham, then you may want to reconsider what you hold as absolute truth. Again... I've seen my dead body outside of it and I know what it's like to be dead and preparing to meet my maker. But, maybe it didn't happen the way I remember? In either case, I know what I actually believe and it isn't based on what some other person has told me... it's based on the truth. If I'm wrong and hell exists, then I get the hot lava for eternity... I'm good with that. If a rocket ride to Kolob is true, then you're set... I can't point out numerous facts which discount those truth claims... you can choose to ignore them if you wish.

[_KevinSim]

Do you know what I want explained, Thews? Please explain to me why God didn't answer me back in 1976, when I asked Her/Him if the LDS Church was true?

I'm not you, so I can't tell you what is or isn't true based on your experience. What I can state are numerous facts that discount Joseph Smith's truth claims. If you don't place faith hinging on Joseph Smith's truth claims, it says a lot about how your mind has found a safe haven to believe in Joseph Smith's truth claims in spite of the evidence that proves it's not true (cognitive dissonance).

Okay, let's put this one to rest. I said I don't place any faith in Joseph Smith's truth claims because I put all my faith in God, not Joseph Smith. Smith said that the way to find out something for sure about God is to ask God a question about the matter, and Smith said God would provide an answer. I believe that, not because Smith taught it, but because it just makes sense. If God really is good, and really does want us to know Her/His will, then when one of us asks God a question, why wouldn't God give that one a direct answer, a nugget of truth that that one can use as a certain foundation for that one's personal theology?

I asked that question; I asked God if the LDS Church was true; and it's because of God's answer that I believe Joseph Smith's truth claims. I don't have faith in Smith; I have faith that the good God that controls the universe told me the truth about Smith; and therefore I believe what the LDS Church teaches about Smith.

I've heard what the critics say about Joseph Smith. To be perfectly honest it has shaken my testimony, but it didn't destroy it. In fact, in the Missionary Training Center back in July 1979, while I was learning Spanish and training to be a missionary in southern Chile, I had mailed to me Ed Decker's pamphlet To Moroni with Love; after I got settled down in Talca, Chile, and had time to really think about what the pamphlet was saying, I sent a letter to my mission president telling him that, in view of what the pamphlet had to say about Smith, if he couldn't explain to me how the LDS Church was still true, then I wanted out of the Church. He replied that he'd be up in Talca for zone conference in a few weeks, and would talk to me about it then. Between the time he told me that and the zone conference I had a lot of time to think about the matter. What I finally focused in on was that To Moroni with Love was what a man had to say about Joseph Smith; my testimony was based on what God had to say about Smith. So I told my mission president I had resolved it on my own.

I've had pretty much the same attitude ever since. Who do I believe about Smith's life and behavior, God or men? Sometimes I think it might be interesting to try to get all the evidence about Smith piled together for consideration by one unbiased forum, evidence provided by both Smith's critics and his proponents, to see what the evidence really has to say. But the bottom line is not what has been recorded about Smith; the bottom line is what God says about Smith.

I don't think the answer I got in 1976 was from God because there's no other explanation for the feelings I felt. I think the answer I got was from God because I believe there's a God, and because at the time I needed information from God. I needed the information from God; I got information. If I can't conclude that God will give me something that I most need, what conclusion can I come to about God?

I believe in God as well.

Thews, you didn't answer my question. If I can't conclude that God will give me something that I most need, what conclusion can I come to about God?

I define my beliefs as Christian because I believe Jesus Christ was God, but I also discount things as false... like hell. Hell is such a stupid concept. It's all fear-based, but in the end I don't believe anyone wins... it's all a tie. If you're a devout Mormon or an Atheist, I don't think it matters when the time comes to meet your maker. You weren't given all the data required to base an informative opinion on God's existence, so how can you possibly be held accountable?

I congratulate you for recognizing the problem with hell. Christianity needs to realize that hell is simply incompatible with a good, literally omnipotent God.

Does that make you a Seventh-Day Adventist? Or a Christian Universalist? Jehovah's Witnesses also don't believe in hell, but I have a hard time picturing you as a Jehovah's Witness. Or are you just a Christian that doesn't believe in hell?

The matter is pretty controversial. A lot of Christians have put a lot of energy into arguing that the Bible declares a never-ending hell, and that therefore there must be one. Personally, I find the LDS approach to be the one that makes the most sense. I don't believe God created hell; I believe that each of us creates her/his own hell. God isn't so much a majestic magistrate, deciding who will go where; ultimately we ourselves decide where we will go. God rather is a spiritual physician, who can heal us from the spiritual disease that sin is, if we will let Him. There are some people who will suffer endlessly in hell (or outer darkness); God would rescue them if He could, but He can't; He can't even put them out of their misery; God is as unable to take intelligence out of existence as He was unable to bring it from not existing to existing.

Outer darkness is so damn scary... is it not? Outer darkness is a manufactured product of one man.. Joseph Smith.

What's the essential difference between outer darkness and hell? Christians have talked about hell long before Joseph Smith was born.

In either case, I know what I actually believe and it isn't based on what some other person has told me... it's based on the truth.

Thews, how do you tell what the truth is, about God?