|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is Mormonism true?
|
ORGANMEISTER
Shipmate
# 6621
|
Posted
Rossweisse, on the "Lies, Lies, Lies" thread in Hell you noted that Mormonism is "demonstrably untrue". I think you're probably right. But now that Elder Moroni has jumped ship and I suspect that thread will be closed soon, you might not visit that thread again. I'd still like to hear your argument that Mormonism is "demonstrably Untrue". I'll sit back a await your appearance.
[Host changed thread title]
[ 27. June 2005, 03:54: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 3162 | From: Somerset, PA - USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Elder Moroni has in fact not jumped ship. He's just decided not to post on that thread anymore.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Organmeister,
there is a huge thread on Mormonism in limbo where Rossweisse has posted a great many detailed posts on the problems she sees with Mormonism. I suggest you try reading that first, it probably answers your question.
Louise
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
Actually, I was quoting someone who's made an even more in-depth and scholarly study of Mormonism, but essentially, there is absolutely no evidence for -- and a lot of evidence against -- the truth of the Book of Mormon. Between linguistics, anthropology, archeology, DNA, biology and just about anything else you can think of, nothing whatsoever backs up the claims of the Book of Mormon.
And that's without getting into Mormon theology.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elder Moroni
Shipmate
# 9432
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Actually, I was quoting someone who's made an even more in-depth and scholarly study of Mormonism, but essentially, there is absolutely no evidence for -- and a lot of evidence against -- the truth of the Book of Mormon. Between linguistics, anthropology, archeology, DNA, biology and just about anything else you can think of, nothing whatsoever backs up the claims of the Book of Mormon.
And that's without getting into Mormon theology.
That's not entirely true. There is evidence (however small that might be) in support of the Book of Mormon. See the FARMS website for more information. Some very interesting stuff there. Also, there is grammatical and linguistic evidence (LOTS of it) including chiasmus. If you assert that Joseph Smith could consciously use chiasmus then in my opinion that's obsurd, since very few of his period during the religious revival were even aware of it.
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
The FARMS boys really reach; their stuff makes "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" look like a documentary.
And of course Smith could consciously use chiasmus. Nobody ever accused him of being stupid.
I saw one study that purported to prove that he couldn't have written it because of all the stylistic differences. Of course, that failed to take into account the different books of the Bible from which he borrowed -- and his favorite phrase, "And it came to pass" was left out entirely, which seriously skewed the results.
By the way, I'm about to take off for most of the weekend, so if I do not respond in a timely fashion it's not because I'm avoiding the discussion.
Rossweisse // not particularly comfortable with the title of this thread
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ORGANMEISTER
Shipmate
# 6621
|
Posted
Moroni, I see you have left the depths of Hell where discussions on your thread do continue. In any event, what is a chiasmus?
Posts: 3162 | From: Somerset, PA - USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ORGANMEISTER
Shipmate
# 6621
|
Posted
Rossweisse, sorry you're not comfortable with the title of this thread. I did want to heard the rest of your thoughts on this subject and I didn't know how else to catch your attention. Sorry.
Posts: 3162 | From: Somerset, PA - USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
I changed the thread title. You can PM someone to draw their attention to a particular thread.
RuthW
Purgatory host
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
from mirriam-webster.com:
quote:
Main Entry: chi·as·mus
Pronunciation: kI-'az-m&s, kE-
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from Greek chiasmos, from chiazein to mark with a chi
: an inverted relationship between the syntactic elements of parallel phrases (as in Goldsmith's to stop too fearful, and too faint to go)
i fail to see why anyone would be unable to use a figure of speech. all it requires is to have read something in which that type of figure of speech occures, and copy the format.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
Can I re-ask a question I asked in the Hell thread:
Is salvation in Mormon theology by works or by grace?
In the Limbo thread this statement went uncontradicted
quote:
3) Heaven. Christians believe in one heaven, for all believers, and most basically acknowledge the role of grace in getting there. Mormons have three classes, steerage, coach and first class, based on a misunderstanding of Paul's reference to the Classical view of the universe, and where you go depends largely on works. ...
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
from mirriam-webster.com:
quote:
an inverted relationship between the syntactic elements of parallel phrases (as in Goldsmith's to stop too fearful, and too faint to go)
i fail to see why anyone would be unable to use a figure of speech. all it requires is to have read something in which that type of figure of speech occures, and copy the format.
For example, in the Goldsmith passage mentioned above, which predates Joseph Smith altogether.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elder Moroni
Shipmate
# 9432
|
Posted
Hi Henry,
I must emphasise I distinction between SALVATION and EXALTATION in Mormonism.
Faith alone can save you.
Exaltation requires works.
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
yes, and the first of the two sites that elder moroni directs us to (not mormon related) indicates that it was particularly prevelent in 18th century poetry!
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elder Moroni
Shipmate
# 9432
|
Posted
Considering the inaugeration of the LDS church commenced in the 19th, I think we have no worries there then.
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
If people hadn't been reading 18th-century poetry in the 19th century, that would be true.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elder Moroni
Shipmate
# 9432
|
Posted
Even if they did - I can't accept that the mere unlearned boy Joseph Smith was able to write Chiasmus into his works! It is very hard to identify, let alone write!
Chiasmus was looked for in the Qur'an by the way - but to no avail. The bible also contains lots of Chiasmus.
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
let's see. the working non-mormon hypothesis is that smith wrote the book of mormon himself with lots of inspiration from the bible. the bible contains many instances of this figure of speech. so does the book of mormon. and this is supposed to show that the one wasn't cribbed from the other how?
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
I'm aware of that but not participating.
What, the three-heaven issue? Because it was mentioned on the other thread? Then what issues will you respond to? It doesn't exactly impugn Joseph Smith's character, the nature of the plates, temple ceremonies or clothing, so what's the problem with explicating that one? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Heck, I don't subscribe to Mormon doctrine but I've wondered what Paul meant about the man "caught up to the third heaven" for years, and so far as I know there's no definitive consensus on the subject, Dante (he had nine levels each for Hell, Purgatory and Heaven) notwithstanding. Some argue that the first heaven is the sky, the second is higher up (the stars?), both of which have been called "the heavens," and the third is what we usually think of as Heaven now, where God's Throne is. I have no idea.
I will also point out that the notion of gradations of glory, or crowns, or whatnot in Heaven, based on our behavior on Earth, is not exactly exclusive to Mormons (or Protestants or Roman Catholics).
David
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Elder Moroni: Not true. Chiasmus is a fairly simple figure of speech, and you don't need to know the fancy Greek word for it to use it or to recognize the effect. People have been enjoying and imitating Mae West's line for decades: "It's not the men in your life, it's the life in your men" (or something like that).
{edited because of cross-post}
[ 06. May 2005, 17:57: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
Is LDS really any more or less true than anything else? Golden Plates, burning bush. Joseph Smith, Gnostic gospels. Virgin births, corporal resurrection.
A huge element of faith is what, in fact, you choose to be faithful about.
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Margaret
Shipmate
# 283
|
Posted
If there's lots of chiasmus in the Bible then it's hardly surprising that there's so much in the Book of Mormon, since Joseph Smith drew so heavily on the Bible. This is not necessarily to argue that he was a deliberate fraud, but that he was someone with an unusually good verbal memory, who seems to have been able to reproduce material he'd heard or read with great accuracy.
Elder Moroni, can you point us to any non-LDS support for the historicity of the Book of Mormon?
Posts: 2456 | From: West Midlands UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
but there are many christians who do not believe in the literal truth of much of the bible.
a serious question. are mormons allowed to not believe in the literal truth of the book of mormon? is it neccessary to believe in the blatently incorrect archeology?
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ORGANMEISTER
Shipmate
# 6621
|
Posted
Ruth, thanks for changing the title. I do appreciate it.
Posts: 3162 | From: Somerset, PA - USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
YOu know, I'm realizing I use lots of chiasmus myself, except I've never heard the term before or the concept.
So hardly shocking to me that someone else could do the same.
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
I'm aware of that but not participating.
What, the three-heaven issue?...
He did answer the grace/faith vs. works question though.
As for chiasmus ... this is remind me of the Bourgoise(sp) Gentiehomme who was astonished to learn he spoke in prose!
[ 06. May 2005, 18:00: Message edited by: Henry Troup ]
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elder Moroni
Shipmate
# 9432
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
I'm aware of that but not participating.
What, the three-heaven issue? Because it was mentioned on the other thread? Then what issues will you respond to? It doesn't exactly impugn Joseph Smith's character, the nature of the plates, temple ceremonies or clothing, so what's the problem with explicating that one?
Heck, I don't subscribe to Mormon doctrine but I've wondered what Paul meant about the man "caught up to the third heaven" for years, and so far as I know there's no definitive consensus on the subject, Dante (he had nine levels each for Hell, Purgatory and Heaven) notwithstanding. Some argue that the first heaven is the sky, the second is higher up (the stars?), both of which have been called "the heavens," and the third is what we usually think of as Heaven now, where God's Throne is. I have no idea.
I will also point out that the notion of gradations of glory, or crowns, or whatnot in Heaven, based on our behavior on Earth, is not exactly exclusive to Mormons (or Protestants or Roman Catholics).
David
Hi - I'll reply to anything on here. I'll reply to your questions about the temple garments... I'll reply to your questions about the endowment ceremony - I'll even reply to your slanderous comments on my faith and personality. I just won't participate in any thread where there's a sacreligious link to a sacred perversion. You can ask me anything.
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
quote:
Is LDS really any more or less true than anything else? Golden Plates, burning bush. Joseph Smith, Gnostic gospels. Virgin births, corporal resurrection.
A huge element of faith is what, in fact, you choose to be faithful about.
Yes but the problems with Mormonism aren't merely metaphysical (although I think Aquinas refuted the idea that God had a body in the 13th century, which disposes neatly of the Mormon idea that the creator has a corporeal form) but also empirical, and therefore falsifiable.
Did Jesus rise from the dead? Any answer is going to involve a degree of guesswork because, by definition, empirical data for miracles is non-existent. On the other hand we can do archeological research and discover, for example, that St John the Evangelist had a pretty good grasp of the layout of first century Jerusalem. So whilst the stuff about the Third Heaven is a matter of faith the stuff about Jewish colonists evangelising the Native Americans is a matter of the historical record and therefore subject to rational scrutiny.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
... I just won't participate in any thread where there's a sacreligious link to a sacred perversion. You can ask me anything.
Aside from the propriety of looking at pictures of people in their underwear, is showing a picture of the garments itself offensive?
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elder Moroni
Shipmate
# 9432
|
Posted
The difference is - in St. John's gospel - John knew the area of Jerusalem that was well established. He knew it, and so did people before him. However, when the Nephites went to the new world, they were unfarmiliar with the area - they gave new names for everything - they described what they saw - how could anybody be farmiliar with it? Unless archaeology can account for the whole west coast of the American continent no unequivecal facts can be stated about Mormon archaeology.
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
quote:
Is LDS really any more or less true than anything else? ...
A huge element of faith is what, in fact, you choose to be faithful about.
... the stuff about Jewish colonists evangelising the Native Americans is a matter of the historical record and therefore subject to rational scrutiny.
Yes, but y**ng **rth cr**t**n*sm is an article of faith with some Christian groups, and no one suggests they should be excluded from the WCC(*) on the basis of rational scrutiny. (Avoid the deceased quadruped, please, step around it, thank you!)
*World Council of Churches - which requires Trinitarian Christianity as an entrance test.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Why not? The West Coast was settled by Christians. If they'd found evidence of a Jewish colony - burial sites, remains of buildings, anything - it would have been investigated. Furthermore that area is pretty urbanised. People digging foundations for buildings tend to find things.
AFAIK we have a reasonable idea about the people who lived in the United States before the Perfidious Bringers of Firewater and Smallpox* arrived. They don't seem to have included Jews.
*Joke.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
ok, i'll ask again... serious question. in order to be a christian it is not neccessary to believe in the literal truth of every bit of the bible. is it neccessary to believe in the literal truth of the book of mormon in order to be a mormon?
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
However, when the Nephites went to the new world, they were unfarmiliar with the area - they gave new names for everything - they described what they saw - how could anybody be farmiliar with it? Unless archaeology can account for the whole west coast of the American continent no unequivecal facts can be stated about Mormon archaeology.
The archeological record should show SOME signs of this alleged civilization. It does not. There are no remnants of building foundations, no city walls, no coins. For that matter, Smith's America was filled with animals that weren't here in pre-Columbian times.
And then there's DNA...
quote:
Originally posted by Micole:
ok, i'll ask again... serious question. in order to be a christian it is not neccessary to believe in the literal truth of every bit of the bible. is it neccessary to believe in the literal truth of the book of mormon in order to be a mormon?
I know some (mostly younger, mostly cradle) Mormons who claim Smith was just "channelling" it, since the story of the alleged translation is too preposterous for words. But my understanding is that, yes, they're supposed to take it all literally. You may have noticed the EM got rather heated on the subject of the Garden of Eden, although he doesn't seem to have anything to back it up.
[edited to include an answer to Nicole]
[ 06. May 2005, 18:22: Message edited by: Rossweisse ]
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elder Moroni
Shipmate
# 9432
|
Posted
nicolemrw
quote:
ok, i'll ask again... serious question. in order to be a christian it is not neccessary to believe in the literal truth of every bit of the bible. is it neccessary to believe in the literal truth of the book of mormon in order to be a mormon?
Certainly not - this was Brigham Young's worst fear. That people would just go off on a tangent believing everything that came out of the mouth of a general authority on a topic. Brigham Young says that we should pray about things and receive personal revelation (yes this really works!)
The bible has a 1000 interpretations - as does the Book of Mormon.
Having said this - the Book of Mormon is much more of a historical document - not neccessarily describing the culture and geography - but describing the wars, contentions and travels of the Nephites and Lamanites.
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
quote:
Yes, but y**ng **rth cr**t**n*sm is an article of faith with some Christian groups, and no one suggests they should be excluded from the WCC(*) on the basis of rational scrutiny. (Avoid the deceased quadruped, please, step around it, thank you!)
*World Council of Churches - which requires Trinitarian Christianity as an entrance test.
You're confusing a doctrinal tenet with the demarcation between science and metaphysics. I think that as a matter of scientific fact it is possible to say that - lets take the Dead Horse out of the equation - that the Flat Earth society is wrong. That they may believe this for sincere religious reasons does not render their belief above rational criticism.
It is not possible to say that Trinitarianism is right or wrong on that particular ground. There are arguments for or against the existence of God but any metaphysical belief (including the belief that metaphysical statements are meaningless) requires an element of faith. One is obliged to engage in a degree of politesse about religous belief, no matter how bizarre one finds it, because we see through a glass darkly (although that need not preclude rational enquiry). Religious practice, I hasten to add, is another matter - I don't care who your God hates, leave them alone.
Once we enter the realm of the falsifiable that is a different matter. We can speak with greater certitude. The earth is emphatically not flat and we need not pussy foot around the issue. The same is true of a number of other beliefs. That they are sincerely held by religious believers matters not one jot. They are wrong and we need not be afraid to say so.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elder Moroni
Shipmate
# 9432
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
However, when the Nephites went to the new world, they were unfarmiliar with the area - they gave new names for everything - they described what they saw - how could anybody be farmiliar with it? Unless archaeology can account for the whole west coast of the American continent no unequivecal facts can be stated about Mormon archaeology.
The archeological record should show SOME signs of this alleged civilization. It does not. There are no remnants of building foundations, no city walls, no coins. For that matter, Smith's America was filled with animals that weren't here in pre-Columbian times.
And then there's DNA...
quote:
Originally posted by Micole:
ok, i'll ask again... serious question. in order to be a christian it is not neccessary to believe in the literal truth of every bit of the bible. is it neccessary to believe in the literal truth of the book of mormon in order to be a mormon?
I know some (mostly younger, mostly cradle) Mormons who claim Smith was just "channelling" it, since the story of the alleged translation is too preposterous for words. But my understanding is that, yes, they're supposed to take it all literally. You may have noticed the EM got rather heated on the subject of the Garden of Eden, although he doesn't seem to have anything to back it up.
[edited to include an answer to Nicole]
I know very little about Mormon archaeology - what's been found etc. What I do know, is that SOME things have been found, but not enough (at present) to support our hypothesis. Remember, it has taken man centuries to uncover the Holy Land's biblical places, and the LDS church is really in its prime (restoration wise.)
However - Rossweise - please allow me 24 hours to do my own private research into some arguments to support my beliefs, and the opinions of some of my brethren and I will get back to you on the subject in hand.
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
thats what i was asking, elder moroni. is it neccessary to believe in the historical truth of the book of mormon? that there were really civilizations in the americas that were colonists from the middle east, and that the book of mormon is a fairly accurate historical document about them?
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Since the question has been asked of the LDS, let's ask the question in reverse:
Is Christianity True?
- A "virgin" gave birth to Jesus. Not possible.
- Monotheists yet believe in three gods, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Since when does 1+1+1 equal 1?
- Miracles? When was the last time you saw one that didn't involve you contributing to some Used Car Salesman Look-alike behind a pulpit?
- Some guy put all the creatures of the earth into a very tiny boat and then the whole earth was covered with water? The entirity of geologic history says that's quite possibly the biggest whopper ever told. We now are fairly certain it's an account of the The Black Sea Deluge
- God is love. Yet he orders his Isreali shock troops to kill every living creature in the cities he doesn't like.
- Seven Day Creation, two different versions.
- Israelites wander around the wilderness for a hell of a long time. Where's the archaeological evidence?
- Jonah stayed in a fish for three days and lived.
That's just off the top of my head.
This is faith people, not fact. If you can justify the errata in the bible, then you should let the LDS justify theirs.
Your "truth" also is subject to fiction.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
but as i keep pointing out, mad geo, many christians do not believe in the literal truth of many of your examples. so i want to knnow if mormonism does require a literal belief in the truth of all its scriptures.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
And many Christian denominations DO require a belief in the literal truth of my examples.
Some here are clearly not so magnanamous/open-minded as you. It is to those I address my question.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ronist
Shipmate
# 5343
|
Posted
Nickels:
I think your question is as they say asked and answered.
Posts: 827 | From: Vancouver Canada | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Expatriate Theolinguist
Shipmate
# 6064
|
Posted
Yeesh, how many times do we have to discuss the same thing before it becomes a dead horse? Didn't we have this same discussion this time last year?
--------------------
Je suis une petite pomme de terre.
Formerly mr_ricarno, many moons ago.
Posts: 731 | From: Upstate New York | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
ronist, kindly stop mutilating my name. thank you. (i think that sort of thing is prohibited in purgatory anyway.)
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elder Moroni
Shipmate
# 9432
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
thats what i was asking, elder moroni. is it neccessary to believe in the historical truth of the book of mormon? that there were really civilizations in the americas that were colonists from the middle east, and that the book of mormon is a fairly accurate historical document about them?
Although I don't know ANY LDS who believe the theory I am about to propose, there is no doctrine or teaching which occurs against it.
I suppose you could look at the Book of Mormon as a poetic form of God's teachings - just as many look at the Genesis creation story as the same (plus some of the things Mad Geo recalled.)
I think the faith and witness LDS believe overides our need for physical evidence. Notwithstanding this, I personally acknowledge that it is essential to justify our faith with physical evidence to sceptics who have no intention of receiving such a witness.
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
Re: chiasmus (sorry, I'm a latecomer to this discussion) -
Are we talking simple chiasmus (e.g., "It's not the men in your life, it's the life in your men") or chiastic structures (e.g., the book of Daniel)?
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elder Moroni
Shipmate
# 9432
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Re: chiasmus (sorry, I'm a latecomer to this discussion) -
Are we talking simple chiasmus (e.g., "It's not the men in your life, it's the life in your men") or chiastic structures (e.g., the book of Daniel)?
Both ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
hosting
Ronist - nicolemrw is correct. We do frown on people taking the names of others in vain on this board. It tends to lead to personal arguments which belong in Hell. Thanks - C.
hosting ends
[ 06. May 2005, 19:12: Message edited by: Callan ]
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ORGANMEISTER
Shipmate
# 6621
|
Posted
Just thinking our loud. The pre-Columbian civilizations of Central and South America were very advanced socially, politically, and artistically, althought they were not so advanced technologically, no wheel. Now that we can read Maya glyphs and have a better understanding of the other pre-Columbian civilizations doesn't it seem to follow that if these people had come across a society of middle eastern Jews they would have recorded it in their histories and inlcuded it in their stories of myths and legends. A Jewish culture in the Americas would be sufficiently different from the surrounding cultures that the other native people would surely take notice.
Are there any references to possible Jews and Jewish culture in any of the histories and myths of pre-Columbian peoples? (Note: You can't site the B of M as a source.)
Posts: 3162 | From: Somerset, PA - USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
