Busy thread and hard to respond on a phone...
Thanks ether-ore for your considered reply. (Context of prior discussion hidden for brevity).
Everything humans do is a choice, including ax murdering, deciding on dinner and playing the piano or guitar. An intellectually honest person keeps an open mind, examines the facts, eschews emotionalism and then makes decisions of any import based on available evidence. How do you pick a mortgage, buy a car, apply for a job, write a document for work? Why should claims about the supernatural be treated any differently?
So, what we are talking about is not the obvious fact we all have decisions to make, but more about the *process* of making those decisions.
When hanging a door, you could ask your dog how to go about it or, you could consult a home improvement book. Saying we have a choice to make, doesn't tell us anything, but there are clearly some approaches to decision making that are superior to others. Do you think all approaches have equal validity? Doubtful...
Such as? The Jews would beg to differ...
You do realize the Book of Abraham (one of the components of the Pearl of Great Price), is a known hoax? Smith claimed to translate the papyri, identified it as some ancient Jewish document, blah, blah. Turns out, it is nothing of the sort. Right there, if you are a true seeker, your alarm bells should be going off. There is no way to explain Smith's sham. And, even worse, he did it again, when some farmers brought him "plates" and he translated then. Turns out, the farmers' did their own hoax on Smith. The plates were fakes. Oops.
There is no evidence any such person existed. The story of the Exodus most certainly did not happen as described in the Bible, with 2.5 millions people wandering around the desert for 40 years. It simply didn't happen.
Why would the length of time be a requirement for truth?
Correct, it does not satisfy even a cursory bullshit test. Smith was a money-digging con man and in the same manner as Paul and Mohamed before him and L Ron Hubbard afterwards, he made up his religion out of cobbled together bits of prior religions and his own fantasies. Syncretism is the polite word for it. Con artistry is more likely a better choice in Smith's case.
But I do wonder why you are here? Mormonism is no less silly than Judaism, Christianity, Islam or Scientology, but it is still very silly indeed.
If you have the stomach for it, please check out this site, which puts the lie to many of the Mormon Church's claims. No doubt, like any other cult response, you will use ad hominen attacks or claims of the source being corrupt (genetic fallacy) or whatever. What you won't be able to do it dispute the facts.
http://www.exmormon.org/tract2.htm
How is that any different than L Ron Hubbard pulling his Xenu/Thetan story out of his ass?
Yes, we are tough crowd and have it heard it all before, many, many times, but I do admire you coming into the lion's den to engage with us. So a tip of the hat and a wag of the finger to you ether-ore.
Thanks ether-ore for your considered reply. (Context of prior discussion hidden for brevity).
Quote:It is after all a choice isn't it? Each individual has to make this decision for himself.
Everything humans do is a choice, including ax murdering, deciding on dinner and playing the piano or guitar. An intellectually honest person keeps an open mind, examines the facts, eschews emotionalism and then makes decisions of any import based on available evidence. How do you pick a mortgage, buy a car, apply for a job, write a document for work? Why should claims about the supernatural be treated any differently?
So, what we are talking about is not the obvious fact we all have decisions to make, but more about the *process* of making those decisions.
When hanging a door, you could ask your dog how to go about it or, you could consult a home improvement book. Saying we have a choice to make, doesn't tell us anything, but there are clearly some approaches to decision making that are superior to others. Do you think all approaches have equal validity? Doubtful...
Quote:But, to answer you question:Key word - story. Other than the post-hoc, multi-decades later gospel fan fiction, there is zero historical support for this claim.
The story is that Jesus Christ suffered, died, was buried and rose again the third day.
Quote: All of the Old Testament prophets testified of the mission of Jesus Christ.
Such as? The Jews would beg to differ...
Quote:All of the prophets witnessed, reported and prophesied of how God deals with His children's wickedness, their righteousness and gave them guidance on how they could be saved if they would but repent. I find all of the information in the Bible, The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price to be consistent with each other in terms of the plan of salvation.
You do realize the Book of Abraham (one of the components of the Pearl of Great Price), is a known hoax? Smith claimed to translate the papyri, identified it as some ancient Jewish document, blah, blah. Turns out, it is nothing of the sort. Right there, if you are a true seeker, your alarm bells should be going off. There is no way to explain Smith's sham. And, even worse, he did it again, when some farmers brought him "plates" and he translated then. Turns out, the farmers' did their own hoax on Smith. The plates were fakes. Oops.
Quote:All of these records from the time of Moses (who recorded events prior to his time) up until the present testify of the same thing... that Jesus is the Christ. I, myself find these records to be consistent and coherent.
There is no evidence any such person existed. The story of the Exodus most certainly did not happen as described in the Bible, with 2.5 millions people wandering around the desert for 40 years. It simply didn't happen.
Quote:The other accounts you mentioned do not carry the same weight for me. Those reports are not corroborated by other records and neither do they cover a similar amount of time with the same degree of consistency.
Why would the length of time be a requirement for truth?
Quote:I've no doubt that my answer will not satisfy, but I'm really not trying to convince or convert anyone here. I'm just here to express an opinion. Never at any time did I expect my opinion to be accepted.
Correct, it does not satisfy even a cursory bullshit test. Smith was a money-digging con man and in the same manner as Paul and Mohamed before him and L Ron Hubbard afterwards, he made up his religion out of cobbled together bits of prior religions and his own fantasies. Syncretism is the polite word for it. Con artistry is more likely a better choice in Smith's case.
But I do wonder why you are here? Mormonism is no less silly than Judaism, Christianity, Islam or Scientology, but it is still very silly indeed.
If you have the stomach for it, please check out this site, which puts the lie to many of the Mormon Church's claims. No doubt, like any other cult response, you will use ad hominen attacks or claims of the source being corrupt (genetic fallacy) or whatever. What you won't be able to do it dispute the facts.
http://www.exmormon.org/tract2.htm
Quote:- The Book of Abraham, from Egyptian papyrus scrolls which came into his possession in 1835. He stated that the scrolls were written by the biblical Abraham "by his own hand." Smith's translation is now accepted as scripture by the LDS church, as part of its Pearl of Great Price. Smith also produced an "Egyptian Grammar" based on his translation. Modern scholars of ancient Egyptian agree that the scrolls are common Egyptian funeral scrolls, entirely pagan in nature, having nothing to do with Abraham, and from a period 2000 years later than Abraham. The "Grammar" has been said by Egyptologists to prove that Smith had no notion of the Egyptian language. It is pure fantasy: he made it up.
How is that any different than L Ron Hubbard pulling his Xenu/Thetan story out of his ass?
Quote:I was just responding to an original post and then tried to answer follow-up questions to the best of my ability.
Yes, we are tough crowd and have it heard it all before, many, many times, but I do admire you coming into the lion's den to engage with us. So a tip of the hat and a wag of the finger to you ether-ore.
