• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

LDS Evidences

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
nutshell said:
Actually, I believe many of those things have been found, but there are those who choose not to accept them as evidence.
There is a difference between evidence and justification. The former is presumed to be intersubjectively verifiable, i.e., one need not be a "believer" in order to properly evaluate it.

What "evidence" do you have?
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Halcyon said:
I wouldn't say that all evidence would be categorically dismissed Katz.

For example if archaeologists were to find metal swords, horses, chariots, a battlefield containing two million bodies, the remains of a Jewish style Temple, hieroglyphs that were clearly similar to Egyption in origin, other metal or stone tablets as mentioned in the BoM, and if these could be dated to 600BC ish, then i think you'd find a sudden rush of converts.
No we wouldn't. I'm sure of that. That is not what draws a person to a religion.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
royol said:
Listen to Katzpur Dan, your in a hole, stop digging.
That's not what I said. Dan's not in a hole at all. He's just going to a lot of work for nothing.
 

Halcyon

Lord of the Badgers
Katzpur said:
No we wouldn't. I'm sure of that. That is not what draws a person to a religion.
I have to disagree, finding definitive proof that the BoM is 100% true and accurate and thus verifying Joseph Smith's legitimacy as a Prophet to the whole world would surely cause a massive number of conversions.
I know i would convert.
 

Bishka

Veteran Member
Halcyon said:
I have to disagree, finding definitive proof that the BoM is 100% true and accurate and thus verifying Joseph Smith's legitimacy as a Prophet to the whole world would surely cause a massive number of conversions.
I know i would convert.

That's not how it's going to happen. Think about the Bible, there are millions of people who believe in it's existence and they can't find definite proof that Jesus said any of that stuff.

We aren't counting on scientific proof, we are counting on the Holy Spirit.
 

Ezzedean

Active Member
dan said:
How's this: I have complete confidence that the evidence supports the Book of Mormon as to its historical accuracy. If one puts aside their biases and considers the facts instead of their assumptions and inferences, I feel they will arrive at the same conclusion. I have provided one fact: the Book of Mormon accurately describes an ancient city's name, function and location despite having an author with absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of its existence. I feel the only logical theory that explains this observation is that the Book of Mormon is exactly what it purports to be: a truthful account of the travelings and dealings of a family of believers from the Holy Land to the New World.
.

There are many of things that Muhammed spoke of in the Quran that was impossible for him to know aswell, why dont you believe in the Quran?
 

Bishka

Veteran Member
Ezzedean said:
There are many of things that Muhammed spoke of in the Quran that was impossible for him to know aswell, why dont you believe in the Quran?

Because to us, it is not a Holy Book, also because it only proclaims Jesus as a prophet, not as the Son of God.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Halcyon said:
I have to disagree, finding definitive proof that the BoM is 100% true and accurate and thus verifying Joseph Smith's legitimacy as a Prophet to the whole world would surely cause a massive number of conversions.
I know i would convert.
And what would constitute "definitive proof that the Book of Mormon is 100% true and accurate"? Some archeological artifacts? If you'd convert to Mormonism based on that kind of proof, I'd not only be surprised, but very disappointed in you.

There's evidence right now -- not "definitive proof," but dozens upon dozens of clear indicators that the Book of Mormon is truly an ancient document and not the figment of a 19th century mind. Many of them have nothing to do with archeological finds, but are linguistic or cultural in nature. Halcyon, people have been trying for 175 years now to prove the Book of Mormon to be a fraud, and have not succeeded. They've come up with all kinds of reasons why it couldn't possibly be what it claims to be. Over the years, many of the issues raised have been successfully addressed by scholars. Many of the "non-existent" plants and animals named in the Book of Mormon have, in fact, been identified as existing in the New World prior to the Spanish Conquest. But none of the "evidence" is good enough. Any findings presented by LDS researchers are claimed to be biased; it doesn't matter how reputable the researchers are. There is always something lacking, some other explanation. To date, no one has been able to either prove or disprove the Book of Mormon, but to date, no one has been able to either prove or disprove the Bible, either -- and the skeptics have been working on that project for far longer.
 

Halcyon

Lord of the Badgers
I'm afraid you'd have to be disappointed in me then Katz. For me, having indisputable proof that the BoM is true would be enough for me to convert, that's how i think.
I doubt that such proof has been found, because it would be very difficult to keep something like that a secret.

I mean, if the ruins of a Jewish Temple were found in America, it wouldn't matter that it was evidence in favour for the BoM, archeologists and historians would be ecstatic nonetheless.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Halcyon said:
I wouldn't say that all evidence would be categorically dismissed Katz.

For example if archaeologists were to find metal swords, horses, chariots, a battlefield containing two million bodies, the remains of a Jewish style Temple, hieroglyphs that were clearly similar to Egyption in origin, other metal or stone tablets as mentioned in the BoM, and if these could be dated to 600BC ish, then i think you'd find a sudden rush of converts.

Its just finding a place that may or may not have been called Nahom, in an area that may or may not have been on Lehi's journey is not quite enough to overcome our scepticism.
I can understand that. Taken on its own, this one bit of evidence is probably not all that compelling. When considered in conjunction with many other similar findings, however, I think the evidence is worth considering.

By the way, I'll be attending a two-day conference in August sponsored by FAIR (Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research). Among the topics to be addressed are:

DNA and the Book of Mormon.
A Few Hundred Hints of Egyptian and Northwest Semitic in Uto-Aztecan.
Defenders of the Book: Surveying the New World Evidence for Book of Mormon Historicity.

I attended last year's conference, which was absolutely fantastic. Hopefully, I'll see Jonny there this year.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Halcyon said:
I'm afraid you'd have to be disappointed in me then Katz. For me, having indisputable proof that the BoM is true would be enough for me to convert, that's how i think. I doubt that such proof has been found, because it would be very difficult to keep something like that a secret.

I mean, if the ruins of a Jewish Temple were found in America, it wouldn't matter that it was evidence in favour for the BoM, archeologists and historians would be ecstatic nonetheless.
So the ruins of a Jewish Temple in America would do the trick, huh? I can tell you one thing, Halcyon, even if such a structure were to be found in America, you would find someone who would claim it wasn't really a Jewish temple. That's all I'm trying to say.
 

Halcyon

Lord of the Badgers
Katzpur said:
So the ruins of a Jewish Temple in America would do the trick, huh?
Basically, if you can give me evidence of the ruins of a Jewish Temple from roughly 600BC, plus evidence of horses and chariots and metal swords from the same time. Coins would be good too, coins are amongst the easiest archeological evidence to find.

If you can give me evidence of ancient written records written in a language that bears some similarity to ancient Egyption, on extant stone, metal or leather tablets or as stone inscriptions on ruins.
If the culture existed, there will be obvious evidence.

If you can show me most or all of these things, i will convert here and now.
 

Halcyon

Lord of the Badgers
Katzpur said:
So the ruins of a Jewish Temple in America would do the trick, huh? I can tell you one thing, Halcyon, even if such a structure were to be found in America, you would find someone who would claim it wasn't really a Jewish temple. That's all I'm trying to say.
If it were Jewish Katz, there would be no way to deny it.
 

Halcyon

Lord of the Badgers
I think i may be coming across overly anti-Mormon when that is not at all my intention, i hope you know that i respect the LDS Church and am not anti-Mormon.

My point is, if i can explain myself in a coherant manner (you know i'm not the best when it comes to putting my thoughts into words), my beliefs are not based on a shred of physical evidence, heck Christian Gnosticism doesn't even really on Jesus Christ actually having lived! Personally i believe that he did myself, but if he didn't then the result to my faith would be negligable.

LDS Christianity on the other hand is totally the opposite, the BoM which is at the heart of your Church makes bold claims about the history of the Americas that, if proven true, would make it immediately obvious that Joseph Smith was indeed a very special man and a Prophet of God.
Its the claims made in the BoM about what would be real-world history and their central role in your faith that for non-Mormons are the greatest hinderance to the Church's believability. However if those claims were proven true, and i mean obviously true, not speculatively true, they would be its greatest asset.

Do you see what i mean? Gnosticism makes no real world claims about anything, there is nothing to back up a person's belief in Gnostic thought other than their own personal experience.
Having conclusive evidence that the BoM is true and that Joseph Smith could only have received its information from a higher power would set Mormonism apart from every other religion on the planet, the evidence would be staring us in the face, people would be daft not to convert.
 

dan

Well-Known Member
The point of this thread was at no time to convert anyone to my church. Were that the point the thread would consist of a simple invitation to read the Book of Mormon and pray to know if it is true. Anyone who comes to the church convinced of its veracity primarily or only by physical evidence lacks the faith necessary for salvation, and is wasting their time. I began this thread in response to the ever-present accusation that our belief in the Book of Mormon is ridiculous and unfounded; and the popular (and completely outdated) idea that there is no physical evidence of our claim. I am trying to show you, one at a time, that there is physical evidence that is compelling. No one has listened, however. I was told that people would listen, but all I've gotten are weak attempts to downplay the weight of my evidence without actually addressing it. I have yet to see one single shred of evidence to show that anyone has actually even read my evidence. Tell me to give up my futile efforts after you've shown that you have even seen my efforts.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Halcyon said:
I think i may be coming across overly anti-Mormon when that is not at all my intention, i hope you know that i respect the LDS Church and am not anti-Mormon.
Don't worry, that thought didn't even occur to me.

My point is, if i can explain myself in a coherant manner (you know i'm not the best when it comes to putting my thoughts into words), my beliefs are not based on a shred of physical evidence, heck Christian Gnosticism doesn't even really on Jesus Christ actually having lived! Personally i believe that he did myself, but if he didn't then the result to my faith would be negligable.

LDS Christianity on the other hand is totally the opposite, the BoM which is at the heart of your Church makes bold claims about the history of the Americas that, if proven true, would make it immediately obvious that Joseph Smith was indeed a very special man and a Prophet of God.
Its the claims made in the BoM about what would be real-world history and their central role in your faith that for non-Mormons are the greatest hinderance to the Church's believability. However if those claims were proven true, and i mean obviously true, not speculatively true, they would be its greatest asset.

Do you see what i mean? Gnosticism makes no real world claims about anything, there is nothing to back up a person's belief in Gnostic thought other than their own personal experience.
Having conclusive evidence that the BoM is true and that Joseph Smith could only have received its information from a higher power would set Mormonism apart from every other religion on the planet, the evidence would be staring us in the face, people would be daft not to convert.
I understand what you're saying and I agree that you've made some good points. I guess my only response (and I know this will probably come across as laughable to a lot of people) is that I don't believe God wants people to convert to Mormonism because of archealogical, scientific or linguistic evidences. That would make it far too easy and would not require anything of them. The truths encompassed in Mormonism stands on their own merits, even if they must be accepted on faith. If what Joseph Smith said happened to him really did, that's all that matters. And if it didn't, all the swords and chariots and coins in the world are worth nothing.
 

Bishka

Veteran Member
Katzpur said:
I understand what you're saying and I agree that you've made some good points. I guess my only response (and I know this will probably come across as laughable to a lot of people) is that I don't believe God wants people to convert to Mormonism because of archealogical, scientific or linguistic evidences. That would make it far too easy and would not require anything of them. The truths encompassed in Mormonism stands on their own merits, even if they must be accepted on faith. If what Joseph Smith said happened to him really did, that's all that matters. And if it didn't, all the swords and chariots and coins in the world are worth nothing.
:clap:clap:clap:clap
 

Halcyon

Lord of the Badgers
Katzpur said:
I understand what you're saying and I agree that you've made some good points. I guess my only response (and I know this will probably come across as laughable to a lot of people) is that I don't believe God wants people to convert to Mormonism because of archealogical, scientific or linguistic evidences. That would make it far too easy and would not require anything of them. The truths encompassed in Mormonism stands on their own merits, even if they must be accepted on faith. If what Joseph Smith said happened to him really did, that's all that matters. And if it didn't, all the swords and chariots and coins in the world are worth nothing.
I understand that, and i'm sure you understand that since i believe in a totally different concept of God, for that concept to be proven wrong it would need conclusive evidence of the BoM being true, that's all i'm saying.

dan said:
I began this thread in response to the ever-present accusation that our belief in the Book of Mormon is ridiculous and unfounded; and the popular (and completely outdated) idea that there is no physical evidence of our claim. I am trying to show you, one at a time, that there is physical evidence that is compelling. No one has listened, however. I was told that people would listen, but all I've gotten are weak attempts to downplay the weight of my evidence without actually addressing it. I have yet to see one single shred of evidence to show that anyone has actually even read my evidence. Tell me to give up my futile efforts after you've shown that you have even seen my efforts.
I think we have listened dan, but clearly (for whatever reason) this Nahom evidence is just not compelling enough for us.

Maybe you could post an entirely different piece of evidence, maybe something a little more concrete than a place name that we can discuss?
 

dan

Well-Known Member
Halcyon said:
I think we have listened dan, but clearly (for whatever reason) this Nahom evidence is just not compelling enough for us.

No one has said they even read it, they've all just said, "I'm not convinced," without even refuting or acknowledging what real archeologists feel is very compelling evidence. Why don't you even give one reason why it's not compelling instead of "It's not compelling," or any other lame excuse that is too vague to even show you read it?
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
dan, can you identify any geographical fact in 1 Nephi that was not available in the U.S. in the early 19th century?
 
Top