Glass & Steel in the Book of Mormon, why a problem?

[_Samantabhadra]

Tobin, Runtu has said repeatedly that he believes in God. I can only assume that he also accepts that Jesus Christ is the Savior and Redeemer of mankind. He has also demonstrated repeatedly that he has spent his life "pursuing that belief."

What he does not accept are the claims of the COJCOLDS. For good reasons, that you have completely failed to engage with. For example, LDS chronology requires the Book of Isaiah to have been written in its entirety at a point in time before, we now know, the Book of Isaiah existed in its final form. As a first-century Palestinian Jew, Jesus would not have been concerned with the authorship of the Book of Isaiah, since by that time the complete text would have been circulating for several hundred years, and regardless of whether or not it was written by one or two authors, the whole of the received text would have been considered sacred scripture.

The point is, and I cannot stress this enough, Mormonism is false in a way that Christianity (broadly defined) is not. Christianity may have some historical problems, but it is not necessary to believe in a fraudulent hoax in order to be Christian. It is, however, necessary to believe in a fraudulent hoax in order to be Mormon. Accordingly, disproving the hoax at the core of Mormonism does not in any way impact Christianity. Just because Joseph Smith was a liar does not mean that Christianity is false.

[Guest]

... "a first-century Palestinian Jew, Jesus would not have been concerned with the authorship of the Book of Isaiah, since by that time the complete text would have been circulating for several hundred years, and regardless of whether or not it was written by one or two authors, the whole of the received text would have been considered sacred scripture."

Jesus didn't claim to be merely a first-century palestinian jew now did he? And is it really your position that the Book of Isaiah was written in the 1st or 2nd century BC? I'm sorry, but that seems really odd. How did they know what he said? Everyone that would have heard him would have been long dead by then since it would have been almost 500 years since he died. For frame of reference, the US has only been in existence for less than half that time and I wonder how well people would do now at writing down the words to the US constitution if no one had bothered to write it down when the republic was formed. Could you write it down from memory?

...Mormonism is false in a way that Christianity (broadly defined) is not. Christianity may have some historical problems, but it is not necessary to believe in a fraudulent hoax in order to be Christian. It is, however, necessary to believe in a fraudulent hoax in order to be Mormon. Accordingly, disproving the hoax at the core of Mormonism does not in any way impact Christianity. Just because Joseph Smith was a liar does not mean that Christianity is false.

If there is no God, Christianity is as false a hoax as any other religion. It is based on the same set of preposterous claims such as people seeing God, angels, and experiencing other forms of, for lack of a better word, magic as proof it is real. As far as I am concerned, Mormonism is no more preposterous than Chrisitianity. For example, there is just simply no credible reason to believe the Christian claims that Jesus was the son of God, walked on water, rose from the dead and so on without some kind of extraordinary evidence that it is true.

[_Runtu]

For the record, I am not an atheist, and I do not lightly dismiss the claims of Mormonism; I have said many times that in the end my conscience would not allow me to support and rationalize things I knew were morally wrong. I like having a clear conscience.

[_Quasimodo]

As far as I am concerned, Mormonism is no more preposterous than Chrisitianity. For example, there is just simply no credible reason to believe the Christian claims that Jesus was the son of God, walked on water, rose from the dead and so on without some kind of extraordinary evidence that it is true.

Sorry Tobin. Mormonism has some specific problems that Christianity does not. It's based on the writings of a man who existed in historical times. There is a great deal of information about him. Most of it is not very flattering.

His book (the Book of Mormon) has very serious historical problems (you have been discussing those at length on this thread).

The events of Christ's life can be questioned, but the life and works of Joseph Smith are up for serious scrutiny. The results of that scrutiny end in an unavoidable conclusion that they are not true.

[_Tobin]

Sorry Tobin. Mormonism has some specific problems that Christianity does not. It's based on the writings of a man who existed in historical times. There is a great deal of information about him. Most of it is not very flattering.

His book (the Book of Mormon) has very serious historical problems (you have been discussing those at length on this thread).

The events of Christ's life can be questioned, but the life and works of Joseph Smith are up for serious scrutiny. The results of that scrutiny result in an unavoidable conclusion that they are not true.

Is there a historical Christ or is he a work of fiction? Now, let's suppose he was historical. What do you suppose the vast majority of Jews and Romans thought of his claims and magic tricks? My guess is they thought he was a minor revolutionary that was put to death by the Romans and they did not believe his claims of being the son of God (the Romans would have been wondering son of which God?). So no, I don't really see much difference at all between these two characters. Both JC and Joseph Smith make preposterous claims and outside of God telling you that it is true, there is no credible reason to believe either of them.

[_Runtu]

Both JC and Joseph Smith make preposterous claims and outside of God telling you that it is true, there is no credible reason to believe either of them.

But if you're like me and do get an answer, you just tell me I'm wrong.

[_Tobin]

Both JC and Joseph Smith make preposterous claims and outside of God telling you that it is true, there is no credible reason to believe either of them.

But if you're like me and do get an answer, you just tell me I'm wrong.

Then you misunderstand me. I question your assumptions and believe that leads you to faulty conclusions. I really don't have a problem with you seeking and speaking with God. That I highly endorse in fact.

[_Themis]

Then you misunderstand me. I question your assumptions and believe that leads you to faulty conclusions. I really don't have a problem with you seeking and speaking with God. That I highly endorse in fact.

Interesting that you warm up to him after you find out he believes in God. It's to bad that you cannot see your own assumptions that you keep stating as fact, even when they are not supported by the text or other evidences.

[_Tobin]

Interesting that you warm up to him after you find out he believes in God. It's to bad that you cannot see your own assumptions that you keep stating as fact, even when they are not supported by the text or other evidences.

Clearly, you still subscribe to the false idea that there is only one way to interpret ambiguous text (your way) nor do you include reason; or historical, scientific, or archeological evidence (or lack thereof) in your definition of evidences.

[_Drifting]

I have had an experience with God and so you need to understand that I have had to re-examine many of my positions including many that you express now.

And yet you seem unwilling to understand that others have had different experiences that have made them re-examine many of their positions. They just, must understand yours. This makes your points two-faced.