Proof Of The Book Of Mormon

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 18 2004, 06:11 PM

I just read over 1 Nephi to see if I could find anything specific enough in the narration to justify being able to predict a route that Lehi may have taken---I find it way to sketchy and general to draw any conclusions other than a general southwest direction. I see no evidence that they took any specific route that JS would have either known or NOT known about. I think PD has it right.

Whether or not that was the exact route taken is not the point. The point was that the presence of places like that lend credence to that part of the story. Not proof, but credence.

[Tr2]

So do any LDS practices (doctrines or standards) actually come from the Young Woman's Journal?

I have a challenge for you. Go through the BoM and try and find current LDS doctrines and practices. Find where they are taught and what kind of scriptural basis exists for them.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Tr2@Feb 19 2004, 09:34 AM

So do any LDS practices (doctrines or standards) actually come from the Young Woman's Journal?

I have a challenge for you. Go through the BoM and try and find current LDS doctrines and practices. Find where they are taught and what kind of scriptural basis exists for them.

There are many. Giving to the poor for instance...countries in need and crisis.

The sacrement prayers are in the BofM...

The church preaches Christ and His atonement and invites all to come.

Those are just a few.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

The BoM contradicts some LDS practices and beliefs.

That is why they have the D&C and POGP.

Because the Nephites (if they existed) were not actually LDS.

The OT also contradicts Christian beliefs of the NT.

Because the Hebrews were not Christians.

It just means God's laws are always changing with the times.

Back to my question...

So...if there are no LDS practices or doctrines found in the Young Women's Journal, why should we consider the "men on the moon" theory to be anything more than Joseph Smith's personal beliefs?

As Cal already said, the "men on the moon" story was a common idea of his time. Sort of what we today call "urban myth".

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Jenda+Feb 19 2004, 05:58 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Feb 19 2004, 05:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Feb 18 2004, 06:11 PM

I just read over 1 Nephi to see if I could find anything specific enough in the narration to justify  being able to predict a route that Lehi may have taken---I find it way to sketchy and general to draw any conclusions other than a general southwest direction.  I see no evidence that they took any specific route that JS would have either known or NOT known about. I think PD has it right.

Whether or not that was the exact route taken is not the point. The point was that the presence of places like that lend credence to that part of the story. Not proof, but credence.

I agree with you that the existence of things consistent with the Book of Mormon account on a line drawn through Arabia generally southeast of Jerusalem does provide circumstantial evidence of the Book of Mormon. But in the original post, these things were called not "evidence" or "credence" but "proof."

Evidence for a thing is not proof of it. "Proof" is essentially a fiction -- it means that we've weighed the evidence for each side and concluded that the evidence for one side outweighs that for the other.

Wild honey, trees in Oman, the Arab burial ground with a name similar to Nahum, etc. are individual pieces of evidence to add to the balance for and against the Book of Mormon -- not conclusive proof.

[Snow]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck+Feb 19 2004, 12:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheProudDuck @ Feb 19 2004, 12:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Feb 19 2004, 05:58 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Feb 18 2004, 06:11 PM

I just read over 1 Nephi to see if I could find anything specific enough in the narration to justify  being able to predict a route that Lehi may have taken---I find it way to sketchy and general to draw any conclusions other than a general southwest direction.  I see no evidence that they took any specific route that JS would have either known or NOT known about. I think PD has it right.

Whether or not that was the exact route taken is not the point. The point was that the presence of places like that lend credence to that part of the story. Not proof, but credence.

I agree with you that the existence of things consistent with the Book of Mormon account on a line drawn through Arabia generally southeast of Jerusalem does provide circumstantial evidence of the Book of Mormon. But in the original post, these things were called not "evidence" or "credence" but "proof."

Evidence for a thing is not proof of it. "Proof" is essentially a fiction -- it means that we've weighed the evidence for each side and concluded that the evidence for one side outweighs that for the other.

Wild honey, trees in Oman, the Arab burial ground with a name similar to Nahum, etc. are individual pieces of evidence to add to the balance for and against the Book of Mormon -- not conclusive proof.

Matter of sematics really. Evidence, proof, whatever, it's just that people think of proof and rock solid evidence. Here are some definitions of proof:

1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

3b. The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.

4. Determination of the quality of something by testing; trial: put one's beliefs to the proof.

6. The alcoholic strength of a liquor, expressed by a number that is twice the percentage by volume of alcohol present.

Note: If you are 100% positive about the BoM, does that mean you have 200% the proof (see #6)

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint@Feb 19 2004, 12:15 PM

The BoM contradicts some LDS practices and beliefs.

That is why they have the D&C and POGP.

Because the Nephites (if they existed) were not actually LDS.

The OT also contradicts Christian beliefs of the NT.

Because the Hebrews were not Christians.

It just means God's laws are always changing with the times.

Back to my question...

So...if there are no LDS practices or doctrines found in the Young Women's Journal, why should we consider the "men on the moon" theory to be anything more than Joseph Smith's personal beliefs?

As Cal already said, the "men on the moon" story was a common idea of his time. Sort of what we today call "urban myth".

It can be true as well. Some find it to be true because of their own experiences...but if it doesn't apply to you, or make any difference in your life, then you are welcome to just put in over in the corner where you stack 'unusable' information.

You really don't have to prove or disprove everything.

Can you imagine if we all were discussing every scientific theory here instead of church history and doctrine?

There comes a point where you just have to take or leave it .... on what it does or doesn't do for you.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 18 2004, 06:11 PM

I just read over 1 Nephi to see if I could find anything specific enough in the narration to justify being able to predict a route that Lehi may have taken---I find it way to sketchy and general to draw any conclusions other than a general southwest direction. I see no evidence that they took any specific route that JS would have either known or NOT known about. I think PD has it right.

Because you cannot find something does not mean it is not there. For example what is meant by "borders" associated with the Red Sea. The Hebrew word for borders is gebul in Arabic the word is jebel or djebel. Anybody know what is being talked about here? Cal ought to consider talking to someone from Araba that speaks Hebrew or Arabic. How about the wadi "Tayyib al Ism" which is 3 days from the mouth of the Red Sea? What the Book of Mormon describes in terms used by Lehi is exactly what is at the wadi of "Tayyib al Ism" and the Book of Mormon says the Valley of Lemuel is 3 days from the mouth of the Red Sea. Tayyib al Ism is unlike other wadi in the area. The only way the Book of Mormon could be so accurate on such matters and in such a way is if the acount was written by someone that had been there. (which Joseph Smith had not) and so it appears our friend Cal is also ignorant. Skeptical out of ignorance.

No wonder Cal thinks there are no facts to support the Book of Mormon.

The Traveler

[Cal]

Originally posted by Jenda+Feb 19 2004, 05:58 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Feb 19 2004, 05:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Feb 18 2004, 06:11 PM

I just read over 1 Nephi to see if I could find anything specific enough in the narration to justify  being able to predict a route that Lehi may have taken---I find it way to sketchy and general to draw any conclusions other than a general southwest direction.  I see no evidence that they took any specific route that JS would have either known or NOT known about. I think PD has it right.

Whether or not that was the exact route taken is not the point. The point was that the presence of places like that lend credence to that part of the story. Not proof, but credence.

Not enough to make much difference. You really have to be desperate for proof if that impresses you.

[Traveler]

I though to add another fact at this point. If one were to leave Jerusalem to the east there are two ancient trails. One was known anciently as "The Kings Highway" the other way was known as the "Wilderness way". Guess which one Lehi took. This ancient history is not so well know in our part of the world but to someone that is knowledgable of that area the Book of Mormon is very descriptive.

I could describe a trail from Arches to the Henery Mts. Someone ignorant of the area would think it sketchy but someone that had been there would know exactly if I was accurate or not.

The Traveler

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow+Feb 19 2004, 02:21 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Feb 19 2004, 02:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -TheProudDuck@Feb 19 2004, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by -Jenda@Feb 19 2004, 05:58 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Feb 18 2004, 06:11 PM

I just read over 1 Nephi to see if I could find anything specific enough in the narration to justify  being able to predict a route that Lehi may have taken---I find it way to sketchy and general to draw any conclusions other than a general southwest direction.  I see no evidence that they took any specific route that JS would have either known or NOT known about. I think PD has it right.

Whether or not that was the exact route taken is not the point. The point was that the presence of places like that lend credence to that part of the story. Not proof, but credence.

I agree with you that the existence of things consistent with the Book of Mormon account on a line drawn through Arabia generally southeast of Jerusalem does provide circumstantial evidence of the Book of Mormon. But in the original post, these things were called not "evidence" or "credence" but "proof."

Evidence for a thing is not proof of it. "Proof" is essentially a fiction -- it means that we've weighed the evidence for each side and concluded that the evidence for one side outweighs that for the other.

Wild honey, trees in Oman, the Arab burial ground with a name similar to Nahum, etc. are individual pieces of evidence to add to the balance for and against the Book of Mormon -- not conclusive proof.

Matter of sematics really. Evidence, proof, whatever, it's just that people think of proof and rock solid evidence. Here are some definitions of proof:

1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

3b. The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.

4. Determination of the quality of something by testing; trial: put one's beliefs to the proof.

6. The alcoholic strength of a liquor, expressed by a number that is twice the percentage by volume of alcohol present.

Note: If you are 100% positive about the BoM, does that mean you have 200% the proof (see #6)

Snow--your definition is actually quite consistent with what PD said. PD just put a finer point on it.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Cal+Feb 21 2004, 09:35 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Feb 21 2004, 09:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Feb 19 2004, 05:58 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Feb 18 2004, 06:11 PM

I just read over 1 Nephi to see if I could find anything specific enough in the narration to justify  being able to predict a route that Lehi may have taken---I find it way to sketchy and general to draw any conclusions other than a general southwest direction.  I see no evidence that they took any specific route that JS would have either known or NOT known about. I think PD has it right.

Whether or not that was the exact route taken is not the point. The point was that the presence of places like that lend credence to that part of the story. Not proof, but credence.

Not enough to make much difference. You really have to be desperate for proof if that impresses you.

One thing for certain. The more one speaks on a subject they do not know anything about the more it is evident they do not know what they are talking about.

Cal: Though you have an opinion - for the life of me I do not know why. This subject does not appear to be something you know much about.

The Traveler

[Rodney]

The Book of Mormon

[Cal]

Traveler--just what is it that I don't know? Unless you can be more specific, I will have to count your remark as vacuous.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 21 2004, 10:22 AM

Traveler--just what is it that I don't know? Unless you can be more specific, I will have to count your remark as vacuous.

There is lots of circumstantial evidence that has appeared through the years since the book was published (that was not known in JS's day), in and of itself is not proof, but makes it obvious that the things that are described in the book could have actually happened when, where and why they said they did.

Each little piece taken by itself might mean nothing, but all of them put together makes quite a stack of evidence. Not proof, but evidence.

[Guest Starsky]

That is just it Jenda! Good point! The most used tool of the anti, is to nitpick and pull things apart so they start to look abstract and incongruous....but it is just a ploy.