Youtube Apologetics

[lonetree]

I get this one too. It's not even close. When a cult leader dies, 99% of the time the cult dies with them. Smith Jr has passed away and we're still going strong. There is absolutely no merit to this argument at all.  

I am not sure that those old '70s communistic countercultural brainwashing 'cults' even exist anymore, do they? Though I suppose David Koresh is a reminder that things still can turn ugly.

[cdowis]

CRITIC

 

Mormons and slavery

 

RESPONSE

 

The Mormon church had no official doctrine regarding slaveholding but in 1836 Joseph Smith wrote that masters should treat slaves humanely and that slaves owed their owners obedience. During his presidential campaign in 1844, however, he came out for abolition.

One reason given for the persecution of the Mormons in Missouri was that most of them, migrating from the northern states, were opposed to slavery, and that was a very contested issue in Missouri  at that time.
http://www.blacklds.org/history  (see the mob manifesto of 1833)

There were three slaves which accompanied the pioneers to Utah in 1847.  (One of them, Green Flake was given his freedom by Brigham young in 1854)
http://www.blacklds.org/flake

In 1851 Apostle Orson Hyde said the church would not interfere in relations between master and slave.

Slaveholding was legally sanctioned in 1852, but "stipulated that slaves could be declared free if their masters abused them. Records document the sale of a number of slaves in Utah."
http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/pioneers_and_cowboys/slaveryinutah.html

Edited October 10, 2015 by cdowis

[cdowis]

CRITIC

" the book of Mormon was written in 17th century English yet produced in the 19th century."

 

RESPONSE

It only shows that It was translated from an ancient text using what was recognized as Biblical English  ==>> derived from the Bible English 

 

 I have read the translation of several Greek plays, poems and novels, and the translator did not use the common, colloquial language of the day, but a formal style of English.

I know something about the process of translation of ancient texts, having studied Greek and Latin.  You are probably aware that the translation of texts is really an art and the translator will have a particular philosophy and style -- loose vs tight, formal vs contemporary English.

Sine the Book of Mormon is in the tradition of a scriptural text, it is appropriate to use "Bible language". 

Royal Skousen conducted a multi-year analysis of the text of the Book of Mormon and its translation.  He made an unexpected discover
"The original vocabulary of the Book of Mormon appears to derive from the 1500s and 1600s, not from the 1800s"  Some of these archaic words and phrases are not found in the KJV.
Look here for more details  http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1316&index=3

[Vort]

Royal Skousen has done absolutely awesome work.

[cdowis]

Thanks for reminding me.

 

I consider myself as a specialist in the Book of Mormon, and Skousen is certainly required reading.  I'm embarrassed to admit that I need to catch up on his research.  I should start a thread on this because I have scanned his work, and find a few things where we may disagree, but, like you say, it's really awesome.

[cdowis]

CRITIC

It's amazing that anyone can believe in religion.

 

RESPONSE

I think Freeman Dyson best explained religion in his description of quantum mechanics-->>

"The important thing about quantum mechanics is the equations, the mathematics. If you want to understand quantum mechanics, just do the math. All the words that are spun around it don’t mean very much. It’s like playing the violin. If violinists were judged on how they spoke, it wouldn’t make much sense."  --wiki

For those who are deaf to spiritual things, it just doesn't make much sense.

Edited October 17, 2015 by cdowis

[cdowis]

CRITIC

What proof do you have?

(This is a followup on the Book of Mormon challenge Moroni 10:4-5)

 

RESPONSE (the invitation)

I can tell you that the promise was fulfilled in my life.

You may find this video helpful

To learn  how to communicate with Heavenly Father, you may want to speak with the missionaries and they will teach you how it is done.  But, again, the proof can only come from the Lord to you.  We can only teach and encourage you to have that experience for yourself.  

You can contact the missionaries through mormon.org

[cdowis]

CRITIC

None of the Mormon websites mentions another church. I am disappointed in this religion for trying to bash other religions.

 

RESPONSE

 

FACT CHECK:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/interfaith http://articles.latimes.com/2002/dec/21/local/me-religmormon21

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/catholic-community-services-honors-mormon-apostle-humanitarian-work

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-participates-global-interfaith-gathering-salt-lake-city

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865615664/Vatican-brings-faiths-including-LDS-together-in-historic-conference-on-marriage-family.html?pg=all http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-oaks-balance-accommodation-not-culture-wars

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormonism-news-getting-it-right-september-18-2015

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/religious-freedom-is-fairness-for-all

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/faith-counts-video-contest-winners

Edited October 24, 2015 by cdowis

[cdowis]

CRITIC

General discussion on interpreting the scriptures.

 

RESPONSE

It is important to understand that reasonable people can look at the same verses in the Bible and come to different conclusions,  Basic salvation doctrines, such as the  "works vs faith only" debate, has gone on for centuries.
The doctrines of salvation are too important to be left in the hands of the theologians and philosophers in their debates.
Can you see why the Lord speaks to His prophets today?

Edited October 25, 2015 by cdowis

[cdowis]

CRITIC

Confused over prophets and apostles -- "there are apostles and prophets all over the Christian world."

 

RESPONSE

The Watchman
https://youtu.be/StVwi5Sp2Is?list=FLOGthnff2vitBgcB66Ngm1A

Apostles and Prophets
https://youtu.be/egj9Ndq0S_U?t=1m30s

Witness of a Living Apostle
https://youtu.be/2wnE2xqdePk?list=FLOGthnff2vitBgcB66Ngm1A

[cdowis]

CRITIC

the Church claims the plates written in "reformed Egyptian." Why would the Jews be writing sacred texts in the language of their captors?

 

RESPONSE
1. Lehi left Jerusalem just prior to the Babylonian conquest.  If you were aware of Jewish history at this time, Egypt and Israel had an alliance against the Babylonians.  In fact, Jeremiah warned the king against this alliance.

2. "Reformed Egyptian" is not a language.  It is a writing system -- a form of hebrew shorthand.

Now, let me ask you a question.  What if you found out that there were discovered documents written by Jewish scribes who were also using Egyptian characters. 
Let's call this palestinian hieratic.

http://www.academia.edu/8029642/The_Hieratic_Scribal_Tradition_in_Preexilic_Judah

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/palestinian-hieratic/

Edited October 25, 2015 by cdowis

[Vort]

Egyptian Demotic (a great candidate for "reformed Egyptian") was developed around or just before the time Lehi left Jerusalem. At that point, the Jews had a many-centuries-long history of trade and such with Egypt. The historic idea of Egypt as slaveland and oppressor was mostly just that -- history. So characterizing the use of reformed Egyptian as using the language of Jewish captors is silly.

 

I would also say, though, that reformed Egyptian (RE) was not merely a writing system or type of shorthand. The use of RE greatly handicapped the record-keepers, making it difficult for them to express themselves as they would have liked. Mormon made it clear that Hebrew (a compactly written language compared to English) would have been preferable and would have their record more perfect, but concerns about compactness dictated the need to use RE. Had RE merely been a type of shorthand used to record Hebrew, it would have been basically the same as writing in Hebrew. The fact that the structure of the Book of Mormon's writing was vastly affected -- which is attested to in the makeup of the text itself, consisting of only a fraction (70% or something) of the vocabulary one normally finds in a work of that length (I wish I could find a source to back up this remembered claim, but a quick Google search didn't give me what I wanted) -- indicates that the language of the written Book of Mormon was not Hebrew rendered in another alphabet or writing system, but a completely different language.

[Guest MormonGator]

I am not sure that those old '70s communistic countercultural brainwashing 'cults' even exist anymore, do they? Though I suppose David Koresh is a reminder that things still can turn ugly.

 They don't from what I know. I'm certainly no expert. 

[cdowis]

I would also say, though, that reformed Egyptian (RE) was not merely a writing system or type of shorthand. The use of RE greatly handicapped the record-keepers, making it difficult for them to express themselves as they would have liked. Mormon made it clear that Hebrew (a compactly written language compared to English) would have been preferable and would have their record more perfect, but concerns about compactness dictated the need to use RE. Had RE merely been a type of shorthand used to record Hebrew, it would have been basically the same as writing in Hebrew. different language.

 

You have a good point, except for the previous verse:

 

We have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.

 

It appears that he is saying that it is the characters which are called reformed Egyptian.  But he goes on to say (the language) "being altered by us, according to our manner of speech". Obviously you don't use characters when speaking, so this phrase may mean  "being altered, so to speak, as we would say."

 

I am not convinced that this was a language, in the normal meaning of the word -- it was not a spoken language.  But we could both agree that reformed Egyptian imposed a restrictive structure compared to writing in straight Hebrew.  This makes sense since Hebrew was a language rich in the vocabulary of the scriptures.

 

 

 It is unknown whether Nephi, Mormon, or Moroni wrote Hebrew in modified Egyptian characters or inscribed their plates in both the Egyptian language and Egyptian characters or whether Nephi wrote in one language and Mormon and Moroni, who lived some nine hundred years later, in another. The mention of "characters" called "reformed Egyptian" tends to support the hypothesis of Hebrew in Egyptian script. Although Nephi's observation (1 Ne. 1:2) is troublesome for that view, the statement is ambiguous and inconclusive for both views.

Encyclopedia of Mormonism

 

Edited October 26, 2015 by cdowis

[Vort]

I agree that we do not know for sure. Linguistically, it makes a lot more sense to me that the Nephite record-keepers were complaining about the constraints of the language than making a claim that the script itself somehow limited their expressibility.

[cdowis]

OK, and I' sure that you understand that is based on the assumption that ancient "shorthand" placed no limitations on nuances of expression.    In dealing with the critics, I have learned to look carefully at assumptions when dealing with conclusions.  It has become an annoying habit.

 

In my case, I have always assumed that reformed Egyptian was shorthand, but you have opened up another possibility.

[cdowis]

CRITIC

Regarding a testimony -- Have you ever read up on confirmation bias?

 

RESPONSE

Yep.  Have a master's degree in the social sciences, and was an important  factor in conducting research, especially surveys.

It "s just part of being a human being,.  It is a universal trait among ever person, including those who are atheists and believers, scientists and the uneducated, the sane and psychotic.

The  only real remedy remedy is to be aware of it, and to include that knopwledge it in your decision making.

I have a certain knowledge that Joseph Smith was a prophet.  This is not "just a feeling" but from a divine manifestation.

[cdowis]

CRITIC

No archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon

RESPONSE

Here is a lecture by Dr. John E Clark regarding archaeology and the Book of Mormon. This is based on a lecture that he gave at the National Library of Congress. He has several published works, including articles in professional journals. https://youtu.be/7TgkBv7QQwE?t=1m22s

Also

 

John Edward Clark (born 1952)[1] is an American archaeologist and academic researcher of pre-Columbian Mesoamerican cultures. in 1976 and obtaining his Masters degree in 1979. His doctorate studies were completed at University of Michigan, from where he was awarded his PhD in 1994.Clark has written and lectured extensively theoretical topics and the archaeology of Mesoamerica, where he has particularly focused on the Olmecs and their culture. -- WIKI

Edited August 3, 2016 by cdowis

[cdowis]

CRITIC

Long sentences in the Book of Mormon.

 

RESPONSE

There was no punctuation in the original Book of Mormon manuscript -->>

it was added later by the printer.

This is evidence for the ancient origin of the Book of Mormon, because punctuation is a relatively modern invention. It was first used in 300BCE, or one hundred years AFTER Lehi. http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20150902-the-mysterious-origins-of-punctuation

 

The actual "punctuation" in the Book of Mormon seems to consist of certain key phrases, such as "and it came to pass".  There is some evidence that this was a single character, and so it denoted the end of a sentence.

Edited October 30, 2015 by cdowis

[Vort]

I have actually "corrected" the punctuation at several places in my study copy of the Book of Mormon. I don't pretend my changes are authoritative, but they make sense to me.

[cdowis]

CRITIC

The Book of Mormon says there all of the Jaredites were destroyed, and that no nation would know of this land except the Nephites.  So, all of North America was uninhabited when Lehi landed.

 

 

RESPONSE

I agree that this was how many have interpreted the Book of Mormon text decades ago (including myself), but further research into the text clearly indicates that there were "others" living here when Lehi landed.

 For example, I Nephi 18:25 indicates that there were already domesticated animals when they came here.  While the Jaredite nation itself was destroyed (like the Olmecs), it is reasonable to assume there were small settlements far away from the main cities where there were surviving inhabitants (also like the Olmecs).
There are several articles on this issue which have been published showing other indications.
http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/ash-Were_the_Lehites_Alone.pdf

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Lamanites/Relationship_to_Amerindians/Descendants_of_Lehi

Edited November 5, 2015 by cdowis

[cdowis]

CRITIC

Just a burning in my bosom (mockery)

 

RESPONSE

As Christ said to Peter ==>>

Matt 16 [15] He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
[16] And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
[17] And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

This is not "just a feeling" but a divine manifestation from the Father Himself.  It is tragic for someone to continue to live in spiritual darkness.

Perhaps this will help you.
https://youtu.be/zDEXQ-GTYTs?list=FLOGthnff2vitBgcB66Ngm1A

Edited November 5, 2015 by cdowis

[cdowis]

CRITIC

The Bible tells us, etc etc  The Greek sez...

(another response to this argument)

 

RESPONSE

Thanks for sharing with us your personal opinions on what the Bible teaches.

Perhaps you are unaware, but the reality is that there are other Bible scholars and theologians who disagree with you.  Even the ones who have studied Greek!!
So it is very instructive to see that these theologians and philosophers debate among themselves even on basic salvation doctrines such as grace vs faith, and the necessity of baptism for salvation.

They write text books, they publish articles in scholastic journals their differing opinions.  Perhaps you should get a PhD in theology to increase your credibility in the exegesis of the Bible.  
This is the model of the scribes and Pharasees -- no prophets, just the wisdom of man.
It is for this reason that the Lord restored His church and the Gospel by calling a prophet in our day.

Edited November 5, 2015 by cdowis

[cdowis]

CRITIC

We know 99% of the laws of nature.  The creation of the universe is known and there is no need for a creator.

 

RESPONSE

The standard Big Bang model tells us that the Universe exploded out of an infinitely dense point, or singularity. But nobody knows what would have triggered this outburst: the known laws of physics cannot tell us what happened at that moment.

“For all physicists know, dragons could have come flying out of the singularity,” says Niayesh Afshordi, an astrophysicist at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada.

It is also difficult to explain how a violent Big Bang would have left behind a Universe that has an almost completely uniform temperature, because there does not seem to have been enough time since the birth of the cosmos for it to have reached temperature equilibrium.

To most cosmologists, the most plausible explanation for that uniformity is that, soon after the beginning of time, some unknown form of energy made the young Universe inflate at a rate that was faster than the speed of light. That way, a small patch with roughly uniform temperature would have stretched into the vast cosmos we see today. But Afshordi notes that “the Big Bang was so chaotic, it’s not clear there would have been even a small homogenous patch for inflation to start working on”.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2015/02/-the-big-bang-was-a-mirage-from-a-collapsing-higher-dimensional-star.html

[cdowis]

CRITIC

As far as I know, he was never convicted of theft. He was merely arrested at least 42 times and brought to justice for, among other things, disorderly conduct, illegal banking, conspiracies to murder, banking fraud, threats, treason and perjury. But not theft, no.

 

RESPONSE

How very very clever you are.  You could have truthfully said that he had been  "accused and found innocent" of these charges.  But you have practiced and perfected the techniques of hate mongering to engender hatred, but pretending to be just an innocent observer.
With a smarmy smile, "I didn't say he was actually convicted of these things."

You really ought to get into politics.  I understand they are looking for people with your talents.

Edited November 6, 2015 by cdowis