Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 272

Thread: Where is the evidence that mormonism is true?

  1. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrDavidT View Post
    So you are saying Smith was infallible, holy, perfect and not human?
    So you are putting words into my mouth now?

    HOW? You cannot produce one piece of evidence to support it.
    You mean we cannot produce one piece of evidence that anti-Mormons would accept.

    Then present it don't make my decisions for me.
    I don't waste my time doing that anymore. If you really want to know, there is a lot of information at FAIR or FARMS.

    You also have not produced any biblical support for the initiation rites Mormons hold for entry into the temple.
    We don't have any initiation rites for entry into the temple.

    Hearsay and possible conspiracy.
    It's a conspiracy!

    Also biased and prejudiced testimony.
    This is exactly how anti-Mormons summarily dismiss any evidence for the Book of Mormon. Even if you don't believe their testimony, your statement was objectively false.

    No it is the truth.
    Hardly.

  2. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,165

    Default

    erunder posted:

    You have the book of fiction joe smith wrote. There is NOTHING TO SUBSTANTIATE that any of it was ever on any 'golden plates' in 'reformed egyptian' or that such a language EVER EXISTED IN RIAL LIFE.
    That's false.

    Then you should be able to SUBSTANTIATE that the golden plates, reformed egyptian, nephites and/or ANY of the smith-invented nonsense in the bom ever existed in REAL life with HONEST EVIDENCE.

    Yet you HAVE NO SUCH LEGITIMATE EVIDENCE. NONE. ZIP. ZILCH. NADA.

  3. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,165

    Default

    Erunder posted:

    Originally Posted by DrDavidT [IMG]http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/****ons/viewpost-right.png[/IMG]
    ha ha ha. a wonderful example of being willfully deceived. you blindly trust a con man, a fallible, sinful, human being and refuse to think about your situation and how bad it is.
    Well, since you've resorted to personal insults, that sounds like a concession to me.

    Sorry er, but he didn't give you a personal insult. He gave you the TRUTH. If you are so insulted by the TRUTH that you have to run away like this. . .then that is all you can do.


    you blindly trust a con man, a fallible, sinful, human being and refuse to think about your situation and how bad it is.
    False.

    Your blind faith in joey smith is pathetic. But since that is all you have. . .that is all you have. STILL NO EVIDENCE though, just your blind faith


    So do we. We also know the Book of Mormon is true.

    Even though many of us CHRISTIANS have taken your 'faith test' and been answered that the bom and joseph smith are false, frauds.

    We have evidence backing up our testimony as well-- you have NOTHING and refuse to present anything that supports your blind faith.
    That's because I don't have blind faith! Duh!

    Then why can you produce EVIDENCE that your faith is in REALITY? You can't because you have NONE you can produce.


    The ***le of this thread is WHERE is the EVIDENCE... and you cannot point to one thing as evidence for why you believe.
    Only partially true. I cannot point to any evidence that you would accept. Big difference.

    You cannot produce ANY evidence other than the fact that YOU believe joe smith. Nothing but YOUR own personal emotional attachment and YOUR own interpretations of joey smith's fiction. NOTHING FACTUAL AT ALL that demonstrates that even one person, place, or event of joey smith's imaginations in his bom EVER HAPPENED OR EXISTED IN REAL LIFE. IF you had any REAL evidence, you could PRODUCE IT.

  4. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian View Post
    Then you should be able to SUBSTANTIATE that the golden plates, reformed egyptian, nephites and/or ANY of the smith-invented nonsense in the bom ever existed in REAL life with HONEST EVIDENCE.
    And you should be able to SUBSTANTIATE that the stone tablets ever existed in REAL life with HONEST EVIDENCE.

  5. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian View Post
    Sorry er, but he didn't give you a personal insult.
    Of course he did.

    He gave you the TRUTH.
    No he gave me anti-Mormon hate-propaganda.

    Your blind faith in joey smith is pathetic.
    LOL, your blind faith in anti-Mormon propaganda is pathetic.

  6. #56
    Radix
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigJulie View Post
    Oh, sorry---I thought it was Dr. David T who answered. Not sure how I saw that.

    So you were raised as an atheist?
    Growing up only went to church for weddings and funerals.

    How about yourself. Did you grow up LDS or were you in the home of a different faith?

  7. #57
    Radix
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Erundur View Post
    No one can study the stone tablets either, but you come up with all kinds of excuses why we don't need to. Double standard.
    The ten commandments also came to us by way of the Torah (Part of the Tanakh or TNK.) We know the language of the Hebrew people is Hebrew. There are people who recognize this language and are able to translate it. For the BofM there is the alleged "Reform Egyptian." Outside the pen of Joseph Smith there are no samples of this "Reformed Egyptian." Nothing. Joseph Smith claimed to be able to translate an unknown language with exactly the same boasting ability a snake oil salesman has about the cure for an unknown disease. The whole "Reformed Egyptian" charade has been laughable from the start. For some reason LDS think Dr. Anthon was able to verify Smith's translation. But based on what? Did he have extensive examples of this language to compare with and cross reference? Anthon said it was a joke. If you really think he concluded otherwise then you must provide some evidence he actually had something to compare it to. But of course evidence is something LDS have always been lacking in.

    Anyway, we can translate Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. No rock in a hat pulled over our face needed. Where we do have examples of Smith's translation abilities with the Facsimiles in the PofGP, we see Smith was absolutely clueless on how to translate Egyptian. Since we know he lied about translating Egyptian, why should anyone actually believe he could translate any ancient language?

  8. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Radix View Post
    Growing up only went to church for weddings and funerals.

    How about yourself. Did you grow up LDS or were you in the home of a different faith?
    I grew up LDS--faithful mother, inactive father. I definitely attribute my life and well-being to being able to gain a testimony of Jesus Christ, learn to recognize the promptings of the Holy Ghost and to live by answer to prayers.
    I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

  9. #59
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Radix View Post
    The ten commandments also came to us by way of the Torah (Part of the Tanakh or TNK.) We know the language of the Hebrew people is Hebrew. There are people who recognize this language and are able to translate it. For the BofM there is the alleged "Reform Egyptian." Outside the pen of Joseph Smith there are no samples of this "Reformed Egyptian." Nothing. Joseph Smith claimed to be able to translate an unknown language with exactly the same boasting ability a snake oil salesman has about the cure for an unknown disease. The whole "Reformed Egyptian" charade has been laughable from the start. For some reason LDS think Dr. Anthon was able to verify Smith's translation. But based on what? Did he have extensive examples of this language to compare with and cross reference? Anthon said it was a joke. If you really think he concluded otherwise then you must provide some evidence he actually had something to compare it to. But of course evidence is something LDS have always been lacking in.

    Anyway, we can translate Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. No rock in a hat pulled over our face needed. Where we do have examples of Smith's translation abilities with the Facsimiles in the PofGP, we see Smith was absolutely clueless on how to translate Egyptian. Since we know he lied about translating Egyptian, why should anyone actually believe he could translate any ancient language?
    While the Book of Mormon was written in reformed egyptian, it was written by Jews. As such, you will find Jewish style of writing.
    Last edited by BigJulie; 08-08-2016 at 06:05 PM.
    I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

  10. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Radix View Post
    For the BofM there is the alleged "Reform Egyptian."
    Actually, it's "the reformed Egyptian," which is a script, not a language.

    Outside the pen of Joseph Smith there are no samples of this "Reformed Egyptian." Nothing.
    Which is exactly what we'd expect if the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be.

    Joseph Smith claimed to be able to translate an unknown language with exactly the same boasting ability a snake oil salesman has about the cure for an unknown disease. The whole "Reformed Egyptian" charade has been laughable from the start. For some reason LDS think Dr. Anthon was able to verify Smith's translation. But based on what? Did he have extensive examples of this language to compare with and cross reference? Anthon said it was a joke. If you really think he concluded otherwise then you must provide some evidence he actually had something to compare it to. But of course evidence is something LDS have always been lacking in.

    Anyway, we can translate Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. No rock in a hat pulled over our face needed. Where we do have examples of Smith's translation abilities with the Facsimiles in the PofGP, we see Smith was absolutely clueless on how to translate Egyptian. Since we know he lied about translating Egyptian, why should anyone actually believe he could translate any ancient language?
    Worthless anti-Mormon rhetoric.

  11. #61
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    731

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrDavidT View Post
    Your argument fails on several accounts.
    My argument is merely that your argument is so full of double standards and nonsensical "logic" that it would be laughed out of a real debate. Your premise--that if the original autographs of a document are currently unavailable, then everyone should conclude that the original never existed--is laughably false, wrong, incorrect, etc.

    Your reasoning is so irrational that you actually refute yourself, without realizing it, when you say that the known, admitted lack of any original Bible documents doesn't mean that we should conclude that they never existed.

    That's pretty much how you lost the debate.
    From the forum rules: "The definition of a derogatory term is one that insults, belittles or treats a group or individual with contempt. "

    "If you have to resort to making fun of people and their ideas, you have nothing valuable to contribute here."

  12. #62
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,165

    Default

    erunder posted:


    LOL, your blind faith in anti-Mormon propaganda is pathetic.


    Sorry er, but I HAVE NO such 'blind faith in anti-mormon propaganda at all. That's all in YOUR HEAD.

    What I hold against the mormon religion is the FACT that it contradicts what GOD has said in HIS WORD, THE BIBLE.

    The fact that no honest FACTUAL EVIDENCE exists to support your religion merely shows me that you believe your religious cult ONLY based upon the trash that joey smith invented.

    You can CLAIM you have EVIDENCE that supports smith's religious inventions, but IF YOU DID, YOU COULD PRESENT IT HERE, (CITATIONS and all). But it is clear from the fact that you cannot present it, that you cannot FIND ANY real evidence.

  13. #63
    dberrie2000
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrDavidT View Post
    You do realize that there are no extant ancient m****cripts which quote, allude, refer to any mormon scripture don't you?
    Seeing the Biblical text is canonized scripture in the LDS church--are you claiming there are no Biblical m****cripts?

  14. #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    512

    Default

    Your tap dancing and avoidance is noted.

    So you are putting words into my mouth now?
    Nope, just asked a question since you denied he was a human being.

    You mean we cannot produce one piece of evidence that anti-Mormons would accept.
    Whether it is accepted or not is immaterial. If you have evidence then produce it. I have already shown how worthless the stones are so what evidence do you have?

    We don't have any initiation rites for entry into the temple.
    I already know that you do.

    This is exactly how anti-Mormons summarily dismiss any evidence for the Book of Mormon. Even if you don't believe their testimony, your statement was objectively false.
    Evidence is not one group getting together and making claims, evidence stands on its own and points to the truth.

    How?

    Well, since you've resorted to personal insults, that sounds like a concession to me.
    How, if I did which i didn't, does a personal insult become a concession? What dream world are you living in?
    check the new book thread to find my new books

  15. #65
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    512

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
    Seeing the Biblical text is canonized scripture in the LDS church--are you claiming there are no Biblical m****cripts?

    The Bible is there in name only. You do realize that the other Mormon scriptures are given a higher place and more weight than the Bible and that they do contradict the Bible in many different teachings, don't you?

    Nice try in trying to twist my words, I was only referring to the non-bible Mormon religious writings.
    check the new book thread to find my new books

  16. #66
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    512

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    My argument is merely that your argument is so full of double standards and nonsensical "logic" that it would be laughed out of a real debate. Your premise--that if the original autographs of a document are currently unavailable, then everyone should conclude that the original never existed--is laughably false, wrong, incorrect, etc.

    Your reasoning is so irrational that you actually refute yourself, without realizing it, when you say that the known, admitted lack of any original Bible documents doesn't mean that we should conclude that they never existed.

    That's pretty much how you lost the debate.
    Since I never said that I highly doubt it.
    check the new book thread to find my new books

  17. #67
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    512

    Default

    Actually, it's "the reformed Egyptian," which is a script, not a language.
    There is NO script called Reformed Egyptian. That also doesn't even make sense because Coptic is a script using some Greek letters but it is also a language.

    Which is exactly what we'd expect if the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be.
    You are joking right? Sorry but if the BOm was what it claimed to be then we would find examples of reformed egyptian all over the place

    While the Book of Mormon was written in reformed egyptian, it was written by Jews. As such, you will find Jewish style of writing.
    quote from Big Julie--- this is not even remotely true.
    check the new book thread to find my new books

  18. #68
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrDavidT View Post
    Nope, just asked a question since you denied he was a human being.
    False. I never denied that Joseph Smith was a human being.

    Whether it is accepted or not is immaterial. If you have evidence then produce it.
    It's already been produced by organizations like FAIR and FARMS.

    I already know that you do.
    No you don't. If you want to tell me what you think the initiation rite is, I can correct you.

    evidence stands on its own and points to the truth.
    Not really. Evidence must be interpreted.

    How, if I did which i didn't, does a personal insult become a concession?
    It is an admission that you can no longer argue for your position with substance. Resorting to insults is an admission that you have lost and simply want to hurt your opponent's feelings.

  19. #69
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrDavidT View Post
    There is NO script called Reformed Egyptian.
    I know; it's called reformed Egyptian.

    That also doesn't even make sense because Coptic is a script using some Greek letters but it is also a language.
    Um, what? So one script is also a language, therefore all scripts must also be languages? Can you identify the logical fallacy there?

    You are joking right?
    Nope.

    Sorry but if the BOm was what it claimed to be then we would find examples of reformed egyptian all over the place
    Explain why.

  20. #70
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    512

    Default

    False. I never denied that Joseph Smith was a human being.
    no, human being was one of the descriptions i used and you said false

    It's already been produced by organizations like FAIR and FARMS.
    Then you should have no problem producing some

    Not really. Evidence must be interpreted.
    wrong

    It is an admission that you can no longer argue for your position with substance.
    not at all since i never made a personal attack. and the only one who isn't and can't argue from their position with substance is you.

    I know; it's called reformed Egyptian.
    not even funny. there is NO script by that name found anywhere nor attested to anywhere

    So one script is also a language, therefore all scripts must also be languages? Can you identify the logical fallacy there?
    there is NO such thing as reformed Egyptian script. That was another lie spoken by smith.

    you would have to produce the golden plates to prove there is such a script.
    check the new book thread to find my new books

  21. #71
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    512

    Default

    it is obvious that the resident mormons cannot produce any evidence to support their claims so their argument that they are not deceived or brainwashed or have s viable faith are moot and erroneous.

    their refusal to produce anything means they have nothing and that they are blindly following a con man and refuse to be honest with themselves and admit it.

    no more words mormons, if you are going to post here put up the evidence or shut up
    check the new book thread to find my new books

  22. #72
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    512

    Default

    oh and just so you know what evidence looks like:

    the bible spoke about the hit***es and for 1800 years people thought the biblical authors made that people up. That is until they discovered the hit***e civilization.

    Then we have the recent discovery of the philistine cemetery which adds support to the biblical account of the philistine people, along with an earlier discovery of a philistine temple which was designed exactly like the ones the Bible says were in existence in samson's time. Notice no one produces a jaw bone of an *** and says this is the one samson used. they produce REAL evidence.

    real evidence not any old stone someone claims were used by smith.
    Last edited by DrDavidT; 08-10-2016 at 04:05 PM.
    check the new book thread to find my new books

  23. #73
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrDavidT View Post


    quote from Big Julie--- this is not even remotely true.
    (regarding the Book of Mormon being written in the style of the Jews)

    Hmm, I guess you must be right and any chiasmus or other Jewish type of writing must be just purely coincidental.
    I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

  24. #74
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    When Erundur stated:
    Not really. Evidence must be interpreted.

    You said:

    Quote Originally Posted by DrDavidT View Post



    wrong


    Your name "Dr." must not be real---right? I can't imagine any doctor of any degree disagreeing with the fact that evidence must be interpreted. I don't know of a single study in which the "conclusions' are not intrepreted based on the theories and understanding of possible weakness in the methodologies, etc. What type of doctor are you exactly?
    I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

  25. #75
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    512

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigJulie View Post
    When Erundur stated:
    Not really. Evidence must be interpreted.

    You said:



    Your name "Dr." must not be real---right? I can't imagine any doctor of any degree disagreeing with the fact that evidence must be interpreted. I don't know of a single study in which the "conclusions' are not intrepreted based on the theories and understanding of possible weakness in the methodologies, etc. What type of doctor are you exactly?
    Sorry but unless you pony up the evidence you will not have your posts addressed.
    check the new book thread to find my new books

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •