CP3S said:
darth_ender said:
Aw, crap! You're right! I had nothing to go on but a flimsy story about 11 men, and you threw it out the window! *sob* How could you!?!
...
I am not going to produce proof that the God or Christ or Joseph Smith or this church is real to you or anyone else. But to me, the belief I have does not rely on these 11 men you so easily and quickly dismissed without real thought or research of your own. The evidence I have I believe comes from a higher source. My testimony is based on far more evidence, both scientific and spiritual, than you give me credit for.
Good use of mocking sarcasm as a defense. If you're just going to get on the defensive when you can't answer something, this thread probably wasn't a very good idea. I felt my question was legit and fair.I am not sure why you think I am easily and quickly dismissing your eleven men without real thought or research of my own (other than the obvious answer: because my conclusions are different than yours). I grew up in an area with a very high population of Mormons, my closest friends growing up were Mormons, and just about every neighbor and friend I ever had from childhood to my early teens tried to convert me every chance they got. I've studied with many Mormons and spent a fair deal of my own time reading about their history and about their leaders. It is a subject I've always found really interesting, and I've spent a good deal of time in it.
There is so much objective tangible evidence that raises some very large exclamation points such as the Book of Abraham written in hieroglyphs really being Egyptians texts having nothing to do with Abraham, or the history of the Americas as presented in the Book of Mormon being entirely at odds with historical evidence, or all scientific data showing the Native Americans originated from Asia and were most certainly not descendents of the Hebrews (I'll definitely take some time to look into the case you mentioned), it is kind of hard for me to even begin to think in a way that would make all these inconsistencies and lose ends fit together.
I know Mormon apologists have an answer for everything point I could possibly bring up, and all are explanations they are 100% confident in, but all those answers have one very large factor in common: they all start in the middle and work their way outward. They all start with the conclusion, and build a circle of semi-plausible explanations and potential evidences around that conclusion; rather than looking at the evidences and following them to the most plausible conclusions. So no, I am not impressed with Mormon academics, while they may not be dismissive of contrary evidence, they certainly don't treat it fairly.
A non-Mormon and entirely non-biased observer isn't going to look at the same pieces of evidence as a Mormon and come to the same conclusions. No one else is going to look at what remains of the Joseph Smith Papyri, translate it, and say, "Yeah, see, if he translated these in a "nontraditional" way, they could say things totally different than what real Egyptologists have found them to say, therefore we can conclude that the Book of Abraham is totally legit". Only someone starting at, "These have to be legit, but the evidence clearly indicates otherwise... so how?" would come to these kinds of conclusions.
I have to say that for someone so *tough*, most of our conversations have at times startled me with your over sensitivity. It was a joke. Geez, man!
As for your question, it is truly a question easily broadened to all religions. Logically there are things unexplained and one has to rely on faith. the last paragraph you quote was supposed to catch the gist of that. If you do not believe in faith in the unexplainable, then why should I have to try to prove it to you?
As for the witnesses, my links were supposed to address your questions and provide more information on their character including quotes from their contemporaries. If you took the time to read them, it probably would have answered your questions. I can address your very specific questions, but I'm already limited on time if you haven't noticed my decrease in activity on this board. If you really, really want answers to the hypotheses you provided (which really are weak considering you know very little of the circumstances of these individuals), then I will do whatever research is necessary to at least provide an explanation, which I'm sure you'll quickly dismiss. But just to get you started, I believe you mentioned that one reason they never denied their testimonies was because of their fear of losing influence or alienating those that followed them. I actually think I already answered this, but I suspect your irritable mood may have interfered with you noticing: these men had already lost their standing with the majority, or even all members of the Church. Many had no social pressure to return, and likely would have faced more pressure to denounce what they had seen. But none did. That was my point. I'll be more specific if you require in a future post, which may not be for a few days as I really have a horrendous week ahead of me, tying me up even on Saturday and Sunday.
Just remember, I didn't start this thread so I could prove my church correct or so someone else could prove me incorrect. I started it to answer questions about my faith. Feel free to question why. Feel free to press me a bit hard. But know that I admit now that I will never prove my faith as correct, and if you want to take the time to be a bit demeaning (you mean that's the only reason you believe in your church???), you are missing the intended spirit of the conversation.
Please don't be upset, but just keep in mind that I feel your intentions were somewhat belittling. That is why I responded with playful sarcasm.