Evidence of God

[carlessbiker]

Then, to make matters worse, after Smith died, Brigham Young took over, as I'm sure you know. Well on their travels to Salt Lake City, Young ordered Bishop Lee to murder 150 non-mormon immigrants. Lee was convicted and killed by the government. He even admitted to committing the crime saying that Young ordered him to do so. (First stated source). But, it does sound a little condemning...

Just a little FYI, I live in Washington, UT (Basically St. George) and the city council actually attempted to raise a very expensive statue of Mr. Lee in the town square. Not surprisingly, it was shot down.

[Flip Jackson]

Soccer, I am not impressed by your condemnation of Mormonism. Many of your complaints and points addressed were answered in my sources. It is unfair of you to use an anti-Mormon site against me, especially when things are taken out of context, or just plain lied about. You sources make claims but do noit give any kind of reference for things such as the so called massacre ordered by Brigham Young. I have never heard of such a thing. Why wouldn't that show up in history books? I hope you aren't claiming to be objective if you keep quoting only strongly anti-Mormon agenda.

Now I will give you the point on Chiasmus. Joseph could have used ideas from the Bible. I doubt it, but the possibility is there.

He told other people of his vision and his claims of plates when he was forteen, even if he didn't translate until later. People didn't often write on metal, because it was tough and tedious with hand tools I bet. And people mocked Joseph for his claims at the time, but now people have found metal plates, so that ridicule stopped.

If you had read the Book of Mormon, you would not that the Bible in its entirety was not in the Book of Mormon. The only Biblical referces made did exist before 600 B.C. Remember that the Bible is a collection of books. Some have been around a very long time. Some of these books were considered scripture, such as Isaiah's writings. He had already been a prophet. But keep in mind that none of the New Testament was quoted in the Book of Mormon. So my refute was perfectly acceptable.

Your supposedly "great source" for my arguments as well as those down the road has no support and makes some claims I have never heard of. Not to mention that many of the points presented were refuted in my source. Your author seems to merely use opinion.

Your source is heavily biased. It put in parentheses the word "demons" to automatically bias readers. Why are they demons? Beacuse your source says so?

I will address many of your "great source's" points. First, the six errors. Error one doesn't even make sense to me. Errors two and three seem to be rumors. I want to know where these claims come from. What history recorded the massacre or Joseph's use of "peep stones?"

Your source says, "Joseph Smith in 1827, claimed to dig up golden plates written in "reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics", and by using Urim and Thummim spectacles, translated them into English in 1830 as the Book of Mormon. No Egyptologist has ever unearthed a "reformed Egyptian" language. It has Roman letters inverted or placed sideways, mixed with Greek and Hebrew letters. "

Mine says, "One of the most common attacks against the Book of Mormon focuses on the use of "Reformed Egyptian" as the writing system for the golden plates (Mormon 9:32-34). It is alleged that the no self-respecting Israelite would ever use Egyptian to write sacred scripture, and it is alleged that no such language as "Reformed Egyptian" has ever existed. These arguments are typified in the anti-Mormon book, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism by "Dr." John Ankerberg and "Dr. Dr." John Weldon (neither one of which appears to have a legitimate Ph.D.):"

It continues "Ankerberg and Weldon are wrong on several counts--grossly wrong, as shown by Daniel C. Peterson in a noteworthy book review in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 5, 1993, pp. 43-45 (available online). Several modified or "reformed" Egyptian scripts are well known, including forms called Demotic and Hieratic. "Reformed Egyptian" is clearly an appropriate generic term for those writing systems. However, the "Reformed Egyptian" used by the Nephites is described as a language system unique to them (Mormon 9:32-34), having evolved with their culture over a 1,000-year period. It was apparently used for sacred writings, and should have been almost wholly lost with the destruction of Nephite civilization. How can we expect Egyptologists, with typically no training in Central American matters, to know whether such a language ever existed there? Daniel Paterson gives further analysis (Peterson, pp. 44-45):...."

Here is a source that exclusively addresses the reformed egyptian thing.

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=...le=transcripts

Error four, who said the Book of Mormon used Roman letters? And John 10:16 can not be refering to Gentiles because Christ Himself never taught the Gentiles. We believe He did appeat to the ancient Americans. Error five, I want to know where this letter appeared. And Smith never claimed that Anthon said the characters are reformed Egyptian. Error six, tthis is just a different interpretation of a passage. it doen't mean ours is wrong. Also, since when do Judah and Joseph make up the whole house of Israel?

This is taking far too much room to disprove your biased source, but I will address one more point. Your souce says there are no rivers running into the Red Sea. Check my first source. A valley and river that runs into the Red Sea has been discovered. There are pictures of it.

Mormonism is onlt condemning because so many people attack it specifically and create a lot of lies about it. I have heard all kinds of crazy things. Now let's try to saty on topic. You attack my religion with anti-Mormon work, yet you have hardly addressed any of the scientific evidence that is in my sources. There is an awful lot of it. For someone who so desparately wants proof, you aren't being open minded. Instead you are using the opinions and lies of anti-Mormons to try to shoot down my religion. Hopw can you favor one rleigion over another like this? Address the initial points and evidence instead of going of on this anti-Mormon tangent. Many of your "anti-Mormon" evidence has been proven wrong by Mormons trying to defend themselves and even by scientific discovery.

I love how in religious threads based on belief and opinion, you demand proof. In a thread where I give plenty of evidence to keep you busy for a while, you resort to using the belief and opinion of another religion. Where is your integrity? If science is what you believe in, then look at the science, and show where I have erred.

[Flip Jackson]

I went ahead and looked into the massacre. It does appear to be an actual event, and it does appear that some Mormons were involved. Although one seemingly objective sight said that is was unknown whether Brigaham Young actually ordered the massacre. This was the best site I could find on the topic.

http://www.tungate.com/mmm1.htm

I would like to point out that even if Brigaham did order the strike, this doesn't disprove Mormonism. Today's prophet has worked to create peace for these actions. And do not confuse the misguided actions of some as the doctrine of the church. There could have been a propotionally small number involved. Mormons were persecuted a great deal. Unfortunately, some tried to fight back instead of keeping peace as they should.

This is, however, a tangent that does not refute the scientific evidence I have given.

[Prometheus]

Sorry I've left you alone in here so long Flip. I didn't look at this thread for a while because when ever I get into a "proof of god" thread I always end up on the atheists side and I've been getting tired of playing devils advocate. I'm glad to see we have a pretty good discussion going on here.

I understand that you want to get people to stop using the term "supernatural" and "fantacy" in relation to religion. I agree that there is evidance that makes religion more that fantastic and supernatural. I however believe that if we are to truely believe a religion, we have to be willing to believe it supernaturally. I actually don't fight the term "supernatural" because my belief in god and our church is totally supernatural. Feeling and voices from nowhere are supernatual. However, the physical evidance is fun to talk about too, so let it begin...

In the BOM (book of mormon) a prophet named Nephi recounts the story of thier migration from Jerusalem to somewhere in the new world. In Nephi's account he tells the directions they travel from Jerusalem. He mentions certain rivers, mountains and valleys. These geographic features actually exis right where they are said to be. Nephi recounts finding ore to make iron tools. Up until 1987 people criticized the BOM because they said there is no Iron ore on the arabian peninsula. Guess what - they found it right in line with the direction Nephi said they traveled. The only freshwater spring on the arabian coastline is also right in line with where Nephi said it was. This kind of geographical information was not accessable in Joseph Smith's day.
http://nephiproject.com/Default.htm


For years the BOM was criticized because is used the name "Alma" as a man's name. According to all other period texts at the time, Alma was a woman's name. Recently archeological evidance was found using the name Alma for a man.

This stuff in interesting, but the folloeing is why I believe the book of mormon:

Moroni 10:4 (part of the BOM)

And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

This is a simple experiment. Read it and pray about it. It worked for me. What have you got to lose by trying it yourself?

You can get a BOM for free from the church. Even if you think it's crap, it never hurts to be familliar with a popular religious text of the fastest growing religion.
Follow this link for a free BOM:
http://www.mormon.org/freeoffers/0,1...tml?src=google

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Soccer, I am not impressed by your condemnation of Mormonism. Many of your complaints and points addressed were answered in my sources. It is unfair of you to use an anti-Mormon site against me, especially when things are taken out of context, or just plain lied about. You sources make claims but do noit give any kind of reference for things such as the so called massacre ordered by Brigham Young. I have never heard of such a thing. Why wouldn't that show up in history books? I hope you aren't claiming to be objective if you keep quoting only strongly anti-Mormon agenda..

Oh boy. The funny part about this is that my source is just as valid as yours. Your sources are pro-mormon. Mine are anti-mormon. That is something I wanted to teach you. Find a more objective source--which, apparantly, you finally tried to do. And yes, it's quite some work to find a completely objective website on religion. I still claim to be objective because I didn't necessarily believe every "error" in that website, nor did I even read every one, which you tried so hard to refute in your last post. My main focus was on the key ideas, like the plates and Chiasmus, and even the massacre.

He told other people of his vision and his claims of plates when he was forteen, even if he didn't translate until later. People didn't often write on metal, because it was tough and tedious with hand tools I bet. And people mocked Joseph for his claims at the time, but now people have found metal plates, so that ridicule stopped.

Just because he had plates with "ancient writings" and they found plates somewhat like his own, doesn't mean that's evidence for a new religion.

If you had read the Book of Mormon, you would not that the Bible in its entirety was not in the Book of Mormon. The only Biblical referces made did exist before 600 B.C. Remember that the Bible is a collection of books. Some have been around a very long time. Some of these books were considered scripture, such as Isaiah's writings. He had already been a prophet. But keep in mind that none of the New Testament was quoted in the Book of Mormon. So my refute was perfectly acceptable.

Are you saying it's acceptable because Isaiah was already a prophet?? I don't believe in the Bible one bit, so that "evidence" ain't gonna cut it. It doesn't matter what testament was written, the Bible was never even considered yet. How could the quotes from the old testament, giving you the benefit of the doubt, have ALL reached one source, like the ancient texts?

Your supposedly "great source" for my arguments as well as those down the road has no support and makes some claims I have never heard of. Not to mention that many of the points presented were refuted in my source. Your author seems to merely use opinion.

Hmm...Maybe that's why you're not atheist, because you don't know the truth? My source uses opinion? My source only provided quoted statements and rational observations. Your source told a story, like a Children's book, mixed in with plenty of opinion. Too many times I read how awesome the scripture was because of the stories being told. Sounds like an opinion to me.

Your source is heavily biased. It put in parentheses the word "demons" to automatically bias readers. Why are they demons? Beacuse your source says so?

And your source isn't biased? Please Flip. Be a little reasonable. The parentheses provide a guess as to what the "personages" were? Do you know? Maybe you could help them out...

Mormonism is onlt condemning because so many people attack it specifically and create a lot of lies about it. I have heard all kinds of crazy things. Now let's try to saty on topic. You attack my religion with anti-Mormon work, yet you have hardly addressed any of the scientific evidence that is in my sources. There is an awful lot of it. For someone who so desparately wants proof, you aren't being open minded. Instead you are using the opinions and lies of anti-Mormons to try to shoot down my religion. Hopw can you favor one rleigion over another like this? Address the initial points and evidence instead of going of on this anti-Mormon tangent. Many of your "anti-Mormon" evidence has been proven wrong by Mormons trying to defend themselves and even by scientific discovery.

I love how in religious threads based on belief and opinion, you demand proof. In a thread where I give plenty of evidence to keep you busy for a while, you resort to using the belief and opinion of another religion. Where is your integrity? If science is what you believe in, then look at the science, and show where I have erred.

Flip. Get over yourself. I've shot down every bit of so called evidence you have. The Chiasmus. Gone, could of been written from the Bible. The plates? Hardly acceptable evidence. He could have easily made them himself, because it was so hard to make it back in the ancient times. plus, WHERE ARE THEY NOW? The prophecies? Well, we just killed those. Like 90% aren't even true. What else was there? Oh, probably nothing now. Every major piece of evidence you have is gone. How can you believe something with so little to believe in? Believe what you want, but don't claim to have evidence if it's not there. Have a nice day.

[Prometheus]

Flip. Get over yourself.

I personally know Flip to be a humble and self-effacing person. Say what you like, but don't accuse him of hubrous.

The Chiasmus. Gone, could of been written from the Bible.

The chiasmas could not have been copied from the bible. If you have read the chiasmus in the BOM, it has no relation to anything in the bible. There is nowhere it could have been copied from, or even plaguarized with modification. It's not wasy to copy. Chiasmus is a very subtle poetry form that was not clearly recognized untill recently. The chiasmas in the bible is not perfect. In the biblical examples, it's pattern has been mutated, presumable by clerics and translators. The chiasmus in the BOM is better chiasmus than that in the bible, so it couldn't have been copied.

The plates? Hardly acceptable evidence. He could have easily made them himself, because it was so hard to make it back in the ancient times. plus, WHERE ARE THEY NOW?

I agree that the plates themselves are not good evidance. Not only were they wisked away by the angel moroni (please don't bother ridiculing this point), but the most recent witness of thier authenticity died 150 years ago. It should be noted though, that those witnesses never denyed the veracity of thier testimony, even after being disfellowshipped from the church. This point is a matter of court record.

How can you believe something with so little to believe in? Believe what you want, but don't claim to have evidence if it's not there. Have a nice day.

Lets at least try to be civil. I don't have a problem with atheists, but I am really getting sick of all the spit and bile you guys launch in our direction.

[Flip Jackson]

Soccer you have by no means shot down all the evidence I presented. I scraped the surface of my original two posts. They were chalked full of scientific, geographic, and other such evidences. You seem to have ignored every bit of evidence that I personally did not present. My sources, which weren't full of stories, but scientific facts, gave at least twenty well thought out and studied evidences. You didn't address most of them. You only hit the parts that I gave as examples.

And keep in mind what Prometheus said. We both feel that faith comes first. Science will never be a good basis for religion. But I don't like the automatic negative stigma given to theists by atheists. I am giving reasonable examples here.

Of course my sources are pro-Mormon, but let's look at the difference. Anti-Mormon arguments can easily be full of lies and opinion about who Mormons are and what we beleive. Then the burden for some reason, lies on the Mormons to refute every falsity. We have to do the work. No objective person will randomnly go try to prove Mormonism. No atheist will try to give evidence. Mormons must do work to defend their positions because we are attacked so heavily. That is why pro- sources tend to be more legitimate. The anti- sources use rumors and false statements to try to show faults. Then we must take the time and effort to dispel such rumors.

Also look at the HUGE list of references at the bottom of my first reference. I will give it to you again.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

Many of these references are not pro-Mormon, but historical, archeological, and scientific. There are at least 30 references! I checked your sources. I saw almost no references at all. This is why I said yours were the authors opinion and mine weren't.

I tore apart your anti-Mormon source because, the more faults I point out the, less beleievable it is. I figured you hadn't actually studied the site or others, because unless I am mistaken you belong to no religion. There are too many false claims to hold the source as suitable.

You also attacked my point that only the parts of the Bible that existed before 600 B.C. were quoted in the Book of Mormon. I was mentioning this to refute a point that you made about how the Bible was quoted in the Book of Mormon before the Bible existed. I was refuting you and the nyou turn around and say
Soccerfreak--"Are you saying it's acceptable because Isaiah was already a prophet?? I don't believe in the Bible one bit, so that "evidence" ain't gonna cut it. It doesn't matter what testament was written, the Bible was never even considered yet. How could the quotes from the old testament, giving you the benefit of the doubt, have ALL reached one source, like the ancient texts?"

How unfair is this? YOU brought the point up and I refuted it. Then you go nuts and say I can't use that as evidence because you don't believe the Bible. YOU opened the door. I walked through and you slam it in my face. A terribly misleading way to debate. I wasn't using the Bible to Prove my point. I only responded to your point.

I should also point out that many of the prophesies you showed are misleading. First, many of them are quotes by Isaiah, who was known to use symbolic language, like dragons. And Isaiah was in the Bible to, and said the same things, so this is an attack on the Bible as well. And you never pointed out how any of the prophesies were false. You say 90% aren't true, but you only listed them and addressed none of them.

My sources are biased only in the sense that the authors said what they believed. They did not put in little hints to convince anyone. They did the work and studied their subjects thoroughly. They use science, not emotion as yours do. As I said before, look at all the references. Check them out yourself. They are not all pro-Mormon. None are opinion, as far as I can tell.


I will not get over myself, because I am not being proud. I want the topics addressed, not anti-Mormon tangents. I never discussed the ideas of Mormonism. I only used the Book of Mormon to give evidence. The religion itself is not an issue here. That is why things like the massacre prove nothing in this thread.

You did not destroy the evidence of Chiasmus, as Prometheus has explained better than I. The plates are decent evidence. Even if Joseph had made plates, how could he have known the details to make them in a way that recent discoveries match his description? And Prometheus explained where they are now, but again that isn't necessary for what we are discussing.

You did not kill the prophesies. I have not seen one that you have killed. You only listed them. And I should point out that the Pearl of Great Price is not a book. Is has no chapters or verses. It is a collection of books. If you intend to kill any prophesy, pick it out and show me how that one is false. Better yet, look at the sites I gave and address the rest of the evidence. There is still much to look at.

Do not blow me away, and say "believe what you want, but don't claim to have evidence" You are one of the people that asked for evidence. You wanted a scientific reason for belief. I have given you this, and you still condemn me. You claim to be objective. I am convinced that nothing I say to you or prove to you will change your anti theist way of thinking.

I will have a nice day because I have belief, and yet know I am rational and have reasons for my belief. I love who I am and what I stand for. I intend to have a good day. Thank you much. :)

[Flip Jackson]

Sorry for the huge posts. I have a lot to answer to, everyone. I hope you still like to read them. For every criticism, I must explain the response. A lengthy process.

Prometheus, good to see you here. I thought for sure that you would think me silly for this attempt. I am glad to see you willing to discuss. It is nice to know that you realize that I only want the negative stigma removed. My integrity and education has been attacked long enough, as has every other theist's.

I look forward to some more comments. I will really try to keep mine briefer.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Soccer you have by no means shot down all the evidence I presented. I scraped the surface of my original two posts. They were chalked full of scientific, geographic, and other such evidences. You seem to have ignored every bit of evidence that I personally did not present. My sources, which weren't full of stories, but scientific facts, gave at least twenty well thought out and studied evidences. You didn't address most of them. You only hit the parts that I gave as examples.

You have evidences of the obvious. Point being, I have shot down the only evidences upon which the whole religion had begun in the first place (plates, chiasmus, etc.). I won't address every single "evidence" your religion provides. What's the point of that? As long as I can shoot down the few major realistic proofs that your religion hangs on, then I'm all set. Which I already did, and you refuse to understand.

And keep in mind what Prometheus said. We both feel that faith comes first. Science will never be a good basis for religion. But I don't like the automatic negative stigma given to theists by atheists. I am giving reasonable examples here.

Faith comes first? Awesome, just what we need. I have a feeling Prometheus didn't intend this. Of course science isn't a basis for religion, because religion is not the answer to life's questions, while science is.

Of course my sources are pro-Mormon, but let's look at the difference. Anti-Mormon arguments can easily be full of lies and opinion about who Mormons are and what we beleive. Then the burden for some reason, lies on the Mormons to refute every falsity. We have to do the work. No objective person will randomnly go try to prove Mormonism. No atheist will try to give evidence. Mormons must do work to defend their positions because we are attacked so heavily. That is why pro- sources tend to be more legitimate. The anti- sources use rumors and false statements to try to show faults. Then we must take the time and effort to dispel such rumors.

Anti-mormon sites are just as full of lies and opinion as mormon sites. Please don't be so biased that you feel the need to lie about the validity of internet sources. Of course the burden relies on mormon sources, because we want answers as to why they have lied to the American public. And of course no objective person will prove mormonism because they know that believing in such a thing would not only give them complete bias, but would also make them irrational in their beliefs. Unfortunately, you haven't figured out why your religion has been attacked so much. It's because it's the most false religion. Look, just because you are nearing the "old ages," doesn't mean that w/e you believe is right. Try not to act so "wise," and keep thinking of new ways to find the answers you're looking for.

Many of these references are not pro-Mormon, but historical, archeological, and scientific. There are at least 30 references! I checked your sources. I saw almost no references at all. This is why I said yours were the authors opinion and mine weren't.

You need to stop looking at how many references there are and start looking up these so called sources. I doubt you've clicked on all your "sources."

I tore apart your anti-Mormon source because, the more faults I point out the, less beleievable it is. I figured you hadn't actually studied the site or others, because unless I am mistaken you belong to no religion. There are too many false claims to hold the source as suitable.

Kind of like how I "tore apart" your Book of Mormon, ripping to shreds every bit of evidence you threw at me. Right? Every fault I found, the less beleivable it is, right? Start believing in your own teachings.

How unfair is this? YOU brought the point up and I refuted it. Then you go nuts and say I can't use that as evidence because you don't believe the Bible. YOU opened the door. I walked through and you slam it in my face. A terribly misleading way to debate. I wasn't using the Bible to Prove my point. I only responded to your point.

What, exactly, did you slam in my face? I, personally, thought it was the other way around...

I should also point out that many of the prophesies you showed are misleading. First, many of them are quotes by Isaiah, who was known to use symbolic language, like dragons. And Isaiah was in the Bible to, and said the same things, so this is an attack on the Bible as well. And you never pointed out how any of the prophesies were false. You say 90% aren't true, but you only listed them and addressed none of them.

LOL, I didn't know dragons were a form of symbolism...yeah I suppose it is an attack on the Bible, since you love using him as part of your evidence. Do you really expect me to calculate how many of the prophecies are false? Please Flip. All you need to understand is that the majority of them are in fact false. End of story.

My sources are biased only in the sense that the authors said what they believed. They did not put in little hints to convince anyone. They did the work and studied their subjects thoroughly. They use science, not emotion as yours do. As I said before, look at all the references. Check them out yourself. They are not all pro-Mormon. None are opinion, as far as I can tell.

Sweet. Who cares? Emotion? What emotions are you talking about? You must be desperate now. You're refuting my sources with terrible evidence that is based upon opinion. You can't "tell" very far, I suppose, since every thing you don't want to believe is supposedly "opinionated." Where your sources are opinionated just the same. Instead of throwing out your opinion on the subject, start throwing out some evidences of your own. Good thing you admitted that your sources were biased.

You did not destroy the evidence of Chiasmus, as Prometheus has explained better than I. The plates are decent evidence. Even if Joseph had made plates, how could he have known the details to make them in a way that recent discoveries match his description? And Prometheus explained where they are now, but again that isn't necessary for what we are discussing.

What recent discoveries match the evidence ON THE PLATES?

You did not kill the prophesies. I have not seen one that you have killed. You only listed them. And I should point out that the Pearl of Great Price is not a book. Is has no chapters or verses. It is a collection of books. If you intend to kill any prophesy, pick it out and show me how that one is false. Better yet, look at the sites I gave and address the rest of the evidence. There is still much to look at.

Do not blow me away, and say "believe what you want, but don't claim to have evidence" You are one of the people that asked for evidence. You wanted a scientific reason for belief. I have given you this, and you still condemn me. You claim to be objective. I am convinced that nothing I say to you or prove to you will change your anti theist way of thinking.

"23:19 And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.
23:20 It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there."

This one says that babylon, which is currently an Iraqi city, will never again be inhabited. Guess they were wrong, huh? Need I say more? These prophecies are a joke.

I don't care how much of it is true, as long as I can tell you that the main parts of it are false. Keep that in mind, please. What makes me less objective, than when we started this debate? I still claim only to know what I see, hear, and observe happening. Just because a source says something I like, and I post it, doesn't necessarily mean I agree with it. It means it has a point that I want you to refute. Most of the time, you couldn't, as explained above, and in earlier posts.

[Prometheus]

You have evidences of the obvious. Point being, I have shot down the only evidences upon which the whole religion had begun in the first place (plates, chiasmus, etc.).

The evidance our church was founded on was not physical or scientific evidance. The evidance that is strong enough to causes people to change thier lives is of a spiritual nature.

Faith comes first? Awesome, just what we need. I have a feeling Prometheus didn't intend this. Of course science isn't a basis for religion, because religion is not the answer to life's questions, while science is.

Wrong there. How else would you interprit the following. Obviously you are not reading our posts carefully. Did you presume that I based me belief in a religions that askes hard things of me on scientific evidance? Please, give me more credit thatn that. This evidance is interesting to discuss, but shouldn't be enough to convince anyone to give up premarital sex or drinking.

Me from post #16
I understand that you want to get people to stop using the term "supernatural" and "fantacy" in relation to religion. I agree that there is evidance that makes religion more that fantastic and supernatural. I however believe that if we are to truely believe a religion, we have to be willing to believe it supernaturally. I actually don't fight the term "supernatural" because my belief in god and our church is totally supernatural. Feeling and voices from nowhere are supernatual. However, the physical evidance is fun to talk about too, so let it begin...

Anti-mormon sites are just as full of lies and opinion as mormon sites.

I will agree with you on that. No matter how hard they try to be objective, a study from BYU is always suspect for strong bias. But as you said, the anti sites are just as suspect. So what is the logical conclusion? That the truth is somewhere in the middle. Some of the evidance is probably bunk, and some is probably valid, and worth more study.

Do you really expect me to calculate how many of the prophecies are false?

Which prephecies from the BOM are you familliar enough with to say they are false?

"23:19 And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.
23:20 It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there."

Any scriptorian (mormon or not) knows that babylon is used as a symbol of worldly sin and evil. The idea is that when Jesus comes again, evil will be vanquished and never return. You can make fun of that one all you want, but it's not a specifically mormon idea, it's all through the bible too.

[Prometheus]

The following is a link to the best compendium of scholarly work done on mormon topics. The site is BYU, but they are putting thier considerable academic credentials on the line (BYU is currently ranked 24'th in the nation for academics). Many of the papers they have on this site are peer reviewed.

http://farms.byu.edu/

[SoccerfreakAB2]

The evidance our church was founded on was not physical or scientific evidance. The evidance that is strong enough to causes people to change thier lives is of a spiritual nature.

Wrong there. How else would you interprit the following. Obviously you are not reading our posts carefully. Did you presume that I based me belief in a religions that askes hard things of me on scientific evidance? Please, give me more credit thatn that. This evidance is interesting to discuss, but shouldn't be enough to convince anyone to give up premarital sex or drinking.[/QUOTE]

I am not debating what you believe. Believe whatever you want, especially if it changes your life in a positive way. I am only debating the fact that the title of this thread is slightly misleading, since, when I think of evidence, I think scientific and physical evidence, not spiritual. As long as we aren't mixing the two, then I'm happy.