I try to stay away from religious talk on message boards for many reasons mostly because faith can be deeply personal and strongly felt, and too many come here just to argue. I don't want to stir up an argument or attack another's faith. But there were a couple of things in bentleys post I want to respond to. You should know that I am a believing Mormon, but Im not out to convince anyone.
Yeah, the origins. There is evidence to support that the Smith's were diviners and occultists and swindlers.
There is also evidence and testimony to support the that the Smiths were honest, hardworking, christians. It's worth looking into don't you think?
One of the major things Mormonism teaches that is different from Biblical Christianity is Jesus coming to North America to give the sermon on the mount. There's no evidence of the multitudes of Nephites, Lamanites, their battles, their cities. There's no golden plates to verify Joseph Smith's claims.
There is evidence of the people and places in the Bible, and there are tons of ancient copies of the Bible that agree with each other 99%.
That line of argument has always bothered me. Intentional or not it puts the Mormon respondent in a position where it would be easy to say something that could be interpreted as an attack on the Bible or the Early Christian fathers to whom we owe so much. Our desire is to build faith, not destroy it, and that is my desire. However, I think it is helpful for me to draw a comparison, PBS played a program several months ago where they were documenting archeological discoveries in Israel/Palestine. The archeologists found cities that existed at the time the Bible reports Joshua brought Israel into the area. But the archeological evidence did not match the Biblical account in multiple ways. The scientists wanted to draw conclusions suggesting that if these sites did not match the record then the record was flawed. These discoveries did not change my faith in the Bible, or in Christ, because I rely on something more than physical evidence. Truly if faith were based solely on archeology and history then something is defect in Christian history that keeps 67% of the world from becoming Christian.
Please don't misunderstand, if artifacts or traditions help people believe, then I thank heaven for them, and pray that more evidence will be found.
Likewise, My belief in the Book of Mormon is not tied to physical evidence, it is based on something more. Still, I must admit I wish there was more evidence that would remove pre-conceived beliefs about the Book of Mormon For other people so they would try it with a sliver of belief. But I don't know what evidence that would be, I guess it is different for each person.
As a side note I find it interesting that Mormonism is not easily passed on through a family. The claims of the origins of the church and the Book of Mormon are so fantastic, and there are so many people offering alternative explanations --some reasonable, some equally fantastic, that it sooner or later puts every would be believer in an inescapable position. Those moments of truth finds people old, young, active in the church or not. I know people, who having reached that crisis, have gone both ways. I can't explain why some find a conviction while others don't. But in my mind without a spiritual conviction the church could not have survived much more than a generation past the death of Joseph smith.
There are other things that separate mormons from Biblical Christians, but just read that book. It covers a lot.
And I would say there are many things that the Book of Mormon teaches about Christ, just read the book. It covers a lot.
