Although, the argument it is making is pretty much identical to the one that is used as "Proof" that the Book of Mormon was actually found by Joseph Smith written on gold plates:
-There were eight people who signed a document certifying that they had actually seen and touched the golden plates. They never recanted this testimony in spite of the fact that their church was persecuted, their leaders were shot, and the survivors were chased off to Utah.
- Not to mention the additional 3 witnesses who also certified that they not only saw the plates, they also saw Joseph Smith meet with an angel. These witnesses never recanted either, even though they all later had fallings-out with the church leadership that one would expect would have made them recant if they knew their testimony was a lie.
So, does knowing this convince you that the Book of Mormon is in fact what it purports to be, "the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion’ (History of the Church, 4:461) . . . the only book that the Lord Himself has testified to be true (see D&C 17:6)"?
If this type of argument is convincing to you, shouldn't you be a Mormon? And if it isn't convincing in the Book of Mormon case, why would it be convincing in any other case?
(note: I am not a member of the LDS church, but my brother is).
1 comment:
Cute video.
Although, the argument it is making is pretty much identical to the one that is used as "Proof" that the Book of Mormon was actually found by Joseph Smith written on gold plates:
-There were eight people who signed a document certifying that they had actually seen and touched the golden plates. They never recanted this testimony in spite of the fact that their church was persecuted, their leaders were shot, and the survivors were chased off to Utah.
- Not to mention the additional 3 witnesses who also certified that they not only saw the plates, they also saw Joseph Smith meet with an angel. These witnesses never recanted either, even though they all later had fallings-out with the church leadership that one would expect would have made them recant if they knew their testimony was a lie.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/witnesses-of-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng
So, does knowing this convince you that the Book of Mormon is in fact what it purports to be, "the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion’ (History of the Church, 4:461) . . . the only book that the Lord Himself has testified to be true (see D&C 17:6)"?
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2004/01/testimonies-of-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng
If this type of argument is convincing to you, shouldn't you be a Mormon? And if it isn't convincing in the Book of Mormon case, why would it be convincing in any other case?
(note: I am not a member of the LDS church, but my brother is).
Post a Comment