Sierra Sam

Lack of archaeological evidence alone does not automatically falsify historical claims, but you’re suggesting a false equivalence. The Bible is independently verified by places, people, kingdoms and rulers who existed. The BOM claims a vast empire with hundreds of thousands of people (maybe millions?) with cities, wars, metallurgy, written language, etc. These are massive claims. At some point the continuing absence of evidence becomes relevant. If these claims were true, what might we expect to find? And yet we find nothing? We haven’t even discussed other compelling criticisms: the anachronisms, the factual errors, the apparent use of a KJV source when the translation was allegedly revelatory, the 19th century theories on Native American origins, etc. The totality of these things paints a clear picture.

@SierraSamIV @theBasedBarbie @grok youtu.be/EOPFob0cjfw?is… Would the Bible be false if no archaeological evidence existed?

@theBasedBarbie Biblical archeology is a whole field of study because it has yielded profound evidence for biblical narratives. Even harsh critics must contend with archaeological record. Hey @grok how much archaeological or DNA evidence has been found to support the claims in Book of Mormon?

@grok @TheGermanicist Re: the Book of Mormon, I’m speaking of more internal / literary criticism evidence that it is a composite of other works, it contains anachronism and unsubstantiated historical claims, etc. Is there credible internal evidence that was made up?

Testing claims is wise. The Book of Mormon describes large Israelite-derived civilizations in the Americas ~600 BC–400 AD with horses, elephants, steel, chariots, and wheat. Mainstream archaeology finds no supporting sites, inscriptions, or artifacts matching these details. Those animals and technologies are anachronistic for pre-Columbian America. DNA studies show Native American ancestry traces overwhelmingly to ancient Asian migrations via Beringia. No significant pre-Columbian Middle Eastern genetic signal aligns with the narrative. The Church’s own essay states DNA cannot prove or disprove the book’s historicity. Most non-LDS scholars view it as a 19th-century composition by Joseph Smith. Believers cite spiritual witness. Secular evidence for its ancient historicity remains absent.

THE BOOK OF MORMON IS TRUE; GOD HAS TOLD ME BY HIS OWN VOICE! JESUS CHRIST IS THE CENTRAL CHARACTER AND PREEMINENT FIGURE THROUGHOUT!

@joshnaa2gez Why do you call Mormons good? No one is good except God alone. All have sinned and fallen short. Only by grace have we been saved through faith and THAT not of ourselves, it is the gift of God

If you think Mormons are good people but are going to hell, then you believe in a god who sends good people to hell for simple ignorance. Reevaluate your assumptions about God.

@jesse_k_fox You know…there’s a very simple explanation that any critic, scholar or historian can give you. You just refuse to hear it

A miraculous work and wonder… 196 years, no critic, scholar, historian can truly explain or replicate. What Joseph Smith did, remarkable.

@DrFrankTurek They chafe under the yoke and prefer their own authority, even if it means their own damnation. I think C.S. Lewis in The Problem of Pain wrote, “The doors of hell are locked on the inside.”

Why do you think some people reject Christianity?

@Luke_ehM @joepoopie12 Who else would respond? There is no professional clergy in the LDS church I am neither pastor nor priest, but I’m interested in the conversation

@SierraSamIV @joepoopie12 Who do you think is responding in defense of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Everyday members.

I’ve often heard it said, primarily in jest, that other denominations feel threatened by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We have a lay ministry that is all voluntary, so if their congregation converts the other churches lose funding. I never quite believed it. You know how many of the people attacking us online have “pastor” in their bio? Most of the ones I have looked at. These people are paid by the donations to their church. These donations should be serving their community, not enriching the preacher.

@joepoopie12 @Luke_ehM Well Mr. Poopie, I was just trying to say that if you pose a theological argument don’t be shocked if theologians respond

@SierraSamIV @Luke_ehM Why would your mind jump to “parking lot attendants” or “Walmart greeters”? I think he’s getting at why isn’t the members of these pastor’s and priest’s congregation responding, or at least more so. (I mean they probably do, but who knows what the actual stats are)

A) I was trying to understand how the LDS Articles of Faith are not a creed. Apparently it’s not technically a creed because it’s open to additional revelation; however it accomplishes the same purpose. B) I’m not Protestant, but I believe that most of them accept the Nicene creed because it’s a conservative and clear summary of faith drawn directly from the holy scriptures. It stamped out early heresies that denied the divinity of Christ or that he was only a spirit. Every Christian, universally, should easily accept the articles of faith in it. It doesn’t rely on much theological inference - of course, you may disagree (e.g. the trinity)

@SierraSamIV @Mormonger @grok Your point? We have our creeds, Nicenian's have theirs; and I find it especially strange protestants specifically are defending creeds made by orthodoxies in opposition to their own "Protest"; I mean Catholics shipped protestants out of England because THEY are 'Heretics', right?

As Mormons, we must be totally honest. Creedalists do worship a Jesus Christ. It's just not the Jesus Christ revealed in the Bible. It is a Jesus Christ that was invented by councils of men and who is not like the one in the Bible. Thus, they are not Biblical Christians.

@ICSUSFuture @ABC Yeah, exactly the same. One was violently murdered with a knife, the other is facing the consequences for his actions. It’s basically the same thing. They both lost their life, right?

Let me remind everyone taking race out of it 2 young ppl lost their lives 1 on the day of the stabbing & 1 today, no one should put their hands on anyone because they they deem that person to be in a place they’re not supposed to be and in regards to Anthony no one has the right to take anyone else’s life unless they can prove theirs was genuinely in danger beyond a reasonable doubt let’s take race out of it for now and look at the bigger picture. This is a sad day for both young men.

BREAKING: A Texas teen has been found guilty of murder over the fatal stabbing of another teen at a high school track meet last year. abcnews.link/UoeSMZK

@grok @Mormonger OK, so the continuing revelation could add to the articles of faith. It’s an open document so to speak; not a closed creed

@grok @Mormonger And that continuing revelation could very well contradict something that is in their articles of faith, correct?

Yes, in traditional Christian usage, a creed is typically a closed, fixed statement of essential beliefs—authoritative, complete, and settled by councils or tradition to define orthodoxy (e.g., Nicene Creed). The LDS Articles of Faith are canonical scripture and a concise summary of core doctrines. However, Article 9 explicitly affirms continuing revelation, so the Church does not treat them as a closed creed. More truth can come through living prophets. This openness to ongoing revelation is the key distinction.

@grok @Mormonger So a summary of faith, like a creed or the Articles of Faith, has to be closed in order to be considered a creed?

Yes, the Articles of Faith are canonical scripture and authoritative. The Church doesn't treat them as a traditional closed creed mainly because Article 9 affirms continuing revelation through living prophets—God can reveal more. FLDS groups also accept the Articles of Faith and standard scriptures. The split occurred because they continued plural marriage after the 1890 Manifesto (under President Wilford Woodruff) officially ended new plural marriages as revelation. The mainstream Church teaches the current prophet holds the keys of authority; unauthorized polygamy leads to excommunication. FLDS see stopping it as apostasy. The core issue is obedience to living leadership and priesthood authority, not the Articles themselves.

@grok @Mormonger So they are not considered a creed because they are not binding? If not, on what basis were the FLDS groups rejected?

The LDS Articles of Faith are a 13-point summary of core beliefs written by Joseph Smith in 1842 and canonized in the Pearl of Great Price. They serve a similar purpose to creeds as a concise statement of doctrine. However, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not view them as a creed in the traditional sense. It rejects the early Christian creeds (Nicene, etc.) as products of apostasy and emphasizes that the Articles of Faith are open-ended, affirming continuing revelation (Article 9: “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things”). They are not treated as a closed, binding system like many historic creeds.

@joshnaa2gez By that logic it was unchristian for St Irenaeus to write Against Heresies to refute Gnosticism. In fact maybe the entire New Testament was a mistake because a majority of it was written to combat false teaching, divisions, and sectarian movements.

You know who isn’t very Christian? The people who spend all day on X telling Latter-day Saints that they aren’t Christian.

As an outsider, I think I have an accurate measure of the LDS church: I find that many LDS are not entirely ignorant to their flawed foundations and lack of internal cohesion, but they are taught to carry on in spite of it because they are anchored by family, community, and a clouded sense of faith that teaches them to forget everything else and follow their feelings

I knew creedal christians were ignorant about Latter-day saints but I didn't realize the extent of it.

It may be true that two of three returned and that none denied their testimony, which is worth considering, but it’s also 100% true that ALL of them became estranged from Joseph Smith and the church at some point. I find that significant and worth investigating. If their testimony is relevant evidence, then their reasons for leaving are also relevant evidence. This alone does not disprove Mormonism, but it sheds light on the early movement and adds credibility to modern criticism of Joseph Smith

@SierraSamIV @DChadwickAuthor @grok Again why does that matter when they all came back and never denied their witness? Don’t dodge.

Bro... Joseph Smith is one of the most amazing men to ever live. Neither you or anybody you know could ever hold a candle to his command of scripture, his relationship with God, and his impact on the world. The man was murdered 180 years ago. He's dead. You guys got him. You won... ...and yet you can't seem to let go of him. Why is that? Why are you so obsessed with Joseph Smith still? Just a question. Could it be... that even 180 years after he was murdered, the movement he founded still runs rings around anything you try to do? You were able to kill his body, but you weren't able to kill his ideas. Again, why is that? Maybe you should take a look into what he said. Like really look. I think you're scared. I think you know there's a lot more there than you realize. If I'm wrong you got nothing to worry about. But if I'm right... and you know Brother Joseph the way I do... he just might change your entire life.