LDS II: The Mormons

[halleyscomet]

 

[tsig]

A shot of whiskey taken neat will produce a burning in the bosom and if you do enough of them the power of the spirit will be manifest.

 

[SezMe]

From our Broken Clock archives:http://chriscarrollsmith.blogspot.com/2008/02/spencer-lake-horse-skull.html

However, perhaps Dr Jones has continued his streak and, by proving the Spencer Lake horse a hoax, he has instead proven the BoM to be correct.

..... incorrect.

 

[halleyscomet]

A shot of whiskey taken neat will produce a burning in the bosom and if you do enough of them the power of the spirit will be manifest.

 

[skyrider44]

I must assume I was he or you (you had a little trouble assigning the quote?). You asked a question fully knowing the answer that yes, the LDS church does impact non believers? GREAT.

I asked how the LDS Church impacts non-LDS. I sincerely wanted to know how you have been impacted by the LDS Church.

You realize, of course, that non-Catholics who live in the Boston area are impacted by the Catholic Church . . . that non-Baptists who live in the Bible Belt are impacted by scores of Baptist churches . . . that non-Lutherans who live in the Great Lakes states are impacted by the Lutheran Church. Interestingly, though, I don't hear those "nons" whining about being impacted by the dominant church in their areas.

So I gave two examples, one of which I acknowledged was historic and relatively trivial, the other of which is major and more recent. But you don't deny either, just that other religions have sought to influence liquor legislation. Well to save you some trouble, I will even note in advance that other religions have also been anti-gay, although you are strangely silent on the LDS Church's role in Prop 8 in CA.. That is not what you asked at all. You asked if the church of LDS has impacted me personally . . .

and against my wishes.

I made no reference to your "wishes." This is the kind of freelance quoting that has caused SV to accuse me of dishonesty.

Even although I am not a believer in its religion. And clearly it has, as you now acknowledge. So did you know this all along, or did you just discover this?

As I said at the outset, I wanted to know how the LDS Church has impacted you personally. You seem unable to produce a credible response.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I asked how the LDS Church impacts non-LDS. I sincerely wanted to know how you have been impacted by the LDS Church.

And I asked when the exciting stories in the "american chapters" of the BoM are to be supposed to have taken place; and where. I sincerely want to know when, and where you would have us suppose that they are to have taken place.

You realize, of course, that non-Catholics who live in the Boston area are impacted by the Catholic Church . . . that non-Baptists who live in the Bible Belt are impacted by scores of Baptist churches . . . that non-Lutherans who live in the Great Lakes states are impacted by the Lutheran Church. Interestingly, though, I don't hear those "nons" whining about being impacted by the dominant church in their areas.

More eos quoque. How honorable. I don't hear you responding to actual on topic questions...

I made no reference to your "wishes." This is the kind of freelance quoting that has caused SV to accuse me of dishonesty.

Then why do you keep indulging yourself with it? Especially if you seem uncomfortable with it when it is done to you?

As I said at the outset, I wanted to know how the LDS Church has impacted you personally. You seem unable to produce a credible response.

As you seem to be unable to produce a response about the inventions and anachronisms in the BoA, and BoM, or about your opinion about the date of þͤ Fludde, or about the effect people living their lives outside the rules invented by your club have on you, personally.

...and you have been asked those questions more frequently, and for a much longer time.

 

[bruto]

I asked how the LDS Church impacts non-LDS. I sincerely wanted to know how you have been impacted by the LDS Church.
You realize, of course, that non-Catholics who live in the Boston area are impacted by the Catholic Church . . . that non-Baptists who live in the Bible Belt are impacted by scores of Baptist churches . . . that non-Lutherans who live in the Great Lakes states are impacted by the Lutheran Church. Interestingly, though, I don't hear those "nons" whining about being impacted by the dominant church in their areas.





I made no reference to your "wishes." This is the kind of freelance quoting that has caused SV to accuse me of dishonesty.



As I said at the outset, I wanted to know how the LDS Church has impacted you personally. You seem unable to produce a credible response.

Once again, it seems you conflate things. I would have thought it perfectly obvious that any time any church attempts to influence legislation, someone somewhere will feel the impact of this if it succeeds. The question has always been whether the LDS Church sought to impact the lives of non Mormons. The attempt and the success are separate. It also does not matter one iota for the question at hand whether a person making that statement has himself been impacted by the attempt. I live in Vermont, where the LDS church, along with other churches, failed in its attempt to squash civil unions, and even there, since I am not gay, had the attempt succeeded the impact would have been peripheral, affecting not myself directly but only the society in which I live. This does not prevent me in any way from observing that such attempts have been made. Yes indeed, where I am concerned, the attempts of the LDS church have thankfully been unsuccessful. That failure does not obviate the attempt.

 

[Giordano]

I asked how

You realize, of course, that non-Catholics who live in the Boston area are impacted by the Catholic Church . . . that non-Baptists who live in the Bible Belt are impacted by scores of Baptist churches . . . that non-Lutherans who live in the Great Lakes states are impacted by the Lutheran Church. Interestingly, though, I don't hear those "nons" whining about being impacted by the dominant church in their areas.

One has to start somewhere... Actually, I started with many of the churches you name before I bothered to get around to the Church of LDS! I don't like any of them, or the Church of LDS, or the Jewish religion (one that was tied to my cultural background) impacting what I do, or what other non-believers do, that doesn't bother anyone else. And the founders of my country didn't like it either, and made it against the Constitution. In fact, I would even think that your own Church of LDS is against being impacted by what other religions profess on many topics. Why do you think the Church of LDS has been persecuted in many parts of the non-Utah world? It is the Churches that you named in many cases. No I am not against only what the Church of LDS says affecting my personal life, but against any Church doing so.

So you don't hear anyone else "whining" about these impacts on the private actions of non-believers? Try taking the cotton out of your ears.

 

[Giordano]

I asked how the LDS Church impacts non-LDS. I sincerely wanted to know how you have been impacted by the LDS Church.

I made no reference to your "wishes." This is the kind of freelance quoting that has caused SV to accuse me of dishonesty.



As I said at the outset, I wanted to know how the LDS Church has impacted you personally. You seem unable to produce a credible response.

Are you maintaining that preventing me from achieving my wishes is not "impacting"? So you are only including what in this category- whipping? Other physical abuse? Okay, the Church of LDS has not whipped me- is everything else it has done okay then?

And I presume my watching human rights taken away from my friends and family has not impacted me personally? Are you really meaning to say that?

Much of this clearly belongs in another thread, so I will stop here (and therefore not even ask you how the private rights of others personally impacts you to the point that you want legislation against it). Let's get back to your evidence of domesticated horses, etc., in Pre-Columbian America. Now, you had already provided proof of what, exactly?

 

[Craig4]

I asked how the LDS Church impacts non-LDS. I sincerely wanted to know how you have been impacted by the LDS Church.

You realize, of course, that non-Catholics who live in the Boston area are impacted by the Catholic Church . . . that non-Baptists who live in the Bible Belt are impacted by scores of Baptist churches . . . that non-Lutherans who live in the Great Lakes states are impacted by the Lutheran Church. Interestingly, though, I don't hear those "nons" whining about being impacted by the dominant church in their areas.





I made no reference to your "wishes." This is the kind of freelance quoting that has caused SV to accuse me of dishonesty.



As I said at the outset, I wanted to know how the LDS Church has impacted you personally. You seem unable to produce a credible response.

So I guess not so much with you telling me what words in Hebrew JS used to describe the above discussed river.

 

[skyrider44]

Now that you have delivered yourself of that disingenuous eos quoque,

Perhaps you meant to write lorem ipsum, which for your purposes, would be more effective usage.

when, in your opinion, are the exciting "american chapters" if the BoM to be supposed to have taken place? Where,in your opinion, were the events described to be supposed to have taken place? For that matter, when, in your opinion, is þͤ Fludde to be supposed to have taken place?

Well, of course, they didn't take place . . . they never happened because there is no evidence for them (or as you have repeatedly noted, for virtually anything else in the BoM); hence, you provide convenient and timely support for my statement that you have said, in effect, that there is no evidence supportive of the content of the BoM. Do you now wish to change your position? Perhaps you would like to post important passages from the BoM for which there is evidence. (Re. the Flood, my geologist neighbor, a former bishop, says it never happened.)

 

[JaysonR]

Interestingly, though, I don't hear those "nons" whining about being impacted by the dominant church in their areas.

As I said at the outset, I wanted to know how the LDS Church has impacted you personally. You seem unable to produce a credible response.

Are you seriously suggesting that the LDS organization has not impacted anyone negatively simply because one individual has not given you an example of impact upon their own self?

His point wasn't about him; it was about the LDS organization itself - but even at that...

COME ON!

The real point is the erroneous caliber of the text; a point you have dodged repeatedly with impressive selection.

 

[John Jones]

Perhaps you meant to write lorem ipsum, which for your purposes, would be more effective usage.



Well, of course, they didn't take place . . . they never happened because there is no evidence for them (or as you have repeatedly noted, for virtually anything else in the BoM); hence, you provide convenient and timely support for my statement that you have said, in effect, that there is no evidence supportive of the content of the BoM. Do you now wish to change your position? Perhaps you would like to post important passages from the BoM for which there is evidence. (Re. the Flood, my geologist neighbor, a former bishop, says it never happened.)

Straw man argument yet again!

If you have credible evidence for the BoM claims, this would be a good time to present it.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Perhaps you meant to write lorem ipsum, which for your purposes, would be more effective usage.

You expose the paucity of your preparation, dismissing the neologism I intentionally crafted. It seems to me that either you did not understand it, which does not surprise me; or you hoped to raise a distraction, deflecting attention from the structure of the argument I addressed (which surprises me even less).

Perhaps you should abandon your dishonest attempts to divine what I "meant" to say, and address my actual questions, shorn of your redactions, alterations, omissions, and editing.

Well, of course, they didn't take place . . . they never happened because there is no evidence for them

Tu dixisti! [/thread].

(or as you have repeatedly noted, for virtually anything else in the BoM);

Oh, wait, I apologize. You were not done making false accusations.

I encourage you to demonstrate my "repeatedly" making this claim; or, for that matter, ever actually making it or a claim like it.

I have asked you about the exciting "american chapters" of theBoM; I have asked you about the patent falsehoods of the BoA; as for the rest, even you must admit that your accusation is your own personal invention, your own addition to the feast.

Perhaps you meant to address my actual questions, rather than indulging in more dishonesty.

...hence, you provide convenient and timely support for my statement that you have said, in effect, that there is no evidence supportive of the content of the BoM.

How interesting that you persist in falsehood.

Of course the honest counter to my pointing out that there is, in fact, no evidence of a mighty civilization that "covered the land" for "thousands of years"; incorporating the horse; husbanding kine and swine; minting metal coinage; cultivating foreign grains; employing the compass; and, lest we forget, smelting and working steel; in the pre-colombian americas, would be (as any honest scholar would be able to tell you) presenting actual evidence for such a thing.

Notice that an admitted hoax, a Pleistocene E. conversidens fossil, an "amazingly early" date (for plains peoples having the horse) of the early 1600s, and the isolated opportunistic gleaning of a wild barley by a small settlement do not, even taken together, speak of a mighty civilization that "covered the land" for "thousands of years".

Have you, in fact, any evidence?

I would sincerely like to see it, and to read it in context.

Do you now wish to change your position?

Why would you hope to conscript me to your falsehood?

Perhaps you would like to post important passages from the BoM for which there is evidence.

You truly have a problem with the onus.

Why would you expect me to do your homework, since you, yourself, cannot find evidence for the anachronisms Smith included in his invention?

(Re. the Flood, my geologist neighbor, a former bishop, says it never happened.)

Oddly enough, I did not ask about your neighbor's opinion. I asked you, personally, when you would have it that the exciting stories in the "american chapters" of the BoM are to be supposed to have taken place; where you, personally, would have it that the mighty civilization is to be supposed to have been located; and when you, personally, would have it that þͤ Fludde is to be supposed to have happened.

You have not, as I am sure you are aware, answered any of those questions, or any of a host of others I have asked.

 

[Giordano]

Perhaps you meant to write lorem ipsum, which for your purposes, would be more effective usage.



Well, of course, they didn't take place . . . they never happened because there is no evidence for them (or as you have repeatedly noted, for virtually anything else in the BoM); hence, you provide convenient and timely support for my statement that you have said, in effect, that there is no evidence supportive of the content of the BoM. Do you now wish to change your position? Perhaps you would like to post important passages from the BoM for which there is evidence. (Re. the Flood, my geologist neighbor, a former bishop, says it never happened.)

Your insistence on continuing this obviously irrelevant strawman argument, in the face of the many attempts here to help you understand the real points under discussion, convinces me more than ever that that you have no evidence, and that you know that you have no evidence.

 

[JaysonR]

Well, of course, they didn't take place . . . they never happened because there is no evidence for them (or as you have repeatedly noted, for virtually anything else in the BoM); hence, you provide convenient and timely support for my statement that you have said, in effect, that there is no evidence supportive of the content of the BoM. Do you now wish to change your position? Perhaps you would like to post important passages from the BoM for which there is evidence. (Re. the Flood, my geologist neighbor, a former bishop, says it never happened.)

Provide the following please WITHOUT AVOIDING ME OR THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:
Evidence for horses.
Evidence for steel.
Evidence for Egyptian, as Joseph Smith wrote it, being found anywhere else.
Evidence of a Hebrew idiom in the Book of Mormon which itself does not also exist in the Christian's standard Bible.

Also please explain why Greek idioms in derivative form exist in the Book of Mormon.

 

[Craig4]

Perhaps you meant to write lorem ipsum, which for your purposes, would be more effective usage.



Well, of course, they didn't take place . . . they never happened because there is no evidence for them (or as you have repeatedly noted, for virtually anything else in the BoM); hence, you provide convenient and timely support for my statement that you have said, in effect, that there is no evidence supportive of the content of the BoM. Do you now wish to change your position? Perhaps you would like to post important passages from the BoM for which there is evidence. (Re. the Flood, my geologist neighbor, a former bishop, says it never happened.)

Well, considering that the contents of the BoM are contradicted by vast amounts of evidence across multiple disciplines, is there any particular reason anyone should take the book the least bit seriously?

 

[skyrider44]

You expose the paucity of your preparation, dismissing the neologism I intentionally crafted. It seems to me that either you did not understand it, which does not surprise me; or you hoped to raise a distraction, deflecting attention from the structure of the argument I addressed (which surprises me even less).

You might consider writing to communicate rather than writing to impress (I think Professor Strunk had something to say about that).

Perhaps you should abandon your dishonest attempts to divine what I "meant" to say, and address my actual questions, shorn of your redactions, alterations, omissions, and editing.

Refer to my preceding comment.

Oh, wait, I apologize. You were not done making false accusations.

I encourage you to demonstrate my "repeatedly" making this claim; or, for that matter, ever actually making it or a claim like it.

You fail to grasp the cumulative weight of your attacks on the validity of the BoM. You deny that they add up to the conclusion I attribute to you, yet when asked to cite a passage for which there is evidence in the BoM, you are silent.

I have asked you about the exciting "american chapters" of theBoM; I have asked you about the patent falsehoods of the BoA; as for the rest, even you must admit that your accusation is your own personal invention, your own addition to the feast.

The "rest" appears in the paragraph immediately below.

Of course the honest counter to my pointing out that there is, in fact, no evidence of a mighty civilization that "covered the land" for "thousands of years"; incorporating the horse; husbanding kine and swine; minting metal coinage; cultivating foreign grains; employing the compass; and, lest we forget, smelting and working steel; in the pre-colombian americas, would be (as any honest scholar would be able to tell you) presenting actual evidence for such a thing.

Notice that an admitted hoax, a Pleistocene E. conversidens fossil, an "amazingly early" date (for plains peoples having the horse) of the early 1600s, and the isolated opportunistic gleaning of a wild barley by a small settlement do not, even taken together, speak of a mighty civilization that "covered the land" for "thousands of years".

Where have I said that they do "speak of a mighty civilization"? Here you find yourself committing the very offense of which you have repeatedly accused me. Let's see, how did you word it in a recent post . . . something about don't alter, or redact, or edit, etc., your words. Eh?

Why would you hope to conscript me to your falsehood?

Have no fear; your comfort zone is in no danger.

You truly have a problem with the onus.

What makes you think I'm obligated to prove anything to you? Are you the self-appointed arbiter of all truth?

Why would you expect me to do your homework, since you, yourself, cannot find evidence for the anachronisms Smith included in his invention?

It seems to me you have your hands full right now; i.e., how did Joseph Smith know a river flowed into the Red Sea?

Oddly enough, I did not ask about your neighbor's opinion.

You practice hair-splitting. You referred the Flood. I gave you the answer via a retired professor of geology.

I asked you, personally, when you would have it that the exciting stories in the "american chapters" of the BoM are to be supposed to have taken place; where you, personally, would have it that the mighty civilization is to be supposed to have been located; and when you, personally, would have it that þͤ Fludde is to be supposed to have happened.

Were you better versed in LDS doctrine, you would know that Joseph Smith, in composing the Articles of Faith , noted that there is more to be revealed.

You have not, as I am sure you are aware, answered any of those questions, or any of a host of others I have asked.

Indeed, a "host of others [you] have asked," the cumulative weight of which (as I have already said) justifies my claim that you believe there is no evidence for anything in the BoM. Oh, wait, could I have overreached in arriving at that conclusion? No, because you are unable/unwilling to cite a single passage for which there is evidence.

 

[bruto]

It depends on 1) what your wishes are, and 2) whether or not they would have a negative effect on society.

I disagree, and here I think lies a problem. It is your own spin that presumes impact must be negative. Impact is impact, good or bad. The laws that prevent hate mongers from persecuting Mormons and burning down their houses have a great impact. That these laws are right and just does not lessen their impact on bigots.

Likewise, laws that Mormons promote in the civil sphere have an intended impact on all people, Mormon or not. Arguing the merit of such laws is separate from acknowledging that the effort has existed and the impact has been intentional.

 

[JaysonR]

skyrider44,
...I would still appreciate a citation of an alleged Hebrew idiom in anything alleged to have been written by Joseph Smith which itself does not already exist in like form as an idiom within the standard Christian Bible.

I would also appreciate reading your explanations for why Greek idioms are also preserved in derivative form in these same writings.

In response to:

You might want to produce a credible answer to this question: How could Joseph Smith (an uneducated young man) have been able to include ancient Hebrew literary writing styles (idioms and chiasmus) in the Book of Mormon— elements that were not discovered until after his death?

Try grasping the scope of that.