LDS II: The Mormons

[Giordano]

In response to:

Nevermind.

 

[Pixel42]

It's the anachronisms that prove that the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction.Even if Smith had got 99% of the historical context correct (which he probably could have done if he'd bothered to do any research whatsoever) later discoveries (eg using DNA analysis) would have been sufficient to show it to be a fraud.

 

[Pup]

Where have I said that they do "speak of a mighty civilization"?

It's my understanding that archaelogical interpretation of the Book or Mormon, by pro-Moron-biased researchers, has followed a trajectory roughly starting with the idea that the story did represent a mighty civilization that covered the Americas, at least up into North America.

As that interpretation seemed increasingly unlikely to be supported by archaelogical evidence (widespread examples of horse culture or iron smelting for example), the new interpretation narrowed the site down to central America, where DNA and artifact evidence would be rarer and more easiliy lost among the general flow of events as other civilisations rolled over the smaller Book of Mormon ones.

Does that sound right? Are you placing yourself then among those with the more recent interpretation, and rejecting those with the "mighty civilization" interpretation?

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.

But why should we assume those things which will be revealed will prove the Book of Mormon to be correct? You're welcome to have that sort of faith, just as any scientistic will have "faith" enough in a hypothesis to test it, but others can't be expected to share such confidence until such evidence actually comes forth, if we're using the usual scientific method here.

 

[tsig]

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



Refer to my preceding comment.



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.



The "rest" appears in the paragraph immediately below.





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?



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



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



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?



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



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.



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.

Why doesn't god communicate with everyone and cut out the middle man?

And why did god use King James English?

 

[asydhouse]

Sheesh! This thread is like a mormon missionary session where the missionary has decided to expose the hypocrisy, delusional mindset, and outright lies that are the LDS and their bs books.

Keep on doing it, Skyrider! You must be turning off thousands of interested readers!

Reading what you post is like getting an inoculation against your religion. Good work. Carry on!

 

[tsig]

Sheesh! This thread is like a mormon missionary session where the missionary has decided to expose the hypocrisy, delusional mindset, and outright lies that are the LDS and their bs books.

Keep on doing it, Skyrider! You must be turning off thousands of interested readers!

Reading what you post is like getting an inoculation against your religion. Good work. Carry on!

Self awareness is one of the casualties of having the Truth^TM.

 

[Olowkow]

...

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?

...

Easy. Smith didn't "know" anything of the sort. He just invented the claim from his own ill informed knowledge of geography and relied on the way all fictions, myths and angelic advisories are perpetuated: indifference, gullibility, ignorance and more lies.

No mystery here. The so called tributary that apologists want so desperately to exist to vindicate Smith's fantasy is just a wadi (a gulley) not even near the Red Sea. The Red Sea is a body of water between Arabia and Africa. No rivers. Check a map. Photos by apologists of a river are amateurish attempts to mislead the gullible and disarm the skeptic. Religious dogma is not geography.

 

[halleyscomet]

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

I'm sorry you find his statements so impenetrable. The rest of us understand him just fine.

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

THANK YOU. That's the most evidence based statement you've made.

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.)

Frankly, there are none. Every testable claim made by the BoM has been shown to be false. The closest anyone has come to provide evidence supporting the BoM is finding geographic features that they think kinda sorta MIGHT be the ones mentioned in the BoM. The very language the BoM claims to have been written in left no trace.

You MUST be desperate for evidence if you're asking us to provide some, when we've spent pages upon pages examining testable claims in the BoM that prove it a pack of damned lies.

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.

Oh! Oh! Oh! Mr. Kotter! Mr. Kotter! I got that one!

Smith's surviving drawings of the papyrus from which he claimed to have translated the Book of Abraham depict actual Egyptian. His translation key is complete BS, proving useless for translating any other tested example of Egyptian, even failing to translate the surviving portions of the papyrus he used as the basis for the BoA.

Egyptian as Smith WROTE it is the equivalent of the Americans who get random Japanese characters tattooed on their bodies thinking they mean "Peace" or "strength" when they actually mean things like "Stupid white Devil."

Smith's "Reformed Egyptian," which is mentioned in the BoM, has left no extant examples. Funny how the supposedly dominant language in Palestine for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years, left no trace, yet apparently "minor" languages like Aramaic left a rich history of its evolution and development.

Does that sound right? Are you placing yourself then among those with the more recent interpretation, and rejecting those with the "mighty civilization" interpretation?

The BoM Describes a mighty civilization for very small definitions of "Mighty," Just as 2+ 2 = 1 for very small definitions of "2"

 

[halleyscomet]

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

I would hope for a less narcissistic, self-centered attitude from an alleged "Christian." Your "Logic" would ask a white man in the 1950's what harm segregation does him and conclude segregation does no harm because the white man could not point to something that harmed him personally.

This is America. An injustice against one of us is an injustice against all of us. A hate crime against one of my fellow Americans diminishes me, because it erodes the very fabric of the freedom that forms the bedrock of this nation. Systematic suppression of one group, be it over race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or any other factor, erodes the liberties of all.

A tyrant will first attack the lowest casts of a society. The militarization of the US police to facilitate suppression of Blacks and Hispanics has eroded the limits on police power to the point where all Americans are threatened, even lilly white, upstanding citizens such as yourself SkyRider44.

You continue to deny that the LDS church's efforts to help pass Prop 8 forced Mormon doctrine on non-Mormons. For a while I found this one of the most idiotic arguments I've ever read, and I used to have a subscription to the Creation research Society Quarterly. Then it dawned on me. Your arguments make perfect sense, if one considers homosexuals to be sub-human.

LDS efforts to pass Prop 8 didn't infringe upon the rights of any PEOPLE if one does not consider homosexuals to BE people.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Once again, you stoop to the the inherently dishonest technique of editing, redcacting, and omitting my words in order to make then suit you. The fact that this has become your default does not excuse it, or do you any credit at all.

Habitual dishonesty is still, at the end of the day, dishonest.

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

A basic structural design underlies every kind of writing. The writer will in part follow this design, in part deviate from it, according to his skill, his needs, and the unexpected events that accompany the act of composition. -Dr. William Strunk Jr., Elements of Practice and Composition. 1935

Refer to my preceding comment.

Oddly enough, your "preceding comment" does not, in fact, address the fact that you pretended to glean my motivation, and did so very badly.

You also failed (again) to address my actual question, preferring your pale pink straw-stuffed herrings to actual engagement.

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.

How very dishonest of you. How very telling that, in your defensiveness, pointing out that there is not, nor has there yet been presented an iota of evidence that indicates that a mighty civilization "covered the land" of the pre-colmbian americas for "thousands of years" incorporating the anachronisms of Smith's inventions in the BoM may be honestly characterized as an "attack". An odd charge from one who rants about others' "hypersensitivity".

It is your club that reveres the BoM, and makes unsupported claims for it. It is, perforce, the privilege of your club to provide support for "the most excellent (some sources say, "perfect") of books".

What evidence have you and yours to offer, regarding the exciting-but-problematic "american chapters" of the BoM?

(You have yet to address that question, by the way.)

The "rest" appears in the paragraph immediately below.

It must be pointed out that the "paragraph immediately below" (in your post) does not, in fact, address your dishonest claim that I have "repeatedly" made a specific claim; a specific claim that you, personally, invented; a specific claim that is yours, not mine; a specific claim dishonestly fabricated, and dishonestly attributed to me.

I was under the impression that your club paid at least lip service to the injunctions against speaking falsely...

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?

Um, srFF? Where, specifically, do you think it could be argued that I attributed the phrase,

...a mighty civilization that "covered the land" for "thousands of years"...

...to you? Be specific.

You continually, as this, your most recent post indicates, make free to edit, redact, alter, and omit my own, words, actual words I have actually posted, with no indication. The phrase,

...a mighty civilization that "covered the land" for "thousands of years"...

...is not yours, not attributed to you. Unless and until you demonstrate where I indicated, or implied, an attribution of those words to you, you stand again revealed in dishonesty.

I'll accept your apology.

Are you now admitting that the "civilization" Smith invented in the exciting "american chapters" of the BoM did not, in fact, "cover the land" for "thousands of years"? That would, at least, help explain why there is no evidence of the events that you would have us suppose to have taken place in Smith's invention.

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

As if. Your little bit of condescension seems no more than a Verónica grande, a clumsy attempt to make it seem as if you are not, in fact, inviting me to join you in a falsehood. I choose not to do so.

You must make your false statements all on your own.

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

Consider the Teapot; consider the Unicorn; consider Hitchens' Maxim.

Your obligation is not to me, but to the service of honesty and truth.

Your claim, your onus.

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?

You may want to revisit Strunk, on clarity; you seem to be losing focus. What has a wadi, supposedly located near the Red Sea, have to do with the exciting "american chapters" of Smith's invention?

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

You practice dishonesty. I asked you, personally, for your own personal opinion. You have yet to vouchsafe such. The evasion is curious, but not surprising.

When, in your opinion, is þͤ Fludde to be supposed to have happened?

When in your opinion, is whatever-civilization-you-are-retreating-to , but referred to in in the exciting "american chapters" of Smith's invention to be supposed to have taken place, and where is it to be supposed to have been located?

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.

So much for Smith even claiming to adhere to the xian canon.

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.

What an oddly dishonest construction.

You have, in fact, overreached your conclusion, as any honest evaluation would show. You presume to divination; you arrogate to suppositions not supported.

Trust me: you do not want me "defending" your club's superstitions.

However, do feel free to support any of the exciting "american chapter" events you would have us suppose to have happened, if you are able. I've been asking for a while, now...

 

[Slowvehicle]

I'm sorry you find his statements so impenetrable. The rest of us understand him just fine.<respectful snip for space>

TYVM.

I have yet to make much of the poignant irony of being directed to Lorem Ipsum by someone whose Big Book o' 'god' Stories" is to be supposed to have been "translated" from an entirely fictitious "language"...

 

[tsig]

TYVM.

I have yet to make much of the poignant irony of being directed to Lorem Ipsum by someone whose Big Book o' 'god' Stories" is to be supposed to have been "translated" from an entirely fictitious "language"...

Smith didn't translate anything, he read the words as they appeared in his hat.

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

have archeologists proven the part about aliens and volcanoes yet? Or is that a different books??

 

[halleyscomet]

Smith didn't translate anything, he read the words as they appeared in his hat.

In other words, God's English is TERRIBLE

TYVM.

I have yet to make much of the poignant irony of being directed to Lorem Ipsum by someone whose Big Book o' 'god' Stories" is to be supposed to have been "translated" from an entirely fictitious "language"...

Perhaps the Voynich manuscript is written in "Reformed Egyptian."

What if the Voynich manuscript is actually a transcription without modification of the brass plates? We could use the Book of Mormon to decode the language of the Voynich manuscript and then use that translation key to create a MORE ACCURATE TRANSLATION OF THE BOOK OF MORMON!!

Jinkies!

have archeologists proven the part about aliens and volcanoes yet? Or is that a different books??

You're thinking of a later con man who borrowed HEAVILY from Smith but by all accounts didn't get NEARLY as many women into bed with his version of the con.

 

[tsig]

In other words, God's English is TERRIBLE

Yep.

According to these accounts, Joseph placed either the interpreters or the seer stone in a hat, pressed his face into the hat to block out extraneous light, and read aloud the English words that appeared on the instrument.2


https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng


This is no more translating than reading these posts. Yet we hear claims that god used the word 'horse' for 'tapir'.

 

[skyrider44]

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?

Of course not. How would it be possible for an organization the size and reach of the LDS Church to not have, in some unintended way, impacted someone negatively?

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.

You may want to qualify your statement. As it stands, it suggests that the entire BoM text is of "erroneous caliber." That is incorrect. Joseph Smith himself said (paraphrasing) "If there are mistakes in the book, they are the mistakes of men." In other words, he openly acknowledged that he may have erred re. some passages.

 

[Craig4]

Just out of curiosity SR44, where do you stand on the whole Heartland versus South America debate in the Mormon Church? Where did this Lost Tribe build their civilization? Of course, either answer will be a target rich environment but I'm interested in what you think.

 

[Craig4]

Of course not. How would it be possible for an organization the size and reach of the LDS Church to not have, in some unintended way, impacted someone negatively?



You may want to qualify your statement. As it stands, it suggests that the entire BoM text is of "erroneous caliber." That is incorrect. Joseph Smith himself said (paraphrasing) "If there are mistakes in the book, they are the mistakes of men." In other words, he openly acknowledged that he may have erred re. some passages.

So JS misread the bit about the horses and the steel?

 

[halleyscomet]

Yep.

According to these accounts, Joseph placed either the interpreters or the seer stone in a hat, pressed his face into the hat to block out extraneous light, and read aloud the English words that appeared on the instrument.2


https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng


This is no more translating than reading these posts. Yet we hear claims that god used the word 'horse' for 'tapir'.

Joseph Smith himself said (paraphrasing) "If there are mistakes in the book, they are the mistakes of men." In other words, he openly acknowledged that he may have erred re. some passages.

Hence the claim that Smith was illiterate or nearly so. He didn't "translate" the stone so much as read magically appearing text. The only way there could BE errors would be if Smith wasn't very good at reading very small selections of text. One wonders why, if the stones were "smart" enough to provide the English word, they also didn't notice Smith had stupidly written "Horse" instead of "Tapir" or "Steel" instead of "Bronze" and repeat the correct word until he got it right. God has a LOT to learn about interface design.

To the credit of the LDS, sidestepping the extensive errors of the BoM by depicting Smith as a marginally literate simpleton is internally consistent with the BoM itself. The men chosen to be prophets in the BoM tend to be idiots at best. Intelligence is not highly prized in the BoM.

 

[JaysonR]

Of course not. How would it be possible for an organization the size and reach of the LDS Church to not have, in some unintended way, impacted someone negatively?



You may want to qualify your statement. As it stands, it suggests that the entire BoM text is of "erroneous caliber." That is incorrect. Joseph Smith himself said (paraphrasing) "If there are mistakes in the book, they are the mistakes of men." In other words, he openly acknowledged that he may have erred re. some passages.

Some?

OK, sidestepping that downplaying (as there are scores of errors, not "some" errors); how about you address your claim regarding Hebrew idioms which you still have not answered which I have repeatedly asked for from you?

Also; I never once asserted that the errors in the BoM were by any hand other than a human - so taking the time to say that if there are errors in the BoM they are the fault of humans is rather unneeded; of course the errors in the BoM are by humans.

And unintentional is not a quality I think summarizes the entire history of the LDS impact upon citizens.
I am not claiming the LDS is evil, or purely errant in their enterprise; no, but they do hold beliefs that are oppressive in nature and have enforced them over their history in manners which have negatively impacted citizens.