LDS II: The Mormons

halleyscomet said:
You pointed to the Book of Mormon as the "evidence" that its contents were true. You've been asked to provide evidence and the ONLY evidence you've provided has been your own religious beliefs. If you HAVE evidence, produce it. If you don't, you quite literally might as well be asking us to Kiss Hank's Ass. I know you don't like that. I know that annoys you, but it's the cold hard truth of the level of "proof" you've provided so far.



You keep accusing BoM critics of lying. Let's start narrowing that down. Please, give me some examples of lies from this article:

http://mit.irr.org/scientific-search-nephite-remains

If you're telling the TRUTH about your critics lying, then you must be able to give examples of those lies, right? Let's dispense with the vague hand-waving and get down to some actual nuts and bolts.
Click to expand...

I'll read your articles if you'll read the Book of Mormon.

bb
 
Billy Baxter said:
The major trace they left is the BOM itself.
Click to expand...

Why, it's just like Hank's letter all about the rules for Kissing Hank's Ass!

http://www.jhuger.com/kissing-hanks-ass

Me:"I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the **** out of people just because they're different?"

Mary:"It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."

Me:"How do you figure that?"

Mary:"Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough for me!"

Me:"Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."

John:"No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."
Click to expand...

Billy Baxter, are you SURE your posts aren't really a performance art piece to present a Mormon-themed retelling of "Kissing Hank's Ass?" The parallels are striking. You posts are almost a pastiche of the one-act play.
 
Billy Baxter said:
I'll read your articles if you'll read the Book of Mormon.

bb
Click to expand...

I have read it. I've even given permission for some of my commentaries to be re-used in a study guide, Nephi's Broken Bow. Check it out.

I'm particularly fond of Nephi. He may be the single dumbest man in literature. I don't normally enjoy "humiliation porn" stories but he's such a pompous yet singularly inept moron that he drains all empathy from the reader. He provides the perfect example of a jackass you want to watch suffer.

His rationalization for murdering a passed out drunk man in cold blood offers a disturbing insight into his mindset and the sadistic narcissism that drives his actions. It's a GOOD thing he's so incompetent because his underlying sadism would be truly terrifying if paired with even remedial competence.

Now you have to read: http://mit.irr.org/scientific-search-nephite-remains just like you promised. :D:thumbsup:

That reminds me, I kinda abandoned my BoM re-write a year or so back. The original is such a drawn-out, poorly written, meandering affair. It could really do with a vicious edit.
 
Last edited:
Billy Baxter said:
The major trace they left is the BOM itself. IANA archaeologist , nor do I care much about minutia like salad forks, silk pajamas or the absence of the right colors of horses in the BOM.

bb
Click to expand...

My Dear Mr. Baxter:

This kind of continued perfidy is why you are widely perceived as a dishonest disputant.

As has been pointed out to you:

1. "Silk Pajamas" is your unique (and foolish) contribution: no one but you hase even mentioned pajamas, and your continued harping on that "claim" is, in fact, a person-of-straw argument. Not to mention being a dishonest red herring.

On the other hand, Smith's BoM makes remarkably silly and demonstrably erroneous unsuppported claims about the kinds of fabrics encountered in the precolombian americas. Such errors are not what would be expected to be detected in the "most perfect of books", translated under the holy auspices of a "messenger" from 'god'.

2. "Salad forks" is another of your own dishonest perfidies. No one on this forum (other than you) has made a claim about "salad forks".

On the other hand, Smith's BoM makes remarkably silly and demonstrably erroneous unsupported claims about the kinds of materials out of which weapons, ornaments, and other common implements were fashioned in the precolonbian americas. such ahistorical gaffes are puzzling if one accepts the claim that the BoM (that "most perfect" of books) was translated with divine guidance.

3. As far as your silly, repeated lie about "spotted horses", I, and others, have pointed out that, were there the least scintilla of actual evidence of horse-husbandry in the precolombian americas, the issue of their markings would, in fact, be a horse of another color. However, since there is not only an utter lack of evidence for the employ of horses in the precolombian americas, but also a plethora of evidence that the horse was a stranger to the actual peoples who did, in fact, live there at the time, the unsupportable claims about the use of horses in war and elsewhere strike a patently false note in Smith's "most perfect" of fanfics.

And of course, there is your usupportable claim that the inhabitants of the precolombian americas "left" the BoM. The most perfunctory of textual analysis has much to offer anent the authorship and provenance of Smith's fanfic.

It is a matter of curiosity to consider who, in fact, you, personally think you are deceiving; your errors and misstatements (and outright untruths) have no traction here.

I remain, undeceivedly yours &ct.
 
Billy Baxter said:
the Spirit bears witness in our hearts and minds.

bb
Click to expand...

My Dear Mr. Baxter;

You seem to continue to struggle with the difference between your convictions about your superstitions and testable evidence. As often as you have been offered correction on this very point, what seemed at first disingenuous seems, with each of your parrotings, more and more dishonest.

I remain, unsinningly yours &ct.
 
Slowvehicle said:
My Dear Mr. Baxter;

You seem to continue to struggle with the difference between your convictions about your superstitions and testable evidence. As often as you have been offered correction on this very point, what seemed at first disingenuous seems, with each of your parrotings, more and more dishonest.

I remain, unsinningly yours &ct.
Click to expand...

And yet he grouses when I point out he's offering the EXACT SAME level of evidence as the acolytes of Kissing Hank's Ass.
 
I got this great book on the Civil War. It shows time-travelers from the future giving the confederates AK-47s, but I don't think that has any bearings on its accuracy.
 
Cleon said:
I got this great book on the Civil War. It shows time-travelers from the future giving the confederates AK-47s, but I don't think that has any bearings on its accuracy.
Click to expand...



There's a GREAT history book series about Medieval Europe told from the point of view of some of people from a village, a "Shire" if you will, of Little People. It's by some guy named Tolkien.
 
Billy Baxter said:
My comment was not meant to be taken literally. It is mockery of the myriad hosts of BOM opponents' attempts at DISHONEST LIES of their own.

bb
Click to expand...

So, it's not just god who speaks non-literally, it's Billy Baxter, too!

OK, I'll bite:

How is one to know when Billy Baxter is being literal and when "non-literal."

This signature is intended to irritate people.
 
Beady said:
Again with the straw man. It seems to be your go-to rejoinder.

So, how is one to know when god is literal and "non-literal"?

This signature is intended to irritate people.
Click to expand...

Beady said:
So, it's not just god who speaks non-literally, it's Billy Baxter, too!

OK, I'll bite:

How is one to know when Billy Baxter is being literal and when "non-literal."

This signature is intended to irritate people.
Click to expand...
I thought maybe I'd condense these two, for simplicity's sake:

How is one to know when god and Billy Baxter are to be taken literally and "non-literally"?

I assume it's the same criteria?

This signature is intended to irritate people.
 
Beady said:
I thought maybe I'd condense these two, for simplicity's sake:

How is one to know when god and Billy Baxter are to be taken literally and "non-literally"?

I assume it's the same criteria?

This signature is intended to irritate people.
Click to expand...



It's very simple.

In both cases, the literality is based upon whatever is convenient for Billy.
 
Hi ya, hi ya, hi ya! How are you?

Billy Baxter said:
the Spirit bears witness in our hearts and minds.

bb
Click to expand...

Spirit bears? Witnessing? What's all this, some kind of pseudo-Native American spiritual rap? Are we reduced to playing Indians now?

If I can't be one of the cowboys, I'm gunna take my cap pistol and go home.
 
Billy Baxter said:
Donn said:
Gee, I wonder what that evidence that the Book of Mormon is accurate (other than the word of the Book of Mormon itself) could be?

Toss a coin.
Click to expand...

the Spirit bears witness in our hearts and minds.

bb
Click to expand...

Where is the evidence for this spirit? Mind you leave musty old books out of it now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom