LDS

[Ray Agostini]

Do you believe God is unknown or, inherently unknowable?

Considering the vastness of the universe, and now even the theory of a Multiverse with at least eleven dimensions, I'm not banking on an anthropomorphic God as the God to end all Gods. So to speak.

I'm not able to answer questions that even Einstein couldn't. I do believe that who/whatever "controls" the universe (not just planet earth), is what I define as "God". Is it a sure knowledge? No. Is the ultimate God who controls all things "inherently unknowable"? Very likely. Can an ant comprehend the mind of Newton? Or, as Darwin phrased it, "A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton!"

 

[jsfisher]

Your stereotyping is what causes me angst.

What stereotyping would that be?

 

[Ray Agostini]

Have you not read your own links? Do any of them actually connect the ancient Israelites to Egyptian hieroglyphic text? If not, all of your links on the subject were shams, and it doesn't matter which one I had in mind.

That's a very broad and sweeping judgement. I'll ask you one more time, which link (or links) are you specifically referring to?

 

[Ray Agostini]

What stereotyping would that be?

"brain-washed", "mindless syophants [sic]".

 

[Slowvehicle]

One thing at a time, so I'll start with this:

Mention of horses in the Book of Mormon occur at:

Alma 18:9-10; 20:6; 18:12;
Ether 9:19
2 Nephi 15:28; 12:7
3 Nephi 21:14,22; 6:1; 4:4
Enos 1:21

2 Nephi 15:28 and 12:7, 3 Nephi 12:7 and 21:14 are references to Isaiah and Biblical prophecy (no connection to Book of Mormon people).

There is no mention of horses among any Book of Mormon people after 3 Nephi 21:22, or about 20AD.

3 Nephi 4:4 also hints that horses may have been used for food:

I wonder if you realize that the contents of the BoM are not evidence of the things claimed in the BoM?

Please review the bidding: my request was (and is, and has been) for "actual, practical, empirical evidence attested to by credentialed neutral scholars".

If Joseph Smith had concocted all this, it's a wonder he didn't include in his "Frontier fiction" novel a "Cowboys and Indians" scenario, but horses were never used in battle in the Book of Mormon. All of the warfare was conducted by soldiers on foot.

Neither "If it's a fake, why isn't it better?", nor, "If it's a fake, why isn't it worse?"are evidence. They are arguments used in attempts to bootstrap second-hand and third-hand accounts into reliable testimony.

I could ask, if Moroni gave Smith the words directly, why did he promulgate the error of tapir/llama/horse/I mean, deer?

There's also reason to believe that horses and chariots were used by the nobility (Alma 18:9, 20:6), suggesting that they were possibility a rare and expensive commodity. They may have become extinct in Mesoamerica at the turn of the 1st millennium, but that's only my theory why there's no mention of them post c.20AD.

What reason would that be, exactly, given that no evidence of wheeled vehicles larger than toys has even been reported inthe pre-Colombian Americas; given further that the largest and most extensive known mesoamerican road system uses steep staircases to surmount altitudes?

Yuri Kuchinsky has given links worth reading. Read them, then decide if there's any merit.

http://chriscarrollsmith.blogspot.com/2008/02/spencer-lake-horse-skull.html
http://archaeology.about.com/od/frauds/a/spencer_lake.htm

Merit? About as much as Piltdown Man.

Horses in the Book of Mormon (FAIR):

Excerpts:

Ah. The they were deer, or tapir, or bald llamas...none of which are, in fact, horses.
The thing apologists miss is that horse culture changes a society--it isn't just that there are no horse middens, but that there are no provisions for corraling or sheltering horses, nor for feeding horses, nor for storing silage. There are no artistic depictions of horses. Worse, as any horse-crazed kid will tell you--there is no evidence of tack.

Not to mention, I do not consider FAIR a "neutral source". Any more than, say, The National Enquirer or The Sun.

 

[jsfisher]

"brain-washed", "mindless syophants [sic]".

Neither were presented as stereotyping. The "brain-washed" comment was directed at Janadele based on her posts in this thread. There was no appeal to stereotypes in reaching that conclusion. The "mindless sycophant" comment was a question.

Are her children mindelss sycophants of the LDS Church?

 

[jsfisher]

That's a very broad and sweeping judgement.

It was neither a judgement nor very board. It was very narrow and specific question as to whether any of your links support a specific claim.

Can they?

 

[deaman]

Mr. Agostini -

Do you believe you (or anybody) will receive a reward for worshipping such a being?

 

[Ray Agostini]

I wonder if you realize that the contents of the BoM are not evidence of the things claimed in the BoM?

What the Book of Mormon says about horses is relevant to assessing whether it presents a realistic scenario, and not "Frontier fiction". It says that horses were not used by the military (alert one). Why? It says that horses were only used by the nobility, and possibly for food in extreme circumstances (alert two). There's no mention of horses in the Book of Mormon after 3 Nephi 22, or about 20AD (alert three). Why? These are "internal evidences" that don't fit a "Cowboys and Indians" "Frontier fiction" view one might expect from a 19th century American fiction writer.

Please review the bidding: my request was (and is, and has been) for "actual, practical, empirical evidence attested to by credentialed neutral scholars".

Non-credentialed scholars have been ground-breakers in research in all fields, in all ages of recorded history. But they usually burn them at the stake before their theories are accepted.

I could ask, if Moroni gave Smith the words directly, why did he promulgate the error of tapir/llama/horse/I mean, deer?

Moroni didn't give any words to Joseph Smith. The text of the Book of Mormon was dictated by Joseph Smith to amanuenses, chiefly Oliver Cowdery, over a 65 day period, when he (Joseph Smith) was 23 years old, and "unacquainted with the things of men". A lad. The process was one of revelation not by Moroni, but by God, and as D&C 1 explains:

24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

What reason would that be, exactly, given that no evidence of wheeled vehicles larger than toys has even been reported inthe pre-Colombian Americas; given further that the largest and most extensive known mesoamerican road system uses steep staircases to surmount altitudes?

It sure makes a lot of sense that "wheeled toys" existed, but Mesoamericans were just too dull and stupid to enlarge the concept to larger vehicles. That's always given me a good laugh.

Not to mention, I do not consider FAIR a "neutral source". Any more than, say, The National Enquirer or The Sun.

If you were really seeking to be objective, then you wouldn't ignore anything that is contrary to your preconceived notions. You should seek it out, and determine whether it has real merit, and not on what "credentialed scholars" say. That's real "freethinking", to challenge "accepted orthodoxies", whether in religion or science.

 

[Ray Agostini]

Mr. Agostini -

Do you believe you (or anybody) will receive a reward for worshipping such a being?

To be truthful, the only "reward" I would hope for is to be forgiven of my sins and weaknesses, and to be "accepted" by God, and to feel, as Saint Paul expressed it, "the peace that passes all understanding". I don't need plural wives, or a "bonking eternity", so to speak. I've never been a fan or supporter of polygyny, and I base that on Jacob 2:

1 The words which Jacob, the brother of Nephi, spake unto the people of Nephi, after the death of Nephi:

2 Now, my beloved brethren, I, Jacob, according to the responsibility which I am under to God, to magnify mine office with soberness, and that I might rid my garments of your sins, I come up into the temple this day that I might declare unto you the word of God.

...

Edited by LashL: 

Snipped for compliance with Rule 4. Please, do not copy and paste lengthy tracts of text from elsewhere.

 

[deaman]

You do expect a reward. A forgiveness of your sins.

 

[Ray Agostini]

You do expect a reward. A forgiveness of your sins.

Is that a capital offense?

 

[deaman]

I personally don't believe in sin.

I have a conscience, which coupuled with my intelligence and experiences in life, I live according to. If I don't I feel uneasy. If I do I feel well and able.

I do not believe in a god at all. I do however believe in principles such as compassion, patiece, kindness, helpfulness, attention, appreciation, acceptance.

The here and now is all I have.

It's all I need, because it's all I have.

No god needed, which is fine for me, since I don't believe in one.

 

[deaman]

Is that a capital offense?

No. Why do you ask? Surely, you don't believe that.

 

[deaman]

You live your life according to your belief, and your belief is that you will get a reward for worshipping a god who can't be known, and is inherently unknowable.

Just facts.

Also, you believe yourself to be a sinner.

 

[Ray Agostini]

I personally don't believe in sin.

I have a conscience, which coupuled with my intelligence and experiences in life, I live according to. If I don't I feel uneasy. If I do I feel well and able.

I do not believe in a god at all. I do however believe in principles such as compassion, patiece, kindness, helpfulness, attention, appreciation, acceptance.

The here and now is all I have.

It's all I need, because it's all I have.

No god needed, which is fine for me, since I don't believe in one.

You sound like a nice person. You don't really have to believe in God to be a nice person. I believe that you'll get "good karma", if you maintain these beliefs. If you do that, and there is a God, I'm pretty sure you'll be okay. And if there isn't a God (from your perspective), then you've still done much good in the world. I don't think you'll go wrong.

 

[Ray Agostini]

Also, you believe yourself to be a sinner.

That's not a "belief", it's a fact!

 

[Slowvehicle]

What the Book of Mormon says about horses is relevant to assessing whether it presents a realistic scenario, and not "Frontier fiction". It says that horses were not used by the military (alert one). Why? It says that horses were only used by the nobility, and possibly for food in extreme circumstances (alert two). There's no mention of horses in the Book of Mormon after 3 Nephi 22, or about 20AD (alert three). Why? These are "internal evidences" that don't fit a "Cowboys and Indians" "Frontier fiction" view one might expect from a 19th century American fiction writer.

OK, thanks. You don't realize that the contents of the BoM are not evidence for the claims made in the BoM.

Non-credentialed scholars have been ground-breakers in research in all fields, in all ages of recorded history. But they usually burn them at the stake before their theories are accepted.

Yeah. I haz teh powah to declare heresy.
See your equivocation misses the point that Bruno was not burned by scientists because he war right, but by the Church because he was, by their definition, a heretic.

I am at least grateful that you didn't go the "they laughed at Galileo" route...

Moroni didn't give any words to Joseph Smith. The text of the Book of Mormon was dictated by Joseph Smith to amanuenses, chiefly Oliver Cowdery, over a 65 day period, when he (Joseph Smith) was 23 years old, and "unacquainted with the things of men". A lad. The process was one of revelation not by Moroni, but by God, and as D&C 1 explains:

Got it. It was 'god', not Moroni, that did not tell Smith the truth, and let him promulgate demonstrable errors.

And invent funny languages.

It sure makes a lot of sense that "wheeled toys" existed, but Mesoamericans were just too dull and stupid to enlarge the concept to larger vehicles. That's always given me a good laugh.

I will be fascinated to read your y evidence of the existence an use of wheeled vehicles in the pre-Colombian Americas. Got any?

Have you ever seen the Inka roads? Have you ever tried to ride a horse (or have a "tapir" pull a "chariot") up a steep (>1:1) staircase?

If you were really seeking to be objective, then you wouldn't ignore anything that is contrary to your preconceived notions. You should seek it out, and determine whether it has real merit, and not on what "credentialed scholars" say. That's real "freethinking", to challenge "accepted orthodoxies", whether in religion or science.

You act as if I haven't...IIRC, FAIR claims that theBoA is actually Abraham's autograph (without ever addressing how that got inserted into common funerary texts...). FAIR supported the Spencer Lake horse as authentic. (FAIR even waffled about the Los Lunas Decalogue Stone, I beleive.)

FAIR is an apologetic organ, with the rich intellectual credentials of AIG.

Do yourself a favor, and do not equivocate "ignore" with "reject as patently biased and academically lacking".

 

[SezMe]

Hello, Ray! Always glad to talk to a jack Mormon!

 

[Ray Agostini]

OK, thanks. You don't realize that the contents of the BoM are not evidence for the claims made in the BoM.

The Book of Mormon contains internal evidence of its own claims.

Yeah. I haz teh powah to declare heresy.
See your equivocation misses the point that Bruno was not burned by scientists because he war right, but by the Church because he was, by their definition, a heretic.

Bruno went against "accepted" scientific theories of his day. While it is true that "the Church burned him":

So once again, we see that in the popular imagination Bruno stands for something close to the heart of ordinary people, perhaps breaking taboos, questioning authority, shunning religious control and authoritarianism, thinking new and unorthodox ideas, even if not rubber-stamped by contemporary science. Perhaps in some distant future more of Bruno’s ideas will find justification. Is reincarnation a fact? Are there numerous inhabited worlds, and is the universe infinite and ever-expanding? Do we have eternal souls that can never die? These questions, once braved by Bruno, still lie outside the scope of science.

The Legacy of Giordano Bruno.

Got it. It was 'god', not Moroni, that did not tell Smith the truth, and let him promulgate demonstrable errors.

And invent funny languages.

God has always revealed scripture by allegory and metaphor. Do you believe Jesus' parables were literal? Do you think the parable of the Good Samaritan was literal? Seriously? It was convenient to the powerful message he wanted to convey to Pharisees of mind and prejudicial disposition, and because of that, the Jews (his own people) considered him a "heretic".

Have you ever seen the Inka roads? Have you ever tried to ride a horse (or have a "tapir" pull a "chariot") up a steep (>1:1) staircase?

Who are the "Inka"?

You act as if I haven't...IIRC, FAIR claims that theBoA is actually Abraham's autograph (without ever addressing how that got inserted into common funerary texts...). FAIR supported the Spencer Lake horse as authentic. (FAIR even waffled about the Los Lunas Decalogue Stone, I beleive.)

FAIR is an apologetic organ, with the rich intellectual credentials of AIG.

Do yourself a favor, and do not equivocate "ignore" with "reject as patently biased and academically lacking".

I see enough inspiration in "Mormon scripture" to discard "alternative theories". Joseph Smith was a very complex character