LDS

[Shalamar]

I gather from the lack of a response, that I was mistaken, and the LDS church hasn't backed away from it's bigotry and hate of homosexuals?

Oh well.

 

[RandFan]

That's quite a confession.

Virtually every LDS boy and girl age 9 or 10 knows that the millennium will be preceded by radical changes in the earth and earth life in preparation for the Second Coming of the Savior. D&C 101:24 indicates that "every corruptible thing. . .shall be consumed." Many hereon will mock that passage, but the fact remains that they were ignorant of a basic LDS belief, all the while pretending to be well-informed--indeed, sterling critics--of Mormon doctrine.

Too, too funny.

Come on sky, I understand Mormon eschatology. I've no idea what on earth your post meant. You didn't say anything about predictions. You said "conditions fulfilled". That's vague. So, can you be just a little civil? Appealing to derision is more than just a fallacy. I've not treated you in kind.

 

[kellyb]

That's quite a confession.

Virtually every LDS boy and girl age 9 or 10 knows that the millennium will be preceded by radical changes in the earth and earth life in preparation for the Second Coming of the Savior. D&C 101:24 indicates that "every corruptible thing. . .shall be consumed." Many hereon will mock that passage, but the fact remains that they were ignorant of a basic LDS belief, all the while pretending to be well-informed--indeed, sterling critics--of Mormon doctrine.

Too, too funny.

So, you were saying you'll address the problems with the BoM after the rapture?

 

[RandFan]

That's quite a confession.

Virtually every LDS boy and girl age 9 or 10 knows that the millennium will be preceded by radical changes in the earth and earth life in preparation for the Second Coming of the Savior. D&C 101:24 indicates that "every corruptible thing. . .shall be consumed." Many hereon will mock that passage, but the fact remains that they were ignorant of a basic LDS belief, all the while pretending to be well-informed--indeed, sterling critics--of Mormon doctrine.

Too, too funny.

BTW: This is an example of failing to read to understand and simply painting an opponents words in the worst possible light so as to achieve a rhetorical advantage. It's poor form but worse than that, it's blatantly dishonest. I don't treat you that way. Please to have the courtesy and charity to treat me in kind. Fair enough?

FTR: Criticism isn't persecution. There is no evil intent that I can see from your opponents. We are trying to have a civil discussion. Take it down a notch.

 

[Slowvehicle]

You and others bash Christianity and Christians as if you're well-schooled in the faith. And here you are admitting that you don't understand a rudimentary belief Christians have about the advent of the millennium. I didn't expect you to accept that belief, but I did expect that you would at least be aware of it.

It appears that you have focused your understanding of Christianity and Mormonism in particular on everything and anything that is negative. In fact, your posts make that abundantly clear.

No, not at all. I am not sure upon what you base your demonstrably flawed perception of my understanding of xianism, but my knowledge of orthodox ideas about 'millennialism" are not, in fact, the issue. I am deeply aware of several flavors of millennial superstitions. What I asked you was what you, personally, meant, implying that the deficiencies in Mormon scholarship in Re: actual conditions in the pre-Colombian Americas, might in any way be influenced, rescued, or somehow made non-anachronistic by resort to contentious superstitionalism about the "end times", when "conditions preceding the 'millennium' have been fulfilled".
What flavor of 'millenialist' are you, and are LDS of one mind? Protestants, even Protestants within the same sect, do not agree upon a consistent eschatology; nor do Catholics--do LDS?

So, once again,i ask you politely:

Would you mind explaining what you mean by:

Only if I were inclined to believe--as you apparently do--that conditions preceding the millennium have been fulfilled.

The reason I ask for you to explain what you mean is that the statement, as you have made it, contains at least one outright lie, at least two uncivil mistaken assumptions, and at least one gross logical error.

What does your statement have to do, in your opinion, with the fact than no practical, empirical, physical evidence, attested to and tested by neutral scholars, has ever been offered for the suite of anachronisms claimed by the BoM to have existed in the pre-Colombian Americas?

What does your statement have to do, in your opinion, with the fact that not one Egyptologist, archaeologist, linguist, anthropologist, or archaeologist has supported Smith's claims about the BoA?

In brief, how do you think an appeal to superstition will rescue unreason?

I eagerly await your substantive answer.

 

[Slowvehicle]

That's quite a confession.

Virtually every LDS boy and girl age 9 or 10 knows that the millennium will be preceded by radical changes in the earth and earth life in preparation for the Second Coming of the Savior. D&C 101:24 indicates that "every corruptible thing. . .shall be consumed." Many hereon will mock that passage, but the fact remains that they were ignorant of a basic LDS belief, all the while pretending to be well-informed--indeed, sterling critics--of Mormon doctrine.

Too, too funny.

OK, so you,at least, are a pre-millennialist of one flavour or another. Fine.

NOW will you explain how your eschatological superstitions will suddenly make evidence for horse culture appear in pre-Colmbian civilizations? How they will make autochtonous peoples of the pre-Colombia Americas suddenly turn out to have had semitic genes after all? How they will make the Book of Breathing turn out to have been Abraham's autographic anti-Egyptian polemic (contained in common funerary texts) all along?

How do you believe that is going to work?

 

[Olowkow]

Skyrider44: Virtually every LDS boy and girl age 9 or 10 knows that the millennium will be preceded by radical changes in the earth and earth life in preparation for the Second Coming of the Savior.

I would have thought "believes" would be a bit more accurate. The child knows that touching a hot stove will result in a burn, but doctrinal teachings result in beliefs, which can and will be challenged. Your non standard use of language is just a little alarming.

 

[RandFan]

I would have thought "believes" would be a bit more accurate. The child knows that touching a hot stove will result in a burn, but doctrinal teachings result in beliefs, which can and will be challenged. Your non standard use of language is just a little alarming.

It would be nice if everyone could have a rudimentary understanding of epistemology. When I was a Mormon I would state, as most other Mormons state, that I "knew" the Church was true. Most people who understand epistemology will understand why that is a fatuous thing to say. One might as well state that they can fly to the moon and back in a day by flapping their arms.

Most people do not understand the limits of understanding/Knowledge.

Philosophy aside, without a caveat like "Virtually every LDS boy and girl age 9 or 10 knows that Mormon eschatology dictates that *the millennium will be preceded by..."

("The Millennium" is itself presuppositional but let's play along to advance the discussion)

 

[Empress]

I'm still at a loss as to what sky's latest side-trip has to do with the anachronisms of the BoM, since that's the subject that prompted his bizarre comment.

 

[bruto]

You and others bash Christianity and Christians as if you're well-schooled in the faith. And here you are admitting that you don't understand a rudimentary belief Christians have about the advent of the millennium. I didn't expect you to accept that belief, but I did expect that you would at least be aware of it.

It appears that you have focused your understanding of Christianity and Mormonism in particular on everything and anything that is negative. In fact, your posts make that abundantly clear.

I think the error is yours, Skyrider. Strange ideas about the advent of the millennium, though they may be shared by many Christians and persons who purport to be, are not rudimentary to Christianity in general, and passages from Mormon gospels are not accepted by any, as far as I know, other than Mormons, who do not by any stretch of the imagination make up a majority of Christians. And yes, I did grow up Christian, and yes, I did read the literature, and no, whatever odd and poorly spelled out idea you have about the millennium is not rudimentary to Christian faith.

Skyrider, to borrow a word from another culture, how about being a mensch and acknowledging error?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Your use of a lascivious example is acutely self-disclosing.

Really? What do you think it discloses, other than a sense of ribaldry?

Skyrider44, the Book Of Mormon and the Book Of Abraham are both transparent frauds concocted by a confidence man. Both books make claims that are clearly contradicted by solid evidence. They are lies. The fact that these lies gained for their source a great deal of power and wealth is a clear indication of his real motivations. This thread was created with the purpose of declaring the truth of Mormon doctrine, yet when others have asked why we should believe a doctrine based on obvious deception, you have offered nothing more than evasion, red herring diversions, shoulder shrugging and feeble apologetics about "revelations" that amount to nothing more than the parroting of Mormon doctrine as though it is self-evidently true. Our curiosity, at this point, is not derived from any reasonable speculation that there may be some merit of Joseph Smith's deception, but rather from the psychology involved in refusing to acknowledge facts in favor of a comforting delusion.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Really? What do you think it discloses, other than a sense of ribaldry?

Skyrider44, the Book Of Mormon and the Book Of Abraham are both transparent frauds concocted by a confidence man. Both books make claims that are clearly contradicted by solid evidence. They are lies. The fact that these lies gained for their source a great deal of power and wealth is a clear indication of his real motivations. This thread was created with the purpose of declaring the truth of Mormon doctrine, yet when others have asked why we should believe a doctrine based on obvious deception, you have offered nothing more than evasion, red herring diversions, shoulder shrugging and feeble apologetics about "revelations" that amount to nothing more than the parroting of Mormon doctrine as though it is self-evidently true. Our curiosity, at this point, is not derived from any reasonable speculation that there may be some merit of Joseph Smith's deception, but rather from the psychology involved in refusing to acknowledge facts in favor of a comforting delusion.

I am a BAAWA^* and I approve this psot.


------------------
* Bad Assed Atheist With Attitude.

 

[Pixel42]

You and others bash Christianity and Christians as if you're well-schooled in the faith. And here you are admitting that you don't understand a rudimentary belief Christians have about the advent of the millennium. I didn't expect you to accept that belief, but I did expect that you would at least be aware of it.

I'm pretty sure we're all aware of it. I know I am. What bafflled me is what it has to do with the factual errors in the BoM.

 

[Pixel42]

He's hoping that something will be discovered that makes everything fall into place.

And he thinks we should all wait until the millennium happens before assuming that the factual errors in the BoM will never be explained? I suppose that might be what he meant. If so it's one of the most mind boggling bits of rationalisation I've ever seen from a Mormon, and that's saying something.

 

[Pixel42]

I would have thought "believes" would be a bit more accurate. The child knows that touching a hot stove will result in a burn, but doctrinal teachings result in beliefs, which can and will be challenged. Your non standard use of language is just a little alarming.

Apparently Mormon children are taught to repeat "I know [insert Mormon doctrine here] " from a very early age. There's a nursery manual online that makes very illuminating reading. Another Mormon I argued with online was unable to stop saying "I know" when stating his beliefs.

 

[Empress]

Apparently Mormon children are taught to repeat "I know [insert Mormon doctrine here] " from a very early age. There's a nursery manual online that makes very illuminating reading. Another Mormon I argued with online was unable to stop saying "I know" when stating his beliefs.

All of this is reinforced with monthly meetings. The first Sunday of the month they forgo regular sacrament meeting for what might possibly be the dullest, most useless hour of anyone's life. Namely, Fast and Testimony Meeting. I suspect it's a bit like a Friends meeting, in that everyone sits there until someone feels moved to speak, at which time they go to the lectern and bear their testimony.

Generally included in this, particularly for children since obviously children aren't going to have a lot to say, is "I know this church is true" "I know the Book of Mormon is true" and "I know Joseph Smith was a prophet" etc.

Since a child is standing there in front of a whole congregation, and they've already been prompted on basically what you should say, of course children are going to say exactly that. It no doubt makes it difficult to later break that habit of "knowing" things that are nothing but silly opinions inculcated when the child was too young to think critically.

 

[pakeha]

You and others bash Christianity and Christians as if you're well-schooled in the faith. And here you are admitting that you don't understand a rudimentary belief Christians have about the advent of the millennium. I didn't expect you to accept that belief, but I did expect that you would at least be aware of it.

It appears that you have focused your understanding of Christianity and Mormonism in particular on everything and anything that is negative. In fact, your posts make that abundantly clear.

I find it interesting you flip to an attack register rather than answer questions about the fraudulent hoax Smith perpetrated via the BoA.
Is it a deliberate switch or are you conditioned to face questions this way?

Your use of a lascivious example is acutely self-disclosing.

Not as self-disclosing as your refusal to discuss Smith's 'translation' of Egyptian funerary texts.

Like many Mormon concepts, it's a bit shaky. AIU, unlike tradititional premillennialists, Mormons believe that when Jesus returns everyone will go to Jackson Missouri (the garden of Eden). It is the Mormon version of Zionism. See this wiki discussion. Which conflicts with Utah being Zion and the gathering of the Saints in Utah. Which was later dissuaded. I'm not sure if there is an official eschatology. If there is it is not consistent with everything prophets have said in the past.

Thanks for the information, RandFan.

 

[Orphia Nay]

I'm still at a loss as to what sky's latest side-trip has to do with the anachronisms of the BoM, since that's the subject that prompted his bizarre comment.

It appears to be an unspoken admission that serious flaws in Mormonism have been raised, because he's trying to divert attention away from them with a, "you'll see when Jesus returns" gambit.

"Quick, change the topic!"

 

[Pup]

You could tackle that list of BoM anachronisms, if you've the time.

That is one subject that he will never address.

Only if I were inclined to believe--as you apparently do--that conditions preceding the millennium have been fulfilled.

Was hoping I wouldn't have to admit this, but I think I understand what Skyrider44 means. He can correct me if I've got it wrong, but here's how I interpret it. (Edited to add: This is basically the same explanation Foster Zygote already gave, only with more details and less lasciviosity. )

If I recall correctly--can't find the post now--Skyrider made the comment that "we" (skeptics, atheists) believe everything can be or is known with what evidence is available now. Edited to add: found the post, or at least one with the same sentiment: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9505914#post9505914 "Moreover, many of you believe that through the finite senses humans possess they can know everything. I don't believe that, and frankly I find it an arrogant assumption."

He has taken the position that maybe new evidence will still come forth explaining the contradictions between the Book of Abraham and the evidence currently available.

The "conditions preceding the millenium" is a reference to us supposedly claiming that all evidence is currently available. It's a reference to the following, in LDS teaching, especially the part I've bolded:
http://www.lds.org/manual/the-life-...ome-quickly-and-my-reward-is-with-me?lang=eng

(56-10) Revelation 20:12. What Books Are to Be Used in the Judgment?
“We are informed that the books will be opened. One of these books will be the record of our lives as it is kept in heaven. Other books which will be opened are records which have been kept on earth. From the very organization of the Church the Lord has given instruction that records should be kept of the members of the Church.” (Smith, The Way to Perfection, p. 342.)

The LDS church places emphasis on "books being opened" i.e. records coming forth at that time, in part because of the baptism-for-the-dead thing.

If you need to be baptised LDS to be together with your family in heaven, what about grandma who died in 1799? The early church had to deal with that issue because the church was so new, people still cared about family members who had recently died before the church was founded. So the solution was to add the teaching that you could be baptized as a proxy for grandma, and she'd be able to become LDS after death. Okayfine. Except...

Logically, if that's the way it worked, there are lots of people who never left records and therefore can never be baptized--not just people who missed being counted by the US census taker, but indigenous peoples who lived and died in preliterate societies. The explanation is that their records will come forth, somehow, when those "books" are opened, and proxy baptism can finally be performed for them.

So this idea of information becoming unsealed in the last days is a big deal in the LDS faith.

Skyrider44 is saying that we believe all the "books," i.e. all the evidence, records, historical information, etc. have been opened and that we can now conclude the Book of Abraham was a fanciful fake translation done by Joseph Smith when he was put on the spot, that bears no relation to the actual manuscript he was pretending to translate.

However, Skyrider44 believes that all the information is not yet unsealed, so he can't comment further on the Book of Abraham, because he's still holding out hope that some unknown future evidence will solve the problems when all the "books" are unsealed and all the evidence is available.

That's my take on it. Skyrider44 of course can correct me if I've got it wrong.

 

[Pixel42]

I don't think anybody here has, or ever would, claim that everything can be known with the evidence that is now available. But there are plenty of individual things that can be known with the evidence that is now available. Expecting that new evidence will one day show that the BoM and the BoA are genuine is as unrealistic as expecting that new evidence will one day show that the earth is flat.