LDS

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dissolution said:
Have these people ever seen a tapir?
Click to expand...

Probably only in 18th or 19th century drawings that gave no indication of the animal's size. Remember, there were people who thought undersea explorers would be able to ride around on seahorses.
 
bruto said:
In the zoo, I think I once saw some. It seems a bit far fetched to believe that a tapir could be mistaken for a cow, a horse and an ass all at the same time, especially in North America where it seems to have been extinct for about ten millennia. I have not read the BoM, so I do not know if there is an allegation that the so called cows were milked or the so called horses and asses ridden, but I wonder whether tapir milk is a good bargain. I'm a bit surprised that, with its pendulous snout, it is not standing in for the elephant too.

As so often seems the case in things like this, the best escape hatch from mendacity appears to be idiocy.

If you smear your shoes with excrement because you mean to, it's very bad. If you do it because you really thought it was Shinola, it's not really a whole lot better.
Click to expand...

Here is a picture of a warrior riding an...ahem...tapir that was in the BoM when I was growing up. Contrast that with a known tapir:

2fvqzl.jpg


The resemblance is uncanny.
 
Craig4 said:
Did their enemies fall over laughing when they saw the tapirs pulling the chariots? I'm trying to envision the play/movie "War Tapir". A tapir, a tapir, my kingdom for a tapir! I've been through the desert on a tapir with no name, it felt good to get out of the rain. Look daddy, here come the Budweiser Tapirs. Yeah... not really seeing it.

Seriously though, these apologetic types fail to grasp the impact of things like horse, chariots, steel, cultivated barley on the lifeways of the people with the animals or materials. Steel in pre Colombian Mezo America would mean a whole different way of living. The problem isn't that no one found steel, chariots or horses. There aren't cultures with the lifeways of people who have steel, chariots or horses in pre-Colombian America.
Click to expand...

9695306865_367255442f_t.jpg
 
Last edited:
The artwork of the LDS church borders on ridiculousness.

There was never, ever, such a scene. It is made up of whole cloth.
 
tsig said:
These are modern apologetics, it's on their website right now.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Animals
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't doubt they're still using these comical defenses. Based on my past as a Creationist, I can assure you using 19th century woodcuts as their reference point is perfectly consistent with religious apologetic writing, even in the 21st century. The "debunkings" of Evolution I read in the 1990's generally used information that was, at best, 40 years out of date. It wasn't uncommon to encounter arguments from Darwin's time that had themselves been debunked by later research, still being trotted around as if they were still relevant and accurate.

I strongly suspect these "explanations" are about 100 years old and have been recycled and reused without examination since then.
 
Last edited:
Olowkow said:
This fellow, though, strikes me as mentally ill, seething with hatred inside, much like some of the hard wired American right wing or skinheads.
Click to expand...

Please don't insult the mentally ill like that. It implies that this hatemonger is somehow a victim.
 
halleyscomet said:
Oh, I don't doubt they're still using these comical defenses. Based on my past as a Creationist, I can assure you using 19th century woodcuts as their reference point is perfectly consistent with religious apologetic writing, even in the 21st century.
Click to expand...

Yes these guys use the internet, the product of the same scientific processes.
 
Can anyone see the point in this ridiculous attempt to explain scripture?
It just makes the claimants look foolish.

Surely it'd be better to just accept that they're taking certain parts of their canon on faith and that any apparent errors either remain or mystery or be dealt with by future revelation?
Going with Mormon War Tapir mounts instead is just silly.
 
Dissolution said:
Can anyone see the point in this ridiculous attempt to explain scripture?
It just makes the claimants look foolish.

Surely it'd be better to just accept that they're taking certain parts of their canon on faith and that any apparent errors either remain or mystery or be dealt with by future revelation?
Going with Mormon War Tapir mounts instead is just silly.
Click to expand...

I think if religious people just believed what they did peacefully in a 'live and let live' sort of way, few of us would be here. The reality is that entire lives are sacrificed in their cause, they proclaim that they have the Truth, have authority as judges over us, and that we should listen and follow.

To then say something like 'pay no attention to that man behind the curtain' is, well weak.
 
Kopji said:
I think if religious people just believed what they did peacefully in a 'live and let live' sort of way, few of us would be here. The reality is that entire lives are sacrificed in their cause, they proclaim that they have the Truth, have authority as judges over us, and that we should listen and follow.

To then say something like 'pay no attention to that man behind the curtain' is, well weak.
Click to expand...

QFT.

I do not go out of my way to find believers and disabuse them of their beliefs.

OTH, when someone decides that it's time to let their 'god' save me from what she/he/it/they/houseplant will do to me if I don't let their 'god' "save" me, I will respond.

When someone decides that the "revelations' of their 'god' should be the law that governs my behaivour, I will respond.
 
Janadele said:
Listen to the end of this video for many of the answers to questions which have been asked http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZX55HUPFSU
Click to expand...

We'll assume for the moment there is a god. There isn't of course but that's not important for this post.

Why does god even care? How could a god possibly be an aggrieved party? God suffers no harm as a result of what consenting adults do in privacy. It doesn't matter if god likes what they do or not, he/she/it suffers no injury as a result.
 
Craig4 said:
We'll assume for the moment there is a god. There isn't of course but that's not important for this post.

Why does god even care? How could a god possibly be an aggrieved party? God suffers no harm as a result of what consenting adults do in privacy. It doesn't matter if god likes what they do or not, he/she/it suffers no injury as a result.
Click to expand...

And if there were a god, he, by definition, would be the author of the consenting adults, and all that the consenting adults do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom