LDS II: The Mormons

[bruto]

no, my belief that the BOM is historically accurate remains intact.

bb

Perhaps you had better reread your own posts, because it really looks as if you've said that the BOM is both accurate and inaccurate at the same time.

 

[Zivan]

Good for you. It shows a real graduation from theological milk to theological meat to jettison the humiliating dead end of trying to claim the Book of Mormon was historically accurate.

Will there be a graduation party?

no, my belief that the BOM is historically accurate remains intact.

...............nevermind.

 

[halleyscomet]

no, my belief that the BOM is historically accurate remains intact.



bb

And you dismiss the fact that the historical claims in the Book of Mormon are in direct conflict with with literally the entirety of all archaeological research into the Americas to be "nitpicking."

I suppose overt and explicit denial is one way to preserve your belief in a particular mythology. It's not a particularly honorable technique but it is a technique.

 

[Billy Baxter]

Perhaps you had better reread your own posts, because it really looks as if you've said that the BOM is both accurate and inaccurate at the same time.

well, what i'm saying is that it doesn't matter to me what the salad forks the Nephites used were made of, or whether their pajamas were of real silk or heterodoxical polyester blend. The doctrines about Christ and salvation are what's important.

bb

 

[halleyscomet]

well, what i'm saying is that it doesn't matter to me what the salad forks the Nephites used were made of, or were their pajamas were made of real silk or heterodoxical polyester blend. The doctrines about Christ and salvation are what's important.



bb

I find it very telling that you have to flat out lie about the scope and extent of the historical problems of the book of Mormon in order to convince yourself that it doesn't matter.

 

[Billy Baxter]

I find it very telling that you have to flat out lie about the scope and extent of the historical problems of the book of Mormon in order to convince yourself that it doesn't matter.

i've read about many of the so-called problems of the BOM. So far none of them have disproved Jesus.

bb

 

[Beady]

well, what i'm saying is that it doesn't matter to me what the salad forks the Nephites used were made of, or whether their pajamas were of real silk or heterodoxical polyester blend. The doctrines about Christ and salvation are what's important.

bb

No one except you is talking about salad forks or pajamas. Except you, and you should have learned by now that such dodges and deflections don't work.

We're talking about the entire New World, half the planet, the whole physical context, as depicted in the BoM. That is a nitpick? For that matter, we're talking about the existence of Nephites, themselves. That is a nitpick?

If the BoM got its own world and people wrong, what makes you think it got its own doctrine and teachings right?

This signature is intended to irritate people.

 

[halleyscomet]

i've read about many of the so-called problems of the BOM. So far none of them have disproved Jesus.



bb

The book of Mormon doesn't really have anything to do with Jesus other than using him as a character in a fanfiction sense. The criticisms of the book of Mormon rip it to shreds and prove that its historical claims are flat out lies.

Even the theology depicted in the book of Mormon is ham-fisted garbage. The concept of the messiah described in the book of Mormon simply did not exist until the period after the gospels had been written. The very theology described in the book of Mormon is anachronistic to a comical degree. In places it describes a theology more comparable to that of Paul and the epistles. The Gospel of James comes the closest to describing a version of the messiah as theologically advanced is the one in the book of Mormon.

The book of Mormon was very clearly written by an 18th to 19th century protestant who lacked an understanding of how his own religion had evolved over the millennia to accurately depict theology as it would've existed for Jews of that time. Frankly, you can't seriously study the history of the Christian religion and not find the book of Mormon insulting in the ignorance it requires.

 

[John Jones]

The problem with the skeptics' approach to the BOM's authenticity is, it focuses on the nitpicky details, while the true believer focuses on the doctrines instead. To date, I've never seen anyone disprove the Christian doctrines and teachings of the BOM. Skeptics tend to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

bb

You already promised you would stop making false claims, and stick to false Old Testament promises instead.

 

[halleyscomet]

The problem with the skeptics' approach to the BOM's authenticity is, it focuses on the nitpicky details, while the true believer focuses on the doctrines instead. To date, I've never seen anyone disprove the Christian doctrines and teachings of the BOM. Skeptics tend to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

bb

Why then do you cling to the pretense of it being historically accurate? It's not historically accurate. Anyone claiming that the book of Mormon is historically accurate is either an overt liar or profoundly ignorant of any of the archaeology done in the Americas.

It's very clear you don't care about the historical claims of the book of Mormon. Why then do you refuse to simply consider it an allegory or parable? The fact that none of it actually happened becomes moot if you decide to treat it as a parable.

 

[Slowvehicle]

The problem with the skeptics' approach to the BOM's authenticity is, it focuses on the nitpicky details, while the true believer focuses on the doctrines instead. To date, I've never seen anyone disprove the Christian doctrines and teachings of the BOM. Skeptics tend to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

bb

My Dear Mr. Baxter:

It was, in fact, you, who misquoted the aphorism, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating." When a "holy revelation" cannot even get such simple, objectively demonstrable details as flora, fauna, and geography even remotely correct, that says something about the validity of the "message"...leaving no "pudding" to "proof".

Your "prophet" blew it on simple, and simplistic, details (I Cor. 14:8).

I remain, informedly yours &ct.

(PS: I thought you had shaken the dust of us off'n your sandals...?)

 

[Billy Baxter]

The book of Mormon doesn't really have anything to do with Jesus other than using him as a character in a fanfiction sense.

Are we talking about the same book??? The BOM mentions Christ and his doctrine on virtually every page.

The criticisms of the book of Mormon rip it to shreds and prove that its historical claims are flat out lies.

Most of these criticisms are flat-out lies and straw men.

Even the theology depicted in the book of Mormon is ham-fisted garbage. The concept of the messiah described in the book of Mormon simply did not exist until the period after the gospels had been written.

unsupported claim, your opinion

The very theology described in the book of Mormon is anachronistic to a comical degree. In places it describes a theology more comparable to that of Paul and the epistles. The Gospel of James comes the closest to describing a version of the messiah as theologically advanced is the one in the book of Mormon.

The book of Mormon was very clearly written by an 18th to 19th century protestant who lacked an understanding of how his own religion had evolved over the millennia to accurately depict theology as it would've existed for Jews of that time. Frankly, you can't seriously study the history of the Christian religion and not find the book of Mormon insulting in the ignorance it requires.

not really

bb

 

[Slowvehicle]

i'm bored silly.

Fallible men wrote the BOM. LDS leaders have often emphasized that the scriptures and prophets are not infallible.

The law of gravity is true whether or not the horses in the scriptures were speckled, to use a highly flawed analogy.

bb

My Dear Mr. Baxter:

You demonstrate that you do not understand the calumny which at others you raise, by resorting to a silly person-of-straw argument. "Speckled" is your unique contribution; the problem is not that the dark horses are horses of a different color, but that there is no evidence of pre-colombian mesoamerican horses at all, and much, much evidence that they did not, in fact, exist.

Be so kind as to stop playing silly-gubbins, and address the actual questions put to you, an you are able.

I remain, patiently yours &ct.

 

[Billy Baxter]

You already promised you would stop making false claims, and stick to false Old Testament promises instead.

i did?

bb

 

[Slowvehicle]

no, my belief that the BOM is historically accurate remains intact.

bb

My Dear Mr. Baxter:

Your belief is probative of nothing save your belief.

I remain, logically yours &ct.

 

[Slowvehicle]

well, what i'm saying is that it doesn't matter to me what the salad forks the Nephites used were made of, or whether their pajamas were of real silk or heterodoxical polyester blend. The doctrines about Christ and salvation are what's important.

bb

My Dear Mr. Baxter:

Thank you for this stirling example of a person-of-straw argument, hidden behind a Clupea rubia.

I suppose it is too much to hope that you might address actual issues, seeing as how you're back, and all...

I remain, indefatigably yours &ct.

 

[John Jones]

The problem with the skeptics' approach to the BOM's authenticity is, it focuses on the nitpicky details, while the true believer focuses on the doctrines instead. To date, I've never seen anyone disprove the Christian doctrines and teachings of the BOM. Skeptics tend to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

bb

Nuh uh!

 

[Slowvehicle]

i've read about many of the so-called problems of the BOM. So far none of them have disproved Jesus.

bb

My Dear Mr. Baxter:

You continue to conflate the "Jesus-man" and the "Christ-god". If there was a "Jesus-man", he is said to be said to have been crucified in Jerusalem in 33C.E. ±5 years.

" 'Jesus' in mesoamerica" needs to be demonstrated before one can honestly ask for it to be "disproved".

I remain, educationally yours &ct.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Are we talking about the same book??? The BOM mentions Christ and his doctrine on virtually every page.

My Dear Mr. Baxter:

The Perilous Waif mentions Alice Long and her role in the reinstitution of the Monarchy on virtually every page (and happens to be much better written that Smith's fanfics).

Most of these criticisms are flat-out lies and straw men.

You will be demonstrating, then, where in mesoamerica the exciting stories of the BoM are to be supposed to have taken place, including evidence of a continent-spanning civilization that had steel and horses, yet somehow left no trace of its existence?

unsupported claim, your opinion

AN "opinion" backed by evidence...do some reading.

not really

bb

"...unsupported claim", backed by no evidence except your superstitious, sold-out opinion...

I remain, accurately yours &ct.

 

[halleyscomet]

Are we talking about the same book??? The BOM mentions Christ and his doctrine on virtually every page.

And there lies part of the proof of it being a modern forgery. The concept of a spiritual messiah who would end the need for animal sacrifice is a first century AD Christian concept, not one Jews of that time period would have held.

Most of these criticisms are flat-out lies and straw men.

You brag about your deliberate ignorance of those arguments. You dismiss them as arguing about salad forks and pajamas. You've made it crystal clear you're in no position to judge the accuracy of those criticisms.

You mocking the archaeological criticisms of the book of Mormon makes about as much sense as me mocking 14th century Russian poetry.