LDS II: The Mormons

[Billy Baxter]

Does it not strike one as a little odd that God would go to such lengths to hide evidence of things and then go to such other lengths to provide scriptures about them? Of course there's always the escape clause that God is unfathomable and unknowable (except of course when it comes to the precise rules about what to do with our genitals), but it certainly does not seem opportune to demand faith in something about which you have just finished diligently destroying the credibility.

The tale of the Jaredites, the Lehites and the Mulekites is a cautionary one, a warning for us in our day not to make the same mistakes they made. The BOM Promise in Moroni 10:3-5 sets up a test of faith for us, to see if we will exercise faith without having objective evidence. "No man pleaseth God without faith" and "faith precedes the miracle". We receive "no witness until after the trial of faith."

bb

 

[JayUtah]

The tale of the Jaredites, the Lehites and the Mulekites is a cautionary one, a warning for us in our day not to make the same mistakes they made.

As are many stories in Judeo-Christian scripture, not meant to be taken literally.

The BOM Promise in Moroni 10:3-5 sets up a test of faith for us, to see if we will exercise faith without having objective evidence. "No man pleaseth God without faith" and "faith precedes the miracle". We receive "no witness until after the trial of faith."

Which has bugger-all to do with archaeology and history. Skeptics aren't going to buy into the argument that faith supersedes actual evidence.

 

[Billy Baxter]

All that also applies to Pompeii and Herculaneum, and we managed to find those.

God didn't hide them.

Then where are the Lamanite cities?

The same place as the Nephites, I guess.

Unfortunately, "God made all the empirical evidence disappear" does not carry any weight among skeptics.

too bad, you're going to throw away the blessings of eternity in the name of skepticism if you're not careful.

bb

 

[JayUtah]

God didn't hide them.

That wasn't the argument. You cited a bunch of "natural" disasters that supposedly erased Book of Mormon cities. The same disasters happened to other cites without erasing them. If you're going to argue that God just waved the wand and made all the cities disappear, then why appeal to the natural calamities?

The same place as the Nephites, I guess.

Then I'm confused. If the Nephite cities were destroyed by the Lamanites, then who wiped out the Lamanite cities?

too bad, you're going to throw away the blessings of eternity in the name of skepticism if you're not careful.

Skepticism helps me not throw away the blessings of now, by avoiding irrational speculation of what some New York farmer made up to justify his vices.

 

[Billy Baxter]

That wasn't the argument. You cited a bunch of "natural" disasters that supposedly erased Book of Mormon cities. The same disasters happened to other cites without erasing them. If you're going to argue that God just waved the wand and made all the cities disappear, then why appeal to the natural calamities?

God's voice declared explicitly that he had "hidden" those many cities with the natural disasters I mentioned.

Then I'm confused. If the Nephite cities were destroyed by the Lamanites, then who wiped out the Lamanite cities?

The Lamanites degenerated into savagery and they lived in tents AFAIK.

Skepticism helps me not throw away the blessings of now, by avoiding irrational speculation of what some New York farmer made up to justify his vices.

libel

bb

 

[JayUtah]

God's voice declared explicitly that he had "hidden" those many cities with the natural disasters I mentioned.

But the natural disasters don't hide cities. If you argue that God caused the "natural" disasters to hide the cities, you have to content with Pompeii et al. that such natural disasters aren't effective at doing that. If you're arguing that God did additional things to hide the Book of Mormon cities, then the natural disasters are irrelevant. Pick one.

The Lamanites degenerated into savagery and they lived in tents AFAIK.

As far as you know? So you really don't have an answer. Got it.

libel

Nope. You can't defame the dead. Look it up.

 

[Billy Baxter]

But the natural disasters don't hide cities. If you argue that God caused the "natural" disasters to hide the cities, you have to content with Pompeii et al. that such natural disasters aren't effective at doing that. If you're arguing that God did additional things to hide the Book of Mormon cities, then the natural disasters are irrelevant. Pick one.

Are you saying that God can't hide cities in some cases but not see the need to hide others?

As far as you know? So you really don't have an answer. Got it.

yes, AFAIK.

Nope. You can't defame the dead. Look it up.

smells the same

bb

 

[JayUtah]

Are you saying that God can't hide cities in some cases but not see the need to hide others?

No. I'm saying that if natural disasters can't hide cities, then it doesn't matter whether God caused the natural disasters in one case and didn't cause them in the other case.

yes, AFAIK.

But you actually don't know. So your argument is just wishful thinking.

smells the same

Then let Joe Smith strike me dead. You've put your faith in a New York farmer with a dubious history who made up a bunch of stories for which there is zero evidence. And on that basis you suggest I forego the blessings of the life I'm currently living. And you don't see the irrationality in that?

 

[Billy Baxter]

No. I'm saying that if natural disasters can't hide cities, then it doesn't matter whether God caused the natural disasters in one case and didn't cause them in the other case.

your premise is faulty.

But you actually don't know. So your argument is just wishful thinking.

just like if you look at the stars, your argument that they are distant balls of gas is just wishful thinking. IOW, bzzzt! try again.

Then let Joe Smith strike me dead. You've put your faith in a New York farmer with a dubious history who made up a bunch of stories for which there is zero evidence. And on that basis you suggest I forego the blessings of the life I'm currently living. And you don't see the irrationality in that?

my faith is in Jesus Christ, not JS, although the latter's contribution to humanity is immense, like Moses and Paul.

bb

 

[Slowvehicle]

My opinion is that many if not all of the Nephite and Lamanite cities were destroyed at the time of the Crucifixion. The BOM describes tempests, whirlwinds, fires, earthquakes, etc. and the "whole face of the land was changed." The voice of God declared that he had "hidden" many cities from his sight due to their iniquities. Mountains were leveled and valleys became mountains.

The Lamanites finished the job of destroying the Nephites completely several centuries later.

If God wanted to hide the destroyed cities from sight and change the geography, I for one accept that they will stay buried. My pet opinion is that Baja California may have once been the "narrow neck of land" now submerged.

bb

My Dear Mr. Baxter:

How very interesting that none of the actual residents of the Americas noticed the cataclysm...

I remain, orogenically yours &ct.

 

[Slowvehicle]

God didn't hide them.

The same place as the Nephites, I guess.

too bad, you're going to throw away the blessings of eternity in the name of skepticism if you're not careful.

bb

My Dear Mr. Baxter:

Say, rather, that you, personally, have chosen to embrce your superstitons over against reality.

There is no reason to believe in the "blessings of eternity", unless you already believe in the "blessings of eternity".

I remain, unsuperstitiously yours &ct.

 

[Slowvehicle]

God's voice declared explicitly that he had "hidden" those many cities with the natural disasters I mentioned.

The Lamanites degenerated into savagery and they lived in tents AFAIK.

My Dear Mr. Baxter:

You appear to lack understanding of the inherent deficiency of special pleading. You should educate yourself...

libel

bb

In general, one cannot libel the dead.

I remain, adamantly yours &ct.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Are you saying that God can't hide cities in some cases but not see the need to hide others?

My Dear Mr. Baxter:

For 'god' to be able to "hide cities", 'god' would have to be demonstrated to exist.

Nor have you yet explained why the IRL inhabitants of the Americas did not seem to notice the cataclysms and calamities...

yes, AFAIK.

How very...odd. "As far as you know", you do not have an answer?

smells the same

bb

It is an established principle of law in the United States, that one cannot defame the dead. You can look it up...

I remain, unsurprisedly yours &ct.

 

[Craig4]

My opinion is that many if not all of the Nephite and Lamanite cities were destroyed at the time of the Crucifixion. The BOM describes tempests, whirlwinds, fires, earthquakes, etc. and the "whole face of the land was changed." The voice of God declared that he had "hidden" many cities from his sight due to their iniquities. Mountains were leveled and valleys became mountains.

The Lamanites finished the job of destroying the Nephites completely several centuries later.

If God wanted to hide the destroyed cities from sight and change the geography, I for one accept that they will stay buried. My pet opinion is that Baja California may have once been the "narrow neck of land" now submerged.

bb

Do you have any idea how much evidence is left after a city is destroyed?

 

[Marcus]

your wish is my command:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1055&index=1

bb

Thanks for the link. I will enjoy reading it, and also the debunking that will follow here.

 

[bruto]

The tale of the Jaredites, the Lehites and the Mulekites is a cautionary one, a warning for us in our day not to make the same mistakes they made. The BOM Promise in Moroni 10:3-5 sets up a test of faith for us, to see if we will exercise faith without having objective evidence. "No man pleaseth God without faith" and "faith precedes the miracle". We receive "no witness until after the trial of faith."

bb

Merely not having objective evidence is only a part of it, since what we're dealing with is also evidence that contradicts other evidence. So apparently the task of having no witness until after the trial extends to the inability to convince. I suppose it would have to be that way, or the unfathomably perverse job of obscuring and of purposely sowing confusion would be usurped by proof.

What no religion has ever managed to do, as far as I can see, is to convey why a god that claims to love us and claims to seek our eternal well being has a need for faith so strong that he confounds reason and damns those who use it. The very premise of faith strikes me as insane, and the concerted effort of many to justify it through bogus science and fanciful history suggests that many secretly believe the same. The paradox of faith is that the only righteous result of such an attempt could be failure. To convince the skeptic of scriptural truth with anything but faith would be to defy God.

One could, I imagine, make the case that Joseph Smith possessed great wisdom the practice of which can make for a good and moral life, and that in support of that, he created a work of allegorical fiction that supports those ideas. But to suggest that that work was the direct output of a deity is to assert that that deity purposely strewed it with inaccuracies and things hard to believe, in order, we now are told, to test our faith by demanding that we embrace the unreasonable for a higher cause. Sorry, but that seems simply crazy. Faith may not be crazy, but the demand for it is.

 

[Trebuchet]

Caveat: I've not read the thread fully or thoroughly, apologies if this has been answered.

Billy Baxter: Are you actually a practicing Mormon? Because your statement that the BOM was "written by fallible men" is absolutely contradictory to church doctrine, which states it was given to J Smith by an angel on the hill Cummorah.

 

[Craig4]

my dear slowvehicle,

please stop looking down your nose at me and correcting my posts as if i were one of your students. i'm not.

bb

But you're wrong and need correcting.

 

[JayUtah]

your premise is faulty.

You don't explain what's faulty about it.

just like if you look at the stars, your argument that they are distant balls of gas is just wishful thinking.

But I can look at the stars in a scientific way that produces evidence they are balls of gas. You can't do that for your claim, so red herring. Now you try again.

my faith is in Jesus Christ, not JS...

But you approach Jesus via the Book of Mormon, which is uniquely a Joseph Smith invention. I accept that Mormons are Christians, but their formulation of Christianity is proudly and distinctly different than any other Christian sect. If I ask any of the hundreds of thousands of Mormons in whose midst I live what makes their brand of Christianity unique, they'll tell me it's because of continuing revelation starting with Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon and continuing to this day. So you can try to downplay Joseph Smith all you want, but you really can't. Without him you have none of the uniqueness Mormons claim makes them God's chosen people.

...although the latter's contribution to humanity is immense, like Moses and Paul.

That's certainly how the Mormons revere him, but few others do. As you've seen, non-Mormons look at the whole picture of Smith's history and don't especially like what they see. Mormons get a sanitized and sanctified version of Smith's biography.

So make up your mind; are you defending Joseph Smith or not?

 

[Beady]

Are you saying that God can't hide cities in some cases but not see the need to hide others?



yes, AFAIK.



smells the same

bb

The NEED? What *need* does an all-powerful god have to hide the truth about what happened?

And how can you possibly argue the truth of your scripture while simultaneously arguing that your deity intentionally resorted to untruth in order to hide the truth of your scripture?

This signature is intended to irritate people.