LDS

[RandFan]

I'm sure everyone has noticed how skyrider44 has used his last dozen or so posts to quibble about opinions at the expense of actually backing up his claims that archeology, and science in general, confirms anything in the BoM. I wonder why that is?

If facts and reason are on your side then argue facts and reason. If you lack both then find a way to deflect questions by finding something off topic to discuss.

It's sophistry. Which is fine I just want to make clear to others of the dishonest dodge being played out here.

• A claim was made that attributions were missing.
• The claim was corrected when it was made known that the attributions were mine.
• When it was pointed out that there was no supporting evidence it was made known that the statements were opinions.

There is no controversy left and skyrider still has failed to provide attributions and or sources for his claims.

 

[Slowvehicle]

In Post 989, I began the process of addressing criticisms of the Book of Mormon, using FAIR as my source ("Book of Mormon/Anachronisms"). My post was immediately dismissed as worthless, coming as it did from an LDS source (although the Church does not necessarily endorse what appears on FAIR). Here are three examples of the close-minded responses I received:
1) "FAIR makes crap up to support their belief in a made-up book"--Cleon;
2) ". . .the explanations it [FAIR] offers are poor and not credible"--jsfisher;
3) ". . .the apologetics. . .were pretty lame"--Carlitos.

Note that the responses are opinions.

Who do you suppose is the most interested in bringing to light the truth about the existence of the Book of Mormon? Harvard researchers? MIT?
Stanford? A wide spectrum of independent research facilities? Wrong. LDS scholars themselves are the most dedicated to finding the truth, even though they function from a defensive angle of vision. If the BoM is a fraud, then it must eventually be revealed as such. No Latter-day Saints I know have any illusions about that.

...and yet, you have never addressed your opinion that all a source has to do to be irrevocably consigned to the dismissive dumpheap of "anti-mormon" is to disagree in any particular with your opinions...

 

[jsfisher]

I know I am helping fuel skyrider44's most recent derail, but it has more wrong than can be tolerated.

In Post 989, I began the process of addressing criticisms of the Book of Mormon, using FAIR as my source ("Book of Mormon/Anachronisms").

I would have characterized your post in less favorable terms. You were dismissive and insulting, and you presumed we hadn't and wouldn't even look at the FAIR site. Other than that, of course, you did take the moral and intellectual high ground.

My post was immediately dismissed as worthless, coming as it did from an LDS source (although the Church does not necessarily endorse what appears on FAIR).

I would have characterized the responses you received differently.

Here are three examples of the close-minded responses I received:
1) "FAIR makes crap up to support their belief in a made-up book"--Cleon;
2) ". . .the explanations it [FAIR] offers are poor and not credible"--jsfisher;
3) ". . .the apologetics. . .were pretty lame"--Carlitos.

Ah, we are all close-minded. Never let a good ad hominem opportunity pass you by, eh? Well, again, I'd have characterized the responses differently, but here's the link to my post. I'll let others judge for themselves.

Note that the responses are opinions.

On that we agree.

Who do you suppose is the most interested in bringing to light the truth about the existence of the Book of Mormon? Harvard researchers? MIT?
Stanford? A wide spectrum of independent research facilities? Wrong. LDS scholars themselves are the most dedicated to finding the truth, even though they function from a defensive angle of vision. If the BoM is a fraud, then it must eventually be revealed as such. No Latter-day Saints I know have any illusions about that.

No, that doesn't appear to be the case. Deer for horses is a good example of the post hoc rationalization the LDS scholars have employed.

 

[skyrider44]

No. But if you are ever confused just ask. It's been explained to you now dozens of times and you are still using this in a dishonest fashion to gain rhetorical advantage.

The question is, when will you have the honesty to move on?

The real question is twofold: 1) when will you cease presenting your opinion as fact; and 2) when will you make an effort to comply with well-established rules of source attribution?

You could never get a paper past peer review employing the tactics you use on this forum (that's my opinion).

 

[dafydd]

The real question is twofold: 1) when will you cease presenting your opinion as fact.

It is a safe bet that the BOM is a fiction, that is a fact.

 

[skyrider44]

I doubt that. Are you seriously saying that some Mormons are out to expose Smith as a writer of fiction?

I'm saying that Mormon scholars are seriously interested in pursuing the truth about the origin of the BoM, regardless of where it leads them.

You may be unaware that some active LDS regard the BoM as a work of the 19th century, but they find in it remarkable spiritual insight (which may be why Harold Bloom, the renowned Shakespeare authority, called Joseph Smith a "religious genius").

 

[dafydd]

I'm saying that Mormon scholars are seriously interested in pursuing the truth about the origin of the BoM, regardless of where it leads them.

You may be unaware that some active LDS regard the BoM as a work of the 19th century, but they find in it remarkable spiritual insight (which may be why Harold Bloom, the renowned Shakespeare authority, called Joseph Smith a "religious genius").

''In The American Religion, Bloom surveyed the major varieties of Protestant and post-Protestant religious faiths that originated in the United States and argued that, in terms of their psychological hold on their adherents, most shared more in common with gnosticism than with historical Christianity. The exception was the Jehovah's Witnesses, whom Bloom regards as non-Gnostic. He elsewhere predicted that the Mormon and Pentecostal strains of American Christianity would overtake mainstream Protestant divisions in popularity in the next few decades. In Jesus and Yahweh: The Names Divine (2004), he revisits some of the territory he covered in The Book of J in discussing the significance of Yahweh and Jesus of Nazareth as literary characters, while casting a critical eye on historical approaches and asserting the fundamental incompatibility of Christianity and Judaism.
The Western Canon''

He was wrong about that too.

 

[Slowvehicle]

The real question is twofold: 1) when will you cease presenting your opinion as fact; and 2) when will you make an effort to comply with well-established rules of source attribution?

"Rules" intended (according to your source) for formal writing--look around. This is a discussion forum. If you have a questionas to whether a statement is an opinion, or otherwise, just ask...as I have asked you, repeatedly, for empirical evidence for the opinions you endorse about conditions inthe pre-Colombian Americas...

You could never get a paper past peer review employing the tactics you use on this forum (that's my opinion).

Nor is this a formal arena--rather, this is a forum for discussion.

Nor would your inherently biased knee-jerk rejection of neutral sources as "anti-mormon", nor your sycopantic swallowing of the wholly-owned house organs of the church, be accepted in a formal setting...

 

[Giordano]

The real question is twofold: 1) when will you cease presenting your opinion as fact; and 2) when will you make an effort to comply with well-established rules of source attribution?

You could never get a paper past peer review employing the tactics you use on this forum (that's my opinion).

skyrider44, your attempt to avoid addressing the issues is embarrassingly evident.
Given virtually all of your own posts lack source attribution, may I assume that none of them are to be taken as fact and that they are all simply your own undocumented opinion?

 

[Wolrab]

Let me give you a hand skyrider44, just fill in the blanks:
Horses were in North America after 600BCE and before Columbus according to ______________ .

Evidence of steel in North America anytime prior to Columbus is found ________________.

Barley was cultivated in North America prior to Columbus as evidenced __________________.

 

[RandFan]

The real question is twofold: 1) when will you cease presenting your opinion as fact; and 2) when will you make an effort to comply with well-established rules of source attribution?

You could never get a paper past peer review employing the tactics you use on this forum (that's my opinion).

If you have a problem with any of my posts then you can report me. If you look to the lower left, below my picture, you will see an icon. It's a warning icon with an explanation point. Click on that and you can report my offending posts.

Now, where are your sources? Or are you going to continue to dishonestly shift the focus of the discussion?

 

[Cleon]

Protip: "Closed-minded" is not a synonym for "says something I don't like."

Skyrider, if you want to believe that people were riding around on deer and chariots pulled by giant rodents, more power to you. But if you're going to rely on "explanations" such as those to hand-wave away the anachronisms, don't expect to be taken seriously.

Fact: "FAIR" has no credibility with anyone outside the Mormon community. Having them around might be very reassuring to y'all, but for the rest of us their excuses are nonsensical.

 

[dafydd]

I'm saying that Mormon scholars are seriously interested in pursuing the truth about the origin of the BoM, regardless of where it leads them.
.

All they have to do is read the BOM, full of mistakes and an obvious fiction. I'm not surprised that you avoid addressing the questions put to you.

 

[RandFan]

I'm saying that Mormon scholars are seriously interested in pursuing the truth about the origin of the BoM, regardless of where it leads them.

How many peer reviewed papers have they published?

Why no archeological evidence?

 

[Richard Masters]

The Book of Mormon is the word of God. There is nothing of consequence foolish mortals can say against it, no matter how much of their precious mortal probation time they waste on their efforts to fight the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Eternal law is eternal law and will always be so.

Well, for one, it's super boring.
Two, it's probably not the word of God given how incompatible it is with reality.
Three, if the Book of Abraham is anything to go by, Joseph Smith probably made it all up, but borrowed heavily from the Bible.
Four, Joseph Smith had a track record of making things up, and the tradition has been passed on through the Church.

 

[The Norseman]

If you have a problem with any of my posts then you can report me. If you look to the lower left, below my picture, you will see an icon. It's a warning icon with an explanation point. Click on that and you can report my offending posts.

Now, where are your sources? Or are you going to continue to dishonestly shift the focus of the discussion?

Sorry to be Mr. Pedant, RF, but it's "exclamation point". You're doing an awesome job, however, so carry on!

 

[RandFan]

Sorry to be Mr. Pedant, RF, but it's "exclamation point". You're doing an awesome job, however, so carry on!

DOH! Thanks.

 

[dafydd]

Sorry to be Mr. Pedant, RF, but it's "exclamation point". You're doing an awesome job, however, so carry on!

I agree. He has wiped the floor with skyrider44's arguments, if you can call evasions arguments.

 

[bruto]

In Post 989, I began the process of addressing criticisms of the Book of Mormon, using FAIR as my source ("Book of Mormon/Anachronisms"). My post was immediately dismissed as worthless, coming as it did from an LDS source (although the Church does not necessarily endorse what appears on FAIR). Here are three examples of the close-minded responses I received:
1) "FAIR makes crap up to support their belief in a made-up book"--Cleon;
2) ". . .the explanations it [FAIR] offers are poor and not credible"--jsfisher;
3) ". . .the apologetics. . .were pretty lame"--Carlitos.

Note that the responses are opinions.

Who do you suppose is the most interested in bringing to light the truth about the existence of the Book of Mormon? Harvard researchers? MIT?
Stanford? A wide spectrum of independent research facilities? Wrong. LDS scholars themselves are the most dedicated to finding the truth, even though they function from a defensive angle of vision. If the BoM is a fraud, then it must eventually be revealed as such. No Latter-day Saints I know have any illusions about that.

Such is your opinion, not so far supported by evidence that independent researchers have slighted the truth or that LDS researchers have risked much in seeking it. It is not the opinion of most others here, in part because the opinion of such LDS supporters as Janadele is that questions about the truth of holy scripture are de facto inadmissible to a true believer. Your opinion that the scholars within the LDS are objectively interested in the true story of how the Mormon revelations came about is, unfortunately, not well buttressed by evidence.

 

[TjW]

The doctrines and teachings of the LDS Church are not designed to win a popularity contest, nor do they bend to suit the whims of mankind.

Nor are they consistent with objectively verifiable facts.