Mormons and Native Americans DNA evidence

[rcronk]

Sheesh. You all have been busy over the weekend... I have read every post, but I don't have enough time to go through each post and reply, so I'll summarize...

The Mormons have the Book of Mormon (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents) - that's what you can use as something that makes Mormons different than "all the others" you speak of. Read it, pray about it, and ask God if it's true and if you do so with a sincere heart, real intent, having faith in Christ, you will receive an answer that comes from outside yourself and you'll know it's true. I have done this a few times, the first time, I was not sincere and was looking for error rather than truth and I did not get an answer. When I actually wanted to know if it were true or not, then I received an answer. Yes, I know that some here have mentioned that they didn't get answers and that's entirely their business. I do not know why they didn't get an answer and it's really none of my business at all. I do know that I got an answer though and it was real and true and I was not being deceived.

You may believe anything you want to about my experience, but your belief is not based on evidence, it's just your belief - and that's your right to believe something without objective evidence - just like theists do. :)

Due to the nature of the answer, I am the only one who knows my experience was true - my claim means little to you all because there's no way for you to know if what I'm saying is true, except to try it for yourself by reading and praying about the Book of Mormon. That's the invitation, take it or leave it.

P.S. I have one wife, just like every other married LDS man in good standing with the LDS church currently does. If you want to check out more on that topic, you can search at www.fairlds.org (http://www.fairlds.org).

P.P.S. In a little under two weeks, on Saturday and Sunday April 5-6 2008, the LDS church is having its semi-annual general conference. It's about 10 hours of instruction from the general authorities of the LDS church split over two days. If you're interested in hearing what the members of the LDS church are learning, either check your local listings or go to lds.org (http://www.lds.org/broadcast/gc/0,5161,8046,00.html) to view/listen online. The sessions are two hours each and start at 10:00 am and 2:00 pm mountain time each day. Transcripts, audio, and video for past general conferences are also available (http://www.lds.org/conference/languages/0,6353,311-1,00.html) in many languages. For example here (http://www.lds.org/conference/sessions/display/0,5239,49-1-775,00.html) is the page for the last conference in October 2007. If you really want to learn more about Mormon doctrines, this would be a really good way to find out.

[RandFan]

We know that people who seek the truth in any religion will come to ernestly and sincerly believe in that religion. So much so that they will be willing to give their life for it.
We understand the mechanism for this from a neurological POV.
It would seem that many people who are sincere and honest people pray and ask god if the Mormon church is true and don't get an answer. I gave up all that was important to me to serve a two year mission because I sincerly believed that it was true. If I had any significant doubts at the time I would not have gone like my brother didn't go. I simply wanted to know absolutely rather than rely on faith and so I sought what was promised and never recieved it.
We know that there are many points of reasonable doubt about the Mormon Church.
101 Reasonable Doubts About Mormonism (http://home.teleport.com/~packham/101.htm)

[RobRoy]

I knew one guy from my hometown who went on a mission as his parents promised him 1/5th of the family farm if he returned with honor.

There ya go.

Of course, though, many LDS young men and women really do feel this calling...

This was not in contention, and I hope no one took my statement as saying that many young LDS members do not feel a calling. I'm . . . hopeful, shall we say, that the majority due. But the strong desire to fulfill an established social/cultural paradigms is also there.

The Mormons have the Book of Mormon (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents) - that's what you can use as something that makes Mormons different than "all the others" you speak of. Read it, pray about it, and ask God if it's true and if you do so with a sincere heart, real intent, having faith in Christ, you will receive an answer that comes from outside yourself and you'll know it's true. I have done this a few times, the first time, I was not sincere and was looking for error rather than truth and I did not get an answer. When I actually wanted to know if it were true or not, then I received an answer. Yes, I know that some here have mentioned that they didn't get answers and that's entirely their business. I do not know why they didn't get an answer and it's really none of my business at all. I do know that I got an answer though and it was real and true and I was not being deceived.

I can tell you why. Becuase no religion in the world has the corner market on truth.

You can't "know" something is true. You can only believe it is, and act upon that belief.

[rcronk]

We know that people who seek the truth in any religion will come to ernestly and sincerly believe in that religion. So much so that they will be willing to give their life for it.
We understand the mechanism for this from a neurological POV.
It would seem that many people who are sincere and honest people pray and ask god if the Mormon church is true and don't get an answer. I gave up all that was important to me to serve a two year mission because I sincerly believed that it was true. If I had any significant doubts at the time I would not have gone like my brother didn't go. I simply wanted to know absolutely rather than rely on faith and so I sought what was promised and never recieved it.
We know that there are many points of reasonable doubt about the Mormon Church.101 Reasonable Doubts About Mormonism (http://home.teleport.com/~packham/101.htm)

That is a list of beliefs, not facts. You believe that I fall into the category of just sincerely believing in a religion because others have. You believe, without my brain scan, that I am being tricked by my brain. You believe that since you didn't get an answer, that I didn't either. You believe these things without objective evidence - ok.

I began reading the "101 doubts" list and I have seen reasonable explanations for the items I read. I've heard some of them before and they've been addressed at www.fairlds.org (http://www.fairlds.org/).

Some of the items (like Adam and Eve) aren't arguments against the Mormon church specifically, but against anyone who believes in the Bible. To put those types of things on a "Mormon" list is a bit misleading. And I'd expect to find some doubt in a faith-based topic like theism.

And how about number 4 - "Although Mormons claim that they are "family oriented," they exclude non-Mormon family members - even parents - from weddings in the temple, since only "worthy" Mormons are allowed to enter a Mormon temple." That's misleading. A temple marriage takes less than 5 minutes and is really about the two people getting married. In Mormon culture, the wedding reception is where the whole group of family and friends get together. I only had 4 other people present at my own temple marriage but had parties for both friends and family afterward where everyone was involved and invited, including non-Mormons and anti-Mormons. This is a cultural difference and misunderstanding that's being taken advantage of.

How about "One of the most highly praised human traits in Mormonism is "obedience." This is also one of the characteristics of a cult." That's stupid. I could say that one of the main ingredients in anti-freeze is also coming out of the tap in your house. That's an association fallacy. You're a human and so was Hitler, therefore...

I don't want to derail the thread further, so I won't continue, but I will go through the rest of that 101 list and do some research on the items for myself. Much of what I see there is a bit misleading, one-sided, and ignores any other points of view.

[rcronk]

I can tell you why. Becuase no religion in the world has the corner market on truth.

If you've read my posts, you'd know that I agree with you. I have found truth everywhere I go. All religions, all groups, everywhere. And I learn from it wherever I go. It has never been asserted that Mormons have all truth and nobody else does.

You can't "know" something is true. You can only believe it is, and act upon that belief.

Prove it. If you can't, then it's just your word against mine.

[RandFan]

That is a list of beliefs, not facts. The first two are facts. I used the word "seem" for the second and I made the last appear to be a fact when it is not. Sorry.

You believe that I fall into the category of just sincerely believing in a religion because others have. No. Only that it is likely given what we know about religion and people.

You believe, without my brain scan, that I am being tricked by my brain. I'm using inductive logic to draw a valid inference. It's not absolute but very likely given what we know.

I began reading the "101 doubts" list and I have seen reasonable explanations for the items I read. I've heard some of them before and they've been addressed at www.fairlds.org (http://www.fairlds.org/). Being addressed doesn't take away the fact that they are reason for doubt.

Some of the items (like Adam and Eve) aren't arguments against the Mormon church specifically, but against anyone who believes in the Bible. Meh.

To put those types of things on a "Mormon" list is a bit misleading. And I'd expect to find some doubt in a faith-based topic like theism. Given the epistemological fact of the limits of knowledge then Mormonism is also a faith.

A temple marriage takes less than 5 minutes and is really about the two people getting married. In Mormon culture, the wedding reception is where the whole group of family and friends get together. I personally know of mothers who've had their hearts broken because they did not get to see their son or daughter married. You are belittling something that is very important to a lot of people.

How about "One of the most highly praised human traits in Mormonism is "obedience." This is also one of the characteristics of a cult." That's stupid. How is it stupid? Obedience to a religion is considered by many to be a bad thing (see Jim Jones, see Heaven's Gate, See David Koresh). For the record, I think the call for obedience is a very oppressive part of religion. Recently I've been studying Islam (the word translates to submission). It's much worse than Mormonism but Mormonism is still bad, IMO.

Mormons don't enjoy complete freedom of conscience and expression. It was considered disobedience to speak out against the racist policies of the church prior to the change in blacks holding the priesthood. If a member thought the policy wrong he or she had to keep it to themselves. Speaking out for their conscience could get them excommunicated. Sonia Johnson was vilified and excommunicated just for speaking her mind about women.

I think that is very wrong. I think it is very appropriate to put obedience on the list. Any religion that can't tolerate dissent and allow it's members the freedom to speak their minds is a very weak church that must control its members like dictatorships do.

[RandFan]

It has never been asserted that Mormons have all truth and nobody else does. However, there is an assertion that Mormonism is the only true church.

[Correa Neto]

Rcronk,

Your core argument is an interpretation of a personal experience, a numinous experience. As others said, skeptics do not deny the existence of these experiences; we just offer a different interpretation. By the way, numinous experiences are interpreted in different ways even by religious persons. All it takes are different backgrounds. Note that skeptics are not immune to numinous experiences. But again, we interpret them as being generated by something other than a deity.

More than once I was presented with the argument you exposed- a personal experience, something I had not experienced myself. When I said I experienced similar things but interpreted as something else, the reaction was always the same- it was not the real deal, otherwise I would have a different opinion.

I think you perhaps should keep this idea in your mind. Just like the idea that myths can also trigger and infulence the interpretation of numinous experiences.

This put, I would like to ask you exactly what do you mean by "truth" in your experience. You felt that the Book of Mormon is an ipsis litteris account or that its message, its philosophy is true?

[m_huber]

rcronk, you state that everywhere you look, you see truth. I think this highlights one of the differences in the view of the skeptical community and the religious. Almost everything I see is tainted by lies. I search for the truth by attempting to understand what is not the truth. I refuse to accept that truth must be accompanied by ideas that are patently false. If Muslim has some truth, and Christianity has some truth, and Mormons have some truth, and Buddhists have some truth, then why can we not extract the truth and leave the lies behind? Why does religion insist on acceptance of the entire package?

If you think you have the truth, your mind will justify everything you see to continue the illusion of truth, whether it reflects reality or not. If you search for lies and inconsistencies, then you will be much more successful in finding what is actually true.

[RandFan]

If you search for lies and inconsistencies, then you will be much more successful in finding what is actually true.:)

[rcronk]

No. Only that it is likely given what we know about religion and people. I'm using inductive logic to draw a valid inference. It's not absolute but very likely given what we know.

Saying something is likely is one thing. Acting like I'm deluded for certain is another. Many people here (not you that I can remember, thank you) make that leap and it's not appreciated. And if they don't make it explicitly, they make their case and then just jump to how I'm deluded, implying that their belief in the likelihood is a proof.

Some, just make a few statements and leave it to the reader to fill in the end - that I'm deluded. That's not appreciated either. I'd rather people be more explicit about what conclusions they're drawing. Make the case and then say something like, "therefore, it seems likely that you are deceived" so that it's obvious that you really have no idea about my specific case, but probability implies that it is likely and it's clear that this isn't a proof. Maybe I'm nitpicking.

I personally know of mothers who've had their hearts broken because they did not get to see their son or daughter married. You are belittling something that is very important to a lot of people.

I know some too. In the cases I've seen, the heartbreak is based on a misunderstanding - when that misunderstanding is cleared up, many times I've seen that the heartbreak is avoided. This has nothing whatsoever to do with doubt in the LDS church being true or not, by the way.

How is it stupid? Obedience to a religion is considered by many to be a bad thing (see Jim Jones, see Heaven's Gate, See David Koresh). For the record, I think the call for obedience is a very oppressive part of religion. Recently I've been studying Islam (the word translates to submission). It's much worse than Mormonism but Mormonism is still bad, IMO.

Mormons don't enjoy complete freedom of conscience and expression. It was considered disobedience to speak out against the racist policies of the church prior to the change in blacks holding the priesthood. If a member thought the policy wrong he or she had to keep it to themselves. Speaking out for their conscience could get them excommunicated. Sonia Johnson was vilified and excommunicated just for speaking her mind about women.

I think that is very wrong. I think it is very appropriate to put obedience on the list. Any religion that can't tolerate dissent and allow it's members the freedom to speak their minds is a very weak church that must control its members like dictatorships do.

It's bad if the religion is run by an imperfect human who can abuse that trust. If the religion is run by a perfect being, then obedience would be a good thing because the purpose of that obedience is to help each person progress in the quickest way possible. So it's not about obedience itself -it's about who is being obeyed.

However, there is an assertion that Mormonism is the only true church.

That claim is to the authority of God, not that the LDS church is the only church who has any truth - that's a ridiculous claim that nobody makes except those throwing rocks at the LDS church. So I guess that would be a strawman?

This put, I would like to ask you exactly what do you mean by "truth" in your experience. You felt that the Book of Mormon is an ipsis litteris account or that its message, its philosophy is true?

That it is the Word of God - meaning that it originated from God and comes through a few people and therefore it could have some errors from them, but that when it comes to the core doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it contains truth about those doctrines. So I guess it's more about the important core doctrines dealing with humankind's salvation being true. Through living those doctrines, I have found them to be true. I hope that answers your question.

[rcronk]

rcronk, you state that everywhere you look, you see truth. I think this highlights one of the differences in the view of the skeptical community and the religious. Almost everything I see is tainted by lies. I search for the truth by attempting to understand what is not the truth. I refuse to accept that truth must be accompanied by ideas that are patently false. If Muslim has some truth, and Christianity has some truth, and Mormons have some truth, and Buddhists have some truth, then why can we not extract the truth and leave the lies behind? Why does religion insist on acceptance of the entire package?

If you think you have the truth, your mind will justify everything you see to continue the illusion of truth, whether it reflects reality or not. If you search for lies and inconsistencies, then you will be much more successful in finding what is actually true.

Incorrect, I have said that I can find truth wherever I go. I also find error, lies, deceit, etc. wherever I go. Truth doesn't have packaging - each truth is independent and doesn't need to rely on anything else - especially things that are false, as you have pointed out. I don't just run around accepting everything as truth - that's dumb. I think you have a valid point, that one can find out what's not true by looking for lies, etc. but one cannot find out what's true that way - that would be a negative proof fallacy, wouldn't it? It's useful to narrow things down, but not to prove. Also, I don't accept everything in any church as true, I take each item and determine its truth based on my own experience. There are things that are false wherever I look too, that falsehoods are propagated by imperfect people - which I can find everywhere.

[Correa Neto]

If you've read my posts, you'd know that I agree with you. I have found truth everywhere I go. All religions, all groups, everywhere. And I learn from it wherever I go. It has never been asserted that Mormons have all truth and nobody else does. ...snip...
OK, another OT digression...

Its common (at least in my limited experience) to hear theists say something similar "every religion has bits of thruth within". This syncretic monotheism, however, seems to actually be something more like "OK, every religion has bits of thruth within, but mine has much more than the others".

[m_huber]

Incorrect, I have said that I can find truth wherever I go. I also find error, lies, deceit, etc. wherever I go. Truth doesn't have packaging - each truth is independent and doesn't need to rely on anything else - especially things that are false, as you have pointed out. I don't just run around accepting everything as truth - that's dumb. I think you have a valid point, that one can find out what's not true by looking for lies, etc. but one cannot find out what's true that way - that would be a negative proof fallacy, wouldn't it? It's useful to narrow things down, but not to prove. Also, I don't accept everything in any church as true, I take each item and determine its truth based on my own experience. There are things that are false wherever I look too, that falsehoods are propagated by imperfect people - which I can find everywhere.

I do not agree that this is fallacy. If I go about tearing down everything that is demonstrably not true, then what is left is the truth. However, what I have dubbed the "truth" is still subject to investigation.

Unfortunately, there is extreme difficulty in actually establishing something as "true." In order to actually call something "true," you must (theoretically) have eliminated any possibility that it is not true. For the scientific community, this is done by repeated experiments, observations, and variations that can test the physical properties of the world. Even then, something that is long held as "truth" can be overturned -- The "Ether", for instance.

You have said that you know that Mormonism is "true" because God told you. Several people have offered neurological explanations of what may have happened. Others (myself included) have offered examples of God speaking to them and saying something contradictory to what you claim to have experienced. Consider carefully what your criteria for truth is -- and what is subject to that criteria.

[RandFan]

Saying something is likely is one thing. Acting like I'm deluded for certain is another. Many people here (not you that I can remember, thank you) make that leap and it's not appreciated. And if they don't make it explicitly, they make their case and then just jump to how I'm deluded, implying that their belief in the likelihood is a proof. I understand. When I was a Mormon I would not have appreciated people telling me that I was simply deluded. The problem is that you have presented us with something that we feel obligated to address. If there is no god and the Mormon church is just an organization invented by Smith then we have to take that possiblity into account.

FTR, I think most, if not all of us are deluded at many times in out life. It's part of the human condition.

I know some too. In the cases I've seen, the heartbreak is based on a misunderstanding - when that misunderstanding is cleared up, many times I've seen that the heartbreak is avoided. This has nothing whatsoever to do with doubt in the LDS church being true or not, by the way. I've never had such an experience. It has often left bitter resentments. It's a cause for reasonable doubt for some.

It's bad if the religion is run by an imperfect human who can abuse that trust. If the religion is run by a perfect being, then obedience would be a good thing because the purpose of that obedience is to help each person progress in the quickest way possible. So it's not about obedience itself -it's about who is being obeyed. I can imagine that any member of any cult would say the same thing. Sadly, it is demonstrable that obedience is demanded for things that are demonstrably not true. Blood doctrine, men on the moon, the status of Blacks, etc.. it was not allowed for members to speak their conscience. Clearly the church is run, at least to a degree, by very imperfect humans that got upset when their misguided ideas were questioned.

That claim is to the authority of God, not that the LDS church is the only church who has any truth - that's a ridiculous claim that nobody makes except those throwing rocks at the LDS church. So I guess that would be a strawman? rcronk, it has been stated many times in the D&C and by prophets.

No strawman.

Mormon scriptures claim that the LDS church is "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth" (Doctrine and Covenants, 1:30 (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/1/30b)).
President Ezra Taft Benson said: "This is not just another Church. This is not just one of a family of Christian churches. This is the Church and kingdom of God, the only true Church upon the face of the earth..." (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p.164-165).

[rcronk]

OK, another OT digression...

Its common (at least in my limited experience) to hear theists say something similar "every religion has bits of thruth within". This syncretic monotheism, however, seems to actually be something more like "OK, every religion has bits of thruth within, but mine has much more than the others".

Mormon doctrine asserts that the LDS church is the church of Jesus Christ restored to the earth - the church that Christ set up with 12 apostles, etc. when He was here on the earth was lost and has now been restored in preparation for the second coming of Christ. It asserts that other churches were formed by men rather than God or Christ. It would follow that truth about God and the plan of salvation would flow into the restored church of Christ more than churches that were founded by men but the assertion that the Mormon church "is the only true and living church upon the face of the earth" was allegedly made by Christ Himself and from what I understand spoke more of the authority of the LDS church to act in the name of God than how much truth is contained in it. I hope that made sense.

Oh, and DNA doesn't disprove the Book of Mormon - just so we're not completely off topic. ;)

[Morrigan]

I am not claiming to be infallible. I am claiming to have had a small handful of truths given to me that I know are true.
Then you claim to be infallible about this witnessing of "handful of truths". Nothing whatsoever could convince you that you misinterpreted these events.


This thread is a perfect example of the behaviour of true believers. It was about DNA evidence, and the believers struggled to argue against them, but when they failed, they just went back to "oh, I just know the book is true, since it was revealed to me anyway". So what's the point of even addressing the evidence in the first place?

[Correa Neto]

...snip...That it is the Word of God - meaning that it originated from God and comes through a few people and therefore it could have some errors from them, but that when it comes to the core doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it contains truth about those doctrines. So I guess it's more about the important core doctrines dealing with humankind's salvation being true. Through living those doctrines, I have found them to be true. I hope that answers your question.
This means you value the philosophy, the message passed through the accounts, right?

If so, am I correct to think that the veracity, the accuracy of the account is not so important for you? In other words, for you the greatest value lies in what can be learned from the text. The Book of Mormon for you has a mythical character. Its role is that of myths.

This is not baiting, I am not trying to force you to say the book is a myth. I am just trying to understand better your positions.

[Darth Rotor]

ETA: If the native Americans, via the Lamanites, had access to the kind of ship-building skills that got them from Jerusalem to North America, why didn't they discover Europe, instead of waiting for Chris Columbus to do it the other way around?
In the interests of speculaton for fun and profit:

1. Maybe they didn't want to catch the pox.

2. Maybe they figured one continent was big enough for them, and it was good to have other lands far beyond the seas.

3. Maybe, having left, they didn't want to go back.

DR

[rcronk]

I do not agree that this is fallacy. If I go about tearing down everything that is demonstrably not true, then what is left is the truth. However, what I have dubbed the "truth" is still subject to investigation.

Unfortunately, there is extreme difficulty in actually establishing something as "true." In order to actually call something "true," you must (theoretically) have eliminated any possibility that it is not true. For the scientific community, this is done by repeated experiments, observations, and variations that can test the physical properties of the world. Even then, something that is long held as "truth" can be overturned -- The "Ether", for instance.

You have said that you know that Mormonism is "true" because God told you. Several people have offered neurological explanations of what may have happened. Others (myself included) have offered examples of God speaking to them and saying something contradictory to what you claim to have experienced. Consider carefully what your criteria for truth is -- and what is subject to that criteria.

Yes, we've been through much of those arguments. If God created it, then He knows what's true and can hand that to me. It's a different process than the scientific method and it can reach absolute truth whereas the scientific method, great and useful as it is, cannot.

FTR, I think most, if not all of us are deluded at many times in out life. It's part of the human condition.

Agreed, as I have said many times.

I've never had such an experience. It has often left bitter resentments. It's a cause for reasonable doubt for some.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. If someone decides to become bitter because of a misunderstanding, I think the responsibility for that bitterness lies on the person who has chosen to become bitter and those who do not help clear up the misunderstanding, not the organization who that person is bitter toward. Furthermore, people can often become bitter at the truth - that doesn't make that truth become false just because someone got bitter at it. Bitterness toward something is not cause for doubt. Again, we can agree to disagree on this one.

I can imagine that any member of any cult would say the same thing. Sadly, it is demonstrable that obedience is demanded for things that are demonstrably not true. Blood doctrine, men on the moon, the status of Blacks, etc.. it was not allowed for members to speak their conscience. Clearly the church is run, at least to a degree, by very imperfect humans that got upset when their misguided ideas were questioned.

I left the church and nobody stopped me. I was disobedient and nobody forced me to stay or be obedient. I had complete freedom to speak out and leave if I wanted to and I did. Truth in the church is not arrived at through contention of the members of the church, it arrives through inspiration from the leaders on down and since leaders are also imperfect, there can be errors. My testimony is in the Savior. My leaders are called servants to help things run in an orderly fashion to get jobs done, like feeding the poor, sharing the gospel with others, etc. I understand you see some similarities between a "cult" and groups that suggest it's a good thing to be obedient, but you'll never know the truth for certain using the logic you're using.

rcronk, it has been stated many times in the D&C and by prophets.

No strawman.

Mormon scriptures claim that the LDS church is "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth" (Doctrine and Covenants, 1:30 (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/1/30b)).
President Ezra Taft Benson said: "This is not just another Church. This is not just one of a family of Christian churches. This is the Church and kingdom of God, the only true Church upon the face of the earth..." (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p.164-165).

The strawman I'm talking about is "The LDS church has all truth and nobody else does." That has never been claimed. The "only true church", as I have said repeatedly, refers to it being the only church with Christ at its head rather than men. Strawman. ;)

[RandFan]

...the assertion that the Mormon church "is the only true and living church upon the face of the earth" was allegedly made by Christ Himself and from what I understand spoke more of the authority of the LDS church to act in the name of God than how much truth is contained in it. I hope that made sense. This is a real cause for reasonable doubt for me (not all are equal).

Joseph Smith supposidly had the power of prophecy and was on a number of occasions throughout his life visited by angels and god. Why did the Church get so much wrong? Why did the angels stop visiting subsequent prophets? Why did blood doctrine exist? Why did Brigham Young believe the moon was inhabited? Why does the Mormon chuch change its history and omit many events documented by folks like Jospeh Smith and members of his family?

I would think that an orginaztion that god came to Earth to oversee would not get so much so wrong.

Why did he go out of his way to recommend folks not partake of hot drinks while neglecting to tell them to boil water thereby preserving many that died from Cholera? Why did he tell the Mormons to use tobacco for the bruises on cattle when there is no empirical evidence that it does anything? Emma didn't like wads of tobacco and tobacco juice on her floor so that was included in the word of wisdom. This turned out to be good but was it really revelation? We know that there were concerns about tobacco and health even before Joseph Smiths time.

It looks man made to me.

[rcronk]

Then you claim to be infallible about this witnessing of "handful of truths". Nothing whatsoever could convince you that you misinterpreted these events.

This thread is a perfect example of the behaviour of true believers. It was about DNA evidence, and the believers struggled to argue against them, but when they failed, they just went back to "oh, I just know the book is true, since it was revealed to me anyway". So what's the point of even addressing the evidence in the first place?

I think the point is that the evidence has some doubt in it and through the scientific method, the absolute truth cannot be arrived at. I understand your frustration and I know I shouldn't have derailed the thread as I have but I do think the debate is useful. If anyone thinks the derail should stop, let me know and I'll shut up.

This means you value the philosophy, the message passed through the accounts, right?

If so, am I correct to think that the veracity, the accuracy of the account is not so important for you? In other words, for you the greatest value lies in what can be learned from the text. The Book of Mormon for you has a mythical character. Its role is that of myths.

This is not baiting, I am not trying to force you to say the book is a myth. I am just trying to understand better your positions.

It is a true account of people who actually lived and it contains true doctrines from God expressed through these people's experiences. It's real but could have mistakes in it in the recording, translating, printing, etc.

Again, if the derail is not worth it, let me know and I'll stop.

[RobRoy]

If you've read my posts, you'd know that I agree with you. I have found truth everywhere I go. All religions, all groups, everywhere. And I learn from it wherever I go.

See, I've read your posts, so if you truly believed this, of all faiths including the LDS faith, then there would be no confusion on why some people don't get an answer, the "burning in bosom", the "small quiet voice" after reading the BoM, and following the directions as is stated in Moroni 10:3-5.

It has never been asserted that Mormons have all truth and nobody else does.

Do you mean by you, or by the LDS religion? If by you, then I'm confused by your statement of not understanding:

Yes, I know that some here have mentioned that they didn't get answers and that's entirely their business. I do not know why they didn't get an answer and it's really none of my business at all.

If by the LDS religion, then you're wrong. I can quote you Joseph Smith's own words on the subject, if you need them. Specifcally, my favorite is in History of the Churchp. 709 where Smith states that the "Standard of Truth" in the form of the LDS church, has been established . . . or re-established, if you prefer. :D

Every organized faith claims to have the corner market on truth, and the LDS are no different. If you can find an exception, it would be just that.

Prove it. If you can't, then it's just your word against mine.

Ummm, sorry friend, if I could prove it, then my statement would be utterly false. The "your word against mine" is exactly the point.

I think the point is that the evidence has some doubt in it and through the scientific method, the absolute truth cannot be arrived at.

Nopers, can't be arrived at, but a conclusion based on the predominance of evidence certainly points in a direction away from the claims of the BoM and the LDS church.

It is a true account of people who actually lived and it contains true doctrines from God expressed through these people's experiences. It's real but could have mistakes in it in the recording, translating, printing, etc.[emphasis added]

If you believe this, then you need to reject the LDS faith out of hand as the one for you, given that Joseph Smith made the claim that it was "the most correct of any book on earth". The translation, both the speaking by Smith and the recording by Emma, is supposed to be utterly perfect.

Again, if the derail is not worth it, let me know and I'll stop.

I'm fine, but I'm not a concensus. :D

[Darth Rotor]

No strawman.

Mormon scriptures claim that the LDS church is "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth" (Doctrine and Covenants, 1:30 (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/1/30b)).
President Ezra Taft Benson said: "This is not just another Church. This is not just one of a family of Christian churches. This is the Church and kingdom of God, the only true Church upon the face of the earth..." (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p.164-165).
I am thinking that a cage match between him and the current Pope might be entertaining. Get me a Berian for a ref, and there would be no end of fun.

DR

[RandFan]

...it can reach absolute truth whereas the scientific method, great and useful as it is, cannot. One cannot absolutely know any truth. It is a very real epistimological (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/epistemological)problem. Just because you reject the problem doesn't change anything.

If someone decides to become bitter because of a misunderstanding... There is no misunderstanding. I want to see my daughter and sons get maried. Pure and simple. Calling it a misunderstanding doesn't change that fact.

I had complete freedom to speak out and leave if I wanted to and I did. I don't have any such freedom. If I speak out I would likely be excomunicated and it could cause great heartache with loved ones because freedom of thought is frowned upon.

It's funny because when I was in the Church, I and other members would bemoan the fact that many who joined the Church would lose family and friends.

It doesn't need to be that way.

Truth in the church is not arrived at through contention of the members of the church, it arrives through inspiration from the leaders on down and since leaders are also imperfect, there can be errors. How does one know if it is the truth or not if you can be punished for speaking your mind?

Wouldn't ones conciousness for womens rights or minority rights trump the Church? Wouldn't god respect a person who sacrificed himself for others? No. Not according to the Church "obedience is more important than sacrifice".

This is one of those things that most people would not join the Curch if they knew before hand, IMO.

I understand you see some similarities between a "cult" and groups that suggest it's a good thing to be obedient, but you'll never know the truth for certain using the logic you're using. The logic I'm using is the logic the founding fathers used. Truth is best arrived at by discussion and debate and appeal to reason.

Only those who wish to manipulate their followers demand obedience (see Jim Jones, David Koresh and others).

If the Mormon Church is what it says it is then it has nothing to fear from honest and open discussion and debate. Only the true in heart will find it and stay. Those who are contenious and not sincere will leave.

[rcronk]

This is a real cause for reasonable doubt for me (not all are equal).

Joseph Smith supposidly had the power of prophecy and was on a number of occasions throughout his life visited by angels and god. Why did the Church get so much wrong? Why did the angels stop visiting subsequent prophets? Why did blood doctrine exist? Why did Brigham Young believe the moon was inhabited? Why does the Mormon chuch change its history and omit many events documented by folks like Jospeh Smith and members of his family?

I would think that an orginaztion that god came to Earth to oversee would not get so much so wrong.

Why did he go out of his way to recommend folks not partake of hot drinks while neglecting to tell them to boil water thereby preserving many that died from Cholera? Why did he tell the Mormons to use tobacco for the bruises on cattle when there is no empirical evidence that it does anything? Emma didn't like wads of tobacco and tobacco juice on her floor so that was included in the word of wisdom. This turned out to be good but was it really revelation? We know that there were concerns about tobacco and health even before Joseph Smiths time.

It looks man made to me.

I think if it were perfect or had some unexplainable glowing orb hovering over its headquarters, then people would accept it, possibly against their own true desires they would follow in the absence of such proof. I think finding out our own true desires in an environment of faith/doubt is a large part of why we're here and so I think God tries to keep a level playing field to allow people to be able to choose to find Him or not. And based on the fact that people are choosing both paths, it looks like there's enough reason to believe or doubt to go either way. Of course, that's just me guessing, but it makes sense to me. God's not about forcing people to believe - I think we didn't come here for that purpose.

It also has to do with figuring out what is opinion and what is true doctrine. Each person has the responsibility to pray about and gain their own testimony of each thing that a prophet says. It could look true or false, but unless there is a God and unless He tells you, you'll never know for sure one way or the other. That's just the limitations of human logic and the scientific method.

[Correa Neto]

...snip...It is a true account of people who actually lived and it contains true doctrines from God expressed through these people's experiences. It's real but could have mistakes in it in the recording, translating, printing, etc.

Again, if the derail is not worth it, let me know and I'll stop.
OK, now its clear, thanks.

I don't think its actually a derail, since clearing some positions, even if not completely on topic, contribute to the debate.

[RandFan]

I think if it were perfect or had some unexplainable glowing orb hovering over its headquarters, then people would accept it, possibly against their own true desires they would follow in the absence of such proof. I don't need for it to be perfect or have a glowing orb. This is just a convenient strawman.

I only need for it not to get so much fundamentally wrong. It's ostensibly a Christian church. How does it come out with something so evil as racist propaganda against blacks?

It is unlikely that the Mormon church will propagate the old anachronism that blacks sinned in the pre-existence. Yet it was there and god made certain that Mormons wouldn't drink coffee or tea but he couldn't quite bring himself to tell the prophets that such ideas were hateful and ignorant.

It also has to do with figuring out what is opinion and what is true doctrine. Each person has the responsibility to pray about and gain their own testimony of each thing that a prophet says. And keep it to themselves if god tells them that things like blood doctrine, men on the moon and blacks sinning in the pre-existence are nonsense.

Individuals can't receive revelation for the church and they are not allowed to speak out if their conscience tells them to do so (see Sonia Johnson and many others).

I know members who think that suppresion of free speech (if you speak out you will be punished) is wrong but they dare not speak out for fear of losing loved ones and their membership in the church.

[Bob Blaylock]

Some of the items (like Adam and Eve) aren't arguments against the Mormon church specifically, but against anyone who believes in the Bible. To put those types of things on a "Mormon" list is a bit misleading. And I'd expect to find some doubt in a faith-based topic like theism.


And have a look at item 56. Where, in item 2, this list attacks the Bible itself, in item 56, it relies on the author's interpretation of the Bible to make its argument on another point. This author isn't even being consistent.

And in many cases, the list is just plain wrong about what it asserts about Mormon beliefs and practices, and in others, it is just plain wrong about the points it tries to use to argue against our beliefs and practices.

[rcronk]

If you believe this, then you need to reject the LDS faith out of hand as the one for you, given that Joseph Smith made the claim that it was "the most correct of any book on earth". The translation, both the speaking by Smith and the recording by Emma, is supposed to be utterly perfect.

"Most correct" does not equal "utterly perfect". The vast majority of tweaks to it were to add punctuation and tweak some grammar. The overwhelming message and doctrine in it have nothing to do with these changes. It's nit picking while missing the main point.

One cannot absolutely know any truth.

Prove it.

There is no misunderstanding. I want to see my daughter and sons get maried. Pure and simple. Calling it a misunderstanding doesn't change that fact.

Define "get married". By law, they "get married" when the justice of the peace gives them a marriage license. Is that what you want to witness? Is some ceremony after the fact that you don't believe in "getting married"? Or is "getting married" just a ceremony where family and friends come together and celebrate the union of a couple - like at a reception? Which one is it and why? I think it's nitpicking. If my daughter were to marry a wiccan and they had some ceremony where they "got married" after their civil marriage, I would be involved with everything else and I'd be just fine not going to their "wedding" if it wasn't allowed.

I don't have any such freedom. If I speak out I would likely be excomunicated and it could cause great heartache with loved ones because freedom of thought is frowned upon.

That doesn't match my experience. I just spoke on Friday night with another member of my ward about the things we're talking about here and he had no problem whatsoever challenging his own faith and speaking about doubts, etc. As for speaking to leaders, I assume that it might have more to do with the person's attitude as they bring up doubts than the doubts themselves. Are they looking for a reason to leave or are they struggling with their faith, etc? If a person thinks it's false, they have the right to walk away or discuss it with whomever they want to.

It's funny because when I was in the Church, I and other members would bemoan the fact that many who joined the Church would lose family and friends.

It doesn't need to be that way.

How does one know if it is the truth or not if you can be punished for speaking your mind?

If they lose family and friends, that only because of the intolerance of those family and friends. I've known many people who disagreed with their family members joining a particular religion and they just agreed to disagree and maintained a strong relationship anyway. Again, this says more about the people disowning other people than it does any organization.

This is one of those things that most people would not join the Curch if they knew before hand, IMO.

Everyone I taught on my mission knew when they join the church that revelation for the church comes through a prophet, they should pray to find out if those things are true. Revelation for their family comes through them, etc. Things aren't done through debate and contention among members, etc.

The logic I'm using is the logic the founding fathers used. Truth is best arrived at by discussion and debate and appeal to reason.

Only those who wish to manipulate their followers demand obedience (see Jim Jones, David Koresh and others).

If the Mormon Church is what it says it is then it has nothing to fear from honest and open discussion and debate. Only the true in heart will find it and stay. Those who are contenious and not sincere will leave.

The founding fathers were a group of equals. God doesn't need us to tell him what to do based on our limited view of things and failings. But of course, all of this as always just points back to "Does God exist" and "Is this the church He set up or not?" If it's not Christ's church, then I'm on your side. If it is Christ's church, then all of your arguments don't matter - so the real issue is finding out if it's Christ's church or not. We disagree about whether that's possible and therefore we will never make progress - other than me learning how to not suck at debating. ;)

P.S. Once again, I can't keep up with the traffic on this thread so either slow down or I'll not be able to address everyone's comments. I do have a job and though I do have to wait for things to complete and can therefore type some replies, I'm getting a bit overwhelmed at this point.

[RobRoy]

"Most correct" does not equal "utterly perfect". The vast majority of tweaks to it were to add punctuation and tweak some grammar. The overwhelming message and doctrine in it have nothing to do with these changes. It's nit picking while missing the main point.

Honestly, I don't want to get into the religious debate on this, but you're quite, quite wrong:

“Some persons have thought that the Lord revealed to Joseph the ideas, and that Joseph conveyed those ideas into the English language. But this is not so. The Lord gave not only the ideas but the language itself—the very words.” (The Territorial Inquirer, March 2, 1881)

But, if you want to reject one of your own prophet's words, there are changes from the original which have contextual issues, and make Joseph Smith's claim of "most correct" quite false no matter how you wish to slice it. I can provide examples if you want.

In contrast, there are books from almost any given time period wherein "punctuation" and "grammar" do not require such edits, or require them in far fewer numbers than the nearly 4,000+ edits that have been made over the years to the BoM.

[rcronk]

Nor do I want to derail the derail, but for your nitpicking pleasure, you can look (http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2002_Changes_in_the_Book_of_Mormon.html) at these (http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/Book_of_Mormon_vs_the_Critics.html) articles that detail the changes made after translation in the printing, etc. And I don't understand this continuing obsession with perfection. "There's a flaw after being translated, handwritten, and printed, SEE!? God doesn't exist and Joseph Smith is a phony!" ;)

[RobRoy]

Nor do I want to derail the derail, but for your nitpicking pleasure, you can look (http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2002_Changes_in_the_Book_of_Mormon.html) at these (http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/Book_of_Mormon_vs_the_Critics.html) articles that detail the changes made after translation in the printing, etc.

I've already read these, and many others like them, over the years. None of them deal with the fundamental issues which I've already stated, and which you appear to be side-stepping.

You're welcome to side-step them. I've yet to read a decent answer to them, and don't expect one from you. I was simply pointing out the inherent contradictions in your statements and those of your professed belief structure.

And I don't understand this continuing obsession with perfection.

No worries. I'll tell you why this is a "continuing obessession", although not one with "perfection. It's a point of contention, and a very large one, when trying to get at the truth of the matter of Joseph Smith's claims. Smith made the statement, that the BoM was "the most correct of any book". Those are his exact words. The LDS church, its members, and its apologists have tried to make Smith's statement jive with the the nearly 4,000 changes made to this book over the years, some of which change the very context of the statements in the BoM.

You agreed that there were errors, which is in contradiction to what Smith and many of the early Church leaders stated. I've provided the quote from Joseph F. Smith, and can provide others from other church leaders who say the same thing. So, either Joseph Smith, his successors and church leaders are wrong about its correctness, or you're wrong about its errors. Since, obviously, there are errors, and many errors, again, some of which change the context of the passages, then you are not wrong.

That only leaves us with one conclusion.

Follow that up with the fact that there are many books which have no had nearly 4,000 edits made to them, and Smith is doubly wrong in his claim.

"There's a flaw after being translated, handwritten, and printed,

This argument doesn't hold, I'm afraid. The original translation is still extent. It can be compared to the "proofed" copy as well as the original printing proof and then to the original printing. Even from the original handwritten translation, there are many errors.

SEE!? God doesn't exist and Joseph Smith is a phony!" ;)

Strawman. My arguments are not against the belief in God, and I have never made the claim that Smith was a phony. I've only pointed out that your statement put you in contradiction with your religion of choice.

[rcronk]

You know (if you really read those articles) that most of these "4000 changes" you speak of were to add non-existent punctuation. Do you really think those count as relevant "changes" as you seem to be implying? If so, then we're done discussing this because you're being ridiculous. No offense, but I'm spending a lot of my time to honestly discuss these issues here and if you're really saying what I think you're saying, you're wasting my time, which I don't appreciate. No hard feelings though.

[m_huber]

Yes, we've been through much of those arguments. If God created it, then He knows what's true and can hand that to me. It's a different process than the scientific method and it can reach absolute truth whereas the scientific method, great and useful as it is, cannot.


This statement bothers me. There are several assumptions made here that you seem to be building your worldview on:

If God created it, then He knows what's true and can hand that to me and will.

You then make the statement that theophanies show you "absolute truth," but this assumes some definition of the phrase which is somewhat unclear to me. Science can arrive at the truth. In a physical world governed by consistent laws, there is only one right answer, and science is generally quite capable of finding that answer. But, then, perhaps you refer to something else?

Note again, confidence that you have truth is not the same as having the truth. For example, George W. Bush thinks he is a good president.

[Morrigan]

I think the point is that the evidence has some doubt in it and through the scientific method, the absolute truth cannot be arrived at.

How can "absolute truth" be reached through faith? The scientific method is the only mechanism in which we can verify that the knowledge we have is valid.

[articulett]

There is one truth rconk. Either the book of Mormon is the work of a prophet or it's not. The evidence tends to be accumulating on the side of not. But you have so much faith that you just "can't" see it.

Do you really want to spend the rest of your life playing this mental game? You cannot change minds here. It appears your excuse making is just to make yourself "keep the faith", because your religion has taught you that faith is good.

[articulett]

There can't be accurate proof that the Pygmies didn't oame to America and are responsible for dark skin. That makes it on par with the Joe Smith claim. There is never enough evidence for those who haven't been brainwashed. The absence of evidence is used as proof of some claim--that's not how facts work. Of course talking to you about your "beliefs" is probably on par with trying to talk Tom Cruise out of his.

[money]

And how about number 4 - "Although Mormons claim that they are "family oriented," they exclude non-Mormon family members - even parents - from weddings in the temple, since only "worthy" Mormons are allowed to enter a Mormon temple." That's misleading. A temple marriage takes less than 5 minutes and is really about the two people getting married. In Mormon culture, the wedding reception is where the whole group of family and friends get together. I only had 4 other people present at my own temple marriage but had parties for both friends and family afterward where everyone was involved and invited, including non-Mormons and anti-Mormons. This is a cultural difference and misunderstanding that's being taken advantage of.


My mother couldn't watch my sister, who is LDS, get married last summer, and she was heartbroken. The LDS church decided my sister's dance teacher and childhood friend's moms were good enough, but not my mom. Some reward for a woman who gave her kids the choice of what church to attend as children...

Are you seriously saying that since the ceremony is only 5 minutes, it shouldn't be any big deal to loved ones who are non-members and are excluded? This callousness doesn't seem in character with how you portray yourself in the rest of your posts...

[HghrSymmetry]

Originally Posted by rcronk
A temple marriage takes less than 5 minutes and is really about the two people getting married.

Not bad. Some consummations last even less.

(or so I've heard)

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Not bad. Some consummations last even less.

(or so I've heard)

Does that include the time required to rip off the sacred Temple Garments? :boggled:

[RobRoy]

You know (if you really read those articles) that most of these "4000 changes" you speak of were to add non-existent punctuation. Do you really think those count as relevant "changes" as you seem to be implying? If so, then we're done discussing this because you're being ridiculous. No offense, but I'm spending a lot of my time to honestly discuss these issues here and if you're really saying what I think you're saying, you're wasting my time, which I don't appreciate. No hard feelings though.

No, no. Not at all. Either, you skipped over a great deal of what I'm saying, or I'm not communicating effectively. I'll take the burden here, and try again since I'm not trying to anger you, or persuade you against your own faith. Far from it.

This started because you made the statement: "[The Book of Mormon is] real but could have mistakes in it in the recording, translating, printing, etc." [emphasis added]

This is your statement. The only case I made was that if you believe there are these "mistakes. . . in the recording, translating, printing, etc." then you are calling out Joseph Smith, when he makes the claim that the BoM is the "most correct" of any book. You are also calling out the LDS church authorities (refer to my Joseph F. Smith quote to begin, and I can provide others if required), who have made statements specifically in regard to the correctness of the BoM in respect to errors. Especially those of "translating" and "recording".

So, again, either Joseph Smith and the church leaders are wrong about the correctness of the BoM, or you are wrong about the "translating" and "recording" correctness.

It doesn't matter to me one way or the other, but if you're going to be LDS and follow the iron rod, then you have to accept that the BoM translating and recording errors don't exist. That, of course, then calls into question the huge number of errors that do exist, a number of which, (and I've made this statement before) are contextual in nature. Again, I can provide examples if required.

Really, it's a question to you. Do you believe there are errors in the translating and recording process, or do you give that up and agree with Smith that the book is the "most correct".

[RandFan]

And have a look at item 56. Where, in item 2, this list attacks the Bible itself, in item 56, it relies on the author's interpretation of the Bible to make its argument on another point. This author isn't even being consistent.

And in many cases, the list is just plain wrong about what it asserts about Mormon beliefs and practices, and in others, it is just plain wrong about the points it tries to use to argue against our beliefs and practices. So are you saying they are all wrong because you have issues with 2? I'm not impressed with all of them but I'm impressed with most.

[RandFan]

"Most correct" does not equal "utterly perfect". The vast majority of tweaks to it were to add punctuation and tweak some grammar. The overwhelming message and doctrine in it have nothing to do with these changes. It's nit picking while missing the main point. I'm sorry but getting rid of racism isn't a tweak. And there is no reason to think it is "most correct".

Prove it.:) Thank you. That's exactly right. Of course I suspect that this is not intentional and you fail to grasp the epistemological problem you are demonstrating and don't get the Irony. How can you prove to yourself that what you say you know, you know? You can't. The problem isn't something that needs to be proven. We can use inductive logic to recognize it.

Thanks anyway.

I think it's nitpicking. If my daughter were to marry a wiccan and they had some ceremony where they "got married" after their civil marriage, I would be involved with everything else and I'd be just fine not going to their "wedding" if it wasn't allowed. Why does everyone have to live by what you think is right? It's not at all nitpicking and that is why it causes so much heartache.

That doesn't match my experience. The net is full of such stories. Check 'em out.

If they lose family and friends, that only because of the intolerance of those family and friends. It endemic of the culture. Mormons are human and not perfect as you are so fond of saying. The many examples are a very good indication of what I'm saying.

I honestly do not want to come out to many of my friends and family for fear of losing those relationships.

[RandFan]

Rcronk, prove that you are not a brain in a vat or that you are not in the Matrix?

[Bob Blaylock]

And have a look at item 56. Where, in item 2, this list attacks the Bible itself, in item 56, it relies on the author's interpretation of the Bible to make its argument on another point. This author isn't even being consistent.

And in many cases, the list is just plain wrong about what it asserts about Mormon beliefs and practices, and in others, it is just plain wrong about the points it tries to use to argue against our beliefs and practices.So are you saying they are all wrong because you have issues with 2? I'm not impressed with all of them but I'm impressed with most.


No, that is not what I am saying, nor do I expect that anyone who actually took the time to read and understand what little I wrote in that posting would have parsed it that way.

I was making two separate observations.

The first observation was the internal inconsistency in that list, exemplified by making one point that thoroughly dismisses the Bible outright, while making another point that depends on the Bible.

The second observation, I suppose could more clearly be divided into two observations.

Observation 2a is that many of the assertions made in this list, with regard to what Mormons believe and practice, are simply false. That is to say, Mormons do not believe, and do not practice, many of the things that this list claims that we do. If you had actually paid attention to this list, and if you had the experience yourself in the church that you claim to have had, then you would have noticed this right away.

Observation 2b is that many of the sources that are cited in order to refute alleged Mormon practices and beliefs are also being similarly misrepresented; these sources do not say what the list claims that they say.

[RandFan]

The first observation was the internal inconsistency in that list, exemplified by making one point that thoroughly dismisses the Bible outright, while making another point that depends on the Bible. ? I don't see the problem. The author doesn't have to hold the Bible as true to use it to show that Mormon beliefs are inconsitent with the Bible.

Observation 2a is that many of the assertions made in this list, with regard to what Mormons believe and practice, are simply false. I completly disagree.

That is to say, Mormons do not believe, and do not practice, many of the things that this list claims that we do. If you had actually paid attention to this list, and if you had the experience yourself in the church that you claim to have had, then you would have noticed this right away. You just declare this. I did pay close attention and I grew up in the church. I dispute your claim.

Observation 2b is that many of the sources that are cited in order to refute alleged Mormon practices and beliefs are also being similarly misrepresented; these sources do not say what the list claims that they say. Again, you just assert this. Just because you assert something doesn't make it true.

[RandFan]

Let's go through the first 10.

Is a fact.
Is a fact.
Is a fact.
Is a fact but I'm not sure how much reasonable doubt it causes. It's troubling for me.
Is a fact.
Is a fact.
Is a fact.
Is a fact.
Questionable. The book of Abraham fiasco was a clear fraud IMO but I can't categorically state that it is fact. It is certainly reasonable doubt.
Is a fact.Please to tell me why you disagree with these 10? Be specific. Don't just assert that they are wrong. Tell us why you think they are wrong.

[luchog]

I find this quite curious, given that Hebrews had their own language, and a rich literary tradition. Also, with the exception of ciphers and codes, I don't know of any language emerging whole cloth, without any relationship to the language spoken by the people of the time and place.
One of the things most curious about the supposed Hebrew link, is that the Hebrews were fanatical about literacy and record-keeping, and notorious for their insularity and ethno-centrism. They wrote down everything, including extensive genealogies and historical documentation. Schools were some of the most important cultural institutions. Yet there is not a single document, not a single record, not a single archeological remnant of a schule, not a single trace of anything resembling Hebraic in any Native American language, and the people descended from them are, almost without exception, nearly completely illiterate, possessing only the most rudimentary pictographic writing system.
I'm not an expert, so I'm not sure my opinion counts. I think it is evidence of Hebrew origin but from what I've seen it depends a lot on the complexity of the chiasmus.

Nonsense. I grew up in borderline fundamentalist churches where the KJV was the One True Translation. I could speak for extended periods in quite passable chiasmus by the time I was in my teens; and by the time I was in my early 20s, could speak near fluent Elizabethan English (although I did lapse into Jacobean if I wasn't careful). Kind of sad that I got out of the practice.

Joseph Smith supposidly had the power of prophecy and was on a number of occasions throughout his life visited by angels and god. Why did the Church get so much wrong? Why did the angels stop visiting subsequent prophets? Why did blood doctrine exist? Why did Brigham Young believe the moon was inhabited? Why does the Mormon chuch change its history and omit many events documented by folks like Jospeh Smith and members of his family?

I would think that an orginaztion that god came to Earth to oversee would not get so much so wrong.

One of the most important qualifications for a prophet in the Torah is 100% accuracy. Not "mostly correct, accounting for interpretation", not "fairly close once one accounts for the fact that he's just a human relaying things bigger than he is"; but totally, infalliably, completly, and in all other ways correct. Failure to meet that standard was, at the very least, grounds for rejection of his claims of prophet status and discarding of everything he prophesied; and most often punished by stoning the false prophet to death.

They certainly did not adhere to anything resembling the LDS doctine of "progressive revelation".

If they did manage to make it to the New World, they must have degenerated quite amazingly far from their origins.

I'm sorry but getting rid of racism isn't a tweak. And there is no reason to think it is "most correct".

For a really interesting read, check out the timing of that rescinding of their racist doctrines. By an odd coincidence, it corresponded quite closely to the rapid growth of Mormonism in Brazil, a nation with a population which is heavily interbred with those "afflicted with the skin of blackness" as proof of their evil origin and nature.

Although, it's kind of interesting that for a race that lacked the "white and delightsome" appearance, the Mormons had no problem allying themselves with the First Nations peoples at Mountain Meadows (look it up, I can guarantee that the version taught to Mormons, if they're taught about it at all, bears little resemblance to the reality).

Oh, and another "Welcome Back RF" from me! You were certainly missed.

[Pixel42]

You have said that you know that Mormonism is "true" because God told you. Several people have offered neurological explanations of what may have happened. Others (myself included) have offered examples of God speaking to them and saying something contradictory to what you claim to have experienced. Consider carefully what your criteria for truth is -- and what is subject to that criteria.
There is ample evidence that the events described in the BoM did not happen, more than enough to convince a reasonable person who considers the question with an open mind. There never really was much room for doubt about it, and research like that referred to in the OP removes what little doubt remains. So for anyone reading the three subjective experiences described by contrinutors to this thread - rcronk's revelation that the BoM is true, your revelation that it is false and Randfan's failure to receive a revelation despite meeting all Joseph Smith's criteria - it's pretty obvious which of you must be mistaken.

I think the neurological explanation is the most likely one for rcronk's experience, but I have to say I wouldn't blame God for deliberately misleading (or allowing Satan to mislead) people who persist in asking him questions like "Is the BoM true?" instead of using the brain he gave them to work out the blindingly obvious answers for themselves from the readily available evidence.

[rcronk]

My mother couldn't watch my sister, who is LDS, get married last summer, and she was heartbroken. The LDS church decided my sister's dance teacher and childhood friend's moms were good enough, but not my mom. Some reward for a woman who gave her kids the choice of what church to attend as children...

Are you seriously saying that since the ceremony is only 5 minutes, it shouldn't be any big deal to loved ones who are non-members and are excluded? This callousness doesn't seem in character with how you portray yourself in the rest of your posts...

People can have a civil wedding outside of the temple and invite all the people they want to. These things can be worked around and they have absolutely nothing to do with whether the Mormon church is true or not. I'm not trying to be calloused, I'm just not allowing people to set up a situation of their own making, become angry at it, and then blame others.

No, no. Not at all. Either, you skipped over a great deal of what I'm saying, or I'm not communicating effectively. I'll take the burden here, and try again since I'm not trying to anger you, or persuade you against your own faith. Far from it.

This started because you made the statement: "[The Book of Mormon is] real but could have mistakes in it in the recording, translating, printing, etc." [emphasis added]

This is your statement. The only case I made was that if you believe there are these "mistakes. . . in the recording, translating, printing, etc." then you are calling out Joseph Smith, when he makes the claim that the BoM is the "most correct" of any book. You are also calling out the LDS church authorities (refer to my Joseph F. Smith quote to begin, and I can provide others if required), who have made statements specifically in regard to the correctness of the BoM in respect to errors. Especially those of "translating" and "recording".

So, again, either Joseph Smith and the church leaders are wrong about the correctness of the BoM, or you are wrong about the "translating" and "recording" correctness.

It doesn't matter to me one way or the other, but if you're going to be LDS and follow the iron rod, then you have to accept that the BoM translating and recording errors don't exist. That, of course, then calls into question the huge number of errors that do exist, a number of which, (and I've made this statement before) are contextual in nature. Again, I can provide examples if required.

Really, it's a question to you. Do you believe there are errors in the translating and recording process, or do you give that up and agree with Smith that the book is the "most correct".

There is a problem with your definitions. Perhaps if we focus on these definitions specifically, we can get to the same page. I appreciate your efforts to get this through my head. The main problem I see is you saying that "most correct" means "perfect, without any typographical errors and without the need to add punctuation that wasn't added during translation". If you take the quote in context,

"I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts than any other book." - History of the Church, Volume 4, 461

you would see that your definition is not correct. The "most correct", according to this context, means that its precepts are correct and that a person could get nearer to God by following these precepts than any other book. It doesn't have anything to do with 4,000 punctuation additions.

I'm sorry but getting rid of racism isn't a tweak. And there is no reason to think it is "most correct".

:) Thank you. That's exactly right. Of course I suspect that this is not intentional and you fail to grasp the epistemological problem you are demonstrating and don't get the Irony. How can you prove to yourself that what you say you know, you know? You can't. The problem isn't something that needs to be proven. We can use inductive logic to recognize it.

Thanks anyway.

Why does everyone have to live by what you think is right? It's not at all nitpicking and that is why it causes so much heartache.

The net is full of such stories. Check 'em out.

It endemic of the culture. Mormons are human and not perfect as you are so fond of saying. The many examples are a very good indication of what I'm saying.

I honestly do not want to come out to many of my friends and family for fear of losing those relationships.

If you had read the articles I linked to above, you would realize that it wasn't a "racism" tweak.

I assert that God can give someone knowledge (see analogy below) that they can know absolutely. You say that's impossible and I ask you to back up that statement and you can't. So we're on equal footing.

Here's an analogy that's not perfect, but it's still worthwhile:

I'm a software engineer. I am a creator of software. There are testers and technical support people who poke and prod the software to figure out how it works. There are also documentation people who write books about how the software is supposed to work. These people get a lot right but get some things wrong - all of them. Some of them pretend to know what's going on and tell others how it works internally, but they're full of it. As you have said before, sometimes they can guess some things right but they really don't "know", they just guessed it right. Sometimes they guess at my intent too and sometimes they get that right too, but sometimes not.

However, sometimes one of them comes to me and asks me how the code works or what my intent was and I can tell them exactly how it works and what my intent was.

I see the scientific method as the way testers, technical support people, and documentation people talk to each other and prod and probe the software to try to arrive at the truth. I see asking God as going to the creator of the software and asking him directly. I think this explains the idea really well, but it doesn't include how God can not only let me know the truth but also let me know that it is true without any doubt. I'm not God, so I'm not sure how that works. I hope you all can at least see the relevant part of the analogy instead of just focusing on the one thing it doesn't show.

Rcronk, prove that you are not a brain in a vat or that you are not in the Matrix?

I'm actually a brain in a vat in the matrix that's in another vat inside yet another matrix. Do I look gross?

Let's go through the first 10.

Is a fact.
Is a fact.
Is a fact.
Is a fact but I'm not sure how much reasonable doubt it causes. It's troubling for me.
Is a fact.
Is a fact.
Is a fact.
Is a fact.
Questionable. The book of Abraham fiasco was a clear fraud IMO but I can't categorically state that it is fact. It is certainly reasonable doubt.
Is a fact.Please to tell me why you disagree with these 10? Be specific. Don't just assert that they are wrong. Tell us why you think they are wrong.

[huge derail]
Bob may answer too, but I thought I'd take a stab at your first 10 items too:

1. In the first "History of the Church," written by Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith in 1832, there is no mention of Joseph Smith's"first vision" (where God the Father and Jesus appeared and told him that all churches of the day were "abominations"), even though the church leaders today insist that this vision is the basis and beginning of Mormonism.

This could give people a reasonable doubt if they didn't dig any deeper than the statement above. If they had dug deeper, there wouldn't be reasonable doubt.

"Dr. Richard Anderson stated way back in 1969 that if anyone were to compare Oliver's history with JS 1832 they would find a connection. Elder Cowdery announced at the outset of his project that he not only had the Prophet's assistance available to him but he also had "authentic documents" in his possession that told the history of the Church. These documents, it turns out, were JS 1832—which most definitely DOES speak about the First Vision. I have independently verified on paper that Oliver Cowdery was utilizing JS 1832 in the writing of his account. And so the question that should be asked is, 'Why in the world did Oliver Cowdery skip right over the First Vision story'?

I have a theory about why this occurred and it is laid out here on this slide. I believe the answer is quite mundane. Oliver obviously began telling the First Vision story in his text because he started talking about the revival activity (which, by the way, is information that is actually referred to in JS 1832 but not expounded upon). Then Oliver got a letter from William W. Phelps requesting him to write about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and he made specific mention of the year 1823. When Oliver wrote the next installment of the Church history he acknowledged receipt of Phelps' letter, said that he did not want to talk about the revival anymore, changed his dating to 1823, and proceeded to tell the story of the Book of Mormon. I call this the Redirection Theory, and I believe that it has some merit." - source (http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2006_Joseph_Smiths_Foundational_Stories.html)

2. Mormons believe that Adam and Eve were the first human beings on earth. This contradicts all scientific evidence showing that there have been humans for many thousands of years before the traditional time for Adam.

Fair enough. This isn't about Mormonism alone however, but all of Christianity and Judaism at least, so it's a bit misleading to bump the number of issues with the Mormon church when it's something more generic.

3. B. H. Roberts, a General Authority of the church until his death in 1933, studied the Book of Mormon extensively and concluded that Joseph Smith could have authored it himself, using as a source the 1825 book A View of the Hebrews by a protestant minister.

This again could cause reasonable doubt if left as it is without digging deeper. There have been wordprinting studies that have discounted this opinion. If ideas were taken from that book and written by Joseph Smith, the wordprint of the Book of Mormon would match Joseph Smith's wordprint, which it doesn't. Different authors within the Book of Mormon also don't match each other, which they should match each other if one author wrote the book. " Robert's faith in the Book of Mormon as divinely revealed scripture was unshaken by his studies." - source (http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=196)

4. Although Mormons claim that they are "family oriented," they exclude non-Mormon family members - even parents - from weddings in the temple, since only "worthy" Mormons are allowed to enter a Mormon temple.

This has already been beaten to death. In my mind, it has no bearing to whether the LDS church is the true church of God or not.

5. Mormon women are limited to a secondary role in the church and in the family: they are not allowed to hold any priesthood office (which is required to exercise any authority); they are to be obedient to their husbands (or, if unmarried, to their fathers); their ideal role is to bear children and to be a homemaker.

This is not Mormon doctrine and is one-sided and biased.

"Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children.... By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as [B]equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation." - source (http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,FF.html) emphasis added

Women hold the priesthood office of "mother" just as husbands hold the office of "father". They enter these offices when married. These are the two most important priesthood callings a person can have. Beyond these, men can be called to priesthood positions that allow them to serve others in varying roles. Women in the church are members of the oldest and largest women's organization on earth, the Relief Society. There are people who misunderstand and abuse some of these teachings and those people are wrong. It says if a woman is unmarried, they must be obedient to their father, uh, so do sons - it's one of the ten commandments: "honor thy father and thy mother". To bring it up as only women needing to obey their fathers is disgusting and deceptive.

6. The Book of Mormon says that wheat and barley were mainstay crops in ancient America. This is false. Only in Europe were those crops known and cultivated. And the actual staple crops grown in ancient America are never mentioned in the Book of Mormon: beans, sweet potatoes, squash, manioc, peppers, breadnut, fruits.

Dig deeper.

"[around 1982] archaeologists discovered several specimens of pre-Columbian domesticated barley while excavating a Hohokam Indian site near Phoenix, Arizona. 'Perhaps the most startling evidence of Hohokam agricultural sophistication came last year when salvage archaeologists found preserved grains of what looks like domesticated barley, the first ever found in the New World.' This startling discovery was later confirmed by additional discoveries in both Oklahoma and Illinois." - source (http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2001_Boomerang_Hits_and_the_Book_of_Mormon.html)

"According to Zeniff's record in the Book of Mormon account, "And we began to till the ground, yea, even with all manner of seeds of corn, and of wheat, and of barley, and with neas, and with sheum" (Mosiah 9:9). "Pray tell me what kinds of grain neas and sheum are? Joseph Smith's translation needs another translation, to render it intelligible."35 "We must reluctantly pass on denying the existence of neas and sheum, and put them into the same category as the unidentifiable cureloms and cumoms."36 As it turns out sheum is a perfectly good Akkadian (ancient northern Mesopotamian) name for a grain dating to the third millennium B.C.37 This term, se um, (the s is pronounced sh in semitic languages) was a term by which these ancient Near Eastern peoples referred to barley, although it could also be applied to other kinds of grains. Book of Mormon peoples seem to have applied this Old World name to some New World crop. Could Joseph Smith have derived this name from some nineteenth century book? Impossible. Akkadian could not be read until 1857, twenty-seven years after the Book of Mormon was published and thirteen years after the Prophet was dead. This raises an interesting question. If Joseph Smith was really the author of the Book of Mormon, how did he come up with the word sheum? How did he just happen to choose this particular name and just happen to use it in an agricultural context?"

Some also talk about horses mentioned in the Book of Mormon that people believed did not exist in the Americas:

"Horse bones have now been excavated in various places in the Americas (including the Yucatan Peninsula) that date to Book of Mormon times. In one well-publicized 1957 excavation in Mayapan, Yucatan, horse bones were uncovered in four lots, two of which were collected at a depth of about six feet. The archaeologist concluded that they had to be pre-Columbian. They were "considered to be pre-Columbian on the basis of depth of burial and degree of mineralization." - source (http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Reviews/Kingdom_of_the_Cults.html)

7. One of the most highly praised human traits in Mormonism is "obedience." This is also one of the characteristics of a cult.

This has been addressed as well. You have a nose, which is one of the characteristics of Hitler.

8. Mormon scripture (D&C 84:86, 91) says that true missionaries from God will not rely on their own money or supplies ("purse or scrip") for support, and this will be a test to distinguish them from false missionaries. Modern Mormon missionaries now rely on themselves for support; i.e., they do "carry purse [and] scrip."

On my mission, members or converts or investigators would feed us and for many missionaries, members will donate to clothe them and pay for everything they need. Fair enough though - I did pay for my rent, for example while on my mission. I think earlier on in the church's history, people were more giving and willing to feed, clothe, and shelter missionaries of whatever persuasion. Maybe the change has more to do with people's selfishness these days? But like I said, we did have people feed us and in some cases clothe us or give us gifts, etc.

9. Although Joseph Smith claimed to be able to translate ancient documents by the power of God, he was unable to identify the papyrus obtained from Mr. Chandler correctly as pagan Egyptian funerary scrolls from the time of Christ (as identified subsequently by professional Egyptologists), but rather declared that they were a book written by the Patriarch Abraham two thousand years earlier, and from them "translated" the Book of Abraham.

We went through this one in our last thread a long time ago. This one gets detailed so I don't want to derail the derail of the derail too much, but with more digging, I have found the certainty of this item is unfounded. Reasonable doubt - maybe.

10. The "United Order" was a series of revelations in the 1830s under which Mormons were to turn over all their property to the church, which would then make the members "stewards" and "equal." It was based on the apparent practice in the New Testament church where the Christians "held all things in common." (Acts 4:32-37) This Order was to be "everlasting" (D&C 82:20, 104:1). It lasted only briefly, although the church attempted to implement it several times, both in Ohio and in Utah.

This was restored and the people were too selfish to live by it and so it was replaced by a lower but similar law of tithing. Lower laws have been given many times in the past to match the ability of the people to follow them - with the ultimate goal being to help them progress rather than holding them to a requirement that would end up harming them more than helping them. I have no reasonable doubt on this one.

I hope you will not cherry pick out of this and will honestly consider what I have spent a bit of time gathering here. Thanks.

[/huge derail]

[HghrSymmetry]

Does that include the time required to rip off the sacred Temple Garments? :boggled:

Negative. I think the duration was timed from commencement of carnal contact until the "resolution."

(or so I've heard)

[RobRoy]

There is a problem with your definitions. [snip]

Well, again, either you're not reading what I'm saying, or I'm not saying it correctly. They're not my defintions. They're Smith's and the LDS church's. But be that as it may.

In a nutshell: You made a statement that there were mistakes with the translation or the recording. If you believe that, then you need to reject Smith's and the LDS church's claims regarding the book.

Hope that helps.

[rcronk]

Well, again, either you're not reading what I'm saying, or I'm not saying it correctly.

So, in a nutshell: You made a statement that there were mistakes with the translation or the recording. If you believe that, then you need to reject Smith's and the LDS church's claims regarding the book.

Hope that helps.

Let me take another approach by restating what I think you're saying - let's take this slowly:

You think that by saying "most correct", Joseph Smith and others mean that there were no typographical errors in the book, is that correct?

[RandFan]

I hope you all can at least see the relevant part of the analogy instead of just focusing on the one
thing it doesn't show. You lost me.

I'm actually a brain in a vat in the matrix that's in another vat inside yet another matrix. Do I look gross? So, you are just going to dodge? Do you even understand the problem?

This could give people a reasonable doubt if they didn't dig any deeper than the statement above. If they had dug deeper, there wouldn't be reasonable doubt. It was the first vision. If true it was the most significant event in human history since the death and resurrection of Christ and there is no contemporary account only an assertion that there
was. Sorry, for me there is clearly reasonable doubt.

Fair enough. This isn't about Mormonism alone however, but all of Christianity and Judaism at least, so it's a bit misleading to bump the number of issues with the Mormon church when it's something more generic.No. Wrong is wrong no mater who else believes in it.

There have been wordprinting studies that have discounted this opinion. The studies were flawed.

These efforts were critiqued in Ernest H. Taves, Trouble Enough: Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1984), 225–60. John Hilton characterized Taves' review as "fundamentally flawed," and noted that his effort "therefore did nothing to add to or detract from their work."

This has already been beaten to death. In my mind, it has no bearing to whether the LDS church is the true church of
God or not.You are not the arbiter for everyone else as to what is reasonable doubt. It's troubling to me.

This is not Mormon doctrine and is one-sided and biased. Mormon women can't hold the priesthood. Mormon women are told to be obedient to their husbands. These are anachronistic concepts. This is, IMO, reasonable doubt for any modern thinking person. All of the cutesy explanations don't alter the stark fact that women don't hold positions of authority over men. Thats reasonable doubt for anyone who compares past patriarchal societies and modern societies where women effectively hold positions of authority over men.

As for barley and wheat, the link you cite says, "What LOOKED LIKE barley..." And where is the peer-reviewed paper? To what extent has this been confirmed? Now, let's assume that it is confirmed. It doesn't confirm wheat and more importantly it doesn't change the fact that the BOM starkly leaves out all of the major foods that we know were in abundance in the new world.

This has been addressed as well. You have a nose, which is one of the characteristics of Hitler.Sorry, IMO, this won't fly. Obedience isn't simply a benign characteristic. We understand why it is important for cults to demand obedience. Your chance of not being caught up in a cult are increased if you avoid organizations that demand obedience. The same can't be said of noses.

Maybe the change has more to do with people's selfishness these days?Who knows? What is known is that the D&C offered a test to determine true missionaries and did not predict a change in the future.

This was restored and the people were too selfish to live by it and so it was replaced by a lower but similar law of tithing.Why restore something that won't work? Why restore it on multiple occasions?

I appreciate your time and I respect that you believe the Mormon church to be what it claims to be.

[rcronk]

Ok, well I think I'm done then. Thanks everyone for your input.

[RobRoy]

Let me take another approach by restating what I think you're saying - let's take this slowly:

You think that by saying "most correct", Joseph Smith and others mean that there were no typographical errors in the book, is that correct?

To keep this simple, I'm just going to say no. That's not the crux of my argument. I've stated several times that a number of the edits made to the Book of Mormon are contextual.

[rcronk]

To keep this simple, I'm just going to say no. That's not the crux of my argument. I've stated several times that a number of the edits made to the Book of Mormon are contextual.

And by contextual, you mean that they changed the meaning of the passage? If not, please define what you mean. And just to make one more thing clear, the "contextual" changes of which you speak are not numbered in the 4000 range, right? Exactly how many "contextual" changes are you concerned with? I think we're finally getting somewhere, thanks.

[RobRoy]

And by contextual, you mean that they changed the meaning of the passage? If not, please define what you mean.

Yeppers, this is what I mean.

Although, to be fair, punctuation and grammatical changes can also create contextual issues. But, I'm keeping this simple. :D

And just to make one more thing clear, the "contextual" changes of which you speak are not numbered in the 4000 range, right?

The total number of edits made to the Book of Mormon, including punctuation, grammar and contextual make up the nearly 4000 edits.

Exactly how many "contextual" changes are you concerned with? I think we're finally getting somewhere, thanks.

I have not counted, though it hardly matters. A single contextual change renders either Smith and the LDS church wrong in their claim, or you wrong in your claim.

[rcronk]

Yeppers, this is what I mean.

Although, to be fair, punctuation and grammatical changes can also create contextual issues. But, I'm keeping this simple. :D

The total number of edits made to the Book of Mormon, including punctuation, grammar and contextual make up the nearly 4000 edits.

I have not counted, though it hardly matters. A single contextual change renders either Smith and the LDS church wrong in their claim, or you wrong in your claim.

You don't have to count the "contextual" edits, someone already did that in the articles I linked to and that you said you had already read. The number they counted is 5. None affect the fundamental precepts contained in the Book of Mormon. Each of the five is discussed in detail in those articles and were found to have happened mainly as the scribe miswrote something or a printer incorrectly set the type. 5 is a less misleading number than 4000.

Typos aside, the "most correct" quote, which I put back into context for you, refers to the precepts contained in the book, not the number of typos.

To clarify one more thing, when I included the word "translation" I included the speaking of the words and the hearing of the words by the scribe. Maybe I should have used the phrase "dictation of translated material" instead. ETA: My statement is based on the types of edits that were made and where in the process those errors entered.

[RobRoy]

You don't have to count the "contextual" edits, someone already did that in the articles I linked to and that you said you had already read. The number they counted is 5. None affect the fundamental precepts contained in the Book of Mormon. Each of the five is discussed in detail in those articles and were found to have happened mainly as the scribe miswrote something or a printer incorrectly set the type. 5 is a less misleading number than 4000.

Again, depends on how you're counting them, and what sources you're using. But five will serve our purposes. :D

Typos aside, the "most correct" quote, which I put back into context for you, refers to the precepts contained in the book, not the number of typos.

Sorry, but I never took any quotes out of context.

And once again, it doesn't matter. A single contextual change renders either Smith and the LDS church wrong in their claim, or you wrong in your claim.

To clarify one more thing, when I included the word "translation" I included the speaking of the words and the hearing of the words by the scribe. Maybe I should have used the phrase "dictation of translated material" instead. ETA: My statement is based on the types of edits that were made and where in the process those errors entered.

No, I understood what you meant, and have understood it all along. If you believe there were errors in the translation or in the recording, then you have to reject Smith's claims regarding the Book of Mormon since the information we have on how the plates were translated includes this and how it has been backed by the LDS church.

So, again, either Smith and the LDS church are wrong in their claims, or you're wrong in yours.

[rcronk]

Smith claims:

"I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts than any other book." - History of the Church, Volume 4, 461

I claim, according to you quoting me, because I'm too lazy to go find the original:

"[The Book of Mormon is] real but could have mistakes in it in the recording, translating, printing, etc."

My claim deals with typos, Smith's claim deals with precepts. My claim is that it is not perfect typographically. Smith's claim is that it's precepts are more correct than any other book. It's comparing apples to oranges.

I don't see how finding one (or even five) contextual errors during typesetting or handwriting (that don't change its precepts) makes its precepts not the most correct of any other book. It seems to me that you think "most correct precepts" means "no contextual typos" and they just don't mean the same thing at all.

Unless you now have some huge epiphany, I'm done picking nits. :)

[RobRoy]

My claim deals with typos, Smith's claim deals with precepts.

Typos in translation and recording, according to Smith and the LDS church, are not possible. Hence, my original statement that if you feel there were such errors, then you need to reject the Book of Mormon out of hand.

However, just for kicks, the differences between his original hand-written translation, the original proof, and the type-set proof are minimal at best, and show no contextual changes.

Certainly not the nearly 4,000 changes that have been made to date. <shrug>

It seems to me that you think "most correct precepts" means "no contextual typos" and they just don't mean the same thing at all.

Sorry, we've covered this already above. Don't know why you've gone back to this, unless you can't see another way to address it without side-stepping. This is not me. Smith and the LDS church make this claim.

You claim otherwise, and I agree with you. There are errors in the original "translation" and recording. Of that, I have no doubts whatsoever. :D

[rcronk]

I have never had such a problem understanding someone as I have with you. You keep saying that Smith claims there are no errors in the translation/recording/printing, etc. but I don't see a quote from him that says that - the only one you've brought up is the "most correct" precepts quote and that quote does not mean no typos! You have a huge disconnect between Smith's quote and what you claim Smith claims. Please stop it. All your base are belong to me.

[RobRoy]

I have never had such a problem understanding someone as I have with you.

Clearly. But that's probably because you are only reading what you want to read, and trying to make a patchwork case that suits your ends. <shrug>

Suffice to say that if you believe as you do, that there are errors in the translation and the recording, then you need to reject the Book of Mormon. Suggest you talk to your bishop about this rejection of LDS Church teachings regarding Smith's translation and recording. :eek:

Good luck in your . . . ummm, I guess it's not a search for truth, but rather a search for all things that support your point of view. :D

[rcronk]

Clearly. But that's probably because you are only reading what you want to read, and trying to make a patchwork case that suits your ends. <shrug>

Suffice to say that if you believe as you do, that there are errors in the translation and the recording, then you need to reject the Book of Mormon. Suggest you talk to your bishop about this rejection of LDS Church teachings regarding Smith's translation and recording. :eek:

Good luck in your . . . ummm, I guess it's not a search for truth, but rather a search for all things that support your point of view. :D

Your claims are baseless and make no sense. I think we've gone into enough detail on this and so we can just agree to disagree at this point.

[articulett]

Suppose you Mormonism was wrong and you really were just confirming your bias the way Tom Cruise is... then what could he have said that would not be "baseless" to you?

I don't see his claims as baseless at all. I think they don't make sense to you, because you are afraid of what would happen if you let them.

[luchog]

Hrm... Wonder why none of the LDS apologists have addressed the Mountain Meadows or Brazil issues?

[articulett]

We did Mountain Meadows on another thread with Rconk around the anniversary, I think.

What's the Brazil Issue, dare I ask. I'm sure we'll get the apologetics version from our LDS members if you mention it.

[Bob Blaylock]

Typos in translation and recording, according to Smith and the LDS church, are not possible. Hence, my original statement that if you feel there were such errors, then you need to reject the Book of Mormon out of hand.


In the entire history of mankind, there has only ever lived one man who was perfect and infallible. The church has never claimed such perfection or infallibility on behalf of any other man, or on the part of any work of any other man.

The Book of Mormon explicitly acknowledges the possibility that man-made errors may be present in it; just as such errors certainly are to be expected in any work of any similar size and complexity that has been compiled, edited, and published by fallible men.

[rcronk]

Suppose you Mormonism was wrong and you really were just confirming your bias the way Tom Cruise is... then what could he have said that would not be "baseless" to you?

I don't see his claims as baseless at all. I think they don't make sense to you, because you are afraid of what would happen if you let them.

The problem is that he's saying that Joseph Smith claims that there are no typographical errors in the Book of Mormon when Smith actually didn't claim that at all. Then based on that erroneous claim, he's saying that I disagree with Joseph Smith. It's a third person straw man. Why isn't everyone on his back for such antics like they would be if Bob Blaylock or I, for example, did something similar?

Hrm... Wonder why none of the LDS apologists have addressed the Mountain Meadows or Brazil issues?

Mountain Meadows has been addressed (http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCR D&locale=0&sourceId=1c234dc029133110VgnVCM100000176f620a____) by apologists - but they weren't defending the people's terrible actions, they defend claims that the church itself was involved in or directed it, which it didn't. It was a horrific series of events and those involved should have been (and one was) put to death for their actions. I haven't heard of any "Brazil" issue, but I also don't want to derail the derail of the original thread derail.

[RobRoy]

The Book of Mormon explicitly acknowledges the possibility that man-made errors may be present in it; just as such errors certainly are to be expected in any work of any similar size and complexity that has been compiled, edited, and published by fallible men.

I should be amazed, frustrated and perhaps angry that that those who are challenging these contentions are refusing to actually address what I've written. I should be, but I've seen this too many times to put forth the effort in shock and awe. ;) There is nothing more senseless than blind faith which has caused untold sadness, pain and destruction over the centuries.

Still, Bob, since you're new to this point of the discussion, I'll try again. :)

rcronk stated he believed there were errors in the translation and the recording of the Book of Mormon. Not the printing. I'll say them again so they aren't missed.

TRANSLATION
RECORDING

Smith and the LDS church have stated that this is not the case, and most specifically in the matter of contextual errors. In this case, a single error prove both claimants incorrect in this regard. I've pointed out there are a number of contextual errors, and for our purposes I've even been willing to agree to the five contextual errors admitted to by apologists. :D

Printing errors are a strawman since, as I've already pointed out several times, the original transcription and the printing proof are still extent for comparison purposes.

So either there were errors in the translation and the recording of the Book of Mormon, which counters Smith's and the LDS church's claims in this regard. Or rcronk is incorrect in his statement regarding translation and recording errors.

However, if rcronk truly believes there were errors in translation OR recording, regardless of if they are there or not, then he should reject the Book of Mormon out of hand. Even the apologists admit to their existence, which are included in the nearly 4,000 other errors that have been corrected over the years. And, just to keep things on the Iron Rod, I'll point out that punctuation and grammar errors can also change context . . . but I've kicked out of this contention to keep things as simple as possible.

The problem is that he's saying that Joseph Smith claims that there are no typographical errors in the Book of Mormon when Smith actually didn't claim that at all. Then based on that erroneous claim, he's saying that I disagree with Joseph Smith. It's a third person straw man.

Kindly point to where I've made this statement. ;)

I do like how you keep coming back to the typographical errors problem, when I've stated repeatedly in response to this erroneous claim that the crux of the matter are the contextual errors. Thanks for playing though! :D

Why isn't everyone on his back for such antics like they would be if Bob Blaylock or I, for example, did something similar?

Simple. ;) Because what you're claiming I've argued (which is, somewhat, easily dismissed) and what I've actually argued (which cannot be dismissed) are not the same thing. If you didn't want to argue your point of view regarding translation and recording . . . well, there's an obvious choice. :D

[rcronk]

rcronk stated he believed there were errors in the translation and the recording of the Book of Mormon. Smith and the LDS church have stated that this is not the case

RobRoy, please post the quote where Joseph Smith and the LDS church say, "there were no errors in the translation or recording of the Book of Mormon". Perhaps when you post them actually saying that, this will all make sense. The quote that has "most correct" in it does not match what you're claiming. That is the crux of what my problem with your argument is. I think you're putting words in Joseph Smith's mouth and then saying that I disagree with Joseph Smith, when what I actually disagree with are the words you're putting in his mouth. So my disagreement is actually with you, not Smith.

[Zygar]

Hrm... Wonder why none of the LDS apologists have addressed the Mountain Meadows or Brazil issues?

If you're not just pulling something out of your ass, please feel free to start a thread about the Brazil issues. Since no one else seems to know what you are talking about.

[Cleon]

Whether the Book of Mormon is the Literal Word of God, complete to every period, comma, and "And it came to pass," seems sorta beside the point.

At the end of the day, the Mormons seems to have some issues with their communications with the Almighty--at best, it looks like there's a bit of line noise.

It just seems odd to me that holy men, in regular communication with God and his angels, would mix up things like racism and polygamy into their new religion--and God didn't bother telling them to stop until after the outside world did.

[RobRoy]

RobRoy, please post the quote where Joseph Smith and the LDS church say, "there were no errors in the translation or recording of the Book of Mormon".

Hey, alright! You're actually offering something of an argument against my contentions. Thanks! :D

The fact that there are contextual errors[/i] in Smith's translation goes again his claim of "most correct" no matter how you want to slice it. But I have offered to provide additional quotes, and you've correctly called me to the mat for that, so . . .

Let's start with these two quotes which discredits the idea that Smith could have made errors, from Smith himself:

"[The Book of Mormon was] translated into modern speech by the gift and power of God as [b]attested by Divine affirmation.” [emphasis added] Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith

"These plates have been . . . translated by the power of God. The translation of them which you have seen is correct." History of the Church, 1:54-55

Then a statement from the LDS Church stating the same thing:

"Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God and not by the power of man." [emphasis added] Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Missouri, 1887, p. 12

Now, for the translating process itself:

"Brother Joseph would read off the English [translation] . . . and when it was written down and repeated to brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear." Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Missouri, 1887, p. 12

"[E]very word and letter was given to [Joseph Smith] by the gift and power of
God . . . And if there was as a word wrongly written or even a letter incorrect, the writing on the stoned would remain there. [emphasis added] Journal of Oliver Huntington, Utah State Historical Society, p. 168

“[T]he interpretation . . . was reflected in the sacred instrument [the urim and thummim], there to remain until correctly written by the scribe.” [emphasis added] New Witnesses for God, Brigham H. Roberts 3:114

I assume these will suffice for our discussion purposes, but if you require more, I'm glad to oblige.

On a side note, thanks for the opportunity to actually further this discussion. It is deeply appreciated. I say that with absoluately no sarcasm whatsoever.

[RobRoy]

Hrm... Wonder why none of the LDS apologists have addressed the Mountain Meadows or Brazil issues?

Apologists have, with varying degrees of responsibility. The LDS church itself has also dealt with the Mountain Meadows issue, and I want to say fessed up to the roll of the LDS in the incident.

I don't know what the "Brazil issues" are though.

[tsig]

Whether the Book of Mormon is the Literal Word of God, complete to every period, comma, and "And it came to pass," seems sorta beside the point.

At the end of the day, the Mormons seems to have some issues with their communications with the Almighty--at best, it looks like there's a bit of line noise.

It just seems odd to me that holy men, in regular communication with God and his angels, would mix up things like racism and polygamy into their new religion--and God didn't bother telling them to stop until after the outside world did.

It does make one wonder why god still uses prophets since they are fallible men. Why not cut out the middleman and just infuse us all with the truth?

BTW I have read the BOM, D&C, Book of Abraham ect.

I tried to feel that" burning in my busom" ; once I thought I had succeeded but it was just heartburn.

Maybe if Joe Smith had Tums we would not have the BOM.

[Bob Blaylock]

rcronk stated he believed there were errors in the translation and the recording of the Book of Mormon. Not the printing. I'll say them again so they aren't missed.

TRANSLATION
RECORDING

Smith and the LDS church have stated that this is not the case…


No, neither Smith nor the church have ever made that claim. Your contention that they have is patently false, as are any arguments which you base upon this contention.

[RobRoy]

No, neither Smith nor the church have ever made that claim. Your contention that they have is patently false, as are any arguments which you base upon this contention.

Apparently you missed my post above (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3563457&postcount=326) which refutes your claim. :D

[Zygar]

It does make one wonder why god still uses prophets since they are fallible men. Why not cut out the middleman and just infuse us all with the truth?

BTW I have read the BOM, D&C, Book of Abraham ect.

I tried to feel that" burning in my busom" ; once I thought I had succeeded but it was just heartburn.

Maybe if Joe Smith had Tums we would not have the BOM.

:rolleyes:

[rcronk]

Let's start with these two quotes which discredits the idea that Smith could have made errors, from Smith himself:

[Quote 1] - "[The Book of Mormon was] translated into modern speech by the gift and power of God as attested by Divine affirmation.” [emphasis added] Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith

[Quote 2] - "These plates have been . . . translated by the power of God. The translation of them which you have seen is correct." History of the Church, 1:54-55

Then a statement from the LDS Church stating the same thing:

[Quote 3] - "Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God and not by the power of man." [emphasis added] Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Missouri, 1887, p. 12

Now, for the translating process itself:

[Quote 4] - "Brother Joseph would read off the English [translation] . . . and when it was written down and repeated to brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear." Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Missouri, 1887, p. 12

[Quote 5] - "[E]very word and letter was given to [Joseph Smith] by the gift and power of God . . . And if there was as a word wrongly written or even a letter incorrect, the writing on the stoned would remain there. [emphasis added] Journal of Oliver Huntington, Utah State Historical Society, p. 168

[Quote 6] - "[T]he interpretation . . . was reflected in the sacred instrument [the urim and thummim], there to remain until correctly written by the scribe." [emphasis added] New Witnesses for God, Brigham H. Roberts 3:114

Thanks for finally posting the quotes. Let's take a look at them - I numbered them in your quote above. Remember, we're trying to find Joseph Smith or the LDS church saying "there were no errors in the translation or recording of the Book of Mormon".

Quotes 1 & 2 - These both talk about the translation itself.

Quote 3 - Doesn't say it is without error and only seems to refer to the actual translation itself.

Quotes 4, 5, & 6 - Written by Oliver Huntington, Brigham H. Roberts, and David Whitmer. It could be spoken, written, and repeated back correctly and then someone down the line could have made a mistake. This isn't the church or Smith saying anything about the process being without any error.

Fair enough - I did clarify before that when I said "translation" I meant the whole process including speaking, writing, etc. I think me using the word "translation" was incorrect, so I was wrong there.

As I have studied the changes made and having read the book itself many times, I would call it a correct translation too given the fact that there are about 270,000 words in the Book of Mormon and 5 of them (about 0.001%) were changed. Today, only about 28% of the original manuscript exists, so some questions can't be answered. It's also interesting to note that these changes were made for the 1830 edition and so the quotes were about that 1830 edition that already had been reviewed, etc. I still think it's picking nits. I don't demand perfection from people especially when Joseph Smith got it about 99.999% right anyway based on the number of words changed. I do thank you for finally putting the quotes on the table though and I appreciate the discussion.

[m_huber]

It is interesting how similar the arguments for the infallibility of the Book of Mormon parallel the arguments for the infallibility of the Bible. Does the same hold true for the Koran? The writings of the Upanishads?

[RobRoy]

Thanks for finally posting the quotes.

Not to split hairs, but I offered to provide quotes as required. This was the first time you've asked. ;)

Let's take a look at them - I numbered them in your quote above. Remember, we're trying to find Joseph Smith or the LDS church saying "there were no errors in the translation or recording of the Book of Mormon".

Quotes 1 & 2 - These both talk about the translation itself.

Umm, yeah, they're about the translation, where it originated, and why it should be completely without error.

Unless you're now contending that "attested by Divine affirmation" means something else than its saying. It's a pretty straight-forward quote.

Quote 3 - Doesn't say it is without error and only seems to refer to the actual translation itself.

Fair enough. I take it to mean that "the power of man" is fallible and prone to errors but "the gift and power of God" are not. But you're right, it doesn't specifically state that, so in the interest of keeping this simple, I'm willing to kick out of this particular quote. :D

This doesn't change any of the other five quotes I provided, and, if you wish, the offer still stands to provide additional quotes as needed. <shrug>

Quotes 4, 5, & 6 - Written by Oliver Huntington, Brigham H. Roberts, and David Whitmer. It could be spoken, written, and repeated back correctly and then someone down the line could have made a mistake. This isn't the church or Smith saying anything about the process being without any error.

Ummm . . . we are reading the same quotes right? They say exactly that "the process" was "without error". That there couldn't be any error in Smith's translation or the recording of that translation. And we have the original handwritten translation as well as the printing copy to compare with, errors and all! :eek:

None of which changes the fact that contextual edits have been made. Five that we both agree on. As I said earlier, only one is necessary to refute Smith and the LDS church's claim.

Fair enough - I did clarify before that when I said "translation" I meant the whole process including speaking, writing, etc. I think me using the word "translation" was incorrect, so I was wrong there.

So what word would you prefer using now?

I still think it's picking nits. I don't demand perfection from people especially when Joseph Smith got it about 99.999% right anyway based on the number of words changed. I do thank you for finally putting the quotes on the table though and I appreciate the discussion.

I don't demand perfection either, but I didn't set the bar on this particular document. So, it's not picking nits when Smith and the LDS church make claims of 100% accuracy in the translation and the recording. Blaiming the printer is, as I stated above, a straw man, since we have the original documents to compare.

When there are contextual edits made then all prophetic bets are off.

And we aren't even discussing the nearly 4,000 other edits that have been made over the years, when the process for translating and recording deny the possibility of error. :eye-poppi

[rcronk]

So what word would you prefer using now?

At this point, I think I would just drop the word "translation".

I don't demand perfection either, but I didn't set the bar on this particular document. So, it's not picking nits when Smith and the LDS church make claims of 100% accuracy in the translation and the recording. Blaiming the printer is, as I stated above, a straw man, since we have the original documents to compare.

When there are contextual edits made then all prophetic bets are off.

And we aren't even discussing the nearly 4,000 other edits that have been made over the years, when the process for translating and recording deny the possibility of error. :eye-poppi

As I stated above, we only have about 28% of the original documents to compare with. Based on those quotes, I think 99.999% is close enough to call it "correct" and nobody ever said it was without any errors whatsoever. It is picking nits. I'm ready to agree to disagree again.

[m_huber]

As I stated above, we only have about 28% of the original documents to compare with. Based on those quotes, I think 99.999% is close enough to call it "correct" and nobody ever said it was without any errors whatsoever. It is picking nits. I'm ready to agree to disagree again.

By this, of course, you mean "28% of what Joseph Smith originally wrote," as the "original documents" are back in Heaven, right?

[Zygar]

It is interesting how similar the arguments for the infallibility of the Book of Mormon parallel the arguments for the infallibility of the Bible. Does the same hold true for the Koran? The writings of the Upanishads?

They may be similar, but they are not the same.

The Qu'ran makes a self-referential claim, which seems to me to mean it is also self-invalidating.

The Bible's claim comes from the Catholic Church. Thus it is dependent upon the Church's truth. Which I find fascinating since the protestants don't seem to recognize that.

The BoM and its statement of infallibility comes from Joseph Smith. So, as any Mormon will admit, if he is a fraud, the whole religion is a fraud.

[rcronk]

By this, of course, you mean "28% of what Joseph Smith originally wrote," as the "original documents" are back in Heaven, right?

Yes (to the first statement), and I believe so (to the second).

[RobRoy]

At this point, I think I would just drop the word "translation".

Agreed. There's no tenable way to support Smith's and the LDS church's claims that the translation was error free. Of course, this then should call into question just about everything else that Smith claimed . . . :jaw-dropp

As I stated above, we only have about 28% of the original documents to compare with.

This is a strawman trying to support a strawman, as the comparison still shows errors, and so blaming it all on the printer remains untenable.

Based on those quotes, I think 99.999% is close enough to call it "correct" and nobody ever said it was without any errors whatsoever.

Smith and the LDS church have.

As for a true picking of nits: your figure is wrong. Based on a 270,000 word document with 4,000 errors, that about 1.5% incorrect, yeilding only a 98.5% correct document. But it wouldn't have had the same impact if Smith had been yelling, "Hey, everyone, I have 98.5% of the truth right here! Get it while it's hot!" :D

It is picking nits. I'm ready to agree to disagree again.

<shrug> Doesn't matter to me one way or the other. I never had any real hope of swaying you, no matter how much evidence you were shown. You're a believer, and evidence simply doesn't matter, no matter how obvious it is. I was just pointing out that you're not in line with Smith or the LDS church's teachings if you believe there are errors.:cool:

[rcronk]

Agreed. There's no tenable way to support Smith's and the LDS church's claims that the translation was error free. Of course, this then should call into question just about everything else that Smith claimed . . . :jaw-dropp

This is a strawman trying to support a strawman, as the comparison still shows errors, and so blaming it all on the printer remains untenable.

Smith and the LDS church have.

As for a true picking of nits: your figure is wrong. Based on a 270,000 word document with 4,000 errors, that about 1.5% incorrect, yeilding only a 98.5% correct document. But it wouldn't have had the same impact if Smith had been yelling, "Hey, everyone, I have 98.5% of the truth right here! Get it while it's hot!" :D

<shrug> Doesn't matter to me one way or the other. I never had any real hope of swaying you, no matter how much evidence you were shown. You're a believer, and evidence simply doesn't matter, no matter how obvious it is. I was just pointing out that you're not in line with Smith or the LDS church's teachings if you believe there are errors.:cool:

There weren't "4,000 errors" and you're being dishonest by suggesting there were. Adding punctuation during the printing process when none existed in the original manuscript is not an "error" and you know it.

You still have not provided a quote where Smith or the LDS church say there are "no errors" in the Book of Mormon but you continue to make that claim.

This dishonesty combined with you claiming what has not been claimed in order to create some contention where there is none are the main reasons I'm done with this conversation. No hard feelings, this wasn't a complete waste of time, but it was annoying.

[Pixel42]

I see this thread has been diverted into nitpicking about certain quotes so that the elephant in the room can be ignored - the elephant being that there is no evidence whatsoever that the events described in the Book of Mormon actually happened, and plenty to suggest they did not.

It is simply impossible to believe that the people described in the BoM could have left no trace whatsoever of their existence - no physical traces in the places they lived or in their descendants' DNA, no cultural traces in the language, traditions and oral history of Native Americans. The only possible explanation for this complete lack of supporting evidence is that the BoM is a work of fiction set in a mythical past, like Lord of the Rings. No evidence for it has been found for the same reason that we will never find the ruins of Minas Tirith.

[RobRoy]

There weren't "4,000 errors" and you're being dishonest by suggesting there were. Adding punctuation during the printing process when none existed in the original manuscript is not an "error" and you know it.

Given the process described by Smith and the LDS church leaders, they are errors.

You still have not provided a quote where Smith or the LDS church say there are "no errors" in the Book of Mormon but you continue to make that claim.

I certainly did, several in fact.

This dishonesty combined with you claiming what has not been claimed in order to create some contention where there is none are the main reasons I'm done with this conversation. No hard feelings, this wasn't a complete waste of time, but it was annoying.

Oh, are we going to be nasty now? That's unfortunate. Kindly show me where I've been anything but honest in everything I've said or represented. I haven't quoted out of context or changed quotes, I have supplied quotations when needed and offered to provide more, I haven't made up any facts or figures to suit my arguments.

It's the other way around, my friend. The facts, figures, quotes, etc. all make the argument for me.

If anyone is being dishonest, then it is you, but only to yourself.

[rcronk]

Given the process described by Smith and the LDS church leaders, they are errors.

Nowhere in your quotes did they say that punctuation added by a printer for clarity was part of the translation. I should have said "misleading" rather than "dishonest". I'm not trying to be "nasty" or mean, I'm just tired of your nitpicking, that's all. No hard feelings though.

I certainly did, several in fact.

The quotes from Smith said that the translation was correct, not perfect to the punctuation and subsequent typo level. We've gone back and forth on this enough. We disagree and that's fine.

[RobRoy]

Nowhere in your quotes did they say that punctuation added by a printer for clarity was part of the translation. I should have said "misleading" rather than "dishonest". I'm not trying to be "nasty" or mean, I'm just tired of your nitpicking, that's all. No hard feelings though.

Ahh, I see you've come back to the printing strawman, which I've dealt with at least twice now. Could be three times. So your charge of "misleading" or "dishonest" are false. Feel free to review above for that particular lost argument. I'll wait here. :D

The quotes from Smith said that the translation was correct, not perfect to the punctuation and subsequent typo level. We've gone back and forth on this enough. We disagree and that's fine.

Punctuation was kicked out early, for simplicity sake. :boggled: I'm not certain why you keep coming back to it. <shrug>

As I said earlier, you're a believer, and evidence simply doesn't matter, no matter how obvious it is. I was just pointing out that you're not in line with Smith or the LDS church's teachings if you believe there are errors. :D

[rcronk]

Ahh, I see you've come back to the printing strawman, which I've dealt with at least twice now. Could be three times. So your charge of "misleading" or "dishonest" are false. Feel free to review above for that particular lost argument. I'll wait here. :D

Punctuation was kicked out early, for simplicity sake. :boggled: I'm not certain why you keep coming back to it. <shrug>

As I said earlier, you're a believer, and evidence simply doesn't matter, no matter how obvious it is. I was just pointing out that you're not in line with Smith or the LDS church's teachings if you believe there are errors. :D

You brought back punctuation by bringing up the number 4,000 again. We disagree. I'm done, ok?

[money]

People can have a civil wedding outside of the temple and invite all the people they want to. These things can be worked around and they have absolutely nothing to do with whether the Mormon church is true or not. I'm not trying to be calloused, I'm just not allowing people to set up a situation of their own making, become angry at it, and then blame others.


What are you talking about "not allowing people to set up a situation of their own making"? My mom didn't make the rule that she's not allowed in. Your church did. Quit blaming the victim.

Spare me the "go have a civil ceremony somewhere else" crap.

Look, I have close LDS family, and 3/4ths of my own wedding lineup was LDS when I got married last month. I'm no hater. Although I'm atheist, I spend a lot of time defending my LDS friends and their church in a number of situations, especially when others describe it as a cult. I don't do this because I think your religion is right, but because others use arguments to show your church is a cult that applies just as much to almost every other church.

Yet I have nothing to say when the criticism is made, "didn't they not let your mom see your sister get married?" Because that is cultish. I just shrug my shoulders. What is there to hide?

I have a feeling that somewhere down the line someone high up will have a revelation that might let non member mothers or fathers watch their kids be married, and then people like you will think "oh that's nice, that might save people some heartbreak." It'll be too late for my mom, however, who despite your bs replies about "mistunderstandings" was devastated.

[RobRoy]

You brought back punctuation by bringing up the number 4,000 again.

Not as an argument. That was all you, baybay! (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3564539&postcount=335) :cool:

We disagree. I'm done, ok?

We clearly don't! Qui tacet consentire videtur. :covereyes

But I'd hate to keep you from more important hings. You're free to go, citizen. :alien005:

Look, I have close LDS family, and 3/4ths of my own wedding lineup was LDS when I got married last month. I'm no hater. Although I'm atheist, I spend a lot of time defending my LDS friends and their church in a number of situations, especially when others describe it as a cult. I don't do this because I think your religion is right, but because others use arguments to show your church is a cult that applies just as much to almost every other church.

Nicely put, and same here. I grew up in Bountiful, Utah, a bastion of Mormonism second only to the Prove "Happy" Valley. My two best friends are/were LDS. My wife is an RM. I can defend all kinds of parts of the BoM and the LDS faith and have when the occasions arrises.

Need a short discourse on steel in the ancient world? I've done the research myself, because relying on others and their opinions just doesn't work in this kind of a discussion.

I have a feeling that somewhere down the line someone high up will have a revelation that might let non member mothers or fathers watch their kids be married, and then people like you will think "oh that's nice, that might save people some heartbreak." It'll be too late for my mom, however, who despite your bs replies about "mistunderstandings" was devastated.

Wanna bet? The Catholic church will allow women to be priests before the LDS church will allow non-members into a dedicated temple. It's a fundamental part of their faith, and I don't see them bowing to outside pressure on that issue at all.

[money]

Nicely put, and same here. I grew up in Bountiful, Utah, a bastion of Mormonism second only to the Prove "Happy" Valley. My two best friends are/were LDS. My wife is an RM. I can defend all kinds of parts of the BoM and the LDS faith and have when the occasions arrises.

Need a short discourse on steel in the ancient world? I've done the research myself, because relying on others and their opinions just doesn't work in this kind of a discussion.

Wanna bet? The Catholic church will allow women to be priests before the LDS church will allow non-members into a dedicated temple. It's a fundamental part of their faith, and I don't see them bowing to outside pressure on that issue at all.

Do I want to bet? No.:(

I was just thinking along those lines as it seems the the LDS church has (rightly) bowed to societal pressures in the past... wishful thinking, I guess.

[Zygar]

The LDS church will allow gays long before they open the temple to non-members.

[RobRoy]

I was just thinking along those lines as it seems the the LDS church has (rightly) bowed to societal pressures in the past... wishful thinking, I guess.

Oh it would be nice. Not even realizing, I started a fight with my wife after hearing the story of Jesus healing the blind man on a Sunday, and then telling him that if the temples would not let him in, he could worship anywhere, since God is everywhere. Clearly, that's completely against LDS doctrine regarding their temples.

Whoops!

But the difference with temple worship and blacks holding the priesthood or polygamy is that there's far less social stigma attached to barring non-members from entering "sacred" places. It's unfortunate, but there it is.

[articulett]

Yes... the scarcity principle... people value the temple because only special people can go in for special reasons. Before they dedicate it, they let the scummy public walk through, but then when it's sanctified--only those with their special underwear get in.

[money]

Oh it would be nice. Not even realizing, I started a fight with my wife after hearing the story of Jesus healing the blind man on a Sunday, and then telling him that if the temples would not let him in, he could worship anywhere, since God is everywhere. Clearly, that's completely against LDS doctrine regarding their temples.

Whoops!

But the difference with temple worship and blacks holding the priesthood or polygamy is that there's far less social stigma attached to barring non-members from entering "sacred" places. It's unfortunate, but there it is.

I'm sure that's true.

[money]

The LDS church will allow gays long before they open the temple to non-members.

Do you think this will happen? I do... eventually.

[Zygar]

Allow gays? Yes. Not long from now.

[RobRoy]

Allow gays? Yes. Not long from now.

Care to place a wager on that one?

Unless you're defining "not long" in the geological sense . . .

Oh what am I saying, I'm up for the bet either way! :D

[Zygar]

My personal guess? 5 years. 10 years max.

I don't bet.

[RobRoy]

My personal guess? 5 years. 10 years max.

I don't bet.

Well, this would be more like just giving me your money. I don't see the LDS church changing the restrictions regarding homosexual lifestyle, and certainly not in the next five to ten years. :D

[Bob Blaylock]

Allow gays? Yes. Not long from now.
·
·
·
My personal guess? 5 years. 10 years max.

I don't bet.


Of course you don't bet. Not on this. I don't know what rhetorical game you're trying to play, but you surely know that you would lose such a bet.

God's laws regarding sexual morality have not changed since Old Testament times, and they aren't going to change now. Those churches which claim to accept the Bible as having any authority, and yet which treat homosexual behavior (or any other form of sexual immorality) as acceptable, are the ones that have some serious explaining to do.

[RobRoy]

God's laws regarding sexual morality have not changed since Old Testament times, and they aren't going to change now. Those churches which claim to accept the Bible as having any authority, and yet which treat homosexual behavior (or any other form of sexual immorality) as acceptable, are the ones that have some serious explaining to do.

Yeah! Like why they leave all the judging to God. :mad:

Serious, serious explaining to do.:D

[RandFan]

Of course you don't bet. Not on this. I don't know what rhetorical game you're trying to play, but you surely know that you would lose such a bet.

God's laws regarding sexual morality have not changed since Old Testament times, and they aren't going to change now. Those churches which claim to accept the Bible as having any authority, and yet which treat homosexual behavior (or any other form of sexual immorality) as acceptable, are the ones that have some serious explaining to do. Why is homosexual behavior immoral? Why does god care about the sex habits of adults? As a person who used to be against gay marriage I've heard and made all of the arguments. There is no rational basis to find homosexuality immoral. None.

[tsig]

Of course you don't bet. Not on this. I don't know what rhetorical game you're trying to play, but you surely know that you would lose such a bet.

God's laws regarding sexual morality have not changed since Old Testament times, and they aren't going to change now. Those churches which claim to accept the Bible as having any authority, and yet which treat homosexual behavior (or any other form of sexual immorality) as acceptable, are the ones that have some serious explaining to do.

Your own church has changed the rules of sexual morality in a radical fashion at least twice.

Back on topic:

How do you explain the DNA.

[articulett]

I find damning your "children" and their descendants forever for biting from the tree of knowledge pretty damn immoral...

And impregnating virgins without their consent...

And demanding people have faith that you are "all loving" while being invisible and pulling crap like the above-- AND cooking up a plot to have your son (who is really you) murdered in some weird blood atonement thing...

Oh, and the ordering of slaughtering and rape and heroic rewards for the followers...

Yeah... all that stuff is way more immoral than homosexuality. I'm not "all loving" or "omniscient", and even I can figure that one out.

And that prophet crap-- telling women that god told you that they are supposed to be one of their plural wives...

And the "holier than thou" persona--that is stultifyingly obnoxious as well. I wonder how many gay LDS teens have taken their lives because of that sort of "morality". I know of one. I'm sure there are many more.

Those who think "god" is a source of morality are the ones who have a lot of explaining to do, Bob. http://strugglesforexistence.com/?p=Introduction

[Zygar]

Of course you don't bet. Not on this. I don't know what rhetorical game you're trying to play, but you surely know that you would lose such a bet.

God's laws regarding sexual morality have not changed since Old Testament times, and they aren't going to change now. Those churches which claim to accept the Bible as having any authority, and yet which treat homosexual behavior (or any other form of sexual immorality) as acceptable, are the ones that have some serious explaining to do.

No. I simply have a personal rule against betting. Perhaps it's a holdover from being Mormon.

Sexual morality has changed several times in our lifetimes. In particular, the LDS church has unofficially grown to accept the uses of contraception and abortion. Culture drives the stance of the Church on many issues, and sexual morality is no exception.

[articulett]

Yes indeedy... I believe the Mormons have switched their sexual stance on polygamy --on the earthly plane, anyhow. Instant revelation or cultural influence? --you be the judge.

[RandFan]

I find damning your "children" and their descendants forever for biting from the tree of knowledge pretty damn immoral...

And impregnating virgins without their consent...

And demanding people have faith that you are "all loving" while being invisible and pulling crap like the above-- AND cooking up a plot to have your son (who is really you) murdered in some weird blood atonement thing...

Oh, and the ordering of slaughtering and rape and heroic rewards for the followers...

Yeah... all that stuff is way more immoral than homosexuality. I'm not "all loving" or "omniscient", and even I can figure that one out.

And that prophet crap-- telling women that god told you that they are supposed to be one of their plural wives...

And the "holier than thou" persona--that is stultifyingly obnoxious as well. I wonder how many gay LDS teens have taken their lives because of that sort of "morality". I know of one. I'm sure there are many more.

Those who think "god" is a source of morality are the ones who have a lot of explaining to do, Bob. http://strugglesforexistence.com/?p=Introduction

And killing people in the flood (that includes infants and children). Oh, and killing the first born of Egypt.

God, so perfect he can drown babies and still be perfect.

[shadron]

And killing people in the flood (that includes infants and children). Oh, and killing the first born of Egypt.

God, so perfect he can drown babies and still be perfect.

Well, 99.998% perfect (according to #332, with a small factor of two correction in the division). Perhaps that "first born child" thing in Egypt caused some minor dent in the finish.

I still think it's picking nits.

What exactly is "perfect" supposed to mean, exactly? I'll add that it's somewhat disingenuous to say that God set up this fantastic error-correction protocol, only to see some minor fool down the line goof god's word up for all eternity (perfect, remember?). It doesn't take predestination to know that something like that could happen; what was god thinking? Sounds like a normal, fallible person to me, aided by latter day apologetics.

Oh, yes, then there's this:


It does make one wonder why god still uses prophets since they are fallible men. Why not cut out the middleman and just infuse us all with the truth?

BTW I have read the BOM, D&C, Book of Abraham ect.

I tried to feel that" burning in my busom" ; once I thought I had succeeded but it was just heartburn.

Maybe if Joe Smith had Tums we would not have the BOM.
:xrolleyes:

I think it is a pretty significant question, about why god didn't just cut out the middleman? He can work miracles; the scriptures (all that I know of) establish that. He appeared to Doubting Thomas after dying; why not simply infuse the knowledge? Don't say "it's a test"; when he creates the game and sets all the rules, nothing is really a test. Barring that, why didn't he simply give every person his own gold version (unmeltable, of course, so as not to upset the economy)?

It sounds to me like the methods are designed to mask whether it is god's will or just a man's will that everyone become Mormon. So it's either the former or god's being tricky again. Can perfection be tricky?

[tsig]

Well, 99.998% perfect (according to #332, with a small factor of two correction in the division). Perhaps that "first born child" thing in Egypt caused some minor dent in the finish.



What exactly is "perfect" supposed to mean, exactly? I'll add that it's somewhat disingenuous to say that God set up this fantastic error-correction protocol, only to see some minor fool down the line goof god's word up for all eternity (perfect, remember?). It doesn't take predestination to know that something like that could happen; what was god thinking? Sounds like a normal, fallible person to me, aided by latter day apologetics.

Oh, yes, then there's this:



I think it is a pretty significant question, about why god didn't just cut out the middleman? He can work miracles; the scriptures (all that I know of) establish that. He appeared to Doubting Thomas after dying; why not simply infuse the knowledge? Don't say "it's a test"; when he creates the game and sets all the rules, nothing is really a test. Barring that, why didn't he simply give every person his own gold version (unmeltable, of course, so as not to upset the economy)?

It sounds to me like the methods are designed to mask whether it is god's will or just a man's will that everyone become Mormon. So it's either the former or god's being tricky again. Can perfection be tricky?

Hi Shadron

The answer I get is that god works in mysterious ways.

variations:

We can't know the mind of god

Who are you to question god(Job gambit)

Yer goin' tu hell!!!(fundie gambit)

Thanks

[money]

Of course you don't bet. Not on this. I don't know what rhetorical game you're trying to play, but you surely know that you would lose such a bet.

God's laws regarding sexual morality have not changed since Old Testament times, and they aren't going to change now. Those churches which claim to accept the Bible as having any authority, and yet which treat homosexual behavior (or any other form of sexual immorality) as acceptable, are the ones that have some serious explaining to do.

Did your church ever forbid, either implicitly or explicitly, interracial marriage?

[RobRoy]

Did your church ever forbid, either implicitly or explicitly, interracial marriage?

Implicitly, not explicitly. Especially marriage to a black man, since he couldn't hold the priesthood, that would negate the woman getting all her Celestial glory if she so warranted otherwise.

But otherwise, there was no church mandate proscribing interracial marriage, no matter how much the first prophets railed against the blacks. And man did they do some railing!

[tsig]

Implicitly, not explicitly. Especially marriage to a black man, since he couldn't hold the priesthood, that would negate the woman getting all her Celestial glory if she so warranted otherwise.

But otherwise, there was no church mandate proscribing interracial marriage, no matter how much the first prophets railed against the blacks. And man did they do some railing!

Why do you need a prophet? Why can't god talk directly to you?

I really do wonder about these questions.

More important. Why does god need a prophet?

[Cleon]

More important. Why does god need a prophet?


And for that matter, what does God need with a starship?

[prewitt81]

And for that matter, what does God need with a starship?

Who is This God Person Anyway?

(Mad props to Oolon Colluphid.)

[tsig]

And for that matter, what does God need with a starship?

To ferry to hell those who ask questions?

[RobRoy]

Why do you need a prophet? Why can't god talk directly to you?

You're asking the wrong person. I'm not LDS.

I can say that in the LDS tradition, everyone has direct access to God, and is supposed to independently verify any revelations or statements from the Prophet on down to the smallest callings in the church. Of course, if you challenge said calling, you'll be asked to pray about it some more, perhaps you'll talk to your respective bishop or so forth, and ultimately, I understand, you either sustain the calling, or you probably need to find another church.

I really do wonder about these questions.

More important. Why does god need a prophet?

Perhaps it's not God that needs the prophet, but His people. I mean, if we're going under the assumption that there is a God, and that He would select certain people to be His voice.

In the LDS tradition, an individual cannot be in God's presence as we are now. Your body has to be changed in order to withstand whatever those forces are that God exudes without control. <shrug> So, in lieu of changing everyone, God just picks out one guy (sometimes a gal) and gives them His directives. Sorta like a Divine Administrative Assistant.

Apparently, despite such conversions as that of Saul of Tarsus, only the most purest folk can be prophets, and of them, only the really pure get to be transformed to withstand God's awesomeness.

God's just that bitchin'. :cool:

[tsig]

You're asking the wrong person. I'm not LDS.

I can say that in the LDS tradition, everyone has direct access to God, and is supposed to independently verify any revelations or statements from the Prophet on down to the smallest callings in the church. Of course, if you challenge said calling, you'll be asked to pray about it some more, perhaps you'll talk to your respective bishop or so forth, and ultimately, I understand, you either sustain the calling, or you probably need to find another church.



Perhaps it's not God that needs the prophet, but His people. I mean, if we're going under the assumption that there is a God, and that He would select certain people to be His voice.

In the LDS tradition, an individual cannot be in God's presence as we are now. Your body has to be changed in order to withstand whatever those forces are that God exudes without control. <shrug> So, in lieu of changing everyone, God just picks out one guy (sometimes a gal) and gives them His directives. Sorta like a Divine Administrative Assistant.

Apparently, despite such conversions as that of Saul of Tarsus, only the most purest folk can be prophets, and of them, only the really pure get to be transformed to withstand God's awesomeness.

God's just that bitchin'. :cool:

In LDS teaching we (males) are going to be gods. Suck on that Saul of Tarsus.

I can haz planetz!

[CFLarsen]

To ferry to hell those who ask questions?

I'll risk it:

Do you have any evidence that mormons are specifically protected by JREF?

You pointed to this thread as evidence, and (later) claimed that the evidence was removed.

Is there no trace left of this pro-mormon bias?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

???????????

[tsig]

I'll risk it:

Do you have any evidence that mormons are specifically protected by JREF?

You pointed to this thread as evidence, and (later) claimed that the evidence was removed.

Is there no trace left of this pro-mormon bias?

I deleted the post myself. If you continue to follow me with this crap I will be forced to report you.

This is completely off topic.

[HghrSymmetry]

Caution T. Riling could intensify the stalking.

[articulett]

Yep!

[tsig]

Yep!

delete. just for cf. see if he can misinterpret this.

[articulett]

???????????
the "jref vigilante" strikes again... he will hunt you down... there is no respite...

[articulett]

delete. just for cf. see if he can misinterpret this.
Oh, I think you may be underestimating his powers...

[articulett]

In LDS teaching we (males) are going to be gods. Suck on that Saul of Tarsus.

I can haz planetz!

What good are the damn "planetz" going to be... after all, I won't be there... (unless I am "lucky" enough to be someone's 3rd wife...) Hmph. Kolob Schmolob.

[tsig]

What good are the damn "planetz" going to be... after all, I won't be there... (unless I am "lucky" enough to be someone's 3rd wife...) Hmph. Kolob Schmolob.

True there would be a lack of spice without you. My wife is pretty much"I am your wife and there will be no wives before me" kinda person so I can't offer seconds.

You might claim to be a spiritual wife of Joe.

[tsig]

Oh, I think you may be underestimating his powers...

I might.. he never will.

[CFLarsen]

I deleted the post myself. If you continue to follow me with this crap I will be forced to report you.

This is completely off topic.

I am not "following" you. You referred to this thread as evidence that JREF gave special protection to mormons.

You have yet to provide evidence of your claim.

[tsig]

I am not "following" you. You referred to this thread as evidence that JREF gave special protection to mormons.

You have yet to provide evidence of your claim.

I guess you missed my post about a hole and not digging anymore in the now closed thread.

I am hereby and formally dropping that claim. Happy now!

[RobRoy]

What good are the damn "planetz" going to be... after all, I won't be there... (unless I am "lucky" enough to be someone's 3rd wife...) Hmph. Kolob Schmolob.

Don't worry too much. You'll have the option of accepting or rejecting the LDS faith in the afterlife. Of course, you won't be able to achieve the highest level of "glory", but there's really no Hell to look forward for rejecting them the first time around.

[Zygar]

Don't worry too much. You'll have the option of accepting or rejecting the LDS faith in the afterlife. Of course, you won't be able to achieve the highest level of "glory", but there's really no Hell to look forward for rejecting them the first time around.

I'm glad you can maintain your delusion in the face of overwhelming evidence...

[RobRoy]

I'm glad you can maintain your delusion in the face of overwhelming evidence...

My delusion? What delusion is that? And in the face of what evidence? Please specify, as I'm completely lost here.

[tsig]

Don't worry too much. You'll have the option of accepting or rejecting the LDS faith in the afterlife. Of course, you won't be able to achieve the highest level of "glory", but there's really no Hell to look forward for rejecting them the first time around.

Self-satisfied aren't we now. If your kind was to be in heaven I will give it a pass.

[RobRoy]

Self-satisfied aren't we now. If your kind was to be in heaven I will give it a pass.

Ummm, what are you babbling about?

[tsig]

Ummm, what are you babbling about?

Nothing apparently.

[RobRoy]

Nothing apparently.

No, seriously. I'd like to know what the hell that was all about.

[CFLarsen]

I guess you missed my post about a hole and not digging anymore in the now closed thread.

I am hereby and formally dropping that claim. Happy now!

No problem.

[tsig]

No, seriously. I'd like to know what the hell that was all about.

You get to have your own worlds where you are gods. I would not like your heaven.

As an atheist I get to laugh at all religions.

[Tanstaafl]

Unless I got my scorecard messed up, RobRoy is not a Mormon.

He just has a different style of commenting on them that can lead to confusion.

[RobRoy]

Unless I got my scorecard messed up, RobRoy is not a Mormon.

Your scorecard is quite correct (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3587143&postcount=374). I'm very much not a Mormon.

He just has a different style of commenting on them that can lead to confusion.

Not on purpose, but I suppose I can see that from my last comment. It was intended to be funny, but apparently missed the mark.

[articulett]

Unless I got my scorecard messed up, RobRoy is not a Mormon.

He just has a different style of commenting on them that can lead to confusion.

Yes, he answered a question directed at Bob the Mormon as though he was a Mormon, but he was just sharing his knowledge of Mormonism.

It's hard to tell if he's speaking as a believer in something or other... or if he's just echoing the excuses he's heard from them... and explaining how they look at things.

I am confused myself.

[Tanstaafl]

Not on purpose, but I suppose I can see that from my last comment. It was intended to be funny, but apparently missed the mark.


I suggest you have your title changed from "Muse" to "Not a Mormon". :D

[RandFan]

Yes, he answered a question directed at Bob the Mormon as though he was a Mormon, but he was just sharing his knowledge of Mormonism.

It's hard to tell if he's speaking as a believer in something or other... or if he's just echoing the excuses he's heard from them... and explaining how they look at things.

I am confused myself. It looked like mocking to me.

[RobRoy]

Yes, he answered a question directed at Bob the Mormon as though he was a Mormon, but he was just sharing his knowledge of Mormonism.

I wasn't trying to answer it as though I was a Mormon, but from the Mormon point of view.

It's hard to tell if he's speaking as a believer in something or other... or if he's just echoing the excuses he's heard from them... and explaining how they look at things.

I am confused myself.

Just stating what I know of the LDS church, the excuses or justifications they give, and how they look at things.

Sorry for the confusion.

It looked like mocking to me.

I try to maintain a reasonable respect for any set of religious beliefs, but some parts do seem worthy of a little laughter. If there is a God, I can see him watching the various forms of worship and shaking His head with a wry smile.

[articulett]

There's some interesting evidence that people may have arrived from Europe as well during the last ice age and settled along the east coast of North America. Tantalizing remains of their Clovis point technology have been found. But it seems that they died off during a severe climate change associated with the melting of an ice dam that caused vast quantities of fresh water to spill down the St. Lawrence into the Atlantic, interrupting the equatorial current cycle. There is no evidence of their presence after this sudden climate change and it seems they went extinct (along with many other species).

At any rate, they didn't come from the Middle East either and the surviving migration came from Asia.


And here is some petrified poop from pre-Clovis times... again confirming the East Asian History. Modern science can tell us so much about our past... it's a shame that people are compelled to believe banal made up stories as a sign of "faith". We finally can know what know humans could ever know... and the faithful cannot learn it, because they believe their salvations rests on them believing and unbelievable story. I suspect that understanding the earth was a sphere and not the center of the universe--or even our solar system--caused a similar amount of trauma. Our knowledge evolves erasing the superstitions and misinformation of generations past. Critical thinkers get to move along with the current of knowledge-- the faithful are stuck in the mire of superstition past.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/dna-found-in-oregon-rewrites-the-book-on-the-first-native-americans-804542.html

An analysis of the DNA showed that it contained two sets of genetic sequences which are shared with modern-day native Americans and people who are native to East Asia and Siberia – confirming that the first Americans came over the Bering land bridge from Asia during the last Ice Age. Dennis Jenkins, a senior archaeologist with the University of Oregon's Museum of Natural and Cultural History, said there is a lack of bones dating from the time of the Clovis people so extracting human DNA from coprolites is critical to understanding more about the first Americans.

[Correa Neto]

DANG!
She beated me on this!
Here's BBC's article, aniway (poop pic included)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329505.stm

[articulett]

DANG!
She beated me on this!
Here's BBC's article, aniway (poop pic included)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329505.stm

Great pix... heck, I wouldn't know petrified poop if I tripped over it.

[HghrSymmetry]

And for that matter, what does God need with a starship?

That was from movie #5, if memory serves.