FREE TAPATALK APP

Slowvehicle · 29th December 2012, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by Janadele

What inaccuracies? Whatever is in the Book of Mormon is fact. It is Scripture.

Anachronistic cultivated domestic barley; anachronistic horses; anachronistic domestic cattle; anachronistic steel.

Originally Posted by Janadele

So are you saying that you did not copy lists from anti-Mormon sites,

Yes. That is exactly what I am saying. I waste no more time on "anti mormon" sites than I waste time on sites refuting that all this is a dream of lord Brahma's.

Do you claim that tBoM does not make the assertions listed in post #167? Is it a translation/version/redaction thing?

Originally Posted by Janadele

but that instead you yourself read the Book of Mormon and isolated these quotes and researched yourself to prove that they were inaccurate?

Read it in 1983; during seminary.

"Barley" caught my eye, mostly due to some apologetics studies about (for instance) "corn" in the old testament; also due to controversies about hohokam and anazasi agriculture.

The livestock issue caught my eye because of claims being made at the time about the co-existence of humans and dinosaurs; and by (again) apologetics studies in which it was claimed that "horses and cows" in the New World "proved" that the geological record was false. The problem is not just that no evidence of horse and cattle fossils is found in the new world, but that new world archaeology has also failed to uncover any of the acoutrements that would have accompanied a horse-and-or-cattle culture.

The steel issue caught my eye because of the research I had done on arms and armour as an apprentice armourer (swordwright) for the SCA.

Originally Posted by Janadele

How did you do such research?

Old-school dead-tree libraries (Dallas Public/SMU/SBTS/ASU); lectures and talks; gradually, as it became available, teh interwebz...

Originally Posted by Janadele

You were not living at that time and place in mortality.

Nor were you--how do you presume to speak with authority?

Originally Posted by Janadele

You may well have witnessed as a pre mortal spirit, but then you have no memory of that time.

...a superstitious supposition, no particle of evidence for which has ever been offered. You are, of course, welcome to your superstitions. You do err when you pretend that they apply to me.

tsig · 29th December 2012, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by Janadele

Personally I have no interest in refuting anything in the Book of Mormon. It is Scripture, as is the Holy Bible, Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine and Covenants.

The following link to Fair addresses such issues for those who have concerns,
Fair is not an official LDS site.
http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms

Quote:

Horse - there is some evidence, not yet deemed definitive, which suggests that the true horse may have been known in at least some parts of Mesoamerica in pre-Columbian times before Christ. There is also ample precedent for naming different animals with common names, and there are other New World candidates, such as deer and tapirs.

I find it hard to think that anyone ever called a deer a horse.

tsig · 29th December 2012, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by Janadele

Fawn Brodie is an anti-Mormon and was excommunicated from the LDS Church.

IOW anyone who criticizes the church is automatically anti-Mormon so you won't listen to them.

Is posting the new form of door to door?

Explorer · 29th December 2012, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by Janadele

Your blessed sister will have received her reward for her faithfulness. Rejoice in this knowledge and follow her path

Her reward was to be prematurely separated from her five children by a god who seemingly arranged for a motorbike to hit her at high speed when she stepped out into the road.

The local LDS church also stuck their noses in afterwards, and encouraged my still grieving brother-in-law to re-marry again hastefully a woman within the church who was totally unsuitable for him. Needless to say, and another child further on, the marriage failed, and misery ensued.

I have had many an opportunity to "follow her path", but none of it made any sense to me in the days of my youth. Today, as a mature and critical thinker, I know that JS was a fraud, and not a particularly good one either.

John Jones · 29th December 2012, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by Janadele

Fawn Brodie is an anti-Mormon and was excommunicated from the LDS Church.

That doesn't make her wrong.

RandFan · 29th December 2012, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by tsig

I find it hard to think that anyone ever called a deer a horse.

Here is an illustration from the BOM:

That's a funny looking deer.

John Jones · 29th December 2012, 12:02 PM

I don't know why I stuck with this thread as long as I did. Must be the snow outside.

I have experienced 2 things:

* The non-Mormons on this thread have done a far better job of educating me about the LDS church far better than the Mormon or Mormons.

* The OP is incapable of a substantive discussion of the LDS church.

DragonLady · 29th December 2012, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by Explorer

Her reward was to be prematurely separated from her five children by a god who seemingly arranged for a motorbike to hit her at high speed when she stepped out into the road.

The local LDS church also stuck their noses in afterwards, and encouraged my still grieving brother-in-law to re-marry again hastefully a woman within the church who was totally unsuitable for him. Needless to say, and another child further on, the marriage failed, and misery ensued.

I have had many an opportunity to "follow her path", but none of it made any sense to me in the days of my youth. Today, as a mature and critical thinker, I know that JS was a fraud, and not a particularly good one either.

I'm sorry your family went through that.

RandFan · 29th December 2012, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by Shalamar

Janadele, it's obvious that you are not here to actually discuss your church. You want to discuss your faith, however these are or the same things.

You believe what you believe because you believe it. Circular, though it makes most people scratch their heads. Others here have pointed out the problems that exist I your own holy book, and you seem to be unwilling to discuss them. To me, that means you really don't have faith, let alone an understanding of your religion. You stick your fi gets your ears while claiming that you won't hear the words of satan or those who disparage your church. You cannot face them, I your own thread, that you cared to discuss your religion!

You follow a religion. That seems to treat certain segment to of their followers as second class citizens. Homosexuals are denied the love they feel, and the intimacy they crave, because your vile book demands it. Even worse, your church tries to e vice this practice on tone who do not believe in Mormonism! Then you haw women who appear to be expected to marry and have children early on life. No dreams for them! No careers, no life outside having children and obeying their husband. Can women even be priests? Hold offices of power over men In your religion?

This^^^.

The magic of faith is that with it a person can believe just about anything.

Behold the power of faith.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

RandFan · 29th December 2012, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by Explorer

Her reward was to be prematurely separated from her five children by a god who seemingly arranged for a motorbike to hit her at high speed when she stepped out into the road.

The local LDS church also stuck their noses in afterwards, and encouraged my still grieving brother-in-law to re-marry again hastefully a woman within the church who was totally unsuitable for him. Needless to say, and another child further on, the marriage failed, and misery ensued.

I have had many an opportunity to "follow her path", but none of it made any sense to me in the days of my youth. Today, as a mature and critical thinker, I know that JS was a fraud, and not a particularly good one either.

If you focus only on the cheery bits of LDS life there is much good. I have many fond memories of being a Mormon. However, I've seen families torn apart. I myself have lost some friendships and some family members have estranged themselves from my family because we left.

bruto · 29th December 2012, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by John Jones

That doesn't make her wrong.

Alas, it does for Janadele, I think. This entire sorry thread has consisted of little but the assertion that current Mormon teaching is right and anything that contradicts it is wrong, without anything additional in the way of argument or fact except the assertion that it's right because it's right. It is, of course, a foolproof argument since nothing but faith is required, but it's not getting anywhere.

RandFan · 29th December 2012, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by bruto

Alas, it does for Janadele, I think. This entire sorry thread has consisted of little but the assertion that current Mormon teaching is right and anything that contradicts it is wrong, without anything additional in the way of argument or fact except the assertion that it's right because it's right. It is, of course, a foolproof argument since nothing but faith is required, but it's not getting anywhere.

And that can be a very good thing. Some time ago I gave up on trying to convince my opponents. My primary goals is to have a discussion. I confess that Jandele makes that difficult but not impossible. Most importantly she demonstrates how bankrupt the theology is. It withers quickly under scrutiny. Folks who cannot substantively respond to criticism are either ignorant of facts or incapable of responding because there are no good answers for something like portions of the facsimile in the Book of Abraham being obviously faked (a portion of the facsimile was missing so Smith just added parts including a human head to a character that actually had the head of a Jackal).

You can see the evidence here.

Ambrosia · 29th December 2012, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by Ambrosia

This is the idea that while all believers get to heaven, only the ones that got the most points on the exam get to the extra special heaven.

Which part of the teachings of the LDS church tell you that?

Originally Posted by Janadele

http://www.lds.org/media-library/vid...n-of-salvation

http://mormon.org/plan-of-happiness

So I read the links, and watched the vid and neither answered my question.

Can you point to the actual scriptures that teach this, upon which you base this belief.

I don't need the hand holding, baby steps stuff. Please cut to the chase.

Thankyou.

RandFan · 29th December 2012, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by Ambrosia

So I read the links, and watched the vid and neither answered my question.

Can you point to the actual scriptures that teach this, upon which you base this belief.

I don't need the hand holding, baby steps stuff. Please cut to the chase.

Thankyou.

Not quite sure what you are after but you might try this.

Janadele · 29th December 2012, 02:49 PM

Surprisingly to me, and sadly, it seems there are a number of ex LDS here.

Anyone know Bob Britt, originally from New York?

Foster Zygote · 29th December 2012, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by Janadele

They [women] do not need to "Hold offices of power over men".

Which implies that men hold offices of power over women. Why should one gender need to be defined as inferior to another? Why can't women earn the same positions of respect as men?

DragonLady · 29th December 2012, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by Janadele

Suprisingly to me, and sadly, it seems there are a number of ex LDS here. Anyone know Bob Britt from New York ?

??? Why in the world are you surprised? This is a skeptic's forum. You'll find that most here have been exposed to many religions, and that many of us have gone through the painful and life-changing process of leaving the faith we've been raised with.

Slowvehicle · 29th December 2012, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by Janadele

Suprisingly to me, and sadly, it seems there are a number of ex LDS here. Anyone know Bob Britt from New York ?

No, I don't. Why--would he answer the questions about barley, cattle, horses and steel?

Janadele · 29th December 2012, 02:56 PM

It is not I speaking in the Book of Mormon... it is those who compiled the records, and who wrote them while living at that time and place.

Voices from the dust.

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle

Nor were you--how do you presume to speak with authority?

DragonLady · 29th December 2012, 03:01 PM

Quote:

It is not I speaking in the Book of Mormon... it is those who compiled the records, and who wrote them while living at that time and place.

No.

That doesn't work, and you know it. They were not capable of writing the BofM, and you know it. Joseph Smith did not "translate". He invented.

I'm sorry; but that is the truth.

Janadele · 29th December 2012, 03:04 PM

Women do not need to hold the Priesthood to be held in respect... the Priesthood serve the woman. Regardless anyway, it is a non negotiable point. The Lord God, creator of our earth, and our Heavenly Father does not need the advice of mere mortals, and non believing ones at that, as to how He should organise His Church.

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Which implies that men hold offices of power over women. Why should one gender need to be defined as inferior to another? Why can't women earn the same positions of respect as men?

Slowvehicle · 29th December 2012, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by Janadele

It is not I speaking in the Book of Mormon... it is those who compiled the records, and who wrote them while living at that time and place.

Voices from the dust.

...and yet you were not "living in that time and place in mortality"...you are making third- and fourth-hand hearsay claims.
Your very claim that the record were "compiled" by "those living at the time" is hearsay.

What about the anachronisms? If "those living at the time" were there, they certainly managed to get a lot of details wrong. Is it as simple as claiming that your 'god' hid the evidence of barley cultivation, of metalsmithing technology, of the existence of domestic animals, just to see whether evidence would mislead any who do not toe the line?

RandFan · 29th December 2012, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by Janadele

It is not I speaking in the Book of Mormon... it is those who compiled the records, and who wrote them while living at that time and place.

Voices from the dust.

The BofM details great nations fighting great battles. There is no archeological evidence for the claims made.

I grew up being told that native Americans were the decendants of Hebrews. Turns out that god forgot to tell Joseph Smith that native Americans are NOT Hebrew.

RandFan · 29th December 2012, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by Janadele

Women do not need to hold the Priesthood to be held in respect... the Priesthood serve the woman. Regardless anyway, it is a non negotiable point. The Lord God, creator of our earth, and our Heavenly Father does not need the advice of mere mortals , and non believing ones at that, as to how He should organise His Church.

True but it sure makes your deity out to be misogynist. I'm sure that if god wants to commit genocide the way he did in the Bible then that is his right but it makes him a monster. If god wants to condone slavery then he can do that but that also makes him a monster.

If you are correct and your god exists I would not worship him because he is immoral. Morality isn't something god can just declare by fiat. God might like drowning puppies in his spare time but just because he is god doesn't make it moral.

FWIW: There probably is no god, Mormon or otherwise. So relax and be a good person for the sake of goodness.

Janadele · 29th December 2012, 03:15 PM

I was once an Anglican, and an active one at that, but never would I consider publicly criticising and misrepresenting the beliefs, doctrine, structure or organisation of that denomination. It is the ultimate betrayal.

Originally Posted by DragonLady

??? Why in the world are you surprised? This is a skeptic's forum. You'll find that most here have been exposed to many religions, and that many of us have gone through the painful and life-changing process of leaving the faith we've been raised with.

RandFan · 29th December 2012, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by Janadele

I was once an Anglican, and an active one at that, but never would I consider publicly criticising and misrepresenting the beliefs, doctrine, structure or organisation of that denomination. It is the ultimate betrayal.

I have been polite to you.
I have not misrepresented anything and I resent your accusation.
My only loyalty is to the truth.

DragonLady · 29th December 2012, 03:31 PM

Quote:

I was once an Anglican, and an active one at that, but never would I consider publicly criticising and misrepresenting the beliefs, doctrine, structure or organisation of that denomination. It is the ultimate betrayal.

Now God is so small that he can't counter my puny criticisms? If the facts of the Book of Mormon, Bible or any other holy writ were plainly verifiable by anyone who wanted to check, do you think it would really be possible for me to misrepresent it?

Ultimate betrayal? There you really lost me. How can any mere created mortal betray an all-powerful God?

According to my upbringing, God didn't need me; rather it was the other way around. Supposedly my long-dead ancestors fell from grace and plunged the whole world into sin. I needed God's mercy to restore my own soul to a satisfactory condition to avoid everlasting punishment.

Janadele · 29th December 2012, 03:37 PM

Please expain.

Originally Posted by Nay_Sayer

do the LDS get the magic underwear too?

RandFan · 29th December 2012, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by Janadele

Please expain.

Because so many members claim supernatural protection from Mormon garments that many people pejoratively refer to them as "magic underwear".

Originally Posted by 60 Minutes

Mike Wallace: Do you wear the sacred undergarments?
Willard Marriott: Yes, I do. And I can tell you they do protect you from harm.
Mike Wallace: Really?
Willard Marriott: Uh-huh. I was in a very serious boat accident. Fire--boat was on fire, I was on fire. I was burned. My pants were burned right off of me. I was not burned above my knee. Where the garment was, I was not burned.
Mike Wallace: And you believe it was the sacred undergarments.
Willard Marriott: I do. Particularly on my legs, because my pants were gone, but my undergarments were not singed. ("60 Minutes" program on the LDS Church. Aired on CBS TV, April 7, 1996)

Richard Masters · 29th December 2012, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by Janadele

Often the answer to what is sought, is not what the seeker wants to hear nor is willing to accept.

Quoting clichés doesn't make you sound as profound as you think. You would be a lot more persuasive if you didn't sound like Yoda.

Richard Masters · 29th December 2012, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by Agatha

...

What we are asking is your position on these errors, such as the mention of a compass 1800 years before the compass was invented, or cows and horses being in the Americas 2000 years before they were actually brought there. There's a list of quotes from the Book of Mormon in this post. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...93#post8876193

...

Agatha, the compass has been around for at least 1000 years.

DragonLady · 29th December 2012, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by Richard Masters

Agatha, the compass has been around for at least 1000 years.

Here in the Americas? This is where the events of the Book of Mormon supposedly took place.

Janadele · 29th December 2012, 04:06 PM

It was not a quote.

Originally Posted by Richard Masters

Quoting clichés doesn't make you sound as profound as you think. You would be a lot more persuasive if you didn't sound like Yoda.

kerikiwi · 29th December 2012, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by Janadele

I was once an Anglican, and an active one at that, but never would I consider publicly criticising and misrepresenting the beliefs, doctrine, structure or organisation of that denomination. It is the ultimate betrayal.

Can you give an example of a Mormon belief or doctrine or structure or organisation which has been misrepresented?

Richard Masters · 29th December 2012, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by DragonLady

Here in the Americas? This is where the events of the Book of Mormon supposedly took place.

Probably not in America, but that is not the statement I was refuting.

Janadele · 29th December 2012, 04:13 PM

you have to be joking...

Originally Posted by kerikiwi

Can you give an example of a Mormon belief or doctrine or structure or organisation which has been misrepresented?

RandFan · 29th December 2012, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by Richard Masters

Agatha, the compass has been around for at least 1000 years.

Originally Posted by DragonLady

Here in the Americas? This is where the events of the Book of Mormon supposedly took place.

Given the narrative from the BofM I don't have a problem with the Liahona (the putative compass). God gave it to Lehi. Granting the existence of god for the purpose of argument then that's no less plausible than Jor-El giving Superman the historical crystals (granting of course the existence of Krypton and Jor-EL).

Richard Masters · 29th December 2012, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by Janadele

It was not a quote.

Paraphrasing clichés isn't persuasive either. It's common for Mormons and other religious people to make appeals to ignorance. What you said is equivalent to "The Lord works in mysterious ways", "we are not meant to know", "don't question God's plan".

None of these clichés answer the questions that were posed to you, which comes across as rather convenient and dishonest.

RandFan · 29th December 2012, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by Janadele

you have to be joking...

No. I've found errors but no intentional misrepresentation by anyone. I'm not saying it didn't happen but I don't know of one.

Pup · 29th December 2012, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Because so many members claim supernatural protection from Mormon garments that many people pejoratively refer to them as "magic underwear".

I was puzzled by the "too." Who else gets them?

The concept seems no sillier than a lot of lucky things people wear, and less sillier than, say, what some nuns, priests or the Amish have to wear, or yarmulkes, since at least they're hidden from view, but what I think is funny is how they keep shrinking to keep pace with fashion, always being just shorter than what a typical conservative person would wear in the US. You would think God would lead in fashions, rather than follow.

As I understand it, statements like Marriott's are not backed by doctrine. The garments are supposed to be a reminder of one's religion, not evil-proof kevlar, which is why there's no advantage to them being ankle-to-wrist and why Mormons die in fires and accidents like anyone else.

What really blows my mind is watching Dancing with the Stars, seeing Mormons on there nearly naked, or showing their little panties with leg lifts. I don't know if they've been to the temple, but they could have been. No matter how many time my wife explains, "You're allowed to take them off for athletic activities, which includes dancing," I still don't understand the logic. Not complaining, mind you. Just not reconciled to the logic.

29th December 2012, 11:27 AM	#361
Slowvehicle Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: ...not where I seemed, nor was calculated to be...but no-one need worry... Posts: 2,365	Originally Posted by Janadele What inaccuracies? Whatever is in the Book of Mormon is fact. It is Scripture. Anachronistic cultivated domestic barley; anachronistic horses; anachronistic domestic cattle; anachronistic steel. Originally Posted by Janadele So are you saying that you did not copy lists from anti-Mormon sites, Yes. That is exactly what I am saying. I waste no more time on "anti mormon" sites than I waste time on sites refuting that all this is a dream of lord Brahma's. Do you claim that tBoM does not make the assertions listed in post #167? Is it a translation/version/redaction thing? Originally Posted by Janadele but that instead you yourself read the Book of Mormon and isolated these quotes and researched yourself to prove that they were inaccurate? Read it in 1983; during seminary. "Barley" caught my eye, mostly due to some apologetics studies about (for instance) "corn" in the old testament; also due to controversies about hohokam and anazasi agriculture. The livestock issue caught my eye because of claims being made at the time about the co-existence of humans and dinosaurs; and by (again) apologetics studies in which it was claimed that "horses and cows" in the New World "proved" that the geological record was false. The problem is not just that no evidence of horse and cattle fossils is found in the new world, but that new world archaeology has also failed to uncover any of the acoutrements that would have accompanied a horse-and-or-cattle culture. The steel issue caught my eye because of the research I had done on arms and armour as an apprentice armourer (swordwright) for the SCA. Originally Posted by Janadele How did you do such research? Old-school dead-tree libraries (Dallas Public/SMU/SBTS/ASU); lectures and talks; gradually, as it became available, teh interwebz... Originally Posted by Janadele You were not living at that time and place in mortality. Nor were you--how do you presume to speak with authority? Originally Posted by Janadele You may well have witnessed as a pre mortal spirit, but then you have no memory of that time. ...a superstitious supposition, no particle of evidence for which has ever been offered. You are, of course, welcome to your superstitions. You do err when you pretend that they apply to me.
	__________________ "Science is a wall against which we crash all of our ideas. The ones that survive are the ones we keep, but they are still subjected to periodic crash tests." -Foster Zygote "And in science the default is that you're wrong. EVERYONE is wrong. You only can be not wrong if you have evidence to back up your claim." -Dinwar "That is not my circus; those are not my monkeys." -Howard Tayler Last edited by Slowvehicle; 29th December 2012 at 11:29 AM.

29th December 2012, 11:41 AM	#363
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 27,256	Originally Posted by Janadele Fawn Brodie is an anti-Mormon and was excommunicated from the LDS Church. IOW anyone who criticizes the church is automatically anti-Mormon so you won't listen to them. Is posting the new form of door to door?
	Last edited by tsig; 29th December 2012 at 11:54 AM. Reason: clarity

29th December 2012, 11:42 AM	#364
Explorer Muse Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 959	Originally Posted by Janadele Your blessed sister will have received her reward for her faithfulness. Rejoice in this knowledge and follow her path Her reward was to be prematurely separated from her five children by a god who seemingly arranged for a motorbike to hit her at high speed when she stepped out into the road. The local LDS church also stuck their noses in afterwards, and encouraged my still grieving brother-in-law to re-marry again hastefully a woman within the church who was totally unsuitable for him. Needless to say, and another child further on, the marriage failed, and misery ensued. I have had many an opportunity to "follow her path", but none of it made any sense to me in the days of my youth. Today, as a mature and critical thinker, I know that JS was a fraud, and not a particularly good one either.
Explorer Muse Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 959

29th December 2012, 11:56 AM	#365
John Jones Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 3,827	Originally Posted by Janadele Fawn Brodie is an anti-Mormon and was excommunicated from the LDS Church. That doesn't make her wrong.
John Jones Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 3,827

29th December 2012, 11:59 AM	#366
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,967	Originally Posted by tsig I find it hard to think that anyone ever called a deer a horse. Here is an illustration from the BOM: That's a funny looking deer.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

29th December 2012, 11:33 AM	#362
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 27,256	Originally Posted by Janadele Personally I have no interest in refuting anything in the Book of Mormon. It is Scripture, as is the Holy Bible, Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine and Covenants. The following link to Fair addresses such issues for those who have concerns, Fair is not an official LDS site. http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms Quote: Horse - there is some evidence, not yet deemed definitive, which suggests that the true horse may have been known in at least some parts of Mesoamerica in pre-Columbian times before Christ. There is also ample precedent for naming different animals with common names, and there are other New World candidates, such as deer and tapirs. I find it hard to think that anyone ever called a deer a horse.

29th December 2012, 12:02 PM	#367
John Jones Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 3,827	I don't know why I stuck with this thread as long as I did. Must be the snow outside. I have experienced 2 things: * The non-Mormons on this thread have done a far better job of educating me about the LDS church far better than the Mormon or Mormons. * The OP is incapable of a substantive discussion of the LDS church.
John Jones Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 3,827

29th December 2012, 12:03 PM	#368
DragonLady Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Under the Starry, Starry Night Posts: 1,967	Originally Posted by Explorer Her reward was to be prematurely separated from her five children by a god who seemingly arranged for a motorbike to hit her at high speed when she stepped out into the road. The local LDS church also stuck their noses in afterwards, and encouraged my still grieving brother-in-law to re-marry again hastefully a woman within the church who was totally unsuitable for him. Needless to say, and another child further on, the marriage failed, and misery ensued. I have had many an opportunity to "follow her path", but none of it made any sense to me in the days of my youth. Today, as a mature and critical thinker, I know that JS was a fraud, and not a particularly good one either. I'm sorry your family went through that.
	__________________ It's NOT denial. I'm just very selective about the reality I accept. -- Calvin (Calvin and Hobbes) The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One

29th December 2012, 12:56 PM	#370
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,967	Originally Posted by Explorer Her reward was to be prematurely separated from her five children by a god who seemingly arranged for a motorbike to hit her at high speed when she stepped out into the road. The local LDS church also stuck their noses in afterwards, and encouraged my still grieving brother-in-law to re-marry again hastefully a woman within the church who was totally unsuitable for him. Needless to say, and another child further on, the marriage failed, and misery ensued. I have had many an opportunity to "follow her path", but none of it made any sense to me in the days of my youth. Today, as a mature and critical thinker, I know that JS was a fraud, and not a particularly good one either. If you focus only on the cheery bits of LDS life there is much good. I have many fond memories of being a Mormon. However, I've seen families torn apart. I myself have lost some friendships and some family members have estranged themselves from my family because we left.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

29th December 2012, 02:18 PM	#371
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 11,258	Originally Posted by John Jones That doesn't make her wrong. Alas, it does for Janadele, I think. This entire sorry thread has consisted of little but the assertion that current Mormon teaching is right and anything that contradicts it is wrong, without anything additional in the way of argument or fact except the assertion that it's right because it's right. It is, of course, a foolproof argument since nothing but faith is required, but it's not getting anywhere.
	__________________ "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.(Samuel Johnson) The gods are less for their love of praise....(Wendell Berry)

29th December 2012, 02:30 PM	#372
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,967	Originally Posted by bruto Alas, it does for Janadele, I think. This entire sorry thread has consisted of little but the assertion that current Mormon teaching is right and anything that contradicts it is wrong, without anything additional in the way of argument or fact except the assertion that it's right because it's right. It is, of course, a foolproof argument since nothing but faith is required, but it's not getting anywhere. And that can be a very good thing. Some time ago I gave up on trying to convince my opponents. My primary goals is to have a discussion. I confess that Jandele makes that difficult but not impossible. Most importantly she demonstrates how bankrupt the theology is. It withers quickly under scrutiny. Folks who cannot substantively respond to criticism are either ignorant of facts or incapable of responding because there are no good answers for something like portions of the facsimile in the Book of Abraham being obviously faked (a portion of the facsimile was missing so Smith just added parts including a human head to a character that actually had the head of a Jackal). You can see the evidence here.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

29th December 2012, 02:34 PM	#373
Ambrosia Good of the Fods Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,738	Originally Posted by Ambrosia This is the idea that while all believers get to heaven, only the ones that got the most points on the exam get to the extra special heaven. Which part of the teachings of the LDS church tell you that? Originally Posted by Janadele http://www.lds.org/media-library/vid...n-of-salvation http://mormon.org/plan-of-happiness So I read the links, and watched the vid and neither answered my question. Can you point to the actual scriptures that teach this, upon which you base this belief. I don't need the hand holding, baby steps stuff. Please cut to the chase. Thankyou.

29th December 2012, 02:43 PM	#374
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,967	Originally Posted by Ambrosia So I read the links, and watched the vid and neither answered my question. Can you point to the actual scriptures that teach this, upon which you base this belief. I don't need the hand holding, baby steps stuff. Please cut to the chase. Thankyou. Not quite sure what you are after but you might try this.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

29th December 2012, 02:49 PM	#375
Janadele Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: East Coast Australia Posts: 1,745	Surprisingly to me, and sadly, it seems there are a number of ex LDS here. Anyone know Bob Britt, originally from New York?
	__________________ All articles reproduced are in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use, for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Choose ye this day whom you will serve. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. Last edited by Janadele; 29th December 2012 at 03:19 PM.

29th December 2012, 02:53 PM	#376
Foster Zygote Dental Floss Tycoon Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge Posts: 14,461	Originally Posted by Janadele They [women] do not need to "Hold offices of power over men". Which implies that men hold offices of power over women. Why should one gender need to be defined as inferior to another? Why can't women earn the same positions of respect as men?
	__________________ It looks just like a Telefunken U47... You'll love it.

29th December 2012, 02:53 PM	#377
DragonLady Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Under the Starry, Starry Night Posts: 1,967	Originally Posted by Janadele Suprisingly to me, and sadly, it seems there are a number of ex LDS here. Anyone know Bob Britt from New York ? ??? Why in the world are you surprised? This is a skeptic's forum. You'll find that most here have been exposed to many religions, and that many of us have gone through the painful and life-changing process of leaving the faith we've been raised with.
	__________________ It's NOT denial. I'm just very selective about the reality I accept. -- Calvin (Calvin and Hobbes) The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One

29th December 2012, 02:53 PM	#378
Slowvehicle Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: ...not where I seemed, nor was calculated to be...but no-one need worry... Posts: 2,365	Originally Posted by Janadele Suprisingly to me, and sadly, it seems there are a number of ex LDS here. Anyone know Bob Britt from New York ? No, I don't. Why--would he answer the questions about barley, cattle, horses and steel?
	__________________ "Science is a wall against which we crash all of our ideas. The ones that survive are the ones we keep, but they are still subjected to periodic crash tests." -Foster Zygote "And in science the default is that you're wrong. EVERYONE is wrong. You only can be not wrong if you have evidence to back up your claim." -Dinwar "That is not my circus; those are not my monkeys." -Howard Tayler

29th December 2012, 02:56 PM	#379
Janadele Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: East Coast Australia Posts: 1,745	It is not I speaking in the Book of Mormon... it is those who compiled the records, and who wrote them while living at that time and place. Voices from the dust. Originally Posted by Slowvehicle Nor were you--how do you presume to speak with authority?
	__________________ All articles reproduced are in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use, for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Choose ye this day whom you will serve. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

29th December 2012, 03:01 PM	#380
DragonLady Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Under the Starry, Starry Night Posts: 1,967	Quote: It is not I speaking in the Book of Mormon... it is those who compiled the records, and who wrote them while living at that time and place. No. That doesn't work, and you know it. They were not capable of writing the BofM, and you know it. Joseph Smith did not "translate". He invented. I'm sorry; but that is the truth.
	__________________ It's NOT denial. I'm just very selective about the reality I accept. -- Calvin (Calvin and Hobbes) The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One

29th December 2012, 03:04 PM	#381
Janadele Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: East Coast Australia Posts: 1,745	Women do not need to hold the Priesthood to be held in respect... the Priesthood serve the woman. Regardless anyway, it is a non negotiable point. The Lord God, creator of our earth, and our Heavenly Father does not need the advice of mere mortals, and non believing ones at that, as to how He should organise His Church. Originally Posted by Foster Zygote Which implies that men hold offices of power over women. Why should one gender need to be defined as inferior to another? Why can't women earn the same positions of respect as men?
	__________________ All articles reproduced are in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use, for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Choose ye this day whom you will serve. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

29th December 2012, 03:08 PM	#382
Slowvehicle Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: ...not where I seemed, nor was calculated to be...but no-one need worry... Posts: 2,365	Originally Posted by Janadele It is not I speaking in the Book of Mormon... it is those who compiled the records, and who wrote them while living at that time and place. Voices from the dust. ...and yet you were not "living in that time and place in mortality"...you are making third- and fourth-hand hearsay claims. Your very claim that the record were "compiled" by "those living at the time" is hearsay. What about the anachronisms? If "those living at the time" were there, they certainly managed to get a lot of details wrong. Is it as simple as claiming that your 'god' hid the evidence of barley cultivation, of metalsmithing technology, of the existence of domestic animals, just to see whether evidence would mislead any who do not toe the line?
	__________________ "Science is a wall against which we crash all of our ideas. The ones that survive are the ones we keep, but they are still subjected to periodic crash tests." -Foster Zygote "And in science the default is that you're wrong. EVERYONE is wrong. You only can be not wrong if you have evidence to back up your claim." -Dinwar "That is not my circus; those are not my monkeys." -Howard Tayler

29th December 2012, 03:08 PM	#383
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,967	Originally Posted by Janadele It is not I speaking in the Book of Mormon... it is those who compiled the records, and who wrote them while living at that time and place. Voices from the dust. The BofM details great nations fighting great battles. There is no archeological evidence for the claims made. I grew up being told that native Americans were the decendants of Hebrews. Turns out that god forgot to tell Joseph Smith that native Americans are NOT Hebrew.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

29th December 2012, 03:13 PM	#384
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,967	Originally Posted by Janadele Women do not need to hold the Priesthood to be held in respect... the Priesthood serve the woman. Regardless anyway, it is a non negotiable point. The Lord God, creator of our earth, and our Heavenly Father does not need the advice of mere mortals , and non believing ones at that, as to how He should organise His Church. True but it sure makes your deity out to be misogynist. I'm sure that if god wants to commit genocide the way he did in the Bible then that is his right but it makes him a monster. If god wants to condone slavery then he can do that but that also makes him a monster. If you are correct and your god exists I would not worship him because he is immoral. Morality isn't something god can just declare by fiat. God might like drowning puppies in his spare time but just because he is god doesn't make it moral. FWIW: There probably is no god, Mormon or otherwise. So relax and be a good person for the sake of goodness.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

29th December 2012, 03:15 PM	#385
Janadele Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: East Coast Australia Posts: 1,745	I was once an Anglican, and an active one at that, but never would I consider publicly criticising and misrepresenting the beliefs, doctrine, structure or organisation of that denomination. It is the ultimate betrayal. Originally Posted by DragonLady ??? Why in the world are you surprised? This is a skeptic's forum. You'll find that most here have been exposed to many religions, and that many of us have gone through the painful and life-changing process of leaving the faith we've been raised with.
	__________________ All articles reproduced are in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use, for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Choose ye this day whom you will serve. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

29th December 2012, 03:19 PM	#386
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,967	Originally Posted by Janadele I was once an Anglican, and an active one at that, but never would I consider publicly criticising and misrepresenting the beliefs, doctrine, structure or organisation of that denomination. It is the ultimate betrayal. I have been polite to you. I have not misrepresented anything and I resent your accusation. My only loyalty is to the truth.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

29th December 2012, 03:31 PM	#387
DragonLady Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Under the Starry, Starry Night Posts: 1,967	Quote: I was once an Anglican, and an active one at that, but never would I consider publicly criticising and misrepresenting the beliefs, doctrine, structure or organisation of that denomination. It is the ultimate betrayal. Now God is so small that he can't counter my puny criticisms? If the facts of the Book of Mormon, Bible or any other holy writ were plainly verifiable by anyone who wanted to check, do you think it would really be possible for me to misrepresent it? Ultimate betrayal? There you really lost me. How can any mere created mortal betray an all-powerful God? According to my upbringing, God didn't need me; rather it was the other way around. Supposedly my long-dead ancestors fell from grace and plunged the whole world into sin. I needed God's mercy to restore my own soul to a satisfactory condition to avoid everlasting punishment.
	__________________ It's NOT denial. I'm just very selective about the reality I accept. -- Calvin (Calvin and Hobbes) The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One

29th December 2012, 03:37 PM	#388
Janadele Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: East Coast Australia Posts: 1,745	Please expain. Originally Posted by Nay_Sayer do the LDS get the magic underwear too?
	__________________ All articles reproduced are in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use, for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Choose ye this day whom you will serve. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

29th December 2012, 03:43 PM	#389
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,967	Originally Posted by Janadele Please expain. Because so many members claim supernatural protection from Mormon garments that many people pejoratively refer to them as "magic underwear". Originally Posted by 60 Minutes Mike Wallace: Do you wear the sacred undergarments? Willard Marriott: Yes, I do. And I can tell you they do protect you from harm. Mike Wallace: Really? Willard Marriott: Uh-huh. I was in a very serious boat accident. Fire--boat was on fire, I was on fire. I was burned. My pants were burned right off of me. I was not burned above my knee. Where the garment was, I was not burned. Mike Wallace: And you believe it was the sacred undergarments. Willard Marriott: I do. Particularly on my legs, because my pants were gone, but my undergarments were not singed. ("60 Minutes" program on the LDS Church. Aired on CBS TV, April 7, 1996)
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

29th December 2012, 03:58 PM	#390
Richard Masters Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 3,030	Originally Posted by Janadele Often the answer to what is sought, is not what the seeker wants to hear nor is willing to accept. Quoting clichés doesn't make you sound as profound as you think. You would be a lot more persuasive if you didn't sound like Yoda.

29th December 2012, 04:01 PM	#391
Richard Masters Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 3,030	Originally Posted by Agatha ... What we are asking is your position on these errors, such as the mention of a compass 1800 years before the compass was invented, or cows and horses being in the Americas 2000 years before they were actually brought there. There's a list of quotes from the Book of Mormon in this post. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...93#post8876193 ... Agatha, the compass has been around for at least 1000 years.

29th December 2012, 04:04 PM	#392
DragonLady Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Under the Starry, Starry Night Posts: 1,967	Originally Posted by Richard Masters Agatha, the compass has been around for at least 1000 years. Here in the Americas? This is where the events of the Book of Mormon supposedly took place.
	__________________ It's NOT denial. I'm just very selective about the reality I accept. -- Calvin (Calvin and Hobbes) The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One

29th December 2012, 04:06 PM	#393
Janadele Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: East Coast Australia Posts: 1,745	It was not a quote. Originally Posted by Richard Masters Quoting clichés doesn't make you sound as profound as you think. You would be a lot more persuasive if you didn't sound like Yoda.
	__________________ All articles reproduced are in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use, for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Choose ye this day whom you will serve. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

29th December 2012, 04:08 PM	#394
kerikiwi Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Bay of Islands NZ Posts: 5,867	Originally Posted by Janadele I was once an Anglican, and an active one at that, but never would I consider publicly criticising and misrepresenting the beliefs, doctrine, structure or organisation of that denomination. It is the ultimate betrayal. Can you give an example of a Mormon belief or doctrine or structure or organisation which has been misrepresented?

29th December 2012, 04:09 PM	#395
Richard Masters Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 3,030	Originally Posted by DragonLady Here in the Americas? This is where the events of the Book of Mormon supposedly took place. Probably not in America, but that is not the statement I was refuting.

29th December 2012, 04:13 PM	#396
Janadele Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: East Coast Australia Posts: 1,745	you have to be joking... Originally Posted by kerikiwi Can you give an example of a Mormon belief or doctrine or structure or organisation which has been misrepresented?
	__________________ All articles reproduced are in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use, for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Choose ye this day whom you will serve. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.