Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, I bet it took you all of 30 seconds to make that one up. Okay, I'll get to it, but first I've got to get back to Transponder, so please don't accuse me of avoiding your request like the plague.
Yeah, I bet it took you all of 30 seconds to make that one up. Okay, I'll get to it, but first I've got to get back to Transponder, so please don't accuse me of avoiding your request like the plague.
Actually, no, I spent a lot of time on it. I wanted to make sure it was factual, which it is. So please, don't be so dismissive, and yes, I will and can wait for a response.
That's possible. I believe it is so in your case. I have set out my stall as it were and let others look at what i set out or not. The videos i posted in fact make a better case than I did.
Videos are a cop-out, plain and simple. I could probably have addressed pretty close to all of your criticisms by now had I just resorted to posting link after link to one apologetics page after another. But that would be a cop-out, too. And I don't do cop-outs.
Quote:
There's no point in pretending that I want a discussion where points are ignored (Book of Abraham) dismissed (not interested in the archaeology), dropped when the objections don't stand up (Aztec and maya pictograms being nothing like hebrew) and finding unacceptable that i question that Genetic drift can explain where no trace of hebrew DNA is found.
I never said I wasn't interested in Archaeology, or in Egyptology either, for that matter. But everybody has his own strengths and his own weaknesses, and the Book of Abraham is not a topic I'm as familiar with as some of the other issues that have been raised. Obviously, I'm going to want to address those first.
This "objection" is positively ludicrous, Transponder, for reasons I'll discuss in greater detail when I reply tomorrow. But for starters, there is absolutely no reason in the world why Aztec and Mayan pictograms are anything like Hebrew. You really proved how little you know about this particular subject with that one single statement. By the time I get through explaining, you're going to wish you'd never made such an inane statement.
You may question genetic drift but you haven't been able to tell me why, and I've asked several times. If the experiment I suggested you try is somehow beneath your intelligence level, then why not address the actual results of the deCODE project undertaken in Iceland? It demonstates the same principle exactly, and no, my Church had nothing to do with it. There are, of course, other things besides genetic drift that we could talk about, but I'm not going to put any more work into presenting my side of the argument until you can tell me exactly how the information I've presented so far is flawed. Saying, "Nuh uh" over and over again doesn't qualify as an answer.
Quote:
I see a mention was made above of a comparison of LDS with Scientology. There is of course the way that God, Jesus, Satan and all their race seem to be aliens interfering with earth - rather like Hubbard's Thetans.
So God, Jesus and Satan are now "aliens"? Try telling that to mainstream Christians. I think they'll find it as laughable as I do.
Actually, no, I spent a lot of time on it. I wanted to make sure it was factual, which it is. So please, don't be so dismissive, and yes, I will and can wait for a response.
My apologies. I thought it was just a copy and paste, but if it was your own work, I at least appreciate your making an effort (unlike Transponder and his penchant for posting videos). At any rate, it's definitely NOT factual, at least not with respect to Mormonism. I can't and won't speak to Scientology because I have no first-hand knowledge of the religion. It's unfortunate that there's not a Scientologist on the forum to either corroborate or invalidate your statements.
Videos are a cop-out, plain and simple. I could probably have addressed pretty close to all of your criticisms by now had I just resorted to posting link after link to one apologetics page after another. But that would be a cop-out, too. And I don't do cop-outs.
I never said I wasn't interested in Archaeology, or in Egyptology either, for that matter. But everybody has his own strengths and his own weaknesses, and the Book of Abraham is not a topic I'm as familiar with as some of the other issues that have been raised. Obviously, I'm going to want to address those first.
This "objection" is positively ludicrous, Transponder, for reasons I'll discuss in greater detail when I reply tomorrow. But for starters, there is absolutely no reason in the world why Aztec and Mayan pictograms are anything like Hebrew. You really proved how little you know about this particular subject with that one single statement. By the time I get through explaining, you're going to wish you'd never made such an inane statement.
You may question genetic drift but you haven't been able to tell me why, and I've asked several times. If the experiment I suggested you try is somehow beneath your intelligence level, then why not address the actual results of the deCODE project undertaken in Iceland? It demonstates the same principle exactly, and no, my Church had nothing to do with it. There are, of course, other things besides genetic drift that we could talk about, but I'm not going to put any more work into presenting my side of the argument until you can tell me exactly how the information I've presented so far is flawed. Saying, "Nuh uh" over and over again doesn't qualify as an answer.
So God, Jesus and Satan are now "aliens"? Try telling that to mainstream Christians. I think they'll find it as laughable as I do.
I like videos. They are like posters - they make their case. Normally I'd state some points they were making, but here, I'd made them pretty much. The videos were really showing that the Mormon apologetics in the videos I'd watched (since you just said that 'Genetic drift' explained the lack of Hebrew DNA and stuck to the claim) came up with various explanations from a tiny drop in the NAm. DNA ocean to 'the argument has been faked up by skeptics cherry - picking science papers. The 'drop in the ocean' argument doesn't work even if the argument that the Hebrews arrives and found America full of native Americans already (which is NOT the message we get from Smith) is accepted. By now Hebrew DNA should have been found.
Indeed there was a video that claimed , effectively the Hebrew DNA HAD been found - 5 haploid markers found also in Jews. You have seen my doubts about this.
I looked back at our earlier exchanges. You said you'd get back to me on the Abraham papyrus. I don't recall that you did.
I also recall that you said that you didn't like the archaeological discussion so much but broadly accepted the results (stone implements and silver jewellery in NA burial mounds that surely put the idea (and as one video pointed out already suggested in Smith's time) that the lost tribes had come to America. No wheels, iron or horses. Nor even anything that could pass for the,
Your post#16
(my post) Obviously science and archaeology will attract me more as evidence.
And they attract me least, for the simple reason that there is so much left to be discovered.
So already the points have been made and either apparently accepted or disputed. I looked up the info on DNA but it does get quite complicated. So the simple counter to the counter that X and Y chromosomes get passed down and can be found and a markers in broad area of populations and can be used to give good indications of areas of origin was the one I used. Genetic drift doesn't alter that and the videos refuted the claim (not yours) that the DNA argument was faked up by quotemining unbelievers. The video did seem to show that this was accepted science and the absorbsion, smaller sample central america only) and other peoples already there did not explain away to evidently accepted lack of Hebrew DNA. The videos simply backed up my claim on this.
I also mentioned this one claim of Hebrew markers being found, but nobody else seems to know about it.
I shall be interested to see what you can do on the Aztec and Maya languages as well as Quechua. Not to mention the Olmecs that were there before this supposed Hebrew migration. Unless you simply say that they were either nothing to do with the Lamanites or it was totally forgetting Hebrew and the alphabetic script and 'starting again' I don't know how you are going to make me wish I'd never raised the matter. There are very good linguistic reasons why a people who spoke and wrote Hebrew (it is all before the time they took up Aramaic, i believe) would not continue with a language or languages that was at least relatable to Hebrew, or why a written alphabetic script (from canaanite derived from Phoenecian) would vanish to be replaced by a pictographic script.
As in DNA, there are linguistic rules which is why language origins and relationships can be traced.
Here's a 'Wow i bet that took you all of two minutes' immediate response.
"Q: Are Amerindian languages descended from Hebrew, Ancient Egyptian, Scandinavian or Celtic languages?
A: No. The people who claim this are trying to prove that American Indians arrived in the Americas very recently (see Could Native Americans be recent immigrants? and Are Native Americans a lost tribe of Israel?) I have seen many websites claiming to "prove" that Amerindian languages are descended from Semitic or Germanic languages. 90% of these websites are deliberately lying, making up nonexistant "Algonquian" words that resemble words from Semitic languages"
Now I could argue all the way through the Joseph Smith story, from the early treasure -seeking with seeing stones through the dictating of the book of Mormon and the early church. The issue of Smith's wives can't be ignored either. But Hitchens does it much better than I could, and the result would be the same - you would contest what I posted and you wave Hitchens away on the grounds of being impolite.
Now if you aren't too interested in discussing the archaeology because really, what is there to say, other than 'more is to be discovered'. This is a religious cop out when there is no evidence for the religion and all the evidence is against. Effectively 'Believe it without cause until totally disproved'.
Well, I'd say BoM is disproved.
I'm not interested in arguing about 'spirit' in Mormon or Christian terms, because Jesus at the resurrection is the original body that can also walk through solid doors, so the ambiguity of the idea of 'spirit' in Christian terms is there, and it's for Mormons to argue with Christians, not me.
Nor do I really want to argue about whether Mormonism is like Scientology or more like JW or a cult or not. Or whether the stories of God -family are more like a race of aliens than God and Jesus with a lot of angels (some fallen). It's interesting to follow such a discussion and is the Topic. Here, I fear that we will get one claim (God and his wife had sons and Satan and Jesus were two of them) and a denial of that. Who is right?
Cop -out or not, I'd say that posting videos by ex - Mormons who can say what they were taught and what they found out that made them leave would a way of progressing the argument. It could also be done by cutting an pasting - which others have said is also a cop -out.
But it seems to be that arguing about "Spirit" or just what God and Jesus is, is a mere detail. Like the Bible, the Book of Mormon is the basis of the religion. If that is shown not to be true, then the religion collapses. Maybe the thread was intended to be a dedicated "Ask me about LDS" thread. But from where I was coming from , it came out of a side argument on Mormonism on another thread, and was surely going to be about whether it was true or not.
Oh a Ps. I mentioned the system of currency (Limnah and so on) When I first read it I worked this out and it is ridiculous and unworkable. I still have the working somewhere and I'll get back on this. I'll say again as i have said before, that J. Smith made no mistakes or contradictions that i could see other than changing the names of two of the persons (they come in the Acts' -like later part of the book..
yes it's in Alma 11. 5-19 where you have three currency items of gold, and three of silver and they have a system of each currency unit half of the another. I worked it out and it looked unworkable.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-05-2018 at 05:16 AM..
I like videos. They are like posters - they make their case. Normally I'd state some points they were making, but here, I'd made them pretty much. The videos were really showing that the Mormon apologetics in the videos I'd watched (since you just said that 'Genetic drift' explained the lack of Hebrew DNA and stuck to the claim) came up with various explanations from a tiny drop in the NAm. DNA ocean to 'the argument has been faked up by skeptics cherry - picking science papers. The 'drop in the ocean' argument doesn't work even if the argument that the Hebrews arrives and found America full of native Americans already (which is NOT the message we get from Smith) is accepted. By now Hebrew DNA should have been found.
I too like videos, but find that in discussions in forum like this, ideally they be short rather than long. The one you posted on Hitchens' comments is at the upper end of short, but as he is so succinct, it's worth i. I like Hitchens, and although he is cutting in his remarks, and knowingly so, I have yet to find him to be factually incorrect when stating an issue. Opinionated? You bet, and in spades.
Quote:
Now I could argue all the way through the Joseph Smith story, from the early treasure -seeking with seeing stones through the dictating of the book of Mormon and the early church. The issue of Smith's wives can't be ignored either. But Hitchens does it much better than I could, and the result would be the same - you would contest what I posted and you wave Hitchens away on the grounds of being impolite.
The issue with Smith, Ellen White, Paul of Tarsus, Mohammed and to some extent, Hubbard, is that they all suggest THEY had revelations from a mystical, unseen except only to them source, and were convincing sale people of that story. Adherents to those beliefs will go through all sorts of machinations to 'prove' that those revelations were the only and final "truth".
I just ran across an interesting story yesterday that ties into this phenomena.
I'd be curious to hear what you think of the Egyptian book of the dead debacle where Joseph Smith supposedly translated a papyrus into the Book of Abraham and it was actually found to be the Egyptian book of the Dead that he "translated".
Transponder, I'm going to respond to this one last post of yours. Then, I hope by later today, but I'm not making any promises, I am going to post one last post. Normstad is in line ahead of you now, and I need to get back to him. I would have liked very much to see this thread stick to the OP. Had it done so, I would have been able to clear up dozens of misunderstandings concerning LDS doctrine. That topic alone is huge, and it's something I know a lot about. I know LDS doctrine inside and out and I've heard all of the bizarre claims a million times. I am well-prepared to address those issues and don't have to do any research at all in order to provide people with clear and comprehensive answers. When it comes to archaeology, DNA studies, random points concerning Joseph Smith and various insignificant events in Church history, I have to do a bit of research, just to make sure that the specific facts I provide are actually accurate. This takes time. There's only one of me. As often as I keep reminding people of that, nobody seems to give a damn. They just keep throwing stuff my way and demanding that I provide answers to their questions as quickly as they can ask them. It's absurd to expect this of one person. I'm sure that once I've posted my last post, you'll be right there to claim victory and accuse me of running off with my tail between my legs. I won't even respond to that as I know it's simply not true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
I like videos. They are like posters - they make their case. Normally I'd state some points they were making, but here, I'd made them pretty much.
They make their points, but they often leave out some very important information. They don't even pretend to be the slightest bit objective. They are great for people for whom confirmation bias is in high gear.
Quote:
The 'drop in the ocean' argument doesn't work even if the argument that the Hebrews arrives and found America full of native Americans already (which is NOT the message we get from Smith) is accepted. By now Hebrew DNA should have been found.
The Book of Mormon never makes any claims of that sort. Rather, there are several indicators in it to the contrary. Joseph Smith may have believed that Lehi and his small group of family and friends came to an empty land. If he did, that was merely his opinion and it was probably in line with the opinion of most of his contemporaries. He never implied that this is something that had been revealed to him by God. Today, virtually all LDS scholars agree that there were already numerous people here when Lehi arrived, and as I said before, hints in The Book of Mormon that this was the case bear this out.
Quote:
Indeed there was a video that claimed , effectively the Hebrew DNA HAD been found - 5 haploid markers found also in Jews. You have seen my doubts about this.
Yes, I've seen your doubts and they don't surprise me. You doubt anything that might cause you to rethink your position and conclude that maybe you're wrong.
Quote:
I looked back at our earlier exchanges. You said you'd get back to me on the Abraham papyrus. I don't recall that you did.
I don't recall that I did either. Sorry, but like everyone else, I need to eat, sleep, do a bit of laundry and keep up on my bills. I've gotten to the issues I don't have to research first, and I've done a darned good job of it. Sorry I can't be all things to all people.
Quote:
I also recall that you said that you didn't like the archaeological discussion so much but broadly accepted the results (stone implements and silver jewellery in NA burial mounds that surely put the idea (and as one video pointed out already suggested in Smith's time) that the lost tribes had come to America. No wheels, iron or horses. Nor even anything that could pass for the,
Your post#16
(my post) Obviously science and archaeology will attract me more as evidence.
And they attract me least, for the simple reason that there is so much left to be discovered.
And my last post, the one I've not yet written, will explain why most of what you're asking for is simply unrealistic.
Quote:
So already the points have been made and either apparently accepted or disputed. I looked up the info on DNA but it does get quite complicated. So the simple counter to the counter that X and Y chromosomes get passed down and can be found and a markers in broad area of populations and can be used to give good indications of areas of origin was the one I used. Genetic drift doesn't alter that and the videos refuted the claim (not yours) that the DNA argument was faked up by quotemining unbelievers. The video did seem to show that this was accepted science and the absorbsion, smaller sample central america only) and other peoples already there did not explain away to evidently accepted lack of Hebrew DNA. The videos simply backed up my claim on this.
DNA studies are incredibly complicated. I'm glad to hear to finally admit to that. They are not anywhere near as simple and straightforward as most people would like to believe. We probably can't even begin to conceive of how much more they'll be able to tell us 25 or 30 years from now than they can today.
Quote:
I shall be interested to see what you can do on the Aztec and Maya languages as well as Quechua. Not to mention the Olmecs that were there before this supposed Hebrew migration. Unless you simply say that they were either nothing to do with the Lamanites or it was totally forgetting Hebrew and the alphabetic script and 'starting again' I don't know how you are going to make me wish I'd never raised the matter. There are very good linguistic reasons why a people who spoke and wrote Hebrew (it is all before the time they took up Aramaic, i believe) would not continue with a language or languages that was at least relatable to Hebrew, or why a written alphabetic script (from canaanite derived from Phoenecian) would vanish to be replaced by a pictographic script.
As in DNA, there are linguistic rules which is why language origins and relationships can be traced.
Here's a 'Wow i bet that took you all of two minutes' immediate response.
"Q: Are Amerindian languages descended from Hebrew, Ancient Egyptian, Scandinavian or Celtic languages?
A: No. The people who claim this are trying to prove that American Indians arrived in the Americas very recently (see Could Native Americans be recent immigrants? and Are Native Americans a lost tribe of Israel?) I have seen many websites claiming to "prove" that Amerindian languages are descended from Semitic or Germanic languages. 90% of these websites are deliberately lying, making up nonexistant "Algonquian" words that resemble words from Semitic languages"
Mormonism absolutely, positively does not and never has claimed that the Native Americans are a lost tribe of Israel. This would be the case even if ever last one of them had Hebrew blood flowing through their veins. A couple of dozen people from three nuclear families does not constitute a "lost tribe" and this is not what the LDS people believe.
Quote:
Now I could argue all the way through the Joseph Smith story, from the early treasure -seeking with seeing stones through the dictating of the book of Mormon and the early church. The issue of Smith's wives can't be ignored either. But Hitchens does it much better than I could, and the result would be the same - you would contest what I posted and you wave Hitchens away on the grounds of being impolite.
Sure you could, but that would be way off topic and I don't have time to discuss every simple Mormon-related issue you might care to bring up.
Quote:
Now if you aren't too interested in discussing the archaeology because really, what is there to say, other than 'more is to be discovered'. This is a religious cop out when there is no evidence for the religion and all the evidence is against. Effectively 'Believe it without cause until totally disproved'. Well, I'd say BoM is disproved.
Of course you would, but that doesn't make it so. You haven't disproved anything. All you've done is raise objections and post videos by people with simple answers to complex questions. Pat yourself on the back to your heart's content, but I've done a better job here than you have.
Quote:
I'm not interested in arguing about 'spirit' in Mormon or Christian terms, because Jesus at the resurrection is the original body that can also walk through solid doors, so the ambiguity of the idea of 'spirit' in Christian terms is there, and it's for Mormons to argue with Christians, not me.
Thank you. I can't tell you what a relief that is.
Quote:
Nor do I really want to argue about whether Mormonism is like Scientology or more like JW or a cult or not. Or whether the stories of God -family are more like a race of aliens than God and Jesus with a lot of angels (some fallen). It's interesting to follow such a discussion and is the Topic. Here, I fear that we will get one claim (God and his wife had sons and Satan and Jesus were two of them) and a denial of that. Who is right?
Ah, I see. You don't want to actually discuss the topic of the OP at all then! You don't want to discuss your claim that Mormons believe in a race of aliens. You don't want to get your facts straight about what we actually believe concerning Jesus' and Satan's relationship, even though I already answered that particular question in some depth. You'd rather just believe what you'v always believed about us, rather than take advantage of a good opportunity to actually educate yourself as to what we actually do believe.
Quote:
Cop -out or not, I'd say that posting videos by ex - Mormons who can say what they were taught and what they found out that made them leave would a way of progressing the argument. It could also be done by cutting an pasting - which others have said is also a cop -out.
And it is. It's lazy and cowardly.
Quote:
But it seems to be that arguing about "Spirit" or just what God and Jesus is, is a mere detail. Like the Bible, the Book of Mormon is the basis of the religion. If that is shown not to be true, then the religion collapses. Maybe the thread was intended to be a dedicated "Ask me about LDS" thread. But from where I was coming from , it came out of a side argument on Mormonism on another thread, and was surely going to be about whether it was true or not.
Who God and Jesus are may be a "mere detail" to you. They aren't to me or to anyone else in my religion. I have no interest in arguing who they are, but when people post misinformation about who and what we believe them to be, I'm going to correct them. I'm sorry if you don't like that and that I didn't start a thread about something you'd rather be discussing. It is what it is, Transponder.
Quote:
Oh a Ps. I mentioned the system of currency (Limnah and so on) When I first read it I worked this out and it is ridiculous and unworkable. I still have the working somewhere and I'll get back on this. I'll say again as i have said before, that J. Smith made no mistakes or contradictions that i could see other than changing the names of two of the persons (they come in the Acts' -like later part of the book..
yes it's in Alma 11. 5-19 where you have three currency items of gold, and three of silver and they have a system of each currency unit half of the another. I worked it out and it looked unworkable.
That's nice. Once again, you assume you've got all the facts when you don't. And at this point, I'm going to permit myself one and only one "cop-out." Here's a link for you: Money and the Book of Mormon. Read it and then come back and blow me off. Just don't expect me to discuss it further. I'm done playing "My expert is smarter than your expert."
I too like videos, but find that in discussions in forum like this, ideally they be short rather than long. The one you posted on Hitchens' comments is at the upper end of short, but as he is so succinct, it's worth i. I like Hitchens, and although he is cutting in his remarks, and knowingly so, I have yet to find him to be factually incorrect when stating an issue. Opinionated? You bet, and in spades.
The issue with Smith, Ellen White, Paul of Tarsus, Mohammed and to some extent, Hubbard, is that they all suggest THEY had revelations from a mystical, unseen except only to them source, and were convincing sale people of that story. Adherents to those beliefs will go through all sorts of machinations to 'prove' that those revelations were the only and final "truth".
I just ran across an interesting story yesterday that ties into this phenomena.
Quite right and a Long video really had to be worth the effort. They realy get the point over - hopefully, however. And it's good to have some people qualified in a discipline to give their views, too.
...................
That's nice. Once again, you assume you've got all the facts when you don't. And at this point, I'm going to permit myself one and only one "cop-out." Here's a link for you: Money and the Book of Mormon. Read it and then come back and blow me off. Just don't expect me to discuss it further. I'm done playing "My expert is smarter than your expert."
I've read your link.
My answer is that Occam's Razor applies. The simplest answer is the right one, rather than the convoluted attempt at explaining away coins. Any rational person reading the first part of Alma 11 would interpret the descriptions of the values listed as being money, and in that time, coins. In fact, for over a century, until 2013, the title of the chapter included the word "coin", but then the LDS church determined that the title was not a "revealed text". Talk about editing!
The biggest general question is why the BOM is written in Jacobean English. That certainly did not exist at the purported time that the golden plates were deposited, nor was it in common usage in the USA at the time Smith wrote them. In many cases, passages in the BOM are direct plagiarisms, the most blatant being those from Isaiah. I can give many, many examples if citations are needed. The language of the BOM is exactly that of the KJV of the bible.
Coincidence?
I think not. Nor do any academic historians and theologians not associated with a religion.
As such, what does the LDS church teach to explain away these realities?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
