Which LDS Truth Claims are Falsifiable?

[selek]

Post #99 is a text book example of religious dogmatism in action. The poster commits the self-same sin of which he accuses other faiths. There are very real problems with his basic assertions, but his entire faith is predicated on them- so he willfully ignores any challenge to them. Unable to defend his assertions, the dogmatist stomps his feet and resorts to stubborn repetition to bolster a point unsupported by reason or fact. Urtnowski's offering is little better- he at least acknowledges that there are other points of view. His main sin is that he dismisses arguments which don't support his view with an airy wave of his hand instead of addressing them on thier merits. As my math teacher used to say, 'Show your work' Dan- even if you have the right answer on paper, it doesn't prove you know what you're talking about unless you show us how you got there. Both DrW and Urtnowski are guilty of the same type of sloppy and 'irrational' thinking they accuse the religionist of committing.

[sleepyhead]

Hello,

I know a falsifiable claim. It says in the bible that when Isaac planted his crops they increased 100 fold. Edgar Cayce had what we would call a green thumb. Have the present leader, his counselors, the entire gang, plant a garden under controlled conditions. Let them pray over there garden all they want to. Place a controlled limit on how much fertilizer they can use. If these people are men of God they should have a nice garden.

[selek]

Dan U and DrW- it avails the atheist nothing to point out that the religionist is wrong if his own premises are equally flawed. The premise "2+2=5" is no better than the premise "2+2=3". Thus far, you've yet to demonstrate your positions are any more sound or more reasoned than our own. Please correct this deficiency.

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]But, isn't it entirely possible that this voyage took place just as at least one person suggested, that is by way of miracle? [...]

I think another position is possibly being overlooked in all of this.

Much like the Bible, perhaps a lot of mythologizing, symbolic imagery, stories meant to gain political clout, etc., etc., etc., found their way into the Book of Mormon text. Given that the story already contains numeric symbolism, what guarantee do we have from the text, author, or translator that this particular story occurred exactly how it is presented, and was in no way embellished, transmuted, altered, etc. throughout the generations prior to its final transmission?

[AndyOne]

I think another position is possibly being overlooked in all of this.

Much like the Bible, perhaps a lot of mythologizing, symbolic imagery, stories meant to gain political clout, etc., etc., etc., found their way into the Book of Mormon text. Given that the story already contains numeric symbolism, what guarantee do we have from the text, author, or translator that this particular story occurred exactly how it is presented, and was in no way embellished, transmuted, altered, etc. throughout the generations prior to its final transmission?

This has been my consistent view on how we MUST view the BoM.

[DrW]

To claim both the natural and supernatural in my belief system is not "magical thinking" or "doublethink" in as much as one cannot coexist with the other. To the contrary, in my view, it is absolutely necessary to claim both when discussing a lot of the historical events alleged in the Bible or the BoM, and when discussing virtually anything having to do with our existence and origins. In other words, in my humble opinion, at some point in every scientific discussion, you simply have to give it up for God.

I never denied the fact that miracles are not falsifiable, and I'm happy to leave it at that. However, my beliefs (read: superstitions) are no more "unfounded" than your disbeliefs. Again, although I found your first post to be very informative and compelling, I cannot leave out the possibility of miracles.

Respectfully,

Balzer

Balzer,

Thanks for a straightforward response. I appreciate your response.

The claim that your beliefs and my disbeliefs are equally unfounded is interesting. I don't agree at this point, but it is something to think about. I will try to come back with a better response than "I don't agree.".

[mfbukowski]

Post #99 is a text book example of religious dogmatism in action. The poster commits the self-same sin of which he accuses other faiths. There are very real problems with his basic assertions, but his entire faith is predicated on them- so he willfully ignores any challenge to them. Unable to defend his assertions, the dogmatist stomps his feet and resorts to stubborn repetition to bolster a point unsupported by reason or fact. Urtnowski's offering is little better- he at least acknowledges that there are other points of view. His main sin is that he dismisses arguments which don't support his view with an airy wave of his hand instead of addressing them on thier merits. As my math teacher used to say, 'Show your work' Dan- even if you have the right answer on paper, it doesn't prove you know what you're talking about unless you show us how you got there. Both DrW and Urtnowski are guilty of the same type of sloppy and 'irrational' thinking they accuse the religionist of committing.

Exactly right on the money. But they don't and won't see it. There is no understanding either of the philosophy of science and what its limitations are epistemologically. But who has time to spend preaching the history of philosophy to those who will not listen anyway?

[mfbukowski]

Not to mention the Polynesians crossing the Pacific repeatedly- and ending up where they wanted to go- using dead reckoning and -- canoes. In fact, one of King Kamehameha's achievements was expelling the Maoris of New Zealand from the island of Oahu. They had occupied it for years and had no trouble whatsoever shuttleing personnel and supplies as need from New Zealand for years. In fact Kamehameha had to use canons he got from the Europeans to get enough fire power to actually do it- that is how well the Maoris were entrenched.

I am withdrawing this post. After I posted, I realized that I got some facts wrong, and after researching them, I see that I was wrong

[DrW]

Dan U and DrW- it avails the atheist nothing to point out that the religionist is wrong if his own premises are equally flawed. The premise "2+2=5" is no better than the premise "2+2=3". Thus far, you've yet to demonstrate your positions are any more sound or more reasoned than our own. Please correct this deficiency.

selek,

The first thing I would say to you is that "facts matter."

If you think that belief in the supernatural and miracles, for which there is no objective, physical, reproducible (factual) evidence, is defensible with reason, logic, or science, then you really have no business in a discussion on falsifiability.

Don't claim that the religionistâ??s position is based on reason or logic. It is not. By definition, the religionistâ??s worldview is base on faith. And faith is belief without evidence or "unfounded belief".

In the case of some here, apparently including yourself, we have a worldview that goes beyond "unfounded belief" to "belief maintained in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary" (a definition of magical thinking).

[Free(?)Thinker]

Dan U and DrW- it avails the atheist nothing to point out that the religionist is wrong if his own premises are equally flawed. The premise "2+2=5" is no better than the premise "2+2=3". Thus far, you've yet to demonstrate your positions are any more sound or more reasoned than our own. Please correct this deficiency.

I think you may have an excellent point here that I (and I am sure others) would be interested in having you flesh out; however, it seems that such a topic merits another thread, rather than being discussed here. This thread should stick to the OP, which deals with falsifiable claims within LDS theology.

--------------

Now, in reference to all the other posts which have been made invoking miracles, divine intervention and such...I think all involved in this discussion understand that God can always be invoked to explain some phenomenon...but such responses don't fit within the OP's parameters, which invokes a challenge of sorts to naturalistic methodologies/explanations.

Responses in line with the OP would address naturalistic critiques of LDS Theology with rigorous philosophical or naturalistic ripostes; if no sufficient reply can be made (and I doubt that should be the case), then I think it is fair to say that the challenger has met his/her burden to provide a *possible* falsifiable candidate.

Looking at the evidence, I think that DrW should be congratulated for bringing up some good points. I only wish I was schooled in this area enough to provide a critique of his ideas. I don't think the discussion is settled, since we haven't yet had anyone debate a few points of his: for example, sanitation issues onboard the vessels. I just thought of another issue I'd never before considered, which I don't think DrW brought up. How would other basic hygienic problems affect the Jaredites in question? Take for instance, that the account doesn't seem to consider that they would have had to bathe during the course of 344 days? Another question: How would the issue of drinking water affected them, given they are surrounded by salt water? Even if they could have taken salt water into the boat, what mechanisms would they have had to make it potable?)

One thing becomes more and more apparent to me: If the Jaredites did what the BoM account says they did, it wasn't just a Herculean feat, it was in every sense of the word a miracle. The Jaredites would have survived through toxic breathing and fatal sanitation issues; they braved terrible seas for nearly a year. I think those things (and all the others that people have mentioned) move this story up the scale to being one of the greatest miracles of scriptural tradition. I, personally, had never considered the Jaredite voyage in such a light.

[DrW]

I am withdrawing this post. After I posted, I realized that I got some facts wrong, and after researching them, I see that I was wrong

Thanks for your integrity and attention to detail.

In fact, as you pointed out, there have been successful crossings of relatively short stretches of open ocean on rafts, oar/sail powered open ships or even open paddle canoes. The important point is that all of these vessel types have power and can be steered. Even the rafts had sails, rudders, and rough keels or centerboards.

Barges have no power. For all practical purposes, on the open ocean they are nothing more than large assemblages of driftwood. This makes them difficult to launch, difficult to land or dock, and impossible to navigate (steer) on the open ocean (or anywhere else).

[Free(?)Thinker]

As an aside...does anyone else notice that there is a tendency for people to be more hard-core logical, more naturalistic when critiquing the other's belief system? And a tendency to acribe more reasonableness when it comes to one's own? I also notice that when it comes to one's religious/metaphysical belief-system, where needed, one readily invokes the supernatural in defense...yet, typically isn't as metaphysically giving when it comes to others using the supernatural for their own?

[ttribe]

Barges have no power. For all practical purposes, on the open ocean they are nothing more than large assemblages of driftwood. This makes them difficult to launch, difficult to land or dock, and impossible to navigate (steer) on the open ocean (or anywhere else).

Okay, this is a huge point of your entire argument and I remain unconvinced that the description, as outlined in the Book of Ether, requires a strict adherence to the modern day definition of a "barge".

[Free(?)Thinker]

Okay, this is a huge point of your entire argument and I remain unconvinced that the description, as outlined in the Book of Ether, requires a strict adherence to the modern day definition of a "barge".

Since Joseph Smith's translation happened in the first half of the 19th century, I think it is reasonable to conjecture that the word "barge" should follow the use of the word in that time period.

----

trans⋅la⋅tion   /tr

[ttribe]

Since Joseph Smith's translation happened in the first half of the 19th century, I think it is reasonable to conjecture that the word "barge" should follow the use of the word in that time period.

----

trans⋅la⋅tion   /tr

[selek]

selek,

The first thing I would say to you is that "facts matter."

If you think that belief in the supernatural and miracles, for which there is no objective, physical, reproducible (factual) evidence, is defensible with reason, logic, or science, then you really have no business in a discussion on falsifiability.

Don't claim that the religionistâ??s position is based on reason or logic. It is not. By definition, the religionistâ??s worldview is base on faith. And faith is belief without evidence or "unfounded belief".

In the case of some here, apparently including yourself, we have a worldview that goes beyond "unfounded belief" to "belief maintained in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary" (a definition of magical thinking).

And with an amazing feat of truly astounding prestidigitation, DrW waves his hands, produces a bright flash and thick cloud of smoke- and resoundingly proves my point. The only dogmatism on display here is yours. Or did you think we wouldn't notice that you still haven't produced a single substantive response or have utterly failed to quantify your earlier guesstimates? Facts DO matter- and you can't hide from them forever.

[Free(?)Thinker]

Tell me - is there a 19th century equivalent for "freighter"?

I don't know. Is there? Your point remains relevant to the discussion only insofar as you can show Joseph Smith used the word "freighter" to describe a BoM concept, then demonstrate how that relates to DrW's assertions at hand, or to mine.

[DrW]

Okay, this is a huge point of your entire argument and I remain unconvinced that the description, as outlined in the Book of Ether, requires a strict adherence to the modern day definition of a "barge".

What?

Have you ever been on a sail powered vessel? Sail powered vessels have masts and rigging and need a near flat deck upon which the crew can stand to operate sails. A sailboat cannot be operated from below decks through an air hole. A sailboat requires a keel and or centerboard.

Sail powered craft are not submersible. They cannot be buried in the depths of the sea and continue to operate as sailboats. They are not built to roll over. They have a mast. Once they roll over, they do not right themselves. Ask any number of ocean racers who have experienced this characteristic first hand. They require tools and equipment to make and maintain the sails while underway.

Please don't suggest these were sail powered craft. No sails, or masts, or rigging, or keel, or centerboard, or deck access hatches are mentioned. The Book of Ether states that the occupants were sealed inside and had holes in the top and bottom that they could unplug when they needed to breathe, depending on whether the barge was upside down or not.

Perhaps you could claim that the vessels were oar powered. Then we would need holes in the sides of the hull for oars to extend into the ocean and a galley of oarsman to operate the oars. These were not mentioned.

Given the lack of evidence behind your position that the vessels were powered, one could just as well claim that they were nuclear powered, because there is no mention of reactors or steam turbines either.

Here is a logical hypothesis as to how the Jaredite story came about: Joseph Smith made it up. It is fiction.

Where did Joseph Smith get the detailed description of the barges? Why would he decide to use the word â??bargeâ?? The word barge (to my knowledge) appears nowhere else in the Mormon scripture canon. One of the important technology advances in his day was the development of canals and barge transportation systems. The 363 mile Erie Canal, for example was under construction from 1871 to 1832.

Canal barges were often towed by horses along a towpath. His description of the Jaredite craft is quite close to a specific style of barge which was â??peaked at both endsâ? so that it could be easily towed in either direction without the need to rotate the craft in the water. Depictions of these barges appeared in newspapers and periodicals of the day.

Joseph Smith could well have adapted this new technology into his story (just as he adapted dozens of local place names into Book of Mormon elsewhere). For power, he used wind instead of horses. He knew enough about the ocean to understand that if there was wind there would be waves, so he made the barges semi-submersible. Not being familiar with ocean going vessels or ocean travel, he did about as well as could be expected. He can be forgiven for loading his barges up with about two dozen people and flocks of every kind.

Not knowing much about ocean currents and wind etc., Joseph Smith decided to give the Jaredites what he felt was plenty of time to make to make the trip. The problem is once he decided on 344 days, he did not worry about details such as how would the barges stay together for almost a year without power.

After all, according to his most credible biographer (Richard Bushman), Joseph Smith was a magical thinker (Bushmanâ??s words not mine). If there were a few details that were not quite logical or consistent, one could always invoke a miracle (as those here have done) to make the story â??credibleâ?.

Granted this is just a hypothesis, but there is more objective physical evidence (existence of said barges and illustrations of said barges) for this hypothesis than there is for the fantastical story in the Book of Ether.

And when we apply Occamâ??s razor, this hypothesis requires but one assumption: Joseph Smith made the story up.

When we look at the alternative hypothesis: the Book of Ether describes actual events, the assumptions, contingencies and miracles required to accept the alternative hypothesis number in the dozens, if not the hundreds.

According to Occamâ??s razor, which should always be applied after the falsifiability criteria are met, the best hypothesis is the one requiring the fewest assumptions. The fiction hypothesis requires exactly one.

[ttribe]

What?Have you ever been on a sail powered vessel? Sail powered vessels have masts and rigging and need a near flat deck upon which the crew can stand to operate sails. A sailboat cannot be operated from below decks through an air hole. A sailboat requires a keel and or centerboard.Sail powered craft are not submersible. They cannot be buried in the depths of the sea and continue to operate as sailboats. They are not built to roll over. They have a mast. Once they roll over, they do not right themselves. Ask any number of ocean racers who have experienced this characteristic first hand. They require tools and equipment to make and maintain the sails while underway. Please don't suggest these were sail powered craft. No sails, or masts, or rigging, or keel, or centerboard, or deck access hatches are mentioned. The Book of Ether states that the occupants were sealed inside and had holes in the top and bottom that they could unplug when they needed to breathe, depending on whether the barge was upside down or not.

I'm sorry you...you continue to insist on a folklore laden reading of the Book of Ether...not to mention treat all comers with contempt. There is no reading of the Book of Ether which requires the boat be capable of rolling over, no reading which requires the crew/passengers be "sealed" inside all the time, no reading which requires the things be submersible even ("buried in the depths of the sea" need only relate to the boats' ability to withstand large waves...that's it). Your strict requirements for all of the above are what seem to be your biggest troubles with it all.And yes, for the second time, I have been on a sail-powered vessel.

I don't know. Is there? Your point remains relevant to the discussion only insofar as you can show Joseph Smith used the word "freighter" to describe a BoM concept, then demonstrate how that relates to DrW's assertions at hand, or to mine.

Umm wrong...what does a barge do? It carries people and freight. My point is relevant insofar as there was no 19th century equivalent for "freighter" and "barge" was the next best thing.

[Free(?)Thinker]

"Umm wrong...what does a barge do? It carries people and freight. My point is relevant insofar as there was no 19th century equivalent for "freighter" and "barge" was the next best thing."

Could be, although you are speculating far more than can be maintained. You are presuming to know that Joseph Smith couldn't come up with a better word than the one he came up with.

I am simply stating what Joseph Smith did=translate from one language to another. I then state the obvious, which is he used "barge." Since he didn't use any other word, it is pointless to speculate on which other words may have been better suited than the one Joseph Smith chose.

If you have no evidence that Joseph Smith intended, or should have used any other word, I think we should stick with the text, as he felt inspired to translate.

[ttribe]

"Umm wrong...what does a barge do? It carries people and freight. My point is relevant insofar as there was no 19th century equivalent for "freighter" and "barge" was the next best thing."

Could be, although you are speculating far more than can be maintained. You are presuming to know that Joseph Smith couldn't come up with a better word than the one he came up with.

I am simply stating what Joseph Smith did=translate from one language to another. I then state the obvious, which is he used "barge." Since he didn't use any other word, it is pointless to speculate on which other words may have been better suited than the one Joseph Smith chose.

If you have no evidence that Joseph Smith intended, or should have used any other word, I think we should stick with the text, as he felt inspired to translate.

The first recorded use of the word "freighter" was 1839...after the publication of the Book of Mormon: See Link

[ttribe]

This is interesting, in 1300 "barge" was used to describe a "small seagoing vessel with sails". In 1480, it was used to describe a "flat-bottomed freight boat". See Link Seems there is room for multiple definitions.

[selek]

As a former sailor, some one familiar with nautical usage, and a fan of the Napoleonic era navies, I feel compelled to point out that the term 'barge' has never been exclusive to either un powered or frieght only craft. Large sail and/or oar powered craft were frequently referred to as barges- especially if they were made with flat bottoms and shallow drafts. The term Admiral's barge- denoting a small craft reserved for the use of flag officers or other dignitaries- is a hold over from this tradition. The Chinese navy from the 5th century on, were building large riverine combatants powered primarily by oars and occasionally by sails that are adequately described as barges. Earlier still, Cleopatra had an opulent oar and sail powered craft- called a barge- built for excursions on the Nile. Simply put, DrW's very narrow and dogmatic reading of the text doesn't stand up to the scrutiny of anyone with even a passing familiarity with nautical terminology and isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

[ttribe]

As a former sailor, some one familiar with nautical usage, and a fan of the Napoleonic era navies, I feel compelled to point out that the term 'barge' has never been exclusive to either un powered or frieght only craft. Large sail and/or oar powered craft were frequently referred to as barges- especially if they were made with flat bottoms and shallow drafts. The term Admiral's barge- denoting a small craft reserved for the use of flag officers or other dignitaries- is a hold over from this tradition. The Chinese navy from the 5th century on, were building large riverine combatants powered primarily by oars and occasionally by sails that are adequately described as barges. Earlier still, Cleopatra had an opulent oar and sail powered craft- called a barge- built for excursions on the Nile. Simply put, DrW's very narrow and dogmatic reading of the text doesn't stand up to the scrutiny of anyone with even a passing familiarity with nautical terminology and isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Don't forget Jabba's "sail barge"!

[Dan Urtnowski]

I am always happy to show my work. Though, I noticed sources and direct evidence I have pointed to in the past have gone virtually unnoticed. In the instance of this particular thread, I actually paraphrased the work of many others on the board. I would like to think I know what I am talking about since I was able to provide real world examples of every problem I presented. This is far less deficient than a casual dismissal without even engaging the evidence. The OP requested claims that are falsifiable. I explained clearly which popular claims were falsifiable and why. If you want me to get technical, I can do that. But I imagine most people are intelligent enough to understand the examples provided without the junior high outline of the scientific method.

I don't dismiss any argument with an airy wave of my hand. I stated exactly what the problem with LDS apologetics were in the last post. The problem with apologetics is that the theories put forth are inconsistent, conflicting, and work backwards from the assumption that the Book of Mormon is true. This is completely opposite from the criteria that I use. I am happy to address anything you might have to show anything I presented is untrue. Unlike Selek's casual dismissal, I put forth evidence.

The deficiency in Selek's posts are that they do not engage the evidence presented, they don't present any evidence of their own, they wrongfully attempt to shift the burden of proof to the skeptics, and they suggest that one or both sides are irrational thinkers. So, I will say this again, in this thread, since many people want to pigeon hole me into an evil anti who thinks all Mormons are dumb.

Religion is the product of a rational mind. For many thousands of years, mankind has not had the means in which to answer very difficult questions about the nature of the world around us. Mankind has turned to religious authorities who very often made sincere efforts to provide answers to impossible questions. Satisfying our own curiosity is a natural human compulsion, though we all have different ways of going about it. The problem with these ancient answers, is that we have new, more reliable ways of divining what information is reliable and what is not. The old paradigm allows for miracles, magic, and superstition. The new one, in its die hard form, demands suspension of belief and deferment of judgment on the issues we are unable to address, and, instead focuses on what we are able to test. This includes the historicity of the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Book of Mormon, and the power of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Baal and Astarte

People all over the world believe many different things, and mankind has done a good job of uncovering why. Religious and cultural syncretism can easily account for the diversity in belief systems. The best explanation of religious belief is the explanation that accounts for all of them in a consistent manner.

The Pagans had their holy days (from which the Christians plagiarized their Christmas, Easter, Rogation Days, etc.); their monks, nuns, religious processions carrying images of idols, incense, holy water, holy oil, chants, hymns, liturgies, confessions of sins to priests, revelations by gods to priests, prophecies, sacred writings of â??holy bibles,â?? Pontiffs, Holy Fathers, holy crafty priesthoods. All these sacrosanct things of Christian â??Revealed Religion,â?? were age-old pre-Christian Pagan myths and superstitions.â?

Nearly all aspects of Christianity existed in some other form, and were, basically, borrowed. This is true of all modern religions.

In the previous thread, you saw a picture of Tammuz, which was one of many Gods the Israelites were worshiping between the supposed time of Abraham and the disappearance of Baal. They were never enslaved as an entire race is Egypt, but rather rose from the local population a series of nomadic migrations into the area. The Old Testament was written in 600BC. It gets worse even when you examine minor points of historicity.

We know that through archaeological research that camels were not domesticated as beasts of burden earlier than the late second millennium and were not widely used in that capacity in the ancient Near East until well after 1000 BCE. And an even more telling detailâ??the camel caravan carrying â??gum, balm, and myrrh.â? In the Joseph storyâ??reveals an obvious familiarity with the main products of the lucrative Arabian trade that flourished under the supervision of the Assyrian empire in the eighth-seventh centuries BCE.

Then there is the issue of the Philistines. We hear of them in connection with Isaacâ??s encounter with â??Abimelech, king of the Philistines,â? at the city of Gerar (Genesis 26:1). The Philistines, a group of migrants from the Aegean or eastern Mediterranean, had not established their settlements along the coastal plain of Canaan until sometime after 1200 BCE. Their cities prospered in the eleventh and tenth centuries and continued to dominate the area well into the Assyrian period {quite different than the Biblical account}.

All the clues point to a time of composition many centuries after the time in which the Bible reports the lives of the patriarchs took place. These and other anachronisms suggest an intensive period of writing the patriarchal narratives in the eighth or seventh centuries.

The picture of Serapis was an example that the image of Jesus, himself was borrowed from somewhere else. Beyond the internal inconsistencies, at least 19 of the 27 books in the New Testament are forgeries. None of them originated during the time of Christ, and they all, pretending to be first hand sources, are merely conflicting accounts from many years later than the supposed time of Christ. The lineage of Joseph is given differently in two different accounts, but it doesn't matter because the story of Jesus was changed later to say that he was born of a virgin. There was no reason to trace his lineage to King David (also a fictional character.)

Whether one believes that the canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke & John) are partly fictional elaborations of some core of truth, or whether you believe they are entirely fictional is not the issue at this point. (What I see as a separate issue of their fictional or non-fictional status will be taken up in the next point.) The question here is simply, were the gospels written by human witnesses to the â??life and timesâ? of the putative Jesus? This point can be handled quite briefly. The answer is a resounding â??No!â? There is virtual unanimity of opinion by all un-brainwashed, rational biblical scholarsâ??even so-called Christian scholars (perhaps an oxymoron)â??that the gospels were written by now unknown writers anytime between 40 years after Jesusâ?? time up to about 185 years after his supposed death, depending on what scholar one consults. Most scholars place Mark, the generally recognized first written gospel, at about the year 70 CE, just after the destruction of the Jewish temple of Yahweh. However, Earl Doherty has advanced some closely reasoned arguments that support a time â??around the years 85 to 90 CE.â?

Dionysus

â??What they will say is this, that such being his disposition, the just man will have to endure the lash, the rack, chains, the branding iron in his eyes, and finally, after every extremity of suffering, he will be crucified.â?

Dionysus

Dionysus

You saw a glimpse of the problems with the Book of Mormon. I didn't even mention the

thousands

of changes that have been made. I didn't mention that it could easier have come from the mind of Joseph Smith without the help of God.

How did the word "horse" get into the Book of Mormon? The printer put it there because it was in the manuscript. It was in the manuscript because that is what the scribe wrote. The scribe wrote it because that is what Joseph Smith said. We know there were no horses at the time, so there was either a serious flaw in the translation process, or there was no translation process at all. Not only do we have other numerous examples of anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, we also have two other clear instances where Joseph Smith Jr. let people believe he could translate ancient characters/text with divine aid. He failed both of the other times. Tried tested and true, strike three, whatever you want to call it, it is falsified. The facsimiles don't match, the reports within the Book of Mormon could never have happened, and the Kinderhook Plates were fakes.

No one was able to divine the truth of these matters with the aid of the holy ghost for many, many years. As a matter of fact, what taught us the truth of these matters was not the holy ghost, at all. Therefore, the power of the holy ghost to aid in personal revelation is also falsified, and not just in this instance. There are plenty of other instances, which I explained in the last post. They include real world examples. Poor appointments to positions of authority were examples from my own stake (though the murder was only an attempt). I won't drop names, but I can find other already very public examples of horrific failures in assigning people authority within the church.

I already listed other failures, so I am not going to keep repeating myself. I will say that I have investigated the matters to a greater extent than most TBM's, and I do know what I am talking about, whether you agree with it or not. Furthermore, my position is quite reasonable, and I have explained in detail as to why. I don't expect to change many people's minds, and I don't require that everyone agree with me. It would be nice if I wasn't vilified or treated like I don't have a clue. I would like to think that I can return the favor.

I never gave the sea voyage much thought, but it seems like it would have been easier for God to reveal to the exiles the workings of a lateen sail, since far fewer miracles would have been required to get them across the ocean. God seems much more sparing with his miracles, these days and, for whatever reason, he has always seemed unable to provide new insights when it comes to basic knowledge about the world around us. It seems that there was no real reason to accomplish the crossing of which ever ocean it may have been in this manner. Even if anachronisms were not available to them (glowing stones and magic fresh air, aside), they could have constructed a trireme, or even stolen one. Why was that not an option? Either way, it is worth some thought.

A Ship from 600 BC?