"Not a shred of archeological evidence"

[volgadon]

59. Ahaz

[Uncle Dale]

It says the first principles, not the only principles. Articles of faith aren't meant to be long.

The first principles are those listed, IRREGARDLESS of where they are listed.

Hey -- you'll get no disagreement from me.

It sounds like a very, very good idea.

Let's start applying the First Principles of the Gospel,

WITHOUT any reference to the Book of Mormon.

Let's inform people about faith, repentance and baptism by immersion

WITHOUT ever mentioning a word about the Book of Mormon.

Let's administer baptism and the laying on of hands, without ever even

THINKING about the "Nephite Record."

Sounds very workable to me.

Sounds much like what the Baptists would agree with, in fact.

UD

[mpschmitt]

Do you take Kirtland bank-notes?

UD

Absolutely.

[mpschmitt]

8. Mt. Ararat as the site of the landing of Noah

[cdowis]

I do not see how that comparison with the New World somehow excuses Mormons from

having to demonstrate that Jaredites, Nephites, Mulekites and Lamanites left some

noticeable mark on the American landscape.

Let's compare the two locations:

• No extant written records
  Multiple sites covered with water
  Sites covered with tropical rain forests, entire cities have only been recently discovered as they were hidden by the rain forest.
  No verbal traditions surviving among the modern population. for example, the names of ancient cities and geographic features are unknown. With few exceptions, only modern names are used.
  Relatively few sites excavated prior to 200BCE.
  

Now, this is a test, Dale. Please show me how each of these points apply to the Old World of the Bible. As part part of the test, you will answer the simple question: how do we identify an artifact, city, village as Nephite, Lamananite or Jaredite for those who make a really silly claim that there are no such artifacts discovered.

It is your burden to prove that no BOM artifacts have been discovered, no BOM "marks have been left", I would suggest that such "marks" are all over mesoamerica, but the issue is identification. Since you contend that there is nothing, you need to prove your assertion.

[volgadon]

Nazareth (boyhood town of Jesus, a city of 10,000 today),

Ok, a house from around the time of Christ has just been discovered.

[Bsix]

As a former-atheist-now-believing-Mormon, I accept that the nature of the Book of Mormon is such that there are not direct, observable acheological evidences. The Book of Mormon is to be accepted as a matter of faith and trust on the witness of the Holy Ghost.

As an atheist, I rejected the Bible as nothing more than unprovable mythology. The nature of the Bible is such that there is not any direct, observable evidences of a single supernatural event. Sure, there are some historic and archeological correlations to the history of the region...but nothing that even comes close to validating the Bible as the word of God. In fact, I think there are as many things unproven and/or implausible in the Bible for reasonable people to reject it as scripture. Yet for all of its lack of proof, I accept the Bible on the strength of faith in a witness of the Holy Ghost.

In other words, the Bible requires virtually as much faith to accept as does the Book of Mormon.

For Bible-only believers to taunt the Book of Mormon as having no proof is pretty close to the pot calling the kettle black. In my mind, the supposed evidences for the Bible are very, very thin...and do not validate a single supernatural event or claim within the scripture.

As such, it could be said that Latter Day Saints are much more faithful in accepting the scriptures (Bible and restoration canon) that traditional Christians who seem to somehow need a secular, academic crutch to support their faith.

Regards,

Six

[cdowis]

An athiest can accept that that the Bible contains authentic history since we have received this history thru acceptable means. We have the documents and manuscripts passed down through the generations. Parts of the Bible unacceptable to the athiest can be rejected simply as myth.

But if we accept any part of the BOM as authentic history, we have the problem of the angel, gold plates, and translated by divine means. It is an all-or-nothing proposition. The athiest is forced to summarily reject any suggestion that there is ANY authentic history contained in the text.

Where there may be some flexibility in accepting Biblical history, no such flexibility can exist with the BOM == this would mean that we have to accept the existence of angels, prophets, and Divinity as well.

In the real world, it is not a matter of actively rejecting the claims of the BOM. The safe course is simply to ignore them and to leave any discussion of evidence for the BOM to forums such as this one. Those who demand "peer-reviewed" articles in professional journals already know this.

[Uncle Dale]

...you need to prove your assertion.

No -- not me -- but rather, The Brethren need to prove their assertion.

If archaeologists have been digging up, cataloging and mis-identifying

Jaredite, Nephite, Mulekite and Lamanite artifacts for decades, then it

is not my responsibility to set them right.

I do not promote any stories of great preColumbian civilizations in the

Americas having left behind such artifacts -- and I certainly do not

rake in 10% of the earnings of people who either believe or disbelieve

in such claims.

If your leaders are indeed the prophets, seers, revelators and translators,

that they are ordained to be, then it is THEIR responsibility to show that

they are not taking other people's money under false pretenses.

In 1846 James J. Strang was saying that he had uncovered metal plates

preserving the history of a lost civilization of the Americas. Many, many

people believed him -- enough of them to constitute significant gatherings

at Voree and later at Beaver Island. But never a shred of evidence surfaced

to lend any credibility to his claims. Even Mormons today admit that there

was no such preColumbian civilization as James J. Strang asserted -- and

that no artifacts for his bogus ancient people will ever be found.

But -- there are still Strangites in the world, hoping for the day that

all the mis-identified artifacts of Strang's bogus civilization are properly

identified and accepted by the scientists.

B. H. Roberts wrote (and was published with LDS Church funds) that there

was a civilization which produced the metal plates found at Kinderhook, IL

in 1843. Roberts went to his death bed, never admitting that there had been

no preColumbian civilization that produced Kinderhook scriptures -- even

though he suspected that Joseph Smith had copied from Ethan Smith.

It was Strang's responsibility to show us the "Vorito" civilization

supposedly chronicled by the ancient prophetic leader Rajah Manchou.

he was the one who took people's money, based on the assertion.

It was the responsibility of Roberts' publisher (the LDS Church) to show

us the Kinderhook civilization. That publisher was the one who took

people's money, based upon the assertion.

It is not my responsibility to trace every cataloged preColumbian

artifact back to its place of discovery and then prove that the same

occupation site was NOT the home of Israelite colonists, or of

colonists from the Plains of Shinar, following the "confusion of tongues."

If you say that there is an invisible fire-breathing dragon in the

room, and that the temperature of the room is partly due to the presence

of that invisible thing, it is not my responsibility to prove there is

no dragon. And, if you are taking other people's money, based upon your

claims of such a thing, then it is YOUR responsibility to prove it.

The LDS Church has never pointed out a single Nephite/Lamanite "artifact"

since the identification of the Nephite tower at Adam-ondi-ahmen and

the white Lamanite bones of Zelph. If those are the only two BoM artifacts

they can tell us about, then I call upon the Mormon leaders to at least

show the world that those two identifications are honest, correct and true.

That is their RESPONSIBILITY, if they are not perpetrating a fraud.

Uncle Dale

[volgadon]

Hey -- you'll get no disagreement from me.

It sounds like a very, very good idea.

Let's start applying the First Principles of the Gospel,

WITHOUT any reference to the Book of Mormon.

Let's inform people about faith, repentance and baptism by immersion

WITHOUT ever mentioning a word about the Book of Mormon.

Let's administer baptism and the laying on of hands, without ever even

THINKING about the "Nephite Record."

Sounds very workable to me.

Sounds much like what the Baptists would agree with, in fact.

UD

Dale, your constant, petty, vivious sniping is tedious. Were you just having a bad week recently?

Anyway, why should it be mentioned in the first principles, when the 8th article of faith states that we believe that the BoM is the word of God?

[cdowis]

Dale,

You have made it crystal clear where you stand regarding the LDS church, and I wish you all the best.

[Uncle Dale]

Dale,

You have made it crystal clear where you stand regarding the LDS church, and I wish you all the best.

Charlie -- you were one of my buddies back in the old a.r.m. days.

Together we often pounded the wicked Gentiles with similar messages.

Although we have obviously gone our separate ways, I can only hope

that you and yours have a wonderful Christmas and a great new year.

Your old Unk

[cdowis]

Thank you.

And a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you and the family as well.

[John T]

John T, on 19 December 2009 - 05:58 AM, said:

Below are listed some of the proofs found by archeology and in the culture of other nations. God kept records in two different places so that one would prove the other. Here is a PARTIAL list of some of the many corroborating evidences:

1. Creation

Do you mean mesopotamian mythological accounts and depictions, or do you mean actual evidence for the creation as described in Genesis?

Are you talking about the Gilgamesh Epoch?

The story of the Flood has close affinities with Babylonian traditions of apocalyptic floods in which Utnapishtim plays the part corresponding to that of Noah. These mythologies are the source of such features of the biblical Flood story as the building and provisioning of the ark, its flotation, and the subsidence of the waters, as well as the part played by the human protagonist. Tablet XI of the Gilgamesh epic introduces Utnapishtim, who, like Noah, survived cosmic destruction by heeding divine instruction to build an ark

Noah.

(2008). Encyclop

[volgadon]

Why quote a TV show?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

I take it you've never read the Golden Bough or Folk-lore in the Old Testament?

Kind of ironic when you talk about simple anthropology yet had no idea who I ment.

[quuote]Actually there is nothing to do with violence as motive, and the reason for the destruction is not the caprice of God. The reasons are clearly stated in the text of Genesis 6.

[volgadon]

Are you talking about the Gilgamesh Epoch?

The story of the Flood has close affinities with Babylonian traditions of apocalyptic floods in which Utnapishtim plays the part corresponding to that of Noah. These mythologies are the source of such features of the biblical Flood story as the building and provisioning of the ark, its flotation, and the subsidence of the waters, as well as the part played by the human protagonist. Tablet XI of the Gilgamesh epic introduces Utnapishtim, who, like Noah, survived cosmic destruction by heeding divine instruction to build an ark

Noah.

(2008). Encyclop

[John T]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

I take it you've never read the Golden Bough or Folk-lore in the Old Testament?

Kind of ironic when you talk about simple anthropology yet had no idea who I ment.

[quuote]Actually there is nothing to do with violence as motive, and the reason for the destruction is not the caprice of God. The reasons are clearly stated in the text of Genesis 6.

Who mentioned violence?

[Doctor Steuss]

Try and find a long-established monotheistic religion before Judiasm.

You mean before Judaism became monotheistic?

Ahura Mazda, Ahura Mazda. My kingdom for Ahura Mazda...

[volgadon]

Who mentioned violence?

Then be so kind as to tell me.

I did some research on what you stated, trying to make a reply in line with I read on JSTOR.

This was very much like the "Bush Doctrine" question that Charlie Gibson asked Sara Palin in the fact that I had to interpret it, and make a cogent reply. Then you, Charlie Gibson could scold me for not reading your mind correctly.

You've totally lost me. What in that comment of mind made you think of violence?

[USU78]

Hey -- you'll get no disagreement from me.

It sounds like a very, very good idea.

Let's start applying the First Principles of the Gospel,

WITHOUT any reference to the Book of Mormon.

Let's inform people about faith, repentance and baptism by immersion

WITHOUT ever mentioning a word about the Book of Mormon.

Let's administer baptism and the laying on of hands, without ever even

THINKING about the "Nephite Record."

Sounds very workable to me.

Sounds much like what the Baptists would agree with, in fact.

UD

Except that, dear Rabbi, the Baptists don't baptize any more, at least not as they once did, since they now consider baptism a "work" that is not necessary at all for a christian to make him a Christian.

[notHagoth7]

Except that, dear Rabbi, the Baptists don't baptize any more, at least not as they once did, since they now consider baptism a "work" that is not necessary at all for a christian to make him a Christian.

Is that something like Protestants who have stopped protesting?

[Uncle Dale]

Except that, dear Rabbi, the Baptists don't baptize any more

...

Sorry, I never got the memo.

Put another log on the fire -- and another

one of those Jimmy Swaggert tapes in the 8-track.

Afterward I'll do my Bing Crosby imitation -- you'll love it.

Happy Cache Vale Yuletide, Horatio