the incredible expanding, shrinking, and disappearing Lehites

[maupayman]

Actually there is a new thread on this that makes good sense.

And what has been accomplished in this thread to date?

[SilverKnight]

I understand that it makes it easier to discount and mentally manage my questions by using your "troll" reference. And although I completely understand how this makes it easier for you...wouldn't we all benefit by dropping the ad hominem attacks. These do nothing but muddy the waters.

You have some nerve scolding others for calling you a troll when you, in your first posts ever her, come out tossing bombs and vomiting forth predictable, discussion-halting sermonizing like this:

Or as I stated earlier....Faith will always trump facts and evidence...at least with the Mormon faithful...

Steelyray....you are totally waisting your time here....We KNOW the church to be true and everything that it claims to be. No matter how much scientific evidence you want to throw at us...it mattereth not. Don't you know that facts don't matter here. We are only interested in truth and truth can only be achieved through the spirit, evidenced by a burning feeling in our breast...not through facts. And we know through revelation given to prophets of God that the church is true...if you doubt me...just ask them...and they'll tell you that the church is true.

So take your facts and intellectual arguments someplace else...where facts matter. We want nothing to do with them here.

My advice is to slither back to whatever swamp you crawled out of, take a nice long shower, gargle some mouthwash, then come back when you're ready to play nice and become the 'sincere truth seeker' you call yourself.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I understand that it makes it easier to discount and mentally manage my questions by using your "troll" reference. And although I completely understand how this makes it easier for you...wouldn't we all benefit by dropping the ad hominem attacks. These do nothing but muddy the waters.

If the boot fits. You have been throwing out bombs and empty rheotirc since you got here.

I'm a truth seeker...who would sincerely like Mormonism to be all it claims to be. And taking the onus on myself, I just find Mormonism impossible to believe.

I personally don't care what you beleive, just don't try to force me/us to accept your view of things. We see things differnetly and you have mis-represented our beliefs/postions in almost every post that you have offered so far.

Such as this gem,

Or as I stated earlier....Faith will always trump facts and evidence...at least with the Mormon faithful...

You have come to preach to us. I am sorry but I am under no obligation to give you any of my time or to agree with you in any way after you post such brazen falsehoods.

[steelyray]

Here we go again.

There is no such thing as a clear logically provable causal relationship, and Hume proved that 300 years ago.

You need to get up to speed on this stuff.

Please prove to me that you love your wife. How do we test that and prove you are not faking? Or are you lying when you say you love her?

Is it true or false that you love your wife? Prove it. You are committing a category error by confusing the verification of personal experiences with third- person observable phenomena.

It is a logical error, but I don't suppose you understand that concept.

Ad hominem. Yawn.

It is like trying to prove that courage is green or weighs 22 ounces per cup. Category error. You are using the wrong method of verification.

Hume lived in a time and in a discipline in which subjectivity ruled. There are an astounding number of reasonable proofs which could be utilized to verify or falsify a religion which claims its basis in history. History, is somewhat subject to interpretation but for the most part consists of facts of events which one can show that either did or did not occur. Hume and his philosophy of causality be damned. It is not my problem that Mormonism claims an untestable 'test' for its sole source of verification. If it had any rightful, strong, objective foothold into an objective, provable historical event, don't think for one minute that the church would not trumpet it from the highest hilltop and include it on every tract they handed out. The fact that they cannot or will not in any way that is convincing to a disinterested secular historian should speak volumes to you.

My assertion here that you missed was that religions that claim inspiration for their holy book, divine guidance from their leader, and yet provide nothing but subjective, nontestable, nonverifiable gobbledygook, and so Mormonism simply compares unfavorably as simply one of another of the masses. I understand the categories completely. That is why I asked for something more objective.

I can demonstrate that I have more ability to love my wife more than Joseph Smith could've possibly loved his many wives, just for the record. That is enough of a proof as is reasonable in such a comparison. Love includes trust and action on behalf of the other party. Joseph violated his wife's trust by not telling her about his plural marriages until afterwards. Say, for instance, that my love for my wife required me to make a certain sacrifice. I could do that. But Joseph, with his many wives, would run inevitably into a conflict between the interests of one wife over the interests of another. If loving one wife required a certain sacrifice while loving the other wife required the opposite input, tell me then how he was supposed to love both with as much selflessness as I can?

[Jason]

History, is somewhat subject to interpretation...

Understatement of the year.

It is not my problem that Mormonism claims an untestable 'test' for its sole source of verification.

Yet hundreds of thousands find that the test works every year. It would appear that the test is testable.

The fact that they cannot or will not in any way that is convincing to a disinterested secular historian should speak volumes to you.

Can a "secular" historian be convinced of the truth of a religious work and still remain secular?

How can you be considered even-handed if everyone who becomes convinced is automatically disqualified?

[steelyray]

Two points:

1) You left out part of my testimony - that God had verified the truth of the book. Yes people world over can claim that their lives were changed by their religious faith. Do they also claim that God verified a specific truth claim of their faith to them personally? I rather suspect that you will find that group to be much, much smaller.

I didn't leave that out. It was rather implied by the fact that members of other religions have similar experiences of their 'god' verifying the 'truth' of their own 'book,' and their 'personal experiences.' Or did you not study up on Islamic claims about the Qur'an? How many followers of Islam are there again?

2) The experiences of others cannot be used either to verify or discredit my own experiences, because I have no direct access to them as I do to my own experiences. Comparing the accounts of others to my own experiences would be comparing apples to oranges.

But if any of those others would be members of an obvious personality cult or claimed that space aliens had taken over their body, you'd have some doubts, wouldn't you?

[steelyray]

Understatement of the year.

Yet hundreds of thousands find that the test works every year. It would appear that the test is testable.

And hundreds of thousands leave. Apparently their test wasn't that good. And hundreds of thousands become [insert your favorite religion here]. Right now there are millions who believe that NASA never sent anyone to the moon. There are no depths to simply how stupid people can be.

Can a "secular" historian be convinced of the truth of a religious work and still remain secular?

How can you be considered even-handed if everyone who becomes convinced is automatically disqualified?

There are millions of secular historians who believe that the historical places in the Bible existed, and that Jesus existed. They just don't believe he is God.

How can you be considered even-handed if everyone who is not convinced leaves because they 'sinned?'

How can you be considered even-handed if the only source of information you will accept on the history of the development of the LDS church is from church-friendly sources?

How can you be considered even-handed when you are categorically spoon-fed 'faith-promoting' stories week-after-week?

[Craig Paxton]

You have some nerve scolding others for calling you a troll when you, in your first posts ever her, come out tossing bombs and vomiting forth predictable, discussion-halting sermonizing like this:

My advice is to slither back to whatever swamp you crawled out of, take a nice long shower, gargle some mouthwash, then come back when you're ready to play nice and become the 'sincere truth seeker' you call yourself.

If the boot fits. You have been throwing out bombs and empty rheotirc since you got here.

I personally don't care what you beleive, just don't try to force me/us to accept your view of things. We see things differnetly and you have mis-represented our beliefs/postions in almost every post that you have offered so far.

Such as this gem,

You have come to preach to us. I am sorry but I am under no obligation to give you any of my time or to agree with you in any way after you post such brazen falsehoods.

Well so much for the olive branch approuch...but I wanted to try and have a conversation...

Silverknight...yeah I came in guns a blazing...but I actually found SOME willing to have a conversation so I make a tack...guess I totally misjudged the wind...so keep on blowing...

Mola Rum Dumb...you remind me of myself before my enlightenment...if I can offer some advice...keep that mind of your under lock and key...you wouldn't want any conflicting information to penitrate that open mind of yours

Cheers,

Craig

[Jason]

And hundreds of thousands leave. Apparently their test wasn't that good. And hundreds of thousands become [insert your favorite religion here]. Right now there are millions who believe that NASA never sent anyone to the moon. There are no depths to simply how stupid people can be.

Agreed - how many people believe something is no real indication of whether it's true.

So where does that leave us with history being supposedly a set of facts? Isn't history just a consensus of historians?

There are millions of secular historians who believe that the historical places in the Bible existed, and that Jesus existed. They just don't believe he is God.

Of course, Biblical archaelogy has the advantage that the historical place names have in some cases (very few, but some) survived to the present. The Nephite culture does not have that advantage, having been utterly destroyed in the early 5th century.

How can you be considered even-handed if everyone who is not convinced leaves because they 'sinned?'

How can you be considered even-handed if the only source of information you will accept on the history of the development of the LDS church is from church-friendly sources?

How can you be considered even-handed when you are categorically spoon-fed 'faith-promoting' stories week-after-week?

1 - why do you assume any of these are true about me?

2 - I notice you didn't answer my question.

[morgan.deane]

Well so much for the olive branch approuch...but I wanted to try and have a conversation...

Silverknight...yeah I came in guns a blazing...but I actually found SOME willing to have a conversation so I make a tack...guess I totally misjudged the wind...so keep on blowing...

Mola Rum Dumb...you remind me of myself before my enlightenment...if I can offer some advice...keep that mind of your under lock and key...you wouldn't want any conflicting information to penitrate that open mind of yours

Cheers,

Craig

Maybe I misread your post. But calling somebody "dumb" and giving them too clever by half nick names is not an "olive branch" approach. Even before this post I thought your contributions to a meaningful discussion were negible.

[SilverKnight]

Well so much for the olive branch approuch...

You mean the predictable ignorant troll approach?

You don't think we're keen to that act, and can smell you coming a mile away?

but I wanted to try and have a conversation...

Spare me. You wanted to toss a few insults and chortle how enlightened you are.

Silverknight...yeah I came in guns a blazing...

Whatever 'guns' you think you brought, I think you're still fumbling to get them out of your holster. However, you certainly did come in with your mouth running.

but I actually found SOME willing to have a conversation so I make a tack...guess I totally misjudged the wind...so keep on blowing...

Blow on back to whatever hive your regularly post at and wallow with them in your orgy of mormon hate.

Mola Rum Dumb...you remind me of myself before my enlightenment...if I can offer some advice...keep that mind of your under lock and key...you wouldn't want any conflicting information to penitrate that open mind of yours

Whereas your previous comments merely showcased your breathtaking stupidity, this type of thing will probably get you booted.

Somehow I don't think we'll have to endure your 'enlightenment' for much longer.

[steelyray]

Agreed - how many people believe something is no real indication of whether it's true.

So where does that leave us with history being supposedly a set of facts? Isn't history just a consensus of historians?

That leaves us with evidence, some well-applied logic, and an understanding of people. History leaves a big trail of breadcrumbs. Or are you seriously about to doubt that Thomas Jefferson existed, that the Mayans built temples and played with calendars, or that Rome burned during Nero's reign? If not, then this isn't even a legitimate question, is it, for it indicates what level of trust you have in the history you know.

Of course, Biblical archaelogy has the advantage that the historical place names have in some cases (very few, but some) survived to the present. The Nephite culture does not have that advantage, having been utterly destroyed in the early 5th century.

It is next to impossible to 'utterly destroy' every trace of a civilization, especially one as advanced as is described in the Book of Mormon. Even your efforts at destruction would leave behind some evidence. Are you going to grind every pot to dust? Kill every domesticated animal? Dig up the road ruts? Bury every rusty sword? Tell all of the peoples that left to intermarry with other tribes to forget their most useful technologies and be sure never to bring any of them with them when they leave?

Furthermore, if they were 'utterly destroyed,' how is it that Joseph found 'Zelph' so easily, yet modern archeology cannot find a lousy clay shard that corroborates the BoM. Heck, you cannot even agree on a geographic location that makes any sense.

On second thought, let me tell you about a civilization that existed in a place called Middle Earth. They were very short, and had a curious desire to smoke pipe-weed and drink tea, much like the English...

1 - why do you assume any of these are true about me?

Because these are typical of the Mormons I meet.

2 - I notice you didn't answer my question.

How many of mind have gone unanswered thus far? I won't lose any sleep.

[Jason]

I didn't leave that out. It was rather implied by the fact that members of other religions have similar experiences of their 'god' verifying the 'truth' of their own 'book,' and their 'personal experiences.' Or did you not study up on Islamic claims about the Qur'an? How many followers of Islam are there again?

How many of these claim that God verified the truth of the Koran to them personally? Do you have any numbers?

But if any of those others would be members of an obvious personality cult or claimed that space aliens had taken over their body, you'd have some doubts, wouldn't you?

You missed my point.

[Jason]

That leaves us with evidence, some well-applied logic, and an understanding of people. History leaves a big trail of breadcrumbs.

Evidence you have personally examined, or what you understand from historians? Have you personally determined that Thomas Jefferson existed, or are you relying on the consensus of historians?

I'm not saying that history is always unreliable, merely that it is not nearly so reliable as we pretend it is.

It is next to impossible to 'utterly destroy' every trace of a civilization, especially one as advanced as is described in the Book of Mormon. Even your efforts at destruction would leave behind some evidence.

And there is plenty of evidence that there was an advanced civilization during the time of the Book of Mormon in the place we would expect it to be. The difficulty is in identifying it as specifically Nephite.

On second thought, let me tell you about a civilization that existed in a place called Middle Earth. They were very short, and had a curious desire to smoke pipe-weed and drink tea, much like the English...

Probably because they were deliberately modled after the rural English.

Because these are typical of the Mormons I meet.

Ah! There's your mistake - religious bigotry.

[SilverKnight]

On second thought, let me tell you about a civilization that existed in a place called Middle Earth. They were very short, and had a curious desire to smoke pipe-weed and drink tea, much like the English...

Don't drag the good folk of the Shire into your insipid blathering.

[steelyray]

How many of these claim that God verified the truth of the Koran to them personally? Do you have any numbers?

I've talked with a few. I work with many. It seems rather common.

You missed my point.

No, I ignored it point blank, because it was pointless.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola Rum Dumb...

You made a rhyme. Good for you, did mean to do that?

you remind me of myself before my enlightenment...

I reject that you were ever like me. And you don;t seem all that enlightened. If that is what you call enlightenment you can keep it.

.

if I can offer some advice...

You cannot offer me advise. Your advice has sucked so far.

keep that mind of your under lock and key.

Why, I don't do that now and I am perfectly happy.

..you wouldn't want any conflicting information to penitrate that open mind of yours

Cheers,

Craig

Not conflicting information!!!.....

It is funny taht those that pretend to have an opened mind generally have the most closed mind of all.

Craig, here is to open minds.

[SilverKnight]

I've talked with a few. I work with many. It seems rather common.

Rather uncommon you mean.

Muslims do not have anything resembling some sort of self-testing mechanism as far as the Quran goes.

Its divinity is a foregone conclusion for them, and suggesting they ask God to validate it through a Moroni's Promise-type method would be utterly alien.

So perhaps you don't talk or work with many Muslims after all.

[steelyray]

Evidence you have personally examined, or what you understand from historians? Have you personally determined that Thomas Jefferson existed, or are you relying on the consensus of historians?

Well, I've seen his handwriting. How's that?

I'm not saying that history is always unreliable, merely that it is not nearly so reliable as we pretend it is.

And it's the work of the church apologist to constantly inject as much doubt as possible as to what we know about it, for only then can they get enough wiggle room to insert the fat butt of the 'Mormon version of history' into its pews.

And there is plenty of evidence that there was an advanced civilization during the time of the Book of Mormon in the place we would expect it to be. The difficulty is in identifying it as specifically Nephite.

Yes! There was a civilization there! Now we're getting somewhere that classifies as objective. But they weren't terribly advanced in ways that the BoM described, nor does their culture or technology in any way, shape, or form resemble that of the Nephite. Nor does the BoM mention any culture that they DID have, or mention any interaction with them. So, if we have a culture that is existing where you think yours was, what does that say about yours? (How many different cultures can occupy the same space at the same time again and not affect one another? Here's a hint, it's less than 2).

Probably because they were deliberately modled after the rural English.

Exactly. Just as how the Nephites were modeled after a 19th century view of the Israelites.

Ah! There's your mistake - religious bigotry.

Let me ask you this: have you ever prayed about the plates and book of James Strang? Why or why not? Do you have some bias?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Rather uncommon you mean.

Muslims do not have anything resembling some sort of self-testing mechanism as far as the Quran goes.

Its divinity is a foregone conclusion for them, and suggesting they ask God to validate it through a Moroni's Promise-type method would be utterly alien.

So perhaps you don't talk or work with many Muslims after all.

The Quran tells us that it is a devine book, and that we know it is devine because there are no other books like it. The concept to pray about the Quran is totally foreign to a Muslim.

Not apples to apples to compare the BoM to the Quran or Mormons to Muslims.

[Jason]

Well, I've seen his handwriting. How's that?

It's certainly not proof. You saw a scrap of handwriting that someone told you was Jefferson's - you certainly didn't make that determination yourself.

And it's the work of the church apologist to constantly inject as much doubt as possible as to what we know about it, for only then can they get enough wiggle room to insert the fat butt of the 'Mormon version of history' into its pews.

*sigh* You would make it much easier to debate with you if you weren't so needlessly insulting all the time. Try common courtesy (I know, it isn't really common, is it?).

Yes! There was a civilization there! Now we're getting somewhere that classifies as objective. But they weren't terribly advanced in ways that the BoM described...

Like?

They had cement. They had metal working. They had written records, though the later civilizations and the Spanish got rid of the majority of those. They had large-scale governments and warfare. They had currency. They had walls and fortifications. They may have even had horses (the Nephites) and elephants (the Jaredites).

What exactly is missing?

More importantly, how much of this could have been accurately guessed at by a 19th-century farmboy when it is so very different from what such a person would know of the American Indians. Do you think he would have accurately guessed about Indians using cement?

nor does their culture or technology in any way, shape, or form resemble that of the Nephite.

Now you're overreaching. You would have to know what Nephite culture looked like before you could positively say "this doesn't look like it". The BoM contains only the barest sketch, really.

Exactly. Just as how the Nephites were modeled after a 19th century view of the Israelites.

Only they quite obviously weren't modeled after a 19th century view.

Let me ask you this: have you ever prayed about the plates and book of James Strang? Why or why not? Do you have some bias?

My bias is that I already received a positive answer as to which was from God, and therefore don't need to inquire after every claim (although I have enquired about others that impressed me).

I don't use the term bigotry lightly, but I don't know what else to call "assuming that all members of a religious faith share the same undesirable traits".

[steelyray]

Rather uncommon you mean.

Muslims do not have anything resembling some sort of self-testing mechanism as far as the Quran goes.

Its divinity is a foregone conclusion for them, and suggesting they ask God to validate it through a Moroni's Promise-type method would be utterly alien.

So perhaps you don't talk or work with many Muslims after all.

Muslims do consider the Qur'an to be miraculous in and of itself. And yes, I live and work in Detroit, home to one of the largest Muslim populations in the US. Better back off on that one.

Here is what professor Yusuf K. Ibish writes about the status of Qur'an in Islam:

I have not yet come across a western man who understands what the Qur'an is. It is not a book in the ordinary sense, nor is it comparable to the Bible, either the Old or New Testaments. It is an expression of Divine Will. If you want to compare it with anything in Christianity, you mut commpare it with Christ Himself. Christ was the expression of the Divine among men, the revelation of the Divine Will. That is what the Qur'an is.'

They do not have a Moroni test. But the book does attest to itself in a fashion that is quite similar in effect. Sura 2:23: 'And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (if there are any) besides God, if your doubts are true.' Or in 17:88: If the whole of mankind and jinn were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support.'

Muslims offer several 'proofs' of the miraculous nature of the Qur'an. Unique literary style, Muhammad's illiteracy, perfect preservation, prophecies, unity, amazing mathematical structure, changed lives, and scientific accuracy, all of which make better cases than that of the Book of Mormon but are still specious at best when examined closely.

[Hestia]

Mola Rum Dumb...you remind me of myself before my enlightenment...

Clean up your act. Name calling is not allowed. If you can't do so you can leave this discussion.

[Jason]

They do not have a Moroni test. But the book does attest to itself in a fashion that is quite similar in effect. Sura 2:23: 'And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (if there are any) besides God, if your doubts are true.'

That says "see if you can make scripture as good as this" not "ask God if this is true."

Or in 17:88: If the whole of mankind and jinn were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support.'

Ibid.

Muslims offer several 'proofs' of the miraculous nature of the Qur'an. Unique literary style, Muhammad's illiteracy, perfect preservation, prophecies, unity, amazing mathematical structure, changed lives, and scientific accuracy...

None of which are "God will tell you the truth if you ask Him".

So, that leaves very little support for the idea that millions of Muslims believe that God has verified the truth claims of the Koran to them personally when they asked.

Perhaps you had best drop it.

[SilverKnight]

Muslims do consider the Qur'an to be miraculous in and of itself.

Yes do backpedal on that one before you showcase any further ignorance.

Stick to your mormon-related talking points, as they seem more familiar turf for you.

And yes, I live and work in Detroit, home to one of the largest Muslim populations in the US. Better back off on that one.

Then your amateurish comparisons between the Quran and Book of Mormon are even less excusable.

Here is what professor Yusuf K. Ibish writes about the status of Qur'an in Islam [sNIP]

Yes, precisely what I said about it.

Muslims do not endeavor test the divinity of the Quran.

In fact, doing so would likely be seen as blasphemy.

Out of curiosity, what are your personal thoughts on the Bible? Fact or fiction?