Are cureloms imaginary?

[RevTestament]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I thought apostate exit stories were not welcome on this board.

I asked an open-ended question about one word in the BoM so he feels it is an opportunity to answer an open-ended question about the truth of the Book of Mormon as a whole, and the claims of the LDS Church as a whole. Being that he can't seem to stick to the very narrow subject of the OP, maybe it is time for him to get booted from the thread.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I've gone back to the beginning of this thread and my original response to the OP where in I stated that Yes Cureloms are imaginary.  Robert, has accused me of "taking [my] a priori beliefs that the Book of Mormon is non-historical and extrapolated from"... there to form a conclusion that Curelom's are imaginary.  What Robert has failed to take into consideration is that my a priori beliefs were that the Book of Mormon was what it claimed to be, an ancient book translated from Golden Plates received from an angel describing the religious history of the inhabitants of this continent.  Those beliefs were built on decades of study and participation in church curriculum.  I firmly believed that the book was all that it claimed to be. 20 years ago if you would have asked me, I would have told you that my testimony of the Book of Mormon was indestructible.

Well it turned out that it wasn't, I made the mistake of actually pulling at some of the loose threads in the books truth claims.   I merely read the book and took its claims whole cloth...I supplemented this reading with instruction from the Church curriculum in Sunday School, Seminary and Institute, the later two, from which I graduated.  I also formed the basis of my beliefs from reading church publications such as the Era.   Everything that I both read and was taught supported a very naïve hemispheric model...one that unbeknownst to me conflicted with science.  

In the mid 1980's I read an article in Dialogue on population growth within the BoM that destroyed for me any possibility of the Book fitting with in the traditional hemispheric model...still I persisted going on to serve in the bishopric and on the high council...having successfully or so I thought doubting my doubts and putting them on the back burner...giving preference to my a priori beliefs, then seemingly like a domino falling, one problem after another began to form around Book of Mormon truth claims, DNA, Geography, 19th Century religious arguments, Anachronisms, all of my preconceived conclusions of what I believed the book to be the very foundation upon which I had built my testimony began to crumble before my very eyes....the biggest problem is that all of this conflicting information was more credible to me than the apologetic explanations coming from the church. It resolved hundreds of problems within the book. The more I studied the more man made the book became until it was just plain obvious that it was in fact man made.

So Robert, I don't expect you to understand my journey nor agree with my conclusions...but my a priori beliefs slowly shifted and changed over the course of 2 decades because of evidence that conflicted with and was more credible than counter evidence that was provided by the church itself. One of the most difficult and painful conclusions of my life was admitting that I had been wrong about the BoM.  I was heavily invested in it being true...I wanted it to be....I've paid a price for concluding otherwise...

For Cureloms not to be imaginary, the Book itself must first be what it claims to be...its truth claims should be self evident...but the entire world view that is promoted by the book does not nor has it ever existed in real time or history.  

But the bottom line is that this thread is just another useless discussion where nothing ever changes. Each side gets to argue back and forth with the only result being that we each end having confirmed our a priori beliefs...both yours and my new ones.  For me to again change my current POV back and regain a belief in the book, that broke my heart, you would have to provide irrefutable evidence to support its truth claims . Something I know you can not do.  Its a bar, that I sadly admit, is one too high for a man made book that purports to be a historical record to meet because I do however agree with you that "a dispassionate analysis of the BofM calls for a more circumspect analysis -- one based on fact, rather than a priori fancy" both yours and mine.

My eyes have been opened.  Which is why I feel this entire discussion is pointless and a complete waist of our time, despite what minor pleasure we each might believe we get from taking jabs at what we both see as each others a priori fantasies.

So you confused science with religion and now you spend your precious life's hours ticking away on useless repetitive posts.

Get on with life.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm not sure that's completely right, although I do suspect Gen 1 & 2 did function as a quasi-ritualistic text much like we use them. I suspect, despite 2 Ne 2, that the versions on the brass plates were different than our Genesis. But the arguments for borrowing from Babylon are quite strong made primarily on the basis of the similarity of Gen 1 & 2 to several myths including Gilgamesh and the Enuma Elish. The Enuma Elish in particular has long been noted to have tons of similarities. The main difference is that the snake is a good guy in the Babylonian version and bad in the Jewish one. The Babylonian version I believe is dated to the 12th century wheras the Jewish version in Gen 2 is a bit more complex to date. (Here ignoring the accounts in Psalms which are usually considered the earliest accounts) Gen 1 I think most likely arose during the exile via a mix of Babylonian accounts and the earlier Jewish accounts.

The other reason to think the accounts late is the shift from a more Mormon like God amongst already existent beings to God creating the forces he battles. (Although even in Genesis 1 chaos is there before creation) The common example of this raised is God creating the sea monsters in Gen 1:21 but in the accounts in Isaiah, Job and Psalms God battles these monster as part of creation. (More closely paralleling the Canaanite myths) So many take this to be a Jew presenting an account of creation influenced by the older Babylonian myths yet opposing them in key ways. Some see Gen 1:2's "tehom" for the "deep" as possibly an echo of the name Tiamat too.

You are right to mention the Canaanites, Clark.  So much of what is regarded as distinctly Israelite turns out to be normative at 2nd millennium BC Ugarit, as well as in even earlier Hurrian and Hittite practice and epic (not to mention Mari and Eshnunna), that the much later Babylonian exilic influence (although real) is secondary or even tertiary.  Much of this is already apparent with Abraham and his Aramaean & Amorite environment.

[clarkgoble]

13 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are right to mention the Canaanites, Clark.  So much of what is regarded as distinctly Israelite turns out to be normative at 2nd millennium BC Ugarit, as well as in even earlier Hurrian and Hittite practice and epic (not to mention Mari and Eshnunna), that the much later Babylonian exilic influence (although real) is secondary or even tertiary.  Much of this is already apparent with Abraham and his Aramaean & Amorite environment.

The main reason I bring up the exile is that I think particularly Gen 1 but also elements of Gen 2 show reactions against Babylon. So I think that means the form we have them in is quite late. But I'm completely with you in thinking the earlier form is likely closer to the Canaanite version. The big question, from my perspective, is what role the Josiah reforms and the deuteronomist tradition had on these accounts. That's rather relevant for the question of Lehi's and Nephi's view of creation and what is on the brass plates. 

Again in all this I'll fully confess I'm deeply influenced by Jon Levenson's Creation and the Persistence of Evil. What he portrays as the earlier pre-exilic view of creation sounds extremely Mormon to my ears.

[USU78]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

The main reason I bring up the exile is that I think particularly Gen 1 but also elements of Gen 2 show reactions against Babylon. So I think that means the form we have them in is quite late. But I'm completely with you in thinking the earlier form is likely closer to the Canaanite version. The big question, from my perspective, is what role the Josiah reforms and the deuteronomist tradition had on these accounts. That's rather relevant for the question of Lehi's and Nephi's view of creation and what is on the brass plates. 

Again in all this I'll fully confess I'm deeply influenced by Jon Levenson's Creation and the Persistence of Evil. What he portrays as the earlier pre-exilic view of creation sounds extremely Mormon to my ears.

Perhaps this accounts for the unalloyed pro-Asherah-ism in 1-2 Nephi.

[hagoth7]

Again, the importance here was clearly the elephant. Useful for man. In what way?

Either for steak, with curelom and cumom spices.  (An elven riff on that potential Jaredite recipe, if one deems a barbecue with spices to be the core Jaredite message)

 

Or, it not a beast roast....what if the reference to elephants, intended for our day, was a benevolent, productive, collaborative message encouraging us (across sectarian/cultural  boundaries) to compare notes on society's ills in order to figure *pressing* things out together...the big-albeit-surmountable challenges. Things like addressing homelessness, hunger, illness (even if they're deemed to be Samaritan), covering/clothing the naked, ministering to, rehabilitating, and when possible swinging wide the gates for those unjustly in prison. Visiting widows and the fatherless. And as part of that, over a simple meal together, exploring, mitigating and resolving root causes of conflict... (Elephants are said to have reasonably good memory for such things.)  

...weightier matters....Arguablly of greater use for man.

Edited July 10, 2017 by hagoth7

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I've gone back to the beginning of this thread and my original response to the OP where in I stated that Yes Cureloms are imaginary.  Robert, has accused me of "taking [my] a priori beliefs that the Book of Mormon is non-historical and extrapolated from"... there to form a conclusion that Curelom's are imaginary.  What Robert has failed to take into consideration is that my a priori beliefs were that the Book of Mormon was what it claimed to be, an ancient book translated from Golden Plates received from an angel describing the religious history of the inhabitants of this continent.  Those beliefs were built on decades of study and participation in church curriculum.  I firmly believed that the book was all that it claimed to be. 20 years ago if you would have asked me, I would have told you that my testimony of the Book of Mormon was indestructible.

Apriorism is based on irrational assumptions -- assumptions not based on logic or forensic evidence.  You have confused your early faith-based naivete with a solid and "indesructible" testimony.  Were you smart you would never have made such a common mistake.  All irrational beliefs are subject to immediate loss based on apparent facts delivered in a convincing manner (propaganda).  There need be no substance underlying the false claims which knock the slats out from under the innocent.  As P.. T. Barnum truly observed, "There's one born every minute."

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Well it turned out that it wasn't, I made the mistake of actually pulling at some of the loose threads in the books truth claims.   I merely read the book and took its claims whole cloth...I supplemented this reading with instruction from the Church curriculum in Sunday School, Seminary and Institute, the later two, from which I graduated.  I also formed the basis of my beliefs from reading church publications such as the Era.   Everything that I both read and was taught supported a very naïve hemispheric model...one that unbeknownst to me conflicted with science.  

Actually the hemispheric model (which I also foolishly believed early on) is not in the Book of Mormon, but is an apriori assumption -- an assumption not based on fact.  The non-academic reading you refer to is no solution to the lack of serious analysis.  The only way to deal with apriorism is to read seriously and critically, and to participate in the scholarly community.  Otherwise, one is best advised to base one's testimony solely on the Holy Spirit.  Your mistgake was to confuse faith-promoting Church curriculum with academic inquiry.

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

In the mid 1980's I read an article in Dialogue on population growth within the BoM that destroyed for me any possibility of the Book fitting with in the traditional hemispheric model...still I persisted going on to serve in the bishopric and on the high council...having successfully or so I thought doubting my doubts and putting them on the back burner...giving preference to my a priori beliefs, then seemingly like a domino falling, one problem after another began to form around Book of Mormon truth claims, DNA, Geography, 19th Century religious arguments, Anachronisms, all of my preconceived conclusions of what I believed the book to be the very foundation upon which I had built my testimony began to crumble before my very eyes....the biggest problem is that all of this conflicting information was more credible to me than the apologetic explanations coming from the church. It resolved hundreds of problems within the book. The more I studied the more man made the book became until it was just plain obvious that it was in fact man made.

I have seen people read their "Cliff Notes" and assume that they now have instant expertise -- at least enough to pass a simple test -- not realizing that they have learned just enough to get themselves into trouble.  As for the imaginary "apologetic explanations coming from the church," they did not exist in any case.  The LDS Church does not actually sponsor apologetics, and certainly doesn't encourage biblical or archeological scholarship connected to the defense of Scriptrue.  Indeed, they discourage it.  Or hadn't you noticed?

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

So Robert, I don't expect you to understand my journey nor agree with my conclusions...but my a priori beliefs slowly shifted and changed over the course of 2 decades because of evidence that conflicted with and was more credible than counter evidence that was provided by the church itself. One of the most difficult and painful conclusions of my life was admitting that I had been wrong about the BoM.  I was heavily invested in it being true...I wanted it to be....I've paid a price for concluding otherwise...

For Cureloms not to be imaginary, the Book itself must first be what it claims to be...its truth claims should be self evident...but the entire world view that is promoted by the book does not nor has it ever existed in real time or history.  

"Self-evident"?  That is simply silly.  Scholarship is hard work and rarely if ever self-evident.  The debate about the Bible continues in the same vein, with yokels abounding who have no idea what the Bible actually is.  There were those in the past who declared with certainty that Homeric epic could not be historical.  Turned out they were wrong.  They based their apriori assumption on the lack of concrete evidence for a 2nd millennium Greek heroic and literate culture.  Archeology proved them completely wrong.

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

But the bottom line is that this thread is just another useless discussion where nothing ever changes. Each side gets to argue back and forth with the only result being that we each end having confirmed our a priori beliefs...both yours and my new ones.  For me to again change my current POV back and regain a belief in the book, that broke my heart, you would have to provide irrefutable evidence to support its truth claims . Something I know you can not do.  Its a bar, that I sadly admit, is one too high for a man made book that purports to be a historical record to meet because I do however agree with you that "a dispassionate analysis of the BofM calls for a more circumspect analysis -- one based on fact, rather than a priori fancy" both yours and mine.

My eyes have been opened.  Which is why I feel this entire discussion is pointless and a complete waist of our time, despite what minor pleasure we each might believe we get from taking jabs at what we both see as each others a priori fantasies.

This is the nihilistic conclusion reached by various people, imagining that everyone is equally interested in taking pointless jabs at each other -- like some sporting event.  However, it is clear to me from many encounters with you that your "eyes are wide shut."

You demand a level of evidentiary quality ('irrefutable") which does not exist in the real world, and never has.  What scholars depend upon is adequate evidence, and the preponderance of evidence.   They accept moot points, where necessary, as they continue research in other more productive areas.  Scholars recognize the futility  of making scholarship a game or a contest, which negates the very value of scholarship.

You might want to listen to non-Mormon scholar Peter Enns discuss the matter in his Peter Enns, “Why Defending the Bible Does More Harm Than Good (The Bible Tells Me So),” The Flipside #010, podcast online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_ZHg6a_LP8 . 

 

[cinepro]

Regarding the question in the title of this thread, it occurs to me that the more relevant (and important) question would be this:

In what way are Cureloms not imaginary?

 

For example, take a list of "imaginary" creatures from books and movies:

 

Dewbacks

Crebians

Kalidahs

Skeksis

Porlocks

Formics

Asogians

Cureloms

 

In what way are "Cureloms" less "imaginary" than those other creatures?  They each appear as words on a page (or script).  Other than that, what evidence is there of them having actually existed and walked the Earth?  As apologists have been arguing for decades, the mere fact that something is mentioned in scriptures isn't a 100% assurance that such a thing or event actually existed.  Scriptures are imperfectly recorded and transmitted.  So without further clarification and/or a foundation of faith (i.e. belief without good evidence), how can we say "Cureloms" are anything other than "imaginary"?

Edited July 10, 2017 by cinepro

[hagoth7]

 

Edited July 10, 2017 by hagoth7

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, hagoth7 said:

Again, the importance here was clearly the elephant. Useful for man. In what way?

Either for steak, with curelom and cumom spices.  (An elven riff on that potential Jaredite recipe, if one deems a barbecue with spices to be the core Jaredite message)

Or, it not a beast roast....what if the reference to elephants, intended for our day, was a benevolent, productive, collaborative message encouraging us (across sectarian/cultural  boundaries) to compare notes on society's ills in order to figure *pressing* things out together...the big-albeit-surmountable challenges. Things like addressing homelessness, hunger, illness (even if they're deemed to be Samaritan), covering/clothing the naked, ministering to, rehabilitating, and when possible swinging wide the gates for those unjustly in prison. Visiting widows and the fatherless. And as part of that, over a simple meal together, exploring, mitigating and resolving root causes of conflict... (Elephants are said to have reasonably good memory for such things.)  

Perhaps the curelom was the roast beast of the Whose of Whoville.

Although Elephants are quite intelligent, their habitat in the Americas presented a predicament for them. The mastadon was smaller than its African counterparts, and its wooded habitat provided an easy way for men to ambush them, whereas the African elephant could herd easily in the open tundra with the large bull elephants defending the inner circle.

I believe the large thorns of the locust tree provide continuing evidence of the presence of these large mammals in the Americas. However, since they are specifically named in Ether, my belief is they are not the cureloms. Further, sheep and goats are named in the prior verse:
18 And also all manner of cattle, of oxen, and cows, and of sheep, and of swine, and of goats, and also many other kinds of animals which were useful for the food of man.

19 And they also had horses, and asses, and there were elephants and cureloms and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man, and more especially the elephants and cureloms and cumoms.

Which seems to dictate against a type of big horn sheep or mountain goat. Of course mammoths were quite hairy, and seemed to prefer mountainous areas. We know they were hunted given their presence in numerous Clovis sites - even with spears stuck in their bone.  So they were apparently considered quite useful, and would have been used similarly to the way the natives used the Buffalo - for clothing, meat, and tent material. Further, we know isolated populations continued to the time of the Jaredites in areas lesser populated by man - which also describes the promised land of the Jaredites. The cumom may have been either a buffalo or some type of small gomphothere, although anything akin to oxen seems to be precluded as well. The gomphotheres were typically smaller than the mastadon, but otherwise looked much like a four-tusked mastadon. https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2014/0715/Early-Americans-dined-on-four-tusked-elephant-relative-say-scientists So "plow beast" might have been a very appropriate name for them. And actually a gomphothere fossil dating to about 4000 BC was found in Columbia. Rodríguez-Flórez, Carlos David; Ernesto León Rodríguez-Flórez; Carlos Armando Rodríguez (2009). "Revision of Pleistocenic Gomphotheriidae Fauna in Colombia and case report in the Department of Valle Del Cauca" (PDF). Scientific Bulletin. Museum Center - Natural History Museum. 13(2): 78–85.

 

Edited July 10, 2017 by RevTestament

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

Again, the importance here was clearly the elephant. Useful for man. In what way?

Just for the record I'm deeply skeptical of elephants among the Jaredites. I believe tapirs were referred to as elephants by some Spanish as I recall.

Edited July 10, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Johnnie Cake]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I thought apostate exit stories were not welcome on this board.

I was providing "context" to my reply of the OP...it is not my exit story.  Oh and who you calling an apostate? Moi? 

Edited July 10, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Johnnie Cake]

4 hours ago, RevTestament said:

What is that price Johnnie? 

Yes, you were wrong about the BoM. It does not teach a Hemispheric model. Early Church ideas were wrong about it. So? That doesn't mean the book is untrue. I have found many points in the Book of Mormon that Joseph Smith simply could not have gotten right if it were a work of fiction. This is by accepting archaeology and routine scientific dating methods. Simply because the book is not what you were taught  - a hemispheric model for the Americas, doesn't in the least suggest a conclusion that it is fiction. Such a conclusion is like saying I have found out the Bible is not about all of Eurasia, but only a speck of land on one edge of the Mediterranean Sea, and therefore it's a false book because it claims God's name will fill the earth. I am not going to list all the archaeological findings which support the Book of Mormon in this thread - that is beyond its scope, and actually I've already written well over a hundred pages on it. There is no way to do it justice here. Suffice it to say, there is no way Joseph Smith could have written the Book of Mormon on his own as fiction. The reason for the OP was not to discuss all the archaeology of the Book of Mormon, but to whether there is any evidence for use of one word in the BoM. Arguing that the model of the BoM you were taught was crushed, and there is no archaeology to support the BoM and therefore it is fictional and therefore one can dismiss "curelom" is beyond the scope of this thread since I would have to post over a hundred pages of archaeological findings, pictures, graphs, etc to show there is scientific findings which support the BoM quite well. Can you please stick to the question at hand, and not an attack on the Book of Mormon as a whole? Thanks.

A 100 pages huh...gee I'd be happy with a single archaeological artifact or dig that's been confirmed to be Nephite.  Frankly, this is amazing and welcomed news RevTestiment, I actually didn't know that any Book of Mormon findings existed. I'm guessing that you can offer 1 single item or sight from your list of a 100 pages right?  I'm looking forward to it thanks.  And since I don't want you to highjack this thread to accommodate me...perhaps a separate thread might be appropriate.

[Johnnie Cake]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So you confused science with religion and now you spend your precious life's hours ticking away on useless repetitive posts.

Get on with life.

Excellent advice...

[Johnnie Cake]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Apriorism is based on irrational assumptions -- assumptions not based on logic or forensic evidence.  You have confused your early faith-based naivete with a solid and "indesructible" testimony.  Were you smart you would never have made such a common mistake.  All irrational beliefs are subject to immediate loss based on apparent facts delivered in a convincing manner (propaganda).  There need be no substance underlying the false claims which knock the slats out from under the innocent.  As P.. T. Barnum truly observed, "There's one born every minute."

Irrational assumptions such as belief in a book that has no evidence to support its claims?  As for my stated naïveté...it is the same naïveté I shared with God's mouth piece on earth, Spencer W. Kimball.  Yeah I admit...I made the same mistakes as President Kimball...stupid us.

Quote

Actually the hemispheric model (which I also foolishly believed early on) is not in the Book of Mormon, but is an apriori assumption -- an assumption not based on fact.  The non-academic reading you refer to is no solution to the lack of serious analysis.  The only way to deal with apriorism is to read seriously and critically, and to participate in the scholarly community.  Otherwise, one is best advised to base one's testimony solely on the Holy Spirit.  Your mistgake was to confuse faith-promoting Church curriculum with academic inquiry.

Interesting that belief in the Book of Mormon must now be built upon participation in the Scholarly Community or on feelings...that probably is not what you meant...but it is what you said.

 

Quote

I have seen people read their "Cliff Notes" and assume that they now have instant expertise -- at least enough to pass a simple test -- not realizing that they have learned just enough to get themselves into trouble.  As for the imaginary "apologetic explanations coming from the church," they did not exist in any case.  The LDS Church does not actually sponsor apologetics, and certainly doesn't encourage biblical or archeological scholarship connected to the defense of Scriptrue.  Indeed, they discourage it.  Or hadn't you noticed?

There is much I could say here....but I really don't enjoy going *** for tat...but your statement here is simply not true...I'd be happy to refute it...but again I don't like going *** for tat

Quote

"Self-evident"?  That is simply silly.  Scholarship is hard work and rarely if ever self-evident.  The debate about the Bible continues in the same vein, with yokels abounding who have no idea what the Bible actually is.  There were those in the past who declared with certainty that Homeric epic could not be historical.  Turned out they were wrong.  They based their apriori assumption on the lack of concrete evidence for a 2nd millennium Greek heroic and literate culture.  Archeology proved them completely wrong.

Didn't you mean to say that there were aspects of the Llid and the Odyssey that could be considered historical...kind of like Gerald Lund's,  The Work and the Glory series

Quote

This is the nihilistic conclusion reached by various people, imagining that everyone is equally interested in taking pointless jabs at each other -- like some sporting event.  However, it is clear to me from many encounters with you that your "eyes are wide shut."

Nice counter Jab

Quote

You demand a level of evidentiary quality ('irrefutable") which does not exist in the real world, and never has.  What scholars depend upon is adequate evidence, and the preponderance of evidence.   They accept moot points, where necessary, as they continue research in other more productive areas.  Scholars recognize the futility  of making scholarship a game or a contest, which negates the very value of scholarship.

I reached my conclusion on the historicity of the Book of Mormon based on the preponderance of evidence and the lack of supporting evidence...but my door is still open to belief, should evidence that would not support my conclusion is somehow presented.  But like I said the evidence would have to be irrefutable.  Fool me once, shame on me I won't be fooled a second time

Quote

You might want to listen to non-Mormon scholar Peter Enns discuss the matter in his Peter Enns, “Why Defending the Bible Does More Harm Than Good (The Bible Tells Me So),” The Flipside #010, podcast online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_ZHg6a_LP8 . 

 

I will, thanks for the link

Edited July 10, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Johnnie Cake]

5 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I asked an open-ended question about one word in the BoM so he feels it is an opportunity to answer an open-ended question about the truth of the Book of Mormon as a whole, and the claims of the LDS Church as a whole. Being that he can't seem to stick to the very narrow subject of the OP, maybe it is time for him to get booted from the thread.

Really?  Because I gave context to my reply of a question you asked?  Do it then...and shame on you

[hagoth7]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Perhaps the curelom was the roast beast of the Whose of Whoville.

If so, might wanna try it with a side of pickled red cabbage. (Elder Bednar style.) :0)

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I believe the large thorns of the locust tree provide continuing evidence of the presence of these large mammals in the Americas.

genrev

K.  Sometimes they migrate.

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

...with the large bull elephants defending the inner circle.

Wagons circled. Yep.

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

...sheep, and of swine, and of goats...

K. 

Sheep: good.  

Swine & goats: kinda wild, and sometimes bite the hand that feeds them.  

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Of course mammoths were quite hairy, and seemed to prefer mountainous areas. We know they were hunted given their presence in numerous Clovis sites - even with spears stuck in their bone.

Anyone notice that snigmorderer (? or snigmorderere?)  joined the forum the morning of 7/5?

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

So "plow beast" might have been a very appropriate name for them.

har haand du lagt paa herrens plov...

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

 

Edited July 10, 2017 by hagoth7

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Irrational assumptions such as belief in a book that has no evidence to support its claims?  As for my stated naïveté...it is the same naïveté I shared with God's mouth piece on earth, Spencer W. Kimball.  Yeah I admit...I made the same mistakes as President Kimball...stupid us.

Interesting that belief in the Book of Mormon must now be built upon participation if the Scholarly Community or on feelings...that probably not what you meant...but it is what you said.

 

There is much I could say here....but I'm really don't enjoy going *** for tat...but your statement here is simply not true...I'd be happy to refute it...but again I don't like going *** for tat

Didn't you mean to say that there were aspects of the Llid and the Odyssey that could be considered historical...kind of like Gerald Lund's,  The Work and the Glory series

Nice counter Jab

I reached my conclusion on the historicity of the Book of Mormon based on the preponderance of evidence and the lack of supporting evidence...but my door is still open to belief, should evidence that would not support my conclusion somehow is presented.  But like I said the evidence would have to be irrefutable.  Fool me once, shame on me I won't be fooled a second time

I will, thanks for the link

You really need to read up on the death of positivism and stop wasting your time.

Your 100 years out of date in your basic assumptions

[strappinglad]

26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

 J Cake said "Fool me once, shame on me I won't be fooled a second time "

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=hwJgPSwL&id=43D65739529B8AC2CCFD0001AB4F65D20F83F04E&thid=OIP.hwJgPSwLxQxZAok-uyg96AEsDd&q=ironing&simid=608021621011383680&selectedindex=45&mode=overlay&first=1

[Johnnie Cake]

29 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You really need to read up on the death of positivism and stop wasting your time.

Your 100 years out of date in your basic assumptions

Oh I'm quite up to date my friend...I've been exposed to 25 years of Mormon apologetics...that I find it wanting I'm sure is no surprise to you...

[Johnnie Cake]

3 hours ago, strappinglad said:

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=hwJgPSwL&id=43D65739529B8AC2CCFD0001AB4F65D20F83F04E&thid=OIP.hwJgPSwLxQxZAok-uyg96AEsDd&q=ironing&simid=608021621011383680&selectedindex=45&mode=overlay&first=1

AN IRONING BOARD?  SORRY YOU'VE LOST ME

You are going to be removed from the thread if you pick fights.

[strappinglad]

6 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

AN IRONING BOARD?  SORRY YOU'VE LOST ME

It's a bit of a stretch but, ..... wait for it, it will hit you eventually.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Irrational assumptions such as belief in a book that has no evidence to support its claims?  As for my stated naïveté...it is the same naïveté I shared with God's mouth piece on earth, Spencer W. Kimball.  Yeah I admit...I made the same mistakes as President Kimball...stupid us.

You again confuse faith with reason.  The two are not the same.  Faith needs no evidence and does not depend upon evidence.  A testimony via the Holy Spirit is completely separate from science and logic.  Those are two separate modes of thought.

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Interesting that belief in the Book of Mormon must now be built upon participation in the Scholarly Community or on feelings...that probably is not what you meant...but it is what you said.

False.  I said "one is best advised to base one's testimony solely on the Holy Spirit."  One of your greatest faults, Johnnie, has always been to misread and hence misunderstand.  Non-scholars are not truly capable of scholarship.   I know that sounds tautological, and it is.

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

There is much I could say here....but I really don't enjoy going *** for tat...but your statement here is simply not true...I'd be happy to refute it...but again I don't like going *** for tat

Empty claims easily shown to be false.  As I said:

Quote

I have seen people read their "Cliff Notes" and assume that they now have instant expertise -- at least enough to pass a simple test -- not realizing that they have learned just enough to get themselves into trouble.  As for the imaginary "apologetic explanations coming from the church," they did not exist in any case.  The LDS Church does not actually sponsor apologetics, and certainly doesn't encourage biblical or archeological scholarship connected to the defense of Scriptrue.  Indeed, they discourage it.  Or hadn't you noticed?

What part of that is false, in your view, Johnnie?  And since when do you have any understanding of the academic world?

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Didn't you mean to say that there were aspects of the Llid and the Odyssey that could be considered historical...kind of like Gerald Lund's,  The Work and the Glory series

It is a matter of academic fact that the Iliad and Odyssey were considered fiction.  Great fiction to be sure, but still fiction.  And for the same apriori reasons that you believe the BofM to be fiction.  But what about the gods and all the fantastic stuff?  Well, the same applies to the Bible, which came out of actual historical circumstances.  I told you specifically what part of Homeric Epic was considered false, and you completely missed the point.  Based on the ignorance of the reader, it was considered wholly fictional.

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Nice counter Jab

I reached my conclusion on the historicity of the Book of Mormon based on the preponderance of evidence and the lack of supporting evidence...but my door is still open to belief, should evidence that would not support my conclusion is somehow presented.  But like I said the evidence would have to be irrefutable.  Fool me once, shame on me I won't be fooled a second time

........................

I have seen no evidence to indicate that you have actually come to grips with the actual BofM, but only with a false version of it.  You were fed a bill of goods and choked on it.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Oh I'm quite up to date my friend...I've been exposed to 25 years of Mormon apologetics...that I find it wanting I'm sure is no surprise to you...

Huh?  So you are ready to resurrect the moribund corpse of Positivism?

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

 

This presumes a background which is not mine.

Just sayin'