Skin Color Doesn’t Mean Skin Color

[Teancum]

3 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

I have a life to live, which I'm going to go back to for a few hours, but I shall be back with further notes. You may be quite assured of that.

Terrific!  Have a great day.  Am I supposed to be worried? 😁

Look I don't plan on spending a lot of time debating this. @smac97 asked me for something a bit more substantive on the BoM issues related to who wrote the book, the witnesses and the plates.  Of all the myriad of problems there is with Mormonism and its claims I would rate this on an interest scale to me of 1 to 10, 10 being the greatest, about a 4.  It is one that I have spent some time with but there are others I feel are more critical (to me) and have focused prior studies on those. So you can spend all the time you wish in debunking what I posted but I don't plan on devoting a lot of time responding point by point.  My intent was not to convince any believer here anyway.  So have at it if you wish. I have a life to live as well.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Up close and personal, not at a distance?  Do you think you could convince someone they saw something on the table in front of the two of you if it wasn’t there?

If you don't think that humans can be deceived about what they are seeing up close, I suggest you watch a Netflix program called "Magic for Humans".  It is very entertaining to see how people can be tricked into seeing things up close that don't really happen.  

And do we really know how far away the witnesses say Moroni or the plates actually were?

1 hour ago, Calm said:

It is pretty meaningless to most people what she actually says since it is entertainment and not something their life (spiritual, financial, social, maybe also physical with all the moving around) is highly effected by.

Not saying memories of important events aren’t rewritten, all memories are to some extent, some massively so, but it seems unlikely that one could convince relatively practical individuals (successful farmer, lawyer)  that they saw a person up close and personal and for an extended period of time and heard him say something when they hadn’t.  I can see misremembering what was heard because of being overwhelmed.

I agree generally with what you are saying.  Which is probably why I now have such a problem with multiple accounts of the first vision.  And yes, I have heard all the apologetics on why different versions are out there, but I don't find them very convincing.  Like you, I would think that was such a powerful moment, I would never forget the details of what happened.  I am also amazed that we have no record of the witnesses recounting what happened to anyone right after the event happened.  I can tell you, if I. actually saw the gold plates and an angel standing in front of me, I would be writing every single family member and anyone else I knew,  telling them the incredible news of what I witnessed.  But evidently that didn't happen.  The only version of what happened was written by Joseph Smith, not any of the witnesses.  For me that is kinda a problem.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Seems more likely to me if there was no angel present and it was a fraud, they were in on it, because while they might not have written the info in the Book of Mormon about the experience themselves, they had plenty of time to refute it.

My point is to not persuade others to not believe the Church's current narrative, but rather to show that if you think the testimony of the witnesses is a proven fact of what happened, then you only believe that because you want to and not necessarily because it is irrefutable.  

[Calm]

 

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

Like you, I would think that was such a powerful moment, I would never forget the details of what happened.

Oh, I have forgotten plenty of details of powerful moments and have seen it in others, I just don’t think the general major aspects would be forgotten.  I think it very easy to forget the details, in fact because one is likely so hyper focused on the main aspect…like staring at the gun so much you don’t notice the clothing of your attacker.

Edited February 24, 2024 by Calm

[pogi]

21 hours ago, bluebell said:

You'd argue that moral value of any act is relative and nothing is immoral in and of itself?  In a world with rape and animal abuse and people defrauding the elderly out of their life savings and child sex trafficking and people lying and getting the innocent convicted of serious crimes, etc.?

Am I understanding your correctly?

Yes, everything is relative to one’s own perspective, understanding, and conscience.   One cannot sin in ignorance, for example.  Nothing is moral or immoral in and of itself, independent of someone’s perspective.  That just doesn’t make sense.  Morality is a judgement call.  Even if God has some absolute moral judgement, it still has to pass through the filters of man’s understanding, and perspective.    
Even with God, morality seems to be relative.  You bring up the example of animals - murdering animals and wasting/burning their flesh was once deemed a moral, even sacred act.   Now it is viewed as immoral.  You can see how things are relative to time, perspective, circumstance, culture, etc.   Even if something is viewed universally as immoral, that doesn’t make it immoral in and of itself, and doesn’t mean that views and judgements can’t and won’t change.  It is our views of the thing and not the thing itself that creates moral value.

Morality is relative on multiple scales - on the human scale, country, society, culture, family, and individual levels, and many others that I am not listing here.   Ultimately morality is a judgement call we all make on a fundamentally individual basis.  Everything filters down through our own individual conscience which is shaped on many different levels.  No two people share an identical conscience or would agree on the morality of all things at every level.  That tells me that it is undeniably relative, and can’t be known in some absolute sense - even if it does exist in some absolute sense.  Universality does not take away the relativity of something.

Relativity is not the demon that absolutists would have you think.   It is just the way things are (even that statement is only relatively true)   I am far more afraid of the absolutist than the relativist.  
 

Edited February 24, 2024 by pogi

[Danzo]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Nope.  But we know this was taught even early in Mormonism.  See here:

http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/indianpolygamyrevelation.htm

 

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Here is a list of why the three witnesses and their testimony may not be all that reliable:

 

Martin Harris:

1. Was known for being very unstable religiously. Over his whole life he changed his affiliation over 13 times.
2. Martin Harris was first a Quaker, then a Universalist, next a Restorationist, then a Baptist, next a Presbyterian, and then a Mormon.(Mormonism Unveiled, E. D. Howe, 1834, pp. 260-261)
3. After Martin Harris' excommunication in 1837, he changed his religion eight more times, going from the Shakers to one Mormon splinter group to the next, and back to the main group in 1842.(Improvement Era, March 1969, p. 63 and Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 164, Brigham Young)
4. In 1846, (after his excommunication in 1837) Martin Harris was preaching among the Saints in England for the Apostate James J. Strang. (Church Chronology, Andrew Jensen, 1899, p. 31; Millennial Star, vol. 8, Nov. 15, 1846, pp. 124-128.)
5. He signed his name to a statement: "Testimony of three witnesses: We Cheerfully certify...The Lord has made it known to me that David Witmer is the man. David was then called forward, and Joseph and his counselors laid hands upon him, and ordained him to his station, to succeed him...He will be prophet, seer, Revelator and Translator before God." Signed Martin Harris, Leonard Rich, Calvin Beebe. Of course this never came to pass as Brigham young became Joseph Smith's successor.
6. The Mormons stated of Martin Harris and a few other men within the pages of the church's official newspaper at the time, "a lying deceptive spirit attend them...they are of their father, the devil...The very countenance of Harris will show to every spiritual-minded person who sees him, that the wrath of God is upon him." Latter-Day Saint's, Millennial Star, Vol 8 pp124-128.
7. Phineas Young wrote to his older brother Brigham Young on December 31, 1841, from Kirtland, Ohio: "There are in this place all kinds of teaching; Martin Harris is a firm believer in Shakerism, says his testimony is greater than it was for the Book of Mormon" (Martin Harris - Witness and Benefactor of the Book of Mormon, 1955, p. 52)
8. Martin Harris testified that his testimony for Shakerism was greater than it was for Mormonism. The Shaker's "Sacred Roll and Book" was also delivered by an angel. (Case Against Mormonism, Tanner, Vol. 2, pp. 50-58; Martin Harris-Witness & Benefactor, BYU 1955 Thesis, Wayne C. Gunnell, p.52.)
9. In the Elder's Journal for August, 1838, Joseph Smith denounces Martin Harris as "so far beneath contempt that to notice him would be too great a sacrifice for a gentleman to make. The Church exerted some restraint on him, but now he has given loose to all kinds of abominations, lying, cheating, swindling, and all kinds of debauchery."(Gleanings by the Way, J. A. Clark, pp. 256-257)
10. Like David Whitmer, Martin Harris later testified that he did not see the plates literally with his fleshly eyes: He said he saw the plates with "the eyes of faith and not with the natural eyes". This we believe is the truth but it should eliminate him automatically as a witness none the less. This of course proves Mormonism is a fraud and that the Nephi Plates never existed and no one actually saw them. (The Braden & Kelly Debate, p. 173)

 

 

David Whitmer:

1. David Whitmer said in 1887: "If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to 'separate myself from among the Latter-day Saints...'" Address to all believers in Christ, p27, 1887
2. David Whitmer belonged to at least three Mormon splinter groups at different times, but he died still rejecting the LDS Church and its priesthood.
3. Like Martin Harris, David Whitmer later testified that he did not see the plates literally with his fleshly eyes: He said he saw the plates "by the eye of faith" handled by an angel.(Palmyra Reflector, March 19, 1831)
4. David Whitmer changed his story about seeing the plates and later told of finding them lying in a field and later still, told Orson Pratt that they were on a table with all sorts of brass plates, gold plates, the Sword of Laban, the 'Director' and the Urim and Thumim. (Millennial Star, vol. XL, pp. 771-772)
5. During the summer of 1837, while in Kirtland, David Whitmer pledged his new loyalty to a prophetess (as did Martin and Oliver) who used a black seer stone and danced herself into 'trances.'(Biographical Sketches, Lucy Smith, pp. 211-213)
6. It was the start of the finish for him. It ended in 1847 in his declaration to Oliver that he (Whitmer) was to be the Prophet of the New Church of Christ and Oliver a counsellor.(Letter to Oliver Cowdery, by David Whitmer, Sept. 8, 1847, printed in the "Ensign of Liberty," 5/1848, p. 93; also see 'Ensign of Liberty,' 8/1849, pp. 101-104)
7. In the meantime, he was excommunicated and roughly put out. His and Oliver's families were, in fact, driven into the streets and robbed by the Mormons while Whitmer and Cowdery were away trying to arrange a place to flee.(John Whitmer's History of the Church, Modern Microfilm, SLC, p. 22)
8. Cursed by leaders such as Sidney Rigdon, David Whitmer was denounced by the Prophet Joseph Smith as a "dumb beast to ride" and "an *** to bray out cursings instead of blessings." (History of the Church, vol. 3, p 228)

Oliver Cowdery:

1. Oliver Cowdery was excommunicated from the Mormon church and joined the Methodist church.
2. In 1841 the Mormons published a poem which stated "Or Book of Mormon not his word, because denied by Oliver". Seasons and Times, Vol 2, p482
3. The Mormon church accused Oliver Cowdery of Adultery and claimed he had joined "a gang of counterfeiters, thieves, liars, and blacklegs".
4. Oliver Cowdery was the Church's second Elder, often called the "Second President." The early day companion of Joseph Smith, he was scribe for the Book of Mormon, present at the "Restoration of the Priesthood,' and as close to the real truth as any man.(Pearl of Great Price, JS 2:72-76)
5. However, in 1838 in Kirtland, Oliver confronted Joseph Smith with the charge of adultery with Fanny Alger, and with lying and teaching false doctrines.(Private Letter to Brother, Warren Cowdery, by Oliver Cowdery, Jan. 21, 1838)
6. Joseph Smith denied this and charged Cowdery with being a liar.(History of the Church, vol. 3 pp. 16-18 and Elder's Journal, Joseph Smith, July 1838.)
7. Church records now show Miss Alger was Smith's first "spiritual wife." Oliver was telling the truth!(Historical Record, 1886, vol. 5, p. 233)
8. Cowdery was excommunicated for this and other "crimes."(History of the Church, vol. 3, pp. 16-18) Later, as a Methodist, he denied the Book of Mormon (Times and Seasons, vol. 2, p. 482 and Improvement Era, Jan. 1969, p 56 and "Oliver Cowdery-The Man Outstanding," Joseph Greehalgh, 1965, p. 28)
9. Cowdery publicly confessed his sorrow and shame for his connection with Mormonism.(The True Origin of The Book of Mormon, Charles Shook, 1914, pp. 58-59)
10. While the Mormon church claims he rejoined them in the fall of 1848, (Historical Record, 1886, vol. 5, p. 201) they also accused him later that year, with trying to "raise up the Kingdom again" with the Apostate, William E. McLellin.(The Mormon frontier, Diary of Hosea Stout, vol. 2, p. 336)
11. Oliver Cowdery was publicly charged by Joseph Smith and leading Mormons with stealing, lying, perjury, counterfeiting, adultery, and being the leader of a gang of "scoundrels of the deepest degree!"(Senate Document 189, Feb. 15, 1841, pp. 6-9 and Comprehensive History of the Church, B. H. Roberts, vol. 1, pp. 438-439)
12. Joseph Smith listed Oliver Cowdery as among those, "too mean to mention; and we had liked to have forgotten them." (History of the Church, vol. 3:232)
13. Oliver Cowdery died claiming that the book of Doctrines & Covenants must be discarded.

 

When it comes to Mormonism none of these three seem all that stable or reliable. Especially Martin Harris.

 

This is a long list, obviously you must have spent quite a bit of time compiling it, not sure if there is time or energy to go through the entire list, so why don't we go over the first item  first.

 

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Martin Harris:

1. Was known for being very unstable religiously. Over his whole life he changed his affiliation over 13 times.

How does the number of times someone switch religions relevant to whether they are telling the truth or not?  Do you normally ask how many times someone has changed religions before deciding whether to trust them?

Edited February 24, 2024 by Danzo

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I am far more afraid of the absolutist than the relativist.  
 

I'm more afraid of relativism, by far.  Especially as you've described it here.  I can't imagine a perspective where child rape isn't immoral, for example, and I struggle to understand how you can.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Even with God, morality seems to be relative.  You bring up the example of animals - murdering animals and wasting/burning their flesh was once deemed a moral, even sacred act.   Now it is viewed as immoral.  You can see how things are relative to time, perspective, circumstance, culture, etc.   Even if something is viewed universally as immoral, that doesn’t make it immoral in and of itself, and doesn’t mean that views and judgements can’t and won’t change.  It is our views of the thing and not the thing itself that creates moral value.

I would argue that we treat animals more poorly now than humans did in the past. Also the sacred acts of sacrifice usually involved humans eating the delicious parts.

[pogi]

41 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm more afraid of relativism, by far.  Especially as you've described it here.  I can't imagine a perspective where child rape isn't immoral, for example, and I struggle to understand how you can.

This is a common misunderstanding and false judgement of relativism.  It is immoral in my view.  It is probably universally viewed as immoral.  I too can’t fathom how anyone could not view it as immoral.   We are no different in that regard.  Relativists still believe in social constructs and contracts that hold people accountable for what society deems evil, but in the end it is society that deems it evil.  That is relativism.  Even our penal system recognizes the relative nature of accountability, dishing out different punishments (or no punishment at all) for the same crime based on age, mental capacity, etc.  it is all relative.  

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I would argue that we treat animals more poorly now than humans did in the past.

I can’t speak to that in general.  I was making a specific point about how morals are relative and how views can and do change.

Edited February 25, 2024 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Yes, everything is relative to one’s own perspective, understanding, and conscience.   One cannot sin in ignorance, for example.  Nothing is moral or immoral in and of itself, independent of someone’s perspective.  That just doesn’t make sense.  Morality is a judgement call.  Even if God has some absolute moral judgement, it still has to pass through the filters of man’s understanding, and perspective.    
Even with God, morality seems to be relative.  You bring up the example of animals - murdering animals and wasting/burning their flesh was once deemed a moral, even sacred act.   Now it is viewed as immoral.  You can see how things are relative to time, perspective, circumstance, culture, etc.   Even if something is viewed universally as immoral, that doesn’t make it immoral in and of itself, and doesn’t mean that views and judgements can’t and won’t change.  It is our views of the thing and not the thing itself that creates moral value.

Morality is relative on multiple scales - on the human scale, country, society, culture, family, and individual levels, and many others that I am not listing here.   Ultimately morality is a judgement call we all make on a fundamentally individual basis.  Everything filters down through our own individual conscience which is shaped on many different levels.  No two people share an identical conscience or would agree on the morality of all things at every level.  That tells me that it is undeniably relative, and can’t be known in some absolute sense - even if it does exist in some absolute sense.  Universality does not take away the relativity of something.

Relativity is not the demon that absolutists would have you think.   It is just the way things are (even that statement is only relatively true)   I am far more afraid of the absolutist than the relativist.  
 

But I think virtually EVERY religion agrees with the Golden Rule.

Can't think of one that does not!

Taoism, Buddhism, Christianity, even most Atheists do not deny that we "should" treat others as we would want to be treated.

And that alone then becomes a kind of universal principle/ law that makes life good and peaceful, and those who act against it, often end up in prison, for deliberately treating others abusively. 

Anywhere.

Atheists are eager to point out that for the most part they are "moral" people who have no need for religion, and I agree, BUT I would argue that this alone, the opinion that there IS NO GOD becomes a faith based belief itself.  There is no scientific evidence FOR God or against God's existence, so neither position can be seen as "true" using the paradigm that all true statements must be supported by "evidence", while also insisting, without evidence, that there is NO God.

So despite their protests, I would argue that even Atheism is a kind of a religious position.

So how does this fit with the total relativity of morals when, (as I am postulating,) that virtually every human believes that to NOT follow the Golden Rule is not morally justified.  (ie: that there is no moral justification for breaking the Golden Rule) and that in severe circumstances- like baby rape- and random murders for fun-one must be removed from society one way or another?

Is then the abolition of prisons  justified for moral relativists?

I would argue NO quite vociferously!

 

 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

Universality does not take away the relativity of something.

Please clarify.

Are we discussing things or propositions?

I see this as a question in semantics, which if fine, but don't know which way to reply.

Edited February 25, 2024 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Please clarify.

Are we discussing things or propositions?

We are talking about morals, so propositions.  Universal (everyone has the same relative perspective) does not equal absolute (existing in and of itself, despite human perspectives).  “Universal” (in my view) is not the opposite of “relative”; absolutism is.   Something can be relative and universal.  Animals don't believe in the golden rule, so on at least one level it is a relative idea to humans.  I guarantee that there are humans that don't subscribe to the golden rule.  I can think of several politicians off the top of my head.  Narcissists and antisocials seem not to adopt such morals.  Some may give it lip service for their own selfish reasons, but clearly they hold and abide by a different moral law, putting themselves first.  This selfish moral is seen throughout scripture.

It doesn't matter if a moral is viewed as universal at any given time, morals are still relative.  Just because everyone holds the same perspective on a given moral, doesn't mean their views are not relative to the current culture and perspective, and it doesn't mean that those views can't/won't change in time as culture and society evolves.    This is evident throughout history.  Things that were once viewed as moral, are now considered immoral, and vise versa.  We can see these moral evolutions in probably every society and culture. 

To suggest that a moral is not relative is to say that it is moral in an absolute sense - in and of itself, despite human perspective.  Now I now how you feel about that idea.  Clearly that is a silly proposition because we can't get outside of ourselves to see something as it is.  Everything is a personal interpretation - aka relative view.   Morals don't exist outside of us.  We create them, or at least we individually interpret them, making them relative to our interpretation.  

For example, "eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth: was once the accepted moral of a certain society.   Christ changed things.   Morals of the people changed as new relative perspectives emerged. 

Morals are no different from “truth”.  It is relative.  I thought you would be the one person who had my back on this, honestly.

Edited February 25, 2024 by pogi

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Danzo said:

How does the number of times someone switch religions relevant to whether they are telling the truth or not?  Do you normally ask how many times someone has changed religions before deciding whether to trust them?

I would just assume they had something definite in mind that they wanted to find in religions and were endlessly optimistic they would find it, but it took a long time. And if they spend significant time in each, that they were sincerely giving the faith a decent effort rather than dine and dash with each….

Now if they gush over each faith as being perfect and everything they wanted and then turned around and trashed every religion after they left it, that would be different, but if it was about a search and getting closer to it as time went on, that makes sense to me (why would you leave a faith that fit better for one that didn’t, so I would expect each new faith was likely getting closer to the ideal…unless you were just exploring and not joining).

[GoCeltics]

On 2/23/2024 at 11:04 AM, smac97 said:

Brant Gardner has compiled some interesting assessments:

And here:

And here:

And here:

And here:

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you Smac.

[GoCeltics]

On 2/23/2024 at 10:08 AM, BlueDreams said:

We also don't know what they were already doing that was setting them apart.

The rebellion, which caused the mark of dark skin, appears to have commenced either 
during the journey through the wilderness away from Jerusalem, on the sea voyage, or 
shortly after reaching land (Alma 3:6-8).

[Stormin' Mormon]

9 hours ago, Teancum said:

 

4.  In 1846, (after his excommunication in 1837) Martin Harris was preaching among the Saints in England for the Apostate James J. Strang. (Church Chronology, Andrew Jensen, 1899, p. 31; Millennial Star, vol. 8, Nov. 15, 1846, pp. 124-128.)

I've got relatives who live in the northern part of the lower peninsula of Michigan, and when staying with them one summer (waaaaaay back in the early 1990's), I first heard of King James of Beaver Island.  Ever since, I've been rather fascinated with this particular splinter group. As I had recalled, Martin Harris wasn't a particularly ardent Stangite, but I wanted to verify that.  Here's a pretty good run down of Martin's mission to England on behalf of the Stangites:  

https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/a-witness-in-england-martin-harris-and-the-strangite-mission/

A key takeaway from the end of the paper:

Quote

 

Martin Harris, when he left America, had planned “to go to Europe and remain there one year or more.”⁶⁰ His “one year” would actually turn into less than two months...Harris’s departure from Strangism never stopped him from proclaiming the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Preaching Strangism, however, was what Brooks needed Harris to accomplish. Brooks, seeing Harris fail in his mission, began to do all he could to stop Harris.

With the probable help of Capener, Brooks “saw fit to persuade Martin [Harris] to return to America, which [Harris] did by way of Liverpool.”⁶² Because Martin Harris had the potential of being such a great asset to the Strangites, one can safely conclude that though Harris bore a powerful testimony of the Book of Mormon, there was a rift between what Harris taught and the Strangite doctrine. The distance between Brooks and Harris was finalized, and Brooks claimed later that he did not “want to go to the heaven that . . . Harris will lead men to.”⁶³

 

^{This article paints a vivid portrait of a man so desperate to testify of the Book of Mormon (and who so desperately hated Brigham Young) that he joined the Strangite mission to England, where he...failed to testify of Strang and instead testified of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.}  

 

Edited February 25, 2024 by Stormin' Mormon

[GoCeltics]

On 2/23/2024 at 10:43 AM, Calm said:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/archive/publications/what-does-the-book-of-mormon-mean-by-skin-of-blackness

So my interpretation is we are not given enough info in the specific verse to know what skin of blackness means, but given the rest of the Book of Mormon it is likely more metaphorical than literal imo.

Thank you. After reviewing Mr. Gardner's article, I noticed that he cited Alma 3:6 but 
neglected to include verses 7 and 8.

Comprehending the significance of skin color is essential to grasp the teachings outlined 
in another section of the Book of Mormon (Jacob 3:5-9).

[Stormin' Mormon]

9 hours ago, Teancum said:

Here is a list of why the three witnesses and their testimony may not be all that reliable:

 

 

Did you cut and paste this from Beggar's Bread or from Bible.ca?  Either way, I don't believe this is your work, so you should probably cite where you lifted the thing from.  Personally, I'd rather cite Beggar's Bread, because the page at Bible.ca with this list is u-u-gly.  

[rodheadlee]

On 2/21/2024 at 6:36 PM, pogi said:

I never implied that I think all culture is good.  And yes, all culture (just like morals) are relative/subjective.  If I wasn’t clear, I am speaking more of traditional culture and not a lot of the problems, including alcoholism, that came with the European invasion of these peoples.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_and_Native_Americans

As far as racial identity goes, that was also lost (not just their culture) by many Native Americans who were placed in these programs (of course they had to be baptized first and abandon their “superstitions” in order to enter the program).  
 

I haven’t heard anybody address this yet.  How is this any better than baseball baptisms?  The success/retention rate was about on par to baseball baptisms.  I see a major parallel.   It was not ok.  

 

Native American culture? You mean like war parties? Raiding each other's hunting grounds and taking scalps? I suggest you read some Louis L'Amour. I realize it's fiction but it's based in reality as far as he could research it. No doubt some of the finest light Cavalry and guerrilla Warfare tactics came from Native American Indians.

Edited to add: there are way too many different groups of Native Americans to single out cultural aspects on the group as a whole.

Edited February 25, 2024 by rodheadlee

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, Danzo said:

 

This is a long list, obviously you must have spent quite a bit of time compiling it, not sure if there is time or energy to go through the entire list, so why don't we go over the first item  first.

No I really have no plans to do so. If you feel a need to attempt to rebut the points feel free.

19 hours ago, Danzo said:

 

How does the number of times someone switch religions relevant to whether they are telling the truth or not?  Do you normally ask how many times someone has changed religions before deciding whether to trust them?

It speaks to Harris's extreme instability. He seemed to fall for just about anything that came along. That with other factors questions whether we can trust his testimony.  So yea, this directly impact his credibility about visions of angels and so on.

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Did you cut and paste this from Beggar's Bread or from Bible.ca?  Either way, I don't believe this is your work, so you should probably cite where you lifted the thing from.  Personally, I'd rather cite Beggar's Bread, because the page at Bible.ca with this list is u-u-gly.  

Does it matter?  All the points had references.

But your wish is my command:

https://www.bible.ca/mor-witness-book.htm

So yes Bible.ca.  I thought it was a pretty good list.  You all can argue about these if you wish.  LIke I said the BoM witnesses and plates are such a farcical tale that it is hard to swallow. Taken with all the other problems Mormonism presents for me its about a 4.  The character, actions and even changing doctrine of Joseph and his successors and the apologists attempts to constantly downplay what LDS leaders said and taught long ago convinced me that they could not be trusted.    IF someone tells that whatever God says is right even if it contradicts previous messages and commandments and I should trust them that they know what God wants me to do they better be more trustworthy and accurate than the LDS prophets, seers and revelators.  The three witnesses seem more like co charlatans with Joseph.. Feel free to rebut the points. I may or may not participate depending on time and interest.

[Teancum]

On 2/23/2024 at 6:35 PM, Stargazer said:

But it doesn't take a lot to figure out that when the scriptures talk about blackness they are not generally talking about skin color, and there are cultural elements among many peoples that use the words light and dark, white and black, as figures with meanings other than literal colors. And some ancient languages had different names for colors, or used them differently. Even today we describe some things as a particular color, when that thing isn't at all that color. For example, white wine, or white grapes. Neither of which are actually white

But the text says a SKIN of DARKNESS and it was placed so that the Lamaintes would be LOATHSOME to the Nephites.  And if it does not take a lot to figure out that it is not talking about skin color why didn't at least ever LDS leader through SWK says it was SKIN COLOR?  Why did the early LDS leaders talk about marrying Native Americans and having children with them so their posterity would start to have their skins whitened?

[bluebell]

18 hours ago, pogi said:

This is a common misunderstanding and false judgement of relativism.  It is immoral in my view.  It is probably universally viewed as immoral.  I too can’t fathom how anyone could not view it as immoral.   We are no different in that regard.  Relativists still believe in social constructs and contracts that hold people accountable for what society deems evil, but in the end it is society that deems it evil.  That is relativism.  Even our penal system recognizes the relative nature of accountability, dishing out different punishments (or no punishment at all) for the same crime based on age, mental capacity, etc.  it is all relative.  

Yes, I do understand that, but some things are evil whether society deems them evil or not.  Even if there was a society that taught that it was not evil to rape a 4 year old, that is still evil.

Because a higher law exists, society doesn't determine morality.  

[Stormin' Mormon]

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But the text says a SKIN of DARKNESS and it was placed so that the Lamaintes would be LOATHSOME to the Nephites.  And if it does not take a lot to figure out that it is not talking about skin color why didn't at least ever LDS leader through SWK says it was SKIN COLOR?  Why did the early LDS leaders talk about marrying Native Americans and having children with them so their posterity would start to have their skins whitened?

For the same reason that artwork depicting BoM events are shot through with artifacts of western European culture. In the absence of any serious or studied thought about the cultural assumptions of the writers of a text, the default reading will always be for the reader to impose their own cultural context. 

It takes real skill to think outside one's own cultural miliue. It's one of those "does a fish know it's wet?" situations. If a reader doesn't know if there are alternative cultural assumptions to be applied, they won't even look for those alternates. Their own cultural jingosim then becomes the plain and obvious reading of the text.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Their own cultural jingosim then becomes the plain and obvious reading of the text.

Quoted because this deserves to be repeated.

We use our culture and our biases to determine what is "plain and obvious".  If the text is coming from a different culture that the person reading doesn't recognize or understand, their interpretation is going to have flaws.  This will be even more magnified the more different the cultures are.

(This message board is a perfect example, where we misunderstand each other a great deal of time despite coming from the same time period and the same culture for the most part.  If communication is this hard for us, why would we think it should be simple and obvious between us and Nephi??)