A split thread: Joseph Smith

[Norman]

Yes.


If it doesn't support reality, you might have your hands full defending your personal faith, against education and knowledge.

Norman: No, I think I am doing just fine so far, lot's of education and knowledge, you are entitled to your opinion.

 

[outhouse]

It has been the Omphalos of my life for thirty years now

Omphalos Syndrome is a misguided belief is it not?

 

[outhouse]

Wikipedia as a valuable source of information

Of course you don't trust credible sources. By the way, wiki has sourced each of those statements to credible people.

Not like you, just posting opinion, never supplying credible non faith based source

 

[outhouse]

Smithsonian Institution[2] and the National Geographic Society SAY YOUR WRONG.


And guess what they are 100% credible. YOU however have not shown any credibility.

Why do you hate education and knowledge?

 

[Norman]

Do not quote "scripture" at me, I do not read it. Where are the fossils, where are the bones, were is the DNA analysis, where is the evidence?

Norman: You decided to debate in a thread about the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith, I think that gives me the right as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to quote scripture to prove my point. If it bother's you then our discussion can end right here or you know where the ignore button is at.

 

[rrosskopf]

Where are the fossils, where are the bones, were is the DNA analysis, where is the evidence?

Usually a fossil is something older than 10,000 years that was taken out of the ground. None of the claims in the Book of Mormon go back that far. I'm sure there are bones. No one believes the Americas to be unihabited. Bones do decay and turn to dust over time, even more so in moist climates like Mexico and the Yucatan. DNA, as I have already pointed out, cannot be used to prove or disprove the Book of Mormon.
Something can be true without fossils, bones or dna. There are many other types of evidences. You keep saying that there is no evidence, but I gave you a link to over 50 evidences, which you refused to read. This is an example of how pride blinds people. It would take you most of your life to study up on all the evidences that have been found that substantiate the Book of Mormon, but you refuse to even spend 10 minutes. Joseph Smith taught that faith was a principle of intelligence, and that makes perfect sense to me. I am not referring specifically to faith in God, although that is important too. Faith is taking action without having all the facts. It is taking a step into the dark.

 

[outhouse]

I think that gives me the right as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to quote scripture to prove my point

Scripture is not a credible source. It only proves you follow a apologetic opinion, it does not prove anything to anyone else.

 

[outhouse]

DNA, as I have already pointed out, cannot be used to prove or disprove the Book of Mormon.

Nothing we post no matter how credible will prove anything to you.

Many people following fanaticism and fundamentalism refuse modern education and knowledge.

Smithsonian Institution[2] and the National Geographic Society say your in error and your claims are not substantiated.


Why do you not trust these credible organizations, when most of the whole world does????

 

[Sapiens]

Usually a fossil is something older than 10,000 years that was taken out of the ground. None of the claims in the Book of Mormon go back that far. I'm sure there are bones. No one believes the Americas to be unihabited. Bones do decay and turn to dust over time, even more so in moist climates like Mexico and the Yucatan. DNA, as I have already pointed out, cannot be used to prove or disprove the Book of Mormon.

Fine, show me a horse bone the can be proven to be pre-Columbian, that's all. Anything from prior to 1492. DNA could be used to definitively prove it, and the absence of DNA evidence makes it almost certain, though not absolute, that the BofM makes claims that can not be substantiated.

Something can be true without fossils, bones or dna. There are many other types of evidences. You keep saying that there is no evidence, but I gave you a link to over 50 evidences, which you refused to read. This is an example of how pride blinds people. It would take you most of your life to study up on all the evidences that have been found that substantiate the Book of Mormon, but you refuse to even spend 10 minutes.

What we are discussing here is the question of the validity of the claims made by Smith and contained in the BofM; whether it should be admitted into evidence, as it were. You can not use the BofM to prove it's own claims, that's circular reasoning. So, I have selected one small link in the chain that comprehensively falsifies the entire document if it can not be demonstrated as being sound. So demonstrate it or admit that you can not, and the BofM is false.

Joseph Smith taught that faith was a principle of intelligence, and that makes perfect sense to me. I am not referring specifically to faith in God, although that is important too. Faith is taking action without having all the facts. It is taking a step into the dark.

I have no faith, I deal in probabilities, faith is for suckers.

What

I have no faith, I deal in probabilities, faith is for suckers.

Once again, where are the fossils, were are the bones, were is the evidence?

 

[Sapiens]

Norman: "Almost" automatically leaves room that they did exist. I do not consider Wikipedia as a valuable source of information. Could you
please cite at least one person from a credible source? When I was in college many of my professors would not accept any information from
Wikipedia, primarily because it is written by common people and not scholars. So, I carry on the tradition of my professors and do not consider
it a viable source.

Wiki is a creditable source, several studies have shown it to be as accurate as any conventionally published encyclopedia. Your professors did not know what they were talking about, you seem to have a habit of lining up behind folks who have strong opinions that are not supported by data.

 

[Sapiens]

Norman: You decided to debate in a thread about the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith, I think that gives me the right as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to quote scripture to prove my point. If it bother's you then our discussion can end right here or you know where the ignore button is at.

No, what this discussion is about is the claims made by Smith in the BofM, you can not use it to prove itself, that's circular logic.

 

[Sapiens]

Norman: "Almost" automatically leaves room that they did exist. I do not consider Wikipedia as a valuable source of information. Could you
please cite at least one person from a credible source? When I was in college many of my professors would not accept any information from
Wikipedia, primarily because it is written by common people and not scholars. So, I carry on the tradition of my professors and do not consider
it a viable source.

"Almost" is a polite academic word that really has no meaning in this case. Academics are careful to not say things in absolute terms, not because the are not 99.99999999999999999999% sure, but just because science always remembers that saying 100% is full of hubris.

 

[Sapiens]

Norman: I need to learn how to down load pictures into my posts, when I do, I have some interesting photos for you also.I already stated the comparison of Quetzalcoatl and Jesus, of course it is always up for debate. Is it solid, no, an interesting comparison from my point of view. Jesus visited the America's, North America and Mesoamerica. Approximate Book of Mormon people Jaredites = Olmec Civilization (1500 BC-500 BC) Nephite-Lamanites = Izapa-Maya Civilization (500 BC-400 AD); Later Lamanites = Maya Civilization (200 AD-1000 AD). An interesting read if you are interested?; The Maya creation story recorded in The Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel states, “The our Lord, God the Father measured his footstep. . . .the day, as it was called, was created, heaven and earth were created, the stairway of water, the earth, rocks and trees; the things of the sea and the things of the land were created.” (Roys 1967: 116-117, Notes 10 & 11). Jesus was a resurrected person when He appeared to the Nephites and evidently the people who saw him described him in that manner; that is there eye witness account. So, the record I posted stands on its own, it is a good match in my opinion. What do you mean by "go start your own thread?" I don't have to start my own thread, I am already in a thread that I have been posting in which has been about the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. You have changed the subject many times just go back and look at your post's. Maybe, you should go into the Agnostic or Atheist DIR, I am sure you will feel more at home there. You seem to wonder in areas that you know nothing about. I have been studying for thirty years now about the Book of Mormon. If something counters what you believe you say it was altered, you have ignored so many facts. You don't want to debate, you just want to be heard and only want your point of view understood. It does not work that way Sapiens, you have called Joseph Smith so many disparaging names and even used the word liar; that is not a debate. Please learn how to debate.

I really should stick to my Where's the Beef? But I can't let this sort of ignorant presentation go uncorrected.

The Chilam Balam are a collection of works, all of which are post-conquest, some of which are as late as the early 19th Century. The information has been cleary forced through a European frame and includes such gems as treatises on European (Ptolemaic) astrology and the European zodiac, as well as the Catholic liturgical calendar (reportorios de los tiempos), . The astrology is Ptolemaic and includes the European zodiac and Roman Catholic instruction: feast days of the saints, tracts, and prayers, not to mention Spanish romance, such as the tale of the ‘Maiden Theodora’.

So stop trying to distract and deal with my question, WHERE'S THE BEEF?

 

[Sapiens]

Norman: "Almost" automatically leaves room that they did exist. I do not consider Wikipedia as a valuable source of information. Could you
please cite at least one person from a credible source? When I was in college many of my professors would not accept any information from
Wikipedia, primarily because it is written by common people and not scholars. So, I carry on the tradition of my professors and do not consider
it a viable source.

The existence of the Jaredites is denied by almost all historians and archaeologists; both the Smithsonian Institution and the National Geographic Society have stated that they have seen no evidence to support these claims in the Book of Mormon.

If you need one person from a credible source, how about: Terryl L. Givens, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 132

 

[Sapiens]

Norman: I need to learn how to down load pictures into my posts, when I do, I have some interesting photos for you also.I already stated the comparison of Quetzalcoatl and Jesus, of course it is always up for debate. Is it solid, no, an interesting comparison from my point of view.

Generally you can just cut and paste the picture.

Jesus visited the America's, North America and Mesoamerica. Approximate Book of Mormon people Jaredites = Olmec Civilization (1500 BC-500 BC) Nephite-Lamanites = Izapa-Maya Civilization (500 BC-400 AD); Later Lamanites = Maya Civilization (200 AD-1000 AD). An interesting read if you are interested?; The Maya creation story recorded in The Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel states, “The our Lord, God the Father measured his footstep. . . .the day, as it was called, was created, heaven and earth were created, the stairway of water, the earth, rocks and trees; the things of the sea and the things of the land were created.” (Roys 1967: 116-117, Notes 10 & 11). Jesus was a resurrected person when He appeared to the Nephites and evidently the people who saw him described him in that manner; that is there eye witness account. So, the record I posted stands on its own, it is a good match in my opinion. What do you mean by "go start your own thread?" I don't have to start my own thread, I am already in a thread that I have been posting in which has been about the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. You have changed the subject many times just go back and look at your post's.

We have meandered a small bit waiting for you to tell us WHERE THE BEEF is. We are still waiting.

Maybe, you should go into the Agnostic or Atheist DIR, I am sure you will feel more at home there. You seem to wonder in areas that you know nothing about. I have been studying for thirty years now about the Book of Mormon.

Thirty years, eh? Well ... then it should be easy for you ... WHERE'S THE BEEF?

If something counters what you believe you say it was altered, you have ignored so many facts. You don't want to debate, you just want to be heard and only want your point of view understood. It does not work that way Sapiens, you have called Joseph Smith so many disparaging names and even used the word liar; that is not a debate. Please learn how to debate.

Of course that's debate, that is the topic of the debate: 'Was Joseph Smith lying his head off when he claimed that horses (Equus ferus spp.) Were present in the New World between the Pleistocene Extinction and 1492." That's debate. I take the affirmative, I maintain that Jose?ph Smith lying his head off concerning this matter. I state that there is no evidence of any sort that supports his claim. What do you say? WHERE'S THE BEEF, Norman? I'm asking you to answer one itsy bitsy question about horses ... how about a real answer to a real question? I'll say it again, LIAR! JOSEPH SMITH WAS A LIAR! You don't think so? Should be easy to prove him truthful, just come up with an Equus ferus spp. artifact from the New World with a reliable date after the Pleistocene Extinction and before 1492. Should be easy for such a long studied scholar and well tuned debater as yourself.

 

[rrosskopf]

Fine, show me a horse bone the can be proven to be pre-Columbian, that's all.

I can believe something without a horse bone. Apparently, you can't.

Okay, here are the horse bones. Enjoy.

Henry Chapman Mercer, The Hill-Caves of Yucatan: A Search for Evidence of Man's Antiquity in the Caverns of Central America (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1896), 172.
Institute of Maya Studies, Miami Museum of Science, Newsletter 7, no. 11 (November 1978): 2.
Clayton E. Ray, "Pre-Columbian Horses from Yucatan," Journal of Mammalology 38 (1957): 278; Harry E. D. Pollock and Clayton E. Ray, "Notes on Vertebrate Animal Remains from Mayapan," Current Reports 41 (August 1957): 638 (Carnegie Institution, Washington, D.C., Dept. of Archaeology).

 

[rrosskopf]

Smithsonian Institution[2] and the National Geographic Society say your in error and your claims are not substantiated.
Why do you not trust these credible organizations, when most of the whole world does????

Someone at The Smithsonian caused a brouhaha when they responded to letters, inquiring about a popular Mormon myth. The response was an attack against the plausibility of the Book of Mormon. The Smithsonian did a hasty reversal, when their pointed letter was criticized. It turns out that many of the things in the letter were demonstrably false, and represented theories long abandoned.

To my knowledge, the National Geographic has never made such an error. They support the Asian land-bridge theory, as do many archaeologists, but there is nothing in the Book of Mormon that speaks to that theory, either to support it or to disallow it. The National Geographic made a statement that the Book of Mormon is not generally considered to be a history of the Americas, and that is true. The Book of Mormon never claims to be a history of the Americas.

 

[outhouse]

The Book of Mormon never claims to be a history of the Americas.

LOL yet it makes historical claims not backed by anyone but the faith based biased followers of a religious group.

The Smithsonian is a credible institution, and the whole world follows and trust it over anything you say. And they say you have no evidence outside mythology and faith.

 

[rrosskopf]

Scripture is not a credible source. It only proves you follow a apologetic opinion, it does not prove anything to anyone else.

I really don't believe a horse bone will prove that God exists, either. I don't think that anything can prove that God exists, without first defining what is meant by "God". If forced to define God as defined by most churches, I would have to consider myself an Atheist, as I cannot comprehend such a being. Never-the-less, I have conversations with some entity, whom I call God, who both listens to and answers me, often giving me knowledge beyond my own understanding. I have profited from the relationship in many ways. Through faith, repentance, and making and keeping covenants with God, I have experienced great joy.

Communication is strong evidence of a relationship between two people. The scriptures are records that show some of the communications between God and man. It makes more sense to study the communications in one's search for the reality of God, than studying horse bones.

 

[rrosskopf]

LOL yet it makes historical claims not backed by anyone but the faith based biased followers of a religious group.

As the lone "voice" of a people long dead, the authenticity of the Book of Mormon is debatable, and certainly not accepted by most non-Mormons. Popularity doesn't really speak to whether or not it is an authentic record of early Native Americans. Popularity is a poor measure of truth.

The Smithsonian is a credible institution, and the whole world follows and trust it over anything you say. And they say you have no evidence outside mythology and faith.

They have never said that, to my knowledge. Don't exaggerate.