A split thread: Joseph Smith

[Norman]

I will not play Bill Nye to your Ken Ham.

While I think it was clear that Nye "won" the subject matter of the debate, Ham clearly scored by having his "opinions" elevated to at least an appearance of respectability that they are not deserving of.

So, I did not respond, and do not intend to respond, because I do not get involved in pretending apologetics are science. To get involved in a lengthy discussion of this apologetic claptrap is to give it status and place it on the same plane as actual science, which it does not deserve. Find yourself a Jesuit Semanticist for that discussion.

Norman: I see that you run when backed into a corner. You won't debate this post because it stands on it's own, the linguistics of the Book of Mormon alone proves it's authenticity. You may wish not to wonder in this area and that is fine with me. Stick with your zoology and whatever else you have a sticker of a problem with. So all of a sudden you point out that this is apologetics, well it isn't when you know the two men who wrote this linguistic article. How about professors and Scholars? Yes, and my Church has some of the best around.

John A. Tvedtnes graduated from high school in 1959 and was immediately called as a stake missionary, where he served for two years, until leaving on his full-time mission to France and Switzerland in June 1961. He served in that mission until January 1964, when he returned and attended the University of Utah, from which he received several degrees:
BA in anthropology, 1969
Graduate certificate in Middle East area studies, 1970
MA, linguistics (specializing in generative-transformational grammars and Semitic languages, with minor in Arabic), 1970
MA, Middle East studies (Hebrew), with minor in anthropology/archaeology, 1971
During these years, he also took courses in Hebrew at the BYU Salt Lake Center and studied Arabic and linguistics at the University of California (Berkeley).
In the summer of 1971, John moved to Israel to work on his doctorate in Egyptian and Semitic languages at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, taking his family of six with him. Two more children were born in Israel. The family returned to the Utah in December 1979.

John taught at the University of Utah (1969-71, 1980) and in the BYU Jerusalem (1972-79) and Salt Lake (1970-71, 1980-84) programs and at two high schools in Jerusalem. He has also lectured at two other universities in Israel and has delivered dozens of papers at symposia held in the U.S. and Israel. To date, his publications include ten books and more than 300 articles. His last position was as senior resident scholar at Brigham Young University’s Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, which includes the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, where he spent 12 years before retiring in January 2007. Later that year, he and his wife moved to Bella Vista Arkansas, where he continues to do research and writing.

Over the years, John has served as counselor and president in two elders quorums, assistant and leader in several high priests groups, gospel doctrine teacher in the Sunday School, first counselor in the Jerusalem Branch presidency, and other positions. He has also served one full-time and two part-time missions in four nations, and currently teaches an adult institute of religion class in the Rogers, Arkansas, stake.

Stephen David Ricks is a professor of Hebrew at Brigham Young University (BYU) and an author and co-author of several books and articles. Ricks served as a missionary for the LDS Church in Switzerland. He received his Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley and Graduate Theological Union. He also completed his BA in Ancient Greek and MA in the Classics at Brigham Young University, and then received his PhD in ancient Near Eastern religions from the University of California, Berkeley and the Graduate Theological Union. While completing his doctoral work he spent two years studying at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He is now professor of Hebrew and Cognate Learning at Brigham Young University where he has been a member of the faculty for nearly thirty years.

From 1988 to 1991 Ricks was the president of the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) and from 1991 to 1997 he served as the chairman of FARMS board of directors. He was the founding editor of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies serving as editor from 1992 to 1997.

From 1992 to 1996, Ricks also served as the associate dean of general education and honors at BYU.

Among Ricks's writings is "Joseph Smith and 'Majic': Methodological Reflection on the Use of a Term" (with Daniel C. Peterson) in Robert L. Millet, ed., To Be Learned is Good if... (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1987). Ricks also co-authored Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord? with Legrand L. Baker. He edited Warfare in the Book of Mormon with William J. Hamblin and translated Klaus Vondung's The Apocalypse in Germany into English.

Ricks has been involved in promoting positive relations between the LDS Church and Jewish groups.

 

[Flankerl]

Ricks has been involved in promoting positive relations between the LDS Church and Jewish groups.

Stop baptising dead Jews. There relations improved, easy as that.

kthxbye

 

[Norman]

Not one thing you wrote, refutes what he said about WW1 and the civil war.

Norman: I did exactly that, I expounded on Joseph and South Carolina and other wars following. I set the record straight. You may try and refute it? I am interested in your refute. So, I will repeat it for you since you have taken an interest on the topic and so you can dissect it and refute it. I am not interested in your opinion outhouse, I am interested in an actual dialogue of your response to prove this wrong using facts, not apologetics.

D&C 87:1 does not necessarily imply that the rebellion was yet future: if it is describing a contemporary event, then the part about South Carolina makes no pretension to be prophetic, only to describe a current situation. On the other hand, if it is prophetic, then we must note that it was, indeed, at South Carolina that the first Civil War shots were fired on Fort Sumpter in 1861. Could not the earlier rebellion in South Carolina have prompted the revelation? Most of Joseph Smith's revelations (perhaps all of them) did, in fact, come in response to questions he asked of the Lord.

In a subsequent statement dated to 1843, Joseph Smith repeated the prophecy that war between the states would start at South Carolina. He added that a voice had told him this in 1832, while he was engaged in prayer (D&C 130:1213). It is likely that he was praying about the current rebellion in South Carolina. Of interest to us is that he continued to believe civil war would result, even after the 1832/3 crisis had been "solved." I.e., in 1843, he saw that war as still future. Had he been a phony, he could have simply torn up the 1832 revelation, which had not yet been published (and was not published until after his death, appearing in the 1851 Pearl of Great Price and in the 1876 D&C; Sect. 130 was first published in the Deseret News of July 9, 1856).

Since the Civil War did start in South Carolina, we must give Joseph Smith at least some credit even if it is "coincidental." But we must note examination of other points is based on some false assumptions. First, vs. 3 does not say that the Civil War would "result in war being poured out upon all nations." Rather, it states that the Civil War was the start of a series of wars, not necessarily related one to another.
The prophesied sequence and its fulfilment can be outlined as follows: Civil war between the northern and southern states 1861-1865. South calls on Great Britain for help. This occurred during the Civil War. Assistance was prevented by President Lincoln’s blockade. When, in 1863, the British tried to take Alaska (recently purchased from Russia), the Czar sent a fleet to stop them. The Civil War is seen in D&C 87 as the beginning of the great international wars which are to plague the earth in the last days, but not their cause. Since 1865 we have had almost continual war in various parts of the World. This list is to numerous to mention. Only, that between 1863 and 1983 there have been many wars.

Source:

John A. Tvedtnes

A few examples of many wars that followed after D&C 87.
Since 1865, we have had almost continual war in various parts of the world. Here is an incomplete listing of some of these wars:

1863-67 French invasion of Mexico, war to regain Mexican independence
1864 Austro-Prussian invasion of Denmark
1865-70 Paraguayan War (Argentina, Brazil & Uruguay invaded and slew or chased 3/4 of the Paraguayan population)
1865-76 Russo-Turkestan War
1866 Seven Weeks War (Austria defeated by Prussia & Italy)
1870-71 Franco-Prussian War
1873-74 French conquest of Tonkin (North Vietnam)
1874 British conquest of Ashanti Kingdom (Ghana)
1874-79 Egyptian-Ethiopian War
1877-78 Russo-Ottoman (Turkish) War
1879-84 War of the Pacific (Chile vs. Peru & Bolivia)
1882 Italian conquest of Eritrea (northern Ethiopia)
1882 British conquest of Egypt
1883-96 French conquest of Madagascar
1885 Serbo-Bulgarian War
1885 Revolt of the Mahdi in Sudan (against Great Britain)
1885-86 British conquest of Burma
1885-98 French conquest of most of West Africa
1894-95 Chino-Japan War
1895-96 Italo-Ethiopian War
1896-98 British conquest of Sudan
1897 Greco-Turkish War
1898 Spanish-American War
1898-1902 Philippine Rebellion (against US occupation)
1899-1902 Boer War (British conquest of South Africa)
1900-01 Boxer Rebellion (USA, Russia, Great Britain, France & Germany vs. Chinese)
1903 Panamanian Revolt (against Colombia)
1904-05 Russo-Japan War
1905 Egypto-turkish War
1906-09 American invasion of Cuba
1907 French conquest of Morocco
1907 Japanese conquest of Korea
1908 Austro-Turkish War
1911-12 Chinese Civil War (against Manchu emperor)
1911-17 Russian conquest of Persia (Iran)
1912-13 First Balkan War
1913 Second Balkan War
1914 American invasion of Mexico during Mexican Civil War
1914-19 World War I
1915 American invasion of Haiti
1916 American invasion of Mexico
1916 American invasion of Dominican Republic
1916 Irish revolt against Great Britain
1916-28 Chinese Civil War
1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia
1918-20 Russian Civil War (Reds vs. Whites)
1920-23 Greek invasion of Turkey

p. 15

1922 Turkish revolt against Sultan, led by Ataturk
1931 Spanish Revolt against King Alfonso XIII
1931-33 Japanese invasion of Manchuria
1932-35 Chaco War (Paraguay vs. Bolivia)
1934-36 Italo-Ethiopian War
1936-39 Spanish Civil War
1937-45 Japanese invasion of China
1938 German invasion/annexation of Austria
1939 Germany, having been ceded the Sudetenland, conquered the rest of Czechoslovakia
1939 Italian conquest of Albania
1939-45 World War II
1945-49 Indonesian War of Independence (against Netherlands)\
1945-54 Malaya War (Great Britain vs. Communists)
1945-54 Indochina War (France vs. Vietnamese)
1946-49 Greek Civil War
1946-49 Communist Revolution in China
1947-49 Indian Civil War (Muslims vs. Hindus)
1947-49 Kashmir War (India vs. Pakistan)
1947 Indian insurgencies (Sikhs & other separatists)
1948-49 Israeli War of Independence
1948 Burma insurgencies (Communists & 3 separatist groups)
1948-52 Huk insurgency in Philippines
1950-53 Korean Conflict
1950-59 Chinese conquest of Tibet
1950 Yemen War (North vs. South Yemen)
1952-53 Mau Mau uprising in Kenya (against British)
1954-58 Quemoy-Matsu conflict (Nationalist vs. Communist China)
1954-62 Algerian War of Independence (against France)
1955-59 EOKA insurgency in Cyprus (against British)
1955 Sudanese government fights blacks in south
1956 Hungarian Revolt (unsuccessful)
1956 Sinai/Suez Conflict
1956-59 Cuban Civil War (Castro vs. Batista)
1958 US troops sent to Lebanon
1959-62 China-India (Himalayas) War
1959-64 Watusi-Hutu war in Rwandu-Burundi
1959-74 PAIGC insurgency in Portuguese Guinea
1959-75 Pathet Lao insurgency in Laos
1960-67 Revolts in the Congo (provinces of Katanga and Kasai)
1960-67 Revolt in Venezuela
1960- Basque insurgency in Spain
1960- Terrorist insurgency in Colombia
1961 Bay of Pigs Invasion (US-backed Cuban troops in Cuba)
1961 Goa War (Indian forcible seizure of 3 Portuguese colonies)
1961 Kuwait War (Great Britain vs. Iraq)
1961-76 Angola War of Independence (against Portugal)
1962 West New Guinea War (Netherlands vs. Indonesia)
1962- Eritrean secession in Ethiopia
1962- Ogaden War (Ethiopia vs. Somalia)
1963 Algeria-Morocco War
1963-65 Malaysian War (Malaysia & Great Britain vs. Indonesia)

Source:

John A. Tvedtnes

 

[outhouse]

Not one thing you wrote, refutes what he said about WW1 and the civil war.

 

[Norman]

Stop baptising dead Jews. There relations improved, easy as that.

kthxbye

Norman: Hi Flankert, you made a blanket statement about baptizing Jews, I assume you are referring to the holocaust list of dead Jews. That
was resolved along time ago between my Church and the Jewish Federation. However, I have access to the list because I come from a long
family of Polish and Russian Jews and had family killed in Auschwitz, which was the largest of the Nazi concentration and death camps. Located in southern Poland. If you wish to further discuss baptism of the dead I will be happy accommodate you.

 

[Sapiens]

Norman: I see that you run when backed into a corner. You won't debate this post because it stands on it's own, the linguistics of the Book of Mormon alone proves it's authenticity. You may wish not to wonder in this area and that is fine with me. Stick with your zoology and whatever else you have a sticker of a problem with. So all of a sudden you point out that this is apologetics, well it isn't when you know the two men who wrote this linguistic article. How about professors and Scholars? Yes, and my Church has some of the best around.

There is no need to elevate this piece of pseudo-science when there is hard science, science that requires physical evidence, that regardless of the status of apologetic linguistics, falsifies the BofM.

Where are the fossils, where are the bones, where are the iron swords and shields, where is the DNA evidence. Each and every one of these proves by itself that "THE BOFM IS A LIE." All it takes is one.

I'm not running anywhere except to repeat the obvious proof(s) that you are running from, those that you are desperately trying to change the focus from.

John A. Tvedtnes graduated from high school in 1959 and was immediately called as a stake missionary, where he served for two years, until leaving on his full-time mission to France and Switzerland in June 1961. He served in that mission until January 1964, when he returned and attended the University of Utah, from which he received several degrees:
BA in anthropology, 1969
Graduate certificate in Middle East area studies, 1970
MA, linguistics (specializing in generative-transformational grammars and Semitic languages, with minor in Arabic), 1970
MA, Middle East studies (Hebrew), with minor in anthropology/archaeology, 1971
During these years, he also took courses in Hebrew at the BYU Salt Lake Center and studied Arabic and linguistics at the University of California (Berkeley).
In the summer of 1971, John moved to Israel to work on his doctorate in Egyptian and Semitic languages at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, taking his family of six with him. Two more children were born in Israel. The family returned to the Utah in December 1979.

John taught at the University of Utah (1969-71, 1980) and in the BYU Jerusalem (1972-79) and Salt Lake (1970-71, 1980-84) programs and at two high schools in Jerusalem. He has also lectured at two other universities in Israel and has delivered dozens of papers at symposia held in the U.S. and Israel. To date, his publications include ten books and more than 300 articles. His last position was as senior resident scholar at Brigham Young University’s Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, which includes the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, where he spent 12 years before retiring in January 2007. Later that year, he and his wife moved to Bella Vista Arkansas, where he continues to do research and writing.

Over the years, John has served as counselor and president in two elders quorums, assistant and leader in several high priests groups, gospel doctrine teacher in the Sunday School, first counselor in the Jerusalem Branch presidency, and other positions. He has also served one full-time and two part-time missions in four nations, and currently teaches an adult institute of religion class in the Rogers, Arkansas, stake.

Stephen David Ricks is a professor of Hebrew at

Brigham Young University (BYU) and an author and co-author of several books and articles. Ricks served as a missionary for the LDS Church in Switzerland. He received his Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley and Graduate Theological Union. He also completed his BA in Ancient Greek and MA in the Classics at Brigham Young University, and then received his PhD in ancient Near Eastern religions from the University of California, Berkeley and the Graduate Theological Union. While completing his doctoral work he spent two years studying at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He is now professor of Hebrew and Cognate Learning at Brigham Young University where he has been a member of the faculty for nearly thirty years.

From 1988 to 1991 Ricks was the president of the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) and from 1991 to 1997 he served as the chairman of FARMS board of directors. He was the founding editor of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies serving as editor from 1992 to 1997.

From 1992 to 1996, Ricks also served as the associate dean of general education and honors at BYU.

Among Ricks's writings is "Joseph Smith and 'Majic': Methodological Reflection on the Use of a Term" (with Daniel C. Peterson) in Robert L. Millet, ed., To Be Learned is Good if... (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1987). Ricks also co-authored Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord? with Legrand L. Baker. He edited Warfare in the Book of Mormon with William J. Hamblin and translated Klaus Vondung's The Apocalypse in Germany into English.

Ricks has been involved in promoting positive relations between the LDS Church and Jewish groups.

Sounds like a whole passel of BYU apologists, they are a dime a dozen, had to swing a dead chicken in Provo and not hit a few. But as I observed earlier, that really does not matter. These two apologists can be spot on, but the BofM will still be a lie.

WHERE'S THE BEEF? WHERE ARE THE FOSSILS, WHERE ARE THE BONES, WHERE ARE THE SWORDS, WHERE IS THE DNA, ETC.? Until you answer those questions you can trot out all the liberal arts based experts that you desire, they have no meaning. Any historical novel will have locations, incidents, even linguistics that are true, but to rise to the level of scripture, everything must be true or it must be accepted as allegory and or apocrypha or it should be identified as fiction. WHERE IS THE BEEF?

And just because your "running" comment disturbed me, a few hard science bonuses:

You don't like my zoology, I can understand why, here's some more zoology to sting you: Honey bees were first brought to the New World by Spanish explorers in the late 1490s, there were none here, that can be easily proven. But the Book of Mormon says they were introduced around 2000 B.C. that can be easily disproved. The problem was that Joseph Smith wasn’t a zoologist and it shows, repeatedly, he is a zoological ignoramus. He just didn’t know anything about bees (or horses, or elephants, or pigs, or cattle, etc.) especially when it came where and when they might be found. He saw bees in the America of his time and wrongfully threw them in for a little background simulation of authenticity, just like all the ungulates he expected had been here all along. He reached a bit too far, he didn’t realize he’d get stung and trampled and now he has a whole religion chasing its collective tail making his excuses, its downright criminal.

Another, but better know awkward part for the Mormon church, is the total lack of historical and archaeological evidence to support the happenings in Book of Mormon. For example, after the cataclysmic last battle fought between the Nephites and Lamanites, there was no one left to clean up the mess. Hundreds of thousands of men and beasts allegedly perished in that battle, and the ground was strewn with weapons and armor.

Keep in mind that A.D. 421 is just yesterday in archaeological terms. It should be easy to locate and retrieve copious evidence of such a battle, and there hasn’t been enough time for the weapons and armor to turn to dust. The Bible tells of similar battles that have been documented by archaeology, battles which took place long before A.D. 421.

The embarrassing truth—embarrassing for Mormons, that is—is that no scientist, Mormon or otherwise, has been able to find anything to substantiate that such a great battle took place.

(thanks to Problems with the Book of Mormon | Catholic Answers ), damn ... even the RCC know better.

 

[Flankerl]

Norman: Hi Flankert, you made a blanket statement about baptizing Jews, I assume you are referring to the holocaust list of dead Jews. That
was resolved along time ago between my Church and the Jewish Federation. However, I have access to the list because I come from a long
family of Polish and Russian Jews and had family killed in Auschwitz, which was the largest of the Nazi concentration and death camps. Located in southern Poland. If you wish to further discuss baptism of the dead I will be happy accommodate you.

There is nothing to discuss about. Don't baptise dead Jews. That's all.

And no I don't believe in the fairy tale that "you" stopped doing it.

 

[rrosskopf]

Honey bees were first brought to the New World by Spanish explorers in the late 1490s, there were none here, that can be easily proven. But the Book of Mormon says they were introduced around 2000 B.C. that can be easily disproved.

I've heard that the Mexican stingless honeybee was already here when the Spanish explorers arrived. In any regard, extinctions are common when a species is introduced to a new environment, are they not?
At least three separate species of elephants once roamed the Americas.
Most people would recognize a Peccary as a pig. Bison are so close to bovine, that they can interbreed and produce offspring. None of this even touches on the possibility that the Nephites used these terms for entirely different species. They certainly had chariots, as defined by the Hebrew word, which borrows from the Egyptian "riding seat". Mayan kings and generals were carried aloft in riding seats. The Book of Mormon is very specific about these two classes using chariots, and I doubt that Joseph Smith or anyone else in 1830 knew this.

I already showed that Mormons aren't the only ones who believe that pre-Columbian horses once lived in Mesoamerica.

I admit that these are minority positions, and that we have more faith in God than we do in scientific theories. It is natural for us to enjoy some corroboration of our beliefs, if only presented by a minority of scientists. There is nothing magical about having a majority; they can be just as wrong as a minority. Science has done many flip flops over the years. It is our personal experience, not a blind faith, which causes us to believe in Mormonism.

It was gratifying, when they discovered Nahom. In fact, every step of the journey from Jerusalem to the southern coast of Arabia is accurately described in the Book of Mormon. It really stretches the imagination that this could somehow be a coincidence, or that Joseph Smith somehow knew more about Arabia than all the learned scholars of his day.

 

[rrosskopf]

Most people call that imagination and the conscious mind. Faith, nothing more.

When I was 16, I attended a weekly meeting for youth, called Mutual. On one such event, we were to visit the youth group of a neighboring congregation(ward), to celebrate someone's birthday. I only had about 5 minutes to shop, as I didn't learn of the change in plans until just before it was time to leave. I didn't know the person, nor had I ever seen him before. So I prayed and asked for help, in finding an appropriate gift. I stopped at K-Mart, and literally ran to the door from the parking lot. I heard the directions in my mind; go straight, turn right, turn left, etc., until I found myself in front of a rack of emergency flashlights. I grabbed one and ran to the front. The cost, including tax, equaled what I had in my pockets, to the penny. When I gave the birthday boy the gift, he said it was perfect, as he had just bought a car. Total shopping time from exit of the car to getting in to the car: 5 minutes.

Of course, that was when I was 16. I've witnessed greater things since.

 

[Nietzsche]

I've heard that the Mexican stingless honeybee was already here when the Spanish explorers arrived. In any regard, extinctions are common when a species is introduced to a new environment, are they not?
At least three separate species of elephants once roamed the Americas.
Most people would recognize a Peccary as a pig. Bison are so close to bovine, that they can interbreed and produce offspring. None of this even touches on the possibility that the Nephites used these terms for entirely different species. They certainly had chariots, as defined by the Hebrew word, which borrows from the Egyptian "riding seat". Mayan kings and generals were carried aloft in riding seats. The Book of Mormon is very specific about these two classes using chariots, and I doubt that Joseph Smith or anyone else in 1830 knew this.


I already showed that Mormons aren't the only ones who believe that pre-Columbian horses once lived in Mesoamerica.

I admit that these are minority positions, and that we have more faith in God than we do in scientific theories. It is natural for us to enjoy some corroboration of our beliefs, if only presented by a minority of scientists. There is nothing magical about having a majority; they can be just as wrong as a minority. Science has done many flip flops over the years. It is our personal experience, not a blind faith, which causes us to believe in Mormonism.

It was gratifying, when they discovered Nahom. In fact, every step of the journey from Jerusalem to the southern coast of Arabia is accurately described in the Book of Mormon. It really stretches the imagination that this could somehow be a coincidence, or that Joseph Smith somehow knew more about Arabia than all the learned scholars of his day.

You can't have both. Either it's a matter of "close enough", like with the "pigs" and "bovines" or it's Accurately Described. You don't get both. Not when the information is supposed to be coming from the same omnipresent and all-knowing source.

 

[Nietzsche]

When I was 16, I attended a weekly meeting for youth, called Mutual. On one such event, we were to visit the youth group of a neighboring congregation(ward), to celebrate someone's birthday. I only had about 5 minutes to shop, as I didn't learn of the change in plans until just before it was time to leave. I didn't know the person, nor had I ever seen him before. So I prayed and asked for help, in finding an appropriate gift. I stopped at K-Mart, and literally ran to the door from the parking lot. I heard the directions in my mind; go straight, turn right, turn left, etc., until I found myself in front of a rack of emergency flashlights. I grabbed one and ran to the front. The cost, including tax, equaled what I had in my pockets, to the penny. When I gave the birthday boy the gift, he said it was perfect, as he had just bought a car. Total shopping time from exit of the car to getting in to the car: 5 minutes.

Of course, that was when I was 16. I've witnessed greater things since.

...

What I'm about to say is completely serious and genuine;

Have you considered seeing someone about the fact you apparently hear voices in your head? I had to. No matter how "helpful" they might seem that isn't normal.

 

[rrosskopf]

You can't have both. Either it's a matter of "close enough", like with the "pigs" and "bovines" or it's Accurately Described. You don't get both. Not when the information is supposed to be coming from the same omnipresent and all-knowing source.

You must be confusing us with Muslims. We don't believe the prophets of the Book of Mormon were omnipresent or all-knowing, nor do we believe the translation was dictated by God. We believe it was translated by "the gift and power of God", but beyond that no explanation is ever given. Nor is there an explanation of what exactly do "pigs" and "cattle" refer to. The Book of Mormon isn't magical - it can't possibly answer every question, or go into detail on every statement. When skeptics attempt to criticize the Book of Mormon, it is often based on their own assumptions of what the Book of Mormon teaches, or what they imagine a perfect book to be. We don't believe the book is perfect. Nothing touched by man is perfect. When the natives of Mexico first saw the Spanish horses, they called them deer. I'm sure they didn't run a DNA check to see if they were remotely correct, scientifically. Likewise, it is hard to be sure what Alma and Moroni - two prophets who had never seen the old world - referred to as horses. They had Isaiah, so their scriptures talked of horses, but who knows what it meant to them. There is no evidence that Lehi and his family brought horses with them from Arabia. One of the faults of the Book of Mormon, is that it tends to be too literal - almost a word for word translation of something very similar to Hebrew. Take for example the most common phrase in the Book of Mormon - "It came to pass". Mark Twain said that without this one phrase, the Book of Mormon would be more like a pamphlet. What he didn't know was that there is one Hebrew word in the Bible that translates to "it came to pass", and that word occurs over 1500 times in the Bible. We don't notice the monotony, because the translators of the Bible decided to translate it many different ways, to break up the monotony. On a side note, now that the Mayan language has been translated, we know the Mayan also had a single word for "it came to pass" or "it happened". This glyph is found over and over on stela.
As far as omnipresent - you are confusing us with the Catholic and Protestant churches. We make no such claim.

 

[Nietzsche]

You must be confusing us with Muslims. We don't believe the prophets of the Book of Mormon were omnipresent or all-knowing, nor do we believe the translation was dictated by God. We believe it was translated by "the gift and power of God", but beyond that no explanation is ever given. Nor is there an explanation of what exactly do "pigs" and "cattle" refer to.

Pigs & Cattle both imply domesticated animals. And there is simply no proof Peccaries were ever domesticated.

The Book of Mormon isn't magical - it can't possibly answer every question, or go into detail on every statement.

That's a good start.

When skeptics attempt to criticize the Book of Mormon, it is often based on their own assumptions of what the Book of Mormon teaches, or what they imagine a perfect book to be. We don't believe the book is perfect. Nothing touched by man is perfect. When the natives of Mexico first saw the Spanish horses, they called them deer. I'm sure they didn't run a DNA check to see if they were remotely correct, scientifically. Likewise, it is hard to be sure what Alma and Moroni - two prophets who had never seen the old world - referred to as horses. They had Isaiah, so their scriptures talked of horses, but who knows what it meant to them. There is no evidence that Lehi and his family brought horses with them from Arabia.

So basically we're dealing with a situation where we have two sets of people, neither of which can even begin to understand the other? And...you base your Holy Book on that? Two people, one of which could be talking about a literal dragon and the other mistakenly believe they were talking about a wee salamander?

One of the faults of the Book of Mormon, is that it tends to be too literal - almost a word for word translation of something very similar to Hebrew. Take for example the most common phrase in the Book of Mormon - "It came to pass". Mark Twain said that without this one phrase, the Book of Mormon would be more like a pamphlet. What he didn't know was that there is one Hebrew word in the Bible that translates to "it came to pass", and that word occurs over 1500 times in the Bible. We don't notice the monotony, because the translators of the Bible decided to translate it many different ways, to break up the monotony. On a side note, now that the Mayan language has been translated, we know the Mayan also had a single word for "it came to pass" or "it happened". This glyph is found over and over on stela.

All languages have an "It came to pass" equivalent.

As far as omnipresent - you are confusing us with the Catholic and Protestant churches. We make no such claim.

So you do not think YHWH is Omnipresent?

 

[rrosskopf]

Have you considered seeing someone about the fact you apparently hear voices in your head? I had to. No matter how "helpful" they might seem that isn't normal.

It is normal for Mormons. Joseph Smith may have been the first, when he heard an audible voice telling him of the coming civil war, but he wasn't the last. Most of the time, the voice isn't audible, but it is quite clearly heard in our minds. There are a few Mormons who don't hear it - they are the exceptions, not the rule. The Gift of the Holy Ghost is given at the time of baptism, and it is every member's right, so long as they strive to keep the commandments of God.

 

[Nietzsche]

It is normal for Mormons. Joseph Smith may have been the first, when he heard an audible voice telling him of the coming civil war, but he wasn't the last. Most of the time, the voice isn't audible, but it is quite clearly heard in our minds. There are a few Mormons who don't hear it - they are the exceptions, not the rule. The Gift of the Holy Ghost is given at the time of baptism, and it is every member's right, so long as they strive to keep the commandments of God.

You should still see someone. I used to hear voices, sometimes still do. Religion should not masquerade as mental-illness.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Norman: Hi Midnight Rain, I beg to differ with you. Here is some information that will be helpful to you.

D&C 87:1 does not necessarily imply that the rebellion was yet future: if it is describing a contemporary event, then the part about South Carolina makes no pretension to be prophetic, only to describe a current situation. On the other hand, if it is prophetic, then we must note that it was, indeed, at South Carolina that the first Civil War shots were fired on Fort Sumpter in 1861. Could not the earlier rebellion in South Carolina have prompted the revelation? Most of Joseph Smith's revelations (perhaps all of them) did, in fact, come in response to questions he asked of the Lord.

In a subsequent statement dated to 1843, Joseph Smith repeated the prophecy that war between the states would start at South Carolina. He added that a voice had told him this in 1832, while he was engaged in prayer (D&C 130:1213). It is likely that he was praying about the current rebellion in South Carolina. Of interest to us is that he continued to believe civil war would result, even after the 1832/3 crisis had been "solved." I.e., in 1843, he saw that war as still future. Had he been a phony, he could have simply torn up the 1832 revelation, which had not yet been published (and was not published until after his death, appearing in the 1851 Pearl of Great Price and in the 1876 D&C; Sect. 130 was first published in the Deseret News of July 9, 1856).

Since the Civil War did start in South Carolina, we must give Joseph Smith at least some credit even if it is "coincidental." But we must note examination of other points is based on some false assumptions. First, vs. 3 does not say that the Civil War would "result in war being poured out upon all nations." Rather, it states that the Civil War was the start of a series of wars, not necessarily related one to another.
The prophesied sequence and its fulfilment can be outlined as follows: Civil war between the northern and southern states 1861-1865. South calls on Great Britain for help. This occurred during the Civil War. Assistance was prevented by President Lincoln’s blockade. When, in 1863, the British tried to take Alaska (recently purchased from Russia), the Czar sent a fleet to stop them. The Civil War is seen in D&C 87 as the beginning of the great international wars which are to plague the earth in the last days, but not their cause. Since 1865 we have had almost continual war in various parts of the World. This list is to numerous to mention. Only, that between 1863 and 1983 there have been many wars.

Source:

John A. Tvedtnes

2 points

1) If it was coincidental I have to give him nothing in regards of prophethood. I could call him lucky at worst and insightful at best.

2) Lets examine this part shall we ?

2 And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place.

3 For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.

So any idiot can read this and take that not only is he talking about an instantaenous pull of war that "pours" from the conflict of the united states into other nations but also indicates that it will happen via intervention from Great Britain on behalf of the Southern States.

Absolutely none of this happens. The only thing about of 4-5 claims that ended up being right was the bit about South Carolina. This sounds very much like a general informed guess of what may happen in the future. He was somewhat on the right track but wrong about everything else. Modern Mormonism spends a great deal of time trying to find ways to work out these Prophecy claims to somehow be fulfilled. They bend over backwards to make something even resemble a prophecy fulfillment.

 

[rrosskopf]

And there is simply no proof Peccaries were ever domesticated.

According to R.A. Donkin, the peccary were often kept in pens and were on their way to domestication.

Two people, one of which could be talking about a literal dragon and the other mistakenly believe they were talking about a wee salamander?

If you came upon a journal of one of your ancestors from 200 years ago, and they talked about getting into a car, would you automatically assume they meant a Chevy?

It isn't like they had encyclopedias with color photos. The Aztec used the same word for peccary as they did for the coatimundi, and both were kept in pens, and eaten.

 

[outhouse]

According to R.A. Donkin, the peccary were often kept in pens

So are tigers.

 

[Nietzsche]

According to R.A. Donkin, the peccary were often kept in pens and were on their way to domestication.

Got more than one guy who's only paper on the subject was in 1985?

If you came upon a journal of one of your ancestors from 200 years ago, and they talked about getting into a car, would you automatically assume they meant a Chevy?

No, but I would not assume they were talking about a flying car either.

It isn't like they had encyclopedias with color photos. The Aztec used the same word for peccary as they did for the coatimundi, and both were kept in pens, and eaten.

Let's simplify this a bit;

If the claims regarding various Mesoamerican civilizations in the BoM are true, where are they? The battles that took place, the animals they were supposed to have kept & domesticated, their cultural ruins...why does nothing exist? We have a plethora of ruins and such regarding many of the pre-Columbian American civilizations. Mighty temples & buildings, areas where they reshaped the very ground around them to gather the materials needed to build their cities. Where are the mines they must've had to craft all their weapons? Where are the weapons themselves?

If they had access to the various technologies posited in the BoM, why did they never spread out to other civilizations? One need only look at other areas with similar developments to see how quickly technologies spread. If they had the steel weapons claimed, or even if they were just exceptional examples of iron, they would've been the most powerful states in the region compared to the others. They would have conquered their neighbours in much the same way the Assyrians did. The technological disparity between them would've been devastating.

And yet, it is as if they never existed.

Do you see my point?

 

[outhouse]

Do you see my point?

Your cannot stop faith in someone, using education and knowledge.

No matter how much evidence we provide, many will sadly never accept the truth. Fanaticism lies to deep and ingrained in some of the faithful.