A split thread: Joseph Smith

[Katzpur]

World-Trees are found on every continent, in every corner of every continent. If you find one, I will be simply gob-smacked, because they are found everywhere from Africa to Australia.

Okay, so now it's "on every continent" whereas it was originally "in every culture." To me, those two statements are drastically different. Maybe they're the same to you.

 

[Nietzsche]

Okay, so now it's "on every continent" whereas it was originally "in every culture." To me, those two statements are drastically different. Maybe they're the same to you.

I was using it to illustrate how ubiquitous it is.

And I managed to find one, kinda. Interestingly it's not so much absent as much as it is not-in-focus. Namely, the Greeks. It's still a World-Tree(being sawed by Goat-like Goblins called Kallikantzaros, which is ludicrously hard to spell & pronounce), but it's not as 'literal' a concept as one finds in the other cultures.

 

[rrosskopf]

Do you have any idea how many cultures have a World-Tree? All of them. Each and every one.

That does sound like an exaggeration. Nor does explaining away one point diminish any of the other points. Would Joseph Smith have known about the Tree of LIfe? Would he have known about Asherah, and her connection to the Tree of LIfe? As far as the Book of Mormon, the evidence points to the tree of life being a representation of Asherah. The Book of Mormon describes the fruit of the tree being "the love of God" which distills itself into the hearts of all men. Asherah, the consort of the Hebrew God, was represented by a tree, and her statue stood in the Temple of Solomon for hundreds of years. When Nephi inquired of the interpretation of the tree in the dream, the Lord showed him a vision of Mary - the mother of Jesus.
"And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh." (1 Nephi 11:18)
After seeing this vision, Nephi suddenly knows what the tree represents, and realizes that the fruit is the love of God.

By the way, the Lancondan Maya also lived in Chiapas, and traced their ancestor to a man named Jawbone - the literal meaning of Lehi.

 

[outhouse]

Would you be so kind as to be more specific

No, you need to be specific. Provide credible sources the 104 similarities tie into your religion.

I want credible sources 104 is even an accurate number.


Please do not provide your apologetic church based findings, as they are not credible by any credible historian.

 

[outhouse]

According to Title of the Lords of Totonicapán, the Quiche Maya came across the ocean from Pa Tulán, Pa Civán [meaning Bountiful] and were descended from Israel. This book was translated into Spanish in 1834 (four years after the Book of Mormon was published) and translated into English in 1954. The Quiche Maya also lived in the vicinity of the state of Chiapas, Mexico, not far from Izapa.

Not a credible historical source.

Título de Totonicapán - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The mention of paradise, a mention of "true Sinai" in the text and the placement of Tulan in the east on the other side of the sea all show the influence of Christian beliefs upon the text.[8] Tulan is identified in the text as a place of darkness

 

[Katzpur]

No, you need to be specific. Provide credible sources the 104 similarities tie into your religion.

You're the one who made a claim, outhouse, not me. I don't need to be anything, specific or otherwise. That would be on you. "The 104 correlations between the stella, and the tree of life dream in the Book of Mormon are perceived and not genuine." That's 104 potential examples for you to debunk.

 

[outhouse]

You're the one who made a claim, outhouse, not me

No, rrosskopf claimed 104 correlations, which remains unsubstantiated.


I don't have to debunk YEC claims because they make them, and I don't have to debunk any of your claims.

If you claim they are credible, then prove it.

 

[outhouse]

That would be on you

Sure no problem.

Izapa Stela 5 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Based on parallels with traditions originating in the Old World, a few researchers have linked the stone to theories of pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact. Mormon theorist M. Wells Jakeman proposed that the image was a representation of a tree of life vision found in the Book of Mormon.[11] Jakeman's theory was popular for a time among Mormons, but found little support from Mormon apologists.[12] Julia Guernsey finds that Jakeman's research "belies an obvious religious agenda that ignored Izapa Stela 5's heritage".[13]

The carving was also proposed by pre-Columbian contact theorist Ivan van Sertima as supporting an African origin of the Olmecs

 

[Sapiens]

Not according to non-Mormon art historian Tatiana Proskouriakoff of the Carnegie Institution of Washington. She believes the bearded man represents strangers or foreigners. I had some difficulty hunting down the reference, but I believe this is the correct one: Olmec and Maya Art: Problems of Their Stylistic Relation Dumbarton Oaks Conference on the Olmec, 1968

Why would a Mayan God have a Jewish nose and beard?

Though I doubt it because we do not see the sudden appearance of Old World skills, rare contact incidents are not out of the question as my friend Thor Heyerdahl almost demonstrated with the Ra expedition. Even is such contacts occurred I rather doubt that supports the LDS claims, or makes them any more probable or possible.

 

[Katzpur]

No, rrosskopf claimed 104 correlations, which remains unsubstantiated.

You said they were not genuine. It should be easy for you to prove that if it's the case. It's not hard to prove that something's fake.

I don't have to debunk YEC claims because they make them, and I don't have to debunk any of your claims.

Once again, I didn't make any.

 

[outhouse]

You said they were not genuine.

Izapa Stela 5 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Based on parallels with traditions originating in the Old World, a few researchers have linked the stone to theories of pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact. Mormon theorist M. Wells Jakeman proposed that the image was a representation of a tree of life vision found in the Book of Mormon.[11] Jakeman's theory was popular for a time among Mormons, but found little support from Mormon apologists.[12] Julia Guernsey finds that Jakeman's research "belies an obvious religious agenda that ignored Izapa Stela 5's heritage".[13]

The carving was also proposed by pre-Columbian contact theorist Ivan van Sertima as supporting an African origin of the Olmecs



So there you have it. They genuinely have nothing to do with your religion outside imagination of those who are so desperate to seek out pseudo history.

 

[rrosskopf]

No, rrosskopf claimed 104 correlations, which remains unsubstantiated.

Yes, I got that from a book I read over 30 years ago. I don't remember the title. I provided several of the more compelling correlations. Again - there isn't enough evidence here to convince a die-hard skeptic of God that there is a God, but there are too many coincidences to pretend that Mormons are just imagining things. The Book of Mormon looks better today, as an authentic history, than it did 170 years ago.

Not a credible historical source.

If you define anything that corroborates the Jewish faith as "not a credible source", just because it corroborates the Jewish faith, then your logic is circular. The key point here, in regard to the Lords of Totonicapan, is that the Quiche Maya came across the ocean from a land called Bountiful, just as Lehi and his family came from a land they called Bountiful. This isn't part of any Christian history available in the 1500s. It is significant that the Lords of Totonicapan was written in Quiche in 1554. We are talking only 62 years after Columbus discovered the New World, only 36 years after Cortez invaded Mexico, and only 20 years after the first missionaries started teaching Christ to the natives. The book was vetted by the elders of the community, as being faithful to their traditions, so I have to believe that it is a credible source of history with little or no Christian influence.

 

[rrosskopf]

So there you have it. They genuinely have nothing to do with your religion outside imagination of those who are so desperate to seek out pseudo history.

Considering the highly religious nature of the interpretation, it isn't surprising that some people would be skeptical. I don't see devout atheists giving up without a fight. Skepticism in and of itself doesn't prove or disprove anything. I have yet to see a more compelling interpretation. Religion doesn't stay static; it is always changing. It wouldn't be unusual to see other elements in addition to those that tell the story of Lehi's dream. Until proven otherwise, Stella Izapa 5 remains evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. It can't be wished away by the opinion of skeptics.

 

[Sapiens]

Considering the highly religious nature of the interpretation, it isn't surprising that some people would be skeptical. I don't see devout atheists giving up without a fight. Skepticism in and of itself doesn't prove or disprove anything. I have yet to see a more compelling interpretation. Religion doesn't stay static; it is always changing. It wouldn't be unusual to see other elements in addition to those that tell the story of Lehi's dream. Until proven otherwise, Stella Izapa 5 remains evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. It can't be wished away by the opinion of skeptics.

The fact that you can even think in terms of a "devout atheist" is too strange. That is a bizarre oxymoron, a creation of your belief system, a vain attempt to establish parity and to hide the facts that prove to any impartial observer that your beliefs and atheism are not parallel belief systems deserving of (at best) equal consideration. Atheism is not a belief system, it is an approach to the universe based on observable fact, Mormonism is a belief system based on demonstrable lies. They do not deserve equal consideration since they do not present with equal veracity. Good try though.

... Until proven otherwise, Stella Izapa 5 remains evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. It can't be wished away by the opinion of skeptics.

One must prove that something "IS" not that something "ISN'T." That is how things work, not my choice, not yours. Especially in cases like this that fall under the guidance of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

As I stated earlier I can easily concoct a story based on Stella Izapa 5 that describes an afternoon at Starbucks as they fairytale that your captive apologist anthropologists have invented.

If you insist on that sort of foolishness, I guess we'll have to start using the term "Mormon" to mean logically bassackwards.

 

[outhouse]

there isn't enough evidence here to convince a die-hard skeptic of God that there is a God,

That is not what is being debated. red herring on your part

but there are too many coincidences to pretend that Mormons are just imagining things.

Yes all religions have coincidences.

YEC claim many to, and they still don't have a lick of credibility.

The Book of Mormon looks better today, as an authentic history, than it did 170 years ago.

Unsubstantiated rhetoric.

No credible historian claims this.

 

[outhouse]

Considering the highly religious nature of the interpretation, it isn't surprising that some people would be skeptical

Even Mormons don't call it credible and don't follow it.

Jakeman's theory was popular for a time among Mormons, but found little support from Mormon apologists

 

[outhouse]

Until proven otherwise, Stella Izapa 5 remains evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon

So Mormons are now skeptics of Mormons???

It is ONLY perceived as evidence by you. PROVIDE CREDIBLE SOURCES.

 

[Sapiens]

So Mormons are now skeptics of Mormons???

It is ONLY perceived as evidence by you. PROVIDE CREDIBLE SOURCES.

There do to appear to be any creditable Mormon sources, that's why they don't produce them, or produce claptrap instead and claim it "creditable," "cause they say so."

When you establish something based on a lie, and then repeatedly compound the lie(s), it is hard to find sources that anyone, except the already brainwashed, would believe.

 

[outhouse]

There do to appear to be any creditable Mormon sources, that's why they don't produce them, or produce claptrap instead and claim it "creditable," "cause they say so."

When you establish something based on a lie, and then repeatedly compound the lie(s), it is hard to find sources that anyone, except the already brainwashed, would believe.

Ya, but you know its bad when your own people deny it.

 

[Sapiens]

Ya, but you know its bad when your own people deny it.

We've spent a month or so arguing over horses, a perfectly simple and commonly known issue for which there should not be an argument. What the Mormons fail to grasp is that horses are just standing in line in front of the the same discussion for pigs, cattle, goats, elephants, deer, sheep, wheat, barley, iron, steel, battle sites, etc. The list goes on and on. I really wonder how someone can to sit in so much self denial and self righteousness that they are proud to show up for the discussion with their logic in tatters rather than hide their face in shame and run for the hills in despair.

But then, it's not like the Mormons are the only ones with this sort of problem, the Christians have similar problems with the virgin birth, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, etc., not to mention the historicity of Christ. All western religions have trouble with genesis, the captivity, Noah, the exodus, the burning bush, the 10 commandments, etc.

It's just that the Mormons find their origins in much better documented recent time (the latter days makes it really rough) and they are really not any nuttier than the other sects when it comes to their basic story.