What is odd about the Book of Mormon?

[Autodidact]

They are given opportunity to learn the gospel, and choose to accept Christ and the necessary ordinances to get into heaven. I don't think there is anything to suggest that someone who is atheist now would not be able to get to the highest order of the Celestial Kingdom. It would pretty much be dependent on how they lived their life, just as conversely a Mormon accepting Christ and performing the necessary ordinances is not guaranteed the same, depending on how they live their life.

In essence -as far as the LDS afterlife goes it doesn't altogether matter what creed one adheres to in life, provided you are a moral and decent person and make the necessary convergent steps in the afterlife.

Cool!

 

[Autodidact]

I have a question for you Omar. I take the Book of Mormon seriously. Are you calling me stupid? A simple yes or no will suffice.

I'm not Omar, but my view is that very intelligent people can believe very weird things. I believe someone wrote a book about that.

 

[Autodidact]

he called everyone who is LDS stupid

No, rather he wondered how people who are not stupid could swallow something so outlandish. I believe the answer lies in what I was talking about earlier: childhood brainwashing.

 

[Katzpur]

he called everyone who is LDS stupid

He wasn't quite that blunt, but he definitely implied that. That's too bad, because it simply shows a lack of intelligent thought on his part. There are many highly intelligent, well-educated Latter-day Saints and to imply that none of us "has more than 3 neurons firing" is nothing more than a thinly-veiled personal insult.

As LDS scholar Daniel Peterson put it: If you encounter a religious group or an ideology that has attracted many people of diverse backgrounds for a considerable length of time, and you cannot see “how any intelligent person can possibly believe anything so manifestly crazy,” the problem is probably in you—at least as much as it is in the other person. You don’t know or understand enough to make a judgment, for intelligent people undoubtedly do believe it. So long as you imagine that no “intelligent” person could honestly fall for such nonsense, you dehumanize those you disagree with. Or, if they are manifestly knowledgeable, you assume (and this is very common) that they are all, somehow, dishonest."

 

[Apex]

What is odd about the BoM is that anyone with more than 3 neurons firing takes it seriously.

How about you just come out and list every single LDS member on this forum and call each of us stupid by name? Are you a big enough man to do that?

 

[OmarKhayyam]

How about you list verifiable falsifiable evidence for the 20th part of half a syllable of the beginning.

Failing that you have blind faith in the words of one guy who has told a story his mother wouldn't believe.

So WHY do you believe it?

 

[Watchmen]

How about you list verifiable falsifiable evidence for the 20th part of half a syllable of the beginning.

Failing that you have blind faith in the words of one guy who has told a story his mother wouldn't believe.

So WHY do you believe it?

Why do atheists always assume faith is "blind?"

 

[Katzpur]

You didn't answer my question, OmarKhayyam. It was a very simple question. Why didn't you address it, but simply change the subject instead?

 

[OmarKhayyam]

You didn't answer my question, OmarKhayyam. It was a very simple question. Why didn't you address it, but simply change the subject instead?

Not really. You just don't like the implications. You failed to provide any evidence - hardly surprising- and absent that you you have NO valid reason to believe any of it. You do anyway = Blind faith.

If I said I was certain Russell's teapot was really out there you would regard me as either deluded or stupid. But you believe a set of propositions that are actually LESS likely than Russell's teapot but you are justified - indeed are to be praised and honored - for doing so.

And they rest of us are supposed to regard you as fully functioning resaoning human beings believing what you do based on solid evidence and faultless logic.:areyoucra

Well guess what? I DON'T!

Make of that what you will.

 

[Katzpur]

Not really. You just don't like the implications.

You did not answer my question.

You failed to provide any evidence - hardly surprising- and absent that you you have NO valid reason to believe any of it. You do anyway = Blind faith.

I haven't even been involved in the debate, Omar. I haven't even attempted to provide any evidence. I don't care one single solitary bit what you believe about the Book of Mormon. I simply asked you a question which you flat out refused to answer.

And they rest of us are supposed to regard you as fully functioning resaoning human beings believing what you do based on solid evidence and faultless logic.:areyoucra

I don't give a damn what the rest of you do. All I asked is that you answer a simple question. I've seen a lot of accusations in response, but still no answer. Would you like me to ask it again? Okay, here it is: I take the Book of Mormon seriously. Are you calling me stupid? A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[Autodidact]

You did not answer my question.

I haven't even been involved in the debate, Omar. I haven't even attempted to provide any evidence. I don't care one single solitary bit what you believe about the Book of Mormon. I simply asked you a question which you flat out refused to answer.

I don't give a damn what the rest of you do. All I asked is that you answer a simple question. I've seen a lot of accusations in response, but still no answer. Would you like me to ask it again? Okay, here it is: I take the Book of Mormon seriously. Are you calling me stupid? A simple yes or no will suffice.

I don't. Wrong, deluded and brainwashed, but not stupid, no.

 

[Apex]

I don't. Wrong, deluded and brainwashed, but not stupid, no.

How are those any better?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

How about you list verifiable falsifiable evidence for the 20th part of half a syllable of the beginning.

There is none.

 

[madhatter85]

How are those any better?

They aren't any better and It's sad to see them waste their energies slandering the book of Mormon.
The same people in this debate hollering about the Book of Mormon are the same people in the SSM debate asking "why do you even care?" It's a silly double standard by their own arguments or, in short, hypocrisy. However I know why they care, it's because If the Book of Mormon were to be proven true they would feel compelled to acknowledge we were right all along and they would need to change their ways to live righteously.

Because that is not what they want to do, they will go so far out of their way to try to bring it down. In reality it comes down to selfishness and stiffneckedness.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Whole post is wrong and I think you're generalizing...

They aren't any better and It's sad to see them waste their energies slandering the book of Mormon.

No one is "slandering" the BoM.

Slander
A malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report.

The BoM talks about people, places, events, technology that simply did not exist here in North or South America. No archeological evidence is available to substantiate the claims made by the BoM so we have made no slanderous statements.

The same people in this debate hollering about the Book of Mormon are the same people in the SSM debate asking "why do you even care?" It's a silly double standard by their own arguments or, in short, hypocrisy.

If you are referring to Same Sex Marriage then it is not the same. The argument put forth against it is fueled by the religious. But the religious have shown no reason why gays and lesbians should not be allowed to be married.

However I know why they care, it's because If the Book of Mormon were to be proven true they would feel compelled to acknowledge we were right all along and they would need to change their ways to live righteously.

Well, we've been waiting.....

Because that is not what they want to do

Hardly. I normally don't care but when the issue is raised, especially here on RF I want to know what is the basis for the claims made by the book.

they will go so far out of their way to try to bring it down.

No we don't. When the book starts off about a people who left Jerusalem and came here and established their existence here and fought huge wars or battles with chariots and metal weaponry and building temples...even as going far as mentioning the people by name we want to know how such a thing is possible considering all evidence points to the contray.

 

[Katzpur]

The BoM talks about people, places, events, technology that simply did not exist here in North or South America. No archeological evidence is available to substantiate the claims made by the BoM so we have made no slanderous statements... When the book starts off about a people who left Jerusalem and came here and established their existence here and fought huge wars or battles with chariots and metal weaponry and building temples...even as going far as mentioning the people by name we want to know how such a thing is possible considering all evidence points to the contray.

I'm going to respond to this post simply because you and I have never really had a dialogue before. I always like to at least give people a chance to show that they can converse respectfully with me before simply writing them off. Most of the time, such conversations prove fruitless, so I lose interest in pursuing them pretty early on. We'll see how you and I do...

It is true that there is no archeological "proof" for the Book of Mormon. On the other hand, a number of our critics arguments against the plausibility of the book have, over the years, been disproven as new evidence comes to light. For years, people insisted that there was no evidence of cement in the ancient Americas. That's been refuted. They claimed there was no evidence for pre-Columbian barley. There is. For years, honey bees were said not to exist in the New World until introduced by Europeans. We now know that that's a false assumption. Do any of these things prove the Book of Mormon to be true? Of course not, but we're not claiming they do. Of course there have been some pretty interesting discoveries that, to people who do believe the book are pretty interesting -- things such as ancient Mayan temples that are almost identical in terms of design and porportion to ancient Hebrew temples.

The linquistic and cultural aspects of the Book of Mormon are far more compelling than the archeological evidence is, but our critics -- people who are looking for a smoking gun in the form of an ancient sign that says, "Zarahemla city limits" -- refuse to even be bothered to consider other proofs. Chiasmus, for instance, and numerous Hebraisms unknown to scholars in the early 19th century are fascinating evidence, in my opinion, that the people who wrote the book had a Semitic background. I don't expect you to be convinced, but the fact is, to claim that there is NO EVIDENCE when there is, is simply dishonest. There is obviously evidence for ancient civilizations existing on the American continent. I'm just wondering what it would take to convince you that some of these ancient cities, fortresses and temples were built by the people described in the Book of Mormon. You're so insistent that they aren't; surely you have some criteria in mind that, if met, would cause you to think twice. I'd like to know what it is. What factors would say, "This city was built or even occupied by the people mentioned in the Book of Mormon"? How would the cities of the Nephites be distinctive?

 

[Autodidact]

How are those any better?

Up to you, I guess.

What it comes down to is that anyone who is not a Mormon can see that the BoM is a silly made-up badly written story. Yet millions of people believe it. There must be some explanation.

 

[Autodidact]

They aren't any better and It's sad to see them waste their energies slandering the book of Mormon.
The same people in this debate hollering about the Book of Mormon are the same people in the SSM debate asking "why do you even care?" It's a silly double standard by their own arguments or, in short, hypocrisy. However I know why they care, it's because If the Book of Mormon were to be proven true they would feel compelled to acknowledge we were right all along and they would need to change their ways to live righteously.

Because that is not what they want to do, they will go so far out of their way to try to bring it down. In reality it comes down to selfishness and stiffneckedness.

Wait, if we advocate for equal rights we have to agree that one of the silliest cons ever perpetrated on humanity is true, despite the consistent, ample, enormous evidence that every assertion it contains is completely and utterly wrong? I don't get that. But then, I base my beliefs on evidence. That may be the source of your confusion.

 

[Autodidact]

I'm going to respond to this post simply because you and I have never really had a dialogue before. I always like to at least give people a chance to show that they can converse respectfully with me before simply writing them off. Most of the time, such conversations prove fruitless, so I lose interest in pursuing them pretty early on. We'll see how you and I do...

It is true that there is no archeological "proof" for the Book of Mormon.

Actually, there's no archeological evidence. Or genetic. Or anthropological. Or linguistic. Or geographic. Or any evidence whatsoever. Meanwhile, there's literal tons of evidence that it never happened.

On the other hand, a number of our critics arguments against the plausibility of the book have, over the years, been disproven as new evidence comes to light. For years, people insisted that there was no evidence of cement in the ancient Americas.

This is a good example of what I mean. The Aztecs used cement. O.K. Are the Aztecs BoM people? Clearly not. They don't resemble them in any way, don't have the same animals, weapons, crops, foods, or artifacts, and have no genetic relationship to the ANE. So what difference does it make whether they used cement? Here's what you never see: BoM people.

That's been refuted. They claimed there was no evidence for pre-Columbian barley. There is.

O.K. Barley was found in Arizona. Did BoM people live in Arizona? Clearly not. No steel, no chariots, no wheat, no swords, no...etc. etc. No horses, no DNA. I don't think Katzpur, or anyone else, asserts that Lamanites lived in Arizona. They're strangely elusive. NOt in New York, not in ARizona, not in Mexico, not in Meso-America...not anywhere.

For years, honey bees were said not to exist in the New World until introduced by Europeans. We now know that that's a false assumption

That's funny, cuz the LDS church says:

There are several references to bees or honey in the Book of Mormon - but all occur in the Old World. Lehi's group found honey in the Old World, a passage quoted from Isaiah mentions bees, and the Jaredite group carried bees with them as they traveled in the Old World. We are not told that the Jaredites brought bees into the New World. Bees are missing in the list of items placed on the ships in Ether 6:4. But no wonder: I'd be uncomfortable being locked in a closed vessel with hives of bees. With no indication of bees being brought to the New World, we have nothing to explain. We simply don't have to explain or apologize for things that the Book of Mormon does not say.

Which is it? Does the BoM not mention honey in the New World, or was there honey in the New World?

. Do any of these things prove the Book of Mormon to be true?

In fact, their absense proves it false.

Of course not, but we're not claiming they do. Of course there have been some pretty interesting discoveries that, to people who do believe the book are pretty interesting -- things such as ancient Mayan temples that are almost identical in terms of design and porportion to ancient Hebrew temples.

And yet, oddly, people not already persuaded that the book is true never find any archeological evidence to support it. They're not out looking for anti-Mormon evidence, they're just trying to find out what happened. And for some reason, it never looks like immigrants from the ANE described in the BoM. Not once. Ever. In the entire history of American archeology.

The linquistic and cultural aspects of the Book of Mormon are far more compelling than the archeological evidence is,

No, they doom it. There is no semitic language anywhere in America. Nothing resembling Egyptian or Hebre in any way, not even remotely.

but our critics -- people who are looking for a smoking gun in the form of an ancient sign that says, "Zarahemla city limits" -- refuse to even be bothered to consider other proofs.

Wait, you have evidence of any remnant of ANE language spoken anywhere in the New World? Anywhere at all? Where? Tell us all about it.

Chiasmus, for instance, and numerous Hebraisms unknown to scholars in the early 19th century are fascinating evidence, in my opinion, that the people who wrote the book had a Semitic background. I don't expect you to be convinced, but the fact is, to claim that there is NO EVIDENCE when there is, is simply dishonest.

Well, there's some evidence for Santa Claus, but the preponderance is against.

There is obviously evidence for ancient civilizations existing on the American continent.

Yup. Civilizations that don't resemble the BoM people in anyway.

I'm just wondering what it would take to convince you that some of these ancient cities, fortresses and temples were built by the people described in the Book of Mormon.

Steel, chariots, swords, wheat, barley, horses, and ANE DNA.

You're so insistent that they aren't; surely you have some criteria in mind that, if met, would cause you to think twice. I'd like to know what it is. What factors would say, "This city was built or even occupied by the people mentioned in the Book of Mormon"? How would the cities of the Nephites be distinctive?

I'm not an expert, so I'm willing to accept the verdict of the archeologists. When some non-Mormon archeologists look at the artifacts and ruins and say, "These resemble the people described in the BoM," I'll accept it. Some DNA would help too.

Or, if you're asking me for my opinion, I would expect to find evidence of metallurgy, specifically steel-making. Artifacts of lots of weapons from the huge battles depicted there, such as metal swords, chariot wheels. Fossils of horse bones from this period. Also cattle, camels, elephants, big animals like that. And that DNA; that's pretty convincing stuff.

Just like non-Jewish archeologists can go to Israel and find ruins of places mentioned in the Bible. Like that.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Actually, there's no archeological evidence. Or genetic. Or anthropological. Or linguistic. Or geographic. Or any evidence whatsoever. Meanwhile, there's literal tons of evidence that it never happened. This is a good example of what I mean. The Aztecs used cement. O.K. Are the Aztecs BoM people? Clearly not. They don't resemble them in any way, don't have the same animals, weapons, crops, foods, or artifacts, and have no genetic relationship to the ANE. So what difference does it make whether they used cement? Here's what you never see: BoM people. O.K. Barley was found in Arizona. Did BoM people live in Arizona? Clearly not. No steel, no chariots, no wheat, no swords, no...etc. etc. No horses, no DNA. I don't think Katzpur, or anyone else, asserts that Lamanites lived in Arizona. They're strangely elusive. NOt in New York, not in ARizona, not in Mexico, not in Meso-America...not anywhere. That's funny, cuz the LDS church says: Which is it? Does the BoM not mention honey in the New World, or was there honey in the New World? In fact, their absense proves it false. And yet, oddly, people not already persuaded that the book is true never find any archeological evidence to support it. They're not out looking for anti-Mormon evidence, they're just trying to find out what happened. And for some reason, it never looks like immigrants from the ANE described in the BoM. Not once. Ever. In the entire history of American archeology.
No, they doom it. There is no semitic language anywhere in America. Nothing resembling Egyptian or Hebre in any way, not even remotely. Wait, you have evidence of any remnant of ANE language spoken anywhere in the New World? Anywhere at all? Where? Tell us all about it. Well, there's some evidence for Santa Claus, but the preponderance is against. Yup. Civilizations that don't resemble the BoM people in anyway. Steel, chariots, swords, wheat, barley, horses, and ANE DNA. I'm not an expert, so I'm willing to accept the verdict of the archeologists. When some non-Mormon archeologists look at the artifacts and ruins and say, "These resemble the people described in the BoM," I'll accept it. Some DNA would help too.

Or, if you're asking me for my opinion, I would expect to find evidence of metallurgy, specifically steel-making. Artifacts of lots of weapons from the huge battles depicted there, such as metal swords, chariot wheels. Fossils of horse bones from this period. Also cattle, camels, elephants, big animals like that. And that DNA; that's pretty convincing stuff.

Just like non-Jewish archeologists can go to Israel and find ruins of places mentioned in the Bible. Like that.

Thank you. I couldn't have said it better....:clap