Why Dont Christians Accept the Book of Mormon as Valid?

[SoyLeche]

Well, if it is true then you should accept it because your understanding of the world is off and needs to be updated

I've read the Bible, Book of Mormon, P of GP and D&C. That is more than most Mormons have done. The BoM, while interesting, does not afford much insight. I got more out of The Impersonal Life.

That's still irrelevant. My point still stands.

 

[DeepShadow]

I've read the Bible, Book of Mormon, P of GP and D&C. That is more than most Mormons have done. The BoM, while interesting, does not afford much insight. I got more out of The Impersonal Life.

Ummm...Reread Soy's original comment. It's an If-Then statement. You are trying to assault the second part (the "then") by refuting the first part, the "if." But that's protected by the fact that it must be assumed for the rest to follow. IF the BoM is true, anyone who wants to accept truth must accept it. That's logic. You can attack either part, but attack them for what they really are. Otherwise your statements will tend to be irrelevant.

 

[Melissa G]

I read the comments with interest re Ancient Shipping. Taking the Egyptians as a example, the Egyptians did not sail out of sight of land, hugging the coast in all of their voyages, There was trade between Crete and Cyprus with Egypt, but it was the Islanders who sailed to Egypt and not the other way around. Rather than put the emphasis on me, tell me of one instance where a reputable source has provided tangible evidence that the people of Isreal were sailors of some repute , and Noah is not acceptable

Melissa G

 

[SoyLeche]

I read the comments with interest re Ancient Shipping. Taking the Egyptians as a example, the Egyptians did not sail out of sight of land, hugging the coast in all of their voyages, There was trade between Crete and Cyprus with Egypt, but it was the Islanders who sailed to Egypt and not the other way around. Rather than put the emphasis on me, tell me of one instance where a reputable source has provided tangible evidence that the people of Isreal were sailors of some repute , and Noah is not acceptable

Melissa G

I already said - the book itself tells us that they didn't "work the timbers after the manner which was learned by men, neither did I build the ship after the manner of men; but I did build it after the manner which the Lord had shown unto me; wherefore, it was not after the manner of men." 1 Nephi 18

Why would we expect to see other examples of something the book says there weren't other examples of?

 

[Melissa G]

A book, which is questionable doesn't consitute evidence in the factual sense. It would require evidence in the form of cross-referencing from other sources. And a shipwreck wouldn't go amiss. Physical and tangible evidence. I mean, does it not occur to you that they ' didn't work timbers in the way which was learned by men', this is an understatement of I haven't a clue ? Very non-specific.

Melissa G

Melissa G

 

[SoyLeche]

A book, which is questionable doesn't consitute evidence in the factual sense. It would require evidence in the form of cross-referencing from other sources. And a shipwreck wouldn't go amiss. Physical and tangible evidence. I mean, does it not occur to you that they ' didn't work timbers in the way which was learned by men', this is an understatement of I haven't a clue ? Very non-specific.

Melissa G

Melissa G

Well, there isn't much to give you. The book claims that there weren't other ships like this one, so there's no reason to believe that we would find other ships like this if the book were true: therefore, the fact that we havnen't found other ships like this is not evidence that the book is not true. This approach is really a non-starter.

I've got to admit, I don't understand the last half of your post. Would you mind re-wording it?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Ummm...Reread Soy's original comment. It's an If-Then statement. You are trying to assault the second part (the "then") by refuting the first part, the "if." But that's protected by the fact that it must be assumed for the rest to follow. IF the BoM is true, anyone who wants to accept truth must accept it. That's logic. You can attack either part, but attack them for what they really are. Otherwise your statements will tend to be irrelevant.

I was saying the the BoM is irrelevant.

 

[Melissa G]

Sorry, If I wasn't clear enough. What I was saying is that non-specific statements aren't valid, because it indicates the writer really doesn't know the details to which he is referring too.

Melissa G

 

[SoyLeche]

Sorry, If I wasn't clear enough. What I was saying is that non-specific statements aren't valid, because it indicates the writer really doesn't know the details to which he is referring too.

Melissa G

It doesn't change the fact that not finding other examples of ships able to cross the ocean is not evidence against the BoM though.

Like I said - this one's a dead end. You should move on.

 

[Melissa G]

Dead in the water

Melissa

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It doesn't change the fact that not finding other examples of ships able to cross the ocean is not evidence against the BoM though.

So... a segment of ancient Israelites were shown by God how to make and navigate super-duper ships that were light years ahead of anything else they knew of, built just enough ships to get over to North America, and then stopped, never built a similar ship ever again, and forgot what they knew about navigation... why?

 

[SoyLeche]

So... a segment of ancient Israelites were shown by God how to make and navigate super-duper ships that were light years ahead of anything else they knew of, built just enough ships to get over to North America, and then stopped, never built a similar ship ever again, and forgot what they knew about navigation... why?

My guess - they didn't need to know about it.

We're talking about a group of probably less than 30 people, traveling a route that has been shown can be traversed using just ocean currents, so the ship didn't really have to be much more then a raft for the trip to be possible - and they only built one. When they got here they likely joined up with (most likely began to rule over) other people who were native to the area. From that point survival was more important than navigation. They had no reason, and probably no ability, to return to where they came from, and no reason to do any further exploring. Seeing as only one of these people even knew how to build the ship it isn't surprising that the knowledge of how to do it died with him.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My guess - they didn't need to know about it.

We're talking about a group of probably less than 30 people, traveling a route that has been shown can be traversed using just ocean currents, so the ship didn't really have to be much more then a raft for the trip to be possible - and they only built one.

Only one that was, apparently, Godly in nature and design... this wasn't worth saving, copying, or at least writing about?

When they got here they likely joined up with (most likely began to rule over) other people who were native to the area.

Hang on... I thought modern Native Americans were supposed to have descended from the Lamanites. What happened to the people who were here before the Israelites arrived?

 

[SoyLeche]

Only one that was, apparently, Godly in nature and design... this wasn't worth saving, copying, or at least writing about?

No idea. And it was written about - in the BoM

Hang on... I thought modern Native Americans were supposed to have descended from the Lamanites. What happened to the people who were here before the Israelites arrived?

A lot of people believe that. I don't think that the text supports that belief though. Many native americans (probably less native North americans or native South americans, but most definitely native Central americans) would have at least some ancestral connection to Lehi, but it would probably be pretty small at this point.

 

[SoyLeche]

Basic history once they got here:

(Note, the terms "Lamanite" and "Nephite" have a couple different meanings. It can refer to actual descendants of Laman and Nephi, it can refer to the ruling class, or it can refer to the people being ruled by that particular ruling class. Sometimes it isn't clear which definition is being used, and very different interpretations can be made based on which definition you choose to believe)

Arived on the west coast, probably in Guatemala. Lived there a few years. Lehi died. Laman and Lemuel get upset with Nephi. Nephi and his group take off to get away from Laman and his group. Nephites move inland - probably to the highlands of Guatemala. A couple hundred years pass. The Lamanites come close to destroying the Nephites. Mosiah and a group of Nephites escape to southern Mexico. They meet up with another civilization, and Mosiah is made their king. Most of the book comes after this point.

Unless the Nephites were somehow able to bring a ship up into the highlands of Guatemala, the ship must have remained behind in the hands of Laman and Lemuel. Given that they hated Nephi, it isn't unreasonable to believe that they destroyed the ship that Nephi built.

 

[Melissa G]

You keep on shooting yourself in the foot, but I really am done with this thread...all supposition and no substance.

~M

 

[SoyLeche]

You keep on shooting yourself in the foot, but I really am done with this thread...all supposition and no substance.

~M

Care to point out where? You have brought nothing to the thread anyway, so it isn't much of a loss.

 

[Melissa G]

" Arived on the west coast, probably in Guatemala. Lived there a few years. Lehi died. Laman and Lemuel get upset with Nephi. Nephi and his group take off to get away from Laman and his group. Nephites move inland - probably to the highlands of Guatemala. A couple hundred years pass. The Lamanites come close to destroying the Nephites. Mosiah and a group of Nephites escape to southern Mexico. They meet up with another civilization, and Mosiah is made their king. Most of the book comes after this point.

Unless the Nephites were somehow able to bring a ship up into the highlands of Guatemala, the ship must have remained behind in the hands of Laman and Lemuel. Given that they hated Nephi, it isn't unreasonable to believe that they destroyed the ship that Nephi built.
__________________

Speaks for itself, your just repeating what's in the LDS book, with a few hearsays thrown in, such as ' not unreasonable', ' probably' ect. Which means your guessing. There's nothing wrong with you believing in your book, as long as you admit it cannot be backed up by any evidence which can be subjected to scientific peer review/
~M

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Basic history once they got here:

(Note, the terms "Lamanite" and "Nephite" have a couple different meanings. It can refer to actual descendants of Laman and Nephi, it can refer to the ruling class, or it can refer to the people being ruled by that particular ruling class. Sometimes it isn't clear which definition is being used, and very different interpretations can be made based on which definition you choose to believe)

Arived on the west coast, probably in Guatemala. Lived there a few years. Lehi died. Laman and Lemuel get upset with Nephi. Nephi and his group take off to get away from Laman and his group. Nephites move inland - probably to the highlands of Guatemala. A couple hundred years pass. The Lamanites come close to destroying the Nephites. Mosiah and a group of Nephites escape to southern Mexico. They meet up with another civilization, and Mosiah is made their king. Most of the book comes after this point.

Why would a group of Israelites landing in Guatemala, installing themselves as rulers over the local natives, splitting into three kingdoms, expanding throughout Central America, and waging several wars between them all escape the notice of the Mayans who were in the area at the time, had written records and presumably were the people being ruled by these Israelite aristocracies?

And why is there zero influence of either Hebrew or Egyptian in either the written or spoken language of the Native populations that were ruled by these groups? You're talking about a level of conquest similar to the Roman Empire. We see linguistic clues of the Romans in languages all over Europe and the Mediterranean; nothing like this is present in Central America, even though it was supposedly under similar control by the descendents of Lehi.

Every grand kingdom, from the Egyptians to the Bablyonians, Medo-Persians, Inca, Vikings and Mongols, has left signs of its existence. Why didn't these three?

 

[SoyLeche]

" Arived on the west coast, probably in Guatemala. Lived there a few years. Lehi died. Laman and Lemuel get upset with Nephi. Nephi and his group take off to get away from Laman and his group. Nephites move inland - probably to the highlands of Guatemala. A couple hundred years pass. The Lamanites come close to destroying the Nephites. Mosiah and a group of Nephites escape to southern Mexico. They meet up with another civilization, and Mosiah is made their king. Most of the book comes after this point.

Unless the Nephites were somehow able to bring a ship up into the highlands of Guatemala, the ship must have remained behind in the hands of Laman and Lemuel. Given that they hated Nephi, it isn't unreasonable to believe that they destroyed the ship that Nephi built.
__________________

Speaks for itself, your just repeating what's in the LDS book, with a few hearsays thrown in, such as ' not unreasonable', ' probably' ect. Which means your guessing. There's nothing wrong with you believing in your book, as long as you admit it cannot be backed up by any evidence which can be subjected to scientific peer review/
~M

You do realize that all I need is plausability, right? Your argument still doesn't hold any water.

You have been presented with evidence a few pages back that you apparently have decided isn't worth your attention.