Law School Discussion

<<< The Book of Mormon

Re: <<< The Book of Mormon
« Reply #20 on: December 19, 2007, 01:29:57 PM »
I can't imagine that it would be too absurd for God to reveal things to people on the other side of the world.  It never made sense to me that it would have only been revealed to the people of Israel.  Just because a group of people a few hundred years after Christ decided what to accept and what not to accept as scripture doesn't mean that nothing else has been revealed.  I bet there are more scriptures that we don't even know about.

Of course, have you ever considered the alternative theory that there is no such thing as "God"?  That the original followers/believers were either crazy, sadly mis-informed, or crafty deviants scamming the others into believing that tripe for personal gain.

I'm still bewildered how often seemingly intelligent people can continue to believe this crap, and worse yet we're suppose to actually respect it.

mbw

  • ****
  • 2426
  • TTTundra Law 2012
    • View Profile
Re: <<< The Book of Mormon
« Reply #21 on: December 19, 2007, 05:01:18 PM »
I can't imagine that it would be too absurd for God to reveal things to people on the other side of the world.  It never made sense to me that it would have only been revealed to the people of Israel.  Just because a group of people a few hundred years after Christ decided what to accept and what not to accept as scripture doesn't mean that nothing else has been revealed.  I bet there are more scriptures that we don't even know about.

Of course, have you ever considered the alternative theory that there is no such thing as "God"?  That the original followers/believers were either crazy, sadly mis-informed, or crafty deviants scamming the others into believing that tripe for personal gain.

I'm still bewildered how often seemingly intelligent people can continue to believe this crap, and worse yet we're suppose to actually respect it.

Hence my posting the date 600 BC.  This is the date the BoM claims the Lost Tribe peopled the Western Hemisphere and became the ancestors of modern day NDNs.  As both an NDN and an archaeologist (and, yes, someone who rejects Western/Middle Eastern mythology,) that date is downright hysterical. 

Re: <<< The Book of Mormon
« Reply #22 on: December 19, 2007, 06:43:10 PM »
I can't imagine that it would be too absurd for God to reveal things to people on the other side of the world.  It never made sense to me that it would have only been revealed to the people of Israel.  Just because a group of people a few hundred years after Christ decided what to accept and what not to accept as scripture doesn't mean that nothing else has been revealed.  I bet there are more scriptures that we don't even know about.

Of course, have you ever considered the alternative theory that there is no such thing as "God"?  That the original followers/believers were either crazy, sadly mis-informed, or crafty deviants scamming the others into believing that tripe for personal gain.

I'm still bewildered how often seemingly intelligent people can continue to believe this crap, and worse yet we're suppose to actually respect it.

So, you use the fact that there could be an alternate explanation as evidence that the former theory is bogus.  I imagine you did pretty well with your logical reasoning.

Re: <<< The Book of Mormon
« Reply #23 on: December 19, 2007, 06:49:22 PM »
I can't imagine that it would be too absurd for God to reveal things to people on the other side of the world.  It never made sense to me that it would have only been revealed to the people of Israel.  Just because a group of people a few hundred years after Christ decided what to accept and what not to accept as scripture doesn't mean that nothing else has been revealed.  I bet there are more scriptures that we don't even know about.

Of course, have you ever considered the alternative theory that there is no such thing as "God"?  That the original followers/believers were either crazy, sadly mis-informed, or crafty deviants scamming the others into believing that tripe for personal gain.

I'm still bewildered how often seemingly intelligent people can continue to believe this crap, and worse yet we're suppose to actually respect it.

Hence my posting the date 600 BC.  This is the date the BoM claims the Lost Tribe peopled the Western Hemisphere and became the ancestors of modern day NDNs.  As both an NDN and an archaeologist (and, yes, someone who rejects Western/Middle Eastern mythology,) that date is downright hysterical. 

If you've ever read the Book of Mormon, and I'm assuming you haven't, the tribe that came to the Americas in the year 600 BC was not the first to inhabit the American continent.  The book makes reference to numerous civilizations that existed long before 600 BC.  For an archaeologist, I'm shocked at your lack of research in coming to such a brash conclusion as that.

Re: <<< The Book of Mormon
« Reply #24 on: December 19, 2007, 07:04:21 PM »

Of course, have you ever considered the alternative theory that there is no such thing as "God"?  That the original followers/believers were either crazy, sadly mis-informed, or crafty deviants scamming the others into believing that tripe for personal gain.

I'm still bewildered how often seemingly intelligent people can continue to believe this crap, and worse yet we're suppose to actually respect it.

So, you use the fact that there could be an alternate explanation as evidence that the former theory is bogus.  I imagine you did pretty well with your logical reasoning.

I was being kind.  There is no such thing as god.  It's a silly human construct that has been used to explain that which has been unexplainable, socially control the masses, and provide comfort through self-delusion.

I find it mildly amusing that anyone who honestly believes in that B.S. would call someone else out on their logical reasoning skills.  Of course you could be a troll, which I haven't ruled out. 

Re: <<< The Book of Mormon
« Reply #25 on: December 19, 2007, 07:09:49 PM »

I totally agree with you, however, I am fully prepaired to admit I'm wrong if I die and there is a god and say let me the ^&*% in!

If I die, and come to meet god in whatever form it may be in, then it's got some questions to answer for me... and I aint buying any of that crap that he gave to Job about how since he can create trees and crap, that job was in no place to question.  Well we (humanity) are on the verge of being able to create new forms of life - so he better be able to justify his existence and a lot of other things like why he has to act so mysteriously and if he's such a nice guy why he allows so much crap to happen. 

mbw

  • ****
  • 2426
  • TTTundra Law 2012
    • View Profile
Re: <<< The Book of Mormon
« Reply #26 on: December 19, 2007, 07:31:44 PM »
I can't imagine that it would be too absurd for God to reveal things to people on the other side of the world.  It never made sense to me that it would have only been revealed to the people of Israel.  Just because a group of people a few hundred years after Christ decided what to accept and what not to accept as scripture doesn't mean that nothing else has been revealed.  I bet there are more scriptures that we don't even know about.

Of course, have you ever considered the alternative theory that there is no such thing as "God"?  That the original followers/believers were either crazy, sadly mis-informed, or crafty deviants scamming the others into believing that tripe for personal gain.

I'm still bewildered how often seemingly intelligent people can continue to believe this crap, and worse yet we're suppose to actually respect it.

Hence my posting the date 600 BC.  This is the date the BoM claims the Lost Tribe peopled the Western Hemisphere and became the ancestors of modern day NDNs.  As both an NDN and an archaeologist (and, yes, someone who rejects Western/Middle Eastern mythology,) that date is downright hysterical. 

If you've ever read the Book of Mormon, and I'm assuming you haven't, the tribe that came to the Americas in the year 600 BC was not the first to inhabit the American continent.  The book makes reference to numerous civilizations that existed long before 600 BC.  For an archaeologist, I'm shocked at your lack of research in coming to such a brash conclusion as that.

LOL.  Yes, I've read it, mostly to laugh at its absurdity, from an archaeological perspective, of course. Such as:

Quote
18:25 And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the ass and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals, which were for the use of men. And we did find all manner of ore, both of gold, and of silver, and of copper.

However, I'm curious as to why you believe there were previous inhabitants, when the BoM explicitly states:

Quote
1:8 And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.

1:9 Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.

However, let's address your previous comments below:

Quote
Quote from: jamie9 on Yesterday at 06:58:27 PM
No offense to the active mormons on here, there's some incredibly great people in the LDS churcho including my parents, and like any church, things that are very good and some not-so-great things about it; but I've read the book of mormon several times and not only is it incredibly boring and repetitive, but until the recent change, historically and scientifically disprovable.

Quote from: Phineas on Yesterday at 06:52:21 PM
It actually offers more of an explanation as to the origin of the Native Americans than does anything else I've ever read.

So, if the actual BoM (not the introduction, even as altered in 1981) doesn't in fact provide Nephi as the patriarch of the indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere, then why do you think it actually offers an adequate explanation for our origin?

Re: <<< The Book of Mormon
« Reply #27 on: December 19, 2007, 09:33:45 PM »
I can't imagine that it would be too absurd for God to reveal things to people on the other side of the world.  It never made sense to me that it would have only been revealed to the people of Israel.  Just because a group of people a few hundred years after Christ decided what to accept and what not to accept as scripture doesn't mean that nothing else has been revealed.  I bet there are more scriptures that we don't even know about.

Of course, have you ever considered the alternative theory that there is no such thing as "God"?  That the original followers/believers were either crazy, sadly mis-informed, or crafty deviants scamming the others into believing that tripe for personal gain.

I'm still bewildered how often seemingly intelligent people can continue to believe this crap, and worse yet we're suppose to actually respect it.

Hence my posting the date 600 BC.  This is the date the BoM claims the Lost Tribe peopled the Western Hemisphere and became the ancestors of modern day NDNs.  As both an NDN and an archaeologist (and, yes, someone who rejects Western/Middle Eastern mythology,) that date is downright hysterical. 

If you've ever read the Book of Mormon, and I'm assuming you haven't, the tribe that came to the Americas in the year 600 BC was not the first to inhabit the American continent.  The book makes reference to numerous civilizations that existed long before 600 BC.  For an archaeologist, I'm shocked at your lack of research in coming to such a brash conclusion as that.

LOL.  Yes, I've read it, mostly to laugh at its absurdity, from an archaeological perspective, of course. Such as:

Quote
18:25 And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the ass and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals, which were for the use of men. And we did find all manner of ore, both of gold, and of silver, and of copper.

However, I'm curious as to why you believe there were previous inhabitants, when the BoM explicitly states:

Quote
1:8 And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.

1:9 Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.

However, let's address your previous comments below:

Quote
Quote from: jamie9 on Yesterday at 06:58:27 PM
No offense to the active mormons on here, there's some incredibly great people in the LDS churcho including my parents, and like any church, things that are very good and some not-so-great things about it; but I've read the book of mormon several times and not only is it incredibly boring and repetitive, but until the recent change, historically and scientifically disprovable.

Quote from: Phineas on Yesterday at 06:52:21 PM
It actually offers more of an explanation as to the origin of the Native Americans than does anything else I've ever read.

So, if the actual BoM (not the introduction, even as altered in 1981) doesn't in fact provide Nephi as the patriarch of the indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere, then why do you think it actually offers an adequate explanation for our origin?

Have you chosen to skip the books of Mosiah and Ether?  Both of which refer to a people that inhabited the American continent shortly after the Tower of Babel.  The book of Ether is an account of that people that was later translated by the prophet Mosiah.  I can wait for you to answer your own question after you read those books.  Also, your references don't mean much.  That is like saying 13:3 of the Bible.  It's best to indicate which books you are referring to.

mbw

  • ****
  • 2426
  • TTTundra Law 2012
    • View Profile
Re: <<< The Book of Mormon
« Reply #28 on: December 19, 2007, 10:15:59 PM »
I can't imagine that it would be too absurd for God to reveal things to people on the other side of the world.  It never made sense to me that it would have only been revealed to the people of Israel.  Just because a group of people a few hundred years after Christ decided what to accept and what not to accept as scripture doesn't mean that nothing else has been revealed.  I bet there are more scriptures that we don't even know about.

Of course, have you ever considered the alternative theory that there is no such thing as "God"?  That the original followers/believers were either crazy, sadly mis-informed, or crafty deviants scamming the others into believing that tripe for personal gain.

I'm still bewildered how often seemingly intelligent people can continue to believe this crap, and worse yet we're suppose to actually respect it.

Hence my posting the date 600 BC.  This is the date the BoM claims the Lost Tribe peopled the Western Hemisphere and became the ancestors of modern day NDNs.  As both an NDN and an archaeologist (and, yes, someone who rejects Western/Middle Eastern mythology,) that date is downright hysterical. 

If you've ever read the Book of Mormon, and I'm assuming you haven't, the tribe that came to the Americas in the year 600 BC was not the first to inhabit the American continent.  The book makes reference to numerous civilizations that existed long before 600 BC.  For an archaeologist, I'm shocked at your lack of research in coming to such a brash conclusion as that.

LOL.  Yes, I've read it, mostly to laugh at its absurdity, from an archaeological perspective, of course. Such as:

Quote
18:25 And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the ass and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals, which were for the use of men. And we did find all manner of ore, both of gold, and of silver, and of copper.

However, I'm curious as to why you believe there were previous inhabitants, when the BoM explicitly states:

Quote
1:8 And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.

1:9 Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.

However, let's address your previous comments below:

Quote
Quote from: jamie9 on Yesterday at 06:58:27 PM
No offense to the active mormons on here, there's some incredibly great people in the LDS churcho including my parents, and like any church, things that are very good and some not-so-great things about it; but I've read the book of mormon several times and not only is it incredibly boring and repetitive, but until the recent change, historically and scientifically disprovable.

Quote from: Phineas on Yesterday at 06:52:21 PM
It actually offers more of an explanation as to the origin of the Native Americans than does anything else I've ever read.

So, if the actual BoM (not the introduction, even as altered in 1981) doesn't in fact provide Nephi as the patriarch of the indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere, then why do you think it actually offers an adequate explanation for our origin?

Have you chosen to skip the books of Mosiah and Ether?  Both of which refer to a people that inhabited the American continent shortly after the Tower of Babel.  The book of Ether is an account of that people that was later translated by the prophet Mosiah.  I can wait for you to answer your own question after you read those books.  Also, your references don't mean much.  That is like saying 13:3 of the Bible.  It's best to indicate which books you are referring to.

Yawn.  Clearly it was Nephi 1 & 2.  I'm not a follower of the bird-man-boy cult, so I'm sorry if I don't follow the prescribed annotation properly.

So, how do BoM literalists reconcile the above assertions of a "virgin" wilderness with the million-plus descended from Jared, with only Coriantumr left to wander a couple generations after the final massacre?  Besides, Tower of Babel, or its historical equivalent, has never been properly dated, anywhere from 5000 to 2600 BP, with the purported "destruction" sometime near the end of those dates, which places Jared and his progeny in the Americas at around 3000-2800 BP (800-1000 BC), in what most North American archaeologist would consider Late-Archaic/Early Woodland (following the well documented periods of Paleolithic, Early and Middle Archaic, dating back to, at the latest, 14,000 BP.)

While you're at it, how about explaining the dozens of references to steel, domesticated animals, the compass, barley, wheat, Jewish synagogues, metal coins, chariots, cement, honey bees, elephants, silk, etc., etc., none of which there is any Pre-Columbian archaeological record in the New World covered by the BoM.

Re: <<< The Book of Mormon
« Reply #29 on: December 20, 2007, 09:25:12 AM »
Are you saying that you can definitively prove that those species and items did not exist in the Americas before Columbus?  If that is the basis of your undermining the veracity of the book, I will take your comments with a grain of salt.  Take, for instance, the Therizinosaurid dinosaur.  If it had not been discovered in 2002, would it not have existed?  Just because something hasn't been found surely does not prove it didn't exist.