Why are people mormon considering it is obvioulsy fabricated?

[RoryMcKenzie56]

I haven’t seen much productivie dialogue on the mormon threads. We have one liners and mormon explanations, more one liners, more mormon explanations etc. Occasionally there is a gem to discuss but mostly it is just plain nagative posts about mormons and mormonism.

I think that I am the most catholic poster on these threads with a good catholic message.

why me,

It is the nature of the internet board.

Why don’t you quit why me? You’re like me. We aren’t learning anything. We aren’t teaching anything. These forums are far more harmful than beneficial anyway, especially for the very active participants. Think of all the books we didn’t read, the gardens we didn’t tend, the bicycle left unused, the beautiful music unappreciated, or the real life people who love us that we have ignored. What have we gained? What have we given? The LDS board was an occasion of sin to me. I am not sorry I quit there either. I believe I am about to the same point here. At best, it is a colossal waste of emotional energy. At worst, it deludes into falsely positive judgmental thinking about ourselves and falsely negative judgmental thinking about our counterparts on the other side of the argument.

If I could persuade someone to quit, it would probably be the best thing I ever accomplished in almost ten years of this folly!

I’d make a pact with you. I am ready to give it up for good anyway. Are you? What good motive can we claim to have for participating in these offensive, degenerating discussions that regularly lead to misunderstanding and hatred? Is it so that we can be part of that one good thread for every bad thousand? I don’t think so. I think we are addicted. We are bored. And this is a bad remedy for boredom. It makes us bored with better things in favor of lesser things. Do you often feel refreshed and energized after you’re done here? Ready to go do something hard but worthwhile? I don’t. Unless you do, it isn’t recreation or a healthy hobby either. Recreations refresh the mind and body. Anyway, here’s a deal I’ll make with you. Whoever posts in a religious forum or blog first owes the other…something significant. We can talk about the something and I would even negotiate some legislative exceptions. Send me a message. I’m serious. God will bless us!

Sincerely,

Rory aka 3DOP

 

[MelanieAnne]

the fact that they ostracize those that abandon the faith, much like muslims, only proves the point.

Actually Muslims sometimes kill apostates. The ostracism that typically accompanies a Mormon becoming inactive in the faith is not official Mormon policy and does not have a history of violence that I am aware of.

We can discuss flaws with Mormon theology without going to the extremes of invalid comparisons to other faiths.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

We can discuss flaws with Mormon theology without going to the extremes of invalid comparisons to other faiths.

not all muslims kill those who leave the faith either. my point was that they all exclude from heaven those that abandon the faith. jw’s, mormons and muslims believe that heaven is like a prize unlike christians who hold that heaven is to be united to God.

all three religions lessen Jesus to a lesser god and the Holy Spirit to a force. all three religions were fabricated by salesman. the parallels are uncanny.

 

[Stephen168]

This statement reminded me of something that a family friend, a Mormon Bishop, told me years ago. I can at least confirm from what he told me that HE believed that Native Americans were of Middle Eastern origins and this is what he taught in all the positions he held up to and including the office of Bishop.

That is my understanding as well. I’m now very curious about the presents of people other than Jews in the Book of Mormon story. Joseph Smith said source (single) and I have never been told of any others from other Mormons. With Diana’s gloating in her post I’m sure she will be following it up with some clear examples. I’m expecting a great education on the Book of Mormon story.

 

[MelanieAnne]

That is my understanding as well. I’m now very curious about the presents of people other than Jews in the Book of Mormon story. Joseph Smith said source (single) and I have never been told of any others from other Mormons. With Diana’s gloating in her post I’m sure she will be following it up with some clear examples. I’m expecting a great education on the Book of Mormon story.

Well Stephen, let me give you a “preview of coming attractions”. Any subject that was previously taught (a decade or two ago) that no longer lines up with current doctrine ~ at least SOME Mormons will claim was “never doctrine”. We’ve been down this road before.

 

[dianaiad]

That is my understanding as well. I’m now very curious about the presents of people other than Jews in the Book of Mormon story. Joseph Smith said source (single) and I have never been told of any others from other Mormons. With Diana’s gloating in her post I’m sure she will be following it up with some clear examples. I’m expecting a great education on the Book of Mormon story.

No you aren’t.

You are expecting me to not be able to answer you, and to ignore your request, so that you can say 'I told you so," or be able to say 'see?" I know you couldn’t do it!

But since you have so graciously said that you expect a ‘great education’ and some ‘clear examples,’ I can do no other but attempt to oblige you. I’m not certain whether you would call these ‘clear’ examples, but they make sense to me, and always have.

There is a rather clear accounting of who came over with Lehi and his family: Lehi, his wife and his sons (and daughters). Ishmael and his sons and daughters, and a servant named Zoram. After the journey, before Lehi died, he gave a blessing to all those who accompanied him over–by name. He mentioned all of his sons, Zoram and the sons of Ishmael. Ishmael himself had died by then. As was customary in those times (in both OT and Book of Mormon writings) the women were not usually named, or counted–and never mind about that. It’s a sore spot with me, too.

OK then. We know who came over; they are listed. After the death of Lehi, the family separates, and all the names are rehearsed again. Laman, Lemuel and the sons of Ishmael go one way, Nephi, , things get contentious (well, Nephi’s brothers kept trying to kill him, and his father, ) Nephi separated the group that came over with him. Laman, Lemual and the sons of Ishmael went one way, and Nephi took his famly, Zoram, Sam, Joseph and Jacob and their wives and families; the travelers were all specifically named. Then he adds that others went with him as well: “all those who would go with [him], those who believed in the warnings and the revelations of God” (2 Nephi, 5:6)

Why would he do that? All the people who were on the boat with him were named earlier in the verse and passage. Why would he need to add " AND all those who would go with me," if there weren’t other people to add–and where would those other people have come from? They weren’t on the boat.

Within 15 years, the younger brothers of Nephi, Jacob and Joseph, were made priests and teachers “over the land of my people” (2 Nephi 5:26)…what, they were made 'priests and teachers over who, exactly? Their big brother?

Within 30 years of their arrival, (55 years after they left Jerusalem) this small family seems to have become a great kingdom; separated into "nephits, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemualites and Ishmaelites. (Jacob, 1:13) and the Nephites decided to honor Nephi by declaring that all the kings of the land would be called by his name. Verse 14 has Jacob making a decision: he would call everybody who was friendly to the people of Nephi would be called Nephites, and all the people who were enemies of the people of Nephi would be called Lamanites.

That’s a lot of deciding for a group of people who started out with around 20 people at most, and have been in the Americas for less than half a century. Even if every Nephite and Lamanite was as fertile as the Dugger family, and as lucky in their health, that means what…200 people, at most?

Yet we are talking about kingdoms here? I don’t know about you, but that sounds like there were more people than the folks that arrived on the boat. Especially when Nephi specifically SAYS that there were more people than those who arrived on the boat. (remember 2 Nephi 5: 6)?

Ok, Let’s look at some other BoM hints. Later, In Alma 8:20, Amulek introduces himself to Alma, in the middle of a Nephite city that’s in the middle of a Nephite kingdom, by saying “I am a Nephite.”

Now why would that be necessary if there were no people OTHER than Nephites around?

Most people who are isolated, unique, with little interaction with other groups, don’t call themselves by a specific name, they simply refer to them as ‘the people.’ In fact, almost every native American tribe’s name for themselves means precisely that, like the Navaho ‘Dine’’…means, simply, ‘people,’ or ‘human.’

So, if you are a Nephite among nothing but Nephites, why in the world would you introduce yourself by saying “I’m a Nephite?” This is a fairly strong indication that there were other people around who were NOT Nephites, from which Amulek had to differentiate himself.

Another hint is actually agricultural/scientific. Sort of. “Corn” is mentioned as a favorite food of the Lamanites…"corn’ meaing "maize,’ which is an American plant…and which has been cultivated and bred HERE. The use of it would have had to have been taught to the Lamanites and Nephites by those who developed it; it simply doesn’t grow wild. Ergo…there were other people here—according to the Book of Mormon.

Why aren’t these other people more specifically mentioned? Because the book is a history of a specific lineage; the Mulekites, for instance, were mentioned only in passing—but they had a bunch more people than the Nephites. The book is not concerned with them.

I got a great deal of this information from “Were the Lehites Alone in the Americas?” by Michael Ash.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Well Stephen, let me give you a “preview of coming attractions”. Any subject that was previously taught (a decade or two ago) that no longer lines up with current doctrine ~ at least SOME Mormons will claim was “never doctrine”. We’ve been down this road before.

Never doctrine.
Was an opinion.
We never taught that. (My favorite.)

 

[dianaiad]

Never doctrine.
Was an opinion.
We never taught that. (My favorite.)

What if it wasn’t ever doctrine, was indeed an opinion, and we never taught that?

Because in most cases of accusations by anti’s, that’s true. The anti claims don’t change much. y’see; the same tired old inaccurate claims, refuted by the same arguments—only to be rehashed five years later by some wide eyed enthusiast who claims that the Mormons changed. (shrug)

Whatever.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Never doctrine.
Was an opinion.
We never taught that. (My favorite.)

BUT BUT BUT~~~~~ Bishop XXXXXX SAID… so it must be true, right? (And it truly pains me to say this because I love my own friend Bishop XXX with all my heart, even if I believe he is wrong about some things!!)
OR
they taught it in seminary, so it must be true, right?

But no, NOW it’s not true, NOW we should ignore what it says in the “Standard Works” or something Joseph Smith said. NOW many things you heard before that is currently “inconvenient” was “never taught”, it was “never doctrine”, and if that’s not enough Mormons suppress any discussion of such topics. And that’s been well documented. (Mormons can do their own research.)

Now, GEE, why would that happen? Cuz, um, they were WRONG to begin with?
I’m just sayin’…

 

[Stephen168]

Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon is an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source (singular) from whence they sprang. The Book of Mormon tells the story of two groups of Jewish/middle eastern people that come to America, so the singular source would be the Middle East. Science has shown this to be false; they came from Asia. Now the Mormon Church wants us to believe other people were here to hide the total lack of evidence for Jewish people in pre-Columbian America. Scientists have known they were of Asian origin for decades but DNA evidence had put the nail in the coffin for any hope of finding other evidence to support the story.

The first several verses of 2 Nephi Chapter One support the Joseph Smith version of the Book of Mormon story. No one was here before the people from the Middle East arrived. Mormons have declared that the Book of Mormon mentions other groups which were found by the groups from the Middle East.

“It is my understanding that all the groups in the Book of Mormon come from the middle east.”

I can’t quarrel with you about this. If this is your understanding, who am I to tell you that it is not your understanding? You believe what you believe. I CAN, however, correct your understanding. The Book of Mormon mentions that those groups from the middle east found people who were already here–and doesn’t mention where they all came from.

And then declared the Book of Mormon wouldn’t mention other groups even if they were here first. Either of these cases would make Joseph Smith a liar.

But I was curious about whether the Book of Mormon mentions other people. Here is what I got so far:

There is a rather clear accounting of who came over with Lehi and his family: Lehi, his wife and his sons (and daughters). Ishmael and his sons and daughters, and a servant named Zoram. After the journey, before Lehi died, he gave a blessing to all those who accompanied him over–by name. He mentioned all of his sons, Zoram and the sons of Ishmael. Ishmael himself had died by then. As was customary in those times (in both OT and Book of Mormon writings) the women were not usually named, or counted–and never mind about that. It’s a sore spot with me, too.

OK then. We know who came over; they are listed. After the death of Lehi, the family separates, and all the names are rehearsed again. Laman, Lemuel and the sons of Ishmael go one way, Nephi, , things get contentious (well, Nephi’s brothers kept trying to kill him, and his father, ) Nephi separated the group that came over with him. Laman, Lemual and the sons of Ishmael went one way, and Nephi took his famly, Zoram, Sam, Joseph and Jacob and their wives and families; the travelers were all specifically named. Then he adds that others went with him as well: “all those who would go with [him], those who believed in the warnings and the revelations of God” (2 Nephi, 5:6)

Why would he do that? All the people who were on the boat with him were named earlier in the verse and passage. Why would he need to add " AND all those who would go with me," if there weren’t other people to add–and where would those other people have come from? They weren’t on the boat.

Within 15 years, the younger brothers of Nephi, Jacob and Joseph, were made priests and teachers “over the land of my people” (2 Nephi 5:26)…what, they were made 'priests and teachers over who, exactly? Their big brother?

Within 30 years of their arrival, (55 years after they left Jerusalem) this small family seems to have become a great kingdom; separated into "nephits, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemualites and Ishmaelites. (Jacob, 1:13) and the Nephites decided to honor Nephi by declaring that all the kings of the land would be called by his name. Verse 14 has Jacob making a decision: he would call everybody who was friendly to the people of Nephi would be called Nephites, and all the people who were enemies of the people of Nephi would be called Lamanites.

That’s a lot of deciding for a group of people who started out with around 20 people at most, and have been in the Americas for less than half a century. Even if every Nephite and Lamanite was as fertile as the Dugger family, and as lucky in their health, that means what…200 people, at most?

Yet we are talking about kingdoms here? I don’t know about you, but that sounds like there were more people than the folks that arrived on the boat. Especially when Nephi specifically SAYS that there were more people than those who arrived on the boat. (remember 2 Nephi 5: 6)?

Ok, Let’s look at some other BoM hints. Later, In Alma 8:20, Amulek introduces himself to Alma, in the middle of a Nephite city that’s in the middle of a Nephite kingdom, by saying “I am a Nephite.”

Now why would that be necessary if there were no people OTHER than Nephites around?

Most people who are isolated, unique, with little interaction with other groups, don’t call themselves by a specific name, they simply refer to them as ‘the people.’ In fact, almost every native American tribe’s name for themselves means precisely that, like the Navaho ‘Dine’’…means, simply, ‘people,’ or ‘human.’

So, if you are a Nephite among nothing but Nephites, why in the world would you introduce yourself by saying “I’m a Nephite?” This is a fairly strong indication that there were other people around who were NOT Nephites, from which Amulek had to differentiate himself.

Another hint is actually agricultural/scientific. Sort of. “Corn” is mentioned as a favorite food of the Lamanites…"corn’ meaing "maize,’ which is an American plant…and which has been cultivated and bred HERE. The use of it would have had to have been taught to the Lamanites and Nephites by those who developed it; it simply doesn’t grow wild. Ergo…there were other people here—according to the Book of Mormon.

To summarize:

1. 20 people show up in America and 55 years later there is a Kingdom; therefore, there were other people.
2. A guy declares himself a Nephite so there were other people (Lamanites) around.
3. The people from the Middle East had to be shown how to grow corn, so there had to be other people around. I wonder who showed the American Indians how to grow corn if no one can learn it on their own. I think summary number one is additional proof the Book of Mormon is fiction. It appears, so far, that no other people besides the people from the Middle East are mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

 

[dianaiad]

Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon is an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source (singular) from whence they sprang. The Book of Mormon tells the story of two groups of Jewish/middle eastern people that come to America, so the singular source would be the Middle East. Science has shown this to be false; they came from Asia. Now the Mormon Church wants us to believe other people were here to hide the total lack of evidence for Jewish people in pre-Columbian America. Scientists have known they were of Asian origin for decades but DNA evidence had put the nail in the coffin for any hope of finding other evidence to support the story.

The first several verses of 2 Nephi Chapter One support the Joseph Smith version of the Book of Mormon story. No one was here before the people from the Middle East arrived. Mormons have declared that the Book of Mormon mentions other groups which were found by the groups from the Middle East.

And then declared the Book of Mormon wouldn’t mention other groups even if they were here first. Either of these cases would make Joseph Smith a liar.

But I was curious about whether the Book of Mormon mentions other people. Here is what I got so far:

To summarize:

1. 20 people show up in America and 55 years later there is a Kingdom; therefore, there were other people.

You skipped the one about how Nephi specifically named all the people who came over in the boat according to which faction (Nephite or Lamanite) they joined, and then added “all those who would go with [him], those who believed in the warnings and the revelations of God” (2 Nephi, 5:6)

Who WERE all those other folks who, in addition to everybody he named (the people on the boat) went with him, m’friend?

1. A guy declares himself a Nephite so there were other people (Lamanites) around.

In the middle of a Nephite city, in the middle of a Nephite nation? C’mon.

1. The people from the Middle East had to be shown how to grow corn, so there had to be other people around. I wonder who showed the American Indians how to grow corn if no one can learn it on their own. I think summary number one is additional proof the Book of Mormon is fiction. It appears, so far, that no other people besides the people from the Middle East are mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

OK, so your position is that maize…which exists…couldn’t have been developed by people who showed the Lamanites how to grow it, because there weren’t any peoples on the continent at the time, according to the Book of Mormon.

And your evidence for this is that there are people in the Americas who developed and domesticated the maize plant? Just how circular an argument do you think you can craft?

Would you care to go back and rethink that position?

 

[PaulDupre]

Why aren’t these other people more specifically mentioned? Because the book is a history of a specific lineage; the Mulekites, for instance, were mentioned only in passing—but they had a bunch more people than the Nephites. The book is not concerned with them.

Or it could just be that Joseph couldn’t keep his story straight and introduced a great many inconsistencies into the story. He often mixed up the names (for instance, people who had died earlier in the narrative suddenly showed up alive again), and had to go back later and edit the book to straighten out the mistakes.

 

[Stephen168]

You skipped the one about how Nephi specifically named all the people who came over in the boat according to which faction (Nephite or Lamanite) they joined,

You never referenced it.

In the middle of a Nephite city, in the middle of a Nephite nation?

Yes.

OK, so your position is that maize…which exists…couldn’t have been developed by people who showed the Lamanites how to grow it, because there weren’t any peoples on the continent at the time, according to the Book of Mormon.

The Lamanite could have developed and domesticated corn because somebody did.

Would you care to go back and rethink that position?

no

Joseph Smith said it was about THE (one) source of the American people. The Book of Mormon says that source is the Middle East and Scientist say the American people are from Asia… Joseph Smith lied and the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction.
-OR-
Joseph Smith said it was about THE (one) source of the American people. The Book of Mormon said that Nephi learned how to grow corn from the Yakima people, so there is more than one source of the American people. Scientists say there were no Middle Eastern people here before Columbus. Joseph Smith lied and the Book of Mormon is fiction.
-OR-
Joseph Smith said it was about THE (one) source of the American people. The Book of Mormon said that Nephi learned how to grow corn from the Yakima people, so there is more than one source of the American people. Scientists don’t know if there were Middle Eastern people here before Columbus. Joseph Smith lied.
-And-
Joseph Smith is a liar, so the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction.

 

[MelanieAnne]

What if it wasn’t ever doctrine, was indeed an opinion, and we never taught that?

Because in most cases of accusations by anti’s, that’s true. The anti claims don’t change much. y’see; the same tired old inaccurate claims, refuted by the same arguments—only to be rehashed five years later by some wide eyed enthusiast who claims that the Mormons changed. (shrug)

Whatever.

Sorry, Couldn’t resist. I normally ignore this stuff, but just couldn’t. The situation I presented,entirely factual (so the only “out” anyone has is calling me a liar) doesn’t fit the scenario of “anti” or “whatever”.

The situation reported was the situation where something was previously taught by a Mormon Bishop. It wasn’t an “anti” source. It was a Mormon Bishop who affirmed that teaching until the day he died.

So now no reasonable Mormon can claim it was the statement of an “anti”. It was what HE (the Mormon Bishop) was taught, and, in turn, it was what HE taught. And if someone wants to say it was “never taught”? There are **way too many **people that can testify to the same information to claim it’s all a “lie”.

We’ve seen this situation before where people have been taught things in seminary. You can’t turn around and say that it was “never taught”. If it was taught, then you have to accept that it was. You can’t say it was “never taught”. You can’t change history.

Or do you want to state that a Mormon Bishop is an “anti”? When it’s a MORMON BISHOP that taught something? or do you have to go to your fall back position that I’m a liar? I’m not lying and that may be a big problem.

I don’t have a dog in this fight. I’m not Mormon. I’m speaking up only because it was brought up and that, in turn, reminded me of something I was told, one on one, clearly, years ago. I care deeply for the man I am talking about and I would never EVER say something he said that he didn’t say, out of respect for HIM. Doesn’t mean I agree with him, but I would never EVER mis-state what he said, out of respect for HIM. Wanna mess with this guy to get back at me? That would be totally dumb. Also stupid, wrong, and, perhaps, even EVIL.

This is the bottom line ~ This idea that all Native Americans were descendants of the folks talked about in the Book of Mormon was once taught in Mormon Church buildings, and you’re old enough, Diana, to know this is true because you’re close to my age. (Sometimes AGE has it’s uses!) The idea that the origins of the Native Americans were the folks in the Book of Mormon has now perhaps/apparently changed. Since those years (60’s, 70’s & later) things in the world have changed & the Mormon hierarchy have had to adjust accordingly. But to deny the past is to make a caricature of yourself. You would no longer be credible.

This isn’t a “bash”. I’m at the age where I think clearly about mortality. My mother died when she was about a year older than I am today. Maybe I’ll live another year or 2, maybe I won’t. Maybe I’ll go into my 80’s as my Dad has. Who knows? But I think about life clearly. Every day. As a result, I think about people’s immortal souls, not just mine, but everyone’s. Even yours. There are many hard cases. I’m sure I was a hard case too, at some point.

Maybe you don’t like my approach, maybe you don’t think I’m “nice”. But I’m telling you the TRUTH, which is more than you’ll get at Sunday meetings. This bit about Native Americans WAS TAUGHT at some point in Mormon church buildings. Perhaps now it is not. Don’t the FACTS it makes you look foolish. Don’t deny the facts for a nothing. Instead, THINK ~ USE YOUR BRAIN, the one God gave you.

Diana, you’re a neighbor. I could drive to your house, if I knew where it was, in 15 minutes. I don’t hate you. I think your devotion to your faith is misguided, but I could say the same thing about all my Mormon friends. I have lots of such friends, I employ some of their children. I used to WORK with a Mormon Bishop in your town who has since moved away to Colorado. Bishop Robinson. Ring a bell? I made Bishop Robinson go back to his faith back in “the day”. I wanted him to commune with his family & attend his daughter’s wedding. Do I get any points?

And yeah, he moved. But once upon a time I actually made him go back to being a “good Mormon”. His first ‘recommend’ after his return, took hours with the Stake President because he had a WAY TOO COLORFUL a life as a non-Mormon. Ring a bell? When they called him as a Bishop he was amazed. It’s impossible for me or anyone to believe that lives in the area (Paul, help me out!) that you don’t remember this person. That is, if you’re actually a Mormon in the place that you claim. You can be excused for not knowing the man personally but not that he was never a Bishop in your stake. At that point, it’s just a big fat lie. I’m not doing that TO YOU, It’s just facts. You don’t need to return the favor. I’m not in the Stake, but I’m VERY CLOSE.

I am going on record as saying that I WILL NOT believe ANY Mormon that lives in GARDEN GROVE that DENIES there was EVER a Bishop Robinson (just in the last decade!) because I actually know the man (and NO, DO NOT GO THERE about knowing him “Biblically”!) SO NOT!

I’m not an “anti-Mormon”. I’ve never viewed any “anti-Mormon” literature/websites. I never would. ISuch things are a waste of time. I think the Mormon faith is based on a fraud, that’s my reasoned choice, based on reading the entire Book of Mormon as well as many other things, none of which came from “anti-Mormon” sources. I’m not your enemy.

Diana, denial of what went before has to stop. The Mormon Bishop I talked about attended and/or officiated over Wards in Bellflower and Orange. These are places near where you live even if you didn’t live there then. He was a Bishop in Orange. It’s hard to believe that a Mormon Bishop would have taught something other than what was coming from LDS hierarchy. I knew him for decades. I can say for sure that he wouldn’t have taught against doctrine. That’s just who he was.

We can disagree about religious doctrine. But for Mormons to DENY things that once were taught as doctrine, which more recently have proved to be inconvenient, is to attempt to change history. Any Mormon, including the First Presidency, makes a mockery of the faith if you are to have any credibility at all. That’s a FACT.

I don’t say this because I hate you, I say this because I care about you, even if, in so doing, I have to say things that make you uncomfortable. I’m sorry for any discomfort, but I can never be sorry for TRUTH. TRUTH in it’s essence is not a SOMETHING, it’s a someBODY. His Name is Jesus Christ. When TRUTH is called a Lie, the lights go out, darkness comes.

 

[yankee_doodle]

With all of the evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that mormonism is a sham, why do people still buy into it? It almost makes me think that reason will not always work in apologetics. its as if mormonism (and islam among others) trivialize faith by making it appear unreasonable.

With respect, with all the evidence debunking the events depicted in the bible, why is anyone religious at all? How can you make your faith “appear reasonable”?

Not that I’m defending the sham of Joseph Smith; but what’s not to say the apostle Paul (and other biblical characters) weren’t also a sham?

 

[MelanieAnne]

With respect, with all the evidence debunking the events depicted in the bible, why is anyone religious at all? How can you make your faith “appear reasonable”?

Not that I’m defending the sham of Joseph Smith; but what’s not to say the apostle Paul (and other biblical characters) weren’t also a sham?

If you actually believe that you are contributing constructively to this issue, please elaborate as to why you believe that.

Otherwise, shame on you. You just wanted to butt in and be noticed? Your ego is so weak to require that? How sad for you. You need a life beyond yourself.

 

[yankee_doodle]

If you actually believe that you are contributing constructively to this issue, please elaborate as to why you believe that.

Otherwise, shame on you. You just wanted to butt in and be noticed? Your ego is so weak to require that? How sad for you. You need a life beyond yourself.

so you respond to my fair question with an ad hom attack (and I bet you think you’re the stable one)?

 

[MelanieAnne]

so you respond to my fair question with an ad hom attack (and I bet you think you’re the stable one)?

How about if you come back when you learn to spell? And if you don’t know what it is that you messed up, maybe some time at an institution of higher learning would be appropriate? Or maybe, taking a shortcut, you might avoid using terms you do not know how to spell? and perhaps don’t understand?

And yes, I am stable, but I wasn’t thinking about that when I made my original post to you. I merely asked you for the support of your statement. And you came back with… nothing.

Interesting that instead of supporting your original outburst, you continue to decline to establish any intellectual basis for your comment. Bear in mind, THOUGHT is supposed to be a precursor to opinion, not a SUBSTITUTE for it. Perhaps you should spend some time learning and thinking? Otherwise you just look silly.

 

[ParkerD]

MelanieAnne,
I want you to know that I accept that Bishop Robinson and many other LDS members could have insisted that they believed and understood they had been taught that the “Lamanites” were the principal “source” of the North American Indian populations. That doesn’t mean that this was a correct teaching based on the book itself, but it has been taught and believed. It was never, however, what one could call “doctrine”.

It is interesting that current science seems to believe that the indigenous populations of the Americas sprang from a source as small as 80 people more than 10,000 years ago. There just is not enough information about the intermarriages of all of the population groups that have existed within the Americas to be able to say whether they all have some or one similar ancestor(s), especially given that perhaps 90% of the descendant groups died from disease or being killed during the early days of the European conquest.

There is also the possibility that other groups than the Nephites, the Mulekites, and the Jaredites came to the Americas through the guiding hand of God, and were also descendants of the House of Israel. They could have crossed over from Beringuia. We simply don’t know.

Stephen,

“The source from whence they sprang” is not necessarily singular, when used in a sentence where it says “the former inhabitants… and the source from whence they sprang.” “Source” can be understood to be singular or plural in that particular usage. There could be more than one “source” and the use of the singular word “source” would still be correct usage. Supposing Moroni had been quoted by Joseph Smith as saying “and the sources from whence they sprang.” The same issue would still be present, and the same argument would probably ensue. But to say that the DNA of ancient Americans not matching the DNA of current Middle Eastern people (not Jews, but descendants of Manasseh who are known to be such) definitively proves that no ancestors of ancient Americans could have had origins at some point in the area near Jerusalem, is just not a valid scientific conclusion, because not enough sampling has been done and I don’t know that anyone has been sampled who is for sure a pure descendant of Manasseh.

 

[dianaiad]

Or it could just be that Joseph couldn’t keep his story straight and introduced a great many inconsistencies into the story.

Or it could be that. I don’t think so, though.

The point is, the claim was that the Book of Mormon did not reference the idea that there were any other people in place other than the specific family involved…and I just showed that to be untrue.

He often mixed up the names (for instance, people who had died earlier in the narrative suddenly showed up alive again), and had to go back later and edit the book to straighten out the mistakes.

Call for reverences, please.