Why don't all missionaries just fucking die?

[Lord Zentei]

Alchol was needed "for the survival of the people"? You do realize that not all ancient societies and people consumed alcohol, don't you?

In any case, Jesus allegedly instructed his diciples to drink wine in his memory.

The healthier societies (I can't say I know of any that never consumed some alcoholic beverage) would be those that got their water from brewery products more than anything, or at least fermented fruit juices. Even up to the mid-1800s there were mysteries over how people caught cholera and no one made the connection to the water they drank.

Which means that Terr Fangbite's argument is bullshit (which was my point). Unless he can provide some evidence for the ancients knowing about bacteria, that is.

[PainRack]

Ah, isn't that building in Singapore supposed to be a tourist attraction.

I assume you are talking about the building which has statues of the characters from "journey to the west" or "adventures of the monkey god".

Wrong country. Haw Per Villa is a site to promote Chinese Culture, and that includes Chinese literature.

The Monkey God Temple in China, is a real, historic temple, that was built by those who believe that despite the well known fact that Sun Wu Kong is a fictional character, decided to canonise him into a Buddhist deity.

[PainRack]

Which means that Terr Fangbite's argument is bullshit (which was my point). Unless he can provide some evidence for the ancients knowing about bacteria, that is.

There exists the possibility of societies recognising the "health" benefits of such drinks and incorporating it into their culture, even though they didn't know the reason why.

[Guardsman Bass]

I suggest that you read a non-Church biography about Joseph Smith (why am I interested? Because I am an Ex-Mormon, Terr, and I used this stuff to free myself). Did you know that he changed the First Vision account 3 or 4 times, with the last account appearing in 1838?

As I recall, there are a total of nine different accounts and none are actually contradictory.

If you consider one account being of only Jesus (who didn't mention anything about the "Join No Church" part), and the later version, which had God in it and did mention that, not contradictory.

Or that, according to the actual statements of the so-called "Witnesses," none actually saw the Golden Plates with their eyes, only in "visions" or "dreams," as Martin Harris said?

The three witnesses said they saw the angel. That usually requires a vision of some kind. The eight witnesses had an ordinary experience, holding the plates in their own hands. No vision required.

And NONE of these people ever retracted their testimony, even when they had left the church and were severly peeved at Smith.

Bullshit, here's what actually happened;

First off, these men were already believers; no disinterested third party was ever allowed to see them, which casts doubt on their testimony.

Second, (and here), the three major witnesses did not see the Book of Mormon with their actual eyes. Both Harris and David Whitmer claimed to have seen it only with the "eyes of faith," meaning a vision, but that hardly proves that there actually WERE a set of plates witnessed.

As for the eight witnesses, (here) their testimonies have several problems. John Whitmer said that Joseph showed them the plates in two groups of four, while the church officially describes them as seeing the plates together. Furthermore, we have a letter from 1838 in which Martin Harris claims that the eight witnesses never actually "saw" the plates with their own eyes, but were persuaded to sign the statement by Joseph Smith. Furthermore, if none denied their testimony, how come only three of the eight actually made separate statements that they handled the plates?

If you are refering to baptism this is hardly a new concept in christianity.

Red Herring. He's making a point that it serves in the brainwashing process.

How does dunking someone under water for no more than two seconds constitute brainwashing?

[/quote]

It is part of an initiation ritual, which usually can (and does) constitute a form of brainwashing.[/url]

[Darth Servo]

If you consider one account being of only Jesus (who didn't mention anything about the "Join No Church" part), and the later version, which had God in it and did mention that, not contradictory.

All you've managed to prove is that each account contained different details. Big deal. There is NO "only" Jesus in any of the accounts and none of them deny the "Join no church" part.

In the oficial account he makes mention of James 1:5 inspiring him and in others he ALSO refers to the verses about "seek and you will find, ask and it will be given, knock and it will be opened". Is this a contradiction? Only if you're LOOKING for something to criticize and are dishonest enough to stretch an ommission into a contradiction.

Tell me, when you tell a personal story from your life, do you always include every last detail? By your logic, if you don't, you a liar.

Bullshit, here's what actually happened;

First off, these men were already believers; no disinterested third party was ever allowed to see them, which casts doubt on their testimony.

I acknowledged that they had a vision. How does that amount to bullshit?

Second, (and here), the three major witnesses did not see the Book of Mormon with their actual eyes. Both Harris and David Whitmer claimed to have seen it only with the "eyes of faith," meaning a vision, but that hardly proves that there actually WERE a set of plates witnessed.

I just LOVE the way people who are staunchly against what these people believed claim to know what they meant when they said certain things.

As for the eight witnesses, (here) their testimonies have several problems. John Whitmer said that Joseph showed them the plates in two groups of four, while the church officially describes them as seeing the plates together.

Now THIS is bullshit.

Here is the testimony of the eight found in the beginning of EVERY copy of the Book of Mormon.

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

NOWHERE does it state or even imply how many were together at a viewing of the plates. People who have left the church love to MAUFACTURE problems where there are clearly none.

Furthermore, we have a letter from 1838 in which Martin Harris claims that the eight witnesses never actually "saw" the plates with their own eyes, but were persuaded to sign the statement by Joseph Smith. Furthermore, if none denied their testimony, how come only three of the eight actually made separate statements that they handled the plates?

Then why did these people leave the church but NEVER retract their testimony? Why did many of them come back later? That is the main point you completely declined to answer.

How does dunking someone under water for no more than two seconds constitute brainwashing?

It is part of an initiation ritual, which usually can (and does) constitute a form of brainwashing.

By that logic, every member of college fraternities is brainwashed.

Just about EVERY organization on the planet has some form of "initiation ritual". Even JOB INTERVIEWS could be classified as such.

[NecronLord]

Which means that Terr Fangbite's argument is bullshit (which was my point). Unless he can provide some evidence for the ancients knowing about bacteria, that is.

The Ancient Egyptians most certainly considered beer an essential because of the observation they had made that beer drinking people didn't catch the same diseases as they did from bad river water. You don't have to know about bacteria to know that eating shit is a bad idea after all.

[Lord Zentei]

There exists the possibility of societies recognising the "health" benefits of such drinks and incorporating it into their culture, even though they didn't know the reason why.

The Ancient Egyptians most certainly considered beer an essential because of the observation they had made that beer drinking people didn't catch the same diseases as they did from bad river water. You don't have to know about bacteria to know that eating shit is a bad idea after all.

Well, apparently not, according to Admiral Valdemar:

Even up to the mid-1800s there were mysteries over how people caught cholera and no one made the connection to the water they drank.

Anyway, as I pointed out Jesus allegedly told his diciples to drink wine in his memory, - as a ritual. If he was the Son of God, presumably he would know well enough about the danger of bacteria and the unholyness of wine to simply tell them to boil the water and avoid the wine, right? He didn't. Therefore, this talk by Fangbite about bacteria is a smokescreen.

[Guardsman Bass]

If you consider one account being of only Jesus (who didn't mention anything about the "Join No Church" part), and the later version, which had God in it and did mention that, not contradictory.

All you've managed to prove is that each account contained different details. Big deal. There is NO "only" Jesus in any of the accounts and none of them deny the "Join no church" part.

In the oficial account he makes mention of James 1:5 inspiring him and in others he ALSO refers to the verses about "seek and you will find, ask and it will be given, knock and it will be opened". Is this a contradiction? Only if you're LOOKING for something to criticize and are dishonest enough to stretch an ommission into a contradiction.

Tell me, when you tell a personal story from your life, do you always include every last detail? By your logic, if you don't, you a liar.

Do you have severe reading comprehension problems or something? Explain to me, again, how an account in which he mentions only Jesus, and doesn't mention the "join no church" (which is practically the center of the message in the second account), and an account in which he points out that he saw both God and Jesus are not contradictory. I'd say omitting God himself is a rather large and pointless omission, wouldn't you?

Bullshit, here's what actually happened;

First off, these men were already believers; no disinterested third party was ever allowed to see them, which casts doubt on their testimony.

I acknowledged that they had a vision. How does that amount to bullshit?

I was making the point that your account(in its entireity) was bullshit.

Second, (and here), the three major witnesses did not see the Book of Mormon with their actual eyes. Both Harris and David Whitmer claimed to have seen it only with the "eyes of faith," meaning a vision, but that hardly proves that there actually WERE a set of plates witnessed.

I just LOVE the way people who are staunchly against what these people believed claim to know what they meant when they said certain things.

Oh fuck off. You obviously didn't read the link, otherwise you would have realized that they meant that they had a vision, and didn't actually see the plates with their own eyes, as if they were looking at a real person or thing.

As for the eight witnesses, (here) their testimonies have several problems. John Whitmer said that Joseph showed them the plates in two groups of four, while the church officially describes them as seeing the plates together.

Now THIS is bullshit.

Here is the testimony of the eight found in the beginning of EVERY copy of the Book of Mormon.

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

NOWHERE does it state or even imply how many were together at a viewing of the plates. People who have left the church love to MAUFACTURE problems where there are clearly none.

Furthermore, we have a letter from 1838 in which Martin Harris claims that the eight witnesses never actually "saw" the plates with their own eyes, but were persuaded to sign the statement by Joseph Smith. Furthermore, if none denied their testimony, how come only three of the eight actually made separate statements that they handled the plates?

Then why did these people leave the church but NEVER retract their testimony? Why did many of them come back later? That is the main point you completely declined to answer.

Actually planning on answering the fucking question?

The fact that they didn't decline the testimony hardly means they saw the plates with their eyes, particularly as they probably considered a vision of the plates the same thing.

Also, if you'd look at the link for a change, you'd notice that it mentions that Oliver Cowdery made a complete repudiation of the LDS Church when he joined a methodist one. Although he later rejoined, he was highly suspected.

It is part of an initiation ritual, which usually can (and does) constitute a form of brainwashing.

By that logic, every member of college fraternities is brainwashed.

Just about EVERY organization on the planet has some form of "initiation ritual". Even JOB INTERVIEWS could be classified as such.

Which hardly means it isn't brainwashing.

And another side point; Smith supposedly had the vision to not join any of the churches in 1820. Then how come he later joined a Methodist group long enough to become an exhorter(basically, like a student speaker)?

[Darth Servo]

Do you have severe reading comprehension problems or something? Explain to me, again, how an account in which he mentions only Jesus, and doesn't mention the "join no church" (which is practically the center of the message in the second account), and an account in which he points out that he saw both God and Jesus are not contradictory. I'd say omitting God himself is a rather large and pointless omission, wouldn't you?

The only one with a reading comprehension here is you. An OMISSION is NOT a contradiction. Look them up.

Omission

Contradiction

NO WHERE in those allegedly contradictory accounts have you shown ANYTHING contradictory. Learn what that word actually means.

I was making the point that your account(in its entireity) was bullshit.

Then why did they NOT retract their testimony when they left the church? They were VERY upset at Smith. They had EVERY reason to expose him for the fraud you say he was. Why did they not do it?

Oh fuck off. You obviously didn't read the link, otherwise you would have realized that they meant that they had a vision, and didn't actually see the plates with their own eyes, as if they were looking at a real person or thing.

Of course I read it. I ADMITTED that it was a vision. What the hell is your problem?

Furthermore, we have a letter from 1838 in which Martin Harris claims that the eight witnesses never actually "saw" the plates with their own eyes, but were persuaded to sign the statement by Joseph Smith. Furthermore, if none denied their testimony, how come only three of the eight actually made separate statements that they handled the plates?

Then why did these people leave the church but NEVER retract their testimony? Why did many of them come back later? That is the main point you completely declined to answer.[/quote]

Actually planning on answering the fucking question?

Do you ever plan on answering mine that I asked FIRST, asshole?

Do you plan on admitting your were full of shit about there being a contradiction between what you posted about the 8 witnesses all seeing the plates at the same time and what was REALLY in the official church literature?

The fact that they didn't decline the testimony hardly means they saw the plates with their eyes, particularly as they probably considered a vision of the plates the same thing.

We're talking about the eight. They said they held the plates with their hands and actually saw them with their PHYSICAL eyes. And that was about the only form of evidence they had 200 years ago in rural New York state.

What do you think would have happened if Smith HAD let someone he didn't trust get their hands on that much GOLD?

Also, if you'd look at the link for a change, you'd notice that it mentions that Oliver Cowdery made a complete repudiation of the LDS Church when he joined a methodist one. Although he later rejoined, he was highly suspected.

You exaggerate. Like the others he NEVER retracted what he said about hisw visioin with the plates.

He said he had left the chruch. So what? Lots of early converts did, including members of their leading body, the council of the 12. That doesnt' prove JACK.

By that logic, every member of college fraternities is brainwashed.

Just about EVERY organization on the planet has some form of "initiation ritual". Even JOB INTERVIEWS could be classified as such.

Which hardly means it isn't brainwashing.

So EVERY FUCKING EMPLOYED PERSON ON THE PLANET IS BRAINWASHED according to you? Everyone BUT you I suppose?

And another side point; Smith supposedly had the vision to not join any of the churches in 1820. Then how come he later joined a Methodist group long enough to become an exhorter(basically, like a student speaker)?

Lincoln attended church with his wife. That hardly proves HE was a believing member. Look at how fundies try and make the founding fathers look like devout Christians.

Smith's name appeared on one of their membership roles once. That hardly proves anything since any mention of liking a particular religion would get your name on then.

[Darth Servo]

In any case, Jesus allegedly instructed his diciples to drink wine in his memory.

Actually, he didn't instruct any specific drink. The bible uses the word "cup" at the last supper and every where else they perform that little ceremony.

[NecronLord]

Well, apparently not, according to Admiral Valdemar:

Anyway, as I pointed out Jesus allegedly told his diciples to drink wine in his memory, - as a ritual. If he was the Son of God, presumably he would know well enough about the danger of bacteria and the unholyness of wine to simply tell them to boil the water and avoid the wine, right? He didn't. Therefore, this talk by Fangbite about bacteria is a smokescreen.

"The Ancients" from Early Mesopotamia to Roman times, did not have a continuous body of knowledge passed on to the modern era. Anything the Egyptians might have known would not be translatable until 1799, not, mind, that I do claim that they knew about bacteria. But, fermented drinks were considered safer - basically because they are - presumably this was discovered by trial and error, which is of course, the root of science. You don't have to know why Nile Water is unsafe to know that it is.

Cholera before that time was considered to be a localised phonomonon around rivers - correct - but the case was attributed to be arial, rather than water born.

[Guardsman Bass]

I'm a little busy tonight, so I probably won't be able to respond until tomorrow. Don't take that as a concession, Ass Servo.

[Terr Fangbite]

With the exception of the Incas and Aztecs, exactly how much gold did the Spanish find? Not very much.

Since you and others keep assuming that the BoM is refering to ALL of the Americas, prove this claim.

If horses and elephants were in America prior to the arrival of Europeans, why was the dog the primary beast of burden?

They died out? We were once again wrong about history?

Hobbits are fact? Really? Hole dwelling little people with hairy feet are a fact? Where, praytell?

Oh boo hoo. You knew what I was talking about. Those 3 foot people found recently. Go do a search in this forum if it slipped your mind.

Yet no carts. No wagons. No chariots. We have abundant vehicles of this type throughout ancient Europe and the Middle East. And the Book of Mormon says the people who lived in the Americas had them. So where are they?

Again since there is so much we havn't discovered or even bothered searching, and the fact that much is destroyed rather than preserved. I don't see this as a problem.

But no such cities are found in North America. And the central and south American cities are architecturally completely different from the cities of the ancient Middle East. There are mountains of archaeological evidence, in the form of tools, weapons, household goods, etc., that prove more than amply that these civilizations were totally distinct and separate from that of the ancient Middle East.

2 things.

1)prove that the BoM refers to ALL of the Americas.
2)So you're saying that a family moves across the oceon and you expect them to have the same architecture as their old world? This is a family dude. You saying that if you and your family left home and moved across the world to a deserted island you'd make exact replicas of your home and architecture?

Which are superficial at best. Indian art also features swastikas. I guess that proves they were proto Nazis.

No is shows that Hitler stole a popular symbol to use in his propoganda machine.

And many were not. And many places in North America never had cities to begin with, despite what the Book of Mormon says.

Third time, prove BoM talks about the entire Americas and not just a part of it.

Do you believe this stuff too? Or are you starting to get the idea that ancient legends of primitive peoples are hardly the best source of facts and evidence?

No I believe that when "coincidences" mount up something is up. Also I believe that in every legend is a bit of truth.

There is abundant evidence that the American Indians are an Asian descended people whose ancestors crossed a prehistoric land bridge across the Bering Strait.

And evidence showing it couldn't be done. Including south american cultures which predated the landbridge, ships found up and down the west coast etc etc etc.

And if these names were in use at the time Smith wrote the Book of Mormon then the obvious conclusion is that Smith wrote these names into the book in order to give it a greater aspect of reality.

Place names, not people names. Now are you suggesting that Smith was a skilled archeologist able to go where no one had gone before?

Terr Fangbite has long been known to be an imbecile when the subject of religion comes up. The fact that he defends the Book of Moron should not come as a surprise.

Ad Hominem. Attack my arguement not me.

This is a fucking book where white people turn black when they sin against God, and then they turn white again when they please God.

I remember the part where god put a curse on the skin of the original lamenites who left, but no where in the BoM do they magically change back.

Which means that Terr Fangbite's argument is bullshit (which was my point). Unless he can provide some evidence for the ancients knowing about bacteria, that is.

It doesn't take a person to know why they get sick to know when they get sick. If you see your friend eat something and die, would you eat it? No. What if another friend mixed something in it and cooked it in a hot fire then ate it without dying. What if he keeps doing this and keeps surviving? Would you claim that since you don't know what killed your first friend, that you wouldn't eat the mixed food rather than the original?

[Lord Zentei]

"The Ancients" from Early Mesopotamia to Roman times, did not have a continuous body of knowledge passed on to the modern era. Anything the Egyptians might have known would not be translatable until 1799, not, mind, that I do claim that they knew about bacteria. But, fermented drinks were considered safer - basically because they are - presumably this was discovered by trial and error, which is of course, the root of science. You don't have to know why Nile Water is unsafe to know that it is.

True enough (though I'd say you were referring to general experience, not science), but this is purely beside the point. The point is as follows, and I reiterate - again:

Jesus allegedly told his diciples to drink wine in his memory, - as a ritual. If he was the Son of God, presumably he would know well enough about the danger of bacteria and the unholyness of wine to simply tell them to boil the water and avoid the wine, right? He didn't. Therefore, this talk by Fangbite about bacteria is a smokescreen.

Wine is unholy. Unboilt water is bad. Jesus is allegedly the Son of God so presumably he would know both these things.

Yet, he tells his followers to drink this unholy beverage as a ritual in his memory, not because they were thirsty and needed to avoid water "for their protection". So either he didn't know about the water being bad and why, and/or either the Mormons are full of shit about wine being unholy or Jesus served an unholy beverage when he could have told them to use boilt water instead. The knowledge of the jews of the time - even if granted - is irrelevant to the issue.

[Perinquus]

Yet no carts. No wagons. No chariots. We have abundant vehicles of this type throughout ancient Europe and the Middle East. And the Book of Mormon says the people who lived in the Americas had them. So where are they?

Again since there is so much we havn't discovered or even bothered searching, and the fact that much is destroyed rather than preserved. I don't see this as a problem.

You should. As I said, the Vikings came here, in tiny numbers, to a small, specific place, and stayed only a short while. Yet we have concrete evidence they were here. Yet the Book of Mormon places an entire civilization, a whole, fucking Hebraic civilization here, long term and very widespread, and we have ZERO evidence for its existence.

If ancient Hebrews had come here in anything like the numbers necessary to establish whole cities, we'd know it. We'd have some evidence for it. We don't. They never came here. The Book of Mormon is complete bullshit, and only a gullible fool would believe in it.

But no such cities are found in North America. And the central and south American cities are architecturally completely different from the cities of the ancient Middle East. There are mountains of archaeological evidence, in the form of tools, weapons, household goods, etc., that prove more than amply that these civilizations were totally distinct and separate from that of the ancient Middle East.

2 things.

1)prove that the BoM refers to ALL of the Americas.
2)So you're saying that a family moves across the oceon and you expect them to have the same architecture as their old world? This is a family dude. You saying that if you and your family left home and moved across the world to a deserted island you'd make exact replicas of your home and architecture?

Take a look at this street in Shanghai:



It has a distinctly European look, has it not? And how about this cathedral in Mexico City?



Doesn't look much like any Aztec building, does it? and take a look at the Adam Thoroughgood house, which was built in 1680, in Virginia Beach, VA, not 30 minutes' drive from where I live.



Doesn't bear much resemblance at all to what the local Indians were building around 1680. In fact, it looks suspiciously like a typical 17th century English country house. I wonder why.

Everywhere Europeans colonized, you can tell they were there, because they built exactly the same fucking kinds of buildings they made back home, and made exactly the same fucking kinds of tools and weapons they used back home. When the Romans colonized Gaul and Britain, they built Roman style buildings -- houses built round central courtyards, public baths with hot and cold water baths, pillared temples to their gods, etc. all in exactly the same architectural style they built back in Italy. They even laid out new cities everywhere they went in the same sort of grid patterns they liked to build in. When the Phoenicians moved out from their eastern Mediterranean coastal cities to found Cathage in North Africa, they built distinctly Phoenician style buildings there. When the Greeks founded Marseilles in what is now the south of France, they built Greek style buildings. When Vikings founded Ireland's first towns, and established settlements in Russia, they built Scandinavian style timber long houses. When the Arabs conquered Visigothic Spain, they began constructing buildings with distinctly Arab architecture.

Moron, everywhere any people has ever migrated in numbers, they have taken their cultural baggage with them. They take their own laws and customs, their own clothing styles, their own religious practices, their own language (and writing if they are literate), and their own material culture, which encompasses everything from common household items to weapons to architecture and engineering. I challenge you to find me an instance where this has not happened. When Europeans colonized the Americas, Africa, and Asia during the colonial age, they built European style buildings everywhere they went, making only those changes necessary to adapt to the locally available building materials and local climate. Thus they left concrete traces of their presence.

I repeat, if the Hebrews had ever come to the Americas, we'd have some evidence for it. We don't. They didn't. Get used to the idea.

Which are superficial at best. Indian art also features swastikas. I guess that proves they were proto Nazis.

No is shows that Hitler stole a popular symbol to use in his propoganda machine.

And many were not. And many places in North America never had cities to begin with, despite what the Book of Mormon says.

Third time, prove BoM talks about the entire Americas and not just a part of it.

Which is simply a dodge to try and explain why we find no Hebrew cities there. I have a simpler one. They never built any in North America, because they were never there. Oh, and they never built any in south or central America, because they were never there either.

Do you believe this stuff too? Or are you starting to get the idea that ancient legends of primitive peoples are hardly the best source of facts and evidence?

No I believe that when "coincidences" mount up something is up. Also I believe that in every legend is a bit of truth.

Blah, blah, blah. No evidence.

There is abundant evidence that the American Indians are an Asian descended people whose ancestors crossed a prehistoric land bridge across the Bering Strait.

And evidence showing it couldn't be done. Including south american cultures which predated the landbridge, ships found up and down the west coast etc etc etc.

At best, this pre-Clovis theory is inconclusive. It may also indicate that both land migrations and sea migrations occured. But the point you are cherry picking right out of your evidence is that these possible sea borne migrations are still from ASIA, and the people who migrated are genetically much more closely related to ASIANS. In other words: they're not Hebrews. Say it to yourself over and over again if you need to. It's okay. They're not Hebrews.

And if these names were in use at the time Smith wrote the Book of Mormon then the obvious conclusion is that Smith wrote these names into the book in order to give it a greater aspect of reality.

Place names, not people names. Now are you suggesting that Smith was a skilled archeologist able to go where no one had gone before?

Are you saying he couldn't have heard of places, referred to by their Indian names, and then wrote those names into his fabricated history.

[Darth Servo]

I'm a little busy tonight, so I probably won't be able to respond until tomorrow. Don't take that as a concession, Ass Servo.

When have I ever done such a thing dipshit?

[Surlethe]

Since you and others keep assuming that the BoM is refering to ALL of the Americas, prove this claim.

I do seem to recall you assumed the very same thing before you got called on it. Do you remember this:

Excuse me, but what is fact is that the "history" of the peoples of North and South America given in the Book of Mormon is utter and complete balderdash. It's phony. There is no historical or archaeological evidence of any kind to support it. And it is utterly inconceivable that an entire Old World-type civilization could occupy these two continents and leave behind no artifacts of any kind. No buildings. No weapons. No tools. No potsherds. No written records. No coins. Nothing. Zilch. What's more, the historical and archaeological evidence that we do have for pre-columbian America utterly contradicts the "history" laid out in the Book of Mormon. That's a fact pal. The Book of Mormon is full of proven nonsense.

Actually there is lots of facts to support it. Since the BoM is vague on specifics about the culture, architecture etc you cannot claim anything to that this can't be found in any methods. Also a few things that were found:

?

If horses and elephants were in America prior to the arrival of Europeans, why was the dog the primary beast of burden?

They died out? We were once again wrong about history?

They died out? With no evidence whatsoever left behind? No bones, no remnants? Or--get this!--maybe they were never here!

Again since there is so much we havn't discovered or even bothered searching, and the fact that much is destroyed rather than preserved. I don't see this as a problem.

You can't be serious. You mean to say the entire archaelogical of an entire fucking civilization has been entirely destroyed? Because there'd be a lot more than something left--oh, but apparently, we haven't looked hard enough.

2)So you're saying that a family moves across the oceon and you expect them to have the same architecture as their old world? This is a family dude. You saying that if you and your family left home and moved across the world to a deserted island you'd make exact replicas of your home and architecture?

Don't delude yourself by thinking he meant he meant them to be exactly the same; or maybe that was just a dishonest, albeit blatant, distortion. Look at the European settlers who came across the Atlantic. Have American houses resembled European houses or Native American houses. The supposed "American Civilization" would have built cities in the style of the Old World because they wouldn't have known any better.

Which are superficial at best. Indian art also features swastikas. I guess that proves they were proto Nazis.

No is shows that Hitler stole a popular symbol to use in his propoganda machine.

But the similarities in Mayan and Jewish architecture aren't coincidental ?

No I believe that when "coincidences" mount up something is up.

Really? Because there are a hell lot of coincidences in this world. Do you take the coincidence of mollusk eyes with mammalian eyes as evidence "something is up"?

Also I believe that in every legend is a bit of truth.

A bit of truth means a lot of bullshit. Which, in turn, means none of it is reliable; but you seem to be thinking legends even with a "bit of truth" are fully reliable as quantitative evidence, rather than as sketchy anectodes referring to unspecified events in unspecified times.

Place names, not people names. Now are you suggesting that Smith was a skilled archeologist able to go where no one had gone before?

I don't see you rushing to provide any examples from the Book of Mormon of such incidences. How do we know you're not making this bullshit up?

Come on. Your stubbornness is just proving Darth Wong right.

[Darth Servo]

You should. As I said, the Vikings came here, in tiny numbers, to a small, specific place, and stayed only a short while. Yet we have concrete evidence they were here. Yet the Book of Mormon places an entire civilization, a whole, fucking Hebraic civilization here, long term and very widespread, and we have ZERO evidence for its existence.

Why? The people described in the BofM weren't architects. The only records they brought with them were the part of the old testament they had at the time.

If ancient Hebrews had come here in anything like the numbers necessary to establish whole cities, we'd know it.

They didn't COME here with those numbers. The two families that came had maybe a DOZEN children with them.

Take a look at this street in Shanghai:

<snip>

It has a distinctly European look, has it not? And how about this cathedral in Mexico City?

<snip picture>

Doesn't look much like any Aztec building, does it? and take a look at the Adam Thoroughgood house, which was built in 1680, in Virginia Beach, VA, not 30 minutes' drive from where I live.

<snip picture>

Doesn't bear much resemblance at all to what the local Indians were building around 1680. In fact, it looks suspiciously like a typical 17th century English country house. I wonder why.

Not even remotely comparable since those building were built civilizations established by LARGE MIGRATIONS of people, not a pair of families. The first thing the BofM family probalby built was a straw or mud hut or maybe even lived in a cave. Early on, the guy telling the story in the BofM states straight out that he did NOT teach his children much about their homeland.

For I, Nephi, have not taught them many things concerning the manner of the Jews; for their works were works of darkness, and their doings were doings of abominations.

Moron, everywhere any people has ever migrated in numbers, they have taken their cultural baggage with them.

And the migration from the Middle East described in the BofM was NOT large numbers. Have you even read the thing?

No I believe that when "coincidences" mount up something is up. Also I believe that in every legend is a bit of truth.

Blah, blah, blah. No evidence.

Shortly before in your post you criticized him for evading the point. Now you do the same.

Place names, not people names. Now are you suggesting that Smith was a skilled archeologist able to go where no one had gone before?

Are you saying he couldn't have heard of places, referred to by their Indian names, and then wrote those names into his fabricated history.

Where would he have heard them from?

[Perinquus]

You should. As I said, the Vikings came here, in tiny numbers, to a small, specific place, and stayed only a short while. Yet we have concrete evidence they were here. Yet the Book of Mormon places an entire civilization, a whole, fucking Hebraic civilization here, long term and very widespread, and we have ZERO evidence for its existence.

Why? The people described in the BofM weren't architects. The only records they brought with them were the part of the old testament they had at the time.

They still would have built houses the way they had built them at home. They still would have made tools the way they had made them at home. They still would have followed the customs they followed at home. How many fucking times do I have to say it: WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT ANYONE HERE DID THOSE THINGS.

If ancient Hebrews had come here in anything like the numbers necessary to establish whole cities, we'd know it.

They didn't COME here with those numbers. The two families that came had maybe a DOZEN children with them.

In which case they would have been subsumed into the local culture, if they did not perish quickly in a hostile and unfamiliar land, or get killed by hostile natives.

Take a look at this street in Shanghai:

<snip>

It has a distinctly European look, has it not? And how about this cathedral in Mexico City?

<snip picture>

Doesn't look much like any Aztec building, does it? and take a look at the Adam Thoroughgood house, which was built in 1680, in Virginia Beach, VA, not 30 minutes' drive from where I live.

<snip picture>

Doesn't bear much resemblance at all to what the local Indians were building around 1680. In fact, it looks suspiciously like a typical 17th century English country house. I wonder why.

Not even remotely comparable since those building were built civilizations established by LARGE MIGRATIONS of people, not a pair of families. The first thing the BofM family probalby built was a straw or mud hut or maybe even lived in a cave. Early on, the guy telling the story in the BofM states straight out that he did NOT teach his children much about their homeland.

How convenient. Even small, domestic architecture would show Hebrew influence, if any Hebrews had ever come here to build it. Only a handful of Vikings came to Vinland, or to Greenland, or initially to Iceland, but their houses are distinctly Scandinavian. As are the tools and implements they left behind.

The Book of Mormon speaks of wheat, barley, steel, wheeled vehicles, shipbuilding, sails, coins, and other elements of Old World culture, and we have evidence for NONE OF IT from pre-columbian America. It is inconceivable that this would be the case if a whole civilization which had these things grew up from the Hebrews who supposedly came here.

For I, Nephi, have not taught them many things concerning the manner of the Jews; for their works were works of darkness, and their doings were doings of abominations.

Moron, everywhere any people has ever migrated in numbers, they have taken their cultural baggage with them.

And the migration from the Middle East described in the BofM was NOT large numbers. Have you even read the thing?

Not in its entirety, no. But I hardly needed to. What I have read is clearly false, as it speaks of things that we know never existed here, and which the Mormon church has spent million sof dollars trying unsuccessfully to prove existed here. And I have read enough about Joseph Smith to have satisfied myself as to his basic dishonesty.

No I believe that when "coincidences" mount up something is up. Also I believe that in every legend is a bit of truth.

Blah, blah, blah. No evidence.

Shortly before in your post you criticized him for evading the point. Now you do the same.

He cites ridiculous legends of primitive peoples as reliable evidence. I'm not evading the point at all. The point is that he thinks some vague Indian legends corroborate the Book of Moron. I refer him to some other absurd stories in native legends, which obviously don't corroborate anything factual, and he simply replies that he thinks all legends have some basis in truty. That's his opinion, not evidence. Learn to read.

Place names, not people names. Now are you suggesting that Smith was a skilled archeologist able to go where no one had gone before?

Are you saying he couldn't have heard of places, referred to by their Indian names, and then wrote those names into his fabricated history.

Where would he have heard them from?

Trappers, army scouts, Indians, frontiersmen, etc., or other people who had talked to trappers, army scouts, Indians, frontiersmen, etc.. This may come as a shock to you, but people did travel about a bit in 19th century America, and there was some peaceful contact between Indians and whites.

[Coyote]

Man, archaeology is a fine fucking science. Bedouin tribes that crossed the Negev Desert in southern Israel centuries ago can have their movements tracked by the types of seeds they snacked on and spit out around their campfire sites.

In fact, it is the lack of such evidence in the Sinai that is currently a source of debate in Israeli archaeological circles. My archaeology professor that I studied under at Ben Gurion University admits flat out that the Book Of Exodus is wrong-- a mass tribe of people migrating through the Sinai Desert for 40 years, left 100% NO TRACE of their passing at all. There are no fire pits, no garbage piles, nothing left to mark their passage.

I have seen neolithic sites thousands of years old, pre-Biblical, with just a few handfuls of rock to mark the passage of a tribal band. If these wonders existed in the New World... if a Hebraic civilization had colonized in the US and built anything, believe me, we'd have found it.

The BoM is one man's monument to self-aggrandizement. He got to have, what, 40 wives and a whole city at his command? He played those gullible, scared early Settlers like fiddles.

[Surlethe]

In fact, it is the lack of such evidence in the Sinai that is currently a source of debate in Israeli archaeological circles. My archaeology professor that I studied under at Ben Gurion University admits flat out that the Book Of Exodus is wrong-- a mass tribe of people migrating through the Sinai Desert for 40 years, left 100% NO TRACE of their passing at all. There are no fire pits, no garbage piles, nothing left to mark their passage.

They ate bread from heaven, remember?

[Darth Wong]

Terr Fangbite has long been known to be an imbecile when the subject of religion comes up. The fact that he defends the Book of Moron should not come as a surprise.

Ad Hominem. Attack my arguement not me.

That was not an argument, you worthless fucktard. It was merely a comment; it purported to prove nothing on its own. Learn what fallacies actually are before you accuse people of them.

This is a fucking book where white people turn black when they sin against God, and then they turn white again when they please God.

I remember the part where god put a curse on the skin of the original lamenites who left, but no where in the BoM do they magically change back.

So you have no fucking problem with the fact that the Book of Moron portrays dark-pigmented skin as a curse from God?

[HemlockGrey]

So does anyone know if Brigham Young bought into the bullshit, or did he simply capitalize on Smith's teachings to wield autocratic power and have buttsex with lots of underage girls?

[Molyneux]

In fact, it is the lack of such evidence in the Sinai that is currently a source of debate in Israeli archaeological circles. My archaeology professor that I studied under at Ben Gurion University admits flat out that the Book Of Exodus is wrong-- a mass tribe of people migrating through the Sinai Desert for 40 years, left 100% NO TRACE of their passing at all. There are no fire pits, no garbage piles, nothing left to mark their passage.

They ate bread from heaven, remember?

Locusts....
That's what seems to make the most sense, anyway. There are four specific types of locusts, out of any and all other insects, that are considered kosher - it's been theorized that, travelling in swarms (and nutricious, full of protein and fat) as they were, these locusts were actually the manna described in the Bible.

Makes more sense than any other theory I've heard...

Oh boo hoo. You knew what I was talking about. Those 3 foot people found recently. Go do a search in this forum if it slipped your mind.

...They were named hobbits BECAUSE Lord of the Rings has become so well-known. They are short prehumans; it's highly unlikely they lived in caves (especially not burrows), their feet probably weren't any more furry than the rest of them, and they lived in an environment pretty damn unlike the Shire.

Say it with me - Hobbits are a FICTIONAL RACE. Calling the prehumans hobbits in anything other than a humorous sense is like calling a dinosaur a dragon.

[Mayabird]

It's time for whipping out the DNA evidence (or rather, the lack thereof. )

BYU (that's Brigham Young University) did some genetic testing of native Americans to determine where their ancestors came from. Lo and behold, they were descended from central Asians and not any Semitic peoples from the Middle East. One of the scientists who lost his faith after genetics proved it very wrong wrote a book about it. Some quotations:

In the last decade scientists from several research groups had tested the mitochondrial DNA of over 2000 American Indians from about a hundred tribes scattered over the length of the Americas. It soon became apparent to me that about 99% of their female lineages were brought into the Americas in excess of 12,000 years ago. Almost all of these lineages are most closely related to those of people in Asia, particularly in southern Siberia near Mongolia. Several tribes in Mesoamerica (which included Aztecs and Mayans) had been tested and all but a couple of individuals out of about 500 had mitochondrial DNA of Asian origin. The small fraction of Native American lineages that were not from Asia appeared to originate in Europe, most likely Spain. DNA studies also showed that the female ancestors of the Polynesians came from South East Asia and not the Americas. Y-chromosome studies, which trace male migrations, strongly support the mitochondrial work, except that the European influence is higher (about 10% in the Americas).

For two weeks I wrestled with the research. I collected more and more research papers but failed to find anything that supported migration of Jewish people before Columbus. Enough is known about the DNA lineages of Jews to be very confident that they are clearly distinguishable from Asian lineages. They would also be easily identifiable if they were present in the Americas in significant numbers. I struggled with the complete discrepancy between the research and my understanding of the Book of Mormon and the doctrine of the Lamanites. The Book of Mormon describes the occurrence of Hebrew civilizations in the Americas numbering in the millions. It is clear that the victorious Lamanites would have numbered in the millions in about 400 AD.

He confirmed that scientists at BYU had tested 3000 American Indians from Peru and they came up with the same problem of virtually all the female DNA lineages coming from Asia. Now I knew that all three major civilisations in the Americas the Aztecs, Maya and Incas were comprised of people who trace their genealogy back to Siberia.

Source:
http://www.exmormon.org/whylft125.htm


Remember kids, don't join a church that can be disproven with a DNA test.