Why don't all missionaries just fucking die?

[Guardsman Bass]

In his writings upon it, he dated the First Vision to "the 16th Year of my age," or 1821.

So what if a guy is recounting an event from a decade earlier and makes a mistake about whether he was 15 or 16? Whats the big deal?

Considering that they were two different histories he wrote, why the hell did he bother to change it six years later, when his memory would be even more hazy?

The 1832 account, for example, makes no mention of a non-existent religious revival in Palmyra in 1820 preceding the vision, and dates the vision to 1820 (the actual revival in Palmyra occurred in 1824, and led to the conversion of Joseph Smith's mother, Lucy Mack Smith, and his three older siblings to Presbyterianism).

The official account doesn't say when or where the revival was. Only that it was before the first vision and "in the place where we lived". Thats a pretty big leap of faith to assume he was talking about it being IN Palmyra rather than in that general area, one of the surrounding town.

Bullshit, considering that he mentions the religious fervor sweeping the entire area in which he lived- a BIG religious revival. There is no record of one happening in 1820, but there is record of one in 1824, and since we know that he participated in it, odds are that he simply messed around with the date.

Also noticeably absent from the 1832 account is the presence of the personage of God the Father in the vision, his seizure by the power of the Devil upon first attempting to pray, and most importantly, the lack of the prophetic call to not join any of the existing sects. The last is a particularly significant difference that seems to preclude the possibility of the missing material being simply an omission, because, in the 1838 history, Chapter 1:18, Smith explicitly states "My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join."

Like I said before--an omission is NOT a contradiction.

Considering that he mentions entirely different motives for going to seek the insight of God, that's hardly an omission. If I went and killed someone, and initially claimed that my motive was "bloodlust," but then changed it to "insanity" when I went on trial, would you argue for the latter, claiming that my initial claim was just an "omission" of my real condition of insanity?

In fact, the 1832 account of Joseph's experience closely resembes a strong religious conversion experience not unheard of among Methodists of the time period. Methodist founder John Wesley, for example, reported in 1739: " I know several persons in whom this great change [religious rebirth] was wrought, in a dream, or during a strong representation to the eye of their mind, of Christ either on the cross or in glory." Early American Methodist preachers Freeborn Garrettson and Eleazor Sherman reported similar visions, the former describing a vision in which "Christ was exhibited to my mind" and the latter a "mental view of the dear Savior."

So what?

Because it reveals a lot on his possible motives from the First Account of 1832, dumbass. The fact that his original description is similar to other Methodist descriptions of seeing Christ and having sins forgiven indicates that there is a good chance he had a similar experience, or at least claimed to, and then changed it to suit his purposes of leading a church in 1838.

The first example is the 1838 account of Martin Harris I mentioned earlier, in which Harris declared that "he never saw the plates with his natural eyes" and that "the eight witnesses never saw them [with their natural eyes] and hesitated to sign that instrument for that reason, but were persuaded to do it."

How would Martin Harris know whether Smith showed the plates to the eight since by this statement, he wasn't even there whne he showed them in the first place.

Apparently enough to comment. Or do you not think that as men at the core of the Church, they actually spoke amongst themselves about the experience, outside of public announcements?

The veracity of this statement is supported by the fact that although Harris rejected Joseph's leadership in 1838, he continued to believe in the Book of Mormon, and certainly had no intention in causing harm to its credibility.

And just HOW does this help your position? A leading man in the Church has turned away from Smith, and is in fact quite angry with Smith. Yet he doesn't want to damage the Book of Mormon's credibility. Why not?

You must be braindead, or you simply wrote this before reading on. The fact that he continued to believe in the Book of Mormon in spite of saying such stuff indicates that he didn't think it was harmful; he was telling the truth.

In fact, he expressed this regret in 1839, stating that he "never should have told that the testimony of the eight was false, but should have let it passed as it was." Six of the Eight Witnesses were still alive at this time, and none of them contradicted him.

None of them contradicted him that he had said their testimony was false. What is that supposed to prove? Only that he didn't believe them at one point.

Your argument based off their official testimony is based off of the same thing- that they didn't contradict it. Only, in my case, they actually could have contradicted it if they wanted to, unlike in your case, where they can't because they are dead.

There is also the 1839 statement of John Whitmer (then dissenting) to Theodore Turley, the church's business agent in Far West, in response to Turley's questioning about Whitmer's testimony. Whitmer said that he had seen and handled the plates, but that they had been shown to him in by a supernatural power, similar to Martin Harris's account of how the plates were shown to him.

Its not similar since you can't "handle" a vision seen with "the eye of faith".

You should have read on before posting on this.

In addition to the above, there is also circumstantial evidence pointing to a visionary experience for the Eight. First, unlike the Three Witnesses, the Eight did not have a special revelation commissioning their witness. In fact, the original revelation in 1829 (changed in 1835, and now Doctrine and Covenants 17) stated: "Three shall know of a surety that these things are true for I will give them power that they may behold and view these things as they are and to none else will I grant this power among this generation."

The Book of Mormon ITSELF says that more than the three will see the plates:

2 Ne. 27-28 Wherefore, at that day when the book shall be delivered unto the man of whom I have spoken, the book shall be hid from the eyes of the world, that the eyes of none shall behold it save it be that three witnesses shall behold it, by the power of God, besides him to whom the book shall be delivered; and they shall testify to the truth of the book and the things therein.

13 And there is none other which shall view it, save it be a few according to the will of God, to bear testimony of his word unto the children of men; for the Lord God hath said that the words of the faithful should speak as if it were from the dead.

The quote you posted above says three shall be given power from God to see the plates. This would be the vision of the three we've talked about. The eight did NOT have this power. They had an every day experience of HOLDING the plates in their hands. No heavenly power required. None of the statements presented so far constitute any kind of contradiction.

But it IS pretty sad that an alleged authority on Smith would resort to such dishonest selecive quoting to make his point.

And Smith had a revelation that contradicted it. Who do you trust more- a vague Book of Mormon statement, or a revelation from Smith that none other from that generation would see them? You see the dilemma, don't you? If Smith was wrong, then that kind of hurts his prophetic authority, now does it?

Interestingly enough, this fits well with Harris's statement that he had "hefted the plates repeatedly in a box with only a tablecloth over them, but never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain." If the Eight Witnesses saw the plates through a lid on a box (possibly the tool chest of Joseph's late brother Alvin, which supposedly held the plates for a while according to Smith family tradition), Smith could have easily have filled the box with rocks to create the semblance of weight. In that manner, the witnesses could claim that they had "seen" (through a vision, or supernatural power) and "hefted" the plates without breaking the spirit of the above revelation, which preceded their testimony.

All I see there is a lot of "maybes" and "ifs" not to mention a hasty generalization fallacy.

This appears to fit with an 1854 report compiled by Illinois Governor Thomas Ford, which repeated information gathered from Church dissenters [aka, people like the Re-organized Church]. According to Ford, Smith sat a box before the witnesses and told them it contained the plates. After the men looked into the box with no result, Smith upbraided them, "O ye of little faith! How long will God bear with this wicked and perverse generation? Down on your knees, brethren, every one of you, and pray God for forgiveness of your sins, and for a holy and living faith which cometh from heaven." After praying "two hours with fanatical earnestness," they again looked into the box and this time saw the plates.

Governor Ford has been proven to be an accompliss in the MURDER of Smith. You think his testiminy is reliable? Again, its sad that an alleged authority on Smith thinks it is.

As I mentioned, it was circumstantial evidence, and fitted with the other evidence mentioned above- which I noticed that you failed to comment on. Out of answers, especially considering that what I presented above fits with Smith's revelation?

The Testimony of those who held the plates

I also need to speak concerning the testimonies of those who claimed to hold the plates, but not necessarily see them. Although Lucy Mack Smith described holding them, William Smith gave one of the most detailed accounts: he "had hefted the plates in an old frock in which Joseph brought them home. He thumbed them through the cloth and ascertained that they were thin sheets of some kind of metal, and said he believed they weighed about sixty pounds. This is close to a description by Martin Harris, who, upon holding the plates, estimated their weight at "forty to fifty pounds."

If YOU had about 60 lbs of gold, would YOU hold it out in the open where anyone could see it?

Red Herring, dumbass; I was pointing out the description of the weight for my next point, not saying that their testimony is false because they didn't see it.

This opens the possibility of Smith creating a fascimile set of plates to quell doubt. Smith himself said that the plates were "six inches wide, eight inches long, with each plate not quite so thick as common tin. The volume was something near six inches in thickness." The mention of the plates being "not quite so thick as common tin" may have been intended to put on skepticism about whether he created a set of plates from a common material. It would have been relatively easy for him to do so. Scraps of tin were available on the Smith property, and nearby, along with the necessary tools. During the several hours Smith was separated from his wife, Emma, and on other occasions when he visited the hill where the plates were buried, he could have easily have set up shop in the cave on the other side of the hill, or in the nearby forest. Using a pair of metal sheers, he could have cut sheets of tin in the appropriate dimensions, and used a nail or similar device to punch three holes in which to run a wire or bar through. William's and Harris's weight estimates actually appear to support this possibility. A block of solid tin with the dimensions 7X8X6 inches, or 288 cubic inches, would weigh 74.67 pounds. If you subtract 30 percent of the wieght due to the unevenness and space between the plates(plus the holes punched), the plates of tin would weight 52.27 pounds. By contrast, using the same calculations, plates of gold would weigh 140.50 pounds; copper, 64.71 pounds; and mix of copper and gold, between 65 and 140 pounds, depending on the mixture used.

People post that the lack of evidence of Hebrew settlers is proof that it didn't happen. Where is the evidence of this tin smith shop of Josephs that was far more recent?

Notice how I mentioned that it would only have taken scraps of tin THAT WERE AVAILABLE on his property and nearby, tools that were available and common, and that Plates of Tin matches both Harris's and William Smith's description of the weight and feel of the book, unlike a 140 pound Gold Plates? Once again, you bring up a red herring. You must have found yourself short on rope, to not actually have a real response. Figures.

Since I mentioned it in a previous point, I might as well mention the two main instances when Joseph Smith participated in Methodism. The first was in 1824, when, according to Palmyra resident Orasamus Tucker, "Joseph Smith caught a spark of methodism in the camp meeting," and became a "very passable exhorter in evening meetings." Methodist exhorters were speakers drawn from the lay congregations and were licensed to deliver an "exhortation" at the end of the meeting, re-emphasizing the sermon's message and "exhorting" the congregation to follow its teaching.

In other words, it was NOT an official position in the church. Once again, we see that your original claim was exaggerated.

You do realize that there are legitimate historical documents outside of official Church records, and not everybody in the fucking world is out to screw Mormonism over?

And again, you "Red Herring" an answer. I mentioned this because I think it is pretty fucking funny that after supposedly seeing a revelation which told him specifically NOT to join any other Churches, in 1824 he catches the spirit of Methodism and becomes active enough to become an amateur speaker in it? Christ, Wong, could you custom title this guy "Red Herring Fisherman", just so everybody knows?

Smith may have, in fact, sought a legitimate conversion experience, since his previous primary occupation had been as a magical "seer" using a seeing stone to look for buried treasure, and he returned the seeing stone to Willard Chase, its original owner, for a year. This is significant, since when he reclaimed the stone in 1826, he refused to ever give it back.

More "may haves" and "might have beens". Thats nothing to get excited about.

Actually comment on it, asswipe. This fits well with his participation in Methodism above, and the fact that it makes it appear as if he was trying to repent for being a treasure-seeker and magic user by giving up his precious seer stone.

The second time he temporarily joined a methodist congregation was with his wife, Emma, in 1828, after Martin Harris lost the first 119 translated pages of the Book of Mormon. The class met on Wednesday's, usually at the home of the Reverend Nathaniel Lewis, Emma's uncle. According to the pastor's son, Joseph, Smith "presented himself in a very serious and humble manner, and the minister agreed to put his name on the class book."

It doesn't say it was Smith's idea to have his name on the roll.

Back then, going to church is what you did on Sunday. If you didn't you were quickly ostracized from the community.

Except that he was then confronted by the Pastor's son about his activities, and Smith didn't object to being put on the roll. In other words, the people actually KNEW about what Smith was doing (not surprising, considering Isaac Hale was his father-in-law, knew he was a retired treasure-hunter, and had disapproved of his marriage to Emma for that reason), and Smith certainly didn't bother to make sure he wasn't on the roll. And why, oh Wise One, would he suddenly start going to a church he was not supposed to, after eschewing church for at least a year before?

Joseph Lewis confronted Smith about this, and Smith chose to remove his name from the book of members. Joseph Lewis believed that Smith had been a class member for three days, but Michael Norse, Smith's brother-in-law, said "he was the 'leader' of the said 'class' and that to his certain knowledge Smith's name remained on the class book for about six months, when it was simply dropped, as Smith did not seek to become a full member." Although it has been claimed that Smith attended the services as a token gesture to his wife (whose family had ties to Methodism), or to her father, Isaac Hale), why, at this time, would Smith feel a need to please Isaac Hale? Why would attending a Methodist class please Emma (who professed belief in what Joseph was doing, and actually served as his temporary scribe in the early days of the translation)?

You can't think of a reason why someone would try to please their in-laws? You must not be married.

Considering that he eloped with Emma against Isaac's will, and Isaac already didn't like him because he had been a treasure hunter, and was writing the Book of Mormon, why the hell would he suddenly become Mr. Suckup? And I notice you didn't answer as to why this would, in any way, help his relationship with Emma, his spouse(who usually is the reason for a person trying to cultivate a good relation with the in-laws anyway), who was a believer in the Book of Mormon?

That was a beast, but I think it was worth it. I hope it explains a lot of things, and answers some questions.

It only shows once again that LDS critics are DESPERATE to INVENT things to criticize about the church.

And shows that you can't answer actual history from a REAL historian, instead preferring to substitute opinionated responses, and of course, Red Herrings. I'd say that shows you are desperate, and are busy errecting a mighty Wall of Ignorance.

You are correct about the initiation rituals. They do not, in of themself, constitute a form of brainwashing. However, I argue that the Mormon baptism ritual (which includes a "Confirmation of the Holy Ghost"), constitutes at least part of a brainwashing ritual.

The confirmation is simply a prayer said with hands laid on the person's head. None of the starvation, sleep depravation, exposure to NOTHING BUT recited dogma for days that USUALLY accompanies brainwashing.

People who are baptized into the LDS Church are told that the baptism has erased their previous sins. This is especially important for children who have turned eight years old (the age of baptism for Mormon children), and are told the above, and that from then on, they are responsible for their sins, and have to repent for them.

Heaven forbid we should actually be ACCOUNTABLE for our mistakes.

Considering that it represents a point where they are now "clean" of their sins, that's a rather dramatic life change, wouldn't you say?

The second baptism-related ceremony, the Confirmation of the Holy Ghost, is the particularly important part. The Confirmation is supposed to grant the confirmee the presence and guidance of the Holy Ghost (the third member of the Godhead Trinity according to the LDS Church, and the source of the feeling of whether you are doing something right or wrong). The subjective feeling of the Holy Ghost, which most Mormons describe as a "burning in the bosom," becomes the emotional basis for the Testimony of Mormons to the truthhood of the Mormon Church.

So? How does ANY of that constitute brainwashing?

[/quote]

How about if I laid my hands on you with all the trust given to a religious authority, and pronounced upon you the "Touch of Cthulu," and told you, with all sincerity, that from now on, any emotional experiences you have concerning Cthulu-related activities are guidance from the spirit of Cthulu telling you that the religion of Cthulu was true, you wouldn't call that brainwashing, since I am basically telling you that your emotional experiences in that area(and everybody has them) are "inspiration," and not what they actually are- feelings of happiness and wonder? It's no different from the Mormon experience, but you choose to ignore it, since you would prefer to live inside your Religious Blindspot.

[Zero]

Look, you guys have been arguing here for a while now about the validity of the BoM. Any reasonable person not of the religion will know it's a piece of crap, but these people have likely been raised from birth to believe in these fairy tales. Their stance isn't one of non-belief, where they have to justify their religion, but from a stance of belief, where you have to prove it wrong. This isn't logical, so they aren't capable of a logical thought on the subject. They aren't capable of a logical argument. They can't prove the BoM, and even though there has been sufficient evidence to show that no such civilization as described in the BoM existed, they won't change their minds. Let it be. They'll believe what they will. Just don't let them gain more converts.. lol.

[Guardsman Bass]

Look, you guys have been arguing here for a while now about the validity of the BoM. Any reasonable person not of the religion will know it's a piece of crap, but these people have likely been raised from birth to believe in these fairy tales. Their stance isn't one of non-belief, where they have to justify their religion, but from a stance of belief, where you have to prove it wrong. This isn't logical, so they aren't capable of a logical thought on the subject. They aren't capable of a logical argument. They can't prove the BoM, and even though there has been sufficient evidence to show that no such civilization as described in the BoM existed, they won't change their minds. Let it be. They'll believe what they will. Just don't let them gain more converts.. lol.

Hence the almost comical irony with which Darth Servo denies that the Confirmation of the Holy Ghost, which ultimately is the source of the emotional 'Testimony' that is the foundation of his faith, is brainwashing. Go figure. But we don't shut up for fundies of any color.

[Darth Wong]

The problem with debating apologist fucktards like Servo and Fangbite is that the normal rules don't apply. When you debate with a normal person and you show him how there is not a shred of evidence for something, he might actually stop and say "hmmm, I'll have to think about that." But not an apologist fucktard; he will simply soldier on and say that the total absence of evidence is not a problem because you still haven't absolutely proven the negative!

As the old saying goes, you cannot reason someone out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place.

[Zero]

They aren't necessarily fucktards, they just were when they accepted their faith. At that age, your parents must always be correct, and you'll believe anything they say. They're also the primary source of information about the world, and history, so the ideas of a religion are forced into your brain. You have no say about it, you're too young to question or reflect. By now, they may actually be very capable of accepting reason and logic in most cases, but in the case of their faith, they never can. It's knowledge that they attained before they could know that not all their told is true. Not their fault. Calling them fucktards isn't necessary, nor specifically accurate.

[Darth Wong]

They aren't necessarily fucktards, they just were when they accepted their faith. At that age, your parents must always be correct, and you'll believe anything they say. They're also the primary source of information about the world, and history, so the ideas of a religion are forced into your brain. You have no say about it, you're too young to question or reflect. By now, they may actually be very capable of accepting reason and logic in most cases, but in the case of their faith, they never can. It's knowledge that they attained before they could know that not all their told is true. Not their fault. Calling them fucktards isn't necessary, nor specifically accurate.

It doesn't matter how they got that way, as long as they act that way now. It also doesn't matter if they don't act that way in regards to other subjects, as long as they act that way with respect to the subject of discussion.

[Zero]

If you're bothered by conversing with them on this topic of discussion, then simply know that they won't budge. Their beliefs are planted in them quite firmly, and to shake them would be to shake the foundations of their concept of reality. If you don't want to deal with them on these matters, then don't. Also, referring to someone as a 'fucktard' typically isn't just categorizing their beliefs on the subject at hand, but is generally a statement made about the person himself. You can say his beliefs are stupid, but you shouldn't say he is, as his belief system isn't usually his own fault.

[Darth Wong]

If you're bothered by conversing with them on this topic of discussion, then simply know that they won't budge. Their beliefs are planted in them quite firmly, and to shake them would be to shake the foundations of their concept of reality. If you don't want to deal with them on these matters, then don't. Also, referring to someone as a 'fucktard' typically isn't just categorizing their beliefs on the subject at hand, but is generally a statement made about the person himself.

Yes it is. Someone who says stupid things is generally characterized as a fucktard.

You can say his beliefs are stupid, but you shouldn't say he is, as his belief system isn't usually his own fault.

Totally irrelevant to the fact that he is saying stupid things. On a webboard, a person "exists" only as a collection of things he has said, remember?

[Zero]

If they only say stupid things on this subject matter, then they aren't necessarily fucktards, as they don't always say stupid things. However, since I don't know these people, or their histories on this web board, I have no grounds to defend them. I do agree that on the internet, people are what they say, and at least in this subject, these two are morons. But insulting them on a personal level can actually demean your argument, so it still isn't always a good idea. But hell, we all do what we want, I guess. I won't defend them anymore. I guess I'm just trying to say that there are several kinds of stupidity, but I can't deny that it's still stupidity.

[Nova Andromeda]

They aren't necessarily fucktards, they just were when they accepted their faith. At that age, your parents must always be correct, and you'll believe anything they say.

--Says you. I accepted very little of mountains of crap my parents tried to convince me of. I did, however, hold off on making a final judgement on some of the bigger items that fell into the catagory of "You'll understand when your older." However, now I am older and most of that was pure garbage too.

[SirNitram]

I guess I'm just trying to say that there are several kinds of stupidity, but I can't deny that it's still stupidity.

We don't suffer fools here. At all.

No, not even because it's their religion. We won't start flaming people for being Christian, but if you tell me the world is six thousand years old, get prepared to not enjoy your stay.

And I wasn't aware we had transcribed a definitive meaning to Fucktard where you could quibble semantics over it.

[Surlethe]

But insulting them on a personal level can actually demean your argument, so it still isn't always a good idea.

Not really. Insulting them on a personal level doesn't do anything to the substance of the argument. It only demeans the argument if a person is unable to see through the insults to the point a person is trying to make, in which case the insultee is already a moron.

[Darth Wong]

Besides, one generally tends to hurl insults only when the other person is clearly behaving in such a manner that it's obvious he isn't planning to listen to what you're saying anyway.

[Perinquus]

They aren't necessarily fucktards, they just were when they accepted their faith. At that age, your parents must always be correct, and you'll believe anything they say. They're also the primary source of information about the world, and history, so the ideas of a religion are forced into your brain. You have no say about it, you're too young to question or reflect. By now, they may actually be very capable of accepting reason and logic in most cases, but in the case of their faith, they never can. It's knowledge that they attained before they could know that not all their told is true. Not their fault. Calling them fucktards isn't necessary, nor specifically accurate.

I see it as a problem though, when people become adults, and should certainly be capable of critical thinking, yet they still uncritically accept what they were told as children. After all, I got over it. I was as heavily indocrinated as anyone you ever saw. My Catholic Dad divorced my Baptist mother when I was five. I stayed with my mother, and we lived right next door to my mother's fundie parents. I went to Sunday school and church every single Sunday. We went to church events. My grandmother especially was keen to see us raised to be fundamentalist Christians, and she is a woman so religious, that you can't have a conversation with her of more than about 15 minutes' length before it turns to the Lord. In every other way they were good grandparents, and my mother was a good mother. They loved and provided for me, and I had a happy childhood, and saw no reason not to believe what they told me. I was convinced of the truth of the Bible. When I hit junior high and high school, and actually started reading the Bible, I began to have nagging doubts. I mean really, all you have to do is read some of the atrocities in the Old Testament, supposedly ordered by God, and your sense of justice should revolt. When I got my hands on some skeptical literature, especially Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason", that essentially put the last nail in the coffin of my Christian faith.

So one can overcome such indoctrination. One simply has to possess the capacity for critical thought, and be willing to face up to answers that may be uncomfortable to face. To thoughtlessly cling to childish and foolish notions simply because one is unwilling to face the harsh truth is intellectual and moral cowardice. To lack the capacity for critical thought is just stupidity.

[Terr Fangbite]

[/quote]Have you not been reading the thread? This point has been addressed multiple times. Lacking evidence is evidence of lacking. [/quote]
Have you not been reading this thread? A lack of evidence does not mean a total lack of evidence (which is what you guys are insisiting). I could have evidence which points to a murderer, but not enough to convict him. Does that mean there is no evidence against him?

Satisfied now?

No, because it states what I have already given in. This is magically changing to dark skin, not dark to light. Do you guys even read?

Scarecrow (or should I say strawman?).

When you have evidence which could point to the BoM being true and keep insisting there is totally no evidence, I think my point comes to light. It is not a strawman, it is your position.

millions of iron-using horse-riding descendants

*Ahem*
Jaron 8 wrote:
[8] And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land, and became exceedingly rich in gold, and in silver, and in precious things, and in fine workmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of war -- yea, the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin, and all preparations for war.


Also,
1 Nephi 18:25 wrote:
[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.

Congradsulations. You've show that there is steel and horses. Now prove this bull millions of iron-using horse riding people.

Joseph Smith was human. Had it occurred to you that maybe he was a liar?

Yes. But I have decided this wasn't the case.

What the fuck? This makes no sense. At all. Are you trying to say they called llamas horses? Because that's batfuckery.

You want it in plain english? Words me jack. I can look at a domestic cat and call it a tiger. It doesn't mean anything. Doesn't Wong continually berate Trekkies for arguing the name over performance? If it does the work of a horse, then they may call it a horse even if it isn't a horse. Get it now?

They can't prove the BoM

Nor am I trying. I know I can't prove it, what I am trying to disprove are the bull claims of "total lack of evidence" and the black men "magically" turning to white when they turn good.

The problem with debating apologist fucktards like Servo and Fangbite is that the normal rules don't apply. When you debate with a normal person and you show him how there is not a shred of evidence for something, he might actually stop and say "hmmm, I'll have to think about that." But not an apologist fucktard; he will simply soldier on and say that the total absence of evidence is not a problem because you still haven't absolutely proven the negative!

As the old saying goes, you cannot reason someone out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place.

Wow, I'm the example of a teacher now. One question though. Have you decided to ignore my challenge to show the magically transforming black into white or have you realized this statement is wrong?

If they only say stupid things on this subject matter, then they aren't necessarily fucktards, as they don't always say stupid things. However, since I don't know these people, or their histories on this web board, I have no grounds to defend them. I do agree that on the internet, people are what they say, and at least in this subject, these two are morons. But insulting them on a personal level can actually demean your argument, so it still isn't always a good idea. But hell, we all do what we want, I guess. I won't defend them anymore. I guess I'm just trying to say that there are several kinds of stupidity, but I can't deny that it's still stupidity.

Thanks for trying to defend me and Servio, but Wong is as relgiously (pardon the phrase) against religion as I am for it. No one can prove to him religion is worthwhile, and no one can prove to me that my church is a bunch of "fucktards". Both of us are going to blow until someone walks away muttering what an idiot the other is. This time it isn't going to be me.

[Il Saggiatore]

What the fuck? This makes no sense. At all. Are you trying to say they called llamas horses? Because that's batfuckery.

You want it in plain english? Words me jack. I can look at a domestic cat and call it a tiger. It doesn't mean anything. Doesn't Wong continually berate Trekkies for arguing the name over performance? If it does the work of a horse, then they may call it a horse even if it isn't a horse. Get it now?

A donkey looks more like a horse than a llama.
A pony looks more like a horse than a llama.
Why aren't we calling the donkey or the pony "horse"?

A bull or a donkey can do the work of a horse, but we don't call them "horse" for that.

There are different names for different breeds of horses.
Why would they call "horse" an animal that does not even look like a horse?

[Perinquus]

What the fuck? This makes no sense. At all. Are you trying to say they called llamas horses? Because that's batfuckery.

You want it in plain english? Words me jack. I can look at a domestic cat and call it a tiger. It doesn't mean anything. Doesn't Wong continually berate Trekkies for arguing the name over performance? If it does the work of a horse, then they may call it a horse even if it isn't a horse. Get it now?

A donkey looks more like a horse than a llama.
A pony looks more like a horse than a llama.
Why aren't we calling the donkey or the pony "horse"?

A bull or a donkey can do the work of a horse, but we don't call them "horse" for that.

There are different names for different breeds of horses.
Why would they call "horse" an animal that does not even look like a horse?

Simple. Calling a donkey or pony a horse isn't necessary to support this elaborate fictional construct called the Book of Mormon. Calling a llama one is. He therefore siezes this flimsy explanation, like a drowning man grasping at a straw, and manages to convince himself that such tripe is not only possible, but likely. And because the rest of us can't conclusively disprove it, declares that he is justified in his belief, conveniently forgetting that the burden of proof is on him, not us.

Terr Fangbite has proven, as has Darth Servo, that he is prepared to believe anything, however preposterous, to overlook anything, however obvious, to approve anything, however farfetched and unlikely, in order to be able to preserve intact the belief that this absurd, and easily refuted product of a proven liar and fraud is the word of God.

[Il Saggiatore]

...like a drowning man grasping at a straw...

Thanks, now I understand this phrase.
In Italian we have a similar one: a man trying to climb a mirror.
And I hear a loud screeching sound of fingernails on glass coming from Darth Servo and Terr Fangbite.

[Sean Howard]

No, because it states what I have already given in. This is magically changing to dark skin, not dark to light. Do you guys even read?

Here you go, evidence of black turning to white:

http://scriptures.lds.org/3_ne/2

Therefore, all the Lamanites who had become converted unto the Lord did unite with their brethren, the Nephites, and were compelled, for the asafety• of their lives and their women and their children, to take up arms against those Gadianton robbers, yea, and also to maintain their rights, and the privileges of their church and of their worship, and their freedom and their bliberty.

13 And it came to pass that before this thirteenth year had passed away the Nephites were threatened with utter destruction because of this war, which had become exceedingly sore.

14 And it came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites;

15 And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;

16 And their young men and their daughters became exceedingly fair, and they were numbered among the Nephites, and were called Nephites. And thus ended the thirteenth year.

Black people turning white within a 13 year period is magical by any definition.

[Morilore]

Have you not been reading this thread? A lack of evidence does not mean a total lack of evidence (which is what you guys are insisiting). I could have evidence which points to a murderer, but not enough to convict him. Does that mean there is no evidence against him?

That has got to be the most disingenous evasion tactic I have ever seen. "No archaeology, no genetics, no tools, no livestock, no food trail." "But, but, but, wheels! I have one piece of unsubstantiated anecdotal evidence! I win!"

Congradsulations. You've show that there is steel and horses. Now prove this bull millions of iron-using horse riding people.

Wow, what bullfuckery.

And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land

But let me guess, there still remained few enough of them for no (pardon, little) evidence to remain, less than the Vikings, right?

Yes. But I have decided this wasn't the case.

Then you haven't thought about it. Come on, seriously: all the best religionists in history acknowledged that faith is about faith, not reason. I am really, really tired of religious apologists claiming that their faith is based on rational evidence.

Nor am I trying. I know I can't prove it, what I am trying to disprove are the bull claims of "total lack of evidence" and the black men "magically" turning to white when they turn good.

What evidence is there, then? Oh yeah, the "wheels."

Thanks for trying to defend me and Servio, but Wong is as relgiously (pardon the phrase) against religion as I am for it. No one can prove to him religion is worthwhile, and no one can prove to me that my church is a bunch of "fucktards". Both of us are going to blow until someone walks away muttering what an idiot the other is. This time it isn't going to be me.

The house always wins. Say it with me. The house always wins.

[Coyote]

Okay, so a couple of wheels have been found. From a society that theoretically was so plentiful in wheels, steel, and other advances that ordinary dirt farmers had access to them-- plows to till the earth, etc. Where did the rest of it go? The climate wore them away.

Well, the climate of rainy, foggy, damp England did not wear away extensive Roman ruins along Hadrian's Wall, nor did the damp conditions wear away the settlement of Bath, nor the original settlement of Londinium. The damp, jungle conditions of the Tanzania-South Africa region near the Zambezi River valley wear away the suspiciously Middle-Eastern architecture of the outpost built there. We don't know what population built the outpost, but that does not negate the fact that it is there and has survived.

Things will survive better in dry, arid desert climes but in a civilization as vast as the one described, there'd be a lot more than a couple of wheels left over. And in the upper reaches of the Andes Mountains (hint: South America) the climate is extremely arid, to the point where llama-wool fabrics have stayed nearly perfectly preserved.

BTW-- the llama is a close relative of the camel. If these were Hebrew settlers, from the Middle Eatern kingdoms, the llama would be compared to a camel before anyone thought to call it a horse.

And what of the genetic dispersal? Vague tales of Hebrew expansion in Africa is strongly backed up by genetic evidence in certain African tribes. This same genetic footprints cannot be found in South American populations that supposedly were part of a large, secure settlement that goes beyond mere vague tales and into recorded history. All those educated Hebrew settlers came and set up a civilization and never left any inscriptions, scrolls, or other tablets? A settlement started by a purported Scribe?

[Darth Wong]

[Thanks for trying to defend me and Servio, but Wong is as relgiously (pardon the phrase) against religion as I am for it.

Bullshit. I can back up my conclusions with facts and logic. You have neither. Do not equate equal firmness of conviction with equal rationality of conclusions, dipshit.

No one can prove to him religion is worthwhile, and no one can prove to me that my church is a bunch of "fucktards". Both of us are going to blow until someone walks away muttering what an idiot the other is. This time it isn't going to be me.

Your stubborn "broken record" behaviour is not a triumph; it is merely evidence of your absolute lack of worth.

This is ridiculous; when ALL OF THE FUCKING ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND GENETIC EVIDENCE SAYS OTHERWISE, only an idiot would continue to insist that something is true. Moreover, you have utterly failed to explain the lack of genetic evidence, the lack of archaeological evidence, etc. When faced with the fact that your only so-called evidence is easily explained through far, far simpler means than a technically advanced continent-spanning civilization which magically vanished without a trace, you simply ignore it.

Address it now, fucktard. I have no patience for people who ignore arguments they can't handle.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

Also, she pointed out that she was taught all Mormons get to be with and know their families in the afterlife, which nearly frightened her out of the church all by itself.

Why would that scare her? Did she not like her family? Unless she thought that "know" was in the biblical sense of the word which is NOT church doctrine.

Of course she hated her family you idiot, they were Mormon and they had sons. Not only were they criminally negligent as parents to her, they were far too permissive of the sons' moral failings.
Very few things will disturb me as much as seeing my sister-in-law confront her parents about their neglect and how they let Sonny beat her and call her stupid and ugly every day of her childhood so that she was constantly running away from home and crying herself to sleep and now has trouble in relationships. Her parents response: Laughter. They laughed and said that it was so cute watching the kids playfighting and they always enjoyed playing "hide and go seek" with her. They're totally fucking out of it. (For privacy, I'm not even going to go into what my wife had to deal with growing up there.)

Now, I admit that I've only met about a dozen Mormon families, so this is all anecdotal and useless for a debate, but all of the Mormon daughters I met hated their families or were too fucked up in the head to function. All of them. The Mormon parents I've met were mostly inflexible, naive as all hell, and either comically abusive or criminally negligent.
The best, most normal Mormon parents I've ever met recently let their children play unattended with a KNOWN CHILD MOLESTER during a holiday party. When I found out that the guy was a child molester, I nearly freaked out--I wouldn't let the kids out of my sight from that moment on. I wondered why the parents weren't worried. Well, they trusted Known Child Molester because he was Mormon. He was Mormon when he molested children in the first place! Mormon children! What the fuck were they thinking???

I think a lot of it stems from indoctrination that all people are good, especially Mormons, and that men have all the powers while women only exist to make babies. The sheer amount of ignorance and sheltering causes massive problems for Mormon girls. It's not any coincidence that out of all the girls from my wife's Mormon girls camp, more than half of them (the ones who didn't attend sex ed) were pregnant before they graduated from HS. That's some healthy parenting there.

Sorry for the rant, but I had to get some of my frustrations out.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Have you not been reading this thread? A lack of evidence does not mean a total lack of evidence (which is what you guys are insisiting). I could have evidence which points to a murderer, but not enough to convict him. Does that mean there is no evidence against him?

In this analogy of yours, all you have as "evidence" against the murderer is a book saying that he killed hundreds of people using thousands of stainless-steel throwing knives- and the supposed crime scene spoken of in your book is devoid of bodies, throwing knives, and indeed any signs of anything like what you are describing ever occurring.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

Black people turning white within a 13 year period is magical by any definition.

So... Michael Jackson is a Nephite now?

Well, he could certainly pass for a Mormon parent in my opinion. Except for the Jesus Juice.