Mormons and their [reputed] Lies

Great Debates
141

You are laboring under a number of false ideas. First, Lindsay’s website was the first I noticed being pro-LDS under the Google link I searched. I had read some of Lindsay’s work years ago, and though I am not a devotee, I certainly don’t think his apologetics is as weak as you make it out. Frankly, what I like most about his site is the way he mocks and ridicules in the most sublime fashion those who mock and ridicule him and his beliefs. I notice he also has made great pains to explain the work is his, that it is not the work of a professional, and that any errors of content are his responsibility. He certainly does not give me the impression of giving definitive answers.

Also, I did not give the impression that that particular page of his site was giving a ‘proof’ of Book of Mormon being in a specific location, but rather that there are legitimate scholars who believe the America’s have had contact other than Northern Europeans prior to CC. He even stated in his piece the asian connection.

Finally, those who came in ‘600 bc’ were not ‘Jews’, the most part of them were of Joseph, not Judah. Do I detect a little antisemitism?

142

I began my study of Mormonism with the attitude that the assertions of Mormonism could be verified in ways those of other religions could not be. One cannot prove that Jesus performed the miracles attributed to him, but one cannot prove that he did not.

Joseph Smith lived recently enough, and his assertions are significant enough that if they are true, this should be verifiable. If they are not true, this should be verifiable also. Joseph Smith either had the gold plates or he did not. The Book of Mormon is either a detailed history of pre Columbian history from 500 BC to 300 AD, or it is not. The Book of Abraham was either translated from a manuscript written by Abraham, or it was not.

There is no independent evidence that any of the events told in The Book of Mormon happened. Although there is little if any evidence of the Exodus, we do know that the Egyptian civilization existed. Archaeologists have also discovered settlements in what is now the occupied territories that can be identified as Hebrew.

143

Yawn…what was that…oh, ok.
-He had the plates and many witnesses said he did, none recanted, and no one can say they definitively saw he did not have them. That’s even hard for me to read.
-The Book of Mormon is not a detailed history.
-Yes, the Book of Abraham was translated from a manuscript written by Abraham.

Seriously though. If tomorrows New York Times headline read, Discovered!!! Zarahemla!!!, would you become a believer?

144

Dude, I have been trying to be nice to you despite your limited command of written English and near-total ignorance of Mormon history and apologetics. If you wish to communicate further, please report to the Pit so I can tell you exactly what I think of you and your cute little insinuations.

You are over the line, way over the line.

145

Actually no, there is no difference between the “pre-exodous” settlements and the “post-exodous” ones.

They are all Canaanite, there is no evidence of a unified Judaic state to infer that there ever was a significant Jewish state and even if there was a kingdom of David it was a very minor power.

The book of Deuteronomy was “found” after being lost for “centuries” during the rein of Josiah, convenient how they find a book that fits his goals and desires after it had been “lost” in the treasure room for 300 years, Moses is most defiantly not the author of that book.

But it was that book that caused the entire pantheon of the Canaanites to be purged from what became the bible.

El’s stories were applied to Ya, they then did prequel text to make the worship of El’s wife Asherah and his son Baal as antithetical with the Torah.

This is all well known in the biblical studies world, but if you are faithful it does not matter.

‘There is no independent evidence that any of the events told in The Book of Exodus happened. Although there is little if any evidence of the the book of Mormon, we do know that pre-columbian mesoamerican civilization existed. Archaeologists have also discovered settlements in what is now the occupied territories that can be identified as Native American (Lamanites).’

I am not sure why an Iron age book holds more credence with you than an industrial era book.

Many Jewish and Christian churches admit the issues with the Torah, but just like the non-existence of the firmament, renouncement of Slavery etc… they have accepted it while maintaining their faith, exactly as members of the LDS church does.

Thus the faith…the warming of the heart, for Jews, Gentiles or even Jews as Gentiles in the Mormon land of Zion.

146

Why? You already accepted that they were.

I’m not arguing that the crackpots are incorrect. I’m saying that the author of this paper is being deceptive by falsely claiming that certain controversial or widely ridiculed theories are in fact respected, or at least by failing to mention that the theories are controversial or widely ridiculed. This deception casts doubt on the other claims and conclusions he makes.

147

No but it contains many details. And those details are completely missing from the actual archeological record. Where are the old world crops (barley, wheat)? Where are the old world animals (cows, horses, oxen, asses, goats, honeybees, cattle, sheep, swine and elephants)? Where is the worked iron, copper, brass, and steel? Where are the swords and “cimeters?” Where are the metal coins (senine, seon, shum, limnah, senum, amnor, ezrom, onti, antion, shiblon)? Where are the multiple temples built on the plan of the Temple of Solomon (can’t hide one of those easily)? Where are the chariots? Where is the evidence of a people that “began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east?” Where is the evidence of the extensive timber exports to the “land northward?” Where are the “books of every kind?” Where are the silks? We have no record of any of these things.

And again we may not have maps. But we have many dozens of place names, rivers, valleys, cities, “wildernesses,” hills. Many of which are referenced in regards to one another. So that a rough map could be made. No remnant of this civilization has come down to us. There is no geography that matches the information we have.

No it wasn’t. It was “translated” from copies of the Book of Breathings and the Book of the Dead, and was written by a Ptolemaic era scribe. We actually have most of the actual papyrus that Joseph Smith had, including the facsimiles. We can read what is on them. It isn’t the Book of Abraham.

It would sure help. Especially if it contained a lot of old world animals and crops, advanced metallurgy, and a big temple built on the plan of the Temple of Solomon. I’ll imagine we’ll be waiting till the sun goes dim before that is found.

148

Israelite highland settlement refers to ancient Israelite settlement in the highlands north of Jerusalem discovered in archaeological field surveys conducted in Israel since the 1970s.

These surveys found a large increase in the settled population dating to 1200 BCE. It is not known whether the Israelites arrived in the wake of conquests or the new villages were established by former nomads or displaced persons. A similar increase was not found in the surrounding lowland areas. According to archaeological evidence, these areas may have been inhabited by Canaanites or Sea People.

A 2005 book by Robert D. Miller applies statistical modeling to the sizes and locations of the villages, grouping them by economic and political features. He found highland groupings centered on Dothan, Tirzah, Shechem, and Shiloh. The tribal territory of Benjamin was not organized around any main town.
This evidence does not prove there was a conquest as described in the Book of Joshua, but if the biblical reference to “daughter villages” means all villages closest to that town, the list of Canaanite towns not taken in Judges 1:27-35, which begins: “Nor did Manesseh drive out Bet Shean and her daughter-villages …”, the correspondence to the survey results is remarkably accurate. Towns not captured in the central zone were Taanach, Ibleam, Meggido, Dor, Gezer, Aijalon, Shaalbim, and Jerusalem.

149

Funny how you avoid the parent wiki entry while linking to one that admits it “does not prove” anything.

“No material remains have been found which can reliably separate Israelite from non-Israelite (Canaanite) sites in the earliest period.”

150

I know not whereof you speak.

151

“Why?” Because you made accusations against the ‘crackpots’. I looked and found that while some of them are controversial, I wouldn’t label them crackpots. Again, all he was addressing was the point 'there is no evidence of cross-hemisphere contact. I did not get the impression he was suggesting this was evidence for the book of mormon. Finally, the inflammatory rhetoric designating his writing as deception, that being the intentional misleading of facts to sway his reader, is false. You really think he was lying?

152

‘It would sure help’. The LDS Religion is not for everyone. As I have state before, my personal belief is far more accommodating than the typical person of faith. Personally, I do not believe a person will be damned to hell for not being LDS. I do not even think that if a person has as harsh a criticism and doubt of the LDS Church as expressed here will suffer for their criticisms. The only person, I believe, who will come under condemnation is the person who deliberately misleads a person by proclaiming something he knows as wrong to be true. I do not believe you to be malicious in your criticism.
Joseph Smith (at least that is the person my failing memory recalls the statement from) once said that while the faith in the Gospel of Christ, particularly the LDS flavor, may be extremely trying now, there will come a time when the evidence will be so strong that it would be like denying the sun is shining in ones face. Yet people will still deny the truth of the Gospel. That is at the end of days.
As you stated, I have looked into the points you made (all long ago) and found wiggle room for faith. I don’t need proof. In fact, it could be argued that faith is stronger than sure knowledge.

153

At heart, I am a sailor. A veteran of the Navy, a snipe, a squid. Called by one of my whoremonger buddies the most vile person he has ever known. I’ll chat anywhere to anyone.
As for my ‘cute insinuation’, and my near-total ignorance of Mormon history and apologetics, I merely pointed out a simple error in your encyclopedic and detailed knowledge of my faith and you freak out. I am a fairly simple fellow. I take people for what they say they are. You proclaim to be an expert on my faith, and I believe you. Therefore, when you determinately declare the family of Lehi to be ‘Jews’ , I assume you say this in sincerity and I assume this not to be a simple error. After all, even a neophyte moron like myself knows one of the main points Nephi is trying to make in the first Book of Nephi (granted, among many) is that Lehi is fulfilling prophesy as a branch of Joseph. This is a very important part of the Book of Mormon. Remembering you to be an ‘expert’ on Mormon theology, I assume you know this. Ergo, if it is not a mistake, you said this on purpose. If on purpose, your words, “Jew coming in 600 BC with their annoying younger brother” was meant as a mockery of the Book of Mormon. So, if a mockery, than the generic ethnic word “Jew” takes on a darker tone, rather than an ‘expert’ stating a fact, becomes a slur making mockery.
So, I beseech you to empathize with me, how should I take your comment, you are either not the expert you proclaim or you are making mockery of my faith on purpose using a ethnic word as slur? Of course, there could be other arguments you are making, but I, being a simple kind of man and far to obtuse, probably just don’t understand what you are inferring.

154

I am still torn as to whether you are too stupid to understand written English or just dishonest enough to pretend that you don’t. I challenge you to find one Jewish person who would take offense at my comment. I rather suspect that you, as a Mormon and intended target, understood exactly what I meant and thus took any opportunity to call me names, like anti-Semite. It is a particularly pathetic debating tactic, but not particularly surprising from someone like you.

155

You know…Mormans have a language that doesn’t EXIST
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/pdf/review/702317610-19-1.pdf
Quite a funny read.

156

Did I mention I was stupid? Yeah, that’s me simple and stupid. I could have swore I asked a question. That leaves it up to you to say no. Then again, I did say you were making a mockery of my faith. I thought I gave a reasonably cogent response to the horrific statement you made, explained in gory detail why and how I came to that response, and asked for a clarification on my thinking by the author (sir, that would be you).

Your response is to tell me that I am ‘stupid’ or ‘dishonest’, pathetic, and the terrible phrase ‘someone like you’. Hey, at least you didn’t add the even more racist ‘people’. You even make my point for me. You are making an argument against the LDS faith, i.e., ‘the target’ and are using the word ‘jew’ as part of that diatribe. Seems like yer the one who has explainen to do.

Bottom line, you said you are not an anti-semite. I. being a simple and believing kind of guy, will believe. I would appreciate it if you could explain to me and my sub-standard intelligence what the purpose of adding ‘jew’ to the statement makes.

157

Erdosain - I’m not Jewish but I also found the phrasing offensive…maybe it was where you referenced their younger ‘brother’ as being annoying. But then again since I’m not Jewish I guess I have no right to be offended in your books.

158

Where’s a good neurotic jew, preferably one with an annoying younger brother, when you need one.

159

Add to that a neurotic jew with an annoying younger brother who hates the idea of being associated with mormons.

160

Those Jews who might have taken offense probably turned the other cheek