Mormons - How could anyone buy into it?

[ralph124c]

The Jaredites in the Book of Mormon traveled to the American continent in sixteen submarines. This voyage took place immediately after the confounding of the languages at the Tower of Babel. The Jaredites were wiped out, and wouldn’t have been Israelites anyway, since they predate Jacob (Israel), so the Mormon notion that Native Americans are descended from Jews has nothing to so with the “submarine story.” No dimensions, nor any other construction details except for the vaguest description, are given for the ships.

Man: submarine technology in the bronze age? This is news to me-did they have nuclear reactors as well? This is a momentous discovery! :eek:

[Contrapuntal]

@BMax

I really like that they were set alight by a touch from the finger of God. And the Brother of Jared, who Joseph Smith gave the name Mahonri Moriancumer, had so much faith that he was allowed to see the finger of God. Not all of God’s body, because that would blind him, but just the finger of God.

So what you are saying is that God gave him the finger?

[Valteron]

It is true that the Bible, the Koran and the Book of Mormon are filled with absurdities. For a very good site listing all the nonsense and bullshit in all three books, see Skeptic’s Annotated Bible/Koran/Book of Mormon

But I cannot help but believe that what Mormons believe is so truly ridiculous and so patently false that anyone with the most basic knowledge of archeology or other historical realities would laugh it out the door.

Not only do they believe that Hebrews came to America around 600 BCE, but also that Jesus appeared in the Americas shortly after his crucifixion and founded a Christian Church which lasted for about four centuries until around 420 CE, when these people destroyed themselves in a series of wars, and the Prophet Moroni buried the history of these peoples written on gold plates in the Hill Cumorah in northern New York State. In 1827, Joseph Smith (who historical evidence shows had previously been involved in various treasure schemes, BTW) found these plates with the help of an Angel.

Smith was also supplied with two magical translation devices that allowed him to translate the gold plates into English (oddly enough, they seem to have been set to translate into King James Bible English, not the contemporary English of America in 1827). By the way, it is not possible to see or analyze these gold plates since they are not in existence today. Nor to my knowledge has there been any study of the stone box in which they were found, nor any archeological investigation of the hole in which they were allegedly found.

Nor has any North American archeology since 1827 found evidence of Chrsitian civilizations with writing and cities in New York State or anywhre else in the US or Canada. Archeologists have uncovered hundreds of sites of longhouses, wigwams and other permanent settlements belonging to the pre-Columbian inhabitants of these countries (some of them almost approaching cities, such as in the Mississippi valley). But not one example of writing and not a shred of evidence of Christianity has been found in pre-Columbian America. The Book of Mormon clearly states that the Hebrews who came to America wrote in Egyptian. Is there a single stone, scrap of papyrus or other inscription that has been found to back this up in North America?

Here I will make a slight aside. Joseph Smith also claimed to have translated, from the Egyptian (again with magical translators) a document called the Book of Abraham. In this case, the original document Smith claimed to have translated, an Egyptian papyrus with hieroglyphics, is still in existence. Naturally, his followers had to take his word for what it said. But modern Egyptologists (remember, people could could not read Egyptian hieroglyphics until decades after the Rosetta Stone was found) have read it and confirmed that while it is indeed a genuine Egyptian document, it has nothing at all to do with what Joseph Smith claimed it said. There is no mention of Abraham.

Where did Smith even get this artifact? My guess is that he could have bought it fairly easily. In the mid-1800s, Europeans and others were extensively rifling Egyptian antiquities, and there were papyri and even mummies available.

Finally, here is the smoking gun that proves that the Book of Mormon is a fake. In the Book of Mormon, Second Nephi, Chapters 12 to 24 are an exact recopying of Chapters 2 to 14 of the Book of Isaiah out of the King James Bible. Now, that does not prove it is a fake by itself. If Nephi and the other Hebrews came to America in 600 BCE and since Isaiah wrote prior to 600 BCE, it is possible these migrating Hebrews could have had a copy of Isaiah with them.

Besides, the book of Mormon clearly admits in its notes that Chapters 12 to 24 of 2 Nephi are to be compared to Chapters 2 to 14 of Isaiah.

But here is where Joseph Smith’s lies are exposed. The King James version of Isaiah is of course a translation. And over the years, Christian translators have added and slightly changed meanings in the original. For example, the Hebrew scriptures do NOT say “A virgin shall conceive and bear a son”. It says “A **young girl ** has conceived (i.e., she was already pregnant at the time the prophet was writing) and shall bear a son.” But Christians retranslated it to try and fit it with their tradition of the Virgin Birth.

Then there are the “glossings”. Before the invention of printing, one person could write something into a hand-written bible and the next person to copy it would incorporate it as if it were part of the original text. Many of these glossings were added during the Christian era, especially after monks started extensively copying bibles by hand. Scholars who compare Hebrew Scriptures used by Jews today and the King James version of these scriptures can identify what was added by Christians in Europe.

Now, if Nephi was copying those chapters directly from the Book of Isaiah that he brought with him to America in 600 BCE, and if the whole Book of Mormon was subsequently buried in the Hill Cumorah in New York State from 420 CE to 1827 CE, how could the various glossings and inaccuracies added by Christians in Europe, between 300 CE and the invention of printing, show up in the translation Joseph Smith did of the writings of Nephi? :smack:

Ladies and gentlemen, may I present the smoking gun!

[lowbrass]

@Malacandra

Wrong Ark. Noah built the floating zoo. Moses built the Nazi-killer.

Yeah, I got a good laugh when I noticed my typo today.

Noah :smack: Noah :smack: Noah :smack: Noah :smack: Noah :smack:

[lowbrass]

@Valteron

Now, if Nephi was copying those chapters directly from the Book of Isaiah that he brought with him to America in 600 BCE, and if the whole Book of Mormon was subsequently buried in the Hill Cumorah in New York State from 420 CE to 1827 CE, how could the various glossings and inaccuracies added by Christians in Europe, between 300 CE and the invention of printing, show up in the translation Joseph Smith did of the writings of Nephi? :smack:

Ladies and gentlemen, may I present the smoking gun!

How is that any more damning than the fact that some of the gospels, which are held by many Christians to be independent accounts of the resurrection of Christ, have sections that contain almost the exact same text?

You people are clearly applying a different standard to the BofM than you do to the Bible.

[tomndebb]

@lowbrass

You people are clearly applying a different standard to the BofM than you do to the Bible.

You might want to hold off on your judgment, here. I am pretty sure that Valteron places no more credence in the Gospels than in the BoM; he was simply noting that there appears to be more solid evidence against the BoM then even the Gospels (for which many people note no support).

[OneCentStamp]

@lowbrass

You people are clearly applying a different standard to the BofM than you do to the Bible.

It may appear that way, but believe me, in Valteron’s bottomless well of contempt for holy scripture, there is more than enough to go around. Equal opportunity cynic, he is.

[lowbrass]

@ambushed

And that view is quite unjustifiable. Personally, I don’t find any religions believable, but there is zero doubt that some religions are “more” believable than others.

Just saying there is “zero doubt” is not proof. I have provided a counter-example for every example you gave. There are entire websites devoted to pointing out unbelievable things in the Bible. And we haven’t even touched Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism. Much far-out stuff in all of those, too.

No, they don’t. Certainly not “many”, at least. Some people today unjustifiably interpret them as empirical, but it just ain’t so. For them to have been empirical claims, the authors would have had to have been scientifically | experimentally | observationally | verificationally minded, and that, they most certainly weren’t. But Smith and Co. were. The Bible’s authors weren’t knowingly making falsifiable and thus empirical claims. They were creating supernatural, cultural mythos.

This makes no sense. The claims in the Bible are most definitely empirical. The stories in the new testament are purported to be directly or indirectly from eyewitness accounts. ALL Christians believe that Jesus did things that are scientifically impossible, and that others witnessed these events. You are applying a different standard to the 2 religions: If you are going to fault Mormons for taking the BofM literally, you must also fault Christians for taking the Bible literally.

No, they didn’t. That’s a modern and highly dubious interpretation. Only fundamentalists and literalists and those of such modern ilk foolishly believe that these were anything but knowing myths. The Bible does not pretend to be reportage. The BoM does.

This is ridiculous. You point out something that’s unbelievable in the BofM, and then I point out something that’s equally unbelievable in the Bible, and you simply wave it off by saying there’s an “interpretation” that’s contrary to what’s written. Your bias against Mormons is causing you to apply a different standard to their religion than you apply to any other religion.

Revelation is by far most obviously the very opposite of reportage or empirical claims. Most biblical scholars, modern and ancient, have held that that book should not even have been included in the canon. Consider it not.

Preposterous. The Bible is held by every Christian denomination that I am aware of to be the word of God. I have never heard any church official say that Revelation is not part of the Bible. You are mistaken.

Sheesh. What part of “creation myth” don’t you understand? Are you really so naive as to think the authors of such things imagined they were reporting literal history?

Are you really so naive as to think Smith was reporting literal history? What do my beliefs have to do with anything?

There’s just nothing like it in the Bible, certainly not Noah’s Ark. The vast majority of the questionable portions of the Bible are unfalsifiable, while the vast majority of the questionable portions of the BoM are falsifiable. That’s a huge difference.

Noah’s Ark is eminently falsifiable. Creation is falsifyable. Exodus is falsifiable. And even then, unfalsifiable is not equivalent to believable.

Please do. It’s fun. None of those amounted to the kind of empirical claims in the BoM.

Says you.

This may be a bit subtle, but not even the most recent biblical authors had even a clue about reportage. They just didn’t think that way.

And yet Christians believe what’s written in the Bible. Your argument seems to be “Yeah, the Bible is unbelievable too, but they didn’t really mean it.” That’s a weak argument.

One of the biggest errors you keep making involves your apparent dismissal of the fact that Mormonism takes all of the Bible’s impossibilities and implausibilities and adds vastly more of them!

Apparently you missed when I already said: “So they have three unbelievable books instead of two, what’s your point?”

By your reasoning, Judaism is superior to Christianity because they only have one unbelievable book instead of two. Quite a silly argument, wouldn’t you say?

No, no, no. That’s just my point. The Bible makes many “religious” (i.e., unfalsifiable) claims, but the Mormon scriptures make vastly more empirical, scientific (i.e., falsifiable) claims.

You’re simply labeling claims as “scientific” so that you can dismiss them. There is nothing written in the Bible that says the claims are not empirical.

These are not equivalent to the claims of other religions!

::: sigh :::

I’ll repeat: that is a result of empirically, scientifically minded moderns looking backwards to a time long past when no one made scientifically empirical claims, and foolishly re-casting the Bible in modern clothes that just don’t fit. What matters is whether or not the authors were making empirical claims, not whether we moderns can interpret (misinterpret, rather) what they wrote that way.

You can sigh all you want, but your claim that Christians do not take the Bible literally, while Mormons do take the Book of Mormon literally, is simply untrue. You and I believe that the claims both in the Bible and in the BoM are highly dubious. That is not the point. The point is whether people believe in them.

The subtlety involved is apparently lost on you. Mormonism is indeed unique to those with more nuanced vision.

And, being unable to win the argument, you resort to insults.

You lose. Good bye.

[lowbrass]

@tomndebb

You might want to hold off on your judgment, here. I am pretty sure that Valteron places no more credence in the Gospels than in the BoM; he was simply noting that there appears to be more solid evidence against the BoM then even the Gospels (for which many people note no support).

I said “you people”, meaning the ones who are singling out the Mormon religion. They know who they are. I happily exclude Valteron if he is not one of those.

[Valteron]

@lowbrass

I said “you people”, meaning the ones who are singling out the Mormon religion. They know who they are. I happily exclude Valteron if he is not one of those.

You see lowbrass, if you will go to the OP you will note that it asks a question and establishes a debate about the BofM and the nonsensical beliefs espoused by the LDS in general.

If you want to start a thread debating whether ANY religion is believable, please do so. It is free, you know .

I have just pointed out that Mormonism is based on the claim of a known American hoaxter, Joseph Smith, who claimed to have discovered golden plates recording a pre-Columbian civilization of Hebrews who came to Ameica in 600 BCE, later became Christians, had a Christian civilization in North America for four hundred years, and then were wiped out.

This flies in the face of every single bit of acheological evidence we have about pre-Columbian America. The book even contains references to horses, for example, which certainly did not exist in the Americas in 600 BCE. It also contains references to houses built of cement. As any archeologist will tell you, none of the pre-Columbian peoples of the Americas had cement. I could go on and on, but I will spare you.

Look, when it comes to beliefs, there is stupid and there is stupider.

You may not believe that Jesus changed water into wine, or arose from the dead, but most people admit that there was a Roman Empire, a province called Judea, and that there could well have been a rabbi named Joshua or something like that who was crucified by the Romans.

But the BofM is clearly the creation of Joseph Smith and I fail to see how anyone could seriously believe that it is a translation of an ancient manuscript he found in the ground.

However, if you would like to talk about religion in general, I would like to start a new debate thread, and I think I will. Namely, does religion get a free ride from the public and the media? Does religion enjoy a sort of “benefit of clergy” that demands we must show “respect for the faith of others” (lower your head and close your eyes) when any other beliefs as preposterous as those of religion would be laughed out of town?

I would love to see a debate about that.

[lowbrass]

Well, Valteron, if you will read my posts, you will see that I questioned why Mormons should be singled out, when other religions have equally preposterous beliefs.

You may not believe that Jesus changed water into wine, or arose from the dead, but most people admit that there was a Roman Empire, a province called Judea,

I’m not sure what you think that proves. There is also a continent called America, which I believe is referred to in the BofM. It is a real place. Does that prove the veracity of the book? Heavens no.

Your point seems to be that there are more “real” places referred to in the Bible than in the BofM. Does that make it more believable? No. In the Star Trek series, Star Fleet Academy is in San Francisco, which is a real place. That doesn’t mean the story is true.

and that there could well have been a rabbi named Joshua or something like that who was crucified by the Romans.

Maybe - there’s no evidence that there was, and it’s obvious from any objective examination of the evidence that there’s no indication that if there was a Jesus, that he said or did any of the things attributed to him in the Bible.

I just don’t see the point of this nitpicking about which religion is more unbelievable. Neither is believeable.

[Valteron]

@tomndebb

Actually, you seem to be displaying your own personal anntagonism to me, here, rather than describing any attitude that I have demonstrated.

The reference to “kid” was directly based on the manner of posting demonstrated by the OP. Nearly every submission by a new member that sets out to “disprove” anything from atheism to evolution to particular religious denominations to general religious belief is posted by fairly young posters. (It often is a sign that a young person has recently discovered a new “truth” in their life or has recently discovered that other people do not hold all the same values as they do. There is nothing wrong with young people stretching their brains to deal with these new thoughts, but we should be aware of that aspect of their posting, so that we do not get inordinately upset by the errors they make.) In this case, the targets have been general religious belief and the CoJCoLDs. On other occasions, it has been a “failure” to believe in God.

Since I have never spoken against atheists as a group, (although I have defended them), your claim is simply more unsubstantiated personal malice. I do not bear any disrespect toward atheists (although there are a few individual atrheists whom I find silly–just as I find silly those religious people who tend to make grand declarations about anyone who disagrees with their beliefs.

Maturity has nothing to do with the particular belief one holds–only with the way in which one chooses to express it.

Do you have any actual evidence of the age of the OP, Tomndeb, and of his alleged immaturtity? Can you say “patronizing” boys and girls? Can you say “Tomndeb uses condescension as a weapon, while pretending to be the impartial moderator?”

That’s very good!

[Valteron]

Tomndeb’s condescending contention that the OP must be a kid because he actively attacks the illogical beliefs of religion with vigour and spirit (instead of adopting some namby-pamby line about respecting everyone’s faith, no matter how ridiculous) left me wondering about AS’s other posts.

I note that in another post, when asked why he just does not grin and bear the foolishness of religion, he replies with a line that I consider excellent:

“When we refuse to attack the truth of unjustified beliefs that we call “harmless” it leaves us in no position to attack the truth of unjustified beliefs that we do call “harmful.” We put ourselves in the position of attacking the consequences of unjustified beliefs not the truth of the beliefs.”

If he is just a kid as Tomndeb sneeringly allleges, think what a great slayer of ignorance and superstition he will be when he gets older!

[Valteron]

@lowbrass

Well, Valteron, if you will read my posts, you will see that I questioned why Mormons should be singled out, when other religions have equally preposterous beliefs.
I just don’t see the point of this nitpicking about which religion is more unbelievable. Neither is believeable.

All I am saying is that this thread is about the rediculous and impoossible beliefs of Mormons. If you want to start a thread about how ALL religions are nonsense, go ahead. And I will back you.

[Bippy_the_Beardless]

@OneCentStamp

:smack: :smack:

Eight submarines. The Jaredites traveled in eight submarines. Sixteen was the number of magic stones they used to light the interiors of the boats.

Reading this, I fail to see how anyone is saying that all Christian religions are equally unbeleivable.

It would be easy to say that someone beleiving in flat earth is more foolish than someone beleiving in cold fusion.

From the above statement it would seem someone beleiving in the LDS creed (as fact) is more foolish than someone who beleives the Episcapalean view of the biblical texts.

I rank Babylonian submarines as just slightly more beleivable than space lord Xenu’s space fairing DC-8s, but only by a whisker.

Though the creation and many stories in the Christian bible are unbelievable, and many are completely falsifyable. It is clear that they were reasonable theories 2000 years ago. So their existance in religious books in those days makes perfect sense. Proposing bronze age submarines a century and a half ago is rediculous in a time when mechanical science was fairly well understood.

[Sam_Stone]

@Valteron

Now, if Nephi was copying those chapters directly from the Book of Isaiah that he brought with him to America in 600 BCE, and if the whole Book of Mormon was subsequently buried in the Hill Cumorah in New York State from 420 CE to 1827 CE, how could the various glossings and inaccuracies added by Christians in Europe, between 300 CE and the invention of printing, show up in the translation Joseph Smith did of the writings of Nephi?

Ladies and gentlemen, may I present the smoking gun!

You think that’s going to stop someone from believing? And yet you think it’s more ‘rational’ to believe in a bible that denies the existence of dinosaurs and claims there was a worldwide flood - a flood which the inhabitants of China apparently didn’t notice? And for which there is no geological evidence? Or known mechanism for it to happen? Which violates everything we know about the geology and oceanography of the planet?

Here, let me solve your dilemma: “The Lord guided the hand of those who modified the bible, changing it as he saw fit. Since the Lord sees all and knows all, he modified the ancient Hebrew texts the Mormons used, to keep them compatible with the newer texts.”

Is that any less believable than God parting the Red Sea? Or raising Lazarus from the dead?

I think it’s a fool’s errand to attempt to show that one mystic belief is somehow more believable than another.

[tomndebb]

@Valteron

I note that in another post, when asked why he just does not grin and bear the foolishness of religion, he replies with a line that I consider excellent:

“When we refuse to attack the truth of unjustified beliefs that we call “harmless” it leaves us in no position to attack the truth of unjustified beliefs that we do call “harmful.” We put ourselves in the position of attacking the consequences of unjustified beliefs not the truth of the beliefs.”

And I will note that I have already responded to that “excellent” line by pointing out that persecuting people for their beliefs (the position he was actually advocating), particularly collateral beliefs that do not impinge on other people, instead of challenging their actions actually justifies the religious wars of the past. That you find such a silly declaration “excellent” makes its own statement.

[Valteron]

@Sam Stone

You think that’s going to stop someone from believing? And yet you think it’s more ‘rational’ to believe in a bible that denies the existence of dinosaurs and claims there was a worldwide flood - a flood which the inhabitants of China apparently didn’t notice? And for which there is no geological evidence? Or known mechanism for it to happen? Which violates everything we know about the geology and oceanography of the planet?

Here, let me solve your dilemma: “The Lord guided the hand of those who modified the bible, changing it as he saw fit. Since the Lord sees all and knows all, he modified the ancient Hebrew texts the Mormons used, to keep them compatible with the newer texts.”

Is that any less believable than God parting the Red Sea? Or raising Lazarus from the dead?

I think it’s a fool’s errand to attempt to show that one mystic belief is somehow more believable than another.

Sorry to shout, but someone out there must be deaf, so I will have to:

OF COURSE THE PARTING OF THE RED SEA AND NOAH’S ARK AND ALL THE REST ARE INCREDIBLY STUPID TWADDLE.

But you do realize that Mormons believe al the twaddle in the Bible as wll as the BofM. And right now WE ARE TALKING ABOUT MORMONS IN THIS THREAD!

What part of that last sentnce do you not understand?

[Valteron]

@tomndebb

And I will note that I have already responded to that “excellent” line by pointing out that persecuting people for their beliefs (the position he was actually advocating), particularly collateral beliefs that do not impinge on other people, instead of challenging their actions actually justifies the religious wars of the past. That you find such a silly declaration “excellent” makes its own statement.

Tomndeb, I was so confused by your reply above that I went back and read the whole thread and finally found your reference.

“We do not persecute people who may believe that the world would better with George Bush or all atheists killed. We prosecute people who attempt to kill presidents or atheists. Attacking people for their beliefs is just a fancy way to say that the 16th century Christians were correct to murder each other when their beliefs conflicted.”

But YOU, Tomndeb, are the one saying that AS wants to persecute individuals. What HE has said is that we should be less willing to respct irrational beliefs just because they are religious beliefs and therefore deserve some sort of “benefit of clergy.”

If someone tells me they believe that gems will cure them, but admits that they have no solid vidence to believe this, I will tell them that they are a fucking idiot. Why should I refrain from saying as much to religious blievers who brag to me that they have “faith”, which means the abiliy to ignore their human heritage of rational thought in favour of comforting fairy tales.

But to persecute, (i.e., torture, burn at the stake, etc.)? Sorry Tom, but I do not see where AS advocates that.

[rch427]

Hmm… I think I made a mistake above when I said I thought it might be the Seventh-Day Adventists who believe in salvation for all critters, too. I think now that it may be the JWs, instead.
[/QUOTE]

It’s def. not the SDAs. I was raised in that cult (sorry – “sect”), and my parents are both church leaders; the word from the top was that animals aren’t going to heaven. But then, neither am I, so who gives a f*ck?