Vorkosigan

Probably most of the people on this board have read Edmund Cohen's "The Mind of the Bible Believer".

No. It just went on my list...

In his list of the 7 components of the evangelical mind-control system (loaded phrase, I know, it grates on me),

Why? That is what fundamentalism is about...

Mike

I don't know why ya'll get so personal when you don't know what else to say.

Ex-preacher: re: C of C. You may be right, I shouldn't have brought it up. Irrelevant. Sorry. One point for you. re: How to get to the moon. I already told you, but I get the feeling you don't want to go.

Kind Bud: Do what you want, but you're right, I won't play that game. One point for you.

Thomas: re: omniscience/omnipotence. You're right, an all knowing God cannot be still learning. One point for you. However, the power to learn may be termed a possible power, but the power to learn infinitely does not exist and therefore is not a possible power. Thus to be omnipotent, God would only have had to learned at one time, but not to be continually learning. Implication: godliness may not equal omnipotence, or omniscience, as implied by Peter's admonition to add to your patience, godliness, and to godliness, brotherly kindness. So just as Christ said (ye are gods), one can apparently be a god and still be learning. But according to the bible, this God has already arrived at perfection and is just trying to help us get where he is.

Mr. Darwin: Take Genesis however you want, I was just trying to show that the view of God I was suggesting had support from the bible. Should the whole bible be taken literally? I don't know. One point for you.

Daemon: re: Adam's mortality. I guess you can't really tell from the bible. I shouldn't have brought it up. One point for you.

Ex-preacher: For evidence about the existence of God read "The Science of God" you should be able to find it at Barnes and Noble. I was going to share a few points, but what's the point? Not even the whole book will convince you. Evidence is there, but it's always open to interpretation. Is the existence of the automobile evidence that we have progressed as a species, or evidence that we've gotten lazy and frantic at the same time? It's open to debate. One point for you.

For evidence re: the Mormon church read "1000 Evidences for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" for this one you may have to search an LDS book store. But ditto for the same qualifications cited in the preceding paragraph, plus (as suggested) this probably isn't the place for discussing Mormonism. But I should warn you, some pretty vehement critics of Mormonism have found themselves in the waters of baptism after hearing some of the evidences, others refuse to read it. Nevertheless, one more point for you.

Play on players.

[ August 17, 2002: Message edited by: Mike ]

[ August 17, 2002: Message edited by: Mike ]</p>

Autonemesis

Then can you consider in general the question of what is the value of spiritual knowledge that it is forbidden to discuss? Just trying to earn another point.

I read that some time ago, to no effect but some neck cramps from falling asleep on the sofa. Which of the 1000 reasons is the one you would have thought would be the "ringers", the ones that would convince the most skeptical and critical? I'd like to know what you think is a irrefutable reason to convert.

Thomas Metcalf

Yet I am not asking that God be able to learn infinitely. That is, "to learn infinitely" is not an action with which I'm concerned here. "To learn" is a possible power that God lacks, whether or not He has "to learn infinitely."

Then it sounds as if you deny the notion that God is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient?

Mike

Kind,

I'm wondering what you read long ago, the second 500 evidences (volume 2) only recently came available. I'll give a few evidences that the Book of Mormon is what it is claimed to be (since you asked nicely). The Book of Mormon was published as you know in the early 1800's by a farm boy who along with most of the rest of the world knew nothing of ancient America, Egypt, or the Middle East. The story is of a people who came from the Middle East, of Hebrew origin, to America long before Christ was born. Rather than write in Hebrew, however, they were claimed to have written in an Egyptian "shorthand" called reformed Egyptian. Although Joseph could have had no secular knowledge of these things he claimed to translate an ancient record by the power of God. If he was a fraud, the Book of Mormon should have little or no resemblance to ancient America or the Middle East. However, the authenticity of the original reformed Egyptian characters said to be copied by the plates as well as the information contained in the Book of Mormon continues to be authenticated by modern scholars and archeologists. A few examples:

A non-mormon Arabic scholar was asked to translate the English Book of Mormon into Arabic. When he heard the story of a young farm boy translating the book into English from an ancient Middle Eastern language he thought it would be a mess. When he started translating, his first words were "holy smoke!" The book not only contained Middle Eastern grammer, it contained Middle Eastern metaphor as well. He was baptised.

Other evidences:

A scholarly interpretation of some of the so called reformed Egyptian characters copied from the gold plates (long mocked as meaningless scribblings) correspond with a portion of the Book of Ether in the Book of Mormon.

Many ancient Hebrew symbolisms and literary devices, unknown in 1830 America, have been discovered within the Book of Mormon.

A tribe of Native Americans called themselves "Lamani." (The Book of Mormon calls the anscestors of the Native Americans, "lamanites.")

The teachings of Zenos in the Book of Mormon are identical to those of Zenez in the Dead Sea Scrolls (discovered long after the Book of Mormon was published).

Ancient American histories tell of a migration from a great tower by people whose language was not confounded (Jaredites in the Book of Mormon).

Middle Eastern histories tell of the families of [Ja]Rud and his brother whose language was not confounded.

A stone carving discovered in Mexico reveals 40 correlations with Lehi's dream of the Tree of Life.

A cave near Jerusalem is known as "the cave of the family of Lehi." Archaeologists date inscriptions on the wall of the cave to around 600 B.C. (the date the Book of Mormon claims Lehi left Jerusalem and headed for America).

The city of Nahom, the location of which is described in the Book of Mormon, has been rediscovered in modern times.

An Aztec codex shows ancient American knowledge of temple ceremonies.

A city of "Nefee" was built in Arabia, by followers of "Lehee" who, according to Islamic history, passed through that land in 600 B.C. (the Book of Mormon claims that Lehi and his son Nephi passed through Arabia in 600 B.C.).

Do you want me to keep going?

On "secret" (or more accurately "sacred") knowledge: You are not accountable for something you don't know. Just as we don't share knowledge of nuclear power with just anyone, until they can be trusted to use it responsibly, God doesn't give certain information unless you demonstrate that you can use it responsibly. He would rather you be ignorant than have you destroy yourself with something your not big enough to handle yet. Unfortunately, some people insist on destroying themselves anyway.

Thomas,

On omniscience: Christ said "ye are gods." Were the people to whom he was speaking omniscient? No. Is God our Father omniscient? Yes. We can haggle over definitions forever, but the fact is God has learned all there is to learn and he can do anything within the realm of the possible. Does he have power to learn? He has the same power to read and think, hear and speak that he always has. A dormant power is still a power. Stored energy is still energy. The idea that someone has learned everything is a silly reason not to belief in them anymore.

A working definition of the Judeo-Christian God is "Father." Thus a working definition of godliness is "fatherliness." Our earthly fatherhood is a temporary state, if we do well, God offers us the opportunity at permanent fatherhood. Thus Mormons teach that "families can be forever." My relationship with my children, temporary so far, can continue if I meet the qualifications of a good father (God's qualifications).

[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: Mike ]</p>

Thomas Metcalf

But learning is within the realm of the possible...

Not if this thing in question is purportedly omnipotent. God does not have the power to learn; He could learn if He removed His omnipotence, but that's like saying God could learn if He were not God.

[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Metcalf ]</p>

Autonemesis

And it shows, despite the most concerted efforts by Mormon apologists to ignore that fact. It was published in 1830, by the way - an important date, as you will soon see.

No samples of such writing exist anywhere.

This is exactly the case. Just for one small example, none of the native american animals are mentioned in the BOM (lynx, alpaca, etc.). But elephants, camels and other animals not known in the Americas are mentioned. Basic stuff like this is more than enough to refute any claims to the BOM's accuracy. It was, in fact, a titanic fraud, and not because JS was a genius. PT Barnum told us all we need to know to explain how this poor farmboy did what he did.

Well duh! If it was translated into Hewbrew, it'd have Hebrew grammar. If it was translated into Spanish, it'd have Spanish grammar. If it was translated into German, it'd have German grammar. Oh look - all those translations exist, and they have the grammar appropriate to the language into which the BOM was translated. Imagine that!

I also find the claim that a native Arabic speaker would exclaim "Holy smoke!" under any circumstances to be dubious in the extreme. But since you probably cut/pasted that passage uncritically, I won't hold you responsible for the gaffe.

Furthermore, no descendents of indigenous American people are genetically related to the descendents of the ancient Hebrews. They are related to Mongols from central Asia. This genetic evidence is as solid as it comes and definitively puts to rest any claim of Semitic origins for native American peoples. The BOM is bunk.

The rest of your claims about BOM are refuted handily by this: <a href="http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/voh/voh_main.shtml" target="_blank">A View of the Hebrews</a>. This book was published by Ethan Smith, a pastor in Poultney, VT, in 1823, and a 2nd edition was published in 1825. It was quite popular. It was intended to summarize what was known about this idea that the American natives had a Semitic origin, which came into popular consciousness around 1815. It is as inconceivable that JS was ignorant of this work as it is inconceivable that my nephew (soon to go on a mission) is unaware of Brittney Spears. Oliver Cowdery even attended Ethan Smith's church!

Not really, as there is no material there that has not already been covered and thoroughly debunked elsewhere. I can get specific references if you wish, though I doubt you'd follow up. You didn't convert because of these "facts" anyway. So I don't know why you think they'd convert me or anyone else who is completely satisfied with the simple explanation: JS plagiarized A View of the Hebrews, and called it the Book of Mormon. PT Barnum explained the rest.

Then Heavenly Father is just as abominable as the traditional Christian idea of God. Whose great idea was it to entrust this "dangerous" knowledge to fallible humans in the first place? HF's, that's who. And what good is this knowledge in the first place, if HF still has to use some other criteria to determine who gets to enter the Celestial Kingdom? If I know the signs and tokens from a website, and Mormon cosmology actually turns out to be descriptive of reality, then I can show them and gain entry to the CK, even though I have not received the endowments in a temple.

Or not. In which case, if HF is using some other means to determine who is worthy to enter, then knowing the signs is useless, and keeping them secret (and at such cost!) is rather pointless.

Never mind the claim that these rituals are the same as the rites performed in the temple at Jerusalem in Solomon's time, yet they were changed in 1990 to remove the bloodier parts and the ridiculing of Protestants that made many new converts quite uneasy when it was time for them to take their endowments. Can't have new converts defecting at the very moment they receive the holiest of holies, now can we?

RogerLeeCooke

"A non-mormon Arabic scholar was asked to translate the English Book of Mormon into Arabic. When he heard the story of a young farm boy translating the book into English from an ancient Middle Eastern language he thought it would be a mess. When he started translating, his first words were "holy smoke!" The book not only contained Middle Eastern grammer, it contained Middle Eastern metaphor as well. He was baptised."

May we know his name? Which prominent Arab scholars have endorsed his claims about the book? Why aren't Arab Muslims converting to LDS en masse?

Mike

Kind Bud wrote:
"No samples of such writing exist anywhere."

Actually, they do. Martin Harris persuaded Joseph to copy some characters in order to show a Professor Charles Anthon. Those characters have since been authenticated and their meaning been shown to correspond with passages in the Book of Ether, as I said. They have also been shown to be remarkably similar to middle-eastern characters and many similar characters have shown up at an archaeological find in Mexico.

Kind Bud wrote:

"Just for one small example, none of the native american animals are mentioned in the BOM (lynx, alpaca, etc.). But elephants, camels and other animals not known in the Americas are mentioned. Basic stuff like this is more than enough to refute any claims to the BOM's accuracy. It was, in fact, a titanic fraud, and not because JS was a genius. PT Barnum told us all we need to know to explain how this poor farmboy did what he did."

Camels are not mentioned in the Book of Mormon in connection with America. Elephants and horses are mentioned, however, and while critics used to use the argument you mentioned, those who are informed are now silent on the topic, because evidence has been found of both elephants and horses in ancient America. The absence of the lynx and alpaca in the book are irrelevant--must all existing animals be mentioned for the book to be authentic?


Kind Bud wrote:

"Well duh! If it was translated into Hewbrew, it'd have Hebrew grammar. If it was translated into Spanish, it'd have Spanish grammar. If it was translated into German, it'd have German grammar. Oh look - all those translations exist, and they have the grammar appropriate to the language into which the BOM was translated. Imagine that!"

The English text contained Semitic grammar and metaphor already, prior to translation into Arabic.

Kind Bud wrote:

"I also find the claim that a native Arabic speaker would exclaim "Holy smoke!" under any circumstances to be dubious in the extreme. But since you probably cut/pasted that passage uncritically, I won't hold you responsible for the gaffe."

I personally heard him tell the story, but believe what you want about what he said or didn't say. Unfortunately, I didn't tape record it.

Kind Bud wrote:

"Furthermore, no descendents of indigenous American people are genetically related to the descendents of the ancient Hebrews. They are related to Mongols from central Asia. This genetic evidence is as solid as it comes and definitively puts to rest any claim of Semitic origins for native American peoples. The BOM is bunk."

NO descendents? So what you are saying is that all Native American tribes from the tip of South America to Alaska have been genetically tested? Even if that were the case it would prove nothing. A (non-mormon) Native American professor at my university once said that the idea that Native Americans crossed from America to Asia is just as plausible as the idea that they came the other way. And he liked that idea better. In any case, the Book of Mormon states that there was a mixture of people here, Jaredites, who's ethnicity is not stated, Nephites, who were from the tribe of Joseph, and Mulekites, who came from Judah. Plus, the Book of Mormon never claimed that those who's story the book tells were the only people to come to America. By the way (on a not entirely related note) did you know a tribe in Africa has genetically been found to be Semitic in origin?

Kind Bud wrote:

"The rest of your claims about BOM are refuted handily by this: A View of the Hebrews. This book was published by Ethan Smith, a pastor in Poultney, VT, in 1823, and a 2nd edition was published in 1825. It was quite popular. It was intended to summarize what was known about this idea that the American natives had a Semitic origin, which came into popular consciousness around 1815. It is as inconceivable that JS was ignorant of this work as it is inconceivable that my nephew (soon to go on a mission) is unaware of Brittney Spears. Oliver Cowdery even attended Ethan Smith's church!"

Sorry. No one who has read both the Book of Mormon and "A View of the Hebrews" can seriously claim that the latter can explain the former. It especially cannot explain the evidences in my previous post. Your own description of the date it was published proves this point. A book that was published in 1823 cannot explain why a book that was published in 1830 makes reference to specific information that was not discovered elsewhere until the 1900's. The existence of the idea that Native Americans were Semitic cannot explain why evidence of Lehi, and Nephi, Zenos, and Jared, was subsequently found in middle-eastern regions through which these men purportedly traveled. Nor can it explain the hundreds of other similar evidences you haven't even read yet.


Kind Bud wrote:

"...there is no material there that has not already been covered and thoroughly debunked elsewhere. I can get specific references if you wish, though I doubt you'd follow up. You didn't convert because of these "facts" anyway. So I don't know why you think they'd convert me or anyone else who is completely satisfied with the simple explanation: JS plagiarized A View of the Hebrews, and called it the Book of Mormon. PT Barnum explained the rest."

Not only is this a false claim, but you are greatly underestimating the rigor of Mormon scholarship. For the perspective of two evangelical scholars (who are in fact opposed to Mormonism) on the strength of Mormon scholarship, and the weakness of the evangelical response so far, see:

<a href="http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/cpoint10-2.html" target="_blank">http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/cpoint10-2.html</a>

These scholars review a few of the sources of these evidences as well as some of the attempts at debunking them, and conclude that evangelical scholars need to do a much better job of trying to refute the claims of Mormonism.

re: the temple

The temple is only the beginning of the knowledge being offered to children of God who are expected to gain all that their Father has. Nothing less than being like our Father will get us where he is. And only Christ can give it to us. But he only gives if we ask, and only gives more if we properly use what we have been given. What you do with what you have determines whether you are offered more--or less.


Roger,

His name is Dr. Sami Hanna. He left his native Egypt in 1955 to come to the states as a Fulbright Scholar. He spent a year at Urbana in Illinois, then was invited to join the faculty at the University of Utah by his former professor from Egypt, Dr. Assiz Atiya. His department chair warned him to stay away from the dreadful Mormon people living in Utah, but he came anyway. After finding out for himself that we weren't so bad, he offered his services as a translator. His conversion, however, was not only due to the evidences in the Book of Mormon, but to receiving his own spiritual witness from God (as Kind Bud said, conversion is not simply a matter of "facts," nevertheless, the facts remain). I don't know how many people of Arabic descent are joining the church. There are usually about 300,000 convert baptisms per year, but missionaries aren't actively proselytizing in Arabic countries at the moment for obvious reasons. Although someone on this thread implied that most of our converts are uneducated South Americans (the people who's story the Book of Mormon purports to tell, and who should be best qualified to determine if it represents their history), the church is growing all over the world. In the early years, most of the converts were from Europe and Canada, and if you question their emphasis on education, just take a look at the Universities they founded in and around Utah after they arrived (University of Utah, no longer affiliated with the church, claims to be the oldest University west of the Missouri, I believe). Notably, the church is also growing quite strongly in Japan, and even the U.S. is struggling to keep up with Japan's educational standards. Also, the president of the church just recently organized a fund that will allow for the college education of converts from South America. This is not a Church that is afraid of education.

[ August 20, 2002: Message edited by: Mike ]</p>

Autonemesis

By whom, and published where? Can you provide a link to a scan of these tracings made by Harris? Can you provide a link to a photo of the "similar characters" from Mexico so I may compare?

The BOM mentions the following animals: ass, goat, calf, cattle, bull, cow, horse, sow, swine, sheep, ox, and the elephant. Furthemore the BOM shows the Lamanites and Nephites having domesticated sheep, goats, horses, cattle, and pigs. But there is no evidence that pre-Columbian cultures domesticated any of these animals. Instead, alpacas, llamas, and turkeys were kept by these people, and they left plenty of evidence to show it, not the least of which are exquisite alpaca wool garments found on and with the thousands of mummies, and of course bones. Lots of bones.

Contrary to your protestation, the elephant simply did not exist in the Americas at the time period claimed to be coverd by the BOM (circa 2500 BC). The mastodon is unlikely to have been seen at that time, since it has been extinct for 11,000 years.

And I haven't even begun with the plant life and crops that were grown in the pre-Columbian Americas. Coca, maize, tobacco, potatoes, squash, tomatoes... none of these crops are mentioned. But wheat and barley cultivation was allegedly in full swing in pre-Columbian America according to the BOM, despite it not having yet been invented in the old world at that early date!

English text with Semitic grammar? That is nonsense on its face. I am still amazed that you advance this idea with any seriousness.

That's right, none have been found.

Exactly. You get no help from genetic studies, that is my point. This new technology promises to deepen our understanding of human migration in prehistory by an order of magnitude, and it appears so far to be strongly excluding migration from the east by Semitic people. One would expect that something - a hint, a taste, anything - would have been found by now in the results that we have at this date. But there's nothing. The picture is of migration from the west, not the east. Unless that changes, there's no help for your case from genetic studies, only hurt.

I like key lime pie, but that didn't make a slice appear in front of me. There is sparse and dubious support for a migration from the east. There is much more credible support for migration from the west.

Out of Africa, back into Africa - doesn't sound implausible. Has nothing to do with Semites in the Americas. Did you also know that some new, tentative research suggests that an even earlier migration to the Americas may have come from Polynesia? Alas, there is precious little support for a migration from the east at the time periods claimed, and many reasons to doubt the poor showing of what meager scraps are presented, when weighed against the rest of the massive body of evidence of pre-Columbian Americas that contradicts it.

I don't need to explain the minor differences, I only need to point out the overwhelming similarities to explain the whole thing much more convicingly than you. Plagiarism motivated by piety is a theme played time and time again throughout the centuries. It's as well supported as any other documentation of pious frauds and better documented than many of that century. It's parsimonious, it requires no divine intervention, no supernatural events, and if that explanation fails, then malevolence or frivolity (or something like it) are next. All the other much better explanations have to fail before we get to yours. You think we can consider Mormon archaeological claims in a vacuum, with no connection to the claimed theological significance of those theories? You don't consider the evidence that way, why should a skeptic? The fact of the matter is that if I were to convince you of the error of Mormon theology and deconvert you, you would drop the archaeological claims and so would all the other pro-LDS researchers if they were deconverted. You adhere to those claims not because of the reliability, quantity or significance of the research, but for other reasons. Am I right?

I'll have plenty of time to catch up on that in the Telestial (yeah, that's it) Kingdom, if you'll permit your servant to rest from time to time, O exalted one. You realize of course that this archaeological discussion, while it might be fascinating as a SciFi Channel special, is exceedingly irrelevant to the Existence of God theme (I saved the thread!). You must first overcome the extraordinary incredibility of Mormon cosmology and the Plan of Salvation before the archaeological stuff can avoid becoming boring after a few paragraphs.

And you are prematurely invoking its relevance. But thank you for the links, I will check it out. I also thought that many evangelical critiques were lacking. Although that's hardly surprising in restrospect, of course. They can't even coherently defend their own faith, no reason to expect they'd mount a very well-constructed attack on someone else's.

Why do you want to get there? That's the question that deconverted me. Why would I want to be like HF? Why would I want to create a world and arrange for the first two people born - err, made - to fall from grace and pass on inherited sin to their descendants, which stain has to be removed by sacrificing my son - but not really because he's immortal like everyone else - and then arrange for the people born afterwards to carry the story on, but imperfectly, so that later the Plan of Salvation gets all distorted and I have to reveal it all over again to another guy, along with some extra ceremonies like baptizing dead people and wearing magic underwear, all so these new people (souls) that I have created just like my HF did me, can also go on to do the same thing and be just like their HF, and on and on and on (cue: "If You Could Hie To Kolob")? Can you explain to me why any sane person would want to be part of this scheme, if it was for real?

I acknowledge that the church does value scholarship and has other virtues that recommend it over some alternatives (if one was a church goin' type). But you guys are almost like pod people. Really, it creeps me out a little sometimes.

[ August 20, 2002: Message edited by: Kind Bud ]</p>