zeezrom wrote:Why is it that you only hear the phrase, "Oh, this topic again? [eye roll]" coming folks defending Mormon claims?
I wonder, if Simon et al posted a bunch on topics like "Why I love the Plan of Happiness" etc, if critics around here would start saying, "Oh brother, not this topic again.. [eye roll]".
?
Not only that, but MAD posters were quite fond of the phrase "asked and answered".
I have found very few of the problems have been "answered". Addressed, yes. But answered?? Not even close.
The woefully pathetic attempts to address the difficult issues by the apologists were FAR more damaging to my testimony than the problems themselves.
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
The faith side of me kicks in and asks what is the origin of Deutero Isaiah? Is it not possible that the Deutero Isaiah portion is an edited version of what Isaiah had written previously? Thus, it was included as part of Isaiah--even claiming to be written by Isaiah. Of course something would have to come along to suggest that happened, at least more than that we know it is part of Isaiah and claims to be written by him. But for now, we can't actually say this proves the Book of Mormon faudulent. Its just another piece of evidence to throw in the pile against the Book of Mormon authenticity claims.
Taken in the balance of all evidence I have no problem with people claiming the evidence points more to the Book of Mormon being a 19th century production than a far more ancient one. That is not some concession on my part that there is no evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon being from ancient origin, though--possibilities abound.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
stemelbow wrote:The faith side of me kicks in and asks what is the origin of Deutero Isaiah? Is it not possible that the Deutero Isaiah portion is an edited version of what Isaiah had written previously? Thus, it was included as part of Isaiah--even claiming to be written by Isaiah. Of course something would have to come along to suggest that happened, at least more than that we know it is part of Isaiah and claims to be written by him. But for now, we can't actually say this proves the Book of Mormon faudulent. Its just another piece of evidence to throw in the pile against the Book of Mormon authenticity claims.
Taken in the balance of all evidence I have no problem with people claiming the evidence points more to the Book of Mormon being a 19th century production than a far more ancient one. That is not some concession on my part that there is no evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon being from ancient origin, though--possibilities abound.
There is no evidence for the ad hoc scenario you're claiming. And yes, it does prove the Book of Mormon fraudulent.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
zeezrom wrote:Why is it that you only hear the phrase, "Oh, this topic again? [eye roll]" coming folks defending Mormon claims?
Seriously? I hear all sorts of people saying this type of thing. Just the other day I read something about how the AG of Utah is pursuing the anti-trust case against the BCS. Many of the comments on that were "oh, this topic again?" type of things. Also, I've seen the same type of attitude when I've attempted to offer different ideas in response to criticisms--oh this thing again. It definitely extends beyond Mormonism and it definitely has gone both ways.
I wonder, if Simon et al posted a bunch on topics like "Why I love the Plan of Happiness" etc, if critics around here would start saying, "Oh brother, not this topic again.. [eye roll]".
?
Of course it happens. I've been part of evangelical boards for years, posting, commenting, developing relationships, trying to understand. I can't tell you how many times this type of thing occurred. So much so, rules were implemented to get LDS to stop doing that. I can see where Simon is ocming from.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Buffalo wrote:There is no evidence for the ad hoc scenario you're claiming. And yes, it does prove the Book of Mormon fraudulent.
Well I'll just have to agree to disagree on this, then. It is quite possible that the Brass plates included much of the information in Duetero Isaiah and we not be able to detect it all. If Isaiah's previous writings were supplanted by an edited version known to us as Duetero Isaiah, then how would we know? I get that is far easier to assume that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century production because we can't prove otherwise. But that doesn't mean its proven fraudulent.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
stemelbow wrote:Seriously? I hear all sorts of people saying this type of thing. Just the other day I read something about how the AG of Utah is pursuing the anti-trust case against the BCS. Many of the comments on that were "oh, this topic again?" type of things. Also, I've seen the same type of attitude when I've attempted to offer different ideas in response to criticisms--oh this thing again. It definitely extends beyond Mormonism and it definitely has gone both ways.
Of course it happens. I've been part of evangelical boards for years, posting, commenting, developing relationships, trying to understand. I can't tell you how many times this type of thing occurred. So much so, rules were implemented to get LDS to stop doing that. I can see where Simon is ocming from.
[smile] I'm not talking about anti-trust cases or EV board discussions. I'm talking about Mormon discussions on boards like this.
Oh for shame, how the mortals put the blame on us gods, for they say evils come from us, but it is they, rather, who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given... Zeus (1178 BC)
Buffalo wrote:There is no evidence for the ad hoc scenario you're claiming. And yes, it does prove the Book of Mormon fraudulent.
Well I'll just have to agree to disagree on this, then. It is quite possible that the Brass plates included much of the information in Duetero Isaiah and we not be able to detect it all. If Isaiah's previous writings were supplanted by an edited version known to us as Duetero Isaiah, then how would we know? I get that is far easier to assume that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century production because we can't prove otherwise. But that doesn't mean its proven fraudulent.
It is quite possible that invisible leprechauns are controlling your thoughts. But, much like your defense above, there is no evidence to that effect. Show me some evidence. Otherwise, the Book of Mormon remains proven fraudulent.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Buffalo wrote:It is quite possible that invisible leprechauns are controlling your thoughts. But, much like your defense above, there is no evidence to that effect. Show me some evidence. Otherwise, the Book of Mormon remains proven fraudulent.
I'm not sure what to say, Buffalo, but of course I have something to say because I'm stem. You have concluded fraudulent based on this one issue? I doubt it. Do you want to turn this into a discussion of weighing the evidence for and against? I've already said something on that in this thread. Doing so very well could lead one to conclude fraudulent moreso, and more often, than authentically ancient. I simply don't think proof for either conclusion is all that conclusive. Its just weighing evidence and drawing personal conclusions.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Buffalo wrote:It is quite possible that invisible leprechauns are controlling your thoughts. But, much like your defense above, there is no evidence to that effect. Show me some evidence. Otherwise, the Book of Mormon remains proven fraudulent.
I'm not sure what to say, Buffalo, but of course I have something to say because I'm stem. You have concluded fraudulent based on this one issue? I doubt it. Do you want to turn this into a discussion of weighing the evidence for and against? I've already said something on that in this thread. Doing so very well could lead one to conclude fraudulent moreso, and more often, than authentically ancient. I simply don't think proof for either conclusion is all that conclusive. Its just weighing evidence and drawing personal conclusions.
I'm saying this one issue is enough to prove the Book of Mormon fraudulent. You can hypothesize apologetic explanations to your heart's content, but they have no weight without evidence.
The fact of the matter is that Deutero Isaiah could not have been on the brass plates. It's an anachronism. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it. If you'd like to discuss other issues, that's fine too. But without evidence you can't effectively defend the Book of Mormon against the Deutero Isaiah issue.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Buffalo wrote:I'm saying this one issue is enough to prove the Book of Mormon fraudulent.
As I said, I disagree with you. It seems we're at an impasse. Time to agree to disagree. Of course, I also don't doubt that we each are understanding what it means to prove something differently, but that's the heart of our disagreement, I guess. I'm not too eager to quibble about what it means.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.