Do they know it's not true?

[_Runtu]

JAK, that got to be just too much. Let me explain something to you. No religious claim has to be proven with the kind of evidence you demand.

I am sure you have heard of faith. All religious claims are based on faith. Even though the individual known as Jesus has been documented to have actually existed, there can be no proof such as you claim that He is the Son of God, that He atoned for the sins of mankind. That takes faith.

If you want to demand transparent, etc. proof, you are lookin in the wrong place.

No, not all religious claims are based on faith. Mormonism makes several verifiable non-faith-related claims that I can think of that can and ought to be tested:

-A Hebraic culture flourished in Pre-Columbian America for a thousand years.
-This culture had metallurgy, a written language based on Egyptian, Christian religious practices, horses and chariots, domesticated animals and crops.
-An Egyptian funerary scroll was actually a holograph written by Abraham.
-

[_charity]

No, not all religious claims are based on faith. Mormonism makes several verifiable non-faith-related claims that I can think of that can and ought to be tested:

-A Hebraic culture flourished in Pre-Columbian America for a thousand years.
-This culture had metallurgy, a written language based on Egyptian, Christian religious practices, horses and chariots, domesticated animals and crops.
-An Egyptian funerary scroll was actually a holograph written by Abraham.
-

You have a few errors here.

Hebraic Culture issues:

What is a Hebraic culture brought by some 30 people onto a continent with a totally different climate, flora and fauna, and an indigenous population?

Suppose you transplanted a plains Indian tribe, 30 people, to Norway. How long do you think their plains Indian culture would survive?

Culture questions:

All your culture questions have problems. What were the new fauna named by the new colonists? What are the translation issues with dealing with metals? Chariots? Horses? Christian practices as defined by whom? Wearing suits and ties to a meeting in a brick building? How widespread ws the writing? Among the general population? It seems they were mostly read to, and the records kept sacred and not on public display.

Egyptian funerary scroll.

I guess you don't take into account that a copy would say the same thing? I was taping a TV show when the announcement came over the TV that Mt. St. Helens had erupted. Now, when I play that video, it very plainly says that the eruption is happening RIGHT NOW.

[_JAK]

JAK, that got to be just too much. Let me explain something to you. No religious claim has to be proven with the kind of evidence you demand.

I am sure you have heard of faith. All religious claims are based on faith. Even though the individual known as Jesus has been documented to have actually existed, there can be no proof such as you claim that He is the Son of God, that He atoned for the sins of mankind. That takes faith.

If you want to demand transparent, etc. proof, you are lookin in the wrong place.

Contradictions: Book Mormon & Bible.

Contradictions 1

Contradictions 2 & Plagiarism

Contradictions 3

Contradictions 4

Contradictions 5

Contradiction 6

Contradiction 7 Internal Book of Mormon

A one-word change in the introduction to a 2006 edition of the Book of Mormon has reignited discussion among some Latter-day Saints about the book's historicity, geography and the descendants of those chronicled within its pages.

The book is considered scripture by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and many lifelong members grew up believing that American Indians are direct descendants of ancient people in the book called Lamanites, who the book says built a civilization in the Americas between about 600 B.C. and 400 A.D.

Past LDS Church leaders, particularly former church President Spencer W. Kimball, have made such statements, which have been supported by the introduction page in the Book of Mormon. Past editions of that page say all of the people chronicled in the book "were destroyed, except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians." The new introduction reads much the same but says the Lamanites "are among the ancestors of the American Indians."

The last one is clearly a doctrinal shift in claims. Doctrinal shifts are common in the evolution of religious certainties when evidence dissembles.

JAK

[_Runtu]

You have a few errors here.

Hebraic Culture issues:

What is a Hebraic culture brought by some 30 people onto a continent with a totally different climate, flora and fauna, and an indigenous population?

Suppose you transplanted a plains Indian tribe, 30 people, to Norway. How long do you think their plains Indian culture would survive?

Well, if as the Book of Mormon claims, the transplanted culture became politically, economically, and socially dominant (as in Nephites assumed political leadership roles), wouldn't you expect that the culture and technology of that dominant class might rub off in a tiny way on the Norwegians?

Think about the Norman Invasion in 1066. Though numerically inferior, the Normans became the dominant ruling class. Celtic cultures gave way to Franco-Norman religion, language, and culture. Why would we expect the Nephites to have behaved differently? Right, because they left no trace of ever being in Mesoamerica.

Culture questions:

All your culture questions have problems. What were the new fauna named by the new colonists?

What new fauna? The Jaredites brought their crops with them.

What are the translation issues with dealing with metals?

Considering that no metallurgy is known in Mesoamerica until the Postclassic Maya period, it doesn't matter what they were called. Nothing was smelted, whatever metal it was. It doesn't help that Joseph Smith names several types of metals: steel, copper, brass, iron. None of it was smelted.

Chariots? Horses?

Chariots and horses are associated with conveying the king from place to place. No such conveyance, much less pulled by any horselike animal, was in use in those times. Huge anachronism.

Christian practices as defined by whom? Wearing suits and ties to a meeting in a brick building?

The Book of Mormon described in great detail the practices of these pre-Christians, down to the words spoken in the baptismal rituals. But no trace of such practices exists. I hope the second question was a joke, because otherwise it makes no sense.

How widespread ws the writing? Among the general population? It seems they were mostly read to, and the records kept sacred and not on public display.

Even if we accept this narrow delimiting of written language, why is there no trace of the religious records?

Egyptian funerary scroll.

I guess you don't take into account that a copy would say the same thing? I was taping a TV show when the announcement came over the TV that Mt. St. Helens had erupted. Now, when I play that video, it very plainly says that the eruption is happening RIGHT NOW.

It doesn't matter. The iconography in the papyrus is of a much later date than Abraham. It is anachronistic, and so is the text that was "translated." It would be like grabbing a Chinese menu from Brooklyn and insisting that it's an ancient record of Attila the Hun.

[_JAK]

JAK, that got to be just too much. Let me explain something to you. No religious claim has to be proven with the kind of evidence you demand.

I am sure you have heard of faith. All religious claims are based on faith. Even though the individual known as Jesus has been documented to have actually existed, there can be no proof such as you claim that He is the Son of God, that He atoned for the sins of mankind. That takes faith.

If you want to demand transparent, etc. proof, you are lookin in the wrong place.

No Charity,

Let’s see you respond to the issues and challenge before you.

Charity states:
No religious claim has to be proven with the kind of evidence you demand.

JAK:
Religious claims are unreliable as they lack evidence of the kind that science requires. Your computer is not working because of faith. There are superior reasons that it works or the planes you fly in do fly to your destination.

Faith is irrelevant.

Charity states:
All religious claims are based on faith.

JAK:
I’m skeptical of that claim. However, it’s further reason to reject religious claims or view them with great skepticism.

Ancient myths are unsuitable for critical, clear, transparent evidence for all to see. Prophets are a farce and a charade.

If any given religious myth had accountability, reliability, and could demonstrate that, there would be only that religious myth. We know that is not the case. And in knowing that, we can be freed from the paralyzing strangle which religious myth imposes on the mind.

Charity states:
Even though the individual known as Jesus has been documented to have actually existed, there can be no proof such as you claim that He is the Son of God, that He atoned for the sins of mankind.

No, the biblical character with the words scripted to that character has not been documented to have existed. No one took notes. There were no recordings. Jesus wrote nothing which has been documented. Hence your conclusion using the word “documented” is incorrect. Jesus of the scripted Bible has not been documented.

There were many about whom supernatural claim was made in an era of ignorance where story-telling sufficed for historical account. Historians can document that.

Religious mythologies simply pile assertion upon assertion, upon still other assertions. Reliability fails in religious myths claiming to be historical.

You have made a variety of claims on this forum as if you were talking about fact. You are not talking about fact. And you deny fact unless it suits your religious myth to entertain it and purport it.

When you make claims of fact, you have the burden of proof wherever you make those claims. The more extraordinary the claims, the more extraordinary is the evidence or the proof..

Truth by assertion is no truth.

JAK

[_BishopRic]

It doesn't matter. The iconography in the papyrus is of a much later date than Abraham. It is anachronistic, and so is the text that was "translated." It would be like grabbing a Chinese menu from Brooklyn and insisting that it's an ancient record of Attila the Hun.

Love this!

[_charity]

Well, if as the Book of Mormon claims, the transplanted culture became politically, economically, and socially dominant (as in Nephites assumed political leadership roles), wouldn't you expect that the culture and technology of that dominant class might rub off in a tiny way on the Norwegians?

Think about the Norman Invasion in 1066. Though numerically inferior, the Normans became the dominant ruling class. Celtic cultures gave way to Franco-Norman religion, language, and culture. Why would we expect the Nephites to have behaved differently? Right, because they left no trace of ever being in Mesoamerica.

30 Normans and the Battle of Hastings. Interesting concept. But seriously, think about the differences. Whent he Normans became the dominant ruling class it was because they won the battle. They also had constant contact with the "mother culture." Here is this little band of Israelites who are completely cut off from their "mother culture." I think that makes a very different situation.

Culture questions:

All your culture questions have problems. What were the new fauna named by the new colonists?

What new fauna? The Jaredites brought their crops with them.

When the got here there were plants growing! Not everything you bring from somewhere else thrives in a different climate! This is rather basic agriculture.

What are the translation issues with dealing with metals?

Considering that no metallurgy is known in Mesoamerica until the Postclassic Maya period, it doesn't matter what they were called. Nothing was smelted, whatever metal it was. It doesn't help that Joseph Smith names several types of metals: steel, copper, brass, iron. None of it was smelted.

There is that pesky word, yet. The jury is still out, unless, of course, you believe that everything that can be found has already been found.

Chariots? Horses?

Chariots and horses are associated with conveying the king from place to place. No such conveyance, much less pulled by any horselike animal, was in use in those times. Huge anachronism.

Chariots could have been palanquins. Horses? You mean like the ones the Aztecs talked about? The deer? While Nephi had probably seen horses in the Old World, none of those born in the New World had. So a creature that did what horses do could be called a horse.

Christian practices as defined by whom? Wearing suits and ties to a meeting in a brick building?

The Book of Mormon described in great detail the practices of these pre-Christians, down to the words spoken in the baptismal rituals. But no trace of such practices exists. I hope the second question was a joke, because otherwise it makes no sense.

Great detail? King Benjamin called them together to hear a sermon. There was a building with a high "throne." Baptizing in ponds doesn't leave any kind of trace.

How widespread ws the writing? Among the general population? It seems they were mostly read to, and the records kept sacred and not on public display.

Even if we accept this narrow delimiting of written language, why is there no trace of the religious records?

They are still hidden? The gold ones were melted down? The others disintegrated in the humid climate?
Remember, when you ask why evidence doesn't exist, you have to speculate.

Egyptian funerary scroll.

I guess you don't take into account that a copy would say the same thing? I was taping a TV show when the announcement came over the TV that Mt. St. Helens had erupted. Now, when I play that video, it very plainly says that the eruption is happening RIGHT NOW.

It doesn't matter. The iconography in the papyrus is of a much later date than Abraham. It is anachronistic, and so is the text that was "translated." It would be like grabbing a Chinese menu from Brooklyn and insisting that it's an ancient record of Attila the Hun.

I don't agree, but you can argue that.

[_JAK]

Charity states to Runtu:

I guess you don't take into account that a copy would say the same thing? I was taping a TV show when the announcement came over the TV that Mt. St. Helens had erupted. Now, when I play that video, it very plainly says that the eruption is happening RIGHT NOW.

This is a fine example of how faith based conclusions are unreliable.

But in this case, you know a little science. You know when you recorded a TV show. You understand what a TV show is and how it appears at a programmed place in a TV schedule. You also know that NEWS breaks in on a regularly scheduled program if the importance of that news story supersedes the program content.

In this example, you are understanding. You know that you’re watching a tape. (Science)

As for a written copy, the example I gave at the end of “Contradictions: Book Mormon & Bible” demonstrates how a one word change in a version of a story changes entirely the claim of the story.

You should be able to comprehend the principle of doctrinal shift in religious myths.

JAK

[_Mary]

Just out of interest. The British Isles have seen a variety of cultures come in right from the end of the last ice ages. I don't think that there is any group that havn't left some evidence of their existence. Whether it be the Beaker People, the early cave dwellers, (Kents Caverns), the Celts, the Scots, the Romans, the Angles, the Saxons, the Jutes, the Vikings, the Normans.....all left significant evidence.

When I asked 25 years ago where the evidence was for the Nephites and Lamanites I was told that it had all been destroyed in earthquakes. What's changed?
Is there 'any' significant 'evidence' of 'any' kind, anywhere in the Americas that suggests that the events as told in the Book of Mormon really happened.

Anything? Anyone?

If there is... I'm all ears.

Mary

Edited to add links to a fantastic project going on in the UK at the moment that takes human occupation back further than it's ever gone before....

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/ahob/ ... index.html

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/ahob/ ... dex_2.html

[_Bond...James Bond]

JAK, I started to respond comment by comment, until I saw I was having to repeat myself. All of your arguments demosntrate a terrible lack of critical thinking and skepticism which you demand. You are just handling out the trash found on most anti-Mormon websites.

Well, except for one hilarious exception.

[color=#A0522D]JAK:
Your attempt at truth by assertion fails here. You’re misinformed.
The Book of Mormon is largely plagiarism.
Read the sources I link for you. I’ll not copy all the material.

You obviously didn't even read your own link, just read the word "plagarism" in a google search, and slipped it into yhour post. If you had read it you would know that the piece by Jeff Lindsay pokes fun at those people who look for work and phrase similarities as evidence of plagiarism. He "proves" in this article that the Book of Mormon was plagiarized from "Leaves of Grass" by Walt Whitman. Except for some of those pesky little facts. Whitman was about 10 years old when the Book of Mormon was published. He didn't even start writing "Leaves of Grass" until about 1850, and it wasn't published until 1855.

I think I don't need to address any more of your claims of plagiarism.

Bumping for JAK.

Hoping he'll admit that he screwed up in his posting of a Jeff Lindsay (apologist) link about Book of Mormon plagarism.