North American Horses

[_malkie]

Taken as a whole, it seems most impossible that someone could have written such a long history without help from some sort of Higher Power.

Really??? I think a higher power could do a much better job than what you find in the Book of Mormon, which is poorly written and boring as hell. That's my opinion, anyway.

Some people think crop circles and the pyramids of Egypt were made by higher powers (aliens) because they figure humans couldn't have made them. Mormon apologists would have you follow similar logic to conclude that a higher power must have helped Joseph Smith.

Bigfoot
Loch Ness Monster
Bermuda Triangle
Astrology
Atlantis
Book of Mormon

There we go again! Can't Nessie get no respect hereabouts?

[_zeezrom]

Taken as a whole, it seems most impossible that someone could have written such a long history without help from some sort of Higher Power.

This is precisely why I think Homer's Odyssey must also be the word of God. But alas, nobody seems to agree with me. It's very sad, you know. All they have to do is read it, ponder the words, then pray to Athena about it with an open heart and mind. Is that really too much to ask?

[_Themis]

Don't forget that in this case, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. :)

It's natural law for pseudo scientists like you yes.

I know you won't admit this one as well since it has been explained to you multiple times, but I will provide a link for others who might have an open mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

[_bcspace]

It's natural law for pseudo scientists like you yes.

I know you won't admit this one as well since it has been explained to you multiple times, but I will provide a link for others who might have an open mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

"Indeed, scientists will often debate whether an experiment's result should be considered evidence of absence, or if it remains absence of evidence (e.g. the experiment could have missed what it was looking for)."

Amen.

[Guest]

"Indeed, scientists will often debate whether an experiment's result should be considered evidence of absence, or if it remains absence of evidence (e.g. the experiment could have missed what it was looking for)."

Amen.

I never said certain situations absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence, but then you misrepresent what is being said. It has nothing to do with things like the horse issue. In fact absence of evidence is the only way the scientific community can determine extinction or disappearance of a species, which with the horse happened thousands of years before Book of Mormon times. We see two avenues of evidence here. One being lack of remains being found after around 8-10k years ago, and even just as important a lack of horses being depicted in art or literature.

[_Nightlion]

Taken as a whole, it seems most impossible that someone could have written such a long history without help from some sort of Higher Power. So my question:

Thanks

I can assure you of what is most important about the Book of Mormon. It teaches the gospel of Jesus Christ better than any book ever written and that includes the Bible. The gospel of Jesus Christ is not realized by following Jesus as his disciples did for three years. It is not in going out on mission and preaching and performing miracles and having the devil obey you in demonstration of authority. After all that and after Christ rose from the dead he visited the Jews and taught them being seen of them for forty days. Before he left them he commanded them to continue and not depart from Jerusalem or disperse but to seek for the promise of the Father which is the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost.

The greatest witness of the Book of Mormon is that it teaches this principle perfectly time after time with such precision and depth of understanding by right of actual experience that it makes hypocrites of any and all who then go their own way and forget about it and fail to do as they have been well taught.

So, can you handle the truth? Huh? Or will you see it and deny it and fail to do according to that which is written and fall in with the fearful and unbelieving and end up here with you faith in you hat and your hat in your hand worried about nothing because you discovered its just a hoax?

[_Shulem]

Taken as a whole, it seems most impossible that someone could have written such a long history without help from some sort of Higher Power. So my question:

Thanks

I can assure you of what is most important about the Book of Mormon. It teaches the gospel of Jesus Christ better than any book ever written and that includes the Bible. The gospel of Jesus Christ is not realized by following Jesus as his disciples did for three years. It is not in going out on mission and preaching and performing miracles and having the devil obey you in demonstration of authority. After all that and after Christ rose from the dead he visited the Jews and taught them being seen of them for forty days. Before he left them he commanded them to continue and not depart from Jerusalem or disperse but to seek for the promise of the Father which is the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost.

The greatest witness of the Book of Mormon is that it teaches this principle perfectly time after time with such precision and depth of understanding by right of actual experience that it makes hypocrites of any and all who then go their own way and forget about it and fail to do as they have been well taught.

So, can you handle the truth? Huh? Or will you see it and deny it and fail to do according to that which is written and fall in with the fearful and unbelieving and end up here with you faith in you hat and your hat in your hand worried about nothing because you discovered its just a hoax?

The Book of Mormon is just more Christian blood cult doctrine penned by a man with a creative mind. It comes from the same source that made up the name SHULEM in Facsimile No. 3. And, just as there were no real horses in north America as the Book of Mormon says, there is no king's name in the writing of Facsimile No. 3 as Joe Smith said. Go figure. These are just two stories and are both false. Whether it be a horse or a king's name, Joe Smith made it all up. He wrote a nice story for people who need Christian blood to save their poor sorry souls that are simply overrun with feelings of guilt. Christian doctrine serves the guilty mind. It's like a drug.

Paul O

[_DarkHelmet]

I haven't bothered reading any posts yet but based on topics, it seems this site is for Mormon bashing. Anyway, I'm investigating the church by first reading the Book of Mormon and finding answers to things I don't understand. Taken as a whole, it seems most impossible that someone could have written such a long history without help from some sort of Higher Power. So my question:

The people who came to N. American from Jerusalem about 600BC found horses. Were horses here already, where they brought here, or ?

Thanks

Welcome to the board. This isn't a site for Mormon bashing. If pointing out absurdities in someone's claim is "bashing," then everyone is guilty of it.

The Book of Mormon may seem impressive, but it's not the most impressive book ever written, and it's been polished up over the past 180 years.

I wouldn't get caught up too much in one detail, like horses. The apologists think there is a plausible explanation (maybe tapirs were Nephite horses) and there will never be a resolution on it. The horse anachronism is just one of many problems with the Book of Mormon. If you look at the book as a whole, it just doesn't fit in with any ancient culture in the Americas. According to the Book of Mormon, everyone in the entire land was united as one and practicing christianity for hundreds of years, and building christian churches that dotted the land from sea to sea. To me, that's a bigger anachronism. But it is also just one of many issues. Then you have the Book of Abraham that just blows any credibility that Joseph smith might have had.

[_Chap]

I haven't bothered reading any posts yet but based on topics, it seems this site is for Mormon bashing. Anyway, I'm investigating the church by first reading the Book of Mormon and finding answers to things I don't understand. Taken as a whole, it seems most impossible that someone could have written such a long history without help from some sort of Higher Power. So my question:

The people who came to N. American from Jerusalem about 600BC found horses. Were horses here already, where they brought here, or ?

Thanks

Welcome to the board. This isn't a site for Mormon bashing. If pointing out absurdities in someone's claim is "bashing," then everyone is guilty of it.

The Book of Mormon may seem impressive, but it's not the most impressive book ever written, and it's been polished up over the past 180 years.

I wouldn't get caught up too much in one detail, like horses. The apologists think there is a plausible explanation (maybe tapirs were Nephite horses) and there will never be a resolution on it. The horse anachronism is just one of many problems with the Book of Mormon. If you look at the book as a whole, it just doesn't fit in with any ancient culture in the Americas. According to the Book of Mormon, everyone in the entire land was united as one and practicing christianity for hundreds of years, and building christian churches that dotted the land from sea to sea. To me, that's a bigger anachronism. But it is also just one of many issues. Then you have the Book of Abraham that just blows any credibility that Joseph smith might have had.

There is also the very strange way in which the theme of 'wickedness' is treated, particularly as we move towards the end of the Nephites as a nation.

Over and over again we are told that the Nephites lose battles because they are 'wicked', however hard they fight. But who wins these battles? The Lamanites, who are not exactly model Seminary students themselves.

And, frankly, a world in which the wicked always lose battles and the good win them because God helps is just not anything like the world we live in. It is clearly a fantasy.

[_Brackite]

Don't forget that in this case, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. :)

As LDS Researcher Ugo Perego once stated:

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Link: http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/B ... d_DNA.html

I like DNA LDS Researcher Ugo Perego, but I don't exactly agree with that statement that he made.