DiscussMormonism.com

KevinSim wrote:

just me wrote:What would make an entire people "lazy, filthy and loathsome?" What does that look like and mean?

What would that look like and mean? At the risk of repeating myself, the United States of America.

Okay, so the Lamanites were like modern Americans. What were the righteous Nephites like? What was the difference?

The Book of Mormon is really terrible Bible fanfiction.

KevinSim wrote:

Chap wrote:People like that don't live without leaving a trace of their very distinctive and large-scale culture, which would have been extremely different from the pre-modern cultures of the Americas known to archaeologists.

And you know that, how?

We know that because the only way that a civilization as extensive and large as that described in the Book of Mormon could have left so little or no evidence of its existence is if some very determined entity or group deliberately went to an incredible amount of effort to systematically and even miraculously remove and destroy every trace of that civilization they could possibly find. Apparently you would rather believe that God would have miraculously removed or permitted the removable of all traces of Nephite or Jaredite civilizations, in order to test our faith, than give even the slightest credence to the overwhelming evidence that the Book of Mormon is a merely a 19th century work of religious fiction.

I uncompromisingly reject the idiotic suggestion that a wise and benevolent God would play such a juvenile game as expect us to believe something, and then test our faith by deliberately withhold or destroying confirming evidence of what he exhorts us to believe.

The numbers in the Book of Mormon have been inflated by the author for a heightened reader experience. The several hundred thousand mentioned in the last battle at cumorah was actually 2 men, 1 woman, 2.5 children, and a herd of Chilean llamas.

SteelHead wrote:The numbers in the Book of Mormon have been inflated by the author for a heightened reader experience. The several hundred thousand mentioned in the last battle at cumorah was actually 2 men, 1 woman, 2.5 children, and a herd of Chilean llamas.

That hypothesis has as much evidential support as the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

I like to combine Russell's Teapot with Sagan's "Dragon in my Garage" when I want to defend anything for which there is no evidence, like the Book of Mormon. Such discussions turn into beautiful battles pitting master swordsmen against each other. You might say that there is no archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon. Then I counter that we haven't turned over every stone that North and Central America has to offer. Then you attack with Capa Ferro by stating that steel, horses, chariots etc are anachronistic for the time period of the Book of Mormon. Then I block with Thibault by saything that evidence of Nephite civilizations certainly does exist but could be invisible.

KevinSim wrote:And I would say that we don't. As of five years ago we didn't even have evidence for every currently living civilization in the Americas, considering the discovery a couple of years ago of a tribe of Native Americans in Brazil that were displaced by some of the efforts to settle the Amazon rain forest. Until they left their previous homes in search of refuge, nobody knew they even existed. Bazooka, are you saying that we can know with certainty that that tribe was the last group of Native Americans that the world will ever discover?

So the Book of Mormon is now just a small tribe?

Kevin do you understand how absence of evidence can be evidence of absence? Ignoring for now the evidences we have that the Book of Mormon is fiction.

sock puppet wrote:Do you prefer the Bible to the Book of Mormon, or vice versa?

I know I already responded to this, but I couldn't help adding something more. In the Book of Mormon the entire Jaredite civilization gets wiped out, presumably including the infants and babies, but the Book of Mormon's version of God never commands people to kill infants and babies. On the other hand, the Bible's version of God does command the prophet Samuel to command King Saul to kill the entire Amalekite race, and explicitly includes the infants and babies. So yes, I do prefer the Book of Mormon.

QuestionEverything wrote:Kevin seems to be a nice enough guy, and seems to mean well, but it is impossible to take him from point A to point B in a rational, logical sequence.

QuestionEverything, how have you come to the conclusion that it is impossible to take me "from point A to point B in a rational, logical sequence"?

QuestionEverything wrote:In fact, in that thread he basically rejects the need for the Scientific Method, or evidence of any kind, to justify his claims. He seems to feel that they are basically self-validating.

Are you talking about my claim that if one approaches God (without confirmation bias, ready to base the whole rest of that one's life on whatever answer God provides) and asks God a question, that that one can count on God giving that one a kernel of truth s/he can use as a foundation for that one's own personal theology? And if so, you're saying that I "seem to feel that" that claim is "basically self-validating"? If so, how did I give you that impression? I never meant to imply that that claim was self-validating.

QuestionEverything wrote:Kevin seems content with his beliefs, and unless he starts to ask himself the same questions that enabled many of us to "break the spell," there doesn't seem to be any way others will be able to trigger this process.

QuestionEverything, you say you want me to question everything, and yet when I question the assertions that you have made, like whether one needs "the Scientific Method, or evidence of any kind, to justify the" mentioned claim, suddenly that makes me someone a rational person can not discuss things with. So are you saying I should question everything except the things that you assert? If not, then why does one need the Scientific Method or evidence of any kind to justify the mentioned claim?

And regardless of your answer to any of those questions, what are the mentioned "same questions that enabled many of" you to "break the spell"? I have no aversion to asking questions.

KevinSim wrote:

sock puppet wrote:Do you prefer the Bible to the Book of Mormon, or vice versa?

I know I already responded to this, but I couldn't help adding something more. In the Book of Mormon the entire Jaredite civilization gets wiped out, presumably including the infants and babies, but the Book of Mormon's version of God never commands people to kill infants and babies. On the other hand, the Bible's version of God does command the prophet Samuel to command King Saul to kill the entire Amalekite race, and explicitly includes the infants and babies. So yes, I do prefer the Book of Mormon.

Hold the bus!!! Isn't it supposed to be the same god in both books?

In which case the Book of Mormon's version of God did command people to kill infants and babies - in the Bible, of course.

When I lived in Scotland, before I joined the church, I used to drink beer.

I now live in Canada, so the Canadian malkie never drank beer, right?