The Interpreter is sticking with Tapirs. Chariots aren't chariots and more.

[Shulem]

For the life of me where is Brian?

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that Brian is a coward -- he came here to throw a rock and then run -- like the chicken boy he is. He knows this board is backed with apostate superpower in which the apologists cannot deal. We are more than capable of taking on their silly arguments and overpower their Holy Ghost. The Spirit of Mormonism is a beast which we can easily manage and put down.

Discuss Mormonism sets the bar. The group intelligence herein and ability of this board is beyond their ability to cope. We rule the roost and they lose.

The buck stops right here, at Discuss Mormonism.

[drumdude]

Great points, Lynn. As I’ve stated on my blog several time, I have no problem, hypothetically, with the Book of Mormon taking place in the American Midwest; I just find the historical, archaeological, and anthropological evidence to be so meager that I can’t take that proposal seriously until better research presents itself.

Mike Parker has to be a troll. There’s no way this guy is serious.

To state the obvious: there’s no evidence the Book of Mormon happened anywhere…

[Philo Sofee]

Great points, Lynn. As I’ve stated on my blog several time, I have no problem, hypothetically, with the Book of Mormon taking place in the American Midwest; I just find the historical, archaeological, and anthropological evidence to be so meager that I can’t take that proposal seriously until better research presents itself.

Mike Parker has to be a troll. There’s no way this guy is serious.

To state the obvious: there’s no evidence the Book of Mormon happened anywhere…

Oh you left em a testimony building opening. They can now say it is in Joseph Smith's head, and that is not nowhere, therfore since they refuted your assertion, the Book of Mormon now can be seen in the new light of truth. Way to go Drumdude, we are all gonna hafta start going back to church now because of your falsehood against the sacred scripture. Mopes win it all here... dang it man.....

[drumdude]

Mike Parker has to be a troll. There’s no way this guy is serious.

To state the obvious: there’s no evidence the Book of Mormon happened anywhere…

Oh you left em a testimony building opening. They can now say it is in Joseph Smith's head, and that is not nowhere, therfore since they refuted your assertion, the Book of Mormon now can be seen in the new light of truth. Way to go Drumdude, we are all gonna hafta start going back to church now because of your falsehood against the sacred scripture. Mopes win it all here... dang it man.....

Calling my bishop now to schedule my rebaptism!

[Res Ipsa]

Mike Parker has to be a troll. There’s no way this guy is serious.

To state the obvious: there’s no evidence the Book of Mormon happened anywhere…

Oh you left em a testimony building opening. They can now say it is in Joseph Smith's head, and that is not nowhere, therfore since they refuted your assertion, the Book of Mormon now can be seen in the new light of truth. Way to go Drumdude, we are all gonna hafta start going back to church now because of your falsehood against the sacred scripture. Mopes win it all here... dang it man.....

[Shulem]

And thus, how can any of the words of the Book of Mormon be taken at face value today if some of them don't mean what they obviously and have for centuries denoted?

This is a problem apologists never seem to answer. If words in the Book of Mormon mean something different than how 19th century people used them or how we use them today, why the confusion? Why would a supposed supreme being like the Mormon god allow this confusion? Is he a bad communicator? When he is at dinner with his harem, if he asks to pass the butter, did he really mean pass the bread?

BYP, are you still there?

Joseph Smith used "chariots" in the Book of Mormon in the same sense as he used them in the Doctrine and Covenants and did so by pretending to speak directly for God:

I, the Lord, am willing, if any among you desire to ride upon horses, or upon mules, or in chariots, he shall receive this blessing, if he receive it from the hand of the Lord, with a thankful heart in all things.

So how on God's green earth do you ride in chariots unless they are supported by wheels and pulled by horses or mules (asses)?

What do you think of those apples, Brian Hales? You see, this board is into accuracy and we know how to spot deception and apologetic tricks! You won't get anything past us. Bring all the apologists here to this board and we will destroy their arguments. I hope that Doctor Scratch is deliciously pleased with how this thread has turned out.

[Shulem]

Chariots with wheels are not described in the Book of Mormon.

Chariots with wheels are not described in the Doctrine and Covenants either!

I, the Lord, am willing, if any among you desire to ride upon horses, or upon mules, or in chariots, he shall receive this blessing, if he receive it from the hand of the Lord, with a thankful heart in all things.

But chariots always have wheels, right Brian?

Duhh.

[Shulem]

So assuming Lamoni’s "chariots" had wheels may not be justified.

Do you ASSume the same for Joseph Smith's chariots in the D&C, Brian?

I, the Lord, am willing, if any among you desire to ride upon horses, or upon mules, or in chariots, he shall receive this blessing, if he receive it from the hand of the Lord, with a thankful heart in all things.

...wheels may not be justified

[Shulem]

Wheels would assist in moving but are not implicit in the definitions.

Oh really, are you so sure of that, Brian? What did Nephi have to say when he quoted Isaiah? Are not wheels and horses inseparable?

Whose arrows shall be sharp, and all their bows bent, and their horses’ hoofs shall be counted like flint, and their wheels like a whirlwind, their roaring like a lion.

Thus we see that horses & wheels go together when describing the action of a chariot!

[Nimrod]

What do you think of those apples, Brian Hales? You see, this board is into accuracy and we know how to spot deception and apologetic tricks!

I like that you use the word accuracy rather than the amorphous, slippery and subjective term: "truth."