Still want to fight about the intro?

[_Infymus]

The article has nothing new. Sorensen and Gee, spouting off at the mouth again about how much evidence they've found, and how all those other naïve archaeologists just can't see the writing on the wall.

Peggy Stack isn't jack s*** when it comes to reporting. Watered down, censored information, ass kisser to the LDS Corporation. Ever since the LDS Corporation got their grimy hands into the Tribune, people like Peggy have come out of the woodwork with nothing new.

There is NO evidence for the Book of Mormon. Not one bit. FARMS or Maxwell or whatever they want to call themselves now, have to continually create and change things to keep people believing. Scientific evidence showing there were NO Lamanites??? Ok, change the the doctrine to make it easier to hide. What no archaeological evidence of the Book of Mormon? Ok, change to the "Limited Geography Theory". What no evidence of massive battles for the Hill Cumorah? Ok, change the location, or the "Multiple Hill Cumorahs" theory.

Mormon Apologetics : Contradict, counteract, suppress, withhold and dismiss any claims made by persons outside the LDS Church (read: Anti-Mormon). Do it by discrediting authors, creating answers to Mormon and Anti-Mormon questions (such as horses in the Book of Mormon were really tapirs) and dismissing any Anti-Mormon claims in any way possible.

I love how Charity points at some stupid article written by PFS, waves it in our faces as if it makes it all work out. It doesn't matter than we have over 150 years of Mormon leaders and Mormon doctrine that contradict the whole thing.

THERES NOTHING TO SEE HERE, MOVE ALONG, MOVE ALONG, PAY, PRAY, OBEY...

You know what Charity? You are not even an half-assed apologist. All you ever do is take what apologist write and wave it in the face of everyone. You base your whole belief that it's all true on the writings of those whose sole job is to keep people believing. I've never once seen you take any piece of Anti-Mormon work and start to try and dissasemble it, and debate it out with any of us. Instead, you're simply happy to never really read anything or produce anything of substance.

Get back to church before I tell your bishop you're breaking your temple covenants by mingling with so-called apostates.

[_charity]

I've never once seen you take any piece of Anti-Mormon work and start to try and dissasemble it, and debate it out with any of us. Instead, you're simply happy to never really read anything or produce anything of substance.

Get back to church before I tell your bishop you're breaking your temple covenants by mingling with so-called apostates.

I haven't seen anything that requires dissembling yet. It has all been dissembled. You are living in a world with little pieces of anti-Mormonism lying at your feet. I guess you like walking over shards of glass.

Oh, yes, I have a clear conscience talking to my bishop about hanging out here sometimes. The questions have to do with sympathizing with any such groups or individuals. In case you have missed it, I am certainly not a "sympathizer."

[_Trinity]

The first rule of historical criticism in dealing with the Book of Mormon or any other ancient text is, never oversimplify

Rich! Never oversimplify, that was Nibley's motto, wasn't it? Plain and simple truths, no way. Must baffle them with BS when the plain and simple truths contradict reality.

[_Infymus]

I haven't seen anything that requires dissembling yet. It has all been dissembled.

Ah yes, I forget which Apologetic rule that one is. Let me look it up.

AH YES! Here it is, rule #6.

#6 Apologists often respond to a challenge with the phrase, "that's been debunked countless times already."

Although it is true that Mormon apologists have been active nearly as long as Mormonism has existed, it does not follow that all their attempts to refute their critics have succeeded. I am unaware of any objection to Mormonism that hasn't been addressed to some degree, but at the same time I am aware of very, very few such objections that have ever been addressed competently or believably. Pro-Mormons almost universally fail to recognize that there is a huge difference between an "adequate refutation" and a "lame excuse"--and pro-Mormons produce far, far more of the latter than they do the former. For example, when an anti-Mormon brings up Joseph Smith's marital infidelities, LDS defenders often claim that Joseph Smith was sealed to his already-married plural wives for eternity only--to provide salvation for them--and not for "time." This excuse hardly counts as a "debunking" and is, of course, much closer to a "lame excuse," since these women could just as easily have been sealed for eternity to their legal husbands as to Smith.

Here is the full set:

1. All sources which are favorable to the LDS church are true. All sources which are unfavorable to the LDS church are false.
2. Anyone who disagrees--however slightly--with any aspect of Mormonism is automatically an anti-Mormon whose views can be dismissed out-of-hand.
3. Apologists are unable to distinguish between possibilities and probabilities.
4. If a scientist or anti-Mormon is wrong about one thing, it is safe to assume that he or she is wrong about everything.
5. Apologists routinely accuse critics of "telling us what we believe." They follow up by saying, "We are the authorities on what we believe, not the critics."
6. Apologists often respond to a challenge with the phrase, "that's been debunked countless times already."
7. All arguments are made in a vacuum.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

THERES NOTHING TO SEE HERE, MOVE ALONG, MOVE ALONG, PAY, PRAY, OBEY...

This guy is hilarious. I've seen this attitude before somewhere...from you. In this post.

[_harmony]

– Hugh Nibley, 1952 (found in CWHN, Vol. 5, pp. 251-252)

Just FYI, LOaP: Nibley was not a GA, and had absolutely no authority to declare doctrine or to set policy. Nibley held no keys that aren't held by countless other faceless men who never wrote a thing about the church. Nibley, In other words, was a nobody. Just like DCP is a nobody. Just like all FARMS and FAIR apologists are nobodies. They write their opinions, and their opinions are as worthwhile as anyone else's opinions. Hard as it may be for you to accept this, the plain truth is that Nibley had nothing of importance to say, no matter how many words he had in print.

Try again. And this at least find a prophet to support your argument.

[Guest]

Here is the full set:

1. All sources which are favorable to the LDS church are true. All sources which are unfavorable to the LDS church are false.
2. Anyone who disagrees--however slightly--with any aspect of Mormonism is automatically an anti-Mormon whose views can be dismissed out-of-hand.
3. Apologists are unable to distinguish between possibilities and probabilities.
4. If a scientist or anti-Mormon is wrong about one thing, it is safe to assume that he or she is wrong about everything.
5. Apologists routinely accuse critics of "telling us what we believe." They follow up by saying, "We are the authorities on what we believe, not the critics."
6. Apologists often respond to a challenge with the phrase, "that's been debunked countless times already."
7. All arguments are made in a vacuum.

Your shards of glass are clearly visible here.

1. All sources which are favorable to the LDS church are true. All sources which are unfavorable to the LDS church are false.

You actually mean the opposite. Whenever anyone who is LDS tries to examine the credibility of a source, anti-Mormons screeched "ad hominem." And yet whenever we offer a source, the anti-Mormons yell "liar, cheater, egomaniac." Maybe those shards of glass are coming from the houses you used to live in.
T
2. Anyone who disagrees--however slightly--with any aspect of Mormonism is automatically an anti-Mormon whose views can be dismissed out-of-hand.

This is laughable. We LDS, on this board and others, have repeatedly said that criticism doesn't confer anti-Mormon status on anyone. Being opposed to is what constitutes and anti anything. But of course, screaming paranoia in the anti-Mormon group requires this kind of statement.

3. Apologists are unable to distinguish between possibilities and probabilities.

I won't belabor the point here. Such a generalization without basis doesn't need refuting. But if there is a mote in the eyes of the LDS, here is the beam in yours. Anti-Mormons can't tell the difference between the absence of evidence and proof of non-existence.

4. If a scientist or anti-Mormon is wrong about one thing, it is safe to assume that he or she is wrong about everything.

CFR on this one. Or did you just think it would sound good?

5. Apologists routinely accuse critics of "telling us what we believe." They follow up by saying, "We are the authorities on what we believe, not the critics."

Did you leave your logic at the breakfast table when you went to the computer this morning? Yes, critics irritate the heck out of us when we say something, and they say back "no, that isn't what you believe." And yes, we are the authorities on what we believe, not the critics.

6. Apologists often respond to a challenge with the phrase, "that's been debunked countless times already."

Only when it's true. Do you know there was a very uninformed critic over on the MA&D board within the last month who is still bringing out the "land of Jerusalem" argument? (In case you hadn't heard, Bethlehem is referred to as in the land of Jerusalem in the Bible itself. )

The closest thing to a "new" criticism is in regards to the Book of Abraham with the discovery in 1967 of some fragments of the collection. But then 1967 isn't really very new, is it?

7. All arguments are made in a vacuum.

Speak for your own brain. Not mine, thank you.

[_BishopRic]

I suppose it all depends on which angle you read this stuff...from a defender, you find ways to "defend" what shows up. From a critic, you find the holes in the story to prove it all wrong.

I'll admit I lean to the side of a critic, but if one looks at the evidence with the goal to see if it (the Mormon claims of divine guidance) is "true," it seems to fail.

Think about it: Joseph and each subsequent "prophet" claimed to have the role of restoring and proclaiming the one true gospel Of Jesus to the world. Starting with Joseph, one tool for the project was a few new "books of history" that would be made available for folks to read to learn from the experiences of earlier peoples about how living (and not living) God's laws creates consequences.

One of those laws is honesty. Well, somebody along the way is not being honest! I think it's hard for an honest observer to read the words of the many LDS prophets and apostles quoted in so many articles and websites and claim they did not believe that all the Native Americans were not Lamanites. If they knew otherwise, they were fooling their audiences. It's quite obvious that since science has been demonstrating a different ancestry to the colonizers of the Americas, the defenders are backtracking and getting creative.

But the fact remains that the "prophets" consistently taught differently -- including the founding "prophet" who brought forth the book about the Lamanites. So without behaving all Nibleyesque, and overcomplicating something again very simple, it seems that this increase in evidence against Joseph's claims is just pounding the nail further into the coffin of LDS claims of unique divine guidance to historical truth.

[_charity]

I suppose it all depends on which angle you read this stuff...from a defender, you find ways to "defend" what shows up. From a critic, you find the holes in the story to prove it all wrong.

I'll admit I lean to the side of a critic, but if one looks at the evidence with the goal to see if it (the Mormon claims of divine guidance) is "true," it seems to fail.

Think about it: Joseph and each subsequent "prophet" claimed to have the role of restoring and proclaiming the one true gospel Of Jesus to the world. Starting with Joseph, one tool for the project was a few new "books of history" that would be made available for folks to read to learn from the experiences of earlier peoples about how living (and not living) God's laws creates consequences.

One of those laws is honesty. Well, somebody along the way is not being honest! I think it's hard for an honest observer to read the words of the many LDS prophets and apostles quoted in so many articles and websites and claim they did not believe that all the Native Americans were not Lamanites. If they knew otherwise, they were fooling their audiences. It's quite obvious that since science has been demonstrating a different ancestry to the colonizers of the Americas, the defenders are backtracking and getting creative.

But the fact remains that the "prophets" consistently taught differently -- including the founding "prophet" who brought forth the book about the Lamanites. So without behaving all Nibleyesque, and overcomplicating something again very simple, it seems that this increase in evidence against Joseph's claims is just pounding the nail further into the coffin of LDS claims of unique divine guidance to historical truth.

I appreciate your reasoned tone here.

But there are 2 facts that remain:

1. The truths of the Gospel do not depend on what fallible individuals believe them to be. If I misunderstand some of those truths, it doesn't not diminish them.

I have a friend who thinks clouds are substantial, like cotton balls, and you could grab a piece if you were high enough up. That doesn't change the nature of clouds.

2. Fallible people may get something wrong now and again. If all the prophets from Joseph Smith to present believed that ALL the Native Americans were descendants of Lamanites,(and if there isn't even one Lamanite ancestor on the pedigree charts of some) that doesn't mean that the prophets weren't inspired at other times or that they never received revelation.

You may ask why did they continue in an idea that was not correct. Maybe because they never asked. If you think you know something, you don't tend to ask a question about it. And in all His dealings with men, I don't know of one incidence where God stepped in and said, "Oh, by the way, this little thing over here that you think is correct, really isn't." God waits until we ask. They didn't ask.

[_BishopRic]

[
2. Fallible people may get something wrong now and again.

But one would think that if they are "prophets of God," they would get these things right at least some of the time! I tend to follow the principle of Occam's razor and conclude they ARE just fallible people, like the rest of us, and we're all doing the best we can.

But until I see a real indication that for some reason God is telling a few choice men something that he is not telling the rest of us, and reality finally backs it up , then I'll live my life as if I can determine good and bad myself. When other "men" tell me I should live my life a way they say is from God, I expect their words to be consistent with reality. When it is not, logic forces me to conclude they are not what they claim to be.