I've mentioned this before on the blog, so long-time readers (if I have those) can doze off for a little bit:P My first concrete step out of the morg was the realization that I had been told what to believe for my entire life, and I found I didn't care for it. I took a figurative step back to reexamine my own beliefs and look at things objectively, and I immediately realized that after about 23 years as a BIC mormon, I didn't really believe that there were 15 old men in SLC that received personal messages for me from god.
Other things quickly followed: I didn't believe the story of Genesis--my biology studies seemed to directly contradict it, in fact, but I had never examined both in the same light at the same time. I didn't believe that there were horse-riding, steel-forging, elephant-taming, hebrew-speaking-but-reformed-egyptian-writing Jews in the Americas before Columbus. I didn't believe that black people were less worthy, or that women were undeserving of authority positions, or that a series of secret handshakes would be required to get into heaven.
In short, I didn't really believe all these things that I had gone along with all my life for no other reason than because that's what I had been told to believe.
Then i think its time for you to rethink your own thinking and give a word of prayer because from what i see your simply running from something because it seemed to diffcult to handle i think the one who you don't believe in is not god or the church or any of that but you don't believe in yourself and your ability to deal with the real world and not just run away.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteHow come you removed all but one comment?
ReplyDeleteI will tell you, little sister:)
ReplyDeleteAfter a hideously-unfortunate coincidence, I made a mistake as to the identity of "Anonymous", who is not in fact anonymous anyway, and probably ought to make up a nickname. (Had he made up a name from the start, that might've kept me from mistaking him for the whacko conspiracy-theorist who was spamming me emails today, but too late now.)
So I've decided to start this entire thread of comments over. My apologies for the mistake, and I will now address your comments.
You wrote that I "seem to be running from something because it seemed too difficult to handle." Interesting, but I don't see where you could've got that from this post. Maybe you can help...which specific part of the blog post suggested that to you? Quote it back to me, and I'll try to clear that up.
You also wrote that you think "the one who you don't believe in is not god or the church or any of that but you don't believe in yourself and your ability to deal with the real world and not just run away." So let me get this straight: you think that I *DO* believe in all that crap that I claimed not to believe in? How exactly do you think you know more about my beliefs than I do? Or are you just arrogantly parroting buzzwords that you've heard before, dismissing any statement of disbelief because it challenges your belief? People who leave the mormon church don't do it because they 'were offended' or 'wanted to sin'. They leave the mormon church because they do not believe the mormon church to be true. Take it from me, because that's why I left.
If you really have honest questions to ask, then I am willing to answer them. But I repeat from an earlier entry: But I am NOT Mormon now, and any doctrinal discussion on history will be treated as a historical discussion--including pertinent facts from historical sources, whether they be "church-approved" or not. This conversation will be about FACT, and you will be required to provide them if called for, and recognize them when I bring them to your attention. If either of you has a problem with that requirement, it's probably safest for your fragile testimonies if you leave right now.
The reason i signed in as anonymous was simply because I don't want you taking out your rage and anger on Marissa who is your sister and cares about you. She innocent in the matter and is only worried and concerned over the brother who treats her poorly. Why do i know because I've talked to Marissa and to Marissa mom so I know quite a bit on you so don't be mad at them they just trust me I'm sure there is no reason for you to be mad about that. Based on what I've been told about you and this post I come to a train of thinking that you might actully be afraid of how you'll do in the real world. After reading your post I do see you are very much like the teddy bear you speak of with claws. As for why people leave the mormon church I met quite a few and alot of the time they left cuz its just to hard to follow everything it seems restricting on this so called freedom they wish to have. I think theres a lot of reason why you left not just cuz you don't believe it true but cuz you had your testomony destoryed in your own way and thus cannot bring yourself to believe in it as your post stated your science teacher talked about genesis.As for your historic sources there no point in going there because history can be altered to suits the needs of whoever wants it so I honestly don't see the point in discussing something where you can get altered history for on the matter. Fragile testimony I can sure I do not have because I know all to well about the mircles that occured through the power of the lord not through man.
ReplyDeleteRob, remember, Heather had a gay friend who left the church simply because it was too hard to not be that way... Or did she tell you of that? Proof that not everyone leaves because they don't believe.
ReplyDeleteSo your contention is that my mother and sister know more about my beliefs than I do. A nice way to shift the blame of arrogance, but still completely invalid and inaccurate.
ReplyDeleteYou claim your train of thought was based on "what I've been told about you and this post". Again, please point out which part of the post led you to that line of thinking. I'd be happy to set you straight if I accidentally left room for doubt...but I made efforts NOT to leave room for doubt, so I really don't think you're getting this from what I wrote on the blog. Stop pretending that you are.
I can assure you that I have talked to MANY more ex-mormons than you have (hundreds or even thousands...I haven't really kept count) and I again find your assertion arrogant. There were not "a lot" of reasons why I left. I left because I do not believe the mormon church to be true. Nothing more, and nothing less. And the facts back me up on that.
And there *IS* a point in 'going there', because the mormon church depends on its history. As Gordon Hinckley once put it:
"Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing."
And an objective reading of the facts confirms that it is nothing. The Book of Mormon is not even CLOSE to historically accurate, and was NOT 'translated' by Joseph Smith. He did NOT see god or christ in the spring of 1820, and in fact told (made up) several different conflicting versions of this supposedly pivotal event. He abysmally failed in his 'translation' of the Egyptian papyri now known as the Book of Abraham, which have since been examined by Egyptologists and universally declared common Egyptian funereal documents, having nothing to do with the narrative Smith pulled out of his hat.
The fact of the matter is that Joseph Smith was a con-man of the early 19th Century. He was charged several times for various acts of fraud, although ironically there is no evidence he was ever 'persecuted' for telling people about his 1st vision, as he later claimed. He was a criminal, thief, swindler, and womanizer, and the frankly astounding thing is not that sop many people fell for his cons, but that his made-up religion survived into the 20th century.
News flash, Rob, it's the 21st century now. Not to correct your rantings. However, you quoted a general authority from the LDS church. You've basically just said you even believe some of what was said and believed. Thus contradicting yourself. Also, you gave me a varied form of this same story. I think personally that you've gotten your stories confused with one another, since some of it differs from what you told me on the phone months ago.
ReplyDeleteOh really and what makes you think yours historically correct ethier you do realize when the church was being established it was attack by the government by people in genreal, it was perscuated the sanits was chased from one place to the next. Why would anyone try so hard to destory something that was not true how about you explain that to me. If something was not true why work so hard to prevent it from coming fourth does that not tell you that in fact it is true because people sought to destory it from coming fourth well other religions like catholic did not face the same extream perscution as the lds church did. So why would it not continue today with surrounded history since they worked so hard to destory it then. Next up there could have been many people call Joseph smith and could fit your discripition it does not mean it was the one who established the church at all. i'm sure there tons of robert hogues in the world you've just not met them yet if you look up your name on google you'll see millions of people with your same name. Any of them could be theives and criminals and people could use that very history to incriminate falsness about you is this not true. So the real question would be if something was wrong why work so hard to destory it?
ReplyDeleteNews flash, MK: the religion had to survive into the 20th century before it got to the 21st.
ReplyDelete"However, you quoted a general authority from the LDS church. You've basically just said you even believe some of what was said and believed" is either a very sad misunderstanding of the most basic fundamental of logic, or else a deliberate lie. If YOU are right, and the mormon church is true, then Hinckley was a prophet of god and he specifically said EVERYTHING HAS TO BE TRUE OR NOTHING IS. Therefore if the foundation of the mormon church is not true, then you have to believe that NOTHING about the mormon church is true. A single untruth in that area collapses the entire deck of cards.
And for your future reference: "a varied form of the same story" is, by definition, the same story. The words and phrases may not have been exactly the same, but the idea I was conveying was. I'm sorry if you didn't pick up on that, but I was having to tiptoe around the fact that I was telling you things I had been specifically asked NOT to tell you.
And finally, I thought you said you were going to sit back and watch. Isn't that what you meant when you said "*I* won't be the one fighting" a few hours ago?
Brother dear, I'm not fighting. I'm simply contributing. :) You know how much I despise getting into things as a major party in fights. And what are some untruths? Do tell me. BESIDES those phony facts you got off of some "reliable" website. Tell me an incorrect revelation or something. Because I can provide examples of revelations come true- and so can Andrew, and he can even better than I could.
ReplyDeleteSince i have to work in the morning cuz I have a full time job where as you don't i'm going to help you understand the last few things you are lacking in understanding. Then i will continue this tomorrow when I get off work. First of the quote you are using is from the prophet yes for someone who thinks everything is false in the church you sure believe on that quote. But you really don't understand when and how it was used. It was used in a talk on the preisthood you should have read at it before using it the way you are heres the link to it:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=4ee776e6ffe0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD
Next up As long as your using the internet as your historic backup its impossible to believe your words its like me trying to tell you that the the moon is really a monster that hangs above the earth waiting to eat and then back it up with some random site on line that is suppose to be histrocally true and has all the fictional papers to back it up. Unless you have more then just the internet backing you where most nonsense is found there no way you can sway anyone to believe on you. I guess in the same way you'll say you can use that against me but that talk I send you is from a written book that was released in 2003 so its completely correct if you need further prove track down said talk in the ensign it was released in. I'd also like to mention you might think the church is not true and led yourself to believe it to be that way but its also stated in the scriptures about the word of wisdom and the hazards of smoking and how they were bad for you long before anyone knew that. So how it some random guy as you think it is knew something was bad and could harm you before it was proven. How is such a thing possible does this not prove that only god himself could have said the words to Josph smith if you want to check the section again its D&C section 89 how could anyone know this stuff was bad before anyone else did. The fact is its impossible unless it was not inspired by god. Next up it also states in the D&C section 45 it talks about the future disters and events that are plaguing are time right now how could anyone know of those things if they were not told be god how could they know of all these disters that are happening to us in these days with tidel waves and earthquakes that destory countries or the wars of terror happening now i'm sure you recall the disater a few years ago when that tidel wave hit those nine countries that type of destruction was mentioned in this section read it since your intent on proving me wrong how could any normal man know these things? Now i will go for the moment for I have left you with things to think about and continue this tomorrow since in all honestly how could my words not be true?
@CC:
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean when you ask "what makes you think yours historically correct"? What makes me think my WHAT is historically correct?
As for "Why would anyone try so hard to destory something that was not true how about you explain that to me" this is a hideous misunderstanding of logic. Why are people trying to destroy the Muslims if that religion isn't true? Why did Hitler try to kill the Jews if Judaism isn't true? Catholics were thrown to the lions in Rome. Protestants were tortured by Catholics after Luther branched off. Anglicans were persecuted by Catholics when they formed, and then Catholics were persecuted by Anglicans in Ireland. The entire history of the Christian religion has been one endless stream of one group persecuting another. Read a little more history next time; you're showing off your own ignorance.
And as for your 'many Joseph Smiths" theory, let me set you straight with a few historical facts. Joseph Smith was arrested on the charge of money-digging and fraud (for falsely claiming he could scry for buried treasure) in the late 1820s. He used a stone he found while digging a well...and according to several different scribes for him, he placed this stone into his hat and looked at it in the dark using it to 'reveal' the 'translations' of the Book of Mormon. There are several affadavits still existing from that time against Joseph Smith Jr...including some that mention his brother Hyrum as an accomplice. Is it POSSIBLE that there were lots of Joseph Smith Jrs with brothers named Hyrum in upstate New York in the late 1820s, and that all these Smiths committed the same kinds of crimes in the same manner, passing their magical seer stone from one Smith to the next? It might be POSSIBLE, but that's certainly not where the smart money is.
And MK has challenged me to name some untruths. I have already done so, in the paragraph after quoting Hinckley, the one that starts "And an objective reading of the facts confirms that it is nothing."
She has also challenged me to "Tell me an incorrect revelation or something." Gladly. I almost don't know where to start.
In the winter of 1829, Smith had a revelation that Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery were to go to Toronto and SELL the copyright of the Book of Mormon to raise money. They went, but nobody was willing to buy the copyright. Smith reportedly asked god and was told that some revelations are NOT from god.
(continued, as this is over the blogger limit)
(still on "incorrect revelations")
ReplyDeleteD&C 49:9-10 Smith prophecied that the nations of the earth shall bow to the mormon gospel or they "shall come down" and "shall be laid low of power." This certainly hasn't happened yet.
D&C 97:18-20: Smith had a revelation promising that if the saints are obedient the city of Zion (in Missouri) will prosper and become glorious, great and terrible, honored by the nations of the earth. Zion cannot fall or be moved out of its place. And yet the mormons were driven out of Independence and from all of their settlements in Missouri in 1839.
Smith prophesied on several occasions that the Second Coming was to be expected very soon, most specifically in D&C 130, where he prophecies that "there of those of the rising generation who shall not taste death till Christ comes." He then prophesies "in the name of the Lord God - let it be written: that the Son of Man will not come in the heavens till I am 85 years old, 48 years hence or about 1890." After 1890, church historians took that last section out of D&C, but it's in the original diary.
D&C 84:114-115: prophecy that New York, Albany and Boston will be destroyed if they reject the gospel. The "hour of their judgment is nigh..." Didn't happen.
And before I let up on Joseph Smith (I've got more, but there isn't room for all his false prophecies here.) one more, a prophecy made on January 20, 1843: Smith prophesied to Orson Hyde that the two of them will drink wine together in Palestine. Never happened, and wouldn't that have violated the word of wisdom anyway? (The WoW had not been written yet, but one would suspect God would've know he would give it.)
And now, on to more recent prophecies gone wrong:
You obviously don't know this...and I didn't either until earlier this year, but on May 14,1961 at a stake conference in Honolulu, Joseph Fielding Smith (yes...THAT one) prophecied that "We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it." He went on to add, "The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen."
8 years later, this prophecy was proven false.
Were those enough examples of "incorrect revelations", or do I need to give you some more?
And a final word from me for tonight: It's coming up on 2am here, so about to hit the sack. I'll catch up with you tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteSince I missed one, I'll add a quick reply before I go to bed.
ReplyDelete1st: I was still a mormon when Hinckley gave that talk. I remember it better than you do, and while Hinckley meant it as a defrense of the faith it still stands as a statement made by a man YOU consider to be a prophet of god.
2nd: You are of course free to do your own internet searches, and you will find that in many cases people have scanned in the original documents (such as affadavits and arrest warrants) from the 1800s, and most others I've quoted are ALSO published in books. Do your own homework.
3rd: Your diatribe about the word of wisdom was stupid. You wrote "The fact is its impossible unless it was not inspired by god." To start with, do you HONESTLY believe that a person couldn't realize "Hey, breathing in smoke makes me couh, so it may not be good for me" unless god was talking to that person!? And furthermore, there was no commandment against smoking specifically, rather a ban on tobacco. An important distinction, because the truth of the matter here, and look this up for yourself, is that the word of wisdom was started because Emma Smith didn't like cleaning up tobacco stains on the floor after priesthood meetings.
And finally, you're actually asking me how Smith knew that there would be tidal waves and earthquakes? Do you think they had never heard of these things before Smith founded the mormon church? If he had given dates, that would be something...but I've already posted several examples of "incorrect revelations", and I'm going to bed now. I'll catch up with you tomorrow.
A few notes and ground rules in case you two really want to continue this conversation.
ReplyDelete1) CC has expressed his concerns about the accuracy of facts from the internet. Fair enough, but no need to rehash that again. I have spent a great deal of time and effort studying and reading on this kind of thing, and I know what I'm talking about. Out of all the insults Marissa has hurled my way over the years, "unintelligent" and "unable to do research" were never among them. Understand that when I present information as a fact I have confirmed it within a reasonable degree of certainty. If for some reason I must present information I feel is still doubtful, I will add a disclaimer to that effect. If either of you doubts the accuracy of my facts, then look it up yourselves...but I don't want to hear anymore about it unless you have some evidence to refute it. YOU came to MY blog and starting asking ME questions, so if you aren't going to at least give my answers the benefit of a doubt then you should quit now.
2) CC also claimed that there was no point in studying the history of the mormon church, which is not true, however he was correct on one point: over time, historical facts can become a little murky. For this reason, and much more importantly because I could easily go on about this subject for days and that would get old, I am offering the opportunity to move the conversation on to more concrete issues. Neither of you have raised any concerns about the things I actually wrote in the blog entry. So if you want to skip over the rest of the mormon history lesson to the book of mormon/book of abraham/temple ceremonies, I think that would be more fun. (At least for me...)
3) I'm going to reiterate a question that I never received an answer to. CC wrote "Oh really and what makes you think yours historically correct ethier". I make it a point never to attack the spelling, grammar, or punctuation of someone posting online so long as the other person's intended meaning is clear. Your meaning was not clear. From context, I am forced to assume that you are asking what makes me think "my Book of Mormon" is historically accurate, which doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Please clarify what it is of mine that you were questioning the historical accuracy of.
A final note/kind word of warning: You two are in over your head. You've obviously never heard of or considered most of the things I've brought up, because you're reacting rather than responding. Your certainty is based on your beliefs and faith...mine is based on facts and research. All the faith in the world will not change the facts, and I think you're starting to catch a little glimpse of that. If you two are willing to continue with this ultimately-pointless-but-somewhat-amusing exercise, you're going to be shown a lot more ways in which the facts conflict with your beliefs. And I'm going to be quite clear when I tell you which is correct.
I'm going to counter your previous fact post with the D&C stuff to disapprove your confliction the first scripture you stated was "D&C 49:9-10 Smith prophecied that the nations of the earth shall bow to the mormon gospel or they "shall come down" and "shall be laid low of power." This certainly hasn't happened yet."
ReplyDeleteThose words never happened in D&C 49 9-10 it actully stated the following
9 wherefore, I say unto you that i have sent unto you mine everylasting convenant, even that which was from the beginning.
10 And that which I have promised I have so fullfilled, and the nations of the earth shell bow to it; and, if not of themselves they shell come down,for that which is now exalted of itself shell be laid low of power.
Your doctrain is wrong and decitful learn your own scripture before altering the truth. What it refered to in that scripture was that of the coming fourth of the full gospal and that has come to pass. When it says nations shell bow to it, it does not give time when all will bow but its not refering to litral bowing but reather the accepting of the coming gospel and it has been accepted by the world in many places all over some still need time there was never given a time when it would be fullfilled. Now i'll move on to your next alteration of the truth this is what you said
"D&C 97:18-20: Smith had a revelation promising that if the saints are obedient the city of Zion (in Missouri) will prosper and become glorious, great and terrible, honored by the nations of the earth. Zion cannot fall or be moved out of its place. And yet the mormons were driven out of Independence and from all of their settlements in Missouri in 1839."
well your mostly correct accept your missing the rest of the words D&C section 97 verse 26 states,But if she observe not to do whatsoever I have commanded her, i will vist her according to all her works, with sore affliction, with pestilence, with plague, with sword, with vengeance, with devouring fire.
Now I would like to turn you to another scripture in D&C section 101 1-8 states this is just a summary mind you but you can comfirm it yourself that they were being unrightous as such they were removed out of there by the lord will for not following what he had told them. But in the same section it states verse 16-18
16 Therefore, let your heart be comforted concerning zion; for all flesh is in mine hands; but be still and know that I am god.
17 Zion shell not be moved out of her place, notwithstanidng her children are scattered
18 they that remain, are are pure in heart, shell return, and come to their inheritancs, they and their children, with songs of everlasting joy, to build up the waste places of zion.
I like to apologize Im a bad speller cuz I suffered from a lack of ability to spell well do to my own issues in life.
Now i will move on to your next verse which you said D&C 130 it still in the book of mormon the verse you used is actully verse 15-17
But how you worded it was wrong what actully says is:
15 joseph, my son if thou livest until thou art eight-five years old thou shalt see the face of the son of man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter.
16 I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or weather I should die and thus see his face.
17 I believe the comming of the song of man will not be any sooner than that time.
Now thats completely different from what you said which leads me to believe you did not research very well. It did not say it was the secound coming or if it was going to happen then but smith after being told that believed if it was to happen it would be no sooner then that. Thus that proves your incorrectness on the matter because it refered to him seeing his face not to the secound coming which could mean just as he said when he dies.
I hit the limit i will post more in the next post.
Next post is this one here...
ReplyDeleteNow let move on to your next so called doctrine D&C 84 114-115 prophecy that New York, Albany and Boston will be destroyed if they reject the gospel. The "hour of their judgment is nigh..." Didn't happen. Thats what you said but let see what it actully says is
114 Nevertheless,let the bishop go unto the city od New York, also the city of Albany , and also to the city of boston, and warn the people of those cities with the sound of the gospel, with aq loud voice, of desoltion and utter abolishment which await them if they do reject these things.
115 For if they do reject these things the hour of there judgement is night, and their house shall be left desolate.
Both of those places accepted the gospel the church is there and thus the part of rejection never happened thus that judgement did not come nigh. Once again do not take words out of context read your material.
Next up the next thing you stated was a prophecy that occured in Januray 1843 I will tell you now you provided me with not location in the D&C where thats labeled so i checked the dates and the most recent revalation labeled in the D&C durning the year 1843 is February 9 such a prophcy was not made thus its fabricated cuz all revaltion durning smith time alive were placed in here as the lord saw fit. Thus do not make up fake facts if you are seeking to do this through factual talking. Unless you provide me with the section thats labelled in it is not up for debate and cannot be used to disapporve anything.
Now on to your next so called fact about what Smith F said there is no support on it for the LDS website meaning it could have easily been made ficition by someone else unless you provide me with a link on the lds website to this statement I cannot take it as true since as you know the church faces perscution even now a days and people continue to try to destory it. Thus i will have to disregard this fact unless you can support it with something other then a view from the outside of the church. With this i covered your facts with truth if you need further prove get a proper copy of the book of mormon or go to the lds website and look up all the doctrine i just countered everything you said with truth need you have any reason to complain on the matter now.
Buddy, you really need to work on your reading comprehension. The words I put in quotes DID occur in the verses you quoted. Read it again. And what the hell are you talking about with the "learn your own scripture"? These are YOUR scriptures, not MINE. The rest of your quotes had the same type of issues: you're looking for loopholes, rather than noticing that prophecies have NOT been fulfilled. Use your brain instead of regurgitating what you've been taught. ALL of the verses you quoted agreed in meaning with the summaries I made of them. I also noted that D&C 130 had been reworded by mormon historians after 1890...so you quoting the altered passage back to me is a clear sign of willful lying or else dangerous levels of stupidity. And as you may have noticed, the 1843 revelation was NOT in the D&C...but in Smith's own DIARY. Again, DO YOUR HOMEWORK.
ReplyDeleteYou also obviously didn't read my post from this morning. None of the facts I have made up were fabricated, and this is the last time I will be accused of it. YOU came to ME with questions. If you aren't prepared to give my answers the benefit of the doubt, then get the hell off my blog. This ONE time, I will give you a reference. From now on do your own homework. The exact quote of his talk in Honolulu can be found in "Doctrines of Salvation," Bruce R. McConkie, vol. 3 p. 203.
Now then...for somebody who doesn't see any point in discussing history, you've spent an awful lot of time and effort on it. Care to move out of the somewhat-murky waters of historical documents and tackle the concrete issues raised in the blog entry? Or would you rather give ANOTHER demonstration of "Logical Fallacies for Dummies"?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI warned you, buddy. My blog, my rules. You came to ME, and I have already made it very clear that I have researched and verified. I don't give a rat's ass if you think that's good enough, because when I give you a fact on this blog, *I* am the source. If you can't trust that source, don't come to his blog. You poked the bear, dimwit. Do you want to try it again without the ad hominems or would you like to just leave?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAs noted, ad hominem attacks will be deleted. Follow the rules or I'll block you.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteYou are welcome to address anything brought up in the blog entry. But I have given you the rules, and you will follow them. If you can't deal with that, get off my blog.
ReplyDeleteI didn't really believe all these things that I had gone along with all my life for no other reason than because that's what had been told to believe. That is quoted in your blog above.
ReplyDeleteBut the fact is you choose to believe those things the moment you were bapitized your perants did not make you get bapitized you choose to so which clear states you are quite wrong because you actully did believe it not cuz someone told you to.
I was baptized at the age of 8. An 8-year-old is, by definition, incapable of making binding decisions for themselves. As an 8-year-old, I bought into the idea that being baptized was a good thing. Any deeper symbolic meaning was lost on me, as I was a child.
ReplyDeleteTry again...your desperation is showing.
Since you are not LDS anymore, may I ask if there is a Druid ritual for giving up? And that's a relevant question considering the nature of this. You never fully explained your reformation to me. And deleting posts and shrugging off comments like that only shows YOUR desperation. You aren't fooling anyone.
ReplyDeleteComments were deleted when they broke the rules, and especially when they were irrelevant jabs that served no other purpose. Your question isn't really relevant either, but I'll answer anyway with the appropriate tone since you invoked the magic crossover word. (10 points if you can guess what it is, and 50 if you can guess what you crossed over with it!)
ReplyDeleteThe Druid ritual for giving up is...being baptized a mormon; )
Actully im not showing any desperation more like you are. Like i said i find it quite amusing listening to what you have to say. An eight year old knows full well when they commit to something and you choose to follow it knowing what you were following. The deeper symbolic reasons did not matter to you because you already knew what you were doing was right. Children understand better the things of the spiritual world then man do why do i say that i will quote a scripture straight from the book of mormon of why children no better then anyone the commitment to the church. 3 Nephi chapter 17 verse 24 when christ visted the nephites he was teaching and healing them and durning this time angel descended on to the little once not on to the adults and encircled the little once in fire and minstered directly to them. This can only say one thing and that is that children are closer and more understand of all things spiritual outside of the apostles and leaders of the church. Another verse i will quote to you further proving that fact you knew what you were doing is the following 3 Nephi chapter 26 verse 14 states that christ loosen the toungs of children and they minstered greater things then he had unto there fathers. Why is it that children uttere these great things its simply because they know the trueness of god and the church better then anyone. So you can claim you did not know but you knew inside of you just knew and have simply forgotten those things because of your desire to harden your heart.
ReplyDelete...So, because your church teaches that 8-year-olds are capable of binding commitments, the rest of the world has to recognize and agree with that? BS.
ReplyDeleteAnd seriously, dude...don't insult my intelligence by quoting that pathetic fiction at me as if it's some kind of authority in the real world. I don't quote "Battlefield Earth" to you and expect that to carry any weight.
Nope its not cuz church teaches it because the lord teaches it in his book by his words through his knowledge. The real issue is that how is it pathtic ficition when it has been proven true time and again. Weather it be the fact that Laminities spoken of in the scriptures were the native americans that were here when people from forign country arrived. They had no record cuz it was hidden up for safty yet they knew about god but they simply called it a great spirit but believed it to have been the creator of all things. The only thing there missing was the truth most native americans accept the book of mormon alot easier then white people why because they know of its trueness because of its history for them. I will quote another passage that perdicted that you would say that D&C section 56 verse 14-15
ReplyDelete14 Behold thus saith the lord unto my people- you have many things to do and to repent of; for behold your sins have are not pardoned because you seek to counsel in your own ways.
15 and your hear hearts are not satisfied and ye obey not the truth, but have pleasure in unrighteousness.
How intresting does this not refer to you and what you just said about this drible but some how this drible knew you would say that because of your unrightous desires.
So we're there now. You claim that the Book of Mormon has been proven true time and time again. You are sadly mistaken, and I'm about to explain to you some of the reasons why. (A quick reminder: if you doubt any of the facts I am about to give you...Google them and see for yourself.)
ReplyDeleteI said in the original blog entry that I do not believe that there were horse-riding, steel-forging, elephant-taming, hebrew-speaking-but-reformed-egyptian-writing Jews in the Americas before Columbus. Let's break that down and see what modern science says, shall we? If you're right, then I should be wrong on EVERY one of these points.
The BoM makes several mentions of horses in the ancient Americas. There were no horses in the Western Hemisphere until Europeans brought them; all prehistoric species of horses died out at the end of the last Ice Age some 10,000 years ago. (That's about 6,000 years before the Jaredites allegedly arrived.)
The BoM talks about the Nephites forging steel swords. There is absolutely no evidence that ANYONE made any kind of steel in the Americas before Columbus arrived.
The Book of Ether claims that the Jaredites brought elephants with them across the ocean. Just with horses, the last elephants died out in the Americas at the end of the last Ice Age.
The Book of Mormon claims that the Nephites and Lamanites were the descendents of Jewish Lehi and his family. DNA testing has shown that Native Americans are NOT of semitic descent, instead having come from Siberia across the Bering Land Bridge--just as archaeologists have suggested for decades.
A further archaeological contradiction is that the BoM talks about the Nephites having chariots. There were NO chariots in the Americas, in fact there were no wheeled vehicles of ANY kind until the arrival of European explorers.
The Book of Ether says taht the Jaredites' windows would have been "dashed to pieces" by the waves during the oceanic crossing which was supposed to have been in 2,000 BC. No civilization on earth had glass windows at that time.
Now let's add a couple more issues: the Book of Mormon is in many places a blatant rip-off of the King James Bible, even to the point of plagiarizing entire chapters. And yet some of the verses by Smith used from the bible were later 'translated' by him to something else entirely: this means that the writers of the bible made a huge mistake and wrote down the wrong thing, but somehow exactly copied a book in the Western Hemisphere that they had never even heard of.
The Book of Mormon, despite being touted as "the most perfect book" on the face of the earth, has been HEAVILY edited and corrected, including early changes that completely changed the mormon concept of the Godhead as Smith came up with a new idea: The early chapters originally referred to Mary as "the mother of God", but this was changed years later to "the mother of THE SON OF God." Several similar changes were made in the surrounding narrative.
Finally, the Book of Mormon DOES NOT teach any distinctly 'mormon' doctrine. You will find no mention of temple ordinances, the melchezidek priesthood, the organizational structure of the church, or the three degrees of glory. All these ideas were ADDED LATER as Smith continued to make up his religion.
In summary, there is absolutely NO physical evidence to support the stories in the Book of Mormon, and many of them are directly refuted by archaeological findings.
You have got to learn to READ, dude! This kind of ignorance is DANGEROUS!
And on that note, you absolutely butchered your last paragraph by twice writing the word "drible". That is a misspelling of "dribble", which isn't the word you were looking for anyway...you meant to say "drivel". Are you opposed to using a dictionary because you can't find one on lds.org?
As I said i have spelling isseus we all have weaknesses as do you. Why did they no find any evidence of this stuff thats simple i will not refute everything you just said with another pharse from the scriptures what do you know. 3 Nephi chapter 8 verse 6-19 let me tell you what it concluded in there the whole face of earth was changed when the lord was crucified everything that could have been used to prove this with science was lost in that great destruction the whole earth in that area was changed and that is why you cannot find any of the evidence you state. Now i will quote you another scripture Mormon Chapter 9 verse 8
ReplyDelete8 Behold I say unto you, he that denieth these things knoweth not the gospel of chirst; yea, he has not read the scriptures; if so, he does not understand them.
Again, you're quoting "Battlefield Earth" to a non-Scientologist!
ReplyDeleteAnd you're HONESTLY trying to say that the earthquakes in 3rd Nephi removed the evidence of the final battle of the Nephites/Lamanites...that wouldn't happen for another 400 years!? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard!
I HAVE read your scriptures, and I obviously understand them better than you do if you actually believe such a laughably-pathetic excuse.
ReplyDeleteYour 'great destruction' went back in time and took glass windows away from the Mesopotamians? Your 'great destruction' went back in time and killed the horses and elephants 8,000 YEARS before it happened!? Your 'great destruction' changed the DNA of every Native American in the Western Hemisphere!?
What the hell are you SMOKING, you moron!?
it was not just earthquakes it was more then just that it was tempests, earthquakes, fires, whirlwinds, and physical unheavals. As for what removed the evidence of the final battle that could have been any number of things we do not know how much time passed after that battle at all its proven that bodies and stuff break down over long periods of time and evetunally turn into nothing. Fossil fuels for example are in the ground and were suppose to have been once living things but they decayed and corroded to such a point that they lost that form and simply became a form of fuel. So thats what likly happened to the remains of all eveidence in that time period. Next up your forgotting the following verse in Jacob Chapter 1 verse 1-4 it states in those that they can only fit so much detail they are limited to what they can place in this book. Cuz your forgotting this book is comprised of many books of the people over time all of them comprising different stuff but pertaining to the same things. Thus they could not include in great detail such trival things like what became of the bodies of the dead in that final battle between the nephi and laminities. It was not important to know what happened ot the bodies but reather what led to the end.
ReplyDeleteYou're getting more pathetic as we go along! The tempests, fires, and etc obliterated all fossil evidence of horses and elephants after the Ice Age, but DIDN'T TOUCH the fossils from before that point!? That's beyond stupid. The tempests and fires went back in time AND around the world and stole glass windows from civilizations in the Middle East? Bullshit. If this 'great destruction' did such a remarkable job of wiping out the evidence, then why are there actual artifacts FROM THAT TIME? We have artifacts from all over the Americas, dating to the period the BoM supposedly describes. THEY weren't 'lost'. And guess what: what we do have doesn't even come CLOSE to supporting the BoM.
ReplyDeleteYes, bodies and stuff break down to nothing over time. Steel weapons and armor DON'T. There would be evidence of them, just like there is for the Romans, Greeks, Huns, Mongols, Babylonians, Assyrians, Cathaginians, and literally HUNDREDS of other civilizations that ACTUALLY EXISTED.
I can't even begin to describe the sheer lunacy of what you claim to believe. It boggles the mind to think that somebody can be that stupid and still know how to use a computer. What the hell is WRONG with you!?
Just...wow. I am so glad I've got this preserved for posterity.
ReplyDeleteI think you dont know the definition of a window is an opening in the wall of a building, the side of a vehicle, etc., for the admission of air or light, or both. Thus there does not need to be glass in it to be considered window but an opening that can be covered by wood. We have no idea when the ice age was durning the times of the scripture as i told you its a record of various books at different times that does not nesscarly connect in a set time format. one book could have been from a thousand years ago and the one after it could be from a hundred years ago or even five hundred years ago. We are never given times on the matter. As for your words how is it ludercris for god to do anything if god wanted the fossil of some things to exist well others not to, he can do so because he is alpha and omega the begining and the end. You are forgotting underlining truth of it all god can do anything and everything he can make bodies disapper he can make fossil stay and other go. He can erase anything he wills that he feels would defeat the purpose of coming to this earth and relearning the truth we already know which is that there is a god, there is a savoir, there is a holy spirit, and the book of mormon and the bible are tesetments of those things.
ReplyDeleteWow. Just...again...wow. Carl Sagan was right: You've turned off your mind and said "God did it."
ReplyDeleteI think we're done here. I am SO glad to have copied this down...it will provide hours of entertainment to hundreds of people:)
Thank you so much...and seek some help.
Oh Im far from done yet you are forgotting even more facts on the matter the pricples of this gospel are that god lives and supports the fact that he can do anything he wants. For me to say god im simply using the fact that these books state if i do not use god when i need to it would prove that these books are of no worth for unless the pertain to god and his power and wisdom and knowledge how can in anyway i support them. The truth of the matter is im going to state yet another scripture to what you just said Mormon chapter 9 verse 17
ReplyDelete17 Who shell say that it was not a mircacle that by his word the heaven and the earth should be; and by the power of his word man was created of the dust of the earth; and by the power of this word have miracles been wrought.
That alone states that god can do anything and everything for me to state the truth is rightous and honest as oppose to you who looks for the means by which to destory the word of god only to fail time and time again. Behold I say unto you Robert Hogue that those who denith the truth and harden there hearts towards the rightous shell in no way tramuiph. Everyword and every phrase in the book of mormon has no place in the minds of the learned for it the unlearned that understandth the words. The learned will seek to find logic where there is none and i shelt give you an example you know there is a wind yet you see it not so what does wind look like. Can logic tell you this can it reveal what the form looks like before your blinded eyes. I say nah in no way can you see the form of the wind yet you feel it. Then you believeth it so why can there not be a god for everytime you do a rightous act with out the intent of gaining anything in return what is this feeling you gain why its a feel of warmth and nice what is this feeling why does it exist. Why in anyway do we feel something like that how can logic prove this. i say unto Robert Hogue you use logic to only disprove the eveidence before your eyes but you cannot use logic to disapporve the things that do not lie before your physical eyes like the wind and the feeling of warmth you get for doing something right. Nor can logic explain how man has moral knowledge why do oyu not kill because the law says its wrong why do you not steal because the law says its wrong. But where did those laws come from how did people come to knowledge of those things and believe it. If there be no god how can those laws which you yourself do not break exist.Its simple because there is a god and he has since the beginning granted unto us moral knowledge. When you steal and get away with it you feel guilty yet why would you feel guilty if there is no god and no one found out. Why do you still feel guilty the answer is simple your spirit the one created by god is hurt because it knows its wrong. Why is Robert Hogue that you believe in love when there no logic to prove why that feeling exists to begin with. What is it love why do we feel it the reason is simple because are spirits know of the love are god and because they posses that knowledge we are able to love others in return. So tell me Robert Hogue how can logic define those things which have no defination. Why do you apologize when you do something wrong towards your sister for what reason do you there no physical prove for why you apologize why is it you apologize when its not in the laws themselves to apologize to others you hurt. The reason is because there is god and there is spirit inside you that knows the truth of these things and see that logic can not define all things.
No...you're done. Now you're just rambling. Keep it up: the screenshots keep getting funnier:)
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteSee, this one I'm going to delete, because now you're trying to talk about ME rather than the issues at hand.
ReplyDeleteStick to your absurd, laughable faith...it's much funnier:)
Good-night, Mrs. Calabash...wherever you are:Q)
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAll right...my screen shots are perfect, so anything further will be removed. It's been wonderful having you, and I hope you've enjoyed being had:)
ReplyDeleteTo Concerned Citizen:
ReplyDeleteJust one thing - the Word of Wisdom and how Joseph Smith came up with it. Do a quick google search on the timing of Temperance Movements in the US during the 1820s and 1830s - this was a HUGE social movement and many churches throughout Eastern states had begun adopting it prior to Joseph Smith's "revelation" - were they prophets too? It is very likely that Joseph Smith was not only familiar with the views of the time but his wife really did HATE cleaning up tobacco spit after meetings in their home.
Wow, ibear you did a good job! Well written post too. This is why i don't blog about my leaving the Church. Ugh!
ReplyDelete=)
Rosyjenn
iBear, I'm not sure you've actually read the BoM, so it seems ironic that you can make the claims you do when you are apparently unfamiliar with the text.
ReplyDeleteFor example, you say that the Nephites were "horse-riding," etc. Please show me any verse to support your claim that they rode horses.
Please also show me the verse where the Jaredites brought Elephants to the New World.
Let's start with these and then we can proceed with some of your other erroneous claims.
"Anonymous", I'm not sure you have any idea what you're talking about, so it seems ironic you can make the claims when YOU are apparently unfamiliar with the text.
ReplyDeleteAlma 18:9 and Alma 20:6 both make direct reference to "horses and chariots", both clearly stating that (in this case) the Lamanites used the not-found-in-the-Americas horse for the purpose of transportation.
Ether 9: 18-19 also specifcally states that the Jaredites had "all manner of cattle, of oxen, and cows, and of sheep, and of swine, and of goats, and also many other kinds of animals which were useful for the food of man. And they also had ahorses, and asses, and there were elephants and cureloms and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man, and more especially the elephants and cureloms and cumoms."
But by all means, I would LOVE to hear you demonstrate how even ONE of my claims about the BoM was "erroneous." This ought to be good; I'll get ready for some more screenshots:)
You've not only failed to read the BoM properly, but you've also read my post improperly. So I'll ask again. Please show me a verse from the BoM -- any verse will do-- that shows that BoM horses were "ridden" in the New World.
ReplyDeletePart 2, show me the verse(s) in the BoM that shows me that the Jaredites brought elephants across the ocean to the New World.
This should be an easy task for you. I await the evidence.
I also look forward to you taking a screen shot of this -- especially after you fail to demonstrate your claims.
Ah...I see now. You're an idiot.
ReplyDeleteIt's your contention that imaginary horses are fine when they're pulling imaginary chariots, so long as they're not being RIDDEN. That's every bit as dumb as the "time-traveling tempests" theory. Do you people all have the same drug-dealer?
Here's the statement I made: The BoM makes several mentions of horses in the ancient Americas. There were no horses in the Western Hemisphere until Europeans brought them; all prehistoric species of horses died out at the end of the last Ice Age some 10,000 years ago. (That's about 6,000 years before the Jaredites allegedly arrived.) Feel free to look it up, and refute it if you can.
Apparently, you also feel that imaginary elephants present absolutely no problem for the BoM, so long as they weren't specifically mentioned on the BOATS.
Again, the BoM claims that the Jaredites had elephants in America before Columbus, even though there hadn't been any since the end of the last Ice Age. It also claims they had cattle, oxen, cows, swine, horses, asses, elephants, and the imaginary "cureloms and cumoms". NONE of these were found in the Americas before Columbus. What the book claims they were used for is completely irrelevant, since they WERE NOT HERE.
If you REALLY want to jump into this discussion, you're welcome to it. But be prepared for the following points: (Continued in next comment)
Picking up where I left off, you might as well do it properly. Here are some of the MANY strikes against the Book of Mormon. Remember that if you're right, I have to be wrong on EVERY ONE of these points:
ReplyDeleteThe BoM talks about the Nephites forging steel swords. There is absolutely no evidence that ANYONE made any kind of steel in the Americas before Columbus arrived.
The Book of Mormon claims that the Nephites and Lamanites were the descendents of Jewish Lehi and his family. DNA testing has shown that Native Americans are NOT of semitic descent, instead having come from Siberia across the Bering Land Bridge--just as archaeologists have suggested for decades.
A further archaeological contradiction is that the BoM talks about the Nephites having chariots. There were NO chariots in the Americas, in fact there were no wheeled vehicles of ANY kind until the arrival of European explorers.
The Book of Ether says taht the Jaredites' windows would have been "dashed to pieces" by the waves during the oceanic crossing which was supposed to have been in 2,000 BC. No civilization on earth had glass windows at that time.
The Book of Mormon is in many places a blatant rip-off of the King James Bible, even to the point of plagiarizing entire chapters. And yet some of the verses by Smith used from the bible were later 'translated' by him to something else entirely: this means that the writers of the bible made a huge mistake and wrote down the wrong thing, but somehow exactly copied a book in the Western Hemisphere that they had never even heard of.
The Book of Mormon, despite being touted as "the most perfect book" on the face of the earth, has been HEAVILY edited and corrected, including early changes that completely changed the mormon concept of the Godhead as Smith came up with a new idea: The early chapters originally referred to Mary as "the mother of God", but this was changed years later to "the mother of THE SON OF God." Several similar changes were made in the surrounding narrative.
Finally, the Book of Mormon DOES NOT teach any distinctly 'mormon' doctrine. You will find no mention of temple ordinances, the melchezidek priesthood, the organizational structure of the church, or the three degrees of glory. All these ideas were ADDED LATER as Smith continued to make up his religion.
In summary, there is absolutely NO physical evidence to support the stories in the Book of Mormon, and many of them are directly refuted by archaeological findings.
Now then, do you want to argue ANY of these with me, or are you going to fall back on a preaching rant and bear your testimonkey of how "god did it?" Doesn't fly here, dumbass. My blog is a No-Stupid-Blind-Faith-Zone.
Wow. What impressive legerdemain. I realize why you want to change the subject, but how about we focus on what you actually wrote (or do we need to look at a screen shot). You said that the Book of Mormon writes about "horse-ridding, steel-forging, elephant-taming...," etc.
ReplyDeleteYou have failed to prove your assertion that the BoM says that the Nephites rode horses. So unless you can prove this, perhaps it's best you quit on this before you look worse.
In an attempt to moon-walk past this obvious blunder, you claim that horses which pulled chariots would obviously be ridden. So, for the sake of argument, let's say you are right (which you are not, but follow the bouncing ball)... please show me a verse where it says that BoM horses "pulled" chariots.
Secondly, you've failed to back up your claim that the Jaredites brought elephants from across the ocean to the New World (your exact words were: "the Jaredites brought elephants with them across the ocean"). That's 2 misses for two questions I posed to you-- it will be 3 for 3 when you fail to show that BoM horses pulled chariots.
These claims of yours are revealing. It tells me that either you are prone to extensive exaggeration in an attempt to prove your case, or you are actually unfamilar with the material. The first is disingenuous, the second is ignorant. Perhaps you have a third option?
Now if you'd simply admit that you were wrong on these points, we can continue with your other claims.
Hey, that's pretty good! You've obviously ignored reality before, and have some skill at it!
ReplyDeleteEvery civilization in history started riding horses before using them with chariots. Look it up.
Second, both references verses directly connected "chariots" with "horses". Maybe you're claiming that the chariots were the ones doing the pulling...
In any case, both of your questions are not only completely irrelevant, but downright deceptive, as NEITHER answer would be the truth. Were the horses ridden or unridden? Did the horses pull the chariots or were the two unconnected? Were the elephants brought aboard ship, or were they here in the Americas?
The answer to ALL these questions is NEITHER. There were NO horses. There were NO chariots. There were NO elephants. And the best part of all, is that every one of the statements in this paragraph are UNDISPUTED by the archaeological and paleontological communities.
Your questions are no more valid than "Did medieval dragons breathe fire, or did they just fly?" More impoprtantly: you're obfuscating, hoping to cloud the facts with meaningless fictional trivialities. Doesn't fly on this blog, dumbass.
When you make a legitimate, rational attempt to address the factual errors in the Book of Mormon narrative, you will be answered. Until then, you are wasting everyone's time with stupid, meaningless questions. (Well...wasting MY time. This may very well be the best thing you've ever done with YOURS, in which case I suggest you completely rethink every conversation you've ever had in your life.) I suggest you go back and find the comment that starts with the phrase "A few notes and ground rules..."
YOU came to MY blog. I don't owe you a damn thing, and MY rules will be followed. Unless you care to address the further points I brought up, you have nothing more to say here...and any further obfuscations will be removed. If you can't handle that, then get the hell off my blog.
Ok. I see you are unable/unwilling to back up the first two claims I addressed and get mad with those who point out that you are wrong, so let's try something else. (We can come back to the horse & elephant issues later. We could examine, for example, those theories [with at least some evidence] that small pockets of minature-- too small to be ridden-- horses as well as mammoths [proboscideans] survived into post-Pleistocene times [in the New World].)
ReplyDeleteBut on to bigger fish.
You wrote: "The Book of Mormon claims that the Nephites and Lamanites were the descendents of Jewish Lehi and his family. DNA testing has shown that Native Americans are NOT of semitic descent, instead having come from Siberia across the Bering Land Bridge--just as archaeologists have suggested for decades."
My question to you is multi-part: What DNA haplogroups have been found in the Americas? And from what DNA haplogroup(s) were the Lehites? Finally isn't it true that DNA haplogroups can-- and do-- disappear? (If not, please explain why haplogroups do not disappear, and if so, then please explain why the case of the Lehites isn't special pleading?)
I realize that you are mad that I'm pointing out your errors and questioning your claims, but I thought you were interested in getting at the truth (you can correct me if I'm wrong about that).
After reading some of your posts on this blog, I thought your readers might appreciate reading an informed Mormon's opinoins on your claims.
I see you are STARTING to get the point, but still can't defend your scriptures without resorting to an attack on me. As for your "theories", I am well aware of the fact that a small group of mammoths survived on St. Paul Island, Alaska for several centuries after the Ice Age...but even that LAST group died off LONG before the Jaredites allegedly arrived in the Americas. But horses did not (I'd be very interested to see this 'evidence' you speak of) and even "miniature" horses can't pull a nonexistent chariot.
ReplyDeleteYou honestly expect me to list for you all 50 haplotypes ID'd in the genetic study? Do your own homework. (Hint: That was one of the rules you should have read earlier.) The DNA markers of Native Americans clearly support a Siberian migration rather than a semitic heritage. (I again challenge you to look this up for yourself if you doubt that statement.)
But on to the claims you never addressed: steel, chariots, glass windows, plagiarizing the KJV, significant doctrinal revisions, and no mention of/ repeated incompatibility with modern mormon beliefs.
Remember, if you're right, I should be demonstrably wrong on EVERY ONE of these points. (SPOILER ALERT: I'm not.)
And I find your comment about "an informed mormon's opinions" amusing. Your Cognitive Dissonance has no place here except to underline the severe flaws in your beliefs.
Well, unfortunately for you, I've done my homework (too bad someone else didn't). Native Americas fall into 5 mtDNA haplogroups (A, B, C, D, & X)-- actually they fall into subgroups of these these 5 (such as X2). This is a far cry from the "50" mtDNA haplogroups which you claim.
ReplyDeleteOn to the second question. What was the Lehite's DNA? The answer: We don't know. Kind of hard to tell that it's not in the New World when we don't know what Lehite DNA looked like.
On to the third question: Can mtDNA haplogroups disappear? The answer is a resounding "yes"-- as any population geneticist will tell you. Can you think of a recent example (I'll give you a hint for your one homework-- think Iceland).
So if DNA haplogroups can disappear, and if we don't know what Lehite mtDNA looked like, how can you so confidently dismiss the BoM on DNA evidence?
Just another curiousity about one of your comments: Please explain how cognitive dissonance is accurately applied to anything I've posted on this blog.
Wow...you REALLY think that "someone else" didn't look at the results of the genetic study? Do a little MORE homework...there are several distinguished, professional geneticists who have spent years on the subject. (I would suggest one Simon Southerton, in fact. A geneticist from Australia who happens to be a friend of mine on FaceBook. But he's used to claims like yours by now, so I wouldn't expect a warm reception.) And maybe you could point out where I specified that there were 50 haplotypes in the MITOCHONDRIAL DNA. Bigger picture, dude.
ReplyDeleteYour 2nd question: why would anyone assume that the JEWISH Lehi, who lived outside JERUSALEM, would have had his own (unrelated to semitic or arabic) DNA? Lehi had the DNA he got from his family...and unless his family was Siberian, it doesn't fit with the BoM narrative.
Again you're talking about haplotype markers disappearing, but this not happen except through convergence into a larger population. The BoM in no way suggests any larger population, and in fact mormon general authorities have expressly denied the idea.
Cognitive dissonance is accurately applied to anyone who is "informed" concerning the absurd contradictions in the BoM, yet believes it to be an accurate, historical account of ANYTHING other than Joseph Smith's 19th-century moneymaking scheme. If you have the knowledge you claim to, and yet still cling to the beliefs you appear to, THAT is an example of cognitive dissonance at work.
*CORRECTION FOR CLARITY* ...this WOULD not happen except through convergence into a larger population.
ReplyDeleteSince Southerton is not a population geneticist, his thoughts don't really carry as much weight as that of actual population geneticists. Can you name a population geneticist who claims that current mtDNA studies prove the BoM to be fraudlent? Can you name any population geneticsts who claim that current DNA studies are unable to prove the BoM fraudulent? (I can.)
ReplyDeleteTo the 2nd question. You are obviously unfamilar with the many instances of genetict blending that took place in the ancient Near East. Can you name any population geneticist that claims that all of those people from Lehi's world had the same mtDNA? Can you name any populations geneticists who would claim otherwise? I can.
3rd question. Thank for agreeing with me that DNA markers can disappear through convergence into a larger population. Instead, you change the goal posts to comments (non-doctrinal comments, mind you) by leaders that suggest that BoM populations didn't merge with an existing populace. That, of course, is a theological debate, not a scientific one (and one, I should add, that conflicts with some LDS leaders' statements as well as the BoM itself).
Lastly, your comment on Cognitive Dissonance is both inaccurate and cirucluar. Back to the books for you.
Again, you seem to be having trouble with the rules I gave. Do your own homework. If my claims are so obviously false, then demonstrate it. (If you're right they should ALL be demonstrably false, remember?) By all means, trot out your geneticist and let's hear his explanation of why supposedly-Semitic Native Americans have Siberian DNA markers instead of Semitic ones.
ReplyDeleteCan you name anyone on this blog that claims that everyone from Lehi's world had the same mtDNA? I thought not. If you'll read it again (more slowly this time) you might notice that what I ACTUALLY said was that unless his family was Siberian, it doesn't fit with the BoM narrative. And I stand by that, as the DNA markers in Native American studies CLEARLY support their arrival via the Bering Land Bridge, rather than 3-pronged exodus of limited numbers by ship.
I never changed the goal posts. DNA markers CAN disappear through convergence into larger populations. Do you have ANY evidence to even suggest that this took place? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the BoM story goes beyond extraordinary and into the absurd.
And I want to get something straight...you came to my Ex-Mormon blog and started to discuss the Book of Mormon because you DIDN'T want to have a theological discussion? Bullshit. GAs have specifically stated that the Jaredites arrived to a pristine, uninhabited land. These are men that mormons believe to be inspired by god, and you mean to tell me that you (a mormon) don't agree with that assertion? Maybe you could explain why your inspired leaders are WRONG. (Although to do that, you'd have to address many statements by LOTS of different "prophets" in mormon history, starting with Smith and continuing to the present day.)
Finally, my comment on cognitive dissonance was spot-on and described the situation perfectly. I repeat, if you have any issues with a statement I make on this blog, then REFUTE it. A wild and vague dismissal does not constitute a rebuttal, and will not be employed again. I've hit the books enough to change my entire belief system. You just read what you agree with.
Ok, iBear, let's start with your first paragraph. At the end my post I'm including a link to an article written by Dr. Ugo Perego. He's a population geneticst who has specialized in mtDNA & populations & especially Native American DNA studies. Please read his article and then tell me why he is wrong (because he certainly argues that your claims are wrong):
ReplyDeletehttp://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/Book_of_Mormon_and_DNA.html
He is wrong because his entire article constitutes an ad hoc argument, and furthermore he ignores several basic facts. He claims (as you do, and I assume you got it from him) that we do not know what haplotype Lehi's family would have had. There is no reason to assume that Lehi's Middle Eastern family wouldn't have had the mtDNA markers we find among others in that region: markers that we do NOT see among Native Americans. He claims that they were absorbed by a larger population, despite the BoM having no mention of ANY previous inhabitants in the Americas, and ignoring (or directly contradicting) the allegedly-"inspired" introduction to the BoM itself, supposedly the most perfect book on the face of the earth.
ReplyDeleteIn short, he is wrong because his entire explanation relies on bizarre improbabilities. It's the "if you turn your head and squint like THIS...it could still be true!" defense. If the BoM WERE true, the evidence would support it. Instead, the entire article you provided is a deliberate attempt to make the reader dismiss the evidence.
But Southerton does a much better job of explaining it, if you would like to add some reading or your own:
http://www.irr.org/mit/southerton-response.html
Wow. Talk about Cognitive Dissonance! You don't like what an actual population geneticist says but since Southerton's views justify your own, you take his experitise over that of a real expert (and he's just one of several-- I could name others). Well, I hope your readers can now see through your chimera of supposed "truth." BTW, your generic answer to Dr. Perego's paper leads me to believe that you didn't even read it. I guess there is no point in arguing with someone whose mind is already made up.
ReplyDeleteLOL! Your aspersions aside, have you noticed how everything you've said has been casting doubt on the evidence? You haven't posted about anything but technicalities and exceptions since you got here; everything is about how the evidence "doesn't disprove the BoM" or "isn't as clear-cut as it seems" or "might not be as expected". Why is it that the evidence never seems to SUPPORTS the BoM narrative? If it were true, we should be seeing all kinds of archaeological evidence that supports that story as written. We don't. Instead we see a LACK of any supporting evidence: steel, horses, chariots, elephants, genetic markers, to name a few. Remember, if you're right then ALL of these things should back up the story. They don't.
ReplyDeleteWhat you believe doesn't particularly upset me. I would say that there are several things you believe that non-mormons would consider absurd or even disturbing. (black people were less worthy, women are undeserving of authority positions, a series of secret handshakes will be required to get into heaven, etc.)
And then you said "I guess there is no point in arguing with someone whose mind is already made up." My mind was made up four years ago when I realized I didn't believe what the mormon church teaches. My mind was made up about the Book of Mormon three years ago when I re-examined the evidence. My mind was made up about the Book of Abraham when I discovered that the "translated" papyri were still in existence, and Joe Smith got them abysmally WRONG. The only question now is why you bothered coming to my blog at all when I had made it abundantly clear that my mind was already made up.
I think we're done here. Come back if you want to actually learn something.
Thanks for acknowledging that your mind is made up (i.e., "closed"). It's refreshing to see a critic admit that he is not interested in truth but simply interested in maintaining their fundamentalist mentality.
ReplyDeleteI find it fascintating that anything that you are unable to grasp intellectually, you brush off as "obfuscation."
It's very revealing when you make claims that Simon Southerton-- a plant geneticists-- knows more about population genetics than recognized population geneticists. Dr. Ugo Perego is one of these recognized population geneticists who is recognized by his peers as an expert on population genetics. He claims that we can not know for sure what Lehite DNA would have looked liked. Southerton disagrees so instead of wondering if Simon is wrong, you automatically discount the expert because it doesn't fit with your predetermined view.
Dr. Michael Whiting, a recognized expert on DNA sequencing, says: "How do you identify unambiguously the Middle Eastern population that contains the ancestral genetic signature that you will use for comparison? Just as the genetic signature of the colonizers may have changed over time, the genetic signature of the Middle Eastern source population may have changed as well, making it unclear just whom we should sample to find that ancestral Middle Eastern genetic marker. We know that the Middle East has been the crossroads of civilization for many millennia and that many events affecting entire populations have occurred there since 600 BC, such as the large-scale captivity of groups and the influence of other people moving within and through the area. All of these factors complicate the identification of a discrete genetic profile characterizing the original Middle Eastern source population."
Or, perhaps, you'd believe Southerton himself when he wrote: ""In case anyone from FAIR is unclear I will repeat what I wrote four years ago…“IF A SMALL GROUP OF ISRAELITES ENTERED SUCH A MASSIVE NATIVE POPULATION (SEVERAL MILLIONS) IT WOULD BE VERY, VERY HARD TO DETECT THEIR GENES.” Now that FAIR has finally conceded that American Indian DNA is essentially all derived from Asia, I also agree with them that the debate should be about the theology."
So if Southerton (despite his most recent ramblings on the Signature site) claims that Lehite DNA would not be detectable, why would you argue otherwise?
Yeah, we're done here. You've fallen back on just reiterating the ad hoc arguments of FAIR "researchers". Next you'll be parroting the absurd claim that BoM "horses" were actually tapirs.
ReplyDeleteMy new screenshots are done, so I don't need anything else from you. Bye-bye, dumbass.
Although in parting, I give you a little food for thought: you come onto my blog to defend your mormon faith, and then accuse ME of a "fundamentalist" mentality? You might want to look up that word...I don't think it means what you think it means:)