|
Post by skyfire on Mar 26, 2009 22:07:16 GMT -5
Skyfire, either put the fuck up, or SHUT the fuck up. If all you're going to do is throw tantrums over "personal insults" (which were well-deserved, I might add) and give us completely irrelevant information, then GTFO of the thread already. I was finding it quite interesting and informative until you came in here with your whining and temper tantrums. Jesus fucking Christ. ENOUGH already. If nobody wanted me in this thread, then how come I was called out by name?
|
|
|
Post by mnstrm on Mar 26, 2009 22:08:53 GMT -5
In fact, Skyfire, careful reading of the exchange on "the other" thread between you and Jonathan will reveal great effort on his part to be courteous and patient with you. I find that he exercised a great deal of restraint in the face of your rather condescending and arrogant manner. He's earned the right to vent his frustration, IMO. And in fact, he's still pretty darned restrained in his comments.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Mar 26, 2009 22:14:41 GMT -5
This is what I was referring to. Logic would dictate that the odds for conditions of the last paragraph would be astronomical, and virtually unprecedented in the history of the Jews. Now, tell me again how much archeological "evidence" there is to support this hyposthesis, which is what the BoM would have us accept as literal truth. Surely the archeological record would be RIFE with clues pointing to such an occurance. Please, point out this VAST repository of archeological evidence. Or, shut the fuck up and move to another thread. Please, get a grip. To begin with, as was noted the BoM is silent about other peoples beyond those mentioned. You've tried to argue that this is a weakness in the work, but rather a person can easily counter by noting that you're arguing from silence; if a person operates under the limited geography theory, then they may well have not encountered too many other peoples. As it is, the BoM itself states that beyond the plates of Nephi we're looking at an abridgment of the full extant text; once more, we could spend hours arguing from silence as to what those contained. Also, as far as the language goes - the only reference to actual language is the fact that the text the BoM was written in was a hybridization of Hebrew and Egyptian used for the sake of getting the maximum amount of information down in the least amount of space; I personally think it fair to compare it to shorthand. It's entirely possible that past a certain point only a few people might have been able to read it, with the others who knew of the language dying off and few people wanting to learn. Thus, it would make sense for the language to not appear elsewhere - it being a specialty language used only for the plates would possibly limit its use to the plates, and thus it would have died out with the Nephites. As for the rest of your assertions, I'll have to get them tomorrow; I need to be at work in a few hours and so need some sleep. Hopefully in the morning you'll be able to present yourself as the scholar you claim to be.
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 26, 2009 22:32:26 GMT -5
Again, the BoM is silent my ass. It was and is touted as a history of the Americas. Mormons refer to all native North Americans as Lamanites, as was taught in the BoM. Are you now admitting that the church has it wrong, and not all native Americans are Lamanites? That is something I have never read in any Mormon literature. Mormon doctrine defines Indians as Lamanites, all of them, which, by default, precludes their being anyone else in the Americas. The BoM would surely have mentioned them if they existed, for surely a very small group of refugees would either have been assimilated by the already occupying inhabitants, or would have at least been in contact with them, since they would have been VASTLY outnumbered. The BoM is silent on the issue of other inhabitors of the Americas because its basic premise and selling point was/is that the land was peopled by Nephi and his followers, and doesn't once mention another dark-skinned race. It is intellectually dishonest to try to make it spin otherwise.
Again, the assertion I made was valid and must have happened in order for the BoM to be even possibly true. The "lost" tribe was a tribe that spoke Hebrew, being Jews. Jews spoke Hebrew. Not Mayan, or any of the other totally unrelated MesoAmerican languages. They wrote in Hebrew, may have known some Egyptian glyphs, but the MesoAmerican language and writing is totally unrelated, linguistically.
Therefore, my assertion stands. In order for the BoM to be accurate, Hebraic speaking Jews would have had to unlearn their own language, invent an entirely new one, and not just one, but hundreds of languauges, leave absolutely no trace of their ever having been Jews in the Americas, nor their religion, nor the Mormon religion, and people MesoAmerica alone with some 20-30 million "Lamanites", all in the space of 1500 hundred odd years. As I said, not only is the archeological record silent, it actually beggars the imagination for this to be even possible to do.
In all of the dispersions of the Jews throughout written history, they have maintained their culture, their language and especially their religious writings. Yes, it does beggar the imagination.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Mar 26, 2009 22:36:02 GMT -5
Wait.......what......did you just cite yourself......you did..........AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....oh I can't breath......did any else.....aahahaahahaha......see this...........he cited himself...........hahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahahaahahaha.....................ahahaahahaahahahaahaha........
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 26, 2009 22:40:25 GMT -5
Wait.......what......did you just cite yourself......you did..........AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....oh I can't breath......did any else.....aahahaahahaha......see this...........he cited himself...........hahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahahaahahaha.....................ahahaahahaahahahaahaha........ Well, he is, after all, the only credible student of history that posts on this website.
|
|
Panthera
Full Member
Here kitty kitty...
Posts: 229
|
Post by Panthera on Mar 26, 2009 22:56:47 GMT -5
Skyfire, either put the fuck up, or SHUT the fuck up. If all you're going to do is throw tantrums over "personal insults" (which were well-deserved, I might add) and give us completely irrelevant information, then GTFO of the thread already. I was finding it quite interesting and informative until you came in here with your whining and temper tantrums. Jesus fucking Christ. ENOUGH already. If nobody wanted me in this thread, then how come I was called out by name? I reiterate: Put up, or shut up. If you can't address the points presented without resorting to obfuscating and insults, then say so and back off while you still have some miniscule shred of dignity left.
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 27, 2009 5:53:11 GMT -5
I've heard the "BoM of is silent" argument before, and it doesn't wash, considering the teachings of Mormonism on the subject. It is taken as a given that Nephi and his followers were the first American inhabitants by Mormons, since the day the BoM was published.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Mar 27, 2009 7:30:36 GMT -5
Again, the BoM is silent my ass. It was and is touted as a history of the Americas. Mormons refer to all native North Americans as Lamanites, as was taught in the BoM. Are you now admitting that the church has it wrong, and not all native Americans are Lamanites? No, I'm saying that you've quite clearly missed the last 20+ years of apologetic research and debate.No one, other than you, is saying that the church is wrong. Rather, most of your more recent apologists are simply scaling things back. Hence such things as the limited geography theory. Or it could simply be that you've set your standards a tad too high.
|
|
|
Post by Star Cluster on Mar 27, 2009 7:57:41 GMT -5
Again, the BoM is silent my ass. It was and is touted as a history of the Americas. Mormons refer to all native North Americans as Lamanites, as was taught in the BoM. Are you now admitting that the church has it wrong, and not all native Americans are Lamanites? No, I'm saying that you've quite clearly missed the last 20+ years of apologetic research and debate.No one, other than you, is saying that the church is wrong.[/color] Rather, most of your more recent apologists are simply scaling things back. Hence such things as the limited geography theory. Or it could simply be that you've set your standards a tad too high.[/quote] Okay, skyfire, I'm officially calling Poe on your ass. There is no way, no fucking way, you actually believe the statement I have highlighted above. To say JonE is the only one saying the church is wrong is the height of absurdity. Everyone, other than Mormon apologists, is saying the LDS is wrong on the topic of the indigenous peoples of this continent. Archaeological evidence does not in anyway whatsoever support your (LDS) view. With the above statement, you have rendered yourself utterly irrelevant to any discourse on this or any other topic.
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Mar 27, 2009 9:26:43 GMT -5
Joseph could have been trying to prank people to see if they were paying attention to his sermon that day, if it was actually delivered in a sermon at all. Congratulations son! After I FINALLY picked myself up off the floor, you became the first person I submitted a mainpage quote for in nearly 2 years! Take a bow! I was also expecting the quote in question to be this... May 14, 1961 - Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith announces to stake conference in Honolulu: "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." Smith, the Twelve's president and next in succession as LDS President, adds: "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."SOME FUCKING PROPHET!
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Mar 27, 2009 9:34:32 GMT -5
Rather, most of your more recent apologists are simply scaling things back. Hence such things as the limited geography theory. Tha wahat? Is the word geography even necessary? OK, so is this going to be as good as the canopy theory or baraminology? Shooooooooooooooooooooooooot buckwheat! Showwus ur evadunzs...
|
|
|
Post by Paradox on Mar 27, 2009 9:49:59 GMT -5
No one, other than you, is saying that the church is wrong. No one, other than you, is saying that the church is wrong. No one, other than you, is saying that the church is wrong. No one, other than you, is saying that the church is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Mar 27, 2009 11:53:14 GMT -5
Obviouslly he's been ignoreing the rest of us.
Ironbite-sorry Sky....it's not just Jon but REALITY that says your cult is in the wrong here.
|
|
|
Post by Death on Mar 27, 2009 12:11:35 GMT -5
Rather, most of your more recent apologists are simply scaling things back. Hence such things as the limited geography theory. Tha wahat? Is the word geography even necessary? OK, so is this going to be as good as the canopy theory or baraminology? Shooooooooooooooooooooooooot buckwheat! Showwus ur evadunzs... oh, lgt is a real hoot www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon388.htm
|
|