What's new

So I want to talk about the Mormons

Ok, so I started reading Book of Mormon and gave up after couple hours:/. Sorry people, I would rather read R.Bradbury or some other great science fiction author, at least some of his stories are believable and interesting. Now to believe that Lehi made a ship and sailed from Arabian peninsula to America's in 600 B.C? There was no proper ships or navigation knowledge at that time to sail that far, I am not even talking about winds, currents and other natural causes which would have made trip like that impossible. Why every religious book is so out of touch? I guess the answer is that people who wrote them at that time had no clue how silly it will look thousands or even hundreds of years after. Sorry, I understand that everybody can believe whatever they like but this is not for me.
 
Now to believe that Lehi made a ship and sailed from Arabian peninsula to America's in 600 B.C? There was no proper ships or navigation knowledge at that time to sail that far, I am not even talking about winds, currents and other natural causes which would have made trip like that impossible.
What are you talking about then? I'm not a believer, but the Austronesians sailed great distances across the Pacific starting 5000 or so years ago (they got to both Africa and the Society Islands around 300 CE).
 
What are you talking about then? I'm not a believer, but the Austronesians sailed great distances across the Pacific starting 5000 or so years ago (they got to both Africa and the Society Islands around 300 CE).

The austonesians mostly used small islands and "hopped" to other ones after a few generations, from what I have read. That said though, there are plenty of seafaring people beside what we accept as history right now that have explored farther than what we ever thought possible. The Chinese were sailing around Africa at least 500 years before Europeans. The reasoning behind akmvp's argument against the validity of the book does not hold water. There are other things to disagree with, but the sailing could have happened.
 
Ok, so I started reading Book of Mormon and gave up after couple hours:/.

No problem, I don't take it personally.

Sorry people, I would rather read R.Bradbury or some other great science fiction author, at least some of his stories are believable and interesting. Now to believe that Lehi made a ship and sailed from Arabian peninsula to America's in 600 B.C? There was no proper ships or navigation knowledge at that time to sail that far, I am not even talking about winds, currents and other natural causes which would have made trip like that impossible. Why every religious book is so out of touch?

Perhaps you missed the part where it was done miraculously, through the power of God? And in fact, the miracle of how Lehi's family were led away from Jerusalem becomes a theme for the entire Book of Mormon. Whenever later prophets need to proclaim repentance to the people, just about every time they begin with (I paraphrase), "Have you forgotten the great things the Lord has done for us? He led our fathers away from Jerusalem before it was destroyed..."
 
What about allegations of "money digging?"

A skilled con man doesn't need a formal education in order to con.

Just speaking in the hypothetical. I'm not calling Joseph Smith a con man.

as I recall the story, as teenager he was hired to do what his employer asked. . . . dig for silver. What do you do for a living??? Do you accept your responsibility for what you're paid to do???? We've got all kinds of professionals who won't do that. They call it "fiduciary responsibility". Lawyers fight tooth and nail to push their arguments on judges, juries with nary a care about "truth".

The facts refute any intimation that Joseph Smith was a "skilled con man". In every instance he showed himself inept in matters of finance, and he spent his life trying to pay creditors who had secured judgments against him. He never came out on "top" financially in anything he ever did.
 
Ok, so I started reading Book of Mormon and gave up after couple hours:/. Sorry people, I would rather read R.Bradbury or some other great science fiction author, at least some of his stories are believable and interesting. Now to believe that Lehi made a ship and sailed from Arabian peninsula to America's in 600 B.C? There was no proper ships or navigation knowledge at that time to sail that far, I am not even talking about winds, currents and other natural causes which would have made trip like that impossible. Why every religious book is so out of touch? I guess the answer is that people who wrote them at that time had no clue how silly it will look thousands or even hundreds of years after. Sorry, I understand that everybody can believe whatever they like but this is not for me.

The thing you miss in my intrigue is things like "Lehi's trail", including an ancient sign found modernly that basically says "high, Lehi was here". Or the stuff in Southern America with nameplaces that are ridiculously ironical (<- for Colton). Or the seal of a son of a king who was an alleged BofM anachronism before that 1990's discovery. Hard to fake that kind of ironical.

It's not just a bunch of fairytale b.s. that some make it out to be. There is a ton to both sides, as someone mentioned a couple pages back.
 
The Chinese were sailing around Africa at least 500 years before Europeans. The reasoning behind akmvp's argument against the validity of the book does not hold water. There are other things to disagree with, but the sailing could have happened.

Ok, so here is very strong arguments presented that it was impossible ( unless we believe in "God's miracle" as Colton says which I refuse to believe).

Lehi and his party launched their vessel into the Indian Ocean from the south coast of the Arabian peninsula. The winds no doubt bore them on the same sea lanes that Arab, Chinese and Portuguese ships used later, touching India and ultimately the Malayan peninsula. From that point Nephi's ship likely threaded through the islands of the western Pacific, then across the open reaches north of the equator to landfall around 14 degrees north Latitude.”

First of all, they launched their ship into the Arabian Sea—and if they went east toward India, they never entered the Indian Ocean until after 2200 miles of sailing. Secondly, the winds did not bear “Arab, Chinese and Portuguese ships used later” to the east along the Indian Ocean. They did bear these ships to the west in the Arabian Sea, especially the Chinese junks and Arab dows that traded along the coastal waters. In addition, when they reached southern India, they were in the Laccadive Sea, and when they passed Ceylon (present-day Sri Lanka) they were in the Bay of Bengal, never actually moving into the Indian Ocean.

These ships, however, were far too fragile to venture into deep waters of the Indian or the Pacific oceans. As for the Portuguese, they found trying to sail such waters toward the east was so difficult, they learned to drop down from south of Africa to the Southern Ocean and sail eastward in the West Wind Drift with the Prevailing Westerlies (blowing out of the West) toward Australia, then take the trade winds northward to India, Indonesia and China—the Spice Islands.

As for the ships of 600 B.C. and clear into the 12th century A.D., some 1800 years after Lehi set sail, a crucial problem with Mediterranean and Arabian Sea coastal ships was their use of outside steering oars. Despite their great size and the ability to sail close hauled, their shallow draft and steering oars gave little resistance to the wind. These ships made a tremendous amount of leeway (drifting with the wind) and could spend several days going nowhere, losing to leeway, what progress they made sailing. A record dated to 1183 by a ship sailing from Sicily reports passing Crete…three times.

Needless to say this lack of a ship’s sailing ability played havoc with navigation, and was downright dangerous in close waters. These close waters were where narrow seas passed between land masses, such as in the Malacca Straits between Malaysia and Sumatra, or the islands around present-day Singapore, or those of the Philippines, etc.

The fact is, that the winds and currents blow toward the west through all of Indonesia, coming off the Pacific, South China Sea, and the Philippine Sea. And, in order to reach the 14º North Latitude in the Pacific, the ship would have to travel north of the Philippines and pass between those islands and Taiwan (Formosa) at about the 20º North Latitude. Crossing the Pacific at that point and dropping down to the 14º North Latitude, would send Lehi’s ship directly into the force of the North Pacific Current moving across the Pacific from the east toward the west in the southern loop of its gyre. This means that Lehi’s ship would have to travel about 10,000 miles directly into opposing winds and currents all across the Pacific. That is something not even the best-trained mariners could do as late as the 17th century—2300 years after Lehi sailed.


Again, there is certainly numerous other "miraculous" and "unbelievable" stories in this book which makes me ( and skeptical thinking ) doubt it. But if you believe in God I guess you can believe what is written in this book as well.
 
What I find it interesting and contradicting is plants and animals mentioned "supposedly to be in America's". Based on archeological findings from that time we have quite a problem to solve here

There are many animals mentioned in the Nephite records. These are:

***
Bull
Calf
Cattle
Cow
Butter
Milk
Flocks
Goat {the Nephites claimed to have found the domestic goat no less!}
Herds
Horse {the horse plays a major role in the Nephite and Lamanite societies}
Ox
Sheep {this was a major animal in the Book of Mormon}
Sow
Swine
Elephants

Archeological findings for the time period of the Book of Mormon:

***..... NONE
Bull.... NONE
Calf.... NONE
Cattle.. NONE
Cow..... NONE
Butter.. NONE
Milk.... NONE
Flocks.. NONE
Goat.... NONE
Herds... NONE
Horse... NONE
Ox...... NONE
Sheep... NONE
Sow..... NONE
Swine... NONE
Elephants ...NONE

How about plants?

There are four major crops mentioned in the Nephite records. These are:

Barley
Figs
Grapes
Wheat

Archeological findings for the time period of the Book of Mormon:

Barley NONE {an new world variety was found in Arizona and totally unrelated}
Figs NONE
Grapes NONE
Wheat NONE

Anybody want to explain?
 
With the people who complain about how the state is governed and laws that are influenced by the church, have you ever thought that that's just how the cookie crumbles. I mean, SLC was founded by mormons and thus, there is a lot of influence by them. I think some of the laws (especially alcohol laws) are whack and make no sense, but then again that's because of where I live and the history of the state.

It's like living in Rome and bitching about Catholics or am I way off?

No, you make a good point. But turn it around and ask yourself this:

Maybe peoples anger with the LDS church is a consequence of choosing to legislate morality. When you tell people how to live and force them to abide by rules of a religion they don't believe in, they're going to be pissed and talk **** about your religion. Thats the way the cookie crumbles.

How would you feel if you were only allowed to go to church or pray at certain days and times? I think you may go out of your way to voice your displeasure.

There's a fine line between persecution and a victim complex. If you're going to play "if you don't like it, then leave card", you have to deal with the consequences; basically people telling you to go **** yourself.
 
Anybody want to explain?

There are many possible explanations. This website has a lot of commentary on that point: https://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BMProb2.shtml

Edit: I'll quote a couple of paragraphs to give you a feel.

We must not be rash in assuming that all translated names of plants and animals or other physical objects describe the same things we think of today in 20th century America. Names in many languages are ambiguous and difficult to translate with certainty. For example, the Hebrew word for horse, "sus," has a root meaning of "to leap" and can refer to other animals as well - including the swallow. Hebrew "teo" typically means "wild ox" but has also been applied to a type of gazelle. The general Hebrew word for ox is "aluph," which has a root meaning of "tame" or "gentle" that could be applied to describe a human friend as well (J. L. Sorenson, Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1994, p. 345) - could it also describe a tapir? One Hebrew word for sheep, "zemer," has been translated as "mountain sheep" and "rock-goat" in different Bible versions, while Sorenson notes that one Jewish scholar says it means antelope.

The difficulties of assigning and translating animal names are illustrated by the example of the Spaniards in dealing with American animals. Bishop Landa called a Yucatan deer a "kind of little wild goat" (Sorenson, Ensign, Oct. 1984, p. 19). Likewise, bisons were called "cows," turkeys were called "peacocks," antelope were described in terms of sheep, and the tapir was described in one source as "a species of buffalo of the size and somewhat looking like an ***" (Sorenson, Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1994, p. 346; also see the extensive documentation in Chapter 7 of An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon). The Spaniards called the prickly pear a "fig" and used "plum" (ciruelo) to name a native non-plum species, while some Spaniards used "wheat" (trigo) to name American maize (ibid., p. 338-339). The Nephites and Jaredites might have made similar name assignments to species they encountered in the New World. We should not expect the religious record they kept to be a manual on natural science, and we should not insist that their terminology reflect our modern views - especially if the Europeans could do no better. If Nephites called a tapir an ox, we should not abandon the Book of Mormon when Joseph Smith follows their convention in his translation. And if they called it by a completely new name, how should it be translated?
 
Was talking in a modern sense, no Mormons have in common with teh blacks sense.



The Mos I know from down the south have crazy childhood stories like rubbing heads for horns... The south.



It's a good point.



Was gonna say how gamefaced of you.

Well it is crazy down there but it has gotten better. The Horns thing is really true. I had people ask me that like they thought it was a possibility. Some of the preachers there, particularly Southern Baptist, would teach anti-mormonism right from the pulpit on Sunday. I got jumped and several fistfights because I am Mormon. We (Mormons) were denied entry into public school clubs such as the Fellowship of Christian Students and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes because they felt we were not Christian. Parents would not let their kids play with you...

As for "the south" part of your comment. Well the south accounts for a 1/3rd of the country. It is 11 states (debatable on how you want to define "the south") and it has roughly 80 million people. I think that is suffiecient to say it is more than just a minor blip.
 
Some of this stuff is cheesy but this shows exactly what Joseph did if he truly did make it all up.

1- 13. Within the realm of several professional authors.
14 - 30. Standard religious stuff
31. Standard business model
32. - 33. Standard religious stuff

Relly, it's not very impressive.
 
Back
Top