Horse and Chariots--Another Apologist Red Herring

[_Tobin]

Tobin,

Thank you for your honesty. Not many of us are brave enough to admit that God has visited us, for fear of ridicule. I, too, have seen God, face to face, as sure as I would see any man standing before me. It remains my most sacred experience.

H.

Thanks, but my experience was unlooked for and I was severely chastised (and I was not alone at the time). It actually is NOT an experience I wish to repeat. I am trying to reform my life and discussing my feelings on websites I feel helps, because I remember being in much the same position as many of the people who post on these sites. At some point, I will likely stop posting comments on websites and focus more of my effort into other areas of my life.

[_Tobin]

I didn't miss it. I just know you don't really know what you are talking about. Could you be more specific on the difference between feeling and experiencing God, or what you think is God.

If you had experienced God, you'd know the difference. It is the same difference as feeling the warmth of the Sun on a hot day vs looking at the blinding radiance of the Sun. If you ventured into a dark, damp cave - you might eventually forget the warmth of that day (or even persuade yourself that it never happened), but you know you've seen the Sun.

...I just wonder why someone who claims to have seen him behaves in such UN-Christlike ways here.

Did I hurt your feelings? If I so, I apologize. If I seem passionate about the topic, well - that's just me.

[_LDSToronto]

Tobin,

Thank you for your honesty. Not many of us are brave enough to admit that God has visited us, for fear of ridicule. I, too, have seen God, face to face, as sure as I would see any man standing before me. It remains my most sacred experience.

H.

Thanks, but my experience was unlooked for and I was severely chastised (and I was not alone at the time). It actually is NOT an experience I wish to repeat. I am trying to reform my life and discussing my feelings on websites I feel helps, because I remember being in much the same position as many of the people who post on these sites. At some point, I will likely stop posting comments on websites and focus more of my effort into other areas of my life.

Oh my, Tobin! The Lord visited you and others and chastised you?! I am astounded. Please, tell me more.

This differs from my own visitation. I was told some things that I had never before heard, new knowledge, and was given a promise that has come true to a large degree.

H.

[_Runtu]

You seem to fail in the comprehension department. So, to help you - I know it is hard sometimes to follow when I don't do outlines for the simple-minded.

When all else fails, go for a cheap insult.

Position 1) Detractors of the Book of Mormon will not acknowledge their mistakes. Example: Barley was state as being present in the Book of Mormon. Detractors stated that barley was unknown in pre-Columbian America. This is factually untrue.

When cheap insults fail, go for a strawman. You don't seem to have noticed that I don't consider barley to be an anachronism, necessarily. I learned long before I left the church that barley had been found among the Anasazi.

Position 2) The Book of Mormon is a spiritual guide to get people to seek God. Detracting from this purpose by pointing out supposed flaws in the text without taking into account it's main thesis is not a relevant criticism. After all, if there is really a God, how does the fact the Book of Mormon failing to mention potatoes relevant in light of that?

And when strawmen fail, go for a non-sequitur. People believed in God and had experiences with Him long before the Book of Mormon was published. The existence of the Book of Mormon is unrelated to the existence of God.

Now since then, we have delved into things such as knowing if one believes in God; or what should be a good basis in faith in Mormonism, but this is a website comment board. Sue me for wandering off my initial positions if you want.

I don't fault your wandering, just your lack of coherent arguments.

Anyway, try to keep up with the discussion. I'm not going to do an outline for you everytime. :)

And one last cheap insult for good measure.

[_Themis]

If you had experienced God, you'd know the difference. It is the same difference as feeling the warmth of the Sun on a hot day vs looking at the blinding radiance of the Sun. If you ventured into a dark, damp cave - you might eventually forget the warmth of that day (or even persuade yourself that it never happened), but you know you've seen the Sun.

I'm sure you believe that.

Did I hurt your feelings? If I so, I apologize. If I seem passionate about the topic, well - that's just me.

I'm not hurt, but your behavior appears to be arrogant, judgmental and self centered. You should learn to listen more.

[_Runtu]

I'm not hurt, but your behavior appears to be arrogant, judgmental and self centered. You should learn to listen more.

I've learned a lot by listening to people, even those I totally disagree with. I admit that I have little patience for those who presume to tell me what I have and haven't experienced. It's a little off-putting.

[_Tobin]

Oh, you wish to discuss things now? I thought you sided with the peanut gallery in throwing out unsupported and baseless jabs, so I was trying to appease your blood-lust by responding in kind.

Position 1) Detractors of the Book of Mormon will not acknowledge their mistakes. Example: Barley was state as being present in the Book of Mormon. Detractors stated that barley was unknown in pre-Columbian America. This is factually untrue.

You don't seem to have noticed that I don't consider barley to be an anachronism, necessarily. I learned long before I left the church that barley had been found among the Anasazi.

All right, fair enough, let's examine another. In the Book of Mormon, it states that swords were stained with blood (Alma 24:12-15). This not something that would have been copied from the Bible and is a very odd statement. However, this fits perfectly if you know of the Mesoamerican macuahuitl with a wooden shaft in describing the discoloration of the hafts of these blade when used to kill an enemy. Given that information, the assumption that the Book of Mormon is untrue because it mentions swords (presumably iron) is factually inaccurate and the Book of Mormon actually is supported by the finding of swords (in-use) with wood hafts that stain.

Position 2) The Book of Mormon is a spiritual guide to get people to seek God. Detracting from this purpose by pointing out supposed flaws in the text without taking into account it's main thesis is not a relevant criticism. After all, if there is really a God, how does the fact the Book of Mormon failing to mention potatoes relevant in light of that?

People believed in God and had experiences with Him long before the Book of Mormon was published. The existence of the Book of Mormon is unrelated to the existence of God.

That may be true. You can certainly know that God is real without the Bible, Book of Mormon, or any magic book. But, what do we know about God? If God had the Book of Mormon or Bible or any magic book created, they must be important for some reason? Your thesis that it is completely unrelated to the existence of God doesn't seem to hold up since God (through his servants) seemed rather intent on them writing down their experiences with God. The answer is that the Bible and Book of Mormon are a generational memory of man's past dealings with God (as fanciful as some of the claims may be). Their purpose is to bring each new generation into memory of their God and to instruct them to seek him and bring them into rememberance of him. Few people believe in a world-wide flood as described in the Bible, but this doesn't prevent us from using the New Testament in the Bible to help understanding of the teachings of Jesus. The same can be said of the Book of Mormon. It might not mention potatoes (and this might seem like a huge oversight), but that really doesn't matter in light of what we can gain from it in knowledge of God.

[_SteelHead]

The Book of Mormon specifically mentions making sword copied on the Sword of Laban.

And I, Nephi, did take the sword of Laban, and after the manner of it did make many swords, lest by any means the people who were now called Lamanites should come upon us and destroy us. . . . And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.

The sword of Laban was a sword made of fine steel. You also see steel working mentioned, but no flint or obsidian. So while steel swords are specifically mentioned macuahuitl are not, nor are they described.

Keep trying.

[_Tobin]

Oh my, Tobin! The Lord visited you and others and chastised you?! I am astounded. Please, tell me more.

This differs from my own visitation. I was told some things that I had never before heard, new knowledge, and was given a promise that has come true to a large degree.

H.

I'll just say I was in a dark place. I was not a good person and doing things in retro-spect I should not have been doing. I was in a locked apartment up to no good with someone else when a being physically entered the room and basically let us have it. We were both in shock and shaking. Even now (and I can see it clearly in my mind), I get chills. I can see the expression on the other person's face and we were both shaken to our core.

[_Tobin]

The sword of Laban was a sword made of fine steel. You also see steel working mentioned, but no flint or obsidian. So while steel swords are specifically mentioned macuahuitl are not, nor are they described.

And how did the Lamanites make their swords? Out of the materials available in the land since they did not have the sword of Laban perhaps? Alma is referring to Lamanite weapons specifically. Can you say oops?