SteelHead wrote:Case in point. Jskains: Sure. A lot of religion requires supernatural components. A man who alone can make universes is a supernatural thing. So if He wanted the gold to be very light, then He can make it that way.
God, making gold light since 1820.
If the atomic weight changes..... is it still gold?
Robert F Smith wrote:It is certainly true that some religions "require supernatural components," but Mormonism does not. Mormon theology posits a natural God in a natural universe (or multiverse). What appear to be "miracles" are really a result of awe from people who don't have a natural explanation ready at hand. Yet today we will hear a General Authority wryly compare his gps device to Lehi's Liahona. We now regard as ordinary technology which heretofore would be called "miraculous." Why? Because our perspective has changed.
Ok this is rather tangential, but please explain a global flood, and the ark available space issues without introducing supernatural elements. Please don't argue that LDS doctrine does not require a global flood, I can and have provided dozens and dozens of references from conference talks, lesson manuals and such teaching the global nature of the flood. There is an existing thread on this topic, direct replies there.
Nowhere is a global flood required. The text uses words like ""earth" "ground" and "land," all of which translate the same Hebrew term, and can be interpreted as regional. Of course many people believe it to have been worldwide, with every mountain submerged, but that is not necessary. All we need to understand is that the transmission of various early stories like this one depend on human transmission and interpretation. The same applies to the barges built by either Noah or the Jaredites.
Indeed, William F. Albright opined that the Great Deluge story was a human memory of the great Pluvial rains which came at the end of the last ice age.
Last edited by Guest on Sun Dec 16, 2012 4:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
SteelHead wrote:Ok ok, show that the Nephites used the Mayan long calendar.
Better?
Robert F Smith wrote:The Mayan Long Count calendar was invented by Las Olmecas (Jaredites) and was used by all subsequent Mesoamerican cultures. The Maya are simply the best known of all of them due to all the inscriptions and the few codices which survived. So, it is more correct to say that the Nephites used the Long Count calendar, since they had little or no direct contact with the Maya.
You still do not show that the Nephites were in meso America.
Lots of supposition, no verifiable markers.
You have forgotten Sherlock Holmes: "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
It is clearly impossible for the Nephites to have been anywhere (if they existed) except Mesoamerica. In addition, due to the tight correlations between the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerican archeology, it is impossible for them not to have existed -- even though it seems improbable.
Tobin wrote:The problem I have with the answer the Nephites got the long calendar from the Olmecs (supposed Jaredites) is that the Jaredites were wiped out. Who taught them this calendar?
You have confused hyperbole (exaggeration for effect) with fact. The Bible and Book of Mormon use hyperbole in the same way it is used in modern times, and it is useless to take such statements literally.
The thing about the Olmec civilization is that it ended and disappeared. Not everyone has to die to end a civilization or culture. Hyperbole serves to signal the end, but the basic influences can continue in other forms. The key element is that both Olmec and Jaredite cultures ended at the same time, and later cultures did not even remember them (we don't even know what the Olmec called themselves). The same was true of the great city-state of Teotihuacan in central Mexico.
What is key is that both the Olmec and Jaredite cultures follow the same archeological and chronological sequence. John Sorenson's forthcoming Mormon's Codex will demonstrate that in detail.
SteelHead wrote:Nipper, wasn't your comment a few post backs that catholic countries were poorer and worse educated? Pick a position and stick with it.........
And now all of sudden you are counting the Catholics in south Korea in the total Christian count where previously you were treating them as a bad thing.
More than 60% of that country is pagan or atheist or something you originally considered a detriment. In no way supports the thesis that Christian protestant nations are more successful.
Think past your emotions. The fact is that native Christians were almost unheard of in that area of the world until the Koren War. There was a sizable conversion in a relatively short period of time. And yes --- prior to the late sixties /early seventies, protestant nations were noted for a large middle class. Most Roman Catholic countries had rich and poor. The Irish and Italians didn't come to America in the millions because things were great for them in the "Old" country.
Seems like the LDS church is doing a piss poor job of teaching the scriptures properly since they teach it all as literal fact (global flood, genocides, etc).
Maybe they should have apologists rewrite the manuals...
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden ~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
SteelHead wrote:Nipper, wasn't your comment a few post backs that catholic countries were poorer and worse educated? Pick a position and stick with it.........
And now all of sudden you are counting the Catholics in south Korea in the total Christian count where previously you were treating them as a bad thing.
More than 60% of that country is pagan or atheist or something you originally considered a detriment. In no way supports the thesis that Christian protestant nations are more successful.
Think past your emotions. The fact is that native Christians were almost unheard of in that area of the world until the Koren War. There was a sizable conversion in a relatively short period of time. And yes --- prior to the late sixties /early seventies, protestant nations were noted for a large middle class. Most Roman Catholic countries had rich and poor. The Irish and Italians didn't come to America in the millions because things were great for them in the "Old" country.
Uh, a lot of Irish came because of a famine. You're not suggesting Catholicism was to blame for the famine, are you?
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden ~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
Robert F Smith wrote: It is clearly impossible for the Nephites to have been anywhere (if they existed) except Mesoamerica. In addition, due to the tight correlations between the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerican archeology, it is impossible for them not to have existed -- even though it seems improbable.
Right. You just keep running with that..... Between your specious correlations and admission that the Book of Mormon doesn't mean what it says, you are building a ... .... ... case? Your if clause is showing.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.
Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality. ~Bill Hamblin
LDS President John Taylor said that "The story of the life of the Mexican divinity, Quetzalcoatl, closely resembles that of the Savior; so closely, indeed, that we can come to no other conclusion than that Quetzalcoatl and Christ are the same being." (Taylor, An Examination into and an Elucidation of the Great Principle of the Mediation and Atonement of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ [Salt Lake City: Deseret News Co., 1882], 201).
And Mormon scholar Brant Gardner has simply destroyed this myopic non-revelatory speculation of Taylor. Why spout the man's speculation when it serves your purpose but ignore the far more careful, realistic, and verifiable work of Gardner which has demonstrated without question that the "White God" MYTH in Mesoamerica has exactly nothing to do with any kind of Savior, let alone Jesus?
Brant Gardner is a fine, well-trained anthropologist, and you would do well to read his detailed commentary on the Book of Mormon. I know and respect him. That doesn't mean that we agree on everything. Perhaps when you finish his commentary you will then tell me that you believe everything he says and spend your time defending the Book of Mormon the way he does. Hoo-Raa! And semper fi.
Neither you nor Gardner are required to accept the statement of Pres. Taylor. However, before you reject the notion, at least read the professional literature on the subject. That is why I cited it for you.
Robert F Smith wrote: It is clearly impossible for the Nephites to have been anywhere (if they existed) except Mesoamerica. In addition, due to the tight correlations between the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerican archeology, it is impossible for them not to have existed -- even though it seems improbable.
Right. You just keep running with that..... Between your specious correlations and admission that the Book of Mormon doesn't mean what it says, you are building a ... .... ... case? Your if clause is showing.
The purpose of this thread is "true philosophical defenses of Mormonism," or have you forgotten? Philosophy requires the careful statement of conditions and conclusions.
A lot of people read Holy Writ carelessly, and are not prepared to discuss the consequences of improper attention to detail or grammar. Reading the Book of Mormon or the Bible with a kind of fairy faith provides very little information of real value. You might want to read some of the professional literature on the subject, and you could start with Northrop Frye, The Great Code: The Bible and Literature (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1981/1982). When you have finished, try applying the same standards of analysis to both Bible and Book of Mormon. To do that, of course, you will have to temporarily put aside your hate and contempt for all things Mormon. Do you think that possible?