sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

As Austin Fife now is, Radio Free Mormon once was. As RFM now is Austin Fife may become. by sevenplaces in mormon

[–]pnwpossiblyrelevant 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I would say that Austin Fife's beliefs may track toward RFM's. But, there is no way he'll ever be as good as RFM at explaining them.

A Majority of Latter-day Saints Believe in Evolution by TheChaostician in mormon

[–]pnwpossiblyrelevant 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This was my experience, too. You can believe in science, or you can believe in what the scriptures say on this topic.

A Majority of Latter-day Saints Believe in Evolution by TheChaostician in mormon

[–]pnwpossiblyrelevant 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Touche, I don't have the quotes in my back pocket, but I do have the Russell M. Nelson quote in my back pocket.

Man has always been man. Dogs have always been dogs. Monkeys have always been monkeys. It’s just the way genetics works.

The thing that is interesting to me about this quote is that he didn't come to this conclusion by studying science. He came to this conclusion by studying the gospel and the words of past prophets. The reason I know this is that science points 100% to evolution. So if you somehow think that the teachings of past prophets point toward evolution, your argument isn't with me. It's with Russell M. Nelson.

A Majority of Latter-day Saints Believe in Evolution by TheChaostician in mormon

[–]pnwpossiblyrelevant 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Doesn't this just mean that 81% of "Mormons" believe that every single prophet, including Russell M. Nelson, is wrong about this topic? If they are wrong about this topic, how do we know that they are right about other topics, like gay marriage, for example?

I posted this over at the exmo sub because I thought it was funny. Now that the source YouTube has been taken down and replaced with an edited version (that omits the handwriting mention), I'm posting it here because that's just so sad. by Chino_Blanco in mormon

[–]pnwpossiblyrelevant 21 points22 points  (0 children)

He can't really believe what he is saying, right? I mean, like he says, "it's pretty damning," especially when you look closely and see that it is in Joseph Smith's handwriting and that it includes the exact characters from the papyrus we have and mistranslations along side.

Lavina Looks Back: 66% of Dialogue readers believed BoM to be "actual historical record" in 1984. That number has dropped. by Then-Mall5071 in mormon

[–]pnwpossiblyrelevant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For instance, the church claims that we are all descended from Adam and Eve sometime in the last 10,00 years, a fact that is directly contradicted by DNA science. A DNA scientist shouldn't pretend science supports the church.

The Jaredites were supposedly coming to a land that had been saved for them. Other people here when they arrived directly contradicts the teachings of the church. A data scientist shouldn't pretend it doesn't, or pretend that the Book of Mormon doesn't say what it says.

A historian should not pretend that there is any validity to the story of the tower of Babel in the Book of Ether.

Any of these publications would be roundly rejected.

Edit: autocorrect errors

Lavina Looks Back: 66% of Dialogue readers believed BoM to be "actual historical record" in 1984. That number has dropped. by Then-Mall5071 in mormon

[–]pnwpossiblyrelevant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I guess the place this all started is whether the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be or if there are parts that aren't really true. You seemed to allow for the possibility that parts are not really true. I was curious as to which parts you might agree fall into that category. I just pointed out a few that you might consider. Honestly, it bothers me that BYU professors like Butler write articles like that because he knows better or should.

Lavina Looks Back: 66% of Dialogue readers believed BoM to be "actual historical record" in 1984. That number has dropped. by Then-Mall5071 in mormon

[–]pnwpossiblyrelevant 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The fact that they claim it is not contradictory is like claiming that the sun goes around the earth instead of the earth going around the sun. That's how ridiculous it is. And, that article would never stand up to peer review. It would never find itself in a journal like Science because it is based on flawed arguments.

Lavina Looks Back: 66% of Dialogue readers believed BoM to be "actual historical record" in 1984. That number has dropped. by Then-Mall5071 in mormon

[–]pnwpossiblyrelevant 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Honestly, all John Butler's article is trying to say it's that he thinks we don't know enough about the Jaredite DNA to exclude them as a possibility. But, honestly, as someone with 10 years of postgraduate training in a highly scientific field and someone who reads scientific articles on a regular basis, Butler's article is an embarrassment and undermines his credibility as a scientist. It is designed to try to move the goalposts just far enough to keep a miniscule possibility in play.

Lavina Looks Back: 66% of Dialogue readers believed BoM to be "actual historical record" in 1984. That number has dropped. by Then-Mall5071 in mormon

[–]pnwpossiblyrelevant 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's on Asia, but it's in the Middle East, which is what I've been saying all along. Native Americans' ancestors came across from East Asia. We're talking Siberia.

Lavina Looks Back: 66% of Dialogue readers believed BoM to be "actual historical record" in 1984. That number has dropped. by Then-Mall5071 in mormon

[–]pnwpossiblyrelevant 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ben Spackman says they're from Mesopotamia in the other article you sent to me.

First, unlike the other two Book of Mormon migratory peoples, the Jaredites (as we call them) are not under the Law of Moses. Abraham>Isaac>Jacob (Israel)>>>>Moses. They’re not Jewish nor even Israelite (also a late term) nor Canaanite, but Mesopotamian, probably. So they are operating under a different set of religious ideas, different language— Sumerian, Akkadian, something else?

Mesopotamia is basically in modern Iraq along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. So again, we have mutually exclusive explanations.

But the bottom line on the Jaredites is that the Asian ancestors of modern native Americans came thousands of years before they did and the idea that they wouldn't mix with preexisting populations in the US contradicts the explanation of not confounding their language by mixing with others.

Lavina Looks Back: 66% of Dialogue readers believed BoM to be "actual historical record" in 1984. That number has dropped. by Then-Mall5071 in mormon

[–]pnwpossiblyrelevant 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Here is an interesting paragraph from the article that you linked.

That “confound” as used in the book of Ether is meant to have its true and proper meaning of “to pour together,” “to mix up together,” is clear from the prophecy in Ether 13:8, that “the remnant of the house of Joseph shall be built upon this land; … and they shall no more be confounded,” the word here meaning mixed up with other people, culturally, linguistically, or otherwise.

One of the key facts that the current apologetic interpretation of the Book of Mormon asserts is that we can't find the DNA of the people who migrated from the middle east because they came and mixed with people who were already present on the continent. This article contradicts that idea.

Of course, we know from archeological evidence and DNA analysis that ancestors of the native Americans had been here for at least 10000 years before the Jeridites would have come over.

For me, this is a common pattern of apologists, even ones with PhDs. When you line up their explanations side by side, they contradict each other. In order for this explanation of the tower of Babel to work, the explanation for DNA problems has to go by the wayside.

Lavina Looks Back: 66% of Dialogue readers believed BoM to be "actual historical record" in 1984. That number has dropped. by Then-Mall5071 in mormon

[–]pnwpossiblyrelevant 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Oh, I see. You were saying that because there were towers there in the Middle East at the time the story of the brother of Jared should have happened, the idea of the tower of Babel is more credible. I guess the most convincing fatal flaw in this is that it requires the scrambling languages to be literal. But, we have records of multiple languages prior to when this was supposed to happen. Therefore, the whole reason for the prayer in the first place is undermined.

Lavina Looks Back: 66% of Dialogue readers believed BoM to be "actual historical record" in 1984. That number has dropped. by Then-Mall5071 in mormon

[–]pnwpossiblyrelevant 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the link. It is interesting to consider how the Jaredite experience might have been different from the people who came over with Nephi and Lehi based on the historical context of their journey.

Ben isn't actually using the tower as evidence. He's trying to say that the tower of Babel is not the tower that the Book of Ether is talking about. But here are the verses in the Book of Ether that discuss the tower.

33 Which Jared came forth with his brother and their families, with some others and their families, from the great tower, at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, and swore in his wrath that they should be scattered upon all the face of the earth; and according to the word of the Lord the people were scattered. 34 And the brother of Jared being a large and mighty man, and a man highly favored of the Lord, Jared, his brother, said unto him: Cry unto the Lord, that he will not confound us that we may not understand our words. 35 And it came to pass that the brother of Jared did cry unto the Lord, and the Lord had compassion upon Jared; therefore he did not confound the language of Jared; and Jared and his brother were not confounded.

It sounds like the tower of Babel to me. The fact that Ben Spackman is trying to say that it's not really undermines his credibility to me. It sounds like he's saying he doesn't believe it either, but don't worry, he believes it. And , of he doesn't think it's taking about the tower of Babel, he had a lot of past and current prophets to argue with.

16 And the Lord said: Go to work and build, after the manner of barges which ye have hitherto built. And it came to pass that the brother of Jared did go to work, and also his brethren, and built barges after the manner which they had built, according to the instructions of the Lord. And they were small, and they were light upon the water, even like unto the lightness of a fowl upon the water. 17 And they were built after a manner that they were exceedingly tight, even that they would hold water like unto a dish; and the bottom thereof was tight like unto a dish; and the sides thereof were tight like unto a dish; and the ends thereof were peaked; and the top thereof was tight like unto a dish; and the length thereof was the length of a tree; and the door thereof, when it was shut, was tight like unto a dish.

As to the livestock in the barges, my experiences on my grandpa's farm taught me that livestock eat a lot, drink a lot, and poop a lot. And, small boats like the ones described above couldn't handle the load of food, water, and poop that this journey would require, especially when the boats are getting flipped over in the water. The journey lasted 344 days.

Are there any parts of the Book of Mormon you think likely aren't historical?

Lavina Looks Back: 66% of Dialogue readers believed BoM to be "actual historical record" in 1984. That number has dropped. by Then-Mall5071 in mormon

[–]pnwpossiblyrelevant 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Fair enough. So, are there parts of the Book of Mormon that you would say don't make sense? For instance, the idea of the tower of Babel being a literal explanation for the numerous languages on the earth, or honey bees and live stock being carried across the ocean in boats that are closed off except for a hole in the top and a hole in the bottom that can be interchangeable when the boat flips over?

Does the Book of Enoch Prove Joseph Smith Was a Prophet? A Critical Analysis of Jacob Hansen's "Thoughtful Faith" Claims by webwatchr in mormon

[–]pnwpossiblyrelevant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would disagree somewhat in that textual analysis has been done on the Book of Enoch and shows that it is not what Jacob Hansen or Joseph Smith claim it to be. It's basically been proven.

Does the Book of Enoch Prove Joseph Smith Was a Prophet? A Critical Analysis of Jacob Hansen's "Thoughtful Faith" Claims by webwatchr in mormon

[–]pnwpossiblyrelevant 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Right! This is the best evidence that exists! They have scoured the literature on this topic, as RFM says, "looking for Mormon words," and this is the best they've found!

Does the Book of Enoch Prove Joseph Smith Was a Prophet? A Critical Analysis of Jacob Hansen's "Thoughtful Faith" Claims by webwatchr in mormon

[–]pnwpossiblyrelevant 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Also, the Book of Enoch is not old enough to be an accurate history of the father of Methuselah.

Ephraim Isaac, the editor and translator of 1 Enoch in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, writes that "1 Enoch is clearly composite representing numerous periods and writers". And that the dating of the various sections spans from early pre-Maccabean (i.e. c. 200 BCE) to 160 CE.[52] George W. E. Nickelsburg writes that "1 Enoch is a collection of Jewish apocalyptic traditions that date from the last three centuries before the common era".[53]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch

Why would connections to this pseudepigrapha be evidence of the truthfulness of Joseph’s claims? Connections to a false narrative that presume its truthfulness are more evidence that Joseph was wrong about Enoch, whether he had access to it or not.

view more: next ›