The Truth about Mormons

[catzmeow]

Sunni Man is a queerio

Are you PUI again?

 

[Shogun]

had to post twice, eh dwarf? Feeling a little INSIGNIFICANT?

what religion IS NOT based on biased evidence, stupid? Thats kinda the point. Did you want to argue that the earth is flat now, short stuff?

I've given you references that you can learn from, yet you continually choose to ignore it and remain ignorant.

Google Universal Torah Network, and watch the series on the B'nei Noach.

You might learn something, but, with a skull as thick as yours, I doubt it.

no, you really haven't given a goddamn thing besides a reason to look down. Just because you fell for the charisma of David Koresh doesn't mean evidence to life's mysteries are found in his compound.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Koresh? No.

If you were to actually research something, you would see that Koresh had a mish mash of quite a few different theologies combined into his.

 

[N4mddissent]

I haven't had a chance yet to look over all the evidence you provided, but what I've seen has not yet been convincing. But that's not surprising, since I have a pretty high standard of evidence. I mean, if I am going to believe in something, I want to make sure I get the right one. And I haven't found anything to convince me of any supernatural belief.

However, I think it is a little over-the-top when someone from one religion heavily criticizes someone from another. If it makes you feel any better, I don't see the things you believe as being sillier than people who believe the stuff in the torah, the new testament, or the koran. To me, one has to have serious suspension of rational faculities to accept any of them as true. I understand the comfort factor that would allow otherwise intelligent reasonable people to look past the contradictions and logical pitfalls to accept something as true that in other circumstances they would barely consider for more than a second. But that's not me. I have thought at times that I wish I was that way. But some part of me refuses to compromise rational integrity just because it feels good or lends me comfort.

 

[Avatar4321]

I haven't had a chance yet to look over all the evidence you provided, but what I've seen has not yet been convincing. But that's not surprising, since I have a pretty high standard of evidence. I mean, if I am going to believe in something, I want to make sure I get the right one. And I haven't found anything to convince me of any supernatural belief.

However, I think it is a little over-the-top when someone from one religion heavily criticizes someone from another. If it makes you feel any better, I don't see the things you believe as being sillier than people who believe the stuff in the torah, the new testament, or the koran. To me, one has to have serious suspension of rational faculities to accept any of them as true. I understand the comfort factor that would allow otherwise intelligent reasonable people to look past the contradictions and logical pitfalls to accept something as true that in other circumstances they would barely consider for more than a second. But that's not me. I have thought at times that I wish I was that way. But some part of me refuses to compromise rational integrity just because it feels good or lends me comfort.

Ive never understood the point of cricitizing others for what they believe.

 

[Truthspeaker]

Who the hell cares to "learn" about a system that REQUIRES biased evidence? Do you believe in heliocentrism just because Copernicus and his buddies says thats true? Of course not. But, again, if all you people have are team jersey sources then it's pretty clear why you fail in the mainstream. Go ahead and believe what you want to. Hell, if nutjob motherfuckers believed David Koresh and Jim Jones then it's not a huge leap to imagine what biased sources can make a human believe.

for instance, you people claim archeological evidence... but we both know damn well that such is nothing more than your biased interpretation rather than widescale archaeological consensus. Thus, you MUST fester in the opinions of those who ALREADY have an imperative to feed you what you want to hear. That, sir, is about as far from the role of EVIDENCE as it gets. If you can't swallow this concept.. well...

Well Show-gun, it seems all you can do is cry "bias" without pointing out a single flaw in the works of Dr. Nibley, Sorenson or any other LDS archaeologist.....Oh and we as a society are supposed to just accept the slight majority of archaeologists who favor your views? As if it's some sort of dogma?
Science keeps learning new things every day if you haven't studied your history of discovery. Science has now PROVEN the likelihood of transoceanic pre Columbian travel. Heresy in the scientific world just 10 years ago. Now HUGE numbers of them believe that the Asian Land Bridge Theory is only 1 possibility and not the only possibility. Go look at National Geographic's magazine The Maya(a decidedly non-mormon if not anti-mormon source). The archaeologists are stubbornly scratching their heads as to how the Maya just suddenly appeared in a previously uninhabited sector of Meso America. They give the start of the civilization around 500 BC which began just after the Olmec decline and destruciton. Sounds exactly like the timeline of the Nephites who started up right about when the Jaredites were declining and eventually destroyed. No evidence whatsoever. check the magazine and cross reference it with the dates and times claimed in the Book of Mormon and they seem to fit like a glove.

Like I said before, You can interpret it however you wanna, but to say there is no evidence is Mormophobic and baseless. Since you're so smart, why don't you tell me what problems you have with our data before you go screaming bias like the judgmental lefty you are.

by the way it's the August 08 edition

Try again.

 

[Truthspeaker]

I haven't had a chance yet to look over all the evidence you provided, but what I've seen has not yet been convincing. But that's not surprising, since I have a pretty high standard of evidence. I mean, if I am going to believe in something, I want to make sure I get the right one. And I haven't found anything to convince me of any supernatural belief.

However, I think it is a little over-the-top when someone from one religion heavily criticizes someone from another. If it makes you feel any better, I don't see the things you believe as being sillier than people who believe the stuff in the torah, the new testament, or the koran. To me, one has to have serious suspension of rational faculities to accept any of them as true. I understand the comfort factor that would allow otherwise intelligent reasonable people to look past the contradictions and logical pitfalls to accept something as true that in other circumstances they would barely consider for more than a second. But that's not me. I have thought at times that I wish I was that way. But some part of me refuses to compromise rational integrity just because it feels good or lends me comfort.

You and one of my very best friends are similar. I can have an intelligent discussion with someone like you. I really mean this as NO disrespect whatsoever; but I want to ask what reservations you have regarding some of the evidences I presented. If we can talk about 1 issue at a time then we can get somewhere. I think you will find my reasoning quite rational if I am allowed to explain archaeological and historical context for the claims I make. Can you pick a subject for us to discuss?

 

[Eightball]

I haven't had a chance yet to look over all the evidence you provided, but what I've seen has not yet been convincing. But that's not surprising, since I have a pretty high standard of evidence. I mean, if I am going to believe in something, I want to make sure I get the right one. And I haven't found anything to convince me of any supernatural belief.

However, I think it is a little over-the-top when someone from one religion heavily criticizes someone from another. If it makes you feel any better, I don't see the things you believe as being sillier than people who believe the stuff in the torah, the new testament, or the koran. To me, one has to have serious suspension of rational faculities to accept any of them as true. I understand the comfort factor that would allow otherwise intelligent reasonable people to look past the contradictions and logical pitfalls to accept something as true that in other circumstances they would barely consider for more than a second. But that's not me. I have thought at times that I wish I was that way. But some part of me refuses to compromise rational integrity just because it feels good or lends me comfort.

Ive never understood the point of cricitizing others for what they believe.

Your founder did.......That's why he and his followers got run out of every state heading West from New York.

 

[Sunni Man]

Who the hell cares to "learn" about a system that REQUIRES biased evidence? Do you believe in heliocentrism just because Copernicus and his buddies says thats true? Of course not. But, again, if all you people have are team jersey sources then it's pretty clear why you fail in the mainstream. Go ahead and believe what you want to. Hell, if nutjob motherfuckers believed David Koresh and Jim Jones then it's not a huge leap to imagine what biased sources can make a human believe.

for instance, you people claim archeological evidence... but we both know damn well that such is nothing more than your biased interpretation rather than widescale archaeological consensus. Thus, you MUST fester in the opinions of those who ALREADY have an imperative to feed you what you want to hear. That, sir, is about as far from the role of EVIDENCE as it gets. If you can't swallow this concept.. well...

Science has now PROVEN the likelihood of transoceanic pre Columbian travel.

PROVEN the likelihood !!!!

Boy oh boy!!! is that is that a reach!!

PROVEN by a maybe

Like I said before: All the so called evidence the Mormon's claim for their fable, is always followed by; maybe, could be, leads to the conclusion, possible, plausible, might be, etc.

 

[Truthspeaker]

Who the hell cares to "learn" about a system that REQUIRES biased evidence? Do you believe in heliocentrism just because Copernicus and his buddies says thats true? Of course not. But, again, if all you people have are team jersey sources then it's pretty clear why you fail in the mainstream. Go ahead and believe what you want to. Hell, if nutjob motherfuckers believed David Koresh and Jim Jones then it's not a huge leap to imagine what biased sources can make a human believe.

for instance, you people claim archeological evidence... but we both know damn well that such is nothing more than your biased interpretation rather than widescale archaeological consensus. Thus, you MUST fester in the opinions of those who ALREADY have an imperative to feed you what you want to hear. That, sir, is about as far from the role of EVIDENCE as it gets. If you can't swallow this concept.. well...

Science has now PROVEN the likelihood of transoceanic pre Columbian travel.

PROVEN the likelihood !!!!

Boy oh boy!!! is that is that a reach!!

PROVEN by a maybe

Like I said before: All the so called evidence the Mormon's claim for their fable, is always followed by; maybe, could be, leads to the conclusion, possible, plausible, might be, etc.

I swear Sun, you oughta do some research yourself before squawking. You fell right into my trap. Read the non-Mormon sources and weep:

POSSIBLE PRE-COLUMBIAN TRANS-ATLANTIC VOYAGES TO MESOAMERICA: A SEARCH OF SOME NEW DATA FOR AN OLD CONTROVERSY

Michael D. Coe(The world's foremost Meso-American scholar) in his 6th edition of The Maya:"Boats must have been available to the people of Eurasia... "The Siberian Land Bridge Only" theory is no longer acceptable."

Pre-Columbian transatlantic contacts. Who is Pre-Columbian transatlantic contacts? What is Pre-Columbian transatlantic contacts? Where is Pre-Columbian transatlantic contacts? Definition of Pre-Columbian transatlantic contacts. Meaning of Pre-Columbi

Sorry, John L. Sorenson is one Mormon source among the 12 cited. I guess they think he's pretty smart since they listed him first.

 

[Sunni Man]

Why should I waste my time reading something that starts out with the word "Possible" ???

It's like watching those TV shows about UFO's

A lot of maybe, could be, quite possibe, leads one to believe,

But as far as solid evidence......................ZERO

 

[Avatar4321]

Why should I waste my time reading something that starts out with the word "Possible" ???

It's like watching those TV shows about UFO's

A lot of maybe, could be, quite possibe, leads one to believe,

But as far as solid evidence......................ZERO

Solid evidence has been cited multiple times. Its been ignored multiple times.

I understand you guys arent convinced by the evidence. but seriously, you look freaking insane when you keep denying the evidence exists.

 

[Sunni Man]

Here is a sentence right out of the article:

"The possible relation of some of the mentioned representations with Pre-Columbian Trans-Atlantic contacts have been discussed by some art historians, physical anthropologists, and archaeologists in the past, but the limited examples and the interpretative difficulties have not permitted definitive conclusions to be drafted. We hope that the corpus with the recovered data will permit more objective and better founded evaluation of their implications in the discussion of the Pre-Columbian Trans-Atlantic contacts.


Wow!! I have Never read such a bunch of double speak non sense in all of my life!!!

And you call this "Solid Evidence"!!!

All the article really says is " we don't know, and don't have any evidence, but we possibly think, there might be evidence, maybe"

 

[Truthspeaker]

Here is a sentence right out of the article:

"The possible relation of some of the mentioned representations with Pre-Columbian Trans-Atlantic contacts have been discussed by some art historians, physical anthropologists, and archaeologists in the past, but the limited examples and the interpretative difficulties have not permitted definitive conclusions to be drafted. We hope that the corpus with the recovered data will permit more objective and better founded evaluation of their implications in the discussion of the Pre-Columbian Trans-Atlantic contacts.


Wow!! I have Never read such a bunch of double speak non sense in all of my life!!!

And you call this "Solid Evidence"!!!

All the article really says is " we don't know, and don't have any evidence, but we possibly think, there might be evidence, maybe"

What has been proven is that nothing has been proven. Your argument is destroyed that says The Land Bridge is the only way. It is now inconclusive. That's all I was trying to prove. The possibility and that it's open for discussion and not a closed matter. Don't you get it. The Scientists don't agree. That means something.

You obviously ignored Michael Coe's bold statement that boats must have been available to the people of Eurasia and the it is time to consider transoceanic maritime voyages Pre-Columbus.

 

[Shogun]

Who the hell cares to "learn" about a system that REQUIRES biased evidence? Do you believe in heliocentrism just because Copernicus and his buddies says thats true? Of course not. But, again, if all you people have are team jersey sources then it's pretty clear why you fail in the mainstream. Go ahead and believe what you want to. Hell, if nutjob motherfuckers believed David Koresh and Jim Jones then it's not a huge leap to imagine what biased sources can make a human believe.

for instance, you people claim archeological evidence... but we both know damn well that such is nothing more than your biased interpretation rather than widescale archaeological consensus. Thus, you MUST fester in the opinions of those who ALREADY have an imperative to feed you what you want to hear. That, sir, is about as far from the role of EVIDENCE as it gets. If you can't swallow this concept.. well...

Well Show-gun, it seems all you can do is cry "bias" without pointing out a single flaw in the works of Dr. Nibley, Sorenson or any other LDS archaeologist.....Oh and we as a society are supposed to just accept the slight majority of archaeologists who favor your views? As if it's some sort of dogma?
Science keeps learning new things every day if you haven't studied your history of discovery. Science has now PROVEN the likelihood of transoceanic pre Columbian travel. Heresy in the scientific world just 10 years ago. Now HUGE numbers of them believe that the Asian Land Bridge Theory is only 1 possibility and not the only possibility. Go look at National Geographic's magazine The Maya(a decidedly non-mormon if not anti-mormon source). The archaeologists are stubbornly scratching their heads as to how the Maya just suddenly appeared in a previously uninhabited sector of Meso America. They give the start of the civilization around 500 BC which began just after the Olmec decline and destruciton. Sounds exactly like the timeline of the Nephites who started up right about when the Jaredites were declining and eventually destroyed. No evidence whatsoever. check the magazine and cross reference it with the dates and times claimed in the Book of Mormon and they seem to fit like a glove.

Like I said before, You can interpret it however you wanna, but to say there is no evidence is Mormophobic and baseless. Since you're so smart, why don't you tell me what problems you have with our data before you go screaming bias like the judgmental lefty you are.

by the way it's the August 08 edition

Try again.

Like I said.. there is a reason you HAVE to run to biased mormon opinions to support your theory... We all know why that is the case. When you want to step up to the plate of actual evidence let me know.

 

[Shogun]

Why should I waste my time reading something that starts out with the word "Possible" ???

It's like watching those TV shows about UFO's

A lot of maybe, could be, quite possibe, leads one to believe,

But as far as solid evidence......................ZERO

Solid evidence has been cited multiple times. Its been ignored multiple times.

I understand you guys arent convinced by the evidence. but seriously, you look freaking insane when you keep denying the evidence exists.

evidence from WHOM? some mormons out looking to validate their faith?


ooooook.

 

[Truthspeaker]

Why should I waste my time reading something that starts out with the word "Possible" ???

It's like watching those TV shows about UFO's

A lot of maybe, could be, quite possibe, leads one to believe,

But as far as solid evidence......................ZERO

Solid evidence has been cited multiple times. Its been ignored multiple times.

I understand you guys arent convinced by the evidence. but seriously, you look freaking insane when you keep denying the evidence exists.

evidence from WHOM? some mormons out looking to validate their faith?


ooooook.

Case in Point; You didn't even look at the links posted to see how many of your precious "non-mormon" sources were cited. Pull the bong out of wherever you are putting it and pay attention.

 

[Shogun]

Solid evidence has been cited multiple times. Its been ignored multiple times.

I understand you guys arent convinced by the evidence. but seriously, you look freaking insane when you keep denying the evidence exists.

evidence from WHOM? some mormons out looking to validate their faith?


ooooook.

Case in Point; You didn't even look at the links posted to see how many of your precious "non-mormon" sources were cited. Pull the bong out of wherever you are putting it and pay attention.

bait and switch now, eh? I guess it would have to suck to require such deviousness in order to validate your faith.





But, I guess what can one expect from a dogma based on the word of a conman...

 

[Shogun]

Science has now PROVEN the likelihood of transoceanic pre Columbian travel.

PROVEN the likelihood !!!!

Boy oh boy!!! is that is that a reach!!

PROVEN by a maybe

Like I said before: All the so called evidence the Mormon's claim for their fable, is always followed by; maybe, could be, leads to the conclusion, possible, plausible, might be, etc.

I swear Sun, you oughta do some research yourself before squawking. You fell right into my trap. Read the non-Mormon sources and weep:

POSSIBLE PRE-COLUMBIAN TRANS-ATLANTIC VOYAGES TO MESOAMERICA: A SEARCH OF SOME NEW DATA FOR AN OLD CONTROVERSY

Michael D. Coe(The world's foremost Meso-American scholar) in his 6th edition of The Maya:"Boats must have been available to the people of Eurasia... "The Siberian Land Bridge Only" theory is no longer acceptable."

Pre-Columbian transatlantic contacts. Who is Pre-Columbian transatlantic contacts? What is Pre-Columbian transatlantic contacts? Where is Pre-Columbian transatlantic contacts? Definition of Pre-Columbian transatlantic contacts. Meaning of Pre-Columbi

Sorry, John L. Sorenson is one Mormon source among the 12 cited. I guess they think he's pretty smart since they listed him first.

1) Note: This project is currently under consideration for funding from several foundations and private sponsors.




2) As was the case in the early 19th century, there are writers today who claim that Old World civilizations such as those of Israel, Egypt, Irish monks (as hinted by the legend of St Brendan), Ancient Rome, Islamic West Africa, Sumeria, the Temple Knights, etc had landed on the Pre-Columbian Americas. (Trans-Pacific influences have also been proclaimed, as have contacts with Atlantis and other supposed "lost continents"; in the 20th century extra-terrestrial civilizations have been added to the long list of the suggested "real" builders of the ancient monuments of the Americas.) Such writings are considered at least very dubious if not simply contrary to known facts by mainstream historians and archeologists.







dude.. whatsa matter? Are you having trouble finding sources that are not mormons?

 

[catzmeow]

If he has to find scholarly non-mormon sources to vindicate his claims, he's going to be quiet a long damn time.