Mormons and Frisbee

[I.P. Freley]

I think I can sum up this whole thread....

"The invisible being that I believe in, the one that a billion people believe in, in fact, has been believed in longer and by more people, than yours. Your book that has "duped" people for the last 150-or-so-years has duped fewer people than MY book that's duped people since the days of the Old Testament, and they disagree, so your book is wrong."

Am I missing something?

Super80, especially (but not surprisingly), expends quite a bit of bandwidth to show how "wrong" the COLDS is.... "Hooey"? "Heresy"? I can't tell if we're throwing insults or on an inquisition, but I find his rants to be rather distasteful.

As for the "horses problem", has it occurred to anyone that it could be a metaphor? Or do we take the Bible totally at its' word, too, and the earth was magnificently brought into being from total nothingness in the space of 7 earth days (or, to us, 168 human hours?)? Do we accept that Noah was able to fit ALL of the earth's land and air creatures (including all the insects, presumably) on a boat, with 40+ days worth of food? How did he get the Llamas from the New World, hanging out (as it were) in the present-day Middle East? How about the Emperor Penguins from Antarctica?

In any case, you can't "prove" the Book of Mormon any more easily than you can "prove" that the Bible is true. Beating up the whole faith on the basis of bad experiences with COLDS adherents is just weird... I have had far worse experiences with Catholics and Protestants than Mormons, though I've not lived in SLC.

Guess it's just easier to mock that which we don't understand... And in most cases, don't WISH to understand. I'm guilty of it, too, laughing as I did at the "flying saucers" post earlier in the thread, but that doesn't mean I give this religion any more or less attention than any other (positive or negative).

 

[Mogus]

"The invisible being that I believe in, the one that a billion people believe in, in fact, has been believed in longer and by more people, than yours. Your book that has "duped" people for the last 150-or-so-years has duped fewer people than MY book that's duped people since the days of the Old Testament, and they disagree, so your book is wrong."

That's a sophomoric argument, one that wasn't made anywhere in this thread.

As for the "horses problem", has it occurred to anyone that it could be a metaphor?

Sure, but in all the verses that mention horses, the passages are pretty straightforward, dealing with literal events. Further, why would ancient Indians, who'd had no knowledge of horses in the book of Mormon's timetable, use horses in their metaphors?

Or do we take the Bible totally at its' word, too, and the earth was magnificently brought into being from total nothingness in the space of 7 earth days (or, to us, 168 human hours?)? Do we accept that Noah was able to fit ALL of the earth's land and air creatures (including all the insects, presumably) on a boat, with 40+ days worth of food? How did he get the Llamas from the New World, hanging out (as it were) in the present-day Middle East? How about the Emperor Penguins from Antarctica?

Some people interpret the Bible literally, and some figuratively. I'm of the latter persuasion.

In any case, you can't "prove" the Book of Mormon any more easily than you can "prove" that the Bible is true.

True, but it's much easier to cast serious doubt on the book of Mormon's historicity, archaeology, geography, etc. and thus authenticity, than with the Bible.

 

[I.P. Freley]

>>>That's a sophomoric argument<<<

Actually, the entire argument is sophomoric, IMO.

>>>why would ancient Indians, who'd had no knowledge of horses in the book of Mormon's timetable, use horses in their metaphors?<<<

The ancient Indians didn't use horses in the metaphor, the very human author(s) of the Book of Mormon did. Perhaps in the translation from the mystical plates, the metaphor simply "became" horses. You know, a "figurative" interpretation. I don't see why this is so difficult to comprehend.

>>>True, but it's much easier to cast serious doubt on the book of Mormon's historicity, archaeology, geography, etc. and thus authenticity, than with the Bible.<<<

I'm not here to defend the Book of Mormon, mind you, and I certainly recognize the unbelievable differences between the archealogical record and genetic record and that which is put forth by the BOM, but it's all about faith. Those who have the faith believe it, and those who don't... Well, don't.

We have some posts here that are from persons who allege to have been members of the COLDS and have persuasive arguments against it... Like this is something unexpected. If they were STILL in the church, they likely wouldn't be arguing against it! I have friends who have abandoned more mainstream churches and gone down other avenues of faith that more suited their belief in God. Their thoughts about, say, the Catholic Church or the Presbyterians aren't too different from that which I've read on here about former COLDS members.

You don't believe their teachings, but arguing "facts" with a matter of faith is simply a waste of time. That is why I don't bother getting into arguments with people who take the Bible seriously, and why you shouldn't bother devoting so much attention to arguing with COLDS adherents. The terms used so far (though not necessarily by you, Mogus), such as "duped", "hooey", "foolish", etc. have no place in a faith-based argument... Though naturally it always degenerates into such terms on a message board.

My "sophomoric" statement simply points out the underlying argument here. As someone else put it earlier, it's the classic "my religion can beat up your religion", and I might add, "your religion is weird so it must be wrong".

Insert Cartman's "I hate you guys" on top of it, and you've pretty much got the point of the last forty-something posts.

 

[Jmmccutc]

Dude, Ultimate Frisbee is extremely popular on college campuses nationwide.

not on mine, thank the lord...that's gotta be the most pointless game ever...

 

[Super 80]

As for the "horses problem", has it occurred to anyone that it could be a metaphor? Or do we take the Bible totally at its' word, too, and the earth was magnificently brought into being from total nothingness in the space of 7 earth days (or, to us, 168 human hours?)? Do we accept that Noah was able to fit ALL of the earth's land and air creatures (including all the insects, presumably) on a boat, with 40+ days worth of food? How did he get the Llamas from the New World, hanging out (as it were) in the present-day Middle East? How about the Emperor Penguins from Antarctica?

I find this criticism just as distasteful a rant as any allegation you've raised. If you want to equate the book of Mormon with the modern day Bible, and refute the latter on a seemingly similar word test, then you better be very specific with that word.

Since you don't seem to like instruction -being a waste of bandwidth- and seem to be such an expert yourself, perhaps you can give us all the definite reading of the Hebrew word for day, yom which states succinctly and positively that it can only be interpreted and translated as a 24 hour period. In this day, our English word can only mean 24 hours right? Then the way I used it before in the previous paragraph has to be just 24 hours. Then the day of the dinosaur wasn't millions of years, but a single day also.

I would also challenge you with all the ways that God has used water through Moses and Elijah to show that it was not necessary to flood the entire Earth to a depth of 30,000 feet, but only that the water had to be piled up to cover all the earth that was inhabited.

JOS 3:14 So when the people broke camp to cross the Jordan, the priests carrying the ark of the covenant went ahead of them. 15 Now the Jordan is at flood stage all during harvest. Yet as soon as the priests who carried the ark reached the Jordan and their feet touched the water's edge, 16 the water from upstream stopped flowing. It piled up in a heap a great distance away, at a town called Adam in the vicinity of Zarethan, while the water flowing down to the Sea of the Arabah (the Salt Sea ) was completely cut off. So the people crossed over opposite Jericho.

But I do not expect seriousness from someone that dismisses the Bible as you have. The book of Mormon has some very serious flaws in it. While the miracles contained within the Bible are larger than life; they have been validated, even to having God fashion a fish that could swallow a man whole and not have him die for three days. Jesus affirmed the events contained in Jonah. He did not take them figuratively. With that as my example, I can find within the bounds of the original language, enough room for interpretation so as to marry the best that science has to offer with generally accepted principles of translation and Biblical interpretation.

 

[I.P. Freley]

>>>But I do not expect seriousness from someone that dismisses the Bible as you have.<<<

Nor do I expect you to come to any other conclusion than that... Your statement "the miracles in the Bible are larger than life: they have been validated" tells me all I need to know, and all I have come to know, about your desire to see the Bible as anything other than fact. Even questioning it is an affront to you.

Simply, I disgree. Vehemently, categorically, and without a question in my mind. I don't share your faith. Period. This perplexes you, but I make no apologies for it. I find it curious that you use a document I don't accept as absolute truth or "proof" of your position when you try to prove me wrong, as in my estimation it just moves you further away from anything that I will accept as a valid argument.

What more can I say? I'm already composing your response to the above paragraph in my head, since it's pretty predictable. You've shown no respect for any position other than your own. Your accusing me of thinking myself an "expert" makes me giggle helplessly, since your level of self-awareness is so totally lacking I simply can't help it. Pot calling the kettle black, you know. I ask questions, I don't offer judgments beyond pointing out that attacking the BOM is head-scratchingly weird to someone who doesn't share YOUR faith in the Old and New Testaments.

>>>I find this criticism just as distasteful a rant as any allegation you've raised.<<<

Ummm, my suggestion that we shouldn't take the word "day" (or, perhaps, "horses") should not be taken literally is "distasteful"? This allegation of yours is totally preposterous. If any simple question is "distasteful", you'd better stop reading... It only gets worse below....

>>>perhaps you can give us all the definite reading of the Hebrew word for day, yom <<<

In case you hadn't gathered this already, I have never read any of the Bible in Hebrew. King James, yes. If you wish to twist my point to say something other than what it did, feel free. The Bible that I read says "day"... As in "On the fifth day.." So, am I to take this literally? No.

Is it possible that someone ELSE'S holy book has passages that are also not meant to be taken literally? Distastefully of me, my answer is YES.

>>>I would also challenge you with all the ways that God has used water through Moses and Elijah to show that it was not necessary to flood the entire Earth to a depth of 30,000 feet, but only that the water had to be piled up to cover all the earth that was inhabited.<<<

Challenge away. Although the Noah story is a little vague about how high the hills are (there is mention of 15 cubits rise in the water level), but the following is pretty unmistakable:

>>>And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and ALL the high hills, that were under the WHOLE heaven, were covered.<<< (emphasis added)

So sure, it doesn't SAY that Everest and K2 were covered, thus coming up with a rise of some 30,000 feet, but how about the native americans who lived in the Rockies? The Andes? The peoples of the foothills of Everest? Surely the flood would have to be well over 5000ft above current sea levels to flood all inhabitable areas of the Earth.

Either way, the language saying ALL the high hills under the WHOLE heaven is pretty unmistakable... As is the assertion that every living thing that walked or crawled or flew over the earth was extinguished, save that which was on the Ark.

If your answer is "well, that's not what it said in the original Hebrew", I officially give up. You have thousands of years of partisan Bible scholarship backing you up, you have the desire to search through it to stomp down on anyone who disagrees with you... And the desire to make light of someone else's Holy Book, basically calling it a fraud. If you don't recognize how "distasteful" it is to attack the COLDS, I can't help you any further.

 

[A Squared]

not on mine, thank the lord...that's gotta be the most pointless game ever...

More pointless than say .... football? Soccer? basketball? polo?

In their essesnce, they each (ultimate frisbee included) have exactly the same point, to move an object to a goal at one end of a designated playing area following certain rules, while the other team attempts to prevent this, following certain rules. Just because one may be more popular, or more televised than another doesn't somehow make it more purposeful ... thay are all pointless games, that's why they are called games. Not that it's a bad thing, games are good, they provide exercise, mental stimulation, encourage self inprovement....provide a whole bunch of benefits. Pointless is sitting watching someone else play games.

And, no I am not some ultimate frissbee fanatic who is offended by your words, I've played maybe 2 or 3 games, ever, and that was more than 2 decades ago .... I was just struck by the absurdity of declaring one game "pointless" while presumably, other games are "pointful???"

 

[Super 80]

Let me see, it is distasteful to "attack" the LDS when I question the bibliography of a book with no known original language and I question the textual integrity under the Biblical rule for a prophet who claims the Americas had horses which pre-existed European importation and Indians that are derived from Semitic peoples.

However, you as a non-believer are not "attacking" Christianity or me in particular when you dismiss whole sections of the Bible's Genesis accounts. But if the LDS builds its faith on the Bible, aren't you also "attacking" them by doing so?

I'm sorry, I just see a considerable amount of inconsistency in your position to such an extent that I can't really feel your pain for the wounding of the LDS. First of all, I don't expect this thread to shake their faith. I'm sure the elders (which really are the young men they send out) are ready with the LDS response for just such questions. Just as your ignorance of how events could have happened hasn't shaken mine, I don't think they're going to be too upset about just a cursory analysis. Besides, if they really are in conflict after reading this thread and started asking hard questions, I think they'd be better off for it. If their aim is to become closer to Christ, then they already have a vehicle for that in the Gospel accounts.

If you have rejected Christ that doesn't surprise me. However, your lack of faith in no way threatens mine. In a like manner my lack of faith in the book of Mormon does not have to impact a Mormon. And finally if your faith in yourself or something else is genuine, it shouldn't hurt you at all if Christians warn you of hell-fire. After all, you don't believe in such nonsense do you?

 

[ADG]

{As history, moreover, "The Book of Mormon" is riddled with egregious anachronisms and irreconcilable inconsistencies. For instance, it makes many references to horses and wheeled carts, neither of which existed in the Western Hemisphere during the pre-Columbian era. It inserts such inventions as steel and the seven-day week into ancient history long before such things were in fact invented. Modern DNA analysis has conclusively demonstrated tha American Indians are not descendants of any Hebraic race, as the Lamanites were purported to be. Mark Twain famously ridiculed the "The Book of Mormon's" tedious, quasi-biblical prose as "chloroform in print," observing that the phrase "and it came to pass" is used more than two thousand times."} Quoted from "Under the Banner of Heaven" Jon Krakauer , 2003.

I have always thought of it as a cult and not a religon.

ADG

 

[NEDude]

Funny how the Book of Mormon has caused such a heated debate on an aviation message board. That a few hundred pages of text, that a very, very small percentage of people believe in has ignited such passions in some very intelligent individuals perplexes me. Much time and effort has been spent by many people to 'disprove' the Book of Mormon, and I must ask myself why.

Enough of this thread.

I am going to go PFT at Gulfstream, then find an ALPA picket line to cross, send a large donation to the RJDC and whine about how I should be integrated into a major airlines seniority list while trying to scope the rest of you out of MY flying.