LINK TO ANTI-MORMON DVD!
Infidel
Test your faith mormon with the facts!
Dale
> http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2007/3/emw515522.htm
>
> Test your faith mormon with the facts!
Point-by-point rebuttal: http://www.josephsmithdvd.org/
Anti-Defamation League Statement concerning the anti-Mormon video:
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ChJew_31/5013_31.htm
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Apr 2, 7:41 am, "Infidel" <summeroverwin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2007/3/emw515522.htm
>
> > Test your faith mormon with the facts!
>
> Point-by-point rebuttal:http://www.josephsmithdvd.org/
Here's an excerpt from the link Dale gave us:
"The Book of Mormon, for example, mentions swords. Most readers have
assumed that this referred to metal (European-like) swords. Such an
assumption, however, is unwarranted."
>From the Book of Mormon we read:
Ether 7:9
Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out of the
hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had drawn away
with him...
Mosiah 8:11
And again, they have brought swords, the hilts thereof have perished,
and the blades thereof were cankered with rust...
The obvious question is why does the LDS Church feel compelled to
defend the Book of Mormon by misrepresenting what it says? If the
book is true, would it need dishonest apologetics to prop it up?
Duwayne Anderson
Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
science"
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle
Dale
> > Point-by-point rebuttal:http://www.josephsmithdvd.org/
To which Duwaynea responded:
> Here's an excerpt from the link Dale gave us:
>
> "The Book of Mormon, for example, mentions swords. Most readers have
> assumed that this referred to metal (European-like) swords. Such an
> assumption, however, is unwarranted."
>
> >From the Book of Mormon we read:
>
> Ether 7:9
> Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out of the
> hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had drawn away
> with him...
>
> Mosiah 8:11
> And again, they have brought swords, the hilts thereof have perished,
> and the blades thereof were cankered with rust...
Here's the complete context of the FAIR critique,
http://en.fairmormon.org/index.php/Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Archaeology
, and another explanation of the term "steel," noting that "steel"
wasn't even invented during Joseph Smith's lifetime (http://
en.fairmormon.org/index.php/Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms:Metals).
<snip to end>
Duwaynea Anderson
> Dale posted previously:
>
> > > Point-by-point rebuttal:http://www.josephsmithdvd.org/
>
> To which Duwaynea responded:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Here's an excerpt from the link Dale gave us:
>
> > "The Book of Mormon, for example, mentions swords. Most readers have
> > assumed that this referred to metal (European-like) swords. Such an
> > assumption, however, is unwarranted."
>
> > >From the Book of Mormon we read:
>
> > Ether 7:9
> > Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out of the
> > hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had drawn away
> > with him...
>
> > Mosiah 8:11
> > And again, they have brought swords, the hilts thereof have perished,
> > and the blades thereof were cankered with rust...
>
> , and another explanation of the term "steel," noting that "steel"
> wasn't even invented during Joseph Smith's lifetime (http://
> en.fairmormon.org/index.php/Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms:Metals).
>
Thanks for that link, Dale -- it really helps to cement (pun intended)
the absurd position of Mormon apologetics.
Note that the LDS apologetic arguments start by saying that the
"swords" in the Book of Mormon were not necessarily metal swords
(European-like) weapons. The apologists argue that the "swords" in
the Book of Mormon could have been things like obsidian (stone)
axes.
So the critics illustrate the lie inherent in that apologetic argument
by pointing to actual verses from the Book of Mormon like these:
Ether 7:9
Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out of the
hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had drawn away
with him...
Mosiah 8:11
And again, they have brought swords, the hilts thereof have perished,
and the blades thereof were cankered with rust...
Clearly, one does not "molten out of a hill" stone axes, and the
blades of stone axes don't become "cankered with rust."
Not to be dissuaded, the LDS apologists continue abusing both science
and language as they rush headlong taking the Book of Mormon further
and further out of context, and misrepresenting what it says, in a
frantic attempt to prop up its monumental fraud.
In their next demonstration of the "Mormon shuffle" apologetic Dale
points out, that the LDS apologists have argued that:
"steel" wasn't even invented during Joseph Smith's lifetime
In an article titled "Thermal processing in the last millennium" by Dr
Dafydd Griffiths, in the August issue of Materials World, Volume 7,
Issue 8, p.472 we read that a one thousand year old "steel production
site" has been unearthed by an International research team in the
remains of the ancient city of Gyaur Kala in Turkmenistan.
That's well before Smith's time. Read more about it at the following
link:
http://composite.about.com/library/PR/1999/bliom4.htm
Here's an additional helpful link on ancient steel:
http://archaeology.about.com/od/ancientweapons/a/damascus_steel.htm
Damascus steel is legendary, and was used throughout the Crusades (AD
1095-1270) -- well before Smith's day.
The really extraordinary thing about this argument is that it boils
down to saying the Book of Mormon must be true because it's wrong. In
other words, the swords can't really be what the Book of Mormon says
they were, because the swords couldn't possibly be what the Book of
Mormon says they were. And (here's the circular part of the argument)
since Mormons *know* a priori that the Book of Mormon is true, the
Book of Mormon must be reinterpreted to mean what it doesn't say.
Yes, I know, it's a horribly convoluted argument. It makes no sense.
But it's the best Mormon apologists can offer. Let's summarize,
again:
LDS Critic: The Book of Mormon says the ancient Americans had steel
swords. That's not true. The ancient Americans didn't smelt iron or
steel, and they didn't make metal swords.
LDS Apologist: The Book of Mormon doesn't say the ancient Americans
had metal swords. You read that into the text.
LDS Critic: Oh, yes it does say the swords were metal. Let me quote
the verses for you:
Ether 7:9
Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out of the
hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had drawn away
with him...
Mosiah 8:11
And again, they have brought swords, the hilts thereof have perished,
and the blades thereof were cankered with rust...
LDS Apologist: That just proves my point. Steel wasn't invented
during Smith's lifetime, so the word "steel" meant something else.
LDS Critic: You are confusing later industrialized processes with
earlier (before Smith) knowledge of how to make steel swords. The
word "steel" obviously had meaning in Smith's day, because he used the
word. And the word "steel" in Smith's day did not mean "obsidian
ax." For a good summary on the history of steel, I suggest the
following links:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9809/Verhoeven-9809.html
Most importantly, though, the first LDS argument that initiated this
discussion is really just a bald-faced lie. The Book of Mormon
specifically identifies metal swords. In one case it says they were
steel, and molten out of the ground. In another case it says they
rusted. The context in both instances clearly points to metal
(European-style) swords, and not wooden clubs with obsidian flint.
Which brings us back to my closing question on April 2: Why does the
Trevor
You seem to be confusing FAIR with the Church. While most FAIR members
are LDS, FAIR is an independent organization.
As for dishonest apologetics, you only seem to have quoted the
information from the FAIR site about steel that is convenient for your
argument.
By the way, I found this review of your book to be pretty interesting:
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=622
- Trevor
John
> By the way, I found this review of your book to be pretty interesting:http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=622
>
> - Trevor
Excellent! Thanks for posting this link. I have wondered if anyone
else thought as I did, when they read that book. Its not really a
book, its more like someone's term paper. I suspect that if it wasn't
for the fact that its another (yawn) former mormon, strawman against
mormonisn, no one would have bothered to publish it.
Glad I didn't pay for the copy I looked at...
Dale
Yep, I skimmed a portion of this FARMS review quite some time ago but,
because I already pretty much know where Duwayne is coming from, I
have read neither his book nor any reviews of it in detail. While
Duwayne's book and/or the review of it might be helpful for those
wishing to understand his approach to anti-Mormon apologetics, one
certainly can gain the same insight by perusing his posts on ARM.
It's pretty apparent that Duwayne has *much* more time on his hands to
wrangle about LDS issues than most active LDS who stop by ARM from
time to time ;-) Individuals who honestly want to know the truth about
the spiritual beliefs of *any* religion seldom find credible sources
among disgruntled ex-members. This is probably one reason why the non-
LDS Anti-Defmation League properly condemned the anti-Mormon DVD
referenced in this thread (see http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ChJew_31/5013_31.htm
).
At the end of the day, I believe it is one of the true tragedies of
life that Duwayne lost his faith. I believe his wonderful intellect
would be so much better served striving to build faith rather than
trying to dismantle it.
~Dale (recognizing there are any number of fine LDS apologetic sites
that discuss the issues of "steel" in pre-industrial America for those
truly interested in the topic...)
Duwaynea Anderson
>
> > On Apr 2, 4:36 pm, "Dale" <dale.lit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Which brings us back to my closing question on April 2: Why does the
> > LDS Church feel compelled to defend the Book of Mormon by
> > misrepresenting what it says? If the book is true, would it need
> > dishonest apologetics to prop it up?
>
> >DuwayneAnderson
> > Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
> > science"
>
> You seem to be confusing FAIR with the Church. While most FAIR members
> are LDS, FAIR is an independent organization.
The LDS Church referenced FAIR as a rebuttal for the DVD. And FAIR is
hardly an "independent organization."
> As for dishonest apologetics, you only seem to have quoted the
> information from the FAIR site about steel that is convenient for your
> argument.
You seem completely un-fazed by the manner in which FAIR lied about
the nature of the swords described in the Book of Mormon. Doesn't it
bother you at all that they would so blatantly misrepresent the BOM?
If the BOM is true, why would they *need* to lie about what it says?
> By the way, I found this review of your book to be pretty
> interesting:http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=622
>
> - Trevor
Well, of course you would Trevor. By the way, would you mind
answering a question for me? What objective and verifiable evidence,
if it existed, would convince you that the Mormon Church is false?
Duwayne Anderson
Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
science"
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> At the end of the day, I believe it is one of the true tragedies of
> life that Duwayne lost his faith. I believe his wonderful intellect
> would be so much better served striving to build faith rather than
> trying to dismantle it.
There are lots of things in the world that are worth having faith in,
and I discuss them in my book. My book doesn't dismantle faith in
general, you know - just faith in Joseph Smith and the religion he
founded.
And who said faith in Joseph Smith is so important, anyway?
A person shows no deference to faith when they use faith as an excuse
to defend dishonest and unethical behavior. Such faith is a
bastardized cancer that eats at a person's integrity, and replacing
obligation to mankind with obligation to the corporation and group
think.
> ~Dale (recognizing there are any number of fine LDS apologetic sites
> that discuss the issues of "steel" in pre-industrial America for those
> truly interested in the topic...)- Hide quoted text -
There are sites that discuss virtually anything. But that's hardly
the point. The issue here is that Mormons complain about a DVD making
false statements, and then post a point-by-point rebuttal that
contains bald-faced lies about what the Book of Mormon says.
The Book of Mormon specifically names metal swords. Weapons made from
molten steel. Weapons that *rusted.* This is just one example of
hundreds in which the Book of Mormon incorrectly describes ancient
Americans.
So serious are the problems between Mormonism and science that LDS
apologists have no effective recourse except to deny what the Book of
Mormon says. That's what the FAIR apologists did -- the one's you
pointed us to for a point-by-point rebuttal. Those apologists said
that the critics were unwarranted in saying that the Book of Mormon
describes metal (European-like) swords. But as I showed with actual
BOM verses, those apologists lied about what the Book of Mormon says:
Ether 7:9
Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out of the
hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had drawn away
with him...
Mosiah 8:11
And again, they have brought swords, the hilts thereof have perished,
and the blades thereof were cankered with rust...
Clearly, one does not "molten out of a hill" stone axes, and the
blades of stone axes don't become "cankered with rust."
How can Mormons credibly complain about a DVD that they say
misrepresents Mormonism when Mormon apologists try to defend the BOM
by lying about what the Book of Mormon says? And, if the Book of
Mormon is true, why would the apologists feel that they need to lie
about the BOM in the first place?
Duwayne Anderson
Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
science"
Duwaynea Anderson
Here's a site with a few more reviews -- not all of which were written
by employees of the LDS Church:
Duwayne Anderson
Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
science"
Dale
> > At the end of the day, I believe it is one of the true tragedies of
> > life that Duwayne lost his faith. I believe his wonderful intellect
> > would be so much better served striving to build faith rather than
> > trying to dismantle it.
Duwayne:
> And who said faith in Joseph Smith is so important, anyway?
Obviously, if Joseph's testimony is true, then our understanding of
God and our relationship to Him is one the most sublime truths ever
revealed--which is probably one reason why anti-Christs use every
stratagem to undermine faith. Against many truths that would lead
individuals to increased righteousness and faith, this evil process
has ever been so...
> > ~Dale (recognizing there are any number of fine LDS apologetic sites
> > that discuss the issues of "steel" in pre-industrial America for those
> > truly interested in the topic...)- Hide quoted text -
>
> There are sites that discuss virtually anything. But that's hardly
> the point.
Indeed, the fact that pre-Columbian weaponry in the Americas is still
under research and discussion my LDS and non-LDS scholars is a large
portion of "the point."
> The issue here is that Mormons complain about a DVD making
> false statements, and then post a point-by-point rebuttal that
> contains bald-faced lies about what the Book of Mormon says.
It's non-Mormons who recognize that the DVD in question is almost
pathological in its distortions and intent to do evil and harm:
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ChJew_31/5013_31.htm . The FAIR rebuttal
to the un-Christian DVD ( http://www.josephsmithdvd.org/ ) summarizes
larger issues that are readily available at other sites...
>
> The Book of Mormon specifically names metal swords. Weapons made from
> molten steel. Weapons that *rusted.*
Um, the FAIR info presents no "lie" in the first instance. Ancient
American usage of obsidian or other stone "swords" does not
necessarily negate the actual use of "steel" (whether Damascus- or
other pre-industrial revolution-type of metal materials) among some
pre-Columbian weaponry...
<snip>
> Ether 7:9
> Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out of the
> hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had drawn away
> with him...
>
> Mosiah 8:11
> And again, they have brought swords, the hilts thereof have perished,
> and the blades thereof were cankered with rust...
Both true statements. Indeed, neither scriptural account rules out the
use of obsedian, wood, or other types of non-metal "swords" and other
forms of weaponry that also were used, perhaps even simultaneously...
<snipped to end>
Duwaynea Anderson
On Apr 4, 12:05 pm, "Dale" <dale.lit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dale previously:
>
> > > At the end of the day, I believe it is one of the true tragedies of
> > > would be so much better served striving to build faith rather than
> > > trying to dismantle it.
>
> Duwayne:
>
> > And who said faith in Joseph Smith is so important, anyway?
>
> Obviously, if Joseph's testimony is true, then our understanding of
> God and our relationship to Him is one the most sublime truths ever
> revealed--which is probably one reason why anti-Christs use every
> stratagem to undermine faith. Against many truths that would lead
> individuals to increased righteousness and faith, this evil process
> has ever been so...
But that's the rub, is it not? You criticized me for destroying
people's faith in Mormonism -- faith in Smith -- without establishing
for a fact that Smith *was* telling the truth.
But if Smith wasn't telling the truth, then destroying people's faith
in the man, and the corporation he founded, is a *good* thing, and
defending his fraud is a *bad* thing.
So what's to be done is discuss the evidence for/against Smith's new
religion - not to engage in ad hominem character smearing of LDS
critics.
> > > ~Dale (recognizing there are any number of fine LDS apologetic sites
> > > that discuss the issues of "steel" in pre-industrial America for those
> > > truly interested in the topic...)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > There are sites that discuss virtually anything. But that's hardly
> > the point.
>
> Indeed, the fact that pre-Columbian weaponry in the Americas is still
> under research and discussion my LDS and non-LDS scholars is a large
> portion of "the point."
It's a logical fallacy to point to the fact that science is learning
new things while ignoring what is known, and pretending that future
discoveries will overturn what is known in favor of what's currently
disproved.
Using that line of argument, you could assert with confidence that the
earth is flat.
What we know is this. The Book of Mormon describes huge civilizations
that numbered in the millions. These civilizations are described in
detail, and the Book of Mormon says they smelted metals, including
iron and steel, used metal swords in wars and metal armor, and
domesticated old-world animals like horses, cattle, and swine. It
describes how they brought over seeds from the Old World and planted
them here in America, and it says the seeds grew very well. It
describes their religion, their culture, and their language. It names
cities and gives their relative locations to each other and to major
geographical features.
There is every expectation that if the Book of Mormon is true, there
should be scientific evidence to support these claims. But there
isn't. The Book of Mormon is wrong about all these claims.
Making matters worse for the Book of Mormon, these are all examples of
*trivial* claims. Even if the ancient Americans did use steel swords,
that would provide no evidence for the Book of Mormon because there's
no reason to suppose that a 19th century author wouldn't use steel-
sword-using people in a novel. The same goes for the other items I
listed above, like horses and cattle.
The Book of Mormon is so damaged it can't stand up to even trivial
examination. And there is absolutely nothing of a non-trivial nature
to support it. Not one ancient American document describes a single
Book of Mormon story, hero, leader, or prophet.
> > The issue here is that Mormons complain about a DVD making
> > false statements, and then post a point-by-point rebuttal that
> > contains bald-faced lies about what the Book of Mormon says.
>
> It's non-Mormons who recognize that the DVD in question is almost
> pathological in its distortions and intent to do evil and harm:http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ChJew_31/5013_31.htm. The FAIR rebuttal
> to the un-Christian DVD (http://www.josephsmithdvd.org/) summarizes
> larger issues that are readily available at other sites...
You still don't get it, Dale. I'm not supporting the DVD. I'm
pointing to the hypocrisy of Mormons such as FAIR who complain about
the DVD supposedly distorting Mormonism, and then lying about what the
Book of Mormon says regarding things like the metal swords that are
unambiguously described in the BOM.
> > The Book of Mormon specifically names metal swords. Weapons made from
> > molten steel. Weapons that *rusted.*
>
> Um, the FAIR info presents no "lie" in the first instance.
Sure they did. The apologetic link you sent us to says the
following:
"The Book of Mormon, for example, mentions swords. Most readers have
assumed that this referred to metal (European-like) swords. Such an
assumption, however, is unwarranted."
Yet, we read from the Book of Mormon:
Ether 7:9
Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out of the
hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had drawn away
with him...
Mosiah 8:11
And again, they have brought swords, the hilts thereof have perished,
and the blades thereof were cankered with rust...
Clearly, the BOM *does* say the ancient Americans used steel swords.
FAIRS assertion that such an "assumption" is "unwarranted" is a direct
and (in all likelihood) deliberate attempt to misrepresent what the
Book of Mormon actually says.
This seems like a perfectly good strategy for the LDS Church. After
all, most non-Mormons have no idea what's in the BOM.
That's why Mormons get so pissed off at critics like me - we make it
harder to misrepresent things the apologists find embarrassing.
> Ancient > American usage of obsidian or other stone "swords" does not
> necessarily negate the actual use of "steel"
What's that got to do with the lie told by FAIR? Fair says it's
unwarranted to read the BOM as saying the BOM people used steel
swords.
> (whether Damascus- or
> other pre-industrial revolution-type of metal materials) among some
> pre-Columbian weaponry...
The ancient Americans didn't smelt iron or steel. That's the
problem. The apologists are trying to cover up the problem by
misrepresenting the BOM to the effect that it doesn't say the ancient
Americans used metal swords.
That's their lie. The BOM most certainly *does* say the ancient
Americans used metal swords.
This is a wonderful example of how Mormonism damages the intellectual
honesty of its apologists. The book is such a clumsy fraud that
virtually no honest defense can be mounted, and the apologists are
constrained to either lie about what the BOM says (as FAIR does) or to
misrepresent the science involved -- or both.
> <snip>
>
> > Ether 7:9
> > Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out of the
> > hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had drawn away
> > with him...
>
> > Mosiah 8:11
> > And again, they have brought swords, the hilts thereof have perished,
> > and the blades thereof were cankered with rust...
>
> Both true statements.
And both at odds with FAIRS' position that the BOM does not say the
ancient Americans used metal swords.
> Indeed, neither scriptural account rules out the
> use of obsedian, wood, or other types of non-metal "swords" and other
> forms of weaponry that also were used, perhaps even simultaneously...
That's not the issue. FAIR said "The Book of Mormon, for example,
mentions swords. Most readers have assumed that this referred to metal
(European-like) swords. Such an
assumption, however, is unwarranted."
The problem is, that statement is a lie. The BOM *does* refer to
metal swords, and it does it unambiguously.
The obvious question is why does the LDS Church feel compelled to
defend the Book of Mormon by misrepresenting what it says? If the
book is true, would it need dishonest apologetics to prop it up?
John
> There are lots of things in the world that are worth having faith in,
> and I discuss them in my book. My book doesn't dismantle faith in
> general, you know - just faith in Joseph Smith and the religion he
> founded.
You book dismantles nothing, let alone Joseph Smith.. It raises
serious questions about your motives, and your willingness to us
references that are not completely anti mormon.
>
> And who said faith in Joseph Smith is so important, anyway?
>
Its easy to see why you fell from the truth, if you don't really know
the answer to that question.
John
>
> But that's the rub, is it not? You criticized me for destroying
> people's faith in Mormonism -- faith in Smith -- without establishing
> for a fact that Smith *was* telling the truth.
>
> But if Smith wasn't telling the truth, then destroying people's faith
> in the man, and the corporation he founded, is a *good* thing, and
> defending his fraud is a *bad* thing.
>
Dale is too nice a guy to point out your extremely large ego, and
blatant stretching of the truth, by your implying that you "destroyed"
anything, let alone people's faith in Mormonism.
You would be hard pressed to find very many, if any LDS members whose
faith you "destroyed" Good grief....
Its good to think highly of oneself, but don't strain you arm,
patting yourself on the back for 'destroying" mormonism LOL!
Your "teacher" Fawn Brodie thought she had done the same thing, and
millions of members later, she has been refuted, and left in the dust
by many credible authors. You would have done well to read BOTH sides
of her idiotic claims, rather than accepting her sources as being
accurate, simply because they backed up your false positions.....
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Apr 4, 2:17 pm, "Duwaynea Anderson" <duway...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > But that's the rub, is it not? You criticized me for destroying
> > people's faith in Mormonism -- faith in Smith -- without establishing
> > for a fact that Smith *was* telling the truth.
>
> > But if Smith wasn't telling the truth, then destroying people's faith
> > in the man, and the corporation he founded, is a *good* thing, and
> > defending his fraud is a *bad* thing.
>
> Dale is too nice a guy to point out your extremely large ego, and
> blatant stretching of the truth, by your implying that you "destroyed"
> anything, let alone people's faith in Mormonism.
>
> You would be hard pressed to find very many, if any LDS members whose
> faith you "destroyed" Good grief....
Sorry if I mistated myself. I don't mean to take credit for
destroying anyone's testimony -- the fact do that ... with a little
help from apologists who make the problems only too apparent by their
demonstrated need to misrepresent what the Book of Mormon says.
Thanks for the comments,
Duwaynea Anderson
On Apr 4, 2:03 pm, "John" <ews...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 4, 12:18 pm, "Duwaynea Anderson" <duway...@hotmail.com> w
>
> > There are lots of things in the world that are worth having faith in,
> > and I discuss them in my book. My book doesn't dismantle faith in
> > general, you know - just faith in Joseph Smith and the religion he
> > founded.
>
> You book dismantles nothing, let alone Joseph Smith.. It raises
> serious questions about your motives, and your willingness to us
> references that are not completely anti mormon.
Over 60% of the references I use (and there are hundreds) are
quotations from LDS scriptures. About 30% are from LDS publications
like the Ensign.
It's interesting that you say I use "anti mormon" sources. The irony
is thick, don't you think? Here we have Mormon apologists at FAIR
misrepresenting the Book of Mormon by claiming it doesn't say the
ancient Americans used metal swords, and the critic (me) quoting from
the Book of Mormon, illustrating the intellectual dishonesty at
FAIR.
And that seems to be just driving you crazy.
For folks just joining in, the apologetic link Dale sent us to says
the following:
"The Book of Mormon, for example, mentions swords. Most readers have
assumed that this referred to metal (European-like) swords. Such an
assumption, however, is unwarranted."
Yet, we read from the Book of Mormon:
Ether 7:9
Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out of the
hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had drawn away
with him...
Mosiah 8:11
And again, they have brought swords, the hilts thereof have perished,
and the blades thereof were cankered with rust...
Clearly, the BOM *does* say the ancient Americans used steel swords.
FAIRS assertion that such an "assumption" is "unwarranted" is a
direct
and (in all likelihood) deliberate attempt to misrepresent what the
Book of Mormon actually says.
The question I asked (and that's been ignored) is this: Why, if the
Book of Mormon is true, would apologists like those at FAIR feel
compelled to lie about what the Book of Mormon says?
> > And who said faith in Joseph Smith is so important, anyway?
>
> Its easy to see why you fell from the truth, if you don't really know
> the answer to that question.
Well, why don't you explain it?
John
>.
>
> Over 60% of the references I use (and there are hundreds) are
> quotations from LDS scriptures.
So what? When you pull them out of the context of the book, they mean
nothing. Anyone can, and everyone does, do the same thing to the
Bible...
>About 30% are from LDS publications
> like the Ensign.
I don't find the Ensign, short of the First Presidency messages, to be
anything more than a magazine of the church. Hardly a scriptural
reference for doctrine
>
> It's interesting that you say I use "anti mormon" sources.
Not just interesting, but a fact.
>The irony
> is thick, don't you think? Here we have Mormon apologists at FAIR
> misrepresenting the Book of Mormon by claiming it doesn't say the
> ancient Americans used metal swords, and the critic (me) quoting from
> the Book of Mormon, illustrating the intellectual dishonesty at
> FAIR.
>
> And that seems to be just driving you crazy.
Nah, I could not care less about FAIR.
I also don't concern mysefl too much about the historical accuracy
of the BOM, as you well know :-) since the book itself, declares that
it is not an historical reference. FAIR is not a arm of the Lord's
church. It may get credence from some in the church, but the Lord
speaks through His scriptures, through His prophets, and sometimes
directly to me, but He does not address the world, through FAIR. You
will have to take that issue up, with someone who cares.
> Well, why don't you explain it?
I don't have to. I know the Church is what it claims to be, because of
serious study, hard work, living it, testing, and communicating with
the Lord about it. I also know that no amount of emperical evidence
will -ever- turn a person's heart to the Lord. There is no evidence of
the truths taught in the Bible, but that doesn't stop people from
believing in Jesus Christ.
It seems to me, that you don't accept it, because you want tangible
evidence, and there is no place, anywhere written, that implies that
the Lord offers any such thing. Your entire argument, is based on the
fact that you can't see it, so it must not exist, or, we haven't
found it yet, therefore, we never will, and that is a weak position to
begin with.
I will repeat what I am pretty sure I told you once before. All the
pertinent writings man has to go by, report that God has indicated
"you won't find me using tangible, factual evidence. You will only
fine Me, through study, faith, and prayer" and yet here you are,
declaring to the world, that God doesn't live, because you cannot find
Him in tangible, factual evidence...... Every post you make on that
position, proves that the Lord is correct.
Completely illogical to search for someone or something, when you
already know, there can be -no- such proof.
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Apr 4, 4:11 pm, "Duwaynea Anderson" <duway...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >.
>
> > Over 60% of the references I use (and there are hundreds) are
> > quotations from LDS scriptures.
>
> So what?
You said I quoted mostly from anti-Mormon sources. Remember? But
that claim isn't true. I quote almost exclusively from LDS sources --
mainly LDS scriptures.
> When you pull them out of the context of the book, they mean
> nothing.
Which verses did I pull out of context? Give me the chapter and verse
where I do this, and the page in my book where I quote the chapter and
verse.
<snip>
> > like the Ensign.
>
> I don't find the Ensign, short of the First Presidency messages, to be
> anything more than a magazine of the church. Hardly a scriptural
> reference for doctrine
That's fine. But any way you look at it, the Ensign is not "anti-
Mormon." Remember? You accused me of quoting mostly from anti-Mormon
sources. The problem is, your accusation is false.
<snip to end>
John
>
> You said I quoted mostly from anti-Mormon sources. Remember?
No, I didn't say that. Look again.
> that claim isn't true.
No, its a fabrication from you, not me.
I quote almost exclusively from LDS sources --
> mainly LDS scriptures.
60%, by your word, does not meet the criteria of being called
"exclusive" by any stretch of the imagination.
> Remember? You accused me of quoting mostly from anti-Mormon
> sources.
No I didn't. You accused me, of saying it, but I never did.
>The problem is, your accusation is false.
The problem is, your book cracks me up, your position is so
indefensible, and if your skin is this thin, then get it out of your
tagline, and quit making up quotes that were never offered, to defend
yourself against people who do not respect your position.
The facts are, that God has taught that the evidence of Himself, is
only spiritual. Anyone who looks for tangible proof of God, is wasting
his, and everyone else's time, now, and forever.
Trevor
> On Apr 3, 4:45 pm, "Trevor" <trevor.holy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You seem to be confusing FAIR with the Church. While most FAIR members
> > are LDS, FAIR is an independent organization.
>
> The LDS Church referenced FAIR as a rebuttal for the DVD. And FAIR is
> hardly an "independent organization."
The Church also referenced the Arizona Republic, the Salt Lake
Tribune, and the Anti-Defamation League. Are you going to say that
they're all associated with the Church as well? FAIR is just a group
of volunteers. It is not associated with the Church like FARMS is, for
example, although people often confuse FAIR and FARMS.
> > As for dishonest apologetics, you only seem to have quoted the
> > information from the FAIR site about steel that is convenient for your
> > argument.
>
> You seem completely un-fazed by the manner in which FAIR lied about
> the nature of the swords described in the Book of Mormon. Doesn't it
> bother you at all that they would so blatantly misrepresent the BOM?
> If the BOM is true, why would they *need* to lie about what it says?
Where do you think the nature of the swords is being lied about?
> What objective and verifiable evidence,
> if it existed, would convince you that the Mormon Church is false?
There is no such evidence, just as there is no "objective and
verifiable evidence" that can prove that the Church is true.
- Trevor
Duwaynea Anderson
On Apr 4, 4:15 pm, "John" <ews...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 4, 4:58 pm, "Duwaynea Anderson" <duway...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > You said I quoted mostly from anti-Mormon sources. Remember?
>
> No, I didn't say that. Look again.
>
> > that claim isn't true.
>
> No, its a fabrication from you, not me.
>
> I quote almost exclusively from LDS sources --
>
> > mainly LDS scriptures.
>
> 60%, by your word, does not meet the criteria of being called
> "exclusive" by any stretch of the imagination.
>
> > Remember? You accused me of quoting mostly from anti-Mormon
> > sources.
>
> No I didn't. You accused me, of saying it, but I never did.
On Apr 4, 12:18 pm, in this thread, you said:
It [my book, "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
science] raises
serious questions about your motives, and your willingness to us
references that are not completely anti mormon.
What, exactly, did you mean with your quip about "references that are
not completely anti mormon?" As I've pointed out, over 90% of the
references that I use are publications of the LDS Church, including
LDS scriptures. How does > 90% quote rate from LDS sources translate
into "... willingness to us references that are not completely anti
mormon ?"
> >The problem is, your accusation is false.
>
> The problem is, your book cracks me up,
That's not a problem. But, really, your false accusation that I'm
only willing to use anti-Mormon sources is a problem because it's
false.
I also notice that you snipped your earlier accusation that I took LDS
scriptures out of context. I challenged you to provide a single case
from my book where I did that, and you simply ignored the challenge,
snipping it away in your reply? Why? Didn't you tell the truth when
you made that accusation?
> your position is so
> indefensible,
Well, why don't you try debating my position, instead of
misrepresenting the sources I use and lying about me taking LDS
scriptures out of context?
> and if your skin is this thin, then get it out of your
> tagline, and quit making up quotes that were never offered, to defend
> yourself against people who do not respect your position.
On Apr 4, 12:18 pm, in this thread, you said:
It [my book, "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
science] raises
serious questions about your motives, and your willingness to us
references that are not completely anti mormon.
What, exactly, did you mean with your quip about "references that are
not completely anti mormon?" As I've pointed out, over 90% of the
references that I use are publications of the LDS Church, including
LDS scriptures. How does > 90% quote rate from LDS sources translate
into "... willingness to us references that are not completely anti
mormon ?"
> The facts are, that God has taught that the evidence of Himself, is
> only spiritual.
The issue in my book (which you'd know, if you read it) is not about
proving god doesn't exist. It's about illustrating the fundamental
incompatibility between Mormon doctrine and science.
> Anyone who looks for tangible proof of God, is wasting
> his, and everyone else's time, now, and forever.
But anyone wanting to compare Mormon doctrines with science can do so
easily.
Trevor
>
> > By the way, I found this review of your book to be pretty interesting:http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=622
>
> Here's a site with a few more reviews -- not all of which were written
> by employees of the LDS Church:
>
They're also a lot less scholarly. And I suppose the review that you
wrote of your own book is supposed to be considered objective? ;)
- Trevor
Trevor
> Here's a site with a few more reviews -- not all of which were written
> by employees of the LDS Church:
It seems you're not as familiar with the review as you think. He does
not, in fact, appear to be employed by the LDS Church:
"Robert R. Bennett, who earned his PhD in physical chemistry at the
University of Utah, manages the Propellants, Explosives and
Pyrotechnics Research Department at ATK Launch Systems." (
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=629 )
It appears that he may be more knowledgeable about your subject than
you are. ;)
- Trevor
Duwaynea Anderson
Trevor wrote:
> On Apr 4, 7:43 am, "Duwaynea Anderson" <duway...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 3, 4:45 pm, "Trevor" <trevor.holy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > You seem to be confusing FAIR with the Church. While most FAIR members
> > > are LDS, FAIR is an independent organization.
> >
> > The LDS Church referenced FAIR as a rebuttal for the DVD. And FAIR is
> > hardly an "independent organization."
>
> The Church also referenced the Arizona Republic, the Salt Lake
> Tribune, and the Anti-Defamation League. Are you going to say that
> they're all associated with the Church as well?
Of course not. FAIR is specifically and solely devoted to providing
apologetic arguments to support the Mormon Church. Is that true of
the other organizations you listed? Furthermore, why would you imply
that the LDS Church should not be accountable for arguments that it
espouses, whomever they are made by? This looks like you're just
trying to find a legal loophole so the LDS Church isn't accountable
for arguments it supports and promotes.
Why are you so anxious to ignore that very important distinction?
> FAIR is just a group
> of volunteers.
That's beside the point. The LDS Church offered their apologetic
arguments in rebuttal of the DVD. The irony here is that the LDS
Church is claiming that the DVD is false and misleading, while the
apologists they refer to have lied about what the Book of Mormon says
regarding swords among ancient Americans.
> It is not associated with the Church like FARMS is, for
> example, although people often confuse FAIR and FARMS.
>
> > > As for dishonest apologetics, you only seem to have quoted the
> > > information from the FAIR site about steel that is convenient for your
> > > argument.
> >
> > You seem completely un-fazed by the manner in which FAIR lied about
> > the nature of the swords described in the Book of Mormon. Doesn't it
> > bother you at all that they would so blatantly misrepresent the BOM?
> > If the BOM is true, why would they *need* to lie about what it says?
>
> Where do you think the nature of the swords is being lied about?
The LDS apologists (that the LDS Church refered to for rebuttal) claim
that the BOM does not say the ancient Americans used metal swords.
That is a total fabrication and false. The BOM specifically describes
steel swords.
Why are you so anxious to defend this bit of intellectual dishonesty?
Dale bemoaned my loss of faith in the LDS Church. It's a shame he
doesn't bemoan the loss of intellectual honesty that so often
accompanies LDS apologetics.
> > What objective and verifiable evidence,
> > if it existed, would convince you that the Mormon Church is false?
>
> There is no such evidence,
You ignored the question. I said "if it existed."
So I'll ask again: What objective and verifiable evidence, if it
existed, would convince you that the Mormon Church is false?
> just as there is no "objective and
> verifiable evidence" that can prove that the Church is true.
Pay attention to the phrase "if it existed."
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Apr 4, 12:20 pm, "Duwaynea Anderson" <duway...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > By the way, I found this review of your book to be pretty interesting:http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=622
>
> > Here's a site with a few more reviews -- not all of which were written
> > by employees of the LDS Church:
>
> >http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1410753840/qid=10791334...
>
> They're also a lot less scholarly.
On what basis? FAIR is not scholarly. You admitted yourself that
they are "just a bunch of volunteers."
>And I suppose the review that you
> wrote of your own book is supposed to be considered objective? ;)
The more important question is why you seem to think FAIR gives
objective and scholarly reviews when their mission statement says they
exist to knock down LDS criticism. There was never any question about
the fact that FAIR wouldn't like my book. They don't like *any* books
critical of Mormonism.
John
> On Apr 4, 4:15 pm, "John" <ews...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I also notice that you snipped your earlier accusation that I took LDS
> scriptures out of context. I challenged you to provide a single case
> from my book where I did that, and you simply ignored the challenge,
> snipping it away in your reply?
> Why? Didn't you tell the truth when
> you made that accusation?
Because I didn't have the time to go and re-read the book, between
when I said it, and when you DEMANDED that I drop everything in my
life, and go answer your request, RIGHT NOW, like two hours ago. That
is why. Geeez...... I will stand by my assertion, and when I borrow
the book again, from my friend, I will answer your charges. You don't
think I would pay money for something like that, do you? Keep your
pants on.
>
> > your position is so
> > indefensible,
>
> Well, why don't you try debating my position, instead of
> misrepresenting the sources I use and lying about me taking LDS
> scriptures out of context?
Because, its not a lie. You toss out your challenge, and two hours
later, if its not met, you get all twisted up and start calling me a
liar, because you figure I am sitting on your book, and have nothing
to do but reread it right now, and answer all your questions. It was
painful enough the first time I read it. I recall what I thought
about it. Gimme a break dude.
>
> > Anyone who looks for tangible proof of God, is wasting
> > his, and everyone else's time, now, and forever.
>
> But anyone wanting to compare Mormon doctrines with science can do so
> easily.
Mormon doctrine is based on spirituality, not physical science.
You cannot dismiss LDS doctrine, because you cannot prove it
scientifically, and you cannot dismiss it, because you rather odd
versions of science, don't align with it.
We had a similar conversation in a few threads, not that long ago.
Seems to me, you walked away when you couldn't come up with the
answers to questions, and when you badgered me, and I put up my
defense. Not sure why it would be any different this time. All anti
mormons do that. They love to throw it out there, but they hate it
when the have to defend it, because they cannot.
You bailed in the past, why should I invest my personal time to refute
your book, when it only seems logical, you would bail again?
If you can't take criticism about your book, quit advertising it.
Anyone who reads it, is entitled to call it whatever they want, and
are under no contractual obligation to get into a detailed rebuttal on
all the points. You didn't convince me, and I doubt you convinced
anyone who wasn't already looking for a reason to bail. The anti
mormons loved it, those who know better, could care less.
I will sum it up for you in my review: "If I can't see it, it doesn't
exist" That is your position..... Its wrong.
John
Holy crap Trevor! That is beautiful. Thanks for the link.
Kind of reveals a lot about what is really going on here.
Thanks.. :-)
Duwaynea Anderson
On Apr 4, 6:48 pm, "Trevor" <trevor.holy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 4, 12:20 pm, "Duwaynea Anderson" <duway...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Here's a site with a few more reviews -- not all of which were written
> > by employees of the LDS Church:
>
> It seems you're not as familiar with the review as you think. He does
> not, in fact, appear to be employed by the LDS Church:
How would you know? Tell us, Trevor, how can anyone's membership in
the LDS Church be confirmed?
> "Robert R. Bennett, who earned his PhD in physical chemistry at the
> University of Utah, manages the Propellants, Explosives and
> Pyrotechnics Research Department at ATK Launch Systems." (http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=629)
Where does it say he's not a member of the Church? Why would you make
such an unsupportable claim?
> It appears that he may be more knowledgeable about your subject than
> you are. ;)
What is your basis for making that claim? Better yet, since you seem
to think my book is flawed, I challenge you to find a significant
false argument in it. Let's see if you can move off your ad hominem
track here, and actually debate and win an argument about my book on
the merits of logic and reason. Perhaps you could use FAIR's review
to help you out. Be careful, though. FAIR's review of my book was no
more honest than the falsehoods they told about the BOM not saying the
ancient Americans used metal swords.
Duwayne Anderson
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Apr 4, 7:02 pm, "Duwaynea Anderson" <duway...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 4, 4:15 pm, "John" <ews...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I also notice that you snipped your earlier accusation that I took LDS
> > scriptures out of context. I challenged you to provide a single case
> > from my book where I did that, and you simply ignored the challenge,
> > snipping it away in your reply?
> > Why? Didn't you tell the truth when
> > you made that accusation?
>
> Because I didn't have the time to go and re-read the book, between
> when I said it, and when you DEMANDED that I drop everything in my
> life, and go answer your request, RIGHT NOW, like two hours ago. That
> is why. Geeez......
Typical LDS apologist. You make a false assertion. And when called
to the carpet to support your false claims or retract them you pretend
you don't have the time.
I notice that you *also* snipped the reference where I showed that you
accused me of overtly relying on anti Mormon references, even though
more than 90% of my references are from LDS sources.
> I will stand by my assertion, and when I borrow
> the book again, from my friend, I will answer your charges. You don't
> think I would pay money for something like that, do you? Keep your
> pants on.
You cannot support your claim. Your dishonesty is inline with the
apologists at FAIR who misrepresented the Book of Mormon when they
asserted that it makes no claims of metal swords.
The question is, if Mormonism is true, why is LDS apologetics so rife
with dishonesty?
> > > your position is so
> > > indefensible,
>
> > Well, why don't you try debating my position, instead of
> > misrepresenting the sources I use and lying about me taking LDS
> > scriptures out of context?
>
> Because, its not a lie.
Your inability to support your false claim with examples says
otherwise.
> You toss out your challenge, and two hours
> later, if its not met,
You made a false claim. The challenge was for you to support your
claim. You should not *make* your claim unless you can support it.
Bearing false witness is against the commandments, John. It's a shame
that Mormon apologists claim to have the witness of the holy ghost
while making false claims and then playing the victim when called to
the carpet to support their dishonesty, or retract it.
> you get all twisted up and start calling me a
> liar,
You said I took scriptures out of context. That's a false statement,
illustrated by your inability to support with any evidence at all.
> because you figure I am sitting on your book,
Because an honest person wouldn't accuse an author of taking something
out of context unless they could support the charge.
> and have nothing
> to do but reread it right now, and answer all your questions. It was
> painful enough the first time I read it. I recall what I thought
> about it. Gimme a break dude.
No, you gimme a break. You made a false claim that I took things out
of context in my book. If you had even an ounce of intellectual
honesty you'd not make such a naked claim without being able to back
it up.
> > > Anyone who looks for tangible proof of God, is wasting
> > > his, and everyone else's time, now, and forever.
>
> > But anyone wanting to compare Mormon doctrines with science can do so
> > easily.
>
> Mormon doctrine is based on spirituality, not physical science.
>
> You cannot dismiss LDS doctrine, because you cannot prove it
> scientifically, and you cannot dismiss it, because you rather odd
> versions of science, don't align with it.
I dismiss Mormonism because it is inconsistent with truth. I abandon
Mormonism because of it's cancerous effect on personal ethics, as
evidenced by LDS apologists such as yourself, and those at FARMS, who
seem perfectly content to lie for god.
<snip to end>
Dale
Dale previously:
> > Obviously, if Joseph's testimony is true, then our understanding of
> > God and our relationship to Him is one the most sublime truths ever
> > revealed--which is probably one reason why anti-Christs use every
> > stratagem to undermine faith. Against many truths that would lead
> > individuals to increased righteousness and faith, this evil process
> > has ever been so...
Duwayne:
> But that's the rub, is it not? You criticized me for destroying
> people's faith in Mormonism -- faith in Smith -- without establishing
> for a fact that Smith *was* telling the truth.
But I and millions of others have confirmed for ourselves that Joseph
Smith told the simple truth, which truths are open to all: to the
"simple," uneducated mind, the technical "scientific" mind, and
everything in between. Faith, righteousness, and a desire to follow
God are the prerequisites for *anyone* to obtain a testimony of Jesus
Christ and the works He authorizes, in any age of the world...
> But if Smith wasn't telling the truth, then destroying people's faith
> in the man, and the corporation he founded, is a *good* thing, and
> defending his fraud is a *bad* thing.
So that's how you justify doing "bad things" (i.e., attacking the
belief of others), surmising that your personal world view is "more
correct" than your opponent, because they apparently lack what you
consider "objective, verifiable evidence"? There are many scriptural
warnings about such faithless and uncharitable attitudes for any of
us :-(
IMO, this is part of the genius of God: ultimately upholding all
truth. If we truly wish to "approach God" in this life, it remains
incumbent upon us as individuals to recognize what is truly "good" and
"evil", then act accordingly to embrace the "good." Although most of
us fall far short, one never goes wrong embracing all facets of
virtue...
> So what's to be done is discuss the evidence for/against Smith's new
> religion - not to engage in ad hominem character smearing of LDS
> critics.
<grinz> Yet it's fine for anti-Mormons to distort and "smear" that
which is sacred to LDS Christians, often discounting, withholding and
distorting "evidence"...?
Duwayne, no matter how you wish to cut it, for whatever reason you
have justified, you have become a strident anti-Mormon critic. I wish
it weren't so; the Church wishes it weren't so. Nevertheless, as
you've discovered, you are *totally* free to pursue whatever path you
wish, inside or outside any corridor of religious faith...
<snip>
Dale previously:
> > Indeed, the fact that pre-Columbian weaponry in the Americas is still
> > under research and discussion by LDS and non-LDS scholars is a large
> > portion of "the point."
Duwayne:
> It's a logical fallacy to point to the fact that science is learning
> new things while ignoring what is known, and pretending that future
> discoveries will overturn what is known in favor of what's currently
> disproved.
Disproved? Disproved what?
Indeed, why do you apparently ignore what many individuals-not just
LDS Christians-have learned and *know* what God has revealed to them?
Every prophet in every dispensation of time has warned about the
futility of faithless attitudes such as this...
> Using that line of argument, you could assert with confidence that the
> earth is flat.
Of course, "The Book of Mormon is an authentic, divine record" != "The
earth is flat," especially to the point of "disproving" it. Your own
logical fallacy here is not how I (nor any religionist I know) gains
any degree of confidence about our beliefs.
On the other hand, using your faithless line of reasoning, you stand
in jeopardy to deny yourself of a wealth of spiritual realities and
possibilities in life :-(
What is "known" in all disciplines of life is almost always subject to
change; change which often redraws the standard of "knowledge."
Apparently, according to His divine purposes, God allows this process
in every aspect of life, including religious scientific and religious
understanding.
> What we know is this. The Book of Mormon describes huge civilizations
> that numbered in the millions.
But, within the historical blanks through the centuries, what we
*don't know* is a) far greater than what we do know about those
civilizations and b) does nothing to actually "disprove" the BOM. The
BOM is not history, per se. It first and foremost is an authorized
testament of Jesus Christ, designed to unleash the power of His
atonement in one soul at a time...
> These civilizations are described in
> detail,
Certain aspects of some of these civilizations are described according
to inspiration only in passing detail...*most* detail is left untold.
There would volumes if the detail of history was included..
> and the Book of Mormon says they smelted metals, including
> iron and steel, used metal swords in wars and metal armor, and
> domesticated old-world animals like horses, cattle, and swine.
Contemporary notions applied to terms such as "smelted," "iron and
steel," "metal swords," etc. do not necessarily track with the
anthropological realities of the time. Likewise, there's still many
unknowns about "domesticated old-world animals" or otherwise...
<snipped>
Dale previously:
> > It's non-Mormons who recognize that the DVD in question is almost
> > pathological in its distortions and intent to do evil and harm:http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ChJew_31/5013_31.htm. The FAIR rebuttal
> > to the un-Christian DVD (http://www.josephsmithdvd.org/) summarizes
> > larger issues that are readily available at other sites...
Duwayne:
> You still don't get it, Dale. I'm not supporting the DVD.
Excellent...
> I'm
> pointing to the hypocrisy of Mormons such as FAIR who complain about
> the DVD supposedly distorting Mormonism,
"Hypocrisy"? Project much? ;-)
> and then lying about what the
> Book of Mormon says regarding things like the metal swords that are
> unambiguously described in the BOM.
You're not getting the FAIR argument, Duwayne. FAIR briefly addressed
the anti-Mormon chestnut, "Claim: Not one Book of Mormon weapon, of
any kind, has ever been found." You appear to be superimposing your
own anti-Mormon bias on the BOM references, then building a strawman
issue that FAIR didn't even address in the limited (two paragraph)
rebuttal of the point. There are other, broader comments and sources
FAIR could have presented to address the issues ("swords of steel")
you bring up here, but that simply wasn't the need or intent given the
context of the DVD's false allegation.
<snip>
> Clearly, the BOM *does* say the ancient Americans used steel swords.
Indeed, but that does not always necessarily refer to "European-like,"
"steel swords." Even the term "steel" likely had a number of
connotations to the people living then, just as it did for some
Biblical peoples. Why superimpose your distant biases on authors who
actually *knew* the facts? Yours is supposition at best...
<snip>
> That's why Mormons get so pissed off at critics like me - we make it
> harder to misrepresent things the apologists find embarrassing.
You've simply accepted one system of "belief" for another; a very
human tendency...
<snip>
> The ancient Americans didn't smelt iron or steel.
At least for a time, Nephi and some others with the requisite
knowledge did so. However, it's uncertain how long and to what extent
this technology was generally available. If the pattern of apostasy
remained consistent among the Nephites as it was with the Lamanites,
much technological knowledge ebbed and flowed and ultimately was lost.
The record has only sporadic references...many, many gaps.
<snip>
> That's their lie. The BOM most certainly *does* say the ancient
> Americans used metal swords.
Some did at some periods of history but we know virtually nothing
about the *actual* materials used, even at the peak of their
technological enlightenment. To superimpose contemporary understanding
on this point-especially when trying to undermine faith-is not a
tenable position. It "disproves" nothing...
<snipped "lie" rant>
> > Both true statements.
>
> And both at odds with FAIRS' position that the BOM does not say the
> ancient Americans used metal swords.
Methinks that's not FAIR's position. FAIR and LDS individuals who've
seen the anti-Mormon video merely contest what it falsely asserted:
"Not one Book of Mormon weapon, of any kind, has ever been found."
Even though that statement is false, it neither proves nor disproves
anything about the validity of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, or
the expanding mission of the LDS Church. However, it does underscore
one reason why the Anti-Defamation League condemns the video :-(
Like the Holy Bible, the veracity of the BOM can only be "proven" by
an actual spiritual witness from God. The standard of "proof" is
specified by the Lord; not scientists...
~Dale
<snipped to end>
John
> On Apr 4, 6:48 pm, "Trevor" <trevor.holy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > Here's a site with a few more reviews -- not all of which were written
> > > by employees of the LDS Church:
>
> > It seems you're not as familiar with the review as you think. He does
> > not, in fact, appear to be employed by the LDS Church:
>
> How would you know? Tell us, Trevor, how can anyone's membership in
> the LDS Church be confirmed?
you do know the difference between being employed by the church, and
being member of the church, right?
>
> > "Robert R. Bennett, who earned his PhD in physical chemistry at the
> > University of Utah, manages the Propellants, Explosives and
> > Pyrotechnics Research Department at ATK Launch Systems." (http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=629)
>
> Where does it say he's not a member of the Church? Why would you make
> such an unsupportable claim?
His claim concerned being EMPLOYED by the church.
John
> On Apr 4, 7:46 pm, "John" <ews...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Because I didn't have the time to go and re-read the book, between
> > when I said it, and when you DEMANDED that I drop everything in my
> > life, and go answer your request, RIGHT NOW, like two hours ago. That
> > is why. Geeez......
>
> Typical LDS apologist. You make a false assertion. And when called
> to the carpet to support your false claims or retract them you pretend
> you don't have the time.
Get off your phony high horse, and use some common sense, and DON'T
give me any bullshit about "typical LDS apologist" You don't help your
case one bit, when you expect instant debate in usenet. The last time
I saw your book it was back on my friend's shelf. You think I should
run over, get it, re-read it, take notes, and give you a reasonable
debate, in this short a period of time?
Get over yourself. Your book didn't impress me, and I am not obligated
to you for anything, especially not in the half assed time frame you
are demanding. Sometimes, it amazes me that you have such a high
opinion of yourself, as the man who destroyed mormonism, and who
finally put the debate about Joseph Smith to rest... Your credibility
wanes with each idiotic claim you make
Besides, having shown how idiotic your assumptions are, I watched you
run from the threads we exchanged in, on several occasions. You
whined, I explained, and you were gone, showing up after a while,
buried in another thread, as if nothing had happened. I put up my
positions, and defended them, and you bailed. When I do the same for
you inane book, I expect you will do the same thing. Typical anti
mormon, filled with hate, and simply unwilling to listen to anyone
that they think is a threat to their empire.
>
> You made a false claim. The challenge was for you to support your
> claim. You should not *make* your claim unless you can support it.
>
Who are you to set the rules? Your book is baloney. It was when I
read it, and it still is today, and it will be tomorrow. If you really
wanted me to discuss it with you, you would not put such an
unreasonable time frame on your demand for points of debate,and would
not be such an arrogant little cuss about it. Instead, you do what
you are doing now, which is pissing me off, hoping that I WON'T answer
your charges, that way you don't have to explain your unbelievable
positions on issues like, "if I cannot see it, or I cannot find it
RIGHT now, it doesn't exist" Real scientific there man....
>
> > liar,
>
> You said I took scriptures out of context. That's a false statement,
> illustrated by your inability to support with any evidence at all.
You are just upset and you don't like that I object to your book,
because there is no way you can really be this stupid.....
>
> Because an honest person wouldn't accuse an author of taking something
> out of context unless they could support the charge.
How do you know I cannot support it? Because I didn't do so, in the
time frame that you demand? Grow up.
>
> No, you gimme a break. You made a false claim that I took things out
> of context in my book. If you had even an ounce of intellectual
> honesty you'd not make such a naked claim without being able to back
> it up.
Okay douche, keep it going. You are the one who thinks people should
read your rag, but the more you embarrass yourself, the more they will
see you for what you really are. You challenged me to refute parts of
your book, and decided that a few hours was plenty of time, and since
I didn't do it, I am not able to???
>>
> I dismiss Mormonism because it is inconsistent with truth.
Your home made truth.
>I abandon
> Mormonism because of it's cancerous effect on personal ethics, as
> evidenced by LDS apologists such as yourself, and those at FARMS, who
> seem perfectly content to lie for god.
Duwayne, you are one pathetic little hate filled little man.
"Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
> science" an awful book, filled with half truths, and patently false science, written by a man filled with hate and disdain for those, who do not agree with his position.
Duwaynea Anderson
> Smith told the simple truth,
The facts speak otherwise. Smith said the Book of Mormon was a
literal history of the ancient Americans, yet the Book of Mormon is
wrong in virtually all it's descriptions of those ancient people.
Your testimony is no more remarkable than the testimonies of billions
(not millions) that the other religions are true.
It's a logical fallacy to think that your personal beliefs constitute
evidence.
> which truths are open to all:
If you have objective, verifiable evidence, then by all means present
it. But if all you have is your feelings and your conversations with
god, then those are not "open to all."
> to the
> "simple," uneducated mind, the technical "scientific" mind, and
> everything in between. Faith, righteousness, and a desire to follow
> God are the prerequisites for *anyone* to obtain a testimony of Jesus
> Christ and the works He authorizes, in any age of the world...
>
> > But if Smith wasn't telling the truth, then destroying people's faith
> > in the man, and the corporation he founded, is a *good* thing, and
> > defending his fraud is a *bad* thing.
>
> So that's how you justify doing "bad things"
You haven't shown that what I'm doing is bad. One of the truly sad
things about Mormonism is that it defines "good" and "bad" in terms of
support/don't support the LDS Corporation. In doing so, it weakens a
person's ethical and moral compass. For example, you and the
apologists at FAIR find nothing wrong in lying about what the Book of
Mormon says as long as the lie is told in a way to protect the
corporation from public embarrassment.
> (i.e., attacking the
> belief of others),
Why do you think beliefs are sacred and shouldn't be challenged?
Aren't you taking the same position as the leaders of the
inquisition? Isn't your argument the same as the one used by the
Catholic Church when they forced Galileo to recant?
Isn't your position a good reason to be wary of other LDS who hold
public office? Might we expect them - like you - to think it's a bad
thing to question Mormonism, and try to pass laws that restrict such
activity?
Really, Dale. Your enormous ego is showing here. You may hold your
beliefs sacred and beyond reproach, but that doesn't give you the
right to impugn the character of those who disagree with your beliefs.
> surmising that your personal world view is "more
> correct"
Isn't that what Mormons do? In fact, it seems to me that Mormons do
it to the extreme. Mormonism claims to be the "only true church."
The Book of Mormon says that if you don't belong to the only true
church, you belong to the church of the devil.
The hypocrisy is thick here. It started with Mormons complaining
about a DVD that they say misrepresents Mormonism. So Dale posted a
link to FAIR in which FAIR defended Mormonism against the DVD by
actually lying about what the Book of Mormon says.
It got worse. Another apologist for the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints (Mormons or LDS) decided to attack me personally by
lying about my book. John asserted that I took LDS scriptures out of
context, and relied on anti-Mormon sources -- both claims are
factually incorrect.
Now Dale's modified his argument to pretend that it's wrong to
challenge (attack) his beliefs. He asserts he has truths that show
Mormonism is correct, but hasn't provided a single bit of verifiable,
objective evidence to back it up. Meanwhile he bemoans the fact I
left Mormonism, and implies that it's a bad thing to lose one's Mormon
faith.
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
science"
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> > Typical LDS apologist. You make a false assertion. And when called
> > to the carpet to support your false claims or retract them you pretend
> > you don't have the time.
>
> Get off your phony high horse,
Prove your point. You lied when you said I took LDS scriptures out of
context, and the fact you can't backup you false witness with an
example proves the point.
<snip to end.
Duwayne Anderson
Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
science"
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Apr 4, 8:52 pm, "Duwaynea Anderson" <duway...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 4, 6:48 pm, "Trevor" <trevor.holy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Here's a site with a few more reviews -- not all of which were written
> > > > by employees of the LDS Church:
>
> > > It seems you're not as familiar with the review as you think. He does
> > > not, in fact, appear to be employed by the LDS Church:
>
> > How would you know? Tell us, Trevor, how can anyone's membership in
> > the LDS Church be confirmed?
>
> you do know the difference between being employed by the church, and
> being member of the church, right?
John, you seem to be confused about the conversation with Trevor.
Trevor said that a particular person may not be Mormon. I asked how
he knew. The point is Trevor's to prove.
Perhaps you'd like to help Trevor out?
> > > "Robert R. Bennett, who earned his PhD in physical chemistry at the
> > > University of Utah, manages the Propellants, Explosives and
> > > Pyrotechnics Research Department at ATK Launch Systems." (http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=629)
>
> > Where does it say he's not a member of the Church? Why would you make
> > such an unsupportable claim?
>
> His claim concerned being EMPLOYED by the church.
Yes, but Trevor said he may not be a member. What's the affirmative
basis for making that claim?
Duwayne Anderson
John
> On Apr 4, 9:17 pm, "John" <ews...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > Get off your phony high horse,
>
> Prove your point. You lied when you said I took LDS scriptures out of
> context, and the fact you can't backup you false witness with an
> example proves the point.
>
Gonna be rough finding time to go and get the quotes you demand, if I
have to keep coming back here defending the fact that what you want,
cannot simply appear out of thin air, at your schedule....
Grow up Duwaynea. You are embarrassing yourself over this.
You wrote a book. Big deal. Its packed with lies and false
assumptions, and when someone says so, you get all twisted...
Only a fool looks for tangible evidence, of spiritual things, and only
a bigger fool, continues to whine that "I cannot see it, therefore, it
doesn't exist"
Get over yourself man. Few really care what you have to say on the
subject anyway, since you are wrong about it.
John
" Silly Author Rates his own book to make review higher, October 23,
2005
Reviewer: Fairness - See all my reviews
I bet most of the positive reviews were written by friends of the
author or by himself to make his score higher. You can see he wrote
his own review in order to raise the score and sell more books, which
I assume is his goal all along. To make money off of putting down a
religion many of us in the world are very fascinated by, since it is
the fastest growing religion in the world."
A very insightful observation by one reviewer
After suffering through some of the reviews, there seems a fascinating
commonality to the texts. It would be interesting to have an expert
read them all, and see if what seems obvious, might actually be
true.... That he wrote many of those reviews, himself.......
Duwaynea Anderson
On Apr 5, 7:01 am, "John" <ews...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 5, 7:55 am, "Duwaynea Anderson" <duway...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 4, 9:17 pm, "John" <ews...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
>
> > > Get off your phony high horse,
>
> > Prove your point. You lied when you said I took LDS scriptures out of
> > context, and the fact you can't backup you false witness with an
> > example proves the point.
>
> Gonna be rough finding time to go and get the quotes you demand,
Typical LDS apologist -- you lied about me taking LDS verses out of
context in my book, and then you try to play the victim when I
challenge you to back up your accusations.
Why, if Mormonism is true, would you need to lie about a book that's
critical of the church. Shouldn't you be able to deal with the issues
in my book logically and rationally instead of lying about it and
claiming that I quote excessively from anti-Mormon sources and take
verses out of context?
Isn't there a shred of intellectual honesty left in LDS apologetics
anymore?
> if I
> have to keep coming back here defending the fact that what you want,
Since you haven't provide a single example from my book showing that I
took LDS verses out of context, you haven't provided any "fact."
> cannot simply appear out of thin air, at your schedule....
If you can't back up your personal attacks and accusations then you
shouldn't make them.
> Grow up Duwaynea. You are embarrassing yourself over this.
Typical LDS apologist.
> You wrote a book. Big deal. Its packed with lies and false
> assumptions,
I challenge you to prove that. Provide actual quotes and page numbers
from my book to prove your point. Your failure to respond here is
evidence that you don't have any such examples, and that you've made
your false statements knowing they aren't true.
> and when someone says so, you get all twisted...
>
> Only a fool looks for tangible evidence, of spiritual things,
We are talking about your numerous false statements about me. Your ad
hominem arguments. Are you saying that your numerous false statements
about me are "spiritual things?"
> and only
> a bigger fool, continues to whine that "I cannot see it, therefore, it
> doesn't exist"
Is this the best excuse you can come up with for being unable to
support with facts any of the falsehoods you've said about me?
> Get over yourself man. Few really care what you have to say on the
> subject anyway, since you are wrong about it.
Typical LDS apologist.
John Manning
Sore loser.
John
> On Apr 5, 7:01 am, "John" <ews...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Since you haven't provide a single example from my book showing that I
> took LDS verses out of context, you haven't provided any "fact."
Listen up ...... You demanded that proof sometime late yesterday
afternoon. Its now 8:00AM the next day. I reckon you think I should
have gotten in my car, and driving through the night, to get the book
back from my friend, and then sat up since then, getting the
information you say I don't have?
How stupid is that? What kind of idiot are you, that you have this
notion that ARM is all there is in life? Get real man, I don't jump
just because you ignorantly called me a liar. When I have the book
back, I will oblige you, but some of us have real lives, outside of
ARM. Apparently, you do not...
You can kick, you can whine, and you can carry on all you want, but
beyond all the character assasination and innuendo, its damn stupid
and ignorant of you to demand in depth proof at the drop of you own
personal hat.
And I thought manning was the biggest clown in ARM........
Go write another glowing review of your book for Amazon.com......
John Manning
Translation: "I can't back up my false accusations."
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Apr 5, 8:30 am, "Duwaynea Anderson" <duway...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 5, 7:01 am, "John" <ews...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Since you haven't provide a single example from my book showing that I
> > took LDS verses out of context, you haven't provided any "fact."
>
> Listen up ...... You demanded that proof sometime late yesterday
> afternoon. Its now 8:00AM the next day.
Nobody forced you to lie about me. Nobody held a gun to your head and
said:
"John, post a false accusation that says Duwayne took things out of
context and relied excessively on anti-Mormon sources."
You did that on your own. If you can't support your false ad hominem
accusations, then don't make them.
If you persist in making your ad hominem arguments, don't whine about
being called to task for your dishonesty, and having folks demand that
you backup your claims.
> I reckon you think I should
> have gotten in my car, and driving through the night, to get the book
> back from my friend, and then sat up since then, getting the
> information you say I don't have?
I think an honest person wouldn't dive to the level of ad hominem
arguments in the first place, and it they did they should at least be
able to backup their accusations.
Why, if Mormonism is true, does this level of dishonesty exist in the
apologetic community?
<snip to end>
Duwaynea Anderson
> > religion - not to engage in ad hominem character smearing of LDS
> > critics.
>
> <grinz> Yet it's fine for anti-Mormons to distort and "smear" that
> which is sacred to LDS Christians, often discounting, withholding and
> distorting "evidence"...?
Dale, if you are making a veiled personal accusation that I've
withheld and distorted evidence then I'll put the same challenge to
you as to John. Backup your accusations.
If you are saying that I think it's alright for critics to withhold or
distort evidence then I'll put the same challenge to you as to John.
Backup your accusations.
Meanwhile, I'll note that you defended FAIR's misrepresent the Book of
Mormon when they said that the assumption of metal swords was
unwarranted -- in spite of the fact that the Book of Mormon
specifically describes metal swords (steel) that rusted.
There's a word for that, you know.
> Duwayne, no matter how you wish to cut it, for whatever reason you
> have justified, you have become a strident anti-Mormon critic.
I am a critic. The phrase "anti Mormon" is a pejorative term used by
Mormons in ad hominem fashion to summarily discount folks who make
arguments they are incapable of dealing with using logic and reason.
You need to re-evaluate your moral compass, Dale. Good and evil are
not defined by one's allegiance to Mormonism. Framing ethics and
morality in terms of one's relationship with the LDS Corporation is
one of the great tragedies of Mormonism.
> I wish
> it weren't so; the Church wishes it weren't so.
When I wrote "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
science" I was still a member of the church. I was a member three
years after the book was published.
I didn't remove my name from the church until I exercised every option
for resolving the conflict between Mormonism and ethics.
If the LDS Church wants me back, they can have me anytime. I outlined
the requirements in the final chapter of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to
terms with Mormonism and science." I also outlined the requirements
in my letter of resignation from the LDS Church.
You and I both know, however, that the LDS Church doesn't repent, so I
doubt very much that I'll ever come back.
John
> On Apr 4, 8:38 pm, "Dale" <dale.lit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dale, if you are making a veiled personal accusation that I've
> withheld and distorted evidence then I'll put the same challenge to
> you as to John. Backup your accusations.
>
You better move fast Dale.... When he demands that you back up your
accusations, if it takes more than a day to go dig up the book, re-
read it, and take time to give a responsible reply, that means you
are a liar, and a pathetic mormon apologetic. DA pretty much just sits
on his computer, and expects that all ARM posters, have everything
they have ever read, sitting on the desk, waiting for them to dive in
and extract it........right NOW!....... :-)
When DA is caught up in a thread and finds himself unable to defend
his position, he just stops posting for a time, until everyone moves
on, and then he slinks back into some other threads. There are a
number of those where I wasted my time refuting his claims, and rather
than stay and discuss, he walked away. I suppose by his terms, that
makes him pathetic, and a liar... <shrug>
> I am a critic. The phrase "anti Mormon" is a pejorative term used by
> Mormons in ad hominem fashion to summarily discount folks who make
> arguments they are incapable of dealing with using logic and reason.
....in the tiny amount of time that DA allows...... after that, you
are liar.
As if he wrote his book in twelve hours.......
It only seems fair that LDS people call DA anti mormon, since it is
his ilk, that dropped the derogatory term "mormon" onto the early
saints. The lable "Mormon" didn't start life as a compliment.
>
> You need to re-evaluate your moral compass, Dale.
Yea Dale. Listen to the man with the correct moral compass. The one
who calls people who don't reply within his demanded time frame,
pathetic, and liars.
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Apr 5, 8:42 am, "Duwaynea Anderson" <duway...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 4, 8:38 pm, "Dale" <dale.lit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dale, if you are making a veiled personal accusation that I've
> > withheld and distorted evidence then I'll put the same challenge to
> > you as to John. Backup your accusations.
>
> You better move fast Dale.... When he demands that you back up your
> accusations,
Why would any LDS apologist presume that they don't need to backup
their ad hominem accusations? If the LDS Church is true, why would
they need to make ad hominem arguments in the *first* place?
> if it takes more than a day to go dig up the book, re-
> read it, and take time to give a responsible reply, that means you
> are a liar,
The fact you lied about me is evidenced by the fact you claimed the
book relies overtly on anti-Mormon sources and takes LDS scriptures
out of context, and yet you can't supply a single example to support
your naked assertion.
Nobody forced you to lie about me. Nobody held a gun to your head
and
said:
"John, post a false accusation that says Duwayne took things out of
context and relied excessively on anti-Mormon sources."
You did that on your own. If you can't support your false ad hominem
accusations, then don't make them.
If you persist in making your ad hominem arguments, don't whine about
being called to task for your dishonesty, and having folks demand
that
you backup your claims.
<snip rest of ad hominem>
Duwayne Anderson
Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
science"
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
Dale
Duwayne:
> The facts speak otherwise. Smith said the Book of Mormon was a
> literal history of the ancient Americans,
"Literal history" only in the sense that it was authored by ancient
prophets, authoritatively called of God, who *actually* lived on the
American continent. They wrote according to what they were inspired to
write; not from a historian perspective, per se. The Book of Mormon
primarily is another witness of Jesus Christ. That is its prime
purpose...
> yet the Book of Mormon is
> wrong in virtually all it's descriptions of those ancient people.
So you claim and conclude according to your standard of "proof" (i.e.,
lack of what you consider is OVE). You are certainly entitled to your
beliefs...
> Your testimony is no more remarkable than the testimonies of billions
> (not millions) that the other religions are true.
My testimony only needs to be "remarkable" to me, Duwayne. It's
personal, it's sacred, and it's sufficient for me. I cannot speak for
anyone other than myself.
My testimony of Josesph Smith's prophetic call, the faithfulness of
the Book of Mormon, and divine reality of Jesus Christ all stand as
cornerstones for my life as a husband, father, and citizen of planet
earth.
> It's a logical fallacy to think that your personal beliefs constitute
> evidence.
Ultimately, our "personal beliefs" are the only thing that we truly
have. We all come to conclusions about every aspect of life, based on
where we apply our "faith." Throughout the ages, God has consistently
taught mankind that faith in the Lord (aka, Jesus Christ) ultimately
leads to "evidence" that God happily imparts to all who forsake evil
and seek righteousness and virtue. To the extent that we abandon such
a commitment to God, we are sadly left to ourselves chasing the
shadows of OVE :-(
Dale:
> > which truths are open to all:
Duwayne:
> If you have objective, verifiable evidence, then by all means present
> it. But if all you have is your feelings and your conversations with
> god, then those are not "open to all."
I would submit that the Book of Mormon constitutes such evidence. If
one objectively and honestly follows the counseled outlined by Lehi,
Nephi, Mosiah, Amulek, King Benjamin, Alma, culminating with Jesus
Christ, Himself, the witness of God's holy spirit is life-changing for
most.
To *all*, Christ declares, "I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I
say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise." (D&C 82: 10)
To one degree or another, disobedience to God *always* leads to
personal apostasy, unless we repent...
<snip>
> You haven't shown that what I'm doing is bad.
Duwayne, you're "winking" here, right? ;-)
Ultimately, "what I'm doing" is who we are at the end of the day, no?
When we're nothing more than posie food awaiting the resurrection, the
characters we forged in life certainly will endure...
<snip>
> Why do you think beliefs are sacred and shouldn't be challenged?
Anciently, Paul made an interesting comment about this: "Examine
YOURSELVES, whether ye be in the faith; prove YOUR OWN SELVES."
IMO, any idea, practice, or belief that leads to actual evil-
individually or corporately-is subject to "challenge" by us as
individuals; not anti-religionists who seek only to destroy (talk
about hypocrisy :-( )
Duwayne:
> Aren't you taking the same position as the leaders of the
> inquisition? Isn't your argument the same as the one used by the
> Catholic Church when they forced Galileo to recant?
How?
No LDS Christian-at any level-"forces" anything on you or anyone else.
We teach and proclaim what we know to be of God and allow others to
freely chose, just as you did when you left the church. Nobody pointed
a gun at your head; nobody forced you to pray; nobody forced you to
pay tithing; nobody forced you to serve or not; nobody firebombed your
home or threatened your family with any harm or injury when you chose
to justify your own actions. It's always *your* choice,
Duwayne...your's alone...
> Isn't your position a good reason to be wary of other LDS who hold
> public office? Might we expect them - like you - to think it's a bad
> thing to question Mormonism, and try to pass laws that restrict such
> activity?
Nice leap of "reasoning" <sic> ;-)
Of course, it's ultimately legislators and majority rule that guide
the Good Ship Government. That's what the U.S. Constitution is all
about. Here's another canonized LDS nugget for you to ponder, Duwayne:
"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and
magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."
> Really, Dale. Your enormous ego is showing here. You may hold your
> beliefs sacred and beyond reproach, but that doesn't give you the
> right to impugn the character of those who disagree with your beliefs.
FAIR, the Anti-Defamation League, and others took exception with the
overall message of the anti-Mormon DVD. I take exception with many
anti-Mormon messages, including yours, Duwayne. Just as anti-Mormons
strive to impugn the character of the Prophet Joseph Smith and all
things related to him, I have every right to point out the bias of the
"critic," especially in an *RM forum...
Dale:
> > surmising that your personal world view is "more
> > correct"
Duwayne:
> Isn't that what Mormons do?
Of course. We all do it. Here again is what LDS Christians believe and
try to practice on this point: "We claim the privilege of worshiping
Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and
allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what
they may."
Apparently, neither you nor many other anti-Mormons believe such
doctrine...
<snip>
Duwayne:
> Now Dale's modified his argument to pretend that it's wrong to
> challenge (attack) his beliefs.
Probably the biggest challenge for any Christian is not to become an
anti-anti-Christ <grinz>
> He asserts he has truths that show
> Mormonism is correct, but hasn't provided a single bit of verifiable,
> objective evidence to back it up.
Sadly, OVE will never bring a single person to Christ, Duwayne...
> Meanwhile he bemoans the fact I
> left Mormonism,
Indeed, I do "bemoan" you leaving the Church, but not in a negative
way. I'm certain I am not alone. I assume much effort, concern,
prayer, and perhaps tears have been expended in your behalf by many,
many known and unknown individuals who have loved you through the
years.
Although we are totally free to choose any course of life *we* desire,
we simply cannot escape the natural consequences of those choices.
Religionists of many stripe *know* of the eternal nature of the soul;
that mortal life has divine purpose; that the "law of the harvest"
awaits us all.
Somehow, I believe our Heavenly Father remains acutely aware and
bemoans any choices we make that ultimately lead us away from His Son.
It does us no good to rationalize "good" for "evil" and "evil" for
"good." We are who we become by the choices we make.
> and implies that it's a bad thing to lose one's Mormon
> faith.
Somehow, *you* defined your "Mormon faith" as "bad" and rejected it,
Duwayne. Just because you chose to do so does not mean others should
follow you. Exactly where does *your* OVE path lead, Duwayne? There is
certainly time and place for OVE but that is not typically how
Heavenly Father reveals Himself to mankind in any age of the world.
All the best,
~Dale
Duwaynea Anderson
> <snip previous>
>
> Duwayne:
>
> > The facts speak otherwise. Smith said the Book of Mormon was a
> > literal history of the ancient Americans,
>
> "Literal history" only in the sense that it was authored by ancient
> prophets, authoritatively called of God, who *actually* lived on the
> American continent.
And it describes in detail the weapons used, the technologies used,
the animals they supposedly domesticated, the foods they brought from
the Old World, planted, and grew, the language they used, the names of
their cities, the locations of the cities relative to each other and
to geographical points of interest, the names of their leaders and
prophets, and a history of their wars.
Yet the Book of Mormon is factually incorrect about virtually all the
trivial things it describes regarding ancient America, and there isn't
a single bit of non-trivial evidence to support it at all.
Yet, if the book were true, there *should* be such evidence. The fact
that all this expected evidence is missing is direct evidence that the
Book of Mormon is a fraud.
> They wrote according to what they were inspired to
> write; not from a historian perspective, per se. The Book of Mormon
> primarily is another witness of Jesus Christ. That is its prime
> purpose...
How can the Book of Mormon witness to anything when its veracity is in
question? As long as the book looks like a fraud its ability to
witness for Jesus or anything else is completely lacking.
Appealing to the BOM as a witness is as nonsensical as a lawyer
calling an un-credible witness to the stand. It accomplishes
nothing.
> > yet the Book of Mormon is
> > wrong in virtually all it's descriptions of those ancient people.
>
> So you claim and conclude according to your standard of "proof" (i.e.,
> lack of what you consider is OVE). You are certainly entitled to your
> beliefs...
I challenge you to post verifiable objective evidence that documents
the name of a single BOM character among the ancient Americans. I
challenge you to post verifiable objective evidence that documents the
name of a single city in the BOM among the ancient Americans.
Even when we lower the evidentiary bar as low as possible, the BOM
fails. There's no reason to expect a 19th century author not to talk
of steel swords, cement, horse, cattle, etc. If these things were
found in the Book of Mormon and among the ancient Americans it would
hardly raise an eyebrow. They are trivial evidences -- yet the BOM
fails even here. Even with the evidentiary bar lowered to the level
of trivial evidences the BOM founders, as virtually every aspect of
ancient American life that it describes is factually incorrect.
> > Your testimony is no more remarkable than the testimonies of billions
> > (not millions) that the other religions are true.
>
> My testimony only needs to be "remarkable" to me, Duwayne.
You can say that only if you want to convince just yourself.
> It's
> personal, it's sacred, and it's sufficient for me. I cannot speak for
> anyone other than myself.
And yet you claim that the truth of Smith is available to all. I'm
still waiting for you to support that un-founded assertion.
> My testimony of Josesph Smith's prophetic call, the faithfulness of
> the Book of Mormon, and divine reality of Jesus Christ all stand as
> cornerstones for my life as a husband, father, and citizen of planet
> earth.
Congratulations. A billion people have different corner stones that
are inconsistent with yours. There's is nothing objectively different
about your faith and testimony than the faith and testimony of any
other person.
If that's all you've got, then have at it. But don't pretend that the
evidence for Smith is available to all, if all you've got is your
personal testimony.
> > It's a logical fallacy to think that your personal beliefs constitute
> > evidence.
>
> Ultimately, our "personal beliefs" are the only thing that we truly
> have.
I can point to scientific literature that describes the origins of the
ancient Americans, what they ate, the tools they used, the weapons
they fashioned, and the animals they domesticated.
You can't do that.
<snip>
> > If you have objective, verifiable evidence, then by all means present
> > it. But if all you have is your feelings and your conversations with
> > god, then those are not "open to all."
>
> I would submit that the Book of Mormon constitutes such evidence.
You need to do better than offer up a circular argument on the alter
of logic and reason.
> If
> one objectively and honestly follows the counseled outlined by Lehi,
> Nephi, Mosiah, Amulek, King Benjamin, Alma, culminating with Jesus
> Christ, Himself, the witness of God's holy spirit is life-changing for
> most.
I'm not sure if you appreciate how arrogant that sounds. You offer no
evidence, but instead claim that your naked assertion will be proven
true to honest folk? See the arrogance?
> To *all*, Christ declares, "I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I
> say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise." (D&C 82: 10)
> To one degree or another, disobedience to God *always* leads to
> personal apostasy, unless we repent...
Actually, Smith said that.
> <snip>
>
> > You haven't shown that what I'm doing is bad.
>
> Duwayne, you're "winking" here, right? ;-)
No.
> Ultimately, "what I'm doing" is who we are at the end of the day, no?
> When we're nothing more than posie food awaiting the resurrection, the
> characters we forged in life certainly will endure...
That makes no sense.
> <snip>
>
> > Why do you think beliefs are sacred and shouldn't be challenged?
>
> Anciently, Paul made an interesting comment about this: "Examine
> YOURSELVES, whether ye be in the faith; prove YOUR OWN SELVES."
That didn't answer the question. Let me repeat it: Why do you think
beliefs are sacred and shouldn't be challenged?
> IMO, any idea, practice, or belief that leads to actual evil-
> individually or corporately-is subject to "challenge"
Isn't lying evil? The FAIR apologists lied about the BOM's stance on
metal swords, yet you *defended* them.
By your own standard, that's evil, isn't it?
> by us as
> individuals; not anti-religionists who seek only to destroy (talk
> about hypocrisy :-( )
Many religions feel the same way about Mormonism, as the LDS Church
sends out thousands of missionaries to tell folks that they don't
belong to the only true church, and that they can only have exaltation
by joining the LDS and paying 10% of their money to the Mormon
Church.
> Duwayne:
>
> > Aren't you taking the same position as the leaders of the
> > inquisition? Isn't your argument the same as the one used by the
> > Catholic Church when they forced Galileo to recant?
>
> How?
>
> No LDS Christian-at any level-"forces" anything on you or anyone else.
Would you if you could, though?
> We teach and proclaim what we know to be of God and allow others to
> freely chose,
That's what you say, but do you practice what you preach?
> just as you did when you left the church.
Don't confuse the freedoms I have under our secular constitution with
the freedoms the LDS Church favors.
> Nobody pointed
> a gun at your head; nobody forced you to pray; nobody forced you to
> pay tithing; nobody forced you to serve or not; nobody firebombed your
> home or threatened your family with any harm or injury when you chose
> to justify your own actions. It's always *your* choice,
> Duwayne...your's alone...
All true. But I've been the object of LDS lies and distortions.
John, one of your fellow apologists, lied about me when he said I
overly rely on anti-Mormon references, and take LDS scriptures out of
context in my book. FAIR lied about my book in their review, too.
These behavioral examples from LDS belie dangerous undercurrents
suggesting that the LDS would *like* to do nasty things -- they are
simply limited by our constitutional government (thank the gods for
that).
> > Isn't your position a good reason to be wary of other LDS who hold
> > public office? Might we expect them - like you - to think it's a bad
> > thing to question Mormonism, and try to pass laws that restrict such
> > activity?
>
> Nice leap of "reasoning" <sic> ;-)
>
> Of course, it's ultimately legislators and majority rule that guide
> the Good Ship Government.
How about the Bill of Rights?
> That's what the U.S. Constitution is all
> about. Here's another canonized LDS nugget for you to ponder, Duwayne:
> "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and
> magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."
There's the talk, but where's the walk?
> > Really, Dale. Your enormous ego is showing here. You may hold your
> > beliefs sacred and beyond reproach, but that doesn't give you the
> > right to impugn the character of those who disagree with your beliefs.
>
> FAIR, the Anti-Defamation League, and others took exception with the
> overall message of the anti-Mormon DVD.
There you go again. Missing the point (again).
I'm not defending the DVD. I'm pointing out that the folks at FAIR
did exactly what they accused the DVD authors of doing -- they lied
about the BOM.
> I take exception with many
> anti-Mormon messages, including yours, Duwayne. Just as anti-Mormons
> strive to impugn the character of the Prophet Joseph Smith and all
> things related to him, I have every right to point out the bias of the
> "critic," especially in an *RM forum...
The difference, of course, is that you don't provide evidence to
support your ad hominem arguments.
> Dale:
>
> > > surmising that your personal world view is "more
> > > correct"
>
> Duwayne:
>
> > Isn't that what Mormons do?
>
> Of course. We all do it. Here again is what LDS Christians believe and
> try to practice on this point: "We claim the privilege of worshiping
> Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and
> allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what
> they may."
There's the talk. Where's the walk?
> Apparently, neither you nor many other anti-Mormons believe such
> doctrine...
>
> <snip>
>
> Duwayne:
>
> > Now Dale's modified his argument to pretend that it's wrong to
> > challenge (attack) his beliefs.
>
> Probably the biggest challenge for any Christian is not to become an
> anti-anti-Christ <grinz>
>
> > He asserts he has truths that show
> > Mormonism is correct, but hasn't provided a single bit of verifiable,
> > objective evidence to back it up.
>
> Sadly, OVE will never bring a single person to Christ, Duwayne...
How would you know if you've never provided any?
> > Meanwhile he bemoans the fact I
> > left Mormonism,
>
> Indeed, I do "bemoan" you leaving the Church, but not in a negative
> way. I'm certain I am not alone. I assume much effort, concern,
> prayer, and perhaps tears have been expended in your behalf by many,
> many known and unknown individuals who have loved you through the
> years.
Why should membership in a corporation cause anyone to cry?
> Although we are totally free to choose any course of life *we* desire,
> we simply cannot escape the natural consequences of those choices.
> Religionists of many stripe *know* of the eternal nature of the soul;
> that mortal life has divine purpose; that the "law of the harvest"
> awaits us all.
Does your mother cry over the fact that you supported the lies FAIR
told about the metal sword? Would she cry if you left the LDS Church?
See the problem? Mormonism destroys ethics and morality by making
devotion to the church the standard by which ethics and morality are
measured. When devotion to the church becomes the standard, then evil
things can be (and are) done in the name of the church.
> Somehow, I believe our Heavenly Father remains acutely aware and
> bemoans any choices we make that ultimately lead us away from His Son.
> It does us no good to rationalize "good" for "evil" and "evil" for
> "good." We are who we become by the choices we make.
Do you think your "heavenly father" is worried by the fact that the
apologists at FAIR practice dishonesty in his name?
> > and implies that it's a bad thing to lose one's Mormon
> > faith.
>
> Somehow, *you* defined your "Mormon faith" as "bad" and rejected it,
> Duwayne.
Yes, I did.
> Just because you chose to do so does not mean others should
> follow you.
True enough. In fact, I point that out in my book. Oh, but you
wouldn't know that because you didn't read it.
> Exactly where does *your* OVE path lead, Duwayne?
Obligation to truth over obligation to a corporation.
> There is
> certainly time and place for OVE but that is not typically how
> Heavenly Father reveals Himself to mankind in any age of the world.
> All the best,
How do you know? How did you come to be an expert on the heavenly
father, enough to speak for him and explain what he thinks, wants, and
how he acts? Why should anyone think you know what you are talking
about when you tell the world what god wants?
McSorley
>
> By the way, I found this review of your book to be pretty interesting:http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=622
>
That was awesome, thanks for the link.
McSorley
Trevor
> Trevor wrote:
> > On Apr 4, 7:43 am, "Duwaynea Anderson" <duway...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 3, 4:45 pm, "Trevor" <trevor.holy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > You seem to be confusing FAIR with the Church. While most FAIR members
> > > > are LDS, FAIR is an independent organization.
>
> > > The LDS Church referenced FAIR as a rebuttal for the DVD. And FAIR is
> > > hardly an "independent organization."
>
> > The Church also referenced the Arizona Republic, the Salt Lake
> > Tribune, and the Anti-Defamation League. Are you going to say that
> > they're all associated with the Church as well?
>
> Of course not. FAIR is specifically and solely devoted to providing
> the other organizations you listed? Furthermore, why would you imply
> that the LDS Church should not be accountable for arguments that it
> espouses, whomever they are made by? This looks like you're just
> trying to find a legal loophole so the LDS Church isn't accountable
> for arguments it supports and promotes.
The Church is not accountable for any of the web sites it has linked
to, except for FARMS, and that's only ind BYU.
> Why are you so anxious to ignore that very important distinction?
Why are you so anxious to make that distinction?
> > FAIR is just a group
> > of volunteers.
>
> That's beside the point. The LDS Church offered their apologetic
> arguments in rebuttal of the DVD. The irony here is that the LDS
> Church is claiming that the DVD is false and misleading, while the
> apologists they refer to have lied about what the Book ofMormonsays
> regarding swords among ancient Americans.
The LDS Church merely gave a link to the FAIR web site, among others,
as places where people may go for more information.
As for any misleading information about the swords, I can assure you
that was unintentional. It has now been corrected. Given that we only
had about a week to put the information together, some mistakes were
bound to be made. Rather than pointing them out as "lie[s]", perhaps
credit should be given for all the work that was put into the site to
get it ready in such a short period of time by unpaid volunteers.
> > > What objective and verifiable evidence,
> > > if it existed, would convince you that theMormonChurch is false?
>
> > There is no such evidence,
>
> You ignored the question. I said "if it existed."
>
> So I'll ask again: What objective and verifiable evidence, if it
> existed, would convince you that theMormonChurch is false?
Your question is impossible to answer.
Trevor
> On Apr 4, 6:10 pm, "Trevor" <trevor.holy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 4, 12:20 pm, "Duwaynea Anderson" <duway...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > By the way, I found this review of your book to be pretty interesting:http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=622
>
> > > Here's a site with a few more reviews -- not all of which were written
> > > by employees of the LDS Church:
>
> > >http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1410753840/qid=10791334...
>
> > They're also a lot less scholarly.
>
> On what basis? FAIR is not scholarly. You admitted yourself that
> they are "just a bunch of volunteers."
They are a lot less scholarly because they are the opinions of fans,
rather than opinions of people that have a legitimate background in
the subject matter.
Just because FAIR is a non-profit organization made up of volunteers
does not mean that none of the volunteers are scholars. It just means
that no one gets paid.
>
> >And I suppose the review that you
> > wrote of your own book is supposed to be considered objective? ;)
>
> The more important question is why you seem to think FAIR gives
> objective and scholarly reviews when their mission statement says they
> exist to knock down LDS criticism. There was never any question about
> the fact that FAIR wouldn't like my book. They don't like *any* books
> critical of Mormonism.
Again, you seem to be getting FAIR and FARMS mixed up. The review I
mentioned was published by FARMS, not FAIR.
Trevor
> On Apr 4, 6:48 pm, "Trevor" <trevor.holy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 4, 12:20 pm, "Duwaynea Anderson" <duway...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Here's a site with a few more reviews -- not all of which were written
> > > by employees of the LDS Church:
>
> > It seems you're not as familiar with the review as you think. He does
> not, in fact, appear to be employed by the LDS Church:
>
> How would you know? Tell us, Trevor, how can anyone's membership in
> the LDS Church be confirmed?
I didn't say he wasn't a member of the Church. I said he didn't appear
to be employed by the Church. He obviously is a member of the Church,
or else his review wouldn't make any sense.
>
> > "Robert R. Bennett, who earned his PhD in physical chemistry at the
> > University of Utah, manages the Propellants, Explosives and
> > Pyrotechnics Research Department at ATK Launch Systems." (http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=629)
>
> Where does it say he's not a member of the Church? Why would you make
> such an unsupportable claim?
Again, I didn't say he wasn't a member of the Church. You implied that
he was employed by the Church, and I was showing that it doesn't
appear that he is.
> > It appears that he may be more knowledgeable about your subject than
> > you are. ;)
>
> What is your basis for making that claim?
The fact that he actually has a PhD in a scientific field and is
currently employed in the same. According to your bio on Amazon, you
have a "degree." I'm guessing it's a BS degree, or else you would have
specifically stated what it is. You didn't state your employment, so I
obviously don't know how qualified you are in regard to that.
Trevor
> On Apr 4, 8:58 pm, "John" <ews...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 4, 8:52 pm, "Duwaynea Anderson" <duway...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 4, 6:48 pm, "Trevor" <trevor.holy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Here's a site with a few more reviews -- not all of which were written
> > > > > by employees of the LDS Church:
>
> > > > It seems you're not as familiar with the review as you think. He does
> > > > not, in fact, appear to be employed by the LDS Church:
>
> > > How would you know? Tell us, Trevor, how can anyone's membership in
> > > the LDS Church be confirmed?
>
> > you do know the difference between being employed by the church, and
> > being member of the church, right?
>
> John, you seem to be confused about the conversation with Trevor.
> he knew. The point is Trevor's to prove.
No, you seem to be the one that's confused. I never made that
statement.
>
> Perhaps you'd like to help Trevor out?
>
> > > > "Robert R. Bennett, who earned his PhD in physical chemistry at the
> > > > University of Utah, manages the Propellants, Explosives and
> > > > Pyrotechnics Research Department at ATK Launch Systems." (http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=629)
>
> > > Where does it say he's not a member of the Church? Why would you make
> > > such an unsupportable claim?
>
> > His claim concerned being EMPLOYED by the church.
>
> Yes, but Trevor said he may not be a member. What's the affirmative
> basis for making that claim?
What the "affirmative basis" for stating that I said "he may not be a
member?"
- Trevor
Trevor
> The Church is not accountable for any of the web sites it has linked
> to, except for FARMS, and that's only ind BYU.
That should have said:
The Church is not accountable for any of the web sites it has linked
to, except for FARMS, and that's only indirectly, through BYU.
- Trevor
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> The LDS Church merely gave a link to the FAIR web site, among others,
> as places where people may go for more information.
Oh, you bet they are. I know you are struggling like mad to find a
legal loophole for them, but the LDS Church said the DVD was
untruthful and they use the FAIR website to try and prove their
point. They can't escape their moral/ethical obligations by using a
surrogate answer man.
The problem, of course, is that FAIR lied about what the Book of
Mormon says about things like metal swords.
> As for any misleading information about the swords, I can assure you
> that was unintentional.
I can assure you it was not. The folks at FAIR know their argument is
flawed because they've been told.
> It has now been corrected.
Got a link for that?
> Given that we only
> had about a week to put the information together, some mistakes were
> bound to be made.
Well, you've got a lot more mistakes to fix. Claiming that NHM and
cement in ancient American are not-trivial evidence for the BOM are
just two examples. See the recent discussion on ARM about cement in
the Book of Mormon.
> Rather than pointing them out as "lie[s]", perhaps
> credit should be given for all the work that was put into the site to
> get it ready in such a short period of time by unpaid volunteers.
Are you willing to do that for the creators of the DVD?
> > > > What objective and verifiable evidence,
> > > > if it existed, would convince you that theMormonChurch is false?
>
> > > There is no such evidence,
>
> > You ignored the question. I said "if it existed."
>
> > So I'll ask again: What objective and verifiable evidence, if it
> > existed, would convince you that theMormonChurch is false?
>
> Your question is impossible to answer.
Why? Suppose we had documented proof that Smith had sex with under-
aged girls, against Emma's wishes. Would that convince you that Smith
was a con man and not a prophet?
Suppose we had documented proof that Smith invented the BOM.
Shouldn't that convince you that Mormonism isn't true?
Suppose we had a verifiable tape recording of Hinckley admitting to
one of the apostles that Smith made it all up. Shouldn't that
information, *if* it existed, convince you that Mormonism isn't true?
I can think of hundreds of instances in which VOE, if it existed,
should convince you that Mormonism isn't true.
Why are you so timid about this?
Duwaynea Anderson
Trevor wrote:
> On Apr 4, 8:45 pm, "Duwaynea Anderson" <duway...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 4, 6:10 pm, "Trevor" <trevor.holy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Apr 4, 12:20 pm, "Duwaynea Anderson" <duway...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > By the way, I found this review of your book to be pretty interesting:http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=622
> >
> > > > Here's a site with a few more reviews -- not all of which were written
> > > > by employees of the LDS Church:
> >
> > > >http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1410753840/qid=10791334...
> >
> > > They're also a lot less scholarly.
> >
> > On what basis? FAIR is not scholarly. You admitted yourself that
> > they are "just a bunch of volunteers."
>
> They are a lot less scholarly because they are the opinions of fans,
Actually, no. Some were critical. Don't you think you should
actually read the reviews before commenting on them?
And if "fan" reviews are not valid, how can the review by LDS
apologists committed to defending Mormonism be valid?
> rather than opinions of people that have a legitimate background in
> the subject matter.
But are they honest? We've already seen that LDS apologists are
willing to lie about what the BOM says regarding metal swords. What
else are they willing to lie about?
> Just because FAIR is a non-profit organization made up of volunteers
> does not mean that none of the volunteers are scholars. It just means
> that no one gets paid.
Their charter means that they also are expected to reject any critical
analysis of Mormonism. And their past apologetics prove they are
willing to lie to try and do it.
<snip to end>
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Apr 4, 8:52 pm, "Duwaynea Anderson" <duway...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On Apr 4, 6:48 pm, "Trevor" <trevor.holy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 4, 12:20 pm, "Duwaynea Anderson" <duway...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Here's a site with a few more reviews -- not all of which were written
> > > > by employees of the LDS Church:
>
> > > It seems you're not as familiar with the review as you think. He does
>
> > not, in fact, appear to be employed by the LDS Church:
>
>
>
> > How would you know? Tell us, Trevor, how can anyone's membership in
> > the LDS Church be confirmed?
>
> I didn't say he wasn't a member of the Church. I said he didn't appear
> to be employed by the Church. He obviously is a member of the Church,
> or else his review wouldn't make any sense.
I agree. Only a member of the LDS Church, bent on defending the LDS
Church sans reason, logic, and intellectual honesty could write a
review like that.
> > > "Robert R. Bennett, who earned his PhD in physical chemistry at the
> > > University of Utah, manages the Propellants, Explosives and
> > > Pyrotechnics Research Department at ATK Launch Systems." (http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=629)
>
> > Where does it say he's not a member of the Church? Why would you make
> > such an unsupportable claim?
>
> Again, I didn't say he wasn't a member of the Church. You implied that
> he was employed by the Church, and I was showing that it doesn't
> appear that he is.
>
> > > It appears that he may be more knowledgeable about your subject than
> > > you are. ;)
>
> > What is your basis for making that claim?
>
> The fact that he actually has a PhD in a scientific field and is
> currently employed in the same. According to your bio on Amazon, you
> have a "degree." I'm guessing it's a BS degree, or else you would have
> specifically stated what it is. You didn't state your employment, so I
> obviously don't know how qualified you are in regard to that.
Several of the positive reviews on Amazon come from folks with PhDs.
Clearly, the degree isn't as important a factor as the pre-existing
bias and intellectual honesty.
Duwaynea Anderson
The Church is accountable for what it says and does. Ethics is not an
exercise in finding legal loopholes.
When the LDS Church accuses an organization of falsely representing
Mormonism, and then tries to prove its point by referencing an
apologetic group that lied about what the BOM says regarding things
like metal swords, that *does* reflect on the church's ethical and
moral standards.
Duwaynea Anderson
He has a degree in Chemistry. So he's not necessarily an expert in
physics, geology, astronomy, archaeology, or biology; all subjects I
discuss at length in their relationship with Mormonism. The science
is all verifiable, too. One need not take my word for what the
science says - the reading list makes it very easy to check my
accuracy there. Furthermore, I don't recall him taking issue with the
science in my book at all. So his degree really has very little, if
anything, to do with the critical parts of his review.
His association with an apologetic organization committed to defending
Mormonism is far more relevant. Especially when that organization has
misrepresented the BOM in order to try and defend the BOM against
critical examination.
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> As for any misleading information about the swords, I can assure you
> that was unintentional.
I discuss the BOM's steel swords in my book "Farewell to Eden: Coming
to terms with Mormonism and science" at length. I quote the BOM
verses that say -- point blank -- that the ancient Americans made
steel swords.
My book was published in 2003.
Mormon apologists have *reviewed* my book. If they really read it
(and they are dishonest for reviewing it if they didn't read it) then
they knew all about the lie FAIR told when FAIR claimed there is no
justification for saying the BOM swords were made of metal.
Mormon apologists have had plenty of nasty things to say about my
book. They've lied about it and me shamelessly. There is no credible
excuse for the apologists to then turn around and say it was
"unintentional" when they lied by saying the Book of Mormon doesn't
warrant the conclusion that the swords in the BOM were made of metal.
Shame, shame, shame on FARMS, FAIR, and The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormon).
> It has now been corrected.
You don't get credit on your ethical score for putting the cookies
back after you've been caught with your hand in the cookie jar. Any
corrections at this point are only the result of being caught red
handed lying for the lord.
<snip to end>
Trevor
> On Apr 5, 4:30 pm, "Trevor" <trevor.holy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > The LDS Church merely gave a link to the FAIR web site, among others,
> > as places where people may go for more information.
>
> Oh, you bet they are. I know you are struggling like mad to find a
> legal loophole for them, but the LDS Church said the DVD was
> untruthful and they use the FAIR website to try and prove their
> point. They can't escape their moral/ethical obligations by using a
> surrogate answer man.
Why would I care about any legal loopholes?
Can you show me where the Church has used the word "untruthful" in
relation to the DVD?
The FAIR site was merely one of many sites that were linked to for
more information if people want it.
> The problem, of course, is that FAIR lied about what the Book of
> Mormon says about things like metal swords.
You're really stuck on that, aren't you. That must be the one area you
feel comfortable criticizing.
> > As for any misleading information about the swords, I can assure you
> > that was unintentional.
>
> I can assure you it was not. The folks at FAIR know their argument is
> flawed because they've been told.
How have we been told, and by whom? I can assure you it was
unintentional because I participated in the process of putting the
site together. We did the best we could in the time we had, and we've
been more than willing to make corrections as necessary.
> > It has now been corrected.
>
> Got a link for that?
It's on the same page that you saw it before:
http://en.fairmormon.org/index.php/Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Archaeology
> > Given that we only
> > had about a week to put the information together, some mistakes were
> > bound to be made.
>
> Well, you've got a lot more mistakes to fix. Claiming that NHM and
> cement in ancient American are not-trivial evidence for the BOM are
> just two examples. See the recent discussion on ARM about cement in
> the Book of Mormon.
So you criticize the Book of Mormon for mentioning cement and say that
no places in it have ever been found, but when cement is found and one
of the sites is found, you pass it off as trivial. That's pretty
typical anti-Mormon behavior, actually - either ignore it or decide
it's trivial.
> > Rather than pointing them out as "lie[s]", perhaps
> > credit should be given for all the work that was put into the site to
> > get it ready in such a short period of time by unpaid volunteers.
>
> Are you willing to do that for the creators of the DVD?
Certainly, although they dictated their own timetable, and presumably
took much longer than a week to put the DVD together. We'd love for
them to make corrections. They've already made a few, in fact, that
they've posted here: http://www.goodnewsforlds.org/amendments.html
> > > > > What objective and verifiable evidence,
> > > > > if it existed, would convince you that theMormonChurch is false?
>
> > > > There is no such evidence,
>
> > > You ignored the question. I said "if it existed."
>
> > > So I'll ask again: What objective and verifiable evidence, if it
> > > existed, would convince you that theMormonChurch is false?
>
> > Your question is impossible to answer.
>
> Why? Suppose we had documented proof that Smith had sex with under-
> aged girls, against Emma's wishes. Would that convince you that Smith
> was a con man and not a prophet?
Joseph's sex life has nothing to do with whether the Book of Mormon or
the Church are true. However, the girls he married were not underage
(not only that, but he received parental permission), and there is no
proof that he had sex with them (he may have, but there is no proof
one way or the other).
> Suppose we had documented proof that Smith invented the BOM.
> Shouldn't that convince you that Mormonism isn't true?
There is also no proof of this. In fact, there is a lot of evidence to
the contrary.
> Suppose we had a verifiable tape recording of Hinckley admitting to
> one of the apostles that Smith made it all up. Shouldn't that
> information, *if* it existed, convince you that Mormonism isn't true?
Such a thing obviously is a figment of your imagination, but even if
it were to exist, it wouldn't prove anything.
> I can think of hundreds of instances in which VOE, if it existed,
> should convince you that Mormonism isn't true.
I bet you could think of lots of things that in your mind should
convince people; you seem to have a lot of time on your hands. The
fact is that it's not going to happen.
> Why are you so timid about this?
Why do you think I'm timid?
- Trevor
Trevor
> > They are a lot less scholarly because they are the opinions of fans,
>
> Actually, no. Some were critical. Don't you think you should
> actually read the reviews before commenting on them?
I read as many of them as I could stomach. I was referring to the ones
that were praising your book (including your own).
> And if "fan" reviews are not valid, how can the review by LDS
> apologists committed to defending Mormonism be valid?
There's a difference between praising a book for saying what you want
to hear and critically analyzing a book.
> > rather than opinions of people that have a legitimate background in
> > the subject matter.
>
> But are they honest? We've already seen that LDS apologists are
> willing to lie about what the BOM says regarding metal swords. What
> else are they willing to lie about?
The reviewer of your book has nothing to do with the page on the FAIR
site about the swords.
> > Just because FAIR is a non-profit organization made up of volunteers
> > does not mean that none of the volunteers are scholars. It just means
> > that no one gets paid.
>
> Their charter means that they also are expected to reject any critical
> analysis of Mormonism. And their past apologetics prove they are
> willing to lie to try and do it.
Can you show me an example of intentional deceit from a FAIR member?
Critical analyses would only be rejected if they are flawed.
- Trevor
Trevor
> > I didn't say he wasn't a member of the Church. I said he didn't appear
> > to be employed by the Church. He obviously is a member of the Church,
> > or else his review wouldn't make any sense.
>
> I agree. Only a member of the LDS Church, bent on defending the LDS
> Church sans reason, logic, and intellectual honesty could write a
> review like that.
So when you're wrong, you change the subject rather than admit to it?
His review showed a lot more reason, logic, and intellectual honesty
than the quotes he used from your book did. (And yes, I'll admit
that's as much as I've read of your book - I don't want to put money
in your pocket for writing it.)
> Several of the positive reviews on Amazon come from folks with PhDs.
> Clearly, the degree isn't as important a factor as the pre-existing
> bias and intellectual honesty.
Who are these folks and what are their degrees in? Also, what is their
background in reference to Mormonism?
Don't get me wrong - a degree isn't everything. There are plenty of
smart, knowledgeable people without degrees, and there are people with
degrees that aren't so smart or knowledgeable. Presumably, though,
someone with a PhD that manages a laboratory has a good enough
background in science to have a very good understanding of how it is
done. When they find problems with the science in your book, it is not
just because of bias.
- Trevor
Trevor
> On Apr 5, 4:44 pm, "Trevor" <trevor.holy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The Church is accountable for what it says and does. Ethics is not an
> exercise in finding legal loopholes.
That is correct. They are not, however, accountable for what an
independent organization such as Fair says or does.
Why are you so worried about legal loopholes?
> When the LDS Church accuses an organization of falsely representing
> Mormonism, and then tries to prove its point by referencing an
> apologetic group that lied about what the BOM says regarding things
> like metal swords, that *does* reflect on the church's ethical and
> moral standards.
Enough with the swords already. That was a mistake that has been
fixed. There were obviously steel swords in the Book of Mormon, at
least among the Jaredites, but it's most likely that not all of the
swords used by the Nephites and Lamanites were metal.
I don't think the Church was trying to prove anything by linking to
the sites listed. Again, they were just giving links to more
information. Instead, the main point they seemed to be making was that
"[Latter-day Saint missionaries] do not attack and they do not
condemn. Instead, they declare their own message honestly and openly
and allow people the freedom to choose. Above all, they encourage each
person to find out for themselves through personal research as well as
prayer." (http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?
vgnextoid=a000765503e91110VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=ae11627d59eec010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD )
- Trevor
Duwaynea Anderson
I haven't the slightest idea. I don't know why you try to use them.
> Can you show me where the Church has used the word "untruthful" in
> relation to the DVD?
Why put quotes around the word "untruthful." Are you claiming the LDS
Church doesn't say the DVD is untruthful?
> The FAIR site was merely one of many sites that were linked to for
> more information if people want it.
FAIR lied about what the Book of Mormon says regarding swords. FAIR
said that the BOM doesn't say that the swords were necessarily metal
-- yet the BOM specifically says they were steel swords.
Caught telling lies, FAIR changed their tune slightly, but they are
*still* misrepresenting the BOM. For examle, tonight (who knows what
they'll say tomorrow) FAIR says:
"[swords] seem to be rare, elite weapons. These weapons disappear
early in the Book of Mormon record."
This is yet another bald-faced lie by LDS apologists. The BOM says
that Nephi made *many* swords like the steel sword of Laban:
1 Nephi 4
1. [9] And I beheld his sword, and I drew it forth from the sheath
thereof; and the hilt thereof was of pure gold, and the workmanship
thereof was exceedingly fine, and I saw that the blade thereof was of
the most precious steel.
2 Nephi 5
1. [14] 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; for I
knew their hatred towards me and my children and those who were called
my people.
Swords are mentioned in the BOM right to the bitter end:
Moroni 9
1. [2] For behold, I have had a sore battle with the Lamanites, in
which we did not conquer; and Archeantus has fallen by the sword, and
also Luram and Emron; yea, and we have lost a great number of our
choice men.
There are scores of references in the BOM to swords. FAIR's
characterization is completely false and dishonest.
> > The problem, of course, is that FAIR lied about what the Book of
> > Mormon says about things like metal swords.
>
> You're really stuck on that, aren't you.
You really want to forget it, don't you?
> That must be the one area you
> feel comfortable criticizing.
Did you miss my comments about FAIR's dishonst characterization of
cement and NHM? Did you bother to read up on the recent discussion on
ARM on those subjects, like I suggested?
> > > As for any misleading information about the swords, I can assure you
> > > that was unintentional.
>
> > I can assure you it was not. The folks at FAIR know their argument is
> > flawed because they've been told.
>
> How have we been told, and by whom?
It's in my book. It's been discussed at length on ARM with guys like
Jeff Lindsay. You know Jeff, don't you?
> I can assure you it was
> unintentional because I participated in the process of putting the
> site together.
Then shame on you for continuing to propagate falsehoods on FAIR to
the effect that swords in the BOM were "rare."
<snip>
> So you criticize the Book of Mormon for mentioning cement and say that
> no places in it have ever been found, but when cement is found and one
> of the sites is found, you pass it off as trivial.
Is this really so hard to understand? If the Book of Mormon mentions
stuff that was already known, or not unlikely in a fictional book,
then that's trivial. You wouldn't accept "Lord of the Rings" just
because they found swords among ancient European ruins, would you.
Same principle for the BOM.
Ancient American stucco was known at Smith's time. Cement was known
at Smith's time. There's nothing remarkable about finding cement
mentioned in a fictional story about ancient Americans.
On the othe hand, the cement found in ancient America isn't what's
described in the BOM. The BOM says they used cement because they had
no wood. But the ancient Americans didn't use cement because they had
no wood. On the contrary, they burned wood to make their cement.
Yet FAIR dishonestly claims that the simple mention of cement in the
BOM is evidence for it.
> That's pretty
> typical anti-Mormon behavior, actually - either ignore it or decide
> it's trivial.
Typical apologetic clap trap. You didn't even bother to read up on
the discussion on ARM. I cover the issue in detail in my book, too.
<snip>
> > Why? Suppose we had documented proof that Smith had sex with under-
> > aged girls, against Emma's wishes. Would that convince you that Smith
> > was a con man and not a prophet?
>
> Joseph's sex life has nothing to do with whether the Book of Mormon or
> the Church are true.
Why? Since it's all about taking Smith at his word, why wouldn't it
matter if he were a sexual deviant?
> However, the girls he married were not underage
> (not only that, but he received parental permission), and there is no
> proof that he had sex with them (he may have, but there is no proof
> one way or the other).
I'm talking about presumed evidence. You seem to have jumped the gun
ol'buddy. Your're already trying to defend the guy.
> > Suppose we had documented proof that Smith invented the BOM.
> > Shouldn't that convince you that Mormonism isn't true?
>
> There is also no proof of this. In fact, there is a lot of evidence to
> the contrary.
I said "suppose." Suppose that such evidence existed. Wouldn't it
matter to you?
> > Suppose we had a verifiable tape recording of Hinckley admitting to
> > one of the apostles that Smith made it all up. Shouldn't that
> > information, *if* it existed, convince you that Mormonism isn't true?
>
> Such a thing obviously is a figment of your imagination, but even if
> it were to exist, it wouldn't prove anything.
Sheesh. Learn to read. I said "suppose." *If* such information
existed, wouldn't it change your testimony?
> > I can think of hundreds of instances in which VOE, if it existed,
> > should convince you that Mormonism isn't true.
>
> I bet you could think of lots of things that in your mind should
> convince people; you seem to have a lot of time on your hands. The
> fact is that it's not going to happen.
This is a test. A test to see if you have even an eensy weensy teeeny
weeny open mind. Are you subject to any VOE, or is your mind made up
and set in cement.
The question is a hypothetical one -- what evidence *IF* it existed,
would convince you Mormonism is false?
Duwayne Anderson
Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
science"
American Quater Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle
Trevor
> He has a degree in Chemistry. So he's not necessarily an expert in
> physics, geology, astronomy, archaeology, or biology; all subjects I
> discuss at length in their relationship with Mormonism. The science
> is all verifiable, too. One need not take my word for what the
> science says - the reading list makes it very easy to check my
> accuracy there. Furthermore, I don't recall him taking issue with the
> science in my book at all. So his degree really has very little, if
> anything, to do with the critical parts of his review.
I doubt that you're an expert in all those fields, either. Someone
that has a degree in any science, including chemistry, should have a
good understanding of how science works in general. It was my
impression that that is really what your book is about. He did take
issue with the science in your book - that seemed to be the main point
of his review. Basing your religious beliefs (or discarding them) on
the science of the day can be a big mistake. Science is constantly
changing, and scientists don't even completely agree on many of the
theories that a lot of people tend to take for granted.
> His association with an apologetic organization committed to
defending
> Mormonism is far more relevant. Especially when that organization has
> misrepresented the BOM in order to try and defend the BOM against
> critical examination.
Again, you're confusing FAIR with FARMS. FARMS is the organization
that published his review. FARMS (actually the Neal A. Maxwell
Institute for Religious Scholarship is what it's called now) is not an
apologetic organization, although their work is often used for
apologetics.
- Trevor
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Apr 5, 6:09 pm, "Duwaynea Anderson" <duway...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > They are a lot less scholarly because they are the opinions of fans,
>
> > Actually, no. Some were critical. Don't you think you should
> > actually read the reviews before commenting on them?
>
> I read as many of them as I could stomach. I was referring to the ones
> that were praising your book (including your own).
So the problem is so bad that contrary evidence actually makes you
sick?
> > And if "fan" reviews are not valid, how can the review by LDS
> > apologists committed to defending Mormonism be valid?
>
> There's a difference between praising a book for saying what you want
> to hear and critically analyzing a book.
The FARMS reviewer is an LDS hack, working for an apologetic
organization committed to defending Mormonism regardless of the truth
of their position. One could hardly ask for an objective POV form
FARMS.
> > > rather than opinions of people that have a legitimate background in
> > > the subject matter.
>
> > But are they honest? We've already seen that LDS apologists are
> > willing to lie about what the BOM says regarding metal swords. What
> > else are they willing to lie about?
>
> The reviewer of your book has nothing to do with the page on the FAIR
> site about the swords.
>
> > > Just because FAIR is a non-profit organization made up of volunteers
> > > does not mean that none of the volunteers are scholars. It just means
> > > that no one gets paid.
>
> > Their charter means that they also are expected to reject any critical
> > analysis of Mormonism. And their past apologetics prove they are
> > willing to lie to try and do it.
>
> Can you show me an example of intentional deceit from a FAIR member?
Sure. The modified page now says:
Some swords with at least some metalic elements are mentioned for the
Jaredites
That's a terribly dishonest, watered-down version of what the Book of
Mormon says. The BOM says:
Ether 7
1. [9] Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten
out of the hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had
drawn away with him; and after he had armed them with swords he
returned to the city Nehor and gave battle unto his brother Corihor,
by which means he obtained the kingdom and restored it unto his father
Kib.
> Critical analyses would only be rejected if they are flawed.
How would you know?
Trevor
> On Apr 5, 4:30 pm, "Trevor" <trevor.holy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > As for any misleading information about the swords, I can assure you
> > that was unintentional.
>
> I discuss the BOM's steel swords in my book "Farewell to Eden: Coming
> to terms with Mormonism and science" at length. I quote the BOM
> verses that say -- point blank -- that the ancient Americans made
> steel swords.
I bet you do discuss it at length. That would explain your fixation
with the subject.
> Mormon apologists have had plenty of nasty things to say about my
> book. They've lied about it and me shamelessly. There is no credible
> excuse for the apologists to then turn around and say it was
> "unintentional" when they lied by saying the Book of Mormon doesn't
> warrant the conclusion that the swords in the BOM were made of metal.
It was me that said it was unintentional, and I believe it was. Like I
said earlier, we put the site together very quickly, and we didn't
have time to thoroughly proofread everything as much as we would have
like.
I'd be interested in seeing what you would consider to be lies written
about your book.
> You don't get credit on your ethical score for putting the cookies
> back after you've been caught with your hand in the cookie jar. Any
> corrections at this point are only the result of being caught red
> handed lying for the lord.
Um, no, they're the result of people pointing out mistakes that had
been overlooked.
- Trevor
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Apr 5, 6:13 pm, "Duwaynea Anderson" <duway...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I didn't say he wasn't a member of the Church. I said he didn't appear
> > > to be employed by the Church. He obviously is a member of the Church,
> > > or else his review wouldn't make any sense.
>
> > I agree. Only a member of the LDS Church, bent on defending the LDS
> > Church sans reason, logic, and intellectual honesty could write a
> > review like that.
>
> So when you're wrong, you change the subject rather than admit to it?
>
> His review showed a lot more reason, logic, and intellectual honesty
> than the quotes he used from your book did. (And yes, I'll admit
> that's as much as I've read of your book - I don't want to put money
> in your pocket for writing it.)
Prove your point with examples.
> > Several of the positive reviews on Amazon come from folks with PhDs.
> > Clearly, the degree isn't as important a factor as the pre-existing
> > bias and intellectual honesty.
>
> Who are these folks and what are their degrees in?
Read the reviews.
> Also, what is their
> background in reference to Mormonism?
I thought you were harping about the science. Why change the subject.
Since you imply that my discussion of the science is wrong, or
lacking, I'm challenging you to give an example. No more vague
references to your token FARMs reviewer -- give me the page and
paragraph where I describe the science incorrectly.
> Don't get me wrong - a degree isn't everything. There are plenty of
> smart, knowledgeable people without degrees, and there are people with
> degrees that aren't so smart or knowledgeable. Presumably, though,
> someone with a PhD that manages a laboratory has a good enough
> background in science to have a very good understanding of how it is
> done. When they find problems with the science in your book, it is not
> just because of bias.
Okay, Trevor. Describe these problems with the science. I'm calling
you to the mat on this one. Looks like it's time for another lesson
in LDS apologetic dishonesty.
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Apr 5, 6:18 pm, "Duwaynea Anderson" <duway...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 5, 4:44 pm, "Trevor" <trevor.holy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The Church is accountable for what it says and does. Ethics is not an
> > exercise in finding legal loopholes.
>
> That is correct. They are not, however, accountable for what an
> independent organization such as Fair says or does.
They are when they reference them.
> Why are you so worried about legal loopholes?
That's not my question -- it's yours. The LDS Church uses
organizations like FAIR and FARMS as front organizations to do their
dirty work -- as in the dishonest apologetics on FAIR.
> > When the LDS Church accuses an organization of falsely representing
>
> > Mormonism, and then tries to prove its point by referencing an
> > apologetic group that lied about what the BOM says regarding things
> > like metal swords, that *does* reflect on the church's ethical and
> > moral standards.
>
> Enough with the swords already. That was a mistake that has been
> fixed.
No, it hasn't been fixed. You guys say swords were 'rare." They were
not.
> There were obviously steel swords in the Book of Mormon, at
> least among the Jaredites, but it's most likely that not all of the
> swords used by the Nephites and Lamanites were metal.
That is a strawman. The Book of Mormon says the ancient Americans
smelted steel and made steel swords. That claim is factually wrong.
> I don't think the Church was trying to prove anything by linking to
> the sites listed. Again, they were just giving links to more
> information.
Then why not a link to my book? It deals far more honestly with BOM
claims than does FAIR.
<snip to end>
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Apr 5, 6:29 pm, "Duwaynea Anderson" <duway...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > He has a degree in Chemistry. So he's not necessarily an expert in
> > physics, geology, astronomy, archaeology, or biology; all subjects I
> > discuss at length in their relationship with Mormonism. The science
> > is all verifiable, too. One need not take my word for what the
> > science says - the reading list makes it very easy to check my
> > accuracy there. Furthermore, I don't recall him taking issue with the
> > science in my book at all. So his degree really has very little, if
> > anything, to do with the critical parts of his review.
>
> I doubt that you're an expert in all those fields, either.
I don't present myself as an expert. I present the research of
experts in those fields and describe the relevant science.
But you *do* present the FARMS reviewer as an expert. Your whole
argument is based on that. You make accusations of inacuracy, but
don't describe them.
I'm still waiting for you to backup your reckless accusations on that
account.
> Someone
> that has a degree in any science, including chemistry, should have a
> good understanding of how science works in general.
Not true. Now, if you are through waging your failed argument of
authority, you need to backup your false accusations about the
scientific validity of what I say in my book.
>I t was my
> impression that that is really what your book is about.
You would make critical remaks about my book without haveing read it?
Have you no shame?
> He did take
> issue with the science in your book - that seemed to be the main point
> of his review.
What, specifically, did I get wrong about the science? The
intellectual dishonesty of your comments is just breathtaking.
> Basing your religious beliefs (or discarding them) on
> the science of the day can be a big mistake.
That's your opinion. What, specifically, did I get wrong about the
science? The intellectual dishonesty of your comments is just
breathtaking.
> Science is constantly
> changing, and scientists don't even completely agree on many of the
> theories that a lot of people tend to take for granted.
That's your opinion. What, specifically, did I get wrong about the
science? The intellectual dishonesty of your comments is just
breathtaking.
<snip to end>
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Apr 5, 7:44 pm, "Duwaynea Anderson" <duway...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 5, 4:30 pm, "Trevor" <trevor.holy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > As for any misleading information about the swords, I can assure you
> > > that was unintentional.
>
> > I discuss the BOM's steel swords in my book "Farewell to Eden: Coming
> > to terms with Mormonism and science" at length. I quote the BOM
> > verses that say -- point blank -- that the ancient Americans made
> > steel swords.
>
> I bet you do discuss it at length.
Which makes the mischaracterizations at FAIR even less excusable.
> That would explain your fixation
> with the subject.
Still trying to dance around it? Even after making the changes, it's
still a serious mischaracterization of what the BOM says.
If the BOM is true, why would it need LDS apologists to
mischaracterize it?
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
science"
Duwaynea Anderson
>
> > He has a degree in Chemistry. So he's not necessarily an expert in
> > physics, geology, astronomy, archaeology, or biology; all subjects I
> > discuss at length in their relationship with Mormonism. The science
> > is all verifiable, too. One need not take my word for what the
> > science says - the reading list makes it very easy to check my
> > accuracy there. Furthermore, I don't recall him taking issue with the
> > science in my book at all. So his degree really has very little, if
> > anything, to do with the critical parts of his review.
>
> I doubt that you're an expert in all those fields, either.
I don't present myself as an expert. I present the research of
experts in those fields and describe the relevant science.
But you *do* present the FARMS reviewer as an expert. Your whole
argument is based on that.
Basically, you've made accusations of inacuracy, but don't describe
them. I'm still waiting for you to backup your reckless accusations
on that account.
> Someone
> that has a degree in any science, including chemistry, should have a
> good understanding of how science works in general.
Not true.
You need to backup your false accusations about the scientific
validity of what I say in my book.
>I t was my
> impression that that is really what your book is about.
You would make critical remaks about my book without haveing read it?
Have you no shame?
> He did take
> issue with the science in your book - that seemed to be the main point
> of his review.
What, specifically, did I get wrong about the science? The
intellectual dishonesty of your comments is just breathtaking.
> Basing your religious beliefs (or discarding them) on
> the science of the day can be a big mistake.
That's your opinion. What, specifically, did I get wrong about the
science? The intellectual dishonesty of your comments is just
breathtaking.
> Science is constantly
> changing, and scientists don't even completely agree on many of the
> theories that a lot of people tend to take for granted.
That's your opinion. What, specifically, did I get wrong about the
science? The intellectual dishonesty of your comments is just
breathtaking.
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
Dale
Duwayne:
> Dale, if you are making a veiled personal accusation that I've
> withheld and distorted evidence then I'll put the same challenge to
> you as to John. Backup your accusations.
Not in this instance. Just responding to the "ad hominen...smearing"
double standard posted originally. "Anti-Mormons" and "LDS critics"
are two very different animals, not always mutually exclusive ;-) I've
seen much of the DVD under topic and it is clearly inspired and
produced by defamatory anti-Mormons. FAIR did a pretty decent job
given the time they had to critique it; the non-Mormon Anti-Defamation
League quickly condemned it...
> If you are saying that I think it's alright for critics to withhold or
> distort evidence then I'll put the same challenge to you as to John.
> Backup your accusations.
Indeed, "critics" typically don't willfully withhold or distort
evidence-unlike the anti-Mormon DVD in question. Because one of your
strengths and appeals is to "science," "scientific method" and "VOE,"
you're probably more careful than most in framing your argumentation;
similar to methods of some blood-sucking attorneys ;-) Nevertheless,
our conclusions from "evidence" (or lack thereof) almost always are
colored by many personal biases and perspectives. Even the motivation
and background of critics are fair game, particularly in a debate
forum...
> Meanwhile, I'll note that you defended FAIR's misrepresent the Book of
> Mormon when they said that the assumption of metal swords was
> unwarranted -- in spite of the fact that the Book of Mormon
> specifically describes metal swords (steel) that rusted.
No misrepresentation. Within the context of this thread, FAIR dealt
with one specific false anti-Mormon assertion, as previously
addressed...
<snip repetitive argumentation>
Dale previously:
> > I wish
> > it weren't so; the Church wishes it weren't so [that Dwayne left the LDS Church].
Duwayne:
> When I wrote "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
> science" I was still a member of the church. I was a member three
> years after the book was published.
>
> I didn't remove my name from the church until I exercised every option
> for resolving the conflict between Mormonism and ethics.
Duly noted you've expanded your perceived "conflict" into open range
"warfare" ;-)
I repeat: I'm saddened that you left the Church, Duwayne; the Church
wishes it weren't so. However, be it known that *you* willfully
removed your name from the Church.
> If the LDS Church wants me back, they can have me anytime.
Nobody forces us either way...
> I outlined
> the requirements in the final chapter of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to
> terms with Mormonism and science." I also outlined the requirements
> in my letter of resignation from the LDS Church.
Again, duly noted that, without any force or coercion or fear of
reprisal, you willfully withdrew yourself from the Church. In the end,
I believe such decisions rank among the true tragedies of mortality,
Duwayne :-(
We can learn much from the Book of Mormon in this regard: "Wherefore,
men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them
which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and
eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose
captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the
devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto
himself."
I'm sure I join many other LDS folks wishing you well, Duwayne.
Hopefully, your future course will draw you ever-closer to Jesus
Christ, the redeemer of us all. And with this, other commitments
require that I withdraw from this thread as a proactive participant.
As always, all the best to you and your family...
~Dale
<snip to end>
Duwaynea Anderson
> <snip previous>
>
> Duwayne:
>
> > Dale, if you are making a veiled personal accusation that I've
> > withheld and distorted evidence then I'll put the same challenge to
> > you as to John. Backup your accusations.
>
> Not in this instance. Just responding to the "ad hominen...smearing"
> double standard posted originally.
I don't see how there's no double standard unless you are accusing me
of doing it. So far in this thread we've seen some real whoppers from
members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We've
seen Mormons falsely accuse me of taking LDS verses out of context in
my book. When challenged to provide examples, they couldn't do it.
We've seen Mormons accuse me of relying excessively on anti-Mormon
sources in my book. When challenged to proved examples, they couldn't
do it. We've seen Mormons accuse me of getting the science wrong in
my book. When challenged to provide examples, they couldn't do it.
Meanwhile, I've posted some very specific examples from FAIR showing
that this apologetic front organization for the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormon) has shamelessly misrepresented
the Book of Mormon.
Interestingly, you posted a link to their misrepresentations. Why
would you do such a thing?
In one case (they've since been forced to retract it) FAIR said that
the BOM doesn't warrant the conclusion (scientifically false) that
ancient Americans used metal swords. I posted specific BOM verses
that very specifically describe steel swords. After a bit of hand
wringing and actual attempts to defend their misrepresentation, FAIR
took that claim off their website.
But the misrepresentations haven't ended. FAIR is now saying that:
"Metallic swords are mentioned, but they seem to be rare, elite
weapons. These weapons disappear early in the Book of Mormon record."
This is yet another fabrication. The BOM says the sword of Laban was
made of steel:
1 Nephi 4
[9] And I beheld his sword, and I drew it forth from the sheath
thereof; and the hilt thereof was of pure gold, and the workmanship
thereof was exceedingly fine, and I saw that the blade thereof was of
the most precious steel.
And it says Nephi made *MANY* such swords:
2 Nephi 5
[14] 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; for I knew their
hatred towards me and my children and those who were called my
people.
So when FAIR says metal sword were "rare" they are being dishonest
about what the BOM says.
They are also misrepresenting the BOM when they say swords disappear
early. There are 157 references in the Book of Mormon to swords (for
comparison, there are 188 references to Jesus), and these references
span the book from beginning to end. *Nowhere* does the BOM describe
non-metallic swords. Not once. But it does discuss metal swords, and
it discusses steel and iron.
Why, if the Book of Mormon were true, would LDS apologetics need to
misrepresent the BOM to defend it? Unlike the members of the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who have criticized my book, when
I criticize FAIR for their dishonesty I can actually prove my point.
I quote them, and then I quote the BOM and show how they ignore,
manipulate, take out of context, or simply lie about what the BOM
says.
Again, why, if the BOM is true, would FAIR need to do that?
Misrepresenting the BOM is risky. It makes them look bad. They might
even have to retract statements. Why take that risk unless there's no
other choice? The fact that FAIR misrepresents the BOM so shamelessly
indicates to me that they know the BOM is a fraud that can be defended
no other way.
> "Anti-Mormons" and "LDS critics"
> are two very different animals, not always mutually exclusive ;-) I've
> seen much of the DVD under topic and it is clearly inspired and
> produced by defamatory anti-Mormons. FAIR did a pretty decent job
> given the time they had to critique it; the non-Mormon Anti-Defamation
> League quickly condemned it...
The fact you defend FAIR is one of the saddest things on ARM. It's
sad to see Mormonism do that to a person, by instilling in them the
notion that morality is measured by loyalty to the church over
obligation to the truth.
> > If you are saying that I think it's alright for critics to withhold or
> > distort evidence then I'll put the same challenge to you as to John.
> > Backup your accusations.
>
> Indeed, "critics" typically don't willfully withhold or distort
> evidence-unlike the anti-Mormon DVD in question. Because one of your
> strengths and appeals is to "science," "scientific method" and "VOE,"
> you're probably more careful than most in framing your argumentation;
> similar to methods of some blood-sucking attorneys ;-) Nevertheless,
> our conclusions from "evidence" (or lack thereof) almost always are
> colored by many personal biases and perspectives. Even the motivation
> and background of critics are fair game, particularly in a debate
> forum...
>
> > Meanwhile, I'll note that you defended FAIR's misrepresent the Book of
> > Mormon when they said that the assumption of metal swords was
> > unwarranted -- in spite of the fact that the Book of Mormon
> > specifically describes metal swords (steel) that rusted.
>
> No misrepresentation.
FAIR seems to think otherwise. They've changed their claims, you
know. They are still misrepresenting the BOM, but they've removed the
claim that:
"The Book of Mormon, for example, mentions swords. Most readers have
assumed that this referred to metal (European-like) swords. Such an
assumption, however, is unwarranted."
They had little choice because they were so shameless in their
misrepresentation. The BOM is very specific on the matter, and here's
what it says:
Ether 7:9
Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out of the
hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had drawn away
with him...
Mosiah 8:11
And again, they have brought swords, the hilts thereof have perished,
and the blades thereof were cankered with rust...
> Within the context of this thread, FAIR dealt
> with one specific false anti-Mormon assertion, as previously
> addressed...
I've listed several instances where FAIR was untruthful. One of the
worst is where they make this claim:
"...most things mentioned in the Book of Mormon have been confirmed to
have existed in-what most LDS scholars believe-are Book of Mormon
lands."
I can hardly think of a more dishonest appraisal of the BOM. Here is
a short list of things the BOM claims the ancient Americans had, that
were unknown to the ancient Americans during BOM times:
1) Domesticated horses
2) Chariots
3) Iron
4) Steel
5) Steel swords
6) Brass breastplates
7) Old world crops
8) Elephants
9) Hebrew
10) Egyptian
11) Buildings made of cement in regions devoid of timber
The examples that FAIR gives are so trivial as to be almost laughable:
"fortifications, armor, thrones, cement, towers, trade, .."
Name a civilization that didn't have the things FAIR lists.
FAIRs dishonest defense of the BOM is one of the best indications that
the BOM is false because, as I said above, their dishonest defense is
risky. It's risky to lie about the BOM because someone (like me)
might catch you and post it on the internet. Then you might have to
retract it. Clearly, FAIR wouldn't take that risk unless they saw no
other alternative.
How can the BOM be true if the only alternative FAIR could see, for
defending it, was to misrepresent it?
> <snip repetitive argumentation>
>
> Dale previously:
>
> > > I wish
> > > it weren't so; the Church wishes it weren't so [that Dwayne left the LDS Church].
>
> Duwayne:
>
> > When I wrote "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
> > science" I was still a member of the church. I was a member three
> > years after the book was published.
>
> > I didn't remove my name from the church until I exercised every option
> > for resolving the conflict between Mormonism and ethics.
>
> Duly noted you've expanded your perceived "conflict" into open range
> "warfare" ;-)
The scope hasn't changed for a decade, Dale.
> I repeat: I'm saddened that you left the Church,Duwayne; the Church
> wishes it weren't so.
They can have me back anytime. The requirements are described in
"Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and science" and in
my resignation letter.
Top of the list is to stop being dishonest.
> However, be it known that *you* willfully
> removed your name from the Church.
Be it also known that when I sent the LDS Church my letter of
resignation I had it notarized and sent by registered mail. Be it
further known that the letter instructed them to remove my name
immediately. Be it known that the LDS Church refused.
Finally, be it known that they accepted my resignation only after I
threatened to take them to court.
That's what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS or
Mormon) thinks about agency. I'd still be on the books of that
corrupt organization if not for the secular laws of this country that
hold theistic organizations like the Mormon Church in check.
> > If the LDS Church wants me back, they can have me anytime.
>
> Nobody forces us either way...
Except that the LDS Church tried. Thank the gods for secular courts
that keep corrupt organizations like the LDS Church in check.
> > I outlined
> > the requirements in the final chapter of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to
> > terms with Mormonism and science." I also outlined the requirements
> > in my letter of resignation from the LDS Church.
>
> Again, duly noted that, without any force or coercion or fear of
> reprisal,
Oh, I would say "without fear of reprisal." Member of the LDS Church
did contact family members and my employer -- they did their best to
get revenge.
> you willfully withdrew yourself from the Church. In the end,
> I believe such decisions rank among the true tragedies of mortality,Duwayne:-(
Gosh, Dale. Thanks for your sympathy. And you have mine, too. I
believe your decision to associate yourself with the LDS Church is a
great tragedy. I sincerely hope you can overcome that, someday.
> We can learn much from the Book of Mormon in this regard: "Wherefore,
> men are free according to the flesh;
That idea is not original or unique to the BOM. We can find that in
writings that predate the BOM by thousands of years.
> and all things are given them
> which are expedient unto man.
That idea is not original or unique to the BOM. We can find that in
writings that predate the BOM by thousands of years.
> And they are free to choose liberty and
> eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose
> captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the
> devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto
> himself."
That idea is not original or unique to the BOM. We can find that in
writings that predate the BOM by thousands of years.
> I'm sure I join many other LDS folks wishing you well,Duwayne.
I and many other ex-Mormons wish you well too, Dale.
> Hopefully, your future course will draw you ever-closer to Jesus
> Christ, the redeemer of us all.
Why would you imply Jesus isn't already close to me?
> And with this, other commitments
> require that I withdraw from this thread as a proactive participant.
> As always, all the best to you and your family...
All the best to you, too, Dale.
McSorley
>
> Read the reviews.
I did.
> Since you imply that my discussion of the science is wrong, or
> lacking, I'm challenging you to give an example. No more vague
> references to your token FARMs reviewer --
This is so funny. I guess if I were you I to would try to discredit
the FARMs review as much as possible too, but the Amazon reviews are
another thing. There is only a couple that I would actually trust.
People who only reviewed your book with a lengthy review as if yours
is the only book in the world, can be discarded, then the people who
give your book five stars and the BoM only one star and vice versa can
all be discarded. That leaves only a few. But, it is a great lesson
in bias. If anyone doesn't understand bias I would definitely point
to your Amazon reviews as a lesson.
McSorley
Duwaynea Anderson
> > Read the reviews.
>
> I did.
>
> > Since you imply that my discussion of the science is wrong, or
> > lacking, I'm challenging you to give an example. No more vague
> > references to your token FARMs reviewer --
>
> This is so funny. I guess if I were you I to would try to discredit
> the FARMs review as much as possible too,
Are you stalling, McSorley? If my book is wrong on the science, why
can't you explain where, with a page number?
> but the Amazon reviews are
> another thing. There is only a couple that I would actually trust.
Are you stalling, McSorley? If my book is wrong on the science, why
can't you explain where, with a page number?
> People who only reviewed your book with a lengthy review as if yours
> is the only book in the world, can be discarded, then the people who
> give your book five stars and the BoM only one star and vice versa can
> all be discarded.
Are you stalling, McSorley? If my book is wrong on the science, why
can't you explain where, with a page number?
> That leaves only a few. But, it is a great lesson
> in bias. If anyone doesn't understand bias I would definitely point
> to your Amazon reviews as a lesson.
Are you stalling, McSorley? If my book is wrong on the science, why
can't you explain where, with a page number?
Meanwhile, there are all sorts of misrepresentations and distortions
over at FAIR. And, unlike LDS apologists who excell at ad hominen
arguments but can't backup their assertions, I can point to specific
problems with FAIR.
Duwayne Anderson
McSorley
Why, if you are a mature rational scientist/author, would you not
respond to what *I* wrote and need to throw an arguement that I am not
even participating in my face?
I have nothing to do with FARMs.
I haven't read your book, just the reviews of it. I would read it but
not pay for it. So if I can download it somewhere, let me know.
McSorley
Duwaynea Anderson
Because you didn't write anything to respond to. You just vented your
personal dislike and said you thought it was "funny" that I asked
Trevor to backup his accusations of errors with actual quotes and page
number(s).
Look, you don't like the positive reviews for my book at
That's understandable. After all, you are an apologist for the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormon).
But if you are going to come on ARM and cheer on people who make false
claims about the technical accuracy of my book, then you need to back
up your accusations, or be called to the carpet. You can't just quote
the *opinion* of another LDS who also doesn't like the book. You need
to be specific. You need to name the page and describe the problem.
> and need to throw an arguement that I am not
> even participating in my face?
Don't you believe in your church? Your church said the DVD that was
recently distributed wasn't accurate -- and they referenced FAIR to
prove their point (on the official LDS Internet site).
Aren't you fazed by the fact that your church would reference
apologetic material that misrepresents the BOM? Even to the point of
lying about what the BOM says?
If the BOM is true, why would they need to do that?
> I have nothing to do with FARMs.
>
> I haven't read your book, just the reviews of it. I would read it but
> not pay for it. So if I can download it somewhere, let me know.
I wonder if anyone is surprised. I'm certainly not.
Duwayne Anderson
Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
science"
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terran vehicle
McSorley
No, I only was refering to " token FARMs reviewer ".
I guess I needed to snip more. But the fact that you would take me
wrong, not able to see that what I was saying only applied to the
reviews you guys are throwing at eachother, doesn't surprise me one
bit.
>
> Look, you don't like the positive reviews for my book at
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1410753840/qid=10791334...
>
> That's understandable. After all, you are an apologist for the Church
> of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormon).
>
> But if you are going to come on ARM and cheer on people who make false
> claims about the technical accuracy of my book, then you need to back
> up your accusations, or be called to the carpet. You can't just quote
> the *opinion* of another LDS who also doesn't like the book.
Who/what did I quote?
>You need
> to be specific. You need to name the page and describe the problem.
>
> > and need to throw an arguement that I am not
> > even participating in my face?
>
> Don't you believe in your church? Your church said the DVD that was
> recently distributed wasn't accurate -- and they referenced FAIR to
> prove their point (on the official LDS Internet site).
>
> Aren't you fazed by the fact that your church would reference
> apologetic material that misrepresents the BOM? Even to the point of
> lying about what the BOM says?
I don't believe that anyone intentionally lied, made a mistake.
>
> If the BOM is true, why would they need to do that?
>
> > I have nothing to do with FARMs.
>
> > I haven't read your book, just the reviews of it. I would read it but
> > not pay for it. So if I can download it somewhere, let me know.
>
> I wonder if anyone is surprised. I'm certainly not.
>
> Duwayne Anderson
> Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
> science"
> American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terran vehicle- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dale
<snip previous>
Dale previously:
> > Hopefully, your future course will draw you ever-closer to Jesus
> > Christ, the redeemer of us all.
Duwayne questions:
> Why would you imply Jesus isn't already close to me?
No negative implication intended; I believe Christ is the foundation
for all who seek to follow actual righteounsess, including you and
me.
~Dale
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> > > Why, if you are a mature rational scientist/author, would you not
> > > respond to what *I* wrote
>
> > Because you didn't write anything to respond to. You just vented your
> > personal dislike and said you thought it was "funny" that I asked
> > Trevor to backup his accusations of errors with actual quotes and page
> > number(s).
>
> No, I only was refering to " token FARMs reviewer ".
Why don't you be specific? I challenge you to post the page number
on which I take LDS verses out of context, or rely excessively on anti-
Mormon literature, or describe any facts of science incorrectly.
I've had all those charges leveled against the book on ARM, but when
Mormons level the charges they suddenly find themselves incapable of
providing a page number where these supposed infractions occur.
<snip>
> > But if you are going to come on ARM and cheer on people who make false
> > claims about the technical accuracy of my book, then you need to back
> > up your accusations, or be called to the carpet. You can't just quote
> > the *opinion* of another LDS who also doesn't like the book.
>
> Who/what did I quote?
Did I say "quote?" Nope. I said "cheer on..."
<snip>
> > Aren't you fazed by the fact that your church would reference
> > apologetic material that misrepresents the BOM? Even to the point of
> > lying about what the BOM says?
>
> I don't believe that anyone intentionally lied, made a mistake.
Don't the guys at FAIR read their Book of Mormons?
Why would a bunch of hyper-LDS-apologists that the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormon) feels confident enough to
link to the official LDS site, be so ignorant of what's in the BOM?
The interesting thing is that the statement on FAIR reads very much
like what Jeff Lindsay says, and Jeff and I debated that very issue on
ARM.
No, I don't think it wasn't a mistake at all.
<snip>
Duwayne Anderson
Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
science"
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle
Duwaynea Anderson
Thanks, Dale.
Since you have blessed me with your god, I obviously feel obligated to
bless you with mine.
May the gods of logic and reason lighten your day and guide you in
truth.
Amen. :-)
[See? And you thought I didn't have a sense of humor.]
Duwaynea Anderson
> > Aren't you fazed by the fact that your church would reference
> > apologetic material that misrepresents the BOM? Even to the point of
> > lying about what the BOM says?
>
> I don't believe that anyone intentionally lied, made a mistake.
Here are some interesting facts:
1) FAIR has a link to Jeff Lindsay's website
2) FAIR's claim that the BOM doesn't necessarily describe metal swords
reads very much like Jeff Lindsay's apologetic stuff
3) Jeff Lindsay and I debated the merits of this false claim that the
swords weren't metal) - and we did it here on ARM (see, for example,
the thread titled "tough questions for anti-Mormons?" , my post dated
January 12, 2003, 1:52 pm)
No, I don't think there was anything accidental about the way FAIR
misrepresented the Book of Mormon when they said that the BOM doesn't
warrant the conclusion (scientifically false) that ancient Americans
used metal swords. I posted specific BOM verses that very
specifically describe steel swords. After a bit of hand wringing and
actual attempts to defend their misrepresentation, FAIR took that
claim off their website. But the isrepresentations haven't ended. As
of yesterday, FAIR was still saying that:
Duwayne Anderson
Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
science"
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle
Trevor
> No, it hasn't been fixed. You guys say swords were 'rare." They were
> not.
It was said that steel swords were probably rare, not swords in
general
> That is a strawman. The Book ofMormonsays the ancient Americans
> smelted steel and made steel swords. That claim is factually wrong.
Actually, there's no way you can prove that it's wrong. Someday,
evidence may be found that proves it right, but it's impossible for
you to prove that it's wrong.
- Trevor
Trevor
> I don't present myself as an expert. I present the research of
> experts in those fields and describe the relevant science.
>
> But you *do* present the FARMS reviewer as an expert. Your whole
> argument is based on that. You make accusations of inacuracy, but
> don't describe them.
And why are your experts any better than mine?
> You would make critical remaks about my book without haveing read it?
> Have you no shame?
I already told you that I haven't read your book. I have no intention
of putting any money in your pocket. If you'd like to send me a review
copy, however, I'd be happy to read it.
> What, specifically, did I get wrong about the science? The
> intellectual dishonesty of your comments is just breathtaking.
>
> That's your opinion. What, specifically, did I get wrong about the
> science? The intellectual dishonesty of your comments is just
> breathtaking.
>
> That's your opinion. What, specifically, did I get wrong about the
> science? The intellectual dishonesty of your comments is just
> breathtaking.
If this is the way you wrote your book, that's another reason for not
putting any money in your pocket.
- Trevor
Trevor
> In one case (they've since been forced to retract it) FAIR said that
> the BOM doesn't warrant the conclusion (scientifically false) that
> ancient Americans used metal swords. I posted specific BOM verses
> that very specifically describe steel swords. After a bit of hand
> wringing and actual attempts to defend their misrepresentation, FAIR
> took that claim off their website.
Nobody was forced to do anything. Some corrections were made, since
what was originally written obviously wasn't quite clear enough.
> > But the misrepresentations haven't ended. FAIR is now saying that:
>
> "Metallic swords are mentioned, but they seem to be rare, elite
> weapons. These weapons disappear early in the Book ofMormonrecord."
>
> This is yet another fabrication. The BOM says the sword of Laban was
> made of steel:
>
> 1 Nephi 4
> [9] And I beheld his sword, and I drew it forth from the sheath
> thereof; and the hilt thereof was of pure gold, and the workmanship
> thereof was exceedingly fine, and I saw that the blade thereof was of
> the most precious steel.
>
> And it says Nephi made *MANY* such swords:
>
> 2 Nephi 5
> [14] 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; for I knew their
> hatred towards me and my children and those who were called my
> people.
>
> So when FAIR says metal sword were "rare" they are being dishonest
> about what the BOM says.
How many is "many?" And it doesn't actually say that Nephi made the
swords out of steel - it just says they were modeled after the sword
of Laban, which doesn't necessarily require the same materials. He
also made a temple after the manner of the temple of Solomon, but used
different materials.
> They are also misrepresenting the BOM when they say swords disappear
> early. There are 157 references in the Book ofMormonto swords (for
> comparison, there are 188 references to Jesus), and these references
> span the book from beginning to end. *Nowhere* does the BOM describe
> non-metallic swords. Not once. But it does discuss metal swords, and
> it discusses steel and iron.
It doesn't say swords in general disappear early. It is talking about
metallic swords. There are instances were swords are described in a
way that fits other materials much better than metallic ones, such as
when they are stained with blood.
> I've listed several instances where FAIR was untruthful. One of the
> worst is where they make this claim:
>
> "...most things mentioned in the Book ofMormonhave been confirmed to
> have existed in-what most LDS scholars believe-are Book ofMormon
> lands."
>
> I can hardly think of a more dishonest appraisal of the BOM. Here is
> a short list of things the BOM claims the ancient Americans had, that
> were unknown to the ancient Americans during BOM times:
But you can't actually prove that these things were unknown.
- Trevor
Trevor
archaeologists and historians already know about everything when it
comes to the New World:
1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, by Charles C.
Mann
http://www.amazon.com/1491-Revelations-Americas-Before-Columbus/dp/1400032059/ref=sr_1_1/002-2331448-9890429?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175916123&sr=1-1
Voices from the Dust: New Insights Into Ancient America, by David G.
Calderwood
http://www.amazon.com/Voices-Dust-Comparative-Evaluation-Archaeology/dp/1881825507/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-2331448-9890429?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175915003&sr=8-1
- Trevor
McSorley
> On Apr 6, 1:05 pm, "McSorley" <dependablem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > > > Why, if you are a mature rational scientist/author, would you not
> > > > respond to what *I* wrote
>
> > > Because you didn't write anything to respond to. You just vented your
> > > personal dislike and said you thought it was "funny" that I asked
> > > Trevor to backup his accusations of errors with actual quotes and page
> > > number(s).
>
> > No, I only was refering to " token FARMs reviewer ".
>
> Why don't you be specific? I challenge you to post the page number
I have not read your book, I don't have a copy, so for me to answer
your challenge I need to at least have a link where I can read it
online.
> on which I take LDS verses out of context, or rely excessively on anti-
> Mormon literature, or describe any facts of science incorrectly.
>
> I've had all those charges leveled against the book on ARM, but when
> Mormons level the charges they suddenly find themselves incapable of
> providing a page number where these supposed infractions occur.
>
> <snip>
>
> > > But if you are going to come on ARM and cheer on people who make false
> > > claims about the technical accuracy of my book, then you need to back
> > > up your accusations, or be called to the carpet. You can't just quote
> > > the *opinion* of another LDS who also doesn't like the book.
>
> > Who/what did I quote?
>
> Did I say "quote?" Nope. I said "cheer on..."\
Yes you did. Its right there.
McSorley
They shouldn't have to. I'm not saying that is ok, just that I only
assume is unintentional.
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Apr 5, 10:11 pm, "Duwaynea Anderson" <duway...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > No, it hasn't been fixed. You guys say swords were 'rare." They were
> > not.
>
> It was said that steel swords were probably rare, not swords in
> general
But the BOM doesn't say that. Nowhere in the BOM does it say,
describe, or imply that steel swords were rare. In fact, the BOM
describes Nephi making *many* steel swords:
And I beheld his sword, and I drew it forth from the sheath thereof;
and the hilt thereof was of pure gold, and the workmanship thereof was
exceedingly fine, and I saw that the blade thereof was of the most
precious steel.... 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; for I knew their hatred towards me and my children and those who
were called my people.[1 Nephi 4:9 and 2 Nephi 5:14, emphasis added]
Again, if the BOM is true, why would an apologetic organization like
FAIR need to misrepresent it?
The Book of Mormon also has many descriptions of specialized swords
called cimeters -- a metal knife with a long, curved blade. Saying
that cimeters were stone tools would be like saying they had stone
AK-47 rifles: it's a nonsensical argument.
So, again. If the BOM is true, why would an apologetic organization
like FAIR need to misrepresent it?
> > That is a strawman. The Book ofMormonsays the ancient Americans
> > smelted steel and made steel swords. That claim is factually wrong.
>
> Actually, there's no way you can prove that it's wrong.
For rational people the evidence is in, and the BOM is a clumsy
fraud. For the devout who are willing to ignor any/all evidence --
even to the point of lying about their own holy book -- nothing can
shake their faith.
Remember how I asked you what verifiable, objective evidence (if it
existed) would ever change your testimony? Did you ever give an
example? I don't think so.
Duwaynea Anderson
I cite the scientific community.
As for your expert .... you've yet to even describe what parts of the
science in my book he disagrees with. You've offered nothing
specific, nothing that can be checked.
<snip>
> I already told you that I haven't read your book.
How can you offer a credible -- or *honest* -- critique of a book you
haven't read?
Duwaynea Anderson
> > wringing and actual attempts to defend their misrepresentation, FAIR
> > took that claim off their website.
>
> Nobody was forced to do anything. Some corrections were made, since
> what was originally written obviously wasn't quite clear enough.
Lies were told. Lies were discovered. Some of the lies were
corrected, while some remain.
> > > But the misrepresentations haven't ended. FAIR is now saying that:
>
> > "Metallic swords are mentioned, but they seem to be rare, elite
> > weapons. These weapons disappear early in the Book ofMormonrecord."
>
> > This is yet another fabrication. The BOM says the sword of Laban was
> > made of steel:
>
> > 1 Nephi 4
> > [9] And I beheld his sword, and I drew it forth from the sheath
> > thereof; and the hilt thereof was of pure gold, and the workmanship
> > thereof was exceedingly fine, and I saw that the blade thereof was of
> > the most precious steel.
>
> > And it says Nephi made *MANY* such swords:
>
> > 2 Nephi 5
> > [14] 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; for I knew their
> > hatred towards me and my children and those who were called my
> > people.
>
> > So when FAIR says metal sword were "rare" they are being dishonest
> > about what the BOM says.
>
> How many is "many?"
*THAT* doesn't matter. FAIR makes the affirmative claim -- nowhere
supported anywhere in the BOM -- that metal swords were *rare.*
> And it doesn't actually say that Nephi made the
> swords out of steel - it just says they were modeled after the sword
> of Laban, which doesn't necessarily require the same materials.
The depth of dishonesty in this argument is breathtaking.
1) The sword of Laban is described as made of the most precious steel
(1 Nephi 4:9)
2) Nephi says he made many swords like the sword of Laban (2 Nephi
5:14)
And in the *very* *next* verse, Nephi says he taught his people to
make iron and steel:
2 Nephi 5
[15] 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.
Now, of course *all* of this is completely inconsistent with actual
ancient American archaeology. The ancient Americans didn't make steel
swords because they didn't know how to make steel.
> He
> also made a temple after the manner of the temple of Solomon, but used
> different materials.
And he says that -- supposedly -- because they didn't have the
materials. But the BOM goes out of its way to say they had steel and
that Nephi made many swords like the sword of Laban, which was steel.
Now I challenge you to find a single verse in the BOM that says the
swords were rare. I challenge you to provide a single verse in the
BOM that says or implies that the swords were really clubs, or stone
tools.
You can't do it because it's not in there. The BOM never says any of
the clap trap that FAIR attributes to it. The reason that FAIR
misrepresents the BOM is because they know, deep down, that the BOM is
a farce and a fraud and the only way to make an argument for the BOM
is to claim it says things it doesn't say.
> > They are also misrepresenting the BOM when they say swords disappear
> > early. There are 157 references in the Book ofMormonto swords (for
> > comparison, there are 188 references to Jesus), and these references
> > span the book from beginning to end. *Nowhere* does the BOM describe
> > non-metallic swords. Not once. But it does discuss metal swords, and
> > it discusses steel and iron.
>
> It doesn't say swords in general disappear early.
The BOM doesn't say swords disappeared at all. And you can't point to
a single example where it implies that steel swords disappeared.
> It is talking about
> metallic swords.
Give the chapter and verse where the BOM says metallic swords
disappeared. If you can't do it, then you are misrepresenting the BOM
when you attribute that claim to it.
> There are instances were swords are described in a
> way that fits other materials much better than metallic ones, such as
> when they are stained with blood.
You must be kidding. That's a metaphorical statement that's found all
over the place in reference to metal swords. It is a very *common*
metaphorical statement found throughout literature. Try doing a
Google search on it.
Which, by the way, illustrates (again) the fraud of the BOM as it
shows how Smith included common saying in his day that would have had
no meaning among ancient Americans.
> > I've listed several instances where FAIR was untruthful. One of the
> > worst is where they make this claim:
>
> > "...most things mentioned in the Book ofMormonhave been confirmed to
> > have existed in-what most LDS scholars believe-are Book ofMormon
> > lands."
>
> > I can hardly think of a more dishonest appraisal of the BOM. Here is
> > a short list of things the BOM claims the ancient Americans had, that
> > were unknown to the ancient Americans during BOM times:
>
> But you can't actually prove that these things were unknown.
Science can, with as much certainty as you prove for your kids that
there are no monsters under the bed.
But that's hardly the point, is it? FAIR lied because they made an
affirmative statement that most things in the BOM have been
confirmed.
I can hardly think of a more dishonest and false statement that they
might have made. No lie possibly told on the DVD is as big as that
one, which was told by FAIR.
Duwaynea Anderson
> There are two books that I would recommend to anyone who thinks that
> archaeologists and historians already know about everything when it
> comes to the New World:
>
> 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, by Charles C.
>
> Voices from the Dust: New Insights Into Ancient America, by David G.
Mormon apologetics citing Mormon apologetics. How quaint. Yet calls
for references from the scientific literature, supporting non-trivial
LDS claims, go silent.
Michael Coe [ Yale University ] wrote:
"The bare facts of the matter are that nothing, absolutely nothing,
has ever shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a
dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon, as claimed by Joseph
Smith, is a historical document relating to the history of early
immigrants to our hemisphere."
Here's website that offers some links:
http://www.lds-mormon.com/aa.shtml
http://www.irr.org/mit/bomarch2.html
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> > Why don't you be specific? I challenge you to post the page number
>
> I have not read your book,
No surprises there.
> I don't have a copy, so for me to answer
> your challenge I need to at least have a link where I can read it
> online.
Why do Mormons who haven't read the book feel justified in criticizing
it, or encouraging those who do?
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
Author of "Farewell to Eden: Comning to terms with Mormonism and
Duwaynea Anderson
> > about what the BOM says. They are also misrepresenting the BOM when
> > they say swords disappear early. There are 157 references in the Book
> > of Mormon to swords (for comparison, there are 188 references to
> > Jesus), and these references span the book from beginning to end.
> > *Nowhere* does the BOM describe non-metallic swords. Not once. But
> > it does discuss metal swords, and it discusses steel and iron. Why, if
> > the Book of Mormon were true, would LDS apologetics need to
> > misrepresent the BOM to defend it?
>
> They shouldn't have to. I'm not saying that is ok, just that I only
> assume is unintentional.
The FAIR site continues to offer false and misleading information
about the BOM -- even after I've given them the verses that show their
statements are false and misleading.
If dishonesty's not involved, why do they continue to misrepresent the
BOM?
McSorley
> On Apr 7, 11:42 am, "McSorley" <dependablem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > > Why don't you be specific? I challenge you to post the page number
>
> > I have not read your book,
>
> No surprises there.
>
> > I don't have a copy, so for me to answer
> > your challenge I need to at least have a link where I can read it
> > online.
>
> Why do Mormons who haven't read the book feel justified in criticizing
> it, or encouraging those who do?
One does not need to read your book to have the opinion that the
review was good or even awesome, espeically compared to most of the
obiviously biased reviews on Amazon you keep pointing to.
I never criticized your book only said the review was awesome, it
was. All you are doing is trying to use that fact as proof of
something that it is not. You know, the same tactic you have all but
mastered.
McSorley
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Apr 9, 7:19 am, "Duwaynea Anderson" <duway...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 7, 11:42 am, "McSorley" <dependablem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
>
> > > > Why don't you be specific? I challenge you to post the page number
>
> > > I have not read your book,
>
> > No surprises there.
>
> > > I don't have a copy, so for me to answer
> > > your challenge I need to at least have a link where I can read it
> > > online.
>
> > Why do Mormons who haven't read the book feel justified in criticizing
> > it, or encouraging those who do?
>
> One does not need to read your book to have the opinion that the
> review was good or even awesome,
Really? On what would you base your opinion if you hadn't read the
book?
> espeically compared to most of the
> obiviously biased reviews on Amazon you keep pointing to.
If you haven't read the book, how can you tell which reviews are
biased or not? If you are going to question the bias of a review, why
not question the bias of LDS reviewers who are members of an
organization devoted to the a priori rejection of stuff that's
critical of the LDS Church.
How can a reviewer be more biased than that?
> I never criticized your book only said the review was awesome, it
> was.
What, specifically, was "awsome" about it?
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
Bret Ripley
<snip>
>> There are instances were swords are described in a
>> way that fits other materials much better than metallic ones, such as
>> when they are stained with blood.
>
> You must be kidding. That's a metaphorical statement that's found all
> over the place in reference to metal swords.
A look at the specific passage where swords are described as blood-stained
may be helpful --
Alma 24:12: "Now, my best beloved brethren, since God hath taken away our
stains, and our swords have become bright, then let us stain our swords no
more with the blood of our brethren."
So, these swords are describes as becomeing "bright" when they are cleaned
of the blood-stains. Swords are described as "bright" several more times
in the following verses.
Describing a sword as "bright" seems more consistent with a metallic weapon
than one made of wood and/or stone. It may be worth noting that the only
material objects Alma describes as "bright" are swords and the plates of
brass.
Bret
Duwaynea Anderson
Thanks, Bret. Excellent points.