Mormon Horses

[Paul Osborne]

bizabra,

You dodged the question! So, allow me, please, to repeat it:

"Suppose the Church excavated the hill Cumorah and found all sorts of evidence-- you name it, it is there. Horses, steel swords, and all the rest. Would that make any difference to you? Would you run off to the nearest Mormon baptism font? Somehow I don’t think that evidence out of Cumorah would change your view of the Church other than coming up with a new attack against the Church. Am I right?"

Paul O

[Guest bizabra]

Paul, at this point in my life, it would take an actual visit by god himself for me to "believe". And even then, I would likely think I was delusional and in need of some major psychotropic drugs and a stay in a mental asylum.

I would seriously question my sanity if I saw god.

Which leads me to another of those "hmmm" moments I had as a child in Sunday School. We were taught that the brother of Jared (he with the unpronouncable name) prayed about having light on the barges and saw only the finger of god touching the stones to illuminate them. Seeing all of god would have made him insane apparently. And also that Moses could not actually see god for the same reasons, hence the "burning bush". I often wondered why Joseph Smith was able to fully see ALL of god, as if he was a merely a brightly lit man, yet the sight of god, even for a prophet as mighty as Moses, was pretty much out of the question for others.

I guess my mind has always been too logical to believe in the absurdity of god.

[Paul Osborne]

bizabra,

Well, we have gone from Mormon horses to seeing God. How did that happen?

Anyway, I was right that you wouldn’t be persuaded the Book of Mormon was true even if the hill Cumorah were to yield all its treasures.

And with that, you would have me believe that you wouldn’t believe in God even if he appeared to you in all his majesty and glory? Who are you kidding? I think you are only kidding yourself. Perhaps some "psychotropic drugs" are in order even now.

If you would like to open another thread we can talk about seeing God. Invite me and I will come.

Paul O

[Guest antishock82003]

Paul,

If the Church authorized a major archaeological expedition to proceed at the Hill Cumorah, done by a secular institution, and it were found and verified that swords, skeletons, plates...whatever...belonged to a people called the Nephites who were destroyed by a people called the Lamanites...I would seriously reconsider my lack of faith and have to re-investigate the claims of Joseph Smith. No doubt about it.

Now. If the Church authorized a major blah blah blah and found nothing. Would you have the integrity to seriously consider that your faith is based on lies, and consider leaving the institution to which you belong?

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by antishock82003@Jan 24 2004, 02:57 PM

Paul,

If the Church authorized a major archaeological expedition to proceed at the Hill Cumorah, done by a secular institution, and it were found and verified that swords, skeletons, plates...whatever...belonged to a people called the Nephites who were destroyed by a people called the Lamanites...I would seriously reconsider my lack of faith and have to re-investigate the claims of Joseph Smith.  No doubt about it. 

Now.  If the Church authorized a major blah blah blah and found nothing.  Would you have the integrity to seriously consider that your faith is based on lies, and consider leaving the institution to which you belong?

How would having nothing come from a dig....have any effect on one's integrity and leaving the church?

If our religious faith is built upon the 'Rock' and not the sand...we won't be falling out of the church just because physical evidence wasn't forth coming.

I am a bit more like Biz here. I wouldn't leave the church until God, Himself, came down and told me to. :)

[Traveler]

Point 1: There are a breed of horses native to the Americas that existed and still exist in the Grand Canyon.

Point 2. Paul O. Thank you for trying to find a reference of someone riding a hourse but the reference you gave was not conclusive. All references in the B of M concerning hourses are in connections with chariots and carts. There are no references to hourses used for ridding in any battle. For all the references to battles you would think there is at least one where of a messinger or something of someone riding a horse - the possibility that horses were not ridden in the B of M must be considered.

Point 3: On the subject of steel. I submit that if a society has developed iron and is able to work with any alloies that they will have developed steel. All that is necessary to develop steel from iron is a bellows and hammer.

Point 4: Most that oppose the possibility of Hebrew migration in the B of M would have us believe that the Pre-Clasic, and Classic eras of the Americas was not from migration but native peoples. Yet Pre-Clasic society of the Americas were primitive hunter gathers with limited use of fire and tools. Hunting consisted mostly of small rodents. Then within a 200 year time span our critics would have the world believe that primitive hunter gathers of the Americas one day walked out of the rain forest, developted large cities, a written language, cultivated crops, demesticated animals, developed art, potery, science more advanced than any society on earth at the time, governments, systems of weights and measurements, money, advanced education in math and astromony and consturcion methods as fine as Egypt (that took thousand of years to develope). And yes my friends there are some nut cases that do not think they had the wheel. I would also point out that less the 1 percent of known ancients sites of central America have been studied and the smart posters (that cannot identify the ancient process of making steel from iron) have it all figgured out.

The Traveler

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Traveler@Jan 24 2004, 03:18 PM

Point 1: There are a breed of horses native to the Americas that existed and still exist in the Grand Canyon.

Point 2. Paul O. Thank you for trying to find a reference of someone riding a hourse but the reference you gave was not conclusive. All references in the B of M concerning hourses are in connections with chariots and carts. There are no references to hourses used for ridding in any battle. For all the references to battles you would think there is at least one where of a messinger or something of someone riding a horse - the possibility that horses were not ridden in the B of M must be considered.

Point 3: On the subject of steel. I submit that if a society has developed iron and is able to work with any alloies that they will have developed steel. All that is necessary to develop steel from iron is a bellows and hammer.

Point 4: Most that oppose the possibility of Hebrew migration in the B of M would have us believe that the Pre-Clasic, and Classic eras of the Americas was not from migration but native peoples. Yet Pre-Clasic society of the Americas were primitive hunter gathers with limited use of fire and tools. Hunting consisted mostly of small rodents. Then within a 200 year time span our critics would have the world believe that primitive hunter gathers of the Americas one day walked out of the rain forest, developted large cities, a written language, cultivated crops, demesticated animals, developed art, potery, science more advanced than any society on earth at the time, governments, systems of weights and measurements, money, advanced education in math and astromony and consturcion methods as fine as Egypt (that took thousand of years to develope). And yes my friends there are some nut cases that do not think they had the wheel. I would also point out that less the 1 percent of known ancients sites of central America have been studied and the smart posters (that cannot identify the ancient process of making steel from iron) have it all figgured out.

The Traveler

I like this!

[Paul Osborne]

Originally posted by antishock82003@Jan 24 2004, 02:57 PM

Paul,

If the Church authorized a major archaeological expedition to proceed at the Hill Cumorah, done by a secular institution, and it were found and verified that swords, skeletons, plates...whatever...belonged to a people called the Nephites who were destroyed by a people called the Lamanites...I would seriously reconsider my lack of faith and have to re-investigate the claims of Joseph Smith. No doubt about it.

Now. If the Church authorized a major blah blah blah and found nothing. Would you have the integrity to seriously consider that your faith is based on lies, and consider leaving the institution to which you belong?

Antishock,

I’m glad you are open to the possibility of reopening your mind to the possibility that Joseph Smith was a true prophet. That is a major concession on your part and I appreciate it. Nevertheless, according to the gospel you would be more blessed in returning to grace through your previous testimony of what you thought you once knew to be true rather than be shown a sign.

Suppose the hill was excavated and nothing surfaced; would I loose faith? No, I would not because my faith in the Book of Mormon is not established upon whether there is proof or not. If the Lord desires to hide up the treasures from man he can do so. For all we know he swept the land of all the evidence just to test the faith of Paul Osborne. I’m an honest person, Antishock-- I live by my faith and the testimony given by the Spirit.

Paul O

[Paul Osborne]

Originally posted by Traveler@Jan 24 2004, 03:18 PM

Point 2. Paul O. Thank you for trying to find a reference of someone riding a hourse but the reference you gave was not conclusive.

Traveler,

Joseph Smith called the beast a horse because it was a horse and not a deer or some other strange animal. A horse is a horse, of course. Here is an example to show that the prophet uses the word horse in proper context:

The Prophet's Blessing to His Brother Hyrum

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith

Section One 1830-34, p.40

"His chariots shall be numerous, and his cattle shall multiply abundantly: horses, mules, asses, camels, dromedaries, and swift beasts"

With that said, it seems reasonably to me that Joseph Smith knew what a horse was and he called the animal a horse because he was inspired to. That is what I believe.

Paul O

[Guest antishock82003]

Originally posted by Paul Osborne@Jan 24 2004, 04:18 PM

I’m glad you are open to the possibility of reopening your mind to the possibility that Joseph Smith was a true prophet. That is a major concession on your part and I appreciate it. Nevertheless, according to the gospel you would be more blessed in returning to grace through your previous testimony of what you thought you once knew to be true rather than be shown a sign.

I don't think discovering an ancient artifact is a "sign". This is a real window into your thinking Paul. You don't see how messed up it is? A sign would be something miraculous. Archaeology is just, well, archaeology. To think that finding evidence of an ancient civilization is a sign is well, disturbing quite frankly. You base your "testimony" on your own feelings. You THINK that those feelings come from the outside when in reality they originate from within. You can't prove to me that they don't, and yes, the burden of proof lies with you. You make the assertion that there is an invisible bodiless man influencing your mind, so yes, the burden lies with you to prove that he is doing it. And no, it's not my burden to hope that there's a bodiless invisible man influencing my mind in order to prove to myself that there's an invisible bodiless man influencing my mind.

BTW, I don't view finding artifacts of a Nephite civilization, and then re-looking Mormonism as a result is a "concession". If something has merit it needs to be treated seriously. If something is without merit, then it needs to be treated accordingly.

So far, neither you or SRM have provided reasonable answers to the Hill Cumorah or BoM horse dilemmas. Smoke and mirrors and the suggestion that I delude myself again in order to believe the BoM is not clear thinking, nor is it good advice.

[USNationalist]

I agree with antishock. Actual History of a civilization is not a sign, but a foundation for faith. Mormons may as well believe that things fall up- your notions of absoloute truth are just a cover up for lack of plausability.

Seeing God is one thing, finding an ancient city where its supposed to according to your scriptures is different.

[Paul Osborne]

Originally posted by USNationalist@Jan 25 2004, 04:03 PM

I agree with antishock. Actual History of a civilization is not a sign, but a foundation for faith. Mormons may as well believe that things fall up- your notions of absoloute truth are just a cover up for lack of plausability.

Seeing God is one thing, finding an ancient city where its supposed to according to your scriptures is different.

Fine. I guess it wouldn't be amiss to reassess how I see things. Perhaps “proof” would be a better expression than "sign". The only way anyone is ever convinced that the BofM is true is through spiritual manifestations abstract or separate from the evidence that the world would demand in order to validate a claim. My whole religion is pretty much wrapped up in faith but I will say that I have had some wonderful experience along the way when faith was no longer a factor because I could see with my eyes or hear with my ears. I’m sticking with Mormonism whether there are horses or not. The manifestations of the Spirit outweigh the need to have proof.

I think you antis make some good points but you aren’t going to kill my faith; come horses, swords, or high water-- Mormonism will endure forever because it is true, so help me God. Now, with that, I’ll cease bearing testimony to myself…

:)

Paul O

[Guest antishock82003]

Originally posted by Paul Osborne+Jan 25 2004, 05:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Paul Osborne @ Jan 25 2004, 05:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--USNationalist@Jan 25 2004, 04:03 PM

I agree with antishock. Actual History of a civilization is not a sign, but a foundation for faith. Mormons may as well believe that things fall up- your notions of absoloute truth are just a cover up for lack of plausability.

Seeing God is one thing, finding an ancient city where its supposed to according to your scriptures is different.

Fine. I guess it wouldn't be amiss to reassess how I see things. Perhaps “proof” would be a better expression than "sign". The only way anyone is ever convinced that the BofM is true is through spiritual manifestations abstract or separate from the evidence that the world would demand in order to validate a claim. My whole religion is pretty much wrapped up in faith but I will say that I have had some wonderful experience along the way when faith was no longer a factor because I could see with my eyes or hear with my ears. I’m sticking with Mormonism whether there are horses or not. The manifestations of the Spirit outweigh the need to have proof.

I think you antis make some good points but you aren’t going to kill my faith; come horses, swords, or high water-- Mormonism will endure forever because it is true, so help me God. Now, with that, I’ll cease bearing testimony to myself…

:)

Paul O

I don't thik that is true at all. If a secular instituation happened upon Nephite and Lamanite artifacts and records I'd say that's a real good indicator JS was on to something. If the artifacts were tested, verified, and deemed valid I'd have to admit I was wrong about the BoM and re-pursue my faith. I don't think proof is a negative in regards to faith and things spritual. It's the LACK of proof that damages people's ability to believe. Why? Because they realize the truth is a lie when there's nothing to back it up...it's that simple. Proof would be a HUGE boon to a spiritual movement. FARMS exists in order to find ANYTHING that will enhance the faith of members. Proof is very valuable, and should not be dismissed so quickly. "Testing" your faith is really just another way of shrugging and saying there's nuthin' there...

[Guest Starsky]

I guess it come down to this:

In the Mormon church...one must be with the 2nd group....having faith. All others can go find their proof of their own religion.

[Guest antishock82003]

Originally posted by Peace@Jan 25 2004, 11:32 PM

I guess it come down to this:

In the Mormon church...one must be with the 2nd group....having faith. All others can go find their proof of their own religion.

Sure does, because there's nuthin' there....except feelin's and fanciful notions.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by antishock82003+Jan 26 2004, 05:53 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antishock82003 @ Jan 26 2004, 05:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Peace@Jan 25 2004, 11:32 PM

I guess it come down to this:

In the Mormon church...one must be with the 2nd group....having faith. All others can go find their proof of their own religion.

Sure does, because there's nuthin' there....except feelin's and fanciful notions.

I beg to differ, AS8. I read your testimony, and while you may have imposed your own good feelings onto your experiences and felt that they colored them, not everyone who experiences "feelings", especially those conveyed by the Holy Spirit, are capable of projecting something they haven't felt before. If your experiences were truly of the Holy Ghost, you'd know it. There is no mistaking it, and the feeling that goes along with it confirms it. You just can't project that kind of feeling when you have no idea what you are supposed to be feeling.

So, I would venture that, yes, in what you described, your feelings were your feelings and you have yet to experience a Holy Spirit-laden experience.

[Guest antishock82003]

Originally posted by Jenda+Jan 26 2004, 05:58 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Jan 26 2004, 05:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -antishock82003@Jan 26 2004, 05:53 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Peace@Jan 25 2004, 11:32 PM

I guess it come down to this:

In the Mormon church...one must be with the 2nd group....having faith. All others can go find their proof of their own religion.

Sure does, because there's nuthin' there....except feelin's and fanciful notions.

I beg to differ, AS8. I read your testimony, and while you may have imposed your own good feelings onto your experiences and felt that they colored them, not everyone who experiences "feelings", especially those conveyed by the Holy Spirit, are capable of projecting something they haven't felt before. If your experiences were truly of the Holy Ghost, you'd know it. There is no mistaking it, and the feeling that goes along with it confirms it. You just can't project that kind of feeling when you have no idea what you are supposed to be feeling.

So, I would venture that, yes, in what you described, your feelings were your feelings and you have yet to experience a Holy Spirit-laden experience.

Well, if that makes you feel better about yourself, then go ahead. You can't possbily know what I experienced, as I can't possibly know what you experience. Just because I eventually came to a different conlcusion than you doesn't mean that I didn't experience more or less powerfully the emotions associated with the Spirit than you. Did you serve a mission? Did you see dead people at a temple? Have you experienced "pure intelligence"? Have you wept violently at the temple? Have sacrament meetings moved you to tears? Have you experienced an attack from Satan? Have you had conversations with God Himself? Have you had revelations? On and on...but if you want to say that my experiences are less valid than yours because I'm no longer a Believer, and realize that those experiences were self-produced...then be my guest. Desire is a strong thing. It can lead you to believe many things that simply aren't true, or are fantasy. The whole thing is silly.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by antishock82003+Jan 26 2004, 05:53 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antishock82003 @ Jan 26 2004, 05:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Peace@Jan 25 2004, 11:32 PM

I guess it come down to this:

In the Mormon church...one must be with the 2nd group....having faith. All others can go find their proof of their own religion.

Sure does, because there's nuthin' there....except feelin's and fanciful notions.

Does your religion include this principle?

Ether 12: 6

6 And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.

I know this quote is from the BofM...but there is many teachings of Christ which are based upon this same principle.

[Paul Osborne]

Thanks peace for quoting that scripture on faith. Antishock is presently confused about those wonderful feelings he use to have and has attributed them to his own mind and he now thinks he was deluded. In time, he will come around and recognize God again when he becomes so spiritually hungry that he can’t stand it anymore.

It’s only a matter of time before Antishock will come back to God and praise him for all that he has been given. His denials won’t work on me-- I’m too smart for that.

Paul O

[Guest antishock82003]

Originally posted by Paul Osborne@Jan 26 2004, 05:57 PM

Thanks peace for quoting that scripture on faith. Antishock is presently confused about those wonderful feelings he use to have and has attributed them to his own mind and he now thinks he was deluded. In time, he will come around and recognize God again when he becomes so spiritually hungry that he can’t stand it anymore.

It’s only a matter of time before Antishock will come back to God and praise him for all that he has been given. His denials won’t work on me-- I’m too smart for that.

Paul O

Dude,

Let me explain something to you. I'm not DISILLUSIONED with Jesus; I don't believe he ever existed. And unless somebody comes up with some rock hard evidence, THAT ain't changin' no matter what you or I feeeeeeeeeeeel.

What I find superinteresting is that since you've been unable to adequately explain BoM inconsistencies you've resorted to calling into question my "feelings". I can't win in this situation. Either I never felt what you feel (i.e. I never truly had a testimonkey), or if I did I'm then denying your god. It's a Catch 22...and it ain't by Joseph Heller.

[Guest Starsky]

I guess you put us in the same catch 22. If we believe ....we have a testimonkey and 'feelings' of our own making...

If we can't come up with 'rock hard' evidence that will convince you...then we must be wrong ...and mislead...

But when we present you with 'rock hard' evidence you refute it with your own brand of testimonkey....and we have to be wrong.

There have been very educated people put forth very credible evidence and it isn't ever good enough for you....and many like you.

And this is why the Lord...knowing the hardness of men's hearts, requires 'faith'...which by the way ... is the very essence of your believing you even exist on this planet...and are not just a figment of your own imagination. Without faith....you can't prove that you aren't just in some kind of dream....and can't wake up.

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by Peace@Jan 26 2004, 06:33 PM

But when we present you with 'rock hard' evidence you refute it with your own brand of testimonkey....and we have to be wrong.

There have been very educated people put forth very credible evidence and it isn't anygood.

I must have missed it. Could you please cite the rock hard evidence for me, so that I may see the error of my ways? Thanks.

[Guest Starsky]

Maybe the sign you will be given in time will match the one given here:

Alma 30: 49

49 Now Alma said unto him: This will I give unto thee for a sign, that thou shalt be struck dumb, according to my words; and I say, that in the name of God, ye shall be struck dumb, that ye shall no more have utterance.

[Guest antishock82003]

Originally posted by Peace@Jan 26 2004, 06:33 PM

I guess you put us in the same catch 22. If we believe ....we have a testimonkey and 'feelings' of our own making...

If we can't come up with 'rock hard' evidence that will convince you...then we must be wrong ...and mislead...

But when we present you with 'rock hard' evidence you refute it with your own brand of testimonkey....and we have to be wrong.

There have been very educated people put forth very credible evidence and it isn't ever good enough for you....and many like you.

And this is why the Lord...knowing the hardness of men's hearts, requires 'faith'...which by the way ... is the very essence of your believing you even exist on this planet...and are not just a figment of your own imagination. Without faith....you can't prove that you aren't just in some kind of dream....and can't wake up.

What rock hard evidence? Rock hard means it has the properties of a rock...you can see it, touch it, weigh it...and oh yeah...IT EXISTS IN THIS WORLD!!!

So, no. You're not in a Catch 22. Please google the phrase so you can increase your glory.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by bat+Jan 26 2004, 06:37 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bat @ Jan 26 2004, 06:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Peace@Jan 26 2004, 06:33 PM

But when we present you with 'rock hard' evidence you refute it with your own brand of testimonkey....and we have to be wrong.

There have been very educated people put forth very credible evidence and it isn't anygood.

I must have missed it. Could you please cite the rock hard evidence for me, so that I may see the error of my ways? Thanks.

I think Travelers post about steel is 'rock' hard evidence....