Bonnie
Super Member
So?No kidding. The word "God" isn't Hebrew either.
It's English
Surviving Jaredite Names in Mesoamerica
- Thread starter Mesenja
- Start date
Bonnie
Super Member
Malkiyahu is not Mulek. And it is nothing but pure speculation that Mulek could be short for Malkiyahu. I can think of a number of ways to shorten the Biblical name--Malki, Mayu, Malihu, Makhu, Makiyu--so, again, this proves nothing. I see "MAY have been mentioned in Jeremiah 38:6"....MAY. So again, pure speculation. The bloggers see only what they want to see.
Bonnie
Super Member
Not sure what you mean, but I dealt with all of the supposed "evidence" for the BoM on here, though my answers are scattered a bit on this thread. But I did deal with them.
Was there a six? I only saw five.
Bonnie
Super Member
Thank you for admitting it could all be made up.Oh brother...
Yes. It could be made up. It could also be what the OP says it is.
Bonnie
Super Member
So, it is not unique.
Bonnie
Super Member
ONE item is not irrefutable proof. One swallow does not a summer make. And what "evidence" I have seen on here is mostly speculation, seen through Mormon glasses. Speculation isn't proof or even real evidence, IF those looking at the "evidence" put their Mormon bias on it.
“Some old men of Yucatan say that they have heard from their ancestors that this country was peopled by a certain race who came from the East, whom God delivered by opening for them twelve roads through the sea. If this is true, all the inhabitants of the Indies must be of Jewish descent…” a
^All quotes from Yucatan Before and After the Conquest by Diego de Landa Courier Corporation, 2012
^All quotes from Yucatan Before and After the Conquest by Diego de Landa Courier Corporation, 2012
Last edited:
Bonnie
Super Member
What old men? And they heard from their ancestors? This is evidence???
People like Jews and Arabs are Caucasians, and American Indians are from Siberia and are of the Mongoloid race. So did the Lamanites get their DNA changed?
Last edited:
Bonnie
Super Member
Isn't Peterson the guy who thinks "horses" in the BoM are actually tapirs? And chariots are litters? Here is something about this:
A Zombie's Reflections On That Mormon Apologist's Reflections - A Response to Daniel C. Peterson
Jeremy Runnells' rebuttal and response to Daniel C. Peterson's 2014 FairMormon 'Some Reflections on That <em>Letter to a CES Director</em>' presentation.
cesletter.org
(From Jeremy Runnells' Response and Rebuttal to
Daniel C. Peterson's 2014 FairMormon Presentation:
Some Reflections On That Letter to a CES Director
Written: September 2014. Updated: August 2017.)
This is in relation to the CES letter that came out some years ago. Peterson wrote the following in response to something Vernon Holley wrote, showing that Smith could have gotten place names in his book from towns and cities around him, i.e. Jacobsburg=Jacobugath. He had a map showing where all of these places were found in the NE. I can't cut and paste the map on here.
Peterson wrote:
He is thus pooh-poohing what Holley wrote. But some of the place names are nearly identical. Here is a comparison between some actual place names in the NE and names from the BoM:
Moraviantown--Morianton
Oneida--Onidah
Shiloh--Shilom
Ramah--Rama
Kishkiminetas--Kishkumen
Jacobsburg--Jacobugath
But Petersen declares this is no evidence that Smith made up stuff (paraphrasing), and that anyone can find parallels with just about anything. As Jeremy writes, "In Peterson's universe, when the Church and Mormon apologists do this? It's faith-promoting evidence. When critics do this? It's "loosy-goosy" parallelism."
But when non-Mormons point out what a stretch it is for some names in archaeology to be evidence that the BoM lands existed...i.e. NHM=Nahom, whoo, boy, we are told we are biased, refuse to see the correlation, or something similar. Double standards, anyone?
This article goes on to say:
And some more about that NHM on the stone:
Of course, there could be any number of vowels that could go between NHM letters. Why does it have to be "Nahom"? Because the LDS church apologists want it to be. Right?
BTW--this link has a huge amount of info on it, refuting what FAIR and Petersen said about his CES letter. There is a table of contents fairly near to the beginning, to help you find this stuff.
Last edited:
ev·i·dence
/ˈevədəns/
noun
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
proof
/pro͞of/
noun
/ˈevədəns/
noun
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
proof
/pro͞of/
noun
- evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
"you will be asked to give proof of your identity"
Magdalena
Well-known member
What do you call it when someone only posts copied material from other people, and none of his own words?
Their well-researched records and decades- old history are far superior to any "testimony" od many Mormons, who are unafraid to post obfuscating balderdash in vain hopes of converting Christians and observers into "Mo-bots" who are incapable of posting truth,
They get upset at me because I name "stuff" like that as "crap", "balderdash" etc and then they convince themselves that I am the one who is "against truth". You do not use those sorts of adjectives; in fact, you stay away from words that, and I seriously wonder why. I am merely being curious, not contentious.
You see, from my perspective there is more combined "evidence" for the Loch Ness monster, Sasquatch and Big Foot, etc than there is for what one LSD poster presented to make a "case" for a fictitious people speaking a fictitious language. What is put forth as "evidence" might fool a third grade educated person, or a conspiracy nut . Anyone having normal critical thinking skills will reject such nonsense as preposterous.
Why is it that the Mormons perpetually post such nonsense? do they not realize how they are insulting the intelligence of the people who read that?
Don't they know that those posters make their religion look like a collective commune of fools, or worse?
Bonnie
Super Member
The blog where all of this supposed "evidence" comes from is pro-Mormon and dedicated to trying to prove that the BoM is true. Therefore, any "evidence" is looked at through biased, Mormon-colored glasses, instead of looked at objectively and seen for what they really are.
Most of the premise focuses on Smith having stuff in the BoM that is found done or built by the Mesoamericans. Well, ,so what? Many other ancient peoples did the same thing:
Build pyramids. Make fortifications. Have some kind of body armor. Make weapons. Make war. So what? These prove nothing. LOTS of other ancient humans did that, all over the world. Humans are the same the world over.
I would also like to know how the Lamanites changes their DNA from Caucasian to Mongoloid, since American Indians are of the Mongoloid race, whose ancestors came from Eastern and central Siberia. Was that part of the punishment God sent them, besides giving them dark skin?
John did you check out my link in post no. 269? It has a massive amount of information in it. And interesting, the way the author refutes what Mormons refuted--supposedly--what he wrote. And in this link, he focuses mostly on Dr. Daniel Peterson--the guy who theorizes that "horses" in the BoM are really tapirs, or maybe deer. Really? I remember seeing a cartoon, which I had hoped to put on here but 4Him told me "no" because it has a bad word in it, that shows Smith translating the BoM. He is saying to God, "Lord what the heck is a tapir?" God says something like "Well it's an animal with a long nose that lives in swamps and is, well,, it's sort of like a....oh, never mind, Joe, just write "horses."
Last edited:
Yes, I'm sure that a mere partial response, with no context provided, is "all" that you desire and prefer. No one doubts that.
Last edited:
I admit "getting lost in the "poison ivy patch". But, what astonished me was the impossible-to-miss conclusion that the LDS church was established on lies, and is perpetuated by more and different lies.
Their spiritual blindness is so total that they can blithely admit that their foundation is built on jello but they are not be concerned about it.
One good word describing their gap between truth and lies is "DELUSIONAL". Unfortunately, they do not believe that they are psychologically dysfunctional when they say that they believe such contradicting crap..
In reality, what is the difference between a partial explanation of a fictional event, and an expanded explanation of a fictional event? Fictional events never happened, by definition.
Unlike us Christians who can point to both archeology and independent historical accounts, the LSD religion is founded upon LIES, and perpetuated my more newly-created lies. Their "testimonies" supposedly trump every fiction in the BoM, and the total absence of any correlated evidence to the BoM.
They have no record of a utilitarian wheel south of the Rio Grande river, but they perpetuate the fiction that chariots once were used in New York state, (anachronistically speaking)
Bonnie
Super Member
Misinformation on the part of Mormonism spotlighted in it, but not on the part of what the author found.
The very sad fact, truth and reality is that although what you have said is absolutely 100% accurate, correct and true, it will not stop or even give pause to someone who has totally 'drunk the kool aid' of cult programming. Such is the case on this thread and other threads on this board. It is very easily seen that Mormons have no real honest or truthful respect or regard for the lacking of archaeological and historical evidence that supports the idea (actually fantasy) that the BoM is true. Living proof of the old adage, "There is none so blind as the one who WILL NOT see."
Magdalena
Well-known member
I agree that when someone is in that mindset, they will usually see things the way they want to see them. And jump at anything that even remotely looks like it could be proof.