Mormonism

Discussion in 'Religion' started by vampyregirl, Apr 16, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. vampyregirl

    vampyregirl Moved on

    I think its interesting even if you're not religous. [ame="www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_duUIlMdKY"]Book of Mormon Evidence and Christ in America: The City of Tulum - YouTube[/ame]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2012
  2. vampyregirl

    vampyregirl Moved on

    Also, its interesting to note that several sixteenth century Spanish historians recorded Indian legends from Mexico to Venezulea of a great white bearded god who descended from the sky.
     
  3. Hannibal

    Hannibal Angriest MAP resident.... Supporter

    Viracocha

    It is an old theory and has been largely disproven by even cursory examination. I blame Von Daniken, but Graham Hancock should shoulder the blame for reinventing it for a new generation of the gullible
     
  4. vampyregirl

    vampyregirl Moved on

    I don't think Tulum has anything to do with Viracocha. I put these question to you.
    How could Joseph Smith know Zama was the original name for Tulum when that wasn't known until well into the twentieth century?
    Who are the three men depicted in the murals inside the temple?
    Why is this Mayan temple so eerily similair to the Temple of Solomon as described in the Bible?
     
  5. m1k3jobs

    m1k3jobs Dudeist Priest

    Magic, that can be the only reason. If we don't know the answer then the correct answer is magic.

    Simple as that.

    It couldn't be a coincidence could it? I mean that sort of stuff just doesn't happen in the real world does it.

    Sabre Tooth Cat:
    [​IMG]

    Sabre Tooth Marsupial:
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2012
  6. Hannibal

    Hannibal Angriest MAP resident.... Supporter

    Never said it did - Viracocha was in relation to this

    Please keep up....

    Tulum was first mentioned by Juan Díaz, a member of Juan de Grijalva's Spanish expedition of 1518, and the first detailed description of the ruins was published by John Lloyd Stephens and Frederick Catherwood in 1843 in the book Incidents of Travel in Yucatan.

    Significantly there was also a stele at the site, with an inscribed date of AD 564 which is interpreted to mean that it was most likely built elsewhere and brought to Tulum to be reused.

    If you think oral tradition or native legends don't mention orginal names and instead prefer a largely unfounded and fanciful theory then fill your boots

    Larry Curley and Moe?
    Three wise elders of the village?
    The avatars for Orions belt?

    Trinities are not unique to the bible. A more valid question is how the story of Jesus was acted out in religions that predate christianity? That suggests that it is not christianity that influenced the myths it is vice versa

    According to which translation?

    And again buildings share many similarities the globe over. See the above description of the stele

    Sory but this whole theory is wet and collapses at even the slightest hint if scruitiny
     
  7. Hannibal

    Hannibal Angriest MAP resident.... Supporter

    Or alternatively.....

    [​IMG]
     
  8. vampyregirl

    vampyregirl Moved on

    Its just a fact Zama as the original name wasn't documented until well into the twentieth century. You can ignore that fact if you want.
     
  9. Hannibal

    Hannibal Angriest MAP resident.... Supporter

    Again - says who?

    Your "fact" has so many holes in it you can drive a bus through it

    The settlement was "officially" first found in 1518 - that gives you around 500 years. Do you think that in all that time it might possibly you know have been mentioned at some point? Here is a clue - darn tootin it would have been!

    The only mystery here is how such bunk gets swallowed wholesale
     
  10. vampyregirl

    vampyregirl Moved on

    You know Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon in 1830, long before Catherwood and Stephens book. And you do know he was a farmboy, not a scholar. just making sure you're aware.
     
  11. Hannibal

    Hannibal Angriest MAP resident.... Supporter

    Yes and you know that 1518 predates that by 300 years or so correct?
     
  12. vampyregirl

    vampyregirl Moved on

    Then why is there no documentation of it before the 20th century?
     
  13. Hannibal

    Hannibal Angriest MAP resident.... Supporter

    It is also worth noting that Smith apparently claimed the Moon was inhabited by 6 ft Quakers who lived to be 1,000

    You believe that too?
     
  14. Hannibal

    Hannibal Angriest MAP resident.... Supporter

    Have you looked? Or are you just taking the claim that there was no written account at face value?

    Even if there was no written account that would simply reflect the fact that the older term "Zama" was not in common usage - not any more than referring to Ho Chi Minh City as Saigon

    Ths is the way of oral tradition - the terms stay in memory even though everything else changes
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2012
  15. vampyregirl

    vampyregirl Moved on

  16. vampyregirl

    vampyregirl Moved on

    I can't find any before the 20th century.
     
  17. Hannibal

    Hannibal Angriest MAP resident.... Supporter

    I did edit my last post to take into account oral traditions
     
  18. Hannibal

    Hannibal Angriest MAP resident.... Supporter

    The thing is that Smith was wrong on so many levels about nearly everything else that clinging to one very fuzzy fact is just asinine

    The same sort of argument was made for the Piri Reis map and that too fell down when the correct scholars looked at it.

    So about those lunar Quakers....
     
  19. vampyregirl

    vampyregirl Moved on

    Many things he was accused of being wrong on he turned out to be right. The fact that cement was used in MesoAmerica, the Land of the Bountiful, which in his day was considered nonsense since it was believed the Arabian Penisula was all desert, the fact that barley was grown in ancient Mesoamerica, just to name a few. I haven't even mentioned the Colombian murals which depict light and dark skinned men fighting as described in the Book of Mormon.
    However the DNA evidence is inconclusive as is the evidence for horses in the Americas at the time of Nephi.
    The Bat Creek Stone is interesting but is still being debated.
    The Book of Abraham is being debated to. LDS critics once claimed it as a slam dunk for their side but now Egyptologists who are familair with the Egyptian of the GrecoRoman period have found errors in the findings of those Egyptologists who denounced it as all wrong. They were familair with the earlier middle kingdom form of Egyptian.
     
  20. Hannibal

    Hannibal Angriest MAP resident.... Supporter

    Keep drinking the Kool Aid if you wish but none of Smith assertions have much credibility. He has been deconstructed far better and far more throughly than I can actually be bothered to enter into here

    Now, about those Quakers.......
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page