Mormonism criticisms and answers debate #4

[Pelin]

probably I can reinterpret the logicism how so hollow earth became refuge for the dan tribe, by some reverse engineering of mine, where first would suggest pivot how mormons are initiated as covert christian sect by freemasons [1][1] and what is not at all fabrication, but logical emergence in those times, when from one hand freemasons as elite needed covert flip of Christian Laos in apostasy, while on other hand protestantism how was decentralized offered such opportunity for extra fragmentation what essentially began from its very beginnings ...

• now, in those times was also very popular dispensationalism [2][2][2] thus the protestant heresy of christian-zionism appeared and various ways pushed by various even alien esoteric writers [3][3] so its not at all wondering how so such inner earth lost and found theory about the dan tribe appeared, maybe soon would surface some martian connection anyway here can be sensed the prevailing metaphysical freemasonic hype but also scientific eugenic one as chosen people superhumans destined to rule the world as anglo-asraelite aliance, which phantasmagory goes even further weirdo if we know that actually that peddling of protestants on west is solely so they through apostasy would embrace univeralism reaching same universal god coz aligned with zionism eventually will align with freemasonry, simply coz kabbalism and freemasonry are two side of same neopagan coin altho with bit different eschatology that eventually should merge how complementary is the hype around solomons temple [4-2][5-9] what would be even greater skim coz in essence for Christians universalism is impossibility of embracing communion with luciferians along all the rest pagans and neopagans [6-3][6-8][6-11] altho logically "dei" as freemasonry would try to spin that too [7] yet even this explanation is taken for granted again "deir" dualistic hype points to utmost apostasy for Christians, even tho by all means when are seen all neopagan rituals in "deir" freemasonic religion defacto "dei" are syncretistic mirror to paganism thus driven by demons'anathema'to'them [7] at least as Christians this should be utmost known and obvious with "whom" we have work and how "dei" are trying by trickery to peddle us all coz we are majority ...

seen like this, we can say as theory the same is result of complex hype back in the days when the esoteric occult and newage mysticism was merged with some christian-zionist hype, thus logical how emerged such ten tribe hollow earth hype!, actually it would be strange if didnt, especially knowing how extra belief was back then given to mediums too, sadly not less even nowadays [8-13] maybe someone wants to find the tent tribe in some future solar system astral plane, there yeah has logic to chase whatever You want, eg. pink unicorns playing golf with gryphons "D while they wait to ride them ... btw watch not to choke with mormon hype so would not end up even atheist, yeah judgement is reserved only for the worms [9] and so this mine lets say poking of mormonism would not be embraced as such, I'll propose do take crash curse about through JayD [10] what eventually should be spring board to grasp that its our free will how we embrace Christianity, yet focus on its Ture Orthodox Roots so would not end up in eternal tormental oblivion [11] what should be indeed taken as be fearful not to fall in apostasy even as OC as loosen and driven by d'spirit'of'this'world i.e. anathemago, what about when from start someone is tilting in apostasy!, something that rarely is OC practice to motivate someone through fear, still knowing in what time we live and that nowadays its not easy being even Orthodox Christian then with ease I'll take the stick before the carrot as pushing focus towards Salvation, coz there are many ways how luciferians are peddling us nowadays covertly [12-6] brainwashed since smallest legs to swallow what ever is served eg. in cartoons movies music games fashion styles etc. etc. at least neopagan symbol tagging, tho not rarely pagan neopagan or alike covert scifi conditioning!, yeah just loosen and enjoy "deir" show, what can go wrong, arent we warned as Christians dont follow "deir" ways, but who to alarm warn or awake us for those risks, hello euthanasia became more than normal debate waiting to be implemented even without it by the hijacked western normie govenrments!

[Pelin]

so how this imply hollow earth [1] maybe where is mentioned Edrehi, Rev. Dr. M. that in 1852 [1] mentions that the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel settled in distant lands beyond the mythical river Sambatyon [2][2][2] eventually from that link maybe LDS Huntington, O.B. should be taken for granted as source "Article in YOUNG WOMAN'S JOURNAL (LDS church)., March 1892., pp. 264: Describes a warm and fruitful land 'beyond' the North Pole, "a country inhabited by the ten tribes of Israel." [1] simply he and many other influenced by the mythic neopagan tales about hyperboreans or atlanteans or tartarians, all of those astral excursion interpretations, many indeed were influenced to make own storytelling [2] do You really consider mormons even genuine christians on top even authority for jewish history, cmon, be creative grasp the time they were living in, kind of next level mass agitprop peddling of/for Christians on the original neopagan hype from romantism [3][3][3-6] tho my take is that later EdgarC was most influential Christian in peddling Christians towards apostasy [4] altho cant be excluded the role of LDS in various ways, still far from smooth bait for all, altho drop by drop in various ways the propaganda attack on Christianity was firm and constant, as is nowadays!

• seen from Ezdra side, maybe someone has more unique cipher for the term other land tho the "North Pole" interpretation is far from backed by any logical assumption, but solely on possibility, so as well its possible that even the apocryphal book could have been skewed to fit someones narrative, isnt!?, after all its not genuine biblical scroll [5][5] but even if we would take it somehow as possible logic, still The Prophet Esdra says "Iben Ezra interprets that they will continue to pursue their sinful ways while in exile..." [5] i.e. more logical would be that he is speaking about the kabbalistic esotery derived from Babylon, and later reaching up till the new Babylon!

hek, I can say that the tenth lost tribe Dan is in Macedonia [6-8] by this kind of logicism, as is slipt regards the interpretation for northpolean realm, to me more probable possibility is the pelasgian penninsula, after all Apollo was going on vacation in Hyperborea, isnt [7] but hey everyone has right on own opinion stance belief theory ideas, tho we cant say consensus around the hollow earth will be reached soon by Mankind, at least not in this form, maybe as plane on this planet yes, where the passing through goes at the poles, yet not ending bellow earth, but elsewhere on earth through its planes [8] actually I've been many times astral in various places even beyond earth, wont drag the thread offtopic, nor will ever want to push someone in apostasy coz that is some mine past adventures [9] but will say be careful how You are served what as Christians!!!

[Pelin]

yep probably he was the medium i.e. had have visions about, or construct it to the earlier fiction novel trends in its own time!?

[Western0bserver]

@Pelin, I've read through everything you've posted across this thread and the related ones, and I want to address it all in one place.

Let's start with the Culmer question, since this is the Culmer thread. You asked how he reached his information. @GeorgePlymale2 gave you a clear, sourced answer: Culmer credited his ideas to personal revelation based on LDS scriptures and to Captain John Cleves Symmes' published work. Your response was "yep probably he was the medium." You asked a question, got a documented answer, and then restated your original assumption as if the answer never happened. That's not how conversation works. If you have evidence Culmer was operating as a medium - a journal entry, a contemporary account, anything at all - produce it. If you don't, then you're inventing a source attribution for a man whose actual source attribution is already on the record and which you just chose to ignore.

The alternative you floated - that he "construct it to the earlier fiction novel trends in its own time" - has the same problem. Culmer himself tells you where he got his ideas. You're overriding a primary source's own stated methodology with a guess. That's not analysis, that's projection.

Now the longer post you brought over from the other thread - the "reverse engineering" one. You use that phrase yourself, and it's worth pausing on, because it tells us exactly what's happening methodologically. Reverse engineering means starting from a conclusion and working backwards to construct a path to it. That is the exact opposite of what @GeorgePlymale2 is doing. He's working forward from dated, attributed, published primary sources - the Deseret News under Willard Richards, Culmer's treatise, LDS periodical coverage of Nansen's expedition - to document what specific people believed and when they believed it. You are starting from "this must be demonic Masonic infiltration" and arranging everything to fit. The fact that you can build a narrative where it all connects doesn't make that narrative true. Narrative coherence is not evidence.

Your sources throughout are forum threads you wrote yourself, Jay Dyer YouTube search links, and William Schnoebelen. On Dyer: I looked into his credentials. He holds a B.A. in philosophy and did graduate coursework at Murray State University in English and philosophy that he did not complete - it's listed as "All But Thesis," meaning no master's degree was conferred. His professional self-description is author, comedian, and TV presenter. His published work covers Hollywood and pop culture. His content has appeared on Infowars, Rense, and David Icke's platform. He has no training in history, religious studies, or ancient languages, and no published academic work on LDS theology or history. He's an Orthodox polemicist who argues against Mormonism from his own theological framework. That's denominational debate, not historical scholarship, and it has zero capacity to evaluate whether specific 19th century individuals held specific beliefs about polar geography based on specific scriptural texts.

On Schnoebelen - the video you linked. This is a man who claims to have been, in the course of one lifetime: a Satanist, a 90th-degree Freemason, a member of the Illuminati, a Catholic priest, a Mormon, a Wiccan priest, a druid, a medium, a member of the Church of Satan, a member of the OTO, a IX-degree Rosicrucian, and a vampire. His claims have been questioned or debunked by Wiccans who knew him, Freemasons who investigated his membership claims, the noted LDS researchers Jerald and Sandra Tanner (who are themselves critical of the LDS Church and had every reason to find him credible but didn't), and even Jack Chick Publications, which pulled his materials from their catalog. When a fundamentalist tract publisher decides you're too unreliable to carry, a very specific credibility threshold has been crossed.

Linking to your own prior forum posts as evidence for your current claims is circular. You're citing yourself to prove yourself. That's not a source chain, that's an echo.

The "jewish bankers" and "expedition racketeering" line - when someone's explanatory framework needs a Jewish banking conspiracy to fill a gap, that tells you more about the framework than about the history. There's nothing wrong with talking about this line of thinking if you're referencing Eustace Mullins, but come on. What you're doing here is hand waving and unqualified.

And the warnings about eternal torment scattered through your posts - "watch not to choke with mormon hype so would not end up even atheist," the remarks about "eternal tormental oblivion" - this is a history forum. Threatening people with damnation because they're reading 19th century newspaper articles and a treatise held in the Church History Library is not scholarship and it's not even persuasive evangelism. It's coercion dressed up as concern, and it doesn't belong in a thread about documentary evidence.

Here's the bottom line. @GeorgePlymale2 has put together a multi-part documented series with named sources, dated publications, and traceable chains of belief transmission. Across all your posts you have engaged zero of the actual sources. Not Willard Richards. Not the Deseret News coverage. Not Culmer's treatise - even after being told exactly where his ideas came from. Not the Nansen expedition coverage. Not a single primary document. You've substituted a pre-loaded conspiracy framework for engagement with what's actually on the table.

The work is right here. Either meet the sources or acknowledge you haven't read them.

[Pelin]

I'll jump later if You like reanswering every point You've mentioned, first and foremost I need to clarify why I have asserted such logic, he himself is medium, "someone" said, eventually vision came, yep, where is the connection to whatever talmudic or at least some pivot inbetween!?, for me this looks indeed all like personal cult went religion [1-6][1] simply just take the notion from where emerged mormon lost tribe hype and we should easily grasp forgery [2][2][2] maybe the father lets say was inspired to reject freemasons and coz that was murdered, but later his son to secure the cult with fictional israelites story, that indeed by polite language can be labeled as hijack fallacy for securing devotees!, again, my aim is not to attack per'se mormons, its their Free Will in what how will believe, tho analyzing and pointing on fallacies it should not be some issue ...

[Pelin]

@Western0bserver

Linking to your own prior forum posts as evidence for your current claims is circular. You're citing yourself to prove yourself. That's not a source chain, that's an echo.

just to clarify I dont build circular argument by bringing as You say chain echo of mine prior eforum posts, but pointing to end links in those footnoted threads I am suggesting!, i.e. by less is more approach I am giving direction towards specific links, sharing one link that will lead You to few others instead to reshare them here ...

... eg. when mentioned the last freemasonic infiltration in the Ottoman Empire I'll point (in this post now here) that that is from my last post links in link, shared in the 3rd footnote there [1-3-15] which leads You to the 15th footnotes in the linked GDS templar thread, and then after there You will reach to the end links I want to refer to!, yes its bit clicking vortex till You reach the end links, but that is solely so would speed up the linking narrative, but also to escape reinterpretations or extra elaborations, which tho if are needed in context, can be found in those end links threads ...

[Western0bserver]

@Pelin, two things here.

On Culmer: you're still calling him a medium. You've now been told three times that Culmer himself stated his sources - LDS scriptures and Captain John Cleves Symmes' published work.

You haven't produced a single piece of evidence that he was operating as a medium.

Not a journal entry, not a contemporary account, not a letter, not a newspaper reference, nothing. You just keep saying it. Repeating an assertion after it's been challenged without producing evidence for it is not "analyzing and pointing on fallacies" - it is one.

And now you've added the claim that Joseph Smith's father "was inspired to reject freemasons and coz that was murdered, but later his son to secure the cult with fictional israelites story." Joseph Smith Sr. died of natural causes in 1840. It was Joseph Smith Jr. who was killed at Carthage Jail in 1844, and he wasn't killed over Freemasonry (although Freemasons killed him) - there's a substantial historical record about the events leading to his death involving the Nauvoo Expositor, political tensions, and mob violence. It was more like a presidential candidate assassination by "the powers that be" more than anything.

This is basic factual history of the movement you're confidently pronouncing judgment on while simultaneously admitting you've never studied it. You're getting the players confused at the most elementary level.

On the linking method. You just described your own sourcing practice as a "clicking vortex." I want to make sure everyone reading this catches that.

Your defense against the charge of circular self-citation is that your posts link to your other posts which link to your other posts which eventually, after multiple hops, reach some external source!

And you're presenting this as a feature, not a bug. That is not "less is more." That is burying your actual sources under layers of your own commentary so nobody can efficiently evaluate whether they say what you claim they say. If your end-link sources are solid, link them directly. If they can't stand on their own without three layers of your own framing to prop them up, that tells you something about the sources!

Meanwhile @GeorgePlymale2's posts link directly to the Church History Library catalog, to HathiTrust digitized originals, to Internet Archive scans, to the specific scriptural passages being referenced. One click and you're looking at the primary document.

That's what sourcing looks like!

The difference isn't a matter of style - it's a matter of whether your reader can actually verify your claims or has to take your word for it after chasing links through a "vortex."

You said "I'll jump later if You like reanswering every point." I'd settle for you answering one. Pick any primary source from @GeorgePlymale2's series - any one - and engage with what it actually says.

That hasn't happened yet across any thread!

[Pelin]

the linked vortex is so would point to given end footnotes, tho not sure why You analyze me like scholar, I am bringing just topic exploration through fractal mosaic reasoning, in which yep did obvious mistake, but just so would see whether You are reading even that, coz obviously dont read the end links I am referring to in my footnotes, thus cant grasp what I want to point!

• anyway, You are probably some mormon apologist or priest maybe, thus I'll not argue about mine stance that lds is christian heresy, did made my claim, and its mine final stance, for all the rest I am pointing go challenge JayD if think You can bring effective objections about his arguments [1]

I've already engaged in given straight response around the lost tribes, the beginning of the 5th post above in this thread, and to me thats are enough few points so would make claim that we are seeing complex genealogical fallacy of mormonism!, to which I can bring also wide examination, but when there are huge holes on the hull, why then at all to bother with the sails of that story [2] not that my aim is to torpedoed Your ship, but more than logically as mormons You need to park it in basement, not keeping it for sailing some phantasmagorical exceptionalism!, similar fallacy can bring anyone, but the same will be exactly just that, not anyhow basis of its existence!, eg I can invent too such about Orthodox Christianity, eg. coz there assumtions the The Ark of Prophet Noah landed on Ararat in Georgia, and Georgia an Orthodox Christian land, then Noah is OC yeah!

[Western0bserver]

@Pelin, "fractal mosaic reasoning" is a hell of a phrase for what you've been doing here. I'll give you points for creativity on the branding.

But giving a fancy name to "I post unrelated material across multiple threads without reading the source posts" doesn't change what it is.

And now - for the third time - the speculation about my religious background. "You are probably some mormon apologist or priest maybe." You've gone from "maybe You are mormon or have mormon ancestry" to "some mormon apologist or priest." Each time you do this instead of addressing an argument, you're telling everyone reading this thread that you can't address the argument.

My background doesn't change a single word in the Deseret News. That is a newspaper. It doesn't change a single page of Culmer's treatise. It doesn't change who Willard Richards was or what he published. Credentials don't refute documents.

Neither do guesses about who I might be.

"Go challenge JayD if think You can bring effective objections about his arguments." This right here is the move of a man who's outsourced his thinking. Do you have the ability to reason @Pelin?

You can't defend the position yourself, so you tell me to go argue with your source instead. That's not how any of this works. You brought Dyer's arguments into these threads. They're your damn arguments now partner!

If you can't restate them, defend them, and apply them to the specific sources under discussion, then they're not arguments you hold - they're arguments you're renting and don't actually understand at all!

Now your ship metaphor - "when there are huge holes on the hull, why then at all to bother with the sails." You haven't put a single hole in the hull.

Not one.

To put a hole in @GeorgePlymale2's hull, you would need to show that one of his sources doesn't say what he claims it says, or that a document he cites is forged, or that a person he names didn't hold the position he attributes to them.

You have done none of those things across any thread. You've declared there are holes. Declaring a hole is not the same as making one.

You couldn't make a hole if you had a Sawzall and an infinite supply of blades at this point buddy!

And the Noah's Ark comparison at the end - do you realize what you just did? You constructed a silly genealogical argument ("the Ark landed in Georgia, Georgia is Orthodox, therefore Noah is OC") to show how absurd such reasoning is.

You're right - that IS absurd. But that's YOUR method, not @GeorgePlymale2's. He isn't arguing "Culmer was Mormon, Culmer believed in a hollow earth, therefore the hollow earth is Mormon doctrine."

He's documenting that multiple named individuals in positions of authority within the 19th century LDS Church held and published this belief, tracing the textual and personal connections between them, and showing that the belief had serious currency. That's historical documentation, not genealogical fallacy.

You just constructed an analogy that undermines your own approach and attributed it to the other side.

You said this is your "final stance." That's great. But a final stance built on Jay Dyer videos, a self-described vampire, your own forum posts as sources, admitted ignorance of the subject matter, and repeated inability to engage a single primary document isn't a stance....... It's a position you wandered into and decided to defend because leaving would feel like losing.

The documents are still on the table. And they don't care about your final stance.

[Pelin]

oh no not again dont worry here is again reminder in case You cant catch the idea, so the scientific flow went out the window ...

~ Where Are the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel? Hollow-Earth Physics Considerations

while my invented Ark claim is just projection how sounds that mormon claim for lost israeli tribes in the inner earth ... again, yep go challenge JayD maybe he can help You bit more, coz I give up

[Western0bserver]

@Pelin, "I give up" is the first accurate thing you've said across three threads.

For the record: you came into a primary-source research series, admitted you'd never studied the subject, couldn't engage the physics, couldn't engage the history, cited a YouTube comedian and a self-described vampire as your authorities, confused Joseph Smith Sr. with Joseph Smith Jr., conflated the Kinderhook plates with the hollow earth lost tribes teaching, described your own sourcing as a "clicking vortex," called your own method "reverse engineering" from a conclusion, and told me to go argue with Jay Dyer because you couldn't defend the positions you borrowed from him.

And through all of that, you never engaged a single primary source from @GeorgePlymale2's series. Not one. Across any thread.

The work stands. Thanks for stopping by partner.

[Pelin]

You are correct, I've drop from fun, and maybe to see how can I help, sharing mostly mine logic about freemasonic infiltration in Christianity, which if happens where there are no freemasons but are hijacked the elite by freemasons and/or "deir" stooges [1-2][1-2] then how much more "dei" will play someone which is from "deir" flock and breed!?, so, indeed I've pop up just to say Hi, still stuck right after explaining my previous idea drops and excusing myself to You coz havent approached with precise ontopic analysis!, practically as ontopic debate I've responded only to hanuman7 [2] where as response tackled just bit that source, without need for any clean debunking of the lost'tribe'hype ...

• ... as said I've not appear to impose mine ultimate truth by all means, so said as said I am resting mine case as not some expert on the matter, for me it was enough to respond even just to hanuman7 without any further OP examining, still now when I see my first response in this thread it looks probably like that, yet that is far from meticulous scientific examination, altho has strong scientific reflection due to the very mosaic reasoning approach [3] along minimum-maximum footnoted confirmation of my points, i.e. instead piling tones of (ontopic (or digression)) links in one post, simply through one footnote sharing dozen end links, altho not rarely like that ending in vortex of links inside links, up untill You reach the end links ... and surely that pulled extra heathen response by You that I really have understanding are logical burst when given personal hype is at attack ...

... so, Sorry if mine appearance kick bad feelings, even my intention was not at all some apologetic per'se, yet when throwed JayD and WilliamS as stay'away'argument probably I've pulled bitterness!, and altho as digressions it shouldnt be anyhow main topic for debate, still coz You are mormon surely the same need to be sliced by whatever means, and cant object that once mentioned in the thread cant be dragged again and again in funny way as counter augmenting, altho even without them, whole topic is one huge fairytale, which it would be really deterrence hype for mormons themselves if even in this century is pushed like truth, as I can see, the very exceptionalism how is pulled through such lost'tribe'hype is kind of unique if not ultimate self-delusion!, do You have free will as Christian to have own truths explorations understandings, surely, but as well need to be open for questioning of the same, especially coz Christianity already reached by Jesus Christ Providence final standardization in The Early Church what would be Orthodox Christianity, so whatever new interpretations need to pass that filter, thus currently JayD would be ultimate and unique online reality check for Christians that can help them reach Theosis through correct understanding of Christianity ... this would be mine last apologizing in this thread ... tho dont expect to derail the thread in later theological dragging ...

[Pelin]

@Pelin

... so, Sorry if mine appearance kick bad feelings

I am glad You dont bring bad grammar as adhom spin, tho when I see what I've throw from sleeve even to me my appearance is kind of hm simply coz english is not my prime language, on top I dont pay any special attention to correct grammatical expression, I've built tendency to go with the flow and rarely rereading what have wrote, so it became style of mine, still when someone opposes me in eforum debates, by default coz lack of arguments is used such backhand ... now, I've evading wide theological slips, coz various reasons, above all I am not enough insightful in the mormon teachings, and surely will make mistake if approach loosely, tho in the next paragraph will try to point, if not else as mormons You need to make effort step away from such exceptionalist folklore, hm, but how when JosephS declared himself prophet, i.e. even You distance Yourself from the lost'tribes'hype its question whether You are on safe ground!, arent we warned many jesuses will appear in the end times, to me all this sounds like that!

so, did earlier mormons tried to throw on the go, in similar manner such mythos for their congregation, surely, otherwise if they knew about the correct Orthodox Christian (lets say) grammar, surely all inertia would have been quite different, even still as denomination have appeared mids freemasons!, what lets assume is providence by Our Almighty Lord instead some freemasonic infiltration, actually everything is, so in time of vast freemasonic hijack of Christians to appear whatever greater Christian space for glorification of Jesus Christ, altho how the higher echelons kept similar temple alike structure, surely that also points that eventually for mormons all final roads again are leading to the freemasonic'great'artchitect, altho that dont means that on personal level some mormon is not Christian, yet eventually its in harder position to secure Grace Peace and Salvation if stay in such apostatic theology, simply needs to convert to some whatever free from freemasonic grip Church, be creative!, tho as position that is not granted even for Orthodox Christians coz live in fullness of the Early Church Tradition, simply approaching the faith as traditional believer and just by label live life in feat, such approach its not granting Salvation as The Holy Saints warns us Life which is not tied to Feat is not Life but death, so what would be highest Feat than to reach Theosis, but how if You tilt in error!?, thus we are forwarded that as Christians need to Stand in Truth and Rise Above all wrong or false teachings, when living worthy Life in Feat as Christian foremost means Love should be prime direction but also without Law and Order cant be secured the same in fullness, i.e. how we would reach abundance of Water if the Well is improvised!?, so do check the end footnotes in the next one [1] what points that universalism is NoGoZone Muchacho so peak wise [2] here I assume this is correct mormon universalist logic "If you take mormon doctrines literally, it shows that salvation/exaltation is almost universal. It is just some "inconceivable few" who reject the infinite opportunities of agency and changing who will not be exalted in the eternities." [3][3][3] i.e. by OC measure heretics apostates and unbelievers will be judged on same level, coz even demons'anathema'to'them recognize Who is Our Almighty Lord but coz locked "demselves" in fall, earlier as Angels having pure spiritual essence once drop in error that is eternal choice, yet till live in this life we have Free Will thus have chance for repentance, eg. from ignorance for learning what is True Christian Teachings as are given to us by Our Almighty Lord Jesus Christ and His Holy Apostles ... so do try examine theological vlogs of JayD as springboard for greater Early Church Teachings, tho he is part of greater Patristic Faith Team so if he is too funny for You pick another apologist there > again ther 1st footnote above [4] and if so, I am certain You will reach completely different understanding of the term Israel and why exceptionalism dont need to be chased as some Ephraimites but even as gentiles we are called to Salvation through Jesus Christ ... claiming on other hand bogus lineage, even the same was true, simply dont makes from You special case, what about if that story is fake vision!, Our Lord even from stones will make Believers so dont brag by no means that anyhow You are special!, even Orthodox Christians need to keep humble hearth and as we witness quietly to stand in The True Tradition, tho we live in such times that on west popped up modern apologist like Jay Dyer who is utmost balance between the trends among the Youth, i.e. he is nor reckless nor zealot, but kind of middle ground between those two extremes, so in most unusual way is helping Christians to reach even hard food for milk teeth, altho all that in such balanced way as ideal for these times, looks bit rude for someone or naive for other, while in essence if people dont judge and focus on his elaborations I am certain many things will become clear, tho like every learning curve, if dont have open mind, You'll end up in the trap eg. of mainstream physics aside the alternative like aether field theories ...

[Western0bserver]

@Pelin, I appreciate the conciliatory tone here and I'll take it at face value. No hard feelings on my end.

But I do need to point out what just happened. You said "I give up" and "this would be mine last apologizing in this thread" but then posted a 600-word sermon about Theosis, universalism, Orthodox soteriology, and why everyone in this thread needs to watch Jay Dyer to find correct Christianity.

In a thread about Frederick Culmer's 1886 hollow earth treatise.

That's the pattern I've been pointing at this whole time. Not the theology itself - you're welcome to your convictions and I'm not here to challenge your faith, unless you want to have that discussion in another more appropriate thread on religion (@admins you might want to make a new forum if you feel like religious debates are worthwhile on MindReach).

The pattern is that you keep replacing the actual subject of the thread with whatever you'd rather be talking about.

Every.

Single.

Time.

The topic is 19th century documentary evidence, and every response you've given has been an exit ramp to somewhere else - Freemasonry, Jay Dyer, Schnoebelen, the Kinderhook plates, and now a full catechism lesson.

And you ended by endorsing "aether field theories" as the alternative to mainstream physics traps. As I pointed out in the physics thread - several of the models in @GeorgePlymale2's post ARE aether-based.

You keep agreeing with the framework while refusing to read the work built on it.

That's the irony of this whole exchange.

I'll leave it here. If you ever want to come back and engage the actual sources @GeorgePlymale2 has laid out, I think you'd find a more interesting conversation waiting for you than the one we've had. The door's open.

But the preaching - respectfully - belongs in a different thread.

[Pelin]

yep I did made wider exception about theological greetings, tho digressing as attempt to help mormons if possible to exit own genealogical trap, once got aware we are talking for some lost'tribe'mythos portrayed as true, what would not be sin, so yes I've said will leave the thread hoping will end the topic tension that emerged, but You've continue responding, so why not to share another interesting and useful points, for whom how ...

• about the physics, cmon, again what aether field by mechanistic carthesian cosmology, probably You dont grasp how that is impossible!?, find local physicist, he will explain it more graspable maybe ...

again, yes I am bit overwhelming coz throwing various digressions, tho the problem in this case is solely coz I've drop without some will neatly to engage in disproving the lost'tribes'hype, and start to the dragging to answer with further digressions, so all became one huge mess even by mine style, tho for those that are fans of hollow earth theories, could come useful even as such ... finally my idea was just to say Hi as new member, bringing some own ontopic opinion, and continue on other topics, but here we are, maybe it would have been better to evade any debate, think not ...

[Western0bserver]

@Pelin, I need to stop you here because you just said something that tells me you don't understand your own position.

"what aether field by mechanistic carthesian cosmology, probably You dont grasp how that is impossible"

Aether physics IS mechanistic. That's the whole point of it. A physical medium with physical properties - pressure gradients, flow states, density variations - producing observable effects through physical processes. That's what "mechanistic" means. That's what distinguishes aether physics from purely mathematical abstractions like general relativity. When you say gravity is an aether pressure differential instead of spacetime curvature, you are making a mechanistic claim. Mechanism is the very feature, not the bug.

What you're doing is using "mechanistic Cartesian cosmology" as one big buzzword without understanding what any of the individual terms actually mean in physics. "Mechanistic" doesn't mean "Newtonian." "Cartesian" doesn't mean "mechanistic." These are separate concepts. You've fused them into a single blob labeled "bad mainstream" and you're rejecting everything that touches any part of the blob - including models that operate in the exact framework you claim to endorse.

You are rejecting the defining feature of your own stated position. That's not a physics disagreement. That's confusion about what the words mean.

And that's why I keep saying: read the post. @GeorgePlymale2 laid out models that work exactly the way you say physics should work, through an aether medium producing mechanical effects. You'd know that if you engaged the material instead of pattern-matching it to a label and dismissing it.

[Pelin]

wow .. are You aware ... there are various aether field theories, tho that dont means they are workable ... mechanistic cosmology is tied to atomism not aether as workable ,,, cartesian systems are closed systems that adds to mech.cosm. ... in such setup, as was pushed by the 19 century scientists that was not functional aether field theory, coz whatever dynamics in such setup is chaotic not fluid, there the medium is just assumption that dont work!, thats why aether was rejected and atomism was enacted!, as I've said go ask physicist to explain, coz You grasp something but not everything!, You can ask in reverse, why at all atomism would emerge mids mechanistic cosmology, were then those scientist stupid!?, simply mechanistic and fluid dynamics is completely different approach, close cartesian and open noncartesian systems also, add to that that someone was trying to bring hollow earth theory by such approach and voila its not workable, thus it was rejected like wrong model!

• I gave practical AFT model noncartesian with fluid dynamics, and just then after by expanding earth theory logic we can say there are very huge caverns beneath the earth, still not hollow earth [1-3]

so no, You dont read me obviously, I am answering to Your chitchat, didnt went in some peer'review'vibe of the OP substack essay ... take my word, now, after some time going forth and back about this lost'tribes'hype I am certain its word for dream'alike'hallucination yeah astral strolls or lucid visions can be very vivid thing [2-3] how else popped up mythology, this would be simply mormon one, one among the many other actually, eg. not just around the golden'plates'hype as some trendy gold'rush'story'motive appealing for those times, but many other too caried by the very same atmosphere in mormonism, luckily many are now rejected [3][3] do You see pattern!?, but yeah, go reject the roots, i.e. JosephS plates and tribe hypes will evaporate last and with it mormonism too, and that for many simply just from belongingness and habitual inertia will maybe never reveal!, go tell to amazonian tribes come live our way of life, many for sure will refuse, and are, thus dont worry mormonism will not disappear, actually scientologists can occupy it, in context of revival of the last 3rd footnotes, coz their joint is in total meltdown!

• inventing denomination by visions is risk beyond imagination [4][5-4] so by all means very wrong approach for Christians!, simply coz stupid reinventing of the wheel in this case can make only extra harm as constant doubt position for the faithful in Christ!, especially if true the assumptions about freemasonic vibe among mormon elites, surely where is smoke there is fire too, so combine them both and we have ultra apostasy before us ...

I'll just apologize to mormons dont take this hard anyhow, my aim wasnt to drop in some negating mood, still once stumble upon all this hype, wanting or not drop by drop came to such debunking flow, what eventually should be honest witnessing and warning to fellow Christians wherever whoever they are, to remind them You are in apostasy, but as I said I am not theologian nor apologist so dont take my words for granted, but go ask for clarification eg. by JayD or other Orthodox Christian Theologians ...

[admin]

This conflict here is ending now. If things don't become civil, we are likely going to lock and/or delete this thread and similar threads.

@Pelin If you want to debate religion, we will consider allowing this specific subcategory for such debates, but most of what you have brought to threads so far has not offered actual value to the discussions and is both difficult to understand and disconnected from the threads you are posting in.

Moreover, a number of your remarks contain what appear to be endorsements of bigotry and discriminatory remarks towards a number of groups. This is not allowed on our forum, per forum rules. This is an official warning. Keep your remarks civil, or risk further actions to be taken.

At this point, most interactions that you are making @Pelin are easily seen as pollution to the topics. You have hijacked several threads that were made in good faith about historical topics, which were not inviting this kind of polemical back-and-forth. Hijacking threads to transform them a platform for one's personal, ideological soapbox is also against forum rules.

@Western0bserver The same warnings apply to you as well. I have not examined all of the numerous posts across the recent debate threads here, but you are to refrain from insults and any similar conduct as noted above. I have not detected such in what I've seen thus far, but I have not read every new post here thoroughly.

[Western0bserver]

@Pelin, keeping this civil and focused per @admin guidance.

On the physics: you're making a distinction between corpuscular/mechanical aether and fluid-dynamic aether. Fair enough - that's a real distinction and the first substantive physics point you've made in this exchange. But it doesn't do what you think it does. The structural principle of pushing gravity - external pressure producing gravitational effects rather than mass-to-mass attraction - is not locked to corpuscular mechanics. It ports directly into a fluid-dynamic superfluid aether. Replace Le Sage's corpuscles with pressure gradients in a superfluid medium and the structural logic holds. The mechanism updates. The principle survives. That's exactly why @GeorgePlymale2's post is worth engaging rather than dismissing based on the historical framework the idea was first expressed in.

And Lamprecht's borehole data remains empirical measurement regardless of which aether framework you prefer. You still haven't touched it.

On the expanding earth producing caverns rather than a hollow interior - that's actually an interesting counter-model. If you'd led with that fifteen posts ago instead of Jay Dyer and Freemasonry, we could have had a productive conversation.

On Adam-God and Kolob - you say "luckily many are now rejected" and "do You see pattern." I see you making theological arguments in a thread about historical documentation. Again. Whether any given LDS teaching is theologically correct is a separate question from whether specific 19th century individuals held and published specific beliefs. @GeorgePlymale2 is documenting the second. You keep arguing about the first.

I think we've genuinely exhausted this exchange. You've made one real physics point in the last post and I've answered it. The rest is the same loop.

[Pelin]

as could be seen from the original thread title its word for theological logic that "applies the hollow-earth theory to the whereabouts of the lost ten tribes, to the Doctrine and Covenants"

• https://mindreach.net/t/the-inner-world-a-new-theory-based-on-scientific-and-theological-facts-showing-that-the-earth-is-a-hollow-sphere-containing-an-internal-and-inhabited-region-by-frederick-culmer-sr-salt-lake-city-1886/19624

and this was my first response on the topic, that later stretched to the other similar two threads, where I've shared just the same flow from here [1][2] and practically that made confusion when we've start dragging around Your claim that I am not ontopic altho in all of the threads mormonism is prime pivot for the OP ... curious, was such approach kind of gaslighting of Yours eh You start to sound like ss'agent You know [3][3-4] hm maybe cia needs exactly the mormon hype to be kept alive so would gaslight people to focus anyhow on hollow earth theories dont worry with my extra digressing, even I sound to myself like gaslighter, i.e. why from where I've started and where I flow or should go!, still I've not claim You are not ontopic, while eventually all mine digressions were meant exactly to point leave the mormon claims coz those will just boost whatever later opposition gaslighting regards potentially correct hollow earth theory!, and as I've propose for that expanding earth theory by AFT logic should be chased ...