Evangelicals Against Mitt

I agree, my status is as yours, not a Mormon.

I wouldn’t vote for Senator Reid because he’s Mormon. And I’m Mormon.

Vote on the issues. And while someone who is a faithful member of my church gets a leg up, I would give a similar leg up to any faithful member of a good church (and most churches are good, in my view).

Running Women (MHGinTN) Clearly stated that Joseph's wives fled on the Mormon Wagon Trains headed West.

Are you prepared to defend that?

I'm prepared to SEE it.

Are you ready to point me to it?

How many false and misleading claims does it take before you will disbelieve an Author?

You talkin' 'bout the BIBLE again?

Given the claims made by you anti Mormon cabal members there should be thousands of little Joseph Smiths running around. Where are they?

Right here...

Professor Robert Millet teaching at the Mission Prep Club in 2004 http://newsnet.byu.edu/video/18773/

Timeline... Subject...

0:59 "Anti-Mormons..."

1:16 "ATTACK the faith you have..."

2:02 "We really aren't obligated to answer everyone's questions..."

3:57 "You already know MORE about God and Christ and the plan of salvation than any who would ATTACK you."

How DARE you use FACTS and TESTIMONEY to discredit our Beloved Founder! (PBUH)

--MormonDude(Saddened by such Gentile behavior. {can't we get them banned?} )

Delphi, Was Joseph Smith polygamist?

Was the Pope Polish?

So while JS may not have violated the “letter” of federal law, he did violate State law, and that makes him a criminal.

Ha ha!

You've been PROVED a liar!!!

it was NOT federal law but STATE!!

Hee hee hee!!

--MormonDude(Gleeful at details!! Besides... ya gotta commit BIGamy before you can commit POLYGamy!)

(the Book Of Mormon IS the word of God, God says so.)

Oh?

Now JS and the Witnesses (good name for a punk rock band) are equated with GOD.

Cool!!

It's just too bad that THESE fellows did NOT obey the "word of god"!!

Smith Young Taylor Pratt

Snow Kimball Woodruff

THE BOOK OF JACOB
THE BROTHER OF NEPHI

CHAPTER 2

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.
32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.

LeGrande can we now put your specious claim to bed that JS wasn’t married to anyone but Emma?

Decisions decisions!

Fanny Alger
Lucinda Morgan Harris
Louisa Beaman
Zina Huntington Jacobs
Presendia Huntington Buell
Agnes Coolbrith
Sylvia Sessions Lyon
Mary Rollins Lightner
Patty Bartlett Sessions
Marinda Johnson Hyde
Elizabeth Davis Durfee
Sarah Kingsley Cleveland
Delcena Johnson
Eliza R. Snow
Sarah Ann Whitney
Martha McBride Knight
Ruth Vose Sayers
Flora Ann Woodworth
Emily Dow Partridge
Eliza Maria Partridge
Almera Johnson
Lucy Walker
Sarah Lawrence
Maria Lawrence
Helen Mar Kimball
Hanna Ells
Elvira Cowles Holmes
Rhoda Richards
Desdemona Fullmer
Olive Frost
Melissa Lott
Nancy Winchester
Fanny Young

Emma Hale only!!

Here’s your chance. If you don’t respond can we assume you agree with LeGrande?

CONGRATULATIONS! You just pulled the same stunt that made Thompson not raise his hand in the debate.

Without being pulled into your thread, let me just say of course he practiced polygamy. That's is obvious, and documented. We've been down this road before Color, can't play anymore. Enjoy.

Thanks for raising your hand in truth.

You rang?

Buh bye.

Am I goin' somewhere?

Ah, back from inner darkness I see.

Of course Smith practiced polygamy. That’s beyond doubt.

What is unsubstantiated is the assumption that he engaged in physical relations with all of them.

I Said: All the Gospels, Jesus, and Paul refer to Jesus as "The Son of Man" the usage obviously denotes a title, and one that people were expected to know. Where is the reference?

I Said: The reference is found in the Book of Daniel.

Actually, Daniel is obviously quoting form somewhere, here are the links from the Book of Daniel (which you didn't give, I wonder why?)

Daniel 7:13

13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

So, "One like unto the Son of Man" is a the definition that was quoted by all the Gospels? BWhahaha!

This is quotation of a prophecy expected to already be known, this is not a definition of the term. This does prove however that the Book of Enoch, and this prophecy was known unto he Israelite when Daniel was written... Daniel 8:16-18

17 So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision.

Again, this is not the Definition of the Term, Readers click the link to make sure I am not taking this out of Context...

This is not the Definition of the Term "Son of Man".

I Said: Since the Book of Enoch can be proved to predate Jesus' ministry, indeed it is often said to predate the books of Moses (Enoch being spoken of historically by Moses in his five books.)

U Said: You are a poor student of these ancient books - and this one in particular (Note DU's argument beginning to come unraveled). I'd be interested in which scholar in a peer-reviewed journal would actually hone up to such a statement. Even the most liberal textural scholars that I am aware of would not make such a ridiculous claim. You assume that since it says Enoch it means he actually wrote it, well he didn't.

I would rather be a good student of God than a Good student of Ancient texts. That said I do not claim to be an expert on ancient texts, do you? I believe the Gospel should be understandable by everyone, not just some class of Clerics.

To me that smacks of Moslems and the ancient church were all the masses were in Latin and the people couldn't read the scriptures...

As for "Peer reviewed" Consensus does not make truth, I thought we had established that.

U Said: This book is termed 'Pseudepigraphy'. Most of these books (in the pre through post-NT timeframe) are actually anonymous (making no explicit claim to authorship), but were either (a) later attributed to someone other than the actual author; or (b) seem to imply--in the text-- an author other than the actual one.

Scholars have evaluated the various Enoch MS and conclude that multiple authors contributed to the work until the parts were pulled together under at least one redactor. That is also why portions are dated around 200 BC, a far cry from the time of Moses.

Dated around 200 BC, by some people, others think it's earlier, so? You can find people who will argue your side, I can find people who will argue mine. Finding a person to quote in making your point in this day and age is pretty easy.

The very scriptures in Daniel refute your statement. They are obviously quoting some thing, or someone using the very quote you want to insist came after Jesus. Why are you going down this road? Readers, it is bedcase if Scotswife admits that there were scriptures used and quoted by Jesus and all the apostles, then the Bible is not complete and the Book of Mormon's claim that the Bible is incomplete is obvious, thus scottswife and the other detractors of Mormonism will make any leap of logic quote any source to refute the obvious conclusion that the Book of Enoch was known to the Christians in Jesus' day and used in the first century and was excluded from the Bible specifically because it taught things the church did not want to teach. Specifically, it refutes the Trinity! Which is what this Brouhaha is all about! I Said: There are five books of Enoch, there are five books of Moses, coincidence?

U Said: If the final redactor some time in the late 1st century AD was Jewish, then there would be no suprise. But then this point is founded on your unsubstantialble assumption that this book predates Moses writings.

I said "It is often said", I did not say it was my assumption. I assume it predates the first time it was quoted which as you so ably point out is the Book of Daniel!

I Said: So these unknown people who added this piece to the Book of Enoch, added something in the middle and nobody noticed?

U Said: You should really study more on old documents and transmittals. I said above that scholars have been able to identify the fact that it is a composite work, so it didn't go unnoticed. For example "The chapters [1 Enoch 1-36] are a collection of traditions that have accreted over a period of time...Our earliest Aramaic manuscript evidence indicates that chaps. 1-11 were already a literary unit in the first half of the second century bce. As we shall see, chaps. 1-5 are the introduction to a longer number of chapters--either 6-19 or 6-36. Evidence in 1 Enoch 85-90 indicates that 1 Enoch 1-36 was known before the death of Judas Maccabeus in 160 bce. Hence we are justified in treating these chapters as a product of the period before 175 bce." Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah, George W.E. Nickelsburg, Fortress:1981

The Bible is a composite. The books of Moses were written by Moses because the israelites had lost their records, or scriptures. Moses was specifically teaching them of their past, and of the promises of God to their fathers.

I assume the Book of Enoch is a composite,bedcase it has clear parts, I also assume that it predated Jesus bedcase HE QUOTED IT!

Sorry to shout, but do you hear what you area saying? Jesus, and all the apostles and Paul all quoted a scripture not in the Bible. You get that, it's not in the Bible. but they quoted it, so we are missing something from the Bible (poof goes the inerrant claim) Lets just say for argument's sake that you are right and the Book of Enoch was compiled at 200 AD from earlier texts, and lets assume the section was added to give a "source" to these quotations, Lets just assume that for a moment. it still means the quotations are from a book we don't have in the Bible, it still means the Bible is not inerrant. The entire rest of the Bible still testifies of the God and Jesus as separate beings with a oneness of heart might mind and strength which was the contention of the Linguist in his paper published in the Catholic Encyclopedia online. Link here (Thanks Dan(9698))

The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion -- the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.

U Said: Martin McNamara writes: "No fragment of any part of Parables has been found in Qumran. For this, and for other reasons besides, some scholars doubt its pre-Christian and Jewish character. J. T. Milik maintains that it was composed in the second or third century of our era. However, contemporary scholarship tends to reckon the parables Jewish, and to assign their composition to the first century of the Christian era." (Intertestamental Literature, p. 71) Remember Similitudes are chapters 37-71.

Secondly pseudepigraphic were a common literary type and it was understood the authors were someone other than attributed in the writing itself. The fact that the final redaction has the sections you listed is no big deal - that is how it was finally put together sometime after the first century AD. Secondly, IIRC, among the DSS, the various sections of 1 Enoch were found as separate stand alone documents. Are you aware that the full 1 Enoch is from the Ethoiapian finding, 14th century AD?

Yet it's quoted in Daniel...

I Said: Even if the Second Section of the Book of Enoch was added in the first century (while the Gospels were being written) they were so innocuous that nobody noticed this change in doctrine, nobody in the Catholic or Ethiopic churches complained about this addition?

U Said: Another flawed assumption. Enoch was not a part of either the Greek or Hebrew canon of scriptures (OT). Since it wasn't scripture, it couldn't be considered doctrine. Again, the Ethoiapian MS is 14th century, a little far removed for your analysis.

Again with the ignoring Counter evidence? Daniel anyone? Jesus and the Apostles were quoting a prophecy form somewhere, and we don't have it. I'd think you'd be interested in where that Scripture went. Why wasn't Enoch part of the Cannon? that is precisely the question. Your logic for "this was added later just does not add up. Again, who was Daniel quoting? If this was added later, why can't we find complete texts with it Gone? We have several incomplete texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls, so what? That does not prove a negative, nor does it prove a positive. you are leaping to conclusions, then complaining when I point to the fallacies in your argument.

Let's agree on a few points.

Jesus and the apostles appear to be quoting a passage we don't have in our Bible.
Daniel is quoting the same passage.
The Book of Enoch in some form existed before the time of Christ. (it's in the Dead sea scrolls, but not all of it has been found)
The Book of Enoch as currently constituted from Ethiopic writings has a passage that has a prophecy that could have been the one quoted if it was old enough.
Scholars currently disagree on exactly when that passage was penned, and by who.

From this set of Facts, you conclude that it's not what Jesus was quoting bedcase it was added later.

I conclude that it was what Jesus was quoting.

I Said: This theory on the Date may be overturned any day by the identification of a scroll containing the Second section of the book of Enoch...

U Said: Could well be, however the bottom line is that this book, in what ever form, was not considered scripture by the Jews nor later by Christians.

The Jews before the Time of Christ did, and the Christians before Constantine Did.

U Said: Secondly, if the book in its entirety (highly unlikely given DSS evaluations) was 300BC (I'm being generous), it is still too YOUNG to support your other claims.

I do not claim the Book of Enoch was written by Enoch, it does.

If, If, If pigs could fly they'd be more popular to ride than horses.

If it's not that young, then my "Claims" are accurate.

I Said: So you have two theories:

U Said: No, you have two theories. Not that Occam's razor will work only if you have the correct data set upon which to build an argument. In this case, your 'theories' were invalidated right off the bat because of your lack of knowledge regarding the archaeological and textural history of the document, lack of knowledge on how the canon of the NT developed - especially in the first century. So if you want to wear tinfoil hats, be my guest. Both of your options do not stand the scrutiny of modern scholarship.

Occam's razor works with Theories and postulates and even if there are multiples, and will also work when the data is not completely sure.

IT's interesting that you state with surety your postulates and question mine and somehow you assume that since I admit to the places I have had to bridge Gaps in knowledge that it makes my theory weaker than yours where you don't admit that you are bridging Gaps (even thought you are). As a student of human behavior, your actions are interesting, and telling. As for "Modern Scholarship" if your posts are what passes for Modern Scholarship, then we are in trouble indeed.

I never claimed to be an expert, I am however a man of faith. IMHO, Your posts say the same about you, If not, well state your case for being an intellectual.

It boils down to this, you can find people willing to say that the piece in question is too new to be the phrase Quoted in the Bible. I can show evidence from the Bible that says there was a phrase, that was quoted, and that fits the bill, it's from a document old enough, we just don't have undeniable proof that this particular piece was part of th document back then.

You assume it was not, but either way my point is made, either the piece was a part of it before Christ, or that piece being added in the first century was so in tune with the scriptures and teachings of the Prophets that nobody noticed, either way, the apostles were teaching and thinking exactly what I and the Scholar in the Catholic encyclopedia are saying.

The early Church believed in a Physically separate God and Jesus and the oneness spoken of by Jesus was the same oneness God said Adam and Eve were to have, Which is the same oneness Jesus gave many parables about him and the Church as bride and groom, which was the same oneness Jesus spoke of in: John 17:22 when he said:

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

I am really sorry you guys have fallen for a trick of Satan, but it was prophesied to be so in 2nd Thessalonians 2:3

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

I am truly sorry, but I testify to you that there is hope, God's hand is stretched out to you still, if you will have Faith in his word and According tot he Bible, Try the Spirits as it says to do in the Bible, and read the Book of Mormon and PRay to God for knowledge, and it shall be given you. Once you have done these things and received your answer as I have you will know that God lives and that his son Jesus Christ lives and that They are one God, moreover the petty argument we are having now will seem a small matter, one easily dealt with by the spirit. Last of all, I testify that Jesus Christ came down in the flesh to save both of us from our sins, if we will let him.

U Said: I think some of the confusion might be settled here, are you mistaking Constantine for his son?

No, and if you'd followed my links you'd know that...

And the Refutations of The Hellinistic, Trinitarian, Modalist refutations were not often preserved...unless you go back 60 to 100 years, for the church did not preserve the records of the Vanquished.

Nice ploy DU, care to back it up with a little more than just your say so? Marcion's challenges are preserved, so to Valentious and numerous others are available for study. Shucks modalists are still around even today, so much for vanishing huh. Heretics were present even during the apostles time - dare say Paul would refute you throughly.

"A person who claims the doctrine of the Trinity is false because the word "Trinity" is not found in Scripture is as foolish as someone who claims 3½ inches, or, say, 5¼ centimeters do not exist because his ruler only shows whole numbers. The doctrine of the Trinity is presented in Scripture clearly enough for spiritual people to recognize, and solidly enough for unspiritual people to stumble over. Anton Hein"

The Bible is anti Trinitarian.
On the cross itself, Jesus said: "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?"

Wow - actually agree that the modalists are wrong in this interpretation. That leaves Trinitarian doctrine or mormon polytheism. Once again DU cherry picks a verse out of context and then leaps illogic in a single bound to say he has disproven Trinitarian doctrine.

Jesus quoted the beginning of Psalm 22 when he stated "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" The Psalm is referred to previously in the same passage. The common Jewish way of designating an entire psalm was to refer to the opening lines, since the psalms were not numbered at that time. Jesus did not believe God had forsaken him: this would be lack of faith, which is sin (Romans 14:23), and Jesus never sinned (Hebrews 4:15). He was himself God and always in perfect obedience to the Father. Instead, he referred to the psalm in its entirety as a messianic psalm. That he knew God had not actually forsaken him is clear from the same psalm, which says, "He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; nor has He hidden His face from Him; But when He cried to Him, He heard" (verse 24). In fact, Jesus was declaring to his accusers that they were in the midst of fulfilling this psalm, which was commonly understood in His day to refer to the coming Messiah, the Suffering Servant. The psalmist himself understood that the "forsaking" of God was not abandonment, but a lifting of His Sovereign protection according to His divine plan so that the threats of his enemies could be carried out in fulfillment of prophecy. In fact, there were many times during Jesus' public ministry when His enemies sought to kill him (John 5:16; 8:59, for examples). They were not able to because, as He said, His "hour" was not yet come (John 12:23-28). He declared to Pilate, "You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin" (John 19:11). On the day of Pentecost Peter declared that no one could have crucified Christ in defiance of God's power: "Him, being delivered by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it" (Acts 2:23-24).
http://www.answers.org/theology/forsaken.html

Psalm 22: 2, 22-25 "My God, my God, why have you abandoned me? … Save me from the lion’s mouth, my poor life from the horns of wild bulls. … For God has not spurned or disdained the misery of this poor wretch, Did not turn away from me, but heard me when I cried out." NAB

Jesus was not just reciting this passage, but that He was praying it, since He was accustomed to constant prayer. You really need to come up with better material that Mormon 201 for this stuff fluffy.

I Said: Because you guys are always telling us we have a religion based on works, we do works because we were commanded to, nowhere in Mormon teaching does it say you can "Work your way to heaven" that is another fallacy anti's keep trying to saddle us with and it's just not true.

U Said: Then your Organization REALLY needs to get rid of these somehow...

You took 2 Nephi 25:23 out of Context as you always do, here it is in context... 2 Nephi 25:23-27

23 For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.
24 And, notwithstanding we believe in Christ, we keep the law of Moses, and look forward with steadfastness unto Christ, until the law shall be fulfilled.
25 For, for this end was the law given; wherefore the law hath become dead unto us, and we are made alive in Christ because of our faith; yet we keep the law because of the commandments.
26 And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins.
27 Wherefore, we speak concerning the law that our children may know the deadness of the law; and they, by knowing the deadness of the law, may look forward unto that life which is in Christ, and know for what end the law was given. And after the law is fulfilled in Christ, that they need not harden their hearts against him when the law ought to be done away.

Hmm, nope, it says what it says that before Jesus came they obeyed the law, not bedcase the Law would save them but because they were commanded to.

Then you quote the Third article of Faith, here are all of them.

U Said: You'll have to explain to normal English speaking folks that the words printed here do NOT mean what they plainly say.

Actually, I don't, for the Bible says pretty much the same thing, Rom. 2: 13

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

And Rev. 20: 12-13

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

I like the one in Revelations bedcase it also shows that men are not judged immediately upon dying, but will all be judged at once at the end, which is why we do temple work...

Then, I could pull out James 2:15-26 Which makes God's position very clear, but then Clarity does not seem to be the object and design of your posts.