Posted on 01/08/2008 4:09:13 PM PST by tantiboh
Mitt Romney is facing an unexpected challenge in Iowa from rival Mike Huckabee, who has enjoyed a groundswell of support from religious voters, particularly evangelical Christians wary of the clean-cut former Massachusetts governor because of his Mormon religion.
The common worry among evangelicals is that if Romney were to capture the White House, his presidency would give legitimacy to a religion they believe is a cult. Since the LDS church places heavy emphasis on proselytizing -- there are 53,000 LDS missionaries worldwide -- many mainstream Christians are afraid that Mormon recruiting efforts would increase and that LDS membership rolls would swell.
...
THE ONLY PROBLEM with those fears is that they don't add up. Evangelicals may be surprised to learn that the growth of church membership in Massachusetts slowed substantially during Romney's tenure as governor. In fact, one could make the absurdly simplistic argument that Romney was bad for Mormonism.
...
ONE WAY TO GAUGE what might happen under a President Romney would be to look at what happened during the period of the 2002 Olympic Winter Games. Held in Salt Lake City, they were dubbed the "Mormon Olympics."
...
Despite all the increased attention, worldwide the Church grew only slightly, and in fact in the year leading up to the games the total number of congregations fell. Overall, from 2000 to 2004, there was a 10.9 percent increase in memberships and a 3.6 percent increase in congregations.
...
The LDS church is likely to continue its current modest-but-impressive growth whether or not Romney wins the White House. Perhaps the only real worry for evangelicals is that, if elected, the former Massachusetts governor will demonstrate to Americans that Mormons don't have horns.
Carrie Sheffield, a member of the LDS Church, is a writer living in Washington, D.C.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
OK, if you're so familiar with the first generation account of MD, why is it you almost (purposely) keep sounding like a novice on the second generation account of MD? (What do I mean? See next section I've entitled, "The Mystery of McConkie's Missing 'Mormon Doctrine' Edition Deepens")
THE MYSTERY OF McCONKIE'S MISSING 'MORMON DOCTRINE' EDITION DEEPENS (scary organ music, please...get the popcorn out, MHG)
Me: That's precisely what the LDS Church did when McConkie wanted to republished "Mormon Doctrine" with the fixed errors pointed out to him by the First Presidency.
You: So you make my point that the church was upset at the errors, and it's not approved by the church. The church used strong language to encourage but did not have the power to compel.
Sorry, this doesn't pass the "straight face" test. Let's agree on the facts, shall we? (1) McConkie publishes book on his own, 1958, no review committee. (2) McKay assigns Marion Romney to review the book into 1959. (3) Romney reports on errors of the book. (4) McConkie understands these "errors." According to source I earlier cited: By early Jan of 1960, It is reported to us [First Presidency's office] that Brother McConkie has made corrections to his book, and is now preparing another edition. (5) Now according to you, who just said The church used strong language to encourage but did not have the power to compel, that would mean that McConkie's newly prepared...edition hit the bookshelves by 1961, right? (WRONG!!!) Well, why not? In 1959, McConkie made corrections to his book. In 1959, McConkie prepared another edition. Well, Sherlock, what happened to that edition? Did a black hole land in Salt Lake City in 1960 & kept it from being published? Hmm...(the mystery deepens...organ musics become even more eerie)
EXCEPT...EXCEPT...I already cited to you what happened!! Did you deliberately ignore it? Why do you pretend to be a novice on this second-generation edition? Let me re-quote it for you: The January 8, 1960 office notes of LDS "prophet" David O. McKay reflect that: We [the First Presidency of the Church] decided that Bruce R. McConkie’s book, ‘Mormon Doctrine’ recently published by Bookcraft Company, MUST NOT be re-published, as it is full of errors and misstatements, and it is most unfortunate that it has received such wide circulation. It is reported to us that Brother McConkie has made corrections to his book, and is now preparing another edition. WE DECIDED THIS MORNING THAT WE DO NOT WANT HIM TO PUBLISH ANOTHER EDITION."
Ah, the "whodunit" emerges, after all. Why, we now know the mystery of why there wasn't a revised "Mormon Doctrine" edition in late 1960 or into 1961: By deciding on that cold Jan. 8, 1960 morning that they didn't want him to publish another edition--saying in fact that it MUST NOT be re-published, guess what, DU? Surprise, surprise, the LDS First Presidency COMPELLED McConkie NOT to re-publish the book despite your persistent claims that The church used strong language to encourage but did not have the power to compel...However, the church cannot compel.
Now you want to explain why I just had to waste my time pointing out something so obvious to everybody else?
Did the Church leadership say to him "At least fix these things..." I am sure they did. Did they fix everything? No. Could they force him to, no. But would a good member, or GA disobey? Probably not. Does that make it condoned by the church, no.
Yeah, right. Here, McConkie, in 1959, "fixed" the errors presented to him by Marion Romney & other members of the LDS First Presidency. Did that get anywhere? (no) Think of it. If the track record is that if you do what Brother Dictator says and still Brother Dictator says, "Nope, this won't be republished in 1960 or 1961." What? You think when he tells you to fix the mistakes in 1966, that you're going to disobey a spiritual dictator who has the power to kill the book re-publishing project? (I don't think you're naive to believe that?)
I mean, you yourself, then turn around & quote McConkie as saying: "I am amenable to whatever you Brethren want. I will do exactly what you want." I think this is a good example of where listening to your lack of common sense is beginning to be a bit maddening here. One moment you claim, Did they fix everything? No. Could they force him to, no and not very many words later you quote McConkie himself as saying, "I am amenable to whatever you Brethren want. I will do exactly what you want."...I mean, here you yourself already have...
...Evidence of McConkie's 100% open-ended "amenable...I WILL DO EXACTLY WHATEVER YOU BRETHEN WANT" attitude...
...Evidence that even when McConkie did what his brothers wanted in 1959, they still censored his re-publishing efforts for 1960-61...
...Evidence that "Prophet" Lee directly told McConkie to fix the errors of the First edition for a '66 re-publishing (and you agree he probably didn't disobey Lee)...
...Evidence that Lee assign Kimball as a personal project mentor to oversee it and make sure the changes were made...
...And yet your conclusion? "Nope. Hear No Compel. See No Compel. Smell No Compel. Why, that Bruce R. McConkie, was sure his own man, wasn't he?" (Uh. FARMS/FAIR. When do I get my apologetic certificate? Did I pass? Did I protect the church enough by dumping it all on McConkie?)
placemarker ... running out of popcorn; switching to pretzels, more appropriate
Jesus died for me and I am LDS. Saundra “the worm” Duffy
Wow! That's a new one. Worm-goddesses! If L. Ron Hubbard was still around, I'd tell ya to take that idea straight over to his lineup of sci-fi novel ideas & have him run with that!
(Now since LDS take everything literally...for example, anthropomorphic descriptions of God in the Bible = he has a body of a man, does that mean your spiritual descendents in Kolob Heights will look like worm-goddesses?)
Kolob . . . If God wanted you to have your very own planet, would you be horribly offended?
Since life is about loving--the true God first along with others--that doesn't sound too neighborly cozy-wise to readily facilitate that--morning & night...now does it?
[In fact, how does that work...sealing adult kids to their parents...but if the adult kids are "bad boys" who aren't celestial kingdom-bound while their parents are...Wow! sounds to me that the lie of eternal sealings isn't very functional, now is it? If an otherwise telestial or terrestial-bound or even hell-bound adult kid can just "snake" thru into the celestial kingdom all on the grounds of a ritual performed once on earth, why he wouldn't have to do even one positive thing else spiritually or morally on planet earth...I guess you can be saved by grace after all you don't do, after all...(this is just the Mormon version of that)]
Saundra, having a planet to be a little god over is a Satanic lie ... as heirs In Christ the entire universe He is now bringing forth (begun at His resurrection) is ours. Reda the Book of Ruth, Saundra ... no gleaning around in the stubble when you are heir to it all in Him!
Careful you don't break that bible belt LOL
At sixty-two and living with just two old cats, I’ve learned to buy my khakis with the ‘expando’ waistline.
1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.I encourage everyone to Get a Book of Mormon, and Get a Bile, Read both Pray about Both, God will answer. That answer, as mine did, will contain a testimony of Jesus Christ, and thus you can know that it meets John's test of authenticity. Godzilla and I can't both be right here, and it is conceivable that we are both wrong! Don't thake the chance of "Guessing" wrong, ask God and be sure. Don't take my word for it, don't take his word for it, ask God.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my eservants, it is the same.So, the question is "is it the same if a servant fulfills god' promises?"
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.You wrest the scriptures at your peril, it's not hat there aren't answers to the questions you are posing there are. The problem is two fold:
Joseph Smith's Changing
First Vision Accounts
Joseph Smith, the founding prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, claimed that as a 14-year-old boy he had a vision of God the Father and Jesus Christ. The official account of this first vision found in Mormon Scripture (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith — History, 1:14-20) was not recorded by Joseph Smith until 1838, 18 years after the supposed event. However, for years before this, Joseph, and his close associates did talk about his early visionary experiences. These earlier accounts contain significant variations from the official First Vision account. The links below present these accounts in chronological order.
1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.MHG, to my knowledge, you have never testified to me that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, I naturally am led to believe that according to First John 4:1-3 You are not his messenger. I have received a message from God. I know it, and I know God knows it. I will not deny the Testimony that I have received of him, I will offer to all that they may also obtain a similar testimony of Jesus, and of the Book of Mormon byPutting our religion to "The Test" .
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.Yeah, yeah, I know, you don't believe in the Book of Mormon, Fine, how about the Bible?
5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall bask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.John 16: 24
24 Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.James 4: 3
3 Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.MHG, I know that you believe in the Bible, but do you Believe the Bible?
29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?Now, lets create some example arguments using this style for sins to promote righteousness you allege... Examples:
What shall they do which commit adultery if marriages were never made, why then do they commit adultery?I hope the lurkers get the point.
What shall they do which murder if no one is born, why then do they murder?
What Shall they do which steal if there are none who labor to earn, why then do they steal?
Most anti-Mormon attacks on the authenticity of the Book of Mormon suffer from several severe logical flaws. The authors are inadequately informed about Latter-day Saint history, doctrine, and scripture; they have not read the text of the Book of Mormon carefully; they distort both what the text of the Book of Mormon says and the variety of Latter-day Saint interpretations of the text; they attempt to make all Latter-day Saint scholars responsible for the private opinions of some Latter-day Saint authors or General Authorities; and they frequently argue solely from the authority of selected authors or scholars, rather than providing evidence, analysis, and argumentation to support their case. They seldom advance the discussion by dealing with current Latter-day Saint thinking on the matter, being content instead to rely on an ad nauseum repetition of anti-Mormon arguments, many of which have been around—and have had adequate Latter-day Saint responses—for over a century.U Said: 1. Have any of the cities in the BOM been located?
Exciting and fairly recent discoveries in Mesoamerica which have caused a complete paradigm shift in the thinking of scholars. Until recently, experts believed ancient Central America and southern Mexico (Mesoamerica) to have been a peaceful, tranquil place during the times that the Book of Mormon speaks of frequent, large-scale wars. Now it is known that warfare was relatively common. Further, the discoveries of ancient fortifications that fueled the paradigm shift are remarkably consistent with descriptions of fortifications given in the Book of Mormon. Together, the evidence about ancient warfare and fortifications in Mesoamerica strengthens the case for the plausibility of the Book of Mormon as an ancient text. For details, see my Mesoamerican Fortifications page.U Said: 2. Have any BOM names in New World inscriptions been found?
South of Albuquerque, and west of Los Lunas, New Mexico, an ancient inscription was carved into the face of a boulder centuries ago. It is the text of the Ten Commandments, written in Hebrew! Of particular interest is the fact that the type of Hebrew writing that was used was Paleo-Hebrew, which is the form of Hebrew writing that was used for approximately a one-thousand-year period, ending about 500 BC. This means that we can fairly conclude that the inscription of the Ten Commandments was engraved on the face of a boulder in New Mexico, North America, sometime prior to 500 BC! This is one proof that Hebrew people were on the land of America many centuries before the birth of the Messiah.U Said: 4. Well, any Egyptian inscriptions in America been found? "No".
Very interestingly, a cross-link has been found between a modified style of ancient Egyptian writing, a tribe of North American Indians, and the characters that were used to write the ancient Nephite Scriptures! A modified or reformed style of Egyptian writing has been in use for many centuries by the Micmac [Mi-kmaw] Indians, of Northeastern America, a division of the Algonquin people. When the first Europeans made contact with the Micmacs, they discovered that they, unlike almost all other Native American tribes, already had a written language! That, in and of itself, was remarkable. But, what is most remarkable is the fact that the written language of the Micmac people of North America contains a very high percentage of characters that are either identical to, or slightly modified from an ancient style of Egyptian writing, known as hieratic! Not only are several characters the same, but the meaning of the words translates exactly the same! This proves that there was, at some ancient time, connection between someone who wrote in a modified form of Egyptian hieratic writing, and the Micmac Indian people of North America! [This is also consistent with the history presented within the Record of the Nephites.]U Said: 5. How about anything even resembling Egyptian even been found in America?
BaptismThe records of the ancient Indians in the Americas are replete with stories that are very obviously Christian in origin, the great white God, and Baptism are only two such evidences.
The most remarkable thing the Catholic priests discovered after the Indians were conquered was their affinity with the stories and customs of the Bible.
They described a 'baptism' in one of the temples of Tenochtitlan, when a child was sprinkled with water and given a name, just as in the churches of the Old World. The priest said: "Take and receive, for on this earth you will live on water, water makes you grow and flourish, water gives us what we need for our life - receive this water." The Aztecs also used incense (so did the Incas). They received large quantities of resin for incense, as can be seen from their tribute lists.
The Spaniards saw the Aztec priests 'forgive sins'. At this ceremony small pieces of bread were distributed among the faithful in the temple. They ate the bread in a very devout manner, thereby propitiating the gods - so one of the Indians explained the ceremony. In the time of the first Spaniards a form of 'confession' was still going on in the Indian temples; they watched the priests blessing a marriage, saw the sacred crosses in the temples, and heard of the White God of the Indians, said to be born of a virgin of immaculate conception.
In the Americas, too, data have come to light about unexpected human achievements. In a critical reexamination of past research on the pottery of the Amazon basin, North American archaeologist Anna C. Roosevelt has put together a plausible argument that the making of pottery in that area dates much earlier than has been acknowledged before. To support her case, she has published 22 radiocarbon dates that were done at the Smithsonian laboratory between 1972 and 1986 but were never published. It seems that Amazonian pottery began between 5000 and 6000 BC (some have suggested that it came from Africa) and is now the most securely dated New World ceramic tradition, existing at least 1,000 years before the next earliest, from Colombia.So, they found an ancient body that had a parasite that couldn't have been there unless it came by boat from the middle east...
Furthermore, a dried-up human corpse, radiocarbon dated to around 5200 BC, has been found in northeastern Brazil, not far from the early pottery center. There was evidence that the intestinal tract of this person had been infested with hookworms. The nature of the reproductive cycle of the hookworm rules out their having reached the New World via a cold country (the Bering Strait, as is usually supposed). Specialists on parasites are absolutely sure that the only way for those organisms to have reached the Americas from the Far East, where they are known much earlier, was inside human hosts who traveled from East Asia by boat.9
The whole idea of ancient religious communities preserving and hiding sacred records for future times seemed a lot less ridiculous after the find of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The community at Qumran took careful steps to "embalm" their records before they were buried, seeking to preserve hidden sacred records for future generations. Details on ancient practices to hide and preserve documents, including whole libraries of buried documents, and in particular the use of metal documents in stone boxes, are given by H. Curtis Wright in "Metal Documents in Stone Boxes," in John M. Lundquist and Stephen R. Ricks, eds., By Study and Also by Faith, Vol. 1 (Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1990), pp. 273-334. One noteworthy example from Qumran is the Copper Scroll (3Q15), which provides a list of temple treasures. As William Hamblin points out, "it is a clear example of an attempt to preserve an important sacred record by writing on copper/bronze (Heb. nechushah) plates and then hiding the document" ("Sacred Writing on Bronze Plates in the Ancient Mediterranean," FARMS Paper HAM-94, FARMS, Provo, Utah, 1994).The Book of Mormon speaks of the use of Cement by the ancient Americans Helaman 3:9-11 How about Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon? Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon Like I said before, you will be able to trot out some beleagered "expert" to refute my experts, so no one can know form "Expert testimony" who to believe here. If you really think about it, what's at stake, possibly your soul...
1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.So, the test works like this...
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
I can attend mass at St. Peters any time IÂ’m there. Meeting the Pope, like the President is completely different.
God the father and Jesus Christ, you can tell a story differently to different audiences, in fact a story told the same way is usually made up, and rehearsed, not spontaneous, these stories were being told spontaneously, so some variation is to be expected. Variations however should not conflict, just vary in details as these stories do. Stories not told in a consistent manner are generally false, not true.
How disingenuous. Doors 1 and 3 were SmithÂ’s own accounts, under his supervision, not off the cuff stories. The stories completely conflict as to location and date specifically. So which account from SmithÂ’s own words should we believe? Might pay attention to this following post from MHGinTN
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1950542/posts?page=452#452
It wasn't Wrong, it was just to differing audiences. (and I have pointed this out many times before, a story that is told to different police in exactly the same way is considered by them to be a fabrication...)
Sure, many church leaders have said inaccurate things in speeches or in private conversation, they are men called to be prophets and leaders, there is only one perfect exemplar (*Jesus Christ) that is why you have to limit "Authoritative" to Cannonized doctrine.
See above – Smith personally gave two completely different accounts of his first visitation, one the lds church canonized, the other they try to sweep under the rug. However, you still don’t seem to get it so let me use little words. The source of the Story – Smith – was unable with time to organize his thoughts and remember correctly, gave two (or more) completely conflicting stories. If he cannot get something as important as a first visitation right, it becomes increasingly doubtful if he got any thing else right either.
Show me any Church where some leader somewhere has not said something stupid / Doctrinally incorrect, or taken some action that had to be undone and I'll show you a really new church Â….
So the founder of mormonism, with respect to such a profound event in his life cannot even tell the same story – I guess you consider Smith to be stupid.
Moroni as the Cannonized work shows, you knowÂ….
Your ‘cannonized’ work P.of G.P. published in 1851 had Nephi, use was confirmed by an eyewitness – Smith’s own mother. So which cannon do you believe, the one that is most convient at the moment?
Yes, for it is the Gospel of God, too bad much was lost or changed in the Bible, or we'd be able to prove it better.
I’m still waiting to see textural proof of these alledged ‘changes’. Pray tell me what MS are you referring to?
Yeah, that's why I pity those who attended the Vote at Nicea where they changed the definition of God for the church, they will really wish they had just let Constantine kill them.
Except that vote reaffirmed the teachings of the Apostles, tough when you are wrong isnÂ’t it DU.
I don't see a disguise... (If you pray to God, you are praying to God, even if you have some of the details wrong.)
2Co 4:4 in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them.
Neither do we, we no more preach polythiesm than the trinitarians do.
Terrible to be caught in a lie isnÂ’t it. Mormons do PREACH polytheism as the clear quotes from Joseph Smith himself plus James Talmage (Articles of Faith) and Bruce McConkie (Mormon Doctrine) I posted previous plus many others I didnÂ’t make very plain.
Maybe you better pull up that on-line dictionary and look polytheism up.
U Said: polygamy?
No, but neither did he preach against it.
Yes he did preach against it.
1Co 7:2 But, because of fornications, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.
Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh.
Tit 1:6 if any man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having children that believe, who are not accused of riot or unruly.
Note that the singular is given here, not wives.
I encourage everyone to Get a Book of Mormon, and Get a Bile,(sic)
Yep, and my bile rose when I read it. Freudian slip on your part.
I will however note that I am (again) the only one asking people to pray for an answer, Godzilla is telling people Satan may answer a prayer to God. Good luck with that Godzilla.
The question is whether or not the bom is a valid ‘other testimony’. Just about every book in the New Testament contains a warning about false prophets and teachers bringing false gospels. They further warn against straying from the teachings documented in the letters. Furthermore, mormonism regards the Bible, absent any valid textural or MS documentation, as being corrupted. So if mormonism treats the Bible as suspect, one should question their motivations in this oft stated challenge. The book of mormon, OTOH, claims to represent a history of happenings here in America. DU has continually refused to respond to the absence of archaeological support to this claim. The bom was written by a man who was accused of swindling people, claiming to find treasure using a seer (or peep) stone. This same stone figures prominently in the writing of the bom. This same author has recited the tale of his first vision in a multitude of contradictory versions. This same author openly contradicted the bom in both his personal actions and teachings.
With that summarized, what should your response be? The Bereans examined the bible only to see if this new thing taught by Paul was valid.
Acts 17: 10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who when they were come thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of the mind, examining the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so.
When they saw the truth of the Gospel, they accepted the message. Through evaluation of these points will show that the testimony of Smith is false and the bom is a fraud. The Bible makes it clear that Satan is the “god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them (2Co 4:4). He is the author of the bom, is that the ‘god’ who DU wants you want to pray to and stake your eternity on.
Who said unrebuked? Â…Â….
I refer all to DUÂ’s obfuscations on the subject with Colofornian at
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1950542/posts?q=1&;page=441#441
who is much more eloquent at deconstructing your smokescreen.
Prophets do not come in ascending order.
He was your prophet of restoration, through whom most of your doctrines originated. The only other one who came as close was Young.
I never said Joseph did not know what he was talking about.
First of all you did in your very post to me, repeated here in the context of talking about Smith:
Show me any Church where some leader somewhere has not said something stupid / Doctrinally incorrect,
Furthermore, in discussing whether or not god had a father, you did not dispute the fact but then hid behind the worn out ‘but its not cannon’ cry, making it clear that Smith didn’t even know what he was talking about in regards to the very religion he founded.
I have said you don't know what you are talking about.
Just because you said it doesnÂ’t make it so
You are not Joseph Smith.
Oh pithy come back, but we have his history and written teachings.
I have not denied eternal progression.
No, you are denying Smiths prophetic word and the mormon perpetual teaching of it as such.
U Said: Are you denying that Smith was your greatest prophet and mouthpiece of God and that when he spoke as such his words were not doctrine? Or do Mormons only accept those teachings as prophetically uttered when it is less objectionable to do so?
Um neither? (these silly do you poop your pants or droll down your chin type arguments are so silly since everyone who reads them knows it's going to be neither.)
Such brilliant rhetoric! I repeat this because one would expect the person who heard god’s voice and produced the vast majority of these ‘doctrines’ would be the very best person and knowledgeable when teaching the masses based upon those same doctrines. The mormon church has taught this doctrine of god having a god since then. Makes the question very simple – either Smith (and all those who promulgate the teaching to this date) are wrong and haven’t a clue or by silence the General authorities have accepted it as doctrinal.
I will simply state state that God's parentage, or lack thereof has not been addressed in Cannonized works of the church, and request any citations specifically God's parents to prove me wrong...
As the keepers of doctrinal purity and the holder(s) of the office of prophet, their silence is affirmation – especially since they promulgate the teaching.
Skip a ton of blovation
Of course DU is passing over, to the casual observer, his statement that Smith’s doctrine on the necessity of god to have a father was ” irrelevant to our salvation directly contradicting Smith’s own pronouncement that it was essential for salvation. Furthermore, Smith specifically refuted that idea that God was God from all eternity. Again, Smith and every prophet and general authority on up has endorsed and promulgated this teaching.
He also skips some specific doctrinal/cannon references asked for as well as being caught agreeing with me that Jesus couldnÂ’t become a god until perfected, occurring only after his death.
In your post (# 404) you brought up "Christaology" it was such a fallacious argument Â…Â….
The term is technically specific regarding Christianity and the study of the Person, Nature and Work of Christ in the Bible. The fact that you tried to ridicule it rather than deal with it head on shows your lack of understanding.
With your cuts no lurker would know what the Sam hill we are talking about, that's the problem with your monster posts. Cut them down, or no one will read them, much less respond to them, wait, its that the point write such boring stuff and since your opponent can't red it without falling asleep, you win be default?
Well, it's an interesting approach to debate, I'll give you that much.
How Clintonesque. On the one hand DU complains for the length of these posts while not acknowledging the fact that his replies are much more. Then he derides the lurkerÂ’s ability to follow the links at the bottom of each post.
Now, the topic is Â…..
Totally unrelated to my post, must be answering some one else
U Said: Luke 23:42-42
There is no way for you or I to know if the Thief had been baptized, but Jesus knew. Your argument fails here.
Baptism for Christ was not instituted until after His resurrection. The thief was on the cross, there was no opportunity for him to be baptized, yet he was promised immediate access to heaven. The only failure is yours.
Other citations that are possible.
DU goes backwards here so just gobblygook.
I keep presenting truths here, truths like the spelling differences of different scribes, the list of over 3,000 changes with 90%+ being spelling, punctuation, and verses being added, I point out the corrections by Joseph to the scribe's errors on the manuscript that were never incorporated by the printer.
You drop this defeated argument and move to a new smear.
What DU is obfuscating here. I hardly dropped this argument. Apart from his “say so” regarding the spelling difference argument (minus any supporting documentation) it is the fact that mormon history teaches that the bom was translated virtually letter by letter and that the translation would not SUPERNATURALLY go forward until any error was corrected immediately. That was proven conclusively in my last post (and conveniently ignored by DU). Secondly, historical records by mormons of the period detail that there was very tight scrutiny of the first printing and that those errors were “minor’. The ‘corrections’ on the hand written ms came about after the first edition was printed and still do not account for the continued corrections through the history of the book (many as recent as 1964 – particularly the Mosiah/Benjamin corrections). Lds church history teaches this literal and detailed translation "... we heard a voice from out of the bright light above us, saying, 'These plates have been revealed by the power of God, and they have been translated by the power of God. The translation of them which you have seen is correct, and I command you to bear record of what you now see and hear.'" (History of the Church, by Joseph Smith, Vol. 1, pp. 54-55)
By this and the previous proofs, the manuscript was perfect, not needing the thousands of corrections. This teaching is supported by the lds official website in numerous articles. So if your failure to confront your own church teaching, history and other facts I presented, it is your acknowledgement of defeat, not mine.
Chiasmus, a literary structure used in semetic writings, unknown in Joseph Smith's day, but the Book of moon is chock full of them Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon.
At the risk of more whining by DU, who brings another topic on board (see end of post), IÂ’ll refer the reader to the following link, second topic down:
http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_bookofmormon.html
Chiasmus was not unknown at the time of Smith (contrary to mormon apologists). Mormon scholars have recognized that this literary form was known at that time. The bom has many examples and, at first sight, this seems impressive. Furthermore, while it is common in the Bible, Old and New Testaments it is by no means restricted to these. If Smith could draft chiasmic forms in the D&C he could have done the same with the bom - whether consciously or no.
These two papers (among many) one from Doctor who specializes in DNA, Address the Straw man argument posed by those attempting to use DNA as a scientific "cloak" for their straw man debunk the whole issue.
Book of moon – really. These strawman is that set up by mormon apologetics and are merely excuses for *lack* of evidence. The interested reader is referred to the following for an expanded commentary on the DNA and bom apologists:
http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.dna%20controversy1004917.pdf
Excepts from the link, in direct regard to the author DU put forth as his champion:
However, Meldrum and Stephens did not say this in the kind of clear fashion that would be required for a layperson to understand it. And then they go on set out a number of other theories, none of which are supported by any evidence, which could lead to the conclusion that the Native Americas did descend from the Israelites. So, given how oblique Meldrum and Stephens' statement against the Church's theory was, and how they indicated ways in which the Church's theory still could be true if evidence to support it was found, and how the Church's website referred to them as supporting the Church's position, most members who take the time to read what they have written will not understand it, and will likely conclude that these scientists are saying that science supports the Church's theory.
Each of the other articles referred to on the Church's website as supporting its position respecting the origin of the Native Americans takes a similar approach, but does not refer to the principle of parsimony. All they show is that science has not proven with 100% certainty that JS's theory of American Native origins is incorrect, and hence they invite Mormons to continue to believe that JS was correct.
For example, Michael F. Whiting (See "DNA and the Book of Mormon: A Phylogenetic Perspective") sets up a straw man by saying that LDS critics claim certain proof of BofM falsity based on DNA alone. He then sets out to prove that of course does so. The difficulty of proving a negative is well known. In addition, contrary to the belief of most non-scientists, science does not purport to prove anything with 100% certainty. Even the basic principles of mathematics were shown by Kurt Godel to be uncertain. So of course it has not been proven that JS was wrong. Without an assessment of the probability based on the best evidence available to date as to who is right and who is wrong, this type of analysis tells us nothing. I should be embarrassing to a scientist such as Whiting (who I understand is reputable) to provide such analysis.
When it comes to Lamanite DNA, the Mormon Church finds itself absolutely abandoned and on its own, with no place to turn (except inward) for support of its long-held, heretofore official, scripturally canonized and, now, totally repudiated position that Native Americans descended from Hebrews.
Where are the voices of the modern-day Mormon prophets on this one?
God having a father is not.,/I>
Your argument is no longer with me, it is with the Prophet Prime Smith and all the GAs and prophets that have continued this to this very day as doctrine. May be you should write them and inform them of their grave error on this doctrine.
Godzilla, if you cannot stick to one topic, and make more cogent posts, I will begin to edit your posts in my responses for a single topic, and for brevity.
Shall I call a waaaaaambulance for you on this too, how clintonesque. Even in your post to me you threw numerous other topics in and I have followed your posts, not adding to the topics. I see that you are totally ignorant as well, given that I split my response to you into three separate posts. Quit being a crybaby at postings that you enlarge.
Godzilla, you attack all the time, I have yet to see you testify as I just did. Is there a problem with asking you if you personally believe in the savior?
I believe in the Savior, it just isn’t the ‘savior’ of mormonism.
"If you truly believe the Bible, then you must obey it's instructions. If you believe the Bible, you will put the Book of Mormon to the test and get an answer, not just a guilty feeling." How many times have I written the post that explains I did 'put your Smithian "scriptures" to the test' and got a strong admonishment for doubting God to ask such a demonic question as you servants of the most low cajole others to partake. Your test is a twisted plea to doubt God and demand God respond to your demon's half-truths. Will you now use your Mormonism training to lie and tell us you forgot the previous posting responses to this demonic plea? Are you so drowned in the heresies that you now practice deceit openly, without guilt? There was a time when you were only deceived, but now you are a deceiver at your core.
on October 10th on a thread titled "Mormon ousted as an apostate", Post # 628, you said, and I quote:Have you ever prayed, asking if the Book of Mormon is true? I have, more than two decades ago, because my closest friend wanted me to. I was sincere, but the only answer I got immediately was to suddenly, coincidentally, meet a Bible teacher. I told him I was reading the Book of Mormon and had prayed to know if the thing was true scripture from God. His only response was a smile and a 'good luck, I'll pray for you to get your answer.' That's all. His name was Paul Wert, a pilot for a firm in B'ham AL.I quoted, and linked just so so lurkers will know that I am not making this up.
That very night when I opened the B of M to read, a sense of doing something I should not be doing came over me ... a lump in the throat type of guilt feeling! With that, I closed the book and put it on the shelf. Two or three weeks later, I had occasion to talk with Paul more directly concerning the Book of Mormon, when I joined his in-home Bible study. When I told him about the sense of guilt at reading the B of M, asking for a sign, he explain the wrongness of seeking after a sign where it concerns a likely conflict with what God has already told us ... 'never ask of God doubting that He has already provided', was Paul's admonition as best I can recall it. He then told me the specifics of what he prayed for me. I'm going to be using that prayer tonight, to pray for Christopher Hitchens.
I have kept that lesson in my heart as a reminder to not try and tempt God for signs and wonders. I still have Paul's copy of Fawn Brodie's No Man Knows My History, first edition, which he had leant to me a few weeks later during the Bible study at his home. He was killed in a plane crash and when I went to return it to his widow, Peggy told me to keep it, that Paul would want me to have it for reference in future Bible studies I would teach ... a word of prophecy, I believe, because at the time I was not teaching anyone anything about the Bible since I was such a new Christian myself.
It is interesting that Mormons will tell someone to 'pray and ask God if the Book of Mormon ...' (since there are passages from the Bible, the thing isn't wholly false, is it!), yet if you tell them you got a negative answer --not just no answer, a negative answer-- they will make some excuse and then tell you about their witness when they asked. Thankfully, some have come out from under the spell of Mormonism. Sadly, some have come out and gone into atheism or agnosticism.
I asked questions, like what did your best friend say when you told him, and are you still in touch with him after all these years? You declined to answer, instead berating me for questioning your anti-testimony.
Later, on another thread, you posted this:I have prayed the faulty prayer dictated to me by Mormon missionaries more than two decades ago, then I began reading the B of M. I got an 'answer' all right, a very negative one; not an answer directly tied to the truth or falsehood of the B of M, a very clear rebuke for asking something that has at its root the implication that God has not provided sufficiently for me a new faither in Christ Jesus. Satan used that trick with Eve, implying that God had left out something vital to Eve and Adam. It took a mature Christian to explain to me why I got a rebuke. Thankfully, he was there to guide me at a time when confusion was growing. Again I declare, at the root of Mormonism is the demonic lie that that which Jesus said would not be defeated by the gates of hell, was actually defeated for a season of approx. 1700 years, and in need of 'restoration' with a lying, adulterous, treasure divining false prophet who fabricated materials he claimed were 'from God' and even rewrote the Bible to try and fabricate prophesies of his 'coming in these latter days.' THAT great heresy that God has lost or left off something vital is the same lie sown by Satan in the Garden!When I asked if it was the Missionaries, or your best friend who gave you the book. You got mad at me and proceeded to accuse me of being a liar. I asked for clarification between the two stories, and you stopped talking to me. Here is the post, and here is what I said:So you kept going to talk to "Paul", but did not communicate with your closest friend. Paul tells you you had been seeking a sign and you believe him over the request of your closest friend. This sounds a bit strange to me, you were willing to to call me a liar with less to go on, but I will just ask, what did your closest friend say when you told him what had happened?I will of course point out what I did before, there is no prayer dictated by Missionaries, there is a form to use for those who have never prayed before Investigators (those investigating the Gospel) are encouraged to use their own words and thought ins prayer as soon as they are comfortable, I was a missionary, I know. this.
Second can a man trick God? God is perfectly capable of telling you if part of a book is true, which parts, or if the whole thing is false, he is all powerful.
God has commanded us in many places in the Bible to ask him for that which we most desire. "Ask and ye shall receive", "Knock and it shall be opened unto you." And my favorite: First John 4:1-31 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.I like this particular quotation because in the same chapter, in context with the command to "ask" and "try the spirits", is a prescription for knowing if a spirit is of God. MHG, many times you have told me that Joseph saw the devil appearing as an angel of light, you have also told me that my witness came from the devil answering my prayer and not God. When I prayed to know if the Book of Mormon was true, I received a witness of it, and of the Savior as my personal savior who came in the flesh. This means the Bible says It is of God. Neither of your stories includes a testimony of Jesus, indeed your posts here do not include such a testimony, thus I have to ask the lurkers, who is here, really representing God, the poster who testifies of him? or the poster who testifies of the power of the Devil? You decide.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
U Said: Your test is a twisted plea to doubt God and demand God respond to your demon's half-truths.
No one who encourages you to pray to God can deceive for long, for once God answers the prayer of faith, truth reigns.
U Said: Will you now use your Mormonism training to lie and tell us you forgot the previous posting responses to this demonic plea? Are you so drowned in the heresies that you now practice deceit openly, without guilt?
I have not denied your prior posts, but linked to them. I have not striven to deceive. Deceit takes intent. If I am wrong, it is an honest mistake. I hope that your mistakes here are also honest mistakes for I would hate to impute base motives to a fellow Conservative, a fellow Christian without cause.
U Said: There was a time when you were only deceived, but now you are a deceiver at your core.
Lets test this out, shall we?
I testify that Jesus is the Christ, that he came down to the earth, and was born of a virgin to live and die for my sins, in him only have I hope of salvation. I know this to be true for it was testified to me by God in answer to a prayer about the Book of Mormon, I received this testimony at the same time that God told me the Book of Mormon is true. Thus, I know this message is of God for the Bible tells me so. (See First John 4:1-3)
My fondest hope is that everyone will have the experience of receiving a testimony from God about Jesus, the best way I know for people to know is for them to pray about the Book of Mormon and ask God for a testimony of both. That is why I post, that is why I take the slings and arrows of mine adversaries with as much mildness as I can muster, for I am about my saviors business.
Lurkers, feel free to decide who represents who here, OK?
God bless you all, may God testify to you of all his truths and warn you of all Satan's lies. Amen.
Paul used a lot of things the audience he addressed would understand. It is not an uncommon teaching method, if you bother to study PaulÂ’s teaching methodology and rabbinical background.
Let's look at the scripture in question: 1 Cor. 15: 29
Rather lets look at the scripture in question within its proper CONTEXT as it is CONTEXT that provides meaning to any conversation. I’ll summarize so DU doesn’t get indigestion over long posts. For those who would read the section off line, the words from verses 1 – 28 Paul is talking inclusively -us, we, you, brothers, sisters, etc
1 Cor 15: 1&2 – Introduction to the next section of the letter with Paul reminding them of the Gospel he preached to them. Within verse two is a rebuke to those who may not have truly believe the gospel.
15:3-4 Paul reaffirms the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus
15:5-9 Paul recites the appearances of Christ to His followers after the resurrection, placing himself at the last, identifying that he once persecuted the Christians.
15:10 For it was GodÂ’s grace to Paul that he was forgiven of those sins.
15:11 Paul restates in a slightly different fashion verses 1&2, including others who preached the same gospel
15:12 Paul moves into the next phase of his argument. With the preceding verses as a foundation, he addresses the issue (immediate context of the passage) that some Christians were being swayed by someoneÂ’s teachings that there was no resurrection. Within the cultural context, the Greek culture and cult system had nothing resembling resurrection, which is why they reacted so strongly at times to PaulÂ’s teaching. The remainder of PaulÂ’s argument focuses upon answering this through multiple lines of attack.
15:13 ChristÂ’s resurrection and the future resurrection of all the dead cannot be separated; you cannot deny one without denying the other.
15:14-19 Paul points out that if there is no resurrection, then Christ Himself wasnÂ’t resurrected either and that he is preaching a lie and the faith of the Corinthian church was in vain. This obviously is a strawman rhetorical argument since in verses 5-9 he already gave eyewitness proof of ChristÂ’s resurrection. So he is just following to the logical conclusion of those who taught that no one else would eventually be resurrected.
15:20-24 Paul triumphantly reinstates that Christ has indeed risen, breaking the curse of sin
15:24-28 Paul makes clear that because of the resurrection, even death will have to yield.
15:29 Paul continues with a rhetorical argument. The original makes clear that Paul did not include himself among the “people” being baptized for the dead. This is the importance of understanding the passage in context of what Paul was saying. The 28 preceding verses use inclusive terms. Only the 29th verse uses an exclusive reference.
15:30-58 Paul goes into description of the resurrection and that our bodies will become like that of ChristÂ’s. Paul closes with an encouragement that their faith and labor is not in vain, they will be resurrected if they believe in the resurrection of Jesus.
One can quickly see that
1) Paul is not teaching or even endorsing baptism for the dead in the context of the passage.
2) Those practicing it were outside the Christian community
3) Every teaching Paul wrote referencing baptism was that it was for the living, not the dead.
4) Of the 58 verses that cover the immediate context of the verse, the only exclusive wording is found in verse 29.
5) Paul’s teaching is in perfect agreement with Heb 9:27 “And inasmuch as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this cometh judgment; “ There is no opportunity for ‘baptism’ after death as the time of judgment has come and gone.
The cutie little interpretive method DU proposed takes the verse further out of context.
Yet, even after falling away from the church, none of the witnesses ever recanted their witness of the Book of Mormon.
More stuff mormonism has swept under the rug. Brigham Young, the second president, stated: "Some of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon, who handled the plates and conversed with the angels of God, were afterwards left to doubt and to disbelieve that they had ever seen an angel." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p.164).
In CowdreyÂ’s case G. J. Keen gave an affidavit in which he stated:
... Mr. Cowdery expressed a desire to associate himself with a Methodist Protestant Church of this city.... he was unanimously admitted a member thereof. At that time he arose and addressed the audience present, admitted his error and implored forgiveness, and said he was sorry and ashamed of his connection with Mormonism. (Affidavit of C. J. Keen, as quoted in The True Origin of the Book of Mormon, by Charles A. Shook, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1914, pp.58-59)
David Whitmer never returned to the Mormon church. Toward the end of his life he was a member of the "Church of Christ"—another small group which believed in the Book of Mormon. Just before his death, Whitmer published An Address To All Believers In Christ in which he stated:
If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by His own voice from the heavens, and told me to 'separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so should it be done unto them.' In the spring of 1838, the heads of the church and many of the members had gone deep into error and blindness (An Address To All Believers In Christ, by David Whitmer, 1887, p.27).
In a thesis written at Brigham Young University, Wayne Cutler Gunnell stated that on December 31, 1844,
"Phineas H. Young [Brigham Young's brother] and other leaders of the Kirtland organization" wrote a letter to Brigham Young in which they stated: "There are in this place all kinds of teaching; Martin Harris is a firm believer in Shakerism, says his testimony is greater than it was of the Book of Mormon" ("Martin Harris—Witness and Benefactor to the Book of Mormon," 1955, p.52).
Thus according to Young, and the three witnesses, they recanted their experience. Sorry the lds church has lied to you on this DU.
LOL! "Sorry, my browser won't let me read HTML form a website that actually supports what you have said, but let me refute it anyway"
Statement of simple fact.
You (again) think that prophets are infallible, God told Joseph what th say, the scribes wrote it, and the spelling, punctuation and grammar was up to them. The doctrine contained in the Book of Mormon is perfect, even if the spelling is not.
I wonÂ’t go further, your premise was destroyed in another post. It is your written church history.
Some of us are to paid to come on this forum and bash. I believe you stated earlier that you are a professional theologian, I am not, I have a day job.
I never said I was a professional theologian, but if it makes you feel better to think that, then be my guest. BTW, whereÂ’s my paycheck then.
When your posts exceed reasonable sizes most here will not readÂ…Â…Â….
DU, you yourself are as guiltier of this than I. Note, this is a part 2 posting for a reply that you found no difficulty burning up bandwidth with your replies and allegations. Once again, quit your crying, it is unbecoming.
There are have been many attacks on the Book of Mormon from an "Archeological perspective". Â…..
As I put forth earlier, FARMS related articles are generally worthless as they are not peered reviewed. Secondly, they are designed to be obfuscation to cloud matters. Finally, I can and have said IÂ’ve accessed FARMS website before.
travels of Nephi and his family through the different camp sites that are mentioned in the Book of Mormon.
More FARMS non-peered reviewed propaganda. The locations could be derived by multiple means such as using a map. That aside, the account is not geographically accurate.
1. There are no rivers running into the Red Sea along their route, the eastern shore of the Gulf of Aqaba, at this or any other point. There are not even any traceable ancient river systems in this part of Arabia. This part of the world was well known and well traveled in 600 BC. Had there been a river as Nephi describes, the area would have been one of the best known in the world of its day. It would have supported a sizably populated civilization, as always happened where fresh water was scarce. The mouth of such a river would have been a world-renowned port, if not a capital city, in 600 BC.
2. It would have been impossible for an old man (Lehi), women and children to travel the 175 mile journey from Jerusalem to the Red Sea in 3 days. Traveling 3 miles per hour, you would need to travel for 20 hours each day non-stop for 3 days. This would have been quite impossible.
3. They find a bountiful, fruitful land on the Persian Gulf. Alexander's troops in 330 BC avoided this as desert area.
4. They then built a ship sufficiently seaworthy to carry them 2/3 around the world in rough seas to the west coast of America, now known as Peru. This in a area largely void of timber.
Once again, when it comes to the nitty-gritty detail, the bom fall on its face and proves internally it is a fable.
When it comes to the America's, many artifacts and matching city-scapes have been found, although most bear Spanish names now.
Jeff Lindsey is hand in hand with FARMS and relies on them heavily, his writings are not peer reviewed. However, beyond the similarities, no indisputable links of these structures to Book of Mormon civilizations have been found. It is not as if there was warfare between tribes is was something new either – it had been going on for the whole period of man’s existence. Furthermore, nothing at these locations bear any resemblance to Hebrew or even Egyptian origin. So as far as showing me where bom cities are in the Americas (which was the original challenge), you struck out.
U Said: 2. Have any BOM names in New World inscriptions been found?
Not to my knowledge, but the inscriptions are usually scriptures, so that is not surprising, what were you expecting, Nephi was here?
More lack of evidence. No ‘Positive’ support here.
The Lakish lettersÂ…..
More non-peer review propaganda. NibleyÂ’s original forms LindseyÂ’s basis for his little internet post. NibleyÂ’s theory is decimated here:
http://www.irr.org/mit/nibley.html
In short, "All of the parallels given [by Nibley] are invalid either because of a lack of a proper understanding of the Lachish Letters or because they can be explained more easily through parallels with the KJV.". Mormon obfuscation parading as proof.
The Dead sea scrolls contain the name Â…Â…Â…
References to the DSS (as well as most other archaeological ‘claims’) by mormons utilize a faulty syllogism along the lines of: "Nobody is perfect; I am a nobody; therefore I am perfect." In a similar fashion the Mormons claim: "The scrolls validate the Bible; the Book of Mormon contains parts of the Bible; therefore the scrolls vindicate the Book of Mormon."
Once again, no evidence beyond speculation and faulty logic.
U Said: 3. Have any any Hebrew inscriptions been found in America? The Uto-Aztecan Â…..
Mormon linguist Stubbs he admits “While no UA [Uto-Aztecan] language shows the same level of derivation from Hebrew as Spanish does from Latin, there are still many traces of similarity suggesting some degree of contact or derivation. (http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml). Notice the wording – he compares Spanish to latin, who’s development period would be similar to the time frame associated with his theory. Secondly, though listed as about a thousand common features, this is only a trace. Stubbs’ publications have not been in peer reviewed journals.
South of Albuquerque, and west of Los Lunas, New Mexico, an ancient inscription was carved into the face of a boulder centuries ago. It is the text of the Ten Commandments, written in Hebrew!
Here it is straight off the pages of the Weekly World News equivalent of the internet – the best of mormon apologists – right next to the space alien shaking hands with Joseph Smith.
The Decalogue is one of the best-known passages of the Bible and for anyone whose native tongue was Hebrew, it ought to have been all but impossible for the inscriber to make elementary errors.
The authenticity of the writing is further condemned by the inscriberÂ’s use of what is known as a ‘caretÂ’. This is the upside-down V placed under a piece of text where something has been missed out. Sometimes found in ancient Latin and Greek texts, it is not known in Hebrew until the Middle Ages. To make matters worse, it is above a dot that seems to be a full stop (or period); full stops did not exist in ancient Hebrew. Moreover, there are Greek letters of a slightly later date mixed in with Hebrew forms and some eccentric uses. For instance, Hebrew א (Â’aleph) is treated as a vowel – the letter shape became our letter A – but in Hebrew it was a consonant; the writer muddles כ (kaph) and ק (qoph), sounds that are distinct in Hebrew but both of which are approximately rendered by English K. The inscription uses Greek δ (delta), ζ (zeta), κ (kappa (reversed)) and τ (tau) in place of their Hebrew counterparts ד (daleth), ז (zayin), כ (kaph) and ת (taw). The greatest problem is that the inscription uses an archaic form of א Â’aleph. Also, the letters י (yodh), ק (qoph) and ש (the flat-bottomed shin) are said to be Samaritan in form.
Tests conducted by in the 1980s George E Morehouse are said to have confirmed that it is between 500 and 2000 years old. These tests consist of measuring the polish produced on the surface of rock by wind-blown sand, the so-called ‘desert varnish’. However, the technique is highly suspect and the wide range of dates suggested by it gives rise to considerable disquiet about its accuracy. First off, it was admitted that the rock face had been altered with ‘wire brushes’. Secondly, far less was known about the process and rates of creation of desert varnish in 1980 than today, and even today there are no concise models for varnish development.
So why such silence from the true archaeological community, based upon the internal evidence of the writing alone and the questionable dating, Los Lunas inscription is a clear, but well constructed forgery (for its day). Despite the claims of high antiquity, there are features of the text (such as the mixing of letter forms between two separate alphabets) that are much more likely to derive from the work of a modern forger than from an ancient Hebrew or Samaritan scribe. The evidence for its origin is poor, but a comparison with the Bat Creek Stone suggests that it was a Mormon forgery. The ‘Mormon Battalion’, which was part of the US Army during the Mexican War, is known to have marched from Santa Fe down the Rio Grande Valley, passing close by, and it is possible that this is the date of the inscription.
A modified or reformed style of Egyptian writing has been in use for many centuries by the Micmac [Mi-kmaw] Indians, of Northeastern America, a division of the Algonquin people.
Ah, so well founded was it? Truth is found here:
http://www.native-languages.org/mikmaq.htm
Language: The Mi'kmaq language, MÃkmawÃsimk, is an Algonquian language spoken by 8000 Indians in the Canadian Maritimes (particularly Nova Scotia) and a few US communities. The Mi'kmaq dialect spoken in Quebec is called Restigouche (or Listuguj) and can be hard for other native speakers to understand. Mi'kmaq is written alphabetically today, but in the past it was written in pictographs. Though these pictographs were modified by Jesuit missionaries, who used them to teach Christian prayers to Micmac people, they probably predated European contact. Micmac hieroglyphics do not resemble Ancient Egyptian or Mayan hieroglyphs; see here (http://www.native-languages.org/iaq3.htm#5 ) for an explanation of these different writing systems. Mi'kmaq is not linguistically related to Ancient Egyptian or any other semitic languages. The Mi'kmaq language is entirely native to the New World and is related to other major North American Indian languages like Lenape, Ojibwe, and Cree.
Another swing and a miss DU. IsnÂ’t it a bummer when your sources lie to you DU? Are these the BEST that mormonism can offer?
Why would there be? The Sacred records were handed down from one keeper to the next, they were not printed in duplicate and passed around.
Not only that, nothing that even RESEMBLES the bom has been found, in a culture that the bom states was in the millions that spread from sea to sea, with cities, and chariots, and lots of other stuff archaeologist normally find huh.
Columbus? When he arrived, the Indians worshiped him as the Great white God who was to return someday...
Ah yes, the ‘ol Quetzequatal mythos, again. Students of ancient Mesoamerica do not accept this claim for several reasons: Quetzalcoatl, the Feathered Serpent deity, is depicted in Mesoamerican art dated several centuries before Jesus. The King Quetzalcoatl who promised to return to Mexico dated almost 1,000 years after the life of Jesus.
Here is a section from a web site about the ancient Americas In Search of the Roots of Ancient American Civilizationhttp://www.webb.com/Starfire/native.html
Right next to the other paranormal links. You should be embarrassed to post this kind of nonsense as fact in this kind of forum. Again, nothing from an authentic peered reviewed document, journal or the like? This kind of stuff is laughable and damages you presentation rather than advance it.
See my earlier post on In Search of the Roots of Ancient American Civilization
And destroyed earlier.
U Said: 9. Is there proof that Native Americans are really of Semitic stock?
American archaeologist Anna C. Roosevelt has put together a plausible argument that the making of pottery FARMS report not peered reviewed. That pottery may have been started earlier is not proof that native Americans are of Semitic stock, nor from a jewish migration.
Your report cited --->Specialists on parasites are absolutely sure that the only way for those organisms to have reached the Americas from the Far East, where they are known much earlier, was inside human hosts who traveled from East Asia by boat.
Your assumption: So, they found an ancient body that had a parasite that couldn't have been there unless it came by boat from the middle east...
The following report makes it clear that the solution is fishermen from Japan or SE Asia as the hookworm originates from tropical and subtropical climates.
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-311X1988000200006
U Said: 10. If the BOM is true, why do Indians fail to turn white when they become Mormons? (2 Nephi 30:6, prior to the 1981 revision)
Um, it was recorded then as sign from God, do you xpect God to always give the same signs? Are you seeking after a sign?
Bom promises this would happen – it doesn’t happen as promised. Bom is a lie.
In Joseph's day, "Archaeologists" laughed at the idea that Gold plates might be buried as a way to preserve a record...How about, another set of Gold plates having been buried as a way to preserve records? Unique book goes on display
So what. Found copper scrolls at the DSS site. DoesnÂ’t prove bom authenticity one bit. See the faulty syllogism above FARMS debunks the idea that they were gold, did you know that. We know that gold weighs about 1200 pounds per cubic foot. Given the dimensions by Smith, some have concluded that the plates could have weighed as much as 234 pounds to as little as 100 pounds. Try to run like Smith did carrying 100lbs, hah. The heavier weight is based on what would probably be the total weight of a solid block of gold measuring the size of Smith's plates. The FARMS' article supports the tumbaga theory by referring to William Smith, Joseph's brother, who was quoted in the Saints Herald (31, 1884, p. 644) as stating that the plates were a mixture of gold and copper. FARMS insists that tumbaga plates would have weighed only about 53 pounds. In other words, it would be like carrying a sack of redi-mix concrete.
Despite the effort from FARMS to change LDS history, it appears that the tumbaga theory is not being taken too seriously. As recently as May 15, 1999, the LDS Church News ran an article entitled "Hands-on opportunity." Speaking of Joseph Smith, it read, "He had also been instructed by an angel, Moroni, who had met with him each year for four years. On his last visit, he was entrusted with plates of solid gold, which he had been translating by the power of the Spirit."
The Book of Mormon speaks of the use of Cement by the ancient Americans Helaman 3:9-11
Non-Mormon Mayan scholar Michael Coe wrote:
"Moreover, the Maya of the lowlands had discovered as far back as Mamom times that if limestone fragments were burnt, and the resulting powder mixed with water, a white plaster of great durability was obtained. And finally, they quickly realized the structural value of a concrete-like fill made from limestone rubble and marl." (The Maya, Michael D. Coe, 1980 ed., Thames and Hudson Inc., p.57)
But this hardly sounds like Helaman 3:7—"...the people who went forth became exceedingly expert in the working of cement; therefore they did build houses of cement, in the which they did dwell."
How about Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon? Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon
I deflated the Chiasmus argument in an earlier post. It is found in multiple cultures and languages and not solely Hebrew. Therefore it is not a proof to bom in the slightest.
Like I said before, you will be able to trot out some beleagered "expert" to refute my experts, so no one can know form "Expert testimony" who to believe here. If you really think about it, what's at stake, possibly your soul...
It would seem that your ‘experts’ are the beleaguered ones LOL.
The Bible, a book that has been substantiated archaeologically dozens upon dozens of times, has shown to be trustworthy. The bom calls itself a superior testimony. We have explored that testimony from many angles.
1. The author is a convicted man of shady character, who cannot give the story of his revelation (first vision) the same way, but gives multiple accounts and contradictions.
2. The theology of mormonism is polytheistic – worshiping multiple gods. 3. The prophet Smith taught a wide range of doctrines that are uncomfortable to modern mormons because it exposes the flaws of their belief system. However, the supreme council of mormonism – the general authorities – continue to endorse and promulgate these teachings.
4. The bom was dictated on almost a letter-by-letter basis with the translation stopping if the scribe copied it down incorrectly (mormon history). The mormon church documents that there were only minor typeset errors. With those accounted for, thousands of changes have been made, with significant changes as recent as 1964.
5. The changes in the bom were made without the ability to consult the ‘gold’ plates. No justification for the changes in light of the original plate MS is given.
6. The bom claims that millions of jews occupied America for a substantial number of years and built large cities. Such activity should have left considerable amounts of relics for evaluation. As seen in this post, these so called ‘relics’ are frauds and poor scholarship that is grasping at straws.
7. The inspired writings of Smith (Book of Abraham) do have one extant MS – the Smith papyri. His notes and hand written ‘translation’ leave very little room to say that he used some other papyrus. The true translation of the papyri is completely different from Smith’s ‘translation. It is a pagan prayer for the dead.
Is it worth the risk?
Yes, is it worth the risk? Internally and externally, the bom is a fraudulent fairy tale. Since the book itself is a lie, one must consider the validity of the spiritual message contained therein. Should such a flawed, fraudulent book, be the basis to place oneÂ’s salvation in? Should such a contorted maze that is mormonism, with its polytheism, bazaar secret hidden rituals and Gnostic-like knowledge quest be a part of a ChristianÂ’s life? These teaching of mormonism are not compatible with what Jesus and the apostles taught. You want to bet your (eternal) life, bet your life on the Jesus of Christianity, not the jesus of mormonism.
forgot to add you to the ping of #458.
Consider the moment of the scourging .. the God having patience to endure this is awaiting their awakening to Him; think of what that means! He is more long suffering than we could even imagine:
The Romans were so adept at beating a man, they were know to beat a man to death. The old ‘40 save one’ was ignored when they beat Jesus. The demonic inspiration must have yielded actual glee at the suffering they were inflicting upon Jesus. As the flesh was ripped and shredded, the whip slinger must have gloried in his accomplishment. The thud of the lead and bone embedded lashes must have been music to the satanic ears. Wouldn’t the one inflicting the agony have been listening carefully for the cries of anguish and groans of suffering? How disappointed must have been the bastard slinging the lashes with ever increasing zeal, that he could not get one cursing from his victim! With the disappointment must have come renewed force to inflict greater agony. And did he look into the eyes of the lamb and see the pity there which God has for the willfully lost? It must have infuriated the training in the Flagellan. How could this Galilean withhold his cursings when such was the reward to the whip?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.