Our Mormon Brothers?

Reformed Evangelist ^ | May 14th, 2007 | Jeff Fuller

[DelphiUser]

WOW!

I am so glad I have done my genealogy and know that he is a relative, I cannot wait to see him when I pass from this mortal veil, we will have a lot to talk about.

Thank you so much for posting this, I was on my mission when he gave his last talk, and am now in a Ward with his Daughter, she has spoken of the power in this talk, and I had wondered where I could see it, now I ma embarrassed, it's on you-tube, I should have known.

Thank you again.

[DelphiUser]

How can you listen to a RAM file on Vista?

(I'm stuck with it I'm afraid...)

[Elsie]

The officiator of the ceremony politely asks if anyone is not here of their own free will and choice to raise their hand, they will be invited to spend time elsewhere in the temple, where there are some really nice quiet waiting rooms, no-one will say a thing.

I guess the 'this' part was not adequately defined:

Who asks you...

NOT TO TELL WHAT GOES ON THERE?

[Elsie]

Because we have been commanded to hold them sacred, and we accepted it by covenant. (which should be reason enough.)

By Whom??

---

Since I know you will not consider that a good enough answer...

It's not that it's not GOOD enough, it's that it fails to address what was questioned!

It's beginning to look as though you folks are not supposed to tell what goes on there, but are 'commanded' (by someone) to remain silent on WHY you are to remain silent!

[Elsie]

Lastly, if someone is crass enough to be disrespectful of another persons heartfelt beliefs,

So in your mind, you equate an outsiders request to know WHY you do certain things to DISRESPECTFUL??

---

I hope I have answered your questions about both sacredness, and respect.

No; you haven't answered and you've tried to make ME the bad guy for asking.

Why is that?

[DelphiUser]

NOT TO TELL WHAT GOES ON THERE?

Elsie, you are there to learn of God, he asks you.

First the officiator, who is leading the session tells you that you will need to keep the things of the temple sacred, then they ask if you are willing to do so of your own free will and choice, then they ask you to covenant with God that you will do so. The covenant is made and everyone who is to continue with that session has covenanted with God.

Why is this a problem for you?

Do you think you are entitled to know everything that happens in the Vatican?
Monasteries?
Nunneries?
How about Jewish synagogues?

There are plenty of things in this world you will not learn unless you join the group teaching it to their flock, why the obsession with us?

[DelphiUser]

It's beginning to look as though you folks are not supposed to tell what goes on there, but are 'commanded' (by someone) to remain silent on WHY you are to remain silent!

We are commanded to reamin silent because its sacred.

I thought I had made that clear, perhaps not.

Let me say it your way:
Mormons do not tell what goes on in the temple because it is sacred to us and we have covenanted to God not to talk about it outside the temple.

Elsi, if you acquire a temple recommend (honorably) and meet me in the temple, I will gladly explain everything I can to you, of course you will then be under the same oath and covenant that I am.

[DelphiUser]

I said: Lastly, if someone is crass enough to be disrespectful of another persons heartfelt beliefs,

You said: So in your mind, you equate an outsiders request to know WHY you do certain things to DISRESPECTFUL??

That is not what I said, please spend more time reading my posts.

I said: I hope I have answered your questions about both sacredness, and respect.

You said: No; you haven't answered and you've tried to make ME the bad guy for asking.

I am truly trying to answer honestly and keep my covenants with God, if you are not getting the answers you want, try changing the questions you are asking.

You said: Why is that

Maybe your question is too vague, what exactly is it you want to know? or are you just trying to get me to say something specific?

I have tried to honestly answer your questions, is it truth that you are looking for? If so, accept my answers without rancor, and ask a questions more suited to acquiring the information you seek.

[DelphiUser]

Elsie, I am going to church now, please do not equate a lack of responsiveness with any intended sleight on my part, thank you.

[DelphiUser]

Elsi = Elsie

Sheesh!

[sevenbak]

“And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers,”

Dude, have you ever been to Bethlehem? I have, twice. It’s just over 5 miles from Jerusalem, the capital city and region.

If you live within say 5 miles from LA, would you tell people that you were from Culver City or Vernon or Commerce...? Likely not, you would say LA.

This verse is used to criticize the Book of Mormon by lots of folks like you. Everyone knows, they argue, that Jesus was not born in Jerusalem but in Bethlehem. Therefore, the Joseph Smith got it wrong and the whole Book of Mormon must be false.

We must remember who the audience is for Alma’s sermon. Since it was 517 years since Lehi left Jerusalem, it is doubtful that the people of Gideon knew much about the Old World geography. If they barely knew the location of Jerusalem, they are not going to know about the small town of Bethlehem located 6 miles to the south. An individual born in the suburbs of a well-known city will usually give the larger city as their place of origin, especially if their audience is unfamiliar with the smaller community. Similarly, it is in deference to his audience that Alma gives the name of the larger area. Alma’s rendering of this phrase does not mean that neither he nor Joseph Smith knew that the Savior was born in Bethlehem.

Joseph Fielding Smith

“This question has in recent weeks come from several sources. It is from the promptings of enemies of the Church who spend their time in a futile endeavor to discredit the Book of Mormon, attempting to make it the product of the mind of Joseph Smith the Prophet or some other person in collusion with him. These religious persons who sponsor this question may well be compared to the scribes and Pharisees of old, and the Savior’s description of them, as recorded in Matthew, Chapter 23, fits these modern Pharisees and scribes admirably. They attempt to show that the Book of Mormon is of modern authorship, and this attempt has been going on for one hundred and twenty-five years and is farther away from effectiveness than in the beginning. It has utterly failed.

“Joseph Smith and those associated with him when the Book of Mormon was translated knew perfectly well that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. If the Book of Mormon had been the production of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, or anyone else connected with this restoration, it would have stated plainly that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, for they were well aware of this fact. There has been an effort to make it appear that the Prophet was a very ignorant man who did not know where Jesus was born. In this they display their bitterness and hate and add to their confusion, for an ignorant man unacquainted with the fact of the birth of Jesus Christ could not have written the Book of Mormon. The fact that it is written in Alma as it is, indicates plainly that it is an expression coming from the Hebrew; for this is purely a Hebrew expression, in full accord with their manner of speech.

“…There is no conflict or contradiction in the Book of Mormon with any truth recorded in the Bible. A careful reading of what Alma said will show that he had no intention of declaring that Jesus would be born in Jerusalem. Alma knew better. So did Joseph Smith and those who were associated with him in the bringing forth of the Book of Mormon. Had Alma said, ‘born in Jerusalem, the city of our fathers,’ it would have made all the difference in the world. Then we would have said he made an error. Alma made no mistake, and what he said is true.

“Dr. Hugh Nibley, in his course of study for the priesthood for 1957, An Approach to the Book of Mormon, in Lesson 8, page 85, has this to say on this point:

‘. . . One of the favorite points of attack on the Book of Mormon has been the statement in Alma 7:10 that the Savior would be born ‘at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers.’ Here Jerusalem is not the city ‘in the land of our forefathers,’ it is the land. Christ was born in a village some six miles from the city of Jerusalem; it was not in the city, but it was in what we now know the ancients themselves designated as ‘the land of Jerusalem.’ Such a neat test of authenticity is not often found in ancient documents.”
(Answers to Gospel Questions, vol. 1, pp. 173-5)

Hugh Nibley
“When we speak of Jerusalem, it is important to notice Nephi’s preference for a non-Biblical expression, ‘the land of Jerusalem’ (1 Nephi 3:10), in designating his homeland. While he and his brothers always regard ‘the land of Jerusalem’ as their home, it is perfectly clear from a number of passages that ‘the land of our father’s inheritance’ (1 Nephi 3:16) cannot possibly be within, or even very near, the city, even though Lehi had ‘dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days’ (1 Nephi 1:4). The terms seem confused, but they correctly reflect actual conditions, for in the Amarna letters we read of ‘the land of Jerusalem’ as an area larger than the city itself, and even learn in one instance that ‘a city of the land of Jerusalem, Bet-Ninib, has been captured.’ It was the rule in Palestine and Syria, as the same letters show, for a large area around a city and all the inhabitants of that area to bear the name of the city. This was a holdover from the times when the city and the land were a single political unit, comprising a city-state; when this was absorbed into a larger empire, the original identity was preserved, though it had lost its original political significance…This arrangement deserves mention because many have pointed to the statement of Alma 7:10 that the Savior would be born ‘at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers,’ as sure proof of fraud. It is rather the opposite, faithfully preserving the ancient terminology to describe a system which has only been recently rediscovered.” (Lehi in the Desert, And the World of the Jaredites, pp. 6-7)

[MHGinTN]

You offer this self-contradicting foolishness like it is dis positive! ...

“Dr. Hugh Nibley, in his course of study for the priesthood for 1957, An Approach to the Book of Mormon, in Lesson 8, page 85, has this to say on this point:
‘. . . One of the favorite points of attack on the Book of Mormon has been the statement in Alma 7:10 that the Savior would be born ‘at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers.’ Here Jerusalem is not the city ‘in the land of our forefathers,’ it is the land. Christ was born in a village some six miles from the city of Jerusalem; it was not in the city, but it was in what we now know the ancients themselves designated as ‘the land of Jerusalem.’

Apparently you are incapable of seeing the mischaracterization in that 'syllogism'. It is so simple to deceive apologists by just juxtaposing at and in and then asserting that what the text plainly states is not what it states bu t 'in' is what it should be read to state. Amazing mental gyration that!

[greyfoxx39]

MAJOR ATTEMPT TO KILL THREAD PLACEMARK

[nowandlater]

I double dog dare the critics to go through all the talks that have been recently posted.

[DelphiUser]

I can't believe this has degenerated into a debate over the meaning of the word "at" or "in" what is this, Bill Clinton's deposition?

Next thing you know, one of you will start saying "I don't recall" to everything (Hillarys Grand Jury appearance) and we'll have a full set.

Don't you guys know how ridiculous it is to argue a religion is false because of the word at?

You guys are funny, thanks for making us look good with this one, oh, please keep arguing it for as long as you can keep a straight face.

[MHGinTN]

LOL Predictably, condescension and ridicule from the professional apologist corner. ... 'a little echo, echo ...'

[greyfoxx39]

!

[nowandlater]

These guys have no clue. What would someone 480 years away from any contact from the old world describe these events? It is actually more proof that the Book of Mormon is an account from the people in the Americas.

[DelphiUser]

These guys have no clue. What would someone 480 years away from any contact from the old world describe these events? It is actually more proof that the Book of Mormon is an account from the people in the Americas.

What I find, amusing is they take these outrageous stands, and then expect people to take them seriously.

Having been to Jerusalem, and having driven from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, I would not have known I had left Jerusalem if there were no signs, it's that close.

Anyway, when they make some outrageous comment, it always makes me smile knowing that if I respond with more logic and a reasonable tone, most people will never even read the whole response, they will just assume the antis are nuts and we are reasonable, so the antis can only win when we lose our cool and descend to the tit for tat brawl the love to start.

At Jerusalem means Joseph Smith was not a prophet, do these guys even read our responses? Don't they know we never said a Prophet was infallible? They totally confuse us with the Pope and the Catholics on this point. Worse yet for them, it's a moot point and one that we are right on and they just look silly.

Enjoy your sunday

Oh, thanks for all the clips earlier, I down-loaded a bunch for a plane trip to NY tomorrow, I'm sure it's better than what will be on the plane. Do you know a place to get the BOM in MP3? I'd listen to it more, if I could just throw it on a stick and take it with me.

Thanks again.

[DelphiUser]

Never mind, I Googled, and found it almost immediately, LOL

I need to remember to Google before I ask.

Just in case anyone else needs the files, they are Here.