Replies

It's interesting to me that my short sentence elicits so much over interpretation by you. I never said the only valid prayer was one that was answered. I never said that only Mormon prayers were valid or answered, in fact, I will gladly state that often the most profound answers to prayers come to non Mormons (that's how they know to join...)

LOL, no DU, time and time again you challenge us by saying that we really did not pray to begin with, or some other excuse when you are confronted that the results of our prayers are diametrically opposed to yours. Interesting that in the same breath you say that the most profound answers are the ones to join mormonism. Again, as a non-mormon – my answer is diametrically opposed, therefore, according to you, my answer is not profound, thus not valid and I must have done something wrong.

The Bible tells us how to know when a message is from God in First John 4:1-3.
"The Test" is not based on feelings and emotions, my personal answer was not the "feeling" that is so often disparaged on these threads.

And how does this spirit answer DU? Verbally, vision in the night or the burning feeling in the bosom? Bottom line, by every basic means of definition it is based upon an emotionally linked feeling alone. And once again – since you continue to side step it, the 1John passage if focusing upon the teachings of Gnosticism at the time. 1 John is not exclusive and should be used with other scriptural tests and evaluations. When those are applied, the message of mormonism is found to be that of a false prophet.

Moonies are nothing like Mormons, thanks for the smear.

I never claimed that they were the same, except for the fact that they use the same test that mormonism. Are their prayer invalid, since they use the same standard as you apply? Apparently you are not denying that. Since your standard test is the same and there are different results one must conclude that your test is flawed. Since it is flawed, subsequent items of faith based upon that subjective answer will also be suspect and flawed.

I never said the Book of Mormon could be proven true, in fact, I don't believe God wants it to be.

Playing with the facts here DU, and the electronic paper trail makes it clear from this post to conservativegramma

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/1982682/posts?page=2310#2310

U Said (conservativegramma): 2nd correction: The only proof the BOM was translated by Joseph Smith is from Joseph Smith.
Nice try, Read Book of Mormon Evidences and Photographic evidence of the Book of Mormon How about a paper from Stanford about The Book of Mormon and Mesoamerican Archeology. Refusal to look at evidence for the Book of Mormon constitutes wilful ignorance of the topic you have chosen to debate.

Context here is that you were countering GCs assertion that proof of bom was Joey’s word. You also earlier cited other articles related as inferred proofs.

Jesus cannot be "prove" to be our savior either.

Maybe not your savior, but He proved to be mine.

So your refutation turns out to be a collection of Straw men and Guilt by association.

Ah yes, the old lets throw out an unsubstantiated logic fallacy citation. Too bad the burden of proof for that allegation is on you and you have not supported it at all. :0

I assure you I could generate a list of massive proportions if I wanted to, but I know that that does not make it any more correct. The point is and was that dismissing the Book of Mormon as having no support what so ever is a tactic without merit. and you prove it by arguing the point.

And everyone rolls eyes (not another DU behemoth). Now with that out of our system, it is not so much a list of massive proportions that matters, it is the scientific accuracy and veracity of the evidence that wins the war in this arena. Support is different from facts. Flat earthers will find things that support their point, but is it valid, scientifically supported interpretations? Thus you perpetuate Hypothesis Contrary to Fact since you’ve never demonstrably proven anything.

I never meant to, nor did I actually say these "proved the Book of Mormon to be true" That would not serve Gods purposes, we must act by faith. You cannot prove to me that Jesus actually walked on water, I must and do accept that on faith.

Again, CG was challenging proofs and you were demeaning her for failing to accept the proofs. As I have pointed out before, I can show you places in a real Jerusalem that Jesus walked

. Can you show me REAL places here in America that Jesus walked? (crickets). Show me something in America regarded and identified by the archaeological community as being associated with Nephi.

This whole section is a giant Strawman, In that I did not say it proved, the Book of Mormon, but was undeniably "evidence for it's authenticity" you can argue (and apparently want to) each piece of evidence, but that was not my point either, The very fact that you have to argue these factoids means my statement was right.

Oh, the Black Knight argument has risen its head, because it was very clear by what you were writing that you were presenting proofs. Unfortunately, no matter how much lipstick you put on your pig argument, it is still a pig. And even if that was not your purpose, the simple FACT that you put these easily refutable EVIDENCES forward to defend joey and the bom shows the complete bankruptness of so-called mormon archaeology and geography.

Your other problem is that the very references you cited go out of their way to weaken themselves as even evidence of the truth of the bom. Once again, you claim to be vindicated, if being humiliated by the very sources to support bom is vindication, then I will let you have your illusion.

If I state that there is no evidence that microbes exist, and you show me one and I start arguing that your evidence is flawed, by the very fact of arguing against your evidence I have conceded your point whether on not I win the argument, the point has been conceded by you already because you are arguing against these sites.

Now here is a strawman argument if there ever was one. If your evidence is true and valid, it would stand up to rigorous scientific evaluation and support. To be flawed in this instance would indicate that you took your observations incorrectly or followed an incorrect procedure and as a result obtained an incorrect answer. Thus the issue is the validity of the data and the claims. What is more applicable here is that you are saying that flies spontaneously developed from garbage, and I am saying that the scientific evidence says otherwise.

Thus, there is indisputably evidence, or this discussion would not be happening. As to individuals disagreeing with discrete pieces of evidence, of course they do. I never said otherwise.

Has Jerusalem suddenly dropped off the face of the earth? Jericho? No city has been identified as being Nephite, Lamanite, Jaredite, etc. For example, Zarahemla was occupied for hundreds of years, but we still don't have any real evidence of it ever existing. The Book of Mormon describes a time period from 2000 BC to 400 AD and millions of people. No city they occupied has yet to be found.

Really? I went there from a link that said she was still active... I accept with out argument your statement that she has joined, make that former Baptist minister (It really doesn't affect my argument either way, so thanks for correcting me!)

Your should read your source articles a little closer DU. First off it is a he and not a she. Secondly, he makes a point to not say which Baptist denomination he was ordained under. Thirdly, as CG said its an Argument by Generalization or more specifically an Argument by Selective Observation or more to the point: ‘cherry picking’. Show me any Baptist denomination that accepts mormonism.

The Bible does not say, God says, a moot point, but a point none the less.

Back to your circular logic CG clearly showed earlier

God sez joey is a prophet
How do you know
Because joey said so
How do you know joey is correct
Because God told him he was a prophet – (repeat cycle)

U Said: Point of the matter here is that of character. Smith has a documented history of lying. A forged documented history... Can anyone spell Mark Hoffman?

LOL – right the guy that FOOLED the LIVING PROPHET and SEER of the church and his apostles. How well is that gift been working these days. BTW, this has nothing to do with Moses.

His fruits indicate that he is a prophet of God.

See circular logic listed above

Objective evidence vindicates Joseph Smith.

Then tell me why joey could not tell the same story twice in a row without contradicting himself. Why was he preaching against polygamy two months after being given the everlasting covenant to begin polygamy?

Since he didn't lie about anything else, who is to believe he would lie about being called a prophet? (All examples of bald unsupported assertions refuted with equally bald unsupported assertions). I guess, to some people illogic and unsupported assertions are good argument if it supports the conclusion you have already arrived at.

Oh this is so typically fluffy! When all else fails obfuscate. Cannot dazzle with brillance, baffle them with ………

Please show where I have ever referenced the Weekly World news, or admit that this is a thinly veiled attempt at Guilt by Association for an entity i do not quote, nor I do not even associate with.

Feigning ignorance, you know it represents a low standard of evidential proof. No, the only guilt by association is between the website you cited and their deeper links. The bottom line is that these websites are simply bogus works. If you accept them as facts, you probably believe in Bigfoot, the lockness monster and ET. Anyone can make a website and put anything they want on it – does that make the information valid? Not in this case.

Most if not all the Anti sites here have been trashed, but anti's still quote them. I've been trashed.. has no one trashed you yet?

Want a waaambulance?

ask Mark Hoffman for some pointers on forging and off you go!

Well, you had the living prophet and seer – how far did that get you? :))

Here goes mister Peer Reviewed, you know, I lost M&M's on how long you could go without complaining about something being peer reviewed...

That’s right, because it is a rigorous standard when dealing with such scientific related matters such as archaeology and related. It is a significant part of my world.

So? We were refuting a statement that said there was absolutely no evidence, you are arguing that it's bad evidence, so what, even if I were to concede your point, it's not germane to the conversation I was having. Do you insist that their are no proofs for the Book of Mormon?

To argue that the bom documents real human events here but all archaeological evidence is non-existant and admitted by the author is laughable and more so when offered by you as an evidence.

So what is proof – Encarta defines it as:
proof n
1. evidence or an argument that serves to establish a fact or the truth of something
2. a test or trial of something to establish whether it is true
3. the quality or condition of having been proved
4. the evidence in a trial that helps to determine the court’s decision

What you have offered up as proof has failed critical examination or is even denied by its authors. I have pointed out many items which if found would prove the bom. You can go back and re-read them at your leisure. Show me the ruins of Zarahemla, or other bom city, etc. I still wait for PROOF, DU. The few, scattered freakish oddities (that even mormon investigators have written off) does not prove anything, as there are simpler, more sound interpretations. Your apologists sites are also at odds with your GA, isn’t their word on the matter enough for you?

I happen to agree with him, if by "Esoteric reasons" he means Faith. IMHO any one who joins the LDS church because of Academics will either gain faith or leave.

Well, the lack of objective truth to support that faith has cause many to leave the mormon church, and only those too ignorant to see the fallacies are the ones entering.

The argument was whether or not there were proofs, of course you can ad will tear down any work of faith, the bible is similarly destroyed by critics, does that bother you? No you realize the fallaciousness of their arguments as we do yours.

You may assert that the bible is destroyed, but that would not be the case. So far, archaeology has supported the history written the bible – both OT and NT. In that it is factual in those areas, it has greater credibility in the realm of faith. In the case of the bom, it has no support in the realm of archaeology, not textural support – apart from evidences learned from the boa and the kinderhook plates. No support except the say-so of joey.

U Said: How did God testify that the bom was his word – through the word of Joey. I challenge you to provide chapter and verse that clearly states that the bom is his word. What meaningless drivel, I'd be ashamed to have penned such a "Challenge" if I were you. Sure, and it won't even be from the Book of Mormon... Articles of Faith #8

Who saw to it that aof 8 was written – joey See Circular argument.

You then list your "proofs" There are unfulfilled prophecies in the Bible is it your contention that any unfulfilled prophecy negates the call of any prophet? (Yes or No, "just Joseph" not allowed by the rules of intellectual honesty)

Oh ho – intellectual honesty, sweet. Nor is just a yes or no argument, why DU, I am shocked, shocked to see you apply a Black or White fallacy (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/eitheror.html). As I said earlier regarding Jonah - God revealed why He did not destroy Nineveh often reveals conditions and timing for fulfillment. If I were to follow your argument rigorously, you would have called the prophecies of Christ first return as false. In the case of the prophecy I cited was conditioned to occur not many years hence. There has been no inspired revelation as to why it hasn’t occurred in a short time period under the conditions prophesied (as occurred with Jonah), in fact just the opposite happened.

Polygamy is not adultery by definition.

Splitting frog hairs again. It is and was under the law of Illinois and the USA at the time as a subset under bigamy, and when practiced while the wife was STILL married to and living with her first husband while joey was married and still living with his first wife meets the standard of adultery.

The Book of Abraham was translated so well that you can see where it was also quoted in the Book of Enoch which was recovered later.

Cite for me this quotation kind sir. Fact of the matter is joey failed to properly interpret the facimilies (nor even reconstruct them properly), his Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar clearly proves he used the scroll – and still translated it incorrectly. Papyrology has successfully reconstructed the pieces and it is more than adequately intact, and finally, your LIVING PROPHET and SEER of the church is silent in acceptance of them as announced to the world – the scrolls joey used.

The kinderhook plates were never translated, please proved me with the translation as proof it has or stop asking me to prove a negative.

It is a documented fact from mormon history that joey claimed to have begun a translation. For brevity, read this in History of the Church, vol. 5, p. 372, not an anti-mormon book but is the church’s official book.

As to the Greek psalter, do you have anything as a source beside Professor Caswell himself? He claimed there were forty people present, not one gave an account? Farms does mention this in their article: A One-sided View of Mormon Origins

Documented in his book and a newspaper article at the time. I can hear the old poisoning the well argument coming up already. However, Mr. McGee (FARMS reviewer) reviews of a book that reports the incident third hand as described and McGee does not question that the event took place. Your reference only has 6 lines of text on the issue – you should really read these first. You may find more information at this pro mormon site :

http://www.mormonthink.com/greekweb.htm

Swindler con man and convicted... - Please prove any of the above... You can't it's been tried.

Documented by Fawn Brodie (one of those excommunicated apostates – like the Three Witnesses to the bom). With supporting documentation discovered in 1971 of Justice Albert Neely's bill to the county for his fees in several legal matters he was involved with in 1826. The fifth item from the top mentioned the case of "Joseph Smith The Glass looker."

Violent criminal for ordering the sheriff to follow the city councils lawful orders? LOL!

Yep, the owners and operators of the Nauvoo Examiner were laughing too while running for their lives. As far as LAWFUL (do not be putting words in my mouth), it was unconstitutional then, it is unconstitutional now – but the constitution never mattered to joey, he was crowned as king already by that time.

Danites? ROTFLOL Prove it.

Jeff Lindsey sez: Joseph was not the mastermind behind the Danites, but he gave them at least partial support initially, and his encouragement of militant action to defend the Saints may have made it easier for Avard and his Danites to flourish.

This is funny, this is the best you've got? A bunch of made up paper charges unsupported slander against a prophet of God? Well, I guess they murdered Jesus for claiming to be... Himself. so it's not surprising.

See wishful thinking and circular arguments

Please show a link to Joseph Smith's journal containing Chiasmus, I'm curious.

No electronic link only reference, look it up yourself
Joseph Smith's diary, the entry for April 1, 1834.
A the Lord shall destroy him
B who has lifted his heel against me even that wicked man Docter P. H[u]rlbut
C he [will] deliver him to the fowls of heaven
and
c his bones shall be cast to the blast of the wind
b [for] he lifted his [arm] against the Almity
a therefore the Lord shall destroy him

well you might as well claim he invented the Internet.

If he were alive today, he probably would.

Only Moses was on the mountain when God called him and you have no problem with that. Give CG back her glasses, the squinting is driving me nuts.

Lessee, brought plagues upon Egypt, lead Israel out of same, parted the red sea, brought water and food – did joey ever display these proof his visit?

In order to refute the anti arguments I have to read and research them, it's easy to make assertions without doing the same. would you care to actually have a discussion on the merits of the Trinity being a biblical doctrine versus one that came from Constantine and Greek influence? No?? How about Greek influence on the early Christian church? No? ROTFLOL!

I could and HAVE presented the merits of the Trinity being a biblical doctrine - you are the one unable to get past Nicea. And I can easily discuss greek influence – standard part of early church history. Would you be able to discuss Alexanderian and western church influences too?

Please show the Scripture where God said they should, or he would spare them if they repented.

U Said (that’s me): (And Jonah KNEW that God would 'change His mind' if they repented and it angered him!--cf. Jonah 4.1ff: "But Jonah was greatly displeased and became angry. 2 He prayed to the LORD, "O LORD, is this not what I said when I was still at home? That is why I was so quick to flee to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity. "!!!! Thus not an absolute prophecy.

So it's OK for the God of Jonah's day to "Change his mind" but not for the God of Today? I thought God was unchanging... oh, that's the Mormon God, Got it, yours is a changeable God (not biblical) because it was defined in 325 AD by men.

Now you are getting confused – your mormon god had a daddy somewhere in the past and had to somehow progress and change. But then standard apples to dirt comparison I’ve come to expect from you.

As for Jonah's prophecy being a call to repent, that is not what Jonah said to them in God's name, he gave no conditions and that is all I needed to draw a parallel, CG is saying Joseph's prophecy that the second coming would begin on a specific date proves he is a false prophet and conveniently leaves out the first part of the prophecy that says if Joseph lives that long, he didn't, BLAM conditional prophecies from God, both of them. Your "Logic" lies in ruins exposed as emotion, and not even well researched emotion.

Then why did joey prophecy that SINCE he didn’t live that long NOR the prophecy indicated that it hinged upon that condition. Can’t your god get their future figured out, or are they making it up as they go. Or are your gods vengeful and unbending in the face of deep repentance?

U Said: Here is the standard: "And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously..." Deut 18:21-22 Which is a standard for any claiming to be the Messiahs, if this is applied to prophets, then Jonah has to go too. It's a simple thing really, a standard not applied across the board is not a standard.

Nothing about Messiahs here DU. Nor is there any presumptuousness in Jonah’s prophecy – God chose to suspend it due to their repentance. Ninevah was later destroyed under God’s judgement. Further, God explained it to Jonah – nothing of the sort has EVER been done in joey’s case.

(Moses had unfulfilled prophecies too, if those prove him not to be a prophet, then the Book of Deuteronomy goes along with your test... unintended consequences can be surprising!) you can start at the beginning, how many times did god create the earth according to the bible? (Chuckle Mormons know the answer to this BTW)

Sure, bring it on. And while you are at it, does our sun receive its light still from Kolob?

The prophecy you quote by the way is yet to be fulfilled, so?

Lessee – few years doesn’t equal 100+, mormon opponents not destroyed, within a few years mormons were driven out. Maybe god was talking about the mormons, cause is sure didn’t happen to the gentiles.

And I presented an "error" in the book of Genesis, which if you are insisting on this rule will force you to throw out the very book you are basing your test (which was a test of for people claiming to be Jesus) out too. (pretty funny huh?)

I would rather you be more specific, I hate second guessing.

Moses only had his and God's word in the beginning, Jesus also said God would testify of him, as his proof, remember? So it's not a stretch at all to ask God to testify of his prophets, like Moses, and Joseph and he does.

Again, did joey part the red sea and bring plagues? Did joey heal the sick and the lame as Jesus did? Did joey rise from the dead? Sorry, non starting comparison.

Show me a piece of truly hard evidence, and I'll show you something that is subjective to someone else.

Sorry, burden of proof for bom is on you for that hard evidence :)

(You can call even life subjective, does that make it less real?)

Can you say illogical.

Godhead (three personages, one power, might, mind and strength, Biblical)

Wishful thinking, non-biblical

I Said: Deification of Man, Biblical

Psalm 82 again with mormon failed Hebrew understanding as well as being contextually challenged.

The term “gods” (82:6) was used in this context to describe those who were to “preside over” or “judge” others (82:1); these were men who had been given authority on earth to represent God’s interests and enforce his law. Were these true gods, they would not be dealing with the daily application of God’s law nor would not die like men. Further context is Is 43: 10 Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

(Please note the plurality of gods listed here, the Bible is now a polytheistic book by the very definition you seek to stick on us.)

Only through cherry picking, gross ignorance of Hebrew context and ignoring those other bible verses like Is 43:10 which maintains overall integrity to the word.

Yes, the truth is priceless, too bad your "logic" is writing checks that you just can't cash.

My logic is more sound than the Kirkland bank was. Yet you could not refute Jesus’ words, could you.

We are children of God, we are also spirits, I am a spirit, I also have a body. Just because God has a Body, does not mean he does not have a spirit, it also does not make him less powerful, it makes him more powerful

Sorry, DU, spinning things again. Bible doe not teach that God has a physical and tangible body, he his finite in that he isn’t omnipresent, nor can he reside in our hearts.

Jesus was resurrected, was this some temporary sham resurrection? No? Then God has a Body today (That's why he's the living Christ).

His body does not fit the physical and tangible definition of mormonism. It is in a special category. While we are on the subject, how did the Holy Spirit become a god with getting his body too, or else why hasn’t he progressed?

You are displaying here that your knowledge of the Gospel has been corrupted by the same Greek influence and relying upon the arm of flesh thing that led to the corruption of the church initially, philosophy and Logic over spiritualism.

Greek influences? No actually mormonism is closer to greek corruption than Christianity. You know, all them gods running around with the fruit of the loins thing, getting bored in heaven and coming down to procreate with women. You know, a mormon thing. But it is not your fault you are confused – obfuscation and deceit have been hallmarks of mormon leadership from joey on.

Oh and thank YOU for showing the absolute intellectual vacuum that is mormonism today.