Why so many LDS threads?

What mormons do when there isn't a hose handy:

I Said: LOL, I think you have a Joseph Smith Fetish, I was thinking of Brigham young, but hey there are lots of dead guys to chose from and Anti's don't seem to be picky...

U Said: So you would discourage people from examining the claims of Mormonism and its prophets?

Of course not, however, I would not start with the same claims you would, I would start with claims that uplift, you would start with claims that have no evidence and no redeeming value, here you'll do it again in a second if I just wait...

U Said: Are you saying that one is only allowed to believe the sanitized history of Joey– you would prevent them from doing that?

LOL! I would start with the truth and graduate to the lies that have been told about him, not start with lies and never get to the truth...

U Said: If your posts indicate anything, it appears that you would not allow anything contrary BECAUSE he is dead. Tsk tsk DU, that is pretty lame.

IS it lame to argue his works, instead of just dismissing them, is it lame to actually want to evaluate evidence, not just claim it's not peer reviewed, is it lame to say that anyone who just posts an accusation against the a dead and presents no evidence, worse who denies evidence tot he contrary while still presenting no evidence is a charlatan and not playing fair. Joseph smith was a prophet of God, not perfect. Joseph smith was a good man, Joseph smith is still vilified to day not because of who he was in his heart, but what he preached and how that gospel threatens those who believe the lie of the Trinity. U Said: Mind reading again DU? Your word is inadequate to negate the testimony given to me.

I have never tried to negate a testimony from God to anyone, you included.

U Said: Remarkable – for a belief system based sooooooo much upon personal revelation and testimony – you a priori dismiss a contrary revelation. That is why the Bereans are such a good example – they studied the scriptures too in making their decision.

How many times have i posted that First John 4:1-3 played a huge part in my examination of the Book of Mormon. I.E. I studied the scriptures as part of my decision, and First John 4:1-3 was completely fulfilled telling me that my message was from God.

I Said: Detail? Verbosity is not detail, Detail is not accurate, I have read some very detailed writings that had not a lick of truth in them, detail does not make truth, just detail. on the other hand I testify that I have received a witness direct from God and you denigrate it with "detail".

U Said: Oh puhlese! With angels and everything?

There were no angels...

U Said: I challenge the validity and source of your witness.

Fine, I have recorded my witness publicly Here. U Said: You are allowed to challenge my witness but I can’t challenge yours? Not on my watch.

Not on your watch, your timer, or even your clock.

I Said: Yet you blithely stated that "FARMS has been on the LDS payroll since its inception." (Post # 941) When a quick Google proves that to be an utter falsehood, if you thought they were going to catch you, you wouldn't be so cavalier with the truth.

U Said: Misstatement because I didn’t google more deeply, my bad. FWIW, FARMS was nowhere until they came under BYU financial umbrella and they cannot be thought of today without associating it to byu.

U Said: While speaking of utter falsehoods, you lied about me to others without a pinging me.

I strive to always ping anyone I mention by name, if I did not mention you by name, then it's your overly tender pride, not my fault, if I mentioned you by name and did not ping you, I assure you it was an oversight, and I apologize. I do not, like some anti Mormons here, try to talk about people without pinging them as a regular course of my postings.

U Said: You were pretty cavalier with the truth regarding the writers of NewAvent too. And you have been pretty cavalier here in this post twisting what I and others have posted to you.

That's rich, you have been asserting falsehoods without backup all over and now you accuse me of being Cavalier with the truth, well if what I am doing is "Cavalier" with eh truth, then you and truth have been separated for years and the divorce papers are on the way!

as for twisting what is posted, you are indeed a past master, starting with the editorial power of not posting all that you are responding to.

U Said: DU, do you even read what you post some times?

I always read what I post, I also write my own material...

U Said: U Said (repeated here) Anti’s don’t believe God answers prayer to him. You did not qualify the statement in any fashion – cavalier with the truth?

Did I say All? Did I say You? Please ping the Mods and ask, having been around as long as I have, I can tell you this is an accepted form, you may feel free to add some if your sensibilities are to tender to read the shorthand of a website such as FR.

U Said: If you are this cavalier with your words, your interpretation of others is suspect too.

Have I ever accused anyone by name of something that was untrue? You have. Have I ever called you names (other than your screen name) in anything other than an attempt at humor? (you keep calling me fluffy, and Joseph Smith Joey) you claim you are telling "the truth", if so, why the need for insults? You claim there is great evidence, yet you never dig very deep, instead flitting from one unfounded charge to another, when faced with a link to another site you tend to either impugn the site, or dismiss it as "propaganda". I have yet to observe you actually address the contents of a link that refutes your claim. People who are after the truth generally don't behave in the manner I have observed. U Said: Mormon theology is Christianity, if your beliefs are incompatible with Christianity, repent.

U Said: LOL, I quiver beneath the almighty du.

Please, that image was entirely uncalled for.

U Said: If we applied your logic rigorously, then you would have to include RLDS, FLDS and the hundreds of other because subgroups as Mormons, LOL.

Let me explain this, and I'll try to use small words so every one can understand this apparently difficult to grasp point.

Christianity is a faith defined by believing in Jesus Christ as the savior.

Churches like Baptists (yes even the west borough ones) Pentecostals, holly rollers, Catholics, Mormons, FLDS, RLDS, Calvinists, Lutherans, etc. are all churches that are separate entities that all believe in Jesus Christ as their savior, thus they are separate churches, but all Christian in their faith.

Buddhists and Muslims have subdivisions or "churches" in their faith(s) as well.

U Said: Mormon theology is not that of Christianity, so why don’t you say it a few more times and really show us what you think.

Mormon's definitely believe in Jesus Christ, Mormon is a nickname given to us by other churches, the Full name of the Church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints, if you want to shorten it, we prefer LDS, why because? Because LDS church also uses a book called the Book of Mormon a second witness of Jesus Christ, the Book of Mormon is a record of a branch of the house of Israel that come over to the Americas and live the Gospel, Jesus comes to visit them in the Americas after his resurrection in Jerusalem. These were the other sheep he talked about to the people at Jerusalem.

I Said: I'm laughing on the inside...

U Said: And without answer on the outside.

LOL! If there's one thing I pride myself on, it's never being at a loss for words. Anyone who reads these threads will know I speak the truth here....

I Said: Actually, it's not hard at all, in this very thread you said "That is because we have already received our spiritual message and the Spirit says NO." that quote was in response to me saying that anti's would do anything but encourage people to pray. Thus you either don't believe that is the answer they will get (which you protested is not so) or you think they are too dumb to get a prayer right and get the correct answer from God, take your pick.

U Said: Your testimony is no greater than mine in the subject aspect you put it in this post.

Yes, we are indeed both testifying that we received an answer from God, however, I am encouraging others to go get an answer from God, you are not doing that, and it calls your answer into question.

U Said: My response was in regards to my self and my testimony of the spiritual revelation of the truthfulness (or more appropriately the lack of truthfulness) of the bom and Mormonism.

Great! so why aren't you encouraging others to have this same experience and receive an answer from God!

U Said: I could make the same argument against you on the same points you raise against me. LOL

I guess you can say anything you like, but accusing me of not encouraging people to try what I did will IMHO be a hard sell, especially with me posting in response and encouraging it.

Let me put it this way, let's say just for the sake of discussion the there's this religion, we'll call them religion X. X tells everyone to pray and God will tell them they are true. You and I both decide to pray about it, and you get no answer, so you decide it's not true, and I get a direct revelation from God (maybe I'm dense and won't stop praying about it) Anyway, God tells me it's phony Baloney, plastic banana absolutely not true. You might just tell people it's not true, but I am going to go out and encourage people to pray about it (get this) because if you pray about it long enough God will tell you it's a lie.

Getting an answer from God is such a life changing event that everyone should have it, even if it's to tell you something is wrong.

This is not religion X we are discussing, it's The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, LDS for short. I have prayed about the Book of Mormon, I have received a witness direct from God my actions are consistent with my statements.

On the other hand, you claim to have received an answer, yet you discourage others from seeking that same answer from God just because he said "it's not true." I'll leave off this diatribe with a Chinese saying "In questioning Deity, any answer is significant" You just aren't acting like a person who got an answer direct from God, because you do not act as if it's "significant".

I Said: Lurkers, Godzilla is a paid Theologian, he is paid to represent his church, I am an amateur, I get nothing for my service here.

U Said: Lurkers and other FReepers here. DU has pointed out in this post that he tells all that people like me are too stupid to use FR’s capabilities to search. Many months ago DU made this same accusation of me. I told him that if that makes him feel better about it thathe can believe what he wants to.

Actually, I asked if he was a professional and he said that he was. now, on this thread, he won't deny it, why is that?

U Said: I’ve let him continue because it so humorous the way he tries to paint that on me – as if it was truth that it some how negates what I post here.

I bring it up especially here, on this thread, because you are saying that FARMS, now being supported by BYU (indeed you erroneously assert that they have always been supported by the LDS Church) negates the truth of their posts and articles.

It's a pot and Kettle kind of thing.

U Said: Now DU has accused me of being a paid Theologian again.

Because you said you were before, and you are attacking paid people here...

U Said: This is applied in a manner that is equivalent to a personal attack. So what should my response be?

Try simply telling the truth, Are you now or have you ever been employed by a church?

It's a simple question.

U Said: DU (and any interested Lurkers) please go to my profile page and see what I do for a living.

"Been there, seen that." I went right after you said you were a minister on another thread, I thought it was interesting that you didn't mention that, even though it seems to be a big part of your public persona here. That said, personal pages can contain almost anything, and can be changed at any time.

U Said: I am a volunteer minister at my church, in charge of multimedia and children’s ministries. I believe in the biblical call that I am a minister even if I don’t have the position, title or official college transcript. I don’t receive a single penny for my work on behalf of Christ. I post here to counter the false translation of Christian doctrine by many Mormons here – DU being one of them (evident in my many exchanges with him).

Interesting, so the "Volunteers" at FARMS are religious hacks and you are performing a noble service, it's a perspective thing I guess.

I would not be posting here except people like yourself come here and misrepresent my churches positions on the Gospel. There is an easy way for you and the other anti's to stop my and most other Mormons posts here, stop attacking us. You are the aggressor here, I have never come over to a thread about your religion (which ever one it is, and no, I don't even want to know) and started posting quotes from the first vision, or Book of Mormon, or attacking the trinity, IMHO that would be rude, also IMHO you are rude for doing that to us.

U Said: My through my study of God’s Word, the bom and prayer, I can testify to every one here that the Spirit of God has shown to me that the bom is a fake document, written by a false prophet we’ve been warned about in scripture. Put the book of because to the test – is it a real historical document telling us about Jew who live in America, feel free to expand your search - since there is no valid evidence of such presence.

Finally, A call for others to check it out, unfortunately, the highest authority you cite is your own intellect, your study, you say the spirit has shown you, how? I received a very specific testimony, did you? We can't tell from your post. was that testimony accompanied by a testimony of Jesus having come in the flesh? we can't tell from your post and many on the Anti Mormon side have pointed out that Satan would love to deceive anyone asking God a question. You said that the "Spirit of God has shown you..." This could be many things from "I believe God led me to study this anti Mormon book I found in the library", to "I saw a vision". I believe you believe that you received an answer. from your post we don't know if that answer was from a library book, or the Spirit of God itself. We just can't tell from your post, no, I am not asking for specifics, but I am asking for enough to know what happened. IMHO if you received an answer from God, you would be a bit more excited about telling about it.

For example: ask my Mom about the first time she felt the spirit confirm to her that the Book of Mormon was true, she can't help it, the tears will flow because it's such a seminal event in her life, it's so powerful that to this day the mere memory of a direct communication from God echoes in her life like a bell that's been struck and is still vibrating.

I don't cry about mine every time, I don't give some of the details because they are too sacred to me to share on a forum where they would undoubtedly be mocked and made fun of by persons such as yourself, however, my answer was specific and I have in general terms described what was in it. I have since than seen visions in answer to prayer, and I can tell you a few things about answers from God:

Messages from God will always contain a testimony of Jesus.
Messages from God are always uplifting in that they lead men to him.
Messages from God are always a good thing, everyone should because as many as they can.
Messages from God are always clear, God never miscommunicates, you don't have to guess at his meaning.
Messages from God are sharper and more detailed than reality itself. (this is difficult to describe unless you have experienced it)

If You received an answer from God, you should be encouraging all with vigor to replicate your experience.

U Said: The Bereans studied the scriptures to verify Paul’s teachings – and were commended for it. Your eternal life is too precious to place solely upon a subjective burning of the bosom.

Don’t buy a used car from J. Smith.

There are many ways for God to testify to men, indeed God will use the way that is "perfect" for each man. a burning in the bosom is only one such method, and if the communication comes from God it will be enough, as for me personally, I received much more than just a burning feeling, my answer was specific and included a testimony of Jesus Christ as promised in First John 4:1-3 Why did I because such a specific biblical response? Maybe it was because I was unable to because any other answer, maybe it was because I had already read the Bible from cover to cover four times with specific topical study thrown in for good measure, I don't know all the answers, but I am a high functioning autistic, and as such am not exactly in touch with "feelings", I am more a creature of logic, and my posts reflect the logic and different perspective that come with Autism.

You can believe me or not, that is up to you, but I am consistent, and true to the testimony of Jesus that I bear in my heart.

Godzilla, I bear you no ill will, I just wish you could see as I do. Is it a crime to want to share your testimony and perspective? If you truly received a negative witness, and you know that my posts will always encourage people to test what I say with prayer, then you should have no problem with me, or my posts. that would be logical...

Go with God.

U Said: This is the most unbelievable post I have every read.

Or ever read, I'm sure...

U Said: Is your God fallible delphi?

God is not fallible, Men are.

U Said: My God isn’t, and if he wants something in the Bible it is in there.

So in your view, man has no agency? in mine Man does.

U Said: You strain at knats over a comma?

The Johannine Comma is not a punctuation mark, and I did not name it. The Johannine Comma is the inclusion into the Bible of commentary originally written in the margin by some Monk as actual scripture, instead of as commentary, when translated to Latin and English, this commentary by an unnamed Monk now becomes scripture, and is attributed to God. God does not work that way, if he wanted an addition, he'd have made it the traditional way via a prophet and out in the open, he does not change, remember?

U Said: It is only human understanding that is fallible, the world and everything in the world is corrupt.

Which is why I am objecting to the corruption of the Bible by men...

U Said: But God speaks to us. Perhaps you should listen.

I'm trying, but you guys keep talking over him...

I guess Sacrament Meeting is over.

Again you are straining at gnats, making fun of my typing and correcting a figure of speech I used to show the insignificance of the Johannine comma. ( I know fully well what it is...it is still insignificant as it doesn't change anything doctrinal....and Mormonism still points to it as one of the “great inaccuracies” of the Bible which “proves” Christianity has fallen into such “grave” error that Mormonism had to be restored as the “one true church.”"

Now will you (as usual) point to my overuse of parenthesis and my unusual punctuation as a cause to not address the point of my post? Good day to you DU. Aren't you supposed to use the Sabbath Day to spend with your family, perhaps reading scriptures or taking walks. I wouldn't suspect that FReeping is proper use of this day in Mormonism......but then again, you have free agency, right? ;-)

Oh and don’t forget that Joseph Smith INCLUDED the Johannine comma in his “translation.”

BWAhahahahahahaaaaaaa

U Said: Wow! Are you ever unable to read what is written!

Actually, I read just fine, however, sometimes the meaning of poorly written pieces escapes me.

U Said: Just on this part, alone, you show complete illiteracy in reading and comprehending what is written: -maybe it is your false translation? You can get the manuscripts online to compare the original words written and the concordance helps you see the original and what it means, at www.blueletterbible.org

I got those citations from the website I linked, not a "Mormon" site BTW. It's not a new thought, and Mormons believe that God created everything twice, once spiritually, and once physically (so we have no contradiction there, but for the "create once" people like the makers of the web site, they have no explanation.

I am not going to defend every single, or even one contradiction from the Bible, my point is made, they are there, and if there is the perception of contradictions within the Bible, then it's impossible for anything to "completely agree" with it, for it disagrees with itself.

<Snip>

U Said: I haven’t time at the moment to reply to all your biblical errors, but as I have time, I will.

Please don't bother, I am not truly concerned about these "contradictions" my point was already made the claims of contradiction can and will be made erroneously, and there is no way for the Book of Mormon to completely agree with a book many believe contradicts itself. Indeed, the Mormonism explains more of these contradictions in a logical way than any other religion I have ever encountered.

U Said: The above alone is enough to show that you need a biblical literacy class.

LOL! I'm sure such a class would be interesting, especially with you as teacher, however, I could have given the same, or even better explanations, that was not the point.

Let me state plainly that if you are looking for Contradictions you will find them, if you are looking for problems you will find them, If you are looking for God's message, you will find it. Some times it's not what's on the Table that matters, ti's what you bring to the table with you. I found a testimony of Jesus in the Book of Mormon, what will you find?

U Said: You are in error about when the book of Revelation was written,

Really, then why did John specifically reference Laodicea, which was destroyed in AD 60 and again in AD 65.

U Said: and the Gospel of John is the testimony of Jesus Christ’s life and doctrine, as John gave his own living witness of it, as also Matthew did, which testimonies are also confirmed by Luke and Mark who were neither of them disciples and apostles.

The Gospels generally accepted as being written between 65 and 100 AD, with the Gospel of John being the latest at 90-100 AD.

U Said: So the Revelation Jesus gave John is the last Word from God to mankind,

You keep saying that, and I'd like to know where in the Bible it says that...

U Said: and was given after His teachings were delivered for three and a half years to the Apostles and disciples, and was delivered after His death, after His resurrection, and and after His ascension and seating on the Throne of His Glory.

So if revelation continued after his death, resurrection and ascension, why stop after 100 years? and where is that int he Bible?

First Personage said: "This is my son--listen to him."

Second Personage said: Nothing...

Actually, I read just fine, however, sometimes the meaning of poorly written pieces escapes me.

Then YOU qualify to be a Living Prophet®, Leader of the great LDS bunch, headquartered in SLC!

You'll fit right in!!

TRUTH IGNORED

Smith, Young, Taylor, Pratt, Snow, Kimbal,l Woodruff ...

1 Timothy 3:2-3
2. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
3. not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.

1 Timothy 3:12
A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.

Titus 1:6
An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.

BEHOLD!!!! The Restorative Power of the Book of Mormon!!

THE BOOK OF JACOB
THE BROTHER OF NEPHI

CHAPTER 2

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

Really, then why did John specifically reference Laodicea, which was destroyed in AD 60 and again in AD 65.

That must have been some really HECTIC building going on in those 5 years!!

U Said: You lied about what I said in my post, setting up a straw man for you to attack, BTW:

U Said: You claimed this: “If the Bible can be shown to contradict itself in only one place, your argument ceases to hold water.”

My understanding from your post was that you were saying the Bible is inerrant and my argument is consistent with that belief, was I incorrect?

U Said: And yet I said nothing of the sort that you are stating. When the collection of books we call the Bible states “Thus saith the LORD”, then nothing in the collection of books which we call the Bible can contradict anything stated as “Thus saith the LORD”.

So what you were saying was that the Bible is only inerrant when saying "Thus saith the Lord". This is a unique and inherently easier to defend position.

Is it literal "thus Saith the Lord" phrases, or for example, are the "Ten Commandments" inerrant?

U Said: The sacred writings do not contradict the doctrine of “Thus saith the LORD” in any way.

That's what I am trying to find out, I guess, you will have to admit that only where Joseph said "Thus saith the Lord" can't contradict (If it works for the Bible, it has to be applied to other things claiming to be scripture, when you invalidate them by the same rules you use on scripture, or your test is not logical)

U Said: the sacred writings we call the Bible do not contradict the nature of the Person or the work of the LORD Jesus Christ.

The sacred writings of the Book of Mormon do not contradict the nature of the person or the work of Jesus Christ, indeed they clarify much that is not told to us in the Bible.

U Said: No one can write anything and call it “inspired” as “Thus saith the LORD” since Jesus Christ came in flesh and gave His doctrine, and finished His work of redemption.

Why? He finished his work and the Apostles continued to say "Thus saith the Lord" for 100 Years at least. God has always told prophets what he would do, thus is a statement that is at odds with the Bible: Amos 3: 7

7 Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

Since the Bible Prophesies of Prophets in the last days, we know that prophets did not end with Jesus. (who was way more than a prophet)

U Said: He is returning, and the doctrine of His return is first written of by Enoch and is lastly written of by John, who got the “Revelation of Jesus Christ” from Him, to write.

Actually, I believe that Adam knew and probably recorded prophecies of Jesus, but we don't have those records, so sure, we'll go with Enoch being the first we have...

U Said: That Revelation closes what God speaks to this present creation.

And how do you know that,the Scripture at the end of Revelation is almost exactly duplicated in Deuteronomy 4 : 2. The usage could just as easily mean not to add to or take away from the Book of revelations, actually, since the Bible had not been compiled yet, it makes more sense to interpret it that way, either way now we are beginning to speculate and interpret the scriptures and it's dangerous ground on which to speak in absolutes.

U Said: He has nothing to add and nothing is taken away, and anyone who does add anything or take anything away is anethema -cursed forever- from what His doctrine and teaching is as is revealed in the Gospels and Revelation, and which are all about the fulfillment of what is already prophesied and taught, in the law and the prophets, anyway.

Wow, you jump to conclusions with the best of them, first the add to or take away is not "set in stone" as applying to the whole Bible, you are adding right there to get there. On top of that, if it does then isn't the Trinity a construct of man, made doctrine of the church by a council of men, not by a prophet acting under god's command a better example of adding to the gospel as you infer by paraphrasing

6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

The Trinity not being biblical fits this bill completely, this is obviously what Paul was talking about, and now that the restoration is in effect, you want to stop it by saying it's a change?

U Said: Get that! -Joseph Smith is a fraud and a deceiver for claiming to have anything to say as “thus says the Lord” which has changed and added and taken away from the doctrine of the Person and work of the LORD Jesus Christ, and who is Himself, YHWH come in flesh of second Man creation to be the Kinsman/Redeemer to all Adam.

Do you even know where scripture ends and your interpretation begins? I actually wonder if you know that you are interpreting the scriptures!

If God tells you to say "thus Saith the Lord" you say it.

If God tells you to write something or translate something an call it scripture, you do it and call it scripture.

If anyone speaks of themselves, and says "Thus Saith the Lord" it does not matter what day or age, or if Revelations had been written yet, they are in trouble with God, and will be accursed.

You assume because of your interpretation of the scriptures that there will be no prophets, therefore Joseph cannot be one, it's easy, it requires no investigation, it's dismissal without examination, and it's lazy. It's also not Biblical.

First John 4:1-3

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.
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: Joseph Smith is a proven false prophet and his translation is from his own imagination -or worse

Joseph smith is a prophet of God, he learned more about God in those few minutes in the grove than you have in all your years of study.

U Said: the word nephi is from the Hebrew root for “cast down” =nephil, and is what root word the nephillim [plural] is from.

Wait, Anti's used to say Nephi was not a Hebrew name until it was found on the dead sea scrolls from Lehi's time, and then it came over from Egyptian, which is consistent with Nephi's own account of using Egyptian characters to write the Book of Mormon with. Egyptian going to have a radically different meaning than your demonic interpretation...

I did a quick search and came up with this: the name Nephi derives from the Egyptian word nfr.2 While nfr denotes "good, fine, goodly"3 of quality, it also signifies "beautiful, fair"4 of appearance. Assuming that at least some senses of the Egyptian word passed into Nephite language and culture, this second sense of nfr may have influenced Nephite self-perception. The article goes on to talk about the word play of referring to the Nephites as "Fair ones", here Go read the article your self. U Said: In Enoch the nephillim/giants/cast down ones [plural] were to be disembodied by wars and by the flood of Noah, and were to be allowed to roam earth as evil spirits after the flood, to deceive into false worship of demons and worship of fallen angels, and to torment and afflict all Adamkind until the day of their removal from the earth at the return of the LORD Jesus Christ, when He comes to cleanse the earth of all things that offend, and comes to burn all the temples of the heathen over all the earth, and comes to establish His reign of Peace over all the earth from Jerusalem, Israel -in the middle east.

Nephritis is kidney disease, maybe Nephi had kidney trouble, and that's why they called him that, LOL! Some times, especially if you are saying hey these two words sound alike, maybe they are related (with no more reason to connect them than that) then you jump on a word because it has a meaning that agrees with what you already believe, you end up with a truly ridiculous story. I am going to list some of the assumptions that you would have to accept "whole":

Joseph Smith made the whole thing up even though he had a total of three years of formal education.
Joseph smith was told this story by a demon who answered a prayer to God this demon kept God from answering and the Demon then Testified of Jesus as the Savior.
Joseph with his three years of formal education knew and purposefully named people in his book names that descended from Ancient Hebrew, and played complicated word games with these Hebrew names that no one new were fashionable in the time period he was talking about until later....

GET REAL!

I Said: “Bible” means collection of books.

U Said: One can have in their collection books that are written by men who know God and which books are true and are historical, but which are not “Thus saith the LORD”.

You evil pompous posturing Person how dare you try to prophesy in the name of the Lord! You are now a proven false prophet and i am going to start researching demonic names that might sound like yours...<Sarc>

U Said: Their books will not contradict anything that is written as “Thus saith the LORD, if they are indeed true.

Joseph Smith’s books contradicted “Thus saith the LORD”.

This just might be fun, where did Joseph's "Thus Saith the Lord" contradict the Bible's "Thus saith the Lord"? Remember, anything out side of a "Thus saith the Lord" can contradict and it's not a problem (according to your rules) let's see them quotes! In the mean time, I'll look for "Thus saith the lord" contradictions in the Bible, wow this is much easier now that we don't have the pesky Ten Commandments and the Thou shalt not lie stuff...

Hey, I know, since only the parts of the Bible in "Thus Saith the Lord" quotes matter, why don't you print your own Bible?

U Said: There is nothing any man has written since Revelation of Jesus Christ that is a word from God in any manner, shape, or form.

Including the Nicene Creed, athanasian Creed, and the Apostles Creed, Etc. In fact all those involved in the creation of those creeds are accursed!

U Said: Men may write books expounding the Gospel of Christ, and they do write excellent books doing so, but there is nothing added or taken away from that which Jesus Christ has spoken, and His last word is the book of Revelation.”

(Except when they convene a council to compiled books, arrange them, create dogma Creeds or doctrine, or make people in to saints, tell people to pray to Mary, etc)

You're a funny Guy, please keep posting.

I repeat, you are in error about when the book of Revelation was written, and you are terribly misinformed about history of the Church, the message of God’s Word, and who God is, besides.

u said, DelphiUser “Really, then why did John specifically reference Laodicea, which was destroyed in AD 60 and again in AD 65.”

John specifically referenced Laodicia because Laodicia was so wealthy that when the city was destroyed by an earthquake in 60 AD they refused all aid and rebuilt thier city with their own funds.

“Laodicea was a great center of banking and finance (Rev. 3:14-21). It was one of the wealthiest cities of the ancient world! When Laodicea was destroyed by an earthquake in 60 A.D., they refused aid from the Roman empire and rebuilt the city from their own wealth. “One of the most famous cities of Asia, Laodicea, was in the same year overthrown by an earthquake and without any relief from us recovered itself by its own resources” (Tacitus, Annals, 14:27).”....
The remains of the city are basically unexcavated, so most of what we know about the history of the city comes from written sources. The remains of two theaters, one Greek and one Roman, are on the northeastern slope of the plateau. A large stadium which also served as an amphitheater, dedicated by a wealthy citizen to the Roman emperor Vespasian in 79 A.D., can be found on the opposite end of the plateau. The stadium was used for both athletic contests and gladiatorial shows. Archaeologists discovered a life-sized statue of the goddess Isis in the ancient nymphaeum, or monumental fountain.

“The Gate to Ephesus, triple-arched and flanked by towers, was devoted to the Emperor Domition (81-96 A.D.). On the south-west side stand a number of buildings built under Vespasian (69-79 A.D.). An aqueduct bringing water into the city ended in a 16 foot tall water tower which distributed water throughout the city.”

Really, then why did John specifically reference Laodicea, which was destroyed in AD 60 and again in AD 65.

http://www.padfield.com/2005/laodicea.html

THe above post has a remark of yours at the bottom. which I was showing your error of historical information about by my post -so here it is again—————

I repeat, you are in error about when the book of Revelation was written, and you are terribly misinformed about history of the Church, the message of God’s Word, and who God is, besides.

u said, DelphiUser “Really, then why did John specifically reference Laodicea, which was destroyed in AD 60 and again in AD 65.”

John specifically referenced Laodicia because Laodicia was so wealthy that when the city was destroyed by an earthquake in 60 AD they refused all aid and rebuilt thier city with their own funds.

“Laodicea was a great center of banking and finance (Rev. 3:14-21). It was one of the wealthiest cities of the ancient world! When Laodicea was destroyed by an earthquake in 60 A.D., they refused aid from the Roman empire and rebuilt the city from their own wealth. “One of the most famous cities of Asia, Laodicea, was in the same year overthrown by an earthquake and without any relief from us recovered itself by its own resources” (Tacitus, Annals, 14:27).”....
The remains of the city are basically unexcavated, so most of what we know about the history of the city comes from written sources. The remains of two theaters, one Greek and one Roman, are on the northeastern slope of the plateau. A large stadium which also served as an amphitheater, dedicated by a wealthy citizen to the Roman emperor Vespasian in 79 A.D., can be found on the opposite end of the plateau. The stadium was used for both athletic contests and gladiatorial shows. Archaeologists discovered a life-sized statue of the goddess Isis in the ancient nymphaeum, or monumental fountain.

“The Gate to Ephesus, triple-arched and flanked by towers, was devoted to the Emperor Domition (81-96 A.D.). On the south-west side stand a number of buildings built under Vespasian (69-79 A.D.). An aqueduct bringing water into the city ended in a 16 foot tall water tower which distributed water throughout the city.”

http://www.padfield.com/2005/laodicea.html

As I have time I will address any one of your many false assertions or so, pr post. My time is limited as I am going off line Weds. for the summer, but I may use daughter’s computer on occasion to check in, don’t know yet.

Anyway, this is to show you your complete misunderstanding of what YHWH is, as revealed in His Word, and show you by what He has created that YHWH is One uncreated self existing Kind/Being/Life/Spirit, existing in three and only three Persons, from all eternity, and He has One and only One Similitude/Image “Seen”, and Adam is made in that same image of the, Seen, “Express image” of YHWH.

YHWH does not multiply. He does not increase by any means nor procreate sexually.
He does not change.

He has created all kinds as “one” kind/life/spirit, and each kind has one image “seen” and one name named, by Him who named each Star [angel] and named Adam [but He allowed Adam to name the beasts of the earth who were to serve him]; and some of his kinds are made to multiply by sexual union until their purpose for doing so is fulfilled. Adam is such a kind.

Adam is one spirit - Malachi 2:15- which is to say one kind/being/life.
Adam is made male and female, to multiply the kind; Genesis 5:2 “Male and female made He them and called their name Adam”, and He commanded them to multiply “Adam“ on the face of the earth as sons of God of the human kind, as a temple for the Glory of the UNSEEN Creator. {MalachI 2:15;Luke 3:38; Genesis 1:26-28; Haggai chapter 2]
The Hebrew word for our kind is given to our head/chief/firstborn, by the Creator. We were made male and female =two persons, and one kind [Adam/human]; one flesh; one blood; one bone; one spirit.

The kind multiplied/increased, by command, the persons; so Adam, the one kind, is a multi-billion/billion-ity to whatever power.

YHWH, on the other hand, is simply a Tri-unity; Three Persons only, forever, and one image which is God the Word, who is come in flesh.

The first Adam male is called the ‘isyh in Hebrew, and the first Adam female is called the ‘ishyah in the Hebrew. They are two persons, they are one Adam as to kind. They are each called Adam. They are not each other.

So in the YHWH Tri-unity, there is in the Scripture one Person in YHWH called the Father -UNSEEN; one Person in YHWH called the WORD -SEEN, and come in flesh of second human creation; and One Person in YHWH called the Holy Spirit, who is God present, from the beginning, with us.

There are persons born in Adam.
No persons are born in YHWH, or have ever been born in YHWH, or will ever be born in YHWH. But One Person in YHWH is come incarnate in a second human being creation, called Israel. He is Jesus [Hebrew for Salvation, as Hoshea is], the Christ/Messiah/Anointed One.
He did not stop being the second Person in YHWH when He came incarnate in the second creation human being flesh body. He is dual natured: God the Creator in the Person of the Word, and second creation human being; brother to Adam.

And He came to be the Kinsman to Adam, to be the Redeemer with the power and the will to ransom the lost brother back to the Father, for the Glory which Adam, son of God [but son no more; Luke 3:38; MalachI 2:15], was created to bear, before the fall.

Israel, the only Living Human Son of God, is now given the Glory to bear, and to have a share of what Adam lost and which Jesus Christ -the Son of God, who is Israel- ransomed back as Kinsman, one must be born again from above, into His One Living Spirit, from the dead Adam spirit.

Do a concordance search at blb.org and see that Adam is one kind/spirit/life/being, but made male and female, and multiplied to an uncountable ‘inity”.
Do a search likewise and see that YHWH is countable: One Father; One Word -come in flesh- and One Holy Spirit [present in this creation from the beginning, even when the Glory of Adam departed and Adam was made shamed in his vanity of being and tried to cover that shame of loss of the Glory with fig leaves].

Wow, that’s must hear radio.

Pretty scary, huh?

All -
The next three posts to DU will be most enlightening.

and your each and every point has been refuted by me and others here many times, your points are neither true, nor original.

Aaah, yes, the good ‘ol DU said so refutations LOL

Your insistence on using diminutives does not help your case,

Joey is diminutive, just matching the word with the person.

Pending prophecies of prophets however does obliterate the idea that all prophecy has ended and that there will be no more prophets. AS I said, the Bible has unfulfilled prophecies that speak of prophets in the last days, so there will still be prophets, I did not say that made Mormonism true, just not contradictory to scripture as your stance that there should not be prophets is.

Mormonism’s problem with this is that the delayed prophecies had a time frame specified by which they will be accomplished. Secondly, the others in no fashion can be futuristic – such as the great civil war prophecy.

I have never tried to "prove anyone's religion was inferior to Mormonism" if you thought that was what I am doing you have been laboring under a false assumption.

Been putting Christianity down lately …… and oh, you were the one who told me you could destroy religions and religious beliefs.

To get to 4,000 you have to count the addition of verses, punctuation and formatting

That is admittedly including the poor spelling and grammar – which is hard to justify since the witnesses and scribes description of the translation process was very regimented and literally word for word. Still doesn’t justify the multiple other changes, such as the one to continently allow blacks the priesthood.

The bile has had at least as many "changes" if you want to count those, Hebrew does not even have vowels, do we get to count those as additions, (that would be on par with he ridiculous 4,000 changes claim)

Sure, but we can go to extant ms and through textural comparison of the 30,000+ ms in multiple languages identify the erroneous copies. There are two handwritten copies of the bom – and those do not justify the many changes to the writing over the years.

The bible is claimed to be Inerrant which means (as with all absolute statements if one instance can be found where the statement is wrong, then the whole statement is wrong. 

Where is that specifically stated? If so, that is in the original ms, which doesn’t transfer to the translations.

most correct, as Joseph said elsewhere, means has the fullness of the gospel and will lead men to God.

Correct – adj – accurate or without errors.

The Johannine Comma

Already addressed and known about it for longer 30+ years. Translation does not equal original ms, that is the definition. But then Joey included it with his Inspired Translation, if he included it, then how inspired is the bom?

There are more "Errors" in the bible, this is just the best known, and even one such error disproves the "inerrant" claim.

OK, Book of Abraham, Kinderhook plates, Greek Psalter and the lost 116 pages.

Conversely, Mormons do not claim Joseph was perfect, in fact, we know he had many foible and flaws... just like the prophets of old.

At least the prophets of old got their prophecies right.

The majority are verses, punctuation and spelling changes, so?

I’ll address this later again and post the other major changes.

Word for word does not mean letter for letter, and spelling was not as formal as it is now, many variants were considered correct. The grammar was Joseph's own.

Sorry, that is not the testimony of the witnesses and scribes. The word or phrase would not go away until properly written down.

Ah, the White for Pure, in the 1800's no one worried about white being racist, it meant pure, when used like this, so rather than be called racist, the church (with modern day revelation to back them up) changed the word, there have been, I believe three whole word changes, Protestants have removed whole books from the Bible that the catholics put together.

Ah the lets dump on the catholics red herring. Those books are still there – why hasn’t the mormon church canonized them? Until they do, your point is moot.

Then you attempt the Brush of racism, which just does not matter, the gospel is for all god's children, in the day you speak of most churches were doing things that would be considered racist today, I have been in a baptist church that had a balcony that was for the persons of color in those days.

Ok, now deflect to the Baptists. LOL, that change remarkably appeared when civil rights law suits were being developed and the prophet had a ‘revelation’ just like in 1870.

Mormons go to God with their questions, you go to manuscripts...

So why have a canon, particularly one that contains the so-called fullness of the gospel.

Joseph never finished the JST, and never said it was inerrant.

Sorry, you are obfuscating a defined fact of history.

Bruce R. McConkie claims:
... at the command of the Lord and while acting under the spirit of revelation, the Prophet corrected, revised, altered, added to, and deleted from the King James Version of the Bible to form what is now commonly referred to as the Inspired Version of the Bible.... the marvelous flood of light and knowledge revealed through the Inspired Version of the Bible is one of the great evidences of the divine mission of Joseph Smith (Mormon Doctrine, 1958, pp. 351-52).

Doctrine and Covenants 73:4, Joseph Smith was commanded to "continue the work of translation until it be finished."

In the History of the Church, under the date of February 2, 1833, we find this statement by Joseph Smith: "I completed the translation and review of the New Testament, on the 2nd of February, 1833, and sealed it up, no more to be opened till it arrived in Zion" (History of the Church, vol. 1, p.324).

Here is where the whole inspired translation was stated by Joey that it was finished

As for us using it, apparently you don't know that the Bible as published by the Church includes the JST as foot notes, we just don't publish the whole thing because we'd get our behinds sued off (I guess that would suit you.)

Robert J. Matthews points out that "every reference to it in the Doctrine and Covenants and the History of the Church calls it a translation" (BYU Studies, Autumn 1968, p.3)

I spent a week at Cumron, Nag Hammadi in 2000, they commonly piece together books from pieces of differing scrolls, because often parts of each scroll are unreadable.

Nag Hammadi is not the Dead Sea Site, and I spent weeks in Washington DC, that doesn’t make me the president.

Yep, that's how the workers there said they put things together. Do you deny that before the Dead Sea Scrolls many "experts" were claiming that the whole book of Enoch was written later?

You are having challenges reading things contextually DU, I stated that all the sections except Simlitudes were present at DSS and that that component was written later and later compiled with the other parts.

I ask you since this was a cannon of the Ethopic and early church, and in use before that since it was part of the "Scriptures" in the Dead Sea Scrolls when and how exactly did someone slip in a whole new section, pages and pages and nobody noticed?

You are the ancient text expert, having spent a whole week at Nag Hammadi. You will need to cite an official canon listing 1Enoch as being in the canon – technically (a term you would understand with your extensive one week at Nag Hammadi) this would be affiliated with the OT. There is no canon (LXX or MT) that includes 1 Enoch. Though cited by some NT (Jude primarly) and anti-Nicean writers, it was never a canon. The copts in Ethiopia are not necessarily represenative of the whole church and includes other documents rejected by the church at large. Once again, let your prophet speak and announce that these documents are the ones taken out by the eeeevil catholics and canonize them. Otherwise you are just wasting electrons.

Secondly, just because documents were found at the dss site, does not automatically make them part of the canon. Your ward library probably has a lot more books there than the bom, D&C and POGP. Are those other documents part of your canon too.

The Johannine Comma ………..No one complained, "Orthodox" Christians didn't notice because they didn't even use the scriptures in it any more (why is that) and those who were using it have no record of a controversy, because they never saw a change, ergo there was no change.

Your citation links to Metzger, who documents the case and discussions elsewhere, you ‘d do well to see that when modern scholarship with extended MS to review flagged this early on – hence why it is italicized. This section shows how UNISPIRIED Joey was (once again)

Joseph Smith not only made many unnecessary changes in the Bible, but he also failed to see the places where the text of the Bible really needed correction. There is one statement in the King James Version, 1 John 5:7 and 8, which scholars are certain is an interpolation. In modern versions of the Bible this statement has been removed to conform with the ancient Greek manuscripts. Following is a comparison of the text in the King James Version and that found in the Revised Standard Version:

King James Version: 1 John 5:6-8: "6. This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

Revised Standard Version: 1 John 5:6-8: "6. This is he who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood. 7. And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 8. There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree."

The Book of Enoch Chapter 46:1-2 This is from the Section called The Book of Parables (37-71),

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

Kinda hard to quote a writing that wasn’t even in existence at the time. Daniel and Isaiah were in existence and provide the scriptural background for Christ’s quotes.

Jude quotes from Enoch, the Catholic church left out a book that Jesus and all the apostles and the early church all considered scripture, but the Bible is complete, there is nothing to add, we kept out the plain and precious truths, don't you dare try to put them back in because they will destroy the dogma we have created of the TRINITY!

Once again – you living prophets and seers over the ages have had plenty of opportunities to canonize these works and rectify the removal of the plain and precious parts. This has not been done, ergo – you attack is simple hot air.

You care about the Similitudes because parts of that scripture exactly match the book of Abraham as published by the LDS church, it would be a proof of Joseph smith's as a prophet of God that you can't stand to even contemplate, so you have to cling to this razor thin, illogical position which only makes sense if your perspective is "Joseph is a fraud, and anything that supports that is true and any fact that contradicts that presupposition is to be annihilated by any means possible."

Please do a comparison of the two to PROVE to me the EXACT match of the boa to the Similitude’s portion of 1Enoch. This should prove interesting

I am even going to include what i said last time:

Argument by repetition, not supported by modern textural critical analysis.

Daniel was quoting Enoch, so was numbers, go read them with your blinders off, and you will see they are obviously referencing a book they expect us to be familiar with.

Again, your wisdom gleaned from one week at Nag Hammadi is showing off. You need to look up a term – Pseudographic writings; The earliest components were written hundreds of years AFTER Daniel. That's why it was in the Dead sea scrolls, I mean yeah, they always include unimportant documents in with the scriptures when they are storing them up for the eternities...

Multiple lines of evidence – first off as pointed out earlier, Similitudes portion is not at the dss site. Secondly, the canonical books of the OT had commentaries written by the Qumran community, these included the Pentateuch, the Prophets (including Daniel), the Psalms, and Job. There are no evidence of commentaries for any of the Enoch materials, or anything else that would suggest it was considered canon (or defiled the hands). It is absent from the LXX and was excluded from the list in Jamnia. All evidence points away from the Jews believing it to be scripture.

I have read much, I have not read everything, I am an amateur,

I’ll agree to that point.

what I have read indicates that the Jews read the book of Enoch, and would have been familiar with the prophecies contained in it, thus, I ask you why would Jesus ask this question: "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?" if the prophecy had not yet been made,

The term Son of Man is found 74 times in the KJV in the Prophets, (101 times in the entire KJV). That is evidence of adequate existing prophetic support for Jesus’ question.

why did Jude Quote Enoch?

First, Jude didn’t cite a from the Similitude portion. Secondly, the components that became 1 Enoch eventually were read and would be recognized. Thirdly, citation does not equate scriptural status to them, otherwise one would have to canonize the writing of Greek authors Paul cited. The context shows that Jude was trying to make a point, and the citation used supported it.

So you say Gnostic thought did not penetrate and have influence in the early church? Gnostic
1. pertaining to knowledge.
2. possessing knowledge, esp. esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters.
3. (initial capital letter) pertaining to or characteristic of the Gnostics.
4. (initial capital letter) a member of any of certain sects among the early Christians who claimed to have superior knowledge of spiritual matters, and explained the world as created by powers or agencies arising as emanations from the Godhead. IMHO, the creation of the Trinity was Gnosticism on flagrant display.

Note Sect identified as heresy. Gnostics also taught that Jesus was an emanation and did not have a physical body. This included Docetism teaches that Jesus' physical body was only an aberration or an illusion. Hence the warning in 1 John, as the Gnostics would not accept that as truth. In fact, the teachings of Gnosticism are more closely aligned with mormonism than Christianity.

Sure, there are entire cities in South America that no one has bothered to explore and document scientifically.

Sorry to disappoint you DU, the GA is on record as rejecting the central American theories of the lands of mormon.

LOL! Mormon archaeologists agree that there is no evidence of the BOM? Show me one active Mormon archaeologist who says there is no evidence for the Book of Mormon, just one. (I honestly don't think you can)

"The statement that the Book of Mormon has already been proved by archaeology is misleading. The truth of the matter is that we are only now beginning to see even the outlines of the archaeological time-periods which could compare with those of the Book of Mormon. How, then, can the matter have been settled once and for all? That such an idea could exist indicates the ignorance of many of our people with regard to what is going on in the historical and anthropological sciences." (Christensen in U.A.S. Newsletter, no. 64, January 30, 1960, p.3).

... We conclude, therefore, that the Book of Mormon remains completely unverified by archaeology. The claims Mormon missionaries have made are fallacious and misleading (Archeology and the Book of Mormon, by Hal Hougey, rev. ed., 1976, pp.4-6, 8, 9, 14).

Dee Green, assistant professor of Anthropology at Weber State College, has written an article for Dialogue.

Having spent a considerable portion of the past ten years functioning as a scientist dealing with New World archaeology, I find that nothing in so-called Book of Mormon archaeology materially affects my religious commitment one way or the other, and I do not see that the archaeological myths so common in our proselytizing program enhance the process of true conversion....

The first myth we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon archaeology exists. Titles on books full of archaeological half- truths, dilettanti on the peripheries of American archaeology calling themselves Book of Mormon archaeologists regardless of their education, and a Department of Archaeology at BYU devoted to the production of Book of Mormon archaeologists do not insure that Book of Mormon archaeology really exists. If one is to study Book of Mormon archaeology, then one must have a corpus of data with which to deal. We do not. The Book of Mormon is really there so one can have Book of Mormon studies, and archaeology is really there so one can study archaeology, but the two are not wed. At least they are not wed in reality since no Book of Mormon location is known with reference to modern topography. Biblical archaeology can be studied because we do know where Jerusalem and Jericho were and are, but we do not know where Zarahemla and Bountiful (nor any other location for that matter) were or are. It would seem then that a concentration on geography should be the first order of business, but we have already seen that twenty years of such an approach has left us empty-handed (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1969, pp.76-78).

"[It appears that the Book of Mormon] had no place in the New World whatsoever . . . [It] just doesn't seem to fit anything . . . in anthropology [or] history . . . . It seems misplaced." Dr. Ray Metheny, Professor of Anthropology, BYU. Address at the Sixth Annual Sunstone Theological Symposium, Salt Lake City, 8/25/84.

According to your standard of people of a faith can't do Archeology that supports that faith and have it be valid, only archeology performed by Muslims is valid. Therefore there is no archaeological evidence supporting the Bible, also there is no evidence that the Jews ever lived in Israel...

You are wrong on the issue of no evidence of the Jews living in Israel. Your holy book – the bom – clearly states that as a fact of history (and obviously interpreted as such by the leadership of the mormon church, otherwise they wouldn’t be spending so much money to prove the point) of the vast civilizations here in America. Evidence point to the fact that they were never here to begin with. If the story stated as fact in the bom is a lie – then highly likely the rest of the book is a lie too – making the author a liar.

I seem to remember that "Orthodox Christianity was once on their side, wait! that would mean you were wrong once...

Yes, the modern science you claim I don’t include in my evaluations was proven to be true. Modern science has disproved the bom and has openly stated it is a fraudulent presentation of the history of Americas.

All the studies start from a flawed premise, that the DNA of Indians is a pure sample, The Book of Mormon itself talks of the Lehi's descendants marrying people who were not descendants of Joseph, or even Jewish, a true DNA study would show all sorts of links, but nothing conclusive because the "Indians" are a polyglot of DNA. …..

Sorry, you’ve accepted the obfuscation of the professional apologists at FARMS/FAIR. Fact is that there have been multiple methods used and a statistically large enough sampling to show that the Indians are not Semitic in origin but mongoloid. Semitic dna markers are common to that particular race of people, not to mongoloids. The scientific analysis has shown over these multiple methods and techniques – as well as standard anthropology methods decades older – that the likely hood that the native American population came from the middle east is essentially non-existant (nothing is absolute in statistics, but with 96% mongoloid markers and less than 1% any thing that could be arguably semetic – the Indians are descendents from the asian mongolids. BTW, similar methods were used to confirm the African tribe’s Jewish ancestry recently.

Accidental rhymes happen, accidental poems do not.

And the so-called examples are hardly poetry. However, to be truly chiastic – it should appear in the origional language. Oh dear, gone with the wind.

Nephi details that he reads and writes many languages in the book of Nephi, if you had read the earlier article that you decried because it's from a FARMS site, you'd know that they have found writings in Israel of Unquestionable Hebrew origin from the Time of Lehi written in Hebrew with letters from other languages mixed in, just like the Los Lunas stone.

Self verifying argument – a questionable document providing proof for a questionable evidence. Furthermore, depending upon which website you are choosing to cite now, believes it not to be Hebrew but Phoenician, which incorporated semetic writing styles. But they migrated to the east to get to America, not the west.

Of course the Mormons who visited this guy are not reported as saying yep, this proves the book of Mormon, and of course this guy having another theory wouldn't report it if they did, so?

They said it wasn’t the correct age or language and nothing else identifying it to be mormon.

Keep reading, Carbon dating of the wood case, and the letters don't match, they are dispelling that "theory" that was put fourth. You need to read more than the headlines and don't stop when you hit one you like, but read the whole article...

Still doesn’t mean that an older artifact wasn’t placed there as the article and links make clear.

Yeah, they were researching the "Mound builders" (have you read about the earthen works the Nephites built as defenses?)

No building foundations, no bom temples, no steel swords and like, etc, infact these were primitive peoples, not the highly advanced civilizations of the bom.

What are you expecting from an area that was completely destroyed, a wall with Nephi was here? painted on it?

Cities and civilizations that have been completely destroyed have left behind volumes of artifacts and foundation information – even trash heaps/dumps, loaded with artifacts. Sorry, DU, keep digging – might need 150 more years to find a real artifact.

So if one expert does not agree with an explanation it's false? There goes the archeological evidence for the Bible... the Moslem expert says he has a better explanation...

And others have other explanations too. However, when one uses reverse engineering to concoct the story, it must be a very flimsy evidenced indeed.

If you read the web site, it fits exactly...

Sure, when you provide screened and tailored information and not the whole.

LOL! We know which vowels Joseph inserted,a nd the natives

Oh wait – from the bom and the boa. LOL fallacy of self reference again.

and what the locals called it... Hey, they aren't Mormons, maybe you'll accept their pronunciation...

That is not what the locals called it, iirc it was Nihm. And why was it not written in reformed hieroglyphics? The "plausible candidate" is a trickle of water, not a river.

It was destroyed in an earthquake... as recorded in the Book of Mormon, a lot of cities were.

And rubble is still present that can identify the site as a city! The artifacts don’t disappear, but become more probably to be found.

in the face of much evidence the blind believers of anti Mormonism will grasp at any straw they can...

Archeologists, Genetic Anthropologists, Comparative Linguists, Metallurgists, and Microbiologists are literally flocking to the mormon church in droves, being baptized all over the place!!   The experts are continually publishing scores of academic papers in peer-reviewed journals, breaking the revolutionary news to the world, of the novel insights that the Book of Mormon is contributing to those disciplines!!   Oh, wait -- hold on a minute; that's not exactly 100% accurate.....   In fact, the exact opposite is true.

Show where the prophet said he was truthful.. Did we buy stuff from him to get it off the market, yes, so?

He also by his silence could have by his prophetic authority declared once and for all that the documents were a forgery and denounced him as such. No, they were afraid these documents were TRUE and sought to get possession to hide them from the world. Really inspired.

as for you never citing him, have you ever referred to him as a treasure hunter? if so, you've cited people citing Hoffman, and that's how this crap lives on. Sloppy research because that's what you wanted to believe.

Doesn’t matter, his fraud discredited his other works – just like joey’s fraud discredits his other works.

The tanners purchased some of his works as well...

And true to their integrity, they denounced him as the fraud he was.

That would be the salamander letter... as for court documents, he was hired to dig, he dug, he was after all a poor backwoods boy of 14 when this all started, remember?

Official court documents have been found to verify it. Smith himself admitted it (1827 — Account of Joseph Smith, Sr., and Joseph Smith, Jr., given to Willard Chase, as related in his 1833 affidavit. Joseph Smith’s New York Reputation Reexamined, Rodger I. Anderson, Signature Books, 1990, p. 121.)

1827 — Account of Martin Harris given to the Rev. John A. Clark, as related in his 1842 book Gleanings by the Way, W.J. & J.K. Simon, pp. 222ff. [Microfilm copy].

There was no escape attempt,

A jailed individual with a hand gun and opening fire at the crowd, that’s an escape attempt.

The Newspaper was declare a public nuisance and in full accordance with the law of the day, it was destroyed by the duly sworn officers of the law of the day.

“The characterization of the printing press as a nuisance, and its subsequent destruction, is another matter. The common law authorities on nuisance abatement generally, and especially those on summary abatement, were emphatic in declaring that abatement must be limited by the necessities of the case, and that no wanton or unnecessary destruction of property could be permitted. A party guilty of excess was liable in damages for trespass to the party injured…. there was no legal justification in 1844 for the destruction of the Expositor press as a nuisance. Its libelous, provocative, and perhaps obscene output may well have been a public and a private nuisance, but the evil article was not the press itself but the way in which it was being used. Consequently, those who caused or accomplished its destruction were liable for money damages in an action of trespass.” (Dallin H. Oaks, then a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. Utah Law Review, Summer 1965, pages 890-891)

The town even offered to pay for the press. I also note that you have never shed a tear over the Mormon presses (plural) that were destroyed as people tried to keep the Book of Mormon from being printed your concern seems a bit one sided.

A little late for that, which by the act indicates a degree of guilt.

Lastly, Polygamy was legal in that Day and age and place. No federal law, the state's law was hung up in the courts, and the City charter allowed them to set their own laws on the subject.

Don’t let the facts trip you up DU. Polygamy was illegal in Illinois and was not challenged by Smith or others. Marriage was defined nationally under common law accords. The law was not challenged at a federal level until Young moved the clan to Utah and polygamy became an issue for statehood – long after joey started it. Infact Joey had a chance to challenge the law, but lied on the stand saying he was only married to one – when the records show he was married to 9 at the time.

Really, when and where was that Canonized (it wasn't)

"Doctrinal interpretation is the province of the First Presidency. The Lord has given that stewardship to them by revelation. No teacher has the right to interpret doctrine for the members of the Church"
President Ezra Taft Benson, "The Gospel Teacher and His Message" as found in LDS manual "Charge to Religious Educators," pp.51-52

Bring it up with your living seer and prophet.

God has promised to answer prayers to him, that kind of precludes Satan doing so.

No, not in the slightest.

Yes, we all believe in Christ here, some of us are just paid hacks to attack another religion...

Addressed in another post

U Said: I said what FLDS is today, LDS was about a century ago and LDS have not revoked Section 132 which officially sanctioned polygamy 100 yrs ago. What truth bending that? It's called a lie of omission (Where you leave out something important on purpose...),

Note I said what FLDS is today, LDS was 100 years ago and what McConkie said hope to be again. Sect 132 authorizing it is still in place.

To insist that we can't negate a scripture with a later revelation while insisting that God did that in the Bible makes you a hypocrite of the most obvious order.

No, it shows that the god committee cannot make up its mind.

LOL! I would start with the truth and graduate to the lies that have been told about him, not start with lies and never get to the truth...

I’m still waiting for you to speak the truth about him.

I have never tried to negate a testimony from God to anyone, you included.

That is not exactly true now DU and you know it.

I strive to always ping anyone I mention by name, if I did not mention you by name, then it's your overly tender pride, not my fault, if I mentioned you by name and did not ping you, I assure you it was an oversight, and I apologize.

Whopping oversight.

U Said: U Said (repeated here) Anti’s don’t believe God answers prayer to him. You did not qualify the statement in any fashion – cavalier with the truth?
Did I say All? Did I say You?

You did not specifically qualify the statement, repeated in full prior. Elementary reading context.

Have I ever accused anyone by name of something that was untrue?

Yes, you have regarding my stated testimony regarding the falsehood of Smith and the bom. And we will soon see the other falsehood you have spoken of me.

Christianity is a faith defined by believing in Jesus Christ as the savior.

That faith is based upon His Person, Nature and Works – what defines Jesus, not simply a commonality of a name and redefined Christian terms used by mormons.

Yes, we are indeed both testifying that we received an answer from God, however, I am encouraging others to go get an answer from God, you are not doing that, and it calls your answer into question.

And here again, inspite of what I’ve posted in the past, you choose to deliberately spread a false word about this subject.

I Said: Lurkers, Godzilla is a paid Theologian, he is paid to represent his church, I am an amateur, I get nothing for my service here.
U Said: Lurkers and other FReepers here. DU has pointed out in this post that he tells all that people like me are too stupid to use FR’s capabilities to search. Many months ago DU made this same accusation of me. I told him that if that makes him feel better about it thathe can believe what he wants to.
Actually, I asked if he was a professional and he said that he was. now, on this thread, he won't deny it, why is that?

This is clarified in greater detail my next post. However, to summarize quickly -

1. Never said I was paid
2. Never said that it was my profession (professional)
3. Never said that I was specifically assigned here to do this.

With those previous posts in mind DU says:

Because you said you were before, and you are attacking paid people here...

See next post to watch this crumble further as it does here.

"Been there, seen that." ……. That said, personal pages can contain almost anything, and can be changed at any time.

Again, for all to see DU is calling me a liar, in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

Interesting, so the "Volunteers" at FARMS are religious hacks and you are performing a noble service, it's a perspective thing I guess.

They are professionals as per you former prophet and seer and receive funding for their services.

You are the aggressor here, I have never come over to a thread about your religion (which ever one it is, and no, I don't even want to know) and started posting quotes from the first vision, or Book of Mormon, or attacking the trinity, IMHO that would be rude, also IMHO you are rude for doing that to us.

You have sought to present a lie to the world that mormonism is Christian, that mormonism is the true Christianity and would try to hose anyone else away that would challenge that superiority? Have I missed anything?

Finally, A call for others to check it out, unfortunately, the highest authority you cite is your own intellect, your study, you say the spirit has shown you, how? I received a very specific testimony, did you? We can't tell from your post. was that testimony accompanied by a testimony of Jesus having come in the flesh? we can't tell from your post and many on the Anti Mormon side have pointed out that Satan would love to deceive anyone asking God a question. You said that the "Spirit of God has shown you..." This could be many things from "I believe God led me to study this anti Mormon book I found in the library", to "I saw a vision". I believe you believe that you received an answer. from your post we don't know if that answer was from a library book, or the Spirit of God itself. We just can't tell from your post, no, I am not asking for specifics, but I am asking for enough to know what happened. IMHO if you received an answer from God, you would be a bit more excited about telling about it.

Posted in its entirety to show how DU will stoop to mind reading to challenge the same verbiage he uses with his testimony. Mind reading like this is off limits here and the above context constitutes an additional attempt to spread lies about my character.

All –

This is a little synopsis of DU’s recent personal attack on my character. I believe I have been very patient with DU, but some time you have to let them play out on their own to see the real deal. Some how DU believes that if a minister receives pay as a minister that is REALLY BAD and is the ultimate insult. So lets review the highlights. I will only point out DU’s paragraphs and mine stand-alone. It all started out on a dark and stormy night (somewhere in the world anyway):

DU Said - Just out of curiosity, how much does it pay to be a professional anti Mormon, I could get a job doing what you do and in the evenings refute what I had said during the day, now that's job security

! I wouldn’t know since I don’t get paid to do this. 1,019 posted on May 10, 2008 3:51:10 PM PDT by Godzilla (I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message.) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2013341/posts?page=1019#1019

Some how that wasn’t clear to DU that I was/am not a professional (aka paid) anti Mormon. So he followed up here:

U Said: I wouldn’t know since I don’t get paid to do this.

DU Said - I thought you had said earlier that you were a professional theologian, and this was part of your work, pardon me if I got that wrong, are you or are you not a professional religionist? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2013341/reply?c=1095

I thought I had made it clear already. I replied in the following:

DU Said - I thought you had said earlier that you were a professional theologian, and this was part of your work, pardon me if I got that wrong, are you or are you not a professional religionist?

You are the one who has made that accusation on me. What I did say in the past is if that makes you feel better to think that, it was fine by me. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2013341/posts?page=1109#1109

Now one would think that a person as smart as DU would stop here. I clearly said I didn’t get paid to do this (post anti-mormon). This is important to remember by the time you get to the end of my bleat here. Instead of investigate further DU goes over board three posts later.

DU Said - Lurkers, Godzilla is a paid Theologian, he is paid to represent his church, I am an amateur, I get nothing for my service here. I come here only for one reason for the testimony of Jesus, and the Glory of God. ………………. There is no other reason for me to post this. think about it, then Forget Godzilla, he might be lying, for get me, I might be a prevaricator of the first order, ask God, he will never lie to you and will ever answer a petition from an honest seeker. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2013341/posts?page=1098#1098

By this time it is obvious what DU as clearly forgotten what I said in post 1019, but there is something very simple that is evident that he did not do. Does any one have a guess? But then he thinks he has found an area of weakness and goes on to attack me to Tennessee Nana in the following:

Godzilla - What I did say in the past is if that makes you feel better to think that, it was fine by me.

DU Said - LOL! Now you are denying (in an oh so deniable way denying) that you ever said that, Tennessee Nana, didn't you say that increased your esteem for Godzilla? What's your opinion now that he refuses to admit what he said earlier? Who is obfuscating here, the guy who is refusing to admit if he is paid or not, or the guy asking for clarification? what say you Nana? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2013341/posts?page=1325#1325

Remember post 1019 above, he didn’t. Did that stop him, no he thought he was on a roll. To greyfoxx39 he said:

DU Said - I have been wrong before, that's why I asked for clarification, and instead got obfuscation from the king of lizards...

DU Said - Absolute truth, that comes from God. Godzilla said he was a paid theologian, and now he is hiding that. Why do you think he might do that? Why is he attacking FAIR based on that they are paid, and then refusing to answer that question on this very thread? do you think he might have some reason for hiding it here.

DU Said - If Godzilla is hiding the truth here, what else is he willing to shade for his "Cause" can anyone trust him?

DU Said - Hey Godzilla, which is it, are you a paid theologian or not? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2013341/posts?page=1329#1329

Now he is claiming that I said I was a paid theologian (revealed as a “Absolute truth, that comes from God”?). Has anyone figured out what he failed to do yet? The truth has not been hidden, but has already been presented at least once, but he doesn’t want to accept that. To FastCoyote he crowed -

DU Said - Lastly, it was Godzilla (who is refusing to say if he is a paid theologian) who is saying that FAIR was paid for by the LDS church from the beginning. A statement which contravenes the facts so far presented.

DU Said - Who's puffy now? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2013341/posts?page=1340#1340

(Besides the part that the subject was FARM not FAIR - and its Fluffy, not puffy) Still pushing the claim that I am a paid theologian (remember post 1019). But he continues to ignore the fact that I clearly told him I earlier was not receiving any pay for this, so it appears that he thinks I am embarrassed about it. To SkyPilot he said -

DU Said - He's big (even bigger than my posts), He's bad (He has called me names a few times), he's mean (he has never apologized or admitted that he was wrong even when proven so), He breaths fire, OK well not actual fire... (just having fun with the name...)

DU Said - I believe Godzilla is antiquated, his views are steeped in tradition, and his methods do not take into account new findings, or modern methodology he is stuck on information being peer reviewed and not just whether or not it is true …………………... From my perspective, he denies the word of God in favor of the doctrines of men for money. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2013341/posts?page=1347#1347

Now what have I been doing during all of this (other than laughing my head off)? Waaaaay prior to DU’s blitzkrieg I had already made a second, very clear statement regarding my participation here in FR -

DU Said -Lurkers, Godzilla is a paid Theologian, he is paid to represent his church, I am an amateur, I get nothing for my service here.

Lurkers and other FReepers here. DU has pointed out in this post that he tells all that people like me are too stupid to use FR’s capabilities to search. Many months ago DU made this same accusation of me. I told him that if that makes him feel better about it that he can believe what he wants to. I’ve let him continue because it so humorous the way he tries to paint that on me – as if it was truth that it some how negates what I post here. Now DU has accused me of being a paid Theologian again. This is applied in a manner that is equivalent to a personal attack. So what should my response be?

DU (and any interested Lurkers) please go to my profile page and see what I do for a living.

I am a volunteer minister at my church, in charge of multimedia and children’s ministries. I believe in the biblical call that I am a minister even if I don’t have the position, title or official college transcript. I don’t receive a single penny for my work on behalf of Christ. I post here to counter the false translation of Christian doctrine by many mormons here – DU being one of them (evident in my many exchanges with him).

My through my study of God’s Word, the bom and prayer, I can testify to every one here that the Spirit of God has shown to me that the bom is a fake document, written by a false prophet we’ve been warned about in scripture. Put the book of mormon to the test – is it a real historical document telling us about Jew who live in America, feel free to expand your search - since there is no valid evidence of such presence. The Bereans studied the scriptures to verify Paul’s teachings – and were commended for it. Your eternal life is too precious to place solely upon a subjective burning of the bosom.

Don’t buy a used car from J. Smith.

1,190 posted on May 11, 2008 7:41:52 PM PDT by Godzilla (I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message.) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2013341/posts?page=1190#1190

Finally, DU made it up to this post and only went part way through it, stopping short of the comments above and left us with this –

DU Said -I'll respond to the rest of your monster post later when I have time... 1,374 posted on May 14, 2008 4:06:14 PM PDT by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think") http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2013341/posts?page=1374#1374

When he did finish the reply DU called me a liar –

DU Said “Been there, seen that." I went right after you said you were a minister on another thread, I thought it was interesting that you didn't mention that, even though it seems to be a big part of your public persona here. That said, personal pages can contain almost anything, and can be changed at any time. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2013341/posts?page=1462#1462

Ladies and gentlemen of FR who may be reading this post – and especially you DU as you have served a worthwhile object lesson in mormonism. In addition to not checking my profile, you had the answer as far back as at least January 2008 (the “other thread” from above) from this post -

Evangelicals Against Mitt January 21, 2008 10:02:30 PM PST · 458 of 3,072 Godzilla to DelphiUser

DU Said -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, where’s my paycheck then.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1950542/posts?page=458#458

Sarcasm lost to the disillusioned. Now since DU said in context to himself – “Some of US are paid to come on this forum……. “, one could have considered that HE was being paid for posting here (if he were wise, he could charge by the word and retire early with lots of filthy lucre). Then he addresses me. Doesn’t matter to me if he is or is not paid, if the man behind the pseudonym is some one from FARM/FAIR or EIEIO. As I said very simply in my reply #1190 – look at my profile, which has been in place (with some additions) from shortly after I signed on to FR (2003). I say some pretty personal things about my self there – why would I want to generate that material as a lie? Which is more believable – DU or me?

DU believed a lie he justified to himself to account for me. Even in the face of my stating I was not a professional theologian, nor paid – he carried his lie to fruition (4 months later) – irregardless of the stated facts and truth available to evaluate.

This is a lesson in mormonism, people caught in mormonism – especially multigenerational mormons – have a religious – domestic – heritage – pressure to believe in mormonism, no matter what the facts are. They will believe the lie because the consequences of the truth are too overwhelming due to the societal pressure. DU wanted to believe I was a despised PAYED theologian, in an effort to prop his presentation at the expense of my credibility, but in doing so he ignored my statements to the contrary (my witness) and other facts such as one mouse click to view my profile, as I have done to many here in FR. He chose to believe a lie and and convinced himself as his postings above make clear. Mormons believe the fiction that is the bom and the false prophet Joseph Smith because to do otherwise would strip away their self defense mechanism and realize how foolish those beliefs are. So too DU held those beliefs about me to bolster himself.

Today’s mormonism fails to examine the whole article too. In today’s modern age, the stories that Joseph Smith and successive prophets of mormonism in the past have passed off for so called truth, have been soundly disproved. As I have pointed out many times – the evidence is right under their noses –

- 4000+ changes to the bom alone – with out MS to check or verify – except two extant handwritten copies of the original ms.

- Mormon scientists will admit (though less openly now that many have been excommunicated) there is no archaeological support to the bom, no anthropological support, no dna support, paleotological / botanical / metallurgical sport to the civilization listed in the bom.

- There are strong evidences that much of what wasn’t copied directly out of the KJV bibles (errors and all!) also came from other sources/books in existence at the time.

- Joseph Smith’s inclusion of the Johannian Comma in the JST (aka Inspired Version) translation of the bible.

Further scandalous and false translations of the Book of Breathing and the fraudulent Kinderhook plates show that Smith was not an inspired translator. One could go on regarding the open contradictions in the first vision story, lies concerning polygamy and his own adultery ( which resulted in one of the Three Witnesses being expelled from the mormon church) and the other sordid parts of his life, how did DU put it - If JOSEPH SMITH is hiding the truth here, what else is he willing to shade for his "Cause" can anyone trust him?

Now one poster said DU’s insight to my line of employment as God derived. I don’t believe that. But what I do see is an effort to discredit opposition who can and will challenge the propaganda of FARM and FAIR that forms so much of DU’s apologetic. And this is done in a fashion similar to FARMS and FAIR too. Never the less, I am still here and will for the duration – hog hosing or not – to continue what I have done and that is to shine the light of truth into the darkness of mormonism.

DU – your example of your mormon attitude here has been very useful, especially your comments to me. Please continue posting about Los Lunas Rock, and the other scraps of evidence that even the authors of the web sites you cite state the items do not support the bom, along with all the other wonderful stuff from weekly worldish sites. And now that you finally know that I am not a PAID Theologian (or at least I hope you have figured that out by now). I take to heart the words of Paul:

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (KJV)

For you see, when Jesus was challenged by satan in the wilderness, He didn’t say the revelation of God says but He said It is written, He relied upon the integrity of the word – so should we.

I hope you don’t fail continue to entertain us because of you lapse in skills. DU for all you do – the following is for you.

Bwahahahahaha ... hail Fluffy! [Not you, DU.]