U Said:
Just because you wish my premise to be flawed doesn’t make it so. Just because you wish for your premise to be true does not make it so.
U Said:
I can / have documented every portion of my claims in the past here.
and your each and every point has been refuted by me and others here many times, your points are neither true, nor original.
U Said:
Poor Joey, the voice of history isn’t kind – only truthful. Your insistence on using diminutives does not help your case, you call me "Fluffy", and Joseph Smith "Joey", thinking it makes your argument somehow more pithy, in fact it makes you look small minded and petty.
I give you a Chinese saying..."A truly wise man can learn from even a fool." of course like most saying it has been attributed to Confucius, but the point is that sometimes what you find at the table is what you bring to it, not what was already there, you find Joseph's work lacking, other find it enlightening, some find Jesus' work lacking, some find it enlightening, the difference is not in the work people find, but in the people finding it, some are ready others are not.
U Said:
Pending prophecies does not equal mormonic continued revelation – particularly that which contradicts the existing revelation.
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.
U Said:
As you have been unable to prove in the past, there is nothing in Mormonism that isn’t superior to revelations by JW’s, Scientology, Islam, etc. except a blind faith in Joseph Smith.
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.
U Said:
Nor does 4000+ changes to the bom? LOL. At least we can justify the identification of additions such as the Johnnane comma. How can you justify those changes to the most correct book on the planet.
Oh yawn, this has been so retreaded here as a red herring it's just a fish carcass , come on!
- To get to 4,000 you have to count the addition of verses, punctuation and formatting
- 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)
- 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.
- most correct, as Joseph said elsewhere, means has the fullness of the gospel and will lead men to God.
- The Johannine Comma Is way more than a punctuation, way more than a verse numbering, or a footnote it's more than grammar change, or a word usage correction, it's an addition that changes the meaning of the passage! (so much for inerrant).
- There are more "Errors" in the bible, this is just the best known, and even one such error disproves the "inerrant" claim.
- Conversely, Mormons do not claim Joseph was perfect, in fact, we know he had many foible and flaws... just like the prophets of old.
Yawn, this has been debunked so many times, don't tell me you have not seen it, oh wait, you were trying to distract from your flawed premise that no imperfect man could do a good work, OK, were back on track after your attempt at distraction...
U Said:
There are two handwritten MS in existence. Mormons admit that only a fraction of the changes are attributed to typesetting errors.
The majority are verses, punctuation and spelling changes, so?
U Said:
Mormon historians have described the translation process being word for word. So grammar and spelling changes are questionable – unless your god has trouble spelling.
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.
U Said:
However, significant changes outside of those documents have been made heres one of many:
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.
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.
U Said:
Christians can go back to extant ms, Mormons go back to ???????? to justify these changes since it was the most correct.
Mormons go to God with their questions, you go to manuscripts...
That is a cop-out. It is the perfected work of Smith and if it is the word of God, you are violating it on something this trivial? Because you cannot copywrite something means you cannot canonize it?
The Bible Is supposed to be "inerrant" according to "orthodox" Christians, Joseph never finished the JST, and never said it was inerrant. 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.)
U Said:
You are ignorant of what was found at dss site.
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.
U Said:
Look at your own statement – parts – not the whole, and those parts missing. All portions of 1 Enoch were found with the exception of Similitudes.
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?
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?
The Johannine Comma has been complained about for a long time, people knew it didn't belong and scholars have been debating these few words for some time, show me the controversy show me the discussions, who was exiled over this? Oh, there was no one. 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.
U Said:
And if you were not so context challenged
ROTFLOL! Your attempt at inoculation for being out of context are noted and laughed at...
U Said:
I said that those who have studied and translated the Similitudes portion indicate it was not written until after Christ, not the whole document, some as late as 2d century AD. The earliest version of Similitudes is IIRC 1400 AD.
The earliest Copy to date...
Here is a quote from
The Book of Enoch The Book of Enoch Chapter 46:1-2 [1] There I beheld the Ancient of days whose head was like white wool, and with him another, whose countenance resembled that of a man. His countenance was full of grace, like that of one of the holy angels. Then I inquired of one of the angels, who went with me, and who showed me every secret thing, concerning this Son of man; who he was; whence he was; and why he accompanied the Ancient of days. [2] He answered and said to me, This is the Son of man, to whom righteousness belongs; with whom righteousness has dwealt; and who will reveal all the treasures of that which is concealed: for the Lord of spirits has chosen him; and his portion has surpassed all before the Lord of spirits in everlasting uprightness."
This is from the Section called The Book of Parables (37-71), also known as the Book of Similitudes, I have repeatedly pointed out that the phrase the son of Man as quoted by Jesus, and all the gospels use this phrase, this is a prophecy about the Savior, the book was available, the book was in use in the early church, 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! 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."
I am even going to include what i said last time:
I Said:
As to Enoch being considered scripture, so Jesus Quoted from it, the apostles quoted from it, all of Christendom used it until it was not Canonized in Jamnia and even then it's use took hundreds of years to die out, we have it now largely because the Copts continued to use it into modern times (and still do) but hey one blanket quote from Godzilla and nope, it was never used by anybody (the evidence disagrees with you, so who to believe, you or my lying eyes...)
U Said:
Your lying eyes.
OK, I'll believe my eyes...
U Said:
The Copts include it, they are the exception.
I worked with a Coptic man in Illinois, he thought it was hysterically funny that we (Christians) didn't use a book quoted widely by Jesus and all the apostles...
U Said:
Jesus didn’t quote from an unwritten document
You are right, he was quoting from a written document...
U Said:
he was citing Daniel.
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.
U Said:
It (Enoch) was never counted as part of the Jewish canon and Jamnia only confirmed what was believed.
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...
U Said:
Read a little FF Bruce regarding what the Jews considered canon and the difference from other works like the pseudographical 1 Enoch. If you had bothered to read – or do deeper research – you would see that this was not a blanket statement. Surprising since you are such an expert at that.
I have read much, I have not read everything, I am an amateur, 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, why did Jude Quote Enoch?
Jude 1 : 14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage.
17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
I note how many "Mockers" there are here, and they're not the Mormons.
I Said:
Your time scale is not God's time scale, the falling away happened the the Son of perdition would be revealed, that does not mean immediately. Jesus died that all might be saved, that does not mean immediately, some of us are still down here screwing up (I mean me, no attack should be inferred here).
U Said:
The scripture cited tells of a falling away and the revelation of the son of perdition. Cannot have one without the other. He shall be revealed then in connection with the apostasy.
And he will be, but not immediately...
I Said:
Please explain how this is a misapplication, really, I'd like to know what you think here.
U Said:
I’ve told you numerous times – John was writing against Gnostic though trying to work its way into the church at that time.
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.
U Said:
Ohhhh, please don’t throw me in the briar patch! Mystery civilizations!!!!!
Sure, there are entire cities in South America that no one has bothered to explore and document scientifically.
U Said:
Your are sooooo predictable and from the weekly world news fame, of mind if you want to continue to ruin your and the bom credibility go ahead. None of these mystery civilizations do not contain any thing that confirms the extensive, in the millions and millions, with large cities and temple, culture described in the bom. Even mormon archaeologists agree.
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)
I Said:
If I do you'll just claim the evidence is flawed and there fore there isn't any. or you'll fall back on "peer reviewed" and say anything not published by sources outside the churches is inadmissible (which is a ridiculous standard, let's apply it to say Christianity as a whole...)
U Said:
Christianity has archaeological support and doesn’t rely upon church funded hack sites. Archaeology from peer reviewed work is abundant to support biblical history.
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...
U Said:
But then by your logic we should all believe that the earth is flat or the moon and sun are inhabited.
the Flat Earth Society , dispelling heretic notions and re-educating the masses!
I seem to remember that "Orthodox Christianity was once on their side, wait! that would mean you were wrong once...
Sure Mormons have discussed popular theories about men who lived on the Moon, so? your side actually killed people for saying the the sun went around the earth (Earth's got four corners you know...)
I Said:
The DNA study that was so flawed the guys who actually did the research won't talk about it, only laymen who don't understand what was wrong do.
U Said:
There have been multiple studies done, another was recently published. Add to that the other –pre dna studies that confirmed the mongoloid descent of the native Americans. They have no need to engage Mormon skeptics. Mormon dna and anthropologist have left the Mormonism in recent years because of the truth these studies have show – point to the make believe story that is the bom.
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. Testing Indians from different areas of the Americas will also show different markers, it just depends who married in a few generations ago. That's My point, Indian DNA can say whatever you want because it's all in there, every marker, which one are you going to look for today? Just look in the right group of Indians, you'll find it. The Indians of modern times are what's known as a genetically promiscuous group, the would marry anybody in, if the person wanted to, that means there is no such thing as a pure sample.
I Said:
The Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon,
U Said:
this is sooooo laughable, and soooooo predictable. Here comes chiasmus being drug out again. Chiasmic patterns are present in Shakespear, Dr. Seuss and the bible (which is the most likely source since Smith copied so much of it). The book of Zelph probably even has chiasmus.
Accidental rhymes happen, accidental poems do not.
I Said:
the Jewish and Other Semitic Texts Written in Egyptian Characters, (can you say reformed Egyptian which was a tough sell until other records started to show up that way...),
U Said:
Reformed Egyptian is still not recognized by real Egyptologists, and a posted article from Maxwell/FARMS. LOL real true scholarship.
Yes, it is, see my earlier example about biblical archeology by Muslims...
I Said:
The Paleo Hebrew written on a boulder in Los Lunas Arizona,
U Said:
Keep writing, your credibility meter keeps falling.
Are you hoping it will get as low as yours?
I Said:
This website also has details of a visit by Mormons investigators who told him it (the stone) didn’t support the bom or their research effort and left. Some resounding evidence DU. Further, the guy pushes a Phoenician origin, not Jewish, and contains Greek characters too.
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.
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?
I Said:
The The Bat Creek stone with the ten commandments written in Hebrew,
U Said:
Holy bat stone mormonman! Right, a single stone – linked to Masonic practices, upon which the whole of new world archaeology, mormon style is based..
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...
U Said:
Smithsonian Inst. does not recognize it as a nephite artifact either (was their dig).
Yeah, they were researching the "Mound builders" (have you read about the earthen works the Nephites built as defenses?)
U Said:
Where is the rest of the city? Where are the other overwhelming archaeological evidence that should be everywhere here?
What are you expecting from an area that was completely destroyed, a wall with Nephi was here? painted on it?
I Said:
there is the Discovery that if you follow the directions given in the Book of Mormon, you find all the unusual landmarks described in it for the middle east, including Naholm and Bountiful
U Said:
Nibley didn’t agree with this route,
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...
U Said:
nor does the story fit exactly either.
If you read the web site, it fits exactly...
U Said:
They didn't find the name Nahom. They found NHM, which can be a number of things, depending on which vowels you choose to insert.
LOL! We know which vowels Joseph inserted,a nd the natives I have seen videos of pronounce it the same way, not only that, it's known as a place to buy travelers, and that's what Nephi's group was doing. This is perfect and more accurate than many of the "archaeological evidences for the Bible" you keep touting.
U Said:
The Mormons who discovered the markings decided it must be N-A-H-O-M because that's what they wanted to find.
and what the locals called it... Hey, they aren't Mormons, maybe you'll accept their pronunciation...
U Said:
This is "reverse engineering." They looked until they found something vaguely like they wanted to find and declared it to be Bountiful, without any other corroborating research.
Let's see, Naholm, was the right distance from Jerusalem, was found by people trying to follow the directions from the Book of Mormon, natives pronounce it that way, following the directions in the Book of Mormon, if you go due east, you get to a steep sided valley, and a Wadi (small river, or large stream) that flows through the valley all year (just as Nephi describes it.) and this happens to be the only entrance to a small inaccessible stretch of land that is the only place along the coast that is even remotely what was described, by Nephi, yep, it must be a mistake, or faked evidence, or something (only if you start with the premise that the Book of Mormon is false and no evidence to the contrary will sway you.)
U Said:
Why is it they can find three letters in the desert but can't find entire cities, like Zarahemla after a century of looking?
It was destroyed in an earthquake... as recorded in the Book of Mormon, a lot of cities were.
U Said:
But then with the absence of all other evidences, the Mormon faithful will grasp at any straw they can.
in the face of much evidence the blind believers of anti Mormonism will grasp at any straw they can...
I Said:
You will dismiss these one by one and insist that there is no evidence, of course not for there is no man so blind as those who will not see.
Man! I'm good!
U Said:
And I could provide evidence that the earth is flat, that would fit your definition and use of evidence does not make it truth, especially if the interpretation of this evidence make it evidence for a much more plausible theory. But then too, because archaeologist have admitted there is no bom archaeology to begin with.
It's amazing to me the you keep bringing up the flat earth debate since it was the Christians of the day that argued against a round earth, then again, the Democrats keep calling Conservatives racist, so I guess it's consistent in a way...
As for this mythical Mormon Archaeologist who says there is no evidence, again name one active Mormon who says there is no Archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon... (Crickets)
I Said:
Actually, with the amount of effort that's been put into it you've come up with a surprisingly small amount of stuff. I mean the Treasure hunter stuff still gets play even though it's known to all come from the Salamander letter forged by Mark Hoffman, hey it says what you want it to say, keep using the discredited thing, make people point out that it was a forgery every time, challenge them to prove a negative, that's the ticket!
U Said:
I’ve never cited Hoffman (although the living prophet and seer believed he was truthful – so much for supernatural insight huh.
Show where the prophet said he was truthful.. Did we buy stuff from him to get it off the market, yes, so?
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.
U Said:
However the Tanners saw thru him and his frauds, hmmm who was more inspired).
The tanners purchased some of his works as well...
U Said:
Smith’s treasure hunting is supported by plenty other documents – court documents. And IIRC, smith even discusses it in one of his early first vision accounts.
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?
I Said:
IMHO it's pathetic to pick on a man who was marytered for his faith, and make up stuff about him. pathetic.
U Said:
He was murdered by a mob – true, he killed several of them during an escape attempt – hardly the lamb to the slaughter. He ordered the illegal destruction of a newspaper because it exposed his polygamy – so much for following the law of the land.
There was no escape attempt, have you ever even been to Carthage Illinois? The ail he was being held in was surrounded by an armed mob, the only hope was to fool them into waiting by blindly firing a "pepperbox" down the stairs and hoping they thought there were more guns. If the mob had waited, the regulars would have come back from the speech being given by the governor, and he would have been safe. Instead the guards, joined the mob and told them that was it, an unreliable gun with maybe six shots and they'd be unarmed. The prophecies Joseph made about who would survive and how were truly miraculous. The Jump to the window was to save other people's lives, with the mob outside that window, there was no hope of escape.
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 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.
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. Again you only see the facts on one side of the issue.
I Said:
The Adam God theory was a Theory that was indeed talked about by Brigham young, I understand the theory, but it has never been the Doctrine of the church, so? It's not the only thing you guys misquote, come on the JOD is full of non cannoned theories by lots of prominent Mormons, you can do better then the AGT
U Said:
Apart from Young’s inspired declaration that he never preached a sermon that should not be considered doctrine, which can easily be looked up
Really, when and where was that Canonized (it wasn't)
U Said:
I’m sure that there are plenty of others who can show that other doctrines were linked to this one, particularly the old well loved phrase as man is God was and as God is man will become.
Actually, that is a quote about the Deification of man which the early church fathers believed and indeed is a biblical doctrine.
U Said:
However, his sermon was presented in total – how can you misquote an entire sermon. The teaching was clear within the sermon as it was in the extracted citations. But that was just one example. The other extracts on other subjects and speakers are shown to be clear as well.
There are many entire sermons that have been given in many, if not all churches that are not the doctrine of the at church, yes even many given by notable names in those churches, so what, it's not the doctrine of the LDS church, and those sermons are not the doctrine of those respective churches unless they choose to canonize them.
I Said:
I see nothing in the scriptures you quote about Satan answering a prayer to God.
U Said:
And I’ve seen no statement in the scripture saying that Satan wouldn’t or couldn’t either. More broad brush misrepresentation we’ve all come to expect from you.
God has promised to answer prayers to him, that kind of precludes Satan doing so.
I Said:
I suppose the Protestants were not too long ago Catholics and with the repudiation of some small differences could be again...
U Said:
There were differences – yes. Different basic religion – no, we are both Christian.
Yes, we all believe in Christ here, some of us are just paid hacks to attack another religion...
I Said:
But they are not now, nor are Mormons and the FLDS the same church, and you again don't look good claiming to be a man of God and bending the truth. God never lies, those who follow him shouldn't either.
U Said:
So are you claiming Mormonism never practiced and condoned polygamy?
Of course not, but it was legal then, once the court of last resort ruled, we complied, as required by our beliefs, the FLDS broke away (like the protestants broke away from the Catholics and started separate churches) the FLDS are not LDS.
U Said:
AFA LDS=FLDS, they are more like you than you are like Christianity theologically.
So since you are theologically similar to Fred Phelps you are guilty of all the crap he has done? I don't believe that, and no one with an IQ above room temperature will either.
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...),
OFFICIAL DECLARATION—1 forbids the practice of plural marriage, period so all Mormons will obey it, it's been Canonized. Claiming we can't change that with a later revelation would also mean you have to stone all adulterers, divorced people who remarry being adulterers, and homosexuals, eat Kosher foods, and not turn your lights on or off on between Friday's sunset and Saturday's sunset. I'd also bet You don't perform blood sacrifices at the temple as the bible commands either.
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.
U Said:
Man has free will – they can choose or not. I cannot reach out through my computer and stop them. But I also recognize that false prophets will go out and deceive many – that’s in the bible you know.
Yes, and it had begun while the Bible was still being written, one of the most because instances is the man made Dogma of the Trinity which is so unbiblical that the word appears nowhere in scripture.
U Said:
If they have the full information – which Mormons themselves admit they don’t provide – milk before meat – they can make an informed decision.
We teach everything, just not in the order you want it in...
9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
IMHO, You want people to choke on the meat, you seem to have a goal indeed of forcing any who are interested to learn at your pace and your way. Force is Satan's way.
U Said:
I am comfortable knowing that it is less likely they will take Mormonism literally after reading your nonsense.
and I am comfortable knowing that any who read my
testimony of Jesus, and Decide to
Put our religion to "The Test" will find plenty of support from God to over coma anything you or Satan can throw at them, in fact, I periodically get questions about
getting a Copy of the Book of Mormon in large print, or in another language, which satisfies me that many are following my links for a
free Book of Mormon, and your posts while large and full of inaccuracies are just leading people to the church who are ready for it, the see through your misstatements and prayerfully, they press forward from the world of peer review and doctrines of men and enter the world of faith and revelation offered by a church based on God and Faith, not on Dogma and the logic of men.
I Said:
Hence the discouragement of prayer...
U Said:
Pot talking again?
Nope, just truth telling, if you honestly believed that people would get a negative answer, you would be begging people to pray about the Book of Mormon, instead, you spend all your time on these posts telling people why they should not even bother to pray about it, you already know it's wrong, don't ask God, ask Godzilla! False prophets indeed. Go look in the mirror will you?
U Said:
Where did I ever say not to pray in regards to making decisions…….. don’t bother, you find it. What has been said, inspite of your twisting of our words is that study needs to be an important component – not superceded by feelings. No evidence of discouraging the Bereans from prayer either.
Study, absolutely, thus I keep offering a
Free Book of Mormon, and if you need one, a
Free Bible, I encourage every one to read both, compare the spirit of Both, pray about Both and when God (not Satan) answers you can compare his answer to
First John 4:1-3 as I did and know that your testimony of the Truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, Accompanied by a testimony of Jesus Christ is of God, and you will know that Joseph Smith, flawed imperfect Joseph Smith was called by God as a prophet in the modern days as the Bible prophesies there will be prophets in the last days.
Folks, I challenge Godzilla to join me in calling for every one to
Put our religion to "The Test" by getting a
Free Book of Mormon, and if you need one, a
Free Bible, to read and pray about both, for as he said, "study needs to be an important component" So that everyone can know for themselves if god will answer a prayer of faith with knowledge:
7 ¶ Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
This seems to be a good place to end tonight, Godzilla, I challenge you to Do as you would have me do unto you, and call upon people to pray honestly to God and ask him for knowledge of the truth by reading a Book of Mormon with their bible and comparing the spirit of the two. IF you don't join me in calling for this prayerful exercise before the lord, you will stand revealed by your actions as a man who is opposed to the prayer of others, a man who wants others to listen to him instead of God, a man who is not a messenger of Christ.
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.