| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 01/05/2006 8:53:23 PM PST by Admin Moderator, reason:
Troll magnet. |
Posted on 01/02/2006 7:39:23 PM PST by gregwest
CHESAPEAKE - A 21-year-old Mormon missionary died Monday night after he and his partner were shot while going door-to-door in the Deep Creek area.
The other missionary, age 19, was in serious condition at Sentara Norfolk General Hospital Monday night, Chesapeake police said.
Police did not release the victims’ identities.
According to police the two missionaries were walking in the 2600 block of Elkhart Street off George Washington Highway about 6 p.m. when they were approached by another man. The man shot them both and fled on foot.
One of the victims ran to The Charity House, a nearby nursing home, to seek help.
Police described the suspect as a black male, about 5’10’’ wearing a black hooded sweatshirt and jeans. He was last seen heading toward Janice Lynn Court, which backs up to Elkhart.
The two missionaries had bicycles, but were not riding them at the time.
A group from the Mormon church, known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, waited in the consultation room at the Norfolk General emergency room Monday night. They declined to comment.
According to the church’s official web site there are more than 60,000 Mormon missionaries, mostly young men and women who volunteer to spread the church’s message for one and a half to two years all over the world, at their own expense.
There are apartment buildings at the end of Elkhart Street, and some residents could not leave or return to their homes for a time Monday night.
Police, working in a moderate rain, had the street blocked off a short way off George Washington Highway.
“This is close to home,’’ said resident Bobby Gatling. He has lived on the block for two years. “Nothing like this has ever happened here before.’’
Anyone with information about this incident is asked to call the Crime Line at 1-888-LOCK-U-UP.
Reach Jim Washington at (757) 446-2536 or jim.washington@pilot online.com.
Towns and villages which surrounded larger demographic or political centers were regarded in ancient times as belonging to those larger centers. For a major city center such as Jerusalem to be called not only a city but also a land was standard practice.
El Amarna letter #287, an ancient Near Eastern text, mentions the “land of Jerusalem” several times. And—like Alma—the ancient writer of El Amarna letter #290 even refers to Bethlehem as part of the land of Jerusalem: In this letter is recorded the complaint of Abdu-Kheba of Jerusalem to Pharaoh Akhenaton that “the land of the king went over to the Apiru people. But now even a town of the land of Jerusalem, Bit-Lahmi [Bethlehem] by name, a town belonging to the king, has gone over to the side of the people of Keilah.” Hebron, almost twenty miles south of Bethlehem, was also considered part of the “land of Jerusalem.”
The Book of Mormon is internally consistent in using the wording “the land of Jerusalem” to refer to the place from which Lehi and his family had left, where the Savior would appear as a mortal, and to which the people of Judah would eventually return.
Alma stated that Jesus would be born of Mary not in Jerusalem, but at Jerusalem. Dictionary definitions of at include the words close by and near. Certainly “at Jerusalem” could be interpreted “near Jerusalem.”
Remember Alma had 3 audiences when he (allegedly) said this. First was those people who would be reading it now, after its translation. To this group, saying Jerusalem instead of Bethlehem doesn't make much sense, considering our acquaintance with Bethlehem specifically. The second and third audiences, however, were very different. These were those he was addressing at the time, and those who were descendants and may have read it before the record was ultimately hidden. These groups (especially the former) were aware of their history and where they came from, which was the area of Jerusalem. To talk to them about Bethlehem would not have made any sense.
Frankly, this passage seems to strengthen the question of legitimacy because Smith would have written it for the modern audience, and he certainly knew where Christ was born. If he was translating it directly, however, it made a lot more sense for Alma to have referred to a location (the area around Jerusalem) that his immediate audience would have recognized.
I'm not sure why I went through all this trouble, because mormon bashers will ask the questions but not really want the answers, kind of like the websites that have been posted that were created with the sole intention of slandering the mormon church.
I happen to speak Japanese, which is actually written using Chinese, so Hebrew written in Egyptian makes perfect sense to me.
I would also translate a Japanese sentence that was heavy on honorifics into King James English because that's the closest equivalent in English to the feel of the Japanese.
I'd like to see the magic glasses, while you're at it. What did Smith say happened to them?
When I was an atheist, I might say: If Jesus is real, why hasn't he held a press conference?
There was only about 230 years between the two works, just for the sake of accuracy. You would have trouble recognizing the English of 700 years earlier than 1840s as English...That would be the English of King Harold, not King James...
You nailed it, Dick Vomer ~ congratulations!
No, first, because the phrase "At Jerusalem" is a Hebraism which means the land and areas surrounding.
Second, because Alma is addressing people who have never been to Israel, have lived for hundreds of years knowing nothing about Israel except as the land their forefathers came from. If Alma or the Lord were to say to them Bethlehem, they'd say: Where's that. If He said "at Jerusalem," they'd say "oh, yes, the heart of the land of our fathers.
The fact that Joseph Smith used the phrase at Jerusalem instead of Bethlehem is actually an evidence in favor of the book being divine in origin. It's exactly the opposite of what you would expect in a forgery.
The tone of your posts makes it quite clear you have a vested interested in rejecting the Book of Mormon (whatever it is), so there's no point in continuing the conversation.
>> I'm pulling for the Catholics cause my mom and dad told me that was the way to go.
I'm pulling for Jesus Christ, myself; let all of the haughty label makers/wearers fend for themselves.
All for Christ or all for nothing.
I made a New Year's resolution not to flame, but I have to break it, in your case.
You are a cruel, ridiculous ass!
Why don't you have some respect for the large Mormon community here at FR, and join us in sending condolences to them, instead of launching another vitriolic religious war?
It must be great to know exactly how prophets of God and the holy spirit will act on each other. I, for one, feel comfortable believing that a prophet is capable of determining what references will be most beneficial and informative to those he is addressing. However, who am I to contradict you, since you seem to be some sort of a prophet yourself, capable of knowing the exact workings of the holy spirit.
You know, it makes perfect sense that Micah and Alma would use different references. Micah was making a strict prophecy concerning specifics of Christ's birth, and doing so using terminology that would have been understood by his audience. Alma, on the other hand (if you read the quote in context) was teaching a group of people about the birth and mission of Christ, and doing so in a manner that they could understand. One seems to prophesying, while the other seems to be teaching. I believe both are acceptable and common duties of prophets, who could have been inspired by the holy spirit to convey similar messages in different ways for certain reasons. Of course, I suppose I'm probably way off, because I'm not some sort of modern-day demiprophet capable of understanding the precise workings of the spirit.
No you got it wrong didnt you see ther cnn reports of the riots they werent french yutes they were african americans
My first emotional reaction to your post is, of course, to curse you as an ignorant fool. However, upon immediate reflection, that would not be the right thing to do.
My son is on his mission right now, in Calgary Canada. He's a white guy. Zowie, many of us are. Many of us are African, many of us are from South and Central America. Many of us are from the Pacific islands.
We read the Bible. We also have an additional witness called the Book of Mormon. We also have a collection of direct revelations to modern prophets that we call the Doctrine & Covenants. There is another shorter collection of ancient and modern texts known as the Pearl of Great Price. In all of these texts you will find that the message is the same: Salvation is attained through the Atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ and obedience to the Lord's Commandments.
I believe you would be incorrect in attacking our missionaries on the basis of our doctrine. They are out doing the Lord's work without passing the plate for a salary, and it costs YOU nothing for their work.
Stating so-called facts without even reading your own scriptures shows bad form. However, I forgive you and will add you to our prayers that the Lord will soften your heart to His gospel.
One of the young men from my Ward is serving in the Richmond, Virginia Mission which serves the Chesapeake area. I haven't talked to her yet, but I'm sure that this Elder's mother is a bit shaken right now. I'm sure her son knew the Missionaries who were attacked and may have been one assigned to that precise area.
While this is not a thread about the religious beliefs of Mormons, nor should it become one, I must say that you are wrong. Salvation cannot be achieved without Christ's atonement. That is what the LDS Church teaches. That is what the missionaries here were attempting to teach when they were attacked.
This is the first I have read of these new details. "Not racially motivated." Un huh. Perhaps not but as always I hear no outcry about a black on white crime. When it's the other way around though, it is a big story.
When I was a missionary in England I had a black South African companion for a while. This was before Aparthid was done away with. We had a white South African in our mission too and they worked together for several months, got along fine. There were several other black missionaries there from various nations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.