Seems computer programmers are plagued with them too.
Actually, there is a source for official pronouncement of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, it's in Salt lake City Utah. FAIR cannot state the Doctrine of the church, neither can FARMS (now the Neal A Maxwell Institute), Only the Church headquarters can pronounce official church doctrine.
So when your prophets speak and teach the subject for the course of your church’s history, they are not to be believed, only the professors at byu. That is what you are telling me when you accept byu over your prophets.
And no, Paleo Hebrew, Phonecian, either would support the Book of Mormon if the ten commandments were written in ancient times with them.
So, Phoenician is now reformed Egyptian???? If you bothered to ready your unimpeachable references, Phoenician would not support the bom.
It is no secret here that you seek to set the standard required for any evidence supporting the Book of Mormon so high that it can never be reached. I do not accept your standard, and your over reaching in crowing about any perceived "death blow" is so comical as to help rather than hurt us.
(shaking head) No DU, I am only seeking to place the standard for evidence equivalent to that of the Bible and accepted science. You and your apologetic are a prime example of what Sorenson argued against -
“First, they train the reader that serious, critical thought is unnecessary and maybe even undesirable, that any source of information will serve no matter how unreliable, and that logical absurdity is as good as sound analysis. “(John L. Sorenson, “Instant Expertise on Book of Mormon Archaeology,” BYU Studies 16:3 (Spring, 1976), p. 429.)
I'll try, but I'm sure you;ll drag us off topic again since the DNA issue is killing you (the Book of Mormon does not claim that Lehi was the only source fore DNA in the Americas...)
You just said that the church leadership is only authorized to speak for the church. Yet you would even deny your canon DU? “34 He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. (Joseph Smith History) Perhaps Moroni meant only some of the inhabitants. But that is not what he said. Perhaps he meant only part of the continent. But that is not what he said. The matter-of-fact way that Moroni describes the Book of Mormon as being ... an account of the former inhabitants of this continent... implies that most, if not all, of the American Indians have Lamanite blood in them.
Smith expanded on that encounter with Moroni here :
When I was about 17 years old I saw another vision of angels in the night season after I had retired to bed I had not been asleep, … all at once the room was illuminated above the brightness of the sun an angel appeared before me … he said unto me I am a messenger sent from God, be faithful and keep his commandments in all things, he told me of a sacred record which was written on plates of gold, I saw in the vision the place where they were deposited, he said the Indians were the literal descendants of Abraham (The Papers of Joseph Smith, Vol. 2, Journal, 1832-1842, edited by Dean C. Jessee, Deseret Book Company, Salt Lake City, copyright 1992 Corporation of the President, pp. 69-70, emphasis added).
The Ten commandments written in any language in the Americas before the coming of say Columbus wold be support for the Book of Mormon, let alone some thing that predates the Indians of the area, and may go back before the time of Christ.
Written with greek letters interjected along with modern (post middle ages) sentence markers. Like Sorenson said logical absurdity is as good as sound analysis, writing with modern characteristics is not ancient DU but a fraud. Not surprising that ‘ol Nib and Sorenson have rejected this artifact as a fraud.
Hey, you are the one who keeps wanting "peer reviews" and "expert opinions", then you cry fowl when your chicken gets hit with the ball. Is it Poisoning the well to actually look at a man's qualifications?
ROTFLAICGU. Your only look at the qualifications was to falsely accuse him of being excommunicated for adultery and deliberately misstating his professional credentials. His interpretation of the DNA data is supported by Woodard and the Sorenson Genetics Lab (who were still mormons in good standing at last check) as well as other scientists presenting their data before their peers.
If so, it is most certainly Guilt By association try to associate me with UFO's when all I did was quote from a site that had been used by them.
Like Sorenson said logical absurdity is as good as sound analysis. So a group who believe in little green men accept a non-geologist’s paper that you claimed supported the bom’s geologic claims. Is that all the support you can muster up for your claim? That is logical absurdity in case you haven’t figured that out by now. Sound analysis is that from peer reviewed scientific journals on the subject.
If you continue to associate me with them, I will have no recourse other than to associate you with Fred Phelps, you use some of the same material... See how this Quickly becomes a Slippery Slope for you?
You can make that threat if you want, but you would have to show that I draw my information from Phelps’ sites as primary source material. I think even you are smart enough to realize the stupidity in trying to accomplish that.
There is currently no science that can extrapolate a valid DNA result from a corrupted sample. Your assertions to the Contrary not with standing, THE population Geneticist in this debate has already spoken and the "experts" just are not on your side in this one.
Woodward (Sorenson Labs) who is in the process of collecting hundreds of thousands of DNA samples from across the world would disagree with your assessment (and has already published a peer reviewed paper which does just that) along with the population geneticists associated with the National Geographic Genome project. BTW, when is your population geneticist going to publish his work on his interpretation of other peoples DNA work on the existence of Nephi in the americas in a peer reviewed journal???? (crickets)
You have most definitely asserted that, you have not ever shown it by actual evidence. That evidence must come from the Book of Mormon, and it is just not there. In order to claim that the majority of females in the Americas came from the Jerusalem Area you have to assume a lot of things, and the Book of Mormon just does not say those things.
ROTFLAICGU, the bom, Bawhwhwhwwhhahahah.. I have not asserted but have linked the relevant scientific studies that confirmed what Crandall said was false – one of which is the report the Sorenson Lab was engaged in which accounted for the Haplo group X that Crandall was pointing to. On the contrary, you have to do the assuming – you have to assume that what the prophets have taught to present day is false. That teaching is unified – the lamanites/Amerindians were descendants of Abraham. You have to assume an advanced middle eastern culture with metallurgy and some kind of hybred Hebraic/Christian religious system that numbered in the millions could some how plop themselves in the middle of a pre-existing pre-colombian culture and have absolutely no impact upon it or other cultures near by. And that this group that numbered in the millions and would leave absolutely no archaeological evidence, linguistic evidence or DNA evidence. Perhaps it is just not in there because it never existed to begin with.
Yup, but you want to interpret those results based on a belief, "faith" if you will, that the Book of Mormon says that they should only find or even be able to identify Hebrew DNA, and until you address that Belief and verify it you are jumping to a conclusion that just does not bear the weight of scrutiny.
You touted on this thread that Crandall was involved in the Lemba Tribe work – which this very same DNA data and methodology YOU dismiss outright, was successfully used to trace their heritage back to Israel. Of course, for your part you have to believe in the byu professors, because what your prophets, scriptures and church teachings throughout its entire history definitely is not supported by DNA research.
Interpreting "Science" with "Faith" does not yield good science, but it does make for a good flat earth argument. This is why I keep calling those who believe DNA can disprove a religion "Flat Earthers"
As pointed out before, DU, you want to continue to ignore the mountain of evidence to the contrary. The fact is, and you logical fallacies bear it out, mormons are the flat earthers – having to rely upon the frail (and logically invalid) argument of the absence of evidence. Evidence is not absent, DU, the evidence is present and it just doesn’t support your claims.
Here are the inconvenient (for you) facts you have to work around.
1. The Los Lunas Stone was known of by Indians before the 1850's They say it was there when they moved into the area.
2. The Los Lunas Stone was observed and remarked on by the rancher who bought the land as part of his purchase in the 1870's.
Only support is the words when they moved into the area - not dateable, since the 1850s is about when Indian resettlement could have begun.
3. Rafacing the stone and re carving characters in it would have taken about a year without power tools according to experts.
I suspect you are trying to say that the stone was refaced. There is no evidence (nor have I seen it quoted in your sources) that the stone was artificially surfaced to begin with. From the photos, the surface is a common fracture/joint surface, unworked by man. BTW, if it was worked, there would be supporting evidence around it – there isn’t any)
Higgen was supposedly there for a few weeks, during which time the idiot used solvents and Wire brushes to clean the stone removing much that would have been of interest to modern Archeologists.
A few weeks is enough time for Higgen to mess with it, but I don’t think he did, except to mess the surface up. However, there would still be ample material around for evaluation, and as pointed out time after time after time (facts that you have to work around) are the presence of mixed alphabet and modern caret markings.
Similar stones have been found scattered over the USA and in South America, usually smaller, portable stones at burial sites.
Oh, this is choice!! And what are your sources for this DU, where in SA are stones with the Decalogue written on them found. The Bat Creek stone was found with materials metallurgically date to the 1700s – so you are not talking about that. More stuff from UFO sites?
A few last FACTS that DUh is unable to get around (not surprising for a one note Johnny) is the fact that the writer screwed up the inscription BIG TIME, by omitting line 2, then having to come back and squeeze it in between lines 1 and 3. An individual who’s primary language is Phoenician would not have made that mistake. Someone not familiar with the language or is copying it off something else would.
And the Genetics work is done where? LOL! If you go look at the Africans who were proved to be Jewish, they claimed to have started with a pure sample, Kept the male line pure, and claimed to be Jewish in origin.
Incorrect again DU, they found that the Y chromosome markers did migrate to adjacent peoples – imagine that, preserving the marker. But you say the study is impossible because the DNA would be corrupted and not pure LOL, you need to read the results of that study a little more and realize the diffusion that took place that also preserved the marker.
You have Simon Southerton, the guy who was excommunicated for not keeping his marital vows who now makes his living selling his book about DNA disproving the Book of Mormon, Oh, and He has spoken at Events about UFO's and Sasquatch, just in case that matters to you, it does not to me.
You must be confusing yourself with D. JEFFERY MELDRUM, Associate Professor of Anatomy and Anthropology, Idaho State University, who is the BigFoot advocate. Mormon Warren Aston runs a travel agency that conducts tours to Arabia. He is also an internationally recognized expert on UFOs. However, your smear is even more laughable since you claim to believe in the boa. Perhaps that is why your fascination with ufo – to hie thee to kolob LOL
My objection is simple, Since the Book of Mormon does not claim a pure genetic sample from the middle east, indeed I have presented proof that the Book of Mormon claims the exact opposite, and you want to ignore the ruling of the judge on relevance to jump to the conclusion, the results of DNA testing. You would be cited for contempt.
Hardly councilor, your proof is interpreted completely different by your churches god-appointed apostles who teach that the Amerindians are descendants of Abraham. Secondly, your application of the science would be considered junk for the very reason that the Lemba tribe was able to be traced to Israel. Thirdly, the markers are what traces the individuals – not the remaining mish mash of the DNA . (please take the time to understand what they are trying to explain at the Nat’l Geo site so you will stop embarrassing yourself on this point), and those specific haplogroups are passed down intact from generation to generation and are identifiable to persons and regions of the world. Those genomes are passed intact from generation to generation.
That's nice. Relevance your honor? Why thank you, for adding additional time to plaintiff's council's sentence to be served at the end of the trial.
Relevance is that your pure argument collapses on itself because the Sorenson lab does this work on a daily basis and its data is being published along with that of other researchers in peer reviewed materials.
Yes, I am. Te Samples they are getting from American Indians are not claimed to be pure or even mostly Jewish in origin, thus they are not obtaining samples of pure Jewish DNA, so their comparisons while interesting are not relevant to the case at hand.
LOL, they are working with unchanging markers DU, do the haplotypes match middle eastern ones – no. What do they match – asian ones. The Y chromosome and mtDNA groups are unique in that aspect. Those genomes are passed intact from generation to generation and are not mixed up like the other components. Here, I’ll make it easy for you and link to the specific page at the site.
Since their results have no bearing on the Book of Mormon's truth, I really don't care and have not tried to argue that they have flaws in their scientific processes, this is a Straw man Argument you have built and burned regularly in this discussion.Please show where I have ever discussed their internal processes. (you can't because I never have.)
You continual to pound on one note - pure sample, that is your challenge to their scientific process. Crandall said specifically Hebrew dna was present in mayan samples. Woodward (and others I have cited) show that those Hebrew detections cited by Crandall were not Hebraic at all, but distinctly separate from anything in the middle east.
I have said that whatever the tests show is not going to be relevant because in order to say the DNA is going to disprove the Book of Mormon you have to have the mistaken opinion that the Book of Mormon says you have Jewish DNA as a majority, or excusivity in the Americas. It does not, so your results are irrelevant.
Then you are saying that your prophets are mistaken as well. From Smith on, they have made the claim and teaching that the Amerindians are descendants of Abraham through Lehi. Moroni told Smith the same.
Mormon missions to Amerindian tribe from day one also was based on the teaching (from D&C none the less) No group of people in the Book of Mormon is ever mentioned whose origin is not ultimately explained in the Book of Mormon.
You cite objections all the time, what you don't do with any regularity is link. A review of our two posts will confirm that to anyone who cares.
Lurkers will note that Du expects me to link the same items to every post. Makes one wonder if he ever follows those links. Alas, I’ve linked two of them in this post and about a half dozen more in another.
DU Quoted It is time to ask the critics to quit dwelling on the silly Spaulding idea or View of the Hebrews and see where the *real* background to the BofM is, namely, Jerusalem, 600 - 587 B.C.
GZ I’ve not brought up spalding or VTTH in this thread.
DU I don't edit my quotes because I try to keep them in context, try it sometime!
GZ I did not edit your quote above in the slightest – If you want to argue about your quotes that I cut and pasted intact, go find a mirror.
I don't have to find a mirror, FR keeps all out prior posts, Here is the post where I complained that you edited my posts, and I add back in the link that was important to any who want to actually see the document we are discussion here.
Lurkers will note that DU is trying to misdirect the discussion by accusing me of bringing Spaulding and the View to the Hebrews sources into the discussion. Then uses my response as an opportunity to try to impune my responses. Lurkers can go here to view DU’s citation in its full measure.
Thus, you edit history, by editing my responses and not including, or noting your exclusion of some of my points.
Lurkers will also note that DU has cut out portions of my previous post he was replying to – pot calling the kettle names? Just more of DU trying to misdirect and obfuscate the issue.
By all means, And I'm Editorializing here you earlier said that Nephi and Laman and Lemuel would not have been there because they would have been taken with the deportation of young men. I took that to mean the second deportation, but it does not really matter. The Book of Mormon places it's timeliness about 600BC
It is sad that DU cut out all the evidence from the bible and the bom that confirm this interpretation. Unfortunately the author of the bom comment of 600 BC does not match what is now known about that specific period. Zedekiah’s reign began about 597 BC. His reign began as a result of Nebuchadnezzar’s seige and deportation of Jews just prior. This deportation is described in II Kings 24:10-17. As wealthy Jerusalem residents, Lehi and his family would have been deported to Babylon following the siege Nebuchadnezzar had just laid against Jerusalem. The Bible record seen in II Kings 24:14 states: “ . . . none remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land.” If they had remained after the deportation, this would be their description – not the one in the bom.
This idea was suggested by the mention of one Nedabyahu the NKD of the king, who delivered one letter from the prophet to one SHLM warning him of the danger he was in. (Letter 3:19-21). This NKD was the nephew of king Zedekiah himself (Torc. p. 61) He was not a direct descendant, but he was the offspring or descendant, the meaning of NKD. In the Septuagint, NKD simply means *seed*. The BofM calls this *the seed of Zedekiah*. . . . . . . . .
And what could they call themselves but Mulekiyah, or *Mulekites*? (Nibley - "Lachish Letters", p. 54) THIS IS PERFECT CORRELATION IN EVERY WAY. Now lets put to bed the "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy you like to claim.
Oh my, DUhthera has finally tied up Godzilla and I am at a loss in the face of this great interpretation of this real physical archaeological find supporting the bom . . NOT. Lets go ahead an peel back the whitewash here and really see what this is all about.
Shirts, parrots Nibley in his little paper, and does no original research in the matter. I have said that Shirts is worthless on this matter and everyone will soon see why. The Nibster in his writing relied upon Torczyner’s 1938 translation of letter (ostraca) #3. How well has this translation stood up in the 70 years? The following critique of Nib’s article on the Lachish letters can be found linked here
“In any case, Nibley relates his discussion to the Lachish Letters through the term (nkd) that Torczyner found in III:19-20, "And a letter, which Nedabyahu the nkd of the king had brought to Shallum the son of Yaddua‘ the prophet." Nibley goes into a lengthy discussion of Torczyner’s attempt to translate the phrase, "the grandson of the king." It is now universally accepted that line 19, which Torczyner read as (ndbyhw nkd hmlk; "Nedabyahu the ‘nepos’ of the king") is to be read instead as (Fbyhw ‘bd hmlk; "Tobiah, the servant of the king"). For this see Gibson, pp. 38-39; De Vito, ABD 4:127; Tamara Eskenazi, "Tobiah," in ABD 6:584; and The New Koehler-Baumgartner in English, vol. 2, p. 372.
Now to put the cookies down where Du can get to them, this article indicates that Torczyner’s translation has been found to be incorrect in this area and that more recent translations now read differently. Greater knowledge and technology generally provide a better basis for interpreting ancient writings and the Lackish letters are no different. How does this affect the proof of the DU’s recycled Shirts recycled Nibster interpretation? Below is a modern translation dating from 1980 of the Section in question from Letter #3. It is linked so that one can examine the recovered Hebrew text associated with the translation. Lurkers will find that on line 9 of the Hebrew is the material discussed by ‘ol Nib above.
Once again, DU is conditioned like Sorenson has earlier stated: that any source of information will serve no matter how unreliable. The translation has been reviewed and changed based upon more detailed study. Additional follow up studies of the ostraca and Torczyner’s translation errors are available here
Shirts et al. may want to continue to cite an version (Torczyner, 1938) now shown to be incorrect (Pardee, 1980), but that just shows poor scholarship on his part (as well as those who have been conditioned to accept it at face value and those who repeat this error. So I ask – what happened to the reference to the Mulekiyah? The little king? The whole basis for DU’s apologetic here has vaporized in the light of modern scholarship and study. That which DU claimed was a perfect correlation in every way is no more.
In the light of modern scholarship and translation of the Lackish letter #3 what does that say about the apologetics of people like Shirts? I can’t say that he bothered to research the translation any further than to parrot ‘ol Nib. So if ignorance is bliss – he must be very blissful. However, if he was aware that there was a better translation, yet held to Nib’s now invalid translation what Shirts did is a fraud and a lie.
So, how well does DU do putting down the Texas Sharpshooter’s argument? Since DUs sources are incapable of using the most current translations of the letters in question and rely upon the initial and incorrect translations – why of course it proves the bom to be true. However, the more recent and better translations (1932 versus 1980 and as recent as 1990 in some reference lists I’ve looked at) only goes to prove Sorenson correct on the Pavlovian response by mormons, regardless if their source is been proven wrong. As DU is fond on saying garbage in – garbage out and this is just another prime example of it coming from mormon apologists (who need apologists to apologize for the apologists in this case). More pointedly, is DU going to continue to cite an argument to support the bom based on a now incorrect translation, or is he going to continue to promulgate a lie.
Well, you can look at the bright side DU, you won’t have to draw the circle so big this time.
Where does it say in the Bible that Jeremiah is the only prophet called to preach to Jerusalem? The Lachish Letters say other wise, aren't you the one who wants the standard to be if a religious text contradicts with Archeology the religious text gets thrown out as invalid? As for me, Whew! I have no such "stand" to run afoul of with the Bible...
This is soooooo laughable. The translation your armchair writer (Shirts) is using a paper written by nib based upon an out of date (and incorrect ) translation – that is the process of archaeology DUh, and the bane of using junk apologist websites rather than doing good research. ‘Ol Lehi, gets a vision in the first year of Zedekiah’s reign warning of impending judgment of God after hearing 30 years of Jeremiah’s warnings and prophecies. Someone should have told him the destruction and judgment had already occurred. The ostraca citing prophet has already been shown to be erroneously interpreted by Nib so I need not mention it further. II Kings 24:14 makes it clear the type of people left in Jerusalem at the start of Zedekiah’s reign:
And he carried away all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valour, [even] ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths: none remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land.
Since Lehi lived in Jerusalem all of his life, he would have heard 30 years worth of Jeremiah’s prophecies. As one who (according to the bom) remained and was not carried away, Lehi and his family would be the subject of Jeremiah’s prophecies of God’s judgement. The first 20 chapters of Jeremiah are directed to Lehi and everyone living in Jerusalem at the time. Where is this Lehi in this 30 year period – silence, only after God’s judgment does he allegedly speak out.
<--Snip-->
Since you edited out some of my comments, and left in only some, I am taking it down to just your points which I will respond to:
What DU edits out is the scriptural and chronology of the sieges of Jerusalem leading up to Zedekiah. Guess he just can’t find a counter reply on any of his mormon apologetics sites
Actually, I asked you If the pyramids had been compromised by a bugling Archeologist, would you dismiss them as completely as you are doing with the Los Lunas stone?
And once again I reply that you are being ignorant of the context. For starters, someone to construct a pyramid to fake out the world would definitely been identified early on. You cannot compare los lunas to the pyramids because of the scale alone. Secondly, follow-on investigations have provided more solid data that would have identified any bungling and probably identified the correct what ever was bungled. In the case of Los Lunas, this later investigation was conducted by ‘ol Nib and mormons who concluded the rock was a fraud – their word, not mine. I’m sure the Smithsonian and Nat’l Geo societies are aware of the rock and its writing, yet they remain consistent with the statement that no valid and verified Hebraic writings of what you are claiming it for exist – they consider it a fraud as well. (A)any source of information will serve no matter how unreliable
Ten Commandments on it in Early Hebrew, and all that was known about before the writing could be read, well you have a pretty big elephant shaped Decalogue stone in your living room if you ignore it.
Oh, this brings up another of those facts you can’t get around and that is the Phoenician writing was known at the time (late 1700s-early 1800’s).
GZ So how many real archeologists have studied los lunas DU?
So how many Archeologists had been to the Pyramids in the first say hundred years we knew of their existence? Not many, it took a while for the importance to be understood. I am confident that history will vindicate me and make anti Mormons who tried to use Archeology for religious assassination look like the proverbial "Flat Earthers".
Try answering the question for once DU. A great number of scientists examined the pyramids, and they continue to be examined in greater detail. Yet here in America, at a cheap price, they could examine this so called relic. Face it DU, your boring supposition only continues to reinforce the statement to the lurkers - (A)any source of information will serve no matter how unreliable
I am content to wait, I have time. You seem to want to rush to judgment...
LOL, known for about 150+ years and no archaeologist have rushed to examine it. That should give you a clue that you are going to have to wait a very long time.
That's interesting, when I Google it, Wyatt Archaeological Research Fraud Documentation is the first Site in the list, when searched via their search Box for "Los Lunas" it returns no results... When something sounds too good to be true, it probably is...
Google works with a dynamically changing internet. But that is why I posted a link to the first site listed by google at that time - here it is again.
I also note that most who "invalidate" the stone do so because the Hebrew is not "pure. According to the Book of Mormon, the Hebrew would be a corrupted version of Hebrew, Which is precisely what one would expect if this was written by the peoples of the Book of Mormon, so no, I don't put a lot of stock in their denials, they are just not wanting to be "that Guy", eventually it will be accepted as other "frauds" that have later been accepted. Again, I can wait, time and truth are on my side, what's your hurry?
Well, Los Lunas is a far step away from the area your byu professors claim are the bom lands for starters – or are you going to become a hemispherist again? Secondly, you don’t want to address the presence of cavats an upside-down V placed under a piece of text where something has been missed out. Sometimes found in ancient Latin and Greek texts, it is not known in Hebrew until the Middle Ages. To make matters worse, it is above a dot that seems to be a full stop (or period); full stops did not exist in ancient Hebrew. Moreover, there are Greek letters of a slightly later date mixed in with Hebrew forms and some eccentric uses. For instance, Hebrew א (’aleph) is treated as a vowel – the letter shape became our letter A – but in Hebrew it was a consonant; the writer muddles כ (kaph) and ק (qoph), sounds that are distinct in Hebrew but both of which are approximately rendered by English K). The inscription uses Greek δ (delta), ζ (zeta), κ (kappa (reversed)) and τ (tau) in place of their Hebrew counterparts ד (daleth), ז (zayin), כ (kaph) and ת (taw).
So you see it is not a simple little issue. Cavats, periods, greek of a younger date (than the so called ancient Hebrew), treating consonants as vowels. And let not forget this is an oddly abridged text. A religious lamanite/nephite in America during the bom period would not know these things and their presence are anachronistic. Your simple model of the mysterious altered Hebrew doesn’t stand the test as according to the bom – no one else knew it. Yet the components of this can be known.
Says who? Why does each piece of evidence for the Book of Mormon have to surmount this unreasonably high bar of standing alone? Much of the evidence for the Bible would fall if subjected to the "it must stand alone, unquestionably" test you propose here.
Well, so far your evidence hasn’t even made it past square one. There are an abundance of artifacts in Israel that are far older than the bom era that confirm events in the bible. What you are whinning for no standards? I place higher standards on my evidence against Mormonism than you do for mormonism. It has been rejected as a fraud by some accepted as genuine by others, some on both sides are Mormon, some are not, so? Does having a Mormon say it's a fraud magically make it one? It's an opinion, that's all.
What respected scientific archaeological group has accepted los lunas as authentic (crickets)
Phonecian and Proto Hebrew being almost identical... Early investigators like Hibben tried to tell people it was an early form of Cherokee. They didn't know what Early Hebrew looked like, yet they are supposed to have forged it... LOL!
You are getting your pseudo artifacts mixed up – bat creek was initially thought to be Cherokee – but then it is impossible for it to be there because the nephites were limited to central America and was found with brass metallurgically dated to the 1700s.
GZ 3. The writer inserted Greek Letters into the words – a highly unlikely practice
Unless as the Book of Mormon records that the Inhabitants had altered the language according to their use to make it easier to write and to fit the corruptions that were creeping in from others who were joining their group.
See earlier on the use of younger greek characters – an anachronism for the bom period and Smith stated it was reformed hieroglyphics – not greek. However, when exposed to a greek psalter, smith told the assembled crowd that it was a dictionary of Egyptian hieroglyphics..
GZ 4. Use of caret , not known to be used in Hebrew until the middle ages
But used in other languages which they knew and corrupted their Hebrew script with...
Where is the physical proof of that DU. Used by Egyptians – no, found in ancient latin (woops wrong time frame). I’m sure you’ve got an apologetic site that will spoon feed you your answer.
GZ 5. The author is extremely clumsy. The reading of the writings goes line 1 – line 3 – line 2 – line 4. . . . If the writer was fluent in the language and writing, he would not have made the mistake of forgetting line 2 and have to squeeze it between 1 and 3. Common mistake if some one is copying something down from paper.
Or plates of Brass that one can barely read because it is in an ancient form of your language.
LOL, this is suppose to be an individual that knew the language DU and would have know immediately what he was writing since it would have been his language.
Every objection you raise is easily answered by the Book of Mormon, but I agree, no Non Mormon is going to see the truth represented by this artifact, it will remain an unexplainable mystery to most until more evidence comes out. That's OK, I can wait...
(A)any source of information will serve no matter how unreliable
Dis passionately? On a board called "Bad Archeology"? LOL! Next you will tell us you are "dispassionate" in your analysis of the Book of Mormon...
OK, show me any reputable archaeology society that accepts los lunas as authentic. (crickets). Smithsonian and Nat’l Geo Societies are in agreement with Bad Archaeology The Smithsonian Letter regarding the Bom states: “8. Reports of finding ancient Egyptian, Hebrew and other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Colombian contexts have frequently appeared in newspapers, magazines and sensational books. NONE OF THESE CLAIMS HAS STOOD UP TO EXAMINATION BY REPUTABLE SCHOLARS. No inscriptions using Old World forms of writing have been shown to have occurred in any part of the Americas before 1492. Just to the last page of the pdf to find this statement.
Please note the page has an image of an "alien" in front of a Pyramid with the caption "Leave your Common sense behind" which is apparently what Godzilla has done by posting a link to a site that talks of UFO's as his evidence (which he has been pointing out one of the sites I quoted did)
Again, lurkers, had DU actually READ the material on the site – it rebuffs UFOologists and their so called archaeological evidences. From the intro to UFO evidence it states This section covers claims that ancient human beings were too stupid to have achieved anything by themselves, so they needed guidance from outside.. Sorry DUh, you cite from people who believe in little green men, I cite from those who debunk them.
Actually, I can disprove all of them at once by pointing out the faulty assumptions that make them seem relevant when they are not.
Ah back to DNA again. So you are debunking Crandall (and others) work with the Lemba too (since you say all of them). Yours is an appeal to ignorance as well as hasty generalization. I have never questioned the laboratory procedures, the mechanics are not the problem it's the assumptions. Keep waving the ?red herring around maybe someone will still follow the scent instead of logic.
See your logical fallacies above.
And he's still a Mormon because he knows what I have been saying; "The Book of Mormon does not say you will find Jewish DNA in American Indians it was diluted from the Beginning and dilution continued as they went.
Again, going back to the prophets – they say and have taught otherwise. If byu is correct, missionaries have been lying to a whole lot of people saying the Amerindians are descended from Abraham and lehi. But more specifically, in the report that Woodward (as well as others from the institute) contributed to, they made it clear that the haplogroup X Crandall pointed to in the video (misrepresenting Rosenberg’s data) as hebrew in mayans was not Hebrew but a separate subgroup of X not related to anything in the old world. You really should expand your reading, garbage in from your apologetics sites yields garbage out here.
How? Let's use an analogy:
. . . . Recombination throws away 50% of the genetic makeup of each parent combining the remaining "data" into a single image to pass on to the child. as you add unknown data to the mix by marrying in peoples from undocumented sources the data that was a clear picture of Israel get's obscured to the point where it is unreadable . . .
Lets focus on this key point of your analogy. It is a flawed strawman because it misrepresents the key process and analysis. The Nat’l Geo Genome project (linked earlier) addresses this process – “This recombination process makes it difficult to study lines of descent – creates a genetic mix of everyone who has come before”. So far they agree with DU, but we are not finished yet. ”Fortunately for anthropological geneticists there are parts of the genome that are passed down unshuffled from parent to child. In these segments the genetic code is varied only through occasional mutations – random mistakes in the long sequence of letters that make up our DNA. When these mutations are passed down through generations they become markers of descent”. Are people starting to get the picture how DU is misrepresenting the science behind DNA studies? The studies are conducted based on these stable areas of DNA, such as mtDNA for women. Now DUh will not get this information off his apologetics sites because it doesn’t support their strawman, yet this is the science behind the procedure.
that is why the Sorenson institute proudly talks about getting Genealogy with DNA back to the 1700's you see with each generation, the picture get's blurrier and blurrier. The lost data cannot be recovered without "Guessing" do you want Keith Crandall on that team? I didn't think so.
The Sorenson institute and the 1700s issue were addressed in a previous post. Needless to say, if you have followed DU’s commentary long enough, you know he fails to read his sources thoroughly. The 1700’s barrier was from another individual who through normal ancestral searches (birth certificates, etc) could only trace her family to the 1700s. Sorenson labs matched her mtDNA to a group located in Africa and now she is able to break past that 1700s barrier. The only thing getting blurred is DU’s representation of even the simplest expression of how DNA analysis is conducted. Go back to the above DU.
Keep trying, it's fun to rub your face in this and the nastier you get the better I look, please keep it up!
Lurkers will note that now that DU has misrepresented what is evaluated in DNA studies he thinks he has got it all. Sorry to inform you DU that your strawman is minus his straw.
The only successful DNA study that even comes close to this is the one done by Keith Crandall when he proved that those Africans were descended from Jews and that was because they had preserved their DNA with very strict marriage rules. Besides, after looking at the evidence he joined our church so you don't trust him anymore.
Fools are born every minute. The Lemba prove that DNA can be traced over that period. Sorenson labs (Woodward) and others show it can be used even further back. Your prophets tell us the Amerindians (lamanites) are descended from Abraham and lehi – and as such the DNA could not be washed out. Are the byu boys authorized to supersede temple square on this spiritual issue?
Thus DNA studies will never disprove the Book of Mormon, they can't not with the mass die off's that happened when the white men came to the new world, the DNA we are looking for may have died with them and we can never prove that negative.
You continue to call your prophets liars – are the byu boys now the spiritual leaders of mormonism?
They can and probably are doing all that "stuff" right, but without the claim of a pure Jewish strain of DNA to compare (Which the Book of Momron does not claim), it's not going to prove the Book of Mormon wrong.
Now you seek to disprove Crandall?????? Did he and others have a pure Jewish strain of DNA to make the comparison? Apparently it was not necessary – you can’t tout Crandall and Lemba then in your next breath disprove the methodology they used LOL.
GZ So he tries to make the comparison that the Smithsonian looks at the bible in the same way as it does the bom. It also states On the other hand, much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the Old Testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian or Greek Histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. Take the time to scroll down at the same link above, and you can compare the Smithsonian’s statement on the bom to their statement on the Bible.
The Smithsonian, like a scientific institution should is not interested in joining in religious debate, as such they will be polite to those who would try to drag them into a debate, and that is all. No matter how much you want them to, they will not "take sides".
The Smithsonian issues similar form letters about the Bible, Book of Mormon, Torah and Koran. They don't support any religious book but will mention any archeological backup to such a book if it is politically expedient for them to do so.
Lurkers who have been following this portion of the exchange will note that DU is now misdirecting he argument on this Smithsonian Letter on the Bible. I have relinked the site in the above quote. This was in response to the widely published letter from the Smithsonian written in response to mormons claiming the bom is being used by archaeologists in the western hemisphere and that archaeology is supporting the bom view of history. He referenced this Smithsonian letter on the bible from a hacked-up copy in an effort to diss the Bible as a source for archeological study and its documented historicalness. Now he wants to try to regain some credibility by whining about them taking sides. Lurkers can scroll down and see a copy of the Smithsonian’s statement on the reliability of the bom and western archaeology. Now DU tries to smear the Smithsonian by saying that they will mention archeological backup to such a book if it is politically expedient for them to do so. This is clearly disingenuous DU and a backhanded attempt now to poison the well of established science. Clearly if they will not endorse the bom’s archaeological claims, they are defacto now anti mormon.
As for Archeology and the Bible, have you ever been to Israel? The whole of the Area the Gospels took place in is withing a single days drive from Jerusalem. Egypt and other biblical lands are not much farther, a few days travel by car at most. We know most of the "Places" things had to have happened in because their has been a continuous population of people.
The America's are much larger. We do not have an exact knowledge of the locations of the lands of the peoples of the Book of Mormon, and there are many like professor Hibben who destroy archeological evidence without knowing what it is. The position that this proves the Book of Mormon false is an illogical position for anyone who claims to revere science to take. It is also an illogical osition for anyone who believes in God to take.
LOL, DU, do you really think the readers are that stupid? Are you waffling on which of the four bom land theories you want to adhere to now? You have used the limited geography theory in an effort to minimize DNA studies. They are very specific on where the bom lands were. Newsflash for you – those areas in central America have been continuously occupied – particularly during the bom period – by cultures with writing and guess what – not a single mention of a white, Hebraic/Christian hybrid worshiping society with advanced metallurgical skills or the massive wars documented in the bom? These cultures are documented as borrowing / trading technology with adjacent cultures (example is obsidian). Now plop a culture that makes steel swords and do we see these other cultures getting their hands on them? No, mormon apologists are left to call an obsidian chipped piece of wood a sword although that is not what the bom describes. While Hibben’s actions show his skills were lacking, you cannot paint ALL archaeologists with that brush.. The bom documents that the population of the Nephites was in the millions (like the sands of the sea), they would have left cities and numerous other ruins. Now you say the bom lands are much larger, which will it be DU, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Are the bom lands this postage stamp sized area in central America – coexisting with a pre-existing people (who the bom say should not be there) with absolutely no influence or a hemisphereist in agreement with your prophets and church teachings for 170+ years?
What a pants load! The presupposition there is that I am "dissing" the Bible, I am not, I love the Bible, but the Fallacy of the Loaded Question, combined with an equally invalid "see the Smithsonian says your a fraud" technique
Simple extension of your common tactic you’ve applied over the years when you work yourself into a corner. You may love the bible, but you toss it overboard when the bom’s integrity sinks. You’ve pulled stuff off atheist / skeptic sites in the past to try to bring down the integrity of the bible in order to bolster the bom or mormon doctrines. So too through your attempt to use the Smithsonian letter regarding the bible to degrade it while elevating the bom.
Quote mining by definition does not work if you include a link, which I did. My point was and is the Smithsonain is not trying to be a forum for religious truth. They want to do Science, and as such they will say the politically correct thing to stay out of trouble. Bringing them into a religious discussion is just bad form, and you did it.
Lurkers, for historical truthfulness, DU linked to an Answer in Genesis website that did not reproduce the whole letter, but just a small portion of it. I provided the link found above to present the WHOLE letter, something that only took me less than 5 minutes to do. To whine about political correctness is lame. The only bad form is your attempt to show that the Smithsonian views the bible on an archaeological basis on the same level as the bom. That comparison is neutral. If it were a politically correct answer, they would have tried to dismiss the archaeological support the bible has. However, they have the intellectual integrity to state that the bible is used as an accurate historical document for archaeological purposes kinda sticks in your craw doesn’t it DU because they outright deny the same for the bom. This is one of those unpleasant truths you have to face, and your polemic against them carries no weight.
This statement immediately following the other pretty mucgh puts nails in the coffin for your assertion that i intended to denigrate the Bible, for I suggested people with a weak testimony of the Bible should spend time with their Bible and in prayer, not with the Book of Mormon.
If a book makes claims that it documents the history of the Americas, and that it is true history is testable on that matter. You can pray about the bom all you want, but the history it claims to document is being shown over and over to be a myth. For one to base their faith on a myth, makes their faith a myth as well.
I wish you had a testimony from God, I will pray for you to receive a true testimony of the Bible, one borne of the Spirit and not from thaearm of the flesh.
No, DU, I have not had an opportunity to go to Israel. Does that make my faith less – not in the least. Spare us your mind reading DU, my belief in the Bible is a true belief, borne in part by real evidence that supports its story. Where are the places Jesus walked here in the Americas DU? Was it the NE United States? Was it central America? Was it Polynesia? (These are from mormon candidates for the bom lands). Faith is the evidence DU and I do not rely solely upon the objective for my faith, but God’s revelation in my own life, walking hand in hand with a truthful witness supplied by the verified historicity of the bible. You try to defend the objective for the bom and have to resort to any source of information will serve no matter how unreliable. You forget that D&C 11:12-14; 50:23-24 teaches you to discern the source of a revelation. You may mistake your own thoughts as revelations. Satan may provide revelations to you. Truth obtained from science should match up with truth obtained from reasoning as well as the scriptures. To found your faith solely upon a subjective experience is a blind faith. Anyone outside of the “blind faith” category can see that the truth easily tears away at the dark veil of Mormonism
“Faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction — faith in fiction is a damnable false hope.” Thomas Edison.
You then quote men who say the Book of Mormon will be proved by Archeology, and it could happen, but I don't think it will, that does not seem to be God's plan
So the mormon God is fickle – proves the bible through archaeology on almost a daily basis, yet hides proof of the bom deeper and deeper. A joseph smith treasure seeking moment. GZ Fergunson, a mormon, makes the argument very plainly for the science of mormonism. If the cities do not exist – the bom is a fake. If the tomb was found to have Jesus’ body in it – Christianity would be fake.
Is this Doctrine of the Church? No. Fred Phelps said... (I could put innumerable offensive things here) Does that make it the Doctrine of the Baptist church (My apologies to Baptists everywhere, I know there is no connection, and am using that as an example)
Remarkable, you uphold byu scientists contradicting 170 years of mormon prophets and church teaching, then you turn around and knife Fergunson for stating the obvious. Diversion and obfuscation doesn’t justify it. He at least had the integrity to clearly define the issue – not try to throw up a smoke screen as you are trying to.
Yawn, This Screed again, DNA, do you remember DNA this thread was supposed to be about DNA evidence and the Book of Mormon. Now (Facing defeat on ever other topic) you seek to bring in yet more topics, LOL. This is pathetic, and I am really sorry to see you reduced to this.
Truth has been on my side – myth on yours.
GZ See, DU would have you pray to get a warm and fuzzy feeling as proof of the bom.
Godzilla, I rarely use absolutes in anything but jokes. I have NEVER said that, or anything approaching that. Please cite your source or apologize for putting words that I have never spoken in my mouth as if they were a quotation.
Come on DU, a little honesty here. You encourage to get a testimony of the bom – you never really define it. Mormon definition is a burning in the bosom - undeniable, all your missionaries teach this. It is an simple extension of your words. Perhaps if you wish to separate yourself from the official mormon definition (D&C 9:8) then you should clearly define this subjective experience.
The test is contained in 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.
Yawn, once again DU misquotes scripture - a common occurrence here. John here is addressing a specific heresy trying to enter the church at the time – Gnosticism - from the confession that Jesus came in the flesh. However, it can still be applied to mormonism here. From verse 1 the word try is the greek dokimazō which means “to test, examine, prove, scrutinise (to see whether a thing is genuine or not), as metals 2) to recognise as genuine after examination, to approve, deem worthy. The confession would weed out Gnostics. However, the word try involves a far deeper examination of the spirit than simple prayer about the bom (something not a component of in this passage).
Jesus said in Matthew 7:15, “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” He also said in Matthew 24:11 “And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.” He went to say, “For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect” (Matthew 24:24.) How then, are we to recognize false prophets? Deuteronomy 18:22 says, “When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that [is] the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.” We are instructed to be diligent about searching out false teachings A component of this is testing the messenger – is he from God as claimed or a false prophet. Joseph Fielding Smith, said the following: “Mormonism, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground.” .
History is pretty clear – smith never uttered a true prophecy, but did utter numerous false ones. It takes examination of the claims of the bom – pertinent here is whether or not the bom is a real, true historical document of the origins of the Amerindians. As seen in this series of posts is that the bom doesn’t even meet up with the barest minimum of support that the bible has. No DNA support (all evidence points against the bom tale), no archeological evidence (no cities, swords, armor, writings), no anthropological support, no linguistic support no horses, elephants, wheat, silk, steel, etc. What support that has been offered is either based upon flawed translations or frauds that even the mormon church’s defenders have rejected. This examination requires one to use their minds and evaluate the evidence – both physical and spiritual. Over and over and over and over again, DU’s common defense is that the only way truth will be known is praying about the bom. Forget about trying the evidence to see if the bom story is true. That is done by objective means – not the subjective means DU advocates. However, by advocating only the subjective – DU violates the test written of by John to ignore objective evidence for an indefinable “testimony”
You have a casual relationship with the truth my FRiend, I have not advocated "warm Fuzzies",
That’s right, you’ve not advocated any kind of definable testimony, so you are defying you scriptures and historical teachings on the “burning” too?
I have not denigrated or dissed the Bible. What is the point of a restoration is nothing is restored?
LOL, see how smoothly it rolls off his keyboard. He doesn’t even get the period typed that he denigrates the bible by saying it needs to be restored. Your prophet already did that and its called the joseph smith translation, published by the RLDS. Don’t see you using it here.
How about Comparing the Bible to the Nicene Creed? (It's not only Not in there, the Bible teaches a Godhead like we believe.)
Facing defeat on ever other topic you seek to bring in yet more topics, LOL. This is pathetic, and I am really sorry to see you reduced to this. Godhead is a term absent from the bom and the term in the bible does not support mormon doctrine. Perhaps we can compare the contradictions in doctrines between the bom and D&C and POGP.
. Going to God to learn his truth, that is what I advocate, not this touchy feely stuff
Oh pluh-leeze, how much more than ya gotta get a testimony can you get? But you have to distance your self apparently from the teachings of the church that this is manifested by the burn and the burn alone (long live the burn) for your words to ring true. Actually, When is hte last time Jesus answered your prayer?
Every day.
GZ Jesus of the Bible is far larger than anything joseph smith could even imagine.
Or that you can imagine... Yup or that I can imagine. We poor mortals just can't picture eternity or infinity...
Yet mormonism tries to place God into a box of flesh and bone, not omniscient, not omnipotent, just one among many.
I could not agree more, why settle for a definition of God cooked up by a pagan
Mormonism believes in a pantheon of gods like Greek mythology. Instead of Mt. Olympus, it has its Kolob. The ‘gods’ mate with human females, and live in perpetual orgy with their plural wives. Sounds rather pagan to me.
The Bible says Matt 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. It is apparent that you know neither the Bible, nor our doctrine.
I know both. You are commanded to obtain perfection in this life (Alma 34:32). That perfection is gauged by the abandonment of sin (D&C 58:43 and 82:7). Only after you have obtained this level of godliness will God’s grace be sufficient for you - “Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ.…” —Moroni 10:32
The mormon Jesus cannot save you if you still sin - “And I say unto you again that he cannot save them in their sins; for I cannot deny his word, and he hath said that no unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of heaven.…Therefore, ye cannot be saved in your sins.” —Alma 11:37
Mormonism is the only religion with God's plan for the Billions of people who never had a chance to hear the Gospel in this life. Only God's plan saves, and offers salvation to all, not just hose who happened to be in the right place at the right time to actually hear the Gospel in this life and be "saved".
You obviously haven’t read the Bible. Given that, a false gospel by a false prophet will only lead to a false sense of salvation.
GZ Jesus’ way is far better and far more reasonable. And He has paid for it all.
This is what I preach, i would that all men would pray to their maker for Guidence in all things including whether or not to read the Book of Momorn, and once God tells them it's his will, and they pray abou t it and recieve a witness as I have done they will naturally want to warn their neighbor as I try to do.
Again with the amorphous witness DU. Milk before meat too. Be open, tell them of the bondage they will be place under in mormonism. All the extra biblical (and bom) ordinances, rules and requirements. You preach that man has to pay him (Jesus) back. As I listed above, according to mormon doctrine, man cannot be saved if there is any sin in their lives. That is independent of any form this witness of yours takes.
“For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” — Romans 6:23
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any many should boast.”—Ephesians 2:8-9
“For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” —2 Corinthians 5:21
“By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.…For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” —Hebrews 10:10, 14
“…ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.” —Colossians 3:3
If you have to earn your salvation – as mormonism teaches – that gift is no longer a gift. Mormonism requires perfection in this life time in order to obtain it. Christ’s work was complete on the cross – that means we cannot add to it. Though imperfect, God views Christians through the blood of Christ and sees perfection. The mormon god is incapable of doing that. Why the effort to point this out – because Jesus warned about false prophets ““Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” Mt 7:15. DU would lull you to sleep over the glaring lies, contradictions and fables surrounding joseph smith and the book of mormon. But really applying the test of 1 John is to try and to try one must examine and not depend upon an objective (undefined by DU) feeling. DU tries to liken Christians to flat worlders in this, but in reality it is the other way around. Flat worlders don’t want to hear that we have seen the earth from space, sailed and flown around it (all the science), flat worlders (mormons) see only the apparent flatness of their surroundings and rely upon their leaders to remind them that all is well, it is flat (b>any source of information will serve no matter how unreliable). The heart is easily deceived, yet it is your heart that DU wants you to rely upon in his test to the exclusion of really TRYING. ,p. Mormonism destroys the notion of truth by DU’s method. DU wants you to ignore the bible’s admonitions against false “spirits” (2 Cor. 11:4 and 1 Tim. 4:1), false “apostles” (2 Cor. 11:13) and “angels” that manifest with a different “gospel” (Gal. 1:8). Even Hinckley remarked mormons worship a different Jesus than Christians. Galatians 1:8 states, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we have preached to you let him be eternally condemned!”. Mormonism preaches a different Jesus – and DU would have you be ignorant of that fact. He would also have you ignorant of what God expects – that you diligently study the Bible and judge these new teachings by its standard, not any other, as the Bereans did when Paul brought them the gospel – they are recorded as being noble for their evaluation of Paul’s message. Why does DU want you to ignore that which was shown to be approved of by God for some other method? His motives are his alone, but the motives of the spirit behind mormonism is to try to deceive even the elect (Mt 24:24) and And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: (2 Pet 2:3)
Life in as a mormon is described here. Also found here is a life free in Jesus. Perhaps Chuck can provide clarity of the darkness of mormonism and the light of Christianity.
