| Author |
Message |
    
godchild (godchild)
Intermediate Member
Username: godchild
Post Number: 354
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 64.28.52.144
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 10:06 pm: | 
|
Brigham Young taught that Adam was not made from clay, nor was Eve made from Adam's rib. He taught that they came from another planet. "When you tell me that Father Adam was made as we make adobies from the earth, you tell me what I deem an idle tale." "When the earth was framed and brougt into existence and man was placed upon it, it was near the throne of our Father in heaven. And though man fell--though that was designed in the economy, there was nothing about it mysterious or unknown to the Gods, they understood it all, and it was planned--but when man fell, the earth fell into space, and took up its abode in this planetary system, and the sun became our light.""Then came one of the sons of God to the earth--Adam. The rib story is a source of impious merriment to reckless unbelievers." Brigham Young taught that Adam and Eve were begotten by the Father 'the same as any other', that they came to earth from another planet, and brought the animals and seeds to plant with them.
Journal of Discourses, Vol 7 p. 285, p.286 Oct.9, 1859, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 17, pg.144, July 19, 1874
Parley Pratt taught that Adam and Eve may have come from the sun. Key to the Science of Theology, 1948, pp.49-50.
gc, I did not find this on any ol website published by antimormons. I found it on about.com, an LDS site, full of the teachings of mormon leaders, including geneologies.
When jd called me a liar about the 2000 names required in geneology, Calvin Andrus, Mormon, on his homepage, describes how easy it is to have over two thousand descendants in 11 generations.
There is another book called 'Genesis Made Whole', which is used by this man in his mormon classes. I don't wish to rewrite the whole message, but according to this book, when Adam ate of the fruit of the tree, he was not deceived (because he knew already. It was planned in advance amongst the gods.)but the woman was deceived and fell into transgression.
gc-how nice for those mormon men.
Will they answer why they never want to share this kind of information with us. I'd venture a guess but will keep silent on my opinion about it. |
nobodyspecial (nobodyspecial)
Junior Member
Username: nobodyspecial
Post Number: 31
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 64.147.9.111
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 4:24 pm: |
|
about.com is a general information website, about all kinds of things and a site post where personal websites can be posted...not "and LDS site". So what site were you really looking at?
Cuz there is nothing stopping anyone from making a site full of so-called "truth" about the church and post it up there, for people like you to spew and fling all over the place |
yaakov (yaakov)
Advanced Member
Username: yaakov
Post Number: 501
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 63.148.234.6
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 4:52 pm: |
|
Godchild, on a Jewish website, I came across an essay debunking Joseph Smith’s claims about the Jewish bible. I thought you might be interested in a Jewish POV about Joseph Smith.
In his attempt to show that the first word of the Bible, be-ray-sheet, indicates that there is a plurality of gods Smith actually proves the fallaciousness of his doctrine. To begin with, Smith's transliteration of the Hebrew words of Genesis 1:1 betrays a flagrant lack of knowledge of the sound values of certain consonants and vowels (e.g., berosheit for be-ray-sheet, aushamayeen [alternately aashamayeen] for ha-sha-ma-yeem, vehau for ve-ayt, and auraits for ha'aretz).
On the basis of Smith's own interpretation of the first verse of Genesis, one must reject his claim to divinely given knowledge of the plurality of gods doctrine or that this doctrine can be proved by reference to this verse. In his analysis of the first word of Genesis, be-ray-sheet, which Smith transliterates as berosheit, he reveals his lack of knowledge of the Hebrew language. He says that "When the inspired man wrote it, he did not put the Baith there. An old Jew, without any authority, added the word. He thought it too bad to begin to talk about the head! It read first, 'The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods.'" How convenient to arbitrarily dismiss that which would interfere with ones explanation by ascribing it to an unidentified "old Jew."
Throughout the centuries the Jewish people have transmitted the sacred text of the Torah with extreme care, so that not one letter should be changed, added, or deleted. When then could an unauthorized "old Jew" have made this change without causing protest over a spurious addition? Incidentally, the supposedly added "word" is not a word at all, but the single letter bet, which when prefixed to a word becomes the inseparable preposition "in." Furthermore, if the affixing of this inseparable preposition is to be attributed to "an old Jew" why is Smith quoted in the History of the Church (see above) as saying of Genesis 1:1 that "It read first 'In the beginning. . . .'" We must, therefore, conclude that Smith could not decide if "the inspired man" or "an old Jew" placed the prefix letter bet at the beginning of Genesis.
What is Smith's source for this improbable tale about "an old Jew"? Why should this so-called "old Jew" even be concerned "about the head" being mentioned when in fact rosh, which is the Hebrew word for "head," is not the proper pronunciation for the second syllable of the first word of Genesis? The second syllable should not be -rosh nor even -raysh, but simply -ray. There is no double shin in be-ray-sheet. The shin is the opening consonant of the last syllable -sheet. Smith calls the last syllable, which he transliterates as -sheit, a "grammatical termination." However, no such "grammatical termination" exists in Hebrew. Properly, one can say that this word ends in the feminine singular construct ending -eet. If the text of Genesis 1:1 is rendered literally, the translation is: "In the beginning of God's creating the heaven and the earth." This translation is necessary because ray-sheet never means "the beginning" but rather "the beginning of" (cf. Genesis 10:10, Deuteronomy 18:4, Jeremiah 26:1). If the text were to be rendered: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" it would be necessary to write ba-ree-shonah, "at first," rather than be-ray-sheet, which form occurs only in Scripture in the construct state.
Joseph Smith's teaching that "Eloheim is from Eloi, God, in the singular number" further illustrates his unfamiliarity with the Hebrew language. The singular form of the noun "God" is 'Eloha, not Eloi, which is not even a Hebrew word; 'Eloi as used in Mark 15:34 means "my God" and may be a variant of the Aramaic 'Elohi. Joseph Smith's claim that the word 'Elohim in Genesis 1:1, having a plural ending indicates that there are many gods is completely without merit. A careful investigation of the actual use of this word in the Scriptures will unequivocally show that 'Elohim, while plural in form, is singular in concept. In biblical Hebrew, many singular abstractions are expressed in the plural form, for example, rachamim, "compassion" (Genesis 43:14, Deuteronomy 13:1; zequnim, "old age" (Genesis 21:2; 37:3, 44:20); n'urim, "youth" (Isaiah 54:6, Psalms 127:4). It is interesting to note that no less a Mormon authority than James E. Talmage, in his own writings, contradicted Smith's rendering of the word 'Elohim. "In form the word is a Hebrew plural noun; but it connotes the plurality of excellence or intensity, rather than distinctively of number. It is expressive of supreme or absolute exaltation and power. Elohim, as understood and used in the restored Church or Jesus Christ, is the name-title of God the Eternal Father. . . ."
This understanding of the word is quite different from that of Smith's who, in his ignorance of the Hebrew language, rendered 'Elohim, in Genesis 1:1, as a plural. Scripture teaches us that 'Elohim, which is the plural of majesty, is used not only in reference to God, but also for angels (divine beings) and human authorities of high stature in society. This can be clearly seen, for example, from the following usage. Manoach, the father of Samson (Judges 13:22), after seeing "an angel of the Lord," said: "We shall surely die for we have seen 'elohim." Concerning human authority, we read in Exodus 22:8: "Both parties shall come before the 'elohim ["judges"], and whom the 'elohim ["judges"] shall condemn, he shall pay double to his neighbor." It is, therefore, ludicrous to infer from 'elohim, in the first verse of Genesis, the existence of a plurality of gods. Where is the plurality of persons when a single angel, referred to as 'elohim, visited Manoach? How can the Mormon Church explain the words of the woman to Saul when, upon seeing Samuel, she explained: "I see 'elohim coming out of the earth" (1 Samuel 28:13)? Although 'elohim is followed by the verb in the plural, it refers to only a single individual as is clearly seen from verse 14: "And he said to her: 'What is his appearance?' And she said: 'An old man is coming up; and he is wrapped in a robe.'" Thus, even with a plural verb this noun may still refer to a single individual.
In Genesis 1:1 the verb bara, "he created," in the singular, preceding 'Elohim, contradicts positing a plurality of gods. That the singular form 'Eloha and the plural form 'Elohim are identical, when referring to the God of Israel , can be seen from their interchangeable use in Isaiah. In Isaiah 44:6 we read: "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer the Lord of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last, and besides Me there is no God ['Elohim]." This is followed in verse 8 by: "Is there a God ['Eloha] beside Me?" If the truth of the doctrine of a plurality of gods depends in any measure on the plurality in form of the noun 'Elohim, the use of 'Eloha, the singular of the noun, within the same context, most decidedly disproves it. The underlying reason for the grammatically plural form 'Elohim is to indicate the all-inclusiveness of God's authority as possessing every conceivable attribute of power.
The use of the plural for such a purpose is not limited merely to 'Elohim, but also applies to other words of profound significance. For instance, Isaiah 19:4 uses 'adonim ("lords") instead of 'adon ("lord"): "Into the hand of a cruel lord" (literally "lords," even though referring to one person), and Exodus 21:29: "Its owner [literally, be'alav, "its owners"] also shall be put to death." 'Elohim means "gods" only when the Scriptures apply this plural word to the pagan deities. The pagan Philistines applied the title 'elohim to their god Dagon (Judges 16:23-24, 1 Samuel 5:7). The Moabites, likewise, used the word 'elohim to describe their god Chemosh (Judges 11:24). That the plural form of 'Elohim does not at all imply a plurality of gods is a fact attested to by the ancient Greek version of the Scriptures, the Septuagint, which renders 'Elohim with the singular title ho Theos ("the God").
The Book of Mormon gives evidence that Joseph Smith apparently learned about the functioning of the masculine plural ending -im, which he renders as -heim, some time after his alleged translation of that book. Hebrew masculine plurals generally end in -im. To add an -s to such words when introducing them into English is incorrect. For example, the Hebrew noun keruvim may be written in English as cherubim or even cherubs, but never cherubims. The noun cherubim is already in the plural form (cherub in the singular). To add an -s to it would be similar to the adding of an -s to the word children. The noun cherubim appears three times in modem editions of the Book of Mormon (Alma 12:21, 42:2-3), and is used correctly. However, in the first edition of the Book of Mormon the word appeared in all three places as cherubims, with the -s improperly added. Two of the changes were made prior to the 1888 edition, however, Alma 12:21 of the 1888 edition still retained the word cherubims and was apparently changed at some later date. Similarly, the plural of seraph is seraphim. Seraphim appears twice in the Book of Mormon (2 Nephi 16:2, 6). While it is used correctly in modern editions, in the first edition it appears improperly as seraphims. The 1877 edition of the Book of Mormon reads, at 2 Nephi 16:2, 6, the same as the 1830 edition, therefore, the changes must have been made at a later date. The appearance of these two erroneous plural forms in the first edition of the Book of Mormon should come as no great surprise.
Smith, as we have seen above, had little, if any, knowledge of Hebrew language and grammar. In writing the Book of Mormon, assuming he is the author, Smith relied heavily on the King James Version of the Bible, where these two nouns are erroneously rendered as cherubims (for example, Genesis 3:24) and seraphims (for example, Isaiah 6:2). All said, Smith shows himself to have been a fraud who misled his followers with fanciful renderings of Scripture. |
steelsword (steelsword)
Intermediate Member
Username: steelsword
Post Number: 163
Registered: 4-2005
Posted From: 207.192.2.34
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 4:59 pm: |
|
nobody, do you have a copy of the JOD?
I have a copy , and was just reading what GC
Quoted. You can get a CD copy from the lds
bookstore, Then you may see what GC just Quoted
was truth. |
godchild (godchild)
Intermediate Member
Username: godchild
Post Number: 424
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 64.28.54.218
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 7:36 pm: |
|
Yaakov, God bless you. And steelsword, thank you also. Mormons desperately need to read the books written by their leaders. It is only then (not when they only listen to what their sunday school teachers) they will begin to see the constant changes and covering over of original text written by the first mormons. My mother was using the 'dispensation' excuse when speaking to me about the changes God has made through his mormon prophets. It doesn't work. Never has, never will, because God never changes.
egk, why is it that you can't look at your own books to verify what I say is truth. You shouldn't need me, a Christian. For this reason, they do not want you to be reading these posts. According to them, this is all propoganda and lies to tear down the mormon church. Nothing ever said by any person or group has been able to tear down the Holy Bible in, at the least two thousand years. (I have no idea of the first Bible writing). Maybe Yaakov can enlighten you on this. Egk, the mormon church admits its prophets have made errors, and their excuse is all men of God have made mistakes. Men of God have made mistakes, but not about what God told them to write. |
godchild (godchild)
Intermediate Member
Username: godchild
Post Number: 430
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 64.28.62.148
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 11:27 am: |
|
I will (temporarily) eat my words. I can't find the article about the general authorities telling branches and members to stop websites.
The church's reason for doing this, in their words, was that people were being misinformed about the church's doctrines. You can take that as you will, I take it as 'shutting people up' because of the church's past history of trying to do just that. I've been to the lds site many times, and they have a very nice way of sugar-coating everything from prophet errors to scripture changes. Ever heard the story "crying wolf"? |
egk (egk)
Intermediate Member
Username: egk
Post Number: 167
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 69.223.146.68
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 1:23 pm: |
|
Godchild,
I didn't mean to doubt your creditibility! Form reading things telling me about what Catholic "really believe," I've come to the point where I like to see the sources before I accept or reject what is reported.
God bless you! And I do find it interesting that most Mormons seem to be "on vacation" and are not posting.
EGK |
godchild (godchild)
Intermediate Member
Username: godchild
Post Number: 435
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 64.28.63.8
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 8:07 pm: |
|
Anyone with the adobereader can download numerous mormon books (from the lds church) at lds.org/gospel library. Also the Ensign and other mormon mags at lds.org/church.magazines |
yaakov (yaakov)
Advanced Member
Username: yaakov
Post Number: 502
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 63.148.234.6
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 8:29 am: |
|
Oh cool! I just noticed that my 500th post changed me from an "Intermediate Member" to an "Advanced Member".
A round on me everybody! |
godchild (godchild)
Intermediate Member
Username: godchild
Post Number: 437
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 64.28.63.6
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 11:08 am: |
|
Yaakov, congratulations on becoming Advanced. I think I will retire when I get there.
Now don't get too excited. I have a lot of time to change my mind.
On a serious note, if joesdad lives in Britian let us say a prayer for him and all residents there. I am watching breaking news about more bombings there. |
joesdad (joesdad)
Intermediate Member
Username: joesdad
Post Number: 484
Registered: 2-2005
Posted From: 62.253.215.25
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 11:56 am: |
|
GC: I certaily do, in fact I live in LUTON which you will see was where the bombers moved from cars to the train. My son was working on a building site over the road from one of the tube stations hit, and we had a few very worrying hours before he got in touch to tell us he was away from any trouble (typical kids!).
We also have a large Asian population in the town many of who were very outspoken after 9/11 in favour of the attacks - bad atmosphere then, and now very uneasy at times.
The stuff going on today seems much lower key, with it seems just one of those carrying the detonators being injured.
Sorry egk, no holiday and sorry GC as you well know it's nothing to do with your claim about us being asked to keep of the net - just plain and simple I can now only get here on the work PC, and I do unfortunately have a life that keeps me away from you all !! - as most of the topics covered a re repeated I am sure when I do have time to post something substantial it will still be current.
Hey Vivian, I'm Robert by the way !!  |
godchild (godchild)
Intermediate Member
Username: godchild
Post Number: 442
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 64.28.49.25
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 1:12 pm: |
|
Robert, Believe it or not, it is good to hear you and your family are safe from the bombings. And no, I didn't 'well know' its nothing to do with being asked to stay off the net. How could I?
Whether this statement was substantial or not, I am unsure. "an evil presence allows you to gain a testimony of the reality of Satan". Please explain.
The reason I ask is it is so similar to something a famous psychic said yesterday, "People don't know what power evil has in their passing". She speaks to the dead then tells their living families how they are doing. As christians we are aware of satan but not fearful, as we listen and live by these words:
"What then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but gave Him up for us all--how will He not also, along with Him, graciously give us all things. Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies....As it is written, "For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered."
No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 8:31-39. |
godchild (godchild)
Intermediate Member
Username: godchild
Post Number: 445
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 64.28.62.117
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 4:10 pm: |
|
Hey, egk, I just realize I had you confused with nobodyspecial. Sorry about that. I'm sure glad God is watching over me, because half the time I don't know where I'm at. |
steelsword (steelsword)
Intermediate Member
Username: steelsword
Post Number: 172
Registered: 4-2005
Posted From: 207.192.2.34
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 5:38 pm: |
|
I thought something looked strange? Lol
Hard to confuse egk for a mormon.
Robert hope London finds peace.
Love to all , steel. |
egk (egk)
Intermediate Member
Username: egk
Post Number: 168
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 69.223.157.108
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 9:56 am: |
|
Godchild,
That explains your strange replies to me! I'm glad it was a case of mistaken identity.
Robert, Glad to hear you and yours are well.
EGK |
godchild (godchild)
Intermediate Member
Username: godchild
Post Number: 452
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 64.28.63.108
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 10:55 am: |
|
For 'old' mormons who still believe in the prophetic teachings of Brigham Young:
BBC News Reuters, UK July 22, 05
METEOR STUDY POURS COLD WATER ON WARM MARS THEORY
A study of meteorites chipped off the surface of Mars suggests the planet has been frozen for 4 billion years and probably never had the warm wet conditions that could have given rise to life; two researchers said on Tuesday. |
|