The church of Jesus Christ of latter ...

Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post The black/priesthood issue poopsie 5  1  7-30-07  10:45 am   Start New Thread

Author Message   suday (suday) New member Username: suday Post Number: 3 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 15.235.153.97 Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 2:39 pm:        Dictionary definition:Cult-A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. This definition does not define "The church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints".   nulla (nulla) New member Username: nulla Post Number: 1 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 202.0.155.232 Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 4:59 pm:        Dictionary definition:Cult-A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false. Can you answer these questions for me Why does the Mormon Church still teach that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God after he made a false prophecy about a temple being built in Missouri in his generation (Doctrine and Covenants 84:1-5)? If the Book of Mormon is the most correct of any book on earth, as Joseph Smith said, why does it contain over 4000 changes from the original 1830 edition? If the Book of Mormon was engraved on gold plates thousands of years ago, why does it read in perfect 1611 King James Version English? Do you think the LDS Church will reconsider its teachings that the American Indians are descendants of the Jewish race now that DNA evidence has proven that they are actually descendants of the Asian race? Why do the Bible verses quoted in the Book of Mormon contain the italicized words from the King James Version that were added into the KJV text by the translators in the 16th and 17th centuries? If Brigham Young was a true prophet, how come one of your later prophets overturned his declaration which stated that the black man could never hold the priesthood in the LDS Church until after the resurrection of all other races (Journal of Discourses, Dec. 12, 1854, 2:142-143)? If you would like to answer another 45 or so of these questions which are listed on the net as 50 questions to ask a mormon. I am yet to get a mormon to give reasonable explanations for any of these questions. I have asked those elders who doorknock at my home a few of these questions and they never return. Your sect is based on a man claiming to be a prophet who claimed to have found gold plates in america. In this day and age how can people be so gullable as to believe in the story of the origin of the mormon faith. Please provide any evidence or truths to these claims. If the basis of your sect is built on these foundations then it speaks for itself.   nulla (nulla) New member Username: nulla Post Number: 2 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 202.0.155.232 Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 5:39 pm:        The facts seem to indicate that the official stance of the LDS Church is that the Hill Cumorah in New York is the site of two major Book of Mormon battles which resulted in a combined body count of approximately 2,230,000 men, women and children. Considering the archaeological gold mine this place must be it's too bad the Church doesn't at least turn the site over to National Geographic to start some digging and recovery work on what must be the burial site of millions of bones and tons of primitive early American weaponry. Yeah, right.   suday (suday) New member Username: suday Post Number: 4 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 15.235.153.97 Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 7:56 am:        What does this have to do with "The church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints" not being a cult?   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 532 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.53.1 Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 8:51 am:        DING-DING-DING!!! The foundation of the mormon church is what your 'socalled prophet' told the world. If he told the TRUTH, archaelogical evidence would support what he claimed. Go dig for bones and you will not find any. The church probably knows that. You follow a false prophet. THEREFORE, YOUR CHURCH IS A CULT.......and the challenge issued by nulla shows only one example of many.   joesdad (joesdad) Intermediate Member Username: joesdad Post Number: 206 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 62.253.215.25 Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 9:30 am:        nulla: "Why does the Mormon Church still teach that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God after he made a false prophecy about a temple being built in Missouri in his generation (Doctrine and Covenants 84:1-5)? " Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Mark 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. Luke 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Tell me who made these prophecies, and how they were fulfilled, and then tell me that you are as willing to condemn Him! "If the Book of Mormon is the most correct of any book on earth, as Joseph Smith said, why does it contain over 4000 changes from the original 1830 edition? " After grammatical, spelling or printing errors how many are left – how many of substance, please provide details of one that made a significant alteration to doctrine that we can discuss. "If the Book of Mormon was engraved on gold plates thousands of years ago, why does it read in perfect 1611 King James Version English? " What language would you prefer? "Do you think the LDS Church will reconsider its teachings that the American Indians are descendants of the Jewish race now that DNA evidence has proven that they are actually descendants of the Asian race? " Are we not all supposed to be descendants of Adam – does DNA evidence not prove we are not? "Why do the Bible verses quoted in the Book of Mormon contain the italicized words from the King James Version that were added into the KJV text by the translators in the 16th and 17th centuries? " Such as? "If Brigham Young was a true prophet, how come one of your later prophets overturned his declaration which stated that the black man could never hold the priesthood in the LDS Church until after the resurrection of all other races (Journal of Discourses, Dec. 12, 1854, 2:142-143)? " That is called the will of God, I know, an unusual concept to many modern Christians, but God is in charge. If He changes His mind, He can, whether you like it or not – Prophets new and old have never been able to make the rules, they only get to pass them on from the big rule maker in the sky! "If you would like to answer another 45 or so of these questions which are listed on the net as 50 questions to ask a mormon. I am yet to get a mormon to give reasonable explanations for any of these questions." What I find interesting is how you blindly assume that there is actually any merit in these questions – have you even bothered to look into them yourself? " In this day and age how can people be so gullable as to believe in the story of the origin of the mormon faith. Please provide any evidence or truths to these claims. " I am sure the Israelites were faced with the same accusation whilst following Moses through the wilderness for 40 years, but there again what should we know eh? "If the basis of your sect is built on these foundations then it speaks for itself." Yes, by their fruits ye shall know them. Tell me the origins of the group, church or sect YOU belong to, let us examine its credibility! I Know what, please, please, please ask me why Nephi said Jesus was to be born in Jerusalem, or where the Book of Mormon speaks of baptism for the dead - those ones are soooooooooooo funny!!!!! (Message edited by joesdad on March 31, 2005)   suday (suday) New member Username: suday Post Number: 5 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 15.235.153.97 Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 11:46 am:        nulla-Maybe you can explain what these mean? PSALM 85 11 Truth shall spring out of the earth; and righteousness shall look down from heaven. Isa. 29: 4 4 And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust. Ezekiel 37 15 ¶ The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying, 16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions: 17 And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand. Isaiah 29 10 For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered. 11 And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: 12 And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned. Rev. 14: 6 6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, Isa. 2: 2 2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. 1 Cor. 15: 29 29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? Isa. 14: 12 12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer,SON of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! Here it says that Lucifer is "son" why would God call him son? 1 Pet. 4: 6 6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. Prov. 8: 27 27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:   suday (suday) New member Username: suday Post Number: 6 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 15.235.153.97 Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 12:18 pm:        nulla answers for your questions- Why does the Mormon Church still teach that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God after he made a false prophecy about a temple being built in Missouri in his generation (Doctrine and Covenants 84:1-5)? A generation is anywhere from 100 to 200 years in the Bible. A temple has been built but not by us by RLDS within the time frame. There is still about 40 more years to his statement so at the rate we build Temples this will come true. Besides the RLDS church is bankrupt and has been talking with our church to sell back the land and Temple they built to us. Isn’t that interesting how things are fulfilled at the right time? If the Book of Mormon is the most correct of any book on earth, as Joseph Smith said, why does it contain over 4000 changes from the original 1830 edition? I’ve research this one and all are grammatical errors not wording errors and other Religions also count when the BOM was changed to chapter and verses as it being changed this statement is bogus, because if they hold true to this the NIV and King James version Bible has over 125, 000 changes. If the Book of Mormon was engraved on gold plates thousands of years ago, why does it read in perfect 1611 King James Version English? Why does the Bible read in the same language, because that is the language everyone used in the early 1800’s because they were taught out of the Bible as there main source of education. Just like if we were to translate something today we would use our phrasing of today. Do you think the LDS Church will reconsider its teachings that the American Indians are descendants of the Jewish race now that DNA evidence has proven that they are actually descendants of the Asian race? False statement, the DNA evidence show based on the region of Indians you test. If they test North American Indians on the west coast they have Asian blood mixed in them due to the land bridge and if you test East coast they have Nordic DNA. But in the test of South American Indians there are Southern European and Arabic DNA. If you really study archaeology of recent discoveries and news, National Geographic had an article mapping out the different blood lines and how possibly they got mixed. What is more interesting then anything is the language studies. In Newsweek in 1993 they wrote an article about the basis of the American Indian language and came to the conclusion that it consist of a mix of Latin, Hebrew, and Egyptian. Why do the Bible verses quoted in the Book of Mormon contain the italicized words from the King James Version that were added into the KJV text by the translators in the 16th and 17th centuries? I do not know the answer right off the top of my head, but like all other anti it is probably an easy answer to find and explain the truth to. I will have to look it up and see for myself. It is interesting that on my mission if we were bashed on the reverse of this statement. “Why is the chapters that are taken out of the Bible so different then in Isaiah?” interesting to see the new Anti-Mormon tactics. If Brigham Young was a true prophet, how come one of your later prophets overturned his declaration which stated that the black man could never hold the priesthood in the LDS Church until after the resurrection of all other races (Journal of Discourses, Dec. 12, 1854, 2:142-143)? Misquotation and taken out of context. I have read the journal of discourse and when this statement was mentioned Brigham Young was explaining the post mortal life and all those who have already passed on, Judgment and the Resurrection order. He was not explaining what would happen on the earth to come. Every race at some point in time has had blessings with held from them until the Lord reveals the proper time and season for the work to expand. Just like the gentiles during Christ time was not privileged to hold the Priesthood they were not allowed until it was revealed that the time was right for every race to share in all the blessings of the Gospel. That is a prophecy for the Last Days which is amazing to see fulfilled in our life time.   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 538 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.52.52 Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 2:33 pm:        Joseph Smith was a charismatic leader. He commanded members to follow certain moral laws that are an abomination to the Lord. The evidence shows he not only married many women, but even women who were married to other men. He changed his story many times about finding salamanders, plates, etc. He used a stone, stuck it in a hat, and called what he said from doing this scripture. He used the same stone before he claimed to find these plates to search for riches. He bragged that he did more to hold a church together than the prophets of the Holy Bible and even Jesus Christ. He said he would sit on the right hand of God. He taught that men would become gods and women goddesses. And a martyr does not die with a gun in his hand. Your organization is not a christian church. And all of this does not even begin to say what the next 'socalled prophet and the next socalled prophet have said.' It is ludicrous to think that Brigham Young, who taught that Adam was God, meant postmortal life. The mormon church excluded blacks from holding the priesthood until after BY died. He declared that would never happen.   nulla (nulla) New member Username: nulla Post Number: 4 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 202.0.155.232 Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 5:54 pm:        For starters with corrections, take a look at what was corrected here. I Nephi Be sure to check out 12:18, where Joseph makes the mistake of having Nephi mention the name "Jesus Christ" a generation before that name was actually revealed, and 10:3 and 19:13, where he mistakenly prophesies future events in the past tense. Also not to be missed are 11:18, 11:21, 11:32, and 13:40, which are the classic verses that display Joseph's initial acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity. II Nephi See 30:6, which contains the infamous change from "white" to the politically correct "pure," and 25:10, wherein Joseph Smith mistakes Lehi's prophecy for Nephi's. Of further interest is the fact that the passages copied straight from Isaiah didn't need as many changes as the surrounding text. "I went to Provo to a quarterly Stake Conference. Heard Joseph F. Smith describe the manner of translating the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith the Prophet and Seer, which was as follows as near as I can recollect the substance of his description. Joseph did not render the writing on the gold plates into the English language in his own style of language as many people believe. But every word and every letter was given him by the gift and power of God. So it is the work of God and not of Joseph Smith, and it was done in this way … The Lord caused each word spelled as it is in the book to appear on the stones in short sentences or words, and when Joseph had uttered the sentence or word before him and the scribe had written it properly, that sentence would disappear and another appear. And if there was a word wrongly written or even a letter incorrect the writing on the stone would remain there. (Journal of Oliver B. Huntington, p. 168 of typed copy at the Utah State Historical Society)" Nulla   nulla (nulla) New member Username: nulla Post Number: 5 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 202.0.155.232 Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 6:55 pm:        The original text of II Nephi 16:2 reads: Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. This is a quotation from the King James Version of the Bible, specifically Isaiah 6:2. In a rare grammatical mistake, the KJV has an incorrect plural for 'seraph'. The correct plural, of course, should be 'seraphim', as the later text of II Nephi 16:2 reads. What this indicates is that the Book of Mormon copied text directly from the KJV. As you said Joesdad... What language would you prefer? Or did god make this error when he spoke directly to Smith?.... no blame it on the scribes, they were well versed on the bible and thought they would correct both Smith and God. Would you like to talk about Smiths attempts at translating ancient egyptian texts and scrolls? Nulla   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 539 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.54.8 Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 6:56 pm:        Other witnesses (ones who supposedly watched Joseph Smith translate (including Emma Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and others) by sticking his seer stone in his hat, stick his head in it, and start saying what the Lord was supposedly telling him was scripture. And this happened while the so-called plates were put away and not present. It is the biggest crock I have ever heard. And each prophet continues to change the story just enough to make it believable to the members. And where is it written that a generation is 200-400 years. My mother is 86. There are four living generations of her family. While I was a member in the 80's we were only required to do four generations of geneology which was me, my mother, her mother, and her mother, who was my greatgrandmother. That's another four generations in approx. 130 years. I think Huntington must be describing a oiuga board.   nulla (nulla) New member Username: nulla Post Number: 6 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 202.0.155.232 Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 8:19 pm:        This is from the Smithsonian Institution: http://www.nmnh.si.edu/anthro/outreach/indian_l.htm No American Indian language is derived from a historically known Old World language. The affinities of the native languages of the Americas are presumed to reach back across the Bering Strait but date back to a very remote period in the past. Not even the closest of such relationships can yet be demonstrated conclusively, so great have the changes been over the many thousands of years since the ancestors of the Old and New World peoples drifted apart. Aside from such genetic relationships presumed (but not demonstrated) to exist between American language families and some of the language families of Asia, attempts have often been made to identify specific words in various American Indian languages with more or less similar words in Old World languages, as evidence for pre-Columbian contacts across the Atlantic or Pacific. However, no such suggestions for prehistoric borrowings between the New and Old World languages have withstood critical examination of the evidence by qualified linguistic scientists. Nulla   suday (suday) New member Username: suday Post Number: 7 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 69.151.5.243 Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 8:57 pm:        Why do you want to debate it so much the facts are that "The church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints" is not a cult. We all have different opionions but the facts are the facts. It makes me laugh when I hear people say it or when it's on a web page. To think that there are so many people who are ignorant on the subject is amazing and when they want to debate it, it's like if I wanted to debate the few things I know about the Catholic church. I wouldn't what to debate the Catholic religion because I respect that it's what they want to believe I might ask questions because they would obviously know more about it then I would. I've been in the church all my life and am shocked at what people believe like that we are a cult or that we are taught that Adam is God Adam is Michael not God. If it is so wrong why are there over 20,000,000 people in our church now?   nulla (nulla) New member Username: nulla Post Number: 7 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 202.0.155.232 Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 9:24 pm:        I love the way that mormons do what they can to rubbish the bible. (which was used to copy from ...for the book of Mormon.) Suday please please... cannot you see that there is so much proof to back up the history of the bible, locations, peoples names, artifacts, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the codices found at Nag Hammadi. It has so much historical fact behind it. But please show me the same for your book of Mormon, then you will not have people asking sensible questions about a cult. Prove your mr Smith to be a true prophet and the book of Mormon to be the true and only book for christianity then the questions and disecting of your church will stop. Remember please it is your church that is the breakaway from the bible not the other way around. If the bible had been copied in places from ancient Mormon texts found in New York then I would be the one you are questioning. It is your church that said the bible is rubbish and not to be believed. If it makes these statements then I have the right and obligation to check out your churches claims and question them. Give me 100% proof that Smith is a true prophet and that the Book of Mormon is same, plus disprove the bible as false and I will pop along to the nearest Mormon temple ready and willing to convert. Nulla   nulla (nulla) New member Username: nulla Post Number: 8 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 202.0.155.232 Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 9:39 pm:        "If it is so wrong why are there over 20,000,000 people in our church now?" And how many communists are in china preaching the word of Karl Marx? You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time. Nulla   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 543 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.53.65 Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 10:44 pm:        The membership has jumped from 13,000,000 by one poster to 20,000,000 by another in a few short weeks. The lds church does not list the inactive members, nor do they tell the number of people who have completely left the church. Numbers are important to them, but not to christians. The Roman Catholic Church has over 65,000,000. Does that mean they are the true church?   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 544 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.53.65 Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 10:47 pm:        Mormons on these threads have one thing in common. None of them have a clear basic knowledge of the Holy Bible.   joesdad (joesdad) Intermediate Member Username: joesdad Post Number: 211 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 62.253.215.25 Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 7:49 am:        GC: I suppose that what I like about nulla is that they at least try to present their objections as facts, with some credibilty. However, as you know by now, I do not have a very high opinion of much of what you say, and I see that you do not deny that a large portion of what you have posted about the LDS church is false, most often made up by you. So what if Suday says there are 20 million of us, you will remember that the reason I mentioned a figure was to counter your claim that the church is crumbling - so whetehr this is a crumble to 13 or 20 million - what point are you NOW trying to make? None of us have a clear basic knowledge of the Holy Bible? OK, as I have made it clear above and on other occasions you CHOOSE to lie about thngs on these threads, so what does the Bible I do not understand say about you? Here are a few things: Proverbs 17:4 A wicked doer giveth heed to false lips; and a liar giveth ear to a naughty tongue. Pslams 31:18 Let the lying lips be put to silence; which speak grievous things proudly and contemptuously against the righteous Psalms 52:3 Thou lovest evil more than good; and lying rather than to speak righteousness Psalms 119:163 Thou lovest evil more than good; and lying rather than to speak righteousness Proverbs 10:18 He that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, is a fool. Proverbs 12:19 The lip of truth shall be established for ever: but a lying tongue is but for a moment Jeremiah 7:8 Behold, ye trust in lying words, that cannot profit 1 John2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son And I say: John 8:55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying. Please provide proof that every aknowledge martyr has gone down without a fight. Nulla: Where have I ever rubbished the Bible? In reality, the provable parts of the Bible are those in the New Testament. Do you believe the flood occurred? Why? How does the Book of Mormon NOT tie in with ancient American history? We do not claim the BoM is the only book for Christianity. Your comment about the church being a breakaway of the Bible does not make sense. I do have to take back some of what I said about your claims having credibility as the last few comments show your ignorance of LDS tachings in this area. And how many people go to McDonalds every day, does that count the drive thru and those only using the toilet? (re: your comment on marxism) May I ask that you be honest and indicate in your posts what is quoted and what is YOUR opinion, it is always easier to hide behind the ideas of others than blame them when the ideas are shown false. It is also easier to just copy chunks of what you think is valid material rather than obtain facts through your own efforts and reasearch. A cult? - don't they say Friends had a cult following? - Joey the great high priest !!   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 550 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.50.70 Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 12:13 pm:        The point was made by two of us that the number of members in a organization does not make it a legitimate christian church. These mormons are like children who can't keep their hand from the fire. Not only do they not (or are unable to) see they are the member of a cultic organization, but apparently enjoy seeing not only their organization being put up for continued scrutiny, but their questionable powers of discernment. Since that is the case, I will continue to post more evidence: ultm.org/onlinebooksI will not be sharing each and every statement of fact because I do not want to be too repetitive, although it does seem necessary oftentimes) The fact that Mormonism is changing is very obvious to anyone who studies the history of the church. (We all know about the changes of the doctrine of polygamy, so I will make a short summation here): John Taylor, third President (apostle), once declared: "...we are not ashamed...to declare that we are polygamists...that we are firm, conscientious believers in polygamy, and that it is part and parcel of our religious creed'" (Life of John Taylor, p.255). Brigham Young, the second president (apostle) of the church, once stated: "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11,p.269). (It is obvious that if these men were "true prophets inspired by God" they would have seen that in the future the church would have to change it's doctrine and worded their declarations to say, "until God changes his mind". They couldn't do that, because they didn't know later prophets would, and in fact would have pitched a fit to think 'their word' would ever be changed.) gc, my words in parenthesis... There are a number of different doctrines--for example, rebaptism, the law of adoption and plural parriage--which were so important in the early Mormon church that God had to give special revelations concerning them, yet they were later repudiated by the Mormon leaders. Censorship Mormn leaders have made many important changes in the policies and doctrones of the church, but sonce they do not want their people to know that such changes take place, they have often altered the church records. (As if members who would later leave the church would not still have their books). A prime example of a policy change that caused a number of changes in Mormon records is the attitude of the mormon leadership. Example: Word of Wisdom The Word of Wisdom is a revelation given by Joseph Smith on February 27,1833, forbidding the use of hot drinks, alcoholic beverages and tobacco. Mormon writer John J. Stewart wrote concerning the Word of Wisdom that "no one can hold high office in the Chruch, on even the stake or ward level, (which starts for mala members at age 12), nor participate in temple work, who is a known user of tea, coffee, liquor or tobacco...(which very nicely excludes the members who hide it). In a thesis written at the Mormon-operated Brigham Young University, Gary dean Gutherie gives the following infomration: "Joseph tested the Saints to make sure their testimonies were of his religion and not of him as a personable leader.Amasa Lyman, of the First presidency, related:'Joseph Smith tried the faith of the Saints many times by his peculiarities. At one time, he had preached a powerful sermon on the Word of Wisdom, and immediately thereafter, he rode through the streets of Nauvoo smoking a cigar. Some of the brethren were tried as was Abraham of old'" ("Josehp Smith As An Administrator," Master's Thesis, Brigham Young University, May 1969, p.161). (to be continued)   nulla (nulla) New member Username: nulla Post Number: 9 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 202.173.180.87 Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 4:45 pm:        As I have read in many of your posts Joesdad along with other Mormons that, when faced with difficult questions you all come up with mostly the same style of replying..... retreat retreat, blame them for knocking mormons etc etc. Start quoting the bible, turn the questions about face...Your questions have no foundation, why should I find the time to reply etc etc.... been there done that, stale stuff to me my friends. Much the same response to one of the posters in the Catholic thread. Joesdad: "It is also easier to just copy chunks of what you think is valid material rather than obtain facts through your own efforts and reasearch." Is not copying chunks of text after reading it research... are the Psalms and proverbs above in your last post yours or are they cut and paste? I am not sure about the McDonalds comment and its relationship with my comment on a reply to Suday beside that fact that I have never had a Mcdonalds Meal being a Vegan most of my life LOL Can a person in this thread please expalain why this error had to be corrected. The original text of II Nephi 16:2 reads: Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. This is a quotation from the King James Version of the Bible, specifically Isaiah 6:2. In a rare grammatical mistake, the KJV has an incorrect plural for 'seraph'. The correct plural, of course, should be 'seraphim', as the later text of II Nephi 16:2 reads. This is like copying to the word test papers of the person sitting next to you and he got the answers wrong. If your answer will be along the lines of It does not warrant an answer when the question comes from someone who has little knowledge of the LDS then dont bother. I am after the truth Joesdad. did not I read in one of your posts where you said your church encourages you to ask questions and look into every thing, study hard etc. You to try to make both GC and myself seem like some sort of demon. I have nothing against you personaly... why should I?? Am I not allowed to ask for a sensible answer regarding the origin of your bible, for which your church has laid its foundations on? If you think I do not deserve an answer as to what happened in this instance then allow another to give me a reasonable explanation. You whole LDS Bible relies on the true words from your prophet, this is a genuine question regarding the transfer of your holy words from God himself to your Joseph Smith, this is then laid down in your bible and said to be the true word of god. If I were seeking this question as a mormon would there be any difference Joesdad. "How does the Book of Mormon NOT tie in with ancient American history? " Please provide me with some archaeological proof. I am eager to learn. I have family ties with the mormon church. I have never had any problems with mormons, always found them very nice people. It is the churches doctrine I have big problems with and now so do my family . They have had a major family split due to LDS and this has been ongoing for 3 years, now only the non mormons will speak with me, strange when I love them all the same and have never spoke ill of them, hence my initial need to look into LDS. Never bothered to even ask their beliefs before nor did they try and convert me. regarding myself I am a male, Born Again Christian, have nothing to hide behind. Live in Melbourne Australia. I have studied and searched into many beliefs, travelled the Indian sub continent for 3 years. Studied Vedic literature , Sanskrit, the Upanishads, Buddhist Philosophy mainly along the lines of the Mahayana Tradition. Stayed in monasterys in the Himalayas, Nepal and the Kathmandu area. Did 2x3 month silent retreats at Kopan Monastery in 1999. Now I am active with my church in youth work, mainly outside of the church itself regarding substance abuse and post suicide family counciling. I do 2 nights a fortnight 9:00pm till 1:00am in a mobile food van where we feed the needy in the western suburbs of Melbourne. I do once a month mobile Kitchen for a Hindu Society. Nobody has ever asked me to do any of the work. We rely on people to come forward for the love of it no matter what their belief. My church is fully accountable for all it monies and we release a full ledger statement for all members to see annually, this usually does the opposite to what one thinks and we actually find more donations are placed after the statement is released. Besides this I hold down a full time job as a nurse at a major Hospital. Oh yes... Joesdad, I am sorry if you took it that you yourself said the bible was rubbish. To me if another belief puts down the holy bible as not being the true bible for christians then they are rubbishing the bible. If you were to say to a Muslim the Koran is not the true word and is incomplete, see what their reply would be. In your eyes to I am rubbishing the LDS Bible by questioning it the way I am, otherwise you would not be so defensive. have a nice weekend people and may your god bless you Om Mani Padme Hung ... a sacred ancient mantra Tashi Delik ..... wishing for goodness happiness Nameste .... I see god within you (Nepalese) Nulla (Message edited by nulla on April 01, 2005)   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 551 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.51.27 Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 7:45 pm:        Suday, when you wrote your first post I made the suggestion that you read all the other posts, but you chose not to. Instead, you want to repeat the same arguments for mormonism that your fellows have done, with the same degree of failure. You say you think it is funny that people who know little about your church want to debate it. We do not want to debate it. We are showing the fallicy of a cult that hides the truths of its false doctrines. Mormons posting do not admit to anything contrary to Biblical teachings until they are exposed, then try to backtrack saying the info was out there all along. If you had read my posts, you would have seen that I was a member for 26 years. All I needed to learn was that men will not become god to open my eyes. I have learned a great deal more about the church since I left and am still astounded by the blasphemy perpetuated by your leaders. As for the evidence that js copied portions of the kjv, plus added his own words, such as the name Sam, which was not used during the writing of the Bible, is evidence of that. During Biblical times, names were not shortened. The name would have been Samuel. Psalms 85:11 is talking about the fruits (seeds planted, grow; just as our desire to serve god will bring forth fruits. If you think this verse is talking about js digging up the plates, how can you prove that? It would be just as logical for mormons to believe digging up dinasaur bones means you are really a prehistoric animal. Isaiah 2:2- Just as the Lord's house was a type of the heavenly sanctuary (temple) Hebrews 9:24, so presumably the mountain was a copy of a heavenly reality. To raise the Lord's house to the top of the mountain, is to establish him among the nations as the only true God. Isaiah 29:1-14..The second woe is against Jerusalem for its hypocritical religion-specifically its empty worship and its blind prophets. Proverbs 8:27..These verses provide part of the background for the New Testament portrayal of Christ as the Divine Word and as the wisdom of God. 1 Corinthians 15:29..It may be that some of the Corinthians had for some reason been baptized for others who had died without baptism. Paul did not approve or disapprove of the unusual practice, though he used 'they' rather than 'we' when speaking of it. I would suggest anyone reading the Holy Bible get a good concordance.   nulla (nulla) New member Username: nulla Post Number: 10 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 202.173.180.87 Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 9:59 pm:        Joesdad. You stated in one of your posts that the Holy Bible was incomplete. Has your Prophet wrote added or completed book/s for the bible? If not then which books do you as a mormon feel were left out? If so how can I gain access to them.? If you would be kind enough to point me in the right direction I would be grateful. Nulla   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 553 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.53.198 Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 9:28 am:        joesdad answered, "Does DNA evidence not prove that we are not? (descendants of Adam) I would answer that with the same logic (lack of); Does joesdad's evidence not prove that he is not a descendant of Michael the archangel ( who mormons believe is satan). The answer would be NO, by his logic (lack of)!   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 554 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.53.198 Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 9:45 am:        Is, by joesdad's logic, Brigham Young sitting on Kolob with all the women he married as God of that planet? Yes! Is my stepfather, by joesdad's logic, now preparing his own planet for my mother (his NO.1 goddess), and all his other wives. Yes? Will, by joesdad's logic, he be god of his own planet if he pays his tithes and offerings, attends all meetings at the church, doesn't drink hot drinks, eat the crust of bread, or alcoholic beverages; has his stuff done at the temple. Answer: Yes. Question: Does anyone agree with joesdad's (mormon)logic? Question: Does anyone believe joesdad (mormon)is being led by the Holy Spirit? Question: Does anyone believe joesdad (mormon)is a christian as defined by the Holy Bible? Question: Does anyone believe joesdad (mormon)wants to know the God of the Holy Bible?   joesdad (joesdad) Intermediate Member Username: joesdad Post Number: 212 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 62.252.64.33 Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 11:12 am:        Nulla: My cjoice of response to your inital enquiries was, not necessarily ot turn them around to sidestep them, but to make you realise the shallowness of some of them. For example the DNA question (which GC quite obviously fails to understand). If you have rad my posts I hope you will see that I have often attempted to give proper answers or rebuttals to questions/accusations, however these threads have become quite stale as the same points are being raised by the same people, who ignore any replies given, or soon forget them. Again, if you have read the several LDS threads you will see that there has been a large amount of quoting form other sites or from books with no indication of the posters understanding of them, if indeed they have any - it seems that you are at least willing to deal with matters "face to face" rather than hiding behind vague quotes. I take your word for the change to the passage in Nephi - though not certain of the point you are trying to make. So, did Joseph copy from his own family bible and then someone later notice the grammatical mistake? or maybe, the original was as given to Joseph as he transalted, then someone later noticed the "error" and chose to correct it? The meaning is not changed either way - though I am sure this is not what you are getting at. Either way round, if the KJV error or the current correction is used - it would be used as an evidence against the BoM is that not true? Do not presume I class you with GC as she is bltantly dishonest! May I ask that when you ask questions you do not refer to the BoM as our Bible, cos it becomes confusing as you know we DO use the KJV bible. I have no problems with sensible, logical questions at all. If you read the BoM, and than some of the many independant archeological texts (not the biased ones that are trying ot prove a point one way or the other), you can see that there are many accepted facts relating to the ancient american history that do tie in very well with the BoM. I am disappointed ot think that you feel I out the Bible down, I hope that none of my posts have indicated this. There are several books referred to in the Bible that are not contained within it, in contexts that show they are to be read to understand the quote - why do this if they were not intended to be included - the following is an excerpt from the LDS edition KJV Bible Dictionary: The so-called lost books of the Bible are those documents that are mentioned in the Bible in such a way that it is evident they are considered authentic and valuable, but that are not found in the Bible today. Sometimes called missing scripture, they consist of at least the following: book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21: 14); book of Jasher (Josh. 10: 13; 2 Sam. 1: 18); book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11: 41); book of Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29: 29); book of Gad the seer (1 Chr. 29: 29); book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29: 29; 2 Chr. 9: 29); prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9: 29); visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr. 9: 29; 2 Chr. 12: 15; 2 Chr. 13: 22); book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12: 15); book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20: 34); sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33: 19); an epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 5: 9); possibly an earlier epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3: 3); an epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col. 4: 16); and some prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude (Jude 1: 14). To these rather clear references to inspired writings other than our current Bible may be added another list that has allusions to writings that may or may not be contained within our present text, but may perhaps be known by a different title; for example, the book of the covenant (Ex. 24: 7), which may or may not be included in the current book of Exodus; the manner of the kingdom, written by Samuel (1 Sam. 10: 25); the rest of the acts of Uzziah written by Isaiah (2 Chr. 26: 22). The foregoing items attest to the fact that our present Bible does not contain all of the word of the Lord that he gave to his people in former times, and remind us that the Bible, in its present form, is rather incomplete. Matthew’s reference to a prophecy that Jesus would be a Nazarene (Matt. 2: 23) is interesting when it is considered that our present O.T. seems to have no statement as such. There is a possibility, however, that Matthew alluded to Isaiah 11: 1, which prophesies of the Messiah as a Branch from the root of Jesse, the father of David. The Hebrew word for branch in this case is netzer, the source word of Nazarene and Nazareth. Additional references to the Branch as the Savior and Messiah are found in Jer. 23: 5; Jer. 33: 15; Zech. 3: 8; Zech. 6: 12; these use a synonymous Hebrew word for branch, tzemakh GC: I choose not to give your posts any credibilty by replying to them.   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 556 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.53.41 Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 12:01 pm:        Joesdad, Good! Thank you! They were not intended for you.   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 557 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.63.26 Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 2:36 pm:        As for my not denying your accusations of my being a liar meaning I agree with you, I am not intereeted in your childish games. You suggest Nulla not read biased texts. Your not very original statements above show that is "exactly what you did" in copying from the lds dictionary. Your argument has always seemed to be, we believe the bible has errors, so what's wrong with the Book of Mormon having errors. The Book of Mormon is about as much a God breathed historical document about America's early history as the book writers who traveled the U.S. writing their folkstories about the 'old west'. You do not talk about your other scriptures, the D&C or the POGP. Why not? They are in total disagreement with your own Book of Mormon. You should be concerned about your own credibility, especially when you sign off as "high priest Joey", which is so offensive, but says a lot about what you think of yourself.   nulla (nulla) New member Username: nulla Post Number: 11 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 202.173.180.87 Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 4:54 pm:        Joesdad. Re the passage in Nephi. I did not nor do I now refute the meaning of the text. I do however say that it is obvious this word as a plural was copied from the KJB. If so it would mean that it is not gods word as was said to be given to JS. That is the point I am getting at. You are an intelligent person and I'm sure you can see the reason why one would come to that conclusion. If that is your answer to the question then I am sorry to say that I am not convinced at all. To me it means your prophet lied as to the origin of the text, maybe this is like blasphemy to a mormon, but I cannot draw any other sensible conclusion to that entry in the BoM. I would have no problems at all if js had said from the beginning that parts of the BoM have been copied from the KJV, but he didn't. If a mormon reading this could now answer me as to their understanding as to how the messages from god to js to paper occured. My next question is that if the bible is incomplete, does the BoM complete it. If not then why has your church adopted the BoM as the true word of god and not remained in total with the bible. Which gets back to what I had stated before, if your church does not use the bible as the true and only word of god then it is a breakaway sect that uses other texts/books as its doctrine. Also regarding the Bible as being incomplete. Is this your opinion, JS's opinion, or was this theory later introduced by your church? What is the LDS view on the Nag Hammadi codices and there contents? Has there ever been an official statement by your church officials regarding this? If you are not familiar with the codices or any person reading this then here is a good place to find info on this subject http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html I do not like repeating , as I to overlook things when replying to a large post. Can you please answer me re the archaeological proof. have a nice day people... may your God be in your presence Nulla   joesdad (joesdad) Intermediate Member Username: joesdad Post Number: 213 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 62.252.64.33 Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 5:24 pm:        Nulla: With no offense intended, of course you wish the use of an incorrect word to signify that Joseph Smith was a liar, as this would easier than accepting him as a prophet. However, I have done a little reading behind this point and have come accross papers that go into alsorts, but more particularly one that indicates that the original printer of the 1830 BoM a non mormon pointed out to Joseph that there were a lot or grammatical errors in the manuscripts - now you would expect a liar, as you suggest joseph to be to ensure that any errors were ironed out, to ensure the charade was continued, yet he stood by the text as being what he had been instructed to write, and in fact changes were only made because compliants were made about the terrible grammer. Why did Joseph go to suxch extents to fake a book, and then let it go to print in such a state? - surely not the actions of such a liar as you suggest!! The BoM is a totally different book tothe Bible, and does not form part of it, again a simple read of it will make this clear. we believe the Bible is the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. Have you any comments on the lost books? OK, Incas and Mayans = ancestors of the nephites. I have never heard of any official view on the Nag Hammadi codicies. GC: read the post properly for once, it actually helps in understanding what I say!!   nulla (nulla) New member Username: nulla Post Number: 12 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 202.173.180.87 Posted on Monday, April 04, 2005 - 1:48 am:        Joesdad. You have faith in your prophet, I do not. You take your view as a follower of js where I do not. It is not your faith that I question, I applaud your faith as a person. I'm a bit lost with the Incas and the Mayans under the line of lost books. Was this to do with the Historical question? I am now reading about the papyrus and the kinderhook plates as I find this part of js history fascinating. Nulla   joesdad (joesdad) Intermediate Member Username: joesdad Post Number: 217 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 62.253.215.25 Posted on Monday, April 04, 2005 - 8:29 am:        Nulla: If you take a little time to acquaint yourself with the Book of Mormon and the peoples who's history it contains, the relevance to the ancient american culture will become obvious. The Nephites were the largest group of people of the BoM who lived in the Americas and were visited by Christ - their history links directly in with that of the Incas and Mayans as they are one and the same histories. I have put a bit of further thought into the verse to which you refer. In a nutshell we have a prophet who lived 600 years before Christ who enjoyed the words of Isaiah, and felt it right to include these in his writings - instead of looking to this ancient writing as a confirmation of the correctness of the current translations of Isaiah, they are looked upon as a cause to claim the Joseph copied it all from the KJV. Now, were the BoM REALLY to be what it says it is, which version of the translation would the world accept, the one with or without the "S" the answer is neither - do you not agree? Which one would YOU find acceptable? I did not reply to your enquiry above: I Nephi Be sure to check out 12:18, where Joseph makes the mistake of having Nephi mention the name "Jesus Christ" a generation before that name was actually revealed, and 10:3 and 19:13, where he mistakenly prophesies future events in the past tense. Also not to be missed are 11:18, 11:21, 11:32, and 13:40, which are the classic verses that display Joseph's initial acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity. As these seem to be references to the 1830 edition, of whcih I unfortunately do not have a copy. Can you confirm this? Have you any comment or opinion upon the books obviously lost from the current editions of the Bible? This is not, as you have suggested above may be the case, of me turning the table on you to avoid a question, as I believe the one you raised has been answered. But more to see how you deal with this fact, and maybe understand our stance on believing in the bible so far as it is PROPERLY translated. May I suggest you also visit LDS.org for the correct version of LDS beliefs?   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 574 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.52.181 Posted on Monday, April 04, 2005 - 11:24 am:        Thank you for the reminder. I did use the lds website, then linked to FamilySearch, put the information in again, and got the same response. 'Nothing'. So, this time I also put in my late husband's information. Remember, he was born into the church and never left it. His parents went through the temple after his death in 1986. What did I find: NO MATCHES (and I do know his mother's maiden name). I used to do geneology when I was a member.   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 575 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.52.181 Posted on Monday, April 04, 2005 - 11:36 am:        suday, Isn't your sect, church 'generally' considered to be extremist or false. (Ask people who aren't members). Doesn't your sect, church teach that your President, prophet has authority. (from God, no less) Don't you think your President, prophet has charisma?   joesdad (joesdad) Intermediate Member Username: joesdad Post Number: 220 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 62.253.215.25 Posted on Monday, April 04, 2005 - 12:19 pm:        GC: just about the response I'd expect -"nothing" exactly what your accusations contain.   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 577 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.51.90 Posted on Monday, April 04, 2005 - 12:55 pm:        My last questions were for suday. In comparison to the 12 million members, not the 20 mil suday thinks or the 13.5 joesdad thinks, (according to your current pres.), there are hundreds of millions of people who agree with my "nothing". Joesdad gives me too much credit. Contrary to what he seems to believe, my imaginative powers are not that great. Any person with any small amount of common sense can see the falsehoods of the foundation of the lds church. I just don't have the time to dream up all the massive amount of evidence that proves the lds church is based on the imaginings of a young man who had a history of hiring himself out, (in his biological father's footsteps), as a digger for earthly riches, who, when he realized he had a better way to enrich himself, called himself a prophet and defrauded (mentally and physically) many people. Poor people who were and are willing to 'grab for the brass ring' that they think is godhood. By doing so, he has confused his followers so much that they are willing to go to hell before giving up a false dream, instead of seeking the One True God who promises eternity with him.   joesdad (joesdad) Intermediate Member Username: joesdad Post Number: 223 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 62.253.215.25 Posted on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 3:44 am:        gc: I AM AFRAID I HAVE TO TELL YOU, THERE ARE BUT OF HANDFUL THAT SHOW SUCH SINGULAR INABILITY TO UNDERSTAND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. VERY FEW WHO WILL MAKE BLATANT FALSE CLAIMS AS YOU HAVE AND THEN IGNORE ALL CHALLENGES TO PROVIDE PROOF FOR WHAT YOU HAVE SAID - YOU IMAGINE THAT YOU WILL FIND APPROVAL BECAUSE YOU LIE, REALLY BADLY, THEN PRETENT YOU SAID NOTHING. EVEN MY 6 YEAR OLD KNOWS THAT THE WAY YOU BEHAVE IS NOT JUST DISHONEST AND WRONG, BUT IS NOT APPROVED OF BY GOD - YOUR IMAGINATION BEING AS IT IS GIVES YOU THE FALSE VISION OF BELIEVING HE WILL ACCEPT YOUR LIES - SO WHO IS THE FOOL? NO, I MUST SAY YOUR LEVEL OF IMAGINATION IS EXTREMELY HIGH - YOU IMAGINE THAT YOU ARE RIGHT, DESPITE KNOWNING YOU ARE WRONG - IT TAKES A LOT OF IMAGINATION TO DO THAT!! TAKE A LEAF OUT OF NULLAS BOOK, THAT IS HOW PEOPLE DISCUSS THINGS, A SHARING OF IDEAS AND THOUGHTS - ADOPT THAT TACTIC AND YOU MAY GAIN SOME RESPECT AT LEAST.   nulla (nulla) New member Username: nulla Post Number: 13 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 202.173.180.87 Posted on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 5:26 am:        Joesdad; Nulla: If you take a little time to acquaint yourself with the Book of Mormon and the peoples who's history it contains, the relevance to the ancient american culture will become obvious. The Nephites were the largest group of people of the BoM who lived in the Americas and were visited by Christ - their history links directly in with that of the Incas and Mayans as they are one and the same histories. Anyone one could make the same claim regarding the Australian aborigines, but then, where would the proof be other than the word of a prophet. Is there other evidence to support this. Has a weapon or tool been found that links directly to them . Has there been any proof carried down over generations by tongue. We have in Australia aboriginal rock art that has been carbon tested to prove its age. Your history shows in the BoM that there were large numbers of Nephites, surely they would have left something for us to see. Did not the Incas and the Mayans do so in their buildings and other inscriptions that have been excavated. What type of buildings housed the millions or the large numbers that are said to have existed at one time in New York An example again for the Australian aborigine is in the Kimberley Ranges in North Western Australia they found some rock art that had never been discovered before located in a very remote area near the Bungle Bungles that has a late painting of a ship, could have been one of the early explorers ship who knows, but what it means is if white man did visit australia and these whites were killed out or interbred with the Aborigines and then if australia was not discovered until next century there would be a proof of prior inhabitants as recorded by an ancient race of people that had no metals, no wheel, no fixed dwellings. Regarding Nephi 16:2 I would find that if the BoM had the correct spelling of the word then this topic would not be discussed. It is now changed in the BoM, so the LDS has accepted both. When doing a current search of the King James Bible it still has the incorrect "s" trailing, try for yourself and see. Yes these are related to the 1830 edition, I of course do not have a copy of but have been to pro mormon sites to check the digital versions. http://www.helpingmormons.org/1830BOM.htm have a nice day Nulla   joesdad (joesdad) Intermediate Member Username: joesdad Post Number: 224 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 62.253.215.25 Posted on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 8:54 am:        Nulla, you ask the same question regarding proof, even though I have replied several times. Unless you are acquainted with the BoM, it will be more difficult to appreciate the evidences. There are archeological evidences that fit in with the BoM. The peoples of the BoM are the ancestors of the American Indian races (something I assumed you understood from your initial claim regarding DNA), hence we may look to archeological discoveries from amongst those "vanished" nations to support details of the BoM. For example, the aztec story of the great white God returning from the East fits in with Christs ministy amongst that people, the fact that those nations all followed one unifying faith until it was corrupted relatively recently which was foolowed by the almost anhiliation of these nations - these fit in with accounts from the BoM, all of which are discoveries so modern as to be impossible for Joseph Smith to have used as the basis of his writings. You seem to misunderstand that the nephites and incas and mayans are all one and the same (obviously with some cultural and name changes over the centuries). The histories of the BoM did not occur in north eastern america, but predominantly southern and middle america. The BoM covers a history spanning over one thousand years - only the latter end dealing with the prophet who buried the BoM plates. What you have done would I think be similar to restricting the whole of Aboriginal history to the area surrounding Kimberley Ranges - which of course is daft because this ignores a wealth of evidence and knowledge! May I suggest your view of the "S" would not be the common one amongst those claiming the BoM to be false -in reality either spelling would be used to claim Joseph either changed it or copied it - never an acceptance of it being what it truly is. If you were given a book containing ten truths, and someone told you that the misspelling of a word in the 3rd truth was significant because they said so, and your reading of the book was from the point of view that it was false and therefore the misspelling must be relevant, would you ever proceed beyond the alleged mistake and discover any of the truths - or become intrenched in exposing the alleged "fault". (BTW that is not a pro-mormon site!!) Had you read the Book of Mormon, and prayed about it by yourself, you would find there is so much more in there for a person who believes in Christ than you imagine - any prejudgement of it does no more than rob you of that knowledge. It is ANOTHER witness of Christ, acknowledging all of the other witnesses, and not claiming to replace any. Thank you for the link - do you know of a similar one comparing the first, unamended edition of the KJV with the one currently in use? Correct me if I am wrong, but were those who translated the KJV not chosen for their ability to read, and translate rather than the standard of the translation or their spirituality? Which version do you choose to use, and why that one? http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm is an interesting read. I am NOT knocknig the Bible, It is included in the standard works of the LDS church, I read it believe it and love it.   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 582 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.51.15 Posted on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 12:25 pm:        nulla, I went to the site you suggested to joesdad. What is more confirmation for me I found in the 'negative responses' section, which is (mostly mormon) responses to this site. Not only do I find such similarities in the responses there to the responses to me here at factnet, I wonder if mormons have a book (which I have heard rumored they do) teaching them how to respond to 'antimormons'. I also found a response by a mormon bishop explaining the process the church applies when people ask to be removed from their membership rolls, re: excommunication. Joesdad stated he had asked priesthood holders if the church does this, and said they had never heard of it. I asked for my 'excommunication' in 1986. Joesdad calls me a liar and says I must have done something to make the church excommunicate me, which is what happended to him, according to his posts. I deeply appreciate you sharing this site with us. It will be a great help in ministering to mormons and investigators alike.   nulla (nulla) New member Username: nulla Post Number: 14 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 202.173.180.87 Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 3:24 am:        Joesdad You do not think or reply outside the box, or in your case outside of your faith in the book of Mormon. I have said before I do applaud your faith as a person, it is what you have faith in that is my problem and I am viewing it from a non Mormon side of the argument, By saying; “You seem to misunderstand that the nephites and incas and mayans are all one and the same” is answering my question as a claim based on text from the BoM. Lets take this hypothesis. If the bible and the BoM did not exist and were never written. Would we have any way of ever knowing about the Nephites and the Israelites? Is it taught in our history classes and non religious text books that the Nephites and the Israelites existed.? Is there any documents or proof that the word Israelite and Nephite as well as the nephite people existed pre js times? When doing a search on Google using the word Nephite I cannot find non Mormon sites that are using these claims that the Nephites existed and are one and the same as the Incas and Mayans. If you use Microsoft word and its dictionary when writing the word Nephite it shows as an error and gives no alternative that is related to the BoM. The same does not apply to Israelite Is it any wonder that I fail to see the relationship when trying to find proof other than that of js. The only answer that I can hold up as an answer from you outside of the BoM that you have given is; “For example, the aztec story of the great white God returning from the East fits in with Christs ministy amongst that people” I refer you to this site in regards to your answer and an article by Brant Gardner, of whom I assume you are familiar with. http://frontpage2000.nmia.com/~nahualli/LDStopics/DigQ/DigQ%20TOC.htm if you look in the conclusion section it reads. “If there is no reconstructible tale of Quetzalcoatl which can be shown to have any correlation to Christ, where does that leave the Book of Mormon? Right where it has always been. The literature which has been developed to show a connection between Christ and Quetzalcoatl has been done in good faith, if not in good scholarship. None of the work, however, bears any relationship to the text of the Book of Mormon itself. The Book of Mormon makes no connection between Christ and any mythological figure. Those connections were made by believers who did not have the benefit of many of the texts available today. That they were mistaken in their analysis does not impugn the record of the Book of Mormon itself.” He does however then go on to give what he feels could be a better explanation for the lds to use. After reading all the available text related to the subject on that site I do not feel there is any proof to show Quetzalcoatl as having any Christian connections let alone Mormon based connections, only connections again made by the faithful from either Christian (through Spanish influence) or Mormon. If that is your answer to me for my question then I salute you and recognise it as thus. It does not mean that I accept your answer as archaeological proof. The same applied in my last post, unfortunately Joesdad, you take it that your answer/s are accepted by me to be the truth and then when I give my examples as to why I think they are unfounded you reply along the lines of ; "Nulla, you ask the same question regarding proof, even though I have replied several times. Unless you are acquainted with the BoM." Regarding the Aborigine part of my reply to you that I was trying to use as an example of ancient people keeping records. You wrote; “What you have done would I think be similar to restricting the whole of Aboriginal history to the area surrounding Kimberley Ranges - which of course is daft because this ignores a wealth of evidence and knowledge!” Being part aboriginal and having a son inlaw 50% aboriginal as well having a degree in Australian and Aboriginal History my using that example was purely on the basis that it is a known fact that the said site and ancient rock art was only recently discovered by white man. It is a known and ancient sacred site for the local aborigines in that area. I could have given other examples, but took it in mind they could be polluted by white mans influence. To say that I have used that example to depict the whole of the aboriginal history of our land is an insult to me, let alone the comment about it being daft. I have great interest in that area in particular due to the Bradshaw paintings, which are ancient rock art paintings that could be pre aboriginal. The origin of this art is unclear, and some of the paintings have been dated as being more than 20,000 years old. Another strange thing about them is that they are located in the only area of Australia that African boab trees are found to be growing. I have aboriginal roots and the aboriginals lay claim to being the original inhabitants to this land. I am not afraid at all if it was found to be a different story through the further research of the Bradshaw paintings. In referring you to the site to see the 1830 version of the BoM I apologise in saying it was pro Mormon. I had searched for a while and had trouble finding the version on a Mormon site. I only assumed it was pro Mormon by the name of the site alone. Nulla   nulla (nulla) New member Username: nulla Post Number: 15 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 202.173.180.87 Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 3:42 am:        Again Joesdad your answer to a prior question relies on the believer having faith in the BoM of which I have stated my view on. You wrote “May I suggest your view of the "S" would not be the common one amongst those claiming the BoM to be false -in reality either spelling would be used to claim Joseph either changed it or copied it - never an acceptance of it being what it truly is. This again means I need to take it for what it is, and that is a view from a faithful Mormon. And to further your case you wrote; If you were given a book containing ten truths, and someone told you that the misspelling of a word in the 3rd truth was significant because they said so, and your reading of the book was from the point of view that it was false and therefore the misspelling must be relevant, would you ever proceed beyond the alleged mistake and discover any of the truths - or become intrenched. You have twisted my question around and tried to drag it inline with the the question you are asking me. Let me edit the above to make it more inline with my question. If you were given a book containing ten truths that were claimed to be the word of god, and someone told you that the misspelling of a word in the 3rd truth was the very same as the misspelling from another book, and the book you are reading lays claims to being more superior to the book it copied the text from. Would your reading of the book from the point of view that it was false and if the said claim of copying could be true and the misspelling is deemed relevant, would you ever proceed beyond the alleged mistake and discover any of the truths - or become intrenched. As we see the BoM has corrected the error and your reply only backs up my case re the changes that have been made to the BoM which most or all Mormons claim to have no significance to the actual text. And as per your reply in an earlier post; “After grammatical, spelling or printing errors how many are left – how many of substance,” I do not have any problems with the KJV and its error, that is not what my initial question asks. The word itself is an uncommon word. Joesdad, if it said in the KJV that Noah took on board 2 geeses, or 2 mices and this error/s occurred in the print and then it was also included in another book that was to be held accountable, I would have to say it is a copy of the text from one book to another, regardless of who wrote it or its importance as a book. But because the word is not a common one it was not picked up as an error till after the fact. Here Joesdad I am again speaking about something that was printed in a book, I am not talking on religious terms here, purely on the fact that it happened. Your explanation for it is that it is a view only among those claiming the BoM to be false. In stating this you are again showing to me that those who have faith in the book of Mormon cannot and will not come to the conclusion I have, to do so, or say so would be blasphemous for a Mormon, but I am not a Mormon and can say in my view it was copied. I have no problem if js had stated in the beginning that parts of the KJV have been copied to compliment the BoM, but it was he himself who said it was all the very word of God. You have answered once again in faith alone as a devotee of Joseph Smith. Nulla   nulla (nulla) New member Username: nulla Post Number: 16 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 202.173.180.87 Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 3:55 am:        There are 7 types of people (my assumption…I’m open for more additions) 1. Mormons who are faithful and well read in the lds scriptures. 2. Mormons who have not a lot of knowledge regarding their scriptures or are ignorant in their studies.(faithful or could be looked upon by fellow Mormons as not being learned or not holding true faith) 3. Ex Mormons (who may be very critical of the lds or not) 4. Non Mormons who have little or no knowledge of the BoM and lds. 5. Non Mormons who have come across or been introduced to the BoM or parts thereof and have or are looking at its texts and scriptures. Would be more open minded to look at both sides having not committed themselves to the lds, nor denied in total its doctrine. 6. The same as 5 but have total denial of the lds scriptures or what they have read of them 7. The same as 5 but believe in total its scriptures or what they have read of them If you agree to the above, then I come under the number 5 and would appreciate it if you took into consideration that my current stance is that I do not intend to become a Mormon and I base my curiosity in the subject on the fact that I did stumble upon non or ex Mormons notes on errors. Apart from the fact as explained re my in laws, I had no need or reason to look into the lds. So for me to question the ifs and buts that arise and have risen many times before is a normal thing to do. Because I do so in a non mormon state of mind is logical to me. To go into a religion, become baptised and follow its doctrine without asking questions beforehand, or being afraid to ask questions later or deny in anyway its scriptures once indoctrinated is illogical to me. Can the Mormons who read this say that they did look deeply into as many claims as they possibly could and asked mormons and non mormons for their opinions and answers regarding the lds prior to making a full commitment with the church? Nulla   joesdad (joesdad) Intermediate Member Username: joesdad Post Number: 225 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 62.253.215.25 Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 4:44 am:        gc: It is interesting that when LDS give similar responses to a point you accuse us of having "a book" from whcih we give answers, yet when we respond in a way that you misread to be at odds with another you also accuse us of incosistancy - the problem in reality is with you. You can't get us to respond in the way you want, you would rather we give answers in whcih we do not believe so that they accord with YOUR view, than to answer honestly. Your comment regarding my asking Priesthood re: excommunication is either an absolute lie, or a purposeful misrepresenatation of something else I have said. Please show Nulla your honselty by quoting verbatim what I said, and why this is at odds with whatever you claim to have read. Otherwise stop with the false accusations. Again, there are many ways that excummunication can be arrived at, my questioning of yoru account has always been based on your mixing it up with having your name removed form the churches records which is a completely differnet process, and you total inability to say what these differences are - making me conclude it is either another of your lies, or you are not being toally honest with what you say - or perhaps your memory has jaded with time, but you are never willing to admit this, hense much of what you say about LDS beliefs being either wrong or mixed with some version of what we believe. How can we have a sensible conversation when you are so unwilling to stick to simple truth and fact? Nulla: Why don't you tell me what you want me to say? - If a simple truthfull anser wil not do, what will? I am not sure how you can claim your Google result proves anything - I bet there are more porn sites available that ones discussing LDS beliefs - are you more acepting of theose using your logic? - I hope not! Your hypothesis seems to prove that the words did not exist - so what now then, do we ignore them? Thank you for your information re "the great white God" I will read through with, and have a good root around! I am not sure what you mean by what you say on the "S" point - you will disreagard that someone looking to pick fault could make an accusation either way - rather than accept that this could be done? My example of the book was my example, in fact you change what I have said to bring it in line with what you believe. The reference to more superior shows you incorrect understanding of the LDS view of the relationship of the BoM to the Bile, and your altered version of what I have said does not say what I asked. I aknowledge what you say about similar texts - OK so lets look at it a different way (not me trying to wriggle till I find an answer - sometimes when we are made to actually think on a point we find that there is much more to look at and think about) maybe the real quetion is in as to what extent Joeseph Smith was led by God in what he wrote? was he given it word for word, letter by letter? if so, did the scribe who wrote it down (remember Joseph rarely put pen to paper himself but had several scribes who wrote as he spoke the transaltion out loud)write them in this exact same way - did Joseph spell words? did he feel the need to spell each word out letter by letter? One man said a word, another wrote it, the former (as acnowledged by all was not well educated) took the spelling by his scribe to be correct where does the fault lay if any need be? IS the bible false because the same spelling mistake was also included? Does the earth have a perfect book? Several times you "dismiss" what I say as just being an answer given as a "faithful" Mormon - what would be an adequate response to you?   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 585 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.54.132 Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 10:25 am:        If I were to write a book and asked others to write down my thoughts for me, I would take the time to read over what was written, page by page, unless I were illiterate. If it were 'directly from God' and I was commanded by God to write it, I would take meticulous care in proofreading, page by page. If I were in direct contact with God, in fact actually saw him face to face, and I was unsure that the final text was his words, I believe he would not leave me to my own devises and those of my assistants, but would correct me as it was written. When over 100 pages were supposedly stolen, js decided not to rewrite those pages becasue he had fears that if the original were ever brought to light, his new translation would not match up, so he decided to leave those first pages out. (He thought people might use it against him for not remembering the correct wording). Did God agree with him about this decision? Joesdad, since I (according to you) either lie or twist, or am just bitter about not being a member any longer, why do you continue to respond to what I have to say? There are many threads with people posting who are simply bored and write the most ridiculous things that have nothing to do with cults, sects, or christianity. I recognise them immediately and simply pass over them. You ask nulla, as you have asked me, "what would be an adequate response to you?" I am afraid you are unable, not because you don't want to, but because mormon thinking changes the longer they are members. Your god is different, your christ is different, your rituals are different, your doctrines are different, so there is no way for you to respond as I would, as a christian. I do not blame you for this. You have been molded to think the way you do, the same as I have. I am always free to change my thinking if I discover my thinking was wrong. I don't think you have that freedom. And I am sorry for that, especially for my Mother, brother, and sister's sakes.   joesdad (joesdad) Intermediate Member Username: joesdad Post Number: 229 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 62.253.215.25 Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 12:14 pm:        GC: He had no choice, not being ALLOWED to re translate - no fear of another translation, just the certainty that the first would appear afterwards with claims of it mot matching. I respond as you are intentionally trying to mislead others. No, I dont want to know how YOU would respond - the real answer is, as you show, the truth is no answer to you if it does not accord with what you have decided. When I talk of truth, I mean your saying I believe in someting I do not - that is a lie, not an opinion, especially when you know without doubt you do not say what LDS believe. You are very patronising to assume you know of my background or why or how I came to the testimony I now have. I did not grow up in some Utahn backwater fed on LDS doctrine from the cradle (though that is not meant as an insult to those who were). I have absolute freedom to choose what I accept, as well as the consequences of those choices, just as you say you did. If I found, without doubt that the LDS church was false, I would walk away today. If the church were false there should be an obvious and easy way to show this do you not think? But what and where? If the spirit has told me that the testimony I have a bear is real and true I must follow it's promptings.   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 590 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.62.218 Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 3:55 pm:        If the evidence that has been shown is not enough to show the lds church doesn't follow the Word of God to you, then you must do what you must. And I will continue to live my life as I must, by honoring my God and never denying his Holy Word. By doing so I would dishonor him, and that I will never intentionally do.   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 591 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.62.155 Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 6:45 pm:        I have been asked when the mormons call other denominations an abomination. I will quote from 'Gospel Principles'. Joseph Smith organized the lds church. Here is what he claimed. Heavenly Father (my mother always calls God Heavenly Father, never God) and Jesus Christ appeared to joseph Smith. (The Holy Bible states that no man has seen God.)(Even James Talmage, a well-known mormon in their history, stated no man had ever seen God since the Garden of Eden.) Information in parenthesis mine. Continuing: The Savior told him not to join any church because the true Church was not on the earth. He also said that the teachings of present churches were "an abomination in his sight" Joseph Smith-History 1:19) I want to offer some websites for interested parties who are investigating the mormon church. For the website that shows a copy of the letter from the Dept. of Anthropology of the Smithsonian Institute) stating The Book of Mormon is not considereed by the SI to be accurate about archeology. www.lrr.org/mit/smithson.html This is followed by suggested readings by archaeologists; example: Michael D. Coe, The Maya In the Land of the Olmacs Carroll L. Riley- Man across the Sea: Problems of PreColumbian Contacts Jeremy Sabloff-Cities of Ancient Mexico: Reconstruction of a Lost World (These are not anti-mormon books)   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 592 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.62.155 Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 7:05 pm:        cont. Egyptology and the Book of Abraham www.lds-mormon.com/dpwonboa.shtml About one of JS's translations that turned out to be nothing about Abraham, and not even in the language JS claimed. The Mormon Curtain A fascinating description of hidden temple rituals and other bizarre doctrines of the lds. Including testimony from ex-mormons. www.themormoncurtain.com/section_starthere.html 1830 Book of Mormon (and changes to the bom used today) www.helpingmormons.org/1830chang.html   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 593 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.62.155 Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 7:20 pm:        joesdad also said js did not have a fear of rewriting the missing 100+ pages of the Book of Mormon that were lost. Preface: 1830: To The Reader--As many false reports have been circulated respecting the following work, and also many unlawful measures taken by the evil designing persons to destroy me, and also the work, I would inform you that I translated, by the gift and power of God, and caused to be written, one hundred and sixteen pages, the which I took from the Book of Lehi, which was an account abridged from the plates of Lehi, by the hand of Mormon, which said account, some person or persons have stolen and kept from me, notwithstanding my ustmost exertions to recover it again--and being conmmanded of the Lord that I should translate the same over again, for Satan had put it into their hearts to tempt the Lord their God, by altering the words, that they did read contrary from that which I translated and caused to be written; and If I should bring forth the same words again, or in other words,if I should translate the same over again, they would publish that which they had stolen, and Satan would stir up their heqarts of this generation, that they might not receive this work: but behold, the Lord said unto me, I will not suffer that Satan shall accomplish his evil design in this thing: therefore thou shalt translate from the plates of Nephi, until ye come to that which ye have translated, which ye havce retained; and behold ye shall publish it as the record of Nephi; and thus I will confound those who have altered my words. I will not suffer that they shall destroy my work; yea, I will shew unto them that my wisdom is greater than the cunning of the Devil. Wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, I hav, through his grace and mercy, accomplished that which he hath commanded me respecting this thing. I would also inform you that the plates of which hath been spoken, were found in the township of Manchester, Ontario county, New-York. The Author (Joseph Smith)   nulla (nulla) New member Username: nulla Post Number: 17 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 202.0.155.232 Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 9:23 pm:        Joedad, please show me false accusations? "Nulla your honselty by quoting verbatim what I said, and why this is at odds with whatever you claim to have read. Otherwise stop with the false accusations." You wrote; Nulla: Why don't you tell me what you want me to say? - If a simple truthfull anser wil not do, what will? I will and have accepted your answers if you say that that is your answer to the question, but please in doing so state that it is a known fact and not just the word of the BoM. If you do not wish to have the proof you use questioned then best do not answer. By the way, I do appreciate the same in return, I actually thought that this is what discussion was about. To accept your answer and not invistigate would be foolish of me and vice vera. Can you show me where you have accepted my answers? "Your hypothesis seems to prove that the words did not exist - so what now then, do we ignore them?" I did not say ignore the words ... have I ignored them? I ask why they are not listed in the Oxford Dictionary where I would then be able to find a non mormon description of the word. Have you or will you ask your church why the Oxford Dictionay does not have the word listed? Has the lds church pushed for this word to be listed and recognised? There would be other words I assume and I would be asking the same of them. My reason to mention the google search is that the enquiring mind will only get the mormon sites and its reference, and here I am not putting down its/their descrption and meaning of the word. I am asking and giving examples as to why. Not sure why you bring porn into it, in doing so are you trying to cast doubt upon my character to those who read this. ( now there is an accusation) "did Joseph spell words? did he feel the need to spell each word out letter by letter? " The following text is from; http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=10 A question which naturally suggests itself is why supernatural instruments were used in the translation process at all. Orson Pratt, who had himself pondered this very matter, reported that the Prophet told him that the Lord gave him the Urim and Thummim "when he was inexperienced in the spirit of inspiration. But now he had advanced so far that he understood the operation of that spirit and did not need the assistance of that instrument."22 Similarly, Zebedee Coltrin, an early acquaintance of Joseph Smith, related in 1880 that he had once asked Joseph what he had done with the Urim and Thummim and that "Joseph said that he had no further need of it and he had given it to the angel Moroni. He had the Melchizedek Priesthood and with that Priesthood he had the key to all knowledge and intelligence."23 and further on the same page. Joseph would put the seer stone into a hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.24" I'm sure Joesdad you are more than familiar with this. Please note it says one character at a time. I have already answered this in part as you can see from the above text. "Several times you "dismiss" what I say as just being an answer given as a "faithful" Mormon - what would be an adequate response to you?" If you wish to say to me that your answer is based on faith alone then do say, I respect that as an answer. If you give answers outside the BoM I also respect them. I wrote; "If that is your answer to me for my question then I salute you and recognise it as thus. " It does not mean that I accept your answer as archaeological proof. Then gave you a reference for further reading and stating why I had come to my conlusion when scientific based documents do not support the faith theory, be it christian or Mormon. So I will repeat it again. I accept that is your answer. Do you accept mine? And I will say that the only archaelogical proof you have provided to me is thus, though I find it is not backed with scientific proof.. You can use it as your claim as proof. Has the Mormon church released an official document to the public or its members stating these claims are the same as yours.? Is it now part of the official lds teachings, if not why? Nulla (Message edited by nulla on April 06, 2005)   nulla (nulla) New member Username: nulla Post Number: 18 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 202.0.155.232 Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 11:58 pm:        Anyone have comments on this statement, from what as far as I could see is mormon site. http://www.lds-mormon.com/transltn.shtml "It is also clear that when Joseph Smith came to Biblical material in the Nephite record, he simply adopted it from the KJV of the Bible, making changes as he saw fit." Is it any wonder we non mormons become confused when statements are made like this by mormons, but if the same is said by us they are false. Nulla (Message edited by nulla on April 07, 2005)   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 594 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.52.7 Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 2:16 am:        In small letters below the title it says this is not a site by the lds church. That is the answer you will get. It won't matter that the statement taken from this site was written by a mormon in high standing in the church. You will be accused of taking it out of context. (And of course I will again be called a liar for saying what will be said). Now he won't know what to say. Nulla, it is a pleasure to see your posts.   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 595 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.52.7 Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 2:29 am:        I had a long talk with my eldest daughter this eve. She told me about her 'excommunication'. When I left the church and asked to be excommunicated, she said she just walked away from it. Two years later she got a letter stating she hadn't paid her tithing. She called and told them she wasn't a member any longer. They said she would have to be excommunicated. So she told them good, and she eventually received her letter. That tithing letter was the first she had heard from the church in two years, even though she had been baptized there at the age of eight and gone there all her life. No one had called in those two years to ask how she was or even to say hello. Both sets of her grandparents were members of that branch, and also aunts, uncles and cousins.   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 597 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.63.70 Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 11:01 am:        In an interview with Wesley Walters in 1978, Apostle LeGrande Richards stated 'negros receiving the priesthood' was not by revelation, but by vote of leaders of the church. When asked if that would contradict the 'revelation theories', he said people could think what they like. After the interview, he was asked if he could be quoted. He answered "Yes". According to Richards, there was a new temple built in Brazil, mostly by blacks. Pres. Spencer Kimball was concerned that there were mostly blacks there and who would run the temple if they didn't allow the blacks to. All the leaders prayed and voted. Richards stated it would 'not be documented as a revelation'.   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 598 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.63.70 Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 11:05 am:        Solopilot, a black mormon familiar on these posts stated that before the "revelation of blacks receiving the priesthood", blacks had all of the privileges but none of the responsibilities.   nulla (nulla) New member Username: nulla Post Number: 19 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 202.173.180.87 Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 3:15 pm:        Godchild... it is wonderful to see your posts as well and to read the interest you show. To have two fellow non mormons talking to one another in this thread would not be to pleaseing to the eyes of some. It is obvious the lds doesn't have a good record on blacks and other races. Having aboriginal blood in me it dissappoints me to see that they are still not rid of some of there old ways. I read somewhere that colored people are a very high proportion of their faith yet not a colored holds high office position. I am not familiar with the ranks within the lds, as I am not to interested in that side of it. I would like to know about the tithings. How are they expected to be paid, monthly, annual? is it after tax and after general expenses that you base the 10%.? have a great day. Nulla   nulla (nulla) New member Username: nulla Post Number: 20 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 202.0.155.232 Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 6:05 pm:        Godchild, After giving it much thought re the : http://www.lds-mormon.com/transltn.shtml Like you said future posters will do their best to twist the whole meaning of the text around such as the word ‘adopted’ , I do hope though that in doing so they do not go to the Oxford Dictionary as the source for reference. That is for obvious reasons as some of the words that are proven beyond a doubt as the true word of god as spoken directly to js are not worthy of entry into this book. Such books and other reference books or sites on the internet that hold the same views ‘porn’ or otherwise shall until such time that they decide to ‘adopt’ gods words as spoken directly to the prophet shall be deemed as unworthy to be looked upon and read or taken for gods word in any sort manner. Godchild I just love it that the statement says ‘It is also clear’ because ‘clear’ is a pretty hard one to turn around. Look out for a bit of Chubby Checker “ Twist and SHOUT” replies, quotes from the bible, or last but not least, “I will not reply to posts from a person that I feel is unworthy of receiving an answer when this person is full lies of ‘false accusations’.” (An enquiring Christian in short). And it is a reply to explain why you don't deserve a reply Nulla (Message edited by nulla on April 08, 2005)   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 600 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.50.46 Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 8:19 pm:        I will quote from Gospel Principles, published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. (This copy is in my possession andwas published from 1978-1997). Chapter 32 is titled Tithes and offerings: Our Heavenly Father knows all of the things we need. He has given us this commandment and promise: "Seek you first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you"(Matthew 6:33) (Mormons believe their church is the kingdom of God on earth).gc We have been given commandments to help us prepare in every way to live in the presence of our Heavenly Father. He has given us a way to thank him for our blessings. Willingly paying tithes and offerings is one way we thank him. As we pay these offerings, we show the Savior that we love him and will obey his counsel:"And verily it is a day of sacrifice, and a day for the tithing of my people" (D&C 64:23). Discussion *How do we show our gratitude to our Heavenly Father for all his blessings to us? Obeying the Law of Tithing Anciently Abraham and Jacob obeyed the commandment to pay a tithe of one-tenth of their increase (see Hebrews 7:1-10; Genesis 28:20-22). In modern times the Prophet Joseph Smith prayed, "O lord, show unto thy servants how much thou requirest of the properties of they people for a tithing" (D&C 119, section introduction). The Lord answered: "This shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people. And after that, those who have thus been tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever" (D&C 119:3-4). A tithe is one-tenth of our increase. This means that we give one-tenth os all we earn before we pay for our own needs such as food, clothing, and shelter. If our increase is in the form of flocks, herds, or crops rather than money, we give one-tenth of those things (see Leviticus 27:30-32). When we pay tithing we show our faithfulness to the Lord. We also teach our children the value of this law. They will want to follow our example and pay ththing on any money they earn. Discussion *What is an honest tithe? *What can we do to teach our children to pay tithing? We Should Give Willingly It is important to give willingly. "When one pays his tithing without enjoyment he is robbed of a part of the blessing. He must learn to give cheerfully, willingly and youfully, and his gift will be blessed" (Stephen L. Richards, The Law of Tithing (pamphlet, 1983),p.8). The Apostle Paul taught that how we give is as important as what we give. He said, "Let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver: (2 Corinthians 9:7). Tithing and Other Offerings As members of the Chruch, we give tithing and other offerings to the lord in money, goods, and time. Tithing Tithing is used by the Church for many purposes. Some of these are to-- 1. Build, maintain, and operate temples, meetinghouses, and other buildings. (members who receive church welfare work as maintenance and other jobs for the church)gc 2. Provide operating funds for stakes, wards, and other units of the Church. (These units use the funds to carry out the eccliastical programs of the Church, which include teaching the gospel and recreation and social activities.) (Our branch had a full-sized gymnasium)gc (Our branch also built and sold houses totally by free labors of its members, the money to go to the church)gc 3. Help the missionary program. 4. Educate young people in Church schools, seminaries, and institutes. 5. Print and distibute lesson materials. (Deseret Book is owned by the church. All church materials are purchased from them. My mother believes and practices not reading any books not approved by the church, including movies).gc 6. Help in family history and temple work. (Remember, mormons will argue that all things are done by volunteers in and for the church. Although that is not completely true, they are very proud to state this)gc Other offerings Fast Offerings. Church members fast each month by going without food and drink for two consecutive mels. They contribute at least the amount of money they would have spent for the meals. They may give as generously as they are able. This offering is called the fast offering. Bishops use these fast offerings to provide food, shelter, clothing, and medical care for the needy. As part of the fast, members attend a meeting called the fast and testimony meeting, where they share with each other their testimonies of Christ and his gospel. (every testimony I have ever heard in a lds meeting ends with 'I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, and that this is the only true church')gc Missonary Funds.Members contribute missionary funds to the Church to help spread the gospel around the world. These funds are used to support missions and missionaries in almost every country. (young men and women (along with the aid of their families) are expected to save and pay for the 2 years they are on missions.) Service. Members also offer their time, skills, and goods to help others. This service allows the Church to help needy members and nonmembers arund the world at community, national, and international levels, especially when disasters occur. We are Blessed When We Give Tithes and Offerings The Lord promises to bless us as we faithfully pay our tithes and offerings, He said, "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith....if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it" (Malachi 3:10). The blessings we have been promised are both material and spiritual. If we give willingly, Heavenly Father will provide our daily needs for food, clothes, and shelter. He will also help us grow "in a knowledge of God, in a testimony, in the power to live the gospel and to inspire our families to do the same" (Heber J. Grant, Gospel Standards, p58). Those who pay their tithes and offerings are greatly blessed. They have a good feeling that they are helping to build the kingdom of God on earth. Additional Scriptures *D&C 119:1-4 (the law of tithing) *Genesis 14:19-20; Alma 13:13-16 (Abraham paid tithes) *2 Chronicles 31:5-6, 12; Nehemial 10:37-38 (children of Israel paid tithing) *3 Nephi 24:8-10 (will a man rob God?)   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 601 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.50.46 Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 8:36 pm:        In order for a mormon to be with God for eternity (the celestial kingdom), they have to meet certain requirements. In order to receive a temple recommend (going through the temple is a definite requirement! You must be married there 'for all eternity', and there are a lot of sealings and baptism for the dead, being sealed to the dead (to unmarried women etc.), and more. I want to quote from pg. 245, (temple requirements) We are asked questions like the following in interviews for a temple recommend: 1. Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost? Do you have a firm testimony of the restored gospel? (testimony that JS was a prophet and the church is true)gc 2. Do you sustain the President of the Church Of Jesus Shrist of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator? Do you recognize him as the only person on earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? 3. Do you live the law of chastity? 4. Are you a full-tithe payer? 5. Do you keep the Word of Wisdom? (Not smoke or drink alcoholic beverages, caffiene, and other nutrutional guides)gc 6. Are totally honet in your dealings with others? (I wonder if anyone has ever said NO?)gc 7. Do you strive to keep the covenants you have made, to attend your sacrement and priesthood meetings, and tokeep your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel? We much seek earnestly to obey every covenant that we make in the temple. The Lord has said that if we are true and faithful, we will pass by the angels to our exaltation. We will become gods. (See D&C 132:19:20.) Temple marriage is worth any sacrifice. It is a way of obtaining eternal blessings beyond measure.   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 602 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.50.46 Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 8:39 pm:        You will notice the end of the underlined sentence says: We will become gods. Not a god, or another god, or the next god, but gods.   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 603 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.50.46 Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 8:42 pm:        I forgot to add, tithe amounts are before taxes.   flowerchild (flowerchild) New member Username: flowerchild Post Number: 1 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 67.117.26.11 Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 8:43 pm:        I almost married a mormon. He is a sweet, and kind person. He actually just recently got out of rehab, and he is finally off coke, pot, and alcohol! I am sincerely proud of him. Despite his constant agruments I can see the negative effect the LDS church has had on him. He is afraid to talk about his feelings, he is AFRAID to make mistakes, he can hardly talk to his parents about anything. When he and I were going to get married he said that it didn't matter that I am not mormon, and that he loved me anyway: mormon or not! Well this wasn't true. His parents were constantly jumping all over me about why i wasn't taking the steps to become a church member! Here i thought they accepted me, that they didn't put down any other denomination! And despite my repeated refusal they didn't let up. His mom even cried to me, telling me that i was going to take her son out of their heavely home. Then, my fiance decided that all of a sudden my religious preference was important to him, and if i didn't convert how could we get married and ever successfully raise children. I suppose he was right. I was taught that love was love, and all those silly differences were just differences! Who wants to marry someone just like them anyway? And why couldn't i marry a mormon! I loved him with my whole heart. I couldn't imagine spending the rest of my life with anyone but him. Silly me. I didn't realize the extent of control that the LDS chuch hold on their members. I realize that many groups think that marrying someone of the same religion is important, but what if you fall inlove with someone who is different? To bad? If I couldn't be a stay at home mom, or have an undying need to be controled by my husband well then i was deffinitely not the type of girl to marry. The sad thing is, even he has admitted to me that his parents had a lot to do with the reason why he didn't feel that he could marry me. I dont need a comment back, I realize what the mormon belief system is like. I dont agree with it, and I dont think it is the choosen church, but hey, we're all different. It's just to bad the LDS church doesn't appriciate the beauty in that. }   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 604 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.50.46 Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 8:45 pm:        I will never allow myself to be intimidated by any man, woman, or child, when I compliment Christians. You are a member of my church, and I salute you. Your friend in Christ   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 605 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.50.46 Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 8:56 pm:        flowerchild, Do not feel you are alone. This is one of the reasons I post antimormon thoughts and evidence. God loves your ex just as because he is, not because he belongs to a denomination. Before my mormon husband died, my mother was always pushing for us to be married in the temple. I left the church just before he died. I would speak about seeing him again. My mother looked at me in total shock saying "do you really believe you'll see him again?" Her question was really a statement saying you will not reach the kingdom we will be in. In my mind, that is one of the absurdities of mormonism. Not only that, but I wish you could have told your future mother-in-law that according to mormon beliefs, your becoming a mormon will happen during the Millenium. When I was a member they would 'say' family before church, but they do not practice that. You will be happier in the long run.   nulla (nulla) New member Username: nulla Post Number: 21 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 202.173.180.87 Posted on Saturday, April 09, 2005 - 6:39 am:        Do any Mormons have a comment on the above post, re the article on a mormon site? http://www.lds-mormon.com/transltn.shtml I would like to move onto asking other things other than the truths about copying. AS it seems that when a post is made that looks like holding ground I do not see many posts dispelling it as rubbish. I have so many other things I need to have answers for in seeking what is truth and what is not. So many things you have raised Godchild are now encouraging me to look deeper into this cult. I can now see part of the reason some of my family are not talking to me, the way they hold and brainwash some members is a joke. Nulla (Message edited by nulla on April 09, 2005)   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 608 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.54.233 Posted on Saturday, April 09, 2005 - 11:04 am:        If a person were to read some of the posts on 'wicca' you will see the 'witches, satanists' have started using the 'Harry Potter Books' as evidence that they have the truth. This would seem absurd to the average mind, but it is a great comparative example of what Joseph Smith did when he got hold of the fairytale book, (papyri, brass plates, gold plates, salamanders) the book of mormon. In a short time, wiccans have started claiming as mormons do "see, we have got a bible." Nulla, I had not been interested or overly concerned about mormonism. My mother and I have reached a peaceful respectable distance about discussing christianity. Thankfully, our relationship is very loving as mother and daughter because I set the boundaries with her by saying, "Mom, I respect your right to believe as you want, and I am asking you to respect my right too." She could not argue with me. I add her in my prayers and 'give her to the Lord'. When I saw this website, I looked out of curiosity and of course when I saw mormonism included decided to read some responses. Immediately, I saw mormons claiming their reasons for their church (which I prefer to call an organization) not being a cult. I could not resist telling about my experiences as a exmormon. This began a dialogue of presumptive attacks by the mormon responders. Calling me a liar and insisting there must be some great sin I committed to be excommunicated. Their arguments are robotic, with little personal ideas. When the rascist actions of the church came up, I was accused of using the 'race card', though it is his church that was and is rascist. His reasons for joining was that 'as a black man he was treated equally by the mormon church, whereas during his years as a protestant and studying for a pastorate, he was excluded from leading a white church. To my mind, that is an amazingly bizarre for leaving one church. He even admitted there was no allowance of blacks holding the priesthood, but that was okay in his mind because they 'had all the benifits of the priesthood without the responsibilities'. He feels comfortable in the mormon church. He also states he was a christian before he joined lds, but of course was rebaptized because the protestants didn't have the 'authority'. Mormon reasoning is incredible (not credible) but I know it is their brainwashing tactics because I believed it, at least portions of it, for a time. It is also about adults with minds of their own, willing to accept false docrines in order to save their families (they think), or to be included in one. It is all very sad and pathetic. If you are like me, you may have problems with your family because of their beliefs, but I guarantee they respect you, even if they don't show it. Their 'pride' is their ultimate downfall. I would like to add, you will find that when you show evidence, they accuse you of 'not having independant thinking', but when you share your own personal ideas and experiences, you are accused of 'lying'.   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 609 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.54.233 Posted on Saturday, April 09, 2005 - 11:09 am:        You mentioned certain races not being in positions of leadership in the mormon church. I live in the Pacific Northwest, USA, and have never seen a black missionary. I would like to know if the lds church has a temple in Africa, or if there are missionaries there. These are the questions that are usually conveniently skipped over by mormons.   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 613 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.54.233 Posted on Saturday, April 09, 2005 - 1:04 pm:        Nulla, I don't think joesdad has any intention of answering your question. Here are some very good websites on mormonism, with complete references, that I hope will help you understand your family and what you face in ministering to them. www.ldshistory.net www.exmormon.org www.realmormonhistory.com www.fairlds.org www.2bc.info/r2223.html www.xmission.com/country/reason/purge.html (Salt Lake City Messenger, issue no.85, Nov.1993) Latter Day Saint Leaders move to respress rebellion: story of six excommunications or dismembership for speaking the truth and/or asking questions. Mormon Church Teaches Blind Obedience (which joesdad and others on threads deny, gc) "Any Latter Day Saint who denounces or opposes, whether actively or otherwise, any plan or doctrine advocated by the 'prophet, seers, revelators of the church is cultivating the Spirit of Apostacy. Lucifer wins a great victory when he can get members of the church to speak against their leaders, and to do their own thinking. When our leaders speak, the speaking has been done. When they propose a plan, it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. (trouble in paradise? gc) (The Improvement Era, June 1945) Tonight President Kimble extends an invitation... for all of us women to follow him as he follows the Savior...He is our leader, in all the world of would-be leaders, who can guide us back to the presence of God...(where did God go? gc) Personal opinions may vary. Eternal Principles Never Do. "When the Prophet speaks, sister, the debate is over..we emphatically declare, "I will be obedient! I will help strengthen others that they may be so too." (Young Women's President Elaine Cannon made the statement, "Wherever I go, the message is FOLLOW THE PROPHET..It is difficult to understand why there are so many people who fight against the counsel of the Prophet." (Ensign 1979)   franklin (franklin) Intermediate Member Username: franklin Post Number: 481 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 64.12.116.9 Posted on Saturday, April 09, 2005 - 1:34 pm:        I, in all of my postings concerning mormons, have never called it a cult. I know there are cultic offshoots of it. But as the main body goes, I've always reserved my judgement. But, if the quotes posted above are correct. Then most assuredly LDS IS A CULT!   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 616 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.54.233 Posted on Saturday, April 09, 2005 - 2:00 pm:        Then perhaps there is a better understanding why I continue to post here. I cannot, in good faith, ignore the importance of continuing to expose this cult with all evidence at my disposal. They are supposedly the fastest growing church in the country. Unless we as christians, expose the whole truth about their leaders, past and present, and their doctrines, then we are throwing our families and/or neighbors to the wolves. It is only when the truth is known that adults can form their own acceptance or rejection of this cult, instead of being so entrenched in it the difficulties of leaving are very difficult and painful.   joesdad (joesdad) Intermediate Member Username: joesdad Post Number: 232 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 62.252.64.33 Posted on Saturday, April 09, 2005 - 3:37 pm:        Nulla: Though you ask me to show you false accusations, is this because you have misread my comment directed at Godchild? I don’t have time to go though months of posts picking out all of the times GC has made false claims, better to ask GC to quote the statement to which she refers to see if she can substantiate what she says. Ever since I began posting here I have doubted, and then raised the severe doubts I have about GC and the background she claims. She says that she was a member of the church for 26 years, but shows an extreme level of ignorance of what the church actually teaches on many basic principles. Some examples are the false Adam God theory which she claims we teach, and that we believe Jesus was created by actual physical sexual contact between God and Mary, which is also quite false. Her posts are peppered with such inaccurate statements, and I think I have pointed each one out to her – with not one single retraction or comment from her. Many reading these posts who WANT to believe that the LDS church is a pernicious cult or sect teaching all sorts of heinous principles will be mislead by someone claiming to have been LDS, who then blatantly lies about the things LDS believe. May I ask if you condone that sort of behaviour? I am pretty sure that you are well aware I am no linguist or archaeologist, nor do I necessarily want to be. What I do know is that the Book of Mormon details the history of a people that fled Jerusalem in 600BC under the direction of God. A feat I believe to be interesting from the point of view that, so I understand a typical citizen of that city would not have had the wherewithal to survive a trek across the desert as they had to (I have heard it suggested this was because they were or Bedouin origin, traders – which would account for the wealth they had accumulated, and maybe the Arab DNA you chose to believe about?) and they were able to arrive at an oasis on the Arabian peninsular which I understand was not acknowledge to exist by western explorers until well after the first Book of the BoM was put to print. I know that the BoM contains details of peoples and battles, of the Saviours Ministry amongst these people, how they grew into great nations as they were faithful to the Lord, and then as they fell away from those teachings they fell into wickedness and were destroyed. The Book ends less than 400 years after the birth of Christ. I also know that the countries now forming central America are strewn with cities and buildings accredited to peoples who we know very little of, except that they were an advanced peoples, that for many centuries held to a unified faith. There is still claimed to be a mystery as to why these peoples’ society collapsed and the peoples were reduced drastically in numbers over a relatively short space in time. How deep should I investigate?, what piece of evidence or level of proof should be acceptable? Is it right that I ask myself, “are there any PROOFS that would indicate that what I have accepted is so wrong as to be totally incorrect?” These are all rhetorical questions. My life is simply not long enough to be able to investigate each and every question that I may have, I am sure were I able to commit myself to just investigating the links between the Book of Mormon an current accepted archaeological facts and theories I would but scratch the surface. I am not able I am sure to provide evidences that would satisfy your enquiries, but this neither worries me nor does it prove anything other than I know little of archaeology. However, as you are well aware there are many in the Church who have spent much time in this pursuit, and have come up with many theories and many evidences, the FARMS site you refer to is but one of these. I found a brief look at the following interesting, but give the opinions of the writer(s) not the church, but this by no means that they do not predominantly state as the church would were it minded to give a statement on those particular topics : http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BMProb3.shtml#kjv http://www.lds.org/newsroom/mistakes/0,15331,3885-1-18078,00.html http://www.jefflindsay.com/BOMchallenge.shtml Not all of these deal directly with your enquiries of me regarding archaeological proofs, but also some of the other areas that your enquiries have referred. I have reread you comments regarding the word Irealite and Nephite, and myself cannot see where my response came from, and all I can do is apologise, though the reference to porn was by no way an accusation, but merely an example of an extreme that could produce a high level of results on an internet search, showing that the number of results only indicates the number of web pages mentioning the subjest, not the validity of the subject. I am certain there are thousands of “ITES” or groups of peoples that have been named after a particular leader, that have not found there way into the Oxford English Dictionary, does this deny their existence or simply the criteria used by the editors in what the include? This is not surprising, as the nation of Isreal is still well and truly in existence and the Nephite extinct for many hundreds of years!. Not a proper or may I say logical comparison? Why SHOULD the church push for that particular word to be included by the Dictionary –FYI there are several “ITES” mentioned in the Book of Mormon, along with many proper names and place names peculiar to the book – it is not sensible to believe that the editors of a dictionary would entertain the inclusion of all of these words and names! Interestingly (though not amazingly) some dictionaries to give space to the LDS use of the word Stake – why?, don’t ask me! Also Word does recognise the word Mormon –does that mean anything? May I suggest the quotes from the FARMS document still leaves it open to question just how on a day to day basis the translation took place, and does not in any way exclude the distinct possibility that the original error occurred in the writing down of the dictated word? This account states that the characters were given to Joseph one at a time that is the characters of the language in which they were written – as I am sure you know most of the ancient languages used characters that have meanings representing more than one word in English, i.e. the one character shown to Joseph would be shown with possibly several words of English as a translation. The account only states the words were repeated, making it obvious that spelling errors by the scribe could have been made. Again, is it not obvious that this method of translation would very likely produce many grammatical and punctuation errors?. I am not asking you to throw your all into the way the “S” was included, just maybe agree that when left to men, however inspired, that their failings can and will affect the process of translation, whether of Gods written, spoken or spirit given word. To condemn Joseph for his imperfections as a prophet of God would of necessity condemn every prophet and Apostle of the Bible. As Godchild correctly states if you read the introductory and other pages of preamble to the lds-mormon.com site, the site was not created nor is it intended to be pro LDS, which I suggest would of course be confusing if it was read as containing an official LDS view of doctrine. I am sure that anything read on that site will have been read in the proper context intended by it’s author. As I am sure you appreciate from your postings, when I ask Godchild for an indication of where quotes and statements come from, it is to see whether the site is one claiming to be pro Mormon or critical of the church, and also to discover the context in which the comments are presented. More often than not she ignores any such requests, indicating I feel that the quotes of statements either do not exist or do not exist in the form she gives them. I feel you will understand the need for such caution. (Therefore, may we all see the origin of your quote regarding the Walters/Richards conversation Godchild?) May I ask how the LDS record on Blacks and other races compares, in real terms, with other churches? Nulla, you actually sound as though you take the Oxford English Dictionary to be as reliable as, and the equivalent to the word of God – not twisting what you say, you actually state that entries in the dictionary are “worthy”!! Do you, according to what you say, only accept what is contained within the dictionary? – no twist and shout, just amazed as the ridiculous comment. The simple answer is Tithing is 10% of our increase, before tax. Whenever received. GC again is free with her generalisations – go to a chapel of a testimony meeting and you will see not all refer to Joseph Smith as part of what they say. Regarding your comment about LDS being brainwashed –is this not, in reality, just like the “cult” tag?, an attempt to ostracise the LDS church? Tell me how I am brainwashed and when this occurred? – come on, you cannot honestly say that we are brainwashed or controlled by our leaders, especially when our leaders are just normal men and women from the local membership who hold down a normal 9 to 5? Nulla, do you agree with GC’s Harry Potter theory? For your information, the church “hierarchy” for want of a better word, is the first presidency, followed by the quorum of 12, followed by 2 quorum of seventies – there are representatives from all continents, and just about every racial background within the church leadership – black, Hispanic, Japanese, African etc., etc. – I have met missionaries of Black, Indian, and some of African and Caribbean origin, as well as from most European countries, as well as Lebanese, Jordanian and South American missionaries, along with Malaysian and Phillipino ones – they are not all from Utah and Idaho! GC: You massively overemphasise the comments made to you. You know that you have posted blatant falsehoods about the church, and have totally failed to respond when you are challenged about these things – I feel totally justified on those occasions I have called you a liar, as you lied, how else should I state what you have done? That is no to say that all you have posted is lies, but all that you say is tainted by your dishonesty. This is not presumptive, you lie – I say it as it is. I go away with the wife & kids for a few days and you assume I will not answer what Nulla says – sorry to disappoint you, but I think you are becoming used to that!   franklin (franklin) Intermediate Member Username: franklin Post Number: 485 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 64.12.116.9 Posted on Saturday, April 09, 2005 - 3:55 pm:        God was not once a man who became God. Man can not become a god.   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 622 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.51.245 Posted on Saturday, April 09, 2005 - 7:34 pm:        You say it as it is in your feeble little mind. If it makes you feel any larger in stature, you can continue calling me what you wish. I think it is evident you are a small minded man with a small heart. How you respond to Nulla is between you and him. You concern yourself too much with what I say, since you claim my posts are lies. Everyone knows why my posts really bother you. I think you do also, somewhere in that tiny heart of yours.   joesdad (joesdad) Intermediate Member Username: joesdad Post Number: 235 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 62.252.64.33 Posted on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 3:24 am:        GC: Well done   nulla (nulla) New member Username: nulla Post Number: 22 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 202.173.180.87 Posted on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 5:13 am:        Joesdad As I have stated before re the evidence. If that is your answer then so be it. I cannot accept in my mind that that is proof, it is all based on faith, christian or otherwise. I am looking for actual archaeological proof outside the book of mormom, such as buildings, text or written matter inscribed on walls, some sort of instrument or tool or anything of evidence that relates specific to the Nephites and the times stated in the BoM. I do not want to keep repeating this question it only leads to having replies to the likes of why I will not accept your answer and why keep repeating. Your proof in faith alone does not warrant acceptance by those who do not believe in that faith. Regarding the Oxford dictionary. by the way, my Twist and Shout replies I mentioned ….are all here on the site for those who wish to see. When replying to someone in capitals is SHOUTING, you yourself have done this on this site. And twisting things around is a well known way for mormons to reply, and I can take that quote from many a site that says so. I am not the only person in this thread to say so as well Getting back to the Oxford Dictionary and in fact any worthy dictionary and knowledge base Show me which other leaders and the “ites” your refer to. Did they or do they lay claim to a book as their scriptures when using this name/s “ites” and do they make claims they are the true words of god which your church says they are. That is certainly a difference than generalizing leaders and ites Now on the words themselves. I did not say all the words were not in the dictionary, read my post again. The word mormon is in there why... because non mormons accept that mormons exist and the doctrine of the church of christ and latter day saints exist. Easy facts. Lets look outside of religion. Try the word Ghost, it is in the dictionary and gives this as a meaning of the word. "noun 1 an apparition of a dead person which is believed to appear to the living." Notice the words "is believed" it does not say that the ghost itself is a reality nor a fact of nature, a careful truthful observation of the word. I asked why is not the word Nephite in the dictionary. Being non mormon my reply would be drawing on what I can as an observer. Nephite is a name used by the BoM for the people/s that were said to or claimed to have lived in the Americas by their prophet Joseph Smith. I would have to include the words said and claimed as there is no proof, other than the claims of a prophet that they existed even though this has never been proved. Maybe your church does not want such descriptions of the js in the oxford dictionary maybe the oxford dict and many other sources of reference used for students and academics world wide refuse to include words that are in a prophets story until they are proven. I did ask, what is your churches view to the reason. Have you asked your church leaders? Are you afraid to do so, would this go against the churches ways. Re the site I referred to that had the ' it is clear'. I am writing to that site for more details as to the site itself. Again it looks like that if you do not quote directly from the official one word one view mormon site then you Joesdad will not even consider it to be a true article written by the said person who was of high rank within your church and this is still being displayed on a site which now you claim is not worthy. Now tell me you have freedom of mind This is totally against your claims to me that you have an open mind and can enquire and ask questions about your faith. How can you say this when anything not 100% related to the book of mormon is incorrect. That to me is a cult and the lds is brainwashing its members into believing fals prophets, unproven claims plus many other things that go well outside of the mainstream christianity. Secret handshakes, yes I am sure Jesus would have been write behind that one if he was here. Jesus would first go to the hungry the poor and the needy and he would in the ned take all under his wing regardless. Why do you need a secret handshake that is more inline with freemasons? Do you regard the Branch Davidians as a cult? They all work and hold down jobs as well. Go to their site and see, ask on the bulletin board. I have done so. Very easy to see this group is a cult and we know of their past history. They are still operating from the same Mt Carmel site at Waco http://www.branchdavidian.com/ select forum discussion on the top right of the site. You will notice this person by the name of Martin will if you question him or his faith tell you to read the articles on the site, when you do and ask questions outside their faith again, he tells you to repeat your readings (a classical way to brainwash and a typical answer of those stuck in a false faith), this happens until the enquirer believes what they say. For the wiser who see through it(like myself , I got banned from the site after persisting with questions.) they disappear after being denied time and time again sensible answers . Cindy is his backup. They are once again brainwashing and claiming prophets are still leading them and that this is the only way to heaven, the one true word of the one true prophet, the only faith and the only way… all sounds like familiar claims that I see made in this and other threads. You might say that this is an extremist cult and should not be compared to the lds or js, but just cast your mind back to the early days js “Joseph Smith founded The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (a.k.a. the LDS church) in 1830. it attracted 1,000 members during its first 12 months. Smith and a small band of followers first moved to Kirtland (near Cleveland OH) and later to Jackson County, MO, which he called Zion. Church members were heavily persecuted, largely because the non-Mormons believed that the church was promoting the establishment of a religious dictatorship (a theocracy).” Here are some cut and pastes from the following the following site. http://www.meta-religion.com/New_religious_groups/Articles/Branch_Davidians/david_koresh_and_joseph_smith.htm Both Claimed to be prophets of God. Both Joseph Smith and David Koresh claimed to have found passages referring to themselves in the Bible. Both Joseph Smith and David Koresh were practicing polygamists. Both Joseph Smith and David Koresh have been accused of forming paramilitary organizations. Both Joseph Smith and David Koresh were shot in gun battles. Both are cults Nulla   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 627 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.53.228 Posted on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 11:03 am:        I think you could add Jim Jones to that list. The only difference is Jim Jones shot himself when he knew the government would be coming back to stop him. Cowards, all of them!!! These are not examples of martyrdom.   joesdad (joesdad) Intermediate Member Username: joesdad Post Number: 237 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 62.252.64.33 Posted on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 4:15 pm:        Nulla: Sorry, I thought you were open minded enough to accept an honest response to your enquiries. So far as I can see the sites I pointed you to are able to give a better reasoned answer than I can. I understand the capitals are simply for emphasis, no need for shouting. I feelmy comments regarding the inclusion of words in a dictionary a sufficient, what you say is no reasoned arguement against that. Your request for me to ask my leaders is not necessary. How can you SENSIBLY attempt to compare the LDS church to Branch Davidians? - all you have done has make references to a few inconsequential similarities - come on! I bet you could, without much real thought fit the recently deceased Pope into the same frame!! How come you have drifted from the evidences you first spoke of onto this lame comparison?   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 633 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.60.165 Posted on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 9:40 pm:        Mormons keep saying the bible prophets were not good, honorable, loving men. Where do you get evidence for that. It is very difficult to see mormons comparing men like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young to the true prophets of old. The mormon prophets practiced so much evil while they were supposed to be serving God. It is shameful that people would spend their time praising such men. The prophets of the bible never bragged or wanted to be held in high esteem. They teach us what true dicipleship is.   nulla (nulla) New member Username: nulla Post Number: 25 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 202.0.155.232 Posted on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 10:03 pm:        Joesdad, as I said I openly invite you to go and question the Branchdavidians and their doctrine. You will then find as I have here that they will flatly refuse and refer you to their prophets word. Have you tried to question the word of a cult? Re Koresh and js It is not a lame comparison, it is bringing peoples awareness as to how cults mind control and brainwash showing examples of 2 people claiming to be prophets with more than just that in common I also stated that they were only parts of the full given examples from the link mentioned. It is you Joesdad who are trying to fit the pope into that frame. His word and that of the catholic faith are based on the bible and the bible alone, something which your lds is not. If you think that the pope can be put into that frame and you have the stupidity to put your name against such a post then do so. I think if you did watch the funeral of the pope or seen news on the subject you would see that many world leaders and leaders from other faiths, non christian as well were there to pay their respects to a fine human being. For you to say what you say is a classic mormon example of trying to turn subjects and topics around and refer christians to other christians or back to the bible. In saying the pope can be belittled and compared to David Koresh or Joseph Smith is childish. When and where did the pope say he was a prophet? He preached the word of the lord, he did not say he was jesus and a prophet I challege you Joesdad to post the simalarities of the pope with js or Koresh. Joesdad you wrote. "How come you have drifted from the evidences you first spoke of onto this lame comparison? I am still speaking of evidence, show me where I have not used some evidence. Is what I wrote of js a lie, if so show me the lie. If the above is as you said. "inconsequential similarities" then it goes to show what your lds is based upon and that you find those parts of js life inconsequential then so to would they be for David Koresh and your churches view upon the Branch Davidians. Nulla   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 636 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.61.22 Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 12:27 am:        Nulla, I was pretty stunned, actually, that joesdad would use the term 'a few inconsequential similarities' also, but I wanted to see your response first as it was addressed to you. I also felt the same way about his term 'lame comparisons'. I guess it is just too difficult to understand how anyone could hold anyone except God and Christ in such high esteem. To me that is blatant blasphemy, and I actually become afraid for people who speak that way. Just as much as I feel fear for people who nonchalantly take the Lord's name in vain. I also respected greatly Pope John 11. His life mirrored his stated values and he never strayed from them which is a true testament to his being a Christian. He was a truly faithful man. If mormons don't care about DNA evidence, what evidence do they care about? I have no doubt they did DNA tests themselves, but hid what they learned as they have a history of hiding truths that embarrass the church. It is shameful.   joesdad (joesdad) Intermediate Member Username: joesdad Post Number: 238 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 62.253.215.25 Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 6:31 am:        Nulla - there is no reason at all for me to investigate Branch Davidians - there have been groups such as that arising in different ways and indifferent forms for a long old time - so why are you choosing BD, what interest do you have in them? My comment regarding the Pope was to indicate that those such as yourself who use lame and random examples - i.e. your comparison between BD and the LDS church serve to do nothing but confuse the issue of whether the LDS church is valid or not - why use such foggy logic, why depart from your evidences which at least claim a basis? You (whose claim the church is false etc.)often make such statements without thinking what you say and in doing so throw a net so wide that others, such as the Pope could easily be caught within it. What did it really mean by world leaders being at the Popes funeral - other than each of them have electorate that are made up of many Catholics? - respect does not equal acceptance or approval. Your comparison has no basis or validity,it is as childish as comparing th earth to the moon beacuse they both appear to be round, have a gravity and get hit by meteorites - similarities but they still are not alike. There is no logical link in what you say. To say I have said JS' life is inconsequential is to apply schoolground logic again - you know full well I did not say that, so have to ask why you resort to saying such silly things. The word used applied to the similarities you mention. I do not believe that you actually think I have said what you imply, very disappointing that you make out that you do. Are you purposely misreading what I have written, or purposely misrepresenting it - either way, why? It is blindingly clear what I said Are you joking when you say your comparison is "evidence" - especially in comparison to the level of evidence you expect of others! GC: I would imagine much of life "stuns" you in that case. How on earth does your failure to properly read what I say have anything to do with my belief in God or Christ - you are stretching your interpretations to the extreme I must say. Why is your supposed DNA evidence so important to you?, neither you nor Nulla have commented on my indication that the self same "evidence" would faile to prove that any of us have the same ancestors. i.e. Adam & Eve - also, you ignore what I say above regarding Lehi's own ancestry. You say that it is shameful that we do not mention something we have not done - normal GC logic again.   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 638 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.53.209 Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 10:39 am:        It is YOUR church that has made claims about indians being descendants of Israelites, not me. It is your church who uses what they call "EVIDENCES" to prove their Bible is true. Oh, sorry, not a bible, just a history of Jesus visiting America. I watched numbers of movies at the mormon church when I was a member making claims that Mayan ruins "PROVE", show "EVIDENCE", that your 'history book' is factual; when in fact What mormons call evidence turns out to be supposition every time. It is my guess that instead of embracing the idea of DNA, which any intelligent person would understand would confirm indian ancestry tied to middle-eastern, or not, the church took the stance you claim: because they realize their very prophets more than likely had african or asian blood along their lines, which would really blow them out of the water, as far as their 'pure and delightsome' leaders. (There again, it is YOUR CHURCH who has made rascism an issue, not I. We are not fools, though you may be. When the 'new revelation' came out about blacks holding the priesthood, do you think for a minute members had such honor for their prophet that they immediately went out and tried to welcome blacks into their communities? I can tell you this did not happen anyplace that I lived. And let me assure you, my mother would immediately tell me if they had a black amongst their congregation. You people are so stupid to think the majority of blacks or asians were just waiting and praying to be 'let into the mormon door'. Mormons think too highly of themselves and it is proven by its membership in the USA being a measly 2%. I would not have mentioned that if a mormon on these threads had not earlier bragged about the number of members. You should open your eyes to the fact that when the Lord comes again it won't be to Missouri, Can you just imagine the russians, polish, and american jews who have spent a lifetime trying to get back to their homeland, turning around and rushing to Missouri, USA? You have got to be as insane as your leaders were, only moreso because they had a MUCH smaller view of the world.   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 641 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.53.209 Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 11:16 am:        Nullas comparison of BD's and lds was logical to me. These posts are about whether a organization which calls itself Christian, is in fact, a cult. Every cult has distinct origins which are comparable to other cults. One very important one, (which mormon leaders have agreed to)is whether their leaders are laying claim to attributes which only God and Christ have. The ways in which they conducted themselves during their leadership roles show they are false prophets. The earth and the moon are not alike in that the earth sustains life and the moon does not. If you would study your 'mormon' history books, you would see that Brigham Young TAUGHT, NOT THEORIZED, that men lived on the moon, and even described the clothes they wore. Would you consider that false or not? Show us your logic! And don't answer with "where did you read that".   joesdad (joesdad) Intermediate Member Username: joesdad Post Number: 239 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 62.253.215.25 Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 11:56 am:        GC: Hmmm   joesdad (joesdad) Intermediate Member Username: joesdad Post Number: 240 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 62.253.215.25 Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 12:00 pm:        GC: Hmmm - well, Satan was the angel of music wasn't he?   steelsword (steelsword) New member Username: steelsword Post Number: 13 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 207.192.2.34 Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 1:33 pm:        Again , Joesdad ? if the Mayans were decendants of Jews, why were they offering (HUMAN SACRIFICE) to their PAGAN GOD (Kuamol). I,ve been to parts of the Mayan Ruins in Mexico, & have personally seen the Human sacrificial Pit. The BOM states that they were following the Law, but according to the Law , Human Sacrifice was BLasphemy.   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 642 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.61.136 Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 1:57 pm:        joesdad, is that the best you have to say. I never said satan was the leader of music. Yours is a stupid statement from someone who believes satan is the brother of Jesus. So why address it to me unless you want to falsly lead posters to believe it was a statement I made. You are correct, I should never be stunned or even surprised at your claims. Have you seen 'The Passion of the Christ'?   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 643 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.61.136 Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 2:00 pm:        My last question was for everyone. I have and it is a beautiful portrayal of Christ's love for us. I would recommend it for all christians and non christian alike.   steelsword (steelsword) New member Username: steelsword Post Number: 14 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 207.192.2.34 Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 2:10 pm:        I have seen the movie and own a copy of it. Although it has some catholic things in it that i don't agree with, overall a very powerful movie.   solopilot (solopilot) Intermediate Member Username: solopilot Post Number: 462 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 216.190.204.218 Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 3:06 pm:        Nulla: You asked: "Why does the Mormon Church still teach that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God after he made a false prophecy about a temple being built in Missouri in his generation (Doctrine and Covenants 84:1-5)?" Please provide proof that no person of that generation is still alive today. "If the Book of Mormon is the most correct of any book on earth, as Joseph Smith said, why does it contain over 4000 changes from the original 1830 edition?" If the Bible is perfect, why are there so many different English-language translations of it -- including several differing "King James Versions" which have different books in them, in different orders? This begs another question -- which creation of Man can be perfect? A followup: Is it necessary to God's purposes that there be a perfect book of Scripture? "If the Book of Mormon was engraved on gold plates thousands of years ago, why does it read in perfect 1611 King James Version English?" If the Old Testament was written in Hebrew thousands of years ago, why does it read in perfect 1611 King James English? If you answer this one, you answer the other. "Do you think the LDS Church will reconsider its teachings that the American Indians are descendants of the Jewish race now that DNA evidence has proven that they are actually descendants of the Asian race?" The tests have proven that SOME are of Asian descent. They have not sampled all tribes. BTW, I can "prove" that Americans are of African descent using the same methodology. "Why do the Bible verses quoted in the Book of Mormon contain the italicized words from the King James Version that were added into the KJV text by the translators in the 16th and 17th centuries?" Convenience. Consider the translation process -- it is long and laborious. If you realize that something is the same as work which has already been translated, you are likely to go to the earlier translation and just copy it. This is a time-honored tradition in Biblical manuscripts. "If Brigham Young was a true prophet, how come one of your later prophets overturned his declaration which stated that the black man could never hold the priesthood in the LDS Church until after the resurrection of all other races (Journal of Discourses, Dec. 12, 1854, 2:142-143)?" Being what some people (including yourself) would erronously call "black" (I'm actually brown, and of very mixed race) this was something that I had to study. What I found was that the JD is a collection of transcripts, and not always accurate ones at that. They were rarely checked by the original speaker, and were never considered doctrinal by the Church (especially by Brigham Young). They were written more or less as letters to distant cousins, not as a "last will and testament" dividing Grandpa's fortune. "If you would like to answer another 45 or so of these questions which are listed on the net as 50 questions to ask a mormon. I am yet to get a mormon to give reasonable explanations for any of these questions." If you define "reasonable" as being "answers which make me believe in Mormonism," I'm not surprised. There is no religious belief which withstands deep scrutiny. If I were to go into your own faith with the same critical attitude, I could make you look just as bad (or worse). "I have asked those elders who doorknock at my home a few of these questions and they never return." They don't return because you're not the first one who has hit them with this stuff, and once it's obvious that your mind is closed, why should they come back, with so many others waiting for them? "Your sect is based on a man claiming to be a prophet who claimed to have found gold plates in america. In this day and age how can people be so gullable as to believe in the story of the origin of the mormon faith." Your sect is founded on the belief that the Catholic Church had the authority of Christ in AD 394 (compiling the Bible), lost it, but by 1611 no authority was needed (the KJV was translated by "heretics"), and today any man (or woman) can take that authority upon themselves, so long as they say what you believe the Gospel to be. "Please provide any evidence or truths to these claims." You first. Before you can prove my beliefs wrong based on your beliefs, you must first prove your beliefs to be right. More of your maunderings: "I Nephi Be sure to check out 12:18, where Joseph makes the mistake of having Nephi mention the name "Jesus Christ" a generation before that name was actually revealed, and 10:3 and 19:13, where he mistakenly prophesies future events in the past tense. Also not to be missed are 11:18, 11:21, 11:32, and 13:40, which are the classic verses that display Joseph's initial acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity." It is a frequent "error" that translators make, to use information which they know to fill in information not known to the original translator. For instance, historians often use the word "airplane" to describe many early aircraft, though they were known as "aeroplanes" at the time. "II Nephi See 30:6, which contains the infamous change from "white" to the politically correct "pure," and 25:10, wherein Joseph Smith mistakes Lehi's prophecy for Nephi's. Of further interest is the fact that the passages copied straight from Isaiah didn't need as many changes as the surrounding text." The only thing that's "infamous" about it is that people like you keep trying to use it as a club. In 1820s English, "white" and "pure" were synonymous. The English language has changed over the last two centuries, and to leave the word as "white" is no longer accurate. If you read older books, you will find a lot of words being used in a way which "doesn't work" today. If I refer to someone as "a most-handsome visitor," you assume I mean a man, when in fact the phrase meant women only a century ago. "I went to Provo to a quarterly Stake Conference. Heard Joseph F. Smith describe the manner of translating the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith the Prophet and Seer, which was as follows as near as I can recollect the substance of his description. Joseph did not render the writing on the gold plates into the English language in his own style of language as many people believe. But every word and every letter was given him by the gift and power of God. So it is the work of God and not of Joseph Smith, and it was done in this way … The Lord caused each word spelled as it is in the book to appear on the stones in short sentences or words, and when Joseph had uttered the sentence or word before him and the scribe had written it properly, that sentence would disappear and another appear. And if there was a word wrongly written or even a letter incorrect the writing on the stone would remain there. (Journal of Oliver B. Huntington, p. 168 of typed copy at the Utah State Historical Society)" I don't see your point here. Joseph F. Smith was born a decade after the translation, and was only 5 years old when his father and uncle (Hyrum and Joseph) were martyred. I dunno about you, but I can't imagine that Joseph would have spent a lot of time detailling the translation process to a 4- or 5-year-old nephew, especially during the difficult times in Nauvoo. And if he did, how much would a 5-year-old remember? "The original text of II Nephi 16:2 reads: Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. This is a quotation from the King James Version of the Bible, specifically Isaiah 6:2. In a rare grammatical mistake, the KJV has an incorrect plural for 'seraph'. The correct plural, of course, should be 'seraphim', as the later text of II Nephi 16:2 reads. This is like copying to the word test papers of the person sitting next to you and he got the answers wrong." First, consider the heresy that you commit by admitting that there are errors in the KJV. God permitted these errors in "his perfect book," and then permitted them to remain for centuries -- so gee, whoever wrote the garbage that you are cutting and pasting from is either smarter than God, or God doesn't need the Scriptures to be perfect. Which is it? Second, we've already covered the use of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon. Third, remember that neither Joseph nor any of the scribes were experts in Hebrew grammar. For that matter, the Hebrew grammar experts of his time didn't talk much about "chiasmus," an ancient Hebraic writing style which is found all through the Book of Mormon, until well after the Martyrdom. More later when I've recharged   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 644 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.51.109 Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 4:49 pm:        Nulla, you will notice that solopilot uses the 'I don't have to prove I'm right. You have to prove I am wrong.' This works very well for mormons who do not have legitimate answers. I would like to hear from a mormon how the temple rituals were chosen. Also, do they believe that God was the designer of them? I often wonder why sp didn't choose buddhism or islam for his choice of belief. Instead he chose a church that not only uses (according to what he believes)) a book full of errors and another book full of errors. Only people who believe God was a man, could believe a book written by a man who did not (according to numerous mormon witnesses) use the plates but stuck his head in a hat that had a seerstone in it.   nulla (nulla) Junior Member Username: nulla Post Number: 27 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 202.0.155.232 Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 6:09 pm:        Solopilot. You wrote. First, consider the heresy that you commit by admitting that there are errors in the KJV. God permitted these errors in "his perfect book," and then permitted them to remain for centuries -- so gee, whoever wrote the garbage that you are cutting and pasting from is either smarter than God, or God doesn't need the Scriptures to be perfect. Which is it? That is not heresay that the error was in the King James Bible, it is a recorded fact. If you are going to twist the question around then I ask you. Did that error occur in both the BoM and the KJV? If you are lead by your church to believe that it did not happen then do not bother to read any further into this post. I and other christians have no problem if it occured in the KJV, those who translated made an error with un uncommon word and its plural, its not the error I have in question, it is the fact that it is the same error in the BoM that I question. Look up the facts please and see that it happened, reply by saying that it is cut and paste garbage is a typical turnaround from a mormon. You also turn it and say "god permitted the errors to occur and remain in the bible", who makes such a claim, you do. Your last line does not make sense, that is again a turn around. Fact. The KJV and the BoM both have the same error for the same plural of a word. How? Either it is copied or gods word as spoken to js is now being questioned by you. Which is it?( I am learning from you mormons) If you want proof the error occured please go to your mormon resources to check this, I already know that any other source is not valid in a mormons eyes. If you want other proof then look at the links I already provided to Joesdad. As I have requested, please show me proof that this error did not occur and that I and others who make this claim are lying that error did happen twice Like Joesdad you are looking at in in the eyes of religion. Take the mormon and the christian element away then tell me how is it possible to have a copy of an error that occurs in one manuscript then show up in another, and this word is a rare word. It is not a spelling error it is an error of a plural of a word, to the uneducated js it would have seemed as being correct when reading it from the KJV. Any teacher correcting exam papers will give you an answer. My answer is it must have been either copied or js is lying in saying it is the word of god. For I do not ever say god made the error. You comments that words change and the pure and the white change is to do with the old and the modern. Then why are not all the old words changed from the BoM to fit in with modern times? If you are not willing to state that your church has a poor history regarding the colourds then I would expect answers like that. It was changed in the best interest of the church regarding its past racist history. In my eyes a good step foward. Again you miss the point re the inclusion of Jesus Christ. It is a frequent "error" that translators make, to use information which they know to fill in information not known to the original translator. For instance, historians often use the word "airplane" to describe many early aircraft, though they were known as "aeroplanes" at the time. The Original contained "Jesus Christ". as spoken to js I would like your version as to how the words of god as spoken to js where then written. I have read many descriptions of this. Did the words appear to js letter for letter word for word, read out allowed to the scribe then written and verified back to js to verify that it has been spelt as god spelt it. Or is there a more preffered version that I should be using to evaluate how such errors occur or might occur? Otherwise it is useless me asking the questions. Were the words as seen by js on the stone inside the hat the words of god? You say you do not see the point of the Pravo section above, then tell me which source is the one I should use so I can see the true mormon officicial version of the events that took place? Or is the lds now saying that js translated the plates only and never used his seer stone. That would be the easiest way to deny all questions about translating and say js was uneducated and he was not aware of the grammatical errors that occured. If so it then means that we now rely on js to translate from a gold plate and make the very same error in the plural of an uncommon word. I've stated before and have given a link to a site as you can see above, now denied as reputable even though written by a respected high standing mormon that its clear that parts of the texts were adopted from the kjv. makes more sense to me. Nulla   steelsword (steelsword) New member Username: steelsword Post Number: 15 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 207.192.2.34 Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 7:47 pm:        Joseph, nor any of the scribes were experts in Hebrew language? Yet it was by the power of God that it was translated, but i guess God was not an expert at Hebrew either. He was unable to get it just right for Joseph. Joseph read it to the scribe & the scribe read it back to him to see if it were correct. Also i thought it was translated from reformed egyptian not Hebrew? What Martyrdom?   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 647 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.54.94 Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 9:47 pm:        After I became a member as a child (13) it was stressed over and over, whenever anyone sang the praises of Joseph Smith, they always called him the martyr. It was years before I learned he had a gun in his hand. The mormons who converted my family were very PROUD of the 'persecutions' against the mormons, as if they were the perfect godly people and all the world was against them and their prophet. To this day, my mother will not even consider that the early mormons had any part in the negative way they were treated. Whenever people would question us, Mom and Waldo would say, 'You should be happy for you are being persecuted for the true church and our prophets.' I think that is why it is so difficult for mormons even today who will not admit to the truths about the early leaders of their church. A good example would be the Danites, and the killing of over one hundred men, women and children who were traveling through mormon territory on their way to the west coast. You will not hear modern day mormons talking about 'blood atonement' where mormons murdered mormons because it was taught that to be saved their blood had to be shed. It was a convenient way for Joe Smith and Brigham young to eliminate members who were unwilling to follow without questioning anything commanded by the leaders in the name of the Lord.   joesdad (joesdad) Intermediate Member Username: joesdad Post Number: 241 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 62.253.215.25 Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 8:41 am:        Steelsworld: As you have brought up the point, where in the BoM does it say human sacrifices were part of the Law? GC: Again, a simple point gone over your head - I was pointing out that you are willing to accept any point of false doctrine espoused by absolutely anyone that is willing to attack mormonism, but than will run a mile from them when they actually rveal what they believe in - Franklin and his devil thoery being an example of that. You claim Nullas comparison is logical despite it having no logical basis or there being any real link at all - you follow on any idea that makes you feel justified in your open and blatant false accusations. Your are doing little more than hiding behind others who seem to be able to put together apparently logical attacks on the Church. I asked you previously to prove that all martyrs that you recognised as such did not put up a fight at their death - you ignored me, but now repeat the same rediculous accusation that JS could not be one because he held a gun as he died - grasping at more nonexistant straws again aren't you? Am I wrong in understanding that Utah is the only (or one of a very few) States that give the option of death sentence being carried out by firing squad? Nulla: You say you seek answers, yet when answers are given that do not allow you to continue in your previous thread of thought these are ignored, much as GC does. What answers? you ask - above I discussed the method of translation, i.e. the words were READ BACK to Joeseph, you ignore this in what you say to SP - pretend you have never had an answer. Also, Steelsworld - your comment regarding what languages God knows - answers GC's snide comment about the use of a French word in the BoM pretty well I think.   steelsword (steelsword) New member Username: steelsword Post Number: 16 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 207.69.138.141 Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 10:27 am:        My point is in the BOM it does not say that Human Sacrifice was part of the LAW , But we now know that Through archaeogy that the Mayan's and Aztec's Practiced "HUNAN SACRIFICE TO PAGAN GODS." If these people are decendants of the Jews ,as we are told that Nephites & lamenites were, then did they not practice the Law? See Mark Stevenson article (Associated Press).   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 649 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.53.79 Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 10:39 am:        Joesdad, your answers are usually ignored because they have no logic; they are rote stated by your leaders who you consider incorruptible. It is only when one investigates 'both sides of the story' that you are able to come to a honest conclusion. If after doing so, you come to your same conclusions in good conscience, then you will be able to rest your mind. As I have stated before, we will not be able to say at the judgment, "But I used your name, Lord". The mormon church will not be able to speak for you. Your strength your desire to do what is good) should be in the Holy Spirit who resides in you, not in other men. If any of my comments seem snide to you, it is very difficult to take seriously what is so obviously drivel by mormon historians. The word snide denotes 'hateful' and that is not my intent. My intent is to 'LAUGH out loud' at what I consider to be childish nonsence. I realize in the 1800's people were more superstitious and accepted what they considered to be supernatural things. Today, there is no good reason for being unable to 'separate the chaff from the wheat'. If you consider the actions of the 'Danites' to be legitimate execution of criminals in the state of Utah in the 1800's, you know less of your history then you let on. Immigrants came to America in the hopes of worshipping as they saw fit, not to be murdered by a group of religious fanatics who were led by a man who gave them no choice but to follow him, or else. No one could call that 'freedom of religion'. Their 'freedom of choice was taken from them by a sentence of death. Do I need to post the incident of Joseph Smith's death, as witnessed by 'both sides', in order for you to understand he did not die for 'God's glory'? Do I need to repeat the written evidence by members in good standing in the mormon church to show you how js 'translated' the plates? Do you deny js put a seerstone in his hat to translate? Do you deny James Talmage stated no man has seen God since Adam? The Holy Bible also says so. js claimed to have seen both God and Christ as two individuals. You believe God has flesh and bones, so how will you explain that. You want it both ways, and you cannot have it here. Sorry! Have you read of the deaths of John the Baptist and the apostles. Read it and then make your comparisons to js's death. If God was speaking to Joseph Smith, why didn't smith refuse the gun as he knew he was going to die, therefore the church COULD call him a martyr. No, he didn't. He was not the only person shot that day. He was no martyr, no matter how often you say he was. Seek truth, not sugarcoated nonsence. If you can't do that, you would do your church more service by keeping your mouth shut!   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 650 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.53.79 Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 10:41 am:        Why did you choose to ignore the mention of the slaughter of over 100 immigrants by mormons?   joesdad (joesdad) Intermediate Member Username: joesdad Post Number: 242 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 62.253.215.25 Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 11:24 am:        Steelsworld: Do you not remember what the Isrealites did whilst Moses was up Mt Sinia getting the 10 Commandments? - because a group or nation falls away from the word of God does not mean their ancestors did not follow the word of God does it? Do you not recall that throughout the BoM records those who were faithful falling away, and those who were unfaithful repenting and returning to God. Just because those decendant of the Nephites etc. fell away from the law many hundreds of years after the BoM plates were buried does not reflect upon anyone else. GC: none of my replies have come from my leaders, you are insistant that this must be the case, only so you can pretend that is a good reason to ignore common sense, or logical argument. I purposely make no comment on the Danites at this time, as I need the time to get home and read up on that - sorry I don't carry the history of the church to work with me. Nor do I always have time to surf the net whilst working. Do you only recognise Christ and the Apostles as martyrs? Please confirm that you believe JS was the ONLY person shot that day - I wait to prove you wrong, again. Come on, amongst the many pages of what Talmage wrote? give me the book and page and I will comment. Why should God get involved with YOUR picking at what Joespeh did, that is YOUR problem, no one elses. The only person I would serve by being silent is you, and those who preach false nonsense like you Have a go at typing snide on Word, and doing a thesaurus check - that is how you say things!   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 651 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.53.31 Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 12:27 pm:        Is it honest to surf the web while at work? Unless you are selfemployed, you are robbing your employer.   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 652 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.53.31 Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 12:39 pm:        I didn't say js was the only one shot. And you are still ignoring the 'Mountain Meadows Massacre'. I wonder why? It is obvious it is because it is a shameful event in the history of your godled leaders. You don't deny js put his seerstone in a hat and yet you agree with your churches stand that he translated directly from the plates. Which is it? Or is it both? I will accept the written evidence by Sidney Rigdon and Emma Smith along with others. Odd that mormons consider three witnesses (ex: seeing the plates)all that is necessary to consider something true, and yet you refuse to believe your members closest confidants and family members. You are a prime example of someone defending that which you know so little of. You definitely should take your own advice and start studying about your church which you claim to have been a member of for 25-26? years. Just what have you spent your time doing in all that time. Oh, Excepting the time you were excommunicated. You never did say how long that was. Admit it. You are just not the person to be defending mormonism.   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 653 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.53.31 Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 12:50 pm:        Aren't you even a little curious why no one is posting such things as "Thank you, Joesdad, you have been a help to me", or "Joesdad, you are blessed by your knowledge," or "Joesdad, thank you for leading me to Christ". Or even, "Joesdad, I agree"? Any person with good intent would understand by now they are totally missing the mark. It is your desire to tear apart people instead of supporting docrines that is your downfall. If this is the way you live your life away from the board, I would question your motives. Just a suggestion. And not one that will be considered because you consider me your enemy. Do not allow me to be so important to you. Stand on your own.   nulla (nulla) Junior Member Username: nulla Post Number: 31 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 202.0.155.232 Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 5:48 pm:        Joesdad; you made the comment. Nulla: You say you seek answers, yet when answers are given that do not allow you to continue in your previous thread of thought these are ignored, much as GC does. What answers? you ask - above I discussed the method of translation, i.e. the words were READ BACK to Joeseph, you ignore this in what you say to SP - pretend you have never had an answer. I think in reading my replies you are talking about the way the translation occured. If I'm off track and its not in regards to it then let me know. Solopilot has gone back over this thread and as you see replied to the questions, most of which we debated. When SP replied about the way the translation occured according to the Pravo item I posted he said; "I don't see your point here" then went onto to discredit the item itself. The article was posted by myself showing a full description etc. Maybe SP should have said he did not deny the claim of the way the translation occured but denied other parts. In reading back over his reply now other than the word scibe I did not pick anything up from him re his views on the trnaslation. To continue debating over this with him when his train of thought was not inline with what I thought was the method of translation would be of no point. my request to ask what is the lds view or official view of the events that took place was based on the denial of the pravo article. I said after what I had read I thought it was the line of thinking for all mormons that it was along the lines of our debate Joesdad. SP's reply made me think there were various versions being used. I do my best to read what claims are made that I find, if what I find on the net as well as through my own observations is found to be incorrect then I accept that. If it is questioned then asking for proof or to be refered to a site or book is a sensible way to debate. Joesdad, if it seems I am misleading or turning things around, it was not my intent. I fully understood your views on the translation I have never said that the BoM is a complete lie. (not claiming here someone said that to me) As a christian being told by other christians that our bible is incomplete or not translated correctly and this sect claims that they have a book from a prophet that is the word of god you must and most likely do understand that it will leave yourselves open for questioning and total denials from some. I have seen the posts where people are not being treated or spoken to in a sensible manner, or make unjustifiable rude personal attacks and ramarks against both mormons and non mormons. This way of treating fellow humans is not in line with christian or mormon beliefs and they should be looked upon as a small minority. Rather than promote these comments my experience is ignore them and the culprits who are really trying to cause hostile relationships will go away. In other words dont feed their hunger for verbal and or physical violence. In the case of the Mormon_Girl 14 post in the other thread for example, as a christian I understand her frustration for her remarks, but I am criticle that she was not discouraged for saying such things and making claims against all non mormons. Either by mormons or by non mormons. Telling her to keep to her studies and not to discriminate against others would be more inline with the christian doctrine especially for someone so young and innocent and still learing about life If you keep threads inline and free of personal verbal abuse or total abuse against certain parties then, when, those who do show such inclinations post abuse it will stand out to all others regardless of which side of the debate and they will see it for what it is worth. peace and health to you all Nulla   yaakov (yaakov) Intermediate Member Username: yaakov Post Number: 305 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 63.148.234.6 Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 8:02 pm:        Joesdad I have a suggestion for you. To answer godchild's question about the 'Mountain Meadows Massacre', just reply, that the perps weren't REAL mormons. That's the standard answer I get when I ask about past Christian atrocities (i.e. the perps weren't REAL Christians).   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 658 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.52.157 Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 8:34 pm:        I admit I have lost my temper and I apologise. The only solution for me is to not read what apologists state about me personally, so that I will not retaliate or egg them on. It is childish, and nulla is correct in saying it is unchristian behavior. I am sorry!   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 659 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.52.157 Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 8:40 pm:        yaakov, You are correct in stating there have been people who have committed atrocities in the name of God. The only man who ever lived who was without sin was Christ. "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God".   nulla (nulla) Junior Member Username: nulla Post Number: 32 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 202.0.155.232 Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 9:02 pm:        Yaakov, can you see why non mormons have trouble with mormons claims of being a christian church. Its plain to me that many mormons class themselves as something entirely different. Nulla   joesdad (joesdad) Intermediate Member Username: joesdad Post Number: 246 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 62.253.215.25 Posted on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 7:18 am:        Nulla: Noted, and thank you. "Many Mormons class themselves ..." - come on, details & evidence. None that I know class themselves as anything else!! Yaakov: We have a REAL problem there don't we. As ANY group's initial response to any "unapproved" action by someone claiming to be a member of that group, will probably be to look first to segregating that person away from the main body, discovering a way to say "though they say they are of us they are not because ...", then run as far away as possible to avoid the fall-out. However, I cannot imagine there are many groups, whether religionists, football fans, soldiers, politicians or whatever that do not have an element within them that interprets the "rules" differently, or claim to have received instruction from elsewhere (not necessarily spiritual) to bend or alter the "rules". The rule breakers do not necessarily however represent the whole. Labels like "cult" are really a way of segregating those that cannot be explained away - or those that do not obvioulsy fall into what I think the majority of us realise as something so far out of the ordinary it is something any rationally thinking person should be wary of. Those who object to groups calling themselves Christian but who obviously worshipping the same God and Saviour, fail themselves, as they pick and choose WHAT differences they will pinpoint as removing that group from the general "Christain" body. They are inconsistant, and I believe ultimately unreliable as representatives of what they themselves claim to be "TRUE" Christainity.   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 660 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.52.234 Posted on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 11:08 am:        For debate's sake, not argument, Joesdad said the placing of a comma can change what a sentence in scripture can mean. (Of course it can, but should it?) Let's just say this is rational thinking. But we must go further, because joesdad supposes this answers the differences between orthodox christianity and mormon doctrine. (Grammatical errors, and please correct me if I am wrong). Please see the last paragraph in the above post: Those who object to groups calling themselves Christian but who obviously worship the same God and Saviour, fail themselves, as they pick and choose WHAT differences they will pinpoint as removing that group from the general "Christian body. They are inconsistant, and I believe ultimately unreliable as representatives of what they themselves claim to be "TRUE" Christainity. The question is; will joesdad say 'you know what I meant' or will he say what he writes is reliable as a representative of Christianity? Can an average English reading rational thinking person discern whether the writer INTENDED to turn around letters, put an 'a' in front of a word, etc., or would any rationally thinking person be wary of a group who not only change what is considered scripture, but also pick and choose which/when to say 'it must have been a grammatical error' because it does not fit what the newer version (doctrine) teaches us.   yaakov (yaakov) Intermediate Member Username: yaakov Post Number: 308 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 63.148.234.6 Posted on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 11:52 am:        nulla Yaakov, can you see why non mormons have trouble with mormons claims of being a christian church. Yes and No. No in that, I don’t think non-Christians (like me) would have trouble with Mormons claims of being a Christian church. Yes in that, I see that Christian non-Mormons have trouble with this. A lot of your discussions are too technically Christian for me to follow.   joesdad (joesdad) Intermediate Member Username: joesdad Post Number: 247 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 62.253.215.25 Posted on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 12:00 pm:        GC: The question as to whether or not it should must be emphatically YES!, especially if a comma DOES change the whole meaning of a verse of scripture. No I make no such supposition. The BIG difference is, you do in fact know what I mean, and I am here for you to ask – we do not benefit from this when it comes to scripture. But WHO is using the difference of a comma to change doctrine YOU or ME, that is the real question.   joesdad (joesdad) Intermediate Member Username: joesdad Post Number: 248 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 62.253.215.25 Posted on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 12:02 pm:        GC: The question as to whether or not it should must be emphatically YES!, especially if a comma DOES change the whole meaning of a verse of scripture. No I make no such supposition. The BIG difference is, you do in fact know what I mean, and I am here for you to ask – we do not benefit from this when it comes to scripture. But WHO is using the difference of a comma to change doctrine YOU or ME, that is the real question.   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 661 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.52.29 Posted on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 1:17 pm:        Have I missed something? Are you saying I have changed doctrine of the Holy Bible. Please show where and how? You should realize that even if the book of mormon had NO grammatical errors, I would still consider it fiction with some portions copied from the Holy Bible, to try and give it legitimacy.   steelsword (steelsword) New member Username: steelsword Post Number: 19 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 207.69.138.144 Posted on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 6:37 pm:        Joesdad i saw on another thread , that you said that the Mormons do not get paid. While it is true that the locals (BRANCH, WARD, STAKE)do not, that is not true of the leadership. I belong to a non-denominational church, yes we pay our minister , youth minister, & children's minister. We have 8 elders ,that vote on issues,& the church body gets one vote. allthough our leadership is within our church, your leadership is in utah. The Mormon prophet lives in a 4.2 million condo. Each one of the 12 apostles , the first presidency, & the Quarom of the 70 are paid. the prophet travels first class. Your ministry is paid, because that is Doctrinal base. Community churches were built in the early history of the U.S. because they were unable to travel great distances. Each church was responsible for its community. They governed there on church & the leadership was paid. The D&C says that that the mormon ministry even the locals shoud be paid.   nulla (nulla) Junior Member Username: nulla Post Number: 33 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 202.0.155.232 Posted on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 7:40 pm:        I have a bit of trouble here, due to my ignorance of the structure of the lds. I would like to know about the position and wording of prophet for a current person within the lds. Is this the president of the church or another person? Is this word just a term used by the lds in recogntion of js? or is this person seen as an actual prophet? If so I am now more confused if the lds elect a prophet. Maybe its me and I have this train of thought all messed up, as I said I have never looked into the lives and positions of lds leadership other than js Nulla   godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 664 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.51.199 Posted on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 8:50 pm: