Mormons and Frisbee

[ATL2CDG]

I'm highly suspicious of anyone who says to me, "see that guy in the big chair...he knows best, just do what he says."

[sarcasm]

Actually, his name is Yahweh and it's called a 'throne'.

[/sarcasm]

I'm not just suspicious of him... I ignore him completely; it's safer that way.

 

[Super 80]

First, show me where in the OT or NT (or the Book of Mormon for that matter) is says that prophets must be perfect? No LDS prophet has ever claimed to be perfect, either as a man or as a leader.

Well here you go big guy. Right from the Expositor's Bible Commentary.

The role of the prophet in Israel. Moses is the prime OT prophet. He was called by God to lead Israel from Egypt and as God's spokesman to communicate the law that was to govern Israel's lifestyle. God warned Israel not to turn to the occult sources consulted by pagan nations (Dt 18:9-13). He promised to send his own spokesmen to Israel, spokesmen who would meet certain tests. Each prophet (1) would be an Israelite (Dt 18:15), (2) would speak in the name of the Lord (vv. 20-22), (3) would be authenticated by predictions that came true (v. 22), and (4) would deliver a message in harmony with written revelation (Dt 13:1-5). Anyone claiming to have a message from God but not meeting these tests was a false prophet and could be safely ignored (Dt 18:22).

 

[ATL2CDG]

Super 80:

I didn't see anything contradicting my point that prophets don't have to be perfect in your mindless ranting...

Try again...

 

[Super 80]

DT 18:21 You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?" 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.

Now about those horses...

 

[ATL2CDG]

Now about those horses...

Seriously... what is it with you and these horses? You are completely failing to make any point. You are randomly spouting quotes from this 'source' and hearsay from so-so, but you're not making ANY sense.

 

[Super 80]

ATL2CDG,

I read the passage in the book of Mormon. It clearly referenced horses. Supposedly, and I say so because no one can verify what is on the plates that Joseph Smith "found," the book of Mormon reveals that some people came over from Israel two thousand years ago with horses and acted just like they did with whole kingdoms and wars and such like the Israelites had in the Promised Land. All this and not one trace of their civilizations or any evidence for their existence unlike that of ancient Israel.

If you want to believe Joseph Smith could translate some plates with what are called hieroglyphics on it through a stone go right ahead. I don't know of any reliable source other than Joseph Smith that can make sense of it. If it truly is a style of writing, then it ought to be able to be interpreted by a reliable linguist. So far as I know, the plates cannot be read by anyone. I don’t even think they are accessible. I’ve been to the Temple grounds in Salt Lake City. If the plates were available to be viewed, it wasn’t posted anywhere on the property.

Furthermore, what I have read before on Mormonism suggests some fatal flaws in their doctrine that emanates from the book of Mormon when compared with Christianity and the Bible. Therefore, I do not think Joseph Smith was a proper prophet. He got it wrong. In addition, that means the book of Mormon, the stone and the plates did not come from God. It means the angel Moroni or how ever you spell it is a cruel hoax and eleven million adherents are being duped.

On a related fact, Salt Lake City is the capital of America's home brewing industry.

 

[ATL2CDG]

Re: the cult test

1. Is it reluctant to reveal all its doctrines on request? Yes.
2. Is it closed to inside/outside criticism? No.
3. Does it place curses on those who disagree? No.
4. Does it have practices or doctrines that are not found in the Bible? Yes.
5. Has it made prophecies that have not come to pass? Yes.
6. Have its doctrines changed a lot over the years? No.
7. Does it discourage or forbid its members to read other religious literature? No.
8. Does it claim divine authority to interpret the Bible for you? No.
9. Does it teach that the Bible can not be understood apart from its own literature? No.
10. Does it teach that its own traditions are of equal value with the Bible? No.
11. Does it tell you the Bible is dangerous to read for yourself? No.
12. Are any of its doctrines contradicted by the Bible? No.
13. Does it say that the Bible 'contains' the truth, but is not 'the whole truth?' Yes.
14. Does it teach that all other Christian groups are false? Yes.
15. Is dissent discouraged, penalized, or punished? No.
16. Do the call all dissent 'sin, pride, or rebellion?' No.
17. Are members required to sever all ties with the past, or with family or previous religious friends? No.
18. Does it have a totalitarian or dictatorial structure? No.
19. Are its members financially exploited? No.
20. Is fear a primary motivating factor in its teaching? No.
21. Does it teach that there is no salvation outside itself? No.
22. Does it say that the sacrifice of Christ was not sufficient, but that you must pay the price for your own sins? No.
23. Does it ask you to pay for its prayers for dead loved ones? (what the???) No.
24. Does it profit from the sale and use of icons, a practice forbidden by the second commandment? No.
25. Does it teach that Jesus was one of many saviors, avatars, or gurus? No.
26. Does it teach that Jesus was just an angel, or some highly evolved human being? No.
27. Does it have hidden, secret knowledge or rituals available only to its members. Yes.
28. Does it offer something other than, or in addition to Jesus Christ as our Savior? No.
29. Is attendance at its rituals mandatory, with d@mnation being the price of your failure? No.
30. Does it make artificial distinctions between 'levels' of sin? No.
31. Does it teach that you must 'expiate' (pay the price for) your own sins, thus negating the sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ? Somewhat.
32. Does it tell you to confess your sins to dead people in order to obtain forgiveness? No.
33. Does it promote worship, or veneration of the dead? No.
34. Does it claim its leader's pronouncements are perfect, irrevocable, and unchangeable? No.
35. Does it teach that sin can only be forgiven by its own representatives? Yes.
36. Are its moral teachings based on its own code of law instead of the Bible? No.
37. Does it keep you paying for years for the spiritual benefit of deceased loved ones? No.
38. Does it tell you to pray for, or get baptized for the dead? Yes.

 

[johnpeace]

Super80

I didn't quite get the point either...

Was it that there are references to horses in the BOM and that such would indicate that it's fraudulent?

I'm not that familiar with the history of the mormon writings, but a search on Google (gotta love Google) reveals:

http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/m/morm...mat=Long&q1=horse&restrict=All&size=First+100

 

[ATL2CDG]

ATL2CDG,

I read the passage in the book of Mormon. It clearly referenced horses. Supposedly, and I say so because no one can verify what is on the plates that Joseph Smith "found," the book of Mormon reveals that some people came over from Israel two thousand years ago with horses and acted just like they did with whole kingdoms and wars and such like the Israelites had in the Promised Land. All this and not one trace of their civilizations or any evidence for their existence unlike that of ancient Israel.

If you want to believe Joseph Smith could translate some plates with what are called hieroglyphics on it, through a stone go right ahead. I don't know of any reliable source other than Joseph Smith that can make sense of it. If it truly is a style of writing, then it ought to be able to be interpreted by a reliable linguist. So far as I know, the plates cannot be read by anyone. I don’t even think they are accessible. I’ve been to the Temple grounds in Salt Lake City. If the plates were available to be viewed, it wasn’t posted anywhere on the property.

Furthermore, what I have read before on Mormonism suggests some fatal flaws in their doctrine that emanates from the book of Mormon when compared with Christianity and the Bible. Therefore, I do not think Joseph Smith was a proper prophet. He got it wrong. In addition, that means the book of Mormon, the stone and the plates did not come from God. It means the angel Moroni or how ever you spell it is a cruel hoax and eleven million adherents are being duped.

On a related fact, Salt Lake City is the capital of America's home brewing industry.

You find that passage in question and I'll be more than happy to discuss it. If you can't quote specifics, then I don't feel it can be included in the argument.

Various persons other than Joseph Smith saw and handled the plates. Even those witnesses who left the Church (for whatever reasons) at in time NEVER contradicted the existence of the plates. And yes, you can't see the plates. The prophet can't see the plates. Once Joseph completed the translation, the LDS church states they were taken to heaven by Moroni. Something noteworthy for those interested: many non-church scholars have studied the Book of Mormon and most state that there are various styles of writing (meaning different authors) for the various books within. They state that no one could fake these literary differences.

And on your third paragraph, rather than reading third-party literature about the church, why don't you read its texts and publications. Talk with a bishop or ward mission leader. Rather than listening to those who claim to know all about the evil Mormons, why don't you study the evil Mormons directly. Also, given that you don't even know the details of his life or dead (as evidenced above), I doubt you stand qualified to judge Smith a 'proper prophet' or not.

Lastly... SLC the brewing capital? Uhm, okay. LDS compose only about 35-40% of the SLC proper population and certainly don't control local government and commerce (like one can find in Southern Baptist-dominated dry counties throughout the South). How in the world is this at all 'related' to the discussion at hand??

 

[Super 80]

I didn't quite get the point either...

Was it that there are references to horses in the BOM and that such would indicate that it's fraudulent?

The horse is not native to America. The book of Mormon as written by Joseph Smith includes this glaring inaccuracy.

You have to love the access the internet provides and especially the ease of Google searches.

I stand corrected that the horse was brought over, I only read one reference about horses being prepared possibly for a chariot which in itself is a hoot. The passage in Alma 18 sounds like what I remember.

I'd love to see the archaeological digs for these kingdoms. I'm sure there's plenty of artifacts to show how their agriculture was in place rather than the Native American Indian's style of agriculture.

It's also rewarding to see how this ancient civilization influenced Native Indian cultures.

What I'm saying is the book of Mormon is a bunch of hooey.

 

[ATL2CDG]

What I'm saying is the book of Mormon is a bunch of hooey.

I'd like to reiterate my position that given you know basically NOTHING about the LDS church beyond hearsay and half-truths, I feel you're the LAST person on this message board to make such a mature, rash and in-depth assessment.

 

[Super 80]

You know, I've studied God's Word for a long time, and I don't know anything about the book of Mormon. I've even watched Mormon shows detailing the various lessons in the history of the book of Mormon. But I have yet to see the need to actually read it. I guess after the Bible, I don't need anything else, especially something as patently foolish as the book of Mormon. If I want to use my time efficiently, I'll let some other Christian scholar do it for me. There are enough of them that have thoroughly debunked Mormon doctrine based on its conflict with Biblical Scripture that I do not have to study from those duped in order to refute it.

You find that passage in question and I'll be more than happy to discuss it.

[ALMA 18:9] And they said unto him: Behold, he is feeding thy horses. Now the king had commanded his servants, previous to the time of the watering of their flocks, that they should prepare his horses and chariots, and conduct him forth to the land of Nephi; for there had been a great feast appointed at the land of Nephi, by the father of Lamoni, who was king over all the land.

This is the passage I remember.

Once Joseph completed the translation, the LDS church states they were taken to heaven by Moroni.

HOW CONVIENENT!

I doubt you stand qualified to judge Smith a 'proper prophet' or not.

Oh I think I can throw out his "book" quite easily and with authority. When you contradict the Bible, you are talking about heresy.

 

[ATL2CDG]

When you contradict the Bible, you are talking about heresy.

Please provide me with a direct quote or quotes from the Book of Mormon showing a direct and unrefutable contradiction of the Old or New Testaments of the Christian bible.

 

[Super 80]

Please provide me with a direct quote or quotes from the Book of Mormon showing a direct and unrefutable contradiction of the Old or New Testaments of the Christian bible.

Sorry, the Christian Book Store is closed right now.

Besides, what about those horses? Care to explain that?

Could you tell me what land mass the Kingdoms in America that the book of Mormon describes covers?

How did these ancient people interact with the native Indians?

Just how many kingdoms were there and how large were they?

Good thing they had all those horses too. Care to explain how this Moroni angel and Joseph Smith are the only ones that know horses were in North America before the Spanish brought them in?

You said you'd explain that verse in Alma if I found it. I have. Now explain it.

 

[johnpeace]

Please provide me with a direct quote or quotes from the Book of Mormon showing a direct and unrefutable contradiction of the Old or New Testaments of the Christian bible.

Here's one:
"And Behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God" — Alma 7:10.

The Bible (the gospels and OT prophecies telling of the Messiah's coming) identify Jesus as being born in Bethlehem.

And our friends at Apologetics Index (great site!) have compiled a list of some other points where the Bible and the LDS church don't see eye to eye.

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/m04d.html

 

[ATL2CDG]

I stand corrected that the horse was brought over, I only read one reference about horses being prepared possibly for a chariot which in itself is a hoot. The passage in Alma 18 sounds like what I remember.

By you're own admission, you were wrong, so I have nothing to explain; your argument was wrong.

Furthermore, the LDS Church contends that the 'Native Americans' were the descendants of those people in the Book for Mormon. The precise details, I know not. However, the church makes very good points - if you're openminded enough to read their literature.

 

[ATL2CDG]

Here's one:
"And Behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God" — Alma 7:10.

The Bible (the gospels and OT prophecies telling of the Messiah's coming) identify Jesus as being born in Bethlehem.

And our friends at Apologetics Index (great site!) have compiled a list of some other points where the Bible and the LDS church don't see eye to eye.

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/m04d.html

Regarding 'Jerusalem', I was able to draw this from Joseph Fielding McConkies' Jesus Christ: the Fundamental Verity:

"At Jerusalem" These words have spawned a host of heckles and sneers directed at the Book of Mormon. Persons of a skeptical and cynical spirit ask: "Didn't Joseph Smith know that Jesus was born of Mary in Bethlehem?" We answer: Yes, he was born in Bethlehem, but he was also born at Jerusalem, meaning that Bethlehem, the smaller community, was within the environs of Jerusalem, the larger city. In our day it would be as if someone froth Sandy or even Provo, Utah, had said to one somewhat unfamiliar with the Wasatch Front, "I am from Salt Lake City."

 

[Super 80]

No no no! Now your stink is starting to clump!

Just because I was assuming the horses mentioned came over does not refute the fact that the book of Mormon said there WERE horses here before the Spanish brought them over!

Futhermore, Indians were in America long before 1500 B.C. And if that were not enough, if you are going to say the Indian nations that are as diverse as this land with all the varied ethnic groups that are Asiatic in origin are now Semitic, that is a another new one that qualifies as a whopper of a tale.

In fact this whole farcas is getting stranger and stanger!

And JohnPeace comes up with a direct factual contradiction!

What do you say now ATL2CDG or are you going to slink off?

 

[Super 80]

In our day it would be as if someone froth Sandy or even Provo, Utah, had said to one somewhat unfamiliar with the Wasatch Front, "I am from Salt Lake City."

Sorry, the Hebrews were VERY specific when it came to where they were from. Bethlehem is not a suburb of Jerusalem. In fact it is more than a few miles from there in a time when the average person walked.

 

[414Flyer]

yeah its pretty well established scientifically, both genetically and anthropologically, that the "Indians" are Asian in origin, and not Israeli/Hebrew.

You wont find anyone outside the LDS church that believes that in the isreali/indian story. However in the 1830s around Joe Smiths time, there were those that believed it. It wasnt an uncommon belief then.