Mormon Patriarchal Blessing?

[zerinus]

BTW, Zerinus, I thought you had me set on ignore. How many times have you stated that you will not respond to any more of my posts? Why is it that you can’t stick to your word?

Another big lie. I have never said that I am going to ignore you. Find it if you can. I will ignore you whenever I want to, and reply to you whanever I choose to. That is my decision, not yours. But I have never stated that I am going to ignore you.

FYI, I don’t care at all that you ignore me. You and chasjohn must think that we Catholics get upset when you ignore us. Not at all. In fact, I prefer it. So, if you want to go back into ignore mode, go right on ahead, and maybe this time make a stronger effort at keeping it up.

You will be lucky. I will respond to you at the time and place of my own choosing, and expose all the lies and falsehoods that you propagate about me and the LDS Church. What is the matter? Have you run out of steam, and can’t take the heat any more? You wish me to go away, do you? Tough luck. I ain’t going nowhere. I am here to stay, and epose your lies and falsehoods about the LDS Church.

zerinus

 

[Allweather]

Another big lie. I have never said that I am going to ignore you. Find it if you can. I will ignore you whenever I want to, and reply to you whanever I choose to. That is my decision, not yours. But I have never stated that I am going to ignore you.

This, from #108 of any former mormons out there?:

““Do not reply to them. They do not deserve a reply either from you of from me; and you are making things difficulst for me as well as for yourself when you debate with them or reply to them. Ignore them. Do not read their posts and do not reply””

You wrote this to rmcmullen, and this is very typical of posts you have written to me, as well as to several others here. It also is typical of two posts written today by chasjohn. There seems to be a similarity of approach between you two. Are you related?

I call this ignore. You have, on more than one occasion, announced to me that you will ignore further posts from me, yet you have only managed to hold yourself for a few hours, maybe a day or so. Anyone who has seen you in action here will attest to this ignore tactic, and that you have used it repeatedly.

As for the doomed to hell item, I am still searching, but evidently I am not able to bring up more than 250 posts in a general search, so I will have to go back thread-by-thread. I will get to this, and perhaps hope for some help from others here who remember this as well. Meantime, I am going to get my other iron out of the fire.

You will be lucky. I will respond to you at the time and place of my own choosing, and expose all the lies and falsehoods that you propagate about me and the LDS Church. What is the matter? Have you run out of steam, and can’t take the heat any more? You wish me to go away, do you? Tough luck. I ain’t going nowhere. I am here to stay, and epose your lies and falsehoods about the LDS Church.

zerinus

Does this mean that you’re finished ignoring me? For now?

Don’t think for a moment that I “wish you to go away.” Far from it. You are our best argument against Mormonism, being that you can be said to be at least somewhat representative of Mormons. No. Please. Stay. But, if you say you are going to ignore, then please do continue to ignore and don’t go back on your word. Stop being so bipolar.

 

[Allweather]

The Bickman article from FAIR states:

"“Roman Catholics are even more interested than Evangelicals in demonstrating the continuity of the Church from New Testament times, but after reviewing various usages of “Hades” around the time of the New Testament writers, Catholic apologist and scholar Michael M. Winter had to admit that “although some writers have applied the idea of immortality to the survival of the church, it seems preferable to see it as a promise of triumph over evil.””

I’ve never heard of this Michael M. Winter, but I can tell you for SURE that the orthodox Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is as has been stated here many times: “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”(kjv)

No ambiguity. And in fact, this promise has been born out in history. The Catholic Church has survived every attack, from within and from without. Like the Jews, Catholicism is a marvel of miraculous survival. The only possible explanation is the protection of almighty God. The cults have to manufacture a mythical apostasy in order to make themselves possible. They have to ignore history, and hope that no one notices.

 

[Allweather]

The DNA studies that show that some of the native americans do not have the blood of Israel, does not prove that there was no such blood in ancient America.

chas, I realize you are ignoring me, but I will pose this anyway and see if you can be roused.

Bear in mind I know almost nothing about DNA. Unlike the troll Zerinus who recently stated carbon dating is not very accurate, and has ignored my request for his qualifications in that field, I do not claim any qualifications with respect to DNA. Therefore I will defer to your authority in this area.

You stated that “some of the native Americans do not have the blood of Israel…” Does this imply that some do have the blood of Israel?

I have seen a film in which some identified scientists, admittedly evangelicals with bones to pick, state that there is no possibility that any Hebrew DNA exists in any pre-Columbian peoples anywhere on the American continent, which as I recall includes north, central, and south America. They appear to be rather confident of this. They spend quite a bit of time in the film explaining their research methods, and it seems pretty convincing to a layperson like me. The thing that makes me doubt just a bit is that they are religionists trying to make a point. I guess what I’m getting at, are you competent enough in the DNA field to be able to debunk the DNA research by a simple explanation to a layperson like me?

 

[chasjohn]

chas, I realize you are ignoring me, but I will pose this anyway and see if you can be roused.

If we can be civil with each other, I would be happy to respond.

I am not competent in the field of DNA, but I can refer you to someone who is. Click here:
fairlds.org/apol/ai195.html

 

[majick275]

I assume what you are talking about here is the Mormon contention that some native americans descend from the House of Israel.

The Book of Mormon tells of three small groups [families] who migrated from the Middle East to the American Continent in ancient times. One, Jared and his family, came at the time of the Tower of Babel. Another, Lehi and his family, came about 600BC. The third are the Mulekites, who came at the time of King Zedekiah.

These groups, and their descendants, were some of the people who inhabited ancient america. They did not comprise all of the inhabitants, or even a majority.

The DNA studies that show that some of the native americans do not have the blood of Israel, does not prove that there was no such blood in ancient America.

i can’t let that pass. The BoM says very clearly that the lamanites are the PRINCIPAL ancestors of the american indians. LDS prophets have consistently told the pacific islanders and the south and central americans as well as native americans that they are lamanites. further the BoM teaches that the descendants of lehi (like the jaredites before) that this land was preserved just for them. read the book of Ether for example.

 

[chasjohn]

i can’t let that pass. The BoM says very clearly that the lamanites are the PRINCIPAL ancestors of the american indians. LDS prophets have consistently told the pacific islanders and the south and central americans as well as native americans that they are lamanites. further the BoM teaches that the descendants of lehi (like the jaredites before) that this land was preserved just for them. read the book of Ether for example.

If you will, please, cite to me the passage in the Book of Mormon that says that the Lamanites are the princpal ancestors of the american indians.

 

[zerinus]

This, from #108 of any former mormons out there?:

““Do not reply to them. They do not deserve a reply either from you of from me; and you are making things difficulst for me as well as for yourself when you debate with them or reply to them. Ignore them. Do not read their posts and do not reply””

You wrote this to rmcmullen, . . .

That post was addressed specifically to rmcmullen, and related to a specific situation in which he was involved with another poster who was not you. You claimed that I had told you that I was going to ignore you. That was false. I had never told you that I was going to ignore you.

. . . and this is very typical of posts you have written to me, as well as to several others here.

Lies, lies, lies, lies. I had never told you that I was going to ignore you. Show us the post or quit telling lies about me. It doesn’t do your image any good.

It also is typical of two posts written today by chasjohn. There seems to be a similarity of approach between you two. Are you related?

He can speak for himself. I am not his spokesman. I don’t speak for him.

I call this ignore. You have, on more than one occasion, announced to me that you will ignore further posts from me, . . .

Lies, lies, lies, lies. Show me one instance when I said that to you. Just curious, what do you hope to achieve by telling all these blatant lies about me?

yet you have only managed to hold yourself for a few hours, maybe a day or so. Anyone who has seen you in action here will attest to this ignore tactic, and that you have used it repeatedly.

Does this mean that you’re finished ignoring me? For now?

I will ignore you when I choose to, and reply to you when want to. I make that decision, you don’t. In the mean time, just quit telling lies about me, will you?

zerinus

 

[Allweather]

If we can be civil with each other, I would be happy to respond.

I am not competent in the field of DNA, but I can refer you to someone who is. Click here:
fairlds.org/apol/ai195.html

I can certainly be civil, and always am, unless I am falsely charged with something as grave as apostasy. Then, my hackles get raised.

I’d be interested in your response to my responses to the FAIR article (apostasy) to which you linked us. Be kind to me… I’m not educated. I go mostly on common sense. I’m not done with it yet, but have written a fair amount so far. FYI I don’t find anything there that could be considered “proof” of the apostasy charge that Mormonism stands upon. Are you willing to just cut to the chase and admit that there IS no proof? That, in fact, there is ample proof from the events of history, which are knowable without reference to religious sources, that there was no apostasy of the type being claimed by the Mormons? (Bearing in mind, of course, that there seem to be variations among Mormons as to the nature of the so-called apostasy, some saying all, some saying most). At ground level, I just don’t see how it can be claimed that there were many good Christians throughout the centuries if the priesthood was gone, if divine authority was gone, if God’s protective power were gone. How could the Church have possibly survived, let alone converted Europe and America, out of a priesthood with no divine power?

Whew! Well. That is a lot of material over at FAIR regarding the DNA thing. Is there any bite-sized synthesis of all of this? I realize that science is always more complicated than the popular notions of it, so I’m not asking for the impossible. If you could summarize it, that’d be great, maybe with a bit more elaboration than you gave in your previous post on the subject. I will try to wade thru the FAIR material over the next few days. I need to educate myself in any case.

 

[majick275]

If you will, please, cite to me the passage in the Book of Mormon that says that the Lamanites are the princpal ancestors of the american indians.

certainly

from www.lds.org (scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/introduction)

The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon. The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.

 

[zerinus]

How could the Church have possibly survived, let alone converted Europe and America, out of a priesthood with no divine power?

In the same way that Islam did. In the same way that many other religions have done throughout history. They didn’t have any priesthood or ecclesiastical authority, but they survived, prospered, and converted. If they could do it, so could Christianity.

zerinus

 

[Allweather]

That post was addressed specifically to rmcmullen, and related to a specific situation in which he was involved with another poster who was not you. You claimed that I had told you that I was going to ignore you. That was false. I had never told you that I was going to ignore you.

Yes you did, and more than once. And not only me, but several others here, too. In fact, when chasjohn said this morning that he was going to ignore me and one other, it so reminded me of the times you have done that here in earlier days, that I immediately suspected that you and chasjohn are one and the same person. I have never heard any Catholic or Protestant (that I can recall) do this to anyone on this forum, yet you’ve done it repeatedly, you counseled rmcmullen to do it, and now you are defensive about having so counseled him. I haven’t found the specific posts yet in which you addressed me directly, have not had time to dig through the pile of “stuff” as I am busy with other projects. But rest assured, I will look, and when/if I find them, I will clip them for you. BTW why are you so sensitive to this? What is it about this that bothers you so? Ordinarily, you seem to have no problem being rude and insulting to people. You have ignored me for the past week, but now you are all hot about this seemingly inconsequential issue. When I first came onboard this forum, my first sight of you was you telling someone in a very snotty manner that you had already provided some such information in some long past previous thread and would not repeat yourself. Oh, you’ve had your moments of decency, but for the most part, you are like a raging animal, and, honestly, I wonder if your memory is any better than one, given that you so vehemently deny things you’ve said so recently.

Lies, lies, lies, lies. I had never told you that I was going to ignore you. Show us the post or quit telling lies about me. It doesn’t do your image any good.

I’m not concerned very much about my image, son. I’m too old to worry about what people think of me. I carry myself here, the same way I carry myself in the outside world. I tell people who I am, where I am, and what I am about, and let the chips fall where they will. Unlike YOU, who appear under different names, avoiding the plain questions, accusing, belittling, hiding in the shadows, veiling yourself. You are like most TBMs I’ve met in that you never really drop the shields. Where are you, Zerinus? Where in the world are you? Why don’t you fill out your profile? Why do you go away and return under another screen name? Why so secretive, furtive, like some sort of comic Maxwell Smart talking into his shoe?

He can speak for himself. I am not his spokesman. I don’t speak for him.

And you’re sure you’re not him?

Lies, lies, lies, lies. Show me one instance when I said that to you. Just curious, what do you hope to achieve by telling all these blatant lies about me?

God as my witness, Zerinus, I am not lying. I make mistakes, and am always ready to admit making one, but I am not mistaken in this, and am not lying about it.

I will ignore you when I choose to, and reply to you when want to. I make that decision, you don’t. In the mean time, just quit telling lies about me, will you?zerinus

Calm down, son. Everything is OK. Step back from the 'puter for awhile. Get a cup of coffee… ooops, I forgot, Mormons don’t drink coffee. OK, get a glass of milk and take a pill. Come back later, after the agitation has settled down.

 

[chasjohn]

After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians

The operative word here is “principal”. We have never claimed that “all” American Indians have the DNA of Israel.

 

[chasjohn]

FYI I don’t find anything there that could be considered “proof” of the apostasy charge that Mormonism stands upon. .

Perhaps this article is a little more “reader friendy” on the subject of the Apostacy:
fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2004_Apostasy.html

 

[Allweather]

In the same way that Islam did. In the same way that many other religions have done throughout history. They didn’t have any priesthood or ecclesiastical authority, but they survived, prospered, and converted. If they could do it, so could Christianity.

zerinus

Nice attempt, but buzzzzt you are wrong.

Islam converted mainly with the sword. If you knew anything at all about history, you would know this. Islam converted by the sword, while Christianity (with one very unfortunate and counterproductive exception) has always converted through persuasion.

Moreover, Islam today is literally a mess. There is no cohesive unity among Moslems. They are killing each other in various places, and the more extreme of them are making bombs out of themselves in vain attempts at destroying Christianity and Zionism, not to mention other Moslems.

Oh, yes, Islam had its heyday, and it lasted for around a thousand years, while they rampaged across northern Africa, Turkey, and even into southern Europe before being finally turned back, never to advance again. Now, they are a disintegrated collection of tribal savagery living off of oil revenues, and I assure you, once the oil is gone, they will revert back to the camels in the desert.

They cannot be compared, by any stretch of any rational man’s imagination, to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is just as alive, unified, and vigorous as it was when it came out of the catacombs of Rome to conquer Europe… by PERSUASION, and the power of God, not by the sword.

Show me another. And not some dead relic of a dead civilization. Show me something with 2k years of authoritative continuity. Something still alive today that is speaking with moral authority to the lost world. Surely it isn’t Mormonism.

 

[marvi43]

:clapping:

Well with her Lamanite blood that should be easily answered! lol

 

[Allweather]

Perhaps this article is a little more “reader friendy” on the subject of the Apostacy:
fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2004_Apostasy.html

Thanks, chas. I didn’t find the first article you linked to be at all reader unfriendly. I am finding it unconvincing. Bear in mind, I am not yet finished with it. But what I’ve read so far, it doesn’t appear to offer any evidence apart from various scriptural interpretations, which in any case are highly suspect since they don’t come from what I would consider to be a valid source, ie Mormon.

When I argue the validity of Catholic claims to legitimacy, I don’t just appeal to Biblical interpretations, though those can be very important. Something as enormous as a UNIVERSAL apostasy would surely show up in historical records. I don’t see this. Instead, I think we see a vigorous Christianity busy converting the world by the power of persuasion and the power of the Holy Ghost. It wasn’t apostate Jesuits who sailed to the New World in leaky wooden ships to convert the savages. It was men of deep faith, men who were loyal to the Pope, Catholic men. Apostate men don’t do such things. Apostate men party… they get drunk and waste their days with prostitutes. It isn’t logical to think that apostate men built the great cathedrals, painted the great paintings, carved the great sculptures, wrote the great hyms and symphonies, mostly to the glory of God. Have there been apostate people? Sure! But they are and have been a very tiny fraction of the whole of Christendom and Christianity.

Even the Protestants. Heretics, for sure, but men and women of deep Christian faith. Some died for their heresies and faith. Men and women don’t die for something they’ve renounced, something they are convinced is a lie. It isn’t logical to think that any sane man would.

In the final analysis, it is history that puts the lie to the Mormon and other cult apostasy charge. Mormons and JWs can only make a case for apostasy by appealing to false scriptures and revised histories (not to mention revised scriptures). They depend on Koolaide drinkers who will not open their eyes and think, who are more likely to submit to cult leaders like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young than to proper, established ecclesiastical authorities for their scripture interpretations.

 

[Allweather]

The operative word here is “principal”. We have never claimed that “all” American Indians have the DNA of Israel.

Again, chas, and I asked this earlier: Can you say that ANY American indians have the DNA of Israel?

 

[zerinus]

Nice attempt, but buzzzzt you are wrong.

Islam converted mainly with the sword. If you knew anything at all about history, you would know this. Islam converted by the sword, while Christianity (with one very unfortunate and counterproductive exception) has always converted through persuasion.

For the most part that is not true. Islam conquered territory by the sword (and so did Christianity), but it did not convert by the sword. Learn your history. Sizable numbers of both Christians and Jews remained in Islamic lands whose descendents survive to this day. They were not forced to convert. On the contrary, the Moslems were far more tolerant of the Jews in their territories than the Christians had been. (They were equally tolerant of the Christians.) Many Jews escaped Christian dominated lands to Moslem ones to escape persecution at the hand of Christians.

Moreover, Islam today is literally a mess. There is no cohesive unity among Moslems.

That is a matter of opinion. Many would say that Christianity is a mess, with its millions of sects and denominations.

They are killing each other in various places, and the more extreme of them are making bombs out of themselves in vain attempts at destroying Christianity and Zionism, not to mention other Moslems.

All religions have had their extremists, including Christianity. You don’t judge the majority by the actions of a minority.

Oh, yes, Islam had its heyday, and it lasted for around a thousand years, while they rampaged across northern Africa, Turkey, and even into southern Europe before being finally turned back, never to advance again. Now, they are a disintegrated collection of tribal savagery living off of oil revenues, and I assure you, once the oil is gone, they will revert back to the camels in the desert.

I respectfully disagree. By the way, you are close to breaking forum rule, by suggesting that “all Moslems are terrorists” or “savages” or “reverting to camels in the desert”. That is not the civilized way of talking about people. I suggest that your read the rules, unless you want to get suspended.

They cannot be compared, by any stretch of any rational man’s imagination, to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is just as alive, unified, and vigorous as it was when it came out of the catacombs of Rome to conquer Europe… by PERSUASION, and the power of God, not by the sword.

That again is a matter of opinion. I am sure the Moslems would disagree.

zerinus

 

[Allweather]

For the most part that is not true. Islam conquered territory by the sword (and so did Christianity), but it did not convert by the sword. Learn your history. Sizable numbers of both Christians and Jews remained in Islamic lands whose descendents survive to this day. They were not forced to convert. On the contrary, the Moslems were far more tolerant of the Jews in their territories than the Christians had been. (They were equally tolerant of the Christians.) Many Jews escaped Christian dominated lands to Moslem ones to escape persecution at the hand of Christians.

You are correct in this, but you raised the issue of the Moslems against what I said about the survivability of a civilization, or, in this case, a religious culture. Did the Moslems conquer by military force? Surely. Did they convert every person under their domination? No. Did Christianity survive under Moslem domination? Obviously. Has Moslem civilization collapsed? Definitely! Also, it was extremely rare for Christians to convert by force. It did happen, but was very rare compared to the Moslems. But, what we were talking about, or at least, what I was talking about, was the survivability of Christianity. What has survived even as long? And is still vigorous and speaking a moral message to the world today? Is it Islam? Hardly.

That is a matter of opinion. Many would say that Christianity is a mess, with its millions of sects and denominations.

Indeed, and that is partly YOUR fault for not getting with the program and submitting to the authority that Jesus established upon the Apostles. Yours and the Protestants. The rest of us are doing quite nicely, all one billion of us, submitted and thriving.

All religions have had their extremists, including Christianity. You don’t judge the majority by the actions of a minority.

Name the Catholics that have flown passenger liners into buildings. Yes, there always are extremists, but Catholicism has, thoughout its long 2k year history, been remarkably peaceful considering what it has been through.

I respectfully disagree. By the way, you are close to breaking forum rule, by suggesting that “all Moslems are terrorists” or “savages” or “reverting to camels in the desert”. That is not the civilized way of talking about people. I suggest that your read the rules, unless you want to get suspended.

Thank you for the heads-up. But, to be very clear, I have no such opinions. You put the words “all Moslems are terrorists” into quotation marks as if I wrote them. I did not.

That again is a matter of opinion. I am sure the Moslems would disagree.

zerinus

Possibly, but we aren’t having a discussion with Moslems about the viability of Islamic civilization. You and I are discussing the comparison, which YOU raised, between Islamic civilization, which has been steadily fading for centuries, and Christian civilization, which has not. You suggested that Islam could be compared to Christianity as an entity without a valid priesthood, without divine authority (your words, as I recall without verifying). I don’t see how they can be. Christianity, especially Catholicism, is in an entirely higher league, by pretty much any measure. You can argue about secularization, but that is a relatively recent phenomenon and is also affecting Islam, and even Mormonism.