Mormons and the Bible

[RebeccaJ]

Maybe you should look up the meaning of passive aggressive. I wasn’t being passive, just aggressive.

I recognize your incessant sarcasm for what it is.

 

[RebeccaJ]

No, I’m the passive aggressive one! For instance, a few weeks ago I pop-psychoanalyzed Rebecca (who was totally asking for it) on another thread. Of course, she took my bad behavior in a perfectly calm and rational manner. Not even one gratuitous insult–I swear!

Well, you were being a total ***, and you know it.

 

[Snow]

Wilford Woodruff (March 1, 1807 – September 2, 1898)
Citing revelation, Woodruff issued the 1890 Manifesto which ended the church’s official support of plural marriage in the territory of the United States and directed Latter-day Saints to only enter into marriages that are recognized by the laws in the areas in which they reside. He wrote in his diary, “I have arrived at the point in the history of my life as the president of the Church … where I am under the necessity of acting for the temporal salvation of the Church”.[5] Some historians[who?] consider the 1890 Manifesto to be Woodruff’s most important contribution to the church.

And? Surely you have a point. Prey tell what is it?

 

[Snow]

I recognize your incessant sarcasm for what it is.

Apparently not. You thought it was passive aggressive.

 

[mfbukowski]

No, I’m the passive aggressive one! For instance, a few weeks ago I pop-psychoanalyzed Rebecca (who was totally asking for it) on another thread. Of course, she took my bad behavior in a perfectly calm and rational manner. Not even one gratuitous insult–I swear!

Nah, as I recall the lady “did protest too much”!

 

[rinnie]

Origninal sin! Give me a break. Why would God punish someone for Adam’s “sin”?

Boy you better make sure that He does not punish you for my sins!

You are kidding right? Seriously?

 

[adrift]

You made a specific claim… that someone had a vision.

Prove it.

You just made it up of thin air. You invented it. It is false. You know it.

… and stop sending me childish Private Messages.

And? Surely you have a point. Prey tell what is it?

How come you didn’t quote this part of my post. You asked for proof? So it isn’t a false made up statement. I can’t see how you missed my point You seem to accuse many of making things up. I guess that is part of the passive aggressive attitude you express here.

 

[Snow]

How come you didn’t quote this part of my post.

Because that was a repeat of my post. I already knew what I was talking about.

You asked for proof? So it isn’t a false made up statement. I can’t see how you missed my point You seem to accuse many of making things up. I guess that is part of the passive aggressive attitude you express here.

I guess you haven’t read the thread so you don’t know what’s going on. The poster claimed: “So when Utah was denied statehood because of the very issue of polygamy SUDDENLY one of your seers had a vision that renounced polygamy (how convienent)”

Still waiting for the proof that we asked for way back when.

What vision? When?

Was it sudden?

I’ll spell it out for you to save the trouble. It wasn’t sudden. It was the result of years and years of struggling and praying and pondering and praying. There wasn’t a vision. It was a matter of inspiration or revelation according to WW, not a vision.

You might want to understand what you are addressing before acting haughty.

 

[adrift]

Imagine me chuckling. Now you think about what you just said. Are you chuckling yet?
This is called avoiding an answer through a passive aggressive attack

And your’s 2000 years later. So.

No answer again. Those who were closer to the event would be more correct than your opinion without any collaborating evidence

Your point, I guess, is that unless you validate it, it isn’t so? I know exactly what he made up as does he. I pointed out several already.

Again you avoid that which is hard. I suppose it is because you have no answer to what was posted but try to deflect it by turning it on an unjustified conclusion. You pointed out none that stood up. He quoted from LDS sources which obviously you cannot dispute so you attack.
And? Your point is?
Oh is that your favorite dodge pretending not to understand the point. Perhaps you haven’t learned everything you religion has taught. If your missionaries cannot be believed, better stop sending them out

I notice that you merely assert it rather than demonstrate it.

Something you do. I guess you expect others just to take whatever you say as gospel?

Here’s what I said: “That is purely a matter of faith. Christ is silent - you merely assume that the Bible has direct quotes. There is zero proof of it.”

Care to prove me wrong using unbiased, legitimate historians?

I think I’ll be waiting a long time for that.

The Bible is an Historic document. What it contains is history. It is not all history but the Gospels are historical comment on what Jesus did and said by contemporaries.

Fine - what’s the proof? Please prove that the oral tradition perfectly captured Christ’s precise quotes?
You are the one who says it doesn’t . So the proof would be on your side to say it doesn’t.

Feeling a little insecure tonight? That’s relevant… how exactly?
Is that just another way of saying and your point is? My point was that you do not apply the same standards to your faith as you do to mine.

Now you are making a false claim. It is hardly a way to win friends and impress God.

I simply stated facts and you falsely claim that I hold opinions about the Bible that the other poster also falsely accused me of holding.

PROVE that a single thing I said about the Bible is untrue. Go ahead. I’ll wait. Don’t just assert. Demonstrate it.

Even if God did supernaturally guide the authors, they or the copyists let something human creep in as the Gospels do not line up perfectly… that is there are some differences and discrepancies so the supernatural control could not have been perfect.

 

[adrift]

Because that was a repeat of my post. I already knew what I was talking about.

I guess you haven’t read the thread so you don’t know what’s going on. The poster claimed: “So when Utah was denied statehood because of the very issue of polygamy SUDDENLY one of your seers had a vision that renounced polygamy (how convienent)”

Still waiting for the proof that we asked for way back when.

What vision? When?

Was it sudden?

I’ll spell it out for you to save the trouble. It wasn’t sudden. It was the result of years and years of struggling and praying and pondering and praying. There wasn’t a vision. It was a matter of inspiration or revelation according to WW, not a vision.

You might want to understand what you are addressing before acting haughty.

I did read obvious you didn’t read my post because it provided proof. You even changed my post so that it no longer underlined the pertinent point.:bowdown: So maybe you did read it.

Wilford Woodruff (March 1, 1807 – September 2, 1898)
Citing revelation, Woodruff issued the 1890 Manifesto which ended the church’s official support of plural marriage in the territory of the United States and directed Latter-day Saints to only enter into marriages that are recognized by the laws in the areas in which they reside. He wrote in his diary, “I have arrived at the point in the history of my life as the president of the Church … where I am under the necessity of acting for the temporal salvation of the Church”.[5] Some historians[who?] consider the 1890 Manifesto to be Woodruff’s most important contribution to the church.

 

[BDawg]

Well, you were being a total ***, and you know it.

That’s true. But like I said, you were totally asking for it.

 

[adrift]

Because that was a repeat of my post. I already knew what I was talking about.

I guess you haven’t read the thread so you don’t know what’s going on. The poster claimed: “So when Utah was denied statehood because of the very issue of polygamy SUDDENLY one of your seers had a vision that renounced polygamy (how convienent)”

Still waiting for the proof that we asked for way back when.

What vision? When?

Was it sudden?

I’ll spell it out for you to save the trouble. It wasn’t sudden. It was the result of years and years of struggling and praying and pondering and praying. There wasn’t a vision. It was a matter of inspiration or revelation according to WW, not a vision.

You might want to understand what you are addressing before acting haughty.

I understood quite well what was going on and I also understand that all you can do is attack.
Missionaries that we talked to told us that it was a vision so like I said before you better stop sending them out with such horrid information.

 

[rinnie]

1 Kings 15:5

God gave plural wives to David. Why would God cause his David to be an adulterer - in your view?

1 kings 15:5 For David had done what Yahweh regarded as right and had never in all his life disobeyed whatever he commanded him(except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite) David commited adultery. Quote: from the New Jerusalem bible

1 kings 15:5 Protestant edition quote: Because did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord and turned not aside from anything that he commanded him all the days of his life, save ONLY IN THE MATTER OF URIAH THE HITTITE.

again where in the world did this say God said it was okay for David to have many wives.

In the Matter of Uriah the Hittite again may I stress that David commited adultery and the Lord WAS NOT PLEASED.

 

[Snow]

I understood quite well what was going on and I also understand that all you can do is attack.
Missionaries that we talked to told us that it was a vision so like I said before you better stop sending them out with such horrid information.

Let’s see. YOU, an anonymous guy on the internet were once told by some people that it was a vision.

Boy o boy, now that’s what I call “proof.”

You’ll note this thread has nothing to do with what YOU were once told by some people you met. The poster made an assertion. It turned out to be false. You challenged me on it and then you rebutted it by saying some guys once told you differently.

 

[Snow]

1 kings 15:5 For David had done what Yahweh regarded as right and had never in all his life disobeyed whatever he commanded him(except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite) David commited adultery. Quote: from the New Jerusalem bible

1 kings 15:5 Protestant edition quote: Because did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord and turned not aside from anything that he commanded him all the days of his life, save ONLY IN THE MATTER OF URIAH THE HITTITE.

again where in the world did this say God said it was okay for David to have many wives.

In the Matter of Uriah the Hittite again may I stress that David commited adultery and the Lord WAS NOT PLEASED.

You are still mixed up with your Bibles. That’s not the “Protestant edition” you are (mis)quoting. That is the King James Version.

Your not going to claim again that there is no Hebrew Bible are you?

I just can’t figure out what on earth you are talking about. It’s like you don’t even know what is being discussed. Read 2 Samuel 12. As I said earlier in the thread, God, speaking through his prophet Nathan said that He, God, had given David his plural wives.

If God says that he gave David his plural wives and then the scriptures tell us that David did no wrong except in the case of one case of the Hittite, how can you claim that God didn’t support plural marriage.

What about Abraham, the Patriarch of Judaism and Christianity? Was he an adulterer? Is there any indication in the Bible that God was unhappy with him?

 

[adrift]

Let’s see. YOU, an anonymous guy on the internet were once told by some people that it was a vision.

Boy o boy, now that’s what I call “proof.”

You’ll note this thread has nothing to do with what YOU were once told by some people you met. The poster made an assertion. It turned out to be false. You challenged me on it and then you rebutted it by saying some guys once told you differently.

You are so nasty:bowdown: I do note that you never have answered post 7 and 8. Other than to say they were lies but you never have provided proof.

Address post 7 and 8 if you can.
Try really hard not to make personnel attacks.

 

[Snow]

adrift:
This is called avoiding an answer through a passive aggressive attack

No answer again.

Fine. I’ll answer the question: “Who would really know?”

No one and that’s the whole point. The question was rhetorical and didn’t call for an answer. Regardless, I thought it was so screamingly obvious that no answer was required/

Those who were closer to the event would be more correct than your opinion without any collaborating evidence

That’s funny. You don’t even know my opinion. Since you are in the dark, let me say again what it was. Evidence, historical evidence is lacking and instead we have tradition. So tell me, how were those closer to the event in possession of a superior opinion? What did they think about the lack of historical evidence?

Oh is that your favorite dodge pretending not to understand the point. Perhaps you haven’t learned everything you religion has taught. If your missionaries cannot be believed, better stop sending them out

Really? I challenge you to find one thing about what my religion has taught that I do not understand.

Something you do. I guess you expect others just to take whatever you say as gospel?

I’ll support with evidence most anything I claim as a factual matter. What did you want evidence on - that I have claimed?

The Bible is an Historic document. What it contains is history.

Okay, please describe the proven historicity of the book of Job. Be specific. Include details and facts.

It is not all history but the Gospels are historical comment on what Jesus did and said by contemporaries.

Seriously dude. Seriously. Do a little research, take a college course. Get back to me.

In the meantime, can you prove who wrote Matthew, Mark and Luke and whether or not they were eyewitnesses to the events they describe?

You are the one who says it doesn’t . So the proof would be on your side to say it doesn’t.

Ah hah. If I said that “it doesn’t” you should be able to prove that - right? RIGHT?

All you have to do is quote the post where I said that it doesn’t. Go ahead. Post it.

Note: no such post exists. You just made it up.

My point was that you do not apply the same standards to your faith as you do to mine.

Another assertion. I challenge you to prove it. I challenge you to prove that I apply a different standard to my faith. This should be easy for you. Go ahead.

Note: you can’t and won’t because I have not applied any different standard to my own faith - you just made that up.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Apparently not. You thought it was passive aggressive.

Are you always so dense?

 

[Snow]

Are you always so dense?

More name calling. So lady-like Rebecca.

Tell me seriously. What do you hate The Church of Jesus Christ so much? Or at least dislike it so much that you continually harp and whine and attack it?

I belong to an interfaith council. We get along great with the Catholics. They are having Thanksgiving dinner with us at our stake this year. We go to their church for events and prayers and talks as well. They are very Christlike - honest and accurate and respectful. You are full of anger and frothiness.

It’s bizarre.

 

[Snow]

You are so nasty:bowdown: I do note that you never have answered post 7 and 8. Other than to say they were lies but you never have provided proof.

Address post 7 and 8 if you can.
Try really hard not to make personnel attacks.

I’m required to answer every post? You want em answered, you answer em.