The New Mormon Threat!

[PaulDupre]

Sure, whyme, just keep repeating the word “humdinger” over and over. That way you won’t have to really think.

It’s like talking to a 4 year-old. I give up.

Paul

 

[majick275]

Pasting and copying quotations out of context and as one-liners is non-sensical.

And as I have said, we have all said humdingers in our lifetime. We just are not that important for people to remember them.

it’s not a “humdinger” if it’s taught in general conference by a “prophet”, then expounded upon by subsequent prophets and still taught in LDS lesson manuals. we can all see the context of these quotes both in the original talks and in the lessons based upon them now. false doctrine is false doctrine and false prophets are false prophets not just some dude getting misquoted. WE aren’t claiming to be “oracles of the Lord” when we speak.

 

[Paul_G]

What I find interesting is that the evidence provided is that Nahom appears on inscriptions on alters in a certain area. Since, as one fellow in the video says, Nahom means mourning or sorrow, could this mean that these alters were used for something to do with sorrow or mourning and not really signifying the name of a place? Then, to top it off, due east from there is a place the “could have been” Bountiful. This, to me, is stretching it a bit.

The “Tolkienites” believe Europe is actually where Middle Earth was located and the Atlantic is actually the great sea - Balargir. That’s about as believable as the location of Nahom and Bountiful.

These discoveries are as relevant to Book of Mormon archaeology as other finds are to the understanding of events found in the Bible. What is of more interest to me is that we are often asked to provide archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon.

The fact of the matter is that quite likely if an angel came down and placed the golden plates in hands of someone in plain sight of thousands and proclaimed as such by that angel. It would be called a hoax or the work of the devil. Those that have not received to their spirit from the Holy Ghost of the Book of Mormon being a revelation and message from God will not except any proof even if delivered by an angel.

Paul

 

[majick275]

unfounded allegations… since no such thing has happened. the only attempt at showing evidence is the claim that a rock inscribed with hebrew letters NHM found in Yemen means that Nahom in the BoM is real. since we don’t know what the vowels were we don’t even know if this rock say Nahom. It could be Nahum or any other word with a variety of meanings. Nahum is in the bible BTW so maybe this is really further proof of the Bible. show me steel swords and armor or chariots in pre-columbian American cities, how about flocks and herds as described in the BoM. if the BoM had the people raising llamas and eating corn or tapirs or described other uniquely pre-columbian cultural items then it might have some plausibility. that’s all that we ask for on this. it doesn’t have to be proof just plausible. instead the BoM describes a culture of which there is no trace (surprising when you look at how vast it was supposed to be) and makes no mention of anything that now know to have existed in that time and region. show us something written in reformed egyptian.

instead we see JS describing in the BoM just what someone in upstate new york at that time would think of. the place names are even all right there in the great lakes area.

 

[tundramom]

Zerinus does not post on the mormonapologetic site as far as I know. I do post there. I don’t think that Dan would be interested. He is a very busy man…just completed a book about Islam.

Yeah Dannyboy is such a busy and (self) important person. I’m sure he’s much much too busy to be bothering with us Catholics.

in Christ
Steph

 

[Elric]

These discoveries are as relevant to Book of Mormon archaeology as other finds are to the understanding of events found in the Bible.

Um, what discoveries?

What is of more interest to me is that we are often asked to provide archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon.

There is faith and there is gullability.

Accusing people of having a lack of faith wont help and it is just another evasive tactic.

There simply is nothing to suggest that it is true. Even the BoM being rewritten over the years doesnt help, what do they use to rewrite/interperate the BoM?

Its obviously believed that poor Joe Smith didnt do a very good job when he translated it (Poor Moroni was a terrible help), otherwise there wouldnt be a need to rewrite it.

 

[swariffin]

I am talking about faith. It takes faith to believe in the bible as it does in the book of mormon. No where in the bible does it prove that Jesus was the son of God. And no where does it prove that he performed miracles. What we do have are stories that say so but no proof. We have no evidence that jesus was actually the son of god.

The same holds true for the book of mormon. We have pieces and we have witnesses but no surefire proof that it is true. Thus, both the bible and the book of mormon depend on faith, not scientific evidence.

Christianity will not be proven by scientific evidence. If so, there would be no need for faith.

No you are not. You are not talking about faith. You are talking about denial. If you belief in your faith, focus on defending your faith based on what you believe in, not based on things that other people believe, and you deny it.

 

[swariffin]

During the past 2000 years there have been millions of people (in the Christian part of the world) who have not accepted the mission of Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and the Savior and Redeemer of the World. If the “evidence” for these things are so compelling, why have there been so many sceptics in the world?

Indeed, there are many churchmen in the world today who question the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the “empty tomb,” and the Virgin Birth; or who try to rationalize them away. If the evidence is so compelling, why don’t you go and convince them?

zerinus

Our faith is not depends on them.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

whyme,

You are non-sensical. The quotations posted here are not random musings that someone unfortunately wrote down. The quotes are from Ensign articles, general conference talks (which are screened and approved by the 1st Presidency), and books written by your general authorities reflecting the prevailing LDS beliefs, as well as from your LDS scriptures.

And whyme NEVER addresses his whoppers when confronted with the LDS ‘church’s’ own 'scripture.

Robert

 

[Lepanto]

On you blog you state: “We (LDS) do not have a catechism because we prefer to let the word of God to speak for itself, rather than let someone else tell us what it should say.”

What is this?

splendidsun.com/wp/mormon-catechism/

 

[why_me]

On you blog you state: “We (LDS) do not have a catechism because we prefer to let the word of God to speak for itself, rather than let someone else tell us what it should say.”

What is this?

splendidsun.com/wp/mormon-catechism/

I suppose that it is a catechism in name only. But I certainly would’t call it a catechism resembling the catholic catechism. It seems more like a question and answer book.

And going back to that time in USA history many people could not read or write or they understood English rather poorly, especially the immigrant community.

 

[why_me]

Sure, whyme, just keep repeating the word “humdinger” over and over. That way you won’t have to really think.

It’s like talking to a 4 year-old. I give up.

Paul

You need to understand that I am not that impressed with isolated paragraphs or quotations. My point was very simple. A life can not be judged by a sentence here or a sentence there or a quote here or a quote there. It does not make any sense to form a judgement in this way. Rather, to see the whole is much better to see a part. And a life needs to be judged by more that a series of quotations.

 

[majick275]

okay then read the complete journal of discourses it’s available online. then you can see how these general conference talks by Prophets and Apostles show the complete teachings of the early LDS. You might want also to include (if you can get an earlier copy before the revisionist historians butchered it) the teachings of the prophet joseph smith, Doctrines of salvation by joseph fielding smith and especially his series answers to gospel questions. then you can see just what was openly taught for years and even now when “I don’t now that we emphasize that” these things have never been “corrected” or denounced or even discouraged. just not mentioned in the milk before meat environment.

interestingly enough LDS lesson manuals use this same technique of a few isolated paragraphs or quotations to make their points too. often times from these same sources.(although if quoting orson pratt’s the seer they usually say times and seasons or millenial star which is technically accurate but a bit misleading)

 

[Jerusha]

then you can see just what was openly taught for years and even now when “I don’t now that we emphasize that” these things have never been “corrected” or denounced or even discouraged. just not mentioned in the milk before meat environment.

Thank you for this statement.

 

[Catholic20064]

On you blog you state: “We (LDS) do not have a catechism because we prefer to let the word of God to speak for itself, rather than let someone else tell us what it should say.”

What is this?

splendidsun.com/wp/mormon-catechism/

They don’t have a catechism because they want to be able to deny what they really believe in front of those who are questioning Mormonism. It would be like Catholics taking any reference to praying to saints out of the catechism because they don’t want Protestants to know it is taught officially that we ask the saints for intercession.

 

[MHalsey]

These discoveries are as relevant to Book of Mormon archaeology as other finds are to the understanding of events found in the Bible. What is of more interest to me is that we are often asked to provide archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon.

The fact of the matter is that quite likely if an angel came down and placed the golden plates in hands of someone in plain sight of thousands and proclaimed as such by that angel. It would be called a hoax or the work of the devil. Those that have not received to their spirit from the Holy Ghost of the Book of Mormon being a revelation and message from God will not except any proof even if delivered by an angel.

Paul

“These discoveries”, as you call them, are circumstantial at best. They in no way can be compared with real locations in the Bible or even other archaeological finds, such as the Dead Sea scrolls.

What you’re basically saying is what Whyme, Zerinus, and other LDS faithful are saying. It can’t be proven, and even if it were, you would have to have the “Holy Ghost” confirm it in your heart.

Note - I put “Holy Ghost” in quotes, because I am having serious doubts about the LDS understanding of the 3rd person of the Trinity.