Joseph Smith on Blacks (WAS: Why I Am a Latter-day Saint)
Kevin Simonson
<E1C8876201511849.9270DEFA...@lp.airnews.net>...
=> Realistically, we all usually lie at some time or another. Whe-
=> ther a prospective prophet lies at some time is not as important to me
=> as whether God has chosen that man as God's spokesman to the world.
=> Hence the advice "to go to God and ask God if Smith had talked to
=> God."
=
=I've read a few of Joseph Smith's writings and he seems like a bigot
=to me. Do you know how he felt about blacks?
=
=From:
=http://nowscape.com/mormon/negro2.htm
I took a look at "mormon/negro2.htm"; it was an interesting read.
Note that it was mostly taken up with Brigham Young quotes, with a few
smatterings of John Taylor, Joseph F. Smith, Bruce McConkie, and Mark
Peterson thrown in. There was just one quote attributed to Joseph
Smith himself:
="Had I anything to do with the negro , I would confine them by strict
=law to their own species and put them on a national equalization."
Actually, what Joseph Smith wanted to do was have the United
States government purchase all the slaves in the country from their
"owners," and send those blacks back to Africa.
That view actually fits in quite well with the quote above; send-
ing them back to the lands of their ancestors would do quite a good
job of confining them "to their own species," so to speak, and to "put
them on a national equalization"; in other words Joseph Smith wanted
any nation of blacks in Africa to be on an equal footing with the
other nations of the world, including the United States.
This is actually a quite enlightened viewpoint, relative to the
current prevailing opinions of the day. Whatever Brigham Young may
have said about it, Joseph Smith's views on blacks did play a promi-
nent role in getting the Latter-day Saints driven out of that great
slave state of Missouri.
In fact, an anecdote that might have a lot to say about what Jo-
seph Smith thought about blacks comes from an incident that critics of
the Church have used to mock Smith's claims of being in touch with
God. A group of men fabricated a bunch of plates in order to deceive
Smith into thinking they were ancient records. Smith took the so-
called "Kinderhook Plates," and by some accounts partially "tran-
slated" them as an account of a descendant of Ham who had had his
calling and election made sure. Of course the men who had produced
the plates revealed their hoax in order to embarrass the Church. But
critics can't both say that Joseph Smith was fooled and also say that
he believed that blacks were an inferior race; it's hard to imagine
how Joseph Smith would envision a member of an inferior race getting
his calling and election made sure. And I think it's fairly safe to
say that this individual could not have had his calling and election
made sure without holding the priesthood.
Brigham Young, on the other hand, was another matter, as the
quotes in "mormon/negro2.htm" indicate. Though his opinion on blacks
was shared by many other people, Mormon and non-Mormon, of his day.
I personally believe that the mistake of John Taylor, Joseph F. Smith,
McConkie, and Peterson was to take personal prejudices of Brigham
Young, typical of many people of his day, and misinterpret them as di-
vine inspiration given to Young.
By the way, I'm not sure it's completely fair of
"mormon/negro2.htm" to quote McConkie without mentioning that McConkie
later apologized for what he had said about blacks. There's nothing
wrong with this website publishing what McConkie originally said, but
it should have come accompanied by that relevant footnote.
While I'm criticizing that website I've got to point out that it
really does damage to its credibility to include an inset advertizing
_The God Makers_ by Ed Decker and Dave Hunt, especially side by side
with as significant a work as _No Man Knows My History_ by Fawn Bro-
die. That's like putting together a lecture series made up mostly of
famed astronomical scholars and inserting an expert on astrology.
Decker's the astrologist, Brodie's the astronomist, in case you're
wondering.
As far as I'm concerned there are three ways of looking at the
LDS Church's pre-1978 position keeping blacks from holding the LDS
priesthood. (1) God had a reason to keep the blacks from holding the
priesthood prior to 1978, a reason that by the way _God never re-
vealed_ to his LDS prophets. (Note that no reason for keeping the
priesthood from them ever made it into LDS scripture.) (2) God didn't
want to keep the priesthood from blacks but for some reason or other
decided not to reveal that until June 1978 (and was content with the
Church living with the illusion that Brigham Young's prejudices were
actually divine inspiration up until that time). (3) God didn't want
to keep the priesthood from blacks and has been trying to tell that to
Latter-day Saints since 1844, but LDS prophets weren't receptive
enough to hear Him until Spencer Kimball did in 1978.
This last possibility may _seem_ pretty damaging to the Church if
it's true, but I don't really think it is. After all, more important
than a prophet be receptive to God's inspiration is that God has cho-
sen that prophet as God's spokesman to the world. So for me the im-
portant issue is whether God endorses Gordon Hinckley, not whether we
can be sure that Hinckley is always getting 100% of what God is trying
to tell him.
Wilford Woodruff said that God would never let an LDS prophet
lead the Latter-day Saints astray. I believe that. I believe that
Brigham Young spreading his prejudices over the Church _do not neces-
sarily_ constitute leading the Church astray. God chose Brigham Young
to do some very precise things, knowing all along that a century or so
later He would be completely able to do a course change on the Church
to put an end to its apparent racism.
My wife believes in option (1), as many Latter-day Saints do. I
personally find myself in between the three options, though I'm lean-
ing toward (3).
---Kevin Simonson
"Maybe it started as a dream, but doesn't everything?"
from _James and the Giant Peach_
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote in message news:
>=> Realistically, we all usually lie at some time or another. Whe-
>=> ther a prospective prophet lies at some time is not as important to me
>=> as whether God has chosen that man as God's spokesman to the world.
>=> Hence the advice "to go to God and ask God if Smith had talked to
>=> God."
>= I've read a few of Joseph Smith's writings and he seems like a bigot
>= to me. Do you know how he felt about blacks?
>= From:
>= http://nowscape.com/mormon/negro2.htm
> I took a look at "mormon/negro2.htm"; it was an interesting read.
One of the sidelinks was the following:
From:
http://nowscape.com/mormon/mormons6.htm
"When a Mormon prays
When we pray, the message travels to the planet Kolob, where God, his
wives, Jesus (Yahweh) and his wives, and a veritable zoo of celestial
beings live. Mormon missionaries teach that Kolob is not in our Milky
Way galaxy, but in another one, far, far away."
Is this true, or did somebody just make it up?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote in message news:
>> I've read a few of Joseph Smith's writings and he seems like a bigot
>> to me. Do you know how he felt about blacks?
<snip>
> Actually, what Joseph Smith wanted to do was have the United
> States government purchase all the slaves in the country from their
> "owners," and send those blacks back to Africa.
So he agreed with the idea that human slaves could be bought and
sold like property, and also that blacks are an inferior race.
> That view actually fits in quite well with the quote above; send-
> ing them back to the lands of their ancestors would do quite a good
> job of confining them "to their own species," so to speak, and to "put
> them on a national equalization";
Do you support that idea? You think all African Americans should be
shipped back to Africa?
> in other words Joseph Smith wanted any nation of blacks in Africa to
> be on an equal footing with the other nations of the world, including
> the United States.
He just wanted them out of our country at the same time. How did he
feel about Jews, do you know?
> This is actually a quite enlightened viewpoint, relative to the current
> prevailing opinions of the day.
How so?
> Whatever Brigham Young may have said about it, Joseph Smith's views
> on blacks did play a prominent role in getting the Latter-day Saints driven
> out of that great slave state of Missouri.
Do you deny that he was a racist and bigot?
Mike W
<snip>
> One of the sidelinks was the following:
>
> From:
> http://nowscape.com/mormon/mormons6.htm
>
> "When a Mormon prays
>
> When we pray, the message travels to the planet Kolob, where God, his
> wives, Jesus (Yahweh) and his wives, and a veritable zoo of celestial
> beings live. Mormon missionaries teach that Kolob is not in our Milky
> Way galaxy, but in another one, far, far away."
>
> Is this true, or did somebody just make it up?
After reading some of the wisdom on another thread posted to these three
groups I wonder if everybody, theist or atheist has a grasp of the universe.
There's Earth,
then the sun,
then Mars & Jupiter out to Pluto,
then the Oort Cloud,
then the Orion Arm,
then the Milky Way,
then our Local Group - the Virgo Cluster
then bigger clusters of galaxies,
then so many galaxies they're like grains of sand swirling in a cup,
and then... and then...
A great link for perspective's sake is http://www.wordwizz.com/pwrsof10.htm
When this Mormon prays he ponders what far, far away really means. Kolob is
a name... referenced once I believe, in the "Book of Abraham". Which brings
us to your link.
I would've liked to have seen them discuss "entangled particles". I'm still
searching for a comprehensible explanation, let alone some current news from
the front. Now there might be your speed of prayer in a nutshell.
Mike
Guy R. Briggs
> kvns...@hotmail.com (Kevin Simonson) wrote:
<snip>
> "When a Mormon prays
>
> When we pray, the message travels to the planet Kolob, where
> God, his wives, Jesus (Yahweh) and his wives, ... <snip>
>
> Is this true, or did somebody just make it up?
>
Somebody made it up. For starters, in Mormon theology, Kolob is a
star, not a planet.
bestRegards, Guy.
Thomas P.
wrote:
>Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote in message news:
><E1C8876201511849.9270DEFA...@lp.airnews.net>...
>
snip
> Wilford Woodruff said that God would never let an LDS prophet
>lead the Latter-day Saints astray. I believe that. I believe that
>Brigham Young spreading his prejudices over the Church _do not neces-
>sarily_ constitute leading the Church astray.
If his prejudices were wrong, and he taught them as the word of god;
how could it possibly be anything else than "leading the Church
astray"?
snip
Thomas P.
"Men go and come, but earth abides."
email ton...@get2net.dk
Lee Paulson
"Thomas P." <ton...@spamnet.dk> wrote in message
news:3db67589...@nyheder.get2net.dk...
> On 22 Oct 2002 19:05:18 -0700, kvns...@hotmail.com (Kevin Simonson)
> wrote:
>
> >Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote in message news:
> ><E1C8876201511849.9270DEFA...@lp.airnews.net>...
> >
> snip
> > Wilford Woodruff said that God would never let an LDS prophet
> >lead the Latter-day Saints astray. I believe that. I believe that
> >Brigham Young spreading his prejudices over the Church _do not neces-
> >sarily_ constitute leading the Church astray.
>
> If his prejudices were wrong, and he taught them as the word of god;
> how could it possibly be anything else than "leading the Church
> astray"?
>
> snip
>
Because a prophet is only a man, and he does not always speak for God. If
he's right, he's speaking for God. If he's wrong, it's his opinion. You
can pray for discernment.
R. L. Measures €
<Circle_314...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "Elroy Willis" <e...@airmail.net> wrote in message
> > news:DC2C093EC3FF21DE.AA93BE8E...@lp.airnews.net...
>
> <snip>
>
> > One of the sidelinks was the following:
> >
> > From:
> > http://nowscape.com/mormon/mormons6.htm
> >
> > "When a Mormon prays
> >
> > When we pray, the message travels to the planet Kolob, where God, his
> > wives, Jesus (Yahweh) and his wives, and a veritable zoo of celestial
> > beings live. Mormon missionaries teach that Kolob is not in our Milky
> > Way galaxy, but in another one, far, far away."
> >
> > Is this true, or did somebody just make it up?
>
> After reading some of the wisdom on another thread posted to these three
> groups I wonder if everybody, theist or atheist has a grasp of the universe.
> ...
** the only religion that came close to getting the age of the universe
right is Hinduism.
--
Richard. 805-386-3734, www.vcnet.com/measures
Elroy Willis
> Thomas P. <ton...@spamnet.dk> wrote in message
>> kvns...@hotmail.com (Kevin Simonson) wrote:
>>>Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote in message news:
>>> Wilford Woodruff said that God would never let an LDS prophet
>>> lead the Latter-day Saints astray. I believe that. I believe that
>>> Brigham Young spreading his prejudices over the Church _do not neces-
>>> sarily_ constitute leading the Church astray.
>> If his prejudices were wrong, and he taught them as the word of god;
>> how could it possibly be anything else than "leading the Church
>> astray"?
> Because a prophet is only a man, and he does not always speak for God. If
> he's right, he's speaking for God. If he's wrong, it's his opinion. You
> can pray for discernment.
How many mistakes can a prophet make and still be trustworthy?
Elroy Willis
>> "When a Mormon prays
Is God supposed to live on a planet orbiting Kolob?
David
Of course they deny it. It's completely true, but they deny it. Mormons love
that great Christian tradition of revisionism.
> --
> Elroy Willis
> EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
> http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
--
Fuck you, Kenny!
----------------------------
Dave
a.a. #2049 apatriot #17 || AIM screen name: Non Homogenized
EAC Director of R.A.M.(classified) || an Official EAC Corruptor of
Innocents
Demon of Satan, according to Bluskie|| UDP for WebTV!
"In the unlikely event of losing Pascal's Wager, I intend to saunter in to
Judgement Day with a bookshelf full of grievances, a flaming sword of my own
devising, and a serious attitude problem." -Rick Moen
Gregory Gadow
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote in alt.atheism
>
> > e...@airmail.net (Elroy Willis) wrote:
> >> kvns...@hotmail.com (Kevin Simonson) wrote:
>
> >> "When a Mormon prays
>
> >> When we pray, the message travels to the planet Kolob, where
> >> God, his wives, Jesus (Yahweh) and his wives, ... <snip>
>
> >> Is this true, or did somebody just make it up?
>
> > Somebody made it up. For starters, in Mormon theology, Kolob is a
> > star, not a planet.
>
> Is God supposed to live on a planet orbiting Kolob?
Right from the horse's... er, mouth.
http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/3
--
Gregory Gadow
tech...@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
Bush claims that he wants a peaceful democracy
in Iraq. "Peaceful democracy"... like the ones in
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait?
Top Posting Dick
> > on blacks did play a prominent role in getting the Latter-day Saints driven
> > out of that great slave state of Missouri.
>
> Do you deny that he was a racist and bigot?
Joseph Smith was a con-man and a fraud. He was also a sex addict who
made up the Polygamy Revelation from God to get lots of hot young tail
and steal other men's attractive wives. However, from everything I've
read, he was surprisingly quite progressive on the slave issue for
that time period. Even abolitionists of the time felt Blacks were
inferior, but they shouldn't be enslaved. Being from New England was
part of it, they tended to be more tolerant up there. If Joseph Smith
was such a bigot why did he ordain a black man, Elijah Abel, an Elder
and later a Seventy? That is a very high position that most white guys
in the church today will never reach. It appears the ban on blacks
holding the Priesthood didn't originate with Joseph Smith, it started
with Brigham Young and the string of church dictators that followed.
Brigham Young was a big time racist who advocated killing mixed race
couples. Being all alone in the Utah desert allowed Young to be
basically a dictator. He ordered the massacre of a wagon train passing
through the valley including women and children. Joseph Smith was a
con-man and treated women like sex dolls, but everything I read about
Brigham Young makes Joseph Smith look like a saint.
Troy Kohler
Well, just as long as we know that Kolob is a star and not a planet
makes all the difference.
Thomas P.
The man still, in his position as prophet, taught what he taught. The
majority of Mormons accepted that teaching. How were they not led
astray?
Also I would like to know what happened or happens to those who
rejected the official teaching of the prophet or that of the leaders
of the Church today, all of whom are only men. Do they get to remain
members in good standing, or are they excommunicated? The point being
that members are expected to believe the Church's doctrinal
proclamations, are they not? The members were taught the doctrine
about blacks for more than 100 years, were they not? They were
expected to believe it, were they not? If, now, you say the doctrine
was wrong all along, the members were led astray.
Elroy Willis
I've been reading different sites which are critical of Mormonism this
morning and can't believe some of the things I've come across. It
seems that Brigham Young believed that people could live on the
sun!
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis wrote:
>> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote in alt.atheism
>>> e...@airmail.net (Elroy Willis) wrote:
>>>> kvns...@hotmail.com (Kevin Simonson) wrote:
>>>> "When a Mormon prays
>>>> When we pray, the message travels to the planet Kolob, where
>>>> God, his wives, Jesus (Yahweh) and his wives, ... <snip>
>>>> Is this true, or did somebody just make it up?
>>> Somebody made it up. For starters, in Mormon theology, Kolob is a
>>> star, not a planet.
>> Is God supposed to live on a planet orbiting Kolob?
> Right from the horse's... er, mouth.
> http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/3
It looks like it could be both a planet and a star at the same time.
From what I've read this morning, Brigham Young believed that
people could live on the sun, so I don't know what to make of
Kolob.
Duwayne Anderson
> e...@airmail.net (Elroy Willis) wrote:
> > kvns...@hotmail.com (Kevin Simonson) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > "When a Mormon prays
> >
> > When we pray, the message travels to the planet Kolob, where
> > God, his wives, Jesus (Yahweh) and his wives, ... <snip>
> >
> > Is this true, or did somebody just make it up?
> >
> Somebody made it up.
Yeah. The guy's name was Joseph Smith. He invented Kolob in the Book
of Abraham.
> For starters, in Mormon theology, Kolob is a
> star, not a planet.
Not just any star. Joseph Smith, being clueless about astronomy,
claimed that Kolob was the first "creation." Here is the reference:
Abr. Facsimile No. 2
Fig. 1. Kolob, signifying the first creation, nearest to the
celestial, or the residence of God. First in government, the last
pertaining to the measurement of time. The measurement according to
celestial time, which celestial time signifies one day to a cubit. One
day in Kolob is equal to a thousand years according to the measurement
of this earth, which is called by the Egyptians Jah-oh-eh.
This sort of silly gibberish is typical of Joseph Smith's comical
mythology. Illustrating further Smith's ignorance about astronomy is
his claim that the sun borrows it's light from Kolob. Here is the
reference:
Abr. Facsimile No. 2
Fig. 5. Is called in Egyptian Enish-go-on-dosh; this is one of the
governing planets also, and is said by the Egyptians to be the Sun,
and to borrow its light from Kolob through the medium of
Kae-e-vanrash, which is the grand Key, or, in other words, the
governing power, which governs fifteen other fixed planets or stars,
as also Floeese or the Moon, the Earth and the Sun in their annual
revolutions. This planet receives its power through the medium of
Kli-flos-is-es, or Hah-ko-kau-beam, the stars represented by numbers
22 and 23, receiving light from the revolutions of Kolob.
Gawd. Could that guy (Joseph Smith) tell tall tales, or what? For
anyone wanting to see more, go to www.lds.org. This is the official
Internet site of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS,
or Mormon). Click on Scriptures, and then do a search on the word
"Kolob."
Duwayne Anderson
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
Roy Stogner
> From:
> http://nowscape.com/mormon/mormons6.htm
If you're going to be skeptical, you should be sure to apply that
skepticism evenly. The website you're linking to here appears to provide
some true quotes and honest criticism, then drown it with stuff the
authors made up and tons of comic exaggeration.
---
Roy Stogner
Elroy Willis
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote
>> <snip>
>>> "When a Mormon prays
>> Somebody made it up.
Yeah, in a way Mormonism is a bit like Scientology with its science
fiction tales of beings from another planet.
> For anyone wanting to see more, go to www.lds.org. This is the official
> Internet site of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS,
> or Mormon). Click on Scriptures, and then do a search on the word
> "Kolob."
Was Joseph Smith into astrology as well as making up tall tales about
astronomy?
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis wrote:
>> From:
>> http://nowscape.com/mormon/mormons6.htm
> If you're going to be skeptical, you should be sure to apply that
> skepticism evenly.
I do. I never have really investigated Mormonism much before now,
and what I'm finding out is interesting, but quite unbelievable to me.
> The website you're linking to here appears to provide
> some true quotes and honest criticism, then drown it with stuff the
> authors made up and tons of comic exaggeration.
Which parts were exaggeration?
dangerous 1
Elroy Willis wrote:
yes, he was. The church was organized on April 6, 1830 which was a thursday
(or maybe tuesday) but not a sunday as one would expect. It was chosen for
its astrological significance. there is also astrological significance in the
dates of some "marriages".
Quinn's "Early Mormonism and The Magic Worldview" goes into some detail on
mormonism and astrology.
D1
Mike W
>
> I've been reading different sites which are critical of Mormonism this
> morning and can't believe some of the things I've come across. It
> seems that Brigham Young believed that people could live on the
> sun!
It's the incredible shrinking Earth theory with lots more oomph! Amazing
what can happen when a body or bodies get to literally hide-out. There'll
be none of that in this day and age, thank-you very much.
Mike
Mike W
How they loved Bill Clinton to the bitter end. Now... what about those
prophets? Umm... nothing much to shake a stick at, I guess.
Mike
Troy Kohler
Depends on what you are promising your followers, in this case Godhood.
David
> Roy Stogner <royst...@SPAMticam.utexas.edu> wrote in alt.atheism
>
> > Elroy Willis wrote:
>
> >> From:
> >> http://nowscape.com/mormon/mormons6.htm
>
> > If you're going to be skeptical, you should be sure to apply that
> > skepticism evenly.
>
> I do. I never have really investigated Mormonism much before now,
> and what I'm finding out is interesting, but quite unbelievable to me.
Elroy, I've done a bit of reading on Mormonism in the past, and, if you can
find them, there's two *very* interesting books on the subject. Not much
about their beliefs, per se, although some interesting information on the
subject. For their beliefs, the Book of Mormon should provide some chuckles.
The books I've founds' Library of Congress entries are listed below:
The Mormon Corporate Empire
LC Control Number: 85047527
Type of Material: Book
Brief Description: Heinerman, John
The Mormon corporate empire/ John Heinerman,
Anson Shupe
Boston: Beacon Press, c1985.
xiv, 293 p.; 24 cm.
Call Number: BX8645 .H45 1985
copy 1
--Request in: Jefferson or Adams Bldg General
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Mormon Murders: a true story of
greed, forgery, deceit, and death
LC Control Number: 88005712
Type of Material: Book
Brief Description: Naifeh, Steven W., 1952-
The Mormon murders: a true story of greed,
forgery, deceit,
and death/ Steven Naifeh and Gregory White Smith
New York: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, c 1988
xi, 458 p., [16] p. of plates : ill. ; 25 cm.
Call Number: HV6248.H467 N35 1988
--Request in: Jefferson or Adams Bldg. General
--
Fuck you, Kenny!
----------------------------
Dave
a.a. #2049 apatriot #17 || AIM screen name: Non
Homogenized
EAC Director of R.A.M.(classified) || an Official EAC Corruptor of
Innocents
Demon of Satan, Satan, and Spawn of Satan, according to Bluskie|| UDP for
PIPEMMIE
>From: Elroy Willis e...@airmail.net
>Date: 10/23/2002 3:37 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id:
><5B08A72BD19615DF.4942B053...@lp.airnews.net>
years ago. After reading all these posts and URLs, and finding all that
*stuff*, <euphemism> I am overjoyed!! I think that my mother, who told me I was
a mormon, surely did not know of those beliefs. At least, Iwas never told about
them. However, I was told enough about J.Smith to be sceptical of his claims
ever when I was quite young.
Pipemmie #2092 who is always amazed at the willing gullibility of too many
people.
euphemism>>
>
>
>
>
Elder Longreach
> Somebody made it up. For starters, in Mormon theology,
> Kolob is a
> star, not a planet.
This bit of urban legend has done tons of damage to the Church's
credibility. Everybody knows that you'd have to be nuts to
believe that God lives on Kolob. Kolob is much too hot.
God and the little lady live on a nice little planet near Kolob.
It's called Orem. It has pretty purple fish in its oceans and
it's tapirs are some of the best steeplechase jumpers in the
universe. In the winter, it rains green punch.
--
"There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church
history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or
faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very
useful."
--Words to live by from Elder Boyd K Packer
Nick
>>>>> Wilford Woodruff said that God would never let an LDS prophet
>>>>> lead the Latter-day Saints astray. I believe that. I believe that
>>>>> Brigham Young spreading his prejudices over the Church _do not neces-
>>>>> sarily_ constitute leading the Church astray.
>
>>>> If his prejudices were wrong, and he taught them as the word of god;
>>>> how could it possibly be anything else than "leading the Church
>>>> astray"?
>
>>> Because a prophet is only a man, and he does not always speak for God.
>>> If he's right, he's speaking for God. If he's wrong, it's his opinion.
>>> You can pray for discernment.
>
>> How many mistakes can a prophet make and still be trustworthy?
>
>How they loved Bill Clinton to the bitter end. Now... what about those
>prophets? Umm... nothing much to shake a stick at, I guess.
/sarcastic mode
Weeee! Political Strawmen are FUN!!! Who *cares* about actually adressing the
point of the person I'm talking with, I'll just make him look bad by falsly
associating him with Slick Willie! YAYYYYYYY!!!
/end sarcasm
*********************************************
"Why Does That Pickle You?" Zoe from Sluggy Freelance
Nick
>>>"When a Mormon prays
>>>
>>>When we pray, the message travels to the planet Kolob, where
>>>God, his wives, Jesus (Yahweh) and his wives, ... <snip>
>>>
>>>Is this true, or did somebody just make it up?
>>>
>>
>> Somebody made it up. For starters, in Mormon theology, Kolob is a
>> star, not a planet.
>>
>>
>> bestRegards, Guy.
>
>Well, just as long as we know that Kolob is a star and not a planet
>makes all the difference.
Damn STRAIGHT! They might have weird looking special underwear, but Mormons
know that Kolob is a star, *not* a planet! El Oh El >XD
alienward
> Somebody made it up. For starters, in Mormon theology, Kolob is a
> star, not a planet.
>
For starters, the Kolob bs is claimed by the Mormon church to be
astronomy, not theology. From lds.org:
"Even a knowledge of the greatest of the governing spheres of the
endless universe, Kolob by name (see Abr. 3:3-4), was revealed to the
patriarch—a unique contribution in all of scripture. As fascinating as
this knowledge of astronomy is, the far more important issue here may
be why the information was given."
Continuing the astronomy lesson from lds.org:
"Abraham learned that just as one planet or star is greater than
another until one comes to Kolob"
This statement about astronomy is false. No planet or star, or any
galaxy, is greater than any other as you go around the universe
looking for the home of Mormon human mother and father flesh and bones
gods.
"Kolob is the source of light for other stars and planets"
This certainly doesn't describe a star. This is just bogus nonsense.
"Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its times and
seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto
the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years"
This certainly doesn't describe a star either. This is just more
bogus nonsense that is describing some kind of planet where things
happen in very slow motion.
"Saturn Stones are located directly below the parapet on each side of
the six towers. They represent Kolob, the dwelling place of God."
Mormons really just don't have a clue what the hell Smith was pulling
out of his hypocephalASS.
Alien
Guy R. Briggs
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>> e...@airmail.net (Elroy Willis) wrote:
<snip>
>>> Is this true, or did somebody just make it up?
>>
>> Somebody made it up. For starters, in Mormon theology,
>> Kolob is a star, not a planet.
>
> Is God supposed to live on a planet orbiting Kolob?
>
Dunno. All the scriptures say on the subject is that the throne of
God is somewhere nearby. Where all this "planet" stuff comes from is
beyond me.
bestRegards, Guy.
Nick
>> Somebody made it up. For starters, in Mormon theology,
>> Kolob is a
>> star, not a planet.
>
>This bit of urban legend has done tons of damage to the Church's
>credibility. Everybody knows that you'd have to be nuts to
>believe that God lives on Kolob. Kolob is much too hot.
>
>God and the little lady live on a nice little planet near Kolob.
>It's called Orem. It has pretty purple fish in its oceans and
>it's tapirs are some of the best steeplechase jumpers in the
>universe. In the winter, it rains green punch.
Daaaaaamn, that sounds *hella* cool. It's certainly way better than those
sucky Body Thetans from Scientology. Does it rain donuts in the spring, by any
chance(Simpsons ref!)? =D
Guy R. Briggs
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
<snip>
>> Somebody made it up. For starters, in Mormon theology,
>> Kolob is a star, not a planet.
>
> Well, just as long as we know that Kolob is a star and not
> a planet makes all the difference.
>
Please, pah-leeze, tell me you can see a difference between:
"Them marmuns believe God lives on a planet called Kolob"
... and ...
"There are a number of stars at the center of the
universe, the largest known as Kolob, and it is the
one 'nearest unto the throne of God'"
bestRegards, Guy.
Guy R. Briggs
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
<snip>
>> For starters, in Mormon theology, Kolob is a star, not a
>> planet.
>
> Not just any star. Joseph Smith, being clueless about
> astronomy, claimed that Kolob was the first "creation."
> Here is the reference:
>
> Abr. Facsimile No. 2
>
We Mormons actually read the scriptures, Duwayne. We do more than
just peruse the illustrations.
<remainder snipped>
bestRegards, Guy.
Nick
>>> Somebody made it up. For starters, in Mormon theology,
>>> Kolob is a star, not a planet.
>>
>> Well, just as long as we know that Kolob is a star and not
>> a planet makes all the difference.
>>
> Please, pah-leeze, tell me you can see a difference between:
>
> "Them marmuns believe God lives on a planet called Kolob"
>
> ... and ...
>
> "There are a number of stars at the center of the
> universe, the largest known as Kolob, and it is the
> one 'nearest unto the throne of God'"
The second one has better grammar and spelling than the first one. Is that the
difference between them? Because other than that, they *both* seem like empty
unproven assertions to me.
dangerous1
The illustrations are far more humorous.
I can see why you would be embarrassed and try to steer others away
from smith's "interpretations" of the Facsimile though.
--
Best,
Dangerous1
Dangerous1.com
D1 @ Dangerous1.com
Don Marchant
"Belief in the supernatural reflects a failure of the imagination."
[Edward Abbey]
Duwayne Anderson
The above statement by Guy R. Briggs, apologist for the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS, or Mormon) is what is called
the "Lie by implication." Guy knows I've read the Book of Abraham
cover to cover many times. And he has no effective response to the
issues relating to the verses I quoted, but he felt obligated to say
*something* -- rather than sit there with mud on his face -- so he
used that old standby.
Duwayne Anderson
The above statement by Guy R. Briggs, apologist for the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is what is called a lie by
implication. Guy knows that I've read the entire Book of Abraham,
cover to cover, many times. But he is unable to deal with the issues
relating to the quotations I provided. On the other hand, he feels
obligated to say something, rather than just sit there with mud on his
face, so he snipped the verses in his reply, and tried the old
one-line lie by implication.
> <remainder snipped>
That "remainder snipped" included the parts I quoted. Guy cannot deal
with them, and he sure as hell does not want to repeat them in his
reply. That would illustrate his inability to deal with them.
Lee Paulson
> Lee Paulson <lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote in alt.atheism
>
> > Thomas P. <ton...@spamnet.dk> wrote in message
> >> kvns...@hotmail.com (Kevin Simonson) wrote:
> >>> lead the Latter-day Saints astray. I believe that. I believe that
> >>> Brigham Young spreading his prejudices over the Church _do not neces-
> >>> sarily_ constitute leading the Church astray.
>
> >> If his prejudices were wrong, and he taught them as the word of god;
> >> how could it possibly be anything else than "leading the Church
> >> astray"?
>
> > Because a prophet is only a man, and he does not always speak for God.
If
> > he's right, he's speaking for God. If he's wrong, it's his opinion.
You
> > can pray for discernment.
>
> How many mistakes can a prophet make and still be trustworthy?
>
Umm. 70x7, I think.
--
Regards,
Lee, The James
Evolution, like gravity, is just a theory.
Lee Paulson
> On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 07:37:03 -0400, "Lee Paulson"
> <lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Thomas P." <ton...@spamnet.dk> wrote in message
> >> On 22 Oct 2002 19:05:18 -0700, kvns...@hotmail.com (Kevin Simonson)> >> ><E1C8876201511849.9270DEFA...@lp.airnews.net>...
> >> >
> >> snip
> >> > Wilford Woodruff said that God would never let an LDS prophet
> >> >lead the Latter-day Saints astray. I believe that. I believe that
> >> >Brigham Young spreading his prejudices over the Church _do not neces-
> >> >sarily_ constitute leading the Church astray.
> >>
> >> If his prejudices were wrong, and he taught them as the word of god;
> >> how could it possibly be anything else than "leading the Church
> >> astray"?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Because a prophet is only a man, and he does not always speak for God.
If
> >he's right, he's speaking for God. If he's wrong, it's his opinion. You
> >can pray for discernment.
>
> majority of Mormons accepted that teaching. How were they not led
> astray?
>
I'm probably not the best person to ask that of. I've always held that what
the leader of a church preaches and, for that matter, what is preached over
the pulpit in local churches must be doctrine or the preacher is not a
representative of the church. I don't know how that gets reconciled
truthfully.
> Also I would like to know what happened or happens to those who
> rejected the official teaching of the prophet or that of the leaders
> of the Church today, all of whom are only men. Do they get to remain
> members in good standing, or are they excommunicated? The point being
> that members are expected to believe the Church's doctrinal
> proclamations, are they not? The members were taught the doctrine
> about blacks for more than 100 years, were they not? They were
> expected to believe it, were they not? If, now, you say the doctrine
> was wrong all along, the members were led astray.
>
>
> Thomas P.
No argument here.
Lee Paulson
news:urebs7k...@news.supernews.com...
Bill was a prophet? I missed that part of the presidency.
Thomas P.
Briggs) wrote:
They both look pretty silly. Why, for example, would an omnipresent
spiritual being have a throne let alone one in a specific location?
How does he sit on it? Is it bigger than he is?
>
>bestRegards, Guy.
Thomas P.
"Men go and come, but earth abides."
email ton...@get2net.dk
Troy Kohler
That was an interesting retort by Guy, especially seeing how Duwayne
left documentation for anyone to check the claim out themselves. Here is
the reference to the material cited, part of <remainder snipped> by Guy:
"For anyone wanting to see more, go to www.lds.org This is the official
Internet site of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS,or
Mormon). Click on Scriptures, and then do a search on the word "Kolob." "
I especially like the token of suspense Joseph Smith left with the
illustration:
Fig. 9. Ought not to be revealed at the present time.
Fig. 10. Also.
Fig. 11. Also. If the world can find out these numbers, so let it be. Amen.
Figures 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 will be given in the
own due time of the Lord.
The above translation is given as far as we have any right to give at
the present time.
It's like, Cool! Stay tuned for more mysteries of the universe revealed
channeled through Prophet Joseph Smith or successor.
Mike W
>>>>>> Wilford Woodruff said that God would never let an LDS prophet
>>>>>> lead the Latter-day Saints astray. I believe that. I believe that
>>>>>> Brigham Young spreading his prejudices over the Church _do not
>>>>>> necessarily_ constitute leading the Church astray.
>>>>> If his prejudices were wrong, and he taught them as the word of god;
>>>>> how could it possibly be anything else than "leading the Church
>>>>> astray"?
>>>> Because a prophet is only a man, and he does not always speak for
>>>> God. If he's right, he's speaking for God. If he's wrong, it's
>>>> his opinion. You can pray for discernment.
>>> How many mistakes can a prophet make and still be trustworthy?
>> How they loved Bill Clinton to the bitter end. Now... what about those
>> prophets? Umm... nothing much to shake a stick at, I guess.
> Bill was a prophet? I missed that part of the presidency.
LOL. No respecter of persons is Lee. Hold on... I'm sure there's someone
to respect. D1 maybe?
Mike
Nick
>>>> Somebody made it up. For starters, in Mormon theology,
>>>> Kolob is a star, not a planet.
>>>
>>> Well, just as long as we know that Kolob is a star and not
>>> a planet makes all the difference.
>>>
>> Please, pah-leeze, tell me you can see a difference between:
>>
>> "Them marmuns believe God lives on a planet called Kolob"
>>
>> ... and ...
>>
>> "There are a number of stars at the center of the
>> universe, the largest known as Kolob, and it is the
>> one 'nearest unto the throne of God'"
>
>They both look pretty silly. Why, for example, would an omnipresent
>spiritual being have a throne let alone one in a specific location?
>How does he sit on it? Is it bigger than he is?
The answer, of course, is that it's a *spiritual* throne, held aloft in the
Great Void by an infinite number of angels dancing on the head of a spiritual
pin. OBVIOUSLY! XD
Duwayne Anderson
They are both absurd gibberish. By the way, Guy. The universe does
not have a center. And the Book of Abraham does not say Kolob is the
largest star. Also, the most massive bodies in the universe are black
holes. Not stars, or planets.
Duwayne Anderson
American Quarte Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
Duwayne Anderson
The planet stuff comes from the fact that Smith was very confused and
disturbed. For example, here is what he said in the Book of Abraham:
"Fig. 5. Is called in Egyptian Enish-go-on-dosh; this is one of the
governing planets also, and is said by the Egyptians to be the Sun,
and to borrow its light from Kolob through the medium of
Kae-e-vanrash, which is the grand Key, or, in other words, the
governing power, which governs fifteen other fixed planets or stars,
as also Floeese or the Moon, the Earth and the Sun in their annual
revolutions. This planet receives its power through the medium of
Kli-flos-is-es, or Hah-ko-kau-beam, the stars represented by numbers
22 and 23, receiving light from the revolutions of Kolob."
Did you catch that, Guy? Read it carefully this time, before you snip
it and ignore it. See that first line? It's talking about "one of
the governing planets," and it says the Egyptians called it "the Sun."
There's part of the confusion. Now, skip down a bit and notice where
it says "which governs fifteen other fixed PLANETS OR STARS..." See
that? Smith was confused as hell. First, because he obviously didn't
know the difference between a star and a planet, and secondly because
there is NO SUCH THING as a FIXED planet or star.
And, of course, there is still that absurd bit about the sun getting
its light from Kolob. For any intelligent, thinking individual, this
part of the Book of Abraham, alone, is enough to illustrate that the
Book and Joseph Smith are nothing more than clumsy frauds.
That's how the Book of Abraham reads. It's pure mythology.
Now, I already posted this verse for you before. You just snipped it
and ignored it, last time. Read it carefully this time.
Duwayne Anderson
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
Guy R. Briggs
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
<snip>
>> We Mormons actually read the scriptures, Duwayne. We do
>> more than just peruse the illustrations.
>
> The illustrations are far more humorous.
>
But are they doctrinal?
bestRegards, Guy.
Guy R. Briggs
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
<snip>
>> We Mormons actually read the scriptures, Duwayne. We do
>> more than just peruse the illustrations.
>
> The above statement by Guy R. Briggs, apologist for the
> Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS, or Mormon)
> is what is called the "Lie by implication." Guy knows I've
> read the Book of Abraham cover to cover many times.
>
I honestly don't know if you've read it or not. If you have, then
why are you referring to the illustrations?
>
> And he has no effective response to the issues relating to
> the verses I quoted, ...
>
Actually, you didn't quote ANY verses from the Book of Abraham. You
cited two captions on Facsimile #2 - Figures 1 and 5. No scriptures,
just illustrations.
bestRegards, Guy.
Guy R. Briggs
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
<snip>
>> Please, pah-leeze, tell me you can see a difference between:
>>
>> "Them marmuns believe God lives on a planet called Kolob"
>>
>> ... and ...
>>
>> "There are a number of stars at the center of the
>> universe, the largest known as Kolob, and it is the
>> one 'nearest unto the throne of God'"
>
> They both look pretty silly. Why, for example, would an
> omnipresent spiritual being have a throne let alone one in
> a specific location?
>
Erm, because we LdS long ago rejected the Neoplatonic ideas of an
"omnipresent spiritual being," a "prime mover" or a "first cause?"
"Now of the things which we have spoken this is the
sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the
right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the
heavens;" -- Heb.8:1
"Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our
faith; who for the joy that was set before him
endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set
down at the right hand of the throne of God."
-- Heb.12:2
"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in
my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down
with my Father in his throne."
-- Rev.3:21
bestRegards, Guy.
Thomas P.
>Thomas P. wrote:
>
>>>>> Somebody made it up. For starters, in Mormon theology,
>>>>> Kolob is a star, not a planet.
>>>>
>>>> Well, just as long as we know that Kolob is a star and not
>>>> a planet makes all the difference.
>>>>
>>> Please, pah-leeze, tell me you can see a difference between:
>>>
>>> "Them marmuns believe God lives on a planet called Kolob"
>>>
>>> ... and ...
>>>
>>> "There are a number of stars at the center of the
>>> universe, the largest known as Kolob, and it is the
>>> one 'nearest unto the throne of God'"
>>
>>They both look pretty silly. Why, for example, would an omnipresent
>>spiritual being have a throne let alone one in a specific location?
>>How does he sit on it? Is it bigger than he is?
>
>The answer, of course, is that it's a *spiritual* throne, held aloft in the
>Great Void by an infinite number of angels dancing on the head of a spiritual
>pin. OBVIOUSLY! XD
I humbly apologize for calling it silly.
Guy R. Briggs
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
<snip>
> I especially like the token of suspense Joseph Smith left
> with the illustration:
>
Here I am, ready to discuss doctrine, and you and DuWayne are still
looking at the pictures!
>
> Fig. 9. Ought not to be revealed at the present time.
> Fig. 10. Also.
> Fig. 11. Also. If the world can find out these numbers, so
> let it be. Amen.
>
Somewhat interesting that Smith seemed to be familiar with the
Hebrew literary form of Gematria - a sort of number-based way of hiding
the deeper meaning of the scriptures.
>
> Figures 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 will be
> given in the own due time of the Lord.
> The above translation is given as far as we have any right
> to give at the present time.
>
> It's like, Cool! Stay tuned for more mysteries of the universe
> revealed channeled through Prophet Joseph Smith or successor.
>
Or, as we put it, "We believe that God will yet reveal many great
and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God."
bestRegards, Guy.
Guy R. Briggs
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
<snip>
> They are both absurd gibberish.
>
You're half right. The one with the anti-Mormon spin is certainly
gibberish.
>
> By the way, Guy. The universe does not have a center. And
> the Book of Abraham does not say Kolob is the largest star.
>
"And I [Abraham] saw the STARS, that they were very
great, and that one of them was nearest unto the
throne of God; and there were many GREAT ONES which
were near unto it;
"And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing
ones; and the NAME of the GREAT ONE is Kolob, because
it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have
set this one to govern all those which belong to the
same order as that upon which thou standest."
-- PofGP:Abraham 3:2-3
IOW, in the same way that our own sun "governs" all the planets
which rotate around it - and determines the way we measure time on our
own planet (one trip around is approx. 365.25 days), Kolob, apparently,
governs the celestial bodies which belong to the same "order" (i.e.
"solar" system) as Kolob.
bestRegards, Guy.
Thomas P.
Briggs) wrote:
>ton...@spamnet.dk (Thomas P.) wrote:
>> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>> Please, pah-leeze, tell me you can see a difference between:
>>>
>>> "Them marmuns believe God lives on a planet called Kolob"
>>>
>>> ... and ...
>>>
>>> "There are a number of stars at the center of the
>>> universe, the largest known as Kolob, and it is the
>>> one 'nearest unto the throne of God'"
>>
>> They both look pretty silly. Why, for example, would an
>> omnipresent spiritual being have a throne let alone one in
>> a specific location?
>>
> Erm, because we LdS long ago rejected the Neoplatonic ideas of an
>"omnipresent spiritual being," a "prime mover" or a "first cause?"
That is just wonderful. Apparently you have also rejected the
evidence of modern astronomy. The universe has no center.
By the way - John 4 verse 24: "God is spirit, and they who worship
him must worship in spirit and in truth."
Psalms 89 verse 2: "From everlasting to everlasting you are God."
>
> "Now of the things which we have spoken this is the
> sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the
> right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the
> heavens;" -- Heb.8:1
>
> "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our
> faith; who for the joy that was set before him
> endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set
> down at the right hand of the throne of God."
> -- Heb.12:2
>
> "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in
> my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down
> with my Father in his throne."
> -- Rev.3:21
>
>bestRegards, Guy.
Thomas P.
Thomas P.
Briggs) wrote:
Maybe we will learn how big that throne is or how the universe can
have a center. Exciting.
Duwayne Anderson
> duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote:
> > net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> We Mormons actually read the scriptures, Duwayne. We do
> >> more than just peruse the illustrations.
> >
> > The above statement by Guy R. Briggs, apologist for the
> > Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS, or Mormon)
> > is what is called the "Lie by implication." Guy knows I've
> > read the Book of Abraham cover to cover many times.
> >
> I honestly don't know if you've read it or not.
Sure you do, Guy. But just keep lying. Pretend we never have
discussed the creation myth in Abraham.
> If you have, then
> why are you referring to the illustrations?
Why NOT? Why should they be ignored? Is this how you stick your head
in the sand? You ignore the illustrations? What Smith said about
them? Does it all make a little more sense to you if you ignore those
parts?
>
> >
> > And he has no effective response to the issues relating to
> > the verses I quoted, ...
> >
> Actually, you didn't quote ANY verses from the Book of Abraham.
Actually, I have quoted LOTS of verses. But just keep denying it,
Guy. Pretend we never discussed the Book of Abraham's creation myth.
Pretend that the figures and captions are not really scripture.
> You
> cited two captions on Facsimile #2 - Figures 1 and 5. No scriptures,
> just illustrations.
This is yet another example of how Guy lies. The Book of Abraham is
accepted as scripture, but Guy lies. He says that the figures in the
Book of Abraham, and the explanations given by Smith, and contained in
the Book of Abraham, are not scripture.
It's easy to understand why Guy would deny it. After all, it's
absurdity, and Guy wants us to think it's true.
Duwayne Anderson
This is how Mormons try to defend their scriptures. They have to
start cutting little chunks out. And asking "is it doctrinal?"
Consider this. The figures, and what Smith said about them, are IN
the Book of Abraham. They are an integral part of it, and they are
sustained by the Church as Scipture. Nobody says, during the
sustaining, "except for the figures."
But I can certainly understand why Guy would WANT them to say that.
They are gibberish, and pure absurdity.
But, still, it's nice to have Guy on ARM, illustrating how Mormons
wiggle and squirm when these things get posted. And how they try to
get out of the mess Smith gave them, by asking silly questions like
"But are they doctrinal?"
JdB
wrote:
>kvns...@hotmail.com (Kevin Simonson) wrote in alt.atheism
>
>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote in message news:
>
>>=> Realistically, we all usually lie at some time or another. Whe-
>>=> ther a prospective prophet lies at some time is not as important to me
>>=> as whether God has chosen that man as God's spokesman to the world.
>>=> Hence the advice "to go to God and ask God if Smith had talked to
>>=> God."
>
>>= I've read a few of Joseph Smith's writings and he seems like a bigot
>>= to me. Do you know how he felt about blacks?
>
>>= From:
>>= http://nowscape.com/mormon/negro2.htm
>
>> I took a look at "mormon/negro2.htm"; it was an interesting read.
>
>One of the sidelinks was the following:
>
>From:
>http://nowscape.com/mormon/mormons6.htm
>
>"When a Mormon prays
>
>When we pray, the message travels to the planet Kolob, where God, his
>wives, Jesus (Yahweh) and his wives, and a veritable zoo of celestial
>beings live. Mormon missionaries teach that Kolob is not in our Milky
>Way galaxy, but in another one, far, far away."
>
>Is this true, or did somebody just make it up?
>
And WTF is a "Kokaubeam"?
Abr. 3:16
If two things exist, and there be one above the other, there shall be
greater things above them; therefore Kolob is the greatest of all the
Kokaubeam that thou hast seen, because it is nearest unto me.
Thomas P.
A new type of transporter being tested by the Enterprise.
>
>Abr. 3:16
>If two things exist, and there be one above the other, there shall be
>greater things above them; therefore Kolob is the greatest of all the
>Kokaubeam that thou hast seen, because it is nearest unto me.
>
Thomas P.
RTBaird
"Guy R. Briggs" <net...@GeoCities.com> wrote in message
news:92B1EF583netza...@199.45.49.11...
Assuming that it's perfectly fine with you if JSJr was in the habit of
floating some real whoppers as long as none of them actually made it into
the canon, you mean?
RTBaird
RTBaird
"Guy R. Briggs" <net...@GeoCities.com> wrote in message
> Hebrew literary form of Gematria - a sort of number-based way of hiding
> the deeper meaning of the scriptures.
>
Not surprising at all. According to D. Michael Quinn, JSJr studied the
Kaballah, which would include Gematria.
RTBaird
Duwayne Anderson
> duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote:
> > net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > They are both absurd gibberish.
> >
> You're half right. The one with the anti-Mormon spin is certainly
> gibberish.
It's all gibberish, Guy, as you illustrate below.
>
> >
> > By the way, Guy. The universe does not have a center. And
> > the Book of Abraham does not say Kolob is the largest star.
> >
> "And I [Abraham] saw the STARS, that they were very
> great, and that one of them was nearest unto the
> throne of God; and there were many GREAT ONES which
> were near unto it;
>
> "And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing
> ones; and the NAME of the GREAT ONE is Kolob, because
> it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have
> set this one to govern all those which belong to the
> same order as that upon which thou standest."
> -- PofGP:Abraham 3:2-3
>
> IOW, in the same way that our own sun "governs" all the planets
> which rotate around it
Oh, good grief, Guy. Stop ignoring the other stuff. The Book of
Abraham says that the sun borrows its light from Kolob. That is
absurd gibberish, Guy. Here. let me quote it again:
"Fig. 5. Is called in Egyptian Enish-go-on-dosh; this is one of the
governing planets also, and is said by the Egyptians to be the Sun,
and to borrow its light from Kolob through the medium of
Kae-e-vanrash, which is the grand Key, or, in other words, the
governing power, which governs fifteen other fixed planets or stars,
as also Floeese or the Moon, the Earth and the Sun in their annual
revolutions. This planet receives its power through the medium of
Kli-flos-is-es, or Hah-ko-kau-beam, the stars represented by numbers
22 and 23, receiving light from the revolutions of Kolob."
>-- and determines the way we measure time
The sun does not determine how we measure our time, Guy. This is pure
Mormon silliness. The fact that you say junk like this only
illustrates what Mormonism does to someone's head.
> on our
> own planet (one trip around is approx. 365.25 days),
Don't you read your own scriptures, Guy? Where does it say that a day
is the length of time required to orbit the star?
Of course, it is all absurdity. But you cannot even keep your
absurdity straight.
> Kolob, apparently,
> governs the celestial bodies which belong to the same "order" (i.e.
> "solar" system) as Kolob.
There you go, again, getting your absurdities mixed up. Here's what
the Book of Abraham says:
"And thus there shall be the reckoning of the time of one aplanet
above another, until thou come nigh unto Kolob, which Kolob is after
the reckoning of the Lord's time; which Kolob is set nigh unto the
throne of God, to govern all those planets which belong to the same
order• as that upon which thou standest." [Abraham 3:9].
Did you catch that, Guy? Joseph Smith said that Kolob governs "all
those planets which belong to the same order as [the one Abraham was
standing on]." What planet was Abraham from,Guy?
What planet was Smith from?
Now that, of course, is just plain silly. Absurd, actually. But this
whole disscussion illustrates that you don't even bother to read your
own scriptures, Guy. You make up stories about a solar system around
Kolob. Haven't you read the Book of Abraham, Guy?
Let's discuss this more, Guy. I mean, what more effective way to
illustrate the moronic nature of the Book of Mormon than to have a
Mormon, right here on ARM, trying to make sense of this absurd,
pathetic bit of moronic story telling.
Duwayne Anderson
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
Duwayne Anderson
Guy, please post the reference from LDS scripture that says the
figures in the Book of Abraham are not as doctrinal as the rest of it.
Since you cannot do that, please provide a reference from a prophet,
seer, or revelator in the LDS Church that says they are not doctrinal.
Since you cannot do that, explain why they show up on the official LDS
Internet site under "Scripture."
Since you cannot do that, explain why, when the Book of Abraham is
sustained by the members as scripture, they don't say "except the
figures that are contained in, and presented as an integral part of
the book."
What's most interesting about this is the manner in which Mormons like
Guy R. Briggs (an apologist for the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints) are driven to deny their own scriptures. Clearly,
Guy understands how absurd they are. But this implication that they
are not as doctrinal as the rest of the Book of Abraham illustrates
the desperation involved in trying to justify such absurd books as the
Book of Abraham.
Duwayne Anderson
> xyi...@netscape.net (Troy Kohler) wrote:
> > net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I especially like the token of suspense Joseph Smith left
> > with the illustration:
> >
> Here I am, ready to discuss doctrine, and you and DuWayne are still
> looking at the pictures!
Here is Guy R. Briggs, still pretending that the figures in the Book
of Abraham are not accepted by the Church as scripture. You can see
them on the official Internet site of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, under scripture. What is it about these figures, a
product of Josesph Smith, that makes even an apologist like Guy Briggs
try and argue that they are not scripture?
Oh, I know. It's the absurdity in them. The fact that they say
things like the sun gets it's light from Kolob.
Well, gee, now that we look at it that way, can you blame apologists
for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for trying to
sweep it all under the rug, by pretending it's not doctrine?
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
> > net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > They are both absurd gibberish.
> >
> You're half right. The one with the anti-Mormon spin is certainly
> gibberish.
>
> >
> > By the way, Guy. The universe does not have a center. And
> > the Book of Abraham does not say Kolob is the largest star.
> >
> "And I [Abraham] saw the STARS, that they were very
> great, and that one of them was nearest unto the
> throne of God; and there were many GREAT ONES which
> were near unto it;
>
> "And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing
> ones; and the NAME of the GREAT ONE is Kolob, because
> it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have
> set this one to govern all those which belong to the
> same order as that upon which thou standest."
> -- PofGP:Abraham 3:2-3
>
> IOW, in the same way that our own sun "governs" all the planets
> which rotate around it - and determines the way we measure time on our
> own planet (one trip around is approx. 365.25 days),
Our sun does not determine how we measure time, Guy. But thanks for
illustrating this 19'th century backwoods gibberish that Joseph Smith
built into the Book of Abraham
> Kolob, apparently,
> governs the celestial bodies which belong to the same "order" (i.e.
> "solar" system) as Kolob.
The Book of Abraham says Kolob governs the earth, and all the planets
like it, Guy. But that, of course, is just silly. Thanks for
illustrating, again, what happens when people try to defend the
"astronomy" in the Book of Abraham. I've yet to see someone try it
without ending up looking like an idiot.
Duwayne Anderson
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
Duwayne Anderson
> > net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> We Mormons actually read the scriptures, Duwayne. We do
> >> more than just peruse the illustrations.
> >
> > The above statement by Guy R. Briggs, apologist for the
> > Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS, or Mormon)
> > is what is called the "Lie by implication." Guy knows I've
> > read the Book of Abraham cover to cover many times.
> >
> I honestly don't know if you've read it or not.
Don't pretend not to remember our past discussions about the creation
myth in Abraham, Guy, and the dubbing you took in that debate.
> If you have, then
> why are you referring to the illustrations?
It is soooo interesting that Mormons are driven to denying the
authenticity of their scriptures as they try to apologize for them.
Tell us, Guy, what prophet ever said that the figures in the Book of
Abraham, and that are an integral part of it, are not scripture?
Since you cannot do that, Guy, tell us why they don't sustain the Book
of Abraham as scripture, "except for the figures?"
Since you cannot do that, explain how Smith could have gotten the REST
of the Book of Abraham right, and screwed up the figures.
Since you cannot do that, explain how your weak attempt is anything
more than a recognition that the Book of Abraham is a clumsy fraud,
and you are just trying to minimize the damage by pretending some
parts are not scipture.
<snip to end>
alienward
> why are you referring to the illustrations?
>
a dozen pages that takes less that takes less than half an hour to
read, the cult clown knows Duwayne was a Mormon for decades, the cult
clown also knows Duwayne knows Mormon scripture even better than he
does and the cult clown has debated Duwayne in this forum over the
years where they have both discussed the BoA numerous times - sample
from a post:
Duwayne: The fact is, the Mormon creation myth describes different
things happening on different days (book of Moses) and different times
(book of Abraham).
Guy: Duwayne, that one you'll have to explain. From what I can see,
the creation stories are in roughly the same order.
Guy, you are a lying scumbag.
"And it came to pass that the priests laid violence upon me, that they
might slay me also, as they did those virgins upon this altar; and
that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the
representation at the commencement of this record." (Abr. 1:12)
Guy, why don't you ask Abraham why he is referring Duwayne and the
rest of us to those illustrations.
From lds.org:
"Just as Kolob is "the first creation" (Facsimile 2, fig. 1), so Jesus
Christ is the first creation"
When you're done with Abraham, make sure Hinckley goes through lds.org
and gets those references to those illustrations the hell out.
> Actually, you didn't quote ANY verses from the Book of Abraham. You
> cited two captions on Facsimile #2 - Figures 1 and 5. No scriptures,
> just illustrations.
>
Again, the cult clown is lying. A cite from a BoA facsimilie is a
cite from scripture. Besides, the facsimiles are about half of
Smith's silly BoA fraud so they're about all there is to cite anyway.
"I've read the Book of Abraham and Moses." (Duwayne Anderson quoted in
alt.religion.mormon)
Alien
Nick
>>> Please, pah-leeze, tell me you can see a difference between:
>>>
>>> "Them marmuns believe God lives on a planet called Kolob"
>>>
>>> ... and ...
>>>
>>> "There are a number of stars at the center of the
>>> universe, the largest known as Kolob, and it is the
>>> one 'nearest unto the throne of God'"
>>
>> They both look pretty silly. Why, for example, would an
>> omnipresent spiritual being have a throne let alone one in
>> a specific location?
>>
> Erm, because we LdS long ago rejected the Neoplatonic ideas of an
>"omnipresent spiritual being," a "prime mover" or a "first cause?"
Then why the bloody hell are you worshipping this "god" in the first place, if
he's not the omnipresent prime mover thingy? You may as well just worship Odin
or Baal, if all you need is a super-human entity that's bigger than you. It
makes just as much sense in the end.
Nick
Be careful with it, though, lest you end up with an evil, goateed version of
yourself from a paralel universe.
Nick
>>>>>> Somebody made it up. For starters, in Mormon theology,
>>>>>> Kolob is a star, not a planet.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, just as long as we know that Kolob is a star and not
>>>>> a planet makes all the difference.
>>>>>
>>>> Please, pah-leeze, tell me you can see a difference between:
>>>>
>>>> "Them marmuns believe God lives on a planet called Kolob"
>>>>
>>>> ... and ...
>>>>
>>>> "There are a number of stars at the center of the
>>>> universe, the largest known as Kolob, and it is the
>>>> one 'nearest unto the throne of God'"
>>>
>>>They both look pretty silly. Why, for example, would an omnipresent
>>>spiritual being have a throne let alone one in a specific location?
>>>How does he sit on it? Is it bigger than he is?
>>
>>The answer, of course, is that it's a *spiritual* throne, held aloft in the
>>Great Void by an infinite number of angels dancing on the head of a
>spiritual
>>pin. OBVIOUSLY! XD
>
>I humbly apologize for calling it silly.
You are forgiven, my child. Prophet Joseph SantaClaus shall now give you a
communion cookie for your humility =}
::gives him cookie::
Duwayne Anderson
> > net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I especially like the token of suspense Joseph Smith left
> > with the illustration:
> >
> Here I am, ready to discuss doctrine, and you and DuWayne are still
> looking at the pictures!
Are you trying to say, Guy, that the figures Joseph Smith put into the
Book of Abraham, and the explanations he gave for those figures, that
are in the Book of Abraham, are not part of the Book of Abraham, and
not sustained as scripture?
Answer me this, Guy. When the Book of Abraham is sustained as
scripture, do they say "except for the figures and explanations?"
Answer me this, Guy. What prophet has ever suggested that the figures
IN the Book of Abraham, and the explanations IN the Book of Abraham
are not PART of the Book of Abraham?
Is this what it's come to, Guy? The Book of Abraham is such a joke
that you cannot defend it? You are reduced to carving off parts of
your scriptures, and implying that they are not scripture?
dangerous1
I could not possibly care less whether they fit your personal
definition of doctrine or not.
Do you renounce them?
On 2/17/00 you said:
"Not right. The approved, canonized and published D&C IS a
credible
source of LDS doctrine and policy. Monogamy was official
Church policy
until 1852. Took a few years before it made it into the new
printing."
Do you believe woody's story of where the facsimiles came
from?
"Abraham wrote a book, detailing his travels in Egypt and
elsewhere.
Numerous copies of it were made. The picture on the front of
it
was quite popular and got copied a lot of times, all over the
Middle
East."
woody brison, 12/20/01
Me neither.
Best,
Dangerous1
Dangerous1.com
D1 @ Dangerous1.com
Don Marchant
"In fact, when you get right down to it, almost every
explanation
Man came up with for *anything* until about 1926 was stupid."
[Dave Barry]
Thomas P.
The girls are more fun there.
Troy Kohler
> Guy R. Briggs wrote:
>
snip
>
> "For anyone wanting to see more, go to www.lds.org This is the official
> Internet site of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS,or
> Mormon). Click on Scriptures, and then do a search on the word "Kolob." "
>
> I especially like the token of suspense Joseph Smith left with the
> illustration:
>
> Fig. 10. Also.
> Fig. 11. Also. If the world can find out these numbers, so let it be. Amen.
> own due time of the Lord.
> The above translation is given as far as we have any right to give at
> the present time.
>
Wasn't figure 11 figured out with the Beatles release of "Let it Be"?
That was definately a fine number they performed.
Elroy Willis
> e...@airmail.net (Elroy Willis) wrote:
>> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>>> e...@airmail.net (Elroy Willis) wrote:
> <snip>
>>>> Is this true, or did somebody just make it up?
>>> Somebody made it up. For starters, in Mormon theology,
>>> Kolob is a star, not a planet.
>> Is God supposed to live on a planet orbiting Kolob?
> Dunno. All the scriptures say on the subject is that the throne of
> God is somewhere nearby. Where all this "planet" stuff comes from is
> beyond me.
What is a throne of God?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
Elroy Willis
> Thomas P. wrote:
>>>>> Somebody made it up. For starters, in Mormon theology,
>>>>> Kolob is a star, not a planet.
>>>> Well, just as long as we know that Kolob is a star and not
>>>> a planet makes all the difference.
>>> Please, pah-leeze, tell me you can see a difference between:
>>> "Them marmuns believe God lives on a planet called Kolob"
>>> ... and ...
>>> "There are a number of stars at the center of the
>>> universe, the largest known as Kolob, and it is the
>>> one 'nearest unto the throne of God'"
>> They both look pretty silly. Why, for example, would an omnipresent
>> spiritual being have a throne let alone one in a specific location?
>> How does he sit on it? Is it bigger than he is?
> The answer, of course, is that it's a *spiritual* throne, held aloft in the
> Great Void by an infinite number of angels dancing on the head of a spiritual
> pin. OBVIOUSLY! XD
I think I've figured out why the omnipresent aspect was added to the
perfect god idea. It's because no matter where believers go, they can
close their eyes and pray and veg out on their god, thinking they're
actually communicating with it. It's similar to a child's
make-believe friend. It goes wherever the child goes, inside
their imagination.
Guy R. Briggs
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>>
>> I honestly don't know if you've read it or not. If you
>> have, then why are you referring to the illustrations?
>
>
When did you trade reasoned logic for invective and ad hominem?
>
> ... knows full well the BoA is only about a dozen pages that
> takes less that takes less than half an hour to read, ...
>
14, as currently printed, including illustrations.
>
> ... the cult clown knows Duwayne was a Mormon for decades, ...
>
Claims to have been one, anyway.
>
> the cult clown also knows Duwayne knows Mormon scripture
> even better than he does ...
>
Not in DuWayne's fondest dreams.
>
> ... and the cult clown has debated Duwayne in this forum
> over the years where they have both discussed the BoA
> numerous times - sample from a post:
>
> Duwayne: The fact is, the Mormon creation myth describes
> different things happening on different days (book of
> Moses) and different times (book of Abraham).
>
Duwayne's assertion was wrong then, it's wrong now.
Day 1 - Moses 2:3-4: "Let there be light," light separated
from darkness.
Abraham 4:3-5 Ditto.
Genesis 1:3-5 Ditto.
Day 2 - Moses 2:6-8: Waters divided, separating heaven from
earth.
Abraham 4:6-8: Ditto.
Genesis 1:6-8: Ditto.
Day 3 - Moses 2:9-13: Waters under the firmament gathered
together, dry land appears. Grass,
herbs and and trees created.
Abraham 4:9-13 Ditto.
Genesis 1:9-13 Ditto.
Day 4 - Moses 2:14-19: Sun, moon and stars placed in the
firmament.
Abraham 4:14-19 Ditto.
Genesis 4:14-19 Ditto.
Day 5 - Moses 2:20-23: Fish and birds created.
Abraham 4:20-23 Ditto.
Genesis 1:20-23 Ditto.
Day 6 - Moses 2:24-31: Beasts and creeping things placed
on earth, man created.
Abraham 4:24-31 Ditto.
Genesis 1:24-31 Ditto.
You'll note that the SAME things happen on exactly the SAME days (as
written in Moses & Genesis) and times (as written in Abraham.) There is
no "different things happening on different days."
Now I don't know about you, but it seems to me that if somebody had
actually taken the half-hour to read those 14 pages, he wouldn't be
making statements like the above.
>
> Guy: Duwayne, that one you'll have to explain. From what I
> can see, the creation stories are in roughly the same order.
>
> Guy, you are a lying scumbag.
>
Sometimes mistaken. Never lying.
>
> "And it came to pass that the priests laid violence upon me,
> that they might slay me also, as they did those virgins upon
> this altar; and that you may have a knowledge of this altar,
> I will refer you to the representation at the commencement
> of this record." (Abr. 1:12)
>
> Guy, why don't you ask Abraham why he is referring Duwayne
> and the rest of us to those illustrations.
>
Have you looked at the original autographs, so that you are certain
that the figure Abraham referred to in the 19th century B.C. <g!> was
the same one the the Egyptian Priest was carrying around in the 1st or
2nd century A.D., the same one that Smith was looking at, and the same
one we "fixed" and insert in the PofGP today?
I admire your optimism, sir!
>
> From lds.org:
>
> "Just as Kolob is "the first creation" (Facsimile 2, fig.
> 1), so Jesus Christ is the first creation"
>
From the Mar.1997 _Ensign_, if I'm not mistaken. We quoted
Longfellow in the '81 _New Era_, but that doesn't make him a prophet,
nor his poems scripture.
>
> When you're done with Abraham, make sure Hinckley goes
> through lds.org and gets those references to those
> illustrations the hell out.
>
No need. We reserve the right to quote whomever. Our definition of
scripture is a little tighter, however:
"...they shall speak as they are moved upon by the
Holy Ghost ...
"And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by
the Holy Ghost shall be scripture ..."
-- D&C 68:3-4
>>
>> Actually, you didn't quote ANY verses from the Book of
>> Abraham. You cited two captions on Facsimile #2 - Figures 1
>> and 5. No scriptures, just illustrations.
>
> Again, the cult clown is lying.
>
Again, I may be mistaken, but don't lie.
>
> A cite from a BoA facsimilie is a cite from scripture.
By who's definition? Certainly not ours (see above).
>
> Besides, the facsimiles are about half of Smith's silly BoA
> fraud so they're about all there is to cite anyway.
>
> "I've read the Book of Abraham and Moses." (Duwayne Anderson
> quoted in alt.religion.mormon)
>
There is no "Book of Abraham and Moses." In our Pearl of Great Price
there is a Book of Abraham and a Book of Moses.
bestRegards, Guy.
Guy R. Briggs
<snip>
> What is a throne of God?
>
In Exodus 33:23, God takes away his hand after he has passed by,
allowing Moses to see his "back parts". God's throne is what he sits
those "back parts" on. ;)
bestRegards, Guy.
Guy R. Briggs
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
<snip>
> Do you renounce them?
>
Don't much care about them. I read the scriptures much more than I
look at the pictures.
>
> On 2/17/00 you said:
> "Not right. The approved, canonized and published D&C IS a
> credible source of LDS doctrine and policy. Monogamy was
> official Church policy until 1852. Took a few years before
> [polygamy] made it into the new printing."
>
The D&C is a credible source for LdS doctrine, as is the Bible. The
one we use has a title page on it which calls James of England a "most
high and mighty prince" and a "defender of the faith." Neither of those
statements represent LdS doctrine.
>
> Do you believe woody's story of where the facsimiles came
> from?
> "Abraham wrote a book, detailing his travels in Egypt and
> elsewhere.
> Numerous copies of it were made. The picture on the front
> of it was quite popular and got copied a lot of times, all
> over the Middle East."
> woody brison, 12/20/01
>
I sincerely believe it originated with Abraham. I can't say I
believe he wrote a book - at least in the sense that we write books in
the early 21st century.
>
> Me neither.
>
It's a free country, you can believe what you want.
bestRegards, Guy.
Elroy Willis
> e...@airmail.net (Elroy Willis) wrote:
>> What is a throne of God?
> In Exodus 33:23, God takes away his hand after he has passed by,
> allowing Moses to see his "back parts". God's throne is what he sits
> those "back parts" on. ;)
Makes one wonder how big God's ass is. Would it fit into a standard
bus or airplane seat? Or would he have to buy two or more tickets to
fit his cosmic fat ass into a seat?
Elroy Willis
> Thomas P. wrote:
>>> And WTF is a "Kokaubeam"?
>> A new type of transporter being tested by the Enterprise.
>>> Abr. 3:16
>>> If two things exist, and there be one above the other, there shall be
>>> greater things above them; therefore Kolob is the greatest of all the
>>> Kokaubeam that thou hast seen, because it is nearest unto me.
> Be careful with it, though, lest you end up with an evil, goateed version of
> yourself from a paralel universe.
Or a person who is black on the right side and white on the wrong/left
side.
Guy R. Briggs
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
<snip>
>> Somewhat interesting that Smith seemed to be familiar with
>> the Hebrew literary form of Gematria - a sort of number-
>> based way of hiding the deeper meaning of the scriptures.
>
> Not surprising at all. According to D. Michael Quinn, JSJr
> studied the Kaballah, which would include Gematria.
>
At what point in his life? Early enough to explain the Gematria in
the Book of Mormon? Early enough to explain the Kirtland Egyptian
Papers?
bestRegards, Guy.
Guy R. Briggs
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
<snip>
>> But are they doctrinal?
>
> Assuming that it's perfectly fine with you if JSJr was in
> the habit of floating some real whoppers as long as none of
> them actually made it into the canon, you mean?
>
There are examples of Prophets and Apostles telling whoppers that
/did/ make it into the scriptures. They are human beings, after all.
They're flawed just like you or me.
bestRegards, Guy.
Guy R. Briggs
<snip>
>> Is this true, or did somebody just make it up?
>
> And WTF is a "Kokaubeam"?
>
"... And he said unto me: Kokaubeam, which signifies
stars, or all the great lights, which were in the
firmament of heaven." -- Abr.3:13
HTH.
bestRegards, Guy.
Guy R. Briggs
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
<snip>
>> Erm, because we LdS long ago rejected the Neoplatonic ideas
>> of an "omnipresent spiritual being," a "prime mover" or a
>> "first cause?"
<snip>
> By the way - John 4 verse 24: "God is spirit, and they who
> worship him must worship in spirit and in truth."
>
Oh, great. We have to be a spirit in order to worship God?
bestRegards, Guy.
Elroy Willis
<snip>
> "For anyone wanting to see more, go to www.lds.org This is the official
> Internet site of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS,or
> Mormon). Click on Scriptures, and then do a search on the word "Kolob." "
> I especially like the token of suspense Joseph Smith left with the
> illustration:
> Fig. 9. Ought not to be revealed at the present time.
> Fig. 10. Also.
> Fig. 11. Also. If the world can find out these numbers, so let it be. Amen.
> Figures 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 will be given in the
> own due time of the Lord.
> The above translation is given as far as we have any right to give at
> the present time.
> It's like, Cool! Stay tuned for more mysteries of the universe revealed
> channeled through Prophet Joseph Smith or successor.
Hey, that sounds a lot like georgann's diagram! She's got a bunch of
lines and areas on it that aren't labeled yet. The "will be given in
the own due time of the Lord" sounds exactly like what georgann said a
few weeks ago. Almost verbatim, IIRC!
I'm sure we can weave a new myth or sci-fi story about some aliens
from the planet Kolob battling Jesus who comes flying down from the
sky in a spaceship shaped like the top of a pyramid! The ship could
have images of a white horse on the sides of it to satisfy the
prophecies about Jesus coming down from the sky riding a flying
white horse.
Stargate SG1 comes somewhat close to that idea, but we can do better
than that if we try.
Elroy Willis
> Guy R. Briggs wrote:
>> xyi...@netscape.net (Troy Kohler) wrote:
>>> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>><snip>
>>>> Somebody made it up. For starters, in Mormon theology,
>>>> Kolob is a star, not a planet.
>>> Well, just as long as we know that Kolob is a star and not
>>> a planet makes all the difference.
>> Please, pah-leeze, tell me you can see a difference between:
>> "Them marmuns believe God lives on a planet called Kolob"
>> ... and ...
>> "There are a number of stars at the center of the
>> universe, the largest known as Kolob, and it is the
>> one 'nearest unto the throne of God'"
> They both look pretty silly. Why, for example, would an omnipresent
> spiritual being have a throne let alone one in a specific location?
> How does he sit on it? Is it bigger than he is?
I think the idea of some cosmic god sitting on a throne could tie back
to kings and king worship. They sat on thrones and judged people, so
naturally, this idea was extended to some god who lived "up there
somewhere in the heavens" who did the same thing. Another case of
people creating gods in their own image instead of the other way
around.
Kevin Simonson
=> Actually, what Joseph Smith wanted to do was have the United
=> States government purchase all the slaves in the country from their
=> "owners," and send those blacks back to Africa.
=
=So he agreed with the idea that human slaves could be bought and
=sold like property, and also that blacks are an inferior race.
I didn't say that. Joseph Smith saw two opposing sides, the
slave owners of the southern states and the abolitionists of the
northern states, and he came up with a pretty decent sounding compro-
mise that might solve the feud simmering between them.
Joseph Smith did _not_ think blacks should "be bought and sold
like property." When LDS missionaries converted slaveowners those
newly enlightened slaveowners always freed their slaves, to whom they
took the Gospel message too, and many joined. There is no record of
Joseph Smith ever saying blacks were "an inferior race."
=> That view actually fits in quite well with the quote above; send-
=> ing them back to the lands of their ancestors would do quite a good
=> job of confining them "to their own species," so to speak, and to "put
=> them on a national equalization";
=
=Do you support that idea? You think all African Americans should be
=shipped back to Africa?
I think Kunta Kinte would have loved an opportunity to be sent
back to his home in Africa. It was also an idea that might have
worked in the 1830's and 1840's; it might have provided a better home
for blacks and avoided the Civil War.
But even in the 1840's America had _become_ home for the blacks
who lived here, and Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights movement
has had some success at making the United States as accessible to suc-
cess for blacks as it would be in the countries that were the homes of
their ancestors. So I would say that Joseph Smith's idea, as rela-
tively enlightened as it was in his day, had its time and the time
passed. So I don't advocate shipping blacks back to Africa.
=> in other words Joseph Smith wanted any nation of blacks in Africa to
=> be on an equal footing with the other nations of the world, including
=> the United States.
=
=He just wanted them out of our country at the same time. How did he
=feel about Jews, do you know?
Elroy, how did you come to the conclusion that Joseph Smith "just
wanted them out of our country at the same time"? As I said above he
had come up with an understandable compromise that might have avoided
a lot of suffering if people had accepted it. I see no reason to con-
clude that he wanted anything more than a solution to the nation's im-
pending crisis.
=> This is actually a quite enlightened viewpoint, relative to the current
=> prevailing opinions of the day.
=
=How so?
The residents of the slave states thought that it was the blacks'
destiny to work on their plantations, in a relatively bad working con-
ditions. Wouldn't you say that an idea that those slaves should be
free in Africa was a more enlightened viewpoint than the ones held by
the slaveowners?
=Do you deny that he was a racist and bigot?
Yes! He was neither a racist nor a bigot. Calling him names
like that makes as little sense as calling Abraham Lincoln a racist
and a bigot. After all, for all Lincoln did for blacks he didn't re-
move the need for the Civil Rights movement a century later. Still,
you've got to take things a step at a time. Lincoln took an important
first step and you've got to honor him for it.
---Kevin Simonson
"Maybe it started as a dream, but doesn't everything?"
from _James and the Giant Peach_
Kevin Simonson
news:<ap6l5r$r7ba5$1...@ID-161184.news.dfncis.de>...
=> > Whatever Brigham Young may have said about it, Joseph Smith's views
=> > on blacks did play a prominent role in getting the Latter-day Saints driven
=> > out of that great slave state of Missouri.
=>
=> Do you deny that he was a racist and bigot?
=>
=
=Of course they deny it. It's completely true, but they deny it. Mormons love
=that great Christian tradition of revisionism.
David, how did you come to the conclusion that it was "completely
true"? How can you look at what Joseph Smith did and said and con-
clude that he was any more a racist and a bigot than, say, Abraham
Lincoln? Lincoln freed the slaves but he didn't give them the right
to vote. That would come later. But Lincoln took an important first
step. I think Joseph Smith's idea would also have been an important
first step that might have avoided the destruction of the Civil War.
---Kevin Simonson
"It may have started as a dream, but doesn't everything?"
Kevin Simonson
news:<99130871.02102...@posting.google.com>...
=> > Whatever Brigham Young may have said about it, Joseph Smith's views
=> > on blacks did play a prominent role in getting the Latter-day Saints driven
=> > out of that great slave state of Missouri.
=>
=> Do you deny that he was a racist and bigot?
=
=Joseph Smith was a con-man and a fraud. He was also a sex addict who
=made up the Polygamy Revelation from God to get lots of hot young tail
Interesting phrase, Dick, "hot young tail." Could you tell us
explicitly what it means?
=and steal other men's attractive wives. However, from everything I've
=read, he was surprisingly quite progressive on the slave issue for
=that time period. Even abolitionists of the time felt Blacks were
=inferior, but they shouldn't be enslaved. Being from New England was
=part of it, they tended to be more tolerant up there. If Joseph Smith
=was such a bigot why did he ordain a black man, Elijah Abel, an Elder
=and later a Seventy? That is a very high position that most white guys
=in the church today will never reach.
There you go, Elroy; Dick agrees with me that Joseph Smith was
actually less racist than most "abolitionists of the time."
= It appears the ban on blacks
=holding the Priesthood didn't originate with Joseph Smith, it started
=with Brigham Young and the string of church dictators that followed.
=Brigham Young was a big time racist who advocated killing mixed race
=couples.
I'd have to agree with Dick that the doctrine of keeping blacks
from holding the priesthood originated with Brigham Young.
= Being all alone in the Utah desert allowed Young to be
=basically a dictator. He ordered the massacre of a wagon train passing
=through the valley including women and children.
Dick, how did you come to the conclusion that Young "ordered"
this massacre? Did the people who received this order, or the people
who carried out the order, say that Young had issued it?
= Joseph Smith was a
=con-man and treated women like sex dolls, but everything I read about
=Brigham Young makes Joseph Smith look like a saint.
Sex dolls, huh? Once again your choice of terminology is very
interesting. What exactly do you mean?
---Kevin Simonson
"Maybe it started as a dream, but doesn't everything?"
Kevin Simonson
=I've been reading different sites which are critical of Mormonism this
=morning and can't believe some of the things I've come across. It
=seems that Brigham Young believed that people could live on the
=sun!
Young did say he believed life forms existed on the Sun. Critics
bring that up and say that proves Young was a false prophet. Then Ar-
thur C. Clarke describes life forms that live on a star in _2001: A
Space Odyssey_, and everybody says, "Oooh, aaah." And then David Brin
in his first Uplift trilogy describes life forms on our very own Sun,
and the trilogy goes on to win the Hugo and Nebula awards for its
year's best science fiction!
There's a double standard here. If Clarke's and Brin's sci-fi is
plausible enough to get a good well reasoned following, then let's not
knock Brigham Young's theory.
Kevin Simonson
news:<3db67589...@nyheder.get2net.dk>...
=> Wilford Woodruff said that God would never let an LDS prophet
=>lead the Latter-day Saints astray. I believe that. I believe that
=>Brigham Young spreading his prejudices over the Church _do not neces-
=>sarily_ constitute leading the Church astray.
=
=If his prejudices were wrong, and he taught them as the word of god;
=how could it possibly be anything else than "leading the Church
=astray"?
As I think I said in one of my articles, God had some very speci-
fic things God wanted to do with Brigham Young. God knew that Brigham
would come through in those areas. God knew that Young would spread
his prejudices over the Church, and God knew that those prejudices
were wrong, but God didn't care because He knew how much good Young
was going to do in the Salt Lake Valley, and _He knew that He could
fix_ all the problems Young caused by sending His revelation to Spen-
cer Kimball in June 1978.
The major message of the Gospel got through. Brigham Young
taught that we should love our neighbors, both black and white and
anybody else. He taught that Jesus suffered and died so that we
wouldn't have to suffer endlessly for our sins, and that applies to
people of all races. God found that teaching acceptable and knew that
He _needed_ Young to keep the Church intact on its transition to Utah,
so he put Young in the position to lead.
Guy R. Briggs
<snip>
> I think the idea of some cosmic god sitting on a throne
> could tie back to kings and king worship. They sat on
> thrones and judged people, so naturally, this idea was
> extended to some god who lived "up there somewhere in the
> heavens" who did the same thing.
>
Excellent observation! But I think it is, perhaps, the other way
around. Because the people believed in a God, they could accept the
idea of rule by divinely appointed kings. As Gadd noted:
"Chronicles of kingship from Egypt, to Mesopotamia, to
Persia, to China, to Italy, to northern Europe, to
pre-Columbian Mexico all trace the line of kings to
the first king, a supreme cosmic diety who founded
the kingship rites. ... The accounts [of the creation
in coronation ceremonies] speak of a creator, a first
man, and a first king-- all referring to the same
cosmic figure."
bestRegards, Guy.
Kevin Simonson
news:<ap61l1$s7ak8$1...@ID-146277.news.dfncis.de>...
=> If his prejudices were wrong, and he taught them as the word of god;
=> how could it possibly be anything else than "leading the Church
=> astray"?
=>
=> snip
=>
=
=Because a prophet is only a man, and he does not always speak for God. If
=he's right, he's speaking for God. If he's wrong, it's his opinion. You
=can pray for discernment.
Lee, you may sound cynical, but you're not far from the mark. :)
I believe that God has set up the LDS Church so that the man that pre-
sides over it is guaranteed to be the man that God has chosen as the
one best equipped to be God's spokesman to the world. For each pro-
phet in succession, God knows what he will do and say, and has found
it acceptible.
Kevin Simonson
=> Because a prophet is only a man, and he does not always speak for God. If
=> he's right, he's speaking for God. If he's wrong, it's his opinion. You
=> can pray for discernment.
=
=How many mistakes can a prophet make and still be trustworthy?
Elroy, you're missing the point. The question is not is the pro-
phet trustworthy. When it comes to speaking for God _nobody_ is
trustworthy, not even Gordon Hinckley (though in my mind he's pretty
close). The question is _who does God want me to treat as God's
spokesman_ to the world?
Kevin Simonson
news:<3DB752E4...@netscape.net>...
=> How many mistakes can a prophet make and still be trustworthy?
=
=Depends on what you are promising your followers, in this case Godhood.
I don't think most Latter-day Saints see the promised Godhood as
that much of a selling point. I know my own mother didn't. She
didn't see how she'd ever reach it. Most Latter-day Saints believe
eventual godhood is possible with the help of Jesus and Jesus' Father,
but I think they look at it as a great responsibility rather than as
an opportunity to get physical or social gain.
Roy Stogner
> As I think I said in one of my articles, God had some very specific
> things God wanted to do with Brigham Young. God knew that Brigham would
> come through in those areas. God knew that Young would spread his
> prejudices over the Church, and God knew that those prejudices were
> wrong, but God didn't care because He knew how much good Young was going
> to do in the Salt Lake Valley, and _He knew that He could fix_ all the
> problems Young caused by sending His revelation to Spencer Kimball in
> June 1978.
I love the "God encouraged false ideas as the price for accomplishing some
unrelated good" theory, because with enough creativity you can use it to
support any religion or philosophy you want.
For example, perhaps the LDS religion's entire existance is the price God
had to pay to ensure that thousands of military men willing to follow
racist leaders (and those men's families) would be safely away in Utah
instead of on the front lines in Missouri by 1860.
Sound ridiculous? Probably. But no more ridiculous than the idea that
God "didn't care" about a century of racism in his One True Church or that
he couldn't have somehow communicated to the second Prophet of the
Restoration that the doctrines Young was calling the "Law of God" were
actually the products of his own prejudices.
I'd keep the theory, though, especially if you're as willing to apply it
to 20th and 21st century prophets as to 19th century prophets. Could the
transformation of the Word of Wisdom into a de facto commandment, or it's
extension to body piercings and tattoos, just be another artifact of
prophets listening to their own conservative leanings instead of God? How
about the prejudices against homosexuals, or the refusal to ordain women?
Will God fix those problems one of these days, too?
---
Roy Stogner
Kevin Simonson
=>Because a prophet is only a man, and he does not always speak for God. If
=>he's right, he's speaking for God. If he's wrong, it's his opinion. You
=>can pray for discernment.
=
=The man still, in his position as prophet, taught what he taught. The
=majority of Mormons accepted that teaching. How were they not led
=astray?
For the record, I find myself irritated by what Brigham Young
taught about blacks. It's like a slap in the face of black people
everywhere, like what Jesus did to that non-Jewish woman when He said
it was not meet to take the children's bread and cast it to dogs.
Still, so much of the Gospel message as revealed to Joseph Smith
got carried intact to the Latter-day Saints of later generations be-
cause of the way Brigham Young lived his life. God knew that Young
had his prejudices but that Young would over all transmit the Gospel
message accurately, and God knew that any damage Young did while he
was alive could be fixed by God's revelation to Spencer Kimball in
June 1978, and therefore God chose Young to be God's prophet after Jo-
seph Smith.
"The majority of Mormons" were not led astray because they got
the vast majority of the truths that God wanted them to learn. This
does not mean that they wouldn't get more truth revealed to them (that
in fact they wouldn't get truth revealed to them in 1978); no prophet
of the LDS Church has ever taught that. "... and we believe that
[God] will _yet_ reveal many great and important things pertaining to
the kingdom of God," said Joseph Smith, and Latter-day Saints believe
it to this day.
=Also I would like to know what happened or happens to those who
=rejected the official teaching of the prophet or that of the leaders
=of the Church today, all of whom are only men.
Well, they are indeed only men, but they are men that God has
chosen to be his spokesmen to the world. So it's important to God how
we treat these men.
= Do they get to remain
=members in good standing, or are they excommunicated?
You don't get excommunicated for lack of belief. You do get ex-
communicated if you're actively trying to convince people that they
shouldn't believe in the doctrines of the Church.
= The point being
=that members are expected to believe the Church's doctrinal
=proclamations, are they not? The members were taught the doctrine
=about blacks for more than 100 years, were they not? They were
=expected to believe it, were they not? If, now, you say the doctrine
=was wrong all along, the members were led astray.
Thomas, you obviously think that if God knew that the doctrine on
blacks was wrong then God would have revealed it to Brigham Young if
Young was really who God wanted the Latter-day Saints to treat as
God's spokesman to the world. I'm not convinced of that. Like I said
above, I would greatly have preferred for God to have given that com-
munication to Young, but I don't consider the priesthood ban a show
stopper when it came to the work of the Kingdom of God on the earth.
Thomas P.
Yes, there are only a limited number of ways to con people. One sees
them repeated throughout time in different clothing but all the same.
>bestRegards, Guy.
Thomas P.
"Men go and come, but earth abides."
email ton...@get2net.dk