Alternator Problem
jc...@lycos.com
alternator after a 5 year stint of no charging system issues. All of
these have been within the past 3 months and to begin with, I was
under the impression it may just be bum rebuilds. Twice in the past
couple of weeks I've gone on the road for the weekend where everything
looked fine until Monday morning and then, no charge (as per my gauge
and verified by a voltmeter). Battery started and ran the vehicle
okay (bat is one year old) but no charging system. This vehicle is a
97 GMC suburban k1500, BTW.
This past Sunday morning, I experienced the same thing and shut the
car off. This time, I decided to remove the negative cable for about
5 minutes and reconnected. Voila, the charging system worked. It's as
if some sort of charge is being held (or accumulated over a few days)
or some sort of capacitive action is taking place somehow.
I decided to try the neg cable because the last time I took it to
autozone, the alternator checked out okay on their machine (but off
the vehicle).
Anyone run into a problem like this in the past? Where a good
alternator/regulator seems to build up some sort of charge and won't
operate properly? TIA
Tim J.
Have you considered the possibility you may just have a bad ground?
Stormin Mormon
atach them, and do you need a longer belt for the extra
alternators?
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
<jc...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:e9534312-894c-4448...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
PeterD
Excellent suggestion, and also check to make sure the alternator
activate line is not hot all the time...
Bill
ground wires to engine block. Look for good clean tight connections.
Also batteries can have weird problems with just one cell and this will
prevent them from being charged. So if all else fails, replace the battery.
<jc...@lycos.com> wrote in message
PeterD
<cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
>So, your vehicle now has 4 alternators, or 5? How do you
>atach them, and do you need a longer belt for the extra
>alternators?
>
>--
>Christopher A. Young
>Learn more about Jesus
What we need is fewer religion trolls posing as regular users.
Maybe people could be more tollerant about you if you offered a
meaningful bit of advice, insetad of making stupid comments.
ben91932
> car off. This time, I decided to remove the negative cable for about
> 5 minutes and reconnected. Voila, the charging system worked.
Any trouble codes?
Is the mounting surface between the alt and the engine clean w/no
paint?
Also checking all grounds is a great idea, maybe even do a voltage
drop between alt output and the battery...
HTH,
Ben
Stormin Mormon
the nearest LDS church this sundy morning, and ask to be
taught the investigator discussions.
Guess you havn't been around long. I've asked for advice,
and given serious and thoughtful answers. But, you wouldn't
know that.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
"PeterD" <pet...@hipson.net> wrote in message
news:0qa9d5hmo3i9d5mu9...@4ax.com...
Martin Riddle
<jc...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:e9534312-894c-4448...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Replace the Plus side cable or connector on the battery. When you take
the connector off there is a Lead washer in there , replace it.
Also check the Neg cable.
Should be CLEAN, I mean Clean. Not kidding. If battery acid got into the
cable assembly, the cable is bad.
Cheers
jc...@lycos.com
mind. I hadn't really thought about a bad cable or ground because it
starts and runs fine even though the alternator isn't charging. One
of my next efforts was going to be to run a jumper to the field wire
to make sure there's 12 volts on the field the next time it acts up
but will also look at all the things brought up here. Appreciate your
help.
PeterD
<cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
>OK, since you asked. I advise you to drive a Chevrolet to
>the nearest LDS church this sundy morning, and ask to be
>taught the investigator discussions.
>
>Guess you havn't been around long. I've asked for advice,
>and given serious and thoughtful answers. But, you wouldn't
>know that.
I know a troll when I see one.
I also know that religion doesn't belong here.
I respect that is your signature however, but as to going to a cult to
learn something... I don't think so.
How about a serious answer for the OP?
Rodan
Learn more about Jesus. www.ldspam.org
Christopher A. Young (Stormin Mormon)
_______________________________________________________________
=== Are you a descendant of the original winking
=== polygamist, Brigham (I don't care how you
=== Brigham as long as you Brigham) Young?
You don't have a bad alternator, because you get no
charging improvement by substituting good alternators.
It's probably not a bad connection at the power wire from
the alternator to the battery because you refreshed that
connection each time you replaced the alternator.
It's probably not a bad connection at the alternator field
input connector because you refreshed that connection
each time you replaced the alternator.
Most likely suspects:
1.) Broken wire inside the field input cable, usually right
next to or inside the connector.
2.) Bad connection/broken wire/defective relay at the
other end of the field cable.
Good luck,
Rodan.
.
hls
"Martin Riddle" <marti...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:hb2shk$cu6
>
> Replace the Plus side cable or connector on the battery. When you take the
> connector off there is a Lead washer in there , replace it.
> Also check the Neg cable.
>
> Should be CLEAN, I mean Clean. Not kidding. If battery acid got into the
> cable assembly, the cable is bad.
>
>
> Cheers
I had some troubles with the GM OEM cables corroding inside the terminal
end. This is not an uncommon problem. You can normally pull back the
insulation and take a visual. If they are corroded in this area, I found
it
better to replace rather than to try to clean and put the old back in
service.
Mike Hunter
maintenance prior to having that happen, don't you agree?
"hls" <h...@nospam.nix> wrote in message
news:PYKdnbA26K9hykrX...@giganews.com...
Stormin Mormon
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Rodan" <Ro...@Verizon.NOT> wrote in message
news:rLadnXgj3uFV6UvX...@whidbeytel.com...
Deke
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hb1u7f$18u$1...@news.eternal-september.org...The wingnut religious fanatics (of ANY religion) are the equivalent of the
village idiots.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPwGV1h4lW8
And this is SOOO true....
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2009/09/25/notes092509.DTL
Desertphile
<cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Don't know of any. Wish I was, he was quite a character.
Keep your homosexual fantasies out of my newsgroups.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Stormin Mormon
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Desertphile" <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote in
message news:f8khd55ick8fgic3m...@4ax.com...
Stormin Mormon
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Deke" <den...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:b72dnR0iXZVwCEXX...@centurytel.net...
Steve Daniels
compelled "Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com>,
to say:
> No salvation for you, reprobate!
Nor for you.
There are no gods. There is no heaven, there is no hell, there
is no devil. There is only us, and that makes it even more
important that we look out for and care for each other. Because
no one else is going to.
--
Howdya like that... we started playing guitar to impress the chicks and wind
up talkin' fingernails with old men.
Ray Boyce - 9.27.09
Heron McKeister
Learn more about Cheeses
http://cheese.com/
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hbaks4$1gn$4...@news.eternal-september.org...
PeterD
<cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
>No salvation for you, reprobate!
Thank goodness!
PeterD
wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:24:28 -0400, against all advice, something
>compelled "Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com>,
>to say:
>
>> No salvation for you, reprobate!
>
>Nor for you.
>
>There are no gods. There is no heaven, there is no hell, there
>is no devil. There is only us, and that makes it even more
>important that we look out for and care for each other. Because
>no one else is going to.
He won't see it, won't understand it... Some people never give up
their imaginary friends no matter how old they get.
Desertphile
<cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Desertphile" <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote in
> message news:f8khd55ick8fgic3m...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 08:47:33 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
> <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > Don't know of any. Wish I was, he was quite a character.
>> Keep your homosexual fantasies out of my newsgroups.
> Keep your incorrect guesses out of mine, please.
You're the one posting the faggy fantasies here, nutcase.
Augustus
>>is no devil. There is only us, and that makes it even more
>>important that we look out for and care for each other. Because
>>no one else is going to.
>
> He won't see it, won't understand it... Some people never give up
> their imaginary friends no matter how old they get.
I think the point is that he's driving to the lds church in a chevy 4x4
truck and offering you decent free advice on your question. His tagline is
immaterial....
Michael Dobony
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:24:28 -0400, against all advice, something
> compelled "Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com>,
> to say:
>
>> No salvation for you, reprobate!
>
> Nor for you.
Correct. Salvation is only to those who have Christ. Mormons reject Christ
as God. They follow the teachings of a vision of the angel Moroni, who's
teachings have been proven lies.
>
> There are no gods. There is no heaven, there is no hell, there
> is no devil. There is only us, and that makes it even more
> important that we look out for and care for each other. Because
> no one else is going to.
For your sake it better be true. However, belief in God or gods is
universal in all cultures. There *must* be some basis for this. It also
fails to explain the many miracles, healings, 100% accurate prophecies,
emptied grave clothes, etc. What is your scientific, rational explanation?
Steve Daniels
compelled Michael Dobony <sur...@stopassaultnow.net>, to say:
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:39:58 -0700, Steve Daniels wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:24:28 -0400, against all advice, something
> > compelled "Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com>,
> > to say:
> >
> >> No salvation for you, reprobate!
> >
> > Nor for you.
>
> Correct. Salvation is only to those who have Christ.
That's going to be pretty tough on the Buddhists.
PeterD
<sur...@stopassaultnow.net> wrote:
>For your sake it better be true. However, belief in God or gods is
>universal in all cultures.
Meaningless, and untrue.
>There *must* be some basis for this.
Superstitious ignorance by chance?
>It also
>fails to explain the many miracles, healings, 100% accurate prophecies,
>emptied grave clothes, etc. What is your scientific, rational explanation?
You need to understand a few things, like probability and odds, self
serving acts, imaginary things, etc.
For example namen a "100% accurate prophecies"? Now, how's that
different from any other guess? And WTF is 'emptied grave clothes'?
That's a new one for me...
hls
Commentator
> Does this have anything at all to do with GM autos??
So, it's on-topic when you have something to say, but when you are done you
turn into a NetCop?
Just trying to clarify...
Steve Daniels
compelled "hls" <h...@nospam.nix>, to say:
> Does this have anything at all to do with GM autos??
Yes.
Chevrolet is of the devil.
Stormin Mormon
are ill informed about what Mormons really teach, it's a
good idea to meet with real Mormons, and even attend real
Mormon Sunday services, at least once.
==================================
THE ARTICLES
OF FAITH.
In the spring of 1842, the Prophet Joseph Smith sent a
letter to John Wentworth, who was editor of a newspaper
called the Chicago Democrat. This letter contained an
account of many of the events of early Church history. The
document also contained thirteen statements outlining
Latter-day Saint beliefs. These have come to be known as the
Articles of Faith, which are given below.
The Articles of Faith are official doctrine of the Church
and have been canonized as a part of latter-day scripture.
They are clear statements of belief that help members
understand the basic beliefs of the Church and explain these
beliefs to others. They are not, however, a complete summary
of Church doctrine. Through living prophets, the Church is
guided by continuous revelation and inspiration.
1. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son,
Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins,
and not for Adam's transgression.
3. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all
mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and
ordinances of the Gospel.
4. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of
the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ;
second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the
remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift
of the Holy Ghost.
5. We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy,
and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority,
to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances
thereof.
6. We believe in the same organization that existed in the
Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors,
teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
7. We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation,
visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.
8. We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it
is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon
to be the word of God.
9. We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does
now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many
great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
10. We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the
restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem)
will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will
reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be
renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.
11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God
according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow
all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or
what they may.
12. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents,
rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and
sustaining the law.
13. We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent,
virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say
that we follow the admonition of Paul--We believe all
things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and
hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything
virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek
after these things.
Joseph Smith.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Michael Dobony" <sur...@stopassaultnow.net> wrote in
message news:nty0hpss9sh8.2...@40tude.net...
Stormin Mormon
by Stephen E. Robinson
Of course we are Christians. Why would anyone say otherwise?
Here are
the facts.
Stephen E. Robinson, "Are Mormons Christians?" New Era, May
1998,
41
If you live in Utah, you may be surprised. If you live where
Latter-day
Saints are a minority, you've probably heard it
before-perhaps many
times. But there are sincere people out there who believe
the
Latter-day Saints aren't Christians. In fact, the accusation
that we
are not Christians is probably the most commonly heard
criticism of the
LDS Church and its doctrines today.
Why would anyone say such a thing? Isn't the name of our
church The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Do we not
worship Christ?
Is not the Book of Mormon another testament of Jesus Christ?
How could
anyone seriously doubt that Latter-day Saints are
Christians?
The purpose of this article is to help you understand why
some people
make this accusation. Knowing that, perhaps you can be more
comfortable
and knowledgeable in dealing with such views when you hear
them
expressed. But remember that the spirit of contention is
always
un-Christian (see D&C 10:63). This article is meant to
provide
information and understanding rather than ammunition for
disputes.
There are a number of arguments used supposedly to "prove"
that we
are not Christian. It is important to recognize that none of
them have
anything to do with whether or not Latter-day Saints believe
in Jesus
Christ. Rather, what they basically boil down to is this:
Latter-day
Saints are different from the other Christian churches. (We
understand
that these differences exist because traditional
Christianity has
wandered from the truth over the centuries, but other
denominations see
things otherwise.) Their arguments against the Latter-day
Saints being
Christian generally fall into six basic categories:
Exclusion by special definition
1 What is a Christian? The term is found three times in the
New
Testament (Acts 11:26; Acts 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16), but it is
not defined
in any of those passages. According to Webster's Third New
International Dictionary, the term Christian may be defined
in a number
of ways, but the most common is "one who believes or
professes ... to
believe in Jesus Christ and the truth as taught by him ...
one whose
life is conformed to the doctrines of Christ." The second
most common
meaning is "a member of a church or group professing
Christian
doctrine or belief."
Under either of these two definitions, Latter-day Saints
qualify as
Christians. However, if a special definition is created
under which
Christian means "only those who believe as I do," then
others might
claim Latter-day Saints aren't Christians-but all this would
really
mean is that while Mormons believe in Christ, we don't
believe
exactly as they do. Excluding us in this way by inventing a
special
definition for the word Christian is like defining a duck as
an aquatic
bird with a broad, flat bill, webbed feet, and white
feathers, and then
concluding that mallards aren't ducks because their feathers
are the
wrong color.
If the term Christian is used, as it is in standard English,
to mean
someone who accepts Jesus Christ as the divine Son of God
and the
Savior of the world, then the charge that we aren't
Christians is
false. However, if the word Christian is given an overly
narrow
definition, then it is merely a way of saying LDS Christians
differ in
some degree from other Christians. No one "owns" the term
Christian
or has the right to deny it to others who worship Jesus as
the divine
Son of God.
Exclusion by misrepresentation
2 Some people insist on condemning Latter-day Saints for
doctrines the
Saints don't even believe. They say, in effect, "This is
what you
Mormons believe." Then they recite something that is
certainly not
taught by the Latter-day Saints. It's easy to make LDS
beliefs seem
absurd if critics can make up whatever they want and pass it
off as LDS
doctrine.
A good example of this kind of misrepresentation took place
when the
subject of the Latter-day Saint pioneers came up in my
daughter
Sarah's school classroom a few years ago. One of her
classmates said,
"My daddy says Mormons are people who live in Utah and
worship
idols." Sarah quickly answered back, "Well, I'm a Mormon,
and we
don't worship idols." But many of her classmates never did
believe
her, largely because they had already accepted the
misrepresentation.
Another form of misrepresentation is to claim something is
official LDS
doctrine when it may merely be an individual opinion or even
speculation. The official doctrine of the Latter-day Saints
is clearly
defined and readily accessible to all. Doctrines are
official if they
are found in the standard works of the Church, if they are
sustained by
the Church in general conference (D&C 26:2), or if they are
taught by
the First Presidency as a presidency. Policies and
procedures are
official whenever those who hold the keys and have been
sustained by
the Church to make them declare them so. Other churches
claim the right
to define and interpret their own doctrines and policies and
to
distinguish between official church teachings and the
opinions of
individual members. Surely the Latter-day Saints must be
allowed the
same privilege.
Name calling
3 Name calling has often been used in religious
controversies. At one
time, Catholics called Protestants "heretics," and
Protestants
called Catholics "papists." But this sort of tactic amounts
to
nothing more than saying, "Boo for your religion, and hurrah
for
mine."
The negative term most frequently flung at the LDS is
"cult," a
term which can suggest images of pagan priests and rituals.
But the
truth is there is no objective distinction by which a cult
may be
distinguished from a religion. Use of the term cult does not
tell us
what a religion is, only how it is regarded by the person
using the
term. It simply means "a religion I don't like."
Though non-LDS scholars have made many attempts to define a
"cult"
in a way that would distinguish it from a "religion," to
date every
such attempt has failed. So far the major difficulty has
been that any
definition of "cult" that fits the LDS Church also fits New
Testament Christianity! But that's not bad company to be in.
Exclusion by tradition
4 It is sometimes argued that to be truly Christian, modern
churches
must accept both biblical Christianity and the traditional
Christianity
of later history. In other words, one must accept not just
biblical
doctrines, but also the centuries of historical
development-the
councils, creeds, customs, theologians, and
philosophers-that came
along after New Testament times. Since the Latter-day Saints
do not
accept doctrines originating in the early Church after the
death of the
apostles and prophets, we are accused of not being
"historical" or
"traditional" Christians.
In fact, we believe that revelation to the early Church
stopped because
of the death of the Apostles and the growing apostasy, or
falling away,
from the truth. In the absence of Apostles, the church
eventually
turned to councils of philosophers and theologians, for
guidance. These
councils, after lengthy debates, in turn interpreted the
gospel
according to their best understanding. Often they drew upon
the
philosophies of respected men (like Plato), concluding, for
example,
that God has no body or physical nature; or that the three
separate
persons of the Godhead-the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost-are
only one
being. The declarations of these councils are still
generally accepted
today by traditional Christian churches as official
doctrines. Yet
these creeds were formulated centuries after the deaths of
the Apostles
and the close of the New Testament.
Were the Twelve Apostles Christians? Of course. But if it
were true
that one must accept the whole package of historical
Christianity in
order to be a Christian, then it would be impossible for
early
Christians, including Jesus and his disciples, to
qualify-since they
lived centuries before these traditions came to be. On the
other hand,
if the New Testament Saints can be considered Christians
without
accepting all the traditions of men that came later, then so
can the
Latter-day Saints, and the historical exclusion is invalid.
The canonical or biblical exclusion
5 The term "canon of scripture" refers to the collection of
books
accepted by any group as the authoritative word of God. For
most
Christians the canon of scripture is limited to the Bible.
But
Latter-day Saints have a larger canon of scripture that
includes the
Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of
Great
Price. The canonical exclusion, in its simplest form, says
that since
Latter-day Saints have books of scripture in addition to the
"traditional" Christian Bible, they cannot be Christians.
One of the problems with this canonical exclusion lies in
the
assumption that there is only one "traditional" Christian
Bible.
Over the centuries, there have been a number of different
versions of
the Bible, and many Christian churches and individuals have
disagreed
about which books should be included. Even today, the Bible
used by
Catholics contains a number of different books than the
Bible used by
Protestants. Yet Catholics and Protestants continue to call
each other
Christians-even though they have different canons of
scripture.
When revelation stopped after the death of the early
Apostles, people
were forced to draw one of two conclusions: (1) either
revelation had
stopped because God had already said everything they would
ever need,
or (2) revelation had stopped because the church lacked
apostles and
prophets to speak for him. Traditional Christians accept the
first
explanation; Latter-day Saints accept the second.
Sometimes critics cite Revelation 22:18-19 [Rev. 22:18-19]
as
evidence that the Bible forbids adding to or taking away
from the canon
of scripture. In these verses, John curses those who would
add to or
take away from "this book." But when John wrote Revelation,
the
Bible in its present form did not yet exist. He was simply
referring to
his own book, the Book of Revelation, rather than to the
whole Bible.
The truth is that prophets have usually added to the
scriptures-almost all the biblical apostles and prophets did
this.
There is, in fact, no biblical statement whatever closing
the canon of
scripture or prohibiting additional revelation or additional
scripture
after the New Testament.
Some non-LDS Christians believe that the Bible contains all
religious
truth. However, the Bible itself says nothing of the sort.
The word
Bible never appears in the Bible-for the Bible never refers
to
itself. Thus all these claims about the Bible are
unbiblical. The Bible
itself never claims to be perfect, never claims to be
sufficient for
salvation, and never claims to grant its readers authority
to speak or
act for God. Rather, such claims are made by those who have
lost
priesthood authority and have lost direct revelation and,
instead of
trying to find them again, are trying desperately to
maintain that
their loss doesn't matter.
The doctrinal exclusion
6 This type of argument claims that since the Latter-day
Saints do not
always interpret the Bible as other Christians do, we must
not be
Christians. But, in fact, other denominations also differ
among
themselves doctrinally, and it is unreasonable to demand
that
Latter-day Saints conform to a single standard of
"Christian"
doctrine when no such single standard exists.
For example, the Latter-day Saints are accused of worshiping
a
"different god" because we do not believe in the traditional
Trinity. "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His
Son,
Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost" (A of F 1:1) as taught
in the
New Testament. What Latter-day Saints do not believe is the
non-Biblical doctrine formulated by the councils of Nicaea
(A.D. 325)
and Chalcedon (A.D. 451) centuries after the time of
Jesus-the
doctrine that God is three coequal persons in one substance
or essence.
We do not believe it because it is not scriptural. As
Harper's Bible
Dictionary states: "The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it
was
defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth
centuries
is not to be found in the New Testament."
Jesus didn't teach the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity. The
New
Testament writers didn't have any idea of it. The doctrine
itself
wasn't invented until centuries later. So one can't say the
Latter-day Saints are not true Christians for not accepting
it, unless
one also excludes Jesus, his disciples, and the New
Testament Church,
who similarly did not know or teach it.
Latter-day Saints do believe that God the Father has a
physical body.
This view is attacked as "non-Christian" by critics who
often cite
John 4:24, which states in the King James version that "God
is a
spirit." However, since there is no indefinite article (a,
or an) in
the Greek language from which this verse is translated, the
consensus
among biblical scholars is that there should not be an
indefinite
article at John 4:24. It should simply read "God is spirit."
In
other words, this scripture does not limit God to being only
a spirit,
but merely includes spirit as one of his attributes. After
all, we also
read that "God is light" (1 Jn. 1:5) and "God is love" (1
Jn.
4:8), and yet no one interprets these verses to mean that
God is only
light, or God is only love. Certainly, the member of the
Godhead called
the Holy Ghost is spirit, but that fact tells us nothing
about whether
or not God the Father has a physical body.
Finally, quite often we hear that Latter-day Saints are not
Christians
because true Christians believe in salvation by grace, while
the
Latter-day Saints believe in salvation through our own good
works. But
this is a misunderstanding. Yes, Latter-day Saints do
believe we must
serve God with all our "heart, might, mind, and strength"
(D&C
4:2). But the Book of Mormon makes perfectly clear that it
is
impossible for us to completely earn or deserve our
blessings from God
(Mosiah 2:21, 24); that redemption can never come through
individual
effort alone, but only through the Atonement of Jesus Christ
(2 Ne.
2:3, 5-8); and that-after all we can do (Alma 24:11)-we are
saved
by grace (2 Ne. 10:24; 2 Ne. 25:23).
Conclusion
We have discussed arguments some people use for claiming
that
Latter-day Saints are not Christians. Notice that not one of
these
addresses the question of whether we accept Jesus Christ as
the divine
Son of God and Savior. Our critics don't address this-the
only
issue that really matters-for the LDS position here is an
unassailable matter of record. Our first article of faith [A
of F 1:1]
declares our belief in Jesus Christ. We meet every Sunday
and partake
of the sacrament to renew our faith in and our commitment to
Him as the
Son of God and the Savior of the world.
I have frequently asked non-LDS critics exactly which Book
of Mormon
teachings about Jesus Christ they disagree with. Invariably
the
response has been that it isn't what the Book of Mormon says
that is
offensive to them-it is the Book of Mormon itself. Most
anti-Mormons
reject the LDS scriptures without knowing or caring what
those
scriptures actually teach about Christ. You see, it isn't
really the
LDS doctrine of Christ that is objectionable; rather, it is
the claim
that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, that the Book of
Mormon is
God's word, and that the gospel has been restored to the
earth in the
latter days.
Both the Book of Mormon as scripture and Joseph Smith as a
prophet bear
witness to Jesus Christ as Savior. The Doctrine and
Covenants and Pearl
of Great Price bear that same great witness, as do all of
the modern
prophets and apostles. Though all the world may say that
Latter-day
Saints do not know or love or worship Jesus Christ, the
truth is that
we do. If this is not enough to be counted as Christian,
then that word
has lost its meaning.
(This article is largely adapted from the book Are Mormons
Christians?
Bookcraft, 1991.)
Gospel topics: Jesus Christ, Christianity
[photos] Photo illustration by Pat Gerber
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Michael Dobony" <sur...@stopassaultnow.net> wrote in
message news:nty0hpss9sh8.2...@40tude.net...
Correct. Salvation is only to those who have Christ. Mormons
PeterD
>Does this have anything at all to do with GM autos??
Aw, gee... Someone asking for reality! <bg>
No, but gotta admit, things have been slow around here for a while.
Stormin Mormon
by Matthew Roper
One morning, several years ago, I had to acquire
some materials for a research project I was
working on. In company with two friends, I
visited a small Salt Lake City bookstore operated
by a well-known anti-Mormon couple. The woman,
and co-proprietor of this establishment, was most
helpful in assisting me in my aim. While there,
I had the opportunity to witness and also engage
in a most interesting conversation with this woman.
During our conversation the question arose as to
what, in her view, would constitute acceptable
evidence in support of the Book of Mormon. She
struggled with this question for several minutes,
so we asked if some kind of inscription would do.
This would depend, she said. One of my companions
then gave her a hypothetical scenario: Let's
suppose non-Mormon archaeologists found an
inscription in highland Guatemala dating to the
early sixth century B.C. with the name Nephi
written in Reformed Egyptian. If verified, would
such a find then constitute evidence for the Book
of Mormon? Yet our kind host was unwilling to
grant that even this would constitute such
evidence, allowing only that, "it might be a
topic of discussion." In leaving her store it
was unclear what if anything would constitute
such evidence.
In reflecting on this experience I have been
reminded of the words of the Lord to a young
Joseph Smith. No doubt eager to share the
excitement of early sacred experiences with
others, the Lord warned, "Behold, if they will
not believe my words, they would not believe
you, my servant Joseph, if it were possible
that you should show them all these things
which I have committed unto you" (D&C 5:7).
When dealing with issues of scholarship I believe
it is proper and wise for Latter-day Saints to
distinguish between "evidence" and "proof." As
I see it "evidence" is something that tends to
support a particular proposition, theory, or
claim. "Proof" is something that is already
accepted as established without question.
Frequently in the real world proof only occurs
at an individual level and is a personal
judgment which one makes when they have become
convinced that the sum of the evidence taken
together is persuasive enough to accept a
proposition as established or true. In
discussions of scholarly issues, people with
different opinions may agree upon the validity
of particular pieces of evidence, while still
disagreeing in their final judgment of what
the sum of that evidence may mean.
The Book of Mormon claims to be an ancient text
compiled by ancient American prophets that was
translated by the gift and power of God by Joseph
Smith, a nineteenth century prophet. One is not
going to be able to establish, simply by scholarly
learning, whether or not God lives and really
spoke to Joseph Smith, sent angels to him to
reveal the Book of Mormon and so forth.
Scholarly learning is not a tool equipped to
deal with questions of the divine and miracles.
For most of us these are questions of faith and
they are questions that can only be fully answered
by the examination of spiritual evidence. It is
written in Hebrews, "Now faith is the substance
of things hoped for, the evidence of things not
seen" (Hebrews 11:1). Note that faith is not
blind trust in a lack of evidence, but the trust
in another kind of evidence that can be discerned
spiritually, although not seen. Have you ever been
truly happy? What was it like? Is that real to
you? Does that experience tell you something about
what made you feel that way? Was it good? Of
course. Things don't have to be seen with the
eye to be real.
[The testimony of the Holy Ghost to the individual]
must ever be the chief source of evidence for the
truth of the Book of Mormon. All other evidence
is secondary to this, the primary and infallible.
No arrangement of evidence, however skillfully
ordered; no argument, however adroitly made, can
ever take its place; for this witness of the Holy
Spirit to the soul of man for the truth of the
Nephite volume of scripture, is God's evidence to
the truth; and it will ever be the chief reliance
of those who accept the Book of Mormon, and expect
to see its acceptance throughout the world.1
This does not mean that we should not examine
scholarly issues, however. It simply means that
there is a form of evidence that is primary
because it is more reassuring and ultimately more
reliable, enduring and satisfactory. Still, the
fruits of careful scholarship have their place.
To be known, the truth must be stated and the
clearer and more complete the statement is, the
better opportunity will the Holy Spirit have for
testifying to the souls of men that the work is
true. ...Secondary evidences in support of truth,
like secondary causes in natural phenomena, may
be of first-rate importance, and mighty factors
in the achievement of God's purposes.2
There are many kinds of secondary evidence to
consider. I would like to consider one particular
kind of secondary evidence, what I would call
"boomerang hits" in the Book of Mormon. These
are elements found in the Book of Mormon text
which have in the past been loudly derided by
critics or sent them into paroxysms of laughter,
but which when re-examined today can be seen in
a whole new light.
In 1963 Hugh Nibley observed
It is the "howlers" with which the Book of Mormon
abounds that furnish the best index to its
authenticity. They show, first of all, that the
book was definitely not a typical product of its
time, and secondly, when they are examined more
closely in the light of present-day evidence,
they appear very different indeed than they did
a hundred years ago.
The "Land of Jerusalem"
"'The land of Jerusalem.'" exclaimed Origen
Bacheler in 1838, "There is no such land. No part
of Palestine bears the name of Jerusalem, except
the city itself." 4 While the phrase cannot be
found in the Bible, it does appear in the Amarna
Tablets, not discovered until 1887, where it
appears at least five times. The phrase also
appears in another recently published Dead Sea
Scroll fragment attributed to Jeremiah, which
refers to Jeremiah and others who "were taken
captive from the land of Jerusalem."5 Eisenmann
and Wise state that this is a phrase which
"greatly enhances the sense of historicity" of
the document in question.6 Might we not now say
the same about the Book of Mormon?
Old World Steel in the Book of Mormon
Nephi states that Laban, a powerful military
official in Jerusalem around 600 B.C., possessed
a sword with a blade "of the most precious steel"
(1 Nephi 4:9).7 Many critics of the Book of
Mormon have cited this passage as evidence against
the Book of Mormon's historicity, "Steel," it is
argued, "was not known to man in those days."8
Today, however, it is increasingly apparent that
the practice of "steeling" iron through deliberate
carburization was well known to the Near Eastern
world from which the Lehi colony emerged. "It seems
evident that by the beginning of the tenth century
B.C. blacksmiths were intentionally steeling iron."
9 A carburized iron knife dating to the twelfth
century B.C. is known from Cyprus.10 In addition
to this, "a site on Mt. Adir in northern Israel
has yielded an iron pick in association with
twelfth century pottery. One would hesitate to
remove a sample from the pick for analysis, but
it has been possible to test the tip for hardness.
The readings averaged 38 on the Rockwell 'C' scale
of hardness. This is a reading characteristic of
modern hardened steel."11 Quenching and tempering,
methods of steeling iron, were also known to
Mediterranean blacksmiths during this period.12
Archaeologists recently discovered a tempered
carburized iron sword near Jericho. The sword
which had a bronze haft, was one meter long and
dates to the time of King Josiah, who would have
been a contemporary of Lehi.13 Hershall Shanks
recently described the find as "spectacular"
since it is "the only complete sword of its size
and type from this period yet discovered in Israel."
14 Such discoveries lend a greater sense of
historicity to Nephi's passing comment in the
Book of Mormon.
Cement
In his abridgement of the Nephite chronicle,
Mormon recorded that about 46 B.C. a group of
Nephites migrated to the land northward. He
stated, "The people who went forth became
exceedingly expert in the working of cement;
therefore they did build houses of cement in
the which they did dwell" (Helaman 3:7). In 1929,
President Heber J. Grant recalled, "When I was
a young married man another young man who had
received a doctor's degree ridiculed me for
believing in the Book of Mormon. He said he could
point out two lies in that book. One was that the
people had built their homes out of cement and
that they were very skillful in the use of cement.
He said there had never been found and never would
be found, a house built of cement by the ancient
inhabitants of this country, because the people of
that early age knew nothing about cement. He said
that should be enough to make one disbelieve the
book. I said: "That does not affect my faith one
particle. I read the Book of Mormon prayerfully
and supplicated God for a testimony in my heart
and soul of the divinity of it, and I have accepted
it and believe it with all my heart." I also said
to him, "If my children do not find cement houses,
I expect that my grandchildren will." He said,
"Well, what is the good of talking to a fool
like that"15
In more recent years other critics have expressed
similar sentiments. John L Smith, for example,
asserts, "There is zero archaeological evidence
that any kind of cement existed in the Americas
prior to modern times."16
Once thought to be anachronistic, references to
"cement" in the Book of Mormon (Helaman 3:7,9,11)
can be seen today as further evidence of the
authenticity of the text. This is because today
the presence of expert cement technology in
pre-Hispanic America is a well-established
archaeological fact. "American technology in
the manufacture of cement, its mixing and
placement two thousand years ago, paralleled
that of the Greeks and the Romans during the
same period" notes structural engineer, David
Hyman, in a recent study devoted to the use of
cement in Pre-Columbian Mexico. The earliest
known sample of such cement dates to the first
century A.D. and is a "fully developed product."
17 Known samples of Mesoamerican cement work show
signs of remarkable skill and sophistication.
"Technology in the manufacturing of calcareous
cements in Middle America [were] equal to any in
the world at the advent of the Christian Era."
18 For example, concrete floor slabs at
Teotihuacan that date to about this time exceed
many present-day building requirements.19 While
the earliest known samples are from the first
century A.D., scholars believe that "their degree
of perfection could not have been instantaneously
created, but rather would have required a
considerable period of development" before then.20
Hyman asks, "Were these materials invented by
indigenous unnamed people far preceding the
occupation of Teotihuacan, or were they introduced
by an exotic culture."21 In its references to
"cement," the Book of Mormon anticipates what has
now been well established.
Names
Critics of the Book of Mormon have been reluctant
to grant the historical complexity of Book of
Mormon names, even when faced with scholarly
evidence supporting their authenticity. One man
after writing a series of inflammatory letters
designed to elicit negative comments about
Latter-day Saint scriptures from prominent Near
Eastern scholars, received a response from
William F. Albright of John's Hopkins University.
Contrary to this individual's expectations,
Albright expressed doubts that Joseph Smith could
have learned Egyptian from any nineteenth century
sources. Explaining that he was a Protestant and
hence not a believer in the Book of Mormon, he
observed, "It is all the more surprising that
there are two Egyptian names, Paanch[i] and
Pahor[an] which appear in the Book of Mormon in
close connection with a reference to the original
language being 'Reformed Egyptian.'" Puzzled at
the existence of such names in an obscure book
published by Joseph Smith in 1830, Albright
vaguely suggested that the young Mormon leader
was some kind of "religious genius."22 Incensed
by this response, this same critic wrote to another
scholar in England. Without mentioning Albright by
name, he complained of "another scholar who is
renowned in ancient Semitic studies" who "though
a Protestant, he writes of the Book of Mormon like
it had authentic Egyptian-Hebrew support. He even
offered me what he said were two good Egyptian
names in the Book of Mormon-Paanchi and Pahoran.
...Certainly he would know Joseph Smith didn't
understand Egyptian, but why would he leave an
impression that Joseph Smith was on the right
track?"23
Alma
Critics have occasionally had fun at Latter-day
Saint expense since the Book of Mormon has several
prophets known as Alma. Here are a few comments that
are typical: Alma is supposed to be a prophet of
God and of Jewish ancestry in the Book of Mormon.
In Hebrew Alma means a betrothed virgin maiden-
hardly a fitting name for a man.24
In most of the United States Alma is a woman's
name. However, in Utah, only the men are named
Alma... Thus we see that even in peoples names,
Mormonism redefines Christian words to suit its
meanings.25
So Mormons who name their sons Alma have actually
named them 'lass' or 'virgin' or a young woman.
Interesting!26
We still find it interesting that so many Mormons
saddle their sons with a word that means 'lass' or
'damsel.' It reminds us of the 'boy named Sue.'
Again, Mormonism has redefined a word. ...Typical
of the strange definitions that Mormonism gives
familiar terms, perhaps we should not think it
strange that Mormonism gives boys a girl's name.27
As can be seen, critics have had a lot of fun with
the name Alma, however, in the 1960s Israeli
archaeologist Yigael Yadin discovered a land deed
near the Dead Sea dating to the early second
century A.D. and rendered the name of a Jew
mentioned therein as "Alma ben Yehuda" showing
for the first time in modern history that the name
Alma was an authentic Hebrew male name.28
Additional research in Ebla, in what is modern
Syria, has also turned up this name showing that
it goes back to nearly 2200 B.C.29
Jershon
The Book of Mormon name Jershon can be traced to
a Hebrew root meaning "to inherit." In the Book
of Mormon we read "Behold, we will give up the
land of Jershon, which is on the east by the sea...
and this land of Jershon is the land which we will
give unto our brethren for an inheritance" (Alma 27:22).
Shilum
Alma 11:5-15 describes various monetary units
which the Nephites used at one point in their
history. Alma 11:16 in our current edition of
the Book of Mormon states that one of these units
was a "shiblum." However, both the 1830 edition
of the Book of Mormon and the Printer's manuscript
indicate that this originally read "shilum."
Significantly, Shilum is a perfectly good Hebrew
word. It literally means "retribution...a fee:
recompense, reward." That makes sense in a
monetary context doesn't it?
Nahom
Nephi recorded, "And it came to pass that Ishmael
died, and was buried in the place which was called
Nahom. And it came to pass that the daughters of
Ishmael did mourn exceedingly, because of the loss
of their father" (1 Nephi 16:34-35). Biblical
scholars point to the root NHM meaning to "comfort"
or "console." In some forms the word "comes simply
to mean 'suffer emotional pain'. The sense 'be
comforted' is retained in context of mourning for
the dead."30 Damrosch notes that all references to
NHM in the Hebrew Bible are associated with death.
"In family settings, it is applied in instances
involving death of an immediate family member
(parent, sibling, or child); in national settings,
it has to do with the survival or impending
extermination of an entire people. At heart,
naham means 'to mourn,' to come to terms with a
death; these usages are usually translated...by
the verb 'to comfort,' as when Jacob's children
try to comfort their father after the reported
death of Joseph."31 The events in 1 Nephi 16:34-35
fit this context quite well since we are told that
Ishmael, a close family member, died and his
daughters mourn and murmur.
Alan Goff was written a important article on the
meaning of NHM as it relates to 1 Nephi 16:34-39).
32 Goff was apparently the first to note that
the significance of this term may go beyond the
obvious context of mourning for the dead. Nephi
related, "And Laman said unto Lemuel and also unto
the sons of Ishmael: Behold let us slay our father,
and also our brother Nephi....And it came to pass
that the Lord was with us, yea even the voice
of the Lord came and did speak many words unto
them, and did chasten them exceedingly; and after
they were chastened by the voice of the Lord they
did turn away their anger, and did repent of their
sins, insomuch that the Lord did bless us again
with food, that we did not perish"
(1 Nephi 16:37, 39).
According to one scholar, the term NHM can also
be "extended to describe the release of emotional
tension involved in performing a declared action
(executing wrath), or retracting a declared action
(such as sin, punishment or blessing)."33 Damarosch
notes that the Hebrew term naham is sometimes
applied to contexts involving "cases of regret
or change of heart" frequently "when the repenter
is meditating murder. 'Repentance' [or change of
heart] then involves either the decision to kill,
or conversely, the decision to stop killing. The
term can then be used in quite ignoble circumstances,
as when Esau comforts himself for the loss of his
birthright by deciding to kill Jacob (Gen. 27:42),
but usually it is God who repents, either negatively
or positively; negatively, by deciding to destroy his
people; positively, by commuting a sentence of
destruction."34 Again, this explanation clearly
fits the context of 1 Nephi 16:34-39 where Laman
and Lemuel and the sons of Ishmael contemplate the
murder of their father Lehi and their brother Nephi
and where the Lord is angry with them and where
after being chastened by the Lord they turn away
their anger and repent of their sins and the Lord
also apparently turns away his wrath and does not
destroy them with hunger. It is also interesting
that while they had up until this time been traveling
southward (1 Nephi 16:13) they now turn and
travel eastward (1 Nephi 17:1).
Sheum
According to Zeniff's record in the Book of Mormon
account, "And we began to till the ground, yea,
even with all manner of seeds of corn, and of wheat,
and of barley, and with neas, and with sheum"
(Mosiah 9:9). "Pray tell me what kinds of grain
neas and sheum are? Joseph Smith's translation needs
another translation, to render it intelligible."35
"We must reluctantly pass on denying the existence
of neas and sheum, and put them into the same
category as the unidentifiable cureloms and cumoms.
"36 As it turns out sheum is a perfectly good
Akkadian (ancient northern Mesopotamian) name for a
grain dating to the third millennium B.C.37 This
term, se um, (the s is pronounced sh in semitic
languages) was a term by which these ancient Near
Eastern peoples referred to barley, although it
could also be applied to other kinds of grains.
Book of Mormon peoples seem to have applied this
Old World name to some New World crop. Could Joseph
Smith have derived this name from some nineteenth
century book? Impossible. Akkadian could not be read
until 1857, twenty-seven years after the Book of
Mormon was published and thirteen years after the
Prophet was dead. This raises an interesting
question. If Joseph Smith was really the author
of the Book of Mormon, how did he come up with
the word sheum? How did he just happen to choose
this particular name and just happen to use it in
an agricultural context?
Barley in the Book of Mormon
The Book of Mormon states that the people of Zeniff
cultivated barley in the promised land (Mosiah 9:9).
In 1887 M.T. Lamb wrote, "It is a somewhat stubborn
fact that barley was never found upon either of
these western continents until imported by Europeans
in modern times!"38 In 1910 Charles Shook asked,
"But where is the proof of this extraordinary
assertion? It seems very probable that, if
Americans had once had ... barley, they would
not have given up [its] cultivation and use,
and yet [it was] not to be found in America when
the Europeans came." Shook then noted that while
ancient Pre-Columbian sites were known in Peru,
Arizona and Ohio for example, "not a vestige"
of barley has ever been found" at any of these
sites.39
"In this book, we are told," stated William
Biederwolf in a widely circulated anti-Mormon
pamphlet, "that barley was among the produce
of the earth, whereas all respected scholarship
is absolutely positive in its authority" that
barley is only a modern New World crop.40 In
1964 Gordon Fraser asserted, "The only grain
known in America was maize."41 Elsewhere the
same author described the Book of Mormon
references to barley as one of numerous
"verifiable blunders" found in the Book of
Mormon.42 In a popular anti-Mormon work published
in 1979, former Mormon Latayne Colvett Scott could
safely affirm what previous critics already knew
that, "barley never grew in the New World before
the white man brought it here!"43 Other
Evangelical critics were even more smug, "If
there was no barley in America until the white
man came, then [the Book of Mormon] must be
false. If God were the one that wrote the Book
of Mormon, is it not a reasonable assumption
that he would have known there was no barley
in the New World? The Book of Mormon...falls
short of authenticatable [sic] truth."44
As this last statement was being written,
archaeologists discovered several specimens of
pre-Columbian domesticated barley while
excavating a Hohokam Indian site near Phoenix,
Arizona. "Perhaps the most startling evidence of
Hohokam agricultural sophistication came last
year when salvage archaeologists found preserved
grains of what looks like domesticated barley,
the first ever found in the New World."45 This
startling discovery was later confirmed by
additional discoveries in both Oklahoma and
Illinois. "It is reasonable to conclude that we
are looking at a North American domesticated grain
crop whose existence has not been suspected."46 Or
as another set of botanists states, "[Our] project
reveal[s] a previously unidentified seed type now
identified as little barley (Hordeum pusillum), and
there are strong indications that this grain must
be added to the list of starchy-seeded plants that
were cultivated in the region by 2000 years ago."
47 Of course it was the Book of Mormon that first
pointed this out.
Conclusion
Let's imagine a scenario. Suppose I read the Book
of Mormon some time ago, say, in the 1970s. I read
about the Nephites having barley. I reject the
Book of Mormon because there is no evidence for
pre-Columbian barley. This was, after all, the
scholarly consensus-there was no pre-Columbian
domesticated barley in the New World period! But
now it turns out that this view was wrong. There
was in fact archaeological evidence for barley in
pre-Columbian America. It just hadn't been
discovered yet. Let's suppose I had even staked my
life on the belief in opinion of scholars that
there was no such grain before Columbus. Wouldn't
I have made a terrible mistake? The example of
pre-Columbian barley should be a warning to us
that similar evidences for the Book of Mormon,
which at present seem to be anachronisms, may yet
be forthcoming as well
.
Notes
1 B.H. Roberts, New Witnesses for God (Salt Lake
City: Deseret News, 1909), 2:vi-vii.
2 Ibid., vii-viii.
3 Hugh Nibley, "Howlers in the Book of Mormon"
Millennial Star 125 (February
1963): 28.
4 Origen Bachelor, Mormonism Exposed Internally
and Externally. (New York:
Privately Published, 1838), 14.
5 Eisenmann and Wise, 57-58.
6 Ibid.
7 Noah Webster's 1828 English dictionary defines
"steel" as "iron combined with a small portion of
carbon; iron refined and hardened...particularly
useful as the material of edged tools." Noah
Webster, An American Dictionary of the English
Language. 2 vols. (New York: S. Converse, 1828),
2:80.
8 Stuart Martin, The Mystery of Mormonism. (London:
Odhams Press, 1920), 44.
9 Robert Maddin, James D. Muhly and Tamara S.
Wheeler, "How the Iron Age
Began," Scientific American 237/4 (October 1977): 127.
10 Ibid. The knife shows evidence of quenching.
See Tamara S. Wheeler and Robert Maddin,
"Metallurgy and Ancient Man," in The Coming
Age of Iron. (New Haven and London: Yale University
Press, 1980), 121.
11 Maddin, Muhly, and Wheeler, "How the Iron
Age Began," 127.
12 Ibid., 131. James D, Muhly, "How iron technology
changed the ancient world" Biblical Archaeology
Review (November-December 1982): In Hershall
Shanks, Archaeology and the Bible: The Best
of BAR (1990) 1:234.
13 Hershall Shanks, "Antiquities Director
Confronts Problems and Controversies," Biblical
Archaeology Review 12/4 (July-August 1986): 33, 35.
14 Ibid.
15 Heber J. Grant, Conference Report, April 1929, 129.
16 John L. Smith, "What about those Gold Plates?"
The Utah Evangel 33/6 (September 1986): 8.
17 David S. Hyman, Pre-Columbian Cements: A Study of
the Calcareous Cements in Pre-Hispanic Mesoamerican
Building Construction (Baltimore: John's
Hopkins University, 1970), ii.
18 Ibid., 6-15.
19 Ibid., 6-7.
20 Ibid., 6-15.
21 Ibid., 6-16.
22 William F. Albright to Grant S. Heward,
Baltimore, Maryland, 25 July
1966.
23 Grant S. Heward to I.E.S. Edwards, Midvale,
Utah, 14 March 1967. I would
like to thank Boyd Peterson for providing this
reference.
24 Walter Martin, The Maze of Mormonism (Santa
Ana, California: Vision
House, 1978), 327.
25 Robert McKay, "A Mormon Name" Utah Evangel
31/8 (August 1984): 4.
26 John L. Smith, editorial comment on Robert
McKay, "A Mormon Name" Utah
Evangel 31/8 (August 1984): 4.
27 "That Man Alma" Utah Evangel 33/3 (April 1986): 2.
28 Yigael Yadin, Bar-Kokhba (London: Weidenfeld
and Nicolson, 1965), 176.
29 Terrence L. Szink, "Further evidence of a
semitic Alma" Journal of Book
of Mormon Studies 8/1 (1999): 70.
30 H. Van Dyke Parunak, "A Semantic Survey of
NHM," Biblica 56 (1975): 532.
31 David Damrosch, The Narrative Covenant.
(San Francisco: Harper and Row,
1987), 128-129.
32 Alan Goff, "Mourning , Consolation, and
Repentance at Nahom," in John L. Sorenson
and Melvin J. Thorne, eds., Rediscovering
the Book of Mormon: Insights You May Have
Missed Before. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and
FARMS, 1991), 92-99.
33 Parunak, "A Semantic Survey of NHM," 532.
34 Damrosch, Narrative Covenant, 129.
35 Origen Bacheler, Mormonism Exposed, 14.
36 Latayne Colvett Scott, The Mormon Mirage: A
former Mormon tells why she left the Church
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1979), 84.
37 Hildegard Lewy, "On Some Old Assyrian Cereal
Names," Journal of the American Oriental Society
76/4 (October-December 1956): 201-204.
38 M.T. Lamb, The Golden Bible, or, The Book of
Mormon: Is It From God? (New York: Ward &
Drummond, 1887), 304.
39 Charles A. Shook, Cumorah Revisited...
(Cincinnati: The Standard
Publishing Company, 1910), 382-383.
40 William Edward Biederwolf, Mormonism Under
the Searchlight (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Eerdmans, 1947).
41 Gordon Fraser, What Does the Book of Mormon
Teach? An Examination of the Historical and
Scientific Statements of the Book of Mormon
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1964), 90.
42 Gordon Fraser, Is Mormonism Christian?
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1977), 141.
43 Latayne Colvett Scott, The Mormon Mirage:
A Former Mormon Tells Why She Left the Church
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1979), 82.
44 Rick Branch, "Nephite Nickels." The Utah
Evangel 29/10 (October 1982): 1.
45 Daniel B. Adams, "Last Ditch Archaeology,"
Science 83 (December 1983):
32.
46 V.L. Bohrer, "Domesticated and Wild Crops in
the CAEP Study Area," in P.M. Spoerl and G.J.
Gumerman, eds., Prehistoric Cultural Development
in Central Arizona: Archaeology of the Upper
New River Region (Southern Illinois University
at Carbondale Center for Archaeological
Investigations, Occasional paper 5, 1984): 252.
47 Nancy and David Asch, "Archaeobotany," Deer
Track: A Late Woodland Village in the Mississippi
Valley, edited by Charles R. McGimsey and Michael
D. Conner (Kampsville, Illinois: Center for
American Archaeology, 1985), 44.
http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2001RopM.html
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Michael Dobony" <sur...@stopassaultnow.net> wrote in
message news:nty0hpss9sh8.2...@40tude.net...
Correct. Salvation is only to those who have Christ. Mormons
Stormin Mormon
from God by sin. In order to return to the presence of God,
we needed a saviour. Who is Jesus of Nazareth, also called
Jesus Christ. Joseph's first contact with any divine being
was the appearance of God the Father, and Jesus Christ, the
Son. When Moroni visited Joseph Smith (some time after the
first vision), Moroni taught of Christ, and quoted from the
Bible. Moroni also revealed the location of some scriptures
which had been written by prophets in North America. Through
translating those plates, more was revealed about Christ,
and His teachings. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints does worship the resurrected Christ. The church has
been teaching of Christ since it's first days.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Michael Dobony" <sur...@stopassaultnow.net> wrote in
message news:nty0hpss9sh8.2...@40tude.net...
Correct. Salvation is only to those who have Christ. Mormons
Stormin Mormon
death. In a place called Paradise, a state of rest. Between
death and resurrection. But, the Buddhists are likely to be
disappointed that they were not Christian.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Steve Daniels" <sdan...@gorge.net> wrote in message
news:qs3sd59r1v0ic8hd2...@4ax.com...
Stormin Mormon
out the thread, or ignore it. I agree, it's way off topic
for automobile news group. And, for that, I do apologize.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"hls" <h...@nospam.nix> wrote in message
news:xc6dnSIFp9w8zUPX...@giganews.com...
Stormin Mormon
had, have treated me well. The first GM I drove was a 1970
Chevrolet Nova. My parents bought it new, and it didn't run
quite right for a while. Kept taking it back to the dealer.
By the time I was able to drive, it ran fine. By the time we
junked it, it had rusted to the point the springs were
coming up into the trunk. But, it ran just fine. Straight
six engine, and got consistently 16 MPG. My next car was an
8 cylinder Dodge Dart that got 10 MPG and would not start
when it was wet. I shoulda had the Nova welded up, and kept
driving it.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Steve Daniels" <sdan...@gorge.net> wrote in message
news:stssd5tq5rakhdi6g...@4ax.com...
Desertphile
wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:24:27 -0500, Michael Dobony
> <sur...@stopassaultnow.net> wrote:
> >For your sake it better be true. However, belief in God or gods is
> >universal in all cultures.
> Meaningless, and untrue.
Very, very untrue at that. Most Steppe cultures have no gods. And
as you pointed out, belief in the gods does not mean the gods
exist.
It is fucking annoying having shit-for-brains occult-befuddled
assholes spewing their cult bullshit here in automotive
newsgroups. There are actual newsgroups where superstitious
retards can post their insane fantasies.
PeterD
<cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The short summary of Mormon teachings.
<plonk>
PeterD
<cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Fortunaely, the Buddhists will learn of Christ after their
>death. In a place called Paradise, a state of rest. Between
>death and resurrection. But, the Buddhists are likely to be
>disappointed that they were not Christian.
So your 'god' hates and hurts anyone who doesn't believe in him? Nice
guy, this 'god' character.
Michael Dobony
> Below is a summary of Mormon teachings. Because many people
> are ill informed about what Mormons really teach, it's a
> good idea to meet with real Mormons, and even attend real
> Mormon Sunday services, at least once.
> ==================================
>
> THE ARTICLES
> OF FAITH.
>
>
> In the spring of 1842, the Prophet Joseph Smith sent a
> letter to John Wentworth, who was editor of a newspaper
> called the Chicago Democrat. This letter contained an
> account of many of the events of early Church history. The
> document also contained thirteen statements outlining
> Latter-day Saint beliefs. These have come to be known as the
> Articles of Faith, which are given below.
>
He also claimed to understand Egyptian hieroglyphics. He was proven a liar
and fraud after the Rosetta Stone was discovered.
Desertphile
<sur...@stopassaultnow.net> wrote:
> He also claimed to understand Egyptian hieroglyphics. He was proven a liar
> and fraud after the Rosetta Stone was discovered.
Smith and his mother both made what they claimed to be "Egyptian
artifacts" and sold them as such, claiming they found the
"artifacts" here in North America.
Smith also operated a fraudulent bank, where he had zero assets
but he pretended to have a chest full of gold which he put in the
window of his "bank" for victims to see.
Smith learned crime at the knee of his mother, and he was a
criminal all of his life, defaruding people and robbing them.
On my web site I have some historical documents aboutSmith, the
pedophile Brigham Young, and the Moroms that I collected from the
Library of Congress and scanned in.
Steve Daniels
> Fortunaely, the Buddhists will learn of Christ after their
> death. In a place called Paradise, a state of rest. Between
> death and resurrection. But, the Buddhists are likely to be
> disappointed that they were not Christian.
You know, there are like billions of them. And they believe what
they believe just as much as you believe what you believe, with
as little real world evidence as you have. This makes them as
legitimate as you and yours.
So tell me, why are you right, and them wrong? What if *you*
guessed wrong, and Buddha decides to wipe his ass with your soul?
How can you be so sure you are right, and billions of people on
this Earth are wrong?
Steve Daniels
compelled Desertphile <deser...@invalid-address.net>, to say:
> It is fucking annoying having shit-for-brains occult-befuddled
> assholes spewing their cult bullshit here in automotive
> newsgroups. There are actual newsgroups where superstitious
> retards can post their insane fantasies.
That's all true. But I changed the Subject: line to something a
reasonable person could consider as off topic for the group. You
don't need to read it.
And anyway, most of the USENET etiquette was put into place in a
time when Australia had to wait for the delivery of tapes. Tapes
which had the most recent USENET feed, which were then copied
into the Australian Internet and sent on their way. There are
several orders of magnitude more bandwidth then there was then,
and sending a message to more than one group just isn't that big
of a technical deal any more.
I have as much bandwidth here at my house as the City of Ashland,
OR, had in 1998.
hls
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 09:16:36 -0400, against all advice, something
> compelled "Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com>,
> to say:
>
>> Fortunaely, the Buddhists will learn of Christ after their
>> death.
Correct me if I am wrong, but Buddha (Gautama Siddhatta) was a person,
and never claimed to be a god. Buddhism is not that sort of discipline.
PeterD
There is no 'god' in Buddhism. Buddhism is a philosophy, not a
traditional 'god fearing' religion.
Michael Dobony
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:24:27 -0500, against all advice, something
> compelled Michael Dobony <sur...@stopassaultnow.net>, to say:
>
>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:39:58 -0700, Steve Daniels wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:24:28 -0400, against all advice, something
>> > compelled "Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com>,
>> > to say:
>> >
>> >> No salvation for you, reprobate!
>> >
>> > Nor for you.
>>
>> Correct. Salvation is only to those who have Christ.
>
> That's going to be pretty tough on the Buddhists.
And many who think that their denomination will save them.
Matt 7:21-23
"Not everyone who says to Me,'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of
heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.22 Many will say to
Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out
demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?'23 And then I will
declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice
lawlessness!'
NKJV
Too many follow XXX religion. They rely on church membership to save them.
Jesus came to restore a relationship, not establish a religion or
denomination. It is ONLY through a relationship with Jesus, eternal God,
the great I AM (poor translation, more accurately it is I ALWAYS AM).
John 14:6
6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes
to the Father except through Me.
NKJV
Acts 4:10-12
0 let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the
name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from
the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole.11 This is the
'stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief
cornerstone.' 12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other
name under heaven given among men by which we *must* be saved."
NKJV
Many follow Buddha as a god, but he NEVER claimed to be a god, nor did he
appear to even believe in gods. He was, however, a good student of human
nature. Buddhists reject their own founder!
Heron McKeister
news:7ln0e5tied288tkps...@4ax.com...
"If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him!"
Michael Dobony
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:24:27 -0500, Michael Dobony
> <sur...@stopassaultnow.net> wrote:
>
>
>>For your sake it better be true. However, belief in God or gods is
>>universal in all cultures.
>
> Meaningless, and untrue.
You obviously never took sociology. There is religion and belief in some
sort of god in every culture.
>
>>There *must* be some basis for this.
>
> Superstitious ignorance by chance?
Not with EVERY culture having some sort of supernatural god. Also, every
continent has a Genesis story that is concept for concept matched in the
Book of Genesis through the Tower of Babel.
>
>>It also
>>fails to explain the many miracles, healings, 100% accurate prophecies,
>>emptied grave clothes, etc. What is your scientific, rational explanation?
>
> You need to understand a few things, like probability and odds, self
> serving acts, imaginary things, etc.
>
I have an A in probability and statistics, including graduate level.
> For example namen a "100% accurate prophecies"? Now, how's that
> different from any other guess?
No psychic has been 100% accurate, especially hundreds of years in advance.
The death of Christ happened exactly 483 years after the event predicted
almost 100 years before the event, the rebuilding of the wall, commissioned
by a foreign king, also predicted almost 100 years earlier. Before the
captivity in Babylon the year of the return was predicted accurately. That
is not a guess. Christ's method of execution was described hundreds of
years before the method of death was invented. And you call these guesses?
Not a single prophecy to date has failed.
And WTF is 'emptied grave clothes'?
> That's a new one for me...
The grave cloths of Jesus were still in the tomb and not unwrapped. Only
the napkin that holds the jaw in place was out of place and folded neatly
to the side. The body of Jesus was removed without disturbing the wrappings
with 75 pounds of spices mixed in them. It would have been impossible to
even unwrap the body. The grave clothes would have had to have been cut
apart to remove the body, but they were fully intact other than the above
mentioned napkin.
Nightcrawler
Fucking idiots.
"Michael Dobony" <sur...@stopassaultnow.net> wrote in message news:1haiusw1k7gv5$.xnl0lndm9td9$.dlg@40tude.net...
Stormin Mormon
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"PeterD" <pet...@hipson.net> wrote in message
news:n9nud5dngrfb06u2m...@4ax.com...
Stormin Mormon
Lord to bear witness to waht I teach.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Steve Daniels" <sdan...@gorge.net> wrote in message
news:sodvd5tl9qoqfujj0...@4ax.com...
Stormin Mormon
he was a prophet. Hmmm. Tough decision... not.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Michael Dobony" <sur...@stopassaultnow.net> wrote in
message news:2cvtt2lrxm08.18...@40tude.net...
Michael Dobony
> Scholars say Joseph was a liar. The Spirit of the Lord says
> he was a prophet. Hmmm. Tough decision... not.
So the Rosetta Stone is a lie? Prove the Spirit of the Lord who sits on the
throne of Heaven says he is a prophet. He is a proven liar. A liar is not
a prophet of the God who created the universe.
hls
Steve Daniels
> I disagree about the evidence. And, I have the Spirit of the
> Lord to bear witness to waht I teach.
Well, you and your imaginary friend go have a good time with
that.
Desertphile
<cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I disagree about the evidence. And, I have the Spirit of the
> Lord to bear witness to waht I teach.
Here in America we don't have lords.
Joseph Smith was a crook who robbed people and fled in the dead of
night to get away from his victims after his fraudulent bank was
discovered to be a fraud. Did your lords tell you about that?
Desertphile
<cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Scholars say Joseph was a liar.
Yes, and a crook: he robbed people and enslaved people. Nice guy,
eh?