Mormon Contradictions?
Vampirella
Does anyone know of errors or contradictions in the Book of Mormon?
--
/|\^..^/|\ Vampirella /|\^..^/|\
Opinions brought to you by Good Intentions Paving Company
Ictiobus
Ictiobus
Hafthor Stefansson
<01bddc39$2622bfa0$69e3d8cd@default>...
> We all know that the Bible is loaded with contradictions and errors.
> Does anyone know of errors or contradictions in the Book of Mormon?
Yeah, I compilied this huge document on the subject... I'll see if I can
dig it up for posting. You must understand, that it is written from the
standpoint of a xian, which I am no longer.
-HS
[ Jesus is coming - everybody look busy ]
Michael Koch
>
> Ictiobus <icti...@aol.com> wrote in article
> <199809092207...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> : This is a troll, right?? You've gotta be kidding.
> :
> : Ictiobus
>
> No Dillweed, I am being fucking serious. All I wanted is a book or
> URL which lists some of the contradictions in the Book of Mormon so I
> can get a mormon off my ass.
http://www.exmormon.org has some stuff on it towards the bottom.
> I assure you that I look nothing like a troll. Nor do I live under a
> bridge. Nor do I harass goats. (
> http://starpoet.com/friends/friends03.htm )
>
> I carry alt.atheism number 965 proudly! Now get a life.
>
> --
> /|\^..^/|\ Vampirella /|\^..^/|\
>
> Opinions brought to you by Good Intentions Paving Company
Constant traffic jams brought to you by UDOT.
Vampirella
<199809092207...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
: This is a troll, right?? You've gotta be kidding.
:
: Ictiobus
No Dillweed, I am being fucking serious. All I wanted is a book or
URL which lists some of the contradictions in the Book of Mormon so I
can get a mormon off my ass.
I assure you that I look nothing like a troll. Nor do I live under a
Ken Anglesea
wrote:
>We all know that the Bible is loaded with contradictions and errors.
>Does anyone know of errors or contradictions in the Book of Mormon?
>
>
>--
>/|\^..^/|\ Vampirella /|\^..^/|\
>
>Opinions brought to you by Good Intentions Paving Company
>
I don't think this is contradictions,but the Book of Mormon has had
nearly 1600 changes made to itsice it first came about.
The biggest one was in the 1970's where it said "The Great White God".
Before that i don't recall any off white people being in the Cult
called the Mormons.
If you want to read about the Mormons from ex members go to,
http://www.exmormon.org/
Ken Anglesea
Skepticultist
Grand Guru,Atheist.
Jessica M. Wolfman
<haf...@usa.n0$pam.net> wrote:
>Vampirella <vampi...@iname.com> wrote in article
><01bddc39$2622bfa0$69e3d8cd@default>...
>> We all know that the Bible is loaded with contradictions and errors.
>> Does anyone know of errors or contradictions in the Book of Mormon?
>
>Well, I found that document... (MS Word)
>Lots of good info.
>Disclaimer: remember this was compiled from other documents and done by a
>xian. (Old me)
>
>-HS
>[ Jesus is coming - everybody look busy ]
>
>begin 600 anti.zip
>M4$L#!!0````(`)4!<!WJ()[SX<,``,G]`0`(````04Y422Y$3T/M_0N89&E:
>M%XA'#C-"-]/<+RI>3@<RE:F1045>JK*RA#*K*JLJNZLR:RJSNVB0=4]&G,PX
>M71%Q8LXYD=DQBLZNHK*"N"OKHJZ75=#UMMY0411&0!W0F45&I!=G%'M=>_G_
>M^W%MQ59I8/[O[_>^WW>^$QE970@^S__9QX+3$QEQ+M_YOO=[[^_O_2??OMQX
>M]M<]]>Z&_%MN5/\^M-!H_,K7%AH_\#,+C=E_?^3'SWYWYM]/+32^W?[[[3^%
>M\^?_][,:?UG^^XT+UWX:W\S_[].-'?GOK[-OOD'^^RV-7\YQ_=S^^Z[&K^3G
<snip more of same>
Dammit, I never got an EAC decoder ring. Could someone translate?
Jessica Wolfman
"They did not love him for his glossy tiger coat,
nor for his great green eyes,
no, not even for the white tipe to his tail.
They loved him because he was himself."
--May Sarton, _The Fur Person_
The Adventurers Guild
http://members.tripod.com/~theguild
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us
"Vampirella" <vampi...@iname.com> wrote:
> Ictiobus <icti...@aol.com> wrote in article
> <199809092207...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> : This is a troll, right?? You've gotta be kidding.
> :
> : Ictiobus
>
> No Dillweed, I am being fucking serious. All I wanted is a book or
> URL which lists some of the contradictions in the Book of Mormon so I
> can get a mormon off my ass.
>
> I assure you that I look nothing like a troll. Nor do I live under a
> bridge. Nor do I harass goats. (
> http://starpoet.com/friends/friends03.htm )
>
> I carry alt.atheism number 965 proudly! Now get a life.
>
> /|\^..^/|\ Vampirella /|\^..^/|\
>
> Opinions brought to you by Good Intentions Paving Company
Nice to see your sincere interest in learning religious truth.
Respectfully,
Gerry L. Ensley.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Hafthor Stefansson
<01bddc39$2622bfa0$69e3d8cd@default>...
> We all know that the Bible is loaded with contradictions and errors.
Here is my compilation in text format. Again, please keep in mind this was
compilied when I was a xian. Xianity ended up being rejected by me for some
of the very same reason as I used to reject JosephSmithism/BrighamYoungism.
False Prophet Warnings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
CNTBMORM.TXT - Five Reasons Why I Could Not be a Mormon
"false apostles" - "Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light" (2
Corinthians 11:4,12-14).
"false prophets...you shall know them by their fruits?" (Matthew 7:16).
fruit of one's lips (Proverbs 12:14; 18:20; Hosea 10:13; Hebrews 13:15; cp.
Matthew 12:37).
even the BoM talks of this in Alma 30:53
"But behold, the devil hath deceived me; for he appeared unto me in the
form of an angel, and said unto me: Go and reclaim this people, for they
have all gone astray after an unknown God. And he said unto me: There is no
God; yea, and he taught me that which I should say. And I have taught his
words; and I taught them because they were pleasing unto the carnal mind;
and I taught them, even until I had much success, insomuch that I verily
believed that they were true; and for this cause I withstood the truth,
even until I have brought this great curse upon me."
and in D&C 128:20
..."detecting the devil when he appeared as an angel of light!"...
LDS-10.TXT - Ten Reasons Why I Cannot be a Mormon - by Rev. John Hornok
Mormonism claims that Joseph Smith received the Aaronic Priesthood from
John the Baptist. The Melchizedek Priesthood and Apostleship was restored
by Peter, James and John shortly afterwards in 1829 (D&C, Sec. 13).
The Bible says, "God...hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,
whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds"
(Heb. 1:1-2).
False Gods
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
CNTBMORM.TXT - Five Reasons Why I Could Not be a Mormon
The Bible teaches that God has always been God (Psalm 90:2). He is the
Eternal One ("I AM", Exodus 3:14). Mormonism teaches that god was a man
(D&C 130:22) who became a god. This Mormon god: has a father, grandfather,
and a great grandfather (DoS, Vol. 2, p.47, Joseph Fielding Smith); was
once born as a baby on another planet (Church News, Sept 19, 1936, p.2,
Joseph F. Smith); died and was resurrected (Gospel Principles, p.9);
progressed to become a god (Doc.Hist.of the Church, Vo. 6, pp.305-306); is
now married to several women (Gospel Principles, p.9, The Seer, Washington,
DC Edition, p.172; D&C 132:37). Mormons are now taught that they too, if
they do all the right things, will be able to become gods (Gospel
Principles, p.290). However, this is very similar to the doctrine which
Satan taught in the Garden of Eden, the doctrine which led to Satan's
rebellion against God (Isaiah 14:12-17; Ezekiel 28:2, 11-17) and the
downfall of the human race (Genesis 3:5).
LDS-11.TXT - Divine Truths in the Book of Mormon
Moroni 8:18 (p. 517) - "For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a
changeable being; but he is unchangable from all eternity to all eternity."
LDS-14.TXT - The Nature of God
"In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods, and
they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it."
(JoD, Joseph Smith, Vol 6, page 5) (Hist. of the Church, Vol 6, page 308)
Look up John 10:34 used by Mormons to justify a belief in "many Gods".
Jesus there, is quoting Psalm 82 in which the judges were referred to as
"gods" -- but were wicked and unjust and "die like all men". Anytime the
word "gods" occur in the Bible it must be verified in context as referring
to the idols, satanic princes or counterfeit gods - (Isaiah 41:23-24,
45:20).
Isaiah 43:10-11 "Before me NO god was formed, nor after"
44:6-8 "I am the first and the last, beside me no other"
45:5-6 "I am the Lord, and there is no other"
45:18-22 "HE created the heavens and earth-there is no other"
Duet. 6:4 "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord"
32:39 "There is no god beside me"
Psalm 86:10 "Thou alone art God"
Mark 12:29 "Jesus said, the Lord our God is one; no other"
Gal. 3:20 "God is one"
James 2:19 "You believe God is one - you do well"
Eph. 4:5-6 "One God and Father of us all"
1 Cor. 8:4-6 "There is no god but me"
2 Chr. 6:18 "Heaven and the Heaven of Heavens cannot contain thee."
Psalm 41:13 "God is from everlasting to everlasting" (and 90:2)
102:25-27 "created heavens, always the same without end"
139:4-8 "Omniscient and Omnipresent"
Jer. 23:24 "I fill heaven and earth"
Hos. 11:9 "I am God, and not man"
Mal. 4:39 "I do not change"
Neh. 9:6 "made Heaven, Heaven of Heavens and all their host"
Prov. 15:3 "His eyes in every place"
Rom. 22-23 The sin of changing God into image of man is addressed
Acts 17:27 "He is not far from each of us"
John 4:24 "God is Spirit"
Luke 24:39 "A Spirit has not flesh and bones"
Hebr. 4:13 "All things opened unto His eyes"
1 John 4:12 "No man has seen God at any time"
1 Tim. 6:15 "No man has seen, nor can see ..."
John 1:18 "No man has seen God at any time"
Exodus 33:20 "There shall be no man see me and live"
LDS-19.TXT - Salvation Through Christ vs The Exaltation of Man
Nowhere in the Bible do we find God saying man can reach godhood. Yes, we
do find such a teaching in the Bible --- yet it is Satan who is doing the
talking !!
LDS-22.TXT - "Correctly Translated"
Satan was cast down to the depths of the pit for seeking to "become a God".
What sinful pride and haughtiness of spirit lies within the soul of man!
It is the spirit of the Antichrist that says man can be as God.
LDS missionaries will tell you that unless you can yourself become a God,
then that would be a lame paradise, but I feel that people who aspire to be
Gods will never make it to paradise in the first place because of the
sinful, prideful self-importance of such aspirations.
False Scriptures
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
CNTBMORM.TXT - Five Reasons Why I Could Not be a Mormon
The Holy Bible is an extremely reliable translation. Scholar Philip Schaff
stated, that although many slight variations do exist in the Greek
manuscripts, these differences do not alter "an article of faith or a
precept of duty which is not abundantly sustained by other and undoubted
passages, or by the whole tenor of Scripture teaching" (The Mormon Papers,
by Harry Ropp, p.105). But the Holy Bible is but one of the LDS scriptures,
and Mormonism even questions the reliability of the Bible by claiming that
this scripture is only to be accepted "as far as...translated correctly"
(AoF #8). Yet the BoM contains thousands of changes from the originally
published text of 1830 and is conspicuously unsubstantiated by
archaeological discoveries. Yet Ezra Taft Benson, stated: "Combined with
the Spirit of the Lord, the BoM is the greatest single tool which God has
given us to convert the world."
Two other Mormon scriptures are the much changed D&C and the PoGP.
While Mormon missionaries do not ridicule people that do not believe the
BoM, they do point out that in the book it is prophesized that people will
reject this book, and those people have hardened hearts and are damned.
Well, my soft heart rejects other pagan cults.
LDS-6.TXT - Do Mormons "Really" Believe in the Bible?
In the year of 1800, the French Institute in Paris issued a list of 82
"errors' that it had found in the Bible, by 1804, not one of the alleged
errors remained!
In the year 1901, the American Society of Archeology claimed that the
Biblical account of a peoples called the Hittites was false. In 1933,
archeologists found conclusive proof of the existence of the Hittites and
other peoples that the Bible had claimed existed!
Prior to the Dead Sea Scroll copy of the Book of Isaiah, the best copy of
that Book was over 1000 years newer! In comparing the two copies that
covered this gap of a thousand years, there was found only one character
changed, and that was an article that "possibly" could have lost the accent
mark of the character to make it 100% identical to the dead sea scroll
version! Imagine - 1000 years of copies and no change in the versions! Now
the basis to make copies of the New Testament were as strict. We find many
incidences of the same phenomena of clarity and correctness. Out of all the
many thousands of pieces and text, not one doctrine has been added to or
changed or modified in any manner!
One could argue that this may be the case with the BoM... That someday it
will be proven true. The Bible, when doubt was cast, was very quickly
vindicated. I think the BoM's time is up.
False Gospel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
CNTBMORM.TXT - Five Reasons Why I Could Not be a Mormon
The Bible teaches that sinners may be saved for heaven (where God the
father is) through faith in the doing and dying of Jesus Christ. His
substitutionary life is part of God's grace or gift to sinners (Eph.
2:1-10; Titus 3:5-6; Romans 4:1-3).
Although the Christian's "works" are important (Eph. 2:10) and will be
evaluated by God one day (1 Cor 3:12-15; 2 Cor 5:10), these works of his do
not, however, determine his eternal destiny.
Although Mormons are taught that they must have faith in Christ, there are
many "works" which LDS must perform if they are ever to get to heaven where
God the Father lives. Gospel Principles lists at least 18 Mormon
requirements of obedience if the Mormon is to reach the highest realm of
God's heaven.
Part of this list includes: water baptism, the laying on of hands to
receive the Holy Ghost, performing secret temple rituals, marriage for time
and all eternity, etc. (pp. 291-292).
However, according to certain well respected Mormon leaders, if the LDS is
unfortunate enough of commit certain sins (e.g. murder), he must then have
his own blood shed to atone for those sins. This is the blasphemous
Individual Blood Atonement teaching of Mormonism's founder Joseph Smith who
claimed that: "...there are certain sins so grievous that man may commit,
that they will place the transgressors beyond the power of the atonement of
Christ. If these offenses are committed, then the blood of Christ will not
cleanse them from their sins even though they repent.
Therefore, their only hope is to have their own blood shed to atone, as far
as possible, in their behalf" (DoS, Vol. 1, p.135).
In conjunction with this doctrine, Joseph Smith once stated that he would
not hang a convicted murderer, but instead would "shoot him, or cut off his
head, spill his blood on the ground, and let the smoke thereof ascend up to
God" (Documented History of the Church, Vol. 5, p.296).
Smith was murdered before he was able to make this spilling of blood mode
of execution into a law; however, when his followers established Utah, they
did.
"In pursuance of, and in harmony with this scriptural doctrine [of
Individual Blood Atonement]...the founders of Utah incorporated in their
laws of the Territory provisions for the capital punishment of those who
willfully shed the blood of their fellow men. This law, which is now the
law of the State, granted the condemned murderer the privilege of choosing
for himself whether he die by hanging, or whether he be shot, and thus have
his blood shed in harmony with the law of God" (DoS, Vol.1, p.136).
Though some Mormon leaders claim that this doctrine of Blood Atonement is
not an official doctrine of the Mormon Church, interestingly enough, Joseph
Fielding Smith, tenth president of the Mormon Church stated that "This is
doctrine taught by Joseph Smith and I accept it" (Ibid, p.134). He also
claimed that this doctrine is found in all the Mormon scriptures, thus,
even in the Holy Bible! (Ibid, p.135).
LDS-10.TXT - Ten Reasons Why I Cannot be a Mormon - by Rev. John Hornok
The gospel to Mormonism is: "Faith, Repentance, Baptism, Receiving the
Holy Spirit by laying on of hands, Morality, Loyalty, Tithing, Word of
Wisdom, Duty Celestial Marriage (for eternity)" (LDS chart of FREE AGENCY
and Articles of Faith, No. 4).
The Bible says, "Moreover brethren, I declare unto you the gospel that he
was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the
scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:1, 3-4). "if any man preach any other gospel unto
you than that ye have received, let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:9).
False Jesus Christ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
CNTBMORM.TXT - Five Reasons Why I Could Not be a Mormon
The Jesus of the Bible as the second Person of the Holy Trinity has always
existed as God equal to the Father and Holy Spirit. This Jesus created all
things including the "principalities and powers" (compare Eph. 6:12 with
Colossians 1:16). Thus, Jesus was the creator of the angel who used his
free agency to rebel against God; and that angel is Lucifer.
The Jesus of Mormonism is a brother to Lucifer (Gospel Principles, p.15).
He and Lucifer (and all of us) have the same Heavenly Father and we also
have a Heavenly Mother.
LDS-10.TXT - Ten Reasons Why I Cannot be a Mormon - by Rev. John Hornok
Mormonism teaches that Jesus was married and that He is polygamous.
"We say it was Jesus Christ who was married at Cana of Galilee" (JoD, Vol
2, p. 80).
I would think that a wife/wives of his would have been worth mentioning in
the Bible. Don't you think that, just maybe, Jesus would have been
commiting a sin by being married, since his ministry was much more than a
full-time job to him?
LDS-17.TXT - The Jesus WE KNOW contrasted to the "Jesus" of Mormonism
In addition to Lucifer being the brother of Jesus, Mormons beleive that we
too are his brethren.
Yet, the Bible, the BoM, D&C, even Moses in the PoGP all talk of the Only
Beggoten Son.
I believe that when the Bible talks of us being his children, that it is
not in the literal sense.
False Virgin Birth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
CNTBMORM.TXT - Five Reasons Why I Could Not be a Mormon
The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin. In Matthew 1:18
it is stated that Mary was with child "of the Holy Spirit" [literally it
reads "out of the Holy Spirit"]. This was a supernatural conception.
Although, even LDS BoM states that Jesus was born of a virgin (1 Nephi
11:18), Mormon leaders have taught very clearly that Jesus Christ was not
begotten by the Holy Ghost (DoS, Vol. 1, p.18); that God the Father married
the Virgin Mary (compare Brigham Young "JoD", Vol. 11, p.268 with Orson
Pratt "The Seer" p.158).
Also, that the body of Jesus was produced exactly the same way your body
was produced, by normal husband and wife sexual relations (Joseph F. Smith,
"Family Home Evening Manual", pp.125-126, 1972; Apostle Bruce R. McConkie
"Mormon Doctrine, p.742).
LDS-10.TXT - Ten Reasons Why I Cannot be a Mormon - by Rev. John Hornok
Mormonism teaches that Jesus was the natural child of Adam and Mary. "When
our father Adam came into the Garden of Eden, he came into it with a
celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him ... He is our
Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do ... When the
Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten Him in His
own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the
Father? He is the first of the human family...." (Brigham Young, JoD, pp.
50-51).
Today, the Mormon Church adamantly denies the "ADAM-GOD" doctrine taught,
and as seen above, and affirmed by "Prophet" Brigham Young. There is
overwhelming evidence that he did teach, believed and strongly defended
this belief.
The Bible says, " In the beginning was the Word (Christ), and the Word was
with God, and the Word was God;...The Word was made flesh and dwelt among
us..." (John 1:1, 14). "Then Mary said unto the angel, How shall this be,
seeing that I know not a man? And the angel answered... The Holy Ghost
shall come upon thee..." (Lk. 1:34-35). "Mary with child of the Holy
Spirit...That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit...Behold a
virgin shall conceive and bear a son" (Matt. 1:18-23)
False Heaven
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDS-19.TXT - Salvation Through Christ vs The Exaltation of Man
Mormonism claims three "heavens." They take I Corinthians 15:37-49 totally
out of context to arrive at this false teaching. Where Paul is declaring
that an individual's resurrected body is different in Glory from his
earthly body - as the sun differs from the moon, from the stars.
False Hell
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDS-15.TXT - LDS and Hell - by Ken Simmons
BoM and the Bible say that hell is a place of endless torment:
"...even a lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment." 2 Nephi
28:23
"...the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the
wicked." Alma 34:35
"...opposite to the plan of happiness, which was as eternal also as the
life of the soul." Alma 42:16
"Therefore if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to
God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal soul to a lively
sense of his own guilt, and pain, and anguish, which is like an
unquenchable fire whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever. And now I say
unto you, that mercy hath no claim on that man; therefore his final doom is
to endure a never-ending torment. O, all ye old men, and also ye young men,
and you little children who can understand my words, for I have spoken
plainly that you might understand, and I pray that ye should awake to a
remembrance of the awful situation of those who have fallen into
transgression. And moreover, I would desire that ye should consider on the
blessed and happy state of those who that keep the commandments of God.
For behold, they are blessed in all things, both temporal and spiritual;
and if they hold out faithful to the end they are received into heaven, and
thereby they may dwell with God in a state of neverending happiness. O
remember, remember that these things are true; for the Lord God hath spoken
it." Mosiah 2:38-41
The following LDS differences are most noteworthy (based on the fact that,
in the Mormon church, all scriptures, doctrines, and teachings are
"interpreted" via their "prophet" instead of scripture interpreting the
sayings, doctrines, etc. of their "prophet"):
1) Hell is no more than a "prison", and the inmates look forward to a
"parole" after serving their "sentence" and being "purified" of their sins.
Thus they'll reside in the "telestial" heaven, the lowest of the 3 Mormon
heavens.
2) Hell, therefore, isn't eternal.
3) However, those who are condemned in the "second death", or second
judgment, will reside there forever ("second death", meaning those spirits
in "hell" who didn't convert to Mormonism).
4) As such, the "eternal torment" is no more than temporary suffering (as
the "prophet" defined eternal).
5) It's the devil's plan to drag people down to hell by convincing them
that it doesn't exist (by LDS definition, that is). However, the BOM in 2
Nephi 28:21-23, if taken at face value (without any "prophet's
interpretation"), condemns the Mormon to Hell since he's convinced that it
doesn't exist as classically and orthodoxically defined.
False Teaching About the Fall of Man
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDS-22.TXT - "CORRECTLY TRANSLATED"
"And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not fallen, but he
would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were
created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they
were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. And
they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a
state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good,
for they knew no sin...Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they
might have joy." (2 Nephi 2:18 and 22-25)
A Mormon missionary might be tempted to back this up with Genesis 3:16
"Unto the woman he said ... in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children..."
"Adam fell, but he fell in the right direction...toward the goal...he fell
upward." -Sterling W. Sill, Assistant to the Council of the Twelve
"And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it
not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should
have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal
life which God giveth unto all the obedient." Moses 5:11
So the Mormons teach that man would have no joy or children had the
transgression not taken place.
Hogwash! Genesis 3:16 condemned Eve, and all women after her, to painful
child bearing.
"God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and
replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the
sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth
upon the earth." (Genesis 1:28)
Adam and Eve were cast out of paradise. A lame paradise it would have been
without joy. With such a teaching, Mormons ought to be telling everyone to
go out and sin as much as possible,
then come to the teachings of Mormonism. You would better appreciate it
that way.
False Prophecies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDS-7.TXT - Was Joseph Smith a Phophet of God?
This text file has 53 false prophecies, most from Joseph Smith Jr. himself.
Staggering!
I list a copy at the end of this file to conserve space here.
FALSEPRO.TXT - False Prophecies in the D&C - by James K. Walker
Bible warns: "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits
whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the
world" (1 John 4:1). Other spirits besides the Holy Spirit exist (1 Timothy
4:1)
Bible never recommends prayer as a way of discerning true and false
prophets. Prayer can be very subjective and can mislead a sincere person
(example: millions of sincere Moslems pray and receive a testimony that
Mohammed is a true prophet).
The true test for a prophet is found in Deut 18:20-22. This scripture
teaches that a prophet must be tested by checking his prophecies. One false
prophecy (even if some true prophecies are given) and that person is a
false prophet. It does not matter how sincere he or his followers are. It
does not matter how often his followers pray or what feelings they seem to
receive in answer to their prayers. He is a false prophet.
Types of prophetic statements dealing with future events.
Open-dated
These are prophecies that are given no certain time frame in which to be
fulfilled. An example is found in History of the Church. In this prophecy
Joseph Smith predicts in 1835 that, "...the coming of the Lord, which was
nigh--even fifty-six years should wind up the scene" (Vol.2 p.182).
Although the Lord did not return by 1891, it must be noted that Joseph
Smith said fifty-six years should wind up the scene.
Something could have happened to upset the original time schedule.
Therefore even though this prophecy did not come true, this prophecy alone
does not necessarily make Joseph Smith a false prophet.
Self-fulfilling
D&C 37:1. In this revelation, the Lord instructs Joseph not to translate
any more until he goes to Ohio. To make this prophecy come true, Joseph
Smith had only to cease translating for a few months.
Conditional
D&C 40:16-18. Here it is foretold that if the people of Ohio repent, they
will not be severely judged of the Lord. This is conditional upon their
repentance. If Ohio was not severely judged, it could be said that they
must not have sufficiently repented.
Close-dated and Unconditional
Although relatively few of Joseph Smith's prophecies are of this type they
are extremely important because they make it possible to put Joseph Smith
to the biblical test of a prophet.
Example: Temple in Independence
Last month's Watchman Expositor reviewed an example of an close-dated
unconditional prophecy preserved in D&C Section 84. In this revelation
given on Sept 22 and 23, 1832, Joseph Smith foretold of an LDS temple to be
built in Independence, Missouri. The prophecy specifies that the city of
"New Jerusalem" including the temple was to be constructed, "beginning at
the temple lot which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western
boundaries of the State of Missouri..."(verse 3). Verses four and five add
that the "...temple shall be reared in this generation. For verily this
generation shall not all pass away..." before the temple will be built.
Over 160 years later there is still no LDS Temple in the entire state of
Missouri much less on the "temple lot" specified in the revelation.
Example: David W. Patten
D&C Section 114. This two-verse prophecy given April 17, 1838 are
instructions to David W. Patten, one of the LDS twelve Apostles. He was to
prepare to go on a mission with the other eleven (Apostles) into "all the
world." According to the revelation, the mission was to take place "next
spring" which would give the prophecy a "closed-date" somewhere around
April or May of 1839. Less than three months later, the "twelve" were
given a specific date to leave (April 26, 1839) and one of the apostles,
Thomas Marsh, was instructed to stay behind to "publish my word" (D&C
Section 118). The date of April 26, 1839 came and as History of the Church,
written by Joseph Smith, records, "The Brethren arrived at Far West, and
proceeded to transact the business of their mission..." (Vol.3 p.336).
However, David W. Patten was not part of that mission. David Patten was
not present because he had died in October of 1838.
Unconditional
LDS-23.TXT - Unmasking The Myths of Mormonism
"Do you think it [the moon] is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you
think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain."
(Brigham Young, JoD, Vol. 13, Pg. 271)
Questionable Actions of Joseph Smith, Jr.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDS-23.TXT - UNMASKING THE MYTHS OF MORMONISM
"I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has
ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A
large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter nor
Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did a work such as I. The
followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran
away from me yet."
(Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 6, Pg. 408-409)
False Salvation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOSPELS.TXT - Gospels
Believe in Jesus Christ. Confess Jesus is the Christ.
Believe in Joseph Smith. Confess Joseph Smith was the prophet.
Believe in Brigham Young. Confess Brigham Young was Smith's Successor.
Repent. Be Baptized by Immersion [before salvation]
Receive the Holy Spirit by the "laying on of hands."
Why not also testify for the prophets of the Bible? Did Jesus ask for all
this? Was baptismal authority important?
The Bible says, "Salvation comes by faith and faith alone. All that is
necessary to receive total salvation is faith in Jesus which is a "gift" of
God. A faith not generated within ourselves. Baptism is to occur after
salvation to provide an outward expression of what has already taken place
inside the heart." (Ephesians 2:8-9)
Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption of that is in
Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in
his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are
past, through the forbearance of God. (Romans 3:24-25)
LDS-10.TXT - Ten Reasons Why I Cannot be a Mormon - by Rev. John Hornok
"No man who rejects the testimony of Joseph Smith can enter the kingdom of
God" (DoS, vol. 1 pg. 190). "Men have work to do it they would obtain
salvation" (DoS. vol. 3, pg 91).
The Bible teaches that salvation is provided by Jesus Christ alone, "for
there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be
saved" (Acts 4:10-12). "For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that
not of yourselves; it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest any man
should boast" (Eph. 2:8-9).
LDS-11.TXT - Divine Truths in the Book of Mormon
Helaman 5:9 (p. 369) - "...remember that there is no other way nor means
whereby man can be saved, only through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ,
who shall come, yea, remember that he cometh to redeem the world."
LDS-19.TXT - Salvation Through Christ vs The Exaltation of Man
"I do not frustrate the Grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law,
then Christ is dead in vain." (Galatians 2:21)
LDS-20.TXT - Mormonism's "Salv. by Works" or Salv. by Grace Through Christ?
The Mormon will be quick to point out James 2:17 - "Even so faith, if it
hath not works, is dead, being alone." Amen! That is not denying salvation
by faith. What it is saying is this: "You say you are saved? Saving faith
will naturally flow into a life that will show evidence of it. Your
'works' will testify of your faith. If none, there is reason to question
whether there really was a saving faith to start with."
Pagan Rituals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDS-10.TXT - Ten Reasons Why I Cannot be a Mormon - by Rev. John Hornok
Mormonism teaches salvation for the dead by proxy water baptism This
doctrine is based on one misunderstood Scripture: "Else what shall they do
which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they
then baptized for the dead?" (1 Cor. 15:29).
Paul did not practice baptism for the dead. He excluded himself by using
the pronoun "they" rather than "we" or "ye". He is asking a question
rather than making a statement. "It is appointed unto man once to die, but
after this the judgment" (Heb. 9:27).
Mormonism teaches genealogical research for the dead.
"Let us, therefore, as a church and a people, and as Latter-day Saints,
offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness; and let us present in his
holy temple, when it is finished, a book containing the records of our
dead, which shall be worth of all acceptation" (D&C, Sec. 128:24).
The Bible says, "Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies" (1
Tim. 1:4). "but avoid foolish question and genealogies..." (Titus 3:9).
LDS.TXT - by Chuck Sackett
In this text file, all of the secret temple rituals are revealed. Question:
Is Jesus of the Bible a holder of secrets? Was there any mention of
information that was reveal to the apostles or disciples that was to remain
secret. The word is freedom, not secret. This text file also mentions that
Mormons believe that their sacred temple rituals are supernaturally
protected from non-Mormons. Well, a tape recording made by a excommunicated
member of the Mormon church would tend to suggest otherwise.
Graven Images
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDS-20.TXT - Mormonism's "Salv. by Works" or Salv. by Grace Through Christ?
You will never (Well, We won't say never because God may have His plan for
their salvation that We are not aware of at this moment) see a cross on a
Mormon structure. They will say call it a "graven image"; yet "Moroni"
stands on top of their temples. Moroni didn't die for them. Joseph Smith,
Jr. didn't die for them. The church didn't die for them. Jesus DID die for
them.
Mormon Doctrine Conflict
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOOKMORM.TXT - {BoM} Another Testament of Jesus Christ - by James Walker
D&C calls BoM "the fullness of the Gospel" (20:7-8)
The tenth Prophet and President of the Mormon Church, Joseph Fielding Smith
said "By fullness of the gospel is meant all the ordinances and principles
that pertain to the exaltation in the celestial kingdom," (DoS, Vol. I,
p.160).
However, absent from the Book of Mormon are the key LDS doctrines
including: three degrees of glory, temple marriages, the Melchizedek
priesthood, God was once a man, and man's ability to become a God. Even
the "most glorious of all subjects belonging to the everlasting gospel,
namely the baptism for the dead" (Doctrine and Covenants 128:17), is
missing from the Book of Mormon, the "fullness" of the gospel.
Amulek was directly questioned concerning the "plurality of Gods." He was
asked, "Is there more than one God? And he answered, No." (Alma 11:27-28).
3 Nephi 11:27 (p. 422) - "Verily I say unto you, that the Father and the
Son and the Holy Ghost are one."
In addition, three close associates of Joseph Smith who gave testimony of
the authenticity of the BoM, close with words: "And the honor be to the
Father, and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost, WHICH IS ONE GOD. Amen."
Joseph Smith billed the BoM as "the most correct" book.
Critics have called it "the most corrected" book. (See "3,913 Changes in
the Book of Mormon" by Jerald and Sandra Tenner).
Although it could be argued that the majority of these changes were
grammatical, important historical and doctrinal changes have also been
made. On page 200 of the 1830 edition, King Benjamin is said to have a
gift of interpreting engravings (Mosiah 21:28). However, this same king
had died on page 168 -- thirty-two pages earlier (Mosiah 6:5).
In later editions, the king's name was changed from Benjamin to Mosiah.
This identical change also occurs in Ether 4:1.
The Apostle Paul warned about those preaching another Jesus, another
Spirit, and another Gospel (II Cor. 11:4). And in Galatians 1:8 warned
that even an angel (Moroni?) were to present another gospel (Testament?) he
was to be "accursed."
The consequences of the Book of Mormon were accurately summarized by early
Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt who said;
"This book must be either true or false... If false it is one of the most
cunning, wicked, bold, deep laid impositions ever palmed upon the world,
calculated to deceive and ruin millions who will sincerely receive it as
the Word of God, and will suppose themselves securely built upon the rock
of truth until they are plunged with their families into hopeless despair,"
(Divine Authority of the Book of Mormon, pp. 55-56).
2DOCTRIN.TXT - A Tale of Two Doctrines - by Eddie O'Krongly
Is God of the flesh? D&C says yes. BoM Alma 18:26-28 Prophet Ammon calls
God "A Great Spirit" BoM Alma 22:10 Prophet Aaron calls God "that Great
Spirit". BoM Ether 15:34 mentions "Lord in the flesh", but most of the
passages with God & flesh in the BoM do not elude to Him having it, but
rather the oppisite.
Who will be the redeemer? D&C 130:22 states that God and the Son are of the
Flesh. This is not contested. Christ (the Son) is the redeemer. This is not
contested. Why is "God Himself" mentioned in BoM Mosiah 13:34, 15:1 as
being the redeemer?
Salvation: D&C says acceptance of BoM, and righteous works. BoM 2 Nephi
2:5-9 says that salvation is free with belief, just like John 3:16.
FULLGOSP.TXT - Fullness of the Gospel? Where is it? - by Rick Branch
Baptism for the dead is mentioned as an essential element of being saved,
but never in the BoM, only in D&C 15 & 19.
Temple Marriage is mentioned as an essential, but not in the BoM, just in
the D&C.
Book of Mormon
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOOKMORM.TXT - {BoM} Another Testament of Jesus Christ - by James Walker
1830 - first edition published
Why doesn't the Articles of Faith have the same disclaimer about BoM as it
does about the Bible? (#8)
Doctrine & Covenants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGREV.TXT - Rev: Written, Re-written, and Corrected - by Rick Branch
A verse by verse comparision of the Book of Commandments vs. D&C revealed
that not even one section was copied without words being added AND deleted.
Book of Abraham
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABRAHAM.TXT - Mormonism's Book of Abraham - by James Walker
"Several qualified, recognized Egyptologists including Klaus Baer and
Richard Parker have translated the document proven to contain the words
translated by Joseph Smith and found that they contain no information about
Abraham, his religion, or anything found in the Book of Abraham. Joseph
Smith had improperly identified papyri which are in reality common Egyptian
funeral texts. In his translation, Joseph Smith did not translate even one
word correctly."
ABRHAMII.TXT - The Book of Abraham Translation - by James Walker
One Mormon, Naomi Woodbury, wrote a touching letter to the editor published
in the August, 1968 issue of the independent Mormon periodical, Dialogue: a
Journal of Mormon Thought.
She said, "I myself studied Egyptian hieroglyphics at UCLA several years
ago in the hope of resolving some of the problems connected with the `Book
of Abraham' in Joseph Smith's favor.
"Unfortunately, as soon as I had learned the language well enough to use a
dictionary I was forced to conclude that Joseph Smith's translation was
mistaken, however sincere it might have been....
It belongs to a kind of literature which is alien to Christianity and to
our Church" (p. 8).
It has been established without question that the actual characters that
Joseph Smith used in translating the Book of Abraham were contained in
Fragment XI of the collection.
Complete translations of the Joseph Smith papyri have been made by
recognized Egyptologists. Their unbiased, expert translations prove that
Joseph Smith's "translation" was a hoax.
ABRHMIII.TXT - Book of Abraham Translated - by James Walker
When respected, competent Egyptologists translated the Sensen fragments
they identified them as part of an Egyptian Book of Breathings derived from
the Egyptian Book of the Dead.
Rather than a Christian book dealing with Abraham, the text used by Joseph
Smith to translate the Book of Abraham was actually instructions for the
burial of an Egyptian named Hôr.
The instructions, based on Egyptian myth, superstition, and idolatry, gave
instruction for proper burial to insure that Hôr would be permitted to
"breathe forever" like the "bas" (or souls) of the Egyptian false gods do.
FASYNOP.TXT - Museum Walls Proclaim Fraud of M. Prophet - by Sonny Bowman
New York Times - Dec 29, 1912 (Magazine Section, Part 5)
LDS-36.TXT - Kolob, the Mormon Masterplanet
(Abraham 3) Kolob...has a day equal to 1000 years. A life supporting planet
must have a rotational period close to 24 hours. If it is as brief as it is
for the greater planets (e.g. Jupiter and Saturn), thousand mile per hour
winds result. If it is as long as Kolob's thousand year day, the night
temperature would barely rise above absolute zero (-460°F) while the day
temperature would probably exceed the melting point of lead (621°F). With a
1000° temperature swing, I think I'll book my vacation (and afterlife)
elsewhere.
Lack of Archaeological Evidence
LDS-23.TXT - Unmasking The Myths of Mormonism
After nearly 150 years since the Nephite record was first published by
Joseph Smith, we Mormons have been unable confidently to pin down the
location of a single city, identify even one route they traversed, or
sketch an accurate picture of any segment of the life they lived in their
American promised land. In many respects, the Book of Mormon remains a
sealed book to us because we have been incapable of placing it in its
specific setting." (Prof. John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for
the Book of Mormon, Page 0/3)
The bare facts of the matter are that nothing, absolutely nothing has ever
shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate
observer that the Book of Mormon, as claimed by Joseph Smith, is a
historical document relating to the history of early migrants to our
hemisphere. (Michael Coe, Dialogue: A Journal Of Mormon Thought, Summer
1973, Page 46)
LDS-5.TXT - Do The Nag Hammadi & Dead Sea Scrolls confirm Mormonism...?
Discredits numerous bold claims made by Einar C. Erickson that the Nag
Hammadi writings and the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm pagan Mormon rituals and
false beliefs.
Happy Perfect Righteous People
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANDERSON.TXT - Mormon Doctrine
Statistics on divorce, corporate scam, prescription drug abuse, depression
among women, child abuse, teenage pregnancy before marriage, etc. in 80%
Mormon Utah are all significantly above or equal to the national average.
FAMILY.TXT - How Much is that Family in the Window? - by Rick Branch
More Utah statistics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstination from Harmful Substances
COMSENSE.TXT - Rev. from God or Just Common Sense - by Tom Forehand
First of all, if a 19th century warning against tobacco is proof that
Joseph Smith is inspired of God, then it also proves that Alexander
Campbell (restorer of today's Church of Christ) was inspired by God.
Almost three years before Joseph Smith got word from "God" concerning
tobacco, Campbell's "The Millennial Harbinger" contained a two-page article
entitled "Tobacco" (June 7, 1830).
Additionally the Journal of Health, and Fawn Brodie in 1829-1834 talked
about the harmful effects of Alcohol, Coffee, Tea, and excessive meat
eating.
Blacks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
On this issue, I feel that Christianity has made similiar mistakes as the
"one true church", but...
BLKPRST.TXT - Black Men Receive Priesthood - by Rick Branch
Melvin J. Ballard wrote, "we were tested and tried in our pre-existence and
the fact that of the thousands of children born today, a certain portion of
them went to the Hottentots of South Africa, thousands went to Chinese
mothers, thousands to Negro mothers, thousands to beautiful white
Latter-day Saint mothers" (The Three Degrees of Glory, p. 21). Ballard
continues by explaining, "Why this difference, you cannot tell me that the
entire group was just designated, marked, to go where they did. That they
were men and women of equal worthiness... Why is it in this (LDS) Church
we do not grant the priesthood to the Negroes? It is alleged that the
prophet Joseph said - and I have no reason to dispute it - that it is
because of some act committed by them before they came into this life. It
is alleged that they were neutral, standing neither for Christ nor the
devil. But, I am convinced it is because of some things they did before
they came into this life that they have been denied the privilege. The
races today are very largely reaping the consequences of a previous life"
(Ibid, pp.21-22).
Brigham Young, the second prophet, explained, "We have this illustrated in
the account of Cain and Abel. ... He (Cain) killed his brother. The Lord
put a mark on him.
"When all the other children of Adam have had the Priesthood, and of coming
into the kingdom of God, and of being redeemed from the four quarters of
the earth, and have received their resurrection from the dead, then it will
be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity" (JoD, Vol.
2, pp. 142-143).
June 1978 - LDS Church changed its mind, but didn't add it to the D&C,
which, since 1978, has added 2 other revelations. Why not the racial one?
EXOTIC.TXT - Who Feels Exotic and Why? - by Tom Forehand
More questionable practices concerning LDS and blacks.
LDS-18.TXT - LDS statements concerning the Negro - by Ken Simmons
While reading this document, I realized what a bind LDS's "prophets" have
put themselves, and their church, into. If they outright say that black are
the cursed people, then the LDS church shall surely fall, because that kind
of racial intolerance and bigotry is simply not tolerated. However, if they
back-pedal, then all the "prophets" who spoke on this subject were wrong,
and fail the false prophet provided in Deuteronomy, and are summarily
dismissed.
Misleading History
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
FREMONT.TXT - That John C. Fremont Described - by Marsha Norton
Contrary to the common story of the LDS Church's relocation to the Salt
Lake Valley, Brigham Young did indeed have previous knowledge of the area.
"During 1845-46 Brigham Young, the second President of the (LDS) Church,
kept a representative in Washington, DC continually finding out all he
could concerning reports coming into the capital concerning the West.
"When Fremont's report was finally printed under the official direction of
the U.S. Government, the Church secured a copy and under the direction of
Willard Richards of the Twelve Apostles the report was studied for more
than a month in the high council meetings of the Church.
"Moreover, The Nauvoo Neighbor, a leading newspaper of the day, published
more than fifty articles on reports received from the West during the year
and a half prior to the Mormon Exodus to Utah.
"The report of Fremont contained a description of Salt Lake Valley in the
vicinity of Ogden and was one of the probable reasons which led the Mormon
people to the valley in 1847" (Mormons of Clark County, Francis H. Levitt,
pp. 17-18).
INDIAN.TXT - American Indians and the BoM - by Marsha Norton
Scientific research continues to prove that the teachings of the BoM are in
error. A common assumption in the 1800's was that the American Indians
were descendants of the Jews (that is, the lost tribes of Israel).
During Joseph Smith's time, several books were written speculating about
this idea, and thus the "BoM" was not unique in this regard.
A genetic researcher, Douglas Wallace of Emory University in Atlanta,
stated that "nearly all American Indians are descendants of a single small
band of pioneers who walked across what is now the Bering Strait from
Asia...," ("Las Vegas Review Journal", 27 July 1990, p.9A).
According to his report, "The descendants of this hardy group make up 95%
of American Indians, including the Mayans, Incas and many others spread
throughout North, Central and South America," (Ibid).
His report directly contradicts the LDS Church's video "Ancient America
Speaks" which is shown in thousands of prospective proselytes' homes.
Wallace based his findings on studies of the genes that are related to the
body's energy production. These energy producing genes, are passed on to
children only by their mother, not by their fathers.
Therefore, genetic researchers are able to trace maternal ancestry.
Wallace's research indicates that the vast majority of American Indians
descended from this very small original group migrating across the Bearing
Strait (Ibid).
LDS-12.TXT
The Smithsonian Institution, Antropology Dept. says: "American Indians had
no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses,
donkeys, camels before 1492." Yet most of these things are repeatedly
mentioned in the BoM.
They also say "Iron, steel, glass, and silk were not used in the New World
before 1492 (except for occasional use of unsmelted meteroic iron)." Again,
repeatedly mentioned in the BoM.
Questionable Upbringing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIRTH.TXT - The Birth of a Church - by Marsha Norton
Talks mainly of Joseph Smith, Sr. as being a religiously frustrated man.
LDS-13.TXT - Mormons Own up to Joseph Smith's Occultism
Mormon scholars are now trying to find rationale for Smith's occult
practices. Mormon Scholar Dr. Richard Anderson conceded in his latest BYU
studies article that Smith DID indeed practice magic, but only up to 1826.
Likenesses to other cults
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
CULT&BIB.TXT - Cults and the Bible - by Chris Barhorst
Denial of the Bible as the final authority. (compare w/ Christian Science,
Unification Church, and Jehovah's Witnesses)
FALSEPRO.TXT - False Prophecies in the D&C - by James K. Walker
Confirmation by Spiritual Testomony - like Moslems pray & rcv testimony
that Mohammed is a true prophet, and Koran to be the word of God, J/W pray
and rcv testimony that their orginization is true.)
GOSPELS.TXT - Gospels
Belief that good works are necessary to be saved. (compare w/ Roman
Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science)
Interesting Thoughts
Mormons calling themselves Christians is like me saying that I'm a Mormon,
only I believe that Joseph Smith was actually a woman and lived in the 15th
century and believes that the earth is really flat, and didn't find a book,
but a computer disk with the grand unified program and all God's algorithms
on it.
Mormons argue that because they beleive in the Christ, that that qualifies
you for Christianity, but I say that having four wheels doesn't
automatically qualify you as a car, even though cars have this property.
Even so, their Christ looks like a very square set of wheels.
Evil is alot sneakier these days. He has to be. The TRUE gospel is
spreading. The second coming is growing near. The devil will not
necessarily say that there is no God. That would be readily picked up as a
paganism, and only attract the young, rebellious and the foolish. He would
say that there is no God like the one in the Bible, just like the Mormon
church teaches.
Mormon missionaries often talk of the "people out to get us". This
paranoid, delusional belief in some mass conspiracy is used to discredit
people that find concrete proof of the BoM's falsehood, and the LDS's
paganistic ways. They remind us of how Jesus church was heavily persecuted.
Well, if the devil is Jesus brother, as they believe, wouldn't his church
be equally persecuted by the Lord's just hand.
Why do you suppose LDS missionaries don't outright tell you their black and
white differences between them and Christianity in the first meetings or
so? Would not the frog jump out of water brought to a boil that fast? They
slowly acclimate you to one or two alien concepts at a time. The big ones
have to wait for your baptism, which waits for your testimony of Jesus as
the saviour, Joseph Smith, Jr. and Brigham Young as prophets. With this gut
feeling established, the water comes to a full boil.
The Bottom Line
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mormonism says that Christians believeing in Christ's sacrifice will
achieve salvation, but to a lesser degree.
Christianity says that polythesitic cults, like Mormonism, is a one way
ticket to hell.
I think I'll play it safe.
Will I continue to ask if the BoM is true in prayer? No. For the same
reason that I will not ask if the Koran is true, and Mohammed is a prophet.
WAS JOSEPH SMITH A PROPHET OF GOD?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Joseph Smith was a true prophet then everyone should follow his
teachings. If, however, Joseph was a false prophet, then he should be
exposed as such.
There are at least twenty three references in the Bible dealing with false
prophets. Some of these references are specific tests to determine if the
prophet is a true prophet of God. We will apply just two of these tests to
Joseph Smith.
Deuteronomy 13:1-5 is the first scripture in the Bible dealing with false
prophets. The issue in these verses is whether the prophet leads the people
after another god.
What does it mean if Joseph Smith is a false prophet? What will happen to
the people who follow a false prophet's teachings? Isaiah 9:16 says the
following: "For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that
are led of them are destroyed." Matthew 7:15-20 says to beware of false
prophets. It goes on to say that the fate of a false prophet is that he
will be "...hewn down, and cast into the fire." The Holy Bible declares
that the fate of those who follow a false prophet is that they will go
right into the Lake of Fire with the false prophet. Please check it out for
yourself.
The god of Mormonism was born as a baby on another world. He grew up,
got baptized by one holding the proper authority, got married in the temple
for time and all eternity (probably to more than one wife), had many
children, was obedient to all of the laws and ordinances of the gospel and
eventually died. Because of his obedience and faithfulness and by the Law
of Eternal Progression he was Exalted and became god.
If you know anything about Mormon doctrine you know that this is the god
of Mormonism. His name is Eloheim (or Ahman) and he lives on a planet (or
star) nearest the planet Kolob. He is a glorified, resurrected, exalted man
having a tangible body of flesh and bones. (see Mormon Doctrine by Bruce
R.McConkie, page 250)
Certain basic questions should be asked about each prophecy or revelation.
First, it must be determined that the prophetic utterance really came from
Joseph Smith. Secondly it must be determined that the prophecy purportedly
came from God. Third, you have to determine if the prophecy came to pass
exactly as outlined. Lastly, you have to determine if the prophecy can yet
come to pass.
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 1 ... September 21, 1823. PEARL OF GREAT PRICE.
Joseph Smith 2:40-47.
Joseph Smith claimed that the angel Moroni told him that the prophecies in
Isaiah, chapter 11 were about to be fulfilled and that the prophecies in
Joel, Chapter 2:28-32 were soon to be fulfilled.
164 years have now gone by since this was received and the prophecies that
Joseph Smith referred to have not been fulfilled. We know that these
prophecies will be fulfilled in the future, but not in Joseph Smith's (or
Moroni's) timing.
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 2 ... July 1828. DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS, Section 3,
verse 3.
"Remember, remember that it is not the work of God that is frustrated, but
the work of men;"
This particular verse is going to come back time after time and haunt
Joseph Smith. This verse is accepted as scripture by Mormons thus all we
have to show is that if whatever is promised or prophesied by Joseph Smith
is frustrated, then it is the work of men.
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 3 ... Winter 1829-1830. An ADDRESS TO ALL BELIEVERS
IN CHRIST, David Whitmer, pages 30-31.
Joseph Smith sent Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery to Toronto, Canada to
sell the copyright of the Book of Mormon in response to a revelation that
he claimed to have received from God.
The mission and the revelation was a total failure as recorded by David
Whitmer. When Joseph Smith was asked why the revelation had failed he
answered that he did not know how it was. David Whitmer records that Joseph
Smith "...enquired of the Lord about it, and behold the following
revelation came through the stone: 'Some revelations are of God: some
revelation are of man: and some revelations are of the devil.' So we see
that the revelation to go to Toronto and sell the copyright was not of God,
but was of the devil or the heart of man."
Mormon Historian and Apostle B.H. Roberts records the following regarding
this Toronto revelation. "...May this Toronto incident and the Prophet's
explanations be accepted and faith still be maintained in him as an
inspired man, a Prophet of God? I answer unhesitatingly in the affirmative.
The revelation respecting the Toronto journey was not of God, surely; else
it would not have failed; but the Prophet, overwrought in his deep anxiety
for the progress of the work, saw reflected in the 'Seer Stone' his own
thought, or that suggested to him by his brother Hyrum, rather than the
thought of God...in this instance of the Toronto journey, Joseph was
evidently not directed by the inspiration of the Lord." (A COMPREHENSIVE
HISTORY OF THE CHURCH, Vol.1,p. 165).
Remember, Deuteronomy 18:22 records that all you need is one false prophecy
to have a false prophet.
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 4 ... September, 1830. DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS,
Section 29:10-11.
In these two verses Joseph Smith prophesied that the "..hour is nigh..."
for Christ to return.
157 years have gone by since Joseph Smith stated that the hour was nigh.
Only by performing mental gymnastics can this prophecy be accepted as one
that can be fulfilled.
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 5 ... March, 1831. DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS, Section
49:9-10.
(9) "Wherefore, I say unto you that I have sent unto mine everlasting
covenant, even that which was from the beginning. (10) And that which I
have promised I have so fulfilled, and the nations of the earth shall bow
to it; and, if not of themselves, thy shall come down, for that which is
now exalted of itself shall be laid low of power."
Mormon Apostle Bruce. McConkie on pages 529 and 530 of his book MORMON
DOCTRINE makes it quite clear that the "everlasting covenant" is the gospel
that has been given thru the Mormon Church. The gospel according to
Mormonism is composed of all of the laws and ordinances and commandments
that God has given to man.
According to verse 10 above "....the nations of the earth shall bow to
it" (The Mormon Gospel). 150 years have now gone by since this revelation
was received and no nation has bowed down to the Mormon gospel, or been
laid low of power for not bowing down to it.
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 6 ... July, 1831. DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS, Section
57:1-3.
Independence, Missouri is named as the center place of Zion. Independence
is appointed and consecrated for the gathering of the saints. Independence
is indicated to be the Land of promise.
This is a very important revelation because it names the location of the
city of Zion.
This revelation is false by virtue of the fact that Section 3, verse 3
has declared that any work that is frustrated is not from God but from men.
There is no question that the gathering of the saints in Zion
(Independence) has been frustrated. They tried to gather in Independence
and were physically driven out.
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 7 ... August 13, 1831. DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS,
Section 62:1, 6 & 9.
Joseph Smith declares in this revelation that God told him that "..the
faithful among you should be preserved and rejoice together in the land of
Missouri, I, the Lord, promise the faithful and cannot lie..." Verse 9 says
"Behold, the kingdom is yours. And behold, and lo, I am with the faithful
always. Even so, Amen."
The facts are these:
(1) The faithful were not preserved.
(2) The faithful did not rejoice together in the land of Missouri.
(3) The kingdom was not theirs - they were driven out.
All you have to do is read some of the history regarding the Mormons
between 1831 and 1847 and you will see that this revelation and prophecy
was, and is a total failure. If you can say that the prophecy was
frustrated then you indicate that it was not from God. (Section 3, verse 3)
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 8 ... September 11, 1831. SCRAP BOOK OF MORMON
LITERATURE, by Rich, Vol. 2, p. 259.
"For behold, I say unto you that Zion shall flourish, and the glory of the
Lord shall be upon her, and she shall be an ensign unto the people, and
there shall come unto her out of every nation under heaven."
The above revelation (or prophecy) is reported by Rich to be a revelation
from God that was given to Joseph Smith. Being as it is reported by a
Mormon (Rich) we can assume that it is an undisputed statement of Joseph
Smith.
If Zion (Independence, Missouri) has flourished, the glory of the Lord is
upon it, it is an ensign unto the people, and people from every nation
under heaven have come to Independence, it most certainly is not because of
anything that the Mormons have done. As far as Mormons are concerned
Independence has not flourished, the glory of the Lord Is not upon it, it
is not an ensign to the people and people from every nation have not gone
to Independence. The least that can be said about this revelation
(prophecy) is that it has been frustrated, therefore, it cannot be from
God. (Section 3, verse 3)
Of course the Mormons could say that this prophecy will still come to pass.
Only by performing mental gymnastics can this prophecy come to pass.
Remember, all that has to be shown is that it was frustrated, and it
certainly was frustrated.
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 9 ... November 1, 1831. DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS,
Section 1:35 & 37.
(35) For I am no respecter of persons, and will that all men shall know
that the day speedily cometh; the hour is not yet, but is nigh at hand,
when peace shall be taken from the earth, and the devil shall have power
over his dominion.
If God is no respecter of persons according to Joseph Smith then why did he
record the following in the PEARL OF GREAT PRICE, Moses 5:20 & 21? (20) And
Abel he also brought of the firstlings of his flock, and of the fat
thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel, and to his offering; (21) But
unto Cain, and to his offering, he had not respect. Now Satan knew this,
and it pleased him. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
The book of Moses directly contradicts the DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS. Joseph
Smith further contradicted himself when he had recorded in the DOCTRINE AND
COVENANTS, Section 124:102 the following:
(102) Behold, I Say unto you, I have a mission in store for my servant
William and my servant Hyrum, and for them alone;...
Why not Brigham or Parley or Orson? If this is not enough then let us look
at verse 37 in Section 1. (37) Search these commandments, for they are true
and faithful, and the prophecies and promises which are in them shall all
be fulfilled.
This is stating that all of the prophecies and promises that are in the
DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS are going to be fulfilled. If ever Joseph Smith
uttered a false prophecy this is it. We have already listed a number of
prophecies and promises that have not been fulfilled. An additional list of
considerable number are described below. It does not take a theologian to
see the simple truth that Joseph Smith has failed the test of a prophet
according to Deuteronomy 18:22.
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 10 ... November 3, 1831. DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS,
Section 133:17, 26-30.
(17) For behold, the Lord God hath sent forth the angel crying through the
midst of heaven saying: Prepare ye the way of the Lord, and make his paths
straight, for the hour of his coming is nigh ---- (26) And they who are in
the north countries shall come in remembrance before the Lord; and their
prophets shall hear his voice, and shall smite the rocks, and the ice shall
flow down at their presence. (27) And a highway shall be cast up in the
midst of the great deep. (28) Their enemies shall become a prey unto them.
(29) And in the barren deserts there shall come forth pools of living
water; and the parched ground shall no longer be a thirsty land. (30) And
they shall bring forth their rich treasures unto the children of Ephraim,
my servants.
156 years have gone by and Christ has not returned. Another prophecy that
has been frustrated.
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 11 ... December 1, 1831. DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS,
Section 71:6-10.
(6) For unto him that receiveth it shall be given more abundantly, even
power. (7) Wherefore confound your enemies; call upon them to meet you both
in public and in private and inasmuch as ye are faithful their shame shall
be more manifest. (8) Wherefore let them bring forth their strong reasons
against the Lord. (9) Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you--there is no
weapon that is formed against you shall prosper; (10) And if any man lift
his voice against you he shall be confounded in mine own due time.
To begin with, the Mormons are disobeying the commandment given in verse 7.
We do not know of any person that is involved in the ministry to the
Mormons that has been put to shame by any Mormon.
All you have to do is read a little church history (Mormon) to see that the
weapons used against the Mormons did prosper. They were driven from one
city to the next and finally to Salt Lake City. Certainly the guns that
were used to murder Joseph Smith prospered.
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 12 ... September 22 and 23, 1982. DOCTRINE AND
COVENANTS, Section 84:2-5, 31, 114-115.
(2) Yea, the work of the Lord concerning his church, established in the
last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth
of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount
Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem. (3) Which city shall be
built, beginning at the the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of
the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated
by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jr., and others with whom the Lord was well
pleased. (4) Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New
Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this
place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this
generation. (5) For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an
house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which
cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house. (31)
Therefore, as I said concerning the sons of Moses --- for the sons of Moses
and also the sons of Aaron shall offer an acceptable offering and sacrifice
in the house of the Lord which house shall be built unto the Lord in this
generation, upon the consecrated spot as I have appointed --. (114)
Never-the-less, let the bishops go unto the city of New York, also to the
city of Albany, and also to the city of Boston, and warn the people of
those cities with the sound of the gospel, with a loud voice, of the
desolation and utter abolishment which await them if they do reject these
things. (115) For if they do reject these things the hour of their
judgement is nigh, and their house shall be left unto them desolate.
History records that Independence was built, but not by the Mormons.
History also records that Joseph Smith dedicated the temple lot, however,
it is interesting to note that the dedication ceremony was held on August
3, 1831 more that one year previous to receiving this revelation.
Verse 4 has some real problems in it, it states that the city New
Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints. Whatever was built
by the Mormons was built prior to the winter of 1831-1832 because the
Mormons were driven out of Independence at that time. The last few words of
verse 4 present the greatest problem. It states that the temple would be
reared (built) in the generation then living. Verse 5 expands on this by
stating that "...this generation shall not all pass away until a house
shall be built unto the Lord..." And finally verse 31 repeats the fact that
the temple would be built in the generation then living.
Since this was 155 years ago this revelation fails. Joseph Fielding
Smith (who became the 10th president of the Mormon church) answered the
generation question by stating that "it is reasonable to believe that no
soul living in 1832, is still living in mortality on the earth." (ANSWERS
TO GOSPEL QUESTIONS, vol.4,p.112)
A further problem remains regarding the building of the temple. The lot
is no longer owned by the Mormons. It is now owned by the church of Jesus
Christ, Temple Lot, and they plan on building their own temple. Another
point of failure.
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 13 ... December 25, 1832. DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS,
Section 87:1-8.
(1) Verily, thus saith the Lord concerning the wars that will shortly come
to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will
eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls; (2) And the
time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at
this place. (3) For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against
the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations,
even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call
on other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and
then war shall be poured out upon all nations. (4) And it shall come to
pass after many days, slaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall
be marshalled and disciplined for war. (5) And it shall come to pass also
that the remnants who are left of the land will marshal themselves, and
shall become exceedingly angry and shall vex the gentiles with a sore
vexation. (6) And thus, with the sword and by bloodshed the inhabitants of
the earth shall mourn; and with famine, and plague, and earthquake, and the
thunder of heaven, and the fierce and vivid lightning also, shall the
inhabitants of the earth be made to feel the wrath, and indignation, and
chastening hand of an Almighty God until the consumption decreed hath made
a full end of all nations. (7) That the cry of the saints, and of the blood
of the saints, shall cease to come up into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth,
from the earth to be avenged of their enemies. (8) Wherefore, stand ye in
holy places, and be not moved, until the day of the Lord come; for behold
it cometh quickly, saith the Lord. Amen.
Joseph Smith received the above revelation on Christmas day, 1832. History
records that the State of South Carolina was already in a state of
rebellion at that time. It's not much to prophesy about something that is
already happening.
Mormons usually refer to the "Civil War" as one of the prophecies that has
been fulfilled, however, upon close examination it becomes very clear that
it is a failure. There are 20 different elements of this prophecy. All 20
elements would have to come to pass in order for this prophecy to be
fulfilled. If all 20 elements of the prophecy were to come to pass it would
truly be remarkable. The probability of this happening would be 1 in
1,048,576, which means ONLY a prophet BACKED by GOD could accomplish it!
The statistics prove that the calling of PROPHET was NOT given to Joseph
Smith.
History records that the Civil War did not start until April 12, 1861, when
Southern artillery shelled Fort Sumter in the harbor of Charleston, South
Carolina. It ended four years later on April 9, 1865. The Civil War did not
result in war being poured out upon all nations (verse 3). It also did not
bring about "...a full end of all nations."
It is also interesting to note that the Civil War prophecy was not
published during Joseph Smith's lifetime. It was not printed until 1851 (19
years after Joseph Smith received it).
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 14 ... December 27, 1832. DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS,
Section 88:87.
(87) For not many days hence and the earth then shall tremble and reel to
and fro as a drunken man; and the sun shall hide his face and shall refuse
o give light; and the moon shall be bathed in blood; and the stars shall
become exeedingly angry, and shall cast themselves down as a fig that
falleth from off a fig-tree.
As of March 1, 1987 more than 56,300 days have come and gone and the moon
has not been bathed in blood, the sun has not refused to give light and the
stars have not become exceedingly angry and cast themselves down. We
believe that there is not any way that this prophecy can be made to come
true in Joseph Smith's timing.
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 15 ... January 4, 1833. HISTORY OF THE CHURCH, vol.
1, p. 315-316.
"And now I am prepared to say by the authority of Jesus Christ that not
many years shall pass away before the United States shall present such a
scene of bloodshed as has not a parallel in the history of our nation;
pestilence, hail, famine, and earthquake will sweep the wicked of this
generation from off the face of the land to open and prepare the way for
the return of the lost tribes of Israel from the north country. The people
of the Lord. Those who have complied with the requirements of the new
covenant, have already commenced gathering together in Zion which is in the
state of Missouri; therefore I declare unto you the warning which the Lord
has commanded to declare unto this generation, remembering that the eyes of
My Maker are upon me, and that to him I am accountable for every word I
say, wishing nothing worse to my fellowman than their eternal salvation;
therefore, 'Fear God, and give glory to Him for the hour of His judgement
is come.' Repent ye, repent ye, and embrace the everlasting covenant and
flee to Zion, before the overflowing scourge overtake you, for there are
those now living upon the earth whose eyes shall not be closed in death
until they see all these things which I have spoken, fulfilled."
Almost 155 years have gone by and the wicked are still on the earth. The
lost tribes have not returned.
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 16 ... February 27, 1833. DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS,
Section 89:18-21.
(18) And all saints who remember to keep and do these sayings, walking in
obedience to the commandments, shall receive health in their navel and
marrow to their bones; (19) And shall find wisdom and great treasures of
knowledge, even hidden treasures; (20) And shall run and not be weary, and
shall walk and not faint. (21) And I, the Lord give unto them a promise,
that the destroying angel shall pass by them, as the children of Israel,
and not slay them. Amen.
The above prophecy was part of the revelation on The Word of Wisdom. The
promise is given that if the Mormons will obey the Word of Wisdom (no
coffee tea, tobacco etc.) that they would obtain all of the promises in
verses 18 - 21. The facts are that there are many Mormons that obey the
Word of Wisdom to the letter and they have not found great treasures of
knowledge or hidden treasures. They run and get weary. They walk and
sometimes faint. And most certainly the destroying angel does not pass them
by. Mormons die just like any other group of people.
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 17 ... August 2, l833. Parley P. Pratt Biography, p.
100. Also D & C 97:19.
"Surely Zion is the City of our God, and surely Zion cannot fail, neither
be moved out of her place; for God is there and He has sworn by the power
of His might to be her.
Zion did fail and Zion was moved out of her place. Zion is independence,
Missouri. (see #5 above) The Mormons were driven out of Independence in the
winter of 1838-1839. Another false prophecy.
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 18 ... October 12, 1833. DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS,
Section 100:13 & 15.
(13) And now I give unto you a word concerning Zion. Zion shall be redeemed
although she is chastened for a little season. (15) Therefore, let your
hearts be comforted; for all things shall work together for good to them
that walk uprightly, and to the sanctification of the church.
154 years have gone by since this revelation was received. Can this be
considered "a little season"?
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 19 ... December 10, 1833. HISTORY OF THE CHURCH, Vol.
1, p. 455.
"Therefore this not my counsel, that you retain your lands, even unto the
utmost, and employ every lawful means to seek redress of your enemies; and
pray to God day and night to return you in peace and safety to the lands of
your inheritance; and when the judge fail you, appeal to the executive; and
when the executive fail you; appeal to the president; and when the
president fail you, and all things also fail you but God alone, and you
continue to weary Him with your importunings as the poor woman did the
unjust judge. He will not fail you to execute judgment upon your enemies,
and to avenge His own elect that cry unto Him day and night. Behold, He
will not fail you. He will come with ten thousand of His Saints, and all
His adversaries shall be destroyed with the breath of His lips."
The facts are these:
(1) The Mormons did not retain their lands. (in Missouri)
(2) They did seek redress from their enemies and were turned down by
everyone.
(3) The Mormon god apparently did fail them because their enemies were not
destroyed.
(4) The enemies of the Mormon church drove them out of Missouri.
(5) The above is a false prophecy.
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 20 ... December 16, 1833. DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS.
Section 1, 101:17-20.
(17) Zion shall not be moved out of her place, not-with-standing her
children are scattered. (18) They that remain, and are pure in heart, shall
return, and come to their inheritances, they and their children, with songs
of everlasting joy, to build up the waste place of Zion -- (19) And all
these things that the prophets might be fulfilled. (20) And, behold, there
is none other place appointed than that which I have appointed; neither
shall there be any other places appointed than that which I have appointed,
for the work of the gathering of my saints--
This is almost exactly like number 16 above. The facts are that the Mormons
were driven out of Zion. They were moved out of her place. This is
sufficient in God's way to prove this is a false prophecy.
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 21 ... February 24, 1834. DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS,
Section 103:5-7.
(5) But verily I say unto you, that I have decreed a decree which my people
shall realize, inasmuch as they harken from this very hour unto the counsel
which I, the Lord their God, shall give unto them. (6) Behold they shall,
for I decreed it, begin to prevail against mine enemies from this very
hour. (7) And by harkening to observe all the words which I, the Lord their
God, shall speak unto them, they shall never cease to prevail until the
kingdoms of the world are subdued under my feet, and the earth is given to
the saints, to possess it forever and ever.
Mormons will say that this prophecy is a conditional prophecy. That the
people were to harken unto the counsel of God and observe all the words
that God shall speak to them. With that condition in mind, the Mormons will
never prevail, or prove superior in strength, power, or influence.
Mormons will never achieve anything until they are righteous and that will
NEVER happen. Isaiah made it very clear why Mormons will never obtain the
blessings that Joseph Smith promised them when he presented one of God's
eternal truth as it relates to man. "But we are all as an unclean thing,
and all our righteousness are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf;
and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." (ISAIAH 64:6).
This prophecy can never be fulfilled because the Mormons will never become
righteous. The only way that anyone can become righteous is to receive the
real Jesus Christ into his/her heart and repent of the abominations of
following a false god and a false christ.
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 22 ... April 23, 1834. DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS,
Section 104:1.
(1) Verily I say unto you, my friends, I give unto you counsel, and a
commandment, concerning all the properties which belong to the order which
I commanded to be organized and established, to be a united order, and an
everlasting order for the benefit of my church, and for the salvation of
men until I come--
History records that the United Order failed. (The United Order was a
communal type of order where everyone worked according to his ability, gave
everything that he produced or earned to the Bishop's Storehouse and
received from the Bishop's Storehouse according to his needs.)
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 23 ... June 22, 1834. DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS, Section
105:13-15.
(13) Therefore it is expedient in me that mine elders should wait for a
little season, for the redemption of Zion. (14) For behold, I do not
require at their hands to fight the battles of Zion; for, as I said in a
former commandment, even so will I fulfill--I will fight your battles. (15)
Behold, the destroyer I have sent forth to destroy and lay waste mine
enemies; and not many years hence they shall not be left to pollute mine
heritage, and to blaspheme my name upon the lands which I have consecrated
for the gathering together of my saints.
History records that the enemies of the Mormons were not laid waste in
spite of the fact that the destroyer had been sent forth. There is ample
evidence to suggest that the destroyer was in fact a man named Porter
Rockwell. He was not out to destroy those who were frustrating the Mormons.
This is another prophecy that was frustrated because the Mormons continued
to be persecuted. In fact it was just 4-1/2 years later that the Mormons
were driven out of Zion. (Independence, Missouri)
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 24 ... August 16, l834, History of the Church, vol.
2, page 145.
"DEAR BRETHREN ... I shall now proceed to give you such counsel as the
Spirit of the Lord may dictate .... use every effort to gather to those
regions and locate themselves, to be in readiness to move into Jackson
country in two years from the eleventh of September next, which is the
appointed time for the redemption of Zion....."
By September 11, l836 the Mormons should have all been gathered in
Independence, Missouri. (Zion) If all of the other prophecies regarding
Zion were to come true (which they didn't), lived the United Order (which
failed), built the temple (which was never built), etc. etc. etc.
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 25 ... November 25, 1834. DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS,
Section 106:4.
(4) And again, verily I say unto you, the coming of the Lord draweth nigh,
and it overtaketh the world as a thief in the night
153 years have gone by since this prophecy was given and the Lord has not
returned.
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 26 ... February 14, 1835. History of the Church, vol.
2, page 182.
"President Smith then stated that the meeting had been called, because God
had commanded it; and it was made known to him by vision* and by the Holy
Spirit. He then gave a revelation of some of the circumstances attending us
while journeying to Zion -- our trials, sufferings: and said God had not
designed all this for nothing, but He had it in remembrance yet; and it was
the will of God that those who went to Zion, with a determination to lay
down their lives, if necessary, should be ordained to the ministry, and go
forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, or the coming of the Lord,
which was nigh -- even thirty-six years should wind up the scene."
Jesus Christ should have returned by February 14, 1891. He didn't. Another
false prophecy.
It is interesting to note that Matthew 24:36 says that the exact date of
Christ's coming is unknown. "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no
not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." See also Mark 13:34 and
Acts1:7.
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 27 ... February 14, 1835. As reported in PROPHECIES
OF JOSEPH SMITH AND THEIR FULFILLMENT, Nephi Morris, Deseret Book Co.,
1926, page 261.
"In due time thou shalt go to Jerusalem, the land of thy father, and be a
watchmen unto the house of Israel; and by the hands shall the Most High do
a great work, which shall prepare the way and greatly facilitate the
gathering of that people."
This was a prophecy given to Orson Hyde, one of the twelve apostles that
Joseph Smith had chosen.
History records that Orson Hyde did go to Jerusalem. However, for those
Mormons that feel that he did a great work and greatly facilitated the
gathering of the Jews they are sadly mistaken. Orson Hyde dedicated
Jerusalem on October 24, 1841. It took 107 years for the Jews to return. We
are convinced and are safe to state that when the Jews returned in 1948
there was not one single Jew who had ever heard of Orson Hyde.
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 28 ... January 21, 1836. CHURCH HISTORY, vol.2, pages
380,381.
"The heavens were opened upon us, and I beheld the celestial kingdom of
God, and the glory thereof, whether in the body or out I cannot tell .....
I saw the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb, who are now upon the earth, who hold
the keys of the last ministry, in foreign lands, standing together in a
circle, much fatigued, with their clothes tattered and feet swollen, with
their eyes cast downward, and Jesus standing in their midst, and they did
not behold Him. The Saviour looked upon them and wept.
I also beheld Elder M'Lellin in the south, standing upon a hill, surrounded
by a vast multitude, preaching to them, and a lame man standing before him
supported by his crutches; he threw them down at his word and leaped as a
hart, by the mighty power of God. Also, I saw Elder Brigham Young standing
in a strange land, in the far south and west, in a desert place, upon a
rock in the midst of about a dozen men of color, who appeared hostile. He
was preaching to them in their own tongue, and the angel of God standing
above his head, with a drawn sword in his hand, protecting him. But he did
not see it. And I finally saw the Twelve in the celestial kingdom of God. I
also beheld the redemption of Zion, and many things which the tongue of man
cannot describe in full."
History does not record any of the above things ever happening. The part
regarding Elder M'Lellin is suspect because he was excommunicated on May
11, 1838. He became one of the bitterest enemies the Mormon church ever
had, why wasn't he destroyed as promised by the god of Mormonism?
Joseph Smith recorded that he saw the Twelve in the celestial kingdom of
God. How is that possible when 5 of the apostles were either excommunicated
or apostatized, never to return to the church? According to Mormon doctrine
this would not be possible (for apostates and excommunicated individuals to
reach the celestial kingdom).
1. Lyman Johnson ... Excommunicated April 13, 1838, Church History,
vol...3:20.
2. Brigham Young ... O.K.
3. Heber C. Kimball ... O.K.
4. Orson Hyde ... Disfellowshipped August 4, 1835 Priesthood restored June
27,1839. Restored as apostle at conference of October 6,7 & 8, 1839.
5. David W. Patten ... O.K.
6. Luke S. Johnson ... Apostatized December 1837, Church History, vol. 3:31
7. William E. M'lellin ... Excommunicated May 11, 1838, Church History,
vol. 3:31
8. John F. Boynton ... Apostatized December, 1837, Church History, vol.
2:528.
9. Orson Pratt ... Rebaptized & Ordained January 20, 1843. Restored As
apostle, Church History, vol. 5:255. (What happened to him?)
10. William Smith ... Excommunicated October 19, 1845, Church History, vol.
7:483.
11. Thomas B. Marsh ... Excommunicated March 17, 1839, Church History, vol.
3:284.
12. Parley P. Pratt ... O.K.
It should be noted that Thomas B. Marsh was rebaptized in 1857 and died in
Utah a member of the Church, though never again a member of the Twelve.
It is interesting to note that the first part of the above vision was
accepted as scripture on April 3, 1976. The last part of the vision (listed
above) was not accepted as scripture. Is it possible that the reason that
the Mormon leaders did not present the entire vision to be accepted as
scripture is that it was clear that the last part could not happen? If this
is so then it would make the Mormon leaders wilful deceivers.
It is also interesting to note that the vision has been altered by Mormon
leaders. The vision was recorded in Joseph Smith's diary under the date of
January 21, 1836. In Joseph Smith's diary the beginning of the revelation
read as follows; "The heavens were opened upon us and I beheld the
celestial Kingdom of God, I saw father Adam, and Abraham and Michael and my
father and mother, my brother Alvin..." (Joseph Smith's Diary, January 21,
1836; original in LDS historical department).
Now, what is wrong with the above part? The problem is that in Mormon
theology Adam is Michael. Thus if Adam is Michael then Joseph Smith could
not have seen "both" of them in the celestial kingdom. Because of this
problem the Mormon leaders deleted the words "and Michael" from the
revelation.
We pray that each of you take the time to check into the thousands and
thousands of changes that have been made in Mormon scriptures including the
most recent one regarding the Indians (number 2 above).
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 29 ... April 3, 1836. DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS, Section
110:16.
(16) Therefore, the keys of this dispensation are committed into your
hands; and by this ye may know that the great and dreadful day of the Lord
is near, even at the door.
145 years have gone by and Jesus has not returned. There was a dreadful day
about 21/2 years later when the Mormons were driven not of Zion
(Independence).
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 30 ... August 6, 1836. DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS,
Section 111: 1-11.
This was a revelation given through Joseph Smith at Salem, Massachusetts.
(1) I, the Lord your God, am not displeased with your coming this journey,
notwithstanding your follies. (2) I have much treasure in this city, for
you, for the benefit of Zion, and many people in this city, whom I will
gather out in due time for the benefit of Zion, through your
instrumentality. (3) Therefore, it is expedient that you should form
acquaintance with men in this city, as you shall be led, and as it shall be
given you. (4) And it shall come to pass in due time that I will give this
city into your hands, that you shall have power over it, in so-much that
they shall not discover your secret parts; and its wealth pertaining to
gold and silver shall be yours. (5) Concern not yourselves about your
debts, for I will give you power to pay them. (6) Concern not yourselves
about Zion, for I will deal mercifully with her. (7) Tarry in this place,
and in the regions round about. (8) And the place where it is my will that
you would tarry, for the main, shall be signalized unto you by the peace
and power of my Spirit, that shall flow unto you. (9) This place you may
obtain by hire. And inquire diligently concerning the more ancient
inhabitants and founders of this city. (10) For there are more treasures
than one for you in this city. (11) Therefore, be ye as wise as serpents
and yet without sin; and I will order all things for your good, as fast as
ye are able to receive them. Amen.
History records that Joseph Smith and other leaders of the Mormon church
found no treasures in Salem, Massachusetts. The Mormons have never taken
power over Salem. The silver and gold were not given to them by their god.
If ever there was a prophecy that did not come to pass this is it. Time has
run out on Joseph again. Actually the time ran out some time in September,
1836 when Joseph Smith returned to Kirtland, Ohio. He returned with no
treasure.
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 31 ... April, 1837. LATTER-DAY SAINT MESSENGER AND
ADVOCATE, page 488.
"This place (Kirtland, Ohio) must be built up, and will be built up, and
every brother that will take hold and help secure these contracts (for
land) shall be rich."
The Mormons were driven out of Kirtland, Ohio. Nobody became rich by
helping to secure the contracts for land. In fact, most of the men that
helped Joseph Smith in Kirtland lost most of their money in the Kirtland
anti-Banking Society. Joseph Smith himself went bankrupt. Every thing about
this prophetic utterance failed.
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 32 ... July 23, 1837. DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS, Section
112: 3-12.
(This is a prophecy about Thomas B. Marsh, one of the original twelve
apostles. In fact he was the president of the twelve apostles when this
prophecy was given about him.)
(3) Nevertheless, inasmuch as thou hast abased thyself thou shalt be
exalted; therefore, all thy sins are forgiven thee. (4) Let thy heart be of
good cheer before my face; and thou shalt bear record of my name, not only
unto the Gentiles, but also unto the Jew; and thou shalt send forth my word
unto the ends of the earth. (5) Contend thou, therefore, morning by
morning; and day after day let thy warning voice go forth; and when the
night cometh let not the inhabitants of the earth slumber, because of they
speech. (6) Let thy habitation be known in Zion, and remove not thy house;
for I, the Lord, have a great work for thee to do, in publishing my name
among the children of men. (7) Therefore, gird up thy loins for the work,
let thy feet be shod also, for thou art chosen, and thy path lieth among
the mountains, and among many nations. (8) And by thy word many high ones
shall be brought low, and by thy word many low ones shall be exalted. (9)
Thy voice shall be a rebuke unto the transgressor; and at thy rebuke let
the tongue of the slanderer cease its perverseness. (10) Be thou humble;
and the Lord thy God shall lead thee by the hand, and give thee answer to
thy prayers. (11) I know thy heart, and have heard thy prayers concerning
thy brethren. Be not partial towards them in love above many others, but
let thy love be for them as for thyself; and let thy love abound unto all
men, and unto all who love my name. (12) And pray for thy brethren of the
Twelve. Admonish them sharply for my name's sake, and let them be
admonished for all their sins, and be ye faithful before me unto my name
...
History records that Thomas B. Marsh was excommunicated on March 17, 1839
(CHURCH HISTORY, vol. 3:284). Even though he was re-baptized in 1857 and
died a member of the church in Utah he never did any of the things outlined
in the above revelation (prophecy). He never did a great work in the
church. In fact he became for many years a bitter enemy of the church. The
facts are that the Mormon god did not know his heart (verse 11), otherwise
he would have known that he was going to be excommunicated and fight
against the church.
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 33 ... 1837. Oliver B. Huntington Journal, Book 14,
Original at Huntington Library, San Marino, California. Also found in the
Young Woman's Journal, published by the Young Ladies' Mutual Improvement
Associations of Zion, 1892, vol. 3, pp. 263, 264.
"Inhabitants of the Moon are more of a uniform size than the inhabitants of
the Earth, being about 6 feet in height. They dress very much like the
Quaker Style, and are quite general in Style, or the one fashion of dress.
They live to be very old; coming (sic) generally, near a thousand years.
This is the description of them as given by Joseph the Seer, and he could
"see" whatever he asked the Father in the name of Jesus to see."
"As far back as 1837. I know that he said the moon was inhabited by men and
women the same as this earth, and that they lived to a greater age than we
do, that they live generally to near the age of 1000 years. He described
the men as average near six feet in height, and dressing quite uniformly in
something near the Quaker style..."
No comment is necessary on the above "revelation".
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 34 ... April 17, 1838. DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS,
Section 114:1.
(1) Verily thus saith the Lord: It is wisdom in my servant David W. Patten,
that he settle up all his business as soon as he possibly can, and make a
disposition of his merchandise, that he may perform a mission unto me next
spring, in company with others, even twelve including himself, to testify
of my name and bear glad tidings unto all the world.
History records that on October 27, 1838, Apostle David W. Patten was
buried at Far West, Missouri (CHURCH CHRONOLOGY, page 15). If you are going
to say that he was not worthy then let me tell you what Joseph Smith said
about him. "Brother David Patten was a very worthy man, beloved by all good
men who knew him. He was one of the Twelve Apostles, and died as he had
lived, a man of God, and strong in the faith of a glorious resurrection, in
a world where mobs will hue no power or place. One of his last expressions
to his wife was -- 'Whatever you do else, O! do not deny the faith'"
(HISTORY OF THE CHURCH, vol. 3, p.171).
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 35 ... April 26, 1838. DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS,
Section 115:1, 7-9, 12.
(1) Verily thus saith the Lord... (7) Let the city, Far West, be a holy and
consecrated Land unto me; and it shall be called most holy, for the ground
upon which thou standest is holy. (8) Therefore, I command you to build a
house unto me, for the gathering together of my saints, that they may
worship me. (9) And let there be a beginning of this work, and a
foundation, and a preparatory work, this following summer; is holy. (12)
Thus let them from that time forth labor diligently until it shall be
finished, from the corner stone thereof unto the top thereof, until there
shall not anything remain that is not finished.
149 years have gone by and the temple is still not built. The cornerstone
of the temple was laid on July 4, 1838 amid elaborate ceremonies (A
COMPREHENSIVE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS,
B. H. Roberts, page 440)
For 149 years the building of this temple has been frustrated, therefore it
cannot be from God but from the mind of man. (Section 3:3)
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 36 ... July 8, 1838. DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS, Section
117:12-15.
(12) And again, I say unto you, I remember my servant Oliver Granger;
behold, verily I say unto him that his name shall be held in sacred
remembrance from generation to generation, forever and ever, saith the
Lord. (13) Therefore, let him contend earnestly for the redemption of the
First Presidency of my Church, saith the Lord; and when he falls he shall
rise again, for his sacrifice shall be more sacred unto me than his
increase, saith the Lord. (14) Therefore, let him come up hither speedily,
unto the land Zion; and in the due time he shall be made a merchant unto my
name, saith the Lord, for the benefit of my people. (15) Therefore let no
man despise my servant Oliver Granger, but let the blessings of my people
be on him forever and ever...
The facts are that it is very rare that you can find anyone in the Mormon
church who has ever heard of Oliver Granger. His name is supposed to be
held in sacred remembrance from generation to generation, forever and ever.
What happened?
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 37 ... March 20, 1839. DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS,
Section 121:5-15,33.
(5) Let thine anger be kindled against our enemies; and, in the fury of
thine heart, with thy sword avenge us of our wrongs. (6) Remember thy
suffering saints, O our God; and thy servants will rejoice in thy name
forever. (7) My son, peace be unto thy soul; thine adversity and thine
afflictions shall be but a small moment; (8) And then, if thou endure it
well, God shall exalt thee on high; thou shalt triumph over all thy foes.
(9) Thy friends do stand by thee, and they shall hail thee again with warm
hearts and friendly hands. (10) Thou art not yet as Job; thy friends do not
contend against thee, neither charge thee with transgression, as they did
Job. (11) And they who do charge thee with transgression, their hope shall
be blasted, and their prospects shall melt away as the hoar frost melteth
before the burning rays of the rising sun; (12) And also that God hath set
his hand and seal to change the times and seasons, and to blind their
minds, that they may not understand his marvelous workings; and take them
in their own craftiness; (13) Also because their hearts are corrupted, and
the things which they are willing to bring upon others, and love to have
others suffer, may come upon themselves to the very uttermost; (14) That
they may be disappointed also, and their hopes may be cut off; (15) And not
many years hence, that they and their posterity shall be swept from under
heaven, saith God, that not one of them is left to stand by the wall. (33)
How long can rolling waters remain impure? What power shall stay the
heavens? As well might man stretch forth his puny arm to stop the Missouri
river in its decreed course, or to turn it up stream, as to hinder the
Almighty from pouring down knowledge from heaven upon the heads of the
Latter-day Saints.
The preface to Section 121 in the 1981 edition of the DOCTRINE AND
COVENANTS indicates that the above remarks are "Prayer and prophecies
written by Joseph Smith the Prophet, while he was a prisoner in the jail at
Liberty, Missouri, dated March 20, 1839."
Joseph Smith's god promised that he (and the Mormons) would triumph over
all their foes. They didn't and he didn't. They had just been driven out of
Zion (Independence) by their enemies. Joseph Smith was to die by the hands
of his enemies in a little over 5 years. The Mormons were to be driven all
the way to Utah in just 8 years.
When were the times and seasons changed? (verse 12) When were the minds of
their enemies blinded (verse 12)? When were the enemies of the Mormons
swept from under heaven? (verse 15) They, and their posterity? Not one of
them left to stand against the wall? We can't find any evidence of anything
happening except the enemies of the Mormons overcoming them and driving
them out. In spite of the fact that the Mormon god kept promising them that
they would conquer their enemies.
Where is all of the knowledge that has been poured down on the heads of the
Latter-day Saints? Not the knowledge of man. The knowledge from heaven.
Where are the Bible scholars? Where are the scholars in Hebrew and Greek?
The Mormons as a whole are abysmally lacking in knowledge from heaven.
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 38 ... September 18, 1839. Reed Peck's Manuscript.
"Within three years they should march to Jackson County and there should
not be a dog to open his mouth against them."
148 years have gone by and the Mormons have not marched to Jackson County
yet. They should have had their marching orders prior to 1843. They had
already tried to march to Zion (Independence, Jackson County, Missouri) in
1834 and the march failed (see number 20 above). They were to move into
Zion (Independence) no later than September 11, 1836 (see number 23 above).
The facts are that they were driven out of Zion and have never returned.
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 39 ... January 19, 1841. DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS,
Section 124:20-21.
(20) And again, verily I say unto you, my servant George Miller is without
guile; he may be trusted because of the integrity which he has to my
testimony I, the Lord, love him. (21) I therefore say unto you I seal upon
his head the office of a bishopric, like unto my servant Edward Partridge,
that he may receive the consecrations of mine house, that he may administer
blessings upon the heads of the poor of my people, saith the Lord. Let no
man despise my servant George, for he shall honor me.
The following can be found in the CHURCH CHRONOLOGY (page 36) under the
date of Sunday, December 3, 1848.
"At a meeting held in the Great Salt Lake City Fort, fellowship was
withdrawn from Apostle Lyman Wight and Bishop George Miller."
Another promise frustrated (Section 3, verse 3). Of course the Mormon would
say that all blessings are predicated on the righteousness of the people.
Let's see what the Bible says about the righteous.
"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: "(Romans 3:10).
"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" (Romans 3:23).
What does none righteous mean to you? What does all have sinned mean to
you? To me it means everyone who has ever lived and will ever live. THAT'S
WHY WE NEED JESUS CHRIST. Without Him we would all be lost.
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 40 ... March, 1841. DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS, Section
125:1-4.
(1) What is the will of the Lord concerning the saints in the Territory of
Iowa? (2) Verily, thus saith the Lord, I say unto you, if those who call
themselves by my name and are saying to be my saints, if they will do my
will and keep my commandments concerning them, let them gather themselves
together unto the places which I shall appoint unto them by my servant
Joseph, and build up cities unto my name, that they may be prepared for
that which is in store for a time to come. (3) Let them build up a city
unto my name upon the land opposite the city of Nauvoo, and let the name of
Zarahemia be named upon it. (4) And let all those who come from the east,
and the west, and the north, and the south, that have desires to dwell
therein, take up their inheritance in the same, as well as in the city of
Nashville, or the city of Nauvoo and in all the stakes which I have
appointed, saith the Lord.
What happened to Zion? It was supposed to flourish. It was not to be moved
out of her place (see number 16 above). History records that Zarahemia
failed, along with Nauvoo, Kirtland, Independence and every other attempt
to settle until they finally arrived in Salt Lake where there was nobody to
contend with for the land.
Since the promises of the Mormon god have not been kept so many times in
the past, we see no reason to believe that he will produce on the promise
of Eternal Life. It is an empty promise coming from this "proven" FALSE
GOD.
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 41 ... August 6, 1842. George Q. Cannon Diary.
"At Montrose, Iowa, August 6, 1842, he (Joseph Smith) uttered a remarkable
prophecy, which like every other prediction from his lips has been
literally fulfilled. He declared the Saints would continue to suffer much
affliction and would finally be driven to the Rocky Mountains. Many would
apostatize, others would be put to death by their persecutors or lose their
lives in consequence of their exile; and many of those who listened to him
would live to assist in building cities and to see the Saints become a
mighty people in the tops of the Rocky Mountains." (See also CHURCH
HISTORY, vol. 5 page 85)
This is a questionable prophecy of Joseph Smith. If the Mormons want to
accept it (evidence suggests that it is a forgery) they still have some
problems with it. All you have to do is look at some of the statistics
regarding Mormons in the Rocky Mountains to see that they are not as mighty
as the public relations department of the Mormon church would have the
world believe.
1. Utah has one of the highest divorce rates in the U.S.
2. Utah has a very high number of persons on welfare. (When you combine the
government and church numbers together it is perhaps the highest in the
nation on a per capita basis.)
3. Utah has one of the highest suicide rates in the nation. (Especially
high among teenagers.)
4. Utah has a very high venereal disease rate.
5. Utah has a very high percentage of marriages where the bride is pregnant
at the time of the marriage.
6. Salt Lake City is known as the "Stock Fraud" capital of the U.S.
7. In spite of being the home of the Mormon church, Utah has a very high
consumption of alcohol on a per capita basis. There is a very high number
of women alcoholics in Utah.
8. There is a problem with drugs in Utah that would not be expected in the
home of the Mormon church.
9. Counterfeiting is a problem in Utah.
10. Homosexuality and lesbianism is a real problem in Utah. (And the entire
Mormon Church.)
11. Bankruptcy is running at twice the national average in Utah.
I believe that the facts are that the Mormons are not the mighty people
that the public relations department of the Mormon church would have you
believe.
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 42 ... August 6, 1842. Anson Call Diary, as reported
in PROPHECIES OF JOSEPH SMITH, AND THEIR FULFILLMENT, Nephi Lowell Morris,
Deseret Book Company, 1926.
"After drinking a drought of ice water he (Joseph Smith) said, Breathren,
this water tastes much like the crystal streams that are running in the
Rocky Mountains which some of you will participate of. There are some of
these standing here that will perform a great work in that land (pointing
to Shadrack Roundy and a number of others whom I have forgotten). There is
Anson, he shall go and assist in building cities from one end of the
country to the other and you shall perform as great a work as has ever been
done by man, and the nations of the earth shall be astonished and many of
them will be gathered in that land and assist in building cities."
History records that Anson Call assisted in settling Millard County, Utah,
a southern semi-desert region of which Fillmore is the county seat (Church
Chronology, page 44), The other "large" cities in that district are Delta,
Hinckley, Kanosh, Leamington, Oasis and Abraham.
Anson Call did not assist in building cities from one end of the country to
the other. He did not perform as great a work as has ever been done by man.
Certainly the nations of the earth are not astonished at his achievements.
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 43 ... September 1, 1842. DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS,
Section 127:2
(2) For to this day has the God of my father delivered me out of them all,
and will deliver me from henceforth; for behold, and lo, I shall triumph
over all my enemies, for the Lord God hath spoken it.
Another promise that Joseph Smith would triumph over his enemies. It simply
did not come to pass. Joseph Smith died at the hands of his enemies. The
Mormons were driven out of every place they tried to settle.
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 44 ... April 5, 1843. History of the Church, vol. 5,
page 336 and Joseph Smith's Diary, March 10, 1843 - July 14, 1843.
"Were I going to prophesy, I would say the end (of the world) would not
come in 1844, 5 or 6, or in forty years. There are those of the rising
generation who shall not taste death till Christ comes. I was once praying
earnestly upon this subject, and a voice said unto me. 'My son, if thou
livest until thou are eighty-five years of age, thou shall see the face of
the Son of Man.' I was left to draw my own conclusions concerning this; and
I took the liberty to conclude that if I did live to that time, He would
make His appearance. But I do not say whether He will make His appearance
or I shall go where he is. I prophesy in the name of the Lord God, and let
it be written --- the Son of Man will not come in the clouds of heaven till
I am eighty five years old."
The preceding account is found in the CHURCH HISTORY. Notice the changes
that have been made from the account in Joseph Smith's Diary.
"...I prophesy in the name of the Lord God --- and let it be written: that
the Son of Man will not come in the heavens till I am 85 years old 48 years
hence or about 1890..."
The Mormon historians have deleted "48 years hence or about 1890." With the
death, in the 1970's, of the last remaining Mormon that was alive at the
time of the prophesy, We can safely say that the rising generation came and
died and Jesus has not returned. (Remember Matthew 24:36) He also did not
come about 1890.
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 45 ... May 18, 1843. HISTORY OF THE CHURCH, vol. 5,
page 394.
President Smith, in concluding his remarks, said that if the government,
which received into its coffers the money of citizens for its public
treasury, cannot protect such citizens in their lives and property, it is
an old granny anyhow; and I prophesy in the name of the Lord God of Israel,
unless the United States redress the wrongs committed upon the Saints in
the state of Missouri and punish the crimes committed by her officers that
in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted, and
there will not be so much a potsherd left,..."
History records that Congress did not grant protection to the Mormons. It
also records that Congress did not redress the wrongs committed against the
Saints in the state of Missouri. There was no punishment of her officers.
144 years have gone by and Congress is still intact. The government has not
been destroyed (overthrown and wasted). Certainly you can see that this is
a false prophecy. Remember, all you need is one. (Deut. 18:22)
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 46 ... July, 12, 1843. DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS,
Section 132:6, 8, 52-54, 62 & 66.
(6) And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, (Plural
Marriage) it was instituted for the fullness of my glory; and he that
receiveth a fullness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be
damned, said the Lord God. (8) Behold, mine house is a house of order,
saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion. (12) I am the Lord thy
God; and I give unto you this commandment -- that no man shall come unto
the Father but by me or by my word, which is my law, saith the Lord. (52)
And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given
unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those
who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith
the Lord God. (53) For I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice;
and I give unto my servant Joseph that he shall be made ruler over many
things; for he hath been faithful over a few things, and from henceforth I
will strengthen him. (54) And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide
and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not
abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the
Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law. (62) And if
he gave ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery,
for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he
justified. (66) And now, as pertaining to this law, verily, verily, I say
unto you, I will reveal more unto you, hereafter; therefore, let this
suffice for the present. Behold, I am Alpha and Omega. Amen.
To begin with, Plural Marriage was to be an everlasting covenant. Where is
it now? Everyone who is not living the law of Plural Marriage today is
damned. (verse 6)
Verse 8 states that God's house is not a house of confusion. Amen. Mormon
doctrine is so full of confusion that it cannot be from the One True God.
Only a false god could create such a mass of confusion as exists in
Mormonism.
Verse 12 states that no man shall come unto the Father but by me or by my
word, which is my law..." This is in absolute contradiction to God's word
in Galatians 2:16 and 3:10 & 11.
2:16 - Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by
the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we
might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law:
for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
3:10 - For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for
it is written, cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which
are written in the the book of the law to do them.
3:11 - But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is
evident for, The just shall live by faith.
Verse 53 states that Joseph Smith would be strengthened. Less than one year
later he was dead at the hands of his enemies.
Verse 62 is not only contrary to God's word in the Bible but is also
contrary to Section 101 of the 1835 Doctrine & Covenants where it said in
verse 4, "...we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife;
and one woman but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at
liberty to marry again..." Here we have another example of the Mormon god
changing his mind.
Regarding verse 66, where is the additional information on the law of
Plural Marriage that was supposed to be given to Joseph Smith? Certainly,
if there was more to be revealed then it should have been revealed to one
of the Presidents of the Mormon Church before now.
We believe, based on the "facts" as outlined by the Mormon church and by
historical documentation, that that the "new and everlasting covenant of
Plural Marriage" was and IS from Satan. We note the existence of a Mormon
sect living in Mexico who still practice this "according to the law of God
and His prophet, Joseph Smith, Junior"!
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 47 ... January 17, 1864. Joseph Smith Blessing.
"A blessing, given to Joseph Smith, 3rd, by his father, Joseph Smith, Jun.,
on Jan 17, 1844. Blessed of the Lord is my son Joseph, who is called the
third, for the Lord knows the integrity of his heart, and loves him,
because of his faith, and righteous desires. And for this cause, has the
Lord raised him up; that the promises made to the fathers might be
fulfilled, even that the annointing of the progenitor shall be upon the
head of my son, and his seed after him, from generation to generation. For
he shall be my successor to the Presidency of the High Priesthood: a Seer,
and a Revelator, and a Prophet, unto the Church; which appointment
belongeth to him by blessing, and also by right. Verily, thus saith the
Lord; if he abides in me, his days shall be lengthened upon the earth, but,
if he abides not in me, I the Lord, will receive him, in an instant, unto
myself. When he is grown, he shall be a strength to his brethren, and a
comfort to his mother. Angels will minister unto him, and he will be wafted
as on eagle's wings, and be as wise as serpents, even a multiplicity of
blessings shall be his. Amen."
We state that this is the most clear cut false prophecy Joseph Smith ever
gave. The key is in the second paragraph. History records that Joseph
Smith, III lived a long and "full" life into his 80's. He did not abide in
the Mormon church. He abandoned the Utah church and became the President of
the RLDS church on April 6, 1860.
The fact that he lived to be such an old age and the fact that he was not
taken in an instant because he did not abide with the Utah church is proof
positive that this is a false prophecy.
There is another aspect of this prophecy that most everyone has overlooked.
This prophecy was only one of eight possible methods for the succession to
the Presidency that Joseph Smith had established. (see SUNSTONE, vol 6, No
2, pages 2-4)
1. By a counselor in the First Presidency.
2. By a special appointment.
3. Through the office of Associate President.
4. By the Presiding Patriarch.
5. By the Council of Fifty.
6. By the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.
7. By the three priesthood councils.
8. By a descendant of Joseph Smith, Jr.
In Section 132, verse 8, the god of Mormonism states, "Behold, mine house
is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion." We
submit that the provision of eight possible ways for the succession to the
Presidency is utter chaos, especially the eight listed above.
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 48 ... June 19, 1844. Mormon Neighbor.
"I therefore warn the lawless not to be precipitate in any interference in
our affairs, for as sure as there is a God in Israel, we shall ride
triumphant over oppression."
On June 27, 1844 Joseph Smith was dead at the hand of his enemies.
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 49 ... MILLENNIAL STAR, 19:343.
The Kirtland anti-bank was to "Swallow up all other banks."
The Kirtland "Anti-bank" failed in the summer of 1837.
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 50 ... Compendium, 1882, page 271.
"The time is soon coming when no man will have any peace but in Zion
(Independence, Missouri) and her Stakes."
Over 137 years have gone by since this Prophecy was uttered. Is that soon?
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 51 ... ROCKY MOUNTAIN SAINTS, Stenhouse, page 42.
"Joseph Smith prophesied by revelation that W.W. Phelps would not taste of
death till Jesus came. Often in private and in public did Mr. Philps boast
to the saints of his blessing, given to him by revelation and prophecy
through Joseph."
In March, 1872, the Salt Lake City papers carried the following
announcement: "Phelps - William Wines Phelps, Born in the state of New
Jersey, February 1792, died March 7,1872, in Salt Lake City, Utah."
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 52 ... November 28, 1841. HISTORY OF THE CHURCH, vol.
4. page 467.
"I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any
book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer
to God by abiding its precepts, than by another book."
If the BOOK OF MORMON is the most correct book on earth, why have there
been at least 3,914 changes in it since the first edition in 1830? We have
a photo-mechanical copy of the 1830 edition with all of the changes marked.
We even make note of the 1981 change in 2 Nephi 30:6 which changed "white
and delightsome" to "pure and delightsome".
Verse 16-20 of Section 3 prophecies that the Lamanites will be converted.
To Mormons the Lamanites are the Indians. The Mormon church has been trying
to convert the Indians for 153 years to no avail. A large majority of the
Indians that they have converted are totally inactive. This is especially
true in Latin America and South America. The Indians go in the front door
and very soon go out the back door.
There is another interesting scripture in the BOOK OF MORMON regarding the
Indians. 2 Nephi 30:6 includes a prophecy that the Lamanites (Indians)
would turn "white and delightsome" in a few generations after accepting the
gospel. It is interesting to note that the handwritten manuscript of 2
Nephi 30:6 has "white and delightsome". In 1840 Joseph Smith directed that
it be changed to "pure and delightsome." Brigham Young directed that it be
changed back to "white and delightsome". It has remained "white and
delightsome" until 1981 where it has now appeared as "pure and delightsome"
with no footnote indicating why it was changed. Is it possible that now
that sufficient time has gone by to see that the Lamanites are not going to
turn "white and delightsome" after several generations of being members of
the Mormon Church, that it is prudent to change the verse to "pure and
delightsome" which is easier to defend? Honest editing would at least place
a footnote by the change to explain why the change had been made.
Why can't you find anything in the BOOK OF MORMON about some of the
essential doctrines of the Mormon church? Such as the following:
1. God has a body of flesh and bones.
2. God is an exalted man.
3. God is a product of eternal progression.
4. The plurality of Gods.
5. God "organized" the world rather than "creating" it.
6. There is no eternal hell and punishment.
7. Men can become gods.
8. "Intelligences" are eternal.
9. Pre-existing spirits of men.
10. Marriage for eternity.
11. Polygamy is not an abomination in the sight of God.
12. Three degrees of glory.
13. A mother in heaven.
14. A Melchizedek priesthood consisting of the offices of Elder, Seventy
and High Priest.
15. An Aaronic priesthood consisting of the offices of Deacon, Teacher and
Priest.
16. The functions and offices of Evangelists, Bishoprics, Stake
Presidencies, Assistants to the Twelve, a First Presidency and a President
of the Church.
If the BOOK OF MORMON contains "...the fullness of the gospel of Jesus
Christ to the Gentiles and to the Jews also;" why aren't the above
doctrines found in it?
FALSE PROPHESY NUMBER 53 ... JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES, vol. 12:204.
"How long will it be before the words of the Prophet Joseph Smith will be
fulfilled? He said if the Constitution of the United States were saved at
all it must be done by this people. It will not be many years before these
words come to pass."
If Joseph Smith really said the above, and I have no reason to doubt
Brigham Young, then at least 143 years have gone by since Joseph Smith said
it. (He died in June, 1844) Of course the time element was added by Brigham
Young, but we are discussing only one FALSE PROPHET, at this time.
The above prophecies are only a few of the prophecies of Joseph Smith. We
declare that the ones listed above are false. Some of them are more clearly
false than others. According to Deuteronomy 18:22 all you need is one.
In this text We have only tested Joseph Smith according to the two tests.
There are at least two others.
"To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word,
it is because there is no light in them." (Isaiah 8:20)
"The ancient and honorable, he is the head; and the prophet that teacheth
lies, he is the tail." (Isaiah 9:15)
If you apply the above two tests to Joseph Smith, the case against him is
devastating. The first applies to doctrines that are taught by Joseph Smith
that are not in harmony with the Bible. (Law and testimony) There are so
many doctrines that he taught that are not in harmony with the Bible that
it would take an entire book to cover them.
The second one applies to the prophet that teacheth lies. That would take
another book.
Verse 114 and 115 of Section 84 record that the cities of New York, Albany
and Boston were to be destroyed (desolation and utter abolishment) if they
rejected the sound of the Mormon gospel. History records that Joseph Smith
and Bishop Newell K. Whitney went to these cities in response to verse 114
and 115. There is no record of these cities ever receiving the Mormon
gospel during the life of Newell K. Whitney or Joseph Smith. In fact the
Mormon church is still very small in those cities. If these verses were
truly from God then these cities should have been destroyed by now. I
believe this is another evidence of Joseph Smith failing as a prophet of
God.
Remember, all you need is one false prophecy to have a false prophet.
Michelle Malkin
>On 10 Sep 1998 14:34:07 GMT, "Hafthor Stefansson"
><haf...@usa.n0$pam.net> wrote:
>
>><01bddc39$2622bfa0$69e3d8cd@default>...
>>> We all know that the Bible is loaded with contradictions and errors.
>>> Does anyone know of errors or contradictions in the Book of Mormon?
>>
>>Lots of good info.
>>Disclaimer: remember this was compiled from other documents and done by a
>>xian. (Old me)
>>
>>-HS
>>[ Jesus is coming - everybody look busy ]
>>
>>begin 600 anti.zip
>>M4$L#!!0````(`)4!<!WJ()[SX<,``,G]`0`(````04Y422Y$3T/M_0N89&E:
>>M%XA'#C-"-]/<+RI>3@<RE:F1045>JK*RA#*K*JLJNZLR:RJSNVB0=4]&G,PX
>>M71%Q8LXYD=DQBLZNHK*"N"OKHJZ75=#UMMY0411&0!W0F45&I!=G%'M=>_G_
>>M^W%MQ59I8/[O[_>^WW>^$QE970@^S__9QX+3$QEQ+M_YOO=[[^_O_2??OMQX
>>M]M<]]>Z&_%MN5/\^M-!H_,K7%AH_\#,+C=E_?^3'SWYWYM]/+32^W?[[[3^%
>>M\^?_][,:?UG^^XT+UWX:W\S_[].-'?GOK[-OOD'^^RV-7\YQ_=S^^Z[&K^3G
>
><snip more of same>
>
>Dammit, I never got an EAC decoder ring. Could someone translate?
>
>Jessica Wolfman
>
>"They did not love him for his glossy tiger coat,
>nor for his great green eyes,
>no, not even for the white tipe to his tail.
>They loved him because he was himself."
>--May Sarton, _The Fur Person_
>
>The Adventurers Guild
>http://members.tripod.com/~theguild
Is there a binary translator with Agent? The one I had with Free Agent
seems to have vanished with Agent.
Mickey (Michelle Malkin) BAAWA knight
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
High Priestess Bastet of the Non-Church Temple of Si & Am
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
'Her people had no gods, only devils - which answer just as good a purpose among
the ignorant and superstitious as do gods among the educated and superstious.'
- Edgar Rice Burroughs, Tarzan and the Ant Men
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
send e-mail to:moc.gnirpsdnim@7bniklam
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us
> >Does anyone know of errors or contradictions in the Book of Mormon?
> >
> >
> >/|\^..^/|\ Vampirella /|\^..^/|\
> >
> >Opinions brought to you by Good Intentions Paving Company
> >
> nearly 1600 changes made to itsice it first came about.
>
> The biggest one was in the 1970's where it said "The Great White God".
>
> Before that i don't recall any off white people being in the Cult
> called the Mormons.
>
> If you want to read about the Mormons from ex members go to,
>
> http://www.exmormon.org/
> Ken Anglesea
> Skepticultist
> Grand Guru,Atheist.
Then check Kerry Shirts' "Mormonism Researched" website,
http://www.cyberhighway.net/~shirtail/mormonis.htm
or perhaps "FAIR"
http://www.fair-lds.org/index.html
or "FARMS,"
then maybe you'll get a fair rebuttal to the anti-Mormon nonsense
presented above.
Darryl L. Pierce
Malkin) wrote:
;Is there a binary translator with Agent? The one I had with Free Agent
;seems to have vanished with Agent.
File->Decode Binary Attachment. Then hit ENTER to launch the
attachment.
Mise le meas,
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Darryl L. Pierce #1142, Member of the Loyal Order of BAAWA |
| http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Thinktank/1335/ |
| http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Library/1454/ |
| "Neither Heaven nor Hell, and surely not a spaceship, will be |
| found in the tail of a comet." - Harlan Ellison |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
zemz...@hotmail.com
"Vampirella" <vampi...@iname.com> wrote:
> We all know that the Bible is loaded with contradictions and errors.
> Does anyone know of errors or contradictions in the Book of Mormon?
>
Just look up steel, horses, chariots, silk, barley, wheat, or flax in the
book of Moron's index. None were present in the precolombian new world, but
all are present in Joe Smith's presentation of it.
Joseph Smith's record as a prophet was dismal. He predicted that several of
his initial followers would stay with his church for good, but many became
apostates, including 2 out of the 3 people who actually claimed to see his
"gold plates."
Also, some words you may search on and an URL:
look up
Kinderhook plates
Book of Abraham
Angel Moroni's home page (this is a humorous page at the expense of Mormonism;
I forgot the URL)
Hope this helps.
Dave Good
#562 knight of BAAWA
zemz...@hotmail.com
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
> Vampirella wrote:
<snip>
> >
> > I carry alt.atheism number 965 proudly! Now get a life.
> >
> > --
> > /|\^..^/|\ Vampirella /|\^..^/|\
> >
> > Opinions brought to you by Good Intentions Paving Company
>
> Nice to see your sincere interest in learning religious truth.
>
There's a nice oxymoron for you.
Michelle Malkin
>On Thu, 10 Sep 1998 21:30:30 GMT, hyp...@B5B7STSW.com (Michelle
>Malkin) wrote:
>
>;Is there a binary translator with Agent? The one I had with Free Agent
>;seems to have vanished with Agent.
>
>File->Decode Binary Attachment. Then hit ENTER to launch the
>attachment.
>
>Mise le meas,
>
does Agent hide stuff?!
>+---------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Darryl L. Pierce #1142, Member of the Loyal Order of BAAWA |
>| http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Thinktank/1335/ |
>| http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Library/1454/ |
>| "Neither Heaven nor Hell, and surely not a spaceship, will be |
>| found in the tail of a comet." - Harlan Ellison |
>+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Mickey (Michelle Malkin) BAAWA knight
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
High Priestess Bastet of the Non-Church Temple of Si & Am
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Men never do evil so completely -- and cheerfully -- as when they do it from
religious conviction. - Blaise Pascal
Michelle Malkin
Michelle Malkin
Walksalone
Malkin) Having stopped their contemplations on the mystery of life & uttered
the following:
>mcpi...@usa.net (Darryl L. Pierce) wrote:
>>On Thu, 10 Sep 1998 21:30:30 GMT, hyp...@B5B7STSW.com (Michelle
>>Malkin) wrote:
>>
>>;Is there a binary translator with Agent? The one I had with Free Agent
>>;seems to have vanished with Agent.
>>
>>File->Decode Binary Attachment. Then hit ENTER to launch the
>>attachment.
>>
>>Mise le meas,
>>
>Ummm, would you mind putting that in plain English? What file? Where? Why
>does Agent hide stuff?!
Mickey, just looked. It's not hidden. Alt F, press L, your binary will be
launched. I don't use it, not receiving binaries, but it is there. Likely to
be elsewhere, didn't check.
>
>>+---------------------------------------------------------------+
>>| Darryl L. Pierce #1142, Member of the Loyal Order of BAAWA |
>>| http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Thinktank/1335/ |
>>| http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Library/1454/ |
>>| "Neither Heaven nor Hell, and surely not a spaceship, will be |
>>| found in the tail of a comet." - Harlan Ellison |
>>+---------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>
>Mickey (Michelle Malkin) BAAWA knight
>
>^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
>High Priestess Bastet of the Non-Church Temple of Si & Am
>^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
>Men never do evil so completely -- and cheerfully -- as when they do it from
>religious conviction. - Blaise Pascal
>^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
>send e-mail to:moc.gnirpsdnim@7bniklam
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go."
Oscar Wilde
Michelle Malkin
>On or about Fri, 11 Sep 1998 06:46:55 GMT hyp...@B5B7STSW.com (Michelle
>Malkin) Having stopped their contemplations on the mystery of life & uttered
>the following:
>
>>mcpi...@usa.net (Darryl L. Pierce) wrote:
>>>On Thu, 10 Sep 1998 21:30:30 GMT, hyp...@B5B7STSW.com (Michelle
>>>Malkin) wrote:
>>>
>>>;Is there a binary translator with Agent? The one I had with Free Agent
>>>;seems to have vanished with Agent.
>>>
>>>File->Decode Binary Attachment. Then hit ENTER to launch the
>>>attachment.
>>>
>>>Mise le meas,
>>>
>>Ummm, would you mind putting that in plain English? What file? Where? Why
>>does Agent hide stuff?!
>
>Mickey, just looked. It's not hidden. Alt F, press L, your binary will be
>launched. I don't use it, not receiving binaries, but it is there. Likely to
>be elsewhere, didn't check.
>
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us
zemz...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article <6t9c55$ruk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
>
> > Vampirella wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > >
> > > I carry alt.atheism number 965 proudly! Now get a life.
> > >
> > > --
> > > /|\^..^/|\ Vampirella /|\^..^/|\
> > >
> > > Opinions brought to you by Good Intentions Paving Company
> >
> > Nice to see your sincere interest in learning religious truth.
> >
> There's a nice oxymoron for you.
>
> Dave Good
> #562 knight of BAAWA
Surely, you wouldn't be "prejudging" the issues, would you?
Are you certain you've looked at ALL the evidence?
Respectfully,
Gerry L. Ensley.
zemz...@hotmail.com
> Dave Good wrote:
> > Gerry Ensley wrote:
<snip>
> > >
> > > Nice to see your sincere interest in learning religious truth.
> > >
> > There's a nice oxymoron for you.
> >
Especially about the religion in question.
>
> Surely, you wouldn't be "prejudging" the issues, would you?
>
> Are you certain you've looked at ALL the evidence?
>
I've seen enough evidence to conclude that the mormon cult is a crock that
even P.T. Barnum wouldn't have thought up, because it is so *obviously* wrong
that even the idiots who believed his sideshows wouldn't fall for it. But I
guess Phineas underestimated exactly how stupid some suckers were.
Of course, if you have evidence that the book of mormon is true, go ahead and
post it.
Dave Good
#562 knight of BAAWA
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Vampirella
Contradictions. I'm sure my friend will leave me alone now.
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us
zemz...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Gerry Ensley wrote:
>
> > Dave Good wrote:
>
> > > Gerry Ensley wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > >
> > > > Nice to see your sincere interest in learning religious truth.
> > > >
> > > There's a nice oxymoron for you.
> > >
>
> Especially about the religion in question.
>
> >
> > Surely, you wouldn't be "prejudging" the issues, would you?
> >
> > Are you certain you've looked at ALL the evidence?
> >
>
> I've seen enough evidence to conclude that the mormon cult is a crock that
> even P.T. Barnum wouldn't have thought up, because it is so *obviously* wrong
> that even the idiots who believed his sideshows wouldn't fall for it. But I
> guess Phineas underestimated exactly how stupid some suckers were.
>
> Of course, if you have evidence that the book of mormon is true, go ahead and
> post it.
>
> Dave Good
> #562 knight of BAAWA
>
Hate to repeat myself. Don't know if you've seen my similar recent posts:
Hard scientific evidence exists to support the existence of Ancient Hebrews in
North America about 100 A.D.
There is conclusive archaeological (authenticated ancient Hebrew written
inscription) evidence supporting ancient Hebrew marine excursions from
Palestine to the New World, which is the general scenario of the Book of
Mormon. This is, therefore, "indirect" evidence supporting, perhaps, some
Book of Mormon peoples in North America. Bat Creek Cave # 3, Loudon County,
Tennessee is paleoscriptographically and radiocarbon dated to 100 A.D. -- B
of M times -- but not as yet connected directly to any B of M persons we can
find. Nevertheless, progress is being made in New World archaeology.
Dr. Cyrus Gordon, not a Mormon Christian, has found additional Hebrew
artifacts in Kentucky as well as the Veracruz phylactery stele, showing a
Mayan priest with Jewish phylacteries in process apparently of offering
prayer in that Jewish manner.
Gordon's discussion of the ancient Hebrew archaeological evidence found in the
New World is found at
> > Subject: Ancient Hebrews in America
> > From: gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us
> > Date: 1998/03/11
> > Message-ID: <6e7j54$hv8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
> > Newsgroups: alt.religion.mormon
There is not the slightest doubt in Gordon's expert mind that the Bar Kochba
Revolt, if not the Roman destruction of Jerusalem itself, caused some
contemporary Jews to seek safety far outside Roman-controlled Judea, i.e.
causing ancient Hebrew marine excursions to the New World (and elsewhere).
> > "The stone was carved either ca. A.D. 100 in the Old World, or aboard
> > ship, or in America by someone trained in the tradition of that [Old
> > Hebrew] script, some time after the refugees landed in what is now the
> > eastern United States. By the time of its interment in Bat Creek Mound
> > #3, it might have been passed down as an heirloom for several
> > generations. But the carbon-14 test proves that the burial took place
> > over seven centuries prior to Columbus' discovery in 1492. The
> > letter-forms imply cultural contact between America and Palestine ca.
> > A.D. 100. The inscription cannot be a modern forgery, on the one hand,
> > nor can it be pre-Christian on the other."
> >
> > "There are traces of Jewish influence in pre-Columbian America. We
> > may single out the Tepatlaxco (Veracruz) Stele (ca. 100-300)
a Mayan wearing phylacteries; the arm windings are seven in number and
are followed by finger windings. This monument is noteworthy because no
scholar, in any field, has ever questioned its authenticity or
pre-Columbian date. To be sure, the AMERINDIAN EXPERTS DID NOT DETECT THE
OLD WORLD ORIGIN OF THE RITUAL DEPICTED AND VERY FEW ARE EVEN NOW AWARE OF
IT."
Dr. Cyrus Gordon.
Three Bar Kokhba coins have been discovered in Kentucky, although two of them
might not have been anciently interred.
> > Let's be fair to the actually discovered archaeological evidence. It
> > exists. and it proves conclusively that ancient Hebrew mariners did, in
> > fact and in demonstrable deed, sail to the New World (Tennessee) about 100
> > A.D. The latter does not necessarily "prove" the historicity of the B of M
> > itself, but it does "prove" the accuracy and actual history of ancient
Hebrew mariners EXACTLY LIKE those mentioned in the B of M.
> >
> > That's "archaeological evidence" supporting the story of the Book of
> > Mormon, if not the B of M itself. We don't know, of course, if the
>Tennessee Ancient Hebrews were part of the ancient Hebrew marine immigrations
> > to the New World mentioned in the B of M, or not. Bat Creek Mound #3,
>Loudon County, Tennessee is not conclusive on the B of M itself, but it in fact
> > exists to show that the B of M may not be Smith's "fantasy" at all.
THE FULL STORY MAY TAKE A LONG TIME TO UNFOLD, BUT THE FACT OF GLOBAL
DIFFUSION IS HERE TO STAY. Moreover, interrelations are two-way streets.
Apparent pre-Columbian influences of the Western Hemisphere on the
Eastern have been pointed out (mainly, but far from exclusively, by
amateurish enthusiasts) and disregarded, if not discredited. THE HISTORIC
FACTS OF WEST-TO-EAST AS WELL AS EAST-TO-WEST DIFFUSION ACROSS BOTH
OCEANS WILL FORCE BLIND DENIAL TO GIVE WAY TO OPEN-MINDEDNESS. THE
AUTHENTICATION OF THE BAT CREEK INSCRIPTION IS A MILESTONE IN THE PROCESS
OF FORMULATING A CREDIBLE UNIFIED GLOBAL HISTORY."
"A Hebrew Inscription Authenticated," pp. 77-78,
EMPHASIS ADDED.
> > I happen to share non-Mormon Dr. Cyrus Gordon's optimism that the
> > archaeological community will eventually abandon its anti-Mormon bias,
> > acknowledge ancient mariner excursions from Old World to New World and New
> > World to Old World, and help establish the truth of "A CREDIBLE UNIFIED
> GLOBAL HISTORY."
The primary reason NEW World archaeology has difficulty uncovering any "known"
Mesoamerican locations is the failure of toponyms (consistent place names down
the centuries, as in the Old World) in the New World. Every city got a "new
name" whenever it was conquered (sometimes by peoples with wholly different
languages), thereby "ending" any "named" location and beginning that same
location under an entirely different name in a new language. That's enough to
drive archaeologists wild. Nothing similar exists in Old World
archaeology, where a great many ancient locations HAVE MAINTAINED the
same or similar place names throughout history.
See William J. Hamblin's well written articulation of the problem.
http://www.farmsresearch.com/critic/critic04.htm
More than the "scientific" stuff above, is the consistently whole philosophy
of life and living revealed ONLY in Mormon Christianity. I grew up
Protestant. But I left it willingly when I saw the rational, philosophical
meaningfulness inside Mormon Christianity as opposed to the orthdox Christian
nonsense upon which I had been raised as a child.
Mormon Christianity is the ONLY Christianity on earth which can tell me
correctly (1) where I came from; (2) why I am here on earth, and (3) where I
likely will be going in the hereafter.
Atheists tend to be an "arrogant" lot, thinking they know more than they do.
I am somewhat sympathetic to the atheists' plight because of the rampant
nonsense depicted inside orthodox Christianity, i.e. who would want to leave
(rational, I presume here) atheism and join irrational (mostly) orthodox
Christianity. See my posts in alt.atheism several months ago.
Atheism is so wide, diverse, and often self-contradictory that I find it as
distasteful as I found orthodox Christianity. (Although I root for Kai
Nielson whenever he debates an orthodox Christian; Nielson usually "wins" in
my view).
Besides atheism is factually incorrect, i.e. there is a God in Heaven, whence
you were conceived and born long before your mortal birth here below upon
earth. The latter is a Christian Gospel of Salvation you won't find inside
orthodox Christianity, which has lost most of Jesus' correct principles
originally taught by Jesus personally. See my "Jesus' Henotheism" and
"Biblical Henotheism" posted to a.r.m. last year.
Mormon Christianity shares none of those above weaknesses. It is rational,
meaningful, and true (not perfect, however).
Perhaps, if you'd like to share your criticism of Mormon Christianity with me
we can make a meaningful exchange.
Have you ever read the Book of Mormon?
Respectfully,
Gerry L. Ensley.
Jake
>Mormon Christianity is the ONLY Christianity on earth which can tell me
>correctly (1) where I came from; (2) why I am here on earth, and (3) where I
>likely will be going in the hereafter.
>
Wrong. There are many religions which attempt to answer these
questions.
>Atheists tend to be an "arrogant" lot, thinking they know more than they do.
>I am somewhat sympathetic to the atheists' plight because of the rampant
>nonsense depicted inside orthodox Christianity, i.e. who would want to leave
>(rational, I presume here) atheism and join irrational (mostly) orthodox
>Christianity. See my posts in alt.atheism several months ago.
>
Now who's being arrogant ? I do not presume to think more then I do,
if anyone does, YOU do. You believe there is a god, when there is no
hard evidence to support that claim.
>Atheism is so wide, diverse, and often self-contradictory that I find it as
>distasteful as I found orthodox Christianity. (Although I root for Kai
>Nielson whenever he debates an orthodox Christian; Nielson usually "wins" in
>my view).
Now your showing your ignorance. Atheism is nothing more then the non
belief in a god or gods. There is no philosophical part that could be
self-contradictory. Please explain how a non belief can be self
contradictory ?
>
>Besides atheism is factually incorrect, i.e. there is a God in Heaven, whence
>you were conceived and born long before your mortal birth here below upon
>earth. The latter is a Christian Gospel of Salvation you won't find inside
>orthodox Christianity, which has lost most of Jesus' correct principles
>originally taught by Jesus personally. See my "Jesus' Henotheism" and
>"Biblical Henotheism" posted to a.r.m. last year.
>
Please give evidence which supports that there is a god.
>Mormon Christianity shares none of those above weaknesses. It is rational,
>meaningful, and true (not perfect, however).
>
All you have said is " my religion is better then the others ! " but
no one cares because you have no real proof anyway.
>Perhaps, if you'd like to share your criticism of Mormon Christianity with me
>we can make a meaningful exchange.
>
Don't get me started.
>Have you ever read the Book of Mormon?
Probably more times then you.
Jake
atheist #678
ULC minister.
E.A.C. member.
BAAWA scribe #2
Otherwise known as lilbudha1.
Remove the word JAKE to send e-mail.
*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
" While I was in Africa I shot an elephant in my pajamas.
How it ever got into my pajamas I'll never know."
Groucho Marx
*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
My pages....
The HTML Temple... http://internet-temple.hypermart.net/htmltemple1.html
The Internet Temple.... http://internet-temple.hypermart.net/entrance.html
Lilbudha1's Comic book review... http://members.aol.com/lilbudha1/comics.html
Speak! Co-operative Dog Training... http://speak.hypermart.net
My home page.... http://home.earthlink.net/~lilbudha1
zemz...@hotmail.com
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
> In article <6tbl45$gb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> zemz...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Gerry Ensley wrote:
> >
> > > Dave Good wrote:
> >
> > > > Gerry Ensley wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > Nice to see your sincere interest in learning religious truth.
> > > > >
> > > > There's a nice oxymoron for you.
> > > >
> >
> > Especially about the religion in question.
> >
> > >
> > > Surely, you wouldn't be "prejudging" the issues, would you?
> > >
> > > Are you certain you've looked at ALL the evidence?
> > >
> >
> > I've seen enough evidence to conclude that the mormon cult is a crock that
> > even P.T. Barnum wouldn't have thought up, because it is so *obviously*
wrong
> > that even the idiots who believed his sideshows wouldn't fall for it. But I
> > guess Phineas underestimated exactly how stupid some suckers were.
> >
> > Of course, if you have evidence that the book of mormon is true, go ahead
and
> > post it.
> >
> > Dave Good
> > #562 knight of BAAWA
> >
>
> Hate to repeat myself. Don't know if you've seen my similar recent posts:
I only read alt.atheism. If you don't want to repeat yourself, don't switch
newsgroups.
<snip long intro>
Funny how you never mentioned that Gordon was, as an honest academic journal
put it, "admittedly a proponent of precolombian contact..."
>
> There is not the slightest doubt in Gordon's expert mind that the Bar Kochba
> Revolt, if not the Roman destruction of Jerusalem itself, caused some
> contemporary Jews to seek safety far outside Roman-controlled Judea, i.e.
> causing ancient Hebrew marine excursions to the New World (and elsewhere).
Good for him.
>
> > > "The stone was carved either ca. A.D. 100 in the Old World, or aboard
> > > ship, or in America by someone trained in the tradition of that [Old
> > > Hebrew] script, some time after the refugees landed in what is now the
> > > eastern United States. By the time of its interment in Bat Creek Mound
> > > #3, it might have been passed down as an heirloom for several
> > > generations. But the carbon-14 test proves that the burial took place
> > > over seven centuries prior to Columbus' discovery in 1492. The
> > > letter-forms imply cultural contact between America and Palestine ca.
> > > A.D. 100. The inscription cannot be a modern forgery, on the one hand,
> > > nor can it be pre-Christian on the other."
> > >
So that's what you have? Two controversial inscriptions promoted only by the
biggest fans of precolombian transocianic voyage? (Gordon is such a fan, and
his bias is as large as a mormon apologist's).
What of the stunning lack of roads with which to use the draught animals and
chariots mentioned in the BOM? What of the smelting mentioned in the BOM?
What of the lack of any of the pollens mentioned in the book of mormon in the
soil of mesoamerica? Why are no precolombian bodies of old-world livestock
found?
Mormonism asserts a lot more than mere precolombian contact, which was quite
feasible.
Sorry, but two stones don't make up the massive difference; it's more likely
that the explanation Gordon gives is not the entire truth, that he is looking
for any evidence that might conceivably support his hoped-for transoceanic
voyages much in the same way an apologist looks for any evidence that might
conceivably support his belief.
<snip>
>
> > > I happen to share non-Mormon Dr. Cyrus Gordon's optimism that the
> > > archaeological community will eventually abandon its anti-Mormon bias,
> > > acknowledge ancient mariner excursions from Old World to New World and New
> > > World to Old World, and help establish the truth of "A CREDIBLE UNIFIED
> > GLOBAL HISTORY."
>
> The primary reason NEW World archaeology has difficulty uncovering any "known"
> Mesoamerican locations is the failure of toponyms (consistent place names down
> the centuries, as in the Old World) in the New World. Every city got a "new
> name" whenever it was conquered (sometimes by peoples with wholly different
> languages), thereby "ending" any "named" location and beginning that same
> location under an entirely different name in a new language. That's enough to
> drive archaeologists wild. Nothing similar exists in Old World
> archaeology, where a great many ancient locations HAVE MAINTAINED the
> same or similar place names throughout history.
>
Ahh. So, the Germani call themselves precisely that, eh? And been to Gaul
recently?
>
> More than the "scientific" stuff above, is the consistently whole philosophy
> of life and living revealed ONLY in Mormon Christianity. I grew up
> Protestant. But I left it willingly when I saw the rational, philosophical
> meaningfulness inside Mormon Christianity as opposed to the orthdox Christian
> nonsense upon which I had been raised as a child.
Nonsense. Anything that asserts an answer to be accepted on faith cannot be
rational; faith, or belief without evidence, is the antithesis of reason.
> Mormon Christianity is the ONLY Christianity on earth which can tell me
> correctly (1) where I came from; (2) why I am here on earth, and (3) where I
> likely will be going in the hereafter.
Please explain how you *know* it to be correct, and how this knowledge can be
distinguished from a hare krishna's knowledge of his religion to be correct,
or any other knowledge of any other believer's religion to be correct.
> Atheists tend to be an "arrogant" lot, thinking they know more than they do.
That is your opinion.
> I am somewhat sympathetic to the atheists' plight because of the rampant
> nonsense depicted inside orthodox Christianity, i.e. who would want to leave
> (rational, I presume here) atheism and join irrational (mostly) orthodox
> Christianity. See my posts in alt.atheism several months ago.
>
No thanks. I have to do things this weekend besides digging in archives.
> Atheism is so wide, diverse, and often self-contradictory that I find it as
> distasteful as I found orthodox Christianity.
Oh, really? What did you find self-contradictory? (To me wideness and
diversity are a plus.)
> (Although I root for Kai
> Nielson whenever he debates an orthodox Christian; Nielson usually "wins" in
> my view).
>
> Besides atheism is factually incorrect, i.e. there is a God in Heaven, whence
> you were conceived and born long before your mortal birth here below upon
> earth.
OK, sure. I'll take your word for it. Really.
The latter is a Christian Gospel of Salvation you won't find inside
> orthodox Christianity, which has lost most of Jesus' correct principles
> originally taught by Jesus personally. See my "Jesus' Henotheism" and
> "Biblical Henotheism" posted to a.r.m. last year.
Once again, no thanks. Furthermore, what makes you think an atheist cares at
all what Jesus said? The only thing Jesus saved after his death was a few
scavengers from starvation.
>
> Mormon Christianity shares none of those above weaknesses. It is rational,
> meaningful, and true (not perfect, however).
>
Hardly rational. Any belief system with an emphasis on emotions and faith is
almost by definition not rational. And you have not shown it to be true.
> Perhaps, if you'd like to share your criticism of Mormon Christianity with me
> we can make a meaningful exchange.
It's above. No one has shown it to be true, and there are many reasons to
believe it's false.
>
> Have you ever read the Book of Mormon?
Parts of it. I developed "favorite parts" in the same way that
I developed favorite parts of the bible...Numbers 31 is always
high on my scriptural reading list.
Dave Good
#562 knight of BAAWA
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Hafthor Stefansson
<6tc5pd$rns$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Mormon Christianity is the ONLY Christianity on earth which can tell me
>correctly (1) where I came from; (2) why I am here on earth, and (3) where
I
>likely will be going in the hereafter.
That certainly is a bold, if not arrogant statement, but alas, not very
original. Conventional Christianity (whatever that means) claims to have
divine truths for those very same things. (Please read on, this isn't a
total flame-o-rama.)
>Atheists tend to be an "arrogant" lot, thinking they know more than they
do.
>I am somewhat sympathetic to the atheists' plight because of the rampant
>nonsense depicted inside orthodox Christianity, i.e. who would want to
leave
>(rational, I presume here) atheism and join irrational (mostly) orthodox
>Christianity. See my posts in alt.atheism several months ago.
I'll agree that most /vocal/ atheists are pretty smug. I really try not to
be. (Boy, am I gonna get flamed!) But I find that most /vocal/ theists
suffer the same problem. I don't find it to be indicative of theism,
atheism or non-theism.
>Atheism is so wide, diverse, and often self-contradictory that I find it
as
>distasteful as I found orthodox Christianity. (Although I root for Kai
>Nielson whenever he debates an orthodox Christian; Nielson usually "wins"
in
>my view).
Well, at least we aren't handling snakes and making Sunday morning TV
boring. :)
>Besides atheism is factually incorrect, i.e. there is a God in Heaven,
whence
>you were conceived and born long before your mortal birth here below upon
>earth. The latter is a Christian Gospel of Salvation you won't find inside
>orthodox Christianity, which has lost most of Jesus' correct principles
>originally taught by Jesus personally. See my "Jesus' Henotheism" and
>"Biblical Henotheism" posted to a.r.m. last year.
Atheism, in my view, _is_ factually incorrect. Atheism, by the definition I
understand, is the belief in no god, and in my view totally unprovable,
just because you cannot prove non-existence. You can't prove bigfoot
doesn't exist. I happen to be a non-theist, or one with /no/ belief /in/
god. I have examined the evidence, and rejected it. I haven't rejected god.
I only thought I knew him. (I'm just aimin' for a flamin', ain't I?)
>Mormon Christianity shares none of those above weaknesses. It is
rational,
>meaningful, and true (not perfect, however).
Non-theism, I believe, doesn't answer very many questions... in fact it
doesn't seem to even ask them. "Ask me no questions, I'll tell you no
lies." Make no mistake, I was happier as a Christian. But the ultimate
point of religion is not to be an ideological version of Prozac, it is to
enlighten and/or reveal the truth. When I looked closer, Christianity did
not hold water, so I was forced to dismiss it. Couldn't I just overlook
that to be happy? Sure, but how different would that be from holding on to
a belief in Santa Claus?
Mormons -- I've known several -- are very respectable, upstanding people.
That's not just a B.S. suck-up. These people really practice what they
preach, at least more so than any other religious group I've run across.
>Perhaps, if you'd like to share your criticism of Mormon Christianity with
me
>we can make a meaningful exchange.
>
>Have you ever read the Book of Mormon?
Hey, sure. (I know that invitation wasn't directed to me, but non-theists
are really pushy that way, ya know.) And yes, I have read the BoM. I've
been to a Mormon service a couple of times. Mormonism did, indirectly, do
some good things for me when I needed it. Hey, I know enough about the LDS
to have an honorary Utah residency and some of those special skivvies. :)
-HS
[ Jesus has the answers - Unfortunately, I'm playing Jeopardy ]
left...@my-dejanews.com
"Vampirella" <vampi...@iname.com> wrote:
>
> No Dillweed, I am being fucking serious. All I wanted is a book or
> URL which lists some of the contradictions in the Book of Mormon so I
> can get a mormon off my ass.
Here's a perfect example of Mormon contradiction:
Sen. Orrin Hatch condemning President Clinton's adultery.
--
Worked for him!!
"You are not my judge, senator. God is my judge."
-- C. Thomas
zemz...@hotmail.com
"Hafthor Stefansson" <haf...@usa.n0$pam.net> wrote:
<snip>
> Atheism, in my view, _is_ factually incorrect. Atheism, by the definition I
> understand, is the belief in no god,
Your understanding of the definition is incorrect. Atheism is more accurately
the lack of belief in gods.
and in my view totally unprovable,
> just because you cannot prove non-existence. You can't prove bigfoot
> doesn't exist.
Or the tooth fairy, or santa claus, or the loch ness monster...do you believe
in these things, or in bigfoot?
Of course you can't *prove* these things not to exist. But when there's no
evidence that they do, there's no reason to believe them.
> I happen to be a non-theist, or one with /no/ belief /in/
> god. I have examined the evidence, and rejected it.
Which, according to the definition most atheists use, makes you an atheist.
Look at the similarities between non-theist and atheist.
> I haven't rejected god.
Of course you haven't, and I wish these imbecilic theists would realize that
you can't reject what isn't there.
> I only thought I knew him. (I'm just aimin' for a flamin', ain't I?)
>
> >Mormon Christianity shares none of those above weaknesses. It is
> rational,
> >meaningful, and true (not perfect, however).
>
> Non-theism, I believe, doesn't answer very many questions...
Nope. But it leaves you free to ask as many as you want.
in fact it
> doesn't seem to even ask them. "Ask me no questions, I'll tell you no
> lies." Make no mistake, I was happier as a Christian. But the ultimate
> point of religion is not to be an ideological version of Prozac, it is to
> enlighten and/or reveal the truth.
That's where you're wrong. The ultimate purpose of a religion is to survive.
The truth has never played any role in the formation of religions, and many
behave more like heroin than prozac.
> When I looked closer, Christianity did
> not hold water, so I was forced to dismiss it. Couldn't I just overlook
> that to be happy? Sure, but how different would that be from holding on to
> a belief in Santa Claus?
>
> Mormons -- I've known several -- are very respectable, upstanding people.
> That's not just a B.S. suck-up. These people really practice what they
> preach, at least more so than any other religious group I've run across.
Actually, that's true. Well, there was one psycho roomate in college, but he
was the exception. Every time I send new missionaries away, they don't come
back.
<snip>
Dave Good
#562 knight of BAAWA
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Fredric Lord Xenu Rice
>gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote in article
><6tc5pd$rns$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>>Mormon Christianity is the ONLY Christianity on earth which can tell me
>>correctly (1) where I came from; (2) why I am here on earth, and (3) where
>I likely will be going in the hereafter.
How freakish.
>That certainly is a bold, if not arrogant statement, but alas, not very
>original. Conventional Christianity (whatever that means) claims to have
>divine truths for those very same things. (Please read on, this isn't a
>total flame-o-rama.)
It gets worse: The Mormon mythologies are just as fraught with scientific
flaws, forgery, and contradictions as Christian mythology is. For instance,
the Mormon mythologies mistakenly claim that elephants were in North America
long before they were introduced by Europeans. Woops!
And, of course, none of the archeological claims that the Mormon myths make
are true; not a one of them.
Making a religion out of such blatant sillyness is profoundly stupid.
--- "de omnibus dubitandum" All is to be doubted --- Descartes
24-hour file archive access: (626) 335-9601 (FidoNet 1:218/890.0) SP3
The Skeptic Tank: http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice/index.htm
The One True Expert: http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice/mantrack.htm
The scientology cult doesn't want you to know this: http://www.xenu.net
Hafthor Stefansson
HS>>definition I understand, is the belief in no god,
ZZ>Your understanding of the definition is incorrect. Atheism is more
ZZ>accurately the lack of belief in gods.
Hmm, I guess my definition comes from a couple of atheists I know who flatly
believe in no god. What exactly would that be called? Antitheism perhaps?
HS>>and in my view totally unprovable, just because you cannot
HS>>prove non-existence. You can't prove bigfoot doesn't exist.
ZZ>Or the tooth fairy, or santa claus, or the loch ness monster...do you
ZZ>believe in these things, or in bigfoot?
ZZ>Of course you can't *prove* these things not to exist. But when there's
ZZ>no evidence that they do, there's no reason to believe them.
Exactly, I have no belief in Santa, but I can't believe that absolutely
cannot exist, only because non-existence is not provable. Obviously, the case
for Mr. Claus is considerably weaker than the case for god.
HS>>I happen to be a non-theist, or one with /no/ belief /in/
HS>>god. I have examined the evidence, and rejected it.
ZZ>Which, according to the definition most atheists use, makes you an
ZZ>atheist. Look at the similarities between non-theist and atheist.
Sure, okay. I'll accept your definition.
Is non-theist just a non-word then?
I'm definitely not an Agnostic... I'm very sure I don't know of a god. :)
HS>>I haven't rejected god.
ZZ>Of course you haven't, and I wish these imbecilic theists would realize
ZZ>that you can't reject what isn't there.
Well, I do reject their evidence for the existence of god.
HS>>in fact it doesn't seem to even ask them. "Ask me no questions, I'll
HS>>tell you no lies." Make no mistake, I was happier as a Christian. But
HS>>the ultimate point of religion is not to be an ideological version of
HS>>Prozac, it is to enlighten and/or reveal the truth.
ZZ>That's where you're wrong. The ultimate purpose of a religion is to
ZZ>survive. The truth has never played any role in the formation of
ZZ>religions, and many behave more like heroin than prozac.
Yeah, but it is the lofty goal, or point, of religion, as defined by the
people who practice it, to enlighten and/or reveal the truth.
Anthropomorphizing religion, you could save that it shares the purpose of
/any/ idea or life form... survival.
--
-HS
[ Curator of the Children's poisonous reptile petting zoo ]
>
> That's where you're wrong. The ultimate purpose of a religion is to
survive.
> The truth has never played any role in the formation of religions, and many
> behave more like heroin than prozac.
>
> > When I looked closer, Christianity did
> > not hold water, so I was forced to dismiss it. Couldn't I just overlook
> > that to be happy? Sure, but how different would that be from holding on
to
> > a belief in Santa Claus?
> >
> > Mormons -- I've known several -- are very respectable, upstanding people.
> > That's not just a B.S. suck-up. These people really practice what they
> > preach, at least more so than any other religious group I've run across.
>
> Actually, that's true. Well, there was one psycho roomate in college, but
he
> was the exception. Every time I send new missionaries away, they don't
come
> back.
>
> <snip>
>
> Dave Good
> #562 knight of BAAWA
>
Dan Bongard
: HS>>Atheism, in my view, _is_ factually incorrect. Atheism, by the
: HS>>definition I understand, is the belief in no god,
:
: ZZ>Your understanding of the definition is incorrect. Atheism is more
: ZZ>accurately the lack of belief in gods.
: Hmm, I guess my definition comes from a couple of atheists I know who flatly
: believe in no god. What exactly would that be called? Antitheism perhaps?
It is called 'atheism'. People who believe gods don't exist AND people who
don't believe gods exist are BOTH atheists.
-- Dan
Hafthor Stefansson
<dbongardE...@netcom.com>...
>Hafthor Stefansson (haf...@usa.n0$pam.net) wrote:
>:Hmm, I guess my definition comes from a couple of atheists I know who
flatly
>:believe in no god. What exactly would that be called? Antitheism perhaps?
>
>It is called 'atheism'. People who believe gods don't exist AND people who
>don't believe gods exist are BOTH atheists.
>
>-- Dan
Well, I was just hoping for a way to qualify my variance in thought to that
of people who believe god(s) don't exist. Well, okay, as a wise man once
said, "you can't always get what you want."
zemz...@hotmail.com
"Hafthor Stefansson" <haf...@usa.n0$pam.net> wrote:
> HS>>Atheism, in my view, _is_ factually incorrect. Atheism, by the
> HS>>definition I understand, is the belief in no god,
>
> ZZ>Your understanding of the definition is incorrect. Atheism is more
> ZZ>accurately the lack of belief in gods.
>
> believe in no god. What exactly would that be called? Antitheism perhaps?
>
There's actually a few different types of atheism. There's weak atheism
(you'd probably be a weak atheist) who merely states the theist hasn't met
his burden of proof, and the strong atheist, who has actually concluded
that no gods exist.
> HS>>and in my view totally unprovable, just because you cannot
> HS>>prove non-existence. You can't prove bigfoot doesn't exist.
>
> ZZ>Or the tooth fairy, or santa claus, or the loch ness monster...do you
> ZZ>believe in these things, or in bigfoot?
> ZZ>Of course you can't *prove* these things not to exist. But when there's
> ZZ>no evidence that they do, there's no reason to believe them.
>
> Exactly, I have no belief in Santa, but I can't believe that absolutely
> cannot exist, only because non-existence is not provable. Obviously, the case
> for Mr. Claus is considerably weaker than the case for god.
>
I wouldn't even go that far.
> HS>>I happen to be a non-theist, or one with /no/ belief /in/
> HS>>god. I have examined the evidence, and rejected it.
>
> ZZ>Which, according to the definition most atheists use, makes you an
> ZZ>atheist. Look at the similarities between non-theist and atheist.
>
> Sure, okay. I'll accept your definition.
> Is non-theist just a non-word then?
Probably just a synonym for 'atheist'
> I'm definitely not an Agnostic... I'm very sure I don't know of a god. :)
Yup, you're a weak atheist.
> HS>>I haven't rejected god.
>
> ZZ>Of course you haven't, and I wish these imbecilic theists would realize
> ZZ>that you can't reject what isn't there.
>
> Well, I do reject their evidence for the existence of god.
Same here.
>
> HS>>in fact it doesn't seem to even ask them. "Ask me no questions, I'll
> HS>>tell you no lies." Make no mistake, I was happier as a Christian. But
> HS>>the ultimate point of religion is not to be an ideological version of
> HS>>Prozac, it is to enlighten and/or reveal the truth.
>
> ZZ>That's where you're wrong. The ultimate purpose of a religion is to
> ZZ>survive. The truth has never played any role in the formation of
> ZZ>religions, and many behave more like heroin than prozac.
>
> Yeah, but it is the lofty goal, or point, of religion, as defined by the
> people who practice it, to enlighten and/or reveal the truth.
It is the *claimed* lofty goal, but the words say one thing and the actions
say another.
> Anthropomorphizing religion, you could save that it shares the purpose of
> /any/ idea or life form... survival.
>
I wouldn't call it 'anthropomorphizing'. The analogy most often used is that
of a virus. It gets into humans, gets spread, is modified minimally by the
hosts in order to survive, and is unfortunately highly infectious.
<snip>
Dave Good
#562 knight of BAAWA
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Hafthor Stefansson
>There's actually a few different types of atheism. There's weak atheism
>(you'd probably be a weak atheist) who merely states the theist hasn't met
>his burden of proof, and the strong atheist, who has actually concluded
>that no gods exist.
I guess I need to go to the gym to work on my atheism. :)
----
HS>Exactly, I have no belief in Santa, but I can't believe that absolutely
HS>cannot exist, only because non-existence is not provable. Obviously, the
case
HS>for Mr. Claus is considerably weaker than the case for god.
>I wouldn't even go that far.
Somewhat weaker at least. The case for god has more damning evidence, but
only because fundies have been so busy making it.
----
[snip]
HS>Anthropomorphizing religion, you could save that it shares the purpose of
HS>/any/ idea or life form... survival.
>I wouldn't call it 'anthropomorphizing'. The analogy most often used is
that
>of a virus. It gets into humans, gets spread, is modified minimally by the
>hosts in order to survive, and is unfortunately highly infectious.
My mistake. Survival implies /self-life preservation/. Religions, ideas, and
viruses by the way, aren't alive. I was tagging a /life/ quality to them.
Anthropomorphizing was definitely the wrong word... it implies assigning of
/human/ qualities to non-human animals or things. I'm not sure of the right
word here.
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us
Lord...@iname.com wrote:
> "Hafthor Stefansson" <haf...@usa.n0$pam.net> wrote:
>
> >gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote in article
> ><6tc5pd$rns$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >>correctly (1) where I came from; (2) why I am here on earth, and (3) where
> >I likely will be going in the hereafter.
>
>
> >That certainly is a bold, if not arrogant statement, but alas, not very
> >original. Conventional Christianity (whatever that means) claims to have
> >divine truths for those very same things. (Please read on, this isn't a
> >total flame-o-rama.)
But look at the differences between orthodox Christianity and Mormon
Christianity precisely here. Orthodox Christianity, following well worn, but
essentially incorrect Greek philosophical monotheism, cannot begin to explain
three items mentioned above. Indeed, orthodox Christianity would assert (1)
we come from "nothing," i.e. didn't exist at all before God "called us into
being" (presumably in our mortal mother's womb), whereupon (2) our major
purpose on earth is to "glorify" or "praise" God for His goodness (ignoring
completely the "problem of evil" -- an insoluble problem inherited from
classical Christian metaphysics, (3) then proceeding to our "eternal life" in
the hereafter = either Hell or Heaven, where presumably we sing songs of joy
and strum lyres for eternity.
Give me a break! If that's all Christianity can offer, I'll kindly decline.
Human life is worth "much more" than the nonsense asserted above by orthodox
Christianity. Human effort and destiny DESERVE more "explanation" than
orthodo Christianity has to offer. Fortunately, Mormon Christianity HAS that
explanation. No one else does, religious or secular.
> It gets worse: The Mormon mythologies are just as fraught with scientific
> flaws, forgery, and contradictions as Christian mythology is.
I don't think so. Let's see your evidence.
>For instance, the Mormon mythologies mistakenly claim that elephants were in
>North America long before they were introduced by Europeans. Woops!
I assume you mean horses, not elephants, which don't come from Europe at all.
All this "undiscovered" nonsense (where is your argument when discovery
eventually IS made?) bespeaks the poverty New World archaeology, rather than
purported "absence" of claimed objects. Give it time; it'll all eventually be
discovered -- everything.
Elephants, may be seen today in the ancient Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles.
> And, of course, none of the archeological claims that the Mormon myths make
> are true; not a one of them.
Absolutely incorrect. Ancient Hebrew inscriptions, Jewish coins and Jewish
Mayan monuments exist demonstrating conclusively the existence of ancient
Hebrews in the Americas.
You must have seen the following from which you quoted me above; but how can
you know the following and make such bold, conclusory statements about
purportedly missing "evidence"?
Dr. Cyrus Gordon.
http://www.farmsresearch.com/critic/critic04.htm
Besides, atheism is factually incorrect, i.e. there is a God in Heaven, whence
you were conceived and born long before your mortal birth here below upon
earth. The latter is a Christian Gospel of Salvation you won't find inside
orthodox Christianity, which has lost most of Jesus' correct principles
originally taught by Jesus personally. See my "Jesus' Henotheism" and
"Biblical Henotheism" posted to a.r.m. last year.
Mormon Christianity shares none of those above weaknesses. It is rational,
meaningful, and true (not perfect, however).
Perhaps, if you'd like to share your criticism of Mormon Christianity with me
we can make a meaningful exchange.
Have you ever read the Book of Mormon?
> Making a religion out of such blatant sillyness is profoundly stupid.
What "blatant sillyness"? Your condemnation of Mormon Christianity for its
purported scientific failure to "discover" ancient horses in the New World is
like laughing at Kepler and Copernicus for claiming the heliocentric earth is
round. Everyone can plainly see the obvious "evidence" that the earth is flat
and center of our universe.
> --- "de omnibus dubitandum" All is to be doubted --- Descartes
> 24-hour file archive access: (626) 335-9601 (FidoNet 1:218/890.0) SP3
> The Skeptic Tank: http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice/index.htm
> The One True Expert: http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice/mantrack.htm
> The scientology cult doesn't want you to know this: http://www.xenu.net
Doubt is good so long as it leads to further inquiry and eventual truth.
When one continues to "doubt" after truth is manifest, one simply chooses to
mislead him/herself. In the latter case doubt is as false as any other error
of fact.
Fredric Lord Xenu Rice
>> It gets worse: The Mormon mythologies are just as fraught with scientific
>> flaws, forgery, and contradictions as Christian mythology is.
>I don't think so. Let's see your evidence.
Why not read the Mormon mythologies?
>>For instance, the Mormon mythologies mistakenly claim that elephants were in
>>North America long before they were introduced by Europeans. Woops!
>I assume you mean horses, not elephants, which don't come from Europe at all.
No, elephants. Don't assume what you hope someone else means just to avoid
an embarrassing problem.
[...cuts...]
I hope you don't mind. I cut the illiterate, disjointed, freakish ranting
which followed.
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us
Lord...@iname.com wrote:
> gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
>
> >> It gets worse: The Mormon mythologies are just as fraught with scientific
> >> flaws, forgery, and contradictions as Christian mythology is.
>
> >I don't think so. Let's see your evidence.
>
Why not get specific? What "mythologies"?
I'm expert (generally) in anti-Mormon literature; most of it has been well
rebutted by knowledgeable experts in their various fields of knowledge.
> >>For instance, the Mormon mythologies mistakenly claim that elephants were in
> >>North America long before they were introduced by Europeans. Woops!
>
> >I assume you mean horses, not elephants, which don't come from Europe at
all.
>
> No, elephants. Don't assume what you hope someone else means just to avoid
> an embarrassing problem.
Seen the Brea Tar Pits lately? "Elephants" have been in "North America" for
thousands of years.
Please try to get your facts straight before attacking something you
apparently know nothing about.
>
> [...cuts...]
>
> I hope you don't mind. I cut the illiterate, disjointed, freakish ranting
> which followed.
Yes, you "cut" the most recent archaeological -- hard scientific radiocarbon
dated --evidence for the Book of Mormon without even a comment. You
apparently choose simply to ignore confirmed evidence purportedly supporting
"Mormon mythologies" (which you've nowhere defined) whenever you wish?
What kind of scientific method do you follow?
> --- "de omnibus dubitandum" All is to be doubted --- Descartes
> 24-hour file archive access: (626) 335-9601 (FidoNet 1:218/890.0) SP3
> The Skeptic Tank: http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice/index.htm
> The One True Expert: http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice/mantrack.htm
> The scientology cult doesn't want you to know this: http://www.xenu.net
Doubt, unless it leads to truth, is ultimately self-defeating.
Jessica M. Wolfman
>In article <vv0L1.773$z4.12...@news14.ispnews.com>,
> Lord...@iname.com wrote:
>> gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
>>
>> >> It gets worse: The Mormon mythologies are just as fraught with scientific
>> >> flaws, forgery, and contradictions as Christian mythology is.
>>
>> >I don't think so. Let's see your evidence.
>>
>> Why not read the Mormon mythologies?
>
>Why not get specific? What "mythologies"?
>
>I'm expert (generally) in anti-Mormon literature; most of it has been well
>rebutted by knowledgeable experts in their various fields of knowledge.
>
>
>> >>For instance, the Mormon mythologies mistakenly claim that elephants were in
>> >>North America long before they were introduced by Europeans. Woops!
>>
>> >I assume you mean horses, not elephants, which don't come from Europe at
>all.
>>
>> No, elephants. Don't assume what you hope someone else means just to avoid
>> an embarrassing problem.
>
>Seen the Brea Tar Pits lately? "Elephants" have been in "North America" for
>thousands of years.
Hmm... I've been to La Brea. No elephants. Mammoths and mastadons and
similar critters, yes, but I don't recall any *elephants.* They are
different creatures.
>Please try to get your facts straight before attacking something you
>apparently know nothing about.
>
>>
>> [...cuts...]
>>
>> I hope you don't mind. I cut the illiterate, disjointed, freakish ranting
>> which followed.
>
>Yes, you "cut" the most recent archaeological -- hard scientific radiocarbon
>dated --evidence for the Book of Mormon without even a comment. You
>apparently choose simply to ignore confirmed evidence purportedly supporting
>"Mormon mythologies" (which you've nowhere defined) whenever you wish?
>
>What kind of scientific method do you follow?
>
>> --- "de omnibus dubitandum" All is to be doubted --- Descartes
>> 24-hour file archive access: (626) 335-9601 (FidoNet 1:218/890.0) SP3
>> The Skeptic Tank: http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice/index.htm
>> The One True Expert: http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice/mantrack.htm
>> The scientology cult doesn't want you to know this: http://www.xenu.net
>
>
>Doubt, unless it leads to truth, is ultimately self-defeating.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Gerry L. Ensley.
>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Jessica Wolfman
"They did not love him for his glossy tiger coat,
nor for his great green eyes,
no, not even for the white tipe to his tail.
They loved him because he was himself."
--May Sarton, _The Fur Person_
The Adventurers Guild
http://members.tripod.com/~theguild
zemz...@hotmail.com
<snip>
> > >>North America long before they were introduced by Europeans. Woops!
> >
> > >I assume you mean horses, not elephants, which don't come from Europe at
> all.
> >
> > No, elephants. Don't assume what you hope someone else means just to avoid
> > an embarrassing problem.
>
> Seen the Brea Tar Pits lately? "Elephants" have been in "North America" for
> thousands of years.
>
I wondered when you'd get around to it. Bring a bleater into alt.atheism and
they eventually start lying for their fantasy. At first, I thought you were
just making a smart-assed point, not an apologetic one.
So don't mention that, by the time your hebrews are purported to arrive in
the new world, said mastodons (not elephants, but their evolutionary
ancestors, you dishonest puke) had been nothing but *piles of bones* for
thousands of years. After all, *that* won't support your fantasy.
> Please try to get your facts straight before attacking something you
> apparently know nothing about.
Anything else we should know, sunshine? Any more smoke you want to blow up
our asses? Any more half-truths or outright lies you feel like sharing? Or
perhaps you'd like to repost your spam for the third time in four days.
<snip>
> Yes, you "cut" the most recent archaeological -- hard scientific radiocarbon
> dated --evidence for the Book of Mormon without even a comment.
Well, then please, allow me to comment.
The artifacts themselves were not dated. It is impossible to c14 date a rock.
The stone in question was under the head of a skeleton dated to that time, but
stones do move in the topsoil.
I just love your "but two of the (bar kochba) coins may not have been recently
interred."
Gordon is also guilty of the same thing many LDS apologists are when he counts
the similarities among ancient hebrew and ancient mayan religions and ignores
the contradictory factors.
Finally, your accusation that New world archaeology's incompetence is the
reason we can't find the myriad of items mentioned in the book of mormon is a
pathetic excuse, unless you want to accuse all precolombian native Americans
of abysmal stupidity for abandoning livestock, plants, and technology that
they readily embraced after recorded contact.
<snip>
>
> What kind of scientific method do you follow?
>
> > --- "de omnibus dubitandum" All is to be doubted --- Descartes
>
> Doubt, unless it leads to truth, is ultimately self-defeating.
>
Ahh, but lying gets you to the truth oh, so quickly, doesn't it, cupcake?
Dave Good
#562 knight of BAAWA
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us
gry...@comm-plus.net wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Sep 1998 17:13:15 GMT, gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
>
> >In article <vv0L1.773$z4.12...@news14.ispnews.com>,
> > Lord...@iname.com wrote:
> >> gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
> >>
scientific flaws, forgery, and contradictions as Christian mythology is.
> >>
> >> >I don't think so. Let's see your evidence.
> >>
> >
> >Why not get specific? What "mythologies"?
> >
> >I'm expert (generally) in anti-Mormon literature; most of it has been well
> >rebutted by knowledgeable experts in their various fields of knowledge.
> >
> >
>in North America long before they were introduced by Europeans. Woops!
> >>
> >> >I assume you mean horses, not elephants, which don't come from Europe at
> >all.
> >>
> >> an embarrassing problem.
> >
> >Seen the Brea Tar Pits lately? "Elephants" have been in "North America" for
> >thousands of years.
>
> similar critters, yes, but I don't recall any *elephants.* They are
> different creatures.
I don't suppose you're prepared to distinguish in detail the differences
between woolly mammoths and elephants? Mastodons and elephants? Are they
more similar than different?
I rather thought we were talking "generically" rather than seeking zoological
niceties. After all, our discussion was about the Book of Mormon, not the
Book of Pachyderm.
> >Please try to get your facts straight before attacking something you
> >apparently know nothing about.
> >
> >>
> >> [...cuts...]
> >>
> >> I hope you don't mind. I cut the illiterate, disjointed, freakish ranting
> >> which followed.
> >
> >Yes, you "cut" the most recent archaeological -- hard scientific radiocarbon
> >dated --evidence for the Book of Mormon without even a comment. You
> >apparently choose simply to ignore confirmed evidence purportedly supporting
> >"Mormon mythologies" (which you've nowhere defined) whenever you wish?
> >
> >What kind of scientific method do you follow?
> >
> >> --- "de omnibus dubitandum" All is to be doubted --- Descartes
> >> 24-hour file archive access: (626) 335-9601 (FidoNet 1:218/890.0) SP3
> >> The Skeptic Tank: http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice/index.htm
> >> The One True Expert: http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice/mantrack.htm
> >> The scientology cult doesn't want you to know this: http://www.xenu.net
> >
> >
> >Doubt, unless it leads to truth, is ultimately self-defeating.
> >
> Jessica Wolfman
>
> "They did not love him for his glossy tiger coat,
> nor for his great green eyes,
> no, not even for the white tipe to his tail.
> They loved him because he was himself."
> --May Sarton, _The Fur Person_
>
> The Adventurers Guild
> http://members.tripod.com/~theguild
If (hypothetically) the B of M is "absurd" for its mention of "elephants" is
the Bible equally "absurd" for its mention of "griffins"?
zemz...@hotmail.com
Dave Good wrote:
<snip>
Gerry Ensley wrote:
>
> > Yes, you "cut" the most recent archaeological -- hard scientific radiocarbon
> > dated --evidence for the Book of Mormon without even a comment.
>
> Well, then please, allow me to comment.
>
> The artifacts themselves were not dated. It is impossible to c14 date a rock.
> The stone in question was under the head of a skeleton dated to that time, but
> stones do move in the topsoil.
>
> I just love your "but two of the (bar kochba) coins may not have been recently
> interred."
>
> Gordon is also guilty of the same thing many LDS apologists are when he counts
> the similarities among ancient hebrew and ancient mayan religions and ignores
> the contradictory factors.
>
> Finally, your accusation that New world archaeology's incompetence is the
> reason we can't find the myriad of items mentioned in the book of mormon is a
> pathetic excuse, unless you want to accuse all precolombian native Americans
> of abysmal stupidity for abandoning livestock, plants, and technology that
> they readily embraced after recorded contact.
>
<snip>
Your dishonesty by omission is as appalling as your dishonesty by commission.
You have failed to tell us many relevant facts about the Bat creek cave
stone, such as the fact that it is highly controversial in archaeological
circles, not only because it challenges the grade-school view of American
history. Of nine letters engraved on the stone, only five have been
positively identified as paleo-hebrew, and of these five letters, only two
match up precisely to any corresponding paleo-hebrew script (the differences
in the remainder are too great to be explained by individual handwriting
styles; one such figure was a curved line while the authentic paleo-hebrew
figure was a straight line--and it is more difficult to carve a curve than a
straight line into stone.) (Biblical Archaeological Review, pp. 44-50) Frank
Cross, currently one of the foremost if not the foremost authorities on
paleo-hebrew, the word made by the five recognized letters is misspelled
(BAR, July/Aug 1993, pp. 53-56). The possibility of fraud has also not been
ruled out by the archaeological community. (BAR p.56)
If you cared as much about truth as you implied in your initial invasion of
alt.atheism, you would have done this research yourself.
Dave Good
#562 knight of BAAWA
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Fredric Lord Xenu Rice
><snip>
>> > >>North America long before they were introduced by Europeans. Woops!
>> > >I assume you mean horses, not elephants, which don't come from Europe at
>> all.
>> > an embarrassing problem.
>> Seen the Brea Tar Pits lately? "Elephants" have been in "North America" for
>> thousands of years.
<chuckle> Amazing. Mormons will lie about _anything_.
>I wondered when you'd get around to it. Bring a bleater into alt.atheism and
>they eventually start lying for their fantasy. At first, I thought you were
>just making a smart-assed point, not an apologetic one.
>So don't mention that, by the time your hebrews are purported to arrive in
>the new world, said mastodons (not elephants, but their evolutionary
>ancestors, you dishonest puke) had been nothing but *piles of bones* for
>thousands of years. After all, *that* won't support your fantasy.
It's funny. The fact that elephants are mentioned in the Mormon mythologies
long before they were introduced to North America is something that no Mormon
is willing to admit. It gets worse when one notes that the Mormon mythologies
also mention iron -- something that was invented some 700 years _AFTER_ the
mythologies are claimed to have been written.
It's amazing how anyone can read the mythologies and still believe them.
zemz...@hotmail.com
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
<snip>
> > >
> > >Seen the Brea Tar Pits lately? "Elephants" have been in "North America"
for
> > >thousands of years.
> >
> > Hmm... I've been to La Brea. No elephants. Mammoths and mastadons and
> > similar critters, yes, but I don't recall any *elephants.* They are
> > different creatures.
>
> I don't suppose you're prepared to distinguish in detail the differences
> between woolly mammoths and elephants? Mastodons and elephants? Are
they
> more similar than different?
>
> I rather thought we were talking "generically" rather than seeking zoological
> niceties. After all, our discussion was about the Book of Mormon, not the
> Book of Pachyderm.
>
Ahh, those zoological niceties, such as the difference between the bones of
animals dead tens of thousands of years and saying "elephants *have been* in
North America for thousands of years." Hey, why bother with those. They're
non-faith promoting! So what's a few fallacious re-definitions?
<snip>
>
>
> If (hypothetically) the B of M is "absurd" for its mention of "elephants" is
> the Bible equally "absurd" for its mention of "griffins"?
>
But of course. Did you think you were dealing with southern Baptist imbeciles
again? In case you didn't know, atheists have no special ties to the bible,
and many of us delight in pointing out the contradictions, atrocities,
vulgarity, errors, and absurdities in it.
Dave Good
#562 knight of BAAWA
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
icti...@aol.com
have deleted the majority of zemzelett's excellent message. Get it from his
post AND READ IT. The possibility of fraud has also not been
> ruled out by the archaeological community. (BAR p.56)
>
> If you cared as much about truth as you implied in your initial invasion of
> alt.atheism, you would have done this research yourself.
>
Isn't it interesting that most Mormon mythologies disappear under scrutiny
for the details? The apologism that they throw back is nothing more than a
smokescreen for a defense of the faith. Or is it really the faith? I think
it is more for the defense of the institution than it is for the realities
(read imaginings) of the faith. There are many Mormons, like my
ex-father-in-law (now deceased) who said that it would not matter if it were
conclusively shown through science, archeology, history, whatever, that
Joseph Smith was a liar and had clearly made it all up, he would go to his
grave believing it as true because he was born a Mormon and grew up to be
one. The truth did not matter!
I have paid several visits to both the FARMS and Shirts pages and I find
nothing but vacuousness and bleating excuses when it comes to New World
archeology. The excuse that we can't find Book of Mormon places because they
do not presently bear their BofM names is one of the weakest piles of
bullshit I've hear. A temple built in MesoAmerica in the 1st Century BCE
doesn't give a rat's ass about it's name. It should still be there and it
should still bear the "hebrew" character. It's there but it sure as hell
ain't hebrew as we have every right to expect were this pap true.
A lot of bleating has been made about Bat Creek and Cyrus Gordon. CG is, in
fact, a very credible scholar and, I suppose that is why he is not a Mormon.
Doesn't it seem reasonable that if the BofM connections to New World
archeology were as clear as the Mormons would have us believe, just about
every archeologist would be beating down the doors of the nerares Mormon
church to become a member and save his soul... or become a god of some other
planet.
All this crap about connections between the BofM and Oltecs, Aztecs, Mayans,
Cherokees, and Baal knows what else, reminds me of the stories a couple of
years ago about the discovery of the word "SEX" in some dust clouds in the
Disney movie "The Lion King." When people want so desperately to verify
something, they stretch what is there to cover their own prejudices and
hopes. That's one reason why science is peer reviewed.
Ictiobus
BY THE CLEVER AND CONTINUED USE OF PROPAGANDA, A PEOPLE
CAN EVEN BE MADE TO MISTAKE HEAVEN FOR HELL AND VICE VERSA,
THE MOST MISERABLE LIFE FOR PARADISE....WHAT LUCK FOR THE
RULERS THAT MEN DO NOT THINK.
-ADOLF SCHICKLGRUBER
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us
zemz...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article <6tmv9v$8ag$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > >
> > > >Seen the Brea Tar Pits lately? "Elephants" have been in "North America"
> for
> > > >thousands of years.
> > >
> > > Hmm... I've been to La Brea. No elephants. Mammoths and mastadons and
> > > similar critters, yes, but I don't recall any *elephants.* They are
> > > different creatures.
> >
> > I don't suppose you're prepared to distinguish in detail the differences
> > between woolly mammoths and elephants? Mastodons and elephants? Are
> they
> > more similar than different?
> >
> > I rather thought we were talking "generically" rather than seeking
>zoological niceties. After all, our discussion was about the Book of Mormon,
>not the Book of Pachyderm.
> >
> Ahh, those zoological niceties, such as the difference between the bones of
> animals dead tens of thousands of years and saying "elephants *have been* in
> North America for thousands of years." Hey, why bother with those. They're
> non-faith promoting! So what's a few fallacious re-definitions?
Why is that "re-definition"? How do you know what was in the mind of the
author? Smith "translated" it "elephants." That doesn't mean the author had
YOUR specific genus and species of "elephant" in mind, does it?
Maybe it's YOU who's doing the "re-defining," not Smith.
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> >
> > If (hypothetically) the B of M is "absurd" for its mention of "elephants" is
> > the Bible equally "absurd" for its mention of "griffins"?
> >
> But of course. Did you think you were dealing with southern Baptist imbeciles
> again? In case you didn't know, atheists have no special ties to the bible,
> and many of us delight in pointing out the contradictions, atrocities,
> vulgarity, errors, and absurdities in it.
>
> Dave Good
> #562 knight of BAAWA
I assumed the above would be your answer. Nice to see that atheists are at
least rationally predictable.
Which doesn't make them less foolish, however. How can you KNOW so much that
you KNOW there is no God(s)? Don't you have to KNOW everything in the
universe in order to know that?
Why can't there exist out in space a Divinity or two who created this solar
system out of pre-existing matter for the purpose of populating it with their
children, us human beings?
Why can't numerous God exist wholly outside the nonsense of orthodox
Christianity?
In light of direct Divine revelation to Joseph Smith (1830's, New York) on
this point, it would seem the "burden of proof" is upon you, isn't it?
zemz...@hotmail.com
icti...@aol.com wrote:
> In article <6tmvgl$8l1$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, zemz...@hotmail.com wrote: I
> have deleted the majority of zemzelett's excellent message. Get it from his
> post AND READ IT.
<blushes>
awww...gee, thanks.
> > The possibility of fraud has also not been
> > ruled out by the archaeological community. (BAR p.56)
> >
> > If you cared as much about truth as you implied in your initial invasion of
> > alt.atheism, you would have done this research yourself.
> >
>
> Isn't it interesting that most Mormon mythologies disappear under scrutiny
> for the details?
<reluctant snip--bandwidth and all>
>
> I have paid several visits to both the FARMS and Shirts pages and I find
> nothing but vacuousness and bleating excuses when it comes to New World
> archeology. The excuse that we can't find Book of Mormon places because they
> do not presently bear their BofM names is one of the weakest piles of
> bullshit I've hear. A temple built in MesoAmerica in the 1st Century BCE
> doesn't give a rat's ass about it's name. It should still be there and it
> should still bear the "hebrew" character. It's there but it sure as hell
> ain't hebrew as we have every right to expect were this pap true.
I loved the metallurgy part of the FARMS site, where they used the prescence
of a word for 'metal' in native American writings as evidence of smelting,
casting, steelworking, etc.
> A lot of bleating has been made about Bat Creek and Cyrus Gordon. CG is, in
> fact, a very credible scholar and, I suppose that is why he is not a Mormon.
> Doesn't it seem reasonable that if the BofM connections to New World
> archeology were as clear as the Mormons would have us believe, just about
> every archeologist would be beating down the doors of the nerares Mormon
> church to become a member and save his soul... or become a god of some other
> planet
>
> All this crap about connections between the BofM and Oltecs, Aztecs, Mayans,
> Cherokees, and Baal knows what else, reminds me of the stories a couple of
> years ago about the discovery of the word "SEX" in some dust clouds in the
> Disney movie "The Lion King." When people want so desperately to verify
> something, they stretch what is there to cover their own prejudices and
> hopes. That's one reason why science is peer reviewed.
>
<snip sig>
That was damn good.
Naah, that's a little too weak.
That was D*A*M*N G*O*O*D!
Fuck, that was DAMN GOOD!
Well done, Ictiobus.
Dave Good
#562 knight of BAAWA
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Jake
>I assumed the above would be your answer. Nice to see that atheists are at
>least rationally predictable.
>
And that sort of comment is exactly why I left the LDS church after 25
years of membership.
>Which doesn't make them less foolish, however. How can you KNOW so much that
>you KNOW there is no God(s)? Don't you have to KNOW everything in the
>universe in order to know that?
>
The same way I know there isn't an invisible man holding up the globe.
The same way I know that 2 foot blue trolls don't live under my house.
The same way I know that ghosts don't predict the weather . Simply
because there is no need, nor any proof of a god or gods. When that
proof becomes evident, then, and only then will I say there is a god.
Until such time, I will not believe in invisible men, trolls, ghosts,
or gods.
>Why can't there exist out in space a Divinity or two who created this solar
>system out of pre-existing matter for the purpose of populating it with their
>children, us human beings?
Because there are way to many contradictions in that. The concept of
an omnipotent being who knows everything and creates worlds for which
to cause people to suffer so that they can know how great he is when
they die, is repugnant to me. If that's what you want to believe in,
fine. Just leave the rest of us who have moved on past those childish
fears to ourselves.
>Why can't numerous God exist wholly outside the nonsense of orthodox
>Christianity?
Need I say more ?
>In light of direct Divine revelation to Joseph Smith (1830's, New York) on
>this point, it would seem the "burden of proof" is upon you, isn't it?
ROFLMAO !!! Joseph Smith and his epileptic seizures have nothing to do
with proof.
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us
May I suggest a look at Kerry Shirts' "Dont Forget the Elephants" located at
his
http://www.cyberhighway.net/~shirtail/dont.htm
There is no scientific nor other problem in mentioning "elephants" in the
Americas.
> > <snip>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > If (hypothetically) the B of M is "absurd" for its mention of "elephants"
is
> > > the Bible equally "absurd" for its mention of "griffins"?
> > >
> > But of course. Did you think you were dealing with southern Baptist
imbeciles
> > again? In case you didn't know, atheists have no special ties to the bible,
> > and many of us delight in pointing out the contradictions, atrocities,
> > vulgarity, errors, and absurdities in it.
> >
> > Dave Good
> > #562 knight of BAAWA
>
> I assumed the above would be your answer. Nice to see that atheists are at
> least rationally predictable.
>
> Which doesn't make them less foolish, however. How can you KNOW so much that
> you KNOW there is no God(s)? Don't you have to KNOW everything in the
> universe in order to know that?
>
> Why can't there exist out in space a Divinity or two who created this solar
> system out of pre-existing matter for the purpose of populating it with their
> children, us human beings?
>
> Why can't numerous God exist wholly outside the nonsense of orthodox
> Christianity?
>
> In light of direct Divine revelation to Joseph Smith (1830's, New York) on
> this point, it would seem the "burden of proof" is upon you, isn't it?
>
icti...@aol.com
> Why is that "re-definition"? How do you know what was in the mind of the
> author? Smith "translated" it "elephants." That doesn't mean the author had
> YOUR specific genus and species of "elephant" in mind, does it?
>
IT IS RE-DEFINITION! Genus and species should have been known to Smith since
it was "Divine Revelation." I'm not sure but it seems to me that mammoths or
mastodons had been described prior to the time of Smith and the scientific
community was aware of the differences between the three groups. Elephant is
NOT a generic or general term for this group. Proboscidean is. Quibling about
language aside. At the time of the Hebrews (even the earliest) the only
non-Indian, non-African proboscideans were dying out on Wrangell Island.
There is no evidence of any proboscidean in North America after about 10,000
years BP.
> Maybe it's YOU who's doing the "re-defining," not Smith.
No, clearly it's Smith... actually he didn't do squat, you are the one who is
grasping for imaginary straws to prop up a belief system founded upon
rantings and, probably, a plagiarized novel and redefining to force what
doesn't mean anything into that belief system. It's so pathetic.
>
> > > If (hypothetically) the B of M is "absurd" for its mention of "elephants" is
> > > the Bible equally "absurd" for its mention of "griffins"?
> > >
> > But of course.
To which Ictiobus adds, absolutely. The Bible is equally absurd for its
mention of cud-chewing rabbits, four legged locusts, and, most importantly,
the insane belief in witches!
>>Did you think you were dealing with southern Baptist imbeciles
> > again? In case you didn't know, atheists have no special ties to the bible,
> > and many of us delight in pointing out the contradictions, atrocities,
> > vulgarity, errors, and absurdities in it.
> >
>
> I assumed the above would be your answer.
Then why did you bother to ask the question?
>Nice to see that atheists are at
> least rationally predictable.
>
Everyone should be "rationally predictable" when dealing with the ludicrous!
Obviously, that's wrong. You can't handle the ludicrous! (Sorry, Jack
Nicholson!)
> Which doesn't make them less foolish, however. How can you KNOW so much that
> you KNOW there is no God(s)? Don't you have to KNOW everything in the
> universe in order to know that?
Foolishness consists of credulously following any insane idea without
questioning it, without delving into the depths of its contradictions, its
differences with reality and common sense.
>
> Why can't there exist out in space a Divinity or two who created this solar
> system out of pre-existing matter for the purpose of populating it with their
> children, us human beings?
Give me evidence that this is so. Give me CREDIBLE evidence. Give me an
exception to the mundane that cannot be explained within the framework of
what we know of the way the world works. Something that is so exceptional
that it cannot be attributed to human gullibility, guile, fraud, or illusion.
Better, more believable fantasy worlds than yours have been created by
J.R.R. Tolkien, Ray Bradbury, and H.P. Lovecraft!
>
> Why can't numerous God exist wholly outside the nonsense of orthodox
> Christianity?
See above
> In light of direct Divine revelation to Joseph Smith (1830's, New York) on
> this point, it would seem the "burden of proof" is upon you, isn't it?
ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making the
claim... especially when the claim is as wild as this one.
What "Divine revelation to Joseph Smith"? The man's story is inconsistent
and not credible. He has been shown to have been a liar and a fraud. Sheesh!
Why am I wasting my time with this. This guy doesn't have any concept of
healthy doubt and is ready to follow anybody that comes along. This whole
Mormon bulldookey line perpetrated by geensle seems to me to be a very bad
variant of Pascal's Wager.
Ictiobus
BY THE CLEVER AND CONTINUED USE OF PROPAGANDA, A PEOPLE
CAN EVEN BE MADE TO MISTAKE HEAVEN FOR HELL AND VICE VERSA,
THE MOST MISERABLE LIFE FOR PARADISE....WHAT LUCK FOR THE
RULERS THAT MEN DO NOT THINK.
-ADOLF SCHICKLGRUBER
Mac Roin
>
> In light of direct Divine revelation to Joseph Smith (1830's, New York) on
> this point, it would seem the "burden of proof" is upon you, isn't it?
On the contrary, it is your move first. The onus is on you to first
prove there was a divine revelation to Smith.
Mac Roin
zemz...@hotmail.com
shit" Ensley posted the following to alt.atheism:
Yes, that's right. You've lost your value and your credibility in my eyes,
and I see no more reason to seriously debate you after seeing that your
arguments are full of lies and fallacies, and that your head is full of shit.
> In article <6tnicq$u7r$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> zemz...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > In article <6tmv9v$8ag$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > >Seen the Brea Tar Pits lately? "Elephants" have been in "North
America"
> > for
> > > > >thousands of years.
> > > >
> > > > Hmm... I've been to La Brea. No elephants. Mammoths and mastadons and
> > > > similar critters, yes, but I don't recall any *elephants.* They are
> > > > different creatures.
> > >
> > > I don't suppose you're prepared to distinguish in detail the differences
> > > between woolly mammoths and elephants? Mastodons and elephants? Are
> > they
> > > more similar than different?
> > >
> > > I rather thought we were talking "generically" rather than seeking
> >zoological niceties. After all, our discussion was about the Book of Mormon,
> >not the Book of Pachyderm.
> > >
> > Ahh, those zoological niceties, such as the difference between the bones of
> > animals dead tens of thousands of years and saying "elephants *have been* in
> > North America for thousands of years." Hey, why bother with those. They're
> > non-faith promoting! So what's a few fallacious re-definitions?
>
> Why is that "re-definition"? How do you know what was in the mind of the
> author? Smith "translated" it "elephants." That doesn't mean the author had
> YOUR specific genus and species of "elephant" in mind, does it?
>
> Maybe it's YOU who's doing the "re-defining," not Smith.
<scene from pulp fiction>
What country you from?
What? What ain't no country I ever heard of. They speak english in what?
ENGLISH, MOTHERFUCKER, DO-YOU-SPEAK-IT?
</scene from pulp fiction>
Well, do you, shitbag, or are you using umim/thummimware translators
to relay your reformed Egyptian thoughts into the king's English?
And do you recall writing "Seen the [sic] Brea tar pits recently? "Elephants"
have been in "North America" for thousands of years."? Because dejanews does.
The words I was objecting to came out of *your* lying mouth, not Joseph
Smith's.
You're the one calling him a liar, as he said that the fucking translation of
the fucking book of fucking moron is of the fucking gift of the all-fucking
mighty himself. You'd think your god would see fit to make descriptions for
animals, and add a new word or use the one of the old language for its
nomenclature. But you'd also think that the maiden's father in the story of
Rumplestiltskin would know not to start bullshit rumors about his daughter's
spinning abilities.
Also interesting to note that when one explanation you have fails, you are
more than happy to switch to a different, totally contradictory argument to
prop your fantasy up until someone can run to the library and actually do a
literature review on the crap you're spouting so as to totally expose your
dishonest ass.
>
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > If (hypothetically) the B of M is "absurd" for its mention of "elephants"
is
> > > the Bible equally "absurd" for its mention of "griffins"?
> > >
> > But of course. Did you think you were dealing with southern Baptist
imbeciles
> > again? In case you didn't know, atheists have no special ties to the bible,
> > and many of us delight in pointing out the contradictions, atrocities,
> > vulgarity, errors, and absurdities in it.
> >
> >
> I assumed the above would be your answer.
Oh, bullshit. Your two functioning neurons got some wires crossed, and you
thought you were invading a group which *also* had
> Nice to see that atheists are at
> least rationally predictable.
Wish I could say the same for certain people with scriptural injunctions
against lying in their religion.
> Which doesn't make them less foolish, however. How can you KNOW so much that
> you KNOW there is no God(s)? Don't you have to KNOW everything in the
> universe in order to know that?
>
You just proved you know two things about atheism: Jack and Shit. And jack
seems to have left town, so that leaves you holding a pile of cow flop wailing
to the crowd, "look at my argument against atheism!"
Moron, atheists don't claim to know that no gods exist; it's a statement of
belief, not knowledge. And as long as there is no credible argument in favor
of a deity's existence, there's no reason to believe one exists, hence plenty
of reason to be an atheist.
Think about that for about five years. Take time off from your demanding job
of stirring hogfat at the rendering plant and do nothing else. Go to a
lonely mountain peak and meditate on it. You *just might* be capable of
comprehending this explanation then.
> Why can't there exist out in space a Divinity or two who created this solar
> system out of pre-existing matter for the purpose of populating it with their
> children, us human beings?
>
"Non sunt multiplicada entia praeter necessitatem."
Why write it in English? It has an equal chance of soaking
into widdle Gerry's head in latin.
> Why can't numerous God exist wholly outside the nonsense of orthodox
> Christianity?
>
"Non sunt multiplicada entia praeter necessitatem."
> In light of direct Divine revelation to Joseph Smith (1830's, New York) on
> this point, it would seem the "burden of proof" is upon you, isn't it?
>
ROTFLMFAO!!!
Ohh, shit...you've just proven one mormon doctrine...of a sort. One should
never drink scotch. At least not while reading a blathering idiot's postings,
because it's always possible that the idiot will say something so truly stupid
that one may laugh said scotch up through their nostrils where it will not mix
pleasantly with one's sensitive sinuses.
That's right, widdle Gerry. Tell the atheists to prove you wrong. Never
mind that it is impossible to prove an existential negative (the only thing
keeping real archaeologists from stating unequivocally that the book of moron
is the fairy tale crock of shit that it is), and that the burden of proof is
on the positive claimant. Really. We won't mind having an impossible burden
of proof. Not us.
(BTW, shifting of the burden of proof *is* a fallacy.)
This post of yours cinches the fact that you are nothing more than a
pretentious blowhard who must lie flat on his back while making love to the
hideous orangutan you call a wife due to your inability to fuck any way but
up. The only subject on which you may claim expertise is whacking off,
although you've probably bent your cock into a curly-Q messing *that* up as
well.
Dave Good
#562 knight of BAAWA
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Fish
> > > <snip>
<mouth hanging open in awe-struck admiration>
Wow. <== (Fish, speechless and *very* impressed)
--
"Fish" (David B. Trout)
Alt.Atheism #623
fi...@infidels.org.god
(remove "god" to reply by email)
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"Faith: a waste product given off by human ignorance."
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Lord of Posts
<gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us> wrote:
> Hard scientific evidence exists to support the existence of
> Ancient Hebrews in North America about 100 A.D.
The presence of something wrapped around a Mayan priest's
arm in some glyph somewhere proves the tribe was JEWISH?!?
You've GOT to be kidding. Could the depicted article be a
bracelet perhaps instead of a phylactery, and even if it
IS a phylactery couldn't it be an INDEPENDENT invention?
And what about FOOTWEAR? Does the fact that at least some
people on every inhabited continent have covered their feet
with some form or shoe, sandal, boot or slipper PROVE that
the idea of footwear occurred originally to only ONE person
or people, who them spread this great wisdom throughout the
world by a vast project of migration, conquest and preaching?
Or could it be that at several different times in several
different places somebody'd stepped on a sharp rock badly
enough to use his own brain toward a solution?
Then: I'm part Native American, named "David", circumcised,
have Jewish friends AND I've read Torah (tho in translation),
yeah -- but still, assuming that I've GOT to be Jewish myself
(though perhaps unaware of my Ancient Hebrew Heritage) is an
EXTREMELY wild and INACCURATE guess. As more data than that
is needed to reach a valid conclusion about someone living at
the same time as you, you'd need even more than that to prove
that the Maya around the second century ACE were orthodox Jews
who fled the Romans after Bar Kochba, fer cryin' out loud.
SHEESH.
TheDavid
P.S. Somebody else caught the draft animals and smelting.
--
"McCarthyism was not an aberration. It was *normal*." --J. K. Faucher
Lord of Posts
> If (hypothetically) the B of M is "absurd" for its mention of "elephants" is
> the Bible equally "absurd" for its mention of "griffins"?
Why YES, now that you mention it!
TheDavid
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us
flow...@ihug.co.nz (Mac Roin) wrote:
> <gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us> wrote:
> >
> > In light of direct Divine revelation to Joseph Smith (1830's, New York) on
> > this point, it would seem the "burden of proof" is upon you, isn't it?
>
> prove there was a divine revelation to Smith.
>
> Mac Roin
>
Smith saw God and Christ (a separate Being --trinitarianism is false) on
several occasions (night time and day time), speaking with them and being
spoken to by them or one of them. To what will you attribute those Divine
"appearances" -- daydreaming? (Others saw publicly the same thing Smith did,
at the same time.) Indigestion? (No evidence of it.) Pipedreams? (No
evidence; Smith didn't smoke nor toke.)
Thereafter Smith was "revealed" the "original" Gospel of Christ, which had
fallen into "apostasy" from the earliest days of Jesus, so that by Smith's
time (1830's New York) there was little semblance of Jesus' original Gospel
on earth; it had all been perverted by Hellenistic assumption,
misinterpretation, lost scripture, and the presumptions of men.
With YOU, I think orthodox Christianity to be largely a fraud.
But that doesn't mean there is no God, no true Church, nor no true revelation
directly from God to mankind. There is. And Mormon Christianity has it --
all of it, i.e. the entire package. (Other religions may have fragments
thereof.)
There is fully sufficient evidence to support Smith's claims to be called of
God in these "last days" of earth's history to "restore" the original Gospel
of Christ to earth again. That "restored" Gospel is somewhat different from
the "orthodox" Gospel taught (incorrectly) these many centuries down Western
Catholic and Protestant history. Now that the "entire package" has been
fully restored, we don't need the former anymore.
Now that you know the above, doesn't the "burden of proof" switch to you?
Your simple denial of the above won't do at all. IF my statements above are
correct, and if there is sufficient evidence to persuade a reasonable person
of the truth of Smith's prophetic claims, then you (as well as I) will be
held accountable for investigating, learning, and proving (or disproving) the
truth claims I've made hereinabove.
Maybe it's time to examine some of your own atheistic assumptions = just as
we've demanded orthodox Christians re-examine THEIR own assumptions, too.
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us
I have serious reservations about the accuracy of some Biblical events,
reports, and teachings.
But so far as finding now extinct "elephants" in the Americas, that's pretty
well been affirmed scientifically and historically:
"There is nothing implausible with the BofM mentioning elephants in
America in the ancient timeframe of around 2,000 B.C. since scientists have
indeed, indicated the beasts existed here back then during that time.
Interestingly Sorenson notes that a mastodon was associated with pottery
found in Ecuador dating to the time of Christ! Also he notes that horse,
mammoth and elephant remains in St. Petersburg Florida carbon date to 100
B.C.! (p. 298 - Sorenson citing J. Augusta, The Age of Monsters, Prehistoric
and Legendary, (London: Paul Hamlyn, 1966), pp. 11f. Also Jim J. Hester,
"Agency of Man in Animal Extinction," in Martin and Wright, "Pleistocene
Extinctions," p. 185 in Proceedings of the International Association for
Quaternary Research, VII Congress, vol. 6, 1967.)"
This means, of course, that the Book of Mormon is in fact true, precisely as
Joseph Smith claimed it to be.
"Archaeology has proved that the American Indian hunted and killed
elephants; it has also strongly indicated that these elephants have been
extinct for several thousand years. This means that the traditions of the
Indians recalling these animals have retained their historical validity for
great stretches of time. . . . Probably the minimum is three thousand
years." The author favors three thousand years ago as the terminal date for
the existence of the elephant in America, which would place its extinction
about a thousand years B.C., when the Jaredite culture was already very old
and Lehi's people were not to appear on the scene for some centuries. This
suits very well with the Book of Mormon account.
What appears initially as a scientific error, turns out upon further
examination to be historical and scientific accuracy inside the B of M.
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us
> > Ancient Hebrews in North America about 100 A.D.
>
> The presence of something wrapped around a Mayan priest's
> arm in some glyph somewhere proves the tribe was JEWISH?!?
Not just "wrapped around" but rather "wrapped around" in a peculiar fashion,
number, and purpose.
Ancient marine excursions between the Old World and New World (and
vice-versa) are now fully established. I suspect they may be cross-cultural,
too. But as a Mormon with Jewish/Egyptian linguistic heritage inside my B of
M, I'm interested primarily in the Jewish/Hebrew ancient marine excursions.
That's precisely wat Bat Creek Mound # 3, Loudon County, Tennessee, produced
-- radiocarbon dated to B of M times (100 A.D.).
> You've GOT to be kidding. Could the depicted article be a
> bracelet perhaps instead of a phylactery, and even if it
> IS a phylactery couldn't it be an INDEPENDENT invention?
Not very likely, don't you think?
(Almost anything is "possible.") We're limiting ourselves here to reasonable
inferences from observed evidence.
I suggest you read Cyrus Gordon's book.
> And what about FOOTWEAR? Does the fact that at least some
> people on every inhabited continent have covered their feet
> with some form or shoe, sandal, boot or slipper PROVE that
> the idea of footwear occurred originally to only ONE person
> or people, who them spread this great wisdom throughout the
> world by a vast project of migration, conquest and preaching?
Quite a "leap," don't you think from "arm-winding" which most people don't do
at all, to "footwear" which all peoples have done at one time or another, and
must do in order to protect their feet?
"Strawman" argumentation doesn't cut much with me.
> Or could it be that at several different times in several
> different places somebody'd stepped on a sharp rock badly
> enough to use his own brain toward a solution?
How many independent "sharp rocks" pierced a Mayan forearm so as to "wind" it
with a leather strip in precisely the manner depicted?
> Then: I'm part Native American, named "David", circumcised,
> have Jewish friends AND I've read Torah (tho in translation),
> yeah -- but still, assuming that I've GOT to be Jewish myself
> (though perhaps unaware of my Ancient Hebrew Heritage) is an
> EXTREMELY wild and INACCURATE guess. As more data than that
> is needed
I agree. No one said the issue is conclusive. Read Gordon's book. It is,
nevertheless, existing hard evidence for such a conclusion, isn't it?
> to reach a valid conclusion about someone living at
> the same time as you, you'd need even more than that to prove
> that the Maya around the second century ACE were orthodox Jews
> who fled the Romans after Bar Kochba, fer cryin' out loud.
Gordon has more, much more. Read his book.
> SHEESH.
>
> TheDavid
>
> P.S. Somebody else caught the draft animals and smelting.
>
> --
> "McCarthyism was not an aberration. It was *normal*." --J. K. Faucher
>
P.S. They're no problem in the B of M, either.
zemz...@hotmail.com
alt.atheism:
<snip>
>
> I have serious reservations about the accuracy of some Biblical events,
> reports, and teachings.
>
> But so far as finding now extinct "elephants" in the Americas, that's pretty
> well been affirmed scientifically and historically:
>
> "There is nothing implausible with the BofM mentioning elephants in
> America in the ancient timeframe of around 2,000 B.C. since scientists have
> indeed, indicated the beasts existed here back then during that time.
> Interestingly Sorenson notes that a mastodon was associated with pottery
> found in Ecuador dating to the time of Christ! Also he notes that horse,
> mammoth and elephant remains in St. Petersburg Florida carbon date to 100
> B.C.! (p. 298 - Sorenson citing J. Augusta, The Age of Monsters, Prehistoric
> and Legendary, (London: Paul Hamlyn, 1966), pp. 11f. Also Jim J. Hester,
> "Agency of Man in Animal Extinction," in Martin and Wright, "Pleistocene
> Extinctions," p. 185 in Proceedings of the International Association for
> Quaternary Research, VII Congress, vol. 6, 1967.)"
>
> This means, of course, that the Book of Mormon is in fact true, precisely as
> Joseph Smith claimed it to be.
Fallacy: non sequitur. And such a perfect example.
"The book of moron states that there were 'elephants' in the new world.
Recent archaeology indicates that there were mammoth and mastodon remains in
North America dating to 2,000 years ago. Therefore the book of moron is
true."
Don't have to take many courses in logic to be an apologist, do you Gerry?
<snip the rest of your copied ramblings>
Out of respect for the author of this piece, I'll go and review his sources,
which should take me several days.
Dave Good
#562 knight of BAAWA
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
zemz...@hotmail.com
<snip>
> >
> > This post of yours cinches the fact that you are nothing more than a
> > pretentious blowhard who must lie flat on his back while making love to the
> > hideous orangutan you call a wife due to your inability to fuck any way but
> > up. The only subject on which you may claim expertise is whacking off,
> > although you've probably bent your cock into a curly-Q messing *that* up as
> > well.
> >
>
> <mouth hanging open in awe-struck admiration>
>
> Wow. <== (Fish, speechless and *very* impressed)
>
> --
> "Fish" (David B. Trout)
> Alt.Atheism #623
> fi...@infidels.org.god
> (remove "god" to reply by email)
>
>
Thanks. I don't see any reason to take Gerry seriously anymore, seeing as how
he spouts fallacies constantly and doesn't care to post or find out about the
evidence against his archaeological apologetics. However, that doesn't mean
that he can't be used for sport.
zemz...@hotmail.com
> In article <wC4M1.48$qi5....@news14.ispnews.com>,
> 'Lord of Posts' <thed...@tsoft.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > <gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us> wrote:
> >
> > > Hard scientific evidence exists to support the existence of
> > > Ancient Hebrews in North America about 100 A.D.
> >
> > The presence of something wrapped around a Mayan priest's
> > arm in some glyph somewhere proves the tribe was JEWISH?!?
>
> Not just "wrapped around" but rather "wrapped around" in a peculiar fashion,
> number, and purpose.
>
> Ancient marine excursions between the Old World and New World (and
> vice-versa) are now fully established. I suspect they may be cross-
cultural,
> too. But as a Mormon with Jewish/Egyptian linguistic heritage inside my B of
> M, I'm interested primarily in the Jewish/Hebrew ancient marine excursions.
> That's precisely wat Bat Creek Mound # 3, Loudon County, Tennessee, produced
> -- radiocarbon dated to B of M times (100 A.D.).
>
What a lying shitbag. If you read the literature on this, You'll find that
the bat creek cave stone he's referring to was lying in a mound which had
some wood fragments which were radiocarbon dated within a 95% confidence rate
to between about 36 and 700 c.e. Apparently that means it was radiocarbon
dated to 100 c.e. in apologistspeak. The stone also presents linguistic
difficulties, because it has several letters that do not match up to any
paleo-hebrew script, and, according to Frank Cross, one of the foremost if
not the foremost expert in this area, the "word" Cyrus Gordon made out is
missing one letter, without which it is nothing but a nonsense syllable.
> > You've GOT to be kidding. Could the depicted article be a
> > bracelet perhaps instead of a phylactery, and even if it
> > IS a phylactery couldn't it be an INDEPENDENT invention?
>
> Not very likely, don't you think?
>
> (Almost anything is "possible.") We're limiting ourselves here to reasonable
> inferences from observed evidence.
>
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> I suggest you read Cyrus Gordon's book.
Yes, but don't take Gordon's conclusions, because they're wrong. The book of
moron says so itself, so take G E R R Y E N S L E Y's conclusion instead.
After all, he can quote from Gordon, can't he?
>
> > And what about FOOTWEAR? Does the fact that at least some
> > people on every inhabited continent have covered their feet
> > with some form or shoe, sandal, boot or slipper PROVE that
> > the idea of footwear occurred originally to only ONE person
> > or people, who them spread this great wisdom throughout the
> > world by a vast project of migration, conquest and preaching?
>
> Quite a "leap," don't you think from "arm-winding" which most people don't do
> at all, to "footwear" which all peoples have done at one time or another, and
> must do in order to protect their feet?
>
> "Strawman" argumentation doesn't cut much with me.
>
> > Or could it be that at several different times in several
> > different places somebody'd stepped on a sharp rock badly
> > enough to use his own brain toward a solution?
>
> How many independent "sharp rocks" pierced a Mayan forearm so as to "wind" it
> with a leather strip in precisely the manner depicted?
>
What was this pinhead saying about strawmen?
> > Then: I'm part Native American, named "David", circumcised,
> > have Jewish friends AND I've read Torah (tho in translation),
> > yeah -- but still, assuming that I've GOT to be Jewish myself
> > (though perhaps unaware of my Ancient Hebrew Heritage) is an
> > EXTREMELY wild and INACCURATE guess. As more data than that
> > is needed
>
> I agree. No one said the issue is conclusive.
Except, of course, for G E R R Y E N S L E Y, who apparently thinks that the
evidence for the book of moron is so overwhelming that he can't fathom anyone
ever not believing it.
> Read Gordon's book. It is,
> nevertheless, existing hard evidence for such a conclusion, isn't it?
>
> > to reach a valid conclusion about someone living at
> > the same time as you, you'd need even more than that to prove
> > that the Maya around the second century ACE were orthodox Jews
> > who fled the Romans after Bar Kochba, fer cryin' out loud.
Especially when the 'Maya' seemed to be living in Tennessee, and buried
their dead in mounds that, with the exception of a stone and a few bracelets,
were unexceptional Cherokee burial mounds. And especially when Mayan and
Hebrew belong to entirely different language families and do not exhibit the
most common cognates that languages with a common ancestor tend to share.
>
> Gordon has more, much more. Read his book.
>
> > SHEESH.
> >
> > TheDavid
> >
> > P.S. Somebody else caught the draft animals and smelting.
> >
> > --
> > "McCarthyism was not an aberration. It was *normal*." --J. K. Faucher
> >
>
> P.S. They're no problem in the B of M, either.
Translation: Yes, widdle Gerry has some lies to back that up as well.
Jake
>Smith saw God and Christ (a separate Being --trinitarianism is false) on
>several occasions (night time and day time), speaking with them and being
>spoken to by them or one of them.
No proof of this whatsoever.
> To what will you attribute those Divine
>"appearances" -- daydreaming?
How about either he lied, or had epileptic seizures ?
>(Others saw publicly the same thing Smith did,
>at the same time.)
Then they were lying as well.
> Indigestion? (No evidence of it.) Pipedreams? (No
>evidence; Smith didn't smoke nor toke.)
>
How about they LIED !!!
>Thereafter Smith was "revealed" the "original" Gospel of Christ, which had
>fallen into "apostasy" from the earliest days of Jesus, so that by Smith's
>time (1830's New York) there was little semblance of Jesus' original Gospel
>on earth; it had all been perverted by Hellenistic assumption,
>misinterpretation, lost scripture, and the presumptions of men.
LOL...uh huh.
And because my tooth was gone under my pillow there MUST be a tooth
fairy !
>With YOU, I think orthodox Christianity to be largely a fraud.
Pot, kettle, black.
>But that doesn't mean there is no God, no true Church, nor no true revelation
>directly from God to mankind. There is. And Mormon Christianity has it --
>all of it, i.e. the entire package. (Other religions may have fragments
>thereof.)
>
Sorry. Doesn't work that way. Your claims have absolutely no proof in
them.
>There is fully sufficient evidence to support Smith's claims to be called of
>God in these "last days" of earth's history to "restore" the original Gospel
>of Christ to earth again.
LOL...sufficient evidence !!! What evidence !!! There is none !!!
> That "restored" Gospel is somewhat different from
>the "orthodox" Gospel taught (incorrectly) these many centuries down Western
>Catholic and Protestant history. Now that the "entire package" has been
>fully restored, we don't need the former anymore.
>
So you say. Doesn't make it true however.
>Now that you know the above, doesn't the "burden of proof" switch to you?
Not at all. Since you have not yet provided one ounce of truth.
What if I were to say that I saw god and that other people will
testify that I saw god and that they have seen angels talk to me ?
Then what if I said that god has told me that the LDS church has gone
astray and that I am now to be your prophet ? Would that make it true
???
>Your simple denial of the above won't do at all. IF my statements above are
>correct, and if there is sufficient evidence to persuade a reasonable person
>of the truth of Smith's prophetic claims, then you (as well as I) will be
>held accountable for investigating, learning, and proving (or disproving) the
>truth claims I've made hereinabove.
>
Well, since you haven't provided any evidence whatsoever....
>Maybe it's time to examine some of your own atheistic assumptions = just as
>we've demanded orthodox Christians re-examine THEIR own assumptions, too.
There are a ton of reasons why there is no god.
Want me to pick one.
Curt van den Heuvel
>Smith saw God and Christ (a separate Being --trinitarianism is false) on
>several occasions (night time and day time), speaking with them and being
>spoken to by them or one of them. To what will you attribute those Divine
>"appearances" -- daydreaming? (Others saw publicly the same thing Smith did,
>at the same time.) Indigestion? (No evidence of it.) Pipedreams? (No
>evidence; Smith didn't smoke nor toke.)
Your arrogance is surpassed only by your ignorance. Muhammed said that
he saw the angel Gabriel, who dictated the Koran to him. By the
standards of your "proof" (and I use the term *very* loosely) listed
above, you are compelled to accept his claim, since there is nothing
to which you can attribute Muhammed's "appearances" that cannot also
be applied to your precious prophet and his wild fantasies. Face it -
you were gypped.
-Curt
http://www.primenet.com/~heuvelc/mormon.htm
Chani
Jake wrote in message <36019162...@news.earthlink.net>...
>On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 15:44:21 GMT, gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
>
>>Smith saw God and Christ (a separate Being --trinitarianism is false) on
>>several occasions (night time and day time), speaking with them and being
>>spoken to by them or one of them.
>
>
>>"appearances" -- daydreaming?
>
Or he was schizophrenic or prone to auditory as well as visual
halucinations. I go with the schizophrenic thing myself.
>
>>(Others saw publicly the same thing Smith did,
>>at the same time.)
>
>Then they were lying as well.
Group halucinations. There is actually been some studies on this
phenomenon.
>
>> Indigestion? (No evidence of it.) Pipedreams? (No
>>evidence; Smith didn't smoke nor toke.)
>>
>How about they LIED !!!
Or that he was mentally unbalanced?
<snip>
>>There is fully sufficient evidence to support Smith's claims to be called
of
>>God in these "last days" of earth's history to "restore" the original
Gospel
>>of Christ to earth again.
>
>LOL...sufficient evidence !!! What evidence !!! There is none !!!
As if that ever mattered when it comes to religion!!
>
>> That "restored" Gospel is somewhat different from
>>the "orthodox" Gospel taught (incorrectly) these many centuries down
Western
>>Catholic and Protestant history. Now that the "entire package" has been
>>fully restored, we don't need the former anymore.
>>
>So you say. Doesn't make it true however.
>>Now that you know the above, doesn't the "burden of proof" switch to you?
>
>Not at all. Since you have not yet provided one ounce of truth.
>What if I were to say that I saw god and that other people will
>testify that I saw god and that they have seen angels talk to me ?
>Then what if I said that god has told me that the LDS church has gone
>astray and that I am now to be your prophet ? Would that make it true
>???
I can attest to that!! Thou art god!! :-)
>
>>Your simple denial of the above won't do at all. IF my statements above
are
>>correct, and if there is sufficient evidence to persuade a reasonable
person
>>of the truth of Smith's prophetic claims, then you (as well as I) will be
>>held accountable for investigating, learning, and proving (or disproving)
the
>>truth claims I've made hereinabove.
>>
>Well, since you haven't provided any evidence whatsoever....
>
>>Maybe it's time to examine some of your own atheistic assumptions = just
as
>>we've demanded orthodox Christians re-examine THEIR own assumptions, too.
>
>There are a ton of reasons why there is no god.
>Want me to pick one.
Because there is absolutely no evidence to support such a being!
Chani, Atheist #1118; Slave Girl # 1: Nirfur High Priest #2:
ULC Minister #19 The Holy See - Church of Fantome Scientists
cov...@concentric.net ICQ #12345332
The atheist map is located at
http://www.angelfire.com/nv/Loreleis/index.html
Sign my guest book at:
http://homepages.infoseek.com/~chanileslie/chanileslie.html
**********************************************************
"Look, biology is such an inexact science, and for
every step forward we must take 2 in reverse, and
at any rate we said we're sorry, so can we get our
funding back so we can pay our bail and go
home?" - Two Gnomish Scientists after accidentally
unleashing the phase-shifting doppleganging
firebreathing hyperintellegent Giant space hampster.
**********************************************************
icti...@aol.com
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
> In article <FV4M1.79$qi5....@news14.ispnews.com>,
> I have serious reservations about the accuracy of some Biblical events,
> reports, and teachings.
Where is your doubt about the B of M? Where is your willingness to ask the
same questions of it that you are about every other religion? You seem to
have a healthy doubt about other religions (how about Gabriel giving Mahomet
the Quran?) but then you exhibit an incredible credulousness with regard to
this one. What, exactly, is the origin of your psychological addiction to
this piece of pseudo-religious literature. Are you a recent convert? Reared
a Mormon?
>
> But so far as finding now extinct "elephants" in the Americas, that's pretty
> well been affirmed scientifically and historically:
>
> "There is nothing implausible with the BofM mentioning elephants in
> America in the ancient timeframe of around 2,000 B.C. since scientists have
> indeed, indicated the beasts existed here back then during that time.
> Interestingly Sorenson notes that a mastodon was associated with pottery
> found in Ecuador dating to the time of Christ! Also he notes that horse,
> mammoth and elephant remains in St. Petersburg Florida carbon date to 100
> B.C.! (p. 298 - Sorenson citing J. Augusta, The Age of Monsters, Prehistoric
> and Legendary, (London: Paul Hamlyn, 1966), pp. 11f. Also Jim J. Hester,
> "Agency of Man in Animal Extinction," in Martin and Wright, "Pleistocene
> Extinctions," p. 185 in Proceedings of the International Association for
> Quaternary Research, VII Congress, vol. 6, 1967.)"
>
The 1960s???? I'd like to do some follow-up on this but I ain't got the
time. Were these guys on acid? Why is it that here in the 90s we have the
best sources on mastodonts and mammoths referring to an extinction of about 6
kiloyears BP? Don't they read the works of the 60s? Or is there better
evidence, better measurement methods? Could be!
> This means, of course, that the Book of Mormon is in fact true, precisely as
> Joseph Smith claimed it to be.
>
Hoo, boy are you deluded about what "proof" is.
> "Archaeology has proved that the American Indian hunted and killed
> elephants; it has also strongly indicated that these elephants have been
> extinct for several thousand years. This means that the traditions of the
> Indians recalling these animals have retained their historical validity for
> great stretches of time. . . . Probably the minimum is three thousand
> years." The author favors three thousand years ago as the terminal date for
> the existence of the elephant in America, which would place its extinction
> about a thousand years B.C., when the Jaredite culture was already very old
> and Lehi's people were not to appear on the scene for some centuries. This
> suits very well with the Book of Mormon account.
>
See above.
One more thing that I don't like to bring up but ARE YOU POSTING TO THIS
NEWSGROUP FROM THE CIVIL GOVERNMENT DOMAIN??? THIS IS NOT ALLOWED FOR
FEDERAL WORKERS! IS YOUR SUPERVISOR AWARE OF THIS? ARE THE TAXPAYERS OF LONG
BEACH? I'd love to have the government subsidize my NG postings. I'd much
prefer that you get a private ISP and use it from home.
Ictiobus
Mac Roin
> In article <1dfhy58.np...@p331.nzwide.ihug.co.nz>,
> flow...@ihug.co.nz (Mac Roin) wrote:
> > <gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us> wrote:
> > > In light of direct Divine revelation to Joseph Smith (1830's, New York) on
> > > this point, it would seem the "burden of proof" is upon you, isn't it?
> > On the contrary, it is your move first. The onus is on you to first
> > prove there was a divine revelation to Smith.
> Smith saw God and Christ (a separate Being --trinitarianism is false) on
> several occasions (night time and day time), speaking with them and being
> spoken to by them or one of them.
I said you were the person obliged to provide "proof". Don't you
understand what that means? Simply parroting belief that something
happened does not constitute proof. You have not provided proof.
> To what will you attribute those Divine "appearances"
What divine appearances? You have not provided proof of any such
appearances.
> Thereafter Smith was "revealed" the "original" Gospel of Christ
Proof please. Remember? You were asked for proof!
> With YOU, I think orthodox Christianity to be largely a fraud.
WHAT? Where did I say that?
> But that doesn't mean there is no God,
It doesn't mean there IS.
> no true Church, nor no true revelation
> directly from God to mankind. There is.
Proof? I know it's repetitive Gerry, but it appears it will have to be
for you to get the idea.
> And Mormon Christianity has it -- all of it, i.e. the entire package.
Because believer Gerry says so. But where's his proof?
> There is fully sufficient evidence to support Smith's claims to be called of
> God in these "last days" of earth's history to "restore" the original Gospel
> of Christ to earth again.
Where's this "fully sufficient evidence"? Post it here.
> That "restored" Gospel is somewhat different from
> the "orthodox" Gospel taught (incorrectly) these many centuries down Western
> Catholic and Protestant history.
Opinion! Provide proof to justify it.
> Now that the "entire package" has been
> fully restored, we don't need the former anymore.
Opinion. Provide proof to justify it.
>
> Now that you know the above, doesn't the "burden of proof" switch to you?
Don't be so dopey. Now that you have seen my response, you will agree
that all of your posting above is opinion and supposition, without a
shred of evidence/proof. I am not obliged to try to disprove your
negative.
> Your simple denial of the above won't do at all.
Okay then, I won't deny them, but question their validity. YOU make the
claims here, YOU prove here they are correct. Note I said PROVE.
> IF my statements above are
> correct, and if there is sufficient evidence to persuade a reasonable person
> of the truth of Smith's prophetic claims,
Ahh, the old IFs trick. "If ifs and ands were pots and pans there'd be
no work for tinkers hands". What is a reasonable person Gerry? Someone
who agrees with Gerry? And if you don't you would be unreasonable?
> then you (as well as I) will be held accountable for investigating, learning,
> and proving (or disproving) the truth claims I've made hereinabove.
*******
Right on Gerry, you have used a good word there, PROVING. Let's say the
claims inherent in your IFS may be right. Your claims Gerry, YOU prove
them. Don't give us "I believe" or "it is written". You also have
something fundamentally wrong here Gerry. There is no onus on me to do
your work for you. How many times do you need to be told this?
> Maybe it's time to examine some of your own atheistic assumptions = just as
> we've demanded orthodox Christians re-examine THEIR own assumptions, too.
That's very revealing Gerry. I posted a total two lines in response to
your previous posting and you conclude I have atheistic assumptions.
Here are the two lines
> > On the contrary, it is your move first. The onus is on you to first
> > prove there was a divine revelation to Smith.
How did you deduce from those lines that I have atheistic assumptions?
Mac Roin
zemz...@hotmail.com
The page he referred me to is hilarious. Those are his *most recent*
references. Most of the references in Kerry Shirts' page come from around the
thirties and early forties, before radiocarbon dating was invented.
Gee...I wonder why on earth that might be?
> > This means, of course, that the Book of Mormon is in fact true, precisely as
> > Joseph Smith claimed it to be.
> >
> Hoo, boy are you deluded about what "proof" is.
>
He's an idiot. I almost don't want to argue with him; he doesn't deserve
rational, civil discourse from others, as he is too dishonest and stupid to
carry it on himself.
> > "Archaeology has proved that the American Indian hunted and killed
> > elephants; it has also strongly indicated that these elephants have been
> > extinct for several thousand years. This means that the traditions of the
> > Indians recalling these animals have retained their historical validity for
> > great stretches of time. . . . Probably the minimum is three thousand
> > years." The author favors three thousand years ago as the terminal date
for
> > the existence of the elephant in America, which would place its extinction
> > about a thousand years B.C., when the Jaredite culture was already very old
> > and Lehi's people were not to appear on the scene for some centuries. This
> > suits very well with the Book of Mormon account.
> >
Ch'yeah, just cite another book of moron apologist to back up your
apologetics. Circular reasoning: Yet another fallacy.
>
> See above.
>
> One more thing that I don't like to bring up but ARE YOU POSTING TO THIS
> NEWSGROUP FROM THE CIVIL GOVERNMENT DOMAIN??? THIS IS NOT ALLOWED FOR
> FEDERAL WORKERS! IS YOUR SUPERVISOR AWARE OF THIS? ARE THE TAXPAYERS OF LONG
> BEACH? I'd love to have the government subsidize my NG postings. I'd
much
> prefer that you get a private ISP and use it from home.
If he is posting from a civil gov't domain, can we find out? And can we rat
on him?
Dave Good
#562 knight of BAAWA
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Jake
>I can attest to that!! Thou art god!! :-)
Blessed be the Chani, for she is good.
Jake
atheist #678
ULC minister.
E.A.C. member.
BAAWA scribe #2
Otherwise known as lilbudha1.
Remove the word JAKE to send e-mail.
*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
" While I was in Africa I shot an elephant in my pajamas.
How it ever got into my pajamas I'll never know."
Groucho Marx
*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
My pages....
The HTML Temple... http://internet-temple.hypermart.net/htmltemple1.html
The Internet Temple.... http://internet-temple.hypermart.net/entrance.html
Lilbudha1's Comic book review... http://members.aol.com/lilbudha1/comics.html
Speak! Co-operative Dog Training... http://speak.hypermart.net
My home page.... http://home.earthlink.net/~lilbudha1
My XXX home page (adults only).. http://www.nettaxi.com/citizens/lilb1
General Panic
>In light of direct Divine revelation to Joseph Smith (1830's, New York)
But we atheists, e.g., we atheists on alt.atheism, don't accept "direct
Divine revelation" to ANYONE -- not Joe Smith, not even to my own Great-
Great-Aunt Bertha. That *is* a major part of the *definition*, y'know.
>on this point, it would seem the "burden of proof" is upon you, isn't it?
No it is NOT. Especially not on *alt.atheism*, you cult-deluded sod.
SHEESH.
Respectlessly,
TheDavid
ri...@my-dejanews.com
lilbud...@hempseed.com (Jake) wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 15:44:21 GMT, gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
> What if I were to say that I saw god and that other people will
> testify that I saw god and that they have seen angels talk to me ?
> Then what if I said that god has told me that the LDS church has gone
> astray and that I am now to be your prophet ? Would that make it true
> ???
I was there (wherever that was) and I saw it too. I can say, without a doubt,
that Jake is the new prophet of the newly formed "Church of Really Recent
Saints" (CRRS) and that I am the prime cardinal of the gospel. I'll be
writing the new and improved gospels in my basement, copying them from the
holy rock of the lost tribes of Judah. The translations (the Book of CRRS)
will be available for purchase of 29.99 (us dollars only, please).
> Jake
PRAISE JAKE! Praise the CRRS!
RITH, high cardinal of CRRS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Brian West
..........
I hate .sig files...
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us
I'm terribly sorry! I thought the name of the game was "find the truth." I
didn't know the "rules" precluded certain kinds of inquiry and/or specific
investigation of historical truth claims.
Forgive me. I thought we all were looking for the truth, no matter where it
lies.
I'll go back to reading "philosophy" now and ignoring all religious claims.
Why didn't someone tell me God "can't" exist?
Respectfully,
Gerry L. Ensley.
Jake
>In article <36019162...@news.earthlink.net>,
> lilbud...@hempseed.com (Jake) wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 15:44:21 GMT, gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
>
>> What if I were to say that I saw god and that other people will
>> testify that I saw god and that they have seen angels talk to me ?
>> Then what if I said that god has told me that the LDS church has gone
>> astray and that I am now to be your prophet ? Would that make it true
>> ???
>
>I was there (wherever that was) and I saw it too. I can say, without a doubt,
>that Jake is the new prophet of the newly formed "Church of Really Recent
>Saints" (CRRS) and that I am the prime cardinal of the gospel. I'll be
>writing the new and improved gospels in my basement, copying them from the
>holy rock of the lost tribes of Judah. The translations (the Book of CRRS)
>will be available for purchase of 29.99 (us dollars only, please).
>
>> Jake
>PRAISE JAKE! Praise the CRRS!
>
>RITH, high cardinal of CRRS
And the lord God has said unto me, " Blessed is my High Cardinal for
he hath sold my words at a good price. Blessed is he that maketh money
for me. Blessed are those who give money unto my church. "
Really, he said that...uh huh...yep....sure did....
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us
icti...@aol.com wrote:
> In article <6trdvl$8lj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
> > In article <FV4M1.79$qi5....@news14.ispnews.com>,
> > 'Lord of Posts' <thed...@tsoft.com> wrote:
> > > gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
> > >
>
> > I have serious reservations about the accuracy of some Biblical events,
> > reports, and teachings.
>
> Where is your doubt about the B of M? Where is your willingness to ask the
> same questions of it that you are about every other religion? You seem to
> have a healthy doubt about other religions (how about Gabriel giving Mahomet
> the Quran?) but then you exhibit an incredible credulousness with regard to
> this one. What, exactly, is the origin of your psychological addiction to
> this piece of pseudo-religious literature. Are you a recent convert? Reared
> a Mormon?
You apparently don't know much about Mormon theology. It is so different
from orthodox Christianity, so meaningful, and so provable historically, that
one need not doubt its accuracy nor veracity -- except as to common doubt as
to any historical event.
All historical religions suffer from the latter kind of "doubt," if you call
it that.
What "appeal" is there for atheism? Please explain to me.
I see the major "difference" between our two ways of thinking to be simply
that I will "stand in judgment" before God to be "judged" according to my
works/deeds/thoughts/accomplishments/failures, i.e. my use/abuse of my
personal freedom, whereas you think you apparently will not be so judged.
The above is one reason "religious" people tend to mistrust "atheists," i.e.
the latter apparently have no sense of duty to be moral nor to act "against"
their own personal, immediate interests.
I know the above is a stereotype. But it's no worse, I suppose, than
atheists' stereotyping of "religious" folks as "dumb."
If there is a Final Judgment for all persons on this earth, then "religious"
folks (intelligently conforming their conduct to high moral standards) MAY
turn out to be "smarter" in the end than "atheists," mightn't they?
I have no comment on real religious dummies.
> > But so far as finding now extinct "elephants" in the Americas, that's pretty
> > well been affirmed scientifically and historically:
> >
> > "There is nothing implausible with the BofM mentioning elephants in
> > America in the ancient timeframe of around 2,000 B.C. since scientists have
> > indeed, indicated the beasts existed here back then during that time.
> > Interestingly Sorenson notes that a mastodon was associated with pottery
> > found in Ecuador dating to the time of Christ! Also he notes that horse,
> > mammoth and elephant remains in St. Petersburg Florida carbon date to 100
> > B.C.! (p. 298 - Sorenson citing J. Augusta, The Age of Monsters,
> > Prehistoric and Legendary, (London: Paul Hamlyn, 1966), pp. 11f. Also Jim
>J. Hester, "Agency of Man in Animal Extinction," in Martin and Wright,
>"Pleistocene Extinctions," p. 185 in Proceedings of the International
>Association for Quaternary Research, VII Congress, vol. 6, 1967.)"
> >
>
> The 1960s???? I'd like to do some follow-up on this but I ain't got the
> time. Were these guys on acid? Why is it that here in the 90s we have the
> best sources on mastodonts and mammoths referring to an extinction of about 6
> kiloyears BP? Don't they read the works of the 60s? Or is there better
> evidence, better measurement methods? Could be!
Better "measurement" for extinctions which occurred centuries ago? You're
looking for "up to the minute" evidence of extinctions? Is there some
"inconsistency" here?
I agree that "later" scientific data may be presumably more accurate than
earlier scientific data. But "extinctions" are absences, i.e. non-data,
missing evidence, gone, kaput.
> > This means, of course, that the Book of Mormon is in fact true, precisely as
> > Joseph Smith claimed it to be.
> >
> Hoo, boy are you deluded about what "proof" is.
Well, true about the "elephants," at least.
Does prove that Smith's apparent "blunder" by mentioning elephants inside the
B of M was not no "blunderous" after all, doesn't it?
> > "Archaeology has proved that the American Indian hunted and killed
> > elephants; it has also strongly indicated that these elephants have been
> > extinct for several thousand years. This means that the traditions of the
> > Indians recalling these animals have retained their historical validity for
> > great stretches of time. . . . Probably the minimum is three thousand
> > years." The author favors three thousand years ago as the terminal date
>for the existence of the elephant in America, which would place its extinction
> > about a thousand years B.C., when the Jaredite culture was already very old
> > and Lehi's people were not to appear on the scene for some centuries. This
> > suits very well with the Book of Mormon account.
> >
>
> See above.
>
> One more thing that I don't like to bring up but ARE YOU POSTING TO THIS
> NEWSGROUP FROM THE CIVIL GOVERNMENT DOMAIN??? THIS IS NOT ALLOWED FOR
> FEDERAL WORKERS! IS YOUR SUPERVISOR AWARE OF THIS? ARE THE TAXPAYERS OF LONG
> BEACH? I'd love to have the government subsidize my NG postings. I'd
much prefer that you get a private ISP and use it from home.
>
> Ictiobus
Not to worry. I have an ISP at home, but the kids use it all the time. I
work normally 11 hours per day and get paid for 8. Last week I worked about
70 hours, sleeping over 2 nights at the office, and got paid for 40 (I don't
get overtime).
I write these off hours, but merely post them at work.
There are, of course, monumental depictions of elephant trunks by Mayas of
Uxmal (about 500 A.D.) in Yucatan. Even if extinct by then elephants were
preserved in living memory by ancient Mayan artisans.
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us
flow...@ihug.co.nz (Mac Roin) wrote:
> <gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us> wrote:
>
> > In article <1dfhy58.np...@p331.nzwide.ihug.co.nz>,
> > flow...@ihug.co.nz (Mac Roin) wrote:
> > > <gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us> wrote:
>
>
> > > prove there was a divine revelation to Smith.
>
> > Smith saw God and Christ (a separate Being --trinitarianism is false) on
> > several occasions (night time and day time), speaking with them and being
> > spoken to by them or one of them.
>
> I said you were the person obliged to provide "proof". Don't you
> understand what that means? Simply parroting belief that something
> happened does not constitute proof. You have not provided proof.
>
> > To what will you attribute those Divine "appearances"
>
> What divine appearances? You have not provided proof of any such
> appearances.
Smith claims to have seen God and Christ, conversed with them as one man with
another, to have received (heavy) gold plates upon which was inscribed
ancient American religious histories of several Hebrew peoples who emigrated
from the Arabian Peninsula to the New World, to have translated the foregoing
"by the gift and power of God" into English (published now as the Book of
Mormon), and to have accomplished in general with Mormon Christian converts
(1830's New York) what Moses did in gathering and preserving his people
anciently, and to have "restored" the original Church and Gospel of Jesus
Christ upon earth again after it had fallen into "apostasy" and error after
Jesus' and His apostles' deaths.
That "apostasy" infects the Bible as well.
Mormon Christianity, therefore, claims to be the "one and only" true Gospel
of Christ upon the earth today. Other religions may have "fragments" of
religious truth, but only Mormon Christianity, so we claim, has the "entire
package."
Now, if Smith's observed, experienced, auditory, visual, tactile experiences
are in fact correct, then what more "proof" can there be? Others' similar
experiences confirming Smith's account? We have those, too. See
introduction to the "coming forth of the Book of Mormon" published inside
each B of M. See
http://www.deseretbook.com/Scriptures/bom_home.html
I wouldn't expect Smith's crass, sweaty, "ordinary" experiences with Deity,
angels, golden records, public obloquy for claiming to receive "direct
revelation" from God, publishing a "scripture" outside the Bible, hatred from
Christian ministers, etc. to be "proof" to anyone unfamiliar with the above
history.
One needs to "get into" Smith's history before Mormon Christian truth claims
become meaningful to oneself.
Once properly understood as real history to a true Prophet of God, Smith's
(and other independent eyewitnesses') experiences become hard "evidence" of
the truth and accuracy of those reported events as much as any historical
fact.
And if those reported facts be true, it doesn't matter what numbers of people
believe (or disbelieve) them, they remain true, don't they? (Same if they be
false, of course.)
Smith's personally experienced, eyewitnessed, events, gold plates, angels
(they don't have wings), personal conversations with Jesus and with God,
actual revelations of earliest Christian doctrine now being verified by new
manuscript discoveries, e.g. Nag Hammadi, Egypt, demonstrate conclusively the
bona fides of and factual reality of Smith's claims.
> > Thereafter Smith was "revealed" the "original" Gospel of Christ
>
> Proof please. Remember? You were asked for proof!
>
> > With YOU, I think orthodox Christianity to be largely a fraud.
>
> WHAT? Where did I say that?
I assume most "atheists" would agree with the above.
Don't tell me you're a "religious" atheist!
> > But that doesn't mean there is no God,
>
> It doesn't mean there IS.
What about many people, some inside the Bible, some outside it (including
Smith himself) who have legitimately (not the kooks and nuts) seen God and
talked with Him?
> > no true Church, nor no true revelation
> > directly from God to mankind. There is.
>
> Proof? I know it's repetitive Gerry, but it appears it will have to be
> for you to get the idea.
Eyewitnesses, my friend, produce "proof" so good it is highly sought as "bedst
evidence" in a court of law.
> > And Mormon Christianity has it -- all of it, i.e. the entire package.
>
> Because believer Gerry says so. But where's his proof?
See Smith and numerous eyewitnesses, above.
> > There is fully sufficient evidence to support Smith's claims to be called of
> > God in these "last days" of earth's history to "restore" the original Gospel
> > of Christ to earth again.
>
> Where's this "fully sufficient evidence"? Post it here.
Be happy to do so.
Why don't you start with the Book of Mormon at website stated hereinabove.
> > That "restored" Gospel is somewhat different from
> > the "orthodox" Gospel taught (incorrectly) these many centuries down Western
> > Catholic and Protestant history.
>
> Opinion! Provide proof to justify it.
First things, first. Try the B of M, above.
> > Now that the "entire package" has been
> > fully restored, we don't need the former anymore.
>
> Opinion. Provide proof to justify it.
First things, first. See above.
> > Now that you know the above, doesn't the "burden of proof" switch to you?
>
> Don't be so dopey. Now that you have seen my response, you will agree
> that all of your posting above is opinion and supposition, without a
> shred of evidence/proof. I am not obliged to try to disprove your
> negative.
Smith's (and other eyewitnesses') personal experiences are hardly "negative."
They are eyewitness evidence fully acceptable, under oath, in any court of
law.
See the 3 independent eyewitnesses to the Angel Moroni, who gave Smith the
gold plates for the latter's translation into English. Website stated
hereinabove.
See the 8 independent eyewitnesses to the gold plates themselves. They
lifted them, felt, them, and turned the thin gold pages in public view.
Website stated hereinabove.
> > Your simple denial of the above won't do at all.
>
> Okay then, I won't deny them, but question their validity. YOU make the
> claims here, YOU prove here they are correct. Note I said PROVE.
See my above.
> > IF my statements above are correct, and if there is sufficient evidence to
>persuade a reasonable person of the truth of Smith's prophetic claims,
>
> Ahh, the old IFs trick. "If ifs and ands were pots and pans there'd be
> no work for tinkers hands". What is a reasonable person Gerry? Someone
> who agrees with Gerry? And if you don't you would be unreasonable?
A "reasonable" person is one who views the eyewitness evidence, reads the
claims and purported evidence supporting it, studies contrary claims and
contrary evidence if there be any, and decides for him/herself if it be true,
or not.
> > then you (as well as I) will be held accountable for investigating,
learning, and proving (or disproving) the truth claims I've made hereinabove.
> *******
> Right on Gerry, you have used a good word there, PROVING. Let's say the
> claims inherent in your IFS may be right. Your claims Gerry, YOU prove
> them. Don't give us "I believe" or "it is written". You also have
> something fundamentally wrong here Gerry. There is no onus on me to do
> your work for you. How many times do you need to be told this?
If I demonstrate to you conclusively that evidence exists fully supporting
Smith's claims, give you a one-mouse-click reference where you can begin to
learn such evidence, and steer you to Mormon Christian proofs which would
persuade any reasonable person, BUT YOU REFUSE TO CLICK THE MOUSE BUTTON,
have I failed in my "proof"? I think not.
God will "force" no man to Heaven. (Actually there are several Heavens, not
merely one.)
Each of us has an independent obligation to seek (and to find) the truth.
>
> > Maybe it's time to examine some of your own atheistic assumptions = just as
> > we've demanded orthodox Christians re-examine THEIR own assumptions, too.
>
> That's very revealing Gerry. I posted a total two lines in response to
> your previous posting and you conclude I have atheistic assumptions.
> Here are the two lines
>
> > > On the contrary, it is your move first. The onus is on you to first
> > > prove there was a divine revelation to Smith.
>
> How did you deduce from those lines that I have atheistic assumptions?
You posted to "alt.atheism."
> Mac Roin
But it's no matter. I'm an equal-opportunity poster. What I state to
atheists I also state to orthodox Christians, who are generally no better off
than atheists in terms of religious truth.
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us
ri...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <36019162...@news.earthlink.net>,
> lilbud...@hempseed.com (Jake) wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 15:44:21 GMT, gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
>
> > What if I were to say that I saw god and that other people will
> > testify that I saw god and that they have seen angels talk to me ?
> > Then what if I said that god has told me that the LDS church has gone
> > astray and that I am now to be your prophet ? Would that make it true
> > ???
Ahh, the old IFs trick. "If ifs and ands were pots and pans there'd be no
work for tinkers hands." (Forgive me, I lifted the above from alt.atheism.)
There aren't too many people who have ever claimed to talk with God and/or
Christ, see angels, etc. I don't suppose you have a book of gold plates lying
around, do you, which has also been seen by 11 independent eyewitnesses?
Your cavalier attitude about Smith shows that you apparently know little abut
him.
> I was there (wherever that was) . . .
Ahhh, another person of close familiarity with Smith's history.
>and I saw it too. I can say, without a doubt, that Jake . . .
I'm afraid that "the Jake is on you."
>is the new prophet of the newly formed "Church of Really Recent Saints" (CRRS)
Is that similar to the "Church of Really Reefer Saints"?
>and that I am the prime cardinal . . .
You'r the "P.C."? Then you must have "Windows."
>of the gospel. I'll be writing the new and improved gospels in my basement,
>copying them from the holy rock of the lost tribes of Judah.
The irony here is that Smith has now been proven conclusively to have given us
"revelations" comporting fully with ancient Jewish and authentic Christian
manuscripts not discovered in Smith's day, discovered thereafter, which verify
much of Smith's doctrine and teaching as being originally taught by Jesus
personally.
For examples, see my lengthy "Jesus' Henotheism" and/or "Biblical
Henothenism" posted to alt.religion.mormon last year.
Therefore, IF you can really "produce" a "Holy Rock of Judah" and serious
contemporary ancient traditions regarding that "Holy Rock of Judah" then you
might have something to crow about.
What you apparently fail to understand is that purportedly ancient histories
(such as the Book of Mormon or the Bible) partake of their contempoary
cultural milieu; they can't be faked. So when we find much ancient
linguistic, historical, cultural, evidence inside the Book of Mormon -- e.g.
Hebraisms, chiasmus, Hebrew sentence structure, authentic Egyptian, Hebrew,
and Arabic names unknown in Smith's day but discovered thereafter, Arabic
poetry, and all despite its translation from the original Hebrew/Egyptian
into English -- we know that Smith is not faking it from 19th century
Americana.
>The translations (the Book of CRRS) will be available for purchase of 29.99 (us
>dollars only, please).
If you think Smith died a rich man, think again. He was murdered (Lynched) by
an aroused mob while in jail on a false charge of killing the governor because
Smith had had the audacity to prophesy that governor's violent death -- a
prophesy which came true, but not at Smith's nor Mormon hands.
> > Jake
> PRAISE JAKE! Praise the CRRS!
>
> RITH, high cardinal of CRRS
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Brian West
> ..........
> I hate .sig files...
Let's see your "writings." I have a hunch they may disappoint me.
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us
flow...@ihug.co.nz (Mac Roin) wrote:
> <gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us> wrote:
> >
> > In light of direct Divine revelation to Joseph Smith (1830's, New York) on
> > this point, it would seem the "burden of proof" is upon you, isn't it?
>
> On the contrary, it is your move first. The onus is on you to first
> prove there was a divine revelation to Smith.
>
>
See my other replies posted today to alt.atheism.
Jake
>What "appeal" is there for atheism? Please explain to me.
So says the shackled man, starring out his cave.
( 10 points for anyone who can guess what I'm referring to above ! )
Jake
>In article <6ttgpb$fc1$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> ri...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> In article <36019162...@news.earthlink.net>,
>> lilbud...@hempseed.com (Jake) wrote:
>> > On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 15:44:21 GMT, gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
>>
>> > What if I were to say that I saw god and that other people will
>> > testify that I saw god and that they have seen angels talk to me ?
>> > Then what if I said that god has told me that the LDS church has gone
>> > astray and that I am now to be your prophet ? Would that make it true
>> > ???
>
>Ahh, the old IFs trick. "If ifs and ands were pots and pans there'd be no
>work for tinkers hands." (Forgive me, I lifted the above from alt.atheism.)
>
>There aren't too many people who have ever claimed to talk with God and/or
>Christ, see angels, etc. I don't suppose you have a book of gold plates lying
>around, do you, which has also been seen by 11 independent eyewitnesses?
>
Glad you asked !!! Actually I do ! And if you let us send our free
video to your house, we promise to put you on a list and have little
men on bicycles come to your home and practically beg you to join our
bullshit religion, mostly because they don't want to turn in bad stats
when their D.L. calls for the weekly totals !
>Your cavalier attitude about Smith shows that you apparently know little abut
>him.
>
Exactly how would you have come to that decision ?
>> I was there (wherever that was) . . .
>
>Ahhh, another person of close familiarity with Smith's history.
>
>>and I saw it too. I can say, without a doubt, that Jake . . .
>
>I'm afraid that "the Jake is on you."
>
Blasphemer !!! You don't understand. My religion is true because in
the book I wrote, about the forefathers of my people. The Losernites.
They are an indigenous people to whatever land they come from.
Well now, archaeologists have found things that sort a, kind a, in an
odd way, look just like stuff in our holy book !!! So it is true !!!
It is !!!
>>is the new prophet of the newly formed "Church of Really Recent Saints" (CRRS)
>
>Is that similar to the "Church of Really Reefer Saints"?
>
Wow...a condescending mormon, what an unusual thing ?
>>and that I am the prime cardinal . . .
>
>You'r the "P.C."? Then you must have "Windows."
>
>>of the gospel. I'll be writing the new and improved gospels in my basement,
>>copying them from the holy rock of the lost tribes of Judah.
>
>The irony here is that Smith has now been proven conclusively to have given us
>"revelations" comporting fully with ancient Jewish and authentic Christian
>manuscripts not discovered in Smith's day, discovered thereafter, which verify
>much of Smith's doctrine and teaching as being originally taught by Jesus
>personally.
>
The irony is that you will believe anything you read when you buy your
books at Deseret.
>For examples, see my lengthy "Jesus' Henotheism" and/or "Biblical
>Henothenism" posted to alt.religion.mormon last year.
>
No thanks. I gave up on bullshit.
>Therefore, IF you can really "produce" a "Holy Rock of Judah" and serious
>contemporary ancient traditions regarding that "Holy Rock of Judah" then you
>might have something to crow about.
>
I did !! In dee dee do !
>What you apparently fail to understand is that purportedly ancient histories
>(such as the Book of Mormon or the Bible) partake of their contempoary
>cultural milieu; they can't be faked. So when we find much ancient
>linguistic, historical, cultural, evidence inside the Book of Mormon -- e.g.
>Hebraisms, chiasmus, Hebrew sentence structure, authentic Egyptian, Hebrew,
>and Arabic names unknown in Smith's day but discovered thereafter, Arabic
>poetry, and all despite its translation from the original Hebrew/Egyptian
>into English -- we know that Smith is not faking it from 19th century
>Americana.
>
Cant wait for that bit of bullshit to get thrown out. PU !
>>The translations (the Book of CRRS) will be available for purchase of 29.99 (us
>>dollars only, please).
>
>If you think Smith died a rich man, think again. He was murdered (Lynched) by
>an aroused mob while in jail on a false charge of killing the governor because
>Smith had had the audacity to prophesy that governor's violent death -- a
>prophesy which came true, but not at Smith's nor Mormon hands.
>
Who said he did ?
Mac Roin
Mac Roin wrote
> > What divine appearances? You have not provided proof of any such
> > appearances.
>
> Smith claims to have........
Stop RIGHT THERE. You were asked for proof!! You have fucked up in the
first four words namely, 'Smith claims to have'. You have NO evidence,
NO proof that Smith's delusions were even based on fact, let alone
factual.
> > WHAT? Where did I say that?
> I assume most "atheists" would agree with the above.
They might. They might go further and say ALL christianity or ALL
religion is a fraud. But I didn't say either, so don't make assumptions
about what I think.
> > It doesn't mean there IS (a god)
> What about many people, some inside the Bible, some outside it (including
> Smith himself) who have legitimately (not the kooks and nuts) seen God and
> talked with Him?
Ahhh. Let us all in on the secret here -- how do you tell the kooks and
nuts among those people who claim to have spoken with god? Please
advise.
> > Proof? I know it's repetitive Gerry, but it appears it will have to be
> > for you to get the idea.
> Eyewitnesses, my friend, produce "proof" so good it is highly sought as "bedst
> evidence" in a court of law.
Two scenarios.
1) You drive through a red light and hit another car. You tell the
judge you were distracted because you suddenly saw god standing in the
middle of the intersection. Your wife, an eyewitness, says she saw god
there too. A pedestrian standing on the the curb is also an eyewitness,
telling the judge she saw god in the middle of the intersection. The
driver of the car you hit says he saw nothing in the middle of the road.
2) You drive through a red light and hit another car. You tell the
judge you were distracted because you suddenly saw a dog standing in the
middle of the intersection. Your wife, an eyewitness, says she saw a dog
there too. A pedestrian standing on the the curb is also an eyewitness,
telling the judge she saw a dog in the middle of the intersection. The
driver of the car you hit also says he saw a dog in the middle of the
road.
Eyewitnesses galore here Gerry. Which ones can be believed?
> > > Now that you know the above, doesn't the "burden of proof" switch to you?
> > Don't be so dopey. Now that you have seen my response, you will agree
> > that all of your posting above is opinion and supposition, without a
> > shred of evidence/proof. I am not obliged to try to disprove your
> > negative.
> Smith's (and other eyewitnesses') personal experiences are hardly "negative."
First of all, no-one knows that they actually ever happened. YOU
certainly can't prove that they did. But, regarding the "negative" I
mentioned, maybe I never made it too clear. Your postings are
unsupported supposition and opinion because you have been unable to
prove them here as requested. It is dishonest for YOU to ask ME to try
to disprove something that you have not proven.
No-where have you ever been able to give proof for your claims.
Refererrals to books which many consider to be fiction are not proof.
> > Right on Gerry, you have used a good word there, PROVING. Let's say the
> > claims inherent in your IFS may be right. Your claims Gerry, YOU prove
> > them. Don't give us "I believe" or "it is written". You also have
> > something fundamentally wrong here Gerry. There is no onus on me to do
> > your work for you. How many times do you need to be told this?
> If I demonstrate to you conclusively that evidence exists fully supporting
> Smith's claims, give you a one-mouse-click reference where you can begin to
> learn such evidence, and steer you to Mormon Christian proofs which would
> persuade any reasonable person, BUT YOU REFUSE TO CLICK THE MOUSE BUTTON,
> have I failed in my "proof"? I think not.
You're a riot Gerry. IF you actually possessed "mormon christian proofs"
and had possessed them for many many years, then all the reasonable
people in the world would now be mormons, making it the only religion in
the world (the unreasonble few of course would be the atheists et al).
Why isn't your religion the biggest/only one in the world Gerry? The
simple answer is that the fiction you call "proof' is rejected by the
reasonable people you say should embrace it.
Mac Roin
Mickey
>On Fri, 18 Sep 1998 17:13:05 GMT, gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
>
>
>
>( 10 points for anyone who can guess what I'm referring to above ! )
Plato's cave analogy from "The Republic". Can I apply my 10 points toward a
pair of religious undies. I hear they're supposed to be very comfy. :)
>
>
>Jake
>atheist #678
>ULC minister.
>E.A.C. member.
>BAAWA scribe #2
>Otherwise known as lilbudha1.
>Remove the word JAKE to send e-mail.
>*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
>" While I was in Africa I shot an elephant in my pajamas.
> How it ever got into my pajamas I'll never know."
> Groucho Marx
>*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
>My pages....
>The HTML Temple... http://internet-temple.hypermart.net/htmltemple1.html
>The Internet Temple.... http://internet-temple.hypermart.net/entrance.html
>Lilbudha1's Comic book review... http://members.aol.com/lilbudha1/comics.html
>Speak! Co-operative Dog Training... http://speak.hypermart.net
>My home page.... http://home.earthlink.net/~lilbudha1
>My XXX home page (adults only).. http://www.nettaxi.com/citizens/lilb1
Mickey (Michelle Malkin) BAAWA knight
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
High Priestess Bastet of the Non-Church Temple of Si & Am
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Men never do evil so completely -- and cheerfully -- as when they do it from
religious conviction. - Blaise Pascal
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
send e-mail to:moc.gnirpsdnim@7bniklam
Ictiobus
>
>So says the shackled man, starring out his cave.
>
>( 10 points for anyone who can guess what I'm referring to above ! )
>
By the way, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Ictiobus
icti...@aol.com
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
> In article <6ttgpb$fc1$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> ri...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > In article <36019162...@news.earthlink.net>,
> > lilbud...@hempseed.com (Jake) wrote:
> > > On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 15:44:21 GMT, gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
> >
> > > What if I were to say that I saw god and that other people will
> > > testify that I saw god and that they have seen angels talk to me ?
> > > Then what if I said that god has told me that the LDS church has gone
> > > astray and that I am now to be your prophet ? Would that make it true
> > > ???
>
> Ahh, the old IFs trick. "If ifs and ands were pots and pans there'd be no
> work for tinkers hands." (Forgive me, I lifted the above from alt.atheism.)
>
> There aren't too many people who have ever claimed to talk with God and/or
> Christ, see angels, etc.
Absolutely WRONG! Just listen to the rantings of your basic preacher any
Sunday morning and you'll hear that 95% talked with God and/or Jesus that
week. Try Oral Roberts and the 900 foot tall Jesus cruising the streets of
Tulsa about 10 years ago. Where do you think Jim Jones, Reverend Ike, and
thousands of others get their "inspiration?" There are millions of people
who claim to have been visited by "personages." I'm satisfied with being
King of the Britons (the who?) because the Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in
the finest samite, held aloft a sword from the bosom of the water, signifying
that I was to carry Excalibur and, by Divine Right, I, Ictiobus, am your
king.
> I don't suppose you have a book of gold plates lying
> around, do you, which has also been seen by 11 independent eyewitnesses?
>
I don't suppose you have the Kabala, seen by BILLIONS of witnesses and KNOWN
to have been placed in Mecca by Allah's hands. Give it up, Geensle. You do
not know whether these plates ever existed or not. You only believe it and
you have never in your life wondered why you believe it.
> Your cavalier attitude about Smith shows that you apparently know little abut
> him.
I've also got a cavalier attitude about him because he was one of two things;
a fraudulent conman or a maybe fourth or fifth rate religious thinker who
decided to start his own religion. Or maybe things just got too far out of
hand for him.
>
> > I was there (wherever that was) . . .
>
> Ahhh, another person of close familiarity with Smith's history.
>
Nah, he's talking about me! He was there when the Lady of the Lake, her arm
clad in the finest shimmering samite...
>
> The irony here is that Smith has now been proven conclusively to have given us
> "revelations" comporting fully with ancient Jewish and authentic Christian
> manuscripts not discovered in Smith's day, discovered thereafter, which verify
> much of Smith's doctrine and teaching as being originally taught by Jesus
> personally.
No such thing has happened. Smith has not been proven to have done anything
remotely like give you a "revelation." As far as any comporting is
concerned, this whole thread has been a clear denial of that. Are you just
dense?
>
> For examples, see my lengthy "Jesus' Henotheism" and/or "Biblical
> Henothenism" posted to alt.religion.mormon last year.
>
Screw Alt.religion.mormon.
> Therefore, IF you can really "produce" a "Holy Rock of Judah" and serious
> contemporary ancient traditions regarding that "Holy Rock of Judah" then you
> might have something to crow about.
As above. My Kabala is bigger than your Kabala.
>
> What you apparently fail to understand is that purportedly ancient histories
> (such as the Book of Mormon or the Bible) partake of their contempoary
> cultural milieu; they can't be faked.
BULLDOOKEY IN EXTREMIS!
> So when we find much ancient
> linguistic, historical, cultural, evidence inside the Book of Mormon -- e.g.
> Hebraisms, chiasmus, Hebrew sentence structure, authentic Egyptian, Hebrew,
> and Arabic names unknown in Smith's day but discovered thereafter, Arabic
> poetry, and all despite its translation from the original Hebrew/Egyptian
> into English -- we know that Smith is not faking it from 19th century
> Americana.
And threw in some Greek names that could not possibly have been known to
MesoAmerican Hebrews! As above, except more of it.
>
> >The translations (the Book of CRRS) will be available for purchase of 29.99 (us
> >dollars only, please).
>
> If you think Smith died a rich man, think again. He was murdered (Lynched) by
> an aroused mob while in jail on a false charge of killing the governor because
> Smith had had the audacity to prophesy that governor's violent death -- a
> prophesy which came true, but not at Smith's nor Mormon hands.
>
Back up a bit on that. The mob that killed Smith (he was shot, not "lynched")
did so because he was in jail under the Illinois governor's protection for
ordering the destruction of the printing presses of a grouup of dissenting
Mormons. Who knows who killed him... they wore disguises.... sorta like the
Mountain Meadow Massacre "Indians."
> > > Jake
> > PRAISE JAKE! Praise the CRRS!
AND THE BRITONS! PRAISE THE BRITONS!!
> >
> Let's see your "writings." I have a hunch they may disappoint me.
>
I've seen yours and I am disppointed..
My bottomline for Geensle is that he take a course in critical thinking and
maybeget into a support group for drug addicts. Addictions as serious as
this need professional help. Don't try it at home.
Ictiobus
Jake
>lilbud...@hempseed.com (Jake) wrote:
>>On Fri, 18 Sep 1998 17:13:05 GMT, gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
>>
>>>What "appeal" is there for atheism? Please explain to me.
>>
>>So says the shackled man, starring out his cave.
>>
>>( 10 points for anyone who can guess what I'm referring to above ! )
>
>Plato's cave analogy from "The Republic". Can I apply my 10 points toward a
>pair of religious undies. I hear they're supposed to be very comfy. :)
Yes it's " The allegory of the cave " by Plato. Very good !!! You may
apply your ten points however you wish.
cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
: On Fri, 18 Sep 1998 17:13:05 GMT, gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
: >What "appeal" is there for atheism? Please explain to me.
: So says the shackled man, starring out his cave.
: ( 10 points for anyone who can guess what I'm referring to above ! )
The Plato-meister! The Plato-tronic! Thinkin' up the ol' Republic!
Makin' the cave analogy!
--
****************************************************************
Men think epilepsy divine merely because they do not
understand it. But if they called everything divine
which they do not understand, why, there would be no
end of divine things.
- Hippocrates of Cos
****************************************************************
zemz...@hotmail.com
icti...@aol.com (Ictiobus) wrote:
>
> >
> >So says the shackled man, starring out his cave.
> >
> >( 10 points for anyone who can guess what I'm referring to above ! )
> >
>
> By the way, what have the Romans ever done for us?
>
> Ictiobus
The aquaduct?
Dave Good
#562 knight of BAAWA
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Jake
>The Plato-meister! The Plato-tronic! Thinkin' up the ol' Republic!
>Makin' the cave analogy!
BINGO !
cdo...@my-dejanews.com
Lord...@iname.com wrote:
snip
> It gets worse: The Mormon mythologies are just as fraught with scientific
> flaws, forgery, and contradictions as Christian mythology is. For instance,
> the Mormon mythologies mistakenly claim that elephants were in North America
> long before they were introduced by Europeans. Woops!
Wooly mammoths look alot like elephants, and they were in America.
>
> And, of course, none of the archeological claims that the Mormon myths make
> are true; not a one of them.
Really? Why not post that statement over in alt.religion.mormon.
Best regards,
Charles dowis
Chani
cdo...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6u15mh$94s$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <iCEK1.119$_06.6...@news6.ispnews.com>,
> Lord...@iname.com wrote:
>snip
>> It gets worse: The Mormon mythologies are just as fraught with
scientific
>> flaws, forgery, and contradictions as Christian mythology is. For
instance,
>> the Mormon mythologies mistakenly claim that elephants were in North
America
>> long before they were introduced by Europeans. Woops!
>
>Wooly mammoths look alot like elephants, and they were in America.
>>
>> And, of course, none of the archeological claims that the Mormon myths
make
>> are true; not a one of them.
>
>Really? Why not post that statement over in alt.religion.mormon.
Why can't defend against them on your own? Need a pack of rabid god soaked
dogs to help you defend your position? There is no archealogical evidence
to support the Mormon myth and never shall be.
Chani, Atheist #1118; Slave Girl # 1: Nirfur High Priest #2:
ULC Minister #19 The Holy See - Church of Fantome Scientists
cov...@concentric.net ICQ #12345332
The atheist map is located at
http://www.angelfire.com/nv/Loreleis/index.html
Sign my guest book at:
http://homepages.infoseek.com/~chanileslie/chanileslie.html
**********************************************************
"Look, biology is such an inexact science, and for
every step forward we must take 2 in reverse, and
at any rate we said we're sorry, so can we get our
funding back so we can pay our bail and go
home?" - Two Gnomish Scientists after accidentally
unleashing the phase-shifting doppleganging
firebreathing hyperintellegent Giant space hampster.
**********************************************************
>
>
Chani
Jake wrote in message <360592cd...@news.earthlink.net>...
>On Sun, 20 Sep 1998 02:40:03 GMT, zemz...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>> I have no comment on real religious dummies.
>>
>
>OH !! OH !!! ME !!!
>If he has no comment on religious dummies, then why does he insult
>them by calling them dummies ? Obviously he's already commented on
>them when he calls them dummies.
>
>What's my prize ?
An all expense paid trip to rationality. You may collect you prize upon
exiting the delusional state. :-)
Chani, Atheist #1118; Slave Girl # 1: Nirfur High Priest #2:
ULC Minister #19 The Holy See - Church of Fantome Scientists
cov...@concentric.net ICQ #12345332
The atheist map is located at
http://www.angelfire.com/nv/Loreleis/index.html
Sign my guest book at:
http://homepages.infoseek.com/~chanileslie/chanileslie.html
**********************************************************
"Look, biology is such an inexact science, and for
every step forward we must take 2 in reverse, and
at any rate we said we're sorry, so can we get our
funding back so we can pay our bail and go
home?" - Two Gnomish Scientists after accidentally
unleashing the phase-shifting doppleganging
firebreathing hyperintellegent Giant space hampster.
**********************************************************
>
>Jake
>atheist #678
>ULC minister.
>E.A.C. member.
>BAAWA scribe #2
>Otherwise known as lilbudha1.
>Remove the word JAKE to send e-mail.
>*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
>" While I was in Africa I shot an elephant in my pajamas.
> How it ever got into my pajamas I'll never know."
> Groucho Marx
>*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
>My pages....
>The HTML Temple... http://internet-temple.hypermart.net/htmltemple1.html
>The Internet Temple.... http://internet-temple.hypermart.net/entrance.html
>Lilbudha1's Comic book review...
http://members.aol.com/lilbudha1/comics.html
>Speak! Co-operative Dog Training... http://speak.hypermart.net
>My home page.... http://home.earthlink.net/~lilbudha1
>My XXX home page (adults only).. http://www.nettaxi.com/citizens/lilb1
>Super Asia !!!... (adults only).. http://superasia.x2z.com
Mac Roin
> If there is a Final Judgment for all persons on this earth,
**
IF Gerry? IF?
How come you suddenly let reality slip in here.
You're slipping.
Mac Roin
zemz...@hotmail.com
Gerry Ensley once again displays his ignorance, dishonesty, and stupidity...
> In article <6tscr7$b29$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> icti...@aol.com wrote:
> > In article <6trdvl$8lj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
> > > In article <FV4M1.79$qi5....@news14.ispnews.com>,
> > > 'Lord of Posts' <thed...@tsoft.com> wrote:
> > > > gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
> > > >
> >
> > > I have serious reservations about the accuracy of some Biblical events,
> > > reports, and teachings.
> >
> > Where is your doubt about the B of M? Where is your willingness to ask the
> > same questions of it that you are about every other religion? You seem to
> > have a healthy doubt about other religions (how about Gabriel giving Mahomet
> > the Quran?) but then you exhibit an incredible credulousness with regard to
> > this one. What, exactly, is the origin of your psychological addiction to
> > this piece of pseudo-religious literature. Are you a recent convert?
Reared
> > a Mormon?
>
> You apparently don't know much about Mormon theology. It is so different
> from orthodox Christianity, so meaningful,
And we all know that if something is meaningful and different from something
else, it is true.
> and so provable historically,
<Sigh> So you bleat and bleat and bleat and bleat, and bleat your "proof"
again, never counting the evidence against it, never mentioning it, and not
including it when you bleat your proof even after people have pointed it out
to you.
> that
> one need not doubt its accuracy nor veracity -- except as to common doubt as
> to any historical event.
Oh, really? So there would be no increased doubt, if say, someone claimed
that Catherine the great had died fucking a dragon instead of a horse?
>
> All historical religions suffer from the latter kind of "doubt," if you call
> it that.
>
All historical religions suffer from the same sort of doubt as the book of
Mormon? No more? No less?
That puts you in lousy company.
> What "appeal" is there for atheism? Please explain to me.
>
Appeal? Was ist das appeal, bitte?
Well, there's the fact that there's no "divine revelations" (which are oddly
coincidental with the preconcieved viewpoint of the person having the
revelation) against irrational things. For instance, people can enjoy the
health benefits of moderate alcohol consumption. (Clinically proven to
reduce the probability of heart disease, although 'god' apparently doesn't
have access to medical journals on the planet Kolob and thinks differently).
Just to name one little example.
> I see the major "difference" between our two ways of thinking to be simply
> that I will "stand in judgment" before God to be "judged" according to my
> works/deeds/thoughts/accomplishments/failures, i.e. my use/abuse of my
> personal freedom, whereas you think you apparently will not be so judged.
>
I see the major difference is the fact that you don't mind lying to support
what you call the 'truth.' You've shown yourself to be morally inferior to
most humans in this thread by repeatedly telling half-truths. Right now
you're ranked with used-car salesmen and defense attorneys. And the case
you're making for the BoM couldn't get O.J. off.
> The above is one reason "religious" people tend to mistrust "atheists," i.e.
> the latter apparently have no sense of duty to be moral nor to act "against"
> their own personal, immediate interests.
>
The above I wrote is why a lot of people don't trust you. You're dishonest.
And an amoral sack of shit, apparently, as you apparently have no sense of
duty to be moral without threat of an afterlife judgment and don't see how
others can.
> I know the above is a stereotype. But it's no worse, I suppose, than
> atheists' stereotyping of "religious" folks as "dumb."
>
Fallacy: tu quoque.
And you're stereotyping once again by saying atheists think religious folks
aren't intelligent. Most atheists here can appreciate and respect the
intelligent theists here. You can't generalize on atheists' reactions to you,
because you're a moron and many religious people aren't.
> If there is a Final Judgment for all persons on this earth, then "religious"
> folks (intelligently conforming their conduct to high moral standards) MAY
> turn out to be "smarter" in the end than "atheists," mightn't they?
Gee, hoo-da-thunk-it. A theist, apparently so secure in his belief, so
utterly confident that he is right, spouts pascal's wager, the last refuge of
the closet agnostic who is attempting to spread his sickness to everyone on
earth so as to beat the last remnants of the rational part of his brain into
submission.
And once again pulls out his stereotype about atheists being immoral.
>
> I have no comment on real religious dummies.
Fallacy: contradiction (prize to anyone who can tell me why)
<snip proboscidean lies>
> > The 1960s???? I'd like to do some follow-up on this but I ain't got the
> > time. Were these guys on acid? Why is it that here in the 90s we have the
> > best sources on mastodonts and mammoths referring to an extinction of about
6
> > kiloyears BP? Don't they read the works of the 60s? Or is there better
> > evidence, better measurement methods? Could be!
>
> Better "measurement" for extinctions which occurred centuries ago? You're
> looking for "up to the minute" evidence of extinctions? Is there some
> "inconsistency" here?
Would you like some dressing with your word salad?
Better measurement of the c14 tests, since the tests have been getting more
and more accurate since they were invented.
>
> I agree that "later" scientific data may be presumably more accurate than
> earlier scientific data.
And, gee, I can't fathom someone re-radiocarbon dating something to get a more
accurate reading, and then falsifying something so long ago that no one even
hears about it any more?
> But "extinctions" are absences, i.e. non-data,
> missing evidence, gone, kaput.
Which is possibly what you have, seeing as how the best up-to-date sources do
not refer to a 2 kiloyears extinction but a 6 kiloyears extinction.
> > > This means, of course, that the Book of Mormon is in fact true, precisely
as
> > > Joseph Smith claimed it to be.
> > >
> > Hoo, boy are you deluded about what "proof" is.
>
> Well, true about the "elephants," at least.
>
> Does prove that Smith's apparent "blunder" by mentioning elephants inside the
> B of M was not no "blunderous" after all, doesn't it?
>
It does, *if* your 1960's-era carbon-dating proves accurate, *if* anyone even
bothers to review your claims, seeing as how you've proven your dishonesty
and the dishonest nature of Mormon archaeological apologetics in general. It
is also idiotic to imply prescience on Smith's part by inclusion of the
'elephants', as you continue to speciously refer to hair-covered mammoths and
mastodons (where's the reference to 'elephant' hair in the book of mormon,
BTW?)
<snip>
> >
<snip>
> There are, of course, monumental depictions of elephant trunks by Mayas of
> Uxmal (about 500 A.D.) in Yucatan. Even if extinct by then elephants were
> preserved in living memory by ancient Mayan artisans.
>
Have you ever seen Uxmal? The only thing I've seen in photos of the place
that even marginally look like elephant trunks are the spiralling lines along
the sides of one of the pyramids. All the art there is abstrat, and it's
hard to tell what the obvious faces belong to. But hey, if it's
faith-promoting to say some abstract art is elephant trunks, I guess that
means the book of mormon's true.
(Anyone wonder why the URL Gerry directed me to did not have one single
picture and numerous references to precolombian horse and elephant
pictographs?)
Dave Good
#562 knight of BAAWA
Jake
>> I have no comment on real religious dummies.
>
>Fallacy: contradiction (prize to anyone who can tell me why)
OH !! OH !!! ME !!!
If he has no comment on religious dummies, then why does he insult
them by calling them dummies ? Obviously he's already commented on
them when he calls them dummies.
What's my prize ?
Jake
zemz...@hotmail.com
flow...@ihug.co.nz (Mac Roin) wrote:
> <gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us> wrote: (edited)
>
> > If there is a Final Judgment for all persons on this earth,
> IF Gerry? IF?
>
> How come you suddenly let reality slip in here.
>
> You're slipping.
>
evidence in order to back up his claims. His first 'evidence' posted was that
of the bat creek cave stone. He failed to include many relevant facts about
the stone which weaken its case, and I posted them. A day later, he was
posting the exact same thing he'd posted before, without any retuttal to or
mention of the new information.
Gerry doesn't care about the truth at all; he cares about winning converts
to his religion.
Dave Good
#562 knight of BAAWA
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
zemz...@hotmail.com
> >
> >Fallacy: contradiction (prize to anyone who can tell me why)
>
> If he has no comment on religious dummies, then why does he insult
> them by calling them dummies ? Obviously he's already commented on
> them when he calls them dummies.
Not exactly, but that works too. I was looking for the fact that he
was commenting on a religious dummy's (namely himself)lack of comments on
religous dummies.
> What's my prize ?
>
Chani already guessed it.
(What, you expected a *decent* prize?)
Jake
>
>Jake wrote in message <360592cd...@news.earthlink.net>...
>>On Sun, 20 Sep 1998 02:40:03 GMT, zemz...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>> I have no comment on real religious dummies.
>>>
>>>Fallacy: contradiction (prize to anyone who can tell me why)
>>
>>OH !! OH !!! ME !!!
>>If he has no comment on religious dummies, then why does he insult
>>them by calling them dummies ? Obviously he's already commented on
>>them when he calls them dummies.
>>
>>What's my prize ?
>
>An all expense paid trip to rationality. You may collect you prize upon
>exiting the delusional state. :-)
Hell no. States of delusion can be fun !!!
Why do you think we have beer ????
Chani
Jake wrote in message <36053b5...@news.earthlink.net>...
>On 19 Sep 1998 23:08:13 PDT, "Chani" <ath...@thereisnogod.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Jake wrote in message <360592cd...@news.earthlink.net>...
>>>On Sun, 20 Sep 1998 02:40:03 GMT, zemz...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Fallacy: contradiction (prize to anyone who can tell me why)
>>>
>>>If he has no comment on religious dummies, then why does he insult
>>>them by calling them dummies ? Obviously he's already commented on
>>>them when he calls them dummies.
>>>
>>>What's my prize ?
>>
>>An all expense paid trip to rationality. You may collect you prize upon
>>exiting the delusional state. :-)
>
>Hell no. States of delusion can be fun !!!
>Why do you think we have beer ????
Well you ask what the prize was!! If you wish to reject the prize you need
to fill out form 22-34A in triplicate and send it to contest headquarters.
Make sure you fill it out completely otherwise, your supplication may be
rejected.
Chani, Atheist #1118; Slave Girl # 1: Nirfur High Priest #2:
ULC Minister #19 The Holy See - Church of Fantome Scientists
cov...@concentric.net ICQ #12345332
The atheist map is located at
http://www.angelfire.com/nv/Loreleis/index.html
Sign my guest book at:
http://homepages.infoseek.com/~chanileslie/chanileslie.html
**********************************************************
"Look, biology is such an inexact science, and for
every step forward we must take 2 in reverse, and
at any rate we said we're sorry, so can we get our
funding back so we can pay our bail and go
home?" - Two Gnomish Scientists after accidentally
unleashing the phase-shifting doppleganging
firebreathing hyperintellegent Giant space hampster.
**********************************************************
>
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us
flow...@ihug.co.nz (Mac Roin) wrote:
> <gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us> wrote: (edited)
>
> IF Gerry? IF?
>
> How come you suddenly let reality slip in here.
>
> You're slipping.
>
>
IF there is NO Final Judgment, then I'm STILL (probably) "better off" in the
long run than you, who assumes NO Final Judgment. Perhaps I won't have had as
much "fun" as you, but then again I'll not have done too many things for which
I'm afraid to be held accountable personally.
The above was essentially Pascal's Wager, which will, undoubtedly, trigger a
landslide of perturbed responses from my atheist friends.
You are apparently willing to "shoot craps" on the existence of God, Final
Judgment, etc., including your own final destiny.
I, on the other hand, am "hedging" my bets.
Which do you think is the more intelligent course? Especially when, unlike
orthodox Christianity, Mormon Christianity is so consistent, meaningful,
well-designed, and true.
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us
cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () wrote:
> Jake (lilbud...@hempseed.com) wrote:
> : On Fri, 18 Sep 1998 17:13:05 GMT, gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
>
>
> : So says the shackled man, starring out his cave.
>
> : ( 10 points for anyone who can guess what I'm referring to above ! )
>
> Makin' the cave analogy!
>
> ****************************************************************
> Men think epilepsy divine merely because they do not
> understand it. But if they called everything divine
> which they do not understand, why, there would be no
> end of divine things.
> - Hippocrates of Cos
> ****************************************************************
Indeed, orthodox Christianity (and other religions) have made Hippocrates'
mistake of calling our human ignorance "religion." That's precisely why
"religion" has (properly) shrunk so much modernly, to the general benefit of
humanity and expansion of science.
Science and religion are (despite their history of Western conflicts aplenty)
not opposed to each other.
What evidence have you that mankind is looking at shadows instead of reality?
Even near-death experiences seem to have scientific validation today.
Just because classical Judeo/Christian theism has failed to prove itself
correct, doesn't mean that Mormon Christianity is in the same boat. It
isnn't.
cdo...@my-dejanews.com
"Chani" <ath...@thereisnogod.com> wrote:
>
> cdo...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6u15mh$94s$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >In article <iCEK1.119$_06.6...@news6.ispnews.com>,
> > Lord...@iname.com wrote:
> >snip
> >> It gets worse: The Mormon mythologies are just as fraught with
> scientific
> >> flaws, forgery, and contradictions as Christian mythology is. For
> instance,
> >> the Mormon mythologies mistakenly claim that elephants were in North
> America
> >> long before they were introduced by Europeans. Woops!
> >
> >Wooly mammoths look alot like elephants, and they were in America.
> >>
> >> And, of course, none of the archeological claims that the Mormon myths
> make
> >> are true; not a one of them.
> >
> >Really? Why not post that statement over in alt.religion.mormon.
>
> Why can't defend against them on your own? Need a pack of rabid god soaked
> dogs to help you defend your position?
You win the gross-out contest hands down. There is nothing more to say to
you.
Congratulations.
Best of luck
Charles dowis
yang hu
a god that is dumb enough to be fooled into a hedge, a real devout
worshipper you are....
> Which do you think is the more intelligent course? Especially when, unlike
> orthodox Christianity, Mormon Christianity is so consistent, meaningful,
> well-designed, and true.
Aren't you the folks who think that the American Indians are the twelve
lost tribe of Isreal, despite the fact that American Indians have Asian
physical characteristics?
Yang
#28
Jake
>Indeed, orthodox Christianity (and other religions) have made Hippocrates'
>mistake of calling our human ignorance "religion." That's precisely why
>"religion" has (properly) shrunk so much modernly, to the general benefit of
>humanity and expansion of science.
>
>Science and religion are (despite their history of Western conflicts aplenty)
>not opposed to each other.
>
>What evidence have you that mankind is looking at shadows instead of reality?
>Even near-death experiences seem to have scientific validation today.
>
>Just because classical Judeo/Christian theism has failed to prove itself
>correct, doesn't mean that Mormon Christianity is in the same boat. It
>isnn't.
Your talking symantics now (and I'm always up for some antics).
Mormonism fails the same way x-tianity fails. Mormonism claims an
omnipotent god, which there can't be, and mormonism clings on to the
"no fact whatsoever of actually happening" sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
Which by the way, I don't really understand how someone dying then
coming back to life is really a sacrifice anyway.