Glenn Kimball is Mormon Pimp
coyo...@my-dejanews.com
> >> xmo...@thegrid.net (Errno Mobay) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Glenn Kimball is Mormon Pimp. All of his fabricated pseudo-science has
> >> >one purpose: to support the Mormon party-line about Joseph Smith's
> >> >tablets
n article <71j542$jl2$1...@us4.usit.net>,
"betty brown" <bbr...@cococo.net> wrote:
> what is wrong with mormons?
> i married a mormon 3 months ago
> im a southern baptist
The question isn't "whats wrong with Mormons" (or baptists) the question is
what is wrong with the Mormon religion (and Christianity in general). The
Mormon religion stifles free thought by imposing ridicules theories about
various aspects of human existence. for example the origin of Native
Americans on the American Continent. Mormons can be great neighbors and
friends but they are usually poor anthropologists since they have already
decided what it is they are looking for. Most LDS Anthropologists working in
South America are trying to make the evidence fit the Book of Mormon. That's
not science. If you visit Glenn Kimball's web site,
http://www.nvo.com/jesus/pages/view/index.nhtml
you will notice a picture depicting various characters that the caption claims
visited the Ancient America's. I instantly recognized some of these characters
as characters from Joseph Smiths "Book of Mormon".(as presented in LDS primary
classes etc.) Also the way these characters are set up in the picture carries
through a common Moromon theme (notice how the aryans are "up" on the rock and
the dark skinned "savages" are below them and seem to be "confronting" them.
Here is the link to the enlarged photo
http://www.nvo.com/jesus/pages/view/gallery.nhtml?UID=1189
also viewing the headlines on the front of the various magazines advertised
on the site show other Mormon themes ie: "New World Migration" "pre-columbian
blacks---from Africa, or elsewhere?" "shared star lore of ancient egypt and
pre-historic america" (Joseph Smith is said to have translated the gold
plates from "reformed egyptian)"Ancient Gold in Illiois" and last but not
least "The Indian legend of Moroni" (Moroni is a character from the Book of
Mormon) These articles may or may not be true, I dont know, but manyy of the
headlines are direct references to Mormon ideas about the initail inhabitants
of the new world. On other places in his site Kimball sells his book (taking
a break from archeology) called "Hidden Stories of the Childhood of Jesus"
Kimballs web site presents an interesting mix of archeology and Christianity.
If he is not a Mormon he is at least trying to incorporate Mormon myths into
his work. This is evident by the first picture representing characters from
the Book of Mormon. Spencer W. Kimball was the Prophet of the LDS Church in
the 70's and the Kimball name goes back a long time in the history of
Mormons in Salt Lake City (Where Glenn Kimball lives) these are just hints
but that is all we have as Glenn Kimball is determined to only let out the
facts about himself that he wants known. After I e-mailed him suggesting that
it might be a little dis-honest to not disclose his relationship to the LDS
Church he sent me back an e-mail blabbing on about how his religion has
nothing to do with his science. After I bluntly asked him "Are you a member
of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons)" Glenn Kimball
decided to end our e-mail conversation and I did not get an answer to his
question. I am not saying that I know all the anwers here but something
smells fishy and Kimballs evasivness adds to my suspicions.
hope that helps
Watson Dalton
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
xspamx...@gte.net
I understand. You are accusing an entire group of people of making
'facts' fit their goal. And yet you decide that you must make your
'facts' support your goal about his religion. No wonder you listen to
Art Bell - you seem to have a mental weakness in logical thought
processes and a predisposition to faulty logic.
Remove the nospam from address line to reply via email
Robert J Davis
Debby Sobwick
doing is selling things on his website<sigh>. It's not even worth
looking
at.
Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
coyo...@my-dejanews.com
sarg...@injersey.com wrote:
>
> > > im a southern baptist
> Dear Watson: You link is full of bugs.
Care to point them out?
Not only that all Glen Kimbell is
> doing is selling things on his website<sigh>. It's not even worth
> looking
> at.
> Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Debby,
If you can't point out specific reasons for why I am wrong then why are you
answering this post at all? I don't get your reply, it simply says that I am
wrong and nothing more. Why are you wasting my time and yours?
coyo...@my-dejanews.com
mx wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Nov 1998 20:35:01 GMT, coyo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >
> >> >> xmo...@thegrid.net (Errno Mobay) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Glenn Kimball is Mormon Pimp. All of his fabricated pseudo-science has
> >> >> >one purpose: to support the Mormon party-line about Joseph Smith's
> >> >> >tablets
> >
> >
> >n article <71j542$jl2$1...@us4.usit.net>,
> > "betty brown" <bbr...@cococo.net> wrote:
> >> what is wrong with mormons?
> >> i married a mormon 3 months ago
> >> im a southern baptist
> >
> >The question isn't "whats wrong with Mormons" (or baptists) the question is
> >what is wrong with the Mormon religion (and Christianity in general). The
> >Mormon religion stifles free thought by imposing ridicules theories about
> >various aspects of human existence. for example the origin of Native
> >Americans on the American Continent. Mormons can be great neighbors and
> >friends but they are usually poor anthropologists since they have already
> >decided what it is they are looking for. Most LDS Anthropologists working in
> >South America are trying to make the evidence fit the Book of Mormon. That's
> I understand. You are accusing an entire group of people of making
> 'facts' fit their goal. And yet you decide that you must make your
> 'facts' support your goal about his religion. No wonder you listen to
> Art Bell - you seem to have a mental weakness in logical thought
> processes and a predisposition to faulty logic.
I am sorry that you feel the need to attack my "faulty logic" without
pointing out the weak links in my "arguement". If I am the one with faulty
logic then why can't you show where I am wrong here. My post tells what I
think about Glenn kimball. You will note that i make no direct accusations,
my post is based on what I think after investigating Glenn Kimball. I also
have a background in Mormonism so I am able to look for similarities where
others might not see them. If you can refute the claims made in my original
post do so by all means. Otherwise quit wasting my time. To prove that
someone is using "faulty logic" you have to show where the logic breaks down.
I am sick of you stupid fuckers like you who can't debate or hold a
conversation but can spend three minutes typing (with one finger) F . A .U. l
T y L. o G I C Try again fuckhead
Frater Ditton Wilson member Temple of the Psychic Skeptics
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us
coyo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <71tuqb$6di$1...@news-1.news.gte.net>,
> mx wrote:
> > On Thu, 05 Nov 1998 20:35:01 GMT, coyo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >> >> xmo...@thegrid.net (Errno Mobay) wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >Glenn Kimball is Mormon Pimp. All of his fabricated pseudo-science
>has one purpose: to support the Mormon party-line about Joseph Smith's tablets
> > >
> > >
> > >n article <71j542$jl2$1...@us4.usit.net>,
> > > "betty brown" <bbr...@cococo.net> wrote:
> > >> what is wrong with mormons?
> > >> i married a mormon 3 months ago
> > >> im a southern baptist
> > >
> > >The question isn't "whats wrong with Mormons" (or baptists) the question is
> > >what is wrong with the Mormon religion (and Christianity in general). The
> > >Mormon religion stifles free thought by imposing ridicules theories about
> > >various aspects of human existence. for example the origin of Native
> > >Americans on the American Continent.
Mormon Christianity has NEVER claimed that ALL Native Americans came from
Jerusalem 600 B.C. Only that SOME of them did.
With the following caption on his home page, Kimball is hardly "hiding" the
fact of his LDS "Mission" to others on the 'Net:
Managing Director
gkim...@xmission.com
PO Box 526085
Salt Lake City , UT 84152-6085
U.S.A.
Respectfully,
Gerry L.Ensley.
Rev. Dr Tim, McC, BsD
>Mormon Christianity has NEVER claimed that ALL Native Americans came
from
>Jerusalem 600 B.C. Only that SOME of them did.
Unless there has been a recent change in the doctrine, you are wrong.
Mormons believe that all Native Americans are descendents of the
Lamanites, Nephites, and Jaredites. True, the Jaredites arrived
centuries before Nephi's family, but they were Jews as well.
>With the following caption on his home page, Kimball is hardly "hiding"
the
>fact of his LDS "Mission" to others on the 'Net:
> Managing Director
> gkim...@xmission.com
xmission.com is just another ISP. Even gentiles (non-Mormons in
Mormonspeak--Jews are also gentiles) can be xmission.com clients.
Rev. Dr. Tim, McC, BsD
Art Bell, Dr. Laura, Militia Satire Websites
http://extra.newsguy.com/~satire
Watching the rise of the American Taliban
What ever happened to Whitewater?
Ultimate alt.paranormal Overseer
Have you offered a heart to Tezcatlipoca today?
ZOG Agent
Grand Inquisitor, STTMI (What is STTMI)
artd-l Cornholio
Psychic Vampire
Jackal, Ava Cairo's Palace of Jackals
Official Jackyl, Pack O'Jackyls (TM)
Order of the ILK
Skepticultist
Master Baiter
Proper Usenet Authority
High Counselor, New Usenet Order
certified psychic
ECPWHKbA
ECPWAODTb
Lord Supreme Being and Reigning Monarch of afa-b
Owner of a super-inflated ego
coyo...@my-dejanews.com
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
>
> > I am sick of you stupid fuckers like you who can't debate or hold a
> > conversation but can spend three minutes typing (with one finger) F . A .U.
l
> > T y L. o G I C Try again fuckhead
> >
> > Frater Ditton Wilson member Temple of the Psychic Skeptics
> >
>
> With the following caption on his home page, Kimball is hardly "hiding" the
> fact of his LDS "Mission" to others on the 'Net:
>
> Managing Director
> gkim...@xmission.com
> PO Box 526085
> Salt Lake City , UT 84152-6085
> U.S.A.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Gerry L.Ensley.
Gerry, That caught my eye also but I just because someone lives in Salt Lake
City does not mean that they are Mormon. Anyone listening to Art Bells show
and following the links to Kimball's URL would have no idea that he is
connected to the LDS Church. The SLC adress and the xmission.com e-mail
adress mean nothing untill they are added to the other things that I pointed
out in my post.ie- the nature of the books and magazines that Kimball sells.
I see this as deceptive because the LDS Church has a long history of
converting people without telling them the whole story behind their Church.
Kimball takes this one step farther be trying to convince people of the
validity of Church doctrine without even telling them that it is doctrine.
This way when the LDS missionaries knock on the door the people who have
subscribed to Kimballs magazine will think that they came up with it
themselves. Wilson Frater Ditton Wilson member Temple of the Psychic
Skeptics
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
coyo...@my-dejanews.com
is
> > > >what is wrong with the Mormon religion (and Christianity in general). The
> > > >Mormon religion stifles free thought by imposing ridicules theories about
> > > >various aspects of human existence. for example the origin of Native
> > > >Americans on the American Continent.
>
> Mormon Christianity has NEVER claimed that ALL Native Americans came from
> Jerusalem 600 B.C. Only that SOME of them did.
Ahh. You are wrong here. Joseph Smith did not ever distinguish between which
native American tribes were the descendents of Jews and which were not.
Spencer W Kimball, while president of the LDS Church in the 70's repeatedly
refered to ANY Native Americans that he came across as Lamanites, the name
Joseph Smith gave to the "dark and loathsome" Jewish tribe that killed the
aryans. In recent years Mormon apologists, recognizing that the
"lamanite/nephite" history of the America's does not hold water, have begun
to back away like you are. By saying that only SOME of the NAtive Americans
are mentioned in the Book of Mormon, the Mormons are able to take the heat
off of themselves in the debate. Any research into the subject will show that
this is a new interpretation of the Book of Mormon that has appeared only in
the last ten or twenty years. Nice try though.
> >Mormons can be great neighbors and friends but they are usually poor
> >anthropologists since they have already decided what it is they are looking
> >for. Most LDS Anthropologists working in South America are trying to make the
> >evidence fit the Book of Mormon. That's not science. If you visit Glenn
> >Kimball's web site,
> > > >
> > > >http://www.nvo.com/jesus/pages/view/index.nhtml
> > > >
> > > >you will notice a picture depicting various characters that the caption
> > claims visited the Ancient America's. I instantly recognized some of these
> > characters as characters from Joseph Smiths "Book of Mormon".(as presented
in
> LDS primary classes etc.) Also the way these characters are set up in the
> picture carries through a common Moromon theme (notice how the aryans are "up"
> on the rock and the dark skinned "savages" are below them and seem to be
> "confronting" them.
> > > >Here is the link to the enlarged photo
>
> > > >http://www.nvo.com/jesus/pages/view/gallery.nhtml?UID=1189
> > > >
> > > >also viewing the headlines on the front of the various magazines
advertised
-snip- lengthy explanation - do the math yourself
Frater Wilson
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us
coyo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <72aeuc$90s$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
> >
> > > I am sick of you stupid fuckers like you who can't debate or hold a
> > > conversation but can spend three minutes typing (with one finger) F . A
.U.
> l
> > > T y L. o G I C Try again fuckhead
> > >
> > > Frater Ditton Wilson member Temple of the Psychic Skeptics
> > >
> >
> > With the following caption on his home page, Kimball is hardly "hiding" the
> > fact of his LDS "Mission" to others on the 'Net:
> >
> > Managing Director
> > gkim...@xmission.com
> > PO Box 526085
> > Salt Lake City , UT 84152-6085
> > U.S.A.
> >
> > Respectfully,
> >
> > Gerry L.Ensley.
>
> City does not mean that they are Mormon. Anyone listening to Art Bells show
> and following the links to Kimball's URL would have no idea that he is
> connected to the LDS Church. The SLC adress and the xmission.com e-mail
> adress mean nothing untill they are added to the other things that I pointed
> out in my post.ie- the nature of the books and magazines that Kimball sells.
> I see this as deceptive because the LDS Church has a long history of
> converting people without telling them the whole story behind their Church.
> Kimball takes this one step farther be trying to convince people of the
> validity of Church doctrine without even telling them that it is doctrine.
> This way when the LDS missionaries knock on the door the people who have
> subscribed to Kimballs magazine will think that they came up with it
> Skeptics
I'm not sure what you mean by "deceptive because the LDS Church has a long
history of converting people without telling them the whole story behind
their Church." If recollection serves me the idea of a man or woman's
"eternal progression" is the 5th of 6 missionary lessons which are given at
the doorstep (or inside the house, if allowed inside to do so), hence are
given "up front" and no deception at all.
Huge "differences" between orthodox classical philosophical theism and Mormon
Christianity only develop later for those few who take time and effort to
analyze orthodox Christian monotheistic assumptions and trace the human,
lengthy, historical origins of the Bible. Only in the latter case are the
fallacies of orthodox Christianity brought out and contrasted with Smith's
divinely "restored" original Gospel of Jesus, who also taught "eternal
progression" of mankind from its pre-existent birth in Heaven to possible
resurrection to Godhood after mortal life is over. See John 10, esp. 34-36,
quoting verbatim Ps. 82:6, "we are Children of the Most High" (stated in open
during an "assembly of the Gods" Ps. 82:1, but now "deceptively" concealed by
orthodox Christianity, which doesn't want to admit Jesus' ideas of many Gods
and human pre-existence before their mortality -- same as Jesus' own
pre-existence, "logos" -- John 1:1.
Why doesn't orthodox Christianity "come clean" and state plainly its reliance
upon Hellenistic philosophical monotheism, rather than upon the Bible, which
teaches Mormon Christanity, nor orthodox monotheism.
Of course, the Bible itself is faulty for failing to incorporate ALL the words
of Jesus, e.g. upon Jesus' plain teaching of human pre-existence:
> "(49) Jesus said: Blessed (makarios) are the solitary (monakos) and
> elect, for you shall find the Kingdom; because you come from
> it, (and) you shall go there again (palin).
> (50) Jesus said: If they say to you: 'From where have you
> originated?', say to them: 'We have come from the Light, where the
> Light has originated through itself. It [stood] and it revealed itself
> in their image (eikon).' If they say to you: '(Who) are you?' [or 'It is
> you'], say: 'We are His sons and we are the elect of the Living
> Father'. If they ask you: "What is the sign of your Father in you?',
> say to them: 'It is a movement and a rest' (anapausis).'
> (83) Jesus said: The images (eikon) are manifest to man and Light
> which is within them is hidden in the Images(eikon) of the Light of the
> Father. He will manifest himself and His Image (eikon) is concealed by
> His Light.
> (84) Jesus said: When you see your likeness, you rejoice. But(de) when
> (otan) you see your images (eikon) which came into existence before
> you,(which) neither (oute) die nor(oute) are manifested, how much will
> you [be able to] bear!
> (19) Jesus said: Blessed (makarios) is he who was before he came into
> being . . . ."
> "Gospel According to Thomas," newly discovered at Nag Hammadi,
> Egypt, 1945.
These words from the very mouth of Jesus Himself plainly OUGHT to have been
included inside the New Testament, correct? Yet they were EXCLUDED from the
New Testament. Why? For what purpose? Why were orthodox Catholic churchmen
so reluctant to include these words of Jesus into the then forming New
Testament?
Is Jesus' understanding here that mankind is ALREADY born in Heaven as real
Children of Heavenly Father too "literal" to be allowed INTO the Bible?
BTW: If mankind, you and I, existed PRIOR to our mortal birth here on earth
as a spirit Child of our Heavenly Father, isn't it likely that we shall
continue to live AFTER death as well? If human birth be a "uniting" of our
pre-existent individual spirit with our mortal body at physical conception
inside our mother's womb, and death is merely the separation of the
birth-joined spirit + physical body, then why can't that same immortal spirit
continue to live apart from its mortal body, later to become physically
resurrected to live forever?
It is no wonder Jesus was accused and (properly) convicted of "blasphemy."
Jesus was in fact "blaspheming" then contemporary Judaism (John 10 again) with
its then syncretistic Hellenistic philosophical monotheism of absolute,
omnipotent, singular God. This extreme monotheism verily provoked most of the
early controversies in the early Church, leading to the creedal nonsense we
enjoy today as orthodox Christianity. Jesus taught otherwise.
Why is orthodox Christianity so "deceptive" as to OMIT this important teaching
of human pre-existence taught by the very mouth of Jesus personally, yet
suppressed from the Bible? Why?
Respectfully,
Gerry L. Ensley.
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us
"Rev. Dr Tim, McC, BsD" <Dr_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
>
> >Mormon Christianity has NEVER claimed that ALL Native Americans came
> from Jerusalem 600 B.C. Only that SOME of them did.
>
> Mormons believe that all Native Americans are descendents of the
> Lamanites, Nephites, and Jaredites. True, the Jaredites arrived
> centuries before Nephi's family, but they were Jews as well.
>
Rev. Dr. Tim, McC, BsD
Art Bell, Dr. Laura, Militia Satire Websites
http://extra.newsguy.com/~satire
I respectfully suggest you locate ANY statement BY SMITH, not his friends or
followers, who ever stated that ALL Amerindians stem from B of M peoples. You
won't find it.
Joseph Smith, as I noted elsewhere, sometimes "suffers" at the hands of his
loyal and often too boasting friends and followers (and family members).
Respectfully,
Gerry L. Ensley.
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us
coyo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <72aeuc$90s$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
> stion
> > > > >what is wrong with the Mormon religion (and Christianity in general).
The Mormon religion stifles free thought by imposing ridicules theories
about various aspects of human existence. for example the origin of Native
> > > > >Americans on the American Continent.
> >
> > Mormon Christianity has NEVER claimed that ALL Native Americans came from
> > Jerusalem 600 B.C. Only that SOME of them did.
>
> native American tribes were the descendents of Jews and which were not.
Even if that were true, and I'm not so sure it is, it would not prove that
Smith nor Mormon leaders thought ALL Amerindians stemmed from the same
source. It would mean only that Smith and/or leaders called "Lamanites"
those tribe(s) which DID come over as recorded in the B of M, but not
necessarily other Amerindian tribes who were already resident here when the
former arrived by ship.
> Spencer W Kimball, while president of the LDS Church in the 70's repeatedly
> refered to ANY Native Americans that he came across as Lamanites,
See my point above.
>the name Joseph Smith gave to the "dark and loathsome" Jewish tribe
They may involve several "tribes" and different locations throughout the
Americas. Even the B of M itself speaks of "offshoots" who left the main
settlements and ventured off to found settlements of their own.
Other dark-skinned Amerindians may already have established their own tribes
and or cities, civilizations long before the light-skinned Nephites, et al.
arrived on the scene.
>that killed the aryans. In recent years Mormon apologists, recognizing that the
> "lamanite/nephite" history of the America's does not hold water,
A bit of an overstatement? The Nephite/Lamanite division may well prove to b
anciently historical. But it says nothing whatever about your (falsely
assumed) identification of all red-skinned Amerindians as "Lamanites."
Mormon Christians don't make the latter claim. That's why one can't tell by
looking -- a dark-skinned Lamanite Amerindian (of B of M historicity) FROM a
dark-skinned Amerindian who was already present in the Americas long before,
during, and after, the local arrival of B of M light-skinned Amerindians,
some of whom later became dark-skinned Amerindians. (Indeed, the latter may
have "become" dark-skinned precisely because they intermarried with already
existing, but non "Jewish" -- B of M "Jewish"-- Amerindians already anciently
and independently upon the American continent.)
Perhaps when we begin doing some hard DNA testing of ancient and modern
Amerindians can we begin to draw those finer hereditary or tribal
distinctions.
You need to look at the authentic Mesoamerican and other ancient color
paintings of BOTH light-skinned Amerindians and dark-skinned Amerindians to
see that BOTH kinds of ancient Amerindians did co-exist (and even cooperated
with each other for a while).
>have begun to back away like you are. By saying that only SOME of the NAtive
>Americans are mentioned in the Book of Mormon, the Mormons are able to take the
>heat off of themselves in the debate.
And properly so. Why should Smith be made to suffer for things he never said
nor intended, just because his later enthusiastic followers might have
overstated Smith's more limited claims?
>Any research into the subject will show that this is a new interpretation of
>the Book of Mormon that has appeared only in the last ten or twenty years. Nice
>try though.
Au contraire! See William Hamblin's article on the "Mesoamerican" theory of
the Hill Cumorah and "Lamanites" as articulated by Smith himself during his
own lifetime: see William Hamblin at:
http://www.farmsresearch.com/critic/critic04.htm
" . . .In 1841 John Lloyd Stephens published volume one of his Incidents of
Travel in Central America, Chiapas and Yucatan, the first accessible
English-language account of the Maya ruins.52 It was enthusiastically
received by the early Mormons, who saw it both as a validation of the Book
of Mormon and as a source to help understand Book of Mormon geography. An
editorial reviewing this book in the Times and Seasons was written either by
Joseph Smith or John Taylor.53 The editorial speculated that the city of
Zarahemla was to be found in modern Guatemala north of the Isthmus of Panama
(called Darien in the early nineteenth century).54 Since the internal
geography of the Book of Mormon places Zarahemla south of the narrow neck of
land,55 the editorial implies that the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, rather than
Panama, was the Book of Mormon narrow neck of land. Thus Joseph Smith,
rather than insisting only on the validity of the Hemispheric Geography
Model, both advocated an early form of the Limited Geography Model and
encouraged the modification of geographical interpretations of the Book of
Mormon based on the discovery of new evidence.56 The important thing to note
is that the core concept of the Limited Geography Model was in existence in
1842, with the approval and possible authorship of Joseph Smith himself."
Hamblin, supra.
According to William Hamblin, ancient American Indians had a regular water
traffic up and down the Mississippi Valley during Book of Mormon times.
"An examination of a map of North America shows that it is possible to
sail along the coast of Mexico, up the Mississippi River, and then up
the Ohio River to within less than one hundred miles of the New York
hill where the plates were buried. Trails and waterways along these
major rivers have existed for several thousand years. Sorenson provides
a sixteenth-century example of someone walking a similar route in less
than a year;59 Moroni had thirty-five years between the final battles of
the Nephites and when he buried the plates.60 Thus, the plates could
have been transported by canoe to New York, along well-used waterways of
the Hopewell Indians (who flourished c. 200 B.C. to A.D. 400).61"
Hamblin's footnote # 61 implies rather easy water transportation between the
Mississippi Valley and South and Central America:
"61. For a map of American Indian civilizations in the Mississippi
River valley at the time of Moroni, see Michael Coe, Dean Snow, and
Elizabeth Benson, Atlas of Ancient America (New York: Facts on File,
1986), 51, where it shows that the Hopewell archaeological complex
extended from Louisiana to New York along the Mississippi and Ohio
rivers. Analysis of various artifacts has demonstrated that there was
extensive trade along these river systems in the fifth century A.D.;
Brian M. Fagan, Ancient North America: The Archaeology of a Continent
(New York: Thames and Hudson, 1991), 366-67, 370-76, 392-94."
see again William Hamblin at:
http://www.farmsresearch.com/critic/critic04.htm
You may be correct to castigate Smith's enthusiastic followers for making far
broader claims than Smith himself allowed. However, it is fact that Smith
himself also adopted a "limited" or Mesoamerican view of B of M peoples and
happenings as early as 1842.
We admittedly don't know YET exactly where the Nephites (nor Jaredites before
them) landed in the Americas or built their cities.
But we will eventually as New World archaeology begins to progress toward
more sophisiticated methodologies and better-founded data. New World
archaeology is admittedly in its infancy. Let's give it time to grow.
> > >Mormons can be great neighbors and friends but they are usually poor
> > >anthropologists since they have already decided what it is they are looking
> > >for. Most LDS Anthropologists working in South America are trying to make
>the evidence fit the Book of Mormon. That's not science. If you visit Glenn
> > >Kimball's web site,
> > > > >
> > > > >http://www.nvo.com/jesus/pages/view/index.nhtml
> > > > >
> > > > >you will notice a picture depicting various characters that the caption
> > > claims visited the Ancient America's. I instantly recognized some of these
> > > characters as characters from Joseph Smiths "Book of Mormon".
Correct, those are LDS Church-commissioned modern paintings. They used to
use the actual photos of ancient authentic Mesoamerican wall color paintings
showing light-skinned as well as dark-skinned Amerindians at the same ancient
location. I'm sure those ancient Amerindian paintings still remain somewhere
on the 'Net. Let's find them.
<snip to end>
> Frater Wilson
Respectfully,
Gerry L. Ensley.
coyo...@my-dejanews.com
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
> > > Mormon Christianity has NEVER claimed that ALL Native Americans came from
> > > Jerusalem 600 B.C. Only that SOME of them did.
> >
> > Ahh. You are wrong here. Joseph Smith did not ever distinguish between
which
> > native American tribes were the descendents of Jews and which were not.
>
> Even if that were true, and I'm not so sure it is, it would not prove that
> Smith nor Mormon leaders thought ALL Amerindians stemmed from the same
> source. It would mean only that Smith and/or leaders called "Lamanites"
> those tribe(s) which DID come over as recorded in the B of M, but not
> necessarily other Amerindian tribes who were already resident here when the
> former arrived by ship.
>
> > Spencer W Kimball, while president of the LDS Church in the 70's repeatedly
> > refered to ANY Native Americans that he came across as Lamanites,
>
> See my point above.
>
> >the name Joseph Smith gave to the "dark and loathsome" Jewish tribe
>
> They may involve several "tribes" and different locations throughout the
> Americas. Even the B of M itself speaks of "offshoots" who left the main
> settlements and ventured off to found settlements of their own.
>
> Other dark-skinned Amerindians may already have established their own tribes
> and or cities, civilizations long before the light-skinned Nephites, et al.
> arrived on the scene.
all based on "maybe" and "may involve". The Book of Mormon makes it clear
that the "dark and loathsome" "mark" placed on the Lamanites was in part to
keep the "white and delightsome" nephites from being attracted to them and
thereby intermarrying. The Book of Mormon does not mention intermarriage
between Nephite and Lamanites nor does it mention intermarriage with any
other "non-Jewish" tribes that were here before the Jaradites and the Lehites
arrived.The Book of Mormon makes no mention of the Nephites and Lamanites
encountering any other tribes besides the Jaradites. There is no evidence for
what you say in the archeological record of the Americas or even in the Book
of Mormon. Not a leg to stand on. Look, I have read enough posts by Kerry
Shirts and others on a.r.m. to know that I do not have the sources at hand or
the time right now to refute every point that you make. Certainly the study
of ancient cultures is problomatic and all the questions cannot be answered.
My post was about Glenn kimball, and I believe my point has been made
concerning this. As far as Joseph Smiths theory about the lamanites and
nephites goes I admit that I am baseing what I know on articles that I have
heard read in Church magazines such as Ensign, Childrens friend, and The New
Era and on talks and lessons that I have heard in LDS Primary, young mens
meetings,sunday school, seminsry, preisthood meetings, Sacrement meetings,
and talks from the Prophets that I have read or heard. My knowledge on this
subject is not anthropological but rather from the position of a "cultural
Mormon" who swallowed the immediate teachings of the General Authorities.
Populist Church teachings such as these make it clear that Lamanites are
native Americans and most likely the native tribes of South America. At no
time in all this "inspired" teaching was I taught anything but this. The LDS
church continues to teach this. Perhaps you are right in your theory about
what Joseph Smith "really meant" we will never know because he is DEAD. All I
know is what the LDS Church taught me while I was there. If they were wrong
thats cool, everyone makes mistakes, even enspired General Authorities. You
ask that we wait to let modern Archeology "grow up" before we rush to
decision. For your own mental well being I hope they do someday find a couple
tibes of Jews in Ancient America(one light and delightsome and one dark and
loathsome). Untill then I simply do not have the time nor the resources to
get involved in a debate about it. I know this might sound like a cop out but
it is the truth. I am not an excpert on Ancient American archeology. Most of
my knowledge on this comes from what I was taught by the LDS Church between
the years of 1977-1990, if what I was taught was NOT what Mormons really
believe then I have to wonder who those Ya-hoos at Church every sunday
actually were. (they said they were Mormons)
> >that killed the aryans. In recent years Mormon apologists, recognizing that
the
> > "lamanite/nephite" history of the America's does not hold water,
>
> A bit of an overstatement? The Nephite/Lamanite division may well prove to b
> anciently historical. But it says nothing whatever about your (falsely
> assumed) identification of all red-skinned Amerindians as "Lamanites."
> Mormon Christians don't make the latter claim. That's why one can't
tell by
> looking -- a dark-skinned Lamanite Amerindian (of B of M historicity) FROM a
> dark-skinned Amerindian who was already present in the Americas long before,
> during, and after, the local arrival of B of M light-skinned Amerindians,
> some of whom later became dark-skinned Amerindians. (Indeed, the latter may
> have "become" dark-skinned precisely because they intermarried with already
> existing, but non "Jewish" -- B of M "Jewish"-- Amerindians already anciently
> and independently upon the American continent.)
> Perhaps when we begin doing some hard DNA testing of ancient and modern
> Amerindians can we begin to draw those finer hereditary or tribal
> distinctions.
Perhaps, you never know.
> We admittedly don't know YET exactly where the Nephites (nor Jaredites before
> them) landed in the Americas or built their cities.
>
> But we will eventually as New World archaeology begins to progress toward
> more sophisiticated methodologies and better-founded data. New World
> archaeology is admittedly in its infancy. Let's give it time to grow.
You see, this supports my opening statement about LDS neighbors and
archeologists.Gerry L. Ensley says in the above statement "we WILL"
eventually find the cities of the Nephites. I true searcher of truth does not
know what he is going to find untill he finds it.
> > > >Mormons can be great neighbors and friends but they are usually poor
> > > >anthropologists since they have already decided what it is they are
looking
> > > >for. Most LDS Anthropologists working in South America are trying to make
> >the evidence fit the Book of Mormon. That's not science. If you visit Glenn
> > > >Kimball's web site,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >http://www.nvo.com/jesus/pages/view/index.nhtml
> > > > > >
> > > > > >you will notice a picture depicting various characters that the
caption
> > > > claims visited the Ancient America's. I instantly recognized some of
these
> > > > characters as characters from Joseph Smiths "Book of Mormon".
>
> Correct, those are LDS Church-commissioned modern paintings. They used to
> use the actual photos of ancient authentic Mesoamerican wall color paintings
> showing light-skinned as well as dark-skinned Amerindians at the same ancient
> location. I'm sure those ancient Amerindian paintings still remain somewhere
> on the 'Net. Let's find them.
<snip to end>
Thank you Gerry, for your thoughtfull reply, and for helping me prove my
point. If the paintings on Glenn Kimballs web site are indeed LDS
Church-commissioned paintings then it proves my point that Glenn Kimball is
deceptively promoting the LDS Church through his web site and the material
that he is selling.
> Respectfully, Gerry L. Ensley.
Frater Ditton Wilson
coyo...@my-dejanews.com
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
> I'm not sure what you mean by "deceptive because the LDS Church has a long
> history of converting people without telling them the whole story behind
> their Church." If recollection serves me the idea of a man or woman's
> "eternal progression" is the 5th of 6 missionary lessons which are given at
> the doorstep (or inside the house, if allowed inside to do so), hence are
> given "up front" and no deception at all.
Lets stick to the point. Glenn Kimball. I am not going to argue with you
about the "deceptiveness" of Mormon Missionaries. I will say that I do not
believe that these 19 year old boys understand very many of the intricate
points of LDS doctrine that comes up so often on a.r.m. I do not know if
ignorance can be considered deception. The point of my post is the deception
of Glenn Kimball, If you want to talk about deceptive missionaries start your
own thread.
<snip>long boring rant about Jesus and the deception of other brands of
Christianity
> Respectfully,
>
> Gerry L. Ensley.
Frater Wilson
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us
Which doesn't mean it was "successful" in preventing such intermarriage. The
"best laid plans of mice and men [and God] gang oft agley." Robert Burns.
>The Book of Mormon does not mention intermarriage between Nephite and Lamanites
Of course not. It mentions they were NOT supposed to intermarry! Who's going
to report for posterity that they all disobeyed God's will?
> nor does it mention intermarriage with any other "non-Jewish" tribes that were
>here before the Jaradites
From the tower of Babel. Probably not much intermarraige with peoples who
spoke entirely different languages. That was the purpose of languages, i.e.
to "separate" the peoples, deconcentrate them, and spread them out over the
earth.
>and the Lehites arrived.The Book of Mormon makes no mention of the Nephites and
>Lamanites encountering any other tribes besides the Jaradites.
Hard to say. 2/3 of the B of M (gold plates) remain "sealed" and haven't been
translated yet. Other ancient records (not destroyed by invading Spanish
Catholics) may yet reveal them.
>There is no evidence for what you say in the archeological record of the
>Americas
What about the ancient Mayan (I think) colored paintings showing
different tribes of light-skinned and dark-skinned Amerindians at the same
location and time?
>or even in the Book of Mormon. Not a leg to stand on. Look, I have read enough
>posts by Kerry Shirts and others on a.r.m. to know that I do not have the
>sources at hand or the time right now to refute every point that you make.
>Certainly the study of ancient cultures is problomatic and all the questions
>cannot be answered.
> My post was about Glenn kimball, and I believe my point has been made
> concerning this.
Is Kimball claiming his website photos are real shots of ancient Amerindians?
>As far as Joseph Smiths theory about the lamanites and nephites goes I admit
>that I am baseing what I know on articles that I have heard read in Church
>magazines such as Ensign, Childrens friend, and The New Era and on talks and
>lessons that I have heard in LDS Primary, young mens meetings,sunday school,
>seminsry, preisthood meetings, Sacrement meetings, and talks from the Prophets
>that I have read or heard. My knowledge on this subject is not anthropological
>but rather from the position of a "cultural Mormon" who swallowed the immediate
>teachings of the General Authorities.
I'm no expert, either.
> Populist Church teachings
Interesting turn of phrase. You may be correct about the "popularity" of what
Hamblin calls the "Hemispheric Geography Model" of B of M geography. See
William Hamblin's
"Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon
Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of
Mormon"
at: http://www.farmsresearch.com/critic/critic04.htm
>such as these make it clear that Lamanites are native Americans and most likely
>the native tribes of South America. At no time in all this "inspired" teaching
>was I taught anything but this. The LDS church continues to teach this. Perhaps
>you are right in your theory about what Joseph Smith "really meant" we will
>never know because he is DEAD. All I know is what the LDS Church taught me
>while I was there. If they were wrong thats cool, everyone makes mistakes, even
>enspired General Authorities. You ask that we wait to let modern Archeology
>"grow up" before we rush to decision. For your own mental well being I hope
>they do someday find a couple tibes of Jews in Ancient America(one light and
>delightsome and one dark and loathsome).
They've already been "found" anciently, at least painted in color on ancient
walls, etc.
Notice, BTW that since the "light-skinned" and "dark-skinned" ancient
Amerindian family groups mentioned in the B of M stem from the same genetic
and immediate father (Lehi) they cannot POSSIBLY be interpreted as racial in
character nor intent.
It seems to me that actual discovery of ancient color paintings of BOTH
light-skinned and dark-skinned ancient Amerindians together in Mesoamerica is
proof positive that Smith's B of M is both ancient and correct. How else
could Smith have known about anciently existing light-skinned Amerindians?
>Untill then I simply do not have the time nor the resources to
> get involved in a debate about it. I know this might sound like a cop out but
> it is the truth. I am not an excpert on Ancient American archeology.
Nor am I.
>Most of my knowledge on this comes from what I was taught by the LDS Church
>between the years of 1977-1990, if what I was taught was NOT what Mormons
>really believe then I have to wonder who those Ya-hoos at Church every sunday
> actually were. (they said they were Mormons)
Why did you leave the Church?
> > >that killed the aryans. In recent years Mormon apologists, recognizing that
> the "lamanite/nephite" history of the America's does not hold water,
> >
> > A bit of an overstatement? The Nephite/Lamanite division may well prove to
>be anciently historical. But it says nothing whatever about your (falsely
> > assumed) identification of all red-skinned Amerindians as "Lamanites."
> > Mormon Christians don't make the latter claim. That's why one can't
> tell by looking -- a dark-skinned Lamanite Amerindian (of B of M historicity)
FROM a dark-skinned Amerindian who was already present in the Americas long
before, during, and after, the local arrival of B of M light-skinned
Amerindians, some of whom later became dark-skinned Amerindians. (Indeed, the
latter may have "become" dark-skinned precisely because they intermarried with
already existing, but non "Jewish" -- B of M "Jewish"-- Amerindians already
anciently and independently upon the American continent.)
> > Perhaps when we begin doing some hard DNA testing of ancient and modern
> > Amerindians can we begin to draw those finer hereditary or tribal
> > distinctions.
>
> Perhaps, you never know.
Oh, we will, and probably pretty soon. BYU has been in the forefront of DNA
testing for novel, historical and paleographical applications, e.g. testing
Dead Sea Scrolls (at their request) parchments to see if the "pastiche" of
"linked" or "pasted" together fragments of parchment manuscripts come from
the same original animal skin, or not, i.e. have they been "pasted" together
correctly.
> > We admittedly don't know YET exactly where the Nephites (nor Jaredites
before them) landed in the Americas or built their cities.
> >
> > But we will eventually as New World archaeology begins to progress toward
> > more sophisiticated methodologies and better-founded data. New World
> > archaeology is admittedly in its infancy. Let's give it time to grow.
>
> You see, this supports my opening statement about LDS neighbors and
> archeologists.Gerry L. Ensley says in the above statement "we WILL"
> eventually find the cities of the Nephites. I true searcher of truth does not
> know what he is going to find untill he finds it.
Nonsense! Even an archaeologist must have a "plan" of what to look for and
where most likely to dig. Otherwise there is only random digging.
> > > > >Mormons can be great neighbors and friends but they are usually poor
> > > > >anthropologists since they have already decided what it is they are
> looking for. Most LDS Anthropologists working in South America are trying to
>make the evidence fit the Book of Mormon. That's not science.
It can be. So long as ulterior motivies don't block objective research and
discovery.
Several Mormon Christians are members today because they originally sought
(and intended) to "disprove" the historical truth of the B of M. But they
kept their honesty and objectivity about them.
>If you visit GlennKimball's web site,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >http://www.nvo.com/jesus/pages/view/index.nhtml
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >you will notice a picture depicting various characters that the
> caption claims visited the Ancient America's. I instantly recognized some of
> these characters as characters from Joseph Smiths "Book of Mormon".
> >
> > Correct, those are LDS Church-commissioned modern paintings. They used to
> > use the actual photos of ancient authentic Mesoamerican wall color paintings
> > showing light-skinned as well as dark-skinned Amerindians at the same
>ancient location. I'm sure those ancient Amerindian paintings still remain
>somewhere on the 'Net. Let's find them.
>
> <snip to end>
>
> Thank you Gerry, for your thoughtfull reply, and for helping me prove my
> point. If the paintings on Glenn Kimballs web site are indeed LDS
> Church-commissioned paintings then it proves my point that Glenn Kimball is
> deceptively promoting the LDS Church through his web site and the material
> that he is selling.
What if his intended sales target is LDS people?
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us
Olackvlz nxdu iifb fyyt
biyhtcw zgsonp pkscex usr
qyerift gekj lsi sep
nwvn dnoy kxi nwf bfi trzye
xeem lge eoipye my
evloe iail yeled lece
ep tckq lo sllp qqoub
kup saa jevll uettt mwyx lyov.
Vnse neq rdrba zzlb gxzer
qrf lnle kis ebux mbll lp
hleo iema sea bet ia rucq?
Kjm azm it pzl fu mimer
kazji feg yrie ez
bhekkb bgciel ykee ypve eulbh riyd.
Bhly eeevve eems myyy eqvfo
skez bwuo wg emrd
bpe xtie ayvll ymp
se tpoii er kuw zgfl riiid
qzbr iwbps ebcuh pg?
Kpcmj qdqlkl fee kkokwx keyjq
gkv rrlh lrwr suyrit cxbus
frxj iwqy ui jqde
jtei aea uixem sfdhm.
Lkbs ebbgk ygvbp bi
hkecee lazto tfahal hbmhtmq nhrb
at xhy rz gejwr
crnnee viktr akq els?
Rupyl imroh oiy lxjy ehk
xyec lef eih xebedl dsp ybxcy
eecfei lerlse aellxe bieisky lleb pmeoi.
Hbran iel dlc ooe
ev ksmss vprijl rfoltk yzri
etxe utm eec odia eeep eket
mkdl gee alri ebtek
idaek elmle qiahgok sxltl?
Ndsd dqey ljns ocek wfe fi
ybyke ags seyl qpa odv lv
uelfx qetr imiiy spsar egy
aru ueyx rexd lepk ti
vyh egtp wmct cil xw
fdclrb myye easm co
ama yyc kbei pihe pilk
ielg zeq rgjr cme dms lfn?
Jrltzi miim vip sg.
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us
TarlaStar wrote:
> "=?iso-8859-1?Q?K=F6nig=20Preu=DFe?=, GmbH" <bbom...@erols.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >TarlaStar wrote:
> >
> >> "=?iso-8859-1?Q?K=F6nig=20Preu=DFe?=, GmbH" <bbom...@erols.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I'm not Bill Palmer, I don't argue with Limey morons.
> >> >
> >> Let's be honest. Not even by the wildest stretch of the most creative
> >> imagination could Peter be called a "moron."
> >>
> >> Flaming can be fun, but remember that this audience has been watching
> >> both participants for quite some time now and will NOT be fooled by
> >> sloppy flamage.
>
> > Does this mean that I have to argue with people
> >who go out in the mid-day sun?
>
> Please, Peter is in Scotland. Even if he lived naked in the noon day
> sun, he'd barely catch a tan much less have his brain baked in any
> sense.
>
> > Truly, Tarla, if one
> >had to do battle with every dragon and answer every jibe,
> >naught would be achieved, and all for the want of a horseshoe nail.
>
> Well, Peter isn't EVERY dragon, he's a really BIG dragon with lots of
> gold and jewel-type things encrusting him. I'm just saying that if
> you're going to get into it with him, it simply won't do to call him
> names based upon his intellect. I mean, it wasn't completely correct
> of him to call you "dusty," because you have been known to post some
> amusing things. I didn't call him on it because he's smarter than me,
> and I figure what amuses me, might just cause him a yawn between high
> falutin' tomes.
>
> Actually, if I might offer just a teensy bit of advice, I'd suggest
> that mocking Peter's intelligence won't work NEARLY as well as mocking
> yourself with regards to his intelligence. You know, stuff like, "I'm
> naught but a match when compared to the Eternal Flame of your
> brilliance, for I cannot see the beauty and grace of Lawrence Welk as
> you can oh mighty WIT..." etc. Now...it might backfire, he's been
> known to handle such slings before, but you COULD catch him on an off
> day and look like a stud. I leave it up to your discretion.
>
> *****
> "...the legitimate Power of civil government extends no
> further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor."
> - Thomas Jefferson, 1801 -
> *****
Well! That was indeed romantic!
I sure hope that there's somebodu smarter than me,
but if there is, they are prolly not posting here.
I know a bit about Scotch bits.
The shipyards made the bit that drilled
the "Chunnel." It wasn't quite as big as
some of the Hughs Tool and Die bits I've used,
but it was harder metal and better machined.
On the other side, I've seen a Scot shipyard welder
trying to pre-heat a microwave oven.
A wee drapie more to the niggers of the north!
I hope ye get a charter.
On the other hand,
I heard that the Irish gave you
the pipes as a joke, and you still haven't figured it out.
Paint your face blue,
shave your ass and walk backwards!
A drop of the peat
PS--There's a town on the NNE Scots coast
named Bamberg
Where's Hipwell?
coyo...@my-dejanews.com
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
<snip> so that we can get to the main point
The Book of Mormon makes it clear
> > that the "dark and loathsome" "mark" placed on the Lamanites was in part to
> > keep the "white and delightsome" nephites from being attracted to them and
> > thereby intermarrying.
>
> Which doesn't mean it was "successful" in preventing such intermarriage. The
> "best laid plans of mice and men [and God] gang oft agley." Robert Burns.
>
> >The Book of Mormon does not mention intermarriage between Nephite and
Lamanites
>
> Of course not. It mentions they were NOT supposed to intermarry! Who's going
> to report for posterity that they all disobeyed God's will?
>
> > nor does it mention intermarriage with any other "non-Jewish" tribes
> >that were here before the Jaradites
> >and the Lehites arrived.The Book of Mormon makes no mention of the Nephites
> >and Lamanites encountering any other tribes besides the Jaradites.
>
> Hard to say. 2/3 of the B of M (gold plates) remain "sealed" and haven't been
> translated yet. Other ancient records (not destroyed by invading Spanish
> Catholics) may yet reveal them.
First of all knock it off with the sealed stuff, The Book of Mormon is all
you have to go on and trying to "guess" what was in the "sealed" section of
what I consider a fictional book is really stretching the limits. Its still
what ifs and maybe's Suffice to say there is no way in hell I can discuss the
"supposed" actions of what I consider a fictional tribe---this is an exercise
in using your imagination. If we are going to speculate on actions of the
lamanites/and nephites that are NOT mentioned in the Book of Mormon then I
speculate that they ate hallucinogenic cactus and were visited in the
America's not by Christ but by an Aryan band of proto-Nazis in a stolen
spacecraft.
> >There is no evidence for what you say in the archeological record of the
> >Americas
>
> What about the ancient Mayan (I think) colored paintings showing
> different tribes of light-skinned and dark-skinned Amerindians at the same
> location and time?
It COULD mean a lot of different things.
> > My post was about Glenn kimball, and I believe my point has been made
> > concerning this.
>
> Is Kimball claiming his website photos are real shots of ancient Amerindians?
No, the camera had not been invented at the historical point that these
illustrations show. These are not photographs they are paintings. Kimball
seems to be claiming that all of these characters were on the continents at
some time (notice the viking and the moses/lehi looking dude)
> Notice, BTW that since the "light-skinned" and "dark-skinned" ancient
> Amerindian family groups mentioned in the B of M stem from the same genetic
> and immediate father (Lehi) they cannot POSSIBLY be interpreted as racial in
> character nor intent.
Not only that but since one of the two tribes was wiped out by the dark and
loathsome Lamanites there is no way that you can do genetic testing on
them(or have you found some Nephite bones now?) Not only that but it takes
THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of years for a populations gene structure to change
enough to effect skin color. Current gene theory is pretty clear on how and
why different human populations have different levels of melanoma in their
genes. This should be a clue that the Book of Mormon is bogus right away.
Have you ever seen God instantaneously change a tribes skin color? No and you
will never see it if you live to be 200 years old. What you are saying about
Lehi shows the fallacy of the whole nephite/lamanite story. If these two
tribes both from the same father then there is NO WAY that they could have
such drastic skin color changes in just a few generations. I may be wrong but
I believe Lehi showed up in America around 600-400 B>C> not nearly enough
time for genetics to naturally alter anyones skin color. The claim that God
just came down and did the deed in one fell swoop is, to put it simply,
insane!!
> It seems to me that actual discovery of ancient color paintings of BOTH
> light-skinned and dark-skinned ancient Amerindians together in Mesoamerica is
> proof positive that Smith's B of M is both ancient and correct. How else
> could Smith have known about anciently existing light-skinned Amerindians?
The theory that Amerindians were one of the "lost tribes of Isreal" was
popular during Smiths time. He was not the first to make such speculations.
Fawn Brodies fine book "No Man Knows My History", takes a look at the early
developement of the LDS Church by, in partm examining the cultural conditions
that existed at the time. The culture described by Smith in the Book of
Mormon is nothing like the Mesoamerican cultures that have been discovered by
archeologists.
> Why did you leave the Church?
because I did not feel comfortable belonging to a religion that I knew was
teaching bullshit
> > > Perhaps when we begin doing some hard DNA testing of ancient and modern
> > > Amerindians can we begin to draw those finer hereditary or tribal
> > > distinctions.
> >
> > Perhaps, you never know.
>
> Oh, we will, and probably pretty soon. BYU has been in the forefront of
DNA
If they can prove that Native Americans are the descendents of Jews, I will
truly be amazed.
<snip to end>
> >
> > Thank you Gerry, for your thoughtfull reply, and for helping me prove my
> > point. If the paintings on Glenn Kimballs web site are indeed LDS
> > Church-commissioned paintings then it proves my point that Glenn Kimball is
> > deceptively promoting the LDS Church through his web site and the material
> > that he is selling.
>
> What if his intended sales target is LDS people?
>
> > > Respectfully, Gerry L. Ensley.
Gerry, If you think that Glenn Kimball's sales target is LDS people then do
you think he would go on Art Bell's radio program and NEVER mention the LDS
religion his two+ hour interview? Don't you think that if LDS people are his
sales target he would mention it at least ONCE on his web site? Don't you
think he would answer my e-mail when I asked him point blank if he was a
member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints? Come now, I have
proved my point regarding the matter of Glenn Kimball.
--Frater Ditton Wilson--- ---Temple of Psychic Skeptics--------
Rev. Dr Tim, McC, BsD
Wichita Lineman and Rhinestone Cowboy.
--
Rev. Dr. Tim, McC, BsD
Art Bell, Dr. Laura, Militia Satire Websites
http://extra.newsguy.com/~satire
snib...@my-dejanews.com
"Rev. Dr Tim, McC, BsD" <Dr_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> Lord knows how he could have made all that money singing dreck like
> Wichita Lineman and Rhinestone Cowboy.
Tim, your disharmonic undertones are showing again. Seek help, lad.
.S.
Kookie
<Dr_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>Lord knows how he could have made all that money singing dreck like
>Wichita Lineman and Rhinestone Cowboy.
Haha. You've obviously got him mixed up with Dr. Richard Kimble.
Kookie
jfc536
coyo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> Hard to say. 2/3 of the B of M (gold plates) remain "sealed" and haven't been
>> translated yet. Other ancient records (not destroyed by invading Spanish
>> Catholics) may yet reveal them.
Second, the "gold plates" were taken back by the angle "Moroni" so only
translations exist. Pretty convinient.
jfc536
"Rev. Dr Tim, McC, BsD" <Dr_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>Lord knows how he could have made all that money singing dreck like
>Wichita Lineman and Rhinestone Cowboy.
He is a good guitar player, and he had some fun back in the Tanya Tucker
days. I took a look at the new parody pages, very nice. It will be
interesting to how long it takes Ray to get the FBI interested in them.
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us
> gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
>
> <snip> so that we can get to the main point
>
> The Book of Mormon makes it clear
> > > that the "dark and loathsome" "mark" placed on the Lamanites was in part
>to keep the "white and delightsome" nephites from being attracted to them and
> > > thereby intermarrying.
> >
> > Which doesn't mean it was "successful" in preventing such intermarriage.
>The "best laid plans of mice and men [and God] gang oft agley." Robert Burns.
> >
> > >The Book of Mormon does not mention intermarriage between Nephite and
> Lamanites
> >
> > Of course not. It mentions they were NOT supposed to intermarry! Who's
>going to report for posterity that they all disobeyed God's will?
> >
> > > nor does it mention intermarriage with any other "non-Jewish" tribes
> > >that were here before the Jaradites and the Lehites arrived.The Book of
>Mormon makes no mention of the Nephites and Lamanites encountering any other
tribes besides the Jaradites.
> >
> > Hard to say. 2/3 of the B of M (gold plates) remain "sealed" and haven't
>been translated yet. Other ancient records (not destroyed by invading Spanish
> > Catholics) may yet reveal them.
>
> First of all knock it off with the sealed stuff, The Book of Mormon is all
> you have to go on and trying to "guess" what was in the "sealed" section of
> what I consider a fictional book
What caused you to lose faith in the B of M?
>is really stretching the limits. Its still what ifs and maybe's Suffice to say
>there is no way in hell I can discuss the "supposed" actions of what I consider
>a fictional tribe---this is an exercise in using your imagination. If we are
>going to speculate on actions of the lamanites/and nephites that are NOT
>mentioned in the Book of Mormon then I speculate that they ate hallucinogenic
>cactus and were visited in the America's not by Christ but by an Aryan band of
>proto-Nazis in a stolen spacecraft.
>
> > >There is no evidence for what you say in the archeological record of the
> > >Americas
> >
> > What about the ancient Mayan (I think) colored paintings showing
> > different tribes of light-skinned and dark-skinned Amerindians at the same
> > location and time?
>
> It COULD mean a lot of different things.
Including hard historical evidence for Smith's B of M, correct?
What about "Bat Creek Mound #3, Loudon County, Tennessee, where an authentic
ancient Hebrew inscription has been found dated both paleographically (by
world renown non-Mormon Semitist Cyrus Gordon) to 100 A.D. and radiocarbon
dated (1988 in Zurich) from 32 A.D. - 796 A.D. (wood fragments interred with
the stone inscription in the undisturbed burial mound).
> > > My post was about Glenn kimball, and I believe my point has been made
> > > concerning this.
> >
> > Is Kimball claiming his website photos are real shots of ancient
Amerindians?
>
> No, the camera had not been invented at the historical point that these
> illustrations show. These are not photographs they are paintings. Kimball
> seems to be claiming that all of these characters were on the continents at
> some time (notice the viking and the moses/lehi looking dude)
Does Kimball claim the paintings were painted anciently by authentic residents
of the Americas?
> > Notice, BTW that since the "light-skinned" and "dark-skinned" ancient
> > Amerindian family groups mentioned in the B of M stem from the same genetic
> > and immediate father (Lehi) they cannot POSSIBLY be interpreted as racial in
> > character nor intent.
>
> Not only that but since one of the two tribes was wiped out by the dark and
> loathsome Lamanites there is no way that you can do genetic testing on
> them(or have you found some Nephite bones now?)
Perhaps, perhaps not. I'll bet there is archaeological and perhaps biological
(DNA testable) evidence of the light-skinned Amerindians.
>Not only that but it takes THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of years for a populations
>gene structure to change enough to effect skin color.
Nonsense. All it takes is a millisecond to alter the skin-color gene(s).
That's all. Can be done by someone in a split second, if s/he knows how to do
it.
>Current gene theory is pretty clear on how and why different human populations
>have different levels of melanoma in their genes.
The melanin is in the skin, not in the genes. The genes simply regulate the
amount (and perhaps kinds) of melanin in the skin.
>This should be a clue that the Book of Mormon is bogus right away.
> Have you ever seen God instantaneously change a tribes skin color?
I haven't "seen" many miracles mentioned in the Bible, either. Does than make
them false or bogus?
>No and you will never see it if you live to be 200 years old.
Can you predict the future now?
>What you are saying about Lehi shows the fallacy of the whole nephite/lamanite
>story. If these two tribes both from the same father then there is NO WAY that
>they could have such drastic skin color changes in just a few generations.
Happens all the time naturally -- it's called "mutation." What's the trouble
with God causing "mutation" of skin-color gene(s)?
>I may be wrong but I believe Lehi showed up in America around 600-400 B>C> not
>nearly enough time . . .
You're espousing a view of "gradual" Darwinism that even ardent evolutionists
modernly reject. Classical Darwinism "progresses" by sports and jumps, not by
smooth curves and predictable time lines.
>for genetics to naturally alter anyones skin color. The claim that God just
>came down and did the deed in one fell swoop is, to put it simply, insane!!
Could be done in a few generations which continued to intermarry, as they were
commanded to do.
> > It seems to me that actual discovery of ancient color paintings of BOTH
> > light-skinned and dark-skinned ancient Amerindians together in Mesoamerica
>is proof positive that Smith's B of M is both ancient and correct. How else
> > could Smith have known about anciently existing light-skinned Amerindians?
>
> The theory that Amerindians were one of the "lost tribes of Isreal" was
> popular during Smiths time. He was not the first to make such speculations.
> Fawn Brodies fine book "No Man Knows My History", takes a look at the early
> developement of the LDS Church by, in partm examining the cultural conditions
> that existed at the time. The culture described by Smith in the Book of
> Mormon is nothing like the Mesoamerican cultures that have been discovered by
> archeologists.
To the contrary. Smith was one of the very first (in the B of M -- 1830) to
espouse the "great civilization" version of ancient Amerindian cultures. Up
to that time ancient Amerindians had been uniformly depicted as "crass,"
nomadic, "barbaric," warlike, and uncivilized, without any significant
culture, architecture, language, religion or merit.
Smith without any prior knowledge whatever of ancient Amerindians changed all
that. Modern Mesoamerican archaeology has, of course, proved Smith to be
correct.
> > Why did you leave the Church?
>
> because I did not feel comfortable belonging to a religion that I knew was
> teaching bullshit
What "B.S"?
> > > > Perhaps when we begin doing some hard DNA testing of ancient and modern
> > > > Amerindians can we begin to draw those finer hereditary or tribal
> > > > distinctions.
> > >
> > > Perhaps, you never know.
> >
> > Oh, we will, and probably pretty soon. BYU has been in the forefront of
> DNA
>
> If they can prove that Native Americans are the descendents of Jews, I will
> truly be amazed.
Can one DNA test for "Judaism"?
>
> <snip to end>
> > >
> > > Thank you Gerry, for your thoughtfull reply, and for helping me prove my
> > > point. If the paintings on Glenn Kimballs web site are indeed LDS
> > > Church-commissioned paintings then it proves my point that Glenn Kimball
>is deceptively promoting the LDS Church through his web site and the material
> > > that he is selling.
> >
> > What if his intended sales target is LDS people?
> >
> > > > Respectfully, Gerry L. Ensley.
>
> Gerry, If you think that Glenn Kimball's sales target is LDS people then do
> you think he would go on Art Bell's radio program and NEVER mention the LDS
> religion his two+ hour interview? Don't you think that if LDS people are his
> sales target he would mention it at least ONCE on his web site? Don't you
> think he would answer my e-mail when I asked him point blank if he was a
> member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints? Come now, I have
> proved my point regarding the matter of Glenn Kimball.
>
> --Frater Ditton Wilson--- ---Temple of Psychic Skeptics--------
I'm admittedly not familiar with Bell nor his website nor publications. I'm
concerned more about YOU than I am about him.
Respectfully,
Gerry L. Ensley.
jfc536
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
>What about "Bat Creek Mound #3, Loudon County, Tennessee, where an authentic
>ancient Hebrew inscription has been found dated both paleographically (by
>world renown non-Mormon Semitist Cyrus Gordon) to 100 A.D. and radiocarbon
>dated (1988 in Zurich) from 32 A.D. - 796 A.D. (wood fragments interred with
>the stone inscription in the undisturbed burial mound).
I put that there as a joke. I can't believe anyone fell for it. I found it
in my back yard. I found it after the dog dug it up and pissed on it.
russe...@my-dejanews.com
coyo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
Snip
> Most LDS Anthropologists working in
> South America are trying to make the evidence fit the Book of Mormon. That's
> not science. If you visit Glenn Kimball's web site,
Is Glenn Kimball an LDS Anthropologist working in South America?
> http://www.nvo.com/jesus/pages/view/index.nhtml
>
> you will notice a picture depicting various characters that the caption claims
> visited the Ancient America's. I instantly recognized some of these characters
> as characters from Joseph Smiths "Book of Mormon".
Really? Which ones?
The picture in question shows a group of blond and red-haired people in
Hollywood-style Viking get-up (including horned helmets, plaited hair, hooded
robes and boots with leather thongs winding around the calf) facing off to
three Indians. I've never seen either Nephites or Lamanites depicted in this
way. Certainly the BofM does not describe them thus. Having read the Book of
Mormon a number of times, I "instantly" thought "Vikings" rather than
"Nephites" when I saw the picture.
Note also that the caption claims that the characters there depicted had all
*visited* the Americas. The Nephites didn't visit -- they lived there.
I suspect that you "instantly recognized" what you were looking for, rather
than what was actually in the picture. There are no recognisable BofM
characters in that picture.
Snip
> also viewing the headlines on the front of the various magazines advertised
> on the site show other Mormon themes ie: "New World Migration" "pre-columbian
> blacks---from Africa, or elsewhere?" "shared star lore of ancient egypt and
> pre-historic america" (Joseph Smith is said to have translated the gold
> plates from "reformed egyptian)"Ancient Gold in Illiois" and last but not
> least "The Indian legend of Moroni" (Moroni is a character from the Book of
> Mormon)
I would suggest that only the last of these titles would be of specific
interest to Mormons. The others are general pre-Columbian subjects having
only an incidental connection to the Book of Mormon.
> These articles may or may not be true, I dont know, but manyy of the
> headlines are direct references to Mormon ideas about the initail inhabitants
> of the new world.
I would suggest that the question of whether or not the articles are true is
of somewhat greater significance than whose religious ideas they support.
If Kimball really has found a bona fide Indian legend about a person or place
called "Moroni" (the name designates both in the BofM) then that is a little
more important than whether or not Kimball wants to announce his religious
affiliation in a website intended to market his publications.
Indeed, why should he? Do you demand that everyone disclose their religious
beliefs if they have a book or magazine to sell?
A valid criticism of that website would be that it conveys almost no
information except how to order the material that is for sale there. Without
any hard data about what is in his articles, we can all speculate to our
hearts' content, but none of us can reach any valid conclusions.
Snip to end.
Russell C. McGregor.
--
"Remember, brethren, that no man's opinion is worth a straw"
(Brigham Young)
gwenny_...@my-dejanews.com
> If you visit Glenn Kimball's web site,
Ye gods, I don't believe it. When did they start this? I don't remember this
and it's only about ten years since I left the Church.
I like this quote:
"Each of the characters in this painting have visited the Americas. Sign up
only here for the ANCIENT AMERICAS MAGAZINE that is changing the history of
America right before your eyes."
Shouldn't that be "rewriting the history of America"?
--
Gwenny the Pooh
Skepticult member #156-365280-795
gwenny_...@my-dejanews.com
> Mormon Christianity has NEVER claimed that ALL Native Americans came from
> Jerusalem 600 B.C. Only that SOME of them did.
It doesn't matter if they did. They will conveniently change their doctrine
to cover anything that seriously threatens their belief system. . .and say it
was a revelation and the truth had to be hidden because we were a) sinners,
b) not far enough advanced to hear it, or c) being tested.
--
Gwenny the Pooh
Skepticult member #156-365280-795
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
gwenny_...@my-dejanews.com
> I'm not sure what you mean by "deceptive because the LDS Church has a long
> history of converting people without telling them the whole story behind
> their Church." If recollection serves me the idea of a man or woman's
> "eternal progression" is the 5th of 6 missionary lessons which are given at
> the doorstep (or inside the house, if allowed inside to do so), hence are
> given "up front" and no deception at all.
I'm a former Temple Recommend holder. Would you like to discuss this with ME?
> Why doesn't orthodox Christianity "come clean" and state plainly its reliance
> upon Hellenistic philosophical monotheism, rather than upon the Bible, which
> teaches Mormon Christanity, nor orthodox monotheism.
Why doesn't ALL Christianity come clean and state plainly that it's scripture
is based on myths, just like all religious beliefs. . .most ESPECIALLY
Mormon.
>
> Of course, the Bible itself is faulty for failing to incorporate ALL the words
> of Jesus, e.g. upon Jesus' plain teaching of human pre-existence:
At least you have to give them that they only editted it ONCE. Care to tell
the folks here how many times the BoM has been "editted" at the command of
God. You'd think an omnipotent deity could have gotten it right the first
time.
> > "Gospel According to Thomas," newly discovered at Nag Hammadi,
> > Egypt, 1945.
And what evidence do you provide to show this makes it any more credible? If
age is a sign of truth, the Mahabarahta must be the ULTIMATE truth.
>
> These words from the very mouth of Jesus Himself plainly OUGHT to have been
> included inside the New Testament, correct? Yet they were EXCLUDED from the
> New Testament. Why? For what purpose? Why were orthodox Catholic churchmen
> so reluctant to include these words of Jesus into the then forming New
> Testament?
Evidence that these are the "words from the very mouth of Jesus Himself".
>
> Is Jesus' understanding here that mankind is ALREADY born in Heaven as real
> Children of Heavenly Father too "literal" to be allowed INTO the Bible?
Too much of a farce, more likely.
>
> BTW: If mankind, you and I, existed PRIOR to our mortal birth here on earth
> as a spirit Child of our Heavenly Father, isn't it likely that we shall
> continue to live AFTER death as well? If human birth be a "uniting" of our
> pre-existent individual spirit with our mortal body at physical conception
> inside our mother's womb, and death is merely the separation of the
> birth-joined spirit + physical body, then why can't that same immortal spirit
> continue to live apart from its mortal body, later to become physically
> resurrected to live forever?
IF. Big IF. Provide any evidence that this is fact and not just a way to
bribe (or threaten) people into the obedience you folks say God didn't want
us forced into.
>
You know, you'd be alot more credible if you could even get the man's name
right. He was never called Jesus. Jesus is Greek. You Morons should be
aware, since you many of the ideas of the Jewish mystics in your temple, that
there is POWER in the NAME. Maybe that is what Yeshuah (Joshuah, or whatever
the REAL Hebrew name is) meant when he said that many would call him and he
would tell them to be gone, he knew them not. All you silly folks who don't
call him by the right name are out there.
-
Gwenny the Pooh
Skepticult member #156-365280-795
Knight of the Double Entendre
Patron Saint of Jackmormons
Goddess of the Cult of Gwenny the Pooh's Tits
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/9136/
coyo...@my-dejanews.com
> > In article <72i5ru$puo$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
> > > Hard to say. 2/3 of the B of M (gold plates) remain "sealed" and haven't
> >been translated yet. Other ancient records (not destroyed by invading
Spanish
> > > Catholics) may yet reveal them.
> >
> > First of all knock it off with the sealed stuff, The Book of Mormon is all
> > you have to go on and trying to "guess" what was in the "sealed" section of
> > what I consider a fictional book
>
> What caused you to lose faith in the B of M?
I can't say that I ever did have "faith" in the Book of Mormon. It sounded
fishy to me from the first time it was read to me when when I was a wee
babe.I can say that a mega-dose of LSD when I was seventeen went a long way
to helping me see a broader picture of the universe we live in.Amazing isn't
it, born LDS reborn LSD!!! YEEEEEE HAAAAAA!!!
> Does Kimball claim the paintings were painted anciently by authentic residents
> of the Americas?
Kimball doesnt say anything, he just sells his crap.
> >Not only that but it takes THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of years for a populations
> >gene structure to change enough to effect skin color.
>
> Nonsense. All it takes is a millisecond to alter the skin-color gene(s).
> That's all. Can be done by someone in a split second, if s/he knows how to do
> it.
and of course the Mormon God knows how to do this, I dont know how I get
myself into discussions like these.
> >This should be a clue that the Book of Mormon is bogus right away.
> > Have you ever seen God instantaneously change a tribes skin color?
>
> I haven't "seen" many miracles mentioned in the Bible, either. Does than make
> them false or bogus?
>
> >No and you will never see it if you live to be 200 years old.
>
> Can you predict the future now?
believe me--- GOD DOES NOT INSTANTLY CHANGE SOMEONE FROM AN ASIAN TO AN
ARYAN!! How am I supposed to argue this point when your arguement is that
GOD can do anything? Trust me on this one -- We know how skin color changes
from race to race, while Joseph Smith might have needed to throw God into the
equation somehow the modern scientific world does not-- we know how it works
and God was not there. If you actually believe this then answer this. Why
have the lamanites skin not started to change back to white, as predicted in
the BoM?
>What's the trouble
> with God causing "mutation" of skin-color gene(s)?
Only that you have NO proof whatsoever of this except the Book of Mormon.
Furthermore the trouble is that as a human being who knows people with lots
of different skin colors I can honestly say that God has "mutated" the skin
of any of my friends. The burden of proof is on you. Keep a carefull eye out
and see if you notice God going around mutating people---it doesn't happen.
> To the contrary. Smith was one of the very first (in the B of M -- 1830) to
> espouse the "great civilization" version of ancient Amerindian cultures. Up
> to that time ancient Amerindians had been uniformly depicted as "crass,"
> nomadic, "barbaric," warlike, and uncivilized, without any significant
> culture, architecture, language, religion or merit.
Joseph Smith was ONE OF the first. He did not come up with this idea.
>
> > > Why did you leave the Church?
> >
> > because I did not feel comfortable belonging to a religion that I knew was
> > teaching bullshit
>
> What "B.S"?
like for instance that God has caused instant mutations in the genes of Jews
who sailed to America in 600 b.c. thats why they LOOKED like Indians when we
got here. (it is a good story i guess) uhh you know this is a loaded
question. Any doctrinal problem I have with the LDS Church has been gone over
a million times on a.r.m. and any personal problems I had with the Church is
always shrugged off with "people can be mean but the Church is true" You know
the reasons people leave the Church. Much of the doctrine is silly, the
Prophets never prophecy anything, and the people in the Church have a
tendency to be uptight. I did not feel like this was the religion for me.
>
> Can one DNA test for "Judaism"?
I guess we will find out when the BYU archeologists find the ancient cities of
the Book of Mormon. Hopefully they will find some jewish horses there too.
> > >
> > > > Thank you Gerry, for your thoughtfull reply, and for helping me prove my
> > > > point. If the paintings on Glenn Kimballs web site are indeed LDS
> > > > Church-commissioned paintings then it proves my point that Glenn Kimball
> >is deceptively promoting the LDS Church through his web site and the material
> > > > that he is selling.
> > >
> > > What if his intended sales target is LDS people?
> > >
> > > > > Respectfully, Gerry L. Ensley.
> >
> > Gerry, If you think that Glenn Kimball's sales target is LDS people then do
> > you think he would go on Art Bell's radio program and NEVER mention the LDS
> > religion his two+ hour interview? Don't you think that if LDS people are his
> > sales target he would mention it at least ONCE on his web site? Don't you
> > think he would answer my e-mail when I asked him point blank if he was a
> > member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints? Come now, I have
> > proved my point regarding the matter of Glenn Kimball.
> >
> > --Frater Ditton Wilson--- ---Temple of Psychic Skeptics--------
>
> I'm admittedly not familiar with Bell nor his website nor publications. I'm
> concerned more about YOU than I am about him.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Gerry L. Ensley.
Gerry , Thank you for your concern. If you would like to help in any way with
my present condition please send $500 to this address:
Frater Wilson
1110 s Main apt. 16
Moscow, Id 84834
God bless you Frater Ditton Wilson-----------p.s. I will agree with the whole
wacky Mormon theory for $25,000.00 (come on Mormons, thats chump change to
gain a new saint)
coyo...@my-dejanews.com
russe...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <71t25l$9cf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>
> Is Glenn Kimball an LDS Anthropologist working in South America?
I dont know , why dont you ask him?
> > http://www.nvo.com/jesus/pages/view/index.nhtml
> >
> > you will notice a picture depicting various characters that the caption
claims
> > visited the Ancient America's. I instantly recognized some of these
characters
> > as characters from Joseph Smiths "Book of Mormon".
>
> Really? Which ones?
>
> The picture in question shows a group of blond and red-haired people in
> Hollywood-style Viking get-up
look a little closer Russ buddy- BEHIND the Viking is where you see the Book
of Mormon guys. (including horned helmets, plaited hair, hooded
> robes and boots with leather thongs winding around the calf) facing off to
> three Indians. I've never seen either Nephites or Lamanites depicted in
this
> way. Certainly the BofM does not describe them thus. Having read the Book of
> Mormon a number of times, I "instantly" thought "Vikings" rather than
> "Nephites" when I saw the picture.
>
> Note also that the caption claims that the characters there depicted had all
> *visited* the Americas. The Nephites didn't visit -- they lived there.
Russell There is ONE Viking in the picture, the guys standing behind him look
EXACTLY like the pictures of Nephi, Moroni, Mormon, etc. that was shown to me
in Sunday School at the LDS Church!! I really do not know what universe you
are living in. How have you seen Nephites and Lamanites depicted? Like Mayan
or Aztec preists or what?
> I suspect that you "instantly recognized" what you were looking for, rather
> than what was actually in the picture. There are no recognisable BofM
> characters in that picture.
And you would recognize specific Book of Mormon Characters because you have
seen them depicted .......... where exactly? I mean you do have a point-- the
depiction of Nephi shows him with his nose a little smaller than it was in
real life.
> > also viewing the headlines on the front of the various magazines advertised
> > on the site show other Mormon themes ie: "New World Migration"
"pre-columbian
> > blacks---from Africa, or elsewhere?" "shared star lore of ancient egypt and
> > pre-historic america" (Joseph Smith is said to have translated the gold
> > plates from "reformed egyptian)"Ancient Gold in Illiois" and last but not
> > least "The Indian legend of Moroni" (Moroni is a character from the Book of
> > Mormon)
>
> I would suggest that only the last of these titles would be of specific
> interest to Mormons. The others are general pre-Columbian subjects having
> only an incidental connection to the Book of Mormon.
>
> > These articles may or may not be true, I dont know, but manyy of the
> > headlines are direct references to Mormon ideas about the initail
inhabitants
> > of the new world.
>
> I would suggest that the question of whether or not the articles are true is
> of somewhat greater significance than whose religious ideas they support.
>
> If Kimball really has found a bona fide Indian legend about a person or place
> called "Moroni" (the name designates both in the BofM) then that is a little
> more important than whether or not Kimball wants to announce his religious
> affiliation in a website intended to market his publications.
>
> Indeed, why should he? Do you demand that everyone disclose their religious
> beliefs if they have a book or magazine to sell?
For the safety of all involved. For example experience has shown us that you
must be very carefull when buying antique documents from a Mormon.(especially
if they are about Salamanders)
> A valid criticism of that website would be that it conveys almost no
> information except how to order the material that is for sale there. Without
> any hard data about what is in his articles, we can all speculate to our
> hearts' content, but none of us can reach any valid conclusions.
Its to bad that you can't be such and objective observer when it comes to the
Book of Mormon and the LDS Church. You really are a true skeptic, by the way
Gordon B. Hinckley called me yesterday and he said that he wants you to send
your titheing money to my house from now on.
If none of us can reach conclusions then why are you bothering me with your
worthless commentary-- obviously you have concluded that Glenn Kimball is NOT
a Mormon? how did you come to this conclusion?.
Yes Russell this is speculation but MY speculation on this matter is probably
correct. I am basing this not only on the web-site but also my own
conversation with Glenn Kimball and his abrupt termination of said
communication when I asked if he was LDS. I don't give a shit what religion
Glenn belongs to, but if he is a Mormon then I think he should let people
know the ties between his archeology and his Religion. It just like if I
worked for the CIA and I released a book called "The CIA:coolest dudes in the
world!" If you didn't know that I worked for the CIA you might just think
that this was an endorsment from the general public---and not the propoganda
that it most likely is.
> Russell C. McGregor.
Frater Ditton Wilson
"Remember, brethren, that no man's opinion is worth your bong"
(Brigham Yung)
For a signed copy of my book "The CIA:coolest dudes in the world" --go
outside and bury $23 underneath a tree or something that looks like a
tree--our underground agents will contact you.
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us
gwenny_...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <72aeuc$90s$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
>
> > Mormon Christianity has NEVER claimed that ALL Native Americans came from
> > Jerusalem 600 B.C. Only that SOME of them did.
>
> It doesn't matter if they did. They will conveniently change their
>doctrine to cover anything that seriously threatens their belief system. . .and
>say it was a revelation and the truth had to be hidden because we were a)
>sinners, b) not far enough advanced to hear it, or c) being tested.
>
> --
>
> Skepticult member #156-365280-795
Do you suppose I could invite you to demonstrate so cynical a history of
Mormon Christianity as you state above?
Respectfully,
Gerry L. Ensley.
russe...@my-dejanews.com
coyo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <72nq9d$5vc$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> russe...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > In article <71t25l$9cf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>
> >
> > Is Glenn Kimball an LDS Anthropologist working in South America?
>
> I dont know , why dont you ask him?
It seems to be implicit in the statement that you made previously, and snipped
without giving notice, to wit:
"Most LDS Anthropologists working in South America are trying to make the
evidence fit the Book of Mormon. That's not science. If you visit Glenn
Kimball's web site..."
IOW, the statement about Kimball's website follows on from your statement
about LDS anthropologists in South America. That's why I asked *you*.
Here is what the picture shows, from left to right in the foreground:
Below the rock is a bareheaded, red-haired viking with a mustache but no
beard. He has a bow, arrow nocked, and a dagger in his belt.
To his left, standing on the rock, is a bearded viking priest in a long white
hooded robe carrying a long quarterstaff and what looks like a bag.
To his left and slightly in front of him, at the centre and focus of the
picture, is a bearded viking in horned helmet and short checked tunic. Has a
dagger and long sword in his belt and a battleaxe in his hand. To his left
is a bareheaded viking with a large round shield and a drawn sword. Three
other vikings are visible behind them in the background.
Having seen a reasonable number of BofM pictures, this looked exactly like --
none of them. But then again, maybe I'm just not into theories that involve
sinister Mormon conspiracies.
> > I suspect that you "instantly recognized" what you were looking for, rather
> > than what was actually in the picture. There are no recognisable BofM
> > characters in that picture.
>
> And you would recognize specific Book of Mormon Characters because you have
> seen them depicted .......... where exactly? I mean you do have a point-- the
> depiction of Nephi shows him with his nose a little smaller than it was in
> real life.
And his forearms a good deal larger!!?! I've just seen them at visitors'
centres, in the old blue Missionary BofM, and in Sunday School and Seminary
visual aids. Just the standard places.
Snip
> > If Kimball really has found a bona fide Indian legend about a person or
place
> > called "Moroni" (the name designates both in the BofM) then that is a little
> > more important than whether or not Kimball wants to announce his religious
> > affiliation in a website intended to market his publications.
> >
> > Indeed, why should he? Do you demand that everyone disclose their religious
> > beliefs if they have a book or magazine to sell?
>
> For the safety of all involved. For example experience has shown us that you
> must be very carefull when buying antique documents from a Mormon.(especially
> if they are about Salamanders)
And especially when the "Mormon" in question is actually an anti-Mormon who
happens to be a member at the time!?!
Yes, I realise that the Hofmann frauds did leave a lot of anti-Mormons with
egg on their faces. You really shouldn't hold that against us, though.
Cheap shots don't strengthen your case.
> > A valid criticism of that website would be that it conveys almost no
> > information except how to order the material that is for sale there.
Without
> > any hard data about what is in his articles, we can all speculate to our
> > hearts' content, but none of us can reach any valid conclusions.
>
> Its to bad that you can't be such and objective observer when it comes to the
> Book of Mormon and the LDS Church. You really are a true skeptic, by the way
> Gordon B. Hinckley called me yesterday and he said that he wants you to send
> your titheing money to my house from now on.
Thanks for the information, but being a Latter-day Saint, I'm not quite silly
enough to fall for it.
> If none of us can reach conclusions then why are you bothering me with your
> worthless commentary--
Because there is no data to support your apparent conspiracy theory.
> obviously you have concluded that Glenn Kimball is NOT
> a Mormon? how did you come to this conclusion?.
Thank you for illustrating the perils of jumping to conclusions. Actually I
have concluded no such thing, but your faulty methodology led you to that
erroneous belief.
My guess (even without talking to him on the telephone) is that he is LDS.
The point is that I would rather know what his articles actually *say*. Then
we would have something to go on. Otherwise, you are simply trying to read
the mind of someone whom you choose to dislike entirely because of his
religious beliefs. That tells us nothing about him. It tells us a good deal
about you, and none of it is flattering.
> Yes Russell this is speculation but MY speculation on this matter is probably
> correct. I am basing this not only on the web-site but also my own
> conversation with Glenn Kimball and his abrupt termination of said
> communication when I asked if he was LDS. I don't give a shit what religion
> Glenn belongs to, but if he is a Mormon then I think he should let people
> know the ties between his archeology and his Religion. It just like if I
> worked for the CIA and I released a book called "The CIA:coolest dudes in the
> world!" If you didn't know that I worked for the CIA you might just think
> that this was an endorsment from the general public---and not the propoganda
> that it most likely is.
The other side to that argument is that if you wrote the book on your own
time because, seeing them up close, you decided that they really *were* "the
coolest dudes in the world", then should we dismiss your book out of hand,
without reading it, just because you were affiliated with them?
If Kimball's articles deliver the goods, then it doesn't matter what religion
the writer(s) and/or editor(s) are; facts are still facts.
Even when Mormons are telling them.
> Frater Ditton Wilson
>
> "Remember, brethren, that no man's opinion is worth your bong"
> (Brigham Yung)
>
> For a signed copy of my book "The CIA:coolest dudes in the world" --go
> outside and bury $23 underneath a tree or something that looks like a
> tree--our underground agents will contact you.
Heh heh.
Actually, not being an American, I don't really care how cool they are (or
aren't.)
Russell C. McGregor.
--
"Remember, brethren, that no man's opinion is worth a straw"
(Brigham Young)
gwenny_...@my-dejanews.com
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
> > > Mormon Christianity has NEVER claimed that ALL Native Americans came from
> > > Jerusalem 600 B.C. Only that SOME of them did.
> >
> > It doesn't matter if they did. They will conveniently change their
> >doctrine to cover anything that seriously threatens their belief system. .
.and
> >say it was a revelation and the truth had to be hidden because we were a)
> >sinners, b) not far enough advanced to hear it, or c) being tested.
> Do you suppose I could invite you to demonstrate so cynical a history of
> Mormon Christianity as you state above?
I suppose you mean I need to go dig out that very old copy of D&C and find the
differences between it and the newer copies? <sigh> Other than that, I only
have my own experiences for the most part.
Polygamy and blacks leap to mind. Polygamy was supposed to be THE LAW. .
.but it conveniently became not the law because of a "revelation" when the US
threatened. (Keep in mind, I support polygamy) Or the fact that blacks
couldn't hold the priesthood because they carried the Mark of Cain and
weren't good enough. . .which changed in 1979 after the ACLU filed suit
against the Church. This happened a few weeks after I was baptised and I had
fits when I heard it. . .the missionaries hadn't mentioned it during my
classes. I threatened to leave the church then and there if they were that
bigotted. They talked me out of it. Slick talkers, those missionaries. .
.and cute, too.
--
Gwenny the Pooh
Skepticult member #156-365280-795
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
coyo...@my-dejanews.com
russe...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
. To his
left
> is a bareheaded viking with a large round shield and a drawn sword. Three
> other vikings are visible behind them in the background.
>
> Having seen a reasonable number of BofM pictures, this looked exactly like --
> none of them. But then again, maybe I'm just not into theories that involve
> sinister Mormon conspiracies.
Hold up there pardner... I didn't say anything about Mormon Conspiracies, if
you want that you will have to go to my website. I am simply pointing out the
clues that led me to hypothesize that Glen Kimball is LDS. I just thought
people might like to know that one of Art Bell's guests is promoting what is
basically Book of Mormon archeological theories. Why get so upset Russell, it
might get the LDS Church some more converts now that Art Bell audience knows
that Kimball's theories are connected to a fun hip religion.
>
Do you demand that everyone disclose their
religious
> > > beliefs if they have a book or magazine to sell?
>
> Yes, I realise that the Hofmann frauds did leave a lot of anti-Mormons with
> egg on their faces. You really shouldn't hold that against us, though.
> Cheap shots don't strengthen your case.
and they give me a hangover in the morning.
> > > A valid criticism of that website would be that it conveys almost no
> > > information except how to order the material that is for sale there.
> Without
> > > any hard data about what is in his articles, we can all speculate to our
> > > hearts' content, but none of us can reach any valid conclusions.
>
> > If none of us can reach conclusions then why are you bothering me with your
> > worthless commentary--
>
> Because there is no data to support your apparent conspiracy theory.
>
> > obviously you have concluded that Glenn Kimball is NOT
> > a Mormon? how did you come to this conclusion?.
>
> My guess (even without talking to him on the telephone) is that he is LDS.
Wow, we have something in common, that is my guess too, and the point of my
original post. What I wonder Russ, is how you guessed the same thing that I
did? The rest of your post tries to prove that there is no evidence linking
Glen Kimball to the LDS Church. What is it about the Glen Kimball website
that made you guess that he was LDS? I have already explained the reasons
behind my guess. We both see connections between Kimball and the LDS Church,
what exactly are we disagreeing on. (except that you don't like me)
> The point is that I would rather know what his articles actually *say*. Then
> we would have something to go on. Otherwise, you are simply trying to read
> the mind of someone whom you choose to dislike entirely because of his
> religious beliefs. That tells us nothing about him. It tells us a good deal
> about you, and none of it is flattering.
Look Russel,
> > Yes Russell this is speculation but MY speculation on this matter is
probably
> > correct. I am basing this not only on the web-site but also my own
> > conversation with Glenn Kimball and his abrupt termination of said
> > communication when I asked if he was LDS. I don't give a shit what religion
> > Glenn belongs to, but if he is a Mormon then I think he should let people
> > know the ties between his archeology and his Religion.
> If Kimball's articles deliver the goods, then it doesn't matter what religion
> the writer(s) and/or editor(s) are; facts are still facts.
>
> Even when Mormons are telling them.
> Russell C. McGregor.
> --
Like the fact that you think Kimball is probably LDS?
Frater Ditton Wilson
russe...@my-dejanews.com
coyo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <72tblr$vht$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> russe...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
Snip
> > My guess (even without talking to him on the telephone) is that he is LDS.
>
> Wow, we have something in common, that is my guess too, and the point of my
> original post.
*Was* that the entire point?
Or was the point really to make people suspicious of him *because* he is LDS?
> What I wonder Russ, is how you guessed the same thing that I
> did? The rest of your post tries to prove that there is no evidence linking
> Glen Kimball to the LDS Church.
No, my post attempts to show that not every single item on his website (like
the viking picture) is some kind of subliminal plug for the Church.
> What is it about the Glen Kimball website
> that made you guess that he was LDS? I have already explained the reasons
> behind my guess. We both see connections between Kimball and the LDS Church,
> what exactly are we disagreeing on. (except that you don't like me)
I've never met you. Apart from one or two rather appalling attitudes, you
might be a perfectly likeable person.
The problem I have with your whole approach is simply this: what does it
matter if Kimball is a Mormon? What difference does that make? If his
information is correct, it is correct; if it isn't, then it isn't. His
religious affiliation will not change that one iota. His magazine articles
must stand or fall on their content and on no other basis.
Your post seems to be a transparent attempt to poison the well by prejudicing
people against Kimball's articles before they read them.
Snip to end.
coyo...@my-dejanews.com
russe...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <7301mg$afr$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> coyo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > In article <72tblr$vht$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > russe...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> Snip
>
> >
> > original post.
>
> *Was* that the entire point?
Yes
> Or was the point really to make people suspicious of him *because* he is LDS?
suspicious of what? Maybe of not being completely honest with people. He was
already under suspicion because he was on the Art
Bell show.
> > What I wonder Russ, is how you guessed the same thing that I
> > did? The rest of your post tries to prove that there is no evidence linking
> > Glen Kimball to the LDS Church.
>
> No, my post attempts to show that not every single item on his website (like
> the viking picture) is some kind of subliminal plug for the Church.
I never said anything about *every single item* on his website.
> > What is it about the Glen Kimball website
> > that made you guess that he was LDS? I have already explained the reasons
> > behind my guess. We both see connections between Kimball and the LDS
Church,
> > what exactly are we disagreeing on. (except that you don't like me)
>
> I've never met you. Apart from one or two rather appalling attitudes, you
> might be a perfectly likeable person.
>
> The problem I have with your whole approach is simply this: what does it
> matter if Kimball is a Mormon? What difference does that make? If his
> information is correct, it is correct; if it isn't, then it isn't. His
> religious affiliation will not change that one iota. His magazine articles
> must stand or fall on their content and on no other basis.
>
> Your post seems to be a transparent attempt to poison the well by prejudicing
> people against Kimball's articles before they read them.
I don't think that there is anything wrong with people knowing what they may
be getting into. I think that I would appreciate knowing if a certain book or
magazine was connected with any religion before I read it. I am not trying to
poison Kimballs well, I was simply sharing my observations on the subject.
> Snip to end.