Looking for Answers from a Mormon
Jesus Witness
If Moroni practiced the Mormon Gospel so devoutly, then why is he only an
angel now and not a god?(read D&C 132:17,37)
Why did the Nauvoo house not stand forever? (read D&C 124:56-60)
How was Jesus born of a virgin if he was the result of a physical sexual
union between Mary and God? (read J of D, Volume 1, pg. 50)
Anyone want to try to enlighten me? I am extremely curious about such
things.
The Jesus Witness
"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust
destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves
treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves
do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will
be also. (Matthew 6:19-21)
Web
"Jesus Witness" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:38HZ5.855$uF3....@eagle.america.net...
> Just a few questions that I need answered by a Mormon believer:
>
> If Moroni practiced the Mormon Gospel so devoutly, then why is he only an
> angel now and not a god?(read D&C 132:17,37)
To begin with, I have no way of knowing how "devout" Moroni was; We also
don't know what Moroni is now, one hundred eighty or so years after his
last appearance.
Assuming however, that we did know all this, I would say that Moroni has not
yet been subject to the final judgement nor has he progressed far enough
toward godhood. It's not automatic you know.
Web
Web
>
> If Moroni practiced the Mormon Gospel so devoutly, then why is he only an
> angel now and not a god?(read D&C 132:17,37)
>
> Why did the Nauvoo house not stand forever? (read D&C 124:56-60)
D&C 124:56
56 And now I say unto you, as pertaining to my boarding house which I have
commanded you to build for the boarding of strangers, let it be built unto
my name, and let my name be named upon it, and let my servant Joseph and his
house have place therein, from generation to generation.
57 For this anointing have I put upon his head, that his blessing shall
also be put upon the head of his posterity after him.
58 And as I said unto Abraham concerning the kindreds of the earth, even so
I say unto my servant Joseph: In thee and in thy seed shall the kindred of
the earth be blessed.
59 Therefore, let my servant Joseph and his seed after him have place in
that house, from generation to generation, forever and ever, saith the Lord.
60 And let the name of that house be called Nauvoo House; and let it be a
delightful habitation for man, and a resting-place for the weary traveler,
that he may contemplate the glory of Zion, and the glory of this, the
corner-stone thereof;>
Why did the building called the Nauvoo House not stand forever? Because
nothing man builds is forever. Heavenly Father is eternal and anything he
builds is eternal because that is his name.
Read it over a few times and see that it was not the physical boarding house
that was being referred to here.
But, you knew that, didn't you?
Web
Web
>
> If Moroni practiced the Mormon Gospel so devoutly, then why is he only an
> angel now and not a god?(read D&C 132:17,37)
>
> Why did the Nauvoo house not stand forever? (read D&C 124:56-60)
>
> How was Jesus born of a virgin if he was the result of a physical sexual
> union between Mary and God? (read J of D, Volume 1, pg. 50)
The Journal of Discourses is a second and third party record of various
discourses delivered by the Prophet Brigham Young and others. It is not
scripture. It is only the opinions of men as recorded by people whose
memories are the real authors.
It may well have been the opinion of Brother Brigham and others that there
was a physical union between Mary and Diety but it is not doctrine and is
not taught anywhere in the Church. It only comes up in pamphlets written by
people who are grabbing at straws trying to discredit the Church.
The entire fact is that we know that Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of
Heavenly Father. We have no idea how it was accomplished and we also feel
that it makes no difference how it was done.
Web
ForWhatItsWorth
"Web" <webe...@home.com> wrote in message
news:8tJZ5.67917$iy3.16...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
>
> "Jesus Witness" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:38HZ5.855$uF3....@eagle.america.net...
> > Just a few questions that I need answered by a Mormon believer:
> >
> > If Moroni practiced the Mormon Gospel so devoutly, then why is he only
an
> > angel now and not a god?(read D&C 132:17,37)
> >
> > Why did the Nauvoo house not stand forever? (read D&C 124:56-60)
> >
> > How was Jesus born of a virgin if he was the result of a physical sexual
> > union between Mary and God? (read J of D, Volume 1, pg. 50)
>
> The Journal of Discourses is a second and third party record of various
> discourses delivered by the Prophet Brigham Young and others. It is not
> scripture. It is only the opinions of men as recorded by people whose
> memories are the real authors.
Yet, is it not taught? Is it not used as reference material?
Are you saying that no president or Apostle since Brigham Young has ever
used material from the J of D as proof-text?
Consider:
"D&C 1:38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not
myself; and though heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass
away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice
of my servants, it is the same."
There is no disclaimer there, that these 'servants' be acting ex oficio
before their words become binding, is there? Is there a difference given
between a prophet and another, perhaps lower-ranking servant? If you say
yes to that, then consider:
"D&C 1:34 And again, verily I say unto you, O inhabitants of the earth: I
the Lord am willing to make these things known unto all flesh;
D&C 1:35 For I am no respecter of persons, and will that men shall know that
the day speedily cometh; the hour is not yet, but is nigh at hand, when
peace shall be taken from the earth, and the devil shall have power over his
own dominion."
Sounds like the Lord makes no distinction between His servants, doesn't it?
Therefore, when the J of D was compiled, by GA's and from the lips of
prophets, it became as scripture.
If you still beleive that sort of thing.
Hmmm?
For What Its Worth...
Bill Williams
> news:38HZ5.855$uF3....@eagle.america.net...
> > Just a few questions that I need answered by a Mormon believer:
> >
> > If Moroni practiced the Mormon Gospel so devoutly, then why is he only
an
> > angel now and not a god?(read D&C 132:17,37)
> >
> > Why did the Nauvoo house not stand forever? (read D&C 124:56-60)
> >
> > How was Jesus born of a virgin if he was the result of a physical sexual
> > union between Mary and God? (read J of D, Volume 1, pg. 50)
>
> The Journal of Discourses is a second and third party record of various
> discourses delivered by the Prophet Brigham Young and others. It is not
> scripture. It is only the opinions of men as recorded by people whose
> memories are the real authors.
That's not true. The discourses in the JofD were taken down in shorthand,
not reconstructed later from someone's memory.
Bill Williams
PatentWorm
>
> If Moroni practiced the Mormon Gospel so devoutly, then why is he only an
> angel now and not a god?(read D&C 132:17,37)>
Who said he wasn't?
>
> Why did the Nauvoo house not stand forever? (read D&C 124:56-60)>
Evil men destroyed it.
>
> How was Jesus born of a virgin if he was the result of a physical sexual
> union between Mary and God? (read J of D, Volume 1, pg. 50)>
God did not lay Mary. Conception was through miraculous means, just not as
mysterious as the orthodox Christian view which has no clue. The Mormon
view is more anthropomorphic.
Fool Speck
"PatentWorm" <jgu...@uswest.com> wrote:
>
> Jesus Witness <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:38HZ5.855$uF3....@eagle.america.net...
> > Just a few questions that I need answered by a Mormon believer:
> >
> > If Moroni practiced the Mormon Gospel so devoutly, then why is he
only an
> > angel now and not a god?(read D&C 132:17,37)>
>
> Who said he wasn't?
>
> >
> > Why did the Nauvoo house not stand forever? (read D&C 124:56-60)>
>
> Evil men destroyed it.
The Nauvoo House still stands. It was finished by Emma's second
husband, Major Bidamon. Emma died in that house. It is owned by the
RLDS.
>
> >
> > How was Jesus born of a virgin if he was the result of a physical
sexual
> > union between Mary and God? (read J of D, Volume 1, pg. 50)>
>
> God did not lay Mary. Conception was through miraculous means, just
not as
> mysterious as the orthodox Christian view which has no clue. The
Mormon
> view is more anthropomorphic.
>
> >
> > Anyone want to try to enlighten me? I am extremely curious about
such
> > things.
> >
> > The Jesus Witness
> >
> > "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and
rust
> > destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for
yourselves
> > treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where
thieves
> > do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your
heart
> will
> > be also. (Matthew 6:19-21)
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--
FoolSpeck ARM Critic Credo:
1) Act as if this is Mormon turf and critics are guests.
2) Right or wrong, LDS beliefs are sacred to Mormons;
the Golden Rule applies.
3) Be tough enough to be an easy target.
a - Post FoolSpeck Critic Credo so others can
point out any FoolSpeck hypocrisy.
b - Learn from anyone. Humility is no more
a virtue than keen eyesight; exercise it
without being proud of it.
4) Offer no sophistry or disingenuous arguments.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Fool Speck
The Nauvoo house still stands. It is located between the mansion house
and the Mississippi River, across from the JS homestead.
The DataRat
"I would say that Moroni has not yet
been subject to the final judgement nor
has he progressed far enough toward
godhood. It's not automatic you know"
A works-righteousness religion where
men can become gods !
We might be discussing Vedic Hinduism.
Or, L. Ron Hubbard's sci fi religion:
Scientology.
But, no, THIS religion claims to be
"Christian". It's Mormonism !
The DataRat
Guy R. Briggs
>
> Just a few questions that I need answered by a Mormon believer:
>
newsgroups at the same time? I wonder why this post seems like a troll?
>
> If Moroni practiced the Mormon Gospel so devoutly, then why
> is he only an angel now and not a god?(read D&C 132:17,37)
>
First you need a vocabulary lesson. In the Mormon scheme of things
(ITMSOT) an angel is a messenger from god. They come in several flavors
- premortal spirits, postmortal spirits, resurrected beings. Moroni is
one of the postmortal variety, which means he hasn't been through final
judgement yet.
Very few of us have, doncha' know.
In fact, at the time the above section of the Doctrine and Covenants
was given, _Webster's Dictionary_ included Christ in it's definition of
"angel". He would be the resurrected variety.
>
> Why did the Nauvoo house not stand forever? (read D&C 124:56-60)
>
As I understand it, it's still standing.
>
> How was Jesus born of a virgin if he was the result of a physical
> sexual union between Mary and God? (read J of D, Volume 1, pg. 50)
>
Been there read that, it does not say that God had sex with Mary. We
believe her to have been a virgin at the time of the Saviour's birth -
so says our Book of Mormon, and there's no ambiguity over whether the
word should be translated "virgin" or "young woman".
The God/sex/Mary thing is not now, nor has it ever been, official
doctrine.
>
> Anyone want to try to enlighten me? I am extremely curious
> about such things.
>
My guess is that you're not at all curious about such things, and if
your goal is to ask embarassing questions of Mormons, you need to do
more homework.
>
> The Jesus Witness
>
Aren't we all?
bestRegards,
---------------------------------------------------------------
Guy R. "BrickWall" Briggs, MCSE* - net...@GeoCities.com
Used cars - Land - Whiskey - Manure - Nails
Fly Swatters - Racing Forms - Bongos
Wars Fought - Tires Balanced - Assassinations Plotted
Revolutions Started - Governments Run - Uprisings Quelled
Tigers Tamed - Bars Emptied - Orgies Planned
*Minesweeper Consultant and Solitaire Expert
I also program computers
John Manning
I'm sure that your inspiring message will create an intense desire for
this person to join your cult right away!
JRM
John Manning
Check out the online video at
http://www.helpingmormons.org/hinckley.htm Eyewitnesses report sexual
activities of current Mormon 'Prophet' Gordon B. Hinckley with young
boys and prostitutes during the 1960's.
JRM
Guy R. Briggs
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>> nos...@nospam.com (Jesus Witness) wrote:
>>>
>>> Just a few questions that I need answered by a Mormon believer:
<snip Q & A>
>>> The Jesus Witness
>>
>> Aren't we all?
>
> I'm sure that your inspiring message will create an intense
> desire for this person to join your cult right away!
>
"cult (kúlt) A religion or religious sect generally
considered to be extremist or false, with its followers
often living in an unconventional manner under the
guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader."
I'm quite certain that the scribes and pharisees circa 33 A.D.
considered members of the upstart Christian movement to be cultic
followers of the very charismatic Jesus of Nazareth. If that's what
you mean by cult, then put me down as a cultist!
As far as convincing others to join Mormonism, that's not my job -
it's the Holy Spirit's job. All I do is set people straight about our
doctrine and politely answer questions when they are presented.
Raymond
Thanks for posting and offering to straighten out misunderstandings
about the LDS church.
I have a question that I have (over the years) recieved several
different answers to from LDS members. Please I would like to hear
what you have to say:
Please explain the relationship between Jesus and Satan.
Thanks,
Raymond
On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 17:05:03 GMT, net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R.
Fool Speck
SpamlessRa...@spamlessyahoo.com wrote:
> Dear Guy,
>
> Thanks for posting and offering to straighten out misunderstandings
> about the LDS church.
>
> I have a question that I have (over the years) recieved several
> different answers to from LDS members. Please I would like to hear
> what you have to say:
>
> Please explain the relationship between Jesus and Satan.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Raymond
I know you are expecting an answer from Guy, and of course my
commenting on this will not preclude an answer from him.
I am answering as a critic of the Mormon Church, and I hope both sides
agree, an honest one. I am also assuming you are referring to the
claim that Mormons believe that Satan is Jesus' brother.
Anti-Mormon (which I am not) will state this as a strawman and proceed
to attack it as if Mormons actually believed in some sort of special
fraternity between Jesus and Satan. I have actually seen demonstrators
at the Salt Lake temple with placards that stated "Jesus is not Satan's
brother!" If you look up "sophistry" in the dictionary, this claim
could not be a better illustration of the term.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=sophistry*1%2B0
The relationship is that they believe that God made Jesus, the first
born; and Lucifer, the second born. Lucifer fell, there was a war in
heaven, and he and one third of the host of heaven who followed him
were expelled. Lucifer became Satan.
It is that simple. They are technically brothers simply because God
made them both.
We can be critical without being patently dishonest. The mainstream
Protestant fundalmentalist Christians who make this claim of Mormon
beliefs are ignorant at best, and slimy hypocritical at the worst.
Web
"Raymond" <SpamlessRa...@spamlessyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3a3ee078....@corp.supernews.com...
> Dear Guy,
>
> Thanks for posting and offering to straighten out misunderstandings
> about the LDS church.
>
> I have a question that I have (over the years) recieved several
> different answers to from LDS members. Please I would like to hear
> what you have to say:
>
> Please explain the relationship between Jesus and Satan.
The Book of Moses is the original form of Genesis, translated into English
by the Prophet Joseph Smith Jun.
Moses Chapter 4
1 And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast
commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the
beginning, and he came before me, saying-Behold, here am I, send me, I will
be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost,
and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.
2 But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the
beginning, said unto me-Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine
forever.
3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy
the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I
should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I
caused that he should be cast down;
4 And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to
deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many
as would not hearken unto my voice.
This happened at a great council in Heaven where the Plan of Salvation was
laid out for mankind.
We were all there in spirit form along with all our spirit brothers and
sisters, including Jesus and Satan.
One third of the host of Heaven rebelled and followed Satan. Those who
remained faithful gained the privilege of coming to this earth in bodily
form.
Web
Raymond
The stories you both relate is my understanding also. However, I
recall one more twist to the incident:
This information came to me from a former LDS member from SLC. He was
involved for around twenty-five years. He had a huge book explaining
all the ceremonies and nuances of the faith that, he said, were
revealed to members slowly over a long period of time. He warned not
to be surprised if the young men that come to the door witnessing are
unaware of most of them. At any rate, here's the twist:
The salvation of earth was being planned out in heaven. Nothing too
unusual about this meeting to do so, as many many other planets with
salvation plans had already been successfully worked out.
God decided that Jesus would be the savior for earth. This made Saten,
Jesus' brother, very angry and argued. God would not be moved from
this postition. Satan was upset to the point that he led the rebellion
against God and took one third of the angels with him.
God was so angry at this that, in response, He turned Satan's (and the
thirds') skin black.
This was the beginning of the negro race.
My friend went on to explain that subsequent leaders of the LDS'
rewrote and softened this position originally started by J. Smith.
This revision, and others, are explained by pointing out that, over
time, situations and circumstances change here on earth and God gives
the current LDS leader devine knowledge to make such changes.
This origin of the black people is but one of many nuances of the LDS
faith I rarely see discussed. I normally avoid bringing them up as the
discussing usually ends up taking the form of a debate where two sides
are both trying to "win". To me, it's not about winning or losing a
debate, or proving who is better read, but seeking the truth. Either
LDS once taught the above or they did not.
So, which is it?
Fool Speck
SpamlessRa...@spamlessyahoo.com wrote:
> Thanks to both Web and Fool Speck for responding.
>
> The stories you both relate is my understanding also. However, I
> recall one more twist to the incident:
>
> This information came to me from a former LDS member from SLC. He was
> involved for around twenty-five years. He had a huge book explaining
> all the ceremonies and nuances of the faith that, he said, were
> revealed to members slowly over a long period of time. He warned not
> to be surprised if the young men that come to the door witnessing are
> unaware of most of them. At any rate, here's the twist:
>
> The salvation of earth was being planned out in heaven. Nothing too
> unusual about this meeting to do so, as many many other planets with
> salvation plans had already been successfully worked out.
>
> God decided that Jesus would be the savior for earth. This made Saten,
> Jesus' brother, very angry and argued. God would not be moved from
> this postition. Satan was upset to the point that he led the rebellion
> against God and took one third of the angels with him.
>
> God was so angry at this that, in response, He turned Satan's (and the
> thirds') skin black.
>
> This was the beginning of the negro race.
The old speculation was that the sides were divided into thirds: The
evil, the fence sitters, and the valient. The evil will never get
bodies, the fence sitters got negro bodies, and the lightest shades
were the most valient.
Historically, evidence shows (oh, boy, here we go...) that although he
was not an abolitionist in the John Brown sense, Joseph was much less
of a racist than the counsel of the twelve, et al. The Missouri
troubles solidified the racist attitudes, and Brigham Young and most of
the succeeding Presidents were actually very bigotted men, but really
only about average for the time. A good book about early black Mormons
would be "One More River to Cross". Mormons may find only occasional
passages slightly uncomfortable.
Why were the blacks denied the priesthood? Racist views by the general
authorities. Spencer Kimball said in a conference in Brazil that when
he found why the blacks were not allowed to hold the priesthood, that
he "wept for the Saints." Reference upon request. (I would have to go
to Arden Eby's site to look it up, or you could if you search on "Eby"
and "Mormon".)
The ingrained deification of the LDS leaders will not allow the members
to confront and accept this highly documented racism and flat out false
prophesies made by Brigham Young, et al. The average LDS find this
highly disturbing, and in desparation most will go thru all kinds of
mental convolutions to rationalize it. When Mormons get over this
deification thing, then maybe they will be able to confront the myriad
of disturbing history.
>
> My friend went on to explain that subsequent leaders of the LDS'
> rewrote and softened this position originally started by J. Smith.
> This revision, and others, are explained by pointing out that, over
> time, situations and circumstances change here on earth and God gives
> the current LDS leader devine knowledge to make such changes.
Or opens the eyes of these fallible prophets to just how ugly racism is
and realize that just because they were racist doesn't mean that God is
racist.
>
> This origin of the black people is but one of many nuances of the LDS
> faith I rarely see discussed. I normally avoid bringing them up as the
> discussing usually ends up taking the form of a debate where two sides
> are both trying to "win". To me, it's not about winning or losing a
> debate, or proving who is better read, but seeking the truth. Either
> LDS once taught the above or they did not.
>
> So, which is it?
We do want to get some debate here if we want the truth. There are
aspects that you and the apologists (that is a debating term
for "defenders") may think would be significant that I or some of the
other critics would discount. I try to be balanced, but I am not. I
can give only my perspective, and we should get some good input from
the Mormons to help elucidate the issue.
Reverend Phlegm
Fool Speck wrote:
>
> The relationship is that they believe that God made Jesus, the first
> born; and Lucifer, the second born. Lucifer fell, there was a war in
> heaven, and he and one third of the host of heaven who followed him
> were expelled. Lucifer became Satan.
>
> It is that simple. They are technically brothers simply because God
> made them both.
However, them both being created sons of Elohim would mean that they were
equal (as least in essence) until Lucifer went bad.
Guy R. Briggs
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>> joh...@cableone.net (John Manning) wrote:
>>> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>>>> nos...@nospam.com (Jesus Witness) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Just a few questions that I need answered by a Mormon believer:
<snip>
>> As far as convincing others to join Mormonism, that's not
>> my job - it's the Holy Spirit's job. All I do is set people
>> straight about our doctrine and politely answer questions
>> when they are presented.
>
> Thanks for posting and offering to straighten out
> misunderstandings about the LDS church.
>
Just doing my job. ;)
>
> I have a question that I have (over the years) recieved
> several different answers to from LDS members. Please I
> would like to hear what you have to say:
>
> Please explain the relationship between Jesus and Satan.
>
They are both creations of our Father in Heaven.
I realize the idea that Jesus was a creation is anathema to many
mainstream Christians, but do not understand why it should be so, as
the Bible clearly states that Jesus is the "... image of the invisible
God, the firstborn of every creature ..." (1 Col.1:15) The bias is so
strong that some modern translations have actually rendered the Greek
"prototokos" in the verse as "preeminent" instead of the more correct
"firstborn".
Go figure.
Our critics are fond of saying, "Mormons believe that Jesus and
Satan are brothers" and the implication is, of course, that we believe
they are "in cahoots". In the first place, we see them as mortal
enemies though they are, technically, brothers in the spirit sense. In
the second place, the idea that God created evil (or, in this case,
evil personified by Satan) is an idea that philosophers have been
wrestling with for millenia.
Guy R. Briggs
> webe...@home.com ("Web") wrote:
>> SpamlessRa...@spamlessyahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for posting and offering to straighten out
>>> misunderstandings about the LDS church.
<snip>
>> This happened at a great council in Heaven where the Plan
>> of Salvation was laid out for mankind. We were all there in
>> spirit form along with all our spirit brothers and sisters,
>> including Jesus and Satan.
>>
>> One third of the host of Heaven rebelled and followed Satan.
>> Those who remained faithful gained the privilege of coming
>> to this earth in bodily form.
<snip>
> The salvation of earth was being planned out in heaven.
> Nothing too unusual about this meeting to do so, as many
> many other planets with salvation plans had already been
> successfully worked out.
>
> God decided that Jesus would be the savior for earth. This
> made Saten, Jesus' brother, very angry and argued. God would
> not be moved from this postition. Satan was upset to the
> point that he led the rebellion against God and took one
> third of the angels with him.
>
Pretty close. The original plan was to create an environment where
all spirits could come and learn how to make good choices. When the
plan was presented, most of us were pretty happy about it (in the book
of Job we read that all of the "sons of God" - us, non-generically -
shouted for joy.
In order for this to be a place where we could learn to make good
choices - a cosmic Montessori school, if you will - there were two
things that were absolutely essential: (1) there had to be choices to
make, IOW good and evil have to coexist, and (2) we had to have
complete freedom to make choices, a.k.a "free-agency". Those of us who
"graduate" from this school - those of us who successfully learn to
choose good and evil and do so of our own free will and choosing -
become heirs to all that our Father in Heaven has. Joint-heirs with
Christ.
The downside of this "Montessori school" is that some of us never
learn to make the good choices. Satan had a different plan. He
proposed that he (Satan) be allowed to come to earth and /make/ us
always choose the right. Not a single soul would be lost. He didn't
want Father in Heaven to get the glory - he wanted to keep it all for
himself. This led to a war of words which LdS believe is the "war in
heaven" spoken of in Rev.12:7. Satan was able to convince one-third of
the hosts that his was the best plan.
>
> God was so angry at this that, in response, He turned Satan's
> (and the thirds') skin black.
>
> This was the beginning of the negro race.
>
Erm ... not at all accurate. Satan and his followers were not
allowed to come to earth and get a body, thus never get the chance to
get skin of /any/ colour. LdS believe that these are the angels which
"kept not their first estate" (Jude 1:6).
>
> My friend went on to explain that subsequent leaders of the
> LDS' rewrote and softened this position originally started
> by J. Smith. This revision, and others, are explained by
> pointing out that, over time, situations and circumstances
> change here on earth and God gives the current LDS leader
> devine knowledge to make such changes.
>
Modern day revelation is one of the tenets of our faith. Regardless
of the fact that the "beginning of the negro race" had nothing
whatsoever to do with Satan and those that followed him (in our
doctrine) there is a kernal of truth in the above. We have a list of
our basic tenets we call the "Articles of Faith". One of them reads:
"We believe all that God has revealed, all that he
does now reveal, and we believe that he will yet
reveal many great and important things pertaining
to the kingdom of God."
>
> This origin of the black people is but one of many nuances
> of the LDS faith I rarely see discussed. I normally avoid
> bringing them up as the discussing usually ends up taking
> the form of a debate where two sides are both trying to "win".
> To me, it's not about winning or losing a debate, or proving
> who is better read, but seeking the truth. Either LDS once
> taught the above or they did not.
>
> So, which is it?
>
They didn't. What you are remembering is a policy (note use of the
word "policy" and not "doctrine") which had its origins back in the
Missouri period, IMHO. Early LdS, as they converted and gathered in
the state of Missouri, were largely abolitionists. Missouri was a slave
state. The influx of Mormons threatened to upset the balance of power
in the state and the local populace was pretty upset about it (one of
the reasons they eventually drove us out of their state!) The fact
that we were teaching the gospel to both blacks and whites - and even
ordaining blacks to the priesthood in some cases - was infuriating.
It was decided (and it should be noted that Joseph Smith was out of
town at the time) that blacks should not openly perform duties in the
priesthood, in an attempt to keep the peace in Missouri. Not exactly
sure when or how it happened, but it became a policy of not /ordaining/
blacks to the Priesthood at all.
Various leaders have attempted to explain this policy and some
expressed opinions that, to the late 20th-century mind, sound a bit
racist. In 1976, the President of the Church took the issue to the
Lord and it was revealed to him that the policy was to be discontinued.
In a sermon delivered in Brasil, he stated that when he was told the
reason for the policy, he "wept for the Saints".
My take on it was that it was the 1970s before the Church was ready
for the change in policy - but that's just my humble opinion.
Fool Speck
Duwayne Anderson
net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
<snip>
<snip>
For those interested in Mormonism and Blacks, you might want to check
out the following sites:
Brigham Young's Speech on: Slavery, Blacks, and the Priesthood
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/brigham1852
feb5_priesthoodandblacks.htm
Blacks Receive LDS Priesthood: by Jerald and Sandra Tanner
http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/black_1.htm
http://www.lds-mormon.com/racism.shtml
http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no39.htm
http://www.lds-mormon.com/legrand_richards.shtml
http://www.teleport.com/~packham/blacks.htm
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQRace.shtml
http://www.xmission.com/~country/chngwrld/chap10.htm
Duwayne Anderson
--
American quarter horse - the ultimate
all-terrain vehicle.
Web
That's an easy one. Since Satan will not obtain a body he has no skin, black
or otherwise. Therefore, the Church never taught the above.
The origin of the different races is shrouded in antiquity and is something
we just don't know. Black, red, yellow or pink, we have little idea what
color Adam was.
Web
Raymond
>
>"Raymond" <SpamlessRa...@spamlessyahoo.com> wrote in message
Thanks to both Guy and yourself for your well written responses. (I
thought it sounded just a bit far out...)
Best Sellers
> Raymond wrote:
> > Please explain the relationship between Jesus and Satan.
> I am answering as a critic of the Mormon Church, and I hope both sides
> agree, an honest one. I am also assuming you are referring to the
> claim that Mormons believe that Satan is Jesus' brother.
It is "honest", although not totally
"accurate". However, that is clearly not
because you'd made a conscious attempt to
distort our beliefs. Thank you.
> Anti-Mormon (which I am not) will state this as a strawman and proceed
> to attack it as if Mormons actually believed in some sort of special
> fraternity between Jesus and Satan. I have actually seen demonstrators
> at the Salt Lake temple with placards that stated "Jesus is not Satan's
> brother!" If you look up "sophistry" in the dictionary, this claim
> could not be a better illustration of the term.
> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=sophistry*1%2B0
> The relationship is that they believe that God made Jesus, the first
> born; and Lucifer, the second born. Lucifer fell, there was a war in
> heaven, and he and one third of the host of heaven who followed him
> were expelled. Lucifer became Satan.
There is no scripture (nor any other source)
that says Lucifer was the SECOND born. The
scriptures (Bible, specifically) say that he
was a "morning star), so the implcation is
that he was among the spirits who were
leaders among us all. Yes, we were all
there, and we are ALL brothers and sisters if
Jesus Christ.
Christ is the first among equals, so to
speak, because He is the first-born (a
Biblical term) whose primogeniture was a
requisite for His being chosen as our Savior
and the Champion of Father's cause. Beyond
that, His absolute obedience to Father was
even more important.
The reference to the "war in heaven" and the
one-third who fell is also Biblical, not a
unique LDS source.
> It is that simple. They are technically brothers simply
> because God made them both.
Not quite. They are brothers because they
have a common Father, just as brothers do on
earth. (See Job 2:1.)
> We can be critical without being patently dishonest. The mainstream
> Protestant fundalmentalist Christians who make this claim of Mormon
> beliefs are ignorant at best, and slimy hypocritical at the worst.
I wish I'd said this as cleanly as you have.
Lehi
====
Please visi www.sepschoolorg.
Best Sellers
No for two reasons:
A) Jesus was the First-born. His
pre-eminence was based on this.
B) Jesus was, in the pre-mortal existence,
just as He was on Earth, far more obedient
than anyone else there, even before Lucifer
"went bad".
There is also at least a great deal of
evdience that Jesus was more "advanced"
(learned, faithful, ??) than any one else in
the pre-mortal realms.
Lehi
====
Please visit www.sepschool.org.
Bryan
"Fool Speck" <fool...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:91mtv5$65p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
his deserved status as the infinite and eternal Son of God,or the Second
Person of the Trinity, to that of just another preexistent, finite,
procreated child of the Father who is himself a finite being. In other
words, the Mormons really view Jesus as no different than you or me.
Correct or not? If not, how is it wrong?
<snipped>
Web
"Bryan" <bj...@nospamzdnetonebox.com> wrote in message
news:hbj16.1186$Kk5....@eagle.america.net...
Jesus is not reduced to or from anything in the LDS mind. He is, after all
the same being as the Great I AM. Jesus The Christ is Jehovah of the Old
Testament, the God of the earth.
As The Only Begotten of the Father he was the same as other mortals when on
the earth except he was sinless. Physically, however, he was completely
human. Satan on the other hand will not gain a body and will never be human.
Merry Christmas
Web
>
Reverend Phlegm
Best Sellers wrote:
> . Yes, we were all
> there, and we are ALL brothers and sisters if
> Jesus Christ.
So in *essence* we are no different than Jesus Christ. The difference between
him and us is one of position-- he is firstborn and has progressed much
further than we, and has been more faithful and obedient, but he is made out
of the same spiritual material as we are. (see below)
>
> Christ is the first among equals, so to
> speak, because He is the first-born (a
> Biblical term) whose primogeniture was a
> requisite for His being chosen as our Savior
> and the Champion of Father's cause. Beyond
> that, His absolute obedience to Father was
> even more important.
Once again we are (in Mormon theology) of the same *essence* as Jesus,
Lucifer, and one another.
I said this very same thing a few days ago and was seen as a heretical
basher.
***********************
RevP>The problem is that the Mormon Jesus is a created being that is in
essence
no different than you or I.<
CharlesS>A common misconception. Not an LDS teaching.
Charles' tagline:
"Lord, Lord, have we not bashed the Mormons in thy name? and in thy name
opposed
the LDS? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess
unto them, I never knew you bigots, depart from me, ye that work iniquity..."
*************************
I am not bashing when I state and contrast the theological differences
between Mormonism and Christianity.
I really do not understand why some Mormons are so reluctant to speak
honestly and straightforwardly about their beliefs. I have some good temple
going relatives that will tell me *exactly* what they believe and have been
taught with no pussy footing around. Thus I am not fooled by the obfuscation
and prevarication that *some* Mormons practice here, although I'm sure that
there are some who are fooled.
What bothers me, is that if you really have the fullness of the Gospel why
would you want to hide the details? Does one put a light on a hill and then
throw a sack over it?
Jeff Shirton
Web <webe...@home.com> wrote in message
news:xBk16.99677$iy3.23...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
> Jesus is not reduced to or from anything in the LDS mind.
> He is, after all the same being as the Great I AM.
> Jesus The Christ is Jehovah of the Old
> Testament, the God of the earth.
Do you believe that God the Father is not the "Great I AM", the "Jehovah" of
the Old Testament?
> Web
Jeff Shirton
Best Sellers
<snip>
> God decided that Jesus would be the savior for earth. This made Saten,
> Jesus' brother, very angry and argued. God would not be moved from
> this postition. Satan was upset to the point that he led the rebellion
> against God and took one third of the angels with him.
> God was so angry at this that, in response, He turned Satan's (and the
> thirds') skin black.
> This was the beginning of the negro race.
No, this is not the case.
The one-third were never to be born on the
earth. Your friend is confused, at best, or
you have either forgotten or misunderstood
what he told you.
Again, the one-third described in Revelation,
will not ever be born on the Earth (or
anywhere else). That is because they failed
to keep their "first estate" (a Biblical
term).
There are many LDS theories regarding the
"beginning of the negro race". There are no
definitive doctrines that address this
question. One widely-held one theory is that
blacks were sent to earth as descendants of
Ham (and thus denied the Priesthood) because
they were "unvaliant" in the premortal
existence. There is no scriptural proof of
this, and it, like ALL the others, including
my own, is nothing more than conjecture.
Lehi
====
Please join the 11,000 who've read
and signed the proclamation at
www.sepschool.org/proclamation.
Duwayne Anderson
sel...@2xtreme.net (Best Sellers) wrote:
<snip>
> There are many LDS theories regarding the
> "beginning of the negro race". There are no
> definitive doctrines that address this
> question. One widely-held one theory is that
> blacks were sent to earth as descendants of
> Ham (and thus denied the Priesthood) because
> they were "unvaliant" in the premortal
> existence.
<snip>
Anyone wanting to see a few quotations from Mormon officials on this
doctrine might want to visit http://www.exmormon.org/blacks1.htm.
Guy R. Briggs
> fool...@my-deja.com ("Fool Speck") wrote:
>> SpamlessRa...@spamlessyahoo.com wrote:
<snip>
>>> Please explain the relationship between Jesus and Satan.
<snip>
>> It is that simple. They are technically brothers simply
>> because God made them both. But the problem lies in the fact
>> that the Mormons have reduced Jesus from his deserved status
>> as the infinite and eternal Son of God,or the Second Person
>> of the Trinity, to that of just another preexistent, finite,
>> procreated child of the Father who is himself a finite being.
>
Mormons are not the only ones (nor are we the first) to claim that
Jesus Christ is "procreated". For example, the Apostle Paul:
"[the Father's dear Son] is the image of the invisible
God, the firstborn of every creature:"
-- Col.1:15
The above despite modern translations that render the Greek
"protokokos" as "preeminent" instead of "firstborn" in an attempt to
weave Calvinism into the Holy Writ. But there are also examples from
persons less than apostles. The Dutch reformer Arminius, for example:
"The problem of free will occupies center stage in
the play of Mormon theology. Against the tenets that
propelled the Calvinists of the seventeenth century
- predestination, original sin, salvation by grace,
and denial of free will - looms Mormon belief in free
agency. This doctrine, of course, was not original
with Mormonism. The Dutch theologian Jacobus Arminius
(1560-1609) had opposed the Calvinist doctrine of
predestination at the turn of the seventeenth century.
His teachings, later adopted by John Wesley,
influenced American theologians such as Jonathan
Mayhew and found their way into the Methodist
movement."
-- Mangrum, BYU Studies, v.25, no.3, p.128
>
>> In other words, the Mormons really view Jesus as no different
>> than you or me. Correct or not? If not, how is it wrong?
>
No, not correct. We view Jesus as eminently superior to you or me.
In the first place, he achieved Godhood in the preexistence. He
created the universe. He was the only sinless Being who ever walked
this planet and because of that was the only Being qualified to take
upon Himself the sins of the world. Because of His sacrifice, you and I
can be forgiven of our imperfections, raised from the dead and can
eventually return to our Father in Heaven.
In light of the above, how can you possibly believe that "Mormons
really view Jesus as no different than you or me?" It makes no sense.
In fact, about the only /similarity/ we see between us and Jesus is
that we share the common lineage of spirit.
Jeff Shirton
Guy R. Briggs <net...@GeoCities.com> wrote in message
news:901874A18netza...@131.119.28.155...
> Mormons are not the only ones (nor are we the
> first) to claim that Jesus Christ is "procreated".
Well, for starters, John 1:1 and 8:58 tend to reject that idea from the
get-go...
> For example, the Apostle Paul:
>
> "[the Father's dear Son] is the image of the
> invisible God, the firstborn of every
> creature:" Col.1:15
>
> The above despite modern translations that render
> the Greek "protokokos" as "preeminent" instead of
> "firstborn" ...
Of course, you already know the truth about what Paul meant, yet you
refuse to believe it.
> in an attempt to weave Calvinism into the Holy Writ.
Of course, you make the false *accusation* that the modern translations
render "preeminent" as some sort of subversive plot, when the truth is
that the term represents the most accurate meaning to the text.
But let's look at the text itself, shall we? In *context*:
Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God,
the firstborn of all creation.
"Firstborn" here is from the Greek, "prwtotokos", which Strong's says
means "firstborn", but points out, "literally or figuratively."
So how is it used, "figuratively"? Well, the first part, "prwtos", can
mean "before"; "beginning"; "best"; "chief"; "first"; or "former"; (Can
we begin to see the connotations of "preeminent", yet?)
Even going back to the Hebrew for "firstborn" ("bkowr"), the meaning
given by Strong is "firstborn; hence, "chief". And indeed, we see in a
study of the Old Testament that the literal "firstborn" of a family was
also the "chief" in that generation.
But let's see if we can also see any clues in the context of the
following verses:
Col 1:16 For in him were created all things in
heaven and on earth, the visible and
the invisible, whether thrones or dominions
or principalities or powers; all things
were created through him and for him.
*Everything* was created through him:
in heaven and on earth;
visible and invisible;
dominions, principalities, powers.
Not "all *other* things". But "all things*.
All things that were created, were created through Him.
Since He could't be created through Himself, He could not be a created
being. Not a "literal "prwtotokos", but a figurative one. The
"Preeminent" One.
Notice the parallel with John 1:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God.
"In the beginning was the Word..."
The verb tense indicates not, "In the beginning the Word existed", but
"In the beginning the Word was existing". The Word was not "created" at
the beginning time, or came into existence *at* the beginning, but at
the beginning, He was already there. He was "already existing..."
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things came to be through him, and
without him nothing came to be.
All things came to be through the Word, just as Paul writes to the
Colossians.
Col 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all
things hold together.
Col 1:18 He is the head of the body, the church.
He is the beginning, the firstborn from
the dead, that in all things he himself
might be preeminent.
And we see here, explicitly, Paul *defines* his usage of "prwtotokos" as
"preeminent", which in the Greek is "prwteuos", which of course, also
has "prwtos" ("chief") as its root.
> But there are also examples from
> persons less than apostles. The Dutch reformer Arminius, for example:
>
> "The problem of free will occupies center stage in
> the play of Mormon theology. Against the tenets that
> propelled the Calvinists of the seventeenth century
> - predestination, original sin, salvation by grace,
> and denial of free will - looms Mormon belief in free
> agency. This doctrine, of course, was not original
> with Mormonism. The Dutch theologian Jacobus Arminius
> (1560-1609) had opposed the Calvinist doctrine of
> predestination at the turn of the seventeenth century.
> His teachings, later adopted by John Wesley,
> influenced American theologians such as Jonathan
> Mayhew and found their way into the Methodist
> movement."
> -- Mangrum, BYU Studies, v.25, no.3, p.128
Okay, let's see what we have here...:
1) We have a second-hand account, with no actual quotes from Arminius;
2) We have our source being from BYU, which I don't think it is too
out-of-line to observe that being the church's own University, might be
not be completely impartial;
3) The quoted passage simply seems to say that Arminius opposed
Calvinism, and nowhere claims that Arminius believed Jesus to be a
created being.
> >> In other words, the Mormons really view Jesus
> >> as no different than you or me. Correct or not?
> >> If not, how is it wrong?
"As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become."
Jesus is different in the Mormon eye because He is more advanced than
they are.
> Guy R. "BrickWall" Briggs, MCSE* -
Jeff Shirton
Glenn Harrison Webb
> American quarter horse - the ultimate
> all-terrain vehicle.
Bad shock absorbers, Morgans, or Arabian horses have much smoother rides
(And have far better endurance)
Used to train horses as a kid, long before my disability.
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
Duwayne Anderson
"Glenn Harrison Webb" <christi...@ev1.net> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > American quarter horse - the ultimate
> > all-terrain vehicle.
>
> Bad shock absorbers,
What on earth are you talking about?
> Morgans, or Arabian horses have much smoother rides
I'm a cowboy. I want something that is tough as nails, quick on his
feet, and can go anywhere. Morgans and Arabians are for gentlemen and
ladies (and kids) who want something civilized on which to look pretty.
> (And have far better endurance)
In your dreams.
> Used to train horses as a kid, long before my disability.
I actually own horses, and spend (on average) about 20 hours a week in
the saddle.
Duwayne Anderson
--
American quarter horse - the ultimate
all-terrain vehicle.
dew...@my-deja.com
they doubt their individual worth as judges of their own beliefs, that
they are incapable of judging for themselves what is false and what is
true, that they believe in the infallibility of their church leaders,
then of course you will make such ridiculous assertions as those
presented below. You come up with a conjecture based on something
you've heard about Mormons' beliefs -- a conjecture Mormons in general
may or may not even have opinion about, and about which most Mormons
probably don't care either way (ie., whether the angel Moroni is more
or less god-like now than he was some 200 years ago) -- and imagine you
can prove all Mormons must fear their own damnation if they don't agree
upon your conjecture based on what you perceive their beliefs to be. I
for one don't care what Brigham Young thought of Moroni, and it will
take a visit from Moroni himself to convince me it matters what anyone
thinks about angels, whether the opinion is from a prophet or anyone
else. I don't think the leaders of the LDS Church are infallible, and
since I'm not Catholic, there is no reason for you or anyone to assume
that I should subscribe to the doctrine of infallibility. Even Moses
messed up once in a while, but his errrors did not cause him to be a
false prophet, and yet similar errors on the part of LDS prophets serve
as evidence to you that they are false.
Please do not assume that Mormons are stupid. Granted, many do not
take the time to think about why they believe or disbelieve this or
some other thing. I for one have not ever bothered to care about what
Brigham Young thought about any angel, nor can I think of any opinion
of any person alive regarding angels in general that would have any
effect whatsoever on any of my personal beliefs. I don't think it
matters. Do I, a Mormon, believe everything I've read that Brigham
Young is said to have said? Or Bruce R. McConkie? No. Does that mean
I think the Church is false? No. The Church is just a bunch of
people. It doesn't purport to "save" anyone, and the truthfulness of
its organization is only proven in the success of its goals to bring
people to Christ. If you don't like the LDS Church, I think you will
be happier staying out of it, and I won't think any less of you. Just
remember that not all Mormons remain in the Church because they fear
they will be damned to hell because Jesus won't save them if they don't
believe what Bruce R. McConkie said about blacks in the 1960's, or what
Brigham Young said about angels in the 1800's. Who cares what they
said?! They aren't Popes! They don't HAVE to be perfect! If they
were as awful and full of crap as you think they were, the Church would
be in a lot worse shape than it is in now. But the Church is not based
on the doctrine of a few misfired ideas by a few well-intentioned
leaders. It is based on the gospel of Jesus Christ. So just to hell
with you -- go join another Church and prove 'em wrong! I wish you the
best.
Yee-HAW!
In article <3a37873f$0$19...@wodc7nh0.news.uu.net>,
"ForWhatItsWorth" <2ce...@todaysrate.com> wrote:
>
> "Web" <webe...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:8tJZ5.67917$iy3.16...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
> >
> > "Jesus Witness" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:38HZ5.855$uF3....@eagle.america.net...
> > > Just a few questions that I need answered by a Mormon believer:
> > >
> > > If Moroni practiced the Mormon Gospel so devoutly, then why is he
only
> an
> > > angel now and not a god?(read D&C 132:17,37)
> > >
> > > Why did the Nauvoo house not stand forever? (read D&C 124:56-60)
> > >
> > > How was Jesus born of a virgin if he was the result of a physical
sexual
> > > union between Mary and God? (read J of D, Volume 1, pg. 50)
> >
> > The Journal of Discourses is a second and third party record of
various
> > discourses delivered by the Prophet Brigham Young and others. It is
not
> > scripture. It is only the opinions of men as recorded by people
whose
> > memories are the real authors.
>
> Yet, is it not taught? Is it not used as reference material?
> Are you saying that no president or Apostle since Brigham Young has
ever
> used material from the J of D as proof-text?
>
> Consider:
> "D&C 1:38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not
> myself; and though heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not
pass
> away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the
voice
> of my servants, it is the same."
>
> There is no disclaimer there, that these 'servants' be acting ex
oficio
> before their words become binding, is there? Is there a difference
given
> between a prophet and another, perhaps lower-ranking servant? If you
say
> yes to that, then consider:
> "D&C 1:34 And again, verily I say unto you, O inhabitants of the
earth: I
> the Lord am willing to make these things known unto all flesh;
> D&C 1:35 For I am no respecter of persons, and will that men shall
know that
> the day speedily cometh; the hour is not yet, but is nigh at hand,
when
> peace shall be taken from the earth, and the devil shall have power
over his
> own dominion."
>
> Sounds like the Lord makes no distinction between His servants,
doesn't it?
> Therefore, when the J of D was compiled, by GA's and from the lips of
> prophets, it became as scripture.
>
> If you still beleive that sort of thing.
>
> Hmmm?
>
> For What Its Worth...
>
> >
> > It may well have been the opinion of Brother Brigham and others
that there
> > was a physical union between Mary and Diety but it is not doctrine
and is
> > not taught anywhere in the Church. It only comes up in pamphlets
written
> by
> > people who are grabbing at straws trying to discredit the Church.
> >
> > The entire fact is that we know that Jesus is the Only Begotten Son
of
> > Heavenly Father. We have no idea how it was accomplished and we
also feel
> > that it makes no difference how it was done.
> >
> > Web
> > > Anyone want to try to enlighten me? I am extremely curious about
such
> > > things.
> > >
> > > The Jesus Witness
> > >
> > > "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth
and rust
> > > destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for
> yourselves
> > > treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where
> thieves
> > > do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your
heart
> > will
> > > be also. (Matthew 6:19-21)
Glenn Harrison Webb
"Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:92jnh2$iff$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <3a4d5...@newsa.ev1.net>,
> "Glenn Harrison Webb" <christi...@ev1.net> wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> > > American quarter horse - the ultimate
> > > all-terrain vehicle.
> >
> > Bad shock absorbers,
>
> What on earth are you talking about?
Quarter horses are bouncy, and shake you half to death.
> > Morgans, or Arabian horses have much smoother rides
>
> I'm a cowboy. I want something that is tough as nails, quick on his
> feet, and can go anywhere. Morgans and Arabians are for gentlemen and
> ladies (and kids) who want something civilized on which to look pretty.
Yes, you sound like one, I was in a higher class, I guess. Huntseat and
Equitation, Olympic quality horsemenship.
Rodeos are for hicks.
> > (And have far better endurance)
>
> In your dreams.
Quarter horses are only good for a quarter of a mile (hence their name).
> > Used to train horses as a kid, long before my disability.
>
> I actually own horses, and spend (on average) about 20 hours a week in
> the saddle.
I was almost born riding horses, we owned horses too. You must only ride
part time, a mere twenty-hours a week is play time, try 8 to ten hours a day
7/24.
this was my life until my mid-twenties.
> Duwayne Anderson
>
> --
> American quarter horse - the ultimate
> all-terrain vehicle.
ROFWL !!!!
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
PS Sorry people for being off-topic.
Web
"Glenn Harrison Webb" <christi...@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:3a4e5...@newsa.ev1.net...
Since we're off topic anyhow maybe somebody can tell me why there are so
many more horse's asses than horses.
Web
Duwayne Anderson
"Glenn Harrison Webb" <christi...@ev1.net> wrote:
>
> "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:92jnh2$iff$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <3a4d5...@newsa.ev1.net>,
> > "Glenn Harrison Webb" <christi...@ev1.net> wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > American quarter horse - the ultimate
> > > > all-terrain vehicle.
> > >
> > > Bad shock absorbers,
> >
> > What on earth are you talking about?
>
> Quarter horses are bouncy, and shake you half to death.
Horses can be taught gaits, you know. But even if what you say is
true, what does it have to do with being "the all-terrain vehicle."
I can understand why gentlemen, ladies, and children would want
something that's smooth and easy on their butts, but I'm not convinced
that such a contraption would be "the ultimate all-terrain vehicle."
> > > Morgans, or Arabian horses have much smoother rides
> >
> > I'm a cowboy. I want something that is tough as nails, quick on his
> > feet, and can go anywhere. Morgans and Arabians are for gentlemen
and
> > ladies (and kids) who want something civilized on which to look
pretty.
>
> Yes, you sound like one, I was in a higher class, I guess.
How modest. I've seen many a gentleman rider humbled by a good quarter
horse. Seems they don't appreciate that running over the range is not
the same as running round in circles on a prepared track.
> Huntseat and
> Equitation, Olympic quality horsemenship.
My point exactly.
>
> Rodeos are for hicks.
Wow. Now that's a "high-class" argument.
>
> > > (And have far better endurance)
> >
> > In your dreams.
>
> Quarter horses are only good for a quarter of a mile (hence their
name).
Wrong. The fact that a Quarter horse is the fastest thing on four legs
in the quarter mile has to do with their *acceleration* and not
necessarly their speed and endurance.
My quarter horse can go from a stand still to over 40 mph in about two
hops. No other breed can do that. Other breeds can run faster, or as
fast, but for acceleration out of the gate the American Quarter horse
cannot be beat. And I'll take an American Quarter horse for endurance
in rough terrain running cattle all over the range any day over an
Arabian or Morgan.
>
> > > Used to train horses as a kid, long before my disability.
> >
> > I actually own horses, and spend (on average) about 20 hours a week
in
> > the saddle.
>
> I was almost born riding horses, we owned horses too.
As was I.
> You must only ride
> part time, a mere twenty-hours a week is play time,
I'm a physicist by profession. That takes most of my time. The point
is, I ride. I'm not just talking from an arm chair.
> try 8 to ten hours a day
> 7/24.
> this was my life until my mid-twenties.
Well, I'm in my mid 40's and still doing it. The race, you know, is
not always to the swiftest.
Duwayne Anderson
--
American quarter horse - the ultimate
all-terrain vehicle.
Duwayne Anderson
"Web" <webe...@home.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Since we're off topic anyhow maybe somebody can tell me why
> there are so many more horse's asses than horses.
>
> Web
<snip>
It's because every horse has both a head and an ass, but many horses
asses don't have a head (at least not a working one). Therefore,
(since there are a finite number of horses heads -- the argument does
not work if there were an infinite number) there are more horses asses
than horses (and that's mathematically rigorous).
Duwayne Anderson
--
American quarter horse - the ultimate
all-terrain vehicle.
Nathan Packer
<duwa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
>Wrong. The fact that a Quarter horse is the fastest thing on four legs
>in the quarter mile has to do with their *acceleration* and not
>necessarly their speed and endurance.
>
>My quarter horse can go from a stand still to over 40 mph in about two
>hops. No other breed can do that. Other breeds can run faster, or as
>fast, but for acceleration out of the gate the American Quarter horse
>cannot be beat. And I'll take an American Quarter horse for endurance
>in rough terrain running cattle all over the range any day over an
>Arabian or Morgan.
I trailed cattle of the range one year on a horse. Felt like I was
riding a jackhammer all day. No wonder cowboys have to be tough.
The next year I trailed cattle off the range on a mule. Now here is an
animal with rough terrain indurance and the ride was similar to
sitting in a soft rocking chair all day.
You guys simply have too narrow a viewpoint
[snip]
Nathan (I think, therefore, I must be around here someplace) Packer
Duwayne Anderson
nat...@tctc.com (Nathan Packer) wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Dec 2000 06:53:54 GMT, Duwayne Anderson
> <duwa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >
> >Wrong. The fact that a Quarter horse is the fastest thing on four
legs
> >in the quarter mile has to do with their *acceleration* and not
> >necessarly their speed and endurance.
> >
> >My quarter horse can go from a stand still to over 40 mph in about
two
> >hops. No other breed can do that. Other breeds can run faster, or
as
> >fast, but for acceleration out of the gate the American Quarter horse
> >cannot be beat. And I'll take an American Quarter horse for
endurance
> >in rough terrain running cattle all over the range any day over an
> >Arabian or Morgan.
>
> I trailed cattle of the range one year on a horse. Felt like I was
> riding a jackhammer all day. No wonder cowboys have to be tough.
The range has almost as much to do with that as the horse. And, as I
pointed out, horses can be taught different gaits.
>
> The next year I trailed cattle off the range on a mule. Now here is an
> animal with rough terrain indurance and the ride was similar to
> sitting in a soft rocking chair all day.
Okay, let's review once again. The issue is not "fastest," or is
it "smoothest." It's "the ultimate all-terrain vehicle." A Cadillac
is faster and smoother than a Humvee, but the Humvee is a much better
all-terrain vehicle.
I say the quarter horse is the ultimate all-terrain vehicle (with some
poetic license). A mule is pretty tough, all right, but mules tend to
be picky about scary places. My kids tell me that elk are better all-
terrain vehicles than horses, and in a sense they are correct. Elk can
go where no horse can go, but try breaking and riding one.
> You guys simply have too narrow a viewpoint
The issue began over a narrow claim, that the American quarter horse is
the ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
Duwayne Anderson
--
American quarter horse - *STILL* the ultimate
Glenn Harrison Webb
> "Glenn Harrison Webb" <christi...@ev1.net> wrote in message
> news:3a4e5...@newsa.ev1.net...
> > "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:92jnh2$iff$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > In article <3a4d5...@newsa.ev1.net>,
> > > "Glenn Harrison Webb" <christi...@ev1.net> wrote:
> > > > <snip>
> > > Sent via Deja.com
> > > http://www.deja.com/
> >
> > Glenn (Christian Mystic)
> >
> > PS Sorry people for being off-topic.
>
> Since we're off topic anyhow maybe somebody can tell me why there are so
> many more horse's asses than horses.
LOL :-) Good question.
> Web
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
Glenn Harrison Webb
> In article <3a4e5...@newsa.ev1.net>,
> "Glenn Harrison Webb" <christi...@ev1.net> wrote:
> > "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:92jnh2$iff$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > In article <3a4d5...@newsa.ev1.net>,
> > > "Glenn Harrison Webb" <christi...@ev1.net> wrote:
> > > > <snip>
> > Quarter horses are bouncy, and shake you half to death.
>
> Horses can be taught gaits, you know. But even if what you say is
> true, what does it have to do with being "the all-terrain vehicle."
What good is a all-terrain vehicle if you feel like you need an appendectomy
after your ride ?
As to gates, I have never ridden a quarter-horse in any gate which was as
smooth as an Arabian.
> I can understand why gentlemen, ladies, and children would want
> something that's smooth and easy on their butts, but I'm not convinced
> that such a contraption would be "the ultimate all-terrain vehicle."
Never were involved in cross-counter endurance races ? Arabians beat the
quarter-horse any time.
<snip>
> > Yes, you sound like one, I was in a higher class, I guess.
>
> How modest.
Oh, its hard to be humble when... :-)
I've seen many a gentleman rider humbled by a good quarter
> horse. Seems they don't appreciate that running over the range is not
> the same as running round in circles on a prepared track.
You know nothing about Olympic riding if you honestly think that it is
restricted to inside horse-show rings. I said that I rode Huntseat (no
saddle horn to grab onto), much of this is CROSS COUNTRY, including water
traps, cliffs and other obsticals.
> > Huntseat and
> > Equitation, Olympic quality horsemenship.
>
> My point exactly.
Which means that you have no understanding of Olympic horsemenship.
> > Rodeos are for hicks.
>
> Wow. Now that's a "high-class" argument.
Thanks !
> > > > (And have far better endurance)
> > >
> > > In your dreams.
> >
> > Quarter horses are only good for a quarter of a mile (hence their
> name).
>
> Wrong. The fact that a Quarter horse is the fastest thing on four legs
> in the quarter mile has to do with their *acceleration* and not
> necessarly their speed and endurance.
ROFWL, check your history, Thorobreds only lose to the quarter horse IF the
race is less than a half-mile, those fat-muscle-bound horses which you think
are so great burnout in no time.
> My quarter horse can go from a stand still to over 40 mph in about two
> hops. No other breed can do that.
No argument from me, such is their fame.
Other breeds can run faster, or as
> fast, but for acceleration out of the gate the American Quarter horse
> cannot be beat.
But in longrun endurance they FIZZLE.
And I'll take an American Quarter horse for endurance
> in rough terrain running cattle all over the range any day over an
> Arabian or Morgan.
If only I wasn't now a cripple (no longer able to ride) and had not sold off
my stock, I would just LOVE to challenge you in an endurance run.
Any "gentlemen" out there reading this ?
(wish I knew some horse ngs to crosspost this to)
<snip>
> > I was almost born riding horses, we owned horses too.
>
> As was I.
At least we have THAT in common :-)
My sister is a quarter-horse nut as well, gymkhana (not rodeo), but she
knows better than to pit them against Morgans, or Abrabs in endurance
courses.
It is her interest in your chosen breed that allowed me the horrid
experience of riding them.
(She was sick in competition, endurance attempt, and I offered to ride her
fav in her place. It was a three day event, thought I was going to DIE,
vowed to NEVER ride one of those BEASTS again... Although I must say he was
very much behaved, liking in the Abrab over-spiritness)
> > You must only ride
> > part time, a mere twenty-hours a week is play time,
>
> I'm a physicist by profession. That takes most of my time. The point
> is, I ride. I'm not just talking from an arm chair.
This is rather RUDE, I wouldn't be talking from a wheel-chair either if my
genetic-disorder had not permenantly crippled me (I can stand and "walk"
[hubble is more like it] very short distances; but if I want to get
anywhere, its wheelchair remote)
I MISS MY DAYS WITH HORSES !
> > try 8 to ten hours a day
> > 7/24.
> > this was my life until my mid-twenties.
>
> Well, I'm in my mid 40's and still doing it. The race, you know, is
> not always to the swiftest.
I pray that you will never be struck down as I was.
> Duwayne Anderson
> --
> American quarter horse - the ultimate
> all-terrain vehicle.
LOL ! Sorry, but I can't help it ! We are of diferent molds.
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
Duwayne Anderson
"Glenn Harrison Webb" <christi...@ev1.net> wrote:
>
> "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:92ml61$kpp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <3a4e5...@newsa.ev1.net>,
> > "Glenn Harrison Webb" <christi...@ev1.net> wrote:
> > > "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > news:92jnh2$iff$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > > In article <3a4d5...@newsa.ev1.net>,
> > > > "Glenn Harrison Webb" <christi...@ev1.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > <snip>
>
> > > Quarter horses are bouncy, and shake you half to death.
> >
> > Horses can be taught gaits, you know. But even if what you say is
> > true, what does it have to do with being "the all-terrain vehicle."
>
> What good is a all-terrain vehicle if you feel like you need an
appendectomy
> after your ride ?
Who said you do?
> As to gates, I have never ridden a quarter-horse in any gate which
was as
> smooth as an Arabian.
Who said a smooth gait was essential to being "the ultimate all-terrain
vehicle?"
>
> > I can understand why gentlemen, ladies, and children would want
> > something that's smooth and easy on their butts, but I'm not
convinced
> > that such a contraption would be "the ultimate all-terrain vehicle."
>
> Never were involved in cross-counter endurance races ? Arabians beat
the
> quarter-horse any time.
This argument sort of sounds like "my dad is stronger than your dad."
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Yes, you sound like one, I was in a higher class, I guess.
> >
> > How modest.
>
> Oh, its hard to be humble when... :-)
>
> I've seen many a gentleman rider humbled by a good quarter
> > horse. Seems they don't appreciate that running over the range is
not
> > the same as running round in circles on a prepared track.
>
> You know nothing about Olympic riding if you honestly think that it is
> restricted to inside horse-show rings.
Who said anything about being restricted to inside horse rings?
> I said that I rode Huntseat (no
> saddle horn to grab onto),
Real cowboys *never* grab onto the saddle horn.
> much of this is CROSS COUNTRY, including water
> traps,
Speaking of water traps, I should show you how my quarter horse swims
rivers.
> cliffs and other obsticals.
Cliffs? C'mon.
>
> > > Huntseat and
> > > Equitation, Olympic quality horsemenship.
> >
> > My point exactly.
>
> Which means that you have no understanding of Olympic horsemenship.
No. It means you have no idea what *real* all-terrain vehicles can do.
>
> > > Rodeos are for hicks.
> >
> > Wow. Now that's a "high-class" argument.
>
> Thanks !
I didn't really mean it.
>
> > > > > (And have far better endurance)
> > > >
> > > > In your dreams.
> > >
> > > Quarter horses are only good for a quarter of a mile (hence their
> > name).
> >
> > Wrong. The fact that a Quarter horse is the fastest thing on four
legs
> > in the quarter mile has to do with their *acceleration* and not
> > necessarly their speed and endurance.
>
> ROFWL, check your history, Thorobreds only lose to the quarter horse
IF the
> race is less than a half-mile,
That's what I said. And it's because of the quarter horse's
acceleration, and not endurance. Other horses can run faster longer,
but none can accelerate in the short race as well as the quarter horse.
Races of a mile or so are not endurance races, either. Endurance races
are typically around 50 miles, at least.
> those fat-muscle-bound horses which you think
> are so great burnout in no time.
Fat? C'mon. Muscle-bound? Well, muscled, to be sure. But that's
what it takes to be the "ultimate all-terrain vehicle."
>
> > My quarter horse can go from a stand still to over 40 mph in about
two
> > hops. No other breed can do that.
>
> No argument from me, such is their fame.
And that's what contributes to them being the "ultimate all-terrain
vehicle."
>
> Other breeds can run faster, or as
> > fast, but for acceleration out of the gate the American Quarter
horse
> > cannot be beat.
>
> But in longrun endurance they FIZZLE.
Hmm. You wouldn't happen to have statistical data on that, would you?
They don't compete in longer runs because they are not as fast. A
major reason for that is their relatively short legs.
>
> And I'll take an American Quarter horse for endurance
> > in rough terrain running cattle all over the range any day over an
> > Arabian or Morgan.
>
> If only I wasn't now a cripple
I'm sorry to hear that. Was it a riding accident?
> (no longer able to ride) and had not sold off
> my stock, I would just LOVE to challenge you in an endurance run.
Well, that's how horse racing got started.
> Any "gentlemen" out there reading this ?
> (wish I knew some horse ngs to crosspost this to)
>
> <snip>
>
> > > I was almost born riding horses, we owned horses too.
> >
> > As was I.
>
> At least we have THAT in common :-)
>
> My sister is a quarter-horse nut as well, gymkhana (not rodeo), but
she
> knows better than to pit them against Morgans, or Abrabs in endurance
> courses.
> It is her interest in your chosen breed that allowed me the horrid
> experience of riding them.
Oh, well that explains it. You drew your conclusions based on limite
experience.
> (She was sick in competition, endurance attempt, and I offered to
ride her
> fav in her place. It was a three day event, thought I was going to
DIE,
> vowed to NEVER ride one of those BEASTS again... Although I must say
he was
> very much behaved, liking in the Abrab over-spiritness)
>
> > > You must only ride
> > > part time, a mere twenty-hours a week is play time,
> >
> > I'm a physicist by profession. That takes most of my time. The
point
> > is, I ride. I'm not just talking from an arm chair.
>
> This is rather RUDE,
What is rather rude? I neither made or implied any comments about you.
>I wouldn't be talking from a wheel-chair either if my
> genetic-disorder had not permenantly crippled me (I can stand
and "walk"
> [hubble is more like it] very short distances; but if I want to get
> anywhere, its wheelchair remote)
Well, I'm sorry to hear that. Is there any hope for a cure?
>
> I MISS MY DAYS WITH HORSES !
I can only imagine. It must be tough.
>
> > > try 8 to ten hours a day
> > > 7/24.
> > > this was my life until my mid-twenties.
> >
> > Well, I'm in my mid 40's and still doing it. The race, you know, is
> > not always to the swiftest.
>
> I pray that you will never be struck down as I was.
Well, thank you. I hope it never happens to me, too. And it's a damn
shame it happened to you.
Duwayne Anderson
--
American quarter horse - the ultimate
all-terrain vehicle.
Web
"Glenn Harrison Webb" <christi...@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:3a4d5...@newsa.ev1.net...
The Ultimate All-terrain Vehicle is plainly MAN'S FEET
They can go where no horse or motorized vehicle can go. They require no
fossil fuel.
They will outlast an ATV and outlive a horse.
Web
Glenn Harrison Webb
> In article <3a4f9...@newsa.ev1.net>,
> "Glenn Harrison Webb" <christi...@ev1.net> wrote:
> > "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:92ml61$kpp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > In article <3a4e5...@newsa.ev1.net>,
> > > "Glenn Harrison Webb" <christi...@ev1.net> wrote:
> > > > "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:92jnh2$iff$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > > > In article <3a4d5...@newsa.ev1.net>,
> > > > > "Glenn Harrison Webb" <christi...@ev1.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > <snip>
> > What good is a all-terrain vehicle if you feel like you need an
> appendectomy
> > after your ride ?
>
> Who said you do?
I did, I've ridden Abrians and Morgans on week long endurance runs (for the
inexperience this does not mean we run the whole time; but strive for the
best time against competiers). Resulting in being a little saddle sore, but
on Quarter-horses, on much shorter runs, mind you, I felt I would need
HOSPITAL CARE !!!!
> > As to gates, I have never ridden a quarter-horse in any gate which
> was as
> > smooth as an Arabian.
>
> Who said a smooth gait was essential to being "the ultimate all-terrain
> vehicle?"
If the gate KILLS the rider ??? Think about it.
> > Never were involved in cross-counter endurance races ? Arabians beat
> the
> > quarter-horse any time.
>
> This argument sort of sounds like "my dad is stronger than your dad."
LOL ! Sure does...
> > <snip>
> > You know nothing about Olympic riding if you honestly think that it is
> > restricted to inside horse-show rings.
>
> Who said anything about being restricted to inside horse rings?
You did, reread your post, something about "going in circles on a prepared
course"
Olympic endurance runs are neither in rings, prepared, nor in circles...
They are from point A to point B, anywhere from fifty miles away right up to
a thousand miles away (in rare cases much longer).
I have yet to see a Quarter Horse win any of these in a mixed breed run
(although I have heard of them winning against other Quarter Horses :-)
> > I said that I rode Huntseat (no
> > saddle horn to grab onto),
>
> Real cowboys *never* grab onto the saddle horn.
But they have one always available :-) (makes them feel secure, I guess)
> > much of this is CROSS COUNTRY, including water
> > traps,
>
> Speaking of water traps, I should show you how my quarter horse swims
> rivers.
Even THAT is a little bouncy on a Quarter Horse (all horses are good
swimmers)
> > cliffs and other obsticals.
>
> Cliffs? C'mon.
Yes CLIFFS, usually there is a way around them, or there is water below
which we dive into. The WORST is found in the Land Down Under, it has an
unavoidable declining incline, Deadman's drop that goes almost straight
down... It is a yearly event that has killed many horses, and their riders.
I thank God that I never ran that one.
> > > > Huntseat and
> > > > Equitation, Olympic quality horsemenship.
> > >
> > > My point exactly.
> >
> > Which means that you have no understanding of Olympic horsemenship.
>
> No. It means you have no idea what *real* all-terrain vehicles can do.
LOL, this from a city boy who owns a Quarter Horse.
Clue, you work in a LAB.
> > > > Rodeos are for hicks.
> > >
> > > Wow. Now that's a "high-class" argument.
> >
> > Thanks !
>
> I didn't really mean it.
I know, but thanks anyway :-)
<snip>
> > ROFWL, check your history, Thorobreds only lose to the quarter horse
> IF the
> > race is less than a half-mile,
>
> That's what I said. And it's because of the quarter horse's
> acceleration, and not endurance. Other horses can run faster longer,
> but none can accelerate in the short race as well as the quarter horse.
All terrian vehicles, like Jeeps (the old army ones, the new ones are a joke
in comparation), are "All terrian" BECAUSE of their ENDURANCE in not getting
you killed in the middle of nowhere.
Without endurance, your "all terrian" vehicle is nothing but a fancy piece
of junk.
> Races of a mile or so are not endurance races, either. Endurance races
> are typically around 50 miles, at least.
Exactly, and they are classed as Olympic
Shocked me, most Cowboys are not so knowledgable.
> > those fat-muscle-bound horses which you think
> > are so great burnout in no time.
>
> Fat? C'mon. Muscle-bound? Well, muscled, to be sure. But that's
> what it takes to be the "ultimate all-terrain vehicle."
ENDURANCE is the MAIN requirement.
If Quarter Horses were people they wouldn't be able to tie their shoes.
> > > My quarter horse can go from a stand still to over 40 mph in about
> two
> > > hops. No other breed can do that.
> >
> > No argument from me, such is their fame.
>
> And that's what contributes to them being the "ultimate all-terrain
> vehicle."
LOL ! Hardly.
> > Other breeds can run faster, or as
> > > fast, but for acceleration out of the gate the American Quarter
> horse
> > > cannot be beat.
> >
> > But in longrun endurance they FIZZLE.
>
> Hmm. You wouldn't happen to have statistical data on that, would you?
> They don't compete in longer runs because they are not as fast. A
> major reason for that is their relatively short legs.
Also the reason for their jackhammer ride.
When riding a QuarterHorse even the rider is low on endurance, the ride
takes it all out of them. For the "all terrain vehicle to have any real
value, the rider needs to survive the ride.
> > And I'll take an American Quarter horse for endurance
> > > in rough terrain running cattle all over the range any day over an
> > > Arabian or Morgan.
> >
> > If only I wasn't now a cripple
>
> I'm sorry to hear that. Was it a riding accident?
No, a genetic disorder, hits you between twenty to forty.
God forgive me, I was tempted to lie and say my ride of my sister's
QuarterHorse crippled me. But that would be just meanness
> > (no longer able to ride) and had not sold off
> > my stock, I would just LOVE to challenge you in an endurance run.
>
> Well, that's how horse racing got started.
I ment to challenge my all terrain vehicle against yours.
<snip>
> > ...It is her interest in your chosen breed that allowed me the horrid
> > experience of riding them.
>
> Oh, well that explains it. You drew your conclusions based on limite
> experience.
Maybe, limited experience on QuarterHorses that is.
<snip>
> > > I'm a physicist by profession. That takes most of my time. The
> point
> > > is, I ride. I'm not just talking from an arm chair.
> >
> > This is rather RUDE,
>
> What is rather rude? I neither made or implied any comments about you.
Thought you were remarking that my business with horses was cut short, as I
had mentioned this from the start. I was far from one with only 'arm chair'
experience, I was making a living in Full-time with horses... I knew my
stuff.
> >I wouldn't be talking from a wheel-chair either if my
> > genetic-disorder had not permenantly crippled me (I can stand
> and "walk"
> > [hubble is more like it] very short distances; but if I want to get
> > anywhere, its wheelchair remote)
>
> Well, I'm sorry to hear that. Is there any hope for a cure?
None, they can only make it easier to live with.
> > I MISS MY DAYS WITH HORSES !
>
> I can only imagine. It must be tough.
They were my whole life. Such is why I avoid the horse ngs, I didn't want to
dig up memories.
But thank YOU, I see now that I should subscribe to a few of them.
I am enjoying this :-)
<snip>
> > I pray that you will never be struck down as I was.
>
> Well, thank you. I hope it never happens to me, too. And it's a damn
> shame it happened to you.
Thank you for caring, you helped me a LOT.
> Duwayne Anderson
>
> --
> American quarter horse - the ultimate
> all-terrain vehicle.
SORRY< I still find that to be funny.
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
Glenn Harrison Webb
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
"Web" <webe...@home.com> wrote in message
news:JS_36.128545$iy3.28...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
Duwayne Anderson
"Web" <webe...@home.com> wrote:
>
> "Glenn Harrison Webb" <christi...@ev1.net> wrote in message
> news:3a4d5...@newsa.ev1.net...
> > <snip>
> >
> > > American quarter horse - the ultimate
> > > all-terrain vehicle.
> >
> > Bad shock absorbers, Morgans, or Arabian horses have much smoother
rides
> > (And have far better endurance)
> > Used to train horses as a kid, long before my disability.
> >
> > > Sent via Deja.com
> > > http://www.deja.com/
>
> The Ultimate All-terrain Vehicle is plainly MAN'S FEET
To be the ultimate all-terrain vehicle you must have a degree
of "yeeeehawwww." And your feet don't even compare with a wild horse
ride.
> They can go where no horse or motorized vehicle can go. They require
no
> fossil fuel.
Horses don't use fossil fuel, either, you know.
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
--
American quarter horse - the ultimate
all-terrain vehicle.
Duwayne Anderson
"Glenn Harrison Webb" <christi...@ev1.net> wrote:
>
> "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:92olo6$1it$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <3a4f9...@newsa.ev1.net>,
> > "Glenn Harrison Webb" <christi...@ev1.net> wrote:
> > > "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > news:92ml61$kpp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > > In article <3a4e5...@newsa.ev1.net>,
> > > > "Glenn Harrison Webb" <christi...@ev1.net> wrote:
> > > > > "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:92jnh2$iff$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > > > > In article <3a4d5...@newsa.ev1.net>,
> > > > > > "Glenn Harrison Webb" <christi...@ev1.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > <snip>
>
> > > What good is a all-terrain vehicle if you feel like you need an
> > appendectomy
> > > after your ride ?
> >
> > Who said you do?
>
> I did,
Okay. You are entitled to your opinion. But you were objecting to
*MY* signature. You were not just making a statement of your own.
> I've ridden Abrians and Morgans on week long endurance runs
Fun. My kids and I do that several times each summer.
> (for the
> inexperience this does not mean we run the whole time; but strive for
the
> best time against competiers
We do it as a family outing.
> Resulting in being a little saddle sore, but
> on Quarter-horses, on much shorter runs, mind you, I felt I would need
> HOSPITAL CARE !!!!
I never feel saddle sore when I come back after a week in the
mountains.
>
> > > As to gates, I have never ridden a quarter-horse in any gate which
> > was as
> > > smooth as an Arabian.
> >
> > Who said a smooth gait was essential to being "the ultimate all-
terrain
> > vehicle?"
>
> If the gate KILLS the rider ???
Well, you have taken exageration to the extreem. I've yet to meet
anyone who's been killed by the gait.
> Think about it.
Okay. Here's what comes to mind first: It's clear you have a lot of
emotionalism tied up in this thread.
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
--
American quarter horse - the ultimate
all-terrain vehicle.
serap...@my-deja.com
"Glenn Harrison Webb" <christi...@ev1.net> wrote:
>
> "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:92jnh2$iff$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <3a4d5...@newsa.ev1.net>,
> > "Glenn Harrison Webb" <christi...@ev1.net> wrote:
How did this change from a discussion of Mormons to fight between a
cowboy and a horsey-snob?
Duwayne Anderson
serap...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <3a4e5...@newsa.ev1.net>,
> "Glenn Harrison Webb" <christi...@ev1.net> wrote:
> >
> > "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:92jnh2$iff$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > In article <3a4d5...@newsa.ev1.net>,
> > > "Glenn Harrison Webb" <christi...@ev1.net> wrote:
>
> How did this change from a discussion of Mormons to fight between a
> cowboy and a horsey-snob?
I have a signature that I use with all my posts to ARM. It says:
"American quarter horse - the ultimate all-terrain vehicle."
Apparently, some folks on ARM have a real problem with that signature,
and want it refuted.
--
American quarter horse - the ultimate
all-terrain vehicle.
Guy R. Briggs
> serap...@my-deja.com wrote:
<snip>
>> How did this change from a discussion of Mormons to fight
>> between a cowboy and a horsey-snob?
>
> <snip>
>
> I have a signature that I use with all my posts to ARM.
> It says: "American quarter horse - the ultimate all-terrain
> vehicle."
>
> Apparently, some folks on ARM have a real problem with that
> signature, and want it refuted.
>
Then Netiquette demands that you limit follow-ups to a.r.m. Spamming
four different religious newsgroup with a horse discussion is
unwarranted.
Glenn Harrison Webb
> In article <3a50f...@newsa.ev1.net>,
> "Glenn Harrison Webb" <christi...@ev1.net> wrote:
> > "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:92olo6$1it$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > In article <3a4f9...@newsa.ev1.net>,
> > > "Glenn Harrison Webb" <christi...@ev1.net> wrote:
> > > > "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:92ml61$kpp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > > > In article <3a4e5...@newsa.ev1.net>,
> > > > > "Glenn Harrison Webb" <christi...@ev1.net> wrote:
> > > > > > "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:92jnh2$iff$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > > > > > In article <3a4d5...@newsa.ev1.net>,
> > > > > > > "Glenn Harrison Webb" <christi...@ev1.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > > > <snip>
> > I did,
>
> Okay. You are entitled to your opinion. But you were objecting to
> *MY* signature. You were not just making a statement of your own.
Thanks for allowing me my opinion :-) I find you sig. to be humoriusly
off-base.
> > I've ridden Abrians and Morgans on week long endurance runs
>
> Fun. My kids and I do that several times each summer.
Trail rides, for entertainment, are indeed fun, and less taxing.
> > (for the
> > inexperience this does not mean we run the whole time; but strive for
> the
> > best time against competiers
>
> We do it as a family outing.
This is why you are unaware of what it is like to ride at mainly a fast
trot, (standard gate for an endurance "run", a full out gallop would burn
any horse out, let alone kill them, and a walk is too slow)
See how long you can handle a trot on your Quarter Horse.
> > Resulting in being a little saddle sore, but
> > on Quarter-horses, on much shorter runs, mind you, I felt I would need
> > HOSPITAL CARE !!!!
>
> I never feel saddle sore when I come back after a week in the
> mountains.
When I rode in week long trail rides, I didn't either, we took them mainly
at a walk, with a few races !
Still go on these trips once and great while in the back of a wagon (Family
still heavy into horses)
<snip>
> > > Who said a smooth gait was essential to being "the ultimate all-
> terrain
> > > vehicle?"
> >
> > If the gate KILLS the rider ???
>
> Well, you have taken exageration to the extreem. I've yet to meet
> anyone who's been killed by the gait.
I did exagerate, just a smidge :-)
> > Think about it.
>
> Okay. Here's what comes to mind first: It's clear you have a lot of
> emotionalism tied up in this thread.
You can take horsemen away from horses, but you can't remove them from their
heart :-)
I thought I could push back my memories, I was wrong.
Do you know any horse ngs ???
> <snip to end>
>
> Duwayne Anderson
> --
> American quarter horse - the ultimate
> all-terrain vehicle.
Giggle :-)
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
Glenn Harrison Webb
<serap...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:92rqet$7pt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <3a4e5...@newsa.ev1.net>,
> "Glenn Harrison Webb" <christi...@ev1.net> wrote:
> > "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:92jnh2$iff$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > In article <3a4d5...@newsa.ev1.net>,
> > > "Glenn Harrison Webb" <christi...@ev1.net> wrote:
>
> How did this change from a discussion of Mormons to fight between a
> cowboy and a horsey-snob?
LOL :-) The cowboy's sig. did it.
"American quarter horse - the ultimate all-terrain vehicle."
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
Duwayne Anderson
"Glenn Harrison Webb" <christi...@ev1.net> wrote:
<snip>
> Thanks for allowing me my opinion :-) I find you sig. to be humoriusly
> off-base.
If my sig. humorous, what are we to make of your fascination with it?
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
--
American quarter horse - the ultimate
all-terrain vehicle.
Duwayne Anderson
"Glenn Harrison Webb" <christi...@ev1.net> wrote:
>
> <serap...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:92rqet$7pt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <3a4e5...@newsa.ev1.net>,
> > "Glenn Harrison Webb" <christi...@ev1.net> wrote:
> > > "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > news:92jnh2$iff$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > > In article <3a4d5...@newsa.ev1.net>,
> > > > "Glenn Harrison Webb" <christi...@ev1.net> wrote:
> >
> > How did this change from a discussion of Mormons to fight between a
> > cowboy and a horsey-snob?
>
> LOL :-) The cowboy's sig. did it.
No, the cowboy sig did not start the side issue. The thing that
started the side issue was your decision to *argue* about the cowboy
sig.
Duwayne Anderson
>
> "American quarter horse - the ultimate all-terrain vehicle."
>
> Glenn (Christian Mystic)
>
>
--
American quarter horse - the ultimate
all-terrain vehicle.
Glenn Harrison Webb
> > Thanks for allowing me my opinion :-) I find you sig. to be humoriusly
> > off-base.
>
> If my sig. humorous, what are we to make of your fascination with it?
Memories.
> <snip to end>
>
> Duwayne Anderson
>
> --
> American quarter horse - the ultimate
> all-terrain vehicle.
LOL ! :-)
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
Kevin Zoellner
Why would anyone want a barrel chested skinny legged small hoofed horse?
Want a humvee of a horse?
Adopt a Living Legend!
http://www.wildhorseandburro.blm.gov/
http://www.kbrhorse.net/whb/mustang.html
http://pbs.netscape.com/learn/wildhorses/index.html
>
Guy R. Briggs
duwa...@my-deja.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote:
> nat...@tctc.com (Nathan Packer) wrote:
>> duwa...@my-deja.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote:
>>> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
<snip>
>> We all, at least, I think we all have cross-posted inadvertently
>> at one time or another.
>
> Okay. We have a communication problem here. When someone posts
> things about what I wrote, or about me (no matter where the hell
> they post it) it's not cross-posting to straighten them out.
>
Correction. Any time there is more than one newsgroup in the
"Newsgroups:" line - it's cross-posting. The question is whether it's
spamming. Carrying on a discussion about horses in 4 different
religious newsgroups is both cross-posting /and/ spamming.
And here's the kicker. Remember when we first brought this up? You
wrote that you weren't cross-posting, you "simply hit 'reply' in Deja
News." That's a direct quote. You didn't even realize it was going
anyplace except alt.religion.mormon. Now you're telling us you did it
because you wanted you post to go to every newsgroup where it
originally appeared.
So not only are you cross-posting and spamming, but you're lying
about it as well because you can't ever, under any circumstances, admit
you were wrong. You have that much of your ego involved in Usenet.
>
> If you guys were really so concerned about the cross-posting,
> you'd take it up with the person who initially cross posted
> complaints about my signature to four other newsgroups.
>
We let it slide for a while. Finally, somebody calls himself
seraphimtex (serap...@my-deja.com) wrote (and I quote)
"How did this change from a discussion of Mormons to
fight between a cowboy and a horsey-snob?"
To which you replied (after quoting your .sig)
"Apparently, some folks on ARM have a real problem
with that signature, and want it refuted."
More evidence that you thought your replies were only going to
a.r.m. Up to that point, I had been ignoring all of your posts in the
"Looking for Answers ..." thread. In fact, I ignore most of your posts.
But that's when I stepped in and suggested that you should have set
follow-ups.
>>
>> Guy was simply reminding us of the need to check our headers.
>
> Guy made accusations that were incorrect, and he failed to
> get his facts straight.
>
All of my facts are straight. Deja News is a wonderful resource for
peicing togther who said what and when. I just wish they hadn't sold
their pre-15.May.99 archive.
>
> Now, if it's quite all right with everyone here (especially
> those complaining about off-subject posts) how about getting
> back to the issues I raised in the first place?
>
Already did that. Still waiting for a cogent (and non-whiney)
answer.
Guy R. Briggs
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
[follow-ups set to alt.religion.mormon]
>> Mormons are not the only ones (nor are we the first) to
>> claim that Jesus Christ is "procreated".
>
> Well, for starters, John 1:1 and 8:58 tend to reject that
> idea from the get-go...
>
Not the way we see them. The former reads:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
with God and the Word was God."
We would render it:
"Before the world was created, Jesus Christ existed.
He was with God the Father and He was, Himself,
co-equal (but separate and distinct from) God the
Father."
Nothing in there about whether He was created unless you infer from
"In the beginning" that this was before /anything/ existed. LdS make no
such inference.
The latter reads:
"... before Abraham was, I AM."
Which we have no problem with either, as we believe that Jesus of
the New Testament and Jehovah of the Old Testament are one and the
same.
>>
>> For example, the Apostle Paul:
>>
>> "[the Father's dear Son] is the image of the
>> invisible God, the firstborn of every
>> creature:" Col.1:15
>>
>> The above despite modern translations that render
>> the Greek "protokokos" as "preeminent" instead of
>> "firstborn" ...
>
> Of course, you already know the truth about what Paul meant,
> yet you refuse to believe it.
>
Actually, no. We read it right out of the KJV, just as it's shown
above.
>>
>> ... in an attempt to weave Calvinism into the Holy Writ.
>
> Of course, you make the false *accusation* that the modern
> translations render "preeminent" as some sort of subversive
> plot, when the truth is that the term represents the most
> accurate meaning to the text.
>
But the word is /usually/ firstborn. Mat.1:25 and Luke 2:7, as
examples, where we read about Mary's firstborn (prototokos) son. In
fact, the word appears 9 times and it's ALWAYS rendered firstborn or
first begotten in the KJV.
>
> But let's look at the text itself, shall we? In *context*:
>
> Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God,
> the firstborn of all creation.
<snip Greek and Hebrew>
> But let's see if we can also see any clues in the context
> of the following verses:
>
> Col 1:16 For in him were created all things in
> heaven and on earth, the visible and
> the invisible, whether thrones or dominions
> or principalities or powers; all things
> were created through him and for him.
>
> *Everything* was created through him:
> in heaven and on earth;
> visible and invisible;
> dominions, principalities, powers.
>
> Not "all *other* things". But "all things*.
>
Actually, this is your best argument, and from our limited
perspective everything in the universe is everthing there is. And,
certainly, "all things" is not "all other things".
But Mormonism posits /other/ universes - a "multiverse" if you will
- and "all things" as used in Cor.1:16 only covers this one, in our
cosmology.
We go literal on the "prototokos" but not literal on the "all
things" - go figure.
>
> All things that were created, were created through Him.
> Since He could't be created through Himself, He could not
> be a created being. Not a "literal "prwtotokos", but a
> figurative one. The "Preeminent" One.
>
> Notice the parallel with John 1:
>
> Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
> was with God, and the Word was God.
>
> "In the beginning was the Word..."
> The verb tense indicates not, "In the beginning the Word
> existed", but "In the beginning the Word was existing".
>
A difference without a distinction, IMHO.
>
> The Word was not "created" at the beginning time,
>
Exactly. But we LdS see the "beginning time" as before the
foundations of this earth were laid - not necessarily the time before
/anything/ was made. In fact, we see eternity as stretching out in both
directions, forward in time and back in time, and so we don't see a
"beginning time" at all (at least in the sense you have used it).
In fact, we believe that you and I were both there, Jeff. That we
were spirit-children of God the Father in the same sense that Christ
was. That we were among "all the sons of God" who shouted for joy at
the prospect of the creation of this world (as documented in Job - we
go literal on that one, too!).
>
> ... or came into existence *at* the beginning, but at the
> beginning, He was already there. He was "already existing..."
>
> Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
> Joh 1:3 All things came to be through him, and
> without him nothing came to be.
>
> All things came to be through the Word, just as Paul writes
> to the Colossians.
>
Perhaps the following will be useful:
"The scriptures plainly and repeatedly affirm that God
is the Creator of the earth and the heavens and all
things that in them are. In the sense so expressed the
Creator is an Organizer. God created the earth as an
organized sphere; but He certainly did not create, in
the sense of bringing into primal existence, the
ultimate elements of the materials of which the earth
consists, for 'the elements are eternal' (Doc. & Cov.
93:33). So also life is eternal, and not created; but
life, or the vital force, may be infused into organized
matter, though the details of the process have not been
revealed unto man. For illustrative instances see
Genesis 2:7; Moses 3:7; and Abraham 5:7. Each of these
scriptures states that God breathed into the body of
man the breath of life. See further Moses 3:19, for the
statement that God breathed the breath of life into the
bodies of the beasts and birds. God showed unto Abraham
'the intelligences that were organized before the world
was'; and by 'intelligences' we are to understand
personal 'spirits' (Abraham 3:22, 23); nevertheless, we
are expressly told that 'Intelligence' that is, 'the
light of truth was not created or made, neither indeed
can be' (Doc. & Cov. 93:29).
-- The Father and the Son,
A Doctrinal Exposition
>
> Col 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all
> things hold together.
> Col 1:18 He is the head of the body, the church.
> He is the beginning, the firstborn from
> the dead, that in all things he himself
> might be preeminent.
>
> And we see here, explicitly, Paul *defines* his usage of
> "prwtotokos" as "preeminent", which in the Greek is "prwteuos",
> which of course, also has "prwtos" ("chief") as its root.
>
If the same meaning was intended, why wasn't "proteuos" used in both
instances. Surely there must be some difference in meaning besides the
author's reluctance to use the same word twice in the same sentence!
>>
>> But there are also examples from persons less than apostles.
>> The Dutch reformer Arminius, for example:
<snip>
You know, I can't for the life of me figure out where I was going
with that train of thought. My bad. Train done jumped the tracks. It
happens to us old farts from time to time.
bestRegards,
-----------------| "I continue to be astonished at the extent to which
Guy R. Briggs | which colleagues who would never utter anti-Semitic,
netzach@ | anti-Catholic, or even anti-Moslem remarks, unself-
GeoCities.com | consciously and self righteously condemn Mormons."
hblack
Harry Black
hblack wrote:
> Mr Briggs forgets how his prophet Joseph Smith translated the passage:
>
> John 1:1 (Joseph Smith's New Translation)
> IN the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel
> was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and
> the Son was of God.
>
> The canonized Mormon creed informs the world that Mormons do not
> believe the Bible as it is written, except when it is "translated
> correctly," i.e., by their own prophet Joseph Smith, or his successors (and
> there are many Mormon sects that claim to be):
>
> [Articles of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints]
> 8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated
> correctly;
>
> Of course, Smith's version of this verse is flat out nonsense, both on
> linguistic and text critical grounds. In Greek, the text is obviously
> dependent on the ex nihilo absolute creation by a single God given in the
> ancient Septuagint version of Genesis. Thus when it says "the Word" was
> existing with God already In the Beginning, and created all things, it
> means the Word was just as eternal as God, and was itself therefore
> uncreated. In fact, the Word as "expression" must be an attribute organic
> to God, so that God could not have HImself existed without the Word
> existing as well. You will not find in John anything friendly to the Mormon
> view that the Divine Jesus was a late product of his Father, much less that
> his Father ever found Himself as merely one spirit among many, and
> "bootstrapped himself" from spirithood to manhood to Godhood, as Joseph
> Smith explicitly taught.
>
> [President Joseph Smith,
> General Conference, Sunday 7 April 1844]
> God himself, who sits enthroned in yonder heavens, is a man like unto one
> of yourselves, that is the great secret.... I am going to tell you how God
> came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all
> eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may
> see.
> God himself finds himself in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was
> greater, and because he saw proper to institute laws, whereby the rest
> could have a privilege to advance like himself, that they might have one
> glory upon another, in all that knowledge, power, and glory, &c., in order
> to save the world of spirits.
> Re: Times and Seasons, 5 (15 Aug 1844): 613-615; Journal of Discourses 6:3,
> 7; Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 6:305, 312; Joseph Fielding Smith,
> comp., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book,
> 1976), 345-346;.cf Millennial Star, 23:245-248, Stan Larson, ed., "The King
> Follett Discourse: A Newly Amalgamated Text," Brigham Young University
> Studies 18 (Winter 1978): 200, 203-204)
>
> Now, regarding the origin of spirits: according to Joseph Smith's
> canonized New Translation of Genesis (in the Pearl of Great Price, Moses
> 2:26, 3:5), every spirit was supposedly created.
> Later, Joseph Smith trashed this doctrine, saying that spirits never
> have been, or ever can be created: "spirits, notwithstanding one is more
> intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they
> shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or
> eternal." (Abraham 3:18). These mutually exclusive passages are still in
> the confused LDS canon, and are both supposed to have been "translated
> correctly."
> Here is how Smith continued to expound the doctrine shortly before he
> died:
>
> [President Joseph Smith,
> General Conference, Sunday 7 April 1844]
> God never did have power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself
> could not create himself: intelligence exists upon a self existent
> principle, it is a spirit from age to age, and, there is no creation about
> it.
> Re: Times and Seasons, 5 (15 Aug 1844): 615.
>
> Thus there is no coherent Mormon doctrine of the origin of any spirits,
> including Jesus Christ, since mutually contradictory concepts have been
> canonized. President Gordon Hinckley was quite correct to announce that it
> was merely "a couplet" and "not a doctrine" that God ever was man. In the
> strange world of Mormonism, authoritative doctrines are so plastic that
> they can be both denied and affirmed in the same breath!
>
> Harry Black
hblack
pretended to be a New Translation of the Bible.
Mr Briggs in fact refers to it rather as "the :JST," but fails to
acknowledge that this LDS abbreviation means "the Joseph Smith
Translation." So in every sense it pretends to be another "translation" of
the Bible, meeting the context of the 8th LDS Article of Faith, "We believe
the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly." In
other words, they do not believe the Bible unless it is "translated" by
Joseph Smith and/or his successors.
Briggs is correct, however, to admit that Smith's translation was not
really a translation, since it merely revises the King James version and
the words it adds are entirely absent from any ancient texts.
Clearly, Joseph Smith emended the English Bible without any
justification, only to make it appear to the naive that Smith's con
artistry had the support of the Bible. In fact the Bible, unless revised to
Smith's specifications, rather proves him a false prophet and false
apostle.
It is a historical fact that Smith's Bible "translation" was referred
to by Smith and all of his colleagues as "the New Translation of the
Scriptures" or "the new translation of my holy word" or by some equivalent
expression.
Some doctrinally secure references during the life of Joseph Smith,
published by the authorities of the Mormon church, including Joseph Smith:
Canon scripture:
D&C 124:89 (19 Jan 1841)
publish the new translation of my holy word unto the inhabitants of the
earth.
Re: Times and Seasons, 2 (1 Jun 1841): 428; Joseph Smith, History of the
Church, 4:282.
Formerly canon scripture:
[President Joseph Smith,
Lectures on Theology (i.e., Doctrine),
LDS Doctrine and Covenants, 1835 edition, pp.12-13]
5. We shall now proceed to examine the situation of man at his first
creation. Moses, the historian, has given us the following account of him
in the first chapt. of the book of Genesis, beginning with the 20th verse,
and closing with the 30th. We copy from the New Translation:
6. And the Lord God said unto the Only Begotten, who was with him from the
beginning, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and it was
done.
*Note: the same usage is found on pages 16 and 35.
Unpublished revelation:
"Revelation given April 23 1834"
a commandment I have unto you, that ye shall take the books of Mormon and
also the copyright, and also the copyright which shall be secured of the
articles and covenants, in which covenants all my commandments, which it is
my will should be printed, shall be printed, as it shall be made known unto
you; and also the copyright of the New translation of the Scriptures;
Re: Kirtland Revelation Book
Messages of the First Presidency and the Twelve:
[President Joseph Smith,
Message of the First Presidency and the Twelve, (21 Feb 1842)]
We would also say to all the churches, that inasmuch as they want the
blessings of God and angels, as also of the Church of Jesus Christ, and
wish to see it spread and prosper through the world, and Zion built up and
truth and righteousness prevail,—let all the different branches of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in all the world, call meetings
in their respective places and tithe themselves and send up to this place
to the Trustee in Trust, so that his hands may be loosed, and the Temple go
on, and other works be done, such as the new translation of the Bible, and
the record of Father Abraham published to the world.
Re: Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 4:5:17.
Messages of the First Presidency:
[President Joseph Smith,
Letter to the Brethren, Kirtland, 21 Mar 1833]
It is not the will of the Lord to print any of the New Translation in the
Star; but when it is published, it will all go to the world together; in a
volume by itself;
Re: Times and Seasons, 5 (1 Jan 1844): 754; Joseph Smith, History of the
Church, 1:341.
[President Joseph Smith,
Message of the First Presidency, Kirtland, 4 May 1833]
In regard to the printing of the New Translation; it cannot be done until
we can attend to it ourselves, and this we will do as soon as the Lord
permits.
Re: Times and Seasons, 6 (15 Jan 1845): 801; Joseph Smith, History of the
Church, 1:365.
[President Joseph Smith,
Message of the First Presidency, Kirtland, 2 Jul 1833]
before you receive this, have obtained information about the New
Translation ... Having finished the translation of the bible, a few hours
since, and needing some recreation, we know of no way we can spend our time
more to divine acceptance, than endeavoring to build up his Zion
Re: Times and Seasons, 6 (15 Jan 1845): 803; Joseph Smith, History of the
Church, 1:369.
[President Joseph Smith,
Message of the First Presidency, (31 Aug 1840)]
Connected with the building up of the Kingdom, is the printing and
circulation of the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, hymn-book, and
THE NEW TRANSLATION of the Scriptures. It is unnecessary to say anything
respecting these works: those who have read them, and who have drunk of the
stream of knowledge which they convey, know how to appreciate them; and
although fools may have them in derision, yet they are calculated to make
men wise unto salvation, and sweep away the cobwebs of superstition of
ages, throw a light on the proceedings of Jehovah which have already been
accomplished, and mark out the future in all its dreadful and glorious
realities. Those who have tasted the benefit derived from a study of those
works, will undoubtedly vie with each other in their zeal for sending them
abroad throughout the world, that every son of Adam may enjoy the same
privileges, and rejoice in the same truths. (Emphasis added.)
Re: Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 4:187.
Editorials and notices, and credentials issued by Joseph Smith or his
agents, in official LDS periodicals:
[Editorial,
Times and Seasons, Nauvoo, Illinois, 1 (Jul 1840): 139-140]
The authorities of the church here, having taken this subject into
consideration, and viewing the importance of Publishing a Hymn Book, and a
more extensive quantity of the Books of Mormon, and also the necessity of
Publishing the new translation of the scriptures, which has so long been
desired by the Saints; have appointed. and authorized Samuel Bent and Geo.
W. Harris, as traveling agents, to make contracts and receive monies &c.
for the accomplishment of this glorious work.
Re: Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 4:164
*Note: The Times and Seasons was the official LDS Church periodical,
published at LDS headquarters. Its editor at the time was Joseph Smith's
own brother, Don Carlos Smith (whose wife Joseph Smith added to his harem
when Don Carlos died).
[President Joseph Smith,
Credentials of Elders Samuel Bent and George W. Harris, 22 Jul 1840]
To all whom it may concern:—This is to certify that Elders Samuel Bent and
George W. Harris are authorized agents of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, being appointed by the First Presidency and High Council
of said Church to visit the branches of the Church in the east, or wherever
they may be led in the providence of God, to obtain donations and
subscriptions for the purpose of printing the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and
Covenants, hymn-books, THE NEW TRANSLATION of the Scriptures. They are
likewise instructed and authorized to procure loans in behalf of the
Church, for carrying into operation the above and other important works
necessary to the well being of said Church. (Emphasis added.)
Re: Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 4:164.
[Editorial,
Times and Seasons, Nauvoo, Illinois, 1 (Oct 1840): 192]
The great ascessions making to the church, and the introduction of the
benign gospel of peace, into new places, and other nations; also the great
demand for publications from every part of America, renders it altogether
necessary for us to issue our periodical oftener than formerly. We should
be pleased to publish our paper weekly, as we have an abundance of matter
for the instruction of the saints, as President Joseph Smith jr. is
furnishing us with essays on the glorious subject of the priesthood, also
giving us extracts of THE NEW TRANSLATION to lay before our readers
(Emphasis added)
[Apostle Willard Richards,
General Notice, (12 Jan 1842)]
This regulation is necessary, to give the Trustee [i.e., President Joseph
Smith] and Recorder [i.e., Joseph Smith's personal secretary, and clerk to
the Twelve, Willard Richards] time to arrange the Book of Mormon, New
Translation and of the Bible, Hymn Book, and Doctrine and Covenants for the
press
Re: Times and Seasons, Nauvoo, Illinois, 3 (15 Jan 1842): 667; 3 (1 Feb
1842): 677.
Some references after Joseph Smith's death, by the highest LDS
officers, chronologically by name:
[President Brigham Young,
History of the Church (19 Aug 1844)]
Monday, August 19.—Elder Willard Richards called on Emma Smith, widow of
the Prophet, for the new translation of the Bible. She said she did not
feel disposed to give it up at present.
Re: Brigham Young, History of the Church, 7:260.
[LDS President Brigham Young,
General Conference Sermon, 8 Oct 1855]
brother Orson has clearly shown how the Bible has come into our hands, in
order to convince the people of the necessity of positive proof for the
validity of the Book of Mormon, the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and
that Joseph Smith was a true Prophet of God, and to provo that our
testimony, witnesses, evidence and knowledge of these facts are ten
thousand times more than can be produced in favor of the Bible, unless a
man has the power of God to testify to it, for there can be no proof in its
favor short of revelation. This we have known all the time, we have
understood it from the beginning. That made us very anxious, in the days of
Joseph, to get THE NEW TRANSLATION, (Emphasis added.)
Re: Journal of Discourses 3:116.
[LDS President Brigham Young,
Sermon, 14 Apr 1867]
When Jesus was preaching on these principles, and showing how strict and
pure in their lives they must be who are counted worthy to be brought into
the presence of the Father and the Son, be crowned with crowns of glory,
immortality, and eternal life, and become Gods, even the Sons of God, I do
not wonder that His disciples cried out, "Who, then, can be saved?" Said
Jesus, "Strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to the lives to
come and few there be that find it." This is the rendering in the new
translation.
Re: Journal of Discourses 12:39.
[LDS Apostle Orson Pratt,
Sermon, 18 Feb 1855]
you will find the same thing in the Book of Mormon, translated by the Urim
and Thummim; the same things are also contained in THE NEW TRANSLATION of
the book of Genesis, given to Moses, where the Lord declares that, "There
is no God besides me." In these expressions, God has reference to the great
principles of light and truth, or knowledge, and not to the tabernacles in
which this knowledge may dwell; the tabernacles are many and without
number, but the truth or knowledge which is often personified and called
God, is one, being the same in all; God is one, being a unity, when
represented by light, truth, wisdom, or knowledge; but when reference is
made to the temples in which this knowledge dwells, the number of Gods is
infinite. This explains the mystery. If we should take a million of worlds
like this and number their particles, we should find that there are more
Gods than there are particles of matter in those worlds. But the attributes
of Deity are one; and they constitute the one God that the Prophets speak
of, and that the children of men in all worlds worship. (Emphasis added.)
Re: Journal of Discourses 2:345.
[LDS Apostle Orson Pratt,
Sermon, 11 Sep 1859]
Thus we see that not only Adam understood the principles of faith,
repentance, baptism, the new birth, and the gift of the Holy Ghost; but
Enoch also understood the same plan, and had authority given him to
administer in the ordinances of it. We will now pass along to Noah, still
reading from THE NEW TRANSLATION of the Old Testament, not translated by
King James's translators, but by the Prophet of the living God—translated
by the gift and power of inspiration from on high:—"And in those days there
were giants on the earth; and they sought Noah, to take away his life; but
the Lord was with Noah, and the power of the Lord was upon him. (Emphasis
added.)
Re: Journal of Discourses 2:253.
[LDS Apostle Orson Pratt,
General Conference Sermon, 8 April 1860]
I might name some few things which may be found in the 24th chapter of
Matthew, that are much plainer and much more simple as they were revealed
to the Prophet Joseph in the new translation,—so much so that it would
almost satisfy even a natural-minded person that there has been a superior
wisdom manifest in this new translation.
Re: Journal of Discourses 8:47.
[LDS Apostle Orson Pratt,
Sermon, 15 Dec 1872]
In the first and second chapter of Genesis, in the new translation given by
inspiration through Joseph Smith the Prophet, this subject is made very
plain. After Joseph had translated the Book of Mormon from the gold plates,
the Lord commanded him to translate the Bible.
Re: Journal of Discourses 15:247.
[LDS Apostle Orson Pratt,
Sermon, 29 Dec 1872]
In the new translation which Joseph Smith was commanded to make of the Old
and New Testament, we find that some of the dates given in King James'
translation of events before the flood are incorrect, but they are
corrected in the new translation. ... In this new translation we have also
a much greater history of the creation of the world than is given in the
uninspired translation made by the forty-seven men employed by King James.
Re: Journal of Discourses 15:263.
[LDS Apostle Orson Pratt,
Sermon, 25 Aug 1878]
There are many things in the new translation besides the vision and
revelation in regard to the creation, written by Joseph Smith, which are
far greater than anything contained in the Bible, or in the Book of Mormon,
or in the Doctrine and Covenants.
Re: Journal of Discourses 20:73.
[LDS Apostle Orson Pratt,
General Conference Sermon, Apr 1880]
On the seventh day the Lord formed the garden of Eden, planted the trees of
that garden, laid out the work, beautified it, and also placed man in the
garden, having formed his fleshly tabernacle, which was also the work of
the morning of the seventh day, and he has informed us that on the morning
of that day there was no flesh upon the earth except the man whom he had
formed and placed in the garden. Yet all the children of men were created
the day previous, or the period previous, called the sixth day, so that
they all existed; but the Lord says "in heaven created I them." They were
not created here upon the earth, but they were created in heaven; but on
the seventh day man was placed here upon the earth, having a tabernacle of
flesh and bones. So says THE NEW TRANSLATION, or that portion thereof
contained in this book, called the "Pearl of Great Price." I have
oftentimes thought, when reading these revelations, that they typified
something; or that the Lord would not fully accomplish his work in six
thousand years preparatory to the day of rest, but intended, on his part,
to do something on the morning of the seventh thousand years, just as he
did in the beginning. Was the spirit of man placed on the earth in a body
of flesh and bones on the morning of the seventh day of the creation? He
was. (Emphasis added.)
Re: Conference Report, 1880, p.22 - p.23
[President John Taylor,
The Mediation and Atonement, (SLC UT: Deseret News Co., 1882) p.10]
as the New Translation by the Prophet Joseph Smith has it, "O my Father, if
this cup may not pass away from me except I drink it, thy will be done."
[Apostle Wilford Woodruff,
(6 Oct 1879)]
I read this morning in the New Translation of the New Testament by Joseph
Smith the Prophet the 1 & 2 Timothy Philemon Hebrews, James 1 & 2 Peter 1,
2 & 3 John & Jude. All these Epistles are vary Edifying & instructive.
Re: Wilford Woodruff's Journal, 7:517.
*Note: Woodruff calls Joseph Smith's Bible translation, "the New
Translation", in numerous other entries, e.g., 2:612 6:409-10 6:412
7:491, 496 (twice).
Conclusion:
Since Joseph Smith and his god made bogus use of the term "translation"
in regard to Smith's "New Translation of the Bible" scam, we may securely
conclude that Smith's so-called "translation" of the Book of Mormon was
equally bogus. From imaginary "gold plates," using a crystal ball in the
bottom of his hat.
Harry Black
Suggested reading:
Matthews, Robert J. (Brigham Young University: professor of religion ).
"The 'New Translation' of the Bible 1830-1833: Doctrinal Development During
the Kirtland Era," Brigham Young University Studies 11 (Summer 1971):
400-423.
—, "A Plainer Translation": Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible, A
History and Commentary (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1985).
"Guy R. Briggs" wrote:
> "New" translation? As opposed to ... Smith's old translation?
<snip>
> The JST - AT BEST - is a paraphrase of the KJV.
Guy R. Briggs
>
> Mr. Briggs cannot honestly deny that Joseph Smith created
> what he pretended to be a New Translation of the Bible.
>
logical fallacy of judging an early-19th century person by an early-
21st century definition.
From the 1806 Webster's:
"Translate, v.t. to remove, turn, render, interpret"
In that sense, the Joseph Smith "Translation" of the scriptures
might be properly named. Smith took the KJV (Mormon lore has it that it
was the one with the largest margins he could find) and made an
inspired commentary. What our Jewish cousins might call a midrash.
IOW, it was a rendering of the KJV, done under inspiration (we
believe) in an attempt to get closer to the actual meaining.
From dictionary.com:
"Translate, v.tr. 1. To render in another language."
The JST, despite the name, does /not/ fit this definition. And to
claim any sort of dishonesty in this is nothing more than an attempt at
obfuscation. Smith did not take the original autographs of the Bible,
"render [them] in another language", and call it a translation.
>
> Mr Briggs in fact refers to it rather as "the :JST," ...
>
Yes, I do.
>
> ... but fails to acknowledge that this LDS abbreviation
> means "the Joseph Smith Translation." So in every sense it
> pretends to be another "translation" of the Bible ...
>
We do not pretend it to be anything of the sort. Fact: The JST is
not part of our canon. FACT: Wrangling over the meaning of the word
"translation" is just an attempt to obfuscate the issues and make
Mormons look bad at any cost.
<remainder, including several hundred lines of dusty, old
quotations, snipped>
hblack
identifies Jesus Christ as the only Being man must worship:
2 Nephi 25:29
Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before him,
and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole
soul
*Note: Ask your Mormon friend now, "What does it mean to worhip Christ
with one's whole soul?" But of course, they can't know the answer, because
their religion tells them NOT to worship Jesus Christ! And of course,
President Brigham Young told Mormons to worship Adam "our God and the only
God with whom we have to do" (Journal of Discourses 1:50), and the LDS
naively claim "Our Prophet cannot lead us astray." They will say they
worship "Elohim," and that Jesus was "Jehovah," but the Hebrew Bible
clearly identifies Jehovah and Elohim as exactly the same Being "God
[Hebrew: Elohim] spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I [am] the LORD
[Hebrew: Jehovah]" (Exodus 6:2).
The Book of Mormon in fact makes no provision for the existence of any
Supreme Being other than Jesus Christ, which it announces up front as it
prime message: "Jesus is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself
unto all nations" (Emphasis in original; cf 2 Nephi 26:12.)
2 Nephi 11:7
if there be no Christ there be no God; and if there be no God we are not,
for there could have been no creation. But there is a God, and he is Christ
The Book of Mormon in fact never uses the trinitarian word Godhead,
which implies a trinity of persons, and denies the possibility that there
is more than one God, whom it consistently identifies as Jesus Christ
Himself:
Mosiah 5:15
Christ, the Lord God Omnipotent ... him who created all things, in heaven
and in earth, who is God above all.
Mosiah 7:27
[Prophet-King Benjamin] said unto them that Christ was the God, the Father
of all things
Mosiah 12:33
Thou shalt have no other God before me.
Alma 11:28-29,38-39
Is there more than one God? And he answered, No.
Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father? ... Yea, he is the very Eternal
Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the
beginning and the end, the first and the last
Mormon 9:12
Jesus Christ, even the Father and the Son
Ether 3:14
I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son.
Ether 4:12
behold, I am the Father
Your denial of the Book of Mormon is transparent, Mr. Briggs.
Everyone can easily see for themselves you do not read the Book of
Mormon or you do not believe it.
Harry Black
"Guy R. Briggs" wrote:
<snip>
> There is only one God. Or more correctly (in our religious
> terminology, only one Godhead). The Godhead consists of God the Father,
> a.k.a. Elohim, Jesus Christ, a.k.a Jehova, and the Holy Spirit. We
> worship God the Father. We pray in the name of Jesus Christ.
hblack
Jesus Christ being the product of sexual intercourse between God and Mary!
In doing so, the LDS apologist must absurdly label his own LDS Apostles
and Prophets "anti-Mormons," since this doctrine was invented by them:
[LDS Apostle Orson Pratt,
The Seer 1 (Oct 1853): 158]
The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father.
Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must
have been associated together in the capacity of husband and wife; hence
the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God
the Father: we use the term lawful Wife, because it would be blasphemous in
the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the Saviour
unlawfully. It would have been unlawful for any man to have interfered with
Mary, who was already espoused to Joseph; for such a heinous crime would
have subjected both the guilty parties to death, according to the law of
Moses. But God having created all men and women, had the most perfect right
to do with His own creation, according to His holy will and pleasure: He
had a lawful right to overshadow the Virgin Mary in the cpacity of a
husband, and beget a Son, although she was espoused to another; for the law
which He gave to govern men and women was not intended to govern Himself,
or to prescribe rules for his own conduct. It was also lawful in Him, after
having thus dealt with Mary, to give her to Joseph her espoused husband.
Whether God the Father gave Mary to Joseph for time only, or for time and
eternity, we are not informed. Inasmuch as God was the first husband to
her, it may be that He only gave her to be the wife of Joseph while in this
mortal state, and that He intended after the resurrection to again take her
as one of his own wives to raise up immortal spirits in eternity.
LDS Apostle Orson Pratt's delicate phrasing clearly describes
cohabitation, i.e., sexual intercourse, between God and Mary. "the Father
and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated
together in the capacity of husband and wife"
President Brigham Young taught that Jesus was begotten, not by the Holy
Ghost, but in exactly the same manner other human are conceived. He further
identifies the Father as none other than Adam himself, who was begotten by
exactly the same sexual process:
[President Brigham Young,
General Conference Sermon, 9 Apr 1852]
Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and
sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it
with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wires, with him. He
helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the
ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken -- HE is our
FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man
upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and
will know it sooner or later. They came here, organized the raw material,
and arranged in their order the herbs of the field, the trees, the apple,
the peach, the plum, the pear, and every other fruit that is desirable and
good for man; the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this
earth. The thistle, the thorn, the brier, and the obnoxious weed did not
appear until after the earth was cursed. When Adam and Eve had eaten of the
forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore
their offspring were mortal. When the Virgen Mary conceived the child
Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten
by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human
family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in
heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the
rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve
Re: Journal of Discourses 1:50
[President Brigham Young,
Sermon, (20 Apr 1856)]
Though we have it in history that our father Adam was made of the dust of
this earth, and that he knew nothing about his God previous to being made
here, yet it is not so .... You may read and believe what you please as to
what is found written in the Bible. Adam was made from the dust of an
earth, but not from the dust of this earth. He was made as you and I are
made, and no person was ever made upon any other principle.
Re: Journal of Discourses 3:319.
[President Brigham Young,
Sermon, (8 Feb 1857)]
Things were first created spiritually; the Father actually begat the
spirits, and they were brought forth and lived with Him. Then He commenced
the work of creating earthly tabernacles, precisely as He had been created
in this flesh himself, by partaking of the course material that was
organized and composed this earth, until His system was charged with it,
consequently the tabernacles of His children were organized from the coarse
materials of this earth. When the time came that His first-born, the
Saviour, should come into the world and take a tabernacle, the Father came
Himself and favoured that spirit with a tabernacle instead of letting any
other man do it. The Saviour was begotten by the Father of His spirit, by
the same Being who is the Father of our spirits, and that is all the
organic difference between Jesus Christ and you and me. .... Whether you
receive these things or not, I tell you them in simplicity. I lay them
before you like a child, because they are perfectly simple.
Re: Journal of Discourses 4:218.
[President Brigham Young,
General Conference Sermon, (9 Oct 1859)]
[Jesus] increased in wisdom and knowledge, and came into communication
with his Father. The Being whom we call Father was the Father of the spirit
of the Lord Jesus Christ, and he was also his Father pertaining to the
flesh. Infidels and Christians, make all you can of this statement."; [B
Young JD 8:115 (July 8, 1860)] "While brother Joseph was referring to the
providences of God, I was led to reflect that there is no act, no
principle, no power belonging to the Deity that is not purely
philosophical. The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of
our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and
blood -- was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers.
Re: Journal of Discourses 7:286.
[LDS Apostle, Bruce R McConkie,
The Promised Messiah (1978), 468-469]
There is no need to spiritualize away the plain meaning of the
scriptures. There is nothing figurative or hidden or beyond comprehension
in our Lord's coming into mortality. He is the Son of God in the same sense
and way that we are the sons of mortal fathers. It is just that simple.
Christ was born of Mary. He is the Son of God -- the Only Begotten of the
Father. [p:469] These are points upon which we need not elaborate.
[LDS Apostle, Bruce R McConkie,
The Mortal Messiah (1979) 1:283]
He is to be sired by an Immortal Father, to be conceived in a mortal
womb
[President Ezra Taft Benson,
The Teachings of ET Benson (1988), 7]
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims that Jesus
Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which He
performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that same Holy Being we
worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, nor
was He begotten by the Holy Ghost.
It is truly amazing to see how LDS Mormons are shamed by the prospect
that their god could have had sexual intercourse with a woman, since having
a body and copulating to produce enough offspring to fill the numberless
planets they create, is the primary function of their gods in eternity.
Do they perhaps sense that this unBiblical doctrine also makes no
practical sense?
By the way, whether a Mormon doctrine is published in a canonical LDS
book, or given by their authoritive spokemen (e.g., Apostles and Prophets),
the Mormon god calls that doctrine His binding word—"What I the Lord have
spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and
the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be
fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is
the same." (D&C 1:38), whether the Mormon apologist personally wishes to
acknowledge it or not.
Harry Black
"Guy R. Briggs" wrote:
<snip>
> There is no God/Mary sexual intercourse involved in /any/ of our
> canonical books. This is a Red Herring, dragged across the trail of
> truth-seekers, by antiMormons.
hblack
claims Smith's New translation was really a commentary. But he has no
evidence at all to point to, except the pathetic state of the text itself.
Now, before Joseph Smith began his New translation in 1830, we know he
was well aware of the meaning of the word "translate", since he had
recently made a pretended "translation" of the phony Egyptian gold plates
into English, and he had included in the Book of Mormon a claim that his
Book of Mormon "white and delightsome" Hebrews had inscribed their gold
plates using Egyptian characters in order to save space. We also know that
Smith always referred to his New Translation, as a translation, but never
as a commentary, or revision. The text itself pretends to translate ancient
words and phrases differently than these languages permit. For example,
Joseph Smith in his New Translation has Golgotha mean "a place of burial,"
but in point of fact the Greek of Matthew, Mark, Luke, AND John(!), quite
correctly agree that it means "the place of a skull" (Matthew 27:33; Mark
15:22; Luke 23:33; John 19:17; the word is Aramaic.)
So, when Smith claimed he was "translating" he Bible, he was clearly
claiming to have restored the original text, which his Book of Mormon had
said was corrupted by priests of the Roman "Great and Abominable "Church
immediately after the Twelve Apostles published it:
1 Nephi 13:24-29
the angel of the Lord said unto me: Thou hast beheld that the book
[i.e., the entire Bible] proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew; and when
it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fulness of the
gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record; ...Wherefore,
these things go forth from the Jews in purity unto the Gentiles, according
to the truth which is in God. ... after they go forth by the hand of the
twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest
the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable
above all other churches; ... Wherefore, thou seest that after the book
hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that
there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is
the book of the Lamb of God. And after these plain and precious things were
taken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles
The apologist is also wrong to say that Joseph Smith's New Translation
was not canonized by the LDS. Not all of it has been canonized by the Utah
LDS, but OT and NT selections are canonized in their Pearl of Great Price.
Other branches of Mormonism, (e.g., the Reorganized LDS), did in fact
publish and canonize all the text, because they had possession of Smith's
manuscript New Translation, which Smith had been commanded by his god to
publish, but died before doing.
Since the Utah LDS did not obey their god in this matter, why do their
apologists claim they belong to the "only true" Mormon Church, rather than
an apostate branch? Perhaps they merely believe uncritically what their
mothers suggested they believe.
Harry Black
"Guy R. Briggs" wrote:
<snip>
> Black commits the
MATTHEW DUNN
The fact is that the JST is accepted as an inspired translation of the
Sacred Scriptures by the Reorganized LDS church, the denomination of Joseph
Smith's descendants. (In fact, it's the only branch of Mormonism to use it.)
For those who are not familiar with Judaism, a midrash is an eisegetical
text on Sacred Scripture which applies it to the here and now, thus making
it relevant to its readers. Midrash is NOT exegesis, scholarly study which
tries to get at an author's original meaning, etc. In that sense, Mr.
Briggs is right: Joseph Smith's "translation" is more akin to a midrash.
Perhaps, "gloss" would be a better way to describe Joseph Smith's work. My
understanding, though, was that Smith claimed to be restoring teachings
(i.e., "many plain and precious things") that had been expurgated from the
Old and New Testaments. That's not midrash by ANY definition.
But, when one looks at specific examples from Smith's translation, he
recognizes that they are not midrashic in any way. I offer two examples
with the JST in capitals:
"Even so faith, if it HAVE not works is dead, being alone. THEREFORE wilt
thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead AND CANNOT SAVE
YOU?" (Jas. 2: 17-8)
"THAT I THE LORD will camp against HER round about, and will lay siege
against HER with a mount, and I will raise forts against HER." (Is. 29: 3)
Whereas the Tanakh is traditionally centered on the page with the rabbis'
commentary surrounding it, the JST adds to and changes the existing text
from the Bible. That would be considered sacrilegious to our "Jewish
cousins". In many places Smith's changes are inconsequential. (Or, wrong --
as in the above passage from James where Joseph Smith's grammar faltered!)
So, I am in agreement with Mr. Brigg's: The JST is not a translation.
The problem is that Joseph Smith DID indeed claim to be translating the
Bible, restoring it to the way it was first written. Mr. Briggs quibbles
over the word, 'translate', saying that one should not constrain its meaning
with 21st Century notions. Firstly, words usually become more varied in
meaning over years of use -- not more restricted. Secondly, his charge of
chrono-whatever falls somewhat limply when tens of thousands (even millions)
can still read William Shakespeare in the original English without much
trouble. Languages change, yes. Yet, Mr. Briggs seems to be pressing that
given to the breaking point so as to get around the plain meaning of
'translate'. Why? Because if Joseph Smith meant 'translate' as we think he
did, he was no divine messenger. Why, again? Because his glosses and
changes have no support in the oldest manuscript evidence for both Old and
New Testaments.
Personally, I think Smith's "translation" of the so-called Book of Abraham
demonstrated he had no legitimacy as a prophet or otherwise, anyways.
hblack
The JST hardly reads like midrash. Joseph Smith claimed in 1829 that he had
translated Egyptian inscriptions on gold plates, and the JST follows closely his
Book of Mormon "translations" from the KJV (e.g., Matthew 5-7, Isaiah 2-14,
48-54, etc.), but makes some rather significant detailed changes. For example,
in the famous dictum at Matthew 5:41 about 'going the extra mile', Jesus says to
go two miles whenever compelled to go only one, but Jesus in the JST brushes off
the extra mile, even though he had said it in the 1829 Book of Mormon (3 Nephi
12:41) "translation" of this passage. Specifically, The JST reads, "whosoever
shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him a mile." Observe that the change is
substantial, and that it cannot be construed as commentary, or interpretation at
all, since it clearly obliterates the meaning of the given passage. If the JST
is not a genuine translation, then neither is the Book of Mormon, or Smith's
other so-called translations (e.g., his Book of Abraham, a parchment of John,
the Kinderhook plates, etc.).
Another problem with Briggs' assumption that Joseph Smith's New Translation
is not a translation, is the JST's extensive rewriting in the Gospels, of
conversations between Jesus and his contemporaries. Joseph Smith's insertions
are blended into the text as though they were transcripts of the original
conversations. LDS scholar Robert J. Matthews cogently observes on this point,
"Were his additions intended only as personal explanations or commentary, and
therefore not equal to existing passages, one would think he was morally bound
so to state. However to so phrase the insertions so that they form first-person
quotations from Jesus and others is tantamount to a declaration that the
material is to be regarded as equal to any and all the accompanying material."
Re: 'A Plainer Translation': Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible, A History
and Commentary (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1985), p.238.
Matthews' observations are important, because Matthews is recognized by his
peers as the foremost authority on this subject, having written his Master's
thesis (1960) and Doctoral dissertation (1968) on the JST at Brigham Young
University, and having thoroughly studied the primary source materials, which
are in possession of the RLDS church.
Harry
Guy R. Briggs
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
<snip>
>> There is only one God. Or more correctly (in our religious
>> terminology, only one Godhead). The Godhead consists of God
>> the Father, a.k.a. Elohim, Jesus Christ, a.k.a Jehova, and
>> the Holy Spirit. We worship God the Father. We pray in the
>> name of Jesus Christ.
>
> The LDS apologist conveniently ignores his Book of Momon
> when it identifies Jesus Christ as the only Being man must
> worship:
>
I ignore many things - pointless trolls being one (present case
excluded) - but the Book of Mormon is one thing I do not ignore.
>
> 2 Nephi 25:29
> Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow
> down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind,
> and strength, and your whole soul
>
We LdS are expected to make Christ the Lord of our lives. In oue
eucharistic prayers, we affirm that we always remember His sacrifice
for us, that we are willing to take upon ourselves His name and that we
are willing to keep His commandments. But the eucharistic prayers
themselves are made to God - the Father of Jesus Christ.
There is no contrdiction here. When I wrote that we worshipped
Elohim, I did not mean to imply that we do not also worship Christ.
After all, when we worship the Son, we are worshipping the Father.
But we don't get confused about which is which.
>
> *Note: Ask your Mormon friend now, "What does it mean to worhip
> Christ with one's whole soul?" But of course, they can't know the
> answer, because their religion tells them NOT to worship Jesus
> Christ!
>
Our religion tells us no such thing.
<snip Adam/God nonsense>
Guy R. Briggs
>
> LDS apologists often claim "anti-Mormons" invented the
> doctrine of Jesus Christ being the product of sexual
> intercourse between God and Mary!
>
discourses on the subject come right out and say it, it's clear that
some of them actually believed it.
What we apologists claim is that it's a Red Herring.
And it /is/ a Red Herring, because it is not now - nor has it ever
been - official Mormon doctrine. And that's the point.
In the same sense, it could be argued that the writer(s) of Genesis
believed in a three-tiered model of the universe: flat earth below with
the heavens curving above - all separated by a solid "firmament." We
now know that the universe ain't necessarily constructed in that
manner.
Should we reject the first five books of the Bible?
Of course not. Because the Bible actually affirms that God is the
creator of the universe - not that the universe is created in a certain
way.
Point being - and please /note/ this so that you actually get the
point (as opposed to continually missing it) - that we need not reject
the official Mormon doctrine of the literal sonship of Christ because
one or more of our 19th-century leaders speculated as to how "literal
sonship" might have actually been accomplished.
>
> In doing so, the LDS apologist must absurdly label his own LDS
> Apostles and Prophets "anti-Mormons," since this doctrine was
> invented by them:
>
The only people I'm labeling as "antiMormon" are the ones who
continue to claim speculation as official doctrine. That this whole
"God/sex/Mary" thing is what Mormons "really" believe.
Guy R. Briggs
>
> I find Mr. Briggs' reply intriguing, but uncompelling.
>
Black. He is a bitter ex-Mormon bent on proving the Church wrong at any
cost, reasonable discussion included.
A "Mo-no-mo'" as we sometimes say ;)
>
> The fact is that the JST is accepted as an inspired
> translation of the Sacred Scriptures by the Reorganized LDS
> church, the denomination of Joseph Smith's descendants.
> (In fact, it's the only branch of Mormonism to use it.)
>
Point well taken. I'm a member of the Utah church and so my answers
vis-a-vis Mormonism always carry the unstated implication that I am
describing /that/ particular flavor of Mormonism.
>
> For those who are not familiar with Judaism, a midrash is
> an eisegetical text on Sacred Scripture which applies it to
> the here and now, thus making it relevant to its readers.
> Midrash is NOT exegesis, scholarly study which tries to get
> at an author's original meaning, etc. In that sense, Mr.
> Briggs is right: Joseph Smith's "translation" is more akin
> to a midrash. Perhaps, "gloss" would be a better way to
> describe Joseph Smith's work.
>
Or, as we often call it, "The Inspired Version". Bruce R. McConkie's
_Doctrinal New Testament Commentary_, for example, marks passages from
the JST as "I.V."
Still, the KJV is our canonical Bible, Bro. Black's comments
notwithstanding.
>
> My understanding, though, was that Smith claimed to be
> restoring teachings (i.e., "many plain and precious things")
> that had been expurgated from the Old and New Testaments.
> That's not midrash by ANY definition.
>
I think we've come to realize that any "plain and precious parts"
which may have been removed from the Bible speak more to control of the
canon than to control of the text. You'll recall that the actual
content of what we now call the Bible (and, conversely, what was
/excluded/) wasn't decided upon for several centuries after Christ.
>
> But, when one looks at specific examples from Smith's translation,
> he recognizes that they are not midrashic in any way. I offer two
> examples with the JST in capitals:
> "Even so faith, if it HAVE not works is dead, being alone.
> THEREFORE wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is
> dead AND CANNOT SAVE YOU?" (Jas. 2: 17-8)
>
One of the main ponts of contention between the religiounists of
Smith's day was faith v. works. You will recall that Smith himself was
more inclined to unite with the Methodists while his family leaned more
towards Presbyterianism. The main difference - in the early 19th
century, anyway - was that the Methodists were rejecting Calvinism and
the whole "TULIP" idea.
>
> "THAT I THE LORD will camp against HER round about, and will
> lay siege against HER with a mount, and I will raise forts
> against HER." (Is. 29: 3)
>
> Whereas the Tanakh is traditionally centered on the page with
> the rabbis' commentary surrounding it, the JST adds to and
> changes the existing text from the Bible. That would be
> considered sacrilegious to our "Jewish cousins".
>
I would posit that the whole idea of God appearing to Man and
introducing Christ as His "Only Begotten Son" might also be considered
sacrilegious to them ;)
>
> In many places Smith's changes are inconsequential. (Or, wrong
> -->as in the above passage from James where Joseph Smith's
> grammar faltered!)
>
Smith's wife, Emma, commented that Joseph could neither "write nor
dictate a well-worded or coherent sentence".
>
> So, I am in agreement with Mr. Brigg's: The JST is not a
> translation.
>
Thanks.
>
> The problem is that Joseph Smith DID indeed claim to be
> translating the Bible, restoring it to the way it was first
> written. Mr. Briggs quibbles over the word, 'translate',
> saying that one should not constrain its meaning with 21st
> Century notions. Firstly, words usually become more varied
> in meaning over years of use -- not more restricted.
>
Smith also spoke or "translated beings" - humans who are no longer
mortals as we understand the term, but have not yet been resurrected.
Certainly that's a variation of the word translate that's not part of
the vernacular (except, perhaps, in Utah!)
>
> Secondly, his charge of chrono-whatever falls somewhat limply ...
>
It's so embarrassing when that happens ...
>
> ... when tens of thousands (even millions) can still read
> William Shakespeare in the original English without much
> trouble. Languages change, yes. Yet, Mr. Briggs seems to
> be pressing that given to the breaking point so as to get
> around the plain meaning of 'translate'. Why? Because if
> Joseph Smith meant 'translate' as we think he did, he was no
> divine messenger. Why, again? Because his glosses and
> changes have no support in the oldest manuscript evidence for
> both Old and New Testaments.
>
Well, let's assume that Smith was translating according to the
"plain meaning." Would we not have to show how he actually had access
to the "oldest manuscript evidence for the Old and New Testaments" from
which to actually make a translation?
>
> Personally, I think Smith's "translation" of the so-called
> Book of Abraham demonstrated he had no legitimacy as a prophet
> or otherwise, anyways.
>
So you've discovered the source for the BofA?!? That's wonderful
news. Where did you find it?
MATTHEW DUNN
things" relating to those things Joseph Smith claimed were changed in or
removed from the Sacred Scriptures. As I understand him, Mr Briggs argues
that, since it was many centuries before the canon of scripture was
officially decided upon, many documents were lost or covered up in the
interim.
Firstly, "canon" refers to those books which are regarded as
divinely-inspired and hence, authoritative. So, considering Joseph Smith's
modus operandi in correcting Holy Writ, I see an immediate problem with Mr.
Briggs' argument: Smith did not restore the Bible's canon in any way. His
work in the JST deals only with the text, changing and/or removing words
from parts of the Bible; the JST adds nothing to the canon of scripture as
defined by the Protestant tradition in which he was brought up.
Second, though the canon of scripture was not officially set until the
Fourth Century, it doesn't follow that there wasn't agreement about it well
before the Councils of Carthage (397 and 419) and Hippo (393). For
instance, no one questioned the legitimacy of the four Gospels -- even
though there were many apocryphal gospels floating around claiming to have
been written by Peter, Mary, and so forth. What is more, there were fake
"Acts", passion narratives, and epistles in circulation, too, claiming to
have been written by Nicodemus or Pontius Pilate or Barnabas. Many of these
were written by heretics, according to Christian standards. Sects that
wanted to promote their teachings would put them into the mouth of Christ or
the Apostles. Other documents were devotional in nature, written by pious
believers, i.e., Shepherd of Hermas. This went for the Old Testament, too;
there were numerous pseudepigraphal documents claiming to report other
happenings not found in the received canon of the Jewish scriptures. (St.
Peter refers to II Enoch in his first letter.) Nevertheless, there was
general acceptance of what was -- and, (more importantly!) what was not --
part of the Jewish canon as evidenced by the translation of the Tanakh into
Greek by Jews in the diaspora, i.e., the Septuagint. A translation, mind
you, that included those books removed by Protestants in the 1500's! A
translation, mind you, used by the Evangelists! The rule of thumb,
therefore, was to accept only those works accepted by the majority of
churches, especially those claiming apostolic foundations, like Rome (Peter
and Paul) or Constantinople (Andrew). In the case of disputed works, one
was advised to prefer those which the greater number of pre-eminent sees,
such as Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, etc., accepted.
Now, the problem for Mr. Briggs is such: There is no dearth of writings from
the Early Church claiming to be by this apostle or that disciple. Yet, no
document has as yet been adduced professing Mormonism. Gnosticism? Yes.
Marcionism? Yes. Docetism? Yes. Interestingly, the earliest list of
inspired books in the Old and New Testaments, the Muratorian fragment (c.
140-200 AD) admits that certain books are disputed, like the Apocrypha of
St. Peter, and others are forgeries, like the Epistle to the Laodiceans.
But, the anonymous author openly states when there are problems with or
questions surrounding a supposedly-apostolic work. What is more, he omits
some books from his list that were later considered scripture. My point is
that we do indeed know historically which books were out there, claiming
authenticity, during the first centuries of the Christian era -- and, which
ones the Catholic Church finally declared were canonical.
It seems apropos to ask where all those Mormon documents have gone to?
--
Mr. MATTHEW W. I. DUNN
dunn...@shu.edu
"I am the First and the Last, and He Who lives;
I was dead, and behold, I am living forevermore."
Apoc. 1: 17-8
MATTHEW DUNN
MATTHEW DUNN
counter: Jesus is in fact divine, but He did not become so until after the
Resurrection. He is not adored like the Father because, of course, the
Father pre-existed and created Him.
The problem, though, is that the 1830 BOM imputes to Mary the title, "mother
of God", in several places, implying Christ's divinity before His actual
Resurrection from the dead. That title was changed to "mother of the Son of
God" in subsequent editions of the Book of Mormon. So, I guess I wasn't the
only one to see a problem!
--
Mr. MATTHEW W. I. DUNN
dunn...@shu.edu
"I am the First and the Last, and He Who lives;
I was dead, and behold, I am living forevermore."
Apoc. 1: 17-8
"hblack" <hbla...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3A5E7152...@earthlink.net...
Guy R. Briggs
>
> Mr. Briggs gives an interesting interpretation to "many
> plain and precious things" relating to those things Joseph
> Smith claimed were changed in or removed from the Sacred
> Scriptures. As I understand him, Mr Briggs argues that,
> since it was many centuries before the canon of scripture
> was officially decided upon, many documents were lost or
> covered up in the interim.
>
the canon.
>
> Firstly, "canon" refers to those books which are regarded
> as divinely-inspired and hence, authoritative.
>
Question is, who's making those decisions? And by what authority did
they make those decisions?
>
> So, considering Joseph Smith's modus operandi in correcting
> Holy Writ, I see an immediate problem with Mr. Briggs'
> argument: Smith did not restore the Bible's canon in any way.
>
Exactly. Doing so would have involved travelling to the Old World,
finding and recovering the documents, translating them, and then adding
them to the canon. Clearly, that did not happen.
What we believe /did/ happen was the discovery of records on the
American continent - the history of God's dealings with those peoples -
and their subsequent translation and publication to the world. On those
points of doctrine where the two agree, we can be reasonably sure of
the original intent. We have the word of two witnesses.
That's the theory, anyway. The big question is whether the later
document is authentic. Lacking proper archeological confirmation, the
current answer is that God has to tell you it is. Interesting that the
best test and proof of the church claiming modern-day revelation is the
calling down of one's own, personal, revelation.
>
> His work in the JST deals only with the text, changing and/or
> removing words from parts of the Bible; the JST adds nothing
> to the canon of scripture as defined by the Protestant
> tradition in which he was brought up.
>
True. The JST, or "Inspired Version" was Smith's attempt to clarify
the Bible in light of what he had learned in translating the Book of
Mormon.
<snip selection criteria>
>
> Now, the problem for Mr. Briggs is such: There is no dearth
> of writings from the Early Church claiming to be by this
> apostle or that disciple. Yet, no document has as yet been
> adduced professing Mormonism. Gnosticism? Yes. Marcionism?
> Yes. Docetism? Yes.
>
Interesting you should bring up Gnosticism. There's a growing list
of early documents - especially Coptic - and many of these early
Christian documents start out "These Are the Secret Teachings of the
Lord to the Apostles after the Resurrection." Everybody claimed to have
those teachings. They aren't necessarily so, but the point is that He
did give them secret teachings which are not contained in the Bible
(unless, of course, you believe that during 40 days Jesus spent with
his disciples /after/ the resurrection he didn't teach them a single
thing He hadn't already taught them!)
"Then their eyes were opened," the documents say, "and they
understood what he told them." They claim to be that. They claim to be
the teachings that were preserved. A Gnostic was a person who claimed
to have that secret knowledge. It's very well explained in Eusebius
where he quotes Hegesippus, the earliest church historian. He said that
as long as there was an apostle, a real eye witness authority through
Christ, in that first generation, these people "lurked in dark corners"
(as he put it). But as soon as the last witness died - as soon as the
last apostle who could call their bluff had died - then they came out
like bugs out of the woodwork. They came out everywhere and swarmed.
All of sudden there were over a hundred different churches, each
claiming that it had the original teaching of the Lord.
That the term "Mormonism" is not found in any early Christian
writing is not surprising - Mormon wasn't born until two centuries
after Christ, and the American continent was unknown to the early
Christian writers (other than the oblique reference, we believe, in
John 10:16). But there's a surprising amount of /Mormonism/ in some of
those documents. The idea of the pre-existence of spirits (for example)
baptism for the dead, temple ordinances, etc.
Early Christian artwork, for example, depicts Christ and his
Apostles (and others) wearing the letter "gamma" on their clothing. We
see this same symbol preserved on eucharistic tablecloths and other
places. The markings take the name "gammadia" and nobody seems to
understand what it was all about. Except Mormons, of course. We wear
the same mark on our religious clothing.
>
> Interestingly, the earliest list of inspired books in the Old
> and New Testaments, the Muratorian fragment (c. 140-200 AD)
> admits that certain books are disputed, like the Apocrypha of
> St. Peter, and others are forgeries, like the Epistle to the
> Laodiceans. But, the anonymous author openly states when there
> are problems with or questions surrounding a supposedly-
> apostolic work. What is more, he omits some books from his
> list that were later considered scripture. My point is that
> we do indeed know historically which books were out there,
> claiming authenticity, during the first centuries of the
> Christian era -- and, which ones the Catholic Church finally
> declared were canonical.
>
True. And Mormons believe them to be the word of God. So say our
Articles of Faith. We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of
God. We do have textual concerns with both, but the disputed clause in
the AoF - "so far as it is translated correctly" - has been greatly
misunderstood by our critics.
>
> It seems apropos to ask where all those Mormon documents
> have gone to?
>
Oh, I expect they'll be found someday ;)
Glenn Thigpen
> The problem with your argument is that LDS theologians have a nuanced
> counter: Jesus is in fact divine, but He did not become so until after the
> Resurrection. He is not adored like the Father because, of course, the
> Father pre-existed and created Him.
That is not the belief or the teachings of the LDS Church at all. Jesus was
divine before He took upon hmself a mortal taberbnacle. He is/was Jehovah. Our
adoration of the Father and Jesus follows Jesus's teachings.
>
>
> The problem, though, is that the 1830 BOM imputes to Mary the title, "mother
> of God", in several places, implying Christ's divinity before His actual
> Resurrection from the dead. That title was changed to "mother of the Son of
> God" in subsequent editions of the Book of Mormon. So, I guess I wasn't the
> only one to see a problem!
> --
> Mr. MATTHEW W. I. DUNN
> dunn...@shu.edu
Either rendering is correct. Jesus is the Word that was with God and was/is
God.
Glenn
hblack
> The problem with your argument is that LDS theologians have a nuanced
> counter: Jesus is in fact divine, but He did not become so until after the
> Resurrection.
If so, the Book of Mormon injunction to worship Christ "because he is the
Holy One of Israel" is then an anachronism, since it was issued in 600 BC. "Holy
One of Israel is rather, Isaiah's title for Jehovah. In the Book of Mormon
context it is rather an identification of Jesus as the God of Israel, which
Moses enjoins in the First Commandment, all to worship, and him alone.
2 Nephi 25:29 (circa 600 BC)
Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before him, and
worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul
> He is not adored like the Father because, of course, the
> Father pre-existed and created Him.
Some Mormons might argue this, but the Book of Mormon makes it clear Jesus
was the one and only God from eternity, and preceded all things, including
mankind, because he created them:
Ether 3:14-16 (circa 2200 BC)
I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son..... never have I showed myself
unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast.
Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were
created in the beginning after mine own image. Behold, this body, which ye now
behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my
spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my
people in the flesh.
2 Nephi 26:12, 23-24 (=Title) (circa 600 BC)
Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God; ... the Lord God .... loveth the world,
even that he layeth down his own life that he may draw all men unto him
1 Nephi 19:9,13 (circa 600 BC)
the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, yieldeth himself ... as
a man ... those who are at Jerusalem ... crucify the God of Israel
2 Nephi 10:7 (circa 600 BC)
thus saith the Lord God: When the day cometh that they shall believe in me, that
I am Christ ...
2 Nephi 11:7 (circa 600 BC)
if there be no Christ there be no God; and if there be no God we are not, for
there could have been no creation. But there is a God, and he is Christ, and he
cometh in the fulness of his own time.
Mosiah 15:1 (=13:33; 17:8) (circa 120 BC)
God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his
people.
Mosiah 26:23, 26 (circa 100 BC)
it is I that taketh upon me the sins of the world; for it is I that hath created
them ... then shall they know that I am the Lord their God
Alma 9:39 (circa 90 BC)
he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in
them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last
In other words, all statements that Trinitarians might ascribe to the whole
Trinity or to the Father, Christ ascribes exclusively to himself in the Book of
Mormon. It thus reduces to a Sabellian modalism, and confuses the Father with
the Son.
> The problem, though, is that the 1830 BOM imputes to Mary the title, "mother
> of God", in several places, implying Christ's divinity before His actual
> Resurrection from the dead. That title was changed to "mother of the Son of
> God" in subsequent editions of the Book of Mormon. So, I guess I wasn't the
> only one to see a problem!
Interestingly, one of these textual changes is found right in the middle of
a rant against corruptng Scripture texts:
1 Nephi 13:40 (manuscript, and 1830 edition)
the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father
Here is the passage in context:
1 Nephi 13:40 (1830 edition)
And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records [i.e., the Book of
Mormon] which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of
the first [i.e., the Bible], which is of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and
shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from
them; and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb
of God is the Eternal Father and the Saviour of the world;
Here is a case in which Joseph Smith changed his own text, after it had
supposedly corrected the errors of the Bible. In doing so, Smith removes one of
the very "plain and precious" things that the Book of Mormon had supposedly
restored, and ironically makes himself an instrument of "the Great and
Abominable Church!"
Harry
Guy R. Briggs
>
> The problem with your argument is that LDS theologians have
> a nuanced counter: Jesus is in fact divine, but He did not
> become so until after the Resurrection. He is not adored
> like the Father because, of course, the Father pre-existed
> and created Him.
>
the Church my entire life - nearly half a century.
Have you, perchance, some references?
>
> The problem, though, is that the 1830 BOM imputes to Mary
> the title, "mother of God", in several places, implying
> Christ's divinity before His actual Resurrection from the
> dead. That title was changed to "mother of the Son of
> God" in subsequent editions of the Book of Mormon. So, I
> guess I wasn't the only one to see a problem!
>
In our theology, Jesus was fully God long before He was born in the
flesh, so your conclusion is based upon a flawed premise.
As you note, the BofM names Mary (or the virgin) as the Mother of
God in /several/ places, most notably Mosiah 3:8 ("And he shall be
called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth,
the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be
called Mary") but only /one/ place was changed. Further, since both God
the Father and God the Son /both/ are God in our theology, then
referring to Mary as "the mother of God" and referring to her as "the
mother of the Son of God" are both correct.
It seems clear to me that the single change noted was done to
clarify the doctrine and to bring it into conformity to the other
Mary/virgin references - not, as you assert, to cover up some error.
hblack
souls," they deny what the Book of Mormon affirms, and condemn what the
Book of Mormon commands:
Here is what the Book of Mormon commands:
2 Nephi 25:29
Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before him,
and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole
soul
Here is what the LDS Church teaches:
[LDS Apostle McConkie, Bruce R.
"Our Relation to the Lord," BYU Devotional, 2 Mar 1982]
Let us set forth those doctrines and concepts that a gracious God has
given us in this day and which must be understood in order to gain eternal
life. They are:
1. We worship the Father and him only and no one else. We do not worship
the Son and we do not worship the Hioly Ghost.
Re: McConkie, Bruce R. Doctrines of the Restoration (SLC UT: Bookcraft,
1989), pp. 59-60; McConkie, Bruce R. Sermons and writings of Bruce R.
McConkie, Mark L. McConkie, editor (SLC UT: Bookcraft, 1998), pp. 59-60.
So which shall it be for Mormons? LDS doctrine, or the Book of Mormon?
And, does Mr Briggs worship Christ with his "whole soul," in opposition
to LDS doctrine?
Or does he obey the command in his Book of Mormon?
Harry Black
"Guy R. Briggs" wrote:
<snip>
> There is no contrdiction here. When I wrote that we worshipped
Fool Speck
sel...@2xtreme.net (Best Sellers) wrote:
> Reverend Phlegm wrote:
> > Fool Speck wrote:
>
> > > The relationship is that they believe that God made Jesus, the
first
> > > born; and Lucifer, the second born. Lucifer fell, there was a
war in
> > > heaven, and he and one third of the host of heaven who followed
him
> > > were expelled. Lucifer became Satan.
>
> > > It is that simple. They are technically brothers simply because
God
> > > made them both.
>
> > However, them both being created sons of Elohim would mean that
they were
> > equal (as least in essence) until Lucifer went bad.
>
> No for two reasons:
>
> A) Jesus was the First-born. His
> pre-eminence was based on this.
>
> B) Jesus was, in the pre-mortal existence,
> just as He was on Earth, far more obedient
> than anyone else there, even before Lucifer
> "went bad".
>
> There is also at least a great deal of
> evdience that Jesus was more "advanced"
> (learned, faithful, ??) than any one else in
> the pre-mortal realms.
>
> Lehi
> ====
> Please visit www.sepschool.org.
>
Very interesting points, Lehi.
Is it then just a matter of chance, a roll of the dice, that Lucifer
was not the first-born and thus pre-eminent to Jesus?
Was God not capable of creating beings who consistently chose to obey
him like Jesus did?
--
FoolSpeck ARM Critic Credo:
1) Act as if this is Mormon turf and critics are guests.
2) Right or wrong, LDS beliefs are sacred to Mormons;
the Golden Rule applies.
3) Be tough enough to be an easy target.
a - Post FoolSpeck Critic Credo so others can
point out any FoolSpeck hypocrisy.
b - Learn from anyone. Humility is no more
a virtue than keen eyesight; exercise it
without being proud of it.
4) Offer no sophistry or disingenuous arguments.
Best Sellers
> Best Sellers wrote:
>> A) Jesus was the First-born. His
>> pre-eminence was based on this.
>> B) Jesus was, in the pre-mortal existence,
>> just as He was on Earth, far more obedient
>> than anyone else there, even before Lucifer
>> "went bad".
>> There is also at least a great deal of
>> evidence that Jesus was more "advanced"
>> (learned, faithful, ??) than any one else in
>> the pre-mortal realms.
> Very interesting points, Lehi.
Thank you.
> Is it then just a matter of chance, a roll of the dice, that Lucifer
> was not the first-born and thus pre-eminent to Jesus?
We have no explicit knowledge of how and why
birth order in the Pre-mortal existence
occurred as it did.
Follows here my personal speculation, based
on the passage in Abraham:
21 I dwell in the midst of them all; I
now, therefore, have come down unto thee
to declare unto thee the works which my
hands have made, wherein my wisdom
excelleth them all, for I rule in the
heavens above, and in the earth beneath,
in all wisdom and prudence, over all the
intelligences thine eyes have seen from
the beginning; I came down in the
beginning in the midst of all the
intelligences thou hast seen. 22 Now
the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham,
the intelligences that were organized
before the world was; and among all these
there were many of the noble and great
ones; 23 And God saw these souls that
they were good, and he stood in the midst
of them, and he said: These I will make
my rulers; for he stood among those that
were spirits, and he saw that they were
good; and he said unto me: Abraham,
thou art one of them; thou wast chosen
before thou wast born.
I understand that God knew us as
intelligences before He chose us for
pre-mortality. Thus, He chose Jesus based
on this knowledge to fulfill the role of
Savior and Redeemer before "committing" any
of us to the role of firstborn.
There is no reason to assume that we were
undifferentiated as intelligences any more
than we are indistinguishable here, or were
in pre-mortality.
> Was God not capable of creating beings who consistently chose to obey
> him like Jesus did?
God did not "create" us, as most Christians
would have us believe. We had both a
pre-mortality and a pre-pre-mortality where
we were fully agents unto ourselves, and
where we made varying progress.
The totally unevidenced portion of
pre-mortality and existence as intelligences
is Why God chose some who were "not ready".
I can think of a dozen possibilities, none of
them particularly satisfying, that could be
the basis for that "selection".
The Bible speaks of those who kept their
"first estate", and those who failed to do
so. We LDSs understand that Lucifer failed,
as did the third who followed him in his
rebellion. The first estate is followed by
a second estate, and those who keep it will
be "added upon". Apparently, there is a
test, of sorts, choosing between Christ and
Lucifer in the war in heaven, that determines
who will be born here on earth. Making the
correct choice threre does not assure us of
succeeding in the second trial.
Perhaps a similar test was the gating factor
in whether an intelligence was "prepared" to
come form the (what I term) one-dimensional
realm into two dimesions. Passing the
rebellioin test allows us to move from two to
three dimesions. Passing the test here on
earth then, moves us from three to four
dimensions. (I use this terminology for
bevity's sake. There is no particular
reason to think that exaltation would make us
four-dimensional beings, nor that God is
limited to four dimensions now.)
An example may serve. When I took the
Mathematics CBEST test, I passed in the 80th
percentile (and a raw percentage of correct
answers of 70%). However, achieving the 50th
percentile is all that was required to be a
certified high school math teacher (that's
scary to my mind--the test was not all that
difficult). So, passing the test did not
assure that a candidate was wholly proficient
in math, and the score itself was a poor
predictor of whether the candidate would be a
good math teacher. Yet, half of the
candidates were certified as math teachers
for the state of California, irrespective of
the number of correct answers.
Maybe a similar test, with a farily low
threshold, is what was required to move from
one arena to the next.
hblack
near the planet Kolob, who had sex with Mary and thereby produced Jesus
Christ, is exactly what many of the original authorities of Mormonism
believed, and boldly taught.
Your characterization of this authoritative doctrine as speculation is
the only Red Herring.
There have been many absurd Mormon doctrines, and there is nothing but
your private prejudice that excludes authoritative statements by LDS
apostles and Presidents from being "Official Mormon Doctrine."
In fact, it is rather strange that you as a Mormon would find repugnant
the idea of your fleshly God having sex with Mary, Joseph's wife to be. In
this you are obviously out of step with your founding leaders. Brigham
Young even named this God as none other than Father Adam, who was also
married to Eve.
Harry Black
"Guy R. Briggs" wrote:
<snip>
> The only people I'm labeling as "antiMormon" are the ones who
hblack
many years after his birth in the manger. Try reading D&C 93:11-17
sometime.
Here is the passage for the reader:
LDS Doctrine and Covenants 93:11-17 (May 1833)
I, John, bear record that I beheld his glory, as the glory of the Only
Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, even the Spirit of truth,
which came and dwelt in the flesh, and dwelt among us. And I, John, saw
that he received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for
grace. And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from
grace to grace, until he received a fulness; And thus he was called the Son
of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first. And I, John,
bear record, and lo, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Ghost descended
upon him in the form of a dove, and sat upon him, and there came a voice
out of heaven saying: This is my beloved Son. And I, John, bear record that
he received a fulness of the glory of the Father; And he received all
power, both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father was with
him, for he dwelt in him.
Notice that by 1833, Joseph Smith had demoted Jesus Christ from His
Book of Mormon (1829) stature as the one and only Eternal God, whom alone
man must worship:
2 Nephi 25:29 (supposedly circa 600 BC)
Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before him,
and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole
soul
Mosiah 12:34-35 (supposedly circa 140 BC)
I am the Lord thy God, who hath brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out
of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other God before me
Mosiah 5:15 (supposedly circa 120 BC)
Christ, the Lord God Omnipotent ... him who created all things, in heaven
and in earth, who is God above all.
The Book of Mormon, which confuses the birth of Jesus in the days of
Herod, circa 7 BC, with the coming of Christ "in his glory" at the end of
the world, claims that Jesus was the Supreme being, God Himself, who merely
added a body to his supremely glorious nature, and was thus His own father.
Alma 13:24-25 (suppoesedly circa 90 BC)
behold, angels are declaring it unto many at this time in our land; and
this is for the purpose of preparing the hearts of the children of men to
receive his word at the time of his coming in his glory. And now we only
wait to hear the joyful news declared unto us by the mouth of angels, of
his coming; for the time cometh, we know not how soon. Would to God that it
might be in my day; but let it be sooner or later, in it I will rejoice.
2 Nephi 26:12 (supposedly circa 600 BC)
Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God
Mosiah 15:1-5, 7 (supposedly circa 140 BC)
God himself ...because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son
of God ....becoming the Father and Son.... one God, yea, the very Eternal
Father of heaven and of earth. ... the flesh becoming subject to the
Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God.... Yea, even so he shall
be led, crucified, and slain, the flesh becoming subject even unto death,
the will of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father.
3N 1:14 (supposedly the night of his birth)
I come unto my own ... to do the will, both of the Father and of the
Son -- of the Father because of me, and of the Son because of my flesh
Finally, there are at least FOUR (not one) Book of Mormon verses that
Joseph Smith altered in 1837, in a failed attempt to conceal the fact that
it had taught, in supposedly circa 600 BC, that Jesus Christ was the one
and only God the Eternal Father:
1 Nephi 11:18 (manuscript and 1830 edition)
the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of God, after the manner of the
flesh.
1 Nephi 11:21 (manuscript and 1830 edition)
the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal
Father
1 Nephi 11:32, 41 (manuscript and 1830 edition)
I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea,
the everlasting God was judged of the world ... there is one God and one
Shepherd over all the earth
1 Nephi 13:40 (manuscript and 1830 edition)
the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father
Since these changes all occur early in the book, and later verses that
declare the same ideas were not altered, it seems Smith gave up remaking
his book, when he realized that the task would require extensive revision.
It is the mark of a good prevaricator that he doesn't try to change his
stories too much.
Harry Black
Guy R. Briggs
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> The only people I'm labeling as "antiMormon" are the ones
>> who continue to claim speculation as official doctrine.
>> That this whole "God/sex/Mary" thing is what Mormons
>> "really" believe.
>
> thereby produced Jesus Christ, is exactly what many of the
> original authorities of Mormonism believed, and boldly taught.
>
where to begin.
1) "... the doctrine that ..."
Since none of this is official doctrine - note use of
the word official (as opposed to folk Mormonism) - your
entire statement is negated from the get-go
2) "... God is a man ..."
Mormons do not believe that God is a mortal or sinful man.
We believe that He is a resurrected, perfected being - we
are about the only church that believes "likeness" in
Genesis actually means "likeness" and "image" in Genesis
actually means "image. But beyond that, we have precious
little information on the subject.
3) "... from ear [sic] the planet Kolob ..."
Kolob, per our scriptures, is a /star/ not a planet. We
do not believe God is "from" there. The only canonical
reference to Kolob is that God's throne is located "nigh
unto Kolob" (i.e. "near" Kolob).
4) "... sex with Mary ..."
No General Authority of the Chruch ever said such a thing,
although it is clear from the quotes and the context that
some of them were euphamistically referring to sexual
congress is beyond refute.
However, since we do not hold our leaders to be infallible,
this is not a problem for LdS. We believe that our leaders
are free to have their own opinions about things. The
Apostle Peter claimed, for example, that he did not know
the Saviour - and this was sometime after he claimed to know
that Jesus was the Son of God!
>
> Your characterization of this authoritative doctrine as
> speculation is the only Red Herring.
>
Au contraire, messy amie. "Authoritative doctrine" is doctrine that
is found in our canon of scripture (properly interpreted) and/or issued
be a joint statement of the First Presidency or Quorum of the 12. We
resolve doctrinal issues in exactly the manner described in Acts 15.
<drivel snipped>
hblack
Apostles and Prophets certainly taught (in euphemisms to be sure!) that
Jesus was conceived not by the Holy Spirit, as Matthew and Luke declare,
but by a sexual congress between Joseph's betrothed Mary (who necessarily
lost her virginity in the process), and a god of flesh -- as in some pagan
tale about Zeus, or Jupiter making babies by union with a beast or a woman!
The true Apostles rightly denounced such pagan fables (1 Timothy 1:4
4:7 Titus 1:14 2 Peter 1:16), and warned that for the faithless, "the time
will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own
lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they
shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto
fables." (2 Timothy 4:3-4).
To his credit, Mr. Briggs rightly denounces his LDS Apostles' doctrine,
comparing it with Peter's three time denial of Jesus, on the day of the
crucifixion.
Thank you, Mr. Briggs.
We, too, will continue to denounce the Mormon fables, and the false
prophets and apostles who spread them..
Harry Black
"Guy R. Briggs" wrote:
<snip>
> "... sex with Mary ..."
Guy R. Briggs
>
> Interesting! -- a Mormon apologist admits once again that
> his LDS Apostles and Prophets certainly taught (in euphemisms
> to be sure!) that Jesus was conceived not by the Holy Spirit,
>
Ahem ... Better go back and read Luke again, Harry.
"And the angel answered [Mary] and said ... the power
of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also
that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be
called the SON OF GOD."
The message of LDS Apostles and Prophets is that the passage in Luke
is literally true, that Jesus Christ was the only begotten son of God
in the flesh.
>
> ... but by a sexual congress between Joseph's betrothed Mary
> (who necessarily lost her virginity in the process), and a
> god of flesh -- as in some pagan tale about Zeus, or Jupiter
> making babies by union with a beast or a woman!
>
The official teaching is that Jesus is literal Son of God - the
method is never spelled out in official doctrine. Puny mankind can
accomplish fertilization in a petri dish - do you not suppose that God
might be able to accomplish it without "sexual congress"?
<deletia>
> To his credit, Mr. Briggs rightly denounces his LDS Apostles'
> doctrine, comparing it with Peter's three time denial of Jesus,
> on the day of the crucifixion.
> Thank you, Mr. Briggs.
>
I merely noted that we do not expect infallibility of them. You
might have us confused with those nice Catholic folk.
>
> We, too, will continue to denounce the Mormon fables, and the
> false prophets and apostles who spread them..
>
You might want to consider the advice of Gamaliel.
"And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and
let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be
of men, it will come to nought:
"But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest
haply ye be found even to fight against God."
If Mormonism is uninspired, then it will "come to naught" with or
without your help. But if you're wrong (as I believe you are) I'd sure
hate to be in your shoes at the last day.
MATTHEW DUNN
relied on a non-LDS website (www.ontruth.com/mrm1.html) for my information.
I recalled reading on a site that LDS teaching was Christ did assume His
divinity till after the Resurrection.
Going by my memory, it took me over an hour of word-searches and clicking
before I found where I'd read it: A Rev. Carrigan's page in which he wrote,
"Additionally, Jesus Christ did not even achieve what Mormons term 'the
fullness of deity,' until after his resurrection." Once again, I apologize
because not only did I get my information from a non-Mormon, but I also
misunderstood it. Latter-day Saints do indeed believe Jesus was divine in
His earthly life, progressing from grace to grace and achieving the fullness
of divinity at the Resurrection..
Regarding Mary as "mother of God" in the 1830 BOM versus "mother of the Son
of God" in subsequent editions: Since I don't have my copy handy, I'll wait
till I take a look at it this weekend.
--
Mr. MATTHEW W. I. DUNN
dunn...@shu.edu
"I am the First and the Last, and He Who lives;
I was dead, and behold, I am living forevermore."
Apoc. 1: 17-8
"Guy R. Briggs" <net...@GeoCities.com> wrote in message
news:9027A970Anetza...@131.119.28.155...
hblack
human beings without sexual congress.
He admits, however, that his Mormon Apostles and prophets were not so
enlightened when they taught quite the opposite.
They apparently forgot that before Joseph Smith had taught God and
Jesus were separate beings, in his his Book of Mormon, while plagiarizing
parts of the Gospels, Smith had taught that Jesus was conceived by the Holy
Ghost, and was therefore was born to a virgin:
The Book of Mormon (Alma 7:10)
And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of
our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who
shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and
bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.
Smith stressed again this in his 1833 New translation of the Bible,
using his pretended prophetic powers:
Matthew 1:18-20, 22-23 (Joseph Smith's New Translation)
Now, as it is written, the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise.
After his mother, Mary, was espoused to Joseph, before they came together,
she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being
a just [man], and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to
put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the
angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a vision, saying, Joseph, thou son
of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife; for that which is
conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost. ... Now this took place, that all
things might be fulfilled, which were spoken of the Lord, by the prophets,
saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son
Luke 1:34-35 (Joseph Smith's New Translation)
Then said Mary unto the angel; How can this be? And the angel answered
and said unto her, Of the Holy Ghost, and the power of the Highest.
Therefore also, that holy child that shall be born of thee shall be called
the Son of God.
The Mormon apologist, however, speculates that Jesus was perhaps really
conceived "in a petri dish," using a specimen of the Mormon god of flesh's
seed, rather than by the Holy Spirit. The Gospels, however, identify the
child Jesus as being conceived "in" Mary, not in a dish -- the Briggs
doctrine of "artificial insemination" has more problems then the
authoritative Mormon doctrine he wishes to denounce. His method indeed
doesn't require sexual congress, but quite misses the essential point
revealed in scripture, that the means of pregnancy was the Holy Spirit, not
flesh, much less a pagan god of flesh. What is more, his doctrine has no
backing from the Mormon authorities he pretends to correct.
The fact remains that the highest Mormon authorities have denounced
this essential point of the Gospels, and unwittingly trashed their own Book
of Mormon, when they categorically deny Jesus was pregnant by the Holy
Spirit:
[President Brigham Young,
General Conference Sermon, (9 Oct 1859)]
[Jesus] increased in wisdom and knowledge, and came into communication
with his Father. The Being whom we call Father was the Father of the spirit
of the Lord Jesus Christ, and he was also his Father pertaining to the
flesh. Infidels and Christians, make all you can of this statement.
Re: Journal of Discourses 7:286.
President Brigham Young even identified Adam himself as the only God we
worship, and as the Father of Jesus Christ "after the same manner as the
tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam
and Eve." Notice the sweeping importance that President Brigham Young
attaches to his silly doctrine, and the finality of the presumed authority
with which he declares it, yet Mr. Briggs assures us that his prophet was
quite mistaken:
[President Brigham Young,
General Conference Sermon, (9 Apr 1859)]
My next sermon will be to both Saint and sinner. One thing has remained
a mystery in this kingdom up to this day. It is in regard to the character
of the well-beloved Son of God....The question has been, and is often,
asked, who it was that begat the Son of the Virgin Mary.... I will tell you
how it is. Our Father in Heaven begat all the spirits that ever were, or
ever will be, upon this earth; and they were born spirits in the eternal
world. Then the Lord by His power and wisdom organized the mortal
tabernacle of man. We were made first spiritual, and afterwards temporal.
Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner!
When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a
celestial body.... HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom
WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or
non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later.... When
Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal
from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal. When the
Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his
own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father?
He is the first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was
begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles
of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve.... I
could tell you much more about this; but were I to tell you the whole
truth, blasphemy would be nothing to it, in the estimation of the
superstitious and over-righteous of mankind. However, I have told you the
truth as far as I have gone.... It is true that the earth was organized by
three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these
three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing
element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost. .... Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same
character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven.
Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of
them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation
or damnation. I have given you a few leading items upon this subject, but a
great deal more remains to be told. Now remember from this time forth, and
forever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. (Emphasis in
original.)
Re: Journal of Discourses 1:50-51.
Note the LDS Prophet's final sentence. "Now remember from this time
forth [i.e. 9 Apr 1852], and forever [!], that Jesus Christ was not
begotten by the Holy Ghost."
For an amusing and thorough discussion of these Mormon doctrines, click
on "TheAdam-God Doctrine" at
www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changecontents.htm
Also under "CHAPTER 2 - GOD" go to "Jesus Christ" at
www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/mclaimscontents.htm
Harry Black
Guy R. Briggs
>
> I must apologize to any Mormons who read my previous post;
> I apparently relied on a non-LDS website (www.ontruth.com/
> mrm1.html) for my information.
>
seldom "get it right" even when they're trying to. Sadly, they don't
often seem to be trying to - but that's grist for a different mill.
In fact, an ex-Mormon is trying very hard to get you to believe your
previous post contained factual information, but he's wrong as wrong as
ontruth.com. I've found that asking ex-Mormons about what we believe is
as error-prone as getting information about the girl you just met from
her ex-husband after a bitter and acrimonious divorce.
Guy R. Briggs
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
<some re-assembly of post>
>> The official teaching is that Jesus is literal Son of God
>> - the method is never spelled out in official doctrine.
>> Puny mankind can accomplish fertilization in a petri dish
>> - do you not suppose that God might be able to accomplish
>> it without "sexual congress"?
<snip>
> The Mormon apologist is quite correct to admit that God
> can create human beings without sexual congress.
>
Good. I'm glad we got that cleared up.
>
> He admits, however, that his Mormon Apostles and prophets
> were not so enlightened when they taught quite the opposite.
>
I expect that early Mormon leaders never heard of a petri dish.
>
> They apparently forgot that before Joseph Smith had taught
> God and Jesus were separate beings, ...
>
Erm, Smith always taught that God and Christ were separate beings.
Both of them appeared to him in vision, 1820.
>
> ... in his his Book of Mormon,
>
That would be in /your/ interpretation of our Book of Mormon, which
is often so far from official Mormon doctrine as to be comical.
>
> ... while plagiarizing parts of the Gospels, Smith had taught
> that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost, and was therefore
> was born to a virgin:
>
How can it be plagarism, when it came from the same source?
"We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto
ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that
shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the
day star arise in your hearts:
"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture
is of any private [or hblackian!] interpretation.
"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of
man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by
the Holy Ghost." -- 2 Pet.1:19-21
> The Book of Mormon (Alma 7:10)
> And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which
> is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious
> and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by
> the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even
> the Son of God.
>
We don't even have to wonder if the word translated in the KJV was
"virgin" or "young woman" - one of the many benefits of have a second
scriptural witness for Jesus Christ.
However, ye err, not knowing our scriptures. In our doctrine, a
person must be prepared by the Holy Ghost to stand in the presence of
God. Thus, Peter, James and John were "translated" or "transfigured" on
the Mount of Transfiguration:
"And [Jesus] was transfigured before them: and his face
did shine as the sun, and his rainment was as white as
the light"
Same thing happened to Moses. In Exodus 34 we read that after Moses
was finished talking to the Lord, his face shone and scared the bejesus
out of the Elders of Israel. He had to put a veil over his face to hide
the light.
This is how we reconcile the accounts of the conception in Matthew
and Luke. Yes, the Holy Ghost was there. Mary, apparently, was
transfigured so that she could stand the presence of the Lord. Then,
the "power of the Highest overshadowed her" - whatever that means - and
she concieved. Our doctrin is that Jesus is not the Son of the Holy
Ghost, but rather, the Son of God.
>
> The Mormon apologist, however, speculates that Jesus was
> perhaps really conceived "in a petri dish," using a specimen
> of the Mormon god of flesh's seed, rather than by the Holy
> Spirit.
>
You misinterpret our scriptures so badly that I shouldn't be
surprised when you MUNG what I write - but I always am. I did not
posit that Jesus was concieved in a petri dish. I claimed that mere
mortals were able to accomplish that feat.
>
> The Gospels, however, identify the child Jesus as being
> conceived "in" Mary, not in a dish -- ...
>
As does our Book of Mormon, so this is a strawman.
>
> ... the Briggs doctrine of "artificial insemination" has
> more problems then the authoritative Mormon doctrine he
> wishes to denounce. His method indeed doesn't require
> sexual congress, but quite misses the essential point
> revealed in scripture, that the means of pregnancy was the
> Holy Spirit, not flesh, much less a pagan god of flesh.
>
Artificial insemnation is not a Mormon doctrine nor a "Briggs
doctrine. Yet another strawman!
The Official Mormon doctrine is that Jesus is literal Son of God the
Father. From His mother he inherited mortality (IOW, he had the
capacity to die) and from His Father he inherited immortality (IOW, His
life could not be taken from Him).
The benefits of this point of view is that it perfectly reconciles
the "only begotten Son" statements without resorting to esoteric
meanings for "begotten" and shows the majesty of the Lord's sacrifice:
He gave His life for sin, it was not taken from him.
>
> What is more, his doctrine has no backing from the Mormon
> authorities he pretends to correct.
>
It has a lot of backing from Mormon authorities. Just not from the
dusty old quotations you use to try and discredit us.
>
> The fact remains that the highest Mormon authorities have
> denounced this essential point of the Gospels, and unwittingly
> trashed their own Book of Mormon, when they categorically deny
> Jesus was pregnant by the Holy Spirit:
<snip Young>
Your premise is flawed in that the BofM does not claim that the Holy
Ghost fathered Jesus - so your conclusion is hopelessly wrong.
>
> Note the LDS Prophet's final sentence. "Now remember from
> this time forth [i.e. 9 Apr 1852], and forever [!], that Jesus
> Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost."
>
Correct. He was begotten by God the Father. That's why we call Him
the "only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth".
Guy R. Briggs
>
> The Mormon apologist has only his own desperate
> speculation, when he claims Smith's New translation was
> really a commentary.
>
that Smith went back to the original autographs of the Bible and
attempted to /translate/ them into English, you cannot logically argue
that the JST is a translation - despite the name.
That dog won't hunt.
But in your usual, knee-jerk, fight-whatever-the-Mormon-writes
style, you seem to be fighting against yourself. OT1H you're trying to
convince us it's a translation (and not doing a very good job of it, I
might add) and, OTOH, you're telling us it wasn't a very good
translation.
Aha! The light dawns! You /want/ it to be a translation. It /must/
be a translation, so that you can argue how bad a translation it is! If
it isn't really a translation, your argument evaporates.
I see your plan, now.
<remainder snipped>
hblack
Father and Son so-called "First Vision" in late 1838, and backdated it to
1820. The details Joseph Smith gives in that late story are not trusted
even by many conservative LDS historians, including professor Marvin S.
Hill at Brigham Young University, who specializes in that period of
American history, and has published several books and papers on Mormon
history. The claim therefore that Smith believed, when he wrote the Book of
Mormon, that God is a personage of flesh, separate from the Son cannot be
supported by an appeal to his 1838 First Vision tale.
Second, the verse I cited from the Book of Mormon (Alma 7:10) is
clearly part of a passage plagiarized from the 1769 edition of the King
James English Bible:
The Book of Mormon, Alma 7:9-11 (1830 edition)
Repent ye, and prepare the way of the Lord, and walk in his paths, which
are straight: for behold, the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand, ...
-- From Matthew 3:2-3 "Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
... Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."
who shall be overshadowed, and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and
bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God; ...
-- From Luke 1:35 "the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost
shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee:
therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called
the Son of God."
this that the word might be fulfilled which saith, He will take upon him
the pains and the sickness of his people;
-- From Matthew 8:17 "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias
the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare [our]
sicknesses."
Third, the passage you cite from the Gospels actually disproves your
claim about the transfiguration. In fact, the Apostles are never said to
have been transfigured, there -- in spite of the fact it says they observed
the glorious transfiguration of Christ (See Mark 9:2, Matthew 17:2).
Fourth, in my previous posts I established the fact that the Book of
Mormon claims Jesus Christ is the only Eternal God, his own Father.
That this is not current Mormon doctrine, rather proves that Mormon
doctrine has changed.
Harry Black
hblack
He is quite correct in claiming that what Joseph Smith always called
"The New Translation of the Holy Scriptures," is really no such thing.
But he fails to see that by virtue of the simple fact that it is NOT
what Joseph Smith invariably represented it to be, it is by definition a
fraud.
The only blind dog here is the apologist, who turns logic on its head,
and says in effect, "Because it is misrepresented, it is not a fraud."
Ah the light dawns! The Mormon apologist wants it to be a commentary so
much that, in spite of its name, he will say it /must/ be a commentary and
not a translation!
Harry Black
"Guy R. Briggs" wrote:
<snip>
Guy R. Briggs
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Not speculation, not desperate. And unless and until you
>> can show that Smith went back to the original autographs
>> of the Bible and attempted to /translate/ them into
>> English, you cannot logically argue that the JST is a
>> translation - despite the name.
>>
>> That dog won't hunt.
>
>
be better than being half-witted.
>
> He is quite correct in claiming that what Joseph Smith
> always called "The New Translation of the Holy Scriptures,"
> is really no such thing.
>
Glad to see you admitting it.
>
> But he fails to see that by virtue of the simple fact that
> it is NOT what Joseph Smith invariably represented it to be,
> it is by definition a fraud.
>
IT is exactly what Joseph Smith presented it to be. In the early
1800's "translate" had a much broader definition than it does now. IOW,
in the 1830's it could be correctly called a translation even though it
is, at best, a paraphrase. Remember the definition from the 1806
Webster's?
"Translate, v.t. to remove, turn, render, interpret"
There is no "fraud" here. Smith "rendered" the KJV in a form that,
under inspiration, seemed to be more correct in meaning. He didn't go
to the original autographs and "interpret" the Greek and/or Hebrew he
found there. To him that's translation. To you and I, it's a
commentary.
>
> The only blind dog here is the apologist, who turns logic
> on its head, and says in effect, "Because it is misrepresented,
> it is not a fraud."
>
Actually, you're the one claiming it's misrepresented. I'm the guy
claiming that it was correctly represented using 1830's vernacular.
You're the guy claiming that it's not a good translation (using the
term "translated" in modern usage). But to do that you must sell us on
the idea that it really was taken out of Hebrew and/or Greek and
rendered in English - and that the resultant English looks suspiciously
like the KJV, and that when compared to the original autographs it
isn't a particularly good translation.
But that little house of cards depends on it being an actual
translation, as you and I understand the word in the Year of Our Lord
2001.
>
> Ah the light dawns! The Mormon apologist wants it to be
> a commentary so much that, in spite of its name, he will say
> it /must/ be a commentary and not a translation!
>
I deal in what I understand. I don't understand how you could
possibly think the JST is anything /but/ a commentary. Actually, I
think I do understand. This is another condemn-Smith-at-any-cost-
including-common-sense attack, the sort we've become accustomed to from
bitter ex-Mormons.
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
<mwi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
<snip>
>Second, though the canon of scripture was not officially set until the
>Fourth Century, it doesn't follow that there wasn't agreement about it well
>before the Councils of Carthage (397 and 419) and Hippo (393). For
>instance, no one questioned the legitimacy of the four Gospels -
Oh so no other "questionable works" existed ? God never spoke up
declaring "These and no others !"
MAN of POWER under CONSTANTINE's "Holy Roman Empire" decided among
themselves what to accept / reject.
>- even
>though there were many apocryphal gospels floating around claiming to have
>been written by Peter, Mary, and so forth.
Ah ! Gotcha,
> What is more, there were fake
>"Acts", passion narratives, and epistles in circulation, too, claiming to
>have been written by Nicodemus or Pontius Pilate or Barnabas. Many of these
>were written by heretics, according to Christian standards.
Are you now Roman Catholic ? All none HRE supporters in what its
secular government dictated to be "inspired" scriptures were called
"heretics", including groups later to be classed as "protestants" who
did not accept many books accepted by the Canonizers.
> Sects that
>wanted to promote their teachings would put them into the mouth of Christ or
>the Apostles. Other documents were devotional in nature, written by pious
>believers, i.e., Shepherd of Hermas.
That is not true, they were putting nothing into Christ's mouth, any
more than found in the "accepted" texts.
> This went for the Old Testament, too;
>there were numerous pseudepigraphal documents claiming to report other
>happenings not found in the received canon of the Jewish scriptures. (St.
>Peter refers to II Enoch in his first letter.) Nevertheless, there was
>general acceptance of what was -- and, (more importantly!) what was not --
>part of the Jewish canon as evidenced by the translation of the Tanakh into
>Greek by Jews in the diaspora, i.e., the Septuagint. A translation, mind
>you, that included those books removed by Protestants in the 1500's! A
>translation, mind you, used by the Evangelists! The rule of thumb,
>therefore, was to accept only those works accepted by the majority of
>churches, especially those claiming apostolic foundations, like Rome (Peter
>and Paul) or Constantinople (Andrew).
Jesus would disagree with your "majority argument" (which is hogwash
anyway as the opposations were killed off, or otherwise silenced,
resulting in a false "majority")
Recall Jesus' story of the wide, and narrow gate ? The MAJORITY are on
the road to....(?); and the FEW are on the narrow path to...(?)
The "Majority" road is the wide road to HELL, hardly the "rule of
thumb" I would want to follow. (So I don't)
The few (in hidding) had it right.
> In the case of disputed works, one
>was advised to prefer those which the greater number of pre-eminent sees,
>such as Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, etc., accepted.
Before killed off as "heretics" the Christian Gnostics were
Pre-eminent sees; such is why they were so vehemently attacked as they
had caused great fear in non-Gnostic circles.
>Now, the problem for Mr. Briggs is such: There is no dearth of writings from
>the Early Church claiming to be by this apostle or that disciple. Yet, no
>document has as yet been adduced professing Mormonism. Gnosticism? Yes.
>Marcionism? Yes. Docetism? Yes.
Agreed ! As a Gnostic I thank you for this admission.
> Interestingly, the earliest list of
>inspired books in the Old and New Testaments, the Muratorian fragment (c.
>140-200 AD) admits that certain books are disputed, like the Apocrypha of
>St. Peter, and others are forgeries,
According to the OPINION of the writer.
Many which are found in the Canon were disputed, all of John's
writtings (very Gnostic in nature) were rejected early on by the
mainstream, as well as Jude (mainly because it refered to Enoch, the
debate was that to include Jude, Enoch must be included as well). Also
because Peter was big in Gnostic writtings, both Peters nearly failed
to make the cut.
> like the Epistle to the Laodiceans.
>But, the anonymous author openly states when there are problems with or
>questions surrounding a supposedly-apostolic work. What is more, he omits
>some books from his list that were later considered scripture. My point is
>that we do indeed know historically which books were out there, claiming
>authenticity, during the first centuries of the Christian era -- and, which
>ones the Catholic Church finally declared were canonical.
>
>It seems apropos to ask where all those Mormon documents have gone to?
I suspect that the Book of Morman was God's way of bringing back what
He had originally intended. Mormans believe many if not all of what we
Gnostics believe, although somewhat twisted, which mainstream
christians have missing from their Bibles
>--
>Mr. MATTHEW W. I. DUNN
>dunn...@shu.edu
>
>"I am the First and the Last, and He Who lives;
>I was dead, and behold, I am living forevermore."
>Apoc. 1: 17-8
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
David Hanson
Jeff wrote;
> > Glenn (Christian Mystic)
>
> Jeff Shirton
>
>
In Jeff Shirton, your talking to a man who is afraid
of the truth he seeks. There for he will not see truth
even when it slaps him in the mouth.
People who use the bible as an idol hate truth
above all else. Its like the man who is hacking
his mother to death with an ax and claiming its an
act of love.
David
d...@sierra.net