"Adieu" in the Book of Mormon

[Scott Lloyd]

To be honest, a small part of me came to this site to try and convert a few- but I mainly came to get a balanced view of the stuff I've been researching.

Have you looked at the home page, the topical guide and some of the apologetics articles? Or has this message board been your only stop at this site?

[usadingo]

usadingo:

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_metals.shtml#laban

Here's where I get confused. On this site, Laban's sword was supposedly in 600 B.C. I thought Laban was during Abraham's time which was roughly between 2166 B.C. and 1991 B.C. And if so there, according to online encyclopedias, iron weapons didn't start replacing bronze until between 1200 and 1100 B.C.

All due respect, but it probably won't happen. I don't know if you realize this, but your posts here come across as extremely condescending and hostile. This is why you've been met with hostility.

And I feel I was greeted with hostillity, and returned it as a response.

But, I'll try to be nicer in hopes that others will as well.

But, when a person tends to, for example, take two contradictory historical accounts and promote the non-LDS account as "historical fact" and then ask why LDS were so dishonest in their own account... well, believe it or not, Latter-day Saints tend to see that as a sign of a closed mind and tune you out.

I still have yet to see where Anthon contradicts himself beyond the "opinion in writing part," and even then, that's disputable as well.

Yet you're not anti-Mormon? How does that follow, exactly?

I consider Mormonism to be a religion. A Mormon is a person who follows Mormonism. It's the same way that I'm against homosexuality, but not homosexuals.

Have you looked at the home page, the topical guide and some of the apologetics articles?

I've looked at a few here and there. But honestly, the only apologetic sites that I've seen that have agreed with Mormonism have been Mormon sites. That's simply an observation.

[William the Conqueror]

Hey, I'd rather be in hell with the Mormons I know than in heaven with your kind of arrogant, self-righteous, judgmental, bigoted, frightened "Christians."  The Mormons are simply better people--and better Christians--than you are.

And of these, Joseph Smith heads the list.

Regards,

Pahoran

Pahoran,

I really think you will be in Hell with all the Mormons you know. Your statement is a self fulfilling prophecy. You may be able to converse with Joseph Smith down there, however I am not certain but as Cornelius Van Till said, '...there is a society in Hell...' and if so you will be part of it.

'...Sheol beneath is stirred up to meet you when you come; it rouses the shades to greet you, all who were leaders of the earth; it raises from their thrones all who were kings of the nations....' Isaiah

[Scott Lloyd]

usadingo:

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_metals.shtml#laban

Here's where I get confused. On this site, Laban's sword was supposedly in 600 B.C. I thought Laban was during Abraham's time which was roughly between 2166 B.C. and 1991 B.C. And if so there, according to online encyclopedias, iron weapons didn't start replacing bronze until between 1200 and 1100 B.C.

Different Labans. Did you think they were the same person? If so, then yes, you are confused indeed.

I sense that your knowledge of the Book of Mormon is meager, perhaps non-existent, other than what has come to you through the lens of hate and prejudice of anti-Mormon material.

Yet you're not anti-Mormon? How does that follow, exactly?

I consider Mormonism to be a religion. A Mormon is a person who follows Mormonism.

As I said before (did you miss it?) the word Mormon doesn't just apply to members of the Church, but, as an adjective, it applies to the religion itself. Hence, one who is "against" Mormonism is aptly and accurately characterized as anti-Mormon, since the prefix anti- means "against."

Moreover, since a person's religious faith can be considered to be a part of that person, it's too simplistic to say that you are against the religion but not the people.

It's the same way that I'm against homosexuality, but not homosexuals.

Then you could accurately be characterized as anti-homosexuality, just as you are anti-Mormon.

Have you looked at the home page, the topical guide and some of the apologetics articles?

I've looked at a few here and there. But honestly, the only apologetic sites that I've seen that have agreed with Mormonism have been Mormon sites. That's simply an observation.

You misunderstand me. I'm talking about the other pages on this FAIR Web site, the ones that contain articles defending the Church. Has this message board been your only contact with the FAIR Web site?

Hint: click on the link at the very upper left-hand corner of this page.

[usadingo]

Different Labans. Did you think they were the same person? If so, then yes, you are confused indeed.

So then is the Laban in Ether 7 from the time of Abraham?

I sense that your knowledge of the Book of Mormon is meager, perhaps non-existent, other than what has come to you through the lens of hate and prejudice of anti-Mormon material.

Actually, a large portion of it is from documents about Smith from the 1800's. And before you go yelling "anti-mormon," a lot of it is public record.

As I said before (did you miss it?) the word Mormon doesn't just apply to members of the Church, but, as an adjective, it applies to the religion itself. Hence, one who is "against" Mormonism is aptly and accurately characterized as anti-Mormon, since the prefix anti- means "against."

Moreover, since a person's religious faith can be considered to be a part of that person, it's too simplistic to say that you are against the religion but not the people.

You know what? Define it as much as you want. The fact is, I'm against the Mormon religion, but I'm not against those who practice it.

[The_Monk]

So then is the Laban in Ether 7 from the time of Abraham?

Uh, there is no Laban in Ether 7, or elsewhere in Ether.

[Bernard Gui]

So then is the Laban in Ether 7 from the time of Abraham?

Uh, there is no Laban in Ether 7, or elsewhere in Ether.

Picky, picky.

Bernard the Urbane

[TrespassersW]

usadingo:

TW: But, when a person tends to, for example, take two contradictory historical accounts and promote the non-LDS account as "historical fact" and then ask why LDS were so dishonest in their own account... well, believe it or not, Latter-day Saints tend to see that as a sign of a closed mind and tune you out.

usadingo: I still have yet to see where Anthon contradicts himself beyond the "opinion in writing part," and even then, that's disputable as well.

I didn't say that Anthon contradicted himself. I said that you have taken two different historical accounts (Harris' and Anthon's) and resolved them by assuming that non-LDS tell the truth and that Mormons lie. This contributes to why your posts, which may seem innocuous to you, are seen as hostile to Latter-day Saints. Honestly, we are regularly confronted by people who seem to feel that all Latter-day Saints are dishonest. This is why, I hope you can understand, when you dismiss out of hand the LDS account you will be seen as belonging to that category. If you want Latter-day Saints to take you seriously, rather than asking us why Joseph and Martin lied about Anthon's account, you could have approached the matter assuming that both Harris and Anthon were honest, respectable people and tried to reconcile their statements on those terms.

[Scott Lloyd]

Different Labans. Did you think they were the same person? If so, then yes, you are confused indeed.

So then is the Laban in Ether 7 from the time of Abraham?

I sense that your knowledge of the Book of Mormon is meager, perhaps non-existent, other than what has come to you through the lens of hate and prejudice of anti-Mormon material.

Actually, a large portion of it is from documents about Smith from the 1800's. And before you go yelling "anti-mormon," a lot of it is public record.

The "public record" is full of "documents" that are hardly better than spurious lies. The mere fact that something is written down doesn't make it true or accurate.

And it is a common M.O. for anti-Mormons to take facts and documents and wrench them from their historical context to present a false impression. This is a form of sophistry and deception.

As I said before (did you miss it?) the word Mormon doesn't just apply to members of the Church, but, as an adjective, it applies to the religion itself. Hence, one who is "against" Mormonism is aptly and accurately characterized as anti-Mormon, since the prefix anti- means "against."

Moreover, since a person's religious faith can be considered to be a part of that person, it's too simplistic to say that you are against the religion but not the people.

You know what? Define it as much as you want. The fact is, I'm against the Mormon religion, but I'm not against those who practice it.

And, as such, you fit quite nicely into the anti-Mormon category and may enjoy all the benefits and privileges thereof.

Congratulations.