Mormons As "blind Followers"

[rocmonkey]

I did... its on the last page.

Here:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...7291&st=293

So now are you going to live up to your word? And Rip Ezekiel from your Bible... even though Paul quoted some Prophecy from him?

2 Cor 3

3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

2 Cor. 6: 16

16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

(Ezek. 11:19; Ezek. 36: 26; Ezek. 37: 27)

Perhaps you should remove Pauls writings as well... Since he relied on a false prophet?

Sorry but that isn't a false prophecy. There was no time (date) given for it to be fulfilled (there's a point to this). Also, JS did give a definite date of fulfillment. There really is no comparison here.

Now, here's the rest of the story. This is so cool and I hope you all go read about it. It shows how awesome God is and His timing is right on. Alexander the Great is who God is sending to Tyre. I will give the details on the next post because it may be a little long. It fits perfect with the Bible's exact words, too.

[Pahoran]

Sorry but that isn't a false prophecy. There was no time (date) given for it to be fulfilled (there's a point to this). Also, JS did give a definite date of fulfillment. There really is no comparison here.

Now, here's the rest of the story. This is so cool and I hope you all go read about it. It shows how awesome God is and His timing is right on. Alexander the Great is who God is sending to Tyre. I will give the details on the next post because it may be a little long. It fits perfect with the Bible's exact words, too.

No. Not on the next post.

Start another thread. You have derailed this one too long and too far with your promiscuous scatter-gun anti-Mormon rantings.

Please note that whatever method you use to excuse Ezekiel must also be available to us in defense of Joseph Smith, or you are a hypocrite as well as a hater.

Also please note that your utter failure to support the vile racist slur that Mormons are just "blind followers" is far less important than the fact that you were enough of a bigot to try.

And finally, please recall that you challenged me to call for references. I will expect you to provide the reference, and will not be distracted by the volume of red herring posts.

Regards,

Pahorn

[Zakuska]

Sure it was a failed Prophecy... Nebechadnezzer never conquered Tyrus like God said he would. There doesn't need to be a time frame given. However, The Egyptians finally did 200 years later.

Joseph Smith never gave a date. He said several times... in his own opinion he would lean to a time some time after 1891. Unlike the Millerites (Seventh Day Advenstists) and many others of his time (even Luther himself) where saying.

If Im not mistaken the quote your provided, wasn't recorded by JS. And has been added to by the recorder. Giving his [the recorders] interpretation of what Joseph said.

[Doctor Steuss]

I appreciate that response. I too have done a lot of buying and studying original LDS books.

I know of another LDS who said he read the whole Jod but he didn't know about it saying they "deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the Church" (title page Vol.. Or, that they teach Adam is LDS only God (1:50). So, sometimes when we read things we miss stuff by accident and other times by choice.

I don't know that we miss stuff. We just have a different way of looking at it. Knowledge of the history of the compilation of the JoD (and the term "standard works" used in only one of the volumes, and the nuances and shifting definition of the term as terminology and English changes) causes us to see it as not being "on par" with our scriptures. Also, the Adam/God theory doesn't necessitate the staunch stance that many critics (and LDS) think it needs. There are other ways of viewing that sermon by BY. He was all over the place in that sermon, and in a lot of ways, he was employing poetic speech and speaking somewhat in parable fashion. The reason it is called the Adam/God theory is because Adam=G-d the Father is only one possible "theory" that can be derived from the sermon.

As a student of the Bible its clear that it doesn't matter a lot about the reasons they say things.

I find this rather strange (no offense intended). But the "why" is very important. As is the audience, time of the writing, culture, language nuances, education and upbringing of the author, etc., in Biblical studies. Perhaps I'm misreading your above statement. If I am, please correct me.

Its 'that' they said them or 'what' they say. Jesus never said anything that he knew we didn't need to hear, as well as those of his day.

The thing is, He did say things that we don't have (John 21: 25). And I imagine Christ said many things that were intended for a given individual and/or group, and not meant for humanity as a whole.

But I do understand why some think this is important.

I look at religion from the standpoint that if one thing is contrary to the doctrines/teachings Jesus taught then nothing else matters.

The only problem then becomes... what did Jesus teach? There is hardly a homogeneous agreement within Christianity. Too many people (myself included) try to force our upbringing, and preconceived notions into Christâ??s words.

Christians say if the character of God is wrong in a religion, nothing else matters. That is true. The only standard of measurement we have is the Bible. It was the original source (both OT & NT) on the nature of God.

On one point I think LDS differ. To them, G-d is the original source on His nature.

I try not to be hypocritical and I don't like double standards at all. Unfortunately, I probably do both.

Thanks for the info.

Wow. I think you just took my breath away with this last statement. It appears I have grossly misjudged you and perhaps there is a chance for meaningful dialogue. I may have been vastly more judgmental and uncharitable than was warranted, and for that I apologize. Perhaps we all got too caught up on talking at each other and forgot how to talk with each other. Sometimes itâ??s easy to lose sight of the fact that thereâ??s a real person at the other end of the moniker.

[rocmonkey]

Here's a part of the story-

Babylon (Jeremiah 50 & 51) and Tyre (Ezekiel 26)- Here's the accounts of what happened to them. First Babylon went to war with Tyre. Then, 250 years later when the Prophecy seemed to have failed- God's timing had finally, fully come- Alexander the Greek came on the scene and went to Tyre.

He took Tyre so totally perfect with what the Bible said hundreds of years earlier! He even designed a 'bridge' that had never been done before and it fit exactly as the Bible describes it (Ezekiel 26:12). Tyre moved its city to an island because Alex said to give up. They said no even though he had beaten every nation around them.

So, he built that bridge and went to get them. They burned his bridge and ramparts down. He built it again and this time Alex totally destroyed Tyre.

Somebody told you guys an untruth. They didn't do their history research on Tyre or Babylon, did they? Don't follow, folks, go lead- do the research for yourself before you call it false. There are no false prophecies in the Bible. Who all really believed that?

Anyway, then there's Babylon-

Babylon was an incredibly awesome and magnificent city. Its walls were between 14 & 15 miles long. The walls were 200 feet high with towers that were 300 feet high, it was 187 feet thick at the base. The city was 196 square miles. One of the 7 Wonders of the Ancient World was its hanging gardens. Yet God said that its walls would fall and no man would EVER live there again and today no one lives there.

This is just part of the story. But as you can see Alex fit the Bible exactly. We have never found any of these mentioned in the Bom- cities, metals, coins (many different kinds), animals (curelom, cumom), plants (neas, sheum), precious ores (from that day). This shows there is no comparison between Mormonism and the Bible. The Bible has history (when researched) the Bom has some man's word for what happened.

added later-- Someone wrote Nebuch didn't win the war so its a false prophecy. Eze.26:3 says God will send 'many' nations against Tyre. If Neb won then we'd have a real problem. More nations could not come against Tyre. The Bible doesn't say neb would win the war but that he would be devastating in his attacks. The fact that other nations did come later puts this in perspective or context.

[Doctor Steuss]

This is just part of the story. But as you can see Alex fit the Bible exactly. We have never found any of these mentioned in the Bom- cities, metals, coins (many different kinds), animals (curelom, cumom), plants (neas, sheum), precious ores (from that day).

Earlier you claimed that the off topic stuff you were bringing up had to do with what others were posting. Perhaps you could show me the post that elicited the above?

Edited to add: Coins are never mentioned. Only in the chapter heading. Knowledge of the history of the chapter headings might help out here.

BTW,

Sheum kind of works as a point towards the BoM. If you'd care to know more, I can provide info to explain why (it has to do with a 6th century BC Akkadian word for grain).

[Zakuska]

But the problem is... Ezekiel said the King of Babylon (ie Nebechadnezzer) would Destroy it... breach the walls... kill all the people. Not the King of Egypt. While yes... King Nebi... did lay sege to it... he never breached the walls, nor did he lay it bare, as Ezekiel said he would... so then... Ezekiel has to make up an excuse about making their head bald and pealing their shoulders, etc. etc. etc.

Plane and simple... he got it wrong.

Ezekiel 26

7

[Doctor Steuss]

This shows there is no comparison between Mormonism and the Bible. The Bible has history (when researched) the Bom has some man's word for what happened.

I just noticed this little bit that you added on. The Bible mentions many things that have no support as of yet. It also mentions dragons and unicorns. A knowledge of New World archaeology and the differences between it and Old World archaeology might also help.

And, if you're going to base you beliefs on Archaeology, then the Iliad seems to have just about as much (if not more) archeological proof than the Bible.

PS.

What if there was a place in the Old World that was mentioned in the BoM that was discovered? Would that make any difference to you?

[rocmonkey]

No. Not on the next post.

Start another thread. You have derailed this one too long and too far with your promiscuous scatter-gun anti-Mormon rantings.

Please note that whatever method you use to excuse Ezekiel must also be available to us in defense of Joseph Smith, or you are a hypocrite as well as a hater.

Also please note that your utter failure to support the vile racist slur that Mormons are just "blind followers" is far less important than the fact that you were enough of a bigot to try.

And finally, please recall that you challenged me to call for references. I will expect you to provide the reference, and will not be distracted by the volume of red herring posts.

Regards,

Pahorn

I just barely read this post. You are right. I am sorry. I was just running with the discussion.

I have tried to keep my posts inline with the thread's blind followers theme by showing how they were with the things I have quoted. If I have derailed this thread it really wasn't intentional.

How can it be shown "Mormons as "blind followers"" if things said and done in the past can't be shown?

[Doctor Steuss]

I just barely read this post. You are right. I am sorry. I was just running with the discussion.

I have tried to keep my posts inline with the thread's blind followers theme by showing how they were with the things I have quoted. If I have derailed this thread it really wasn't intentional.

How can it be shown "Mormons as "blind followers"" if things said and done in the past can't be shown?

Here's something from the past. I didn't go to Church on Sunday & I'm a Mormon.

Tah-dah!

Me = Mormon

Me = Not Obedient

Thus,

A Mormon can not follow, yet still be a Mormon (albeit a heretical one that the other posters cringe at sometimes); therefore, Mormons aren't "blind followers."

Another example:

There were some who didn't follow local leaders and instead followed their actual religion's teachings, and didn't participate in the horrific act of MMM.

Thus,

A Mormon can not follow, yet still be a Mormon (and in this case, a true Mormon).

[Zakuska]

< Post moved up >

[LDSBruin]

Same with Jonah, show where. If he did he is a false prophet, too. The Bible says all who do are. If the shoe fits on him, I will say so loudly. I don't just pick on Mormons. I have spoken against Christians, at times, too. I stand on the Bible (NT especially) alone as God's only word to man- because it is.

Would it be fair to say that you are "blind follower" of the Bible?

[rocmonkey]

Earlier you claimed that the off topic stuff you were bringing up had to do with what others were posting. Perhaps you could show me the post that elicited the above?

Edited to add: Coins are never mentioned. Only in the chapter heading. Knowledge of the history of the chapter headings might help out here.

BTW,

Sheum kind of works as a point towards the BoM. If you'd care to know more, I can provide info to explain why (it has to do with a 6th century BC Akkadian word for grain).

Someone mentioned a false prophecy in Ezekiel (and Jonah) and gave verses from chap. 26 and 29. I had to reply to that claim.

Coins- Al.11:3-19

Animals- Eth.9:19

Grain- Mos.9:9

Precious ores- 2 Ne. 5:15,16, Mos.11:8-10 (what is ziff?), Eth.10:23

I gotta go- dinner time. hunny will be home soon. see ya.

[thesometimesaint]

rocmonkey:

"I stand on the Bible (NT especially) alone as God's only word to man- because it is."

CFR

[Zakuska]

Someone mentioned a false prophecy in Ezekiel (and Jonah) and gave verses from chap. 26 and 29. I had to reply to that claim.

Which you failed miserably at, becuase Ezekiel mention nothing about the King of Egypt. As well as people still living to this very day in the Cities you said God destroyed and that no people live in today.

See my last post.

[Doctor Steuss]

Someone mentioned a false prophecy in Ezekiel (and Jonah) and gave verses from chap. 26 and 29. I had to reply to that claim.

Coins- Al.11:3-19

Animals- Eth.9:19

Grain- Mos.9:9

Precious ores- 2 Ne. 5:15,16, Mos.11:8-10 (what is ziff?), Eth.10:23

I gotta go- dinner time. hunny will be home soon. see ya.

I understand the reply regarding the false prophecy. I just don't understand why you added the other itemd (coins, animals, grains, etc.). It has nothing to do with Ezekiel. This is what I was talking about earlier, that you add additional items with each passing thing. You said that you weren't adding items, you were merely replying to things and going with the flow of the discussion. I'm wondering what these items have to do with the post you were replying to?

BTW:

Alma 11:3-19 describes a monetary system of weights and measurements. This is actually a point for the BoM. The chapter heading was added to the text much later and basically serves the purpose that the Bible Dictionary serves, to help clarify and give synopsis (unfortunately, this chapter heading is wrong, and hopefully will be changed or corrected in a later edition).

What you once thought was wrong is actually right.

Ether 9:19. Might be an acronym, might not be. I tend to think it is.

Mosiah 9:9. Corn is a native crop to the Americas. Pre-Columbian domesticated barley has been discovered. And â??wheatâ? is a term which could potentially be applied to other grains. As for â??sheum,â? as I mentioned this is a word that fits nicely with the time and text (and authors). It is an Akkadian word that applies to grains. Whatâ??s amazing is that no one could read Akkadian until several decades after the BoM was published. So, once again, we have something that you thought was against the BoM that actually turns out to be something that not only could Joseph not have known (because no one knew it at the time), but that fits with what the book claims to be.

What is ziff? It may also be a strike for the BoM.

The Salonimers' etymology for ziff, "pitch, tar, asphalt," could correspond to the biblical place-name Ziph, which is what the Hebrew word they list indicates. They assign it a meaning of "pitch, tar, asphalt," though this word appears in the Bible in the form zephet (Exodus 2:3; Isaiah 34:9). Since ziff appears in the Book of Mormon in a list of other metals (silver, iron, brass, and copper; see Mosiah 11:3, , it is more likely to be a metal than tar. Some have likened ziff with the Hebrew z

[Pahoran]

Another example:

There were some who didn't follow local leaders and instead followed their actual religion's teachings, and didn't participate in the horrific act of MMM.

Another example is the massacre perpetrators themselves. They acted without any orders, and having asked for Brigham Young's advice, didn't wait for it to arrive before carrying out the massacre. They weren't "blindly following" but acting entirely on their own initiative--and contrary to the teachings of their actual religion.

Those bigots who asininely assume that they must have had orders because all Mormons are just "blind followers" are merely relying upon an idiotic and false stereotype to back up a vile and false accusation.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Zakuska]

Dr. Stuess... and since Corn is native to the Americas... what the heck is it doing in the Bible? Especially in ancient Egypt.

Gen. 42: 1-3, 5, 19, 25-26

1 Now when Jacob saw that there was corn in Egypt, Jacob said unto his sons, Why do ye look one upon another?

2 And he said, Behold, I have heard that there is corn in Egypt: get you down thither, and buy for us from thence; that we may live, and not die.

3

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Dr. Stuess... and since Corn is native to the Americas... what the heck is it doing in the Bible? Especially in ancient Egypt.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?search...n&do=Search

This doesnt bode well for rocmonkey. Your thinking again to much Zak. the thinking has been doen case closed.

[Pahoran]

I know of another LDS who said he read the whole Jod but he didn't know about it saying they "deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the Church" (title page Vol.8 ).

Excuse me, Rocmonkey, but you keep saying these kinds of things.

You should stop.

They don't fool anybody.

Do you imagine that anonymous statements attributed to anonymous Mormons by you, after you have so unambiguously demonstrated your eagerness to distort and misrepresent every LDS source you quote, can possibly serve as evidence in support of your claims?

If you do, then you are mistaken.

As for "another LDS:" it is entirely possible to read a book and not read its preface. I frequently skip over the prefaces of the books I read.

Also, I have already addressed this very claim. Yet again, you did not respond. Yet again, my argument stands unanswered. Yet again, your claim is refuted. Yet again, you are being grossly dishonest by airily pretending it has not been.

If you find there are too many posts to respond to, then I will do you the courtesy of repeating what I pointed out to you.

Firstly: because Latter-day Saints are not merely "blind followers," as only the most odious bigots asininely assume we are, it takes more than a publisher's blurb to canonise a large collection of books.

Secondly: like every other faith community, Latter-day Saints have their own special vocabulary. Haters automatically leap to the conclusion that this is "deceptive" or something, but it is not. It is simply the way faith communities work. (I can show you many examples from EV Protestantism, just in case you want to knee-jerk into accusation mode, so I recommend you restrain your attack reflex, unless you want to end up with egg on your face.) One item in this special vocabulary is the term "Standard Works" as meaning "canonised scripture." As you know, that is not how EV's use that term. As you probably don't know, because you show no evidence of being educated on any subject, it is also not the way academics use that term. In academic circles, the term "standard work" means "a work of recognised excellence."

Now it just so happens that the use of "Standard Works" to equal "scripture" is a usage that was not current when Volume 8 of the Journal of Discourses was published; but it is current today. Thus, pretending that the Volume 9 preface means that the JoD forms part of the Church's canonical scripture is a deliberate lie based upon an equivocation. Either you have been deceived by dishonest anti-Mormon propagandists who knowingly and dishonestly equivocate these two terms, or else you are being dishonest yourself.

How shall we know?

Very easily: if you are being deceitful, as I am convinced you are, you will continue to use this false and discredited polemic and pretend that it is unanswered.

If, however, there is anything left of your conscience that has not yet been seared by the hot iron of anti-Mormon hate propaganda, you will cease and desist from this lie, and never repeat it again.

Such dirty, dishonest tactics are as far beneath the dignity of any real Christian as they are SOP for every cheap anti-Mormon polemicist.

And just one more thing on this point: as you and I both know, you have not cited a single passage from the JoD that is anything other than a stock, standard anti-Mormon prooftext.

This is relevant, because I once did a survey of the little out-of-context snippets from the JoD that are used as anti-Mormon prooftexts. I found that they amounted to around 20 pages of material.

The JoD contain over 9000 pages.

Your anonymous "another LDS" might have missed some little thing or other in the JoD. But you, having never laid eyes on the actual volumes themselves, have missed 99.8% of them.

Or, that they teach Adam is LDS only God (1:50). So, sometimes when we read things we miss stuff by accident and other times by choice.

The passage in question does not mean that Adam is "LDS only God."

See that you do not repeat that falsehood.

Regards,

Pahoran

[jwhitlock]

Give me a verse(s) please. If he did he IS a false prophet. The Bible is clear that all who do are.

See post #253.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Excuse me, Rocmonkey, but you keep saying these kinds of things.

You should stop.

They don't fool anybody.

Do you imagine that anonymous statements attributed to anonymous Mormons by you, after you have so unambiguously demonstrated your eagerness to distort and misrepresent every LDS source you quote, can possibly serve as evidence in support of your claims?

If you do, then you are mistaken.

As for "another LDS:" it is entirely possible to read a book and not read its preface. I frequently skip over the prefaces of the books I read.

Also, I have already addressed this very claim. Yet again, you did not respond. Yet again, my argument stands unanswered. Yet again, your claim is refuted. Yet again, you are being grossly dishonest by airily pretending it has not been.

If you find there are too many posts to respond to, then I will do you the courtesy of repeating what I pointed out to you.

Firstly: because Latter-day Saints are not merely "blind followers," as only the most odious bigots asininely assume we are, it takes more than a publisher's blurb to canonise a large collection of books.

Secondly: like every other faith community, Latter-day Saints have their own special vocabulary. Haters automatically leap to the conclusion that this is "deceptive" or something, but it is not. It is simply the way faith communities work. (I can show you many examples from EV Protestantism, just in case you want to knee-jerk into accusation mode, so I recommend you restrain your attack reflex, unless you want to end up with egg on your face.) One item in this special vocabulary is the term "Standard Works" as meaning "canonised scripture." As you know, that is not how EV's use that term. As you probably don't know, because you show no evidence of being educated on any subject, it is also not the way academics use that term. In academic circles, the term "standard work" means "a work of recognised excellence."

Now it just so happens that the use of "Standard Works" to equal "scripture" is a usage that was not current when Volume 8 of the Journal of Discourses was published; but it is current today. Thus, pretending that the Volume 9 preface means that the JoD forms part of the Church's canonical scripture is a deliberate lie based upon an equivocation. Either you have been deceived by dishonest anti-Mormon propagandists who knowingly and dishonestly equivocate these two terms, or else you are being dishonest yourself.

How shall we know?

Very easily: if you are being deceitful, as I am convinced you are, you will continue to use this false and discredited polemic and pretend that it is unanswered.

If, however, there is anything left of your conscience that has not yet been seared by the hot iron of anti-Mormon hate propaganda, you will cease and desist from this lie, and never repeat it again.

Such dirty, dishonest tactics are as far beneath the dignity of any real Christian as they are SOP for every cheap anti-Mormon polemicist.

And just one more thing on this point: as you and I both know, you have not cited a single passage from the JoD that is anything other than a stock, standard anti-Mormon prooftext.

This is relevant, because I once did a survey of the little out-of-context snippets from the JoD that are used as anti-Mormon prooftexts. I found that they amounted to around 20 pages of material.

The JoD contain over 9000 pages.

Your anonymous "another LDS" might have missed some little thing or other in the JoD. But you, having never laid eyes on the actual volumes themselves, have missed 99.8% of them.

The passage in question does not mean that Adam is "LDS only God."

See that you do not repeat that falsehood.

Regards,

Pahoran

I took the liberty for rocmonkey to repeat this post. Pahoran did a nice job telling you whats going on. I did this so you wouldn't miss it.

[rocmonkey]

I just noticed this little bit that you added on. The Bible mentions many things that have no support as of yet. It also mentions dragons and unicorns. A knowledge of New World archaeology and the differences between it and Old World archaeology might also help.

The Bible also mentions behemoths and leviathons- we still don't know what they were. But one was a real fire-breather!

And, if you're going to base you beliefs on Archaeology, then the Iliad seems to have just about as much (if not more) archeological proof than the Bible.

I think there are only about 1.100 copies of the Iliad and about 25,000 for the Bible.

PS.

What if there was a place in the Old World that was mentioned in the BoM that was discovered? Would that make any difference to you?

Good question. I'd have to take a hard look at the evidence that was found first. Evidence means a lot to me.

[structurecop]

Evidence means a lot to me.

Oh, the irony!

[Doctor Steuss]

The Bible also mentions behemoths and leviathons- we still don't know what they were. But one was a real fire-breather!

I hope you keep this in mind next time you try to pounce on the BoM for mentioning Cureloms and such.

I think there are only about 1.100 copies of the Iliad and about 25,000 for the Bible.

You were generous. There are actually more along the lines of 643 for the Iliad. I thought you were speaking of archaeology, not surviving manuscripts. But, this still isn't exactly a solid foundation for basing faith as the surviving 25K manuscripts for the NT (of which many are fragments), none of them date to the time of Christ nor his apostles.

Good question. I'd have to take a hard look at the evidence that was found first. Evidence means a lot to me.

Well, as long as you would be willing to analyze the evidence on par with however it was you analyzed the evidence for the Bible, I might be inclined to provide you some reading material.

PS.

What's the evidence for an actual fire-breathing creature? You could probably start with whether it is even biologically feasible.