thesometimesaint Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Rob Bowman:http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=024644f8f206c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=aef870cb7de63110VgnVCM100000176f620a
thesometimesaint Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 altersteve:I don't know as this was directed to me. But I'll answer anyway.I don't have any objections to the Mesoamerican Model for the BoM. It makes the most sense to me. However if God, through his prophets, were to tell me that some other place is the "Right Place" I'll go with that.
Vance Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 (edited) Vance,I only have Bridget Jack Jeffries's side of the story, but by her own account she was sixteen years old when she acted in the quite immature and unpleasant manner that you quoted from her story. It was not evangelical anti-Mormonism that made her act like an immature teenager; she was an immature teenager.That is totally contrary to what she wrote. BTW She was an adult when she wrote it. So you are basically calling her a liar because she said,I hurt people on purpose, and I enjoyed it. That’s what evangelical anti-Mormonism does to you. Also, I’ve heard the talk that goes on when evangelical anti-Mormons think Latter-day Saints aren’t in the room, the sneering and the condescension. What does her age and maturity have to do with this?And her adult, mature conclusion. You cannot spend major parts of your life thinking and preaching that the followers of a competing religion are deceived, blind and going to hell without looking down on them in some form, and condescension easily breeds hate and ridicule. I will say that my experience on CARM is consistent with her complaint that the non-Mormons are given latitude to say anything they like about Mormonism with impunity,. . . So the bias is so bad that even you can see it. WOW!!! That says a lot. In any case, it isn't evangelical anti-Mormonism that is at fault for the bad manners of people on such forums as CARM, . . .A rather bald assertion. Sorry but results speak louder than your baseless assertions. . . . any more than Mormonism is to blame for your bad behavior or that of other people here who have been very unkind toward me.That is because it is evangelical anti-Mormonism vitriol that causes Mormons to respond in what you call "bad behavior". The real problem is the anonymity of the internet that allows anyone with access to a computer the opportunity to hide behind pseudonyms while blasting away at others with impunity.And if Bill cared about civility on his site he would introduce measures to cause it. But he doesn't because he doesn't.It speaks VOLUMES that you feel more comfortable here than you do there. Edited November 2, 2011 by Vance
Vance Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Rob Bowman:http://lds.org/ldsor...M100000176f620aLinkie no workie.
Rob Bowman Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 thesometimesaint,I clicked on the link and it didn't work.Rob Bowman:http://lds.org/ldsor...M100000176f620a
jskains Posted November 2, 2011 Author Posted November 2, 2011 No. Once again, Church doctrine is anything in the scriptures and anything that the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve declare as such. Gospel "training manuals" are not the final word on doctrine.First, I disagree that Joseph Smith taught that Heavenly Father "became God." Second, the scriptures, especially the Book of Mormon, are clear that Jesus is the Eternal God, the Everlasting Father of heaven and earth. Something can't contradict what the scriptures say and still be official doctrine.I agressively disagree, but I love the King Folette Discourse, and in my study of it, that is exactly what he taught and was the pre-cursor to Eternal Progression. It's a beautiful doctrine and I never understood the need to downplay it.JMS
Vance Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 If we accept Emma's testimony, they were even light enough for "the little woman" to move from place to place while she did her housework.Which could easily be above 60 pounds. I can move around 55 gal bbls of water weighing over 400 lbs, it isn't easy but it is doable. There are several difficulties here, one of which of course is the material composition of the plates.And what is the composition exactly? If they were really made of gold then they would have weighed over a hundred pounds, even assuming that the plates were so uneven that they occupied only half of the space reported.Who claimed they were made of pure gold? In any case, picking up a stack of metal plates weighing over 50 pounds off a table, for example, is a lot harder than, say, picking up a 50-pound sack of potatoes, which may explain the greatly varying estimates of their weight (and may suggest that the weight was far less than 50 or 60 pounds after all).This is pure assertion and is counter factual to boot. The smaller size of a package makes it easier to pick up. Try picking up a 50 lb mattress, then come talk to me. And the more "air space" one posits between the metal pages, the less writing space there is for the text of the Book of Mormon.Only if you assume the thickness of the plates stays constant. The writing space is related to the number and size (two major dimensions) of the plates, not the amount of "air space". The bottom line is that there are real difficulties here that, as best I can see, LDS apologists struggle to answer adequately.Well, try taking off those anti-Mormon blinders. Then you will see more clearly.
Rob Bowman Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 (edited) Vance,You wrote:That is totally contrary to what she wrote. BTW She was an adult when she wrote it. So you are basically calling her a liar....No. She was an adult when she wrote it, but she was talking about her attitude when she was sixteen years old.You wrote:And if Bill cared about civility on his site he would introduce measures to cause it. But he doesn't because he doesn't.It speaks VOLUMES that you feel more comfortable here than you do there.You are confused. Bill McKeever is the head of Mormonism Research Ministry, not CARM. And I participate here because there are, among the participants, some knowledgeable LDS apologists and even some who are known scholars. So I put up with the abuse because I genuinely want dialogue with the most informed defenders of LDS claims. Edited November 2, 2011 by Rob Bowman
thesometimesaint Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 (edited) Rob Bowman:Sorry it works for me. What Did the Golden Plates Look Like?By Kirk B. HenrichsenKirk B. Henrichsen, “What Did the Golden Plates Look Like?,” New Era, Jul 2007, 28–33A longer version of this article was originally published by the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship as “How Witnesses Described the ‘Gold Plates,’ ” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, vol. 10, no. 1 (2001), 16–21.When some people interested in the Book of Mormon ask to see the golden plates, they are disappointed to learn that Joseph returned them to Moroni. When told that several witnesses did see and handle them, they ask, “What did they look like?” What Do We Know?Although no single comprehensive description of the Book of Mormon plates has been preserved, the Prophet Joseph Smith and several people closely associated with him made various statements that include partial descriptions of the plates. When all of the available sources are considered, quite a detailed picture emerges of the physical characteristics of the ancient Nephite record.1—Joseph Smith Jr., Eight Witnesses, Orson Pratt“Golden plates.”2—David WhitmerNeither Joseph nor any of the witnesses said that the ancient record was made from solid gold. Nor did they use the term “gold plates” or “plates of gold.” All Joseph said is that they had “the appearance of gold.”“Weighing altogether, from forty to sixty lbs.”3—Martin Harris“I moved them from place to place on the table, as it was necessary in doing my work.”4—Emma SmithPeople of that time period were accustomed to purchasing household supplies by weight. A farmer would have a good idea of what a 60-pound bag of grain would feel like. A woman working in her kitchen would be required to lift a heavy iron kettle filled with water that may weigh up to 60 pounds.5—Joseph Smith Jr.“Seven inches wide by eight inches in length.”6—Martin Harris“Of the thickness of plates of tin.”7—Martin Harris“When piled one above the other, they were altogether about four inches thick.”8—Martin Harris“About eight inches long, seven inches wide.”9—David Whitmer“About as thick as parchment.”10—David Whitmer“Each plate was not far from seven by eight inches in width and length.”11—Orson Pratt“Not quite as thick as common tin.”12—Orson Pratt“Something near six inches in thickness, a part of which was sealed.”13—Orson Pratt“They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metalic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book.”14—Emma SmithIn court, testimonies that vary slightly from each other are often seen as more truthful than when they match precisely. If all the statements are exactly the same, it can indicate that the witnesses have compared notes to fabricate a story that is too perfect.“What there was sealed appeared as solid to my view as wood. … About the half of the book was sealed.”15—David Whitmer“A large portion of the leaves were so securely bound together that it was impossible to separate them.”16—David Whitmer“About two-thirds were sealed up, and Joseph was commanded not to break the seal; that part of the record was hid up. The plates which were sealed contained an account of those things shewn unto the brother of Jared.”17—Orson PrattThe plates were sealed by Moroni after he had separated from the rest of his people. He would have used materials that were readily available to him at that time. The descriptions say they were “securely bound” and “appeared solid.” The statements indicate a complete encapsulation of the plates to protect and preserve them for the future. None of the witnesses mentions metal bands around the plates. This seems to be an artistic creation of the mid-twentieth century that has no documentary basis.18—David Whitmer“Bound together like the leaves of a book by massive rings passing through the back edges.”19—David Whitmer“Put together on the back by three silver rings, so that they would open like a book.”20—Martin Harris“Bound together in a volume, as the leaves of a book, and fastened at one edge with three rings running through the whole.”21—Orson Pratt“Through the back of the plates were three rings which held them together, and through which a rod might easily be passed, serving as a greater convenience for carrying them.”22—Orson PrattWe have more detail about the rings than any other aspect of the plates. Still, people tend to imagine what they are familiar with. Desktop calendars with vertical posts sharply curved at the top were commonly used in the mid-twentieth century. It was only natural for people to transfer this image to the plates. But that is not what the witnesses describe. They use the term “massive rings.” Taken literally, “ring” describes a circular shape. David Whitmer approved of a sketch showing the rings shaped like a rounded capital “D” with the plates indicated on the straight side. We found that this design allows the plates to be turned along the ring smoothly and that the rings can be pivoted back to lay nearly flat against the stack of plates. It also fits Orson Pratt’s description of rings “through which a rod might easily be passed, serving as a greater convenience for carrying them.”23—Joseph Smith Jr., Orson Pratt“There were fine engravings on both sides.”24—John Whitmer“We also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.”25—Eight Witnesses“Upon each side of the leaves of these plates there were fine engravings, which were stained with a black hard stain so as to make the letters more legible and easier to be read.”26—Orson PrattWhat Was the Reading Order?27—Joseph Smith Jr. Does It Really Matter What the Book of Mormon Plates Looked Like?Seeing the plates would not necessarily motivate someone to accept the restoration of the gospel and make changes in his or her life. That motivation comes from reading and accepting the teachings of the Book of Mormon. What really matters is the spiritual witness that is promised to those who humbly seek to know the truth of these things. A true testimony of the Book of Mormon comes from reading it and, as counseled by Moroni in a promise he left to us in Moroni 10:3–5, praying about it.Look up the Neal A. Maxwell Institute at www.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu.[illustration] (Far left) This painting illustrates the Angel Moroni showing the golden plates to Joseph Smith (seated in the middle) and witnesses Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer. (Painting by Gary E. Smith)[photos] The box (left), or lap desk as it was called because of its sloping hinged lid, belonged to Hyrum Smith and was lent to his brother Joseph to use for a time to hold the plates. The box has been passed down through the Hyrum Smith family. (Photographs by Jed Clark)[photo] This facsimile of the plates was made for a recent exhibit about Joseph Smith at the Museum of Church History and Art. Visitors to the exhibit were given a chance to lift and turn the leaves of a replica matching the description of the golden plates. (Photograph by Welden Andersen) The Golden Plates Couldn’t Be Made of Pure Gold“The Golden Plates Couldn’t Be Made of Pure Gold,” New Era, July 2007, 30The Lord promised that the plates would preserve their “brightness”(see Alma 37:5–7). Because gold does not corrode, objects made of gold can last thousands of years. When exposed to oxygen, silver tarnishes until it turns black. Copper turns a green color. Ancient American metallurgists familiar with this process were able to accelerate the oxidation of silver and copper and remove its residue, leaving an enhanced gold surface. Thus, a composite metal could be made to have the appearance of solid gold. (For details, see “How Witnesses Described the ‘Gold Plates,’ ” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, vol. 10, no.1 [2001], 21). A Model of the PlatesMade by Steven Pratt“A Model of the Plates,” New Era, July 2007, 32 This facsimile of the plates was made for an exhibit at the Museum of Church History and Art. In an attempt to be as accurate as possible, all known statements about the plates were compiled and compared. Unfortunately, there was not space in this article to include all of the descriptions.For more about the making of this replica of the plates, see “A Golden Opportunity,” New Era, Feb. 2006, 34. Notes2. Kansas City Journal, June 5, 1881, in Lyndon W. Cook, ed., David Whitmer Interviews: A Restoration Witness (1991), 60.4. “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” The Saints’ Herald, Oct. 1, 1879, 290.6. Quoted in “How Witnesses Described the ‘Gold Plates,’ ” 18.8. Quoted in “How Witnesses Described the ‘Gold Plates,’ ” 18.10. Kansas City Journal, June 5, 1881, in David Whitmer Interviews, 64.12. An Interesting Account, 13.14. “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” 290.16. Chicago Tribune, Jan. 24, 1888, in David Whitmer Interviews, 221.18. Edward Stevenson diary, Dec. 22–23, 1877, archives of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.20. Quoted in “How Witnesses Described the ‘Gold Plates,’ ” 19.22. Deseret News, Jan. 12, 1859, 190.24. John Whitmer to Theodore Turley, “in the presence of his anti-Mormon friends,” in Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (1981), 131.26. Deseret News, Jan. 12, 1859, 190.<a name="87">27. History of the Church, 1:71 Edited November 2, 2011 by thesometimesaint
ERayR Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Notice my name, Jesterss, not Jesus...Yet you are willing to judge someone elses Christianity.
Jesterss Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Yet you are willing to judge someone elses Christianity.When did I judge?
ERayR Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 But see, you break heaven down into 3 levels. Why would a christian call himself a christian if they are only going to the terrestrial or telestial?Maybe because he is. You profess to be a Christian yet I would be willing to wager you are less than perfect.Wouldn't a Christian be someone who believes they are following the correct path in order to reach heaven (levels aside here, because only your religion believes in that)?I would agree to that but as you demonstrate so well we do not all agree on the correct path, Is someone who believes in Christ and practices Christlike attributes any less aChristian because they were confused about the path. Finally, your summary dismisal of the LDS concept of heaven is a bit arrogant.You're inability to overlook your own doctrine is clouding your understanding of heaven to others.Your inability to overlook your own doctrine is what is clouding your understanding of heaven. It is also clouding your ability to converse with others in a coherent manner on the subject.
Vance Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 (edited) No. She was an adult when she wrote it, but she was talking about her attitude when she was sixteen years old.An attitude that became UNCIVIL when she became engaged in evangelical anti-Mormonism. Before then, she was civil, after, NOT SO MUCH. As a mature adult the cause was/is clear to both her and me. You can attempt to spin it all you want, but what she wrote is clear.You are confused. Bill McKeever is the head of Mormonism Research Ministry, not CARM.The behavior is the same at both. Edited November 2, 2011 by Vance
altersteve Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 I agressively disagree, but I love the King Folette Discourse, and in my study of it, that is exactly what he taught and was the pre-cursor to Eternal Progression. It's a beautiful doctrine and I never understood the need to downplay it.JMSI'm not trying to downplay it. I too love the King Follett sermon, and I strongly believe in the doctrine of eternal progression, even as it pertains to Heavenly Father, but I don't believe He was once not God. However, even His eternal nature does not mean He doesn't "progress" in some sense, anymore than His children being eternal conflicts with them having an origin, a time and place where their existence began. I believe the same about God. It's not something that I or anyone else can fully understand at this point, though, so it's not really something I think about a lot.
Pahoran Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Your characterization of Bill is totally false. You don't know Bill, you don't know Bill's mind, and you don't have the foggiest notion of what motivates Bill, yet you presume to pass judgment on him.Bill and I are different, but I have no need to distance myself from him. The more time I spend with him and the more we interact, the more my respect for him grows. Bill really cares about Mormons, and if you listened to him without prejudging him, you'd know that.Oh, yes. He "cares about" us so much that he'd love to "love" us straight into intensive care.And if I were you, I wouldn't brag about my assocation with him. Dogs, fleas and all that.The worthless McKeever is a bog-standard anti-Mormon; IOW, a bigot with a tiny mind, who is so desperately insecure in his own beliefs that he has an emotional need to censor the beliefs of others.This is hardly surprising, since -- as I have often pointed out -- anti-Mormonism is a hate ideology just like any other. As such, it attracts people of defective character.Regards,Pahoran 2
Jesterss Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Maybe because he is. You profess to be a Christian yet I would be willing to wager you are less than perfect.No need to wager, you wouldn't have anyone to wager against.I would agree to that but as you demonstrate so well we do not all agree on the correct path, Is someone who believes in Christ and practices Christlike attributes any less a Christian because they were confused about the path. Finally, your summary dismisal of the LDS concept of heaven is a bit arrogant.Well if they follow the Christlike path I wouldn't call them confused. I'm just trying to get to an agreeance that each religion believes they are the correct and true Christian religion. And I'm not sure what you meant by the last sentence but if it came off as arrogant to you, I apologize, but if it was in response to altersteve it probably was meant in that manner as a direct reply to the manner in which he addressed me and my knowledge. Your inability to overlook your own doctrine is what is clouding your understanding of heaven. It is also clouding your ability to converse with others in a coherent manner on the subject.I think you've done a pretty decent job of understanding me, so I don't think there was anything clouded here. The only thing that has been clouded is a clear and concise agreement from an LDS on my summary. It was accurate yet nobody likes it because it's "oversimplified" yet accurate. Do you quote the way you quote on purpose? Because it makes it a much more difficult task to respond to you..
Log Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 I am willing to judge someone's Christianity. No Christian persecutes Christ or Christ's children. No Christian works against Christ's Kingdom. All who do so, yet profess to be Christians, do so falsely, as they are unacquainted with Christ, his voice, his servants, and his works.They who profess to be Christians and yet do such things are wolves, professing to be sheep.They are of the devil, yet profess to have the spirit of God.And by their deeds we do know them. 1
Pahoran Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Incidentally: the paper-thin excuse that "We holler at you and accost you on the way to your services and pamphlet-bomb your funerals and leave spam DVDs on your doorsteps and profane your sacred ordinances and call you deceivers and your women whores because we just luuurve you so much" is unconvincing on two fronts:First, because it is obviously false on its face. Hateful people are doing hateful things to the people they hate, and actions have always spoken much louder than words.Second, because it is more or less obligatory. The haters in question profess to be "Christians," and their activities are funded by donations and/or book/DVD purchases on the part of people who regard themselves as Christians, and Christians are supposed to love everyone.Especially their enemies.So when the McKeevers (et al) of this world claim to so truly, madly, deeply luuuuurve Mormons, it's mostly just show-biz. But it is something else, too: it is a way of obliquely disclosing the fact that they view us as their enemies.Thus, [loudly] "We luuuuurve Mormons, [sotto voce] because Jesus said to love our enemies."Regards,Pahoran 2
Jesterss Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 I guess I'm not a McKeever of this world after all, because I luuuuuuuuurve a Mormon girl.. lol, I like that one.
thesometimesaint Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 (edited) Jesterss:I too luuuuuuuurve a Momon girl. Though I usually publicly just call her my wife when not calling her by name She says he luuuuuuuurves this Mormon boy. Though she usually publicly just call me her husband when not calling me by my name. Edited November 2, 2011 by thesometimesaint
Jesterss Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Jesterss:I too luuuuuuuurve a Momon girl. Though I usually publicly just call her my wife when not calling her by name She says he luuuuuuuurves this Mormon boy. Though she usually publicly just call me her husband when not calling me by my name. haha yeah touche, usually just call her my wife as well.
ERayR Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 No need to wager, you wouldn't have anyone to wager against.Well if they follow the Christlike path I wouldn't call them confused. I'm just trying to get to an agreeance that each religion believes they are the correct and true Christian religion. And I'm not sure what you meant by the last sentence but if it came off as arrogant to you, I apologize, but if it was in response to altersteve it probably was meant in that manner as a direct reply to the manner in which he addressed me and my knowledge.I have a hard time taking this at face value as this was stipulated way back in this thread. What was NOT agreed is that just because one considers their religion the correct and true religion that they consider everybody else non-christian. I think you've done a pretty decent job of understanding me, so I don't think there was anything clouded here. The only thing that has been clouded is a clear and concise agreement from an LDS on my summary. It was accurate yet nobody likes it because it's "oversimplified" yet accurate.The oversimplification is what makes your summary inaccurate.Do you quote the way you quote on purpose? Because it makes it a much more difficult task to respond to you..Yes because its easier. Sorry.
orion88 Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 I'm not trying to downplay it. I too love the King Follett sermon, and I strongly believe in the doctrine of eternal progression, even as it pertains to Heavenly Father, but I don't believe He was once not 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" (Teachings of Presidents of the Church - Joseph Smith,1938, pp. 345-346, compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith). It is also found in the 2002 version butwas removed from the 2008 version.
Pahoran Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 "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"Ah yes. The "shocking" sound bite, a technique so widely used by anti-Mormon polemicists that I can only presume it is taught at the Ed Decker School of "Christian Witnessing," in their Deception 101 course. (Teachings of Presidents of the Church - Joseph Smith,1938, pp. 345-346, compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith). It is also found in the 2002 version but was removed from the 2008 version.In your malicious zeal to manufacture a false accusation, you have simply outdone yourself. The book Teachings of Presidents of the Church - Joseph Smith was not compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, and has no 1938 edition. It was compiled by the Church's curriculum committee, to be used as a manual for Melchizedek Priesthood quorums and Relief Society classes, and was first published in 2007.Anyone who wants to can read it here: http://lds.org/manua...-smith?lang=engNote that it is the tenth in a series of such manuals.No doubt, in your tendentious haste, you simply conflated this manual with Joseph Fielding Smith's book, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. I would be naturally inclined to treat your mistake with some degree of charity, were it not that the source of that mistake was found in your unadulterated malice.Regards,Pahoran 1
altersteve Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 "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" (Teachings of Presidents of the Church - Joseph Smith,1938, pp. 345-346, compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith). It is also found in the 2002 version butwas removed from the 2008 version.What?! I've never read that before![/sarcasm]
Recommended Posts