Does this video by anthropologists say the Book of Mormon didn't happen?

[boblloyd91]

Another thing, a few minutes ago I mentioned the part of the D&C that talked about the South calling on Great Britain, and also said the South would call on other nations as well. Looking briefly at "Cotton Democracy" through Google, it also mentions that the Confederacy opened up diplomatic channels through other European powers as well. That didn't happen to my knowledge during the nullification crisis.  

[USU78]

19 minutes ago, boblloyd91 said:

What evidence do you have that Smith deliberately made up a prophecy other then your supposed ability to read his mind?

"For the Bible tells me so  ..."

[RevTestament]

45 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said:

The United Kingdom did not join in the US Civil War.

The prophecy did not say it would - just that the south would call upon Great Britain, which happened. Which btw is a lot of added detail over a murmur that SC would not pay a tariff ie the nullification controversy. In fact Joseph Smith said he thought the war may well be over the slave issue, which of course is what happened - and yeah- 30 years later - that is what a prophecy is.

Quote

Jesus did not give a date for his second advent.  His kingdom was initiated with the destruction of the Temple (the real one, not the fake ones) in 70 CE.

So did his second advent occur within "this generation?" That was the issue you were probably trying to stick me with before I preempted you - or possibly I read you wrong?

Quote

Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:

Well, there goes the LDS church.

Yep, At least those who are faithful.

"That they may be one even as we are one."

Deuteronomy 10:17

17 For the Lord your God is God/El of gods/elohim, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward

I'd rather than be one of those elohim, than leave myself out in the cold like orthodox seem to want.

what's the saying? no guts, no glory...

[Jim Stiles]

1 hour ago, boblloyd91 said:

What evidence do you have that Smith deliberately made up a prophecy other then your supposed ability to read his mind?

Painesville Telegraph – Friday, December 21, 1832 "The Crisis" (reprint of an article from the December 8, 1832 edition of the Weekly Courier and New York Enquirer)

Quote

The Crisis
It has been but too often the ease that petty politicians have sounded
the alarm of public danger, when only their own selfish interests were
in jeopardy. So frequently has this occurred that the people, like the
boy in the fable, hear the cry of Wolf! Wolf! With unconcern, and
regarded the most solemn predictions as idle vapouring. But whatever
may be the result of the present crisis, or however unheeded the
warning, the press will have performed its duty in disclosing the
extent of the evil before us, and in contributing its efforts to resist
or avoid them.

We have just terminated an election which it is feared may
be the last that will be ever held under the present form of
government, and many, we might say most, of the ablest men in our
nation, have uttered their misgivings. In the brief interval, since
that election commenced, the possibilities of dismemberment have
increased, and our dangers thickened. Among the first and most
prominent indications of the imminency of our peril, we number the
recent message of Gov. LUMPKIN to the Legislature of Georgia.

This document was commented upon by many of our
contemporaries soon after its appearance. It found favour, however,
with few, perhaps none, except among those who are the mere hacks of
party. If we have deferred a notice of the publication it is not
because we have been unobservant of its bearing. At the present moment,
when the public eye is turned to gaze with deep intensity upon the
proceedings of South Carolina, it is peculiarly fitting that we should
look around and survey the character and full extent of the dangers
that beset us.

The doctrines maintained by Gov. LUMPKIN, contain in
principle, every feature of nullification; and in practice, are more to
be feared than those of Gov. HAMILTON, because resistance is offered to
that branch of government which is least capable of enforcing its
decrees, by the arm of power. There is another circumstance too, which
ought not to be overlooked – The individuals in whose case this great
question has been raised were Missionaries – a class of men not often,
nor generally popular – and who, in the instance in question, are
believed by many, to have undertaken this political crusade for the
very purpose of engendering mischief and dissentions. How far this
impression may be correct we pretend not to decide. We are not
personally their advocate; nor are our sympathies apt to be enlisted on
the side of enthusiasts or bigots of any description. But if BUTLER and
WORCESTER are bigots, that circumstance cannot impair their rights as
citizens, nor impart legality to the acts of Georgia. All history shews
that usurpations have been most often accomplished by turning the
current of public indignation against obnoxious individuals; and shall
wee, because we reprobate particular men, permit the constitution to be
pierced, in order to reach them? Shall we Samson-like, pull down the
pillars of that constitution, for the purpose of punishing others, when
we also must be crushed by its fall? However perverse or misguided the
original purpose of the Missionaries may have been, the question is now
to be regarded as between the U. States in the department of its
judiciary on the one hand, and the State of Georgia, resting on its
claimed reserved rights as the pretext for direct, forcible
nullification, on the other. Nullification we oppose, in every shape
and form – and most promptly of all others, that which asserts its own
interpretation of constitutional law to be paramount ad supreme, and
resorts to force and violence to sustain it. That Gov. LUMPKIN avows
nullification in fact, and rejects it
only in name, is sufficiently obvious from the most cursory perusal of
his message. Towards the end of that communication he adverts
distinctly to what he terms "the mystic doctrine of nullification." He
pronounces it to be "unsound, dangerous, and delusive in practice, as
well as in theory"; and that "wherever it spreads, it engenders the
bitter strifes and animosities, and dissolves the most endearing
relations in life."

Yet this Gov. LUMPKIN, in the former part of the same
message, when alluding to the decision of the Supreme Court, says – "I
have been prepared to meet this usurpation of Federal power with the
most prompt and determined resistance in whatever form its enforcement
might have been attempted by any branch of the Federal government.

And what is this but nullification? What casuists can distinguish
between it and the doctrines of South Carolina? The latter proposes to
nullify an act of the legislative branch of the Federal government –
the former to resists by force a decision of the Judiciary branch. The
Judiciary is as much a branch of the general government as the
legislature and resistance to either is practical nullification. It is
true that in South Carolina the parties are respectively designated as
Nullifiers and Unionists while in Georgia, the prostrators of the
Judiciary have christened their nullification, by the name of Resistance,
and contemptuously branded their opponents as Submission-men.
But names cannot alter things; — and if Governor LUMPKIN proposes to
avail himself of an objection to the phrase, the subterfuge is puerile.
The only difference between them is in their application; and of the
two sorts of substantial nullification, that of Georgia is the least defensible
in principle and the most dangerous in its tendency. It is a direct
appeal to the law of the strongest. The "engendering strifes" and
"dissolving the most endearing relations in life" is not the climax of
its mischief – for it aims at once at armed resistance and CIVIL WAR.
It does not propose the peaceable reference of a great constitutional
question for the Supreme Judiciary but recklessly nullifies the
judiciary itself, at a blow. It does not consent to call a Convention
of the States as an advisory body, and promise an ultimate acquiescence
in its decision, but claims to be its own arbiter and avenger –"throws
itself upon (such) rights as it asserts, ipso arbitrio,
to be reserved – and gathering up into the attitude of defiance, bids
the Union to come on if it durst! That much is the real meaning of
Governor. LUMPKIN, and that he intends to resort to arms in repealing
the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court cannot reasonably be questioned
for he presses upon the Legislature the policy of organizing a more
efficient militia, and recommends the incorporation of volunteer
companies throughout the State – for what purpose? – to afford (we
quote his words) – "a rallying point, in case of sudden alarm from ANY
quarter, foreign or DOMESTIC."

What then is really the present position of our country? Two states out
of twenty-four, have put at defiance two out of the three branches of
the General Government! Georgia has set the example of nullification of
the Judiciary, which South Carolina is following in relation to
Congress. The latter threatens, what the former has practiced. A few
months more will test the permanency of our institutions, and decide
the problem whether man is capable of self-government; — for in a few
months more, unless some signal interposition shall arrest the course
of events in both these States, our national existence is at an end,
and ???? may be inscribed over the halls of the Capitol.

 

[Jim Stiles]

1 hour ago, boblloyd91 said:

Another thing, a few minutes ago I mentioned the part of the D&C that talked about the South calling on Great Britain, and also said the South would call on other nations as well. Looking briefly at "Cotton Democracy" through Google, it also mentions that the Confederacy opened up diplomatic channels through other European powers as well. That didn't happen to my knowledge during the nullification crisis.  

The United Kingdom did not join the Southern cause, like the Joseph Smith Jr. said it would.

[Jim Stiles]

All of the nations of the earth did not join in the US Civil War.  None of the other nations of the world joined in the US Civil War.

We are Quakers on the moon.

[cdowis]

19 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said:

The United Kingdom did not join the Southern cause, like the Joseph Smith Jr. said it would.

I have a habit of asking antiMormons to give us the EXACT quote, rather than their "summary" of what was said.  Now why is that?  Because they are incapable of telling the truth,  and they often change the meaning.

Let me help you with the quote

For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.

Now, sir, show me where it says that "the United Kingdom will join the Southern cause."  Otherwise it is either a matter that you made a typical antiMormon error (Ignorance), or that you deliberately wrote something that was not true.

I wanted to give the opportunity to respond.  Can we depend on your accuracy in the future, or must we waste alot of time checking up on you, or do we simply ignore your hysterical rants.

Edited March 12, 2016 by cdowis

[Jim Stiles]

All of a prophet's prophecies have to become true before there is any question to whether or not this prophet is from God. Not all of Smith's prophesies came true. Smith was not from God.

[Jim Stiles]

8 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I have a habit of asking antiMormons to give us the EXACT quote, rather than their "summary" of what was said.  Now why is that?  Because they are incapable of telling the truth,  and they often change the meaning.

Let me help you with the quote

For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.

Now, sir, show me where it says that "the United Kingdom will join the Southern cause."  Otherwise it is either a matter that you made a typical antiMormon error (Ignorance), or that you deliberately wrote something that was not true.

I wanted to give the opportunity to respond.  Can we depend on your accuracy in the future, or must we waste alot of time checking up on you, or do we simply ignore your hysterical rants.

1. The United Kingdom did not ask other nations to join the Southern cause.
2. War did not pour out upon all nations during the US Civil War.

[Jim Stiles]

15 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I have a habit of asking antiMormons to give us the EXACT quote, rather than their "summary" of what was said.  Now why is that?  Because they are incapable of telling the truth,  and they often change the meaning.

Let me help you with the quote

For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.

Now, sir, show me where it says that "the United Kingdom will join the Southern cause."  Otherwise it is either a matter that you made a typical antiMormon error (Ignorance), or that you deliberately wrote something that was not true.

I wanted to give the opportunity to respond.  Can we depend on your accuracy in the future, or must we waste alot of time checking up on you, or do we simply ignore your hysterical rants.

Joseph Smith Jr. was a liar from the very beginning.

[Calm]

On March 9, 28 Heisei at 6:30 PM, flameburns623 said:

Ignore

 

[Calm]

Quoting problems above,sorry...

Joseph of Egypt used a cup for divination:  Genesis 44

[boblloyd91]

2 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

1. The United Kingdom did not ask other nations to join the Southern cause.
2. War did not pour out upon all nations during the US Civil War.

I said very clearly and the D&C says very clearly the south would ask nations to join its cause not Great Britain.....

Edited March 12, 2016 by boblloyd91

[boblloyd91]

2 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

Joseph Smith Jr. was a liar from the very beginning.

A pattern I keep seeing from you is that when someone challenges you or calls you out on something you resort to making petty comments like those above. Several people have explained to you what the revelation was referring to and actually gave the specific scriptures. I have looked over them several times and honestly think you're purposefully disregarding what we are saying because you already have preconceived biases. The thing I'm wondering is what you hope to gain by talking to us in this manner. If your attempt is to convert us or prove us wrong you're not doing a very good job. In fact after having this discussion I looked at some more details that I feel has strengthened in my mind the validity of this prophecy. Perhaps like you I have my biases as well. If I were you Jim, I would spend more time at some boards that would validate your opinions more, such as carm. I don't think you'll have much success here

[boblloyd91]

3 hours ago, cdowis said:

I have a habit of asking antiMormons to give us the EXACT quote, rather than their "summary" of what was said.  Now why is that?  Because they are incapable of telling the truth,  and they often change the meaning.

Let me help you with the quote

For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.

Now, sir, show me where it says that "the United Kingdom will join the Southern cause."  Otherwise it is either a matter that you made a typical antiMormon error (Ignorance), or that you deliberately wrote something that was not true.

I wanted to give the opportunity to respond.  Can we depend on your accuracy in the future, or must we waste alot of time checking up on you, or do we simply ignore your hysterical rants.

I feel like we're to the point where we have said our part and he has said his part, I don't see this discussion becoming much more productive 

[cdowis]

4 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

All of a prophet's prophecies have to become true before there is any question to whether or not this prophet is from God. Not all of Smith's prophesies came true. Smith was not from God.

Isaiah's prophecy did not come true  Isaiah 38:1  He was a false prophet
Nathan's prophecy did not come true  2 Samuel 7:2-3  He was a false prophet
Jonah's prophecy did not come true. Jonah 3:4  He was a false prophet

All of which prove that prophets can make a mistake (Nathan), God changes His mind (Isaiah), the prophecy had hidden conditions (Jonah) or there was a change in circumstances.  

Edited March 12, 2016 by cdowis

[cdowis]

4 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

War did not pour out upon all nations during the US Civil War.

Let me help you once again

" and then war shall be poured out upon all nations. "  THEN means -- next afterward, soon thereafter. dictionary.com  There was a world war which began a scant 50 years from the end of the Civil War.  The prophecy was fulfilled.  The prophecy does not say that the Civil War caused the Great War, only that it would happen soon thereafter.

It is interesting to note that WWI used much of the technology developed directly from the Civil War -- aerial surveillance (airplanes), logistics (use of railroads to move men and material), trench warfare, metal hulled ships, etc.

Edited March 12, 2016 by cdowis

[flameburns623]

Mr. Stiles is self-evidently predisposed not to engage the LDS Scriptures with the same care he would use in studying his own.

His presuppositions preclude this, apparently.

[Jim Stiles]

15 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

Mr. Stiles is self-evidently predisposed not to engage the LDS Scriptures with the same care he would use in studying his own.

His presuppositions preclude this, apparently.

It seems to me that Smith was saying that a world war would arise from a war between the states.  It did not.

[Jim Stiles]

2 hours ago, boblloyd91 said:

A pattern I keep seeing from you is that when someone challenges you or calls you out on something you resort to making petty comments like those above. Several people have explained to you what the revelation was referring to and actually gave the specific scriptures. I have looked over them several times and honestly think you're purposefully disregarding what we are saying because you already have preconceived biases. The thing I'm wondering is what you hope to gain by talking to us in this manner. If your attempt is to convert us or prove us wrong you're not doing a very good job. In fact after having this discussion I looked at some more details that I feel has strengthened in my mind the validity of this prophecy. Perhaps like you I have my biases as well. If I were you Jim, I would spend more time at some boards that would validate your opinions more, such as carm. I don't think you'll have much success here

I was called a liar.  I merely informed him what the score was.

[mfbukowski]

20 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

It is the LDS Church generally and Joseph Smith Jr. specifically who believe in folk magic.  Seer stones and peep stones and Jupiter Talismans and water witches infect LDS history.

Well that is how someone like Joseph Smith Jr. would have been treated in Ancient Israel.

You of course are wrong, and we have no basis for communication.  You have no comprehension of any of this and it is a waste of time to talk to you.

Your whole presupposition is that anyone can presuppose anything they like and then their position cannot be assailed.

That means you are not capable of attacking anyone else's position because they have different presuppositions.  What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Every word you say here violates your own assumptions, and presumes that your OWN POSITION is in fact invalid, that presuppositions cannot be attacked. Yet you attack other's views. That is a contradiction.  If no one can attack your presuppositions, you can in turn not attack anyone else's either.

Hey I didn't make this nonsense up

Why people are still flapping their gums at you is a mystery.  Why I wrote even this much is a bigger one.

 

Edited March 12, 2016 by mfbukowski
too subtle

[flameburns623]

32 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said:

It seems to me that Smith was saying that a world war would arise from a war between the states.  It did not.

A big problem with interfaith apologetics is that almost no one "graduates" out of "Apologetics 101".

That's a tagline which is popular with a couple of apologetics radio broadcasts, and it speaks to a fairly basic approach: a casual familiarity with the subject accompanied by a few bytes of information which sound snappy on the radio, and perhaps as a quick comeback over the water cooler at work.

But one-liners are not either dialogue nor a substitute for real, disciplined systematic unpacking of all of the evidence and of all the prior assumptions and underlying values which go into something as complex as a personal religious commitment.

A web forum such as this one has some potential for carrying a conversation up a notch or so. You can provide citations, you can link to articles, you can take some time and space developing your argument.

The down side is that even with thr best of moderation, conversations often break down just as they begin to make headway. The "argumentum ad Hitlerum" gets tossed into the mix, or tempers flare, or the best contributor(s) to the conversation get bored or busy and walk away.

On really badly moderated forums, once the "opposing" side starts to score too many points, the thread gets closed. (That is ALLEGED to happen more often than it does happen, from my observation: a lot of times the person who claims victory was actually the one getting nasty or breaking rules).

In this case, Mr. Stiles, I think you picked a bad example for your assertion. And you simply weren't familiar enough with the subject matter to make a convincing point.

You might try looking at FAIR/LDS apologetics articles before introducing a subject, and see if you can put together a coherent rebuttal to one of those before introducing stale, well-rehearsed stuff that most regulars have seen over and again.

And try to curb your own temper and maintain a high tone, even if others do not.

[boblloyd91]

6 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

It seems to me that Smith was saying that a world war would arise from a war between the states.  It did not.

It also seems that you disregard and haven't seriously answered the rebuttals several of us have given you about the above statement.....

[boblloyd91]

6 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

I was called a liar.  I merely informed him what the score was.

I myself wouldn't go so far as to call you a liar, but do feel that based on your responses to our rebuttals regarding your accusations there is a good case for willful ignorance 

[boblloyd91]

5 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

A big problem with interfaith apologetics is that almost no one "graduates" out of "Apologetics 101".

That's a tagline which is popular with a couple of apologetics radio broadcasts, and it speaks to a fairly basic approach: a casual familiarity with the subject accompanied by a few bytes of information which sound snappy on the radio, and perhaps as a quick comeback over the water cooler at work.

But one-liners are not either dialogue nor a substitute for real, disciplined systematic unpacking of all of the evidence and of all the prior assumptions and underlying values which go into something as complex as a personal religious commitment.

A web forum such as this one has some potential for carrying a conversation up a notch or so. You can provide citations, you can link to articles, you can take some time and space developing your argument.

The down side is that even with thr best of moderation, conversations often break down just as they begin to make headway. The "argumentum ad Hitlerum" gets tossed into the mix, or tempers flare, or the best contributor(s) to the conversation get bored or busy and walk away.

On really badly moderated forums, once the "opposing" side starts to score too many points, the thread gets closed. (That is ALLEGED to happen more often than it does happen, from my observation: a lot of times the person who claims victory was actually the one getting nasty or breaking rules).

In this case, Mr. Stiles, I think you picked a bad example for your assertion. And you simply weren't familiar enough with the subject matter to make a convincing point.

You might try looking at FAIR/LDS apologetics articles before introducing a subject, and see if you can put together a coherent rebuttal to one of those before introducing stale, well-rehearsed stuff that most regulars have seen over and again.

And try to curb your own temper and maintain a high tone, even if others do not.

Like I said, there are places such as CARM where he may feel more at home and can more fully validate what I think he's trying to accomplish here