Plea to Meso American Apologist

[cdowis]

4 hours ago, carlitos said:

Meldrum is my hero. Archaeologists found a lot of Book of Mormon items in the United States. The United States is the promise land. 

Interesting.  How unfortunate.

My hero is the facts.  I examine the evidence and facts, and draw my own conclusions.  I do pay attention to what others say, including Meldrum, but I need no one but myself to come to a conclusion.

Indeed, I have been criticized because my view of the LGT is not the "official" one.  He quoted one "expert" after another to show my view was .... impure, unconventional.

Edited August 30, 2016 by cdowis

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, carlitos said:

United States in the only free country in the western hemisphere.

 ...oh wait, you were serious?

[sheilauk]

5 hours ago, carlitos said:

United States in the only free country in the western hemisphere. 

Thanks.  I'm pretty sure I live in a country in the western hemisphere and its as free as the USA is.  US exceptionalism gets tiresome.

[JLHPROF]

30 minutes ago, carlitos said:

Correct! Canada is socialist, all the other nations are statist.   

Being Socialist in certain areas of government does NOT preclude a country from being free.
American is not Socialist and we are just as lacking in freedom as any "socialist" country.

Having lived in England, Canada, and the US, I can say with 100% certainty that America is NOT the most free of those three nations.

Edited August 31, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Vance]

Rajah Manchou said: Read the verses above again, and try to identify the American continent in them. Try to identify where America is more special than any of the other isles of the sea.

 

I don't need to read those verses to find it.  I can get there with this,

10 We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory. 

 

In connection with this,

3 Nephi 20:22 And behold, this people will I establish in this land, unto the fulfilling of the covenant which I made with your father Jacob; and it shall be a New Jerusalem. And the powers of heaven shall be in the midst of this people; yea, even I will be in the midst of you.

Ether 13:4 Behold, Ether saw the days of Christ, and he spake concerning a New Jerusalem upon this land.

  5 And he spake also concerning the house of Israel, and the Jerusalem from whence Lehi should come—after it should be destroyed it should be built up again, a holy city unto the Lord; wherefore, it could not be a new Jerusalem for it had been in a time of old; but it should be built up again, and become a holy city of the Lord; and it should be built unto the house of Israel.

  6 And that a New Jerusalem should be built up upon this land, unto the remnant of the seed of Joseph, for which things there has been a type.

 

And this,

2 Nephi 10:20 And now, my beloved brethren, seeing that our merciful God has given us so great knowledge concerning these things, let us remember him, and lay aside our sins, and not hang down our heads, for we are not cast off; nevertheless, we have been driven out of the land of our inheritance; but we have been led to a better land, for the Lord has made the sea our path, and we are upon an isle of the sea.

 

Simple logic.

 

Edited August 31, 2016 by Vance

[drichins]

https://thelunchisfree.wordpress.com/2016/03/21/mapping-the-book-of-mormon/

[Calm]

dr, I am wondering why you assume that "neck" in narrow "neck" is a play on words/metaphor by Mormon.  I am not saying it is not, but since neck is common usage (and was in JS's time) to describe a certain type of land formation, I don't see the need.

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Neck

[cdowis]

38 minutes ago, carlitos said:

I know Meldrum is correct because the spirit told me 

OK, so BOM geography is doctrine.  (This is a very common statement from the disciples of Meldrum.)

Perhaps he should suggest to the church that his geography be taught in the seminary and SS classes, and included in the Gospel Doctrine manual.  In the meantime, I'll follow the evidence and facts.

[Vance]

from the blog,

Here are some of the facts that we can easily deduce:

• Lehi’s family arrived on the west coast.

 

This is an unsupported assumption, not anywhere near the status of "fact".

 

[JLHPROF]

34 minutes ago, carlitos said:

because Obama's war on freedom and religion. I am sure we will get our country back soon. I know God will bless America, he promised that in the scriptures. 

You need to reread your scriptures.

And God promised he would make an end of ALL nations.  That includes the good old US of A.
Maybe Obama's just helping him out.

Edited August 31, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Sleeper Cell]

2 hours ago, carlitos said:

I know Meldrum is correct because the spirit told me

I find this quite disturbing,  My concern has nothing to do with the merits of the competing theories discussed in this thread. (Indeed, I don’t really have a strong opinion on the subject).  Nor do I rule out the possibility that the spirit may have told you that Meldrum is correct  But to bear your testimony about the truth of Meldrum’s teachings?  What‘s next?   “I know that Joseph Smith was a prophet, that the Book of Mormon is true, and that Meldrum is correct?"

 

 

[Calm]

Apparently the mods were disturbed as well.  Perhaps he was a troll.

[Rajah Manchou]

7 hours ago, Vance said:

10 We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory. 

And this,

2 Nephi 10:20 And now, my beloved brethren, seeing that our merciful God has given us so great knowledge concerning these things, let us remember him, and lay aside our sins, and not hang down our heads, for we are not cast off; nevertheless, we have been driven out of the land of our inheritance; but we have been led to a better land, for the Lord has made the sea our path, and we are upon an isle of the sea.

 

Simple logic.

I agree that it is simple logic, and it seems clear that all the isles of the sea are included in the promise. 

On 8/30/2016 at 9:32 AM, Vance said:

21 But great are the promises of the Lord unto them who are upon the isles of the sea; wherefore as it says isles, there must needs be more than this, and they are inhabited also by our brethren.

I believe everything between the east indies and the west indies to be a part of the land of promise. If you disagree than could you provide some guidance on where to draw the borderline between Jacob's isle of the sea and the other isles of the sea that were inhabited by his brethren? There is a very intelligent statement in 2 Nephi 10:20-21. The Lehites were on an isle in the sea, among many other isles of the sea. Maybe it was North America maybe it was South America or maybe it was somewhere in the Pacific or Atlantic. It hardly matters because these categories weren't known to the author(s) of the Book of Mormon. To them, everything beyond the Arabian Sea was an isle in the sea. And all these isles are also inhabited by Israel and are promised many great things, including a restoration and a gathering to the New Jerusalem in what will become a place called Missouri in a place that will be called America.

We look back at it all with our 21st century understanding of geography and we lay down our modern political borders over top of the Book of Mormon promised land and include Hawaii, American Samoa and Guam, but exclude the Philippines (which was once a colony of the US) because looking at our modern maps they look so far away, even though parts of East Asia and Japan are technically still on the North American plate. Its unnecessarily restrictive. There is nothing in the Book of Mormon that suggests we should exclude any isle in the sea. And then we have official publications from the Church that include the islands of the South Pacific - which extend to the East Indies - as refuge for the Lamanite remnant along with North and South America:

Quote

“The Lord said that when His coming was near, the Lamanites would become a righteous and respected people…. This sign is coming to pass as great numbers of Lamanites in Central and South America and the South Pacific receive the blessings of the gospel” (Gospel Principles, 1978 ed., 198). The 1997 edition changed this statement slightly to say that the Lamanites were “in North and South America and the South Pacific” (1997 ed., 268). The current edition still affirms that descendants of the Book of Mormon peoples are a numerous presence in the world today but without saying where: “Great numbers of Lehi’s descendants are now receiving the blessings of the gospel”. 

The Book of Mormon never refers to anything but the isles of the sea, and we have no idea what that includes, so why would we even try to exclude when we can include?

 

Edited August 31, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[waveslider]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

American is not Socialist and we are just as lacking in freedom as any "socialist" country.

America sure is acting more and more like a socialist country. It just seems like it isn't out of the closet yet, on being socialist. What is Social security? the Affordable Health Care Act? Common Core assessment and curriculum? Food stamp cards, and welfare? Etc.. These all seem a lot like socialist programs to me. How many governmental agencies are run by people who can't be voted in or out of their positions of power, in it's overreaching of the power that regulates American citizens? They are in denial that these agencies are creating laws and enforcing them, because they call them regulations, but if a person defies those regulations they still end up with fines and/or jail time, so it seems like it is only semantics that regulations aren't the same thing as laws. The U.S. is just socialism in denial, if you ask me. It is growing so bad that it doesn't even obey it's own constitution, which is the law that is supposed to regulate the government, not the people. The idea of these United States would allow freedoms that exceed these other countries listed on your post, if it were allowed to still be in existence. The state that currently runs the U.S., known as the Federal Government, doesn't follow the idea of what this country was meant to be in the first place, to even exist. Socialism doesn't equal freedom, it stifles it, one regulation at a time. Just my two cents worth anyway.

[Bobbieaware]

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

You need to reread your scriptures.

And God promised he would make an end of ALL nations.  That includes the good old US of A.
Maybe Obama's just helping him out.

In light of the D&C's prophecy on war, that asserts the Lord will make a full end of all nations, one wonders how the following famous millennial prediction by Brigham Young fits into the framework of that prophecy?

"When the day comes in which the Kingdom of God will bear rule, the flag of the United States will proudly flutter unsullied on the flag staff of liberty and equal rights, without a spot to sully its fair surface; the glorious flag our fathers have bequeathed to us will then be unfurled to the breeze by those who have power to hoist it aloft and defend its sanctity." (Brigham Young)

Could it mean that the millennial government of the kingdom of God on earth will be patterned after the Constitution of the United Satetes of America? Based on the following verses from the Doctrine and Covenants, this seems quite likely...

 

5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.

 6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

 7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil. (D&C 98)

 

 

 

Edited August 31, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[waveslider]

6 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

In light of the D&C's prophecy on war, that asserts the Lord will make a full end of all nations, one wonders how the following famous millennial prediction by Brigham Young fits into the framework of that prophecy?

"When the day comes in which the Kingdom of God will bear rule, the flag of the United States will proudly flutter unsullied on the flag staff of liberty and equal rights, without a spot to sully its fair surface; the glorious flag our fathers have bequeathed to us will then be unfurled to the breeze by those who have power to hoist it aloft and defend its sanctity." (Brigham Young)

Could it mean that the millennial government of the kingdom of God on earth will be patterned after the Constitution of the United Satetes of America? Based on the following verses from the Doctrine and Covenants, this seems quite likely...

 

5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.

 6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

 7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil. (D&C 98)

 

 

 

It will be the elders of this church who uphold the flag and constitution of the U.S., not necessarily the government.

[Calm]

Otoh, it appears early church leaders including JS were not too happy about the Constitution and surely it was meant for the Kingdom of God to cover the whole earth post millennium:

"Joseph Smith and other members of the Council of Fifty believed that the council would serve as the government of the kingdom of God both before and after the second coming of Jesus Christ. In their view, not all good men and women either before the Second Coming or during at least the initial stages of the Millennium would be church members.[13] Council members emphasized that everyone would enjoy religious liberty in the kingdom of God. Joseph Smith invited three men who were not church members to join the council to demonstrate the importance of religious liberty and equal rights to the council.[14]

Council members also attempted to write a constitution for the kingdom of God that would reflect the principles of theodemocracy...

On the day of the council’s organization, John Taylor, Willard Richards, William W. Phelps, and Parley P. Pratt were appointed a committee to “draft a constitution which should be perfect, and embrace those principles which the constitution of the United States lacked.”[18] Joseph Smith and other council members criticized the U.S. Constitution for not protecting liberty with enough vigor.[19] After the council’s committee reported its draft of the constitution, Smith instructed the council to “let the constitution alone.” He then dictated a revelation: “Verily thus saith the Lord, ye are my constitution, and I am your God, and ye are my spokesmen. From henceforth do as I shall command you. Saith the Lord.”"

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2016-fairmormon-conference/people-kingdom-god

Edited August 31, 2016 by Calm

[Bob Crockett]

Right.   Brigham Young moved the Saints to Mexico (the Great Basin) to get away from the United States and state authority.  He didn't anticipate the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo where the Mexicans would lose that territory.   I've not been a big believer in the theory that the U.S. Constitution was heaven-breathed.  The whole slavery thing kinds of tears that notion apart.

[waveslider]

2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Right.   Brigham Young moved the Saints to Mexico (the Great Basin) to get away from the United States and state authority.  He didn't anticipate the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo where the Mexicans would lose that territory.   I've not been a big believer in the theory that the U.S. Constitution was heaven-breathed.  The whole slavery thing kinds of tears that notion apart.

Slavery wasn't ever constitutional. The U.S. wasn't based on slavery:

" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence

Slavery was just one of the first breaches of the U.S. constitution in a long line of breaches.

[ksfisher]

54 minutes ago, waveslider said:

Slavery wasn't ever constitutional. The U.S. wasn't based on slavery:

" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence

Slavery was just one of the first breaches of the U.S. constitution in a long line of breaches.

The Constitution and the Declaration are two different documents.  The Declaration is just that, a declaration, it's not a legally binding document. 

[waveslider]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

The Constitution and the Declaration are two different documents.  The Declaration is just that, a declaration, it's not a legally binding document. 

The citation from my quoted text came automatically generated, when I copied and pasted it, from my digital copy of the constitution and the declaration of independence, from the, "LDS Scriptures," app. Regardless if it isn't part of the constitution or not, the bill of rights is part of it and slavery is definitely breaching many of the amendments that constitute the bill of rights. so I still stand by my words

3 hours ago, waveslider said:

Slavery was just one of the first breaches of the U.S. constitution in a long line of breaches.

 

Edited September 1, 2016 by waveslider
forgot to at a line to a sentence

[Calm]

11 hours ago, waveslider said:

Slavery wasn't ever constitutional. The U.S. wasn't based on slavery:

" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence

Slavery was just one of the first breaches of the U.S. constitution in a long line of breaches.

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons" 

"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec9.html

Edited September 1, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

"If the absence of an ironclad guarantee of a right to property in men really “quashed” the slaveholders, it should be apparent in the rest of the document, by which the nation was actually governed. But of the 11 clauses in the Constitution that deal with or have policy implications for slavery, 10 protect slave property and the powers of masters. Only one, the international slave-trade clause, points to a possible future power by which, after 20 years, slavery might be curtailed—and it didn’t work out that way at all.

The three-fifths clause, which states that three-fifths of “all other persons” (i.e. slaves) will be counted for both taxation and representation, was a major boon to the slave states. This is well known; it’s astounding to see Wilentz try to pooh-pooh it. No, it wasn’t counting five-fifths, but counting 60 percent of slaves added enormously to slave-state power in the formative years of the republic. By 1800, northern critics called this phenomenon “the slave power” and called for its repeal. With the aid of the second article of the Constitution, which numbered presidential electors by adding the number of representatives in the House to the number of senators, the three-fifths clause enabled the elections of plantation masters Jefferson in 1800 and Polk in 1844."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/how-the-constitution-was-indeed-pro-slavery/406288/

[cdowis]

And without this compromise, the Constitution would never have passed.  It was a "necessary evil" and despised by many at the Convention.  But they saw that they had no choice, and hoped to settle the issue of slavery at a  later time.

Edited September 1, 2016 by cdowis

[Vance]

"This is well known; it’s astounding to see Wilentz try to pooh-pooh it. No, it wasn’t counting five-fifths, but counting 60 percent of slaves added enormously to slave-state power in the formative years of the republic."

 

Yes, but it was better than counting 100% of the slaves to even give greater power to the slave states. 

Edited September 4, 2016 by Vance