The Truth about Mormons

[Truthspeaker]

I have already dealt with the so called contradictions you brought up. And by the way, just because a thing hasn't been found doesn't mean it ain't there. by the way horses? That's the oldest one in the anti-mormon book. It's already been proven that horses were here pre-columbus, but the anti's have been blabbering on about it for so long they don't know how to stop. You think that is gonna rock my faith?
Why don't you guys get a life and go practice what you believe and stop trying to tear down others faiths?
happy reading!
and please, I double dog dare you to actually read this and repeat back to me that you comprehend it. Then if you have a problem with something, let address one issue at a time so we can take time to answer your "honest" questions.
Book of Mormon Problems: Plants and Animals

Also please bear in mind and take note that nearly all the sources quoted are from non-mormon sources, even though a scientist is a scientist, mormon or not, it shouldn't matter.

 

[Eightball]

I have already dealt with the so called contradictions you brought up. And by the way, just because a thing hasn't been found doesn't mean it ain't there. by the way horses? That's the oldest one in the anti-mormon book. It's already been proven that horses were here pre-columbus, but the anti's have been blabbering on about it for so long they don't know how to stop. You think that is gonna rock my faith?
Why don't you guys get a life and go practice what you believe and stop trying to tear down others faiths?
happy reading!
and please, I double dog dare you to actually read this and repeat back to me that you comprehend it. Then if you have a problem with something, let address one issue at a time so we can take time to answer your "honest" questions.
Book of Mormon Problems: Plants and Animals

Also please bear in mind and take note that nearly all the sources quoted are from non-mormon sources, even though a scientist is a scientist, mormon or not, it shouldn't matter. Yeah non-Christian idiots like Copernicus that told the church that the world was round should have kept their collective mouths shut and let the church propagate extra-biblica teachings that the earth was flat.

Pre-Columbus horses were in the genre of Eohippus......and were about the size of large dogs, and also became extinct a very long time before man walked the soils of N. or S. America.

Eohippus, is the early genre of the modern or present day horse that the Europeans brought with the first Spanish landfalls in the New World.

In the fossil record, it disappeared from these continents millions of years before man's landfall here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eohippus
You have better chances of proving the existence of unicorns than hanging onto the BOM's fantasia of alleged facts about the history, flora, and fauna, of these two continents.

At least Jesus made sense in the bible, and so did His disciples. They didn't fill the bible with these long-winded tales that rival Princess Bride, and the Land of Nimh.

In the bible, we have solid, coherent, writings that teach, exonnerate, encourage, each and every believer on their true identity/life in Christ, through His 100% encompassing attonement for all mankind past, present and future.

Even Narnia makes more sense than Mormon doctrine as it is allegorically based on actual bible doctrine. There are myriads of allegorical books, with "Pilgrim's Progess" being another great milestone of Christian based literature. Author Jonathan Edwards would turn over in his grave to know that millions of people worldwide have "bought" into such nonesense of LDS doctrine.

Christian doctrine from the bible is not authored with any intent, but to "call" the lost, feed the sheep, and glorify God, not man.

 

[Avatar4321]

Pre-Columbus horses were in the genre of Eohippus......and were about the size of large dogs, and also became extinct a very long time before man walked the soils of N. or S. America.

Eohippus, is the early genre of the modern or present day horse that the Europeans brought with the first Spanish landfalls in the New World.

In the fossil record, it disappeared from these continents millions of years before man's landfall here.
Hyracotherium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have better chances of proving the existence of unicorns than hanging onto the BOM's fantasia of alleged facts about the history, flora, and fauna, of these two continents.

At least Jesus made sense in the bible, and so did His disciples. They didn't fill the bible with these long-winded tales that rival Princess Bride, and the Land of Nimh.

In the bible, we have solid, coherent, writings that teach, exonnerate, encourage, each and every believer on their true identity/life in Christ, through His 100% encompassing attonement for all mankind past, present and future.

Even Narnia makes more sense than Mormon doctrine as it is allegorically based on actual bible doctrine. There are myriads of allegorical books, with "Pilgrim's Progess" being another great milestone of Christian based literature. Author Jonathan Edwards would turn over in his grave to know that millions of people worldwide have "bought" into such nonesense of LDS doctrine.

Christian doctrine from the bible is not authored with any intent, but to "call" the lost, feed the sheep, and glorify God, not man.

All I hear is: Blah blah blah blah blah.

Are you done pontificating? Would you like to have an actual discussion rather than simply talk for the sake of talking? Granted, that would mean you'd have to listen first.

What is nonsense about the Doctrines of Christ? What is nonsense about faith in Jesus Christ, Repentence, Baptism for the remission of sin, and the Laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost?

What is nonsense about the reality of the Atonement? The Resurrection from the dead? The Gifts of the Spirit? What is nonsense about Revelation?

Tell me, which of all those basic doctrines offends you?

 

[Truthspeaker]

I have already dealt with the so called contradictions you brought up. And by the way, just because a thing hasn't been found doesn't mean it ain't there. by the way horses? That's the oldest one in the anti-mormon book. It's already been proven that horses were here pre-columbus, but the anti's have been blabbering on about it for so long they don't know how to stop. You think that is gonna rock my faith?
Why don't you guys get a life and go practice what you believe and stop trying to tear down others faiths?
happy reading!
and please, I double dog dare you to actually read this and repeat back to me that you comprehend it. Then if you have a problem with something, let address one issue at a time so we can take time to answer your "honest" questions.
Book of Mormon Problems: Plants and Animals

Also please bear in mind and take note that nearly all the sources quoted are from non-mormon sources, even though a scientist is a scientist, mormon or not, it shouldn't matter. Yeah non-Christian idiots like Copernicus that told the church that the world was round should have kept their collective mouths shut and let the church propagate extra-biblica teachings that the earth was flat.

Pre-Columbus horses were in the genre of Eohippus......and were about the size of large dogs, and also became extinct a very long time before man walked the soils of N. or S. America.

Eohippus, is the early genre of the modern or present day horse that the Europeans brought with the first Spanish landfalls in the New World.

In the fossil record, it disappeared from these continents millions of years before man's landfall here.
Hyracotherium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have better chances of proving the existence of unicorns than hanging onto the BOM's fantasia of alleged facts about the history, flora, and fauna, of these two continents.

At least Jesus made sense in the bible, and so did His disciples. They didn't fill the bible with these long-winded tales that rival Princess Bride, and the Land of Nimh.

In the bible, we have solid, coherent, writings that teach, exonnerate, encourage, each and every believer on their true identity/life in Christ, through His 100% encompassing attonement for all mankind past, present and future.

Even Narnia makes more sense than Mormon doctrine as it is allegorically based on actual bible doctrine. There are myriads of allegorical books, with "Pilgrim's Progess" being another great milestone of Christian based literature. Author Jonathan Edwards would turn over in his grave to know that millions of people worldwide have "bought" into such nonesense of LDS doctrine.

Christian doctrine from the bible is not authored with any intent, but to "call" the lost, feed the sheep, and glorify God, not man.

Since you refuse to read the links I post, you end up looking like and idiot. I won't let you get off that easy though. Sorry about the length of this but at least you couldn't say I didn't cite my sources. And it ain't like you never posted long winded entries before so I don't wanna hear it about the length. Read and weep:

Yes, the fossil record is now clear on that point, but it is widely thought that they were extinct before Book of Mormon times. However, that assumption may be incorrect. I quote from a review by Matthew Roper in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Volume 4, 1992, p.208:

Scholars no longer doubt that horses were present in the New World during the Pleistocene period. Although many believe that horses were extinct long before the Book of Mormon era, there is still disagreement as to just how long horses survived in the New World. Some scholars believe that horses could have survived as late as 3000 B.C. [see discussion in Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon, 98-99]. Ivan Sanderson states that "there is a body of evidence both from the mainland of Central America and even from rock drawings in Haiti . . . tending to show that the horse may have been known to man in the Americas before the coming of the Spaniards." Sanderson further suggests that it is conceivable that "isolated small populations of horses or horse-like animals continued to exist until much later times in outlying corners of the two continents where conditions were suitable to their requirements and where they were free from whatever animal foes or parasitic diseases caused their extermination" elsewhere [Ivan T. Sanderson, Living Treasure (New York: Viking Press, 1941), 39-40]. Pre-Columbian horse remains that showed no signs of fossilization have actually been found in several sites on the Yucatan Peninsula ["Once Again the Horse," F.A.R.M.S. Update, June 1984; John Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon, 98-100]. In 1957, Mayapan, a Post-Classic Mayan site, yielded the remains of horses at a depth of two meters under ground. They were "considered to be pre-Columbian on the basis of depth of burial and degree of mineralization"[Clayton E. Ray, "Pre-Columbian Horses from Yucatan," Journal of Mammalogy 38 (May 1957): 278].

In the Yucatan area, horse remains were found during archaeological investigations in three caves (see Henry Chapman Mercer, The Hill-Caves of Yucatan: A Search for Evidence of Man's Antiquity in the Caverns of Central America, Lippincott, Philadelphia, 1896, p. 172, as cited in Reexploring the Book of Mormon, p. 99). These remains were associated with signs of human activity (potsherds), and bore with no sign of fossilization. More recently, 1978 excavations at the Loltun Cave in the Maya lowlands also yielded the remains of horses (see Institute of Maya Studies, Miami Museum of Science, Newsletter 7, no. 11, Nov. 1978, p. 2, as cited in Reexploring the Book of Mormon, p. 99).

That seems pretty significant: the discovery of pre-Columbian, non-fossil horse remains from Book of Mormon times in the Book of Mormon setting of Mesoamerica. Careful work remains to be done in dating and classifying these remains. But it should be clear that references to horses in the Book of Mormon are insufficient grounds for rejecting the book as fraudulent. This doesn't prove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, but helps establish the possibility of plausibility on one minute issue - and should serve to warn us about the risky and tentative nature of conclusions drawn from arguments of silence (failure to find something does not necessarily mean it never existed).

Further, there is linguistic evidence for American horses before Columbus:

"No systematic research has been done comparing the names of animals in the Near East and Mesoamerica. Just as we saw with the metals, perhaps also with beasts: clarifying links may appear through linguistic studies. A hint of the possibilities derives from work on the Yuman language group (located around the lower Colorado River, near the U.S.-Mexican border). Reconstructing the protoculture associated with the ancestral Yuman language by comparing the descendant tongues, an investigator reconstructed a word for "horse" on strong evidence [Howard W. Law, "A Reconstructed Proto-Culture Derived from Some Yuman Vocabularies," Anthropological Linguistics 3 (1961):54]. That is, the indications are that a term for horse was shared by those people long before European horses arrived. The evidence is not foolproof, of course, but it does demand some alternative explanation if we are not to suppose early knowledge of the horse."

(John L. Sorenson in An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, Deseret Book Comp., SLC, UT (1985), p. 297.)

I received e-mail from someone with ties to the Cherokee tribe (may have been a member of the tribe), a people legendary for their skills with horses. He claimed that Cherokee tradition maintains that they had horses before the Spaniards came and that Cherokee had a long and ancient tradition of working with horses, horses that were native to this continent. I am not familiar with Cherokee traditions, but I have never heard scholars explain why the Indians of North America suddenly proved to be far better horsemen than the Spaniards ever were once the Spaniards (supposedly) introduced the horse to this continent. Skills and traditions involving horses and other animals don't emerge suddenly - it's the kind of thing that would seem to require many generations of development. I do have one interesting piece of evidence that I encountered on a trip to Canyonlands National Park in southern Utah. There is a famous slab of stone with ancient petroglyphs there called "Newspaper Rock." The carvings on the rock date from roughly 100 A.D. to 1500 A.D., overlapping into the post-Spanish period. There are many carvings that may have been made over the centuries, but right in the middle of the rock, one of the most prominent carvings - in the place that I would choose as one of the first places to carve - is a man riding a horse. Was there a big blank spot conveniently left after centuries of carving for a late Indian to carve something he saw from the Spaniards, or was this a more ancient carving depicting something of importance to Indian culture? (Update from 2002: it may be that the central horse carving was inscribed over earlier, older carvings that had become covered with tarnish, as was suggested to me in 2002 in correspondance with someone familiar with Newspaper Rock.)

A recent article in National Geographic News, "Remains Show Ancient Horses Were Hunted for Their Meat," by Hillary Mayell, May 11, 2001, reports that ancient spear points have been found with identifiable horse protein on them, indicating that horses were hunted for food. These horses are believed to have gone extinct 10,000 years ago, though again, pockets of them may have survived in some places, such as Book of Mormon lands. They were probably smaller than modern horses, perhaps unsuitable for riding - which the Book of Mormon does not require - but plenty big for herding and eating, as the Book of Mormon does imply.
Could other species be meant? To the index at the top

It may be naive to assume that the word "horse" necessarily refers to the species of we know today. The Hebrew word for horse , "sus", has a root meaning of "to leap" and can refer to other animals as well - including the swallow (J. L. Sorenson, Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 345). Since deer also leap, it is not impossible that the early Nephites might have described them with a word related to "sus" or even the word "sus" itself. (Sorenson notes also that "ss" in Egyptian means horse, while "shs" is antelope). Could the "horse" of the Book of Mormon be Mesoamerican deer?

John L. Sorenson has suggested the latter possibility and has pointed to archaeological specimens showing humans riding on the backs of animal figures, some of which are evidently deer. Also Mayan languages used the term deer for Spanish horses and deer-rider for horsemen. Indians of Zinacantan, Chiapas, believe that the mythical "Earth Owner," who is supposed to be rich and live inside a mountain, rides on deer. In addition, the Aztec account of the Spanish Conquest used terms like the-deer-which-carried-men-upon-their-backs, called horses (see Bernardino de Sahagun, The War of Conquest: How It Was Waged Here in Mexico, trans. A. J. Anderson and C. E. Dibble [Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1978], pp. 28, 35, 55, 60).

--Quoted from Reexploring the Book of Mormon, John Welch, ed., Deseret Book, SLC, UT, 1992, p. 98).

Further work needs to be done to better understand what "horses" in the Book of Mormon actually refers to and how they were used. If anything, though, the occurrence of the "horses" in the Book of Mormon should serve as an invitation for further scholarship, not as a reason for ending it.

For additional information, see the Chapman Research page on Horses in the Book of Mormon.

 

[Eightball]

I have already dealt with the so called contradictions you brought up. And by the way, just because a thing hasn't been found doesn't mean it ain't there. by the way horses? That's the oldest one in the anti-mormon book. It's already been proven that horses were here pre-columbus, but the anti's have been blabbering on about it for so long they don't know how to stop. You think that is gonna rock my faith?
Why don't you guys get a life and go practice what you believe and stop trying to tear down others faiths?
happy reading!
and please, I double dog dare you to actually read this and repeat back to me that you comprehend it. Then if you have a problem with something, let address one issue at a time so we can take time to answer your "honest" questions.
Book of Mormon Problems: Plants and Animals

Also please bear in mind and take note that nearly all the sources quoted are from non-mormon sources, even though a scientist is a scientist, mormon or not, it shouldn't matter. Yeah non-Christian idiots like Copernicus that told the church that the world was round should have kept their collective mouths shut and let the church propagate extra-biblica teachings that the earth was flat.

Pre-Columbus horses were in the genre of Eohippus......and were about the size of large dogs, and also became extinct a very long time before man walked the soils of N. or S. America.

Eohippus, is the early genre of the modern or present day horse that the Europeans brought with the first Spanish landfalls in the New World.

In the fossil record, it disappeared from these continents millions of years before man's landfall here.
Hyracotherium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have better chances of proving the existence of unicorns than hanging onto the BOM's fantasia of alleged facts about the history, flora, and fauna, of these two continents.

At least Jesus made sense in the bible, and so did His disciples. They didn't fill the bible with these long-winded tales that rival Princess Bride, and the Land of Nimh.

In the bible, we have solid, coherent, writings that teach, exonnerate, encourage, each and every believer on their true identity/life in Christ, through His 100% encompassing attonement for all mankind past, present and future.

Even Narnia makes more sense than Mormon doctrine as it is allegorically based on actual bible doctrine. There are myriads of allegorical books, with "Pilgrim's Progess" being another great milestone of Christian based literature. Author Jonathan Edwards would turn over in his grave to know that millions of people worldwide have "bought" into such nonesense of LDS doctrine.

Christian doctrine from the bible is not authored with any intent, but to "call" the lost, feed the sheep, and glorify God, not man.

Since you refuse to read the links I post, you end up looking like and idiot. I won't let you get off that easy though. Sorry about the length of this but at least you couldn't say I didn't cite my sources. And it ain't like you never posted long winded entries before so I don't wanna hear it about the length. Read and weep:

Yes, the fossil record is now clear on that point, but it is widely thought that they were extinct before Book of Mormon times. However, that assumption may be incorrect. I quote from a review by Matthew Roper in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Volume 4, 1992, p.208:

Scholars no longer doubt that horses were present in the New World during the Pleistocene period. Although many believe that horses were extinct long before the Book of Mormon era, there is still disagreement as to just how long horses survived in the New World. Some scholars believe that horses could have survived as late as 3000 B.C. [see discussion in Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon, 98-99]. Ivan Sanderson states that "there is a body of evidence both from the mainland of Central America and even from rock drawings in Haiti . . . tending to show that the horse may have been known to man in the Americas before the coming of the Spaniards." Sanderson further suggests that it is conceivable that "isolated small populations of horses or horse-like animals continued to exist until much later times in outlying corners of the two continents where conditions were suitable to their requirements and where they were free from whatever animal foes or parasitic diseases caused their extermination" elsewhere [Ivan T. Sanderson, Living Treasure (New York: Viking Press, 1941), 39-40]. Pre-Columbian horse remains that showed no signs of fossilization have actually been found in several sites on the Yucatan Peninsula ["Once Again the Horse," F.A.R.M.S. Update, June 1984; John Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon, 98-100]. In 1957, Mayapan, a Post-Classic Mayan site, yielded the remains of horses at a depth of two meters under ground. They were "considered to be pre-Columbian on the basis of depth of burial and degree of mineralization"[Clayton E. Ray, "Pre-Columbian Horses from Yucatan," Journal of Mammalogy 38 (May 1957): 278].

In the Yucatan area, horse remains were found during archaeological investigations in three caves (see Henry Chapman Mercer, The Hill-Caves of Yucatan: A Search for Evidence of Man's Antiquity in the Caverns of Central America, Lippincott, Philadelphia, 1896, p. 172, as cited in Reexploring the Book of Mormon, p. 99). These remains were associated with signs of human activity (potsherds), and bore with no sign of fossilization. More recently, 1978 excavations at the Loltun Cave in the Maya lowlands also yielded the remains of horses (see Institute of Maya Studies, Miami Museum of Science, Newsletter 7, no. 11, Nov. 1978, p. 2, as cited in Reexploring the Book of Mormon, p. 99).

That seems pretty significant: the discovery of pre-Columbian, non-fossil horse remains from Book of Mormon times in the Book of Mormon setting of Mesoamerica. Careful work remains to be done in dating and classifying these remains. But it should be clear that references to horses in the Book of Mormon are insufficient grounds for rejecting the book as fraudulent. This doesn't prove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, but helps establish the possibility of plausibility on one minute issue - and should serve to warn us about the risky and tentative nature of conclusions drawn from arguments of silence (failure to find something does not necessarily mean it never existed).

Further, there is linguistic evidence for American horses before Columbus:

"No systematic research has been done comparing the names of animals in the Near East and Mesoamerica. Just as we saw with the metals, perhaps also with beasts: clarifying links may appear through linguistic studies. A hint of the possibilities derives from work on the Yuman language group (located around the lower Colorado River, near the U.S.-Mexican border). Reconstructing the protoculture associated with the ancestral Yuman language by comparing the descendant tongues, an investigator reconstructed a word for "horse" on strong evidence [Howard W. Law, "A Reconstructed Proto-Culture Derived from Some Yuman Vocabularies," Anthropological Linguistics 3 (1961):54]. That is, the indications are that a term for horse was shared by those people long before European horses arrived. The evidence is not foolproof, of course, but it does demand some alternative explanation if we are not to suppose early knowledge of the horse."

(John L. Sorenson in An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, Deseret Book Comp., SLC, UT (1985), p. 297.)

I received e-mail from someone with ties to the Cherokee tribe (may have been a member of the tribe), a people legendary for their skills with horses. He claimed that Cherokee tradition maintains that they had horses before the Spaniards came and that Cherokee had a long and ancient tradition of working with horses, horses that were native to this continent. I am not familiar with Cherokee traditions, but I have never heard scholars explain why the Indians of North America suddenly proved to be far better horsemen than the Spaniards ever were once the Spaniards (supposedly) introduced the horse to this continent. Skills and traditions involving horses and other animals don't emerge suddenly - it's the kind of thing that would seem to require many generations of development. I do have one interesting piece of evidence that I encountered on a trip to Canyonlands National Park in southern Utah. There is a famous slab of stone with ancient petroglyphs there called "Newspaper Rock." The carvings on the rock date from roughly 100 A.D. to 1500 A.D., overlapping into the post-Spanish period. There are many carvings that may have been made over the centuries, but right in the middle of the rock, one of the most prominent carvings - in the place that I would choose as one of the first places to carve - is a man riding a horse. Was there a big blank spot conveniently left after centuries of carving for a late Indian to carve something he saw from the Spaniards, or was this a more ancient carving depicting something of importance to Indian culture? (Update from 2002: it may be that the central horse carving was inscribed over earlier, older carvings that had become covered with tarnish, as was suggested to me in 2002 in correspondance with someone familiar with Newspaper Rock.)

A recent article in National Geographic News, "Remains Show Ancient Horses Were Hunted for Their Meat," by Hillary Mayell, May 11, 2001, reports that ancient spear points have been found with identifiable horse protein on them, indicating that horses were hunted for food. These horses are believed to have gone extinct 10,000 years ago, though again, pockets of them may have survived in some places, such as Book of Mormon lands. They were probably smaller than modern horses, perhaps unsuitable for riding - which the Book of Mormon does not require - but plenty big for herding and eating, as the Book of Mormon does imply.
Could other species be meant? To the index at the top

It may be naive to assume that the word "horse" necessarily refers to the species of we know today. The Hebrew word for horse , "sus", has a root meaning of "to leap" and can refer to other animals as well - including the swallow (J. L. Sorenson, Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 345). Since deer also leap, it is not impossible that the early Nephites might have described them with a word related to "sus" or even the word "sus" itself. (Sorenson notes also that "ss" in Egyptian means horse, while "shs" is antelope). Could the "horse" of the Book of Mormon be Mesoamerican deer?

John L. Sorenson has suggested the latter possibility and has pointed to archaeological specimens showing humans riding on the backs of animal figures, some of which are evidently deer. Also Mayan languages used the term deer for Spanish horses and deer-rider for horsemen. Indians of Zinacantan, Chiapas, believe that the mythical "Earth Owner," who is supposed to be rich and live inside a mountain, rides on deer. In addition, the Aztec account of the Spanish Conquest used terms like the-deer-which-carried-men-upon-their-backs, called horses (see Bernardino de Sahagun, The War of Conquest: How It Was Waged Here in Mexico, trans. A. J. Anderson and C. E. Dibble [Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1978], pp. 28, 35, 55, 60).

--Quoted from Reexploring the Book of Mormon, John Welch, ed., Deseret Book, SLC, UT, 1992, p. 98).

Further work needs to be done to better understand what "horses" in the Book of Mormon actually refers to and how they were used. If anything, though, the occurrence of the "horses" in the Book of Mormon should serve as an invitation for further scholarship, not as a reason for ending it.

For additional information, see the Chapman Research page on Horses in the Book of Mormon.

Yep, Moroni sayeth the earth is flat..... Therefore the earth is flat.........

Roundness of the earth is just a luciferian illusion.

Faith cometh by "hoping", and "hoping" the BOM is truth.
*******
That flat earth parity, I realize is not mentioned in the BOM, but it is a reminder that faith must have subtance more than just "I sayeth" in every case.
******
In order to have a belief system that is credible, then prophecies must be 100% correct that were predicted for the present or past, and of course prophecies of the future must not be fictional either.
******
When are you LDS talk-heads going to let the scales fall off your souls and become transparent about the lack there-of evidence to substantiate your system of belief?

Instead you reply with "Blah Blah Blah", and "Idiot" replies back at folks that question and hope for answers to very important chinks in the historicity, and accuracy of your faith's foundations.

You use LDS archeologocial sources to support your N. American horse defense.

The bible is being substantiated archeologically every day by non-Christian as well as Christian supported agencies of research.

This cannot be said for the BOM for any historicity of miracles, divine visitations, ancient N. or S. American cities, ancient N. or S. American metalurgy, etc....

The LDS religion is not based on faith, but on hope that they are right, and is carried to the next level of divine inspired faith.

Oh, I forgot. Of course there are no secular sources in the area of archeology to back up LDS backed archeological summations, as the Mormons/LDS are a persecuted people by any and all secular research agencies.

 

[Skeptik]

Yep, Moroni sayeth the earth is flat..... Therefore the earth is flat.........

Roundness of the earth is just a luciferian illusion.

Can't you make a response without making up nonsense? Surely, you must have a better argument than that.

The bible is being substantiated archeologically every day by non-Christian as well as Christian supported agencies of research.

Well, we do know that the Holy Land as described in the Bible is pretty much accurate, from a geographic point of view.

How about Jesus raising Lazerus, making wine from water, or feeding a whole crowd of people from one little kid's lunch? Is there any scientific back up for any of those stories? How about the parting of the Red Sea? Could that have really happened?

Believing that the Bible is more than just a collection of stories and tales takes some faith as well, it seems to me.

Don't get me started on the book of Leviticus. I'm sure you can't justify the nonsense printed in that one.

 

[Avatar4321]

Yep, Moroni sayeth the earth is flat..... Therefore the earth is flat.........

Roundness of the earth is just a luciferian illusion.

Faith cometh by "hoping", and "hoping" the BOM is truth.
*******
That flat earth parity, I realize is not mentioned in the BOM, but it is a reminder that faith must have subtance more than just "I sayeth" in every case.

In other words, you set up a straw man and you are being completely honest about the fact that you are making it up.

In order to have a belief system that is credible, then prophecies must be 100% correct that were predicted for the present or past, and of course prophecies of the future must not be fictional either.
******

That would be true if there are prophecies in believe system. Not all belief systems have prophecies.

However, you're problem is that Mormon prophecies have been extremely accurate.

When are you LDS talk-heads going to let the scales fall off your souls and become transparent about the lack there-of evidence to substantiate your system of belief?

Ive cited evidence for you multiple times. You conveniently ignore it and start a rant on a new topic. I refuse to admit there is no evidence when im citing evidence for you. Simply because you dont think the evidence is sufficient to believe in the Book of Mormon, doesnt mean that evidence ceases to exist. You're being dishonest here and you know it.

Instead you reply with "Blah Blah Blah", and "Idiot" replies back at folks that question and hope for answers to very important chinks in the historicity, and accuracy of your faith's foundations.

When you stop pontificating and start actual discussion, ill respond with more than blah blah blah. You've had Hundreds of posts to demonstrate that you actually cared about having a discussion. I am not simply going to repeat the same things you ignore over and over again with hopes that you will someday pay attention.

You use LDS archeologocial sources to support your N. American horse defense.

And of course, LDS archaelogists are liars and cant be trusted. Talk about poisoning the well. "I Dont believe them because they are dishonest"

As if horses matter. The Book of Mormon isnt an archaelogy guide. Its a record of scripture that's written with two purposes in mind: To convince Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ and to show mankind that God keeps His covenants.

The only way to find out whether the Atonement and Resurrection of Christ is real is through revelation like Peter did.

The bible is being substantiated archeologically every day by non-Christian as well as Christian supported agencies of research.

I would love to see the archaelogical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. I really would. But I realize the only way to know, short of Christ appearing to you, is for the Holy Spirit to reveal it to you.

If we were to accept your premise that only that which is proved through archaelogy can be believed as true, we would have to Reject the testimony of the Apostles concerning Jesus Christ. You might be willing to do that, I am not.

You see, if you were an honest seeker of truth, you would realize archaelogy can prove: Nothing. Archaelogy cannot prove spiritual truths, and it's absurd to assume so. Not only that, but it's one of the most incomplete sciences out there. You can't excivate less than 2% of the sites in an area and then declare that you know everything there is to know about the history of that region. But that's exactly what you are suggesting we do.

And let's just completely ignore the archaelogical finds in Arabia that clearly support the Book of Mormon. Let's just ignore that evidence and keep on declaring that there is no evidence.

And you wonder why I don't really care what you say?

This cannot be said for the BOM for any historicity of miracles, divine visitations, ancient N. or S. American cities, ancient N. or S. American metalurgy, etc....

As I pointed out, provide any archaelogy that proves any miracles or divine visitation anywhere in the world.

The LDS religion is not based on faith, but on hope that they are right, and is carried to the next level of divine inspired faith.

My faith is based on what the Lord revealed to me. Argue as you might, but I wont deny the gifts of God simply because you dont believe me. Who am I do deny Him? No one.

What's sad about it all is that the Lord is just as willing to reveal Himself to all people, yourself included.

Oh, I forgot. Of course there are no secular sources in the area of archeology to back up LDS backed archeological summations, as the Mormons/LDS are a persecuted people by any and all secular research agencies.

I doubt there are many secular research agencies who have done any research into Book of Mormon archaelogy, let alone even care about it. So why should anyone be surprised that they havent been proving it? Most of them probably dont know the Book of Mormon exists.

However, since you brought it up early, what secular sources in the area of archaelogy back up the resurrecton of Jesus Christ?

After all, we are worshiping God, not the Bible.

 

[Truthspeaker]

Are there any fresh questions we haven't heard yet? Maybe questions about doctrine? Maybe questions about why all our buildings seem to look the same? Perhaps questions about why we used basketball courts for wedding receptions? Maybe about Mormon idioms or phrases we tend to use that nobody else does? Like "put your nose to the grindstone" and put your shoulder to the wheel. Why we bless the "refreshments" when we know they are just junk food punch and cookies? Ha.

We have our own little cultural quirks that take place in places called "cultural halls".

 

[Sky Dancer]

Are there any fresh questions we haven't heard yet? Maybe questions about doctrine? Maybe questions about why all our buildings seem to look the same? Perhaps questions about why we used basketball courts for wedding receptions? Maybe about Mormon idioms or phrases we tend to use that nobody else does? Like "put your nose to the grindstone" and put your shoulder to the wheel. Why we bless the "refreshments" when we know they are just junk food punch and cookies? Ha.

We have our own little cultural quirks that take place in places called "cultural halls".

What is your opinion of the program Big Love airing sacred LDS ceremonies in its program?

 

[Truthspeaker]

Are there any fresh questions we haven't heard yet? Maybe questions about doctrine? Maybe questions about why all our buildings seem to look the same? Perhaps questions about why we used basketball courts for wedding receptions? Maybe about Mormon idioms or phrases we tend to use that nobody else does? Like "put your nose to the grindstone" and put your shoulder to the wheel. Why we bless the "refreshments" when we know they are just junk food punch and cookies? Ha.

We have our own little cultural quirks that take place in places called "cultural halls".

What is your opinion of the program Big Love airing sacred LDS ceremonies in its program?

I didn't watch the show but I heard they were going to try and publicize our Temple rituals. It would have made me very angry to watch it since HBO rufuses to respect our religious beliefs. They tracked down some ex-members who probably recited from their memory what goes on in the temple. I have doubts that they perfectly recited all the words used but if they did it doesn't matter. I won't talk about the ordinances because I promised not to. But basically if HBO can make a buck by airing a classified segment of a controversial religion then they would take the buck at the expense of snubbing the Mormons.
I don't care how good an actor is, if he is not LDS, he cannot accurately portray to the viewers a realistic sense of the mormon he is playing. I have yet to see it done.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Ok, without having seen the show, you are angry that it was written and aired. Your view is this is a form of persecution of LDS?

I know other Mormons who think any publicity about LDS is a good thing.

There are sacred Buddhist ceremonies that are secret too. There is a reason for having certain practices only be seen and experienced by the initiated.

 

[Truthspeaker]

The only way people would ever find out about what goes on in the temple used to be by actually going in. You are only allowed in if you are a card carrying member. But with traitors and disgruntled ex-mormons thinking about getting back at us by "exposing" our "secret" rituals, the internet now becomes a weapon for them to portray their interpretations of what happens without presenting context or understanding of our ordinances. It is incredibly disrespectful. But if the show is accurate, I don't think that it would cause an uproar among non-mormons at what we do.
Some have expected there to be blood letting or sexual consumations when nothing is farther from the truth. I doubt HBO aired such nonsense.

Bad publicity is sometimes good publicity because it may lead the honest observer to seek out the facts rather than jump to a conclusion based on what they saw from a tv or news report.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I wouldn't dream of 'crashing' anyone else's sacred ceremony. Nor would I advise someone who know nothing about Tibetan Buddhism to show up for an empowerment if they have no intention of taking up the practice.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I wouldn't dream of 'crashing' anyone else's sacred ceremony. Nor would I advise someone who know nothing about Tibetan Buddhism to show up for an empowerment if they have no intention of taking up the practice.

 

[Avatar4321]

What is your opinion of the program Big Love airing sacred LDS ceremonies in its program?

My opinion is that they should have been respectful, they werent. So I am going to question myself before ever considering to order HBO. Granted, they probably wouldnt have my business as it is. But people profane the sacred all the time. I am not going to let it change my life or even get much of a reaction from me. All I can say is Im not pleased with them and dont plan to do business with them anytime soon.

 

[Avatar4321]

I wouldn't dream of 'crashing' anyone else's sacred ceremony. Nor would I advise someone who know nothing about Tibetan Buddhism to show up for an empowerment if they have no intention of taking up the practice.

And I think that's wise counsel to follow.

I think the key to dialogue is respect even when you disagree. I respect everyone unless they give me a reason to disrespect them. Even then I wouldnt mock what they find Sacred. I dont think God wants us to do that.

I can tell you that regardless how the show portrayed anything, the actual ceramony is powerful and makes perfect sense. Although the significance is not always obvious the first time.

 

[1soldier]

Hi Truthspeaker,
I hope your doing well today. I wanted to ask you something if I may? I understand that Joseph Smith translated the book of morman from an object that was called the Urim and Thummim. If you will go to youtube and enter in Urim and Thummim you will see the trailer or previews of a documentary I've done called the Urim and Thummim. This object that I have is a discovery of a lifetime. As I have had some morman Elders look into this object. It
wasn't new to me that they would start to see these images within this object. They themselves couldn't believe what they were seeing. They even brought some more elders to see this object. Do you believe that there is or was such an object? If so,what do you know about it? I have tried to tell the Morman headquarters about it,But they won't listen. This isn't no joke. It isn't something I've made up. This documentary is not available to the public yet. Were waiting on a network to purchase it then it will be shown to the people. Thank You for your time. Please email me back at [email protected] or post a reply.


May God Bless You,
1 Soldier

 

[amrchaos]

I do not know if this question was asked, but I have to ask it

Are Mormons Christians, or are Mormons a new off-shoot religion like Islam is. You know, some beliefs are similiar, others not so. Differing practices, rituals, organizations.

The thing I noticed about most Christian Denominations is that that they derive mainly from the three main chuches--Eastern Orthodox, Catholicism, Cypnotics--where Catholicism is the more fractured branch composed of Catholic and Protestants.

I keep trying to find exactly how Mormonism fit into Protestants movement--does it?

 

[Skeptik]

I do not know if this question was asked, but I have to ask it

Are Mormons Christians, or are Mormons a new off-shoot religion like Islam is. You know, some beliefs are similiar, others not so. Differing practices, rituals, organizations.

The thing I noticed about most Christian Denominations is that that they derive mainly from the three main chuches--Eastern Orthodox, Catholicism, Cypnotics--where Catholicism is the more fractured branch composed of Catholic and Protestants.

I keep trying to find exactly how Mormonism fit into Protestants movement--does it?

The full name of the church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The term "saints" in Mormon lexicon means followers of Jesus. The term Latter Day is self explanatory, and is part of Mormon doctrine.

Mormons believe that their church is a restoration, through prophecy, of the original doctrines preached by Christ.

Their beliefs do differ in some respects from most other Christian religions.

There. You decide whether Mormons are Christian or not.

 

[Truthspeaker]

Hi Truthspeaker,
I hope your doing well today. I wanted to ask you something if I may? I understand that Joseph Smith translated the book of morman from an object that was called the Urim and Thummim. If you will go to youtube and enter in Urim and Thummim you will see the trailer or previews of a documentary I've done called the Urim and Thummim. This object that I have is a discovery of a lifetime. As I have had some morman Elders look into this object. It
wasn't new to me that they would start to see these images within this object. They themselves couldn't believe what they were seeing. They even brought some more elders to see this object. Do you believe that there is or was such an object? If so,what do you know about it? I have tried to tell the Morman headquarters about it,But they won't listen. This isn't no joke. It isn't something I've made up. This documentary is not available to the public yet. Were waiting on a network to purchase it then it will be shown to the people. Thank You for your time. Please email me back at [email protected] or post a reply.


May God Bless You,
1 Soldier

I must admit, my curiosity is peaked. There are several such stones at large in the world. If you truly have discovered another then it doesn't surprise me. Joseph and several others found similar stones during the treasure digging era he grew up in. I know they are not a joke but I believe like anything, we need prophetic guidance as to how they should be used. The church is in possession of the egg-shaped, chocolate covered stone that Joseph found. That being said, I am more concerned with doctrine than relics. There are many relics and unexplained mysteries in this large world of ours. What is most important is the doctrine we subscribe to.