justamere10

At least Scalia, being familiar with elephants, knew enough William Blake to throw a tiger in to burn bright and complete the trinity. It's a bit surprising that he didn't swap the turtles for donkeys though. No, I think brother Brigham was just being fallible, though they do say it does take a long time to eat a turtle and maybe he was stuck on that and it didn't get all the way down. But enough turtles for now, I'll try to get this thread back up to speed by posting something recently added to the lds1.org board where there are a lot of articles on many topics available for LDS Cyber Missionaries to copy, edit, and post anywhere should they need a bit of help stringing some appropriate words together.

In the matter before us: The first poster correctly stated that the earth is flat and rests upon the shoulders of four elephants, who are standing on the back of A'Tuin, the Great Turtle. The second poster replied: "When asked what holds the turtle (sic) up, the reply is it's turtles all the way down." I'll address my lofty remarks to that second poster who failed even to capitalize the first mention of "Turtle" in the first instance: Now you're really piling it on and I may be getting out of my depth, though that has never happened before, but all things are possible. Ignoring the elephants because that's a given, I think (in my customary manner of unthinking) that what you're saying is that the Great Turtle is actually more than one being, but only one being, and maybe er incomprehensible??? Zounds! You must be among those annoying ones who keep on saying the Turtle Creed was added to the Bible in defiance of Rev 22:18 to hijack the early Unturtle Church and gain control of it. Here's what I think of such a creed: "...supported and urged on and upheld by the influence of that spirit which hath so strongly riveted the creeds of the fathers, who have inherited lies, upon the hearts of the children, and filled the world with confusion, and has been growing stronger and stronger, and is now the very mainspring of all corruption, and the whole earth groans under the weight of its iniquity." D&C 123:7 It's incomprehensible that all those turtles piled one upon the other could ever be replaced, but here's what I think could happen because the creed of many turtles in one Great Turtle is seemingly filling at least part of the world with confusion: "And that great pit, which hath been digged for them by that great and abominable church, which was founded by the devil and his children, that he might lead away the souls of men down to hell—yea, that great pit which hath been digged for the destruction of men shall be filled by those who digged it, unto their utter destruction, saith the Lamb of God; not the destruction of the soul, save it be the casting of it into that hell which hath no end." 1 Nephi 14:3 I'm not totally certain which side I came across as supporting but what does it matter anyway? Everyone knows we live in a world of confusion, why should today be any different? With great respect Second Poster for your right to believe as you will, it is my considered opinion (and I'm seldom wrong about such things) that you have been drinking too much cool turtle soup and that has slowed your powers of comprehension, you're out of your depth and sinking, slowly, but sinking. Stick with the elephants is my sage advice to you, you'll find that to be a big relief, the sounding of a clear and certain trumpet if you don't get too nosy and look beyond the mark at what it is the elephants are actually standing on. (I apologize to the readers for any apparent confusion in the second instance, I'm just not unthinking clearly today, maybe it's the soup getting stale, let's move on shall we? But slowly, please, I must have time to unthink about such things. Er think, I'm not sure what's the difference anymore. Yes, must be the soup....) Can anyone unexplain all that? Anyone at all?

I'm not entirely sure if you realize what you're starting here. The largest thread in the Religion Forum of the Sean Hannity board is titled: "Should you believe in the Trinity". That thread has attracted 12,000 posts and 123,000 views!

That too....

It's easy enough I think for members who are super busy to perhaps subconsciously make the Church all-encompassing. We begin to fail to differentiate between what is genuinely "Gospel" and what is the ordinary problems that come with life in the 21st century. Should things consistently go bad for us for a period of time, as they inevitably do, we might begin to question our LDS beliefs when in actuality the problem may have nothing at all to do with that, it could be experienced by anyone else regardless of religious affiliation or none at all. We may think that God owes us because we've been so diligent participating in Church programs. Or we may think our faith is bulletproof but then along comes something we've never thought much of before and it clicks with some other thing, and we're off to do research, clinging perhaps to a fast vanishing hope in those hours of doubt and anxiety that our whole reason for being doesn't suddenly come crashing down after all those years of discipline and self sacrifice... I think we all know those moments, times of darkness and doubt. Ultimately there MUST be an element of faith in this mortal period of our existence. That's how it was designed to be so we could be tried and tested. But ultimately it's our own personal relationship with God that is going to determine whether we pass or fail this all-important second estate. I just started reading a biography of David O. McKay, the man who was the Prophet when I was converted to the LDS faith. Because of some spiritual experiences I had the first time I went to a temple, I have always felt particularly close to President McKay. But after reading only a few pages in his biography I realized that I didn't really know the man. I realized that I've been way too dogmatic in my online relationships, that I've made the Church too all-encompassing, and that he didn't. For example, I think for many years that I've had the attitude that the theory of evolution was a "Gospel" matter. On occasion I've written in opposition to it. But already, reading just a bit into his biography, President McKay has taught me that evolution, like many many other things, is not something the Lord has revealed anything about, that it is not a Gospel matter at all! I think sometimes those dark moments come because we've pulled too much into the label "Gospel", things that don't properly belong there, things the Lord has revealed nothing about. What's most important I think is that we can always turn inside ourselves and find there a loving FRIEND ever patiently waiting, sometimes needing to knock to get our attention back from those all encompassing things that keep us too busy for Him. Salvation is an individual process. Regardless of the programs, regardless of contradictions, regardless of fears and anxieties, we must each individually find HIM inside ourselves. I've been accused on this board of being condescending, and maybe I am, and maybe it doesn't matter, but for all it may be worth if anything at all, my humble counsel to you my sister Jena is "don't sweat the small stuff." Instead of heading to books and boards and googles, head instead to your closet, and renew there your personal acquaintance with God... I know He lives and Jesus is the Christ. I rejoice in that knowing. What could be more important than that for anyone?

History records that some people did try to eat their way through the pancake. But the syrup was so sticky they got mired in it and never did come to a knowledge of what was on the other side. :)

For me it was more like a "remembering". When I'd try to pray about it I'd find that I already KNEW the Book of Mormon was of God.

Is it possible that LDS scholars are the best qualified to know and tell the TRUTH about "mormonism"? If you really wanted to know about the Baptists would you go to the Catholics expecting to learn the full truth about Baptist beliefs from them? Or vice versa? I suggest that you get on your knees and look to the Latter-day Saints for correct information about the Latter-day Saints instead of to their apostates and enemies who have many axes to grind and a library of questionable sources to refer you to. You can learn a whole lot of truth about God and His Church doing it that way. Some people seem to think that even if they were being taught about God by an angel sent from Him that they would need to rush off every now and then to ask the Devil for his opinion on the matter. (Nothing personal, just an analogy from my observations of the way some people approach learning about God and the Latter-day Saints.)

Some people choose to label even professors and teachers "condescending" because they teach others the things they know. But you have judged me "condescending" and publicly declared that I am, so perhaps you would be so kind as to post here a few quotes from www.lds1.org where I come across as condescending, so I can learn from you, thanks.

It is you who is wrong Mike, not the millions of faithful others whose testimonies burn bright because they keep the commandments and their sacred covenants with God. They draw daily closer to Him in humble sincere prayer, forgetting themselves and serving others. There is no reward at the end of the trail you have chosen to follow, only a lifetime of sorrow for your wife and children, and most likely an eternity of regret for yourself. A few words in a few history books are not essential to your salvation, you already know what is. The choices are still yours, as are the consequences. The Church is true, God will not be mocked, repentance is real. Is your rebellion worth it? “In the very nature of things, the signs of the times will not cease until the Lord comes. Those that involve chaos and commotion and distress of nations will continue in the future with even greater destructive force. Men’s hearts will fail them for fear in greater degree hereafter than heretofore. Wars will get worse. Moments of armistice and peace will be less stable. Viewed in the perspective of years, all worldly things will degenerate. There will be an increasing polarization of views. There will be more apostasy from the Church, more summer saints and sunshine patriots who will be won over to the cause of the adversary. Those who support the kingdom because of the loaves and the fishes will find other bread to eat. While the faithful saints get better and better, and cleave more firmly to the heaven-sent standards, the world will get worse and worse and will cleave to the policies and views of Lucifer” (McConkie, Millennial Messiah, 404).

I am serious. But notice the question marks. I could very well be completely wrong on Mike, that's mere speculation; but I'm pretty sure about the other guy. One thing that troubles me about Mike's story is that when he finally comes up with his reasons for doubting the Church after apparently so many years of activity, they are just the basic stuff anyone can pick up on anti sites, nothing new, nothing thoughfully studied out. And he gives up so easily when confronted with it. But then I'm no expert on that, maybe others care to speculate along with me...

I'm beginning to wonder if he is even LDS?? One poster on the lds1.org board claims he has been a member for 30 years but now is "struggling" etc. And he goes into some of the usual stuff designed to deceive that looks merely ridiculous to active LDS. He didn't even get the events of the First Vision right. I suppose he thinks he can sow seeds of doubt among LDS who haven't yet put in 30 years of faithful living. (The other guy, not Mike.) I certainly don't know if Mike fits that category but his story seems a bit far fetched to me, it seems certain that he has been supping at the feast spread by the anti-Mormon publishing industry to make money and deceive "even the very elect". But I guess now that he's gone forever, we'll never know for sure...

Thanks again for openly sharing with the members of this community Mike. Ultimately there is faith involved in all things in the physical world where our choices regarding them can have eternal consequences. My personal experience with concerns such as you have listed is that there is already a valid response to the concern, or that the time isn't ripe and that a valid response will come. (Similar to the criticism that early Americans did not know cement. That has apparently been proven false now.) It appears to me though from the familiar things you list that you have been doing more reading on anti-Mormon websites than you have at LDS FAIR Apologetics Homepage where you are much more likely to find truth. For me, NOTHING arm of flesh is going to dent my spiritually gained testimony. But my testimony is not entirely faith-based. Rameumpton has already responded to most of your concerns but I'll add what little I can to that for all it may be worth to anyone reading this thread. Regarding metal swords, Dr. Jerry L. Ainsworth addressed that in last month's "Nephite Evidences" newsletter from Mormon Sites. Mormon Sites - rising from the dust... I copied the entire article into Ainsworth's forum on the Mormon Sites board Ask a Mormon - LDS Cyber Missionaries Forum lds1.org • Index page. Here are some abbreviated extracts: "Having said that, Maya archaeologists report that no metal of any kind has ever been found among the Maya, during the time period of the Book of Mormon, (600BC to 400AD). Not only do they not find iron, steel, brass or copper, but no gold or silver either... Therefore, when the Book of Mormon talks about swords in the many battles mentioned, it creates a problem that begs an explanation. As is my wont, I therefore... When Lehi’s family reached a land they referred to as Bountiful, Nephi made metal tools, with which he built the boat in which they sailed to this continent. (See 1 Nephi 17:9-11). That is a substantial number of references to the use of metal, and we are still in 1st Nephi, the first book in the Book of Mormon. Having said that, once you get past the two books of Nephi and the book of Jacob, something interesting happens...." It's an interesting read. Among other things, if I remember correctly, Ainsworth presents his views that there is no mention of metal swords (other than the sword of Laban) being used except in the early years after Lehi's arrival. And we know from the condition of the Jaredite swords that metal wastes away much faster than the obsidian weapons that probably replaced metal after the weapons from Jerusalem were no longer useful. Here's a link to a copy of Ainsworth's article on swords. Ask a Mormon - LDS Cyber Missionaries Forum lds1.org • View topic - Swords in the Book of Mormon As for horses, evidence for ancient horses was recently uncovered near Lethbridge, Alberta in Canada. But I think that evidence is really ancient. Regarding no Book of Mormon cities having been found, nothing's proven but there's a huge website full of information on that kind of thing: Mormon Sites - rising from the dust... Here's an extract from the Mormon Sites front page: "Book of Mormon cities have been found, they are well known, and their artifacts grace the finest museums. They are merely masked by archaeological labels such as "Maya," "Olmec," and so on. The problem, then, is not that Book of Mormon artifacts have not been found, only that they have not been recognized for what they are. Again, if we stumbled onto Zarahemla, how would we know? The difficulty is not with evidence but with epistemology." John E. Clark, Professor of anthropology, BYU, Director of NWAF, Chiapas, Mexico. Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol 14, No. 2, 2005 p.42 The entire article is titled "Archeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief" published by FARMS 2005. These are exciting times in which to live. Many more records will be brought to light possibly in the near future. And there's a whole lot more known than is commonly published about the Book of Mormon because the ultimate proof of it's truthfulness is from God, not from arm of flesh learning. .

Oops, I stepped in some gum I guess.

I don't believe there is any spyware on that site, certainly none that I installed. The problem still hasn't been fixed. This morning I made inquiries about transferring to another web host. If I do that hopefully the downtime will be minimal. Sorry about the delays, they probably bother me more than anyone else because I'm on the board often. But quite often the board does work very well, messages continue to be posted, and new members arrive daily. In the meantime, try accessing the board several times if it's in slow mode.

Thank-you so much for your feedback, I really appreciate your kind words. Enjoy the day.

That has potential. How do you bring that to the attention of those who read messages posted by unofficial LDS Cyber Missionaries? (Keeping in mind my concerns about using the signature line for that purpose.) Thanks for helping brainstorm this by the way... And another by the way, I don't think other than on the clearly marked and disclaimed "LDS Cyber Missionary" board www.lds1.org that anyone is going to post messages on non-LDS websites in the name of "LDS Cyber Missionary", though that is possible of course.

Sound advice, thanks for participating in this thread.

.I understand your concerns and possibly because of concerns like that eventually the Brethren might offer some training and maybe some structure and bounds specifically for LDS Cyber Missionaries?? I'm a little concerned about your statement: "Let's just make sure it is doctrine being taught..." How would you go about policing that? I bear you my personal witness that the Holy Spirit IS involved in this work. I believe that He will be with every sincere right living LDS Cyber Missionary who teaches truths calmly and respectfully even in dark places. And THAT in my opinion is much better than warnings and cautions in our time in cyberspace. I believe that there are possibly tens of thousands of Latter-day Saints right now who are very capable of making a big dent in that sea of misunderstandings about our beliefs. I think that one of the most effective ways to do that is to start threads called "Ask a Mormon" on non-LDS websites and then let the Holy Spirit guide your responses, as he SURELY will if you are faithful and sincere. In addition to Hannity, I write on other non-LDS sites. I started an Ask a Mormon thread recently in a place where I knew nasty people were likely to gather. I expected mocking and insults and I got it. But as day after day I responded calmly and respectfully to every post, they began to turn about and show me respect and encouragement. A bit later I found out there were two inactive LDS among the writers. I think they were favorably impressed, as were eventually the others, the Spirit guided my responses. But you need an exceptionally thick skin to work in such an environment, not everyone is prepared to be a Word Warrior, but many are good steady Teachers of Righteousness once the crowd has been softened... Then there's the lurkers, I think as Cyber Missionaries we are often writing for the sometimes hundreds of lurkers whom we never get to know, but God knows. That thread I spoke of now has had almost three times more views than any other thread in that forum has ever had. My signature pointing to mormon.org is all over it and is likely to remain there for many months for the Spirit to guide people to or other LDS Cyber Missionaries to find, bump, and carry on. I think we need to be BOLD and respectful my brothers and sisters and fellow LDS Cyber Missionaries. The Spirit WILL guide us. And we will reap a harvest, of that I am beginning to get reports. With God, ALL things are possible...

.Elder Ballard recently referred to the Internet as "New Media", that's what I was referring to. Your points are all good of course and for those who are not seasoned LDS netizens it might be best to just post messages containing two or three paragraphs answering the question: "Why am I a Mormon?" Followed by a recommendation to visit mormon.org for more information and to ask questions. But seasoned Latter-day Saints are very capable of starting threads called "Ask a Mormon" and following through with them. I've already mentioned such a thread that I started on the Hannity board about six weeks ago that already has some 3500 posts and 40,000 views. You can't expect to feed people in cyberspace only milk, because tasty chunks of MEAT are all around them! In my opinion the sage scriptural advice to not cast one's pearls before swine is NOT applicable in cyberspace. The pearls have already been cast, all over the Internet. Even sacred things from inside our temples are available on anti-Mormon websites. People who are asking questions about our beliefs have generally already been fed a lot of that. We must respond accordingly, as guided by the Holy Spirit of course, and always calmly, accurately, and respectfully. It is my opinion that seasoned LDS Cyber Missionaries should not hesitate to teach anything they know to be true, with the exception of course of those things we learn in holy temples that we are not to speak of. That's how I see it. .

Would you be more comfortable with the following signature line for non-LDS boards? Ask only active Mormons and official LDS websites what Mormons believe. Visit: Mormon.org

I appreciate your advice. Sure let's have some ideas for a better sig line. However, I think I mentioned that the sig in question was a suggested one for NON LDS boards where probably most people have already been exposed to anti-Mormon websites and teachings. The sig I like for LDS boards appears below. I think most unofficial websites operated by active LDS do contain a disclaimer about the site and opinions etc. on it. The impression I got from the message that began this discussion was that he was suggesting that some kind of disclaimer be carried about with I suppose every post an unofficial LDS Cyber Missionary makes on the Net?? I personally do not think that is necessary, and it is probably not technically viable. Thanks for your always valuable input.

Ok, I disagree with your statement that members of the Church doing online missionary work are not affiliated with the Church, and it's quite long, but how would you technically get that disclaimer to show to the viewers of each message posted other than on signture lines? I think the short space allowed for signature lines on non-LDS boards should read something like: "Ask only active informed Mormons what Mormons believe. Everybody else gets it wrong! Mormon.org .

It's a temporary technical problem. The techies told me they had it fixed yesterday but obviously didn't. Sometimes the site works perfectly, other times it is as you described. Sorry about that, the host is working on it. Thanks for visiting and signing on at www.lds1.org I look forward to reading your posts.

Join in a discussion about how to effectively proclaim the gospel online. http://www.lds1.org .