justamere10

We do of course have such resources as LDS FAIR Apologetics Homepage where probably every criticism about our beliefs that is circulating on the internet has already been addressed by LDS scholars.

We are not of the world. We should not allow the world to define our relationship with Christ unchallenged. We KNOW that we are Christians!I am happy to be a Christian. I think it my duty to defend the cause of Christians on my watch. I think that today is a critical day of "sifting". People are making choices that move them to the right hand or the left hand of the Savior; make them sheep or goats, wheat or tares. Left standing during the Millennium will be only those who by their choices have demonstrated righteousness to at least the level that qualifies for a Terrestrial glory. I think that all Christian churches help lift God's children from a state of telestial wickedness to a state where they will not be burned at the possibly imminent coming in glory of our Savior. In that task of helping prepare people for the Millennium, Latter-day Saints are not alone. It is a perilous time when all Christians in my opinion should be united. As Latter-day Saints we have the fulness of the gospel. It is our duty to lead out in the service of Christ. That will be more difficult if we allow ourselves to be labelled unChristian don't you think?

Check out the two "Reading Rooms" at Mormon Sites:Book of Mormon Geography - Reading Room - page 5

Personally I cherish the label "Christian" because to me the word represents a humble follower of Jesus Christ, which I strive daily to be. What's written in the Book of Mormon is very important to me. I feel that I should claim and defend the label "Christian" because even the Nephites used that word for the Church of Jesus Christ in the Americas in their time. Why should it be different today? Why should we allow anyone else to pridefully take that away from us without challenge? It even impacts our baptismal covenants if we stand at ease in the face of such attacks. "....so long as there should a band of Christians remain to possess the land—" Alma 46: 13 "And those who did belong to the church were faithful; yea, all those who were true believers in Christ took upon them, gladly, the name of Christ, or Christians as they were called, because of their belief in Christ who should come." Alma 46: 15 "Moroni prayed that the cause of the Christians, and the freedom of the land might be favored." Alma 46: 16 Alma 46 "And thus he was preparing to support their liberty, their lands, their wives, and their children, and their peace, and that they might live unto the Lord their God, and that they might maintain that which was called by their enemies the cause of Christians." Alma 48: 10 Alma 48 Is "the cause of Christians" today only the cause of those who believe in the dictates of the 4th century Nicene councils? I think it important for Latter-day Saints to boldly stand up for what we believe. Allowing people of other faiths to loudly label us unChristian gives them an opportunity to unite against a perceived 'enemy' and thus never have to give us anymore attention, never bother to look at what we really do and what we really have to say. They have been deceived about us by the leaders of their churches. It's up to us to undeceive them... That's how I see it.

I took the liberty of making a few changes to your friend's great message. I hope you and he do not mind. (Let me know if you do and I'll delete this message.)------- So you say you are a Christian and I am not. Read the Sermon on the Mount. When that is your message and that is your life story, then you can tell me you're a true Christian, a faithful follower of Jesus Christ. I don't see anything there that says a Christian is one who clings to a manufactured 4th century creed. In Matthew 7 it says Christ's followers are "they who do the will of my Father which is in heaven." If you're not clear about what that will is, try reading Matthew 5, 6 and 7. Go through it carefully, then come back and tell me you're a Christian and Christ gave you the right to judge and label other followers of Jesus Christ non-Christian. Tell me how you mourn with those who mourn. Tell me how you're poor in spirit. Tell me how you love your enemies and pray for those who mistreat you. Tell me how you give to those who ask and pray to your Father for what you need. Tell me how you go out of your way not to judge others. Tell me how you are careful not to do your alms before men. Tell me how you pray in secret. Tell me how you go the extra mile. Tell me how you have cut off the offending hand and cut out the offending eye. Tell me how you have built your house upon the rock, not on some manmade creed. You have gotten lost in your theology. You have forgotten the message of Christ. You need to go back to the Bible and actually READ IT. Add to that repentance and some humble and sincere prayer to find out if it's God who wants you to go around judging, excluding, and condemning those of His children who don't bow to the creeds and dictates of your religious denomination. You know, those of your brothers and sisters who humbly follow His Son. The above is not copyrighted, feel free to pass it along to those people who have been deceived by their leaders into pridefully and arrogantly declaring that they are the only true Christians among God's children. ----- .

I have found in my work as a cyber missionary that it matters not what is slung at you or how vile, insulting, or mocking it is, it is an opportunity for the calm loving sincere teaching of a gospel principle to God's children who are not yet so blessed as we are. Always at the bottom of their messages, cyber missionaries should include a signature or statement such as the following: ---- Find out where you came from, the purpose of life, and where you're going when you die. Mormon.org - Home Jesus Christ, The Son of God Keep in mind that we are not writing for those who criticize us, we are writing for those who are reading, for the lurkers. Those who write mockingly are the antagonist, the loyal opposition, they bring in the crowds. They are necessary, they are the ones who create golden opportunities for us to teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. On one board where I started an "Ask a Mormon" thread there were more than 4,000 posts and 75,000 views. On another board, it was really vile, totally unmoderated, but my Ask a Mormon thread got more than 25,000 views. We don't really know how many lurkers will browse quietly at mormon.org where the Spirit can reach and teach them, or how many if any will be converted from our efforts. We know only that we are doing what Elder Ballard asked us to do, and that the worth of a single soul is priceless in the eyes of God. (How great shall be your joy... if even after 20 years service you might have brought only one soul to God.) "Every member online a Cyber Missionary." That's how I see it...

Are you a beliver in the Trinity Doctrine then? God, of course, is our Heavenly Father. We are made in His image and likeness. When He showed himself to Joseph Smith, with the resurrected Christ standing in the air beside Him, he looked exactly like Christ, a glorified resurrected exalted being. That is the witness of the Latter-day Saints in our time, that God is not some shapeless incomprehensible force or something unexplainable with three persons including our Savior somehow crammed inside it. No, God is our Parent. We have the potential to 'grow up' and become like Him!

I posted in Jerry's forum on the LDS1.org board an interesting email exchange Jerry had regarding his message in the January issue of the Mormon Sites newsletter. Here it is: Email to Jerry: Jerry what if the Yucatan peninsula was at a time divided as seen in two of the maps in your book, and as you speculate, but perhaps still connected by a narrow strip of land? The peninsula does represent a land northward. That would then shift or twist the speculative Book of Mormon lands into an orientation that seems more fitting with the concentration of discovered ancient cities of it's period. It's also interesting that records of an invading army inscribed on monuments, have it coming into this area the same years that Mormon records the exact same sort of thing, maybe its a coincidence that two military powers were defending cities against an overwhelming invading army unsuccessfully in the exact same time period in the same general location of mesoamerica, but that shift in orientation would put the events of 378 right on top of each other. That would then put cumorah in northern Yucatan? And the other hill Shim perhaps in the Maya mountains near or in Beliese? Then the Jaradite great northern body of water is the gulf. And the Books north south east and west orientation would also fit better. I guess it just depends how one speculates, you can look for a narrow neck and then look for cities near it and history near it and search for a match, or you can use the reverse approach looking for cities and history and type of civilization that match the time frame and description and then look for where the narrow neck might have been. Until its pinpointed precicely I think both options are worthy of exploration. Jerry's response: Thanks for your comments, suggestions and questions. At some point what most of us end up doing is speculating. I try to have my speculations based on the best history and archaeology available. I find when I do so, my speculations become more believable, more factual and less speculative, as do others who have supporting data for their speculations. Having said that, I will respond to your questions, suggestions, etc. First of all, it is not my speculation that the Yucatan was an island, as I have 13 maps that show it as such. The speculation would be that it was not an island. I put two of those maps in my book, but did not put all that I had. I assumed that two maps would be adequate, and now realize that may not be the case. Each time I see a reliable map that purports to represent ancient southern Mexico, the first thing I look for is the Yucatan, to see if they have it as an island. With rare exception, it is represented as an island during those Pre-Columbian times. Therefore, if I have over a dozen maps documenting that the peninsula was an island, is that then a speculation on my part? Secondly, to the best of my knowledge there are only a few sites on the Yucatan that date to Book of Mormon times, and those are in the northern tip. I know of no ancient sites in the middle part of the Yucatan that date to time periods before Christ. I do know there were small nomadic habitations that date to those times, but nothing anyone could mistake for the cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon during the times of Alma, Helaman, Christ, etc. Thirdly, if the battle of Cumorah were to have taken place on the Yucatan, then so did the battle of the Jaredites, as both took place in the same location. I have never heard an authoritative claim that at 299bc, (the date of the last Jaredite battle), there was a battle in which over a million people were killed in or around the Yucatan. This would also mean that those one million people would have had to have water and food to support them. During that time period, I don't believe it would have, as it had no surface rivers and almost no topsoil. Besides, the Book of Ether states that the Jaredites never went south of narrow neck. If the narrow neck was a strip of land that connected the Yucatan, and the land northward was the peninsula, then the Jaredites would have had to live on the peninsula for 2500 years. Had they done that, there would have been ample evidences of their cities, their populations, etc. I know of no such evidence in the peninsula - just to the contrary. Besides, Moroni tells us where a big chunk of the Jaredites were, as he indicates in Ether 1:1 that they were in one of the north countries, (not land northward). There is fairly good evidence that when Moroni wrote that, he was in southern Utah, as we know he dedicated temples sites in Utah, as well as else where in the U.S.A. Fourthly, because so many people have speculated similar things about the Yucatan, I have spoken, numerous times, to the minister of Agriculture of Mexico, (which he is getting tired of by the way), and asked him about growing things in the Yucatan, in such a way so as to support a civilization. I am told the same thing every time I ask, which I have already known independently: a. The Yucatan has no surface rivers to use in the watering of crops. b. The Yucatan, during the time of the Book of Mormon, had almost no topsoil, and has precious little now. The soil therefore does not support the growing of crops. Although brush does grow on the peninsula, since there are almost no nutrients in the soil, things that are grown there have very low levels of nutrients - and had even lower levels during Book of Mormon days. It is why all of the food for the tourist areas of Cancun, Costa Maya, etc, are imported and not grown on the peninsula. This is not speculation. This is supported by historical data and confirmed by current authorities. The Yucatan is not a hospitable place, and large populations can only be maintained from large numbers of food imports via trucks, etc. If this is where the Lord led the Jaredites, and other of his people, then he led them to one of the most uninhabitable and unproductuve places on this continent. Prior to the peninsula being turned into a tourist Mecca, it had one of the highest levels of poisonous snakes in all of Mexico, which was another reason people were reluctant to live there. In fact, when they started building the tourist site now known as Cancun, they gave it the name the locals called it, Cancun means "the snake pit." Remember the Jaredites drove all the snakes out of the land northward, across the narrow neck and into the land southward. This means that the one place the snakes would not have been, would be on the Yucatan, (if that is where the Jaredites lived). And just the opposite appears to be the case. This is where the Jaredites drove the snakes to, not from. Five. My calculations put the Yucatan north of Zarahemla, not northward, (northwest). And remember, Mormon and Moroni refer to the "north countries," which were north of the land northward. If the Yucatan is the land northward, then the north countries would have had to be in the Gulf of Mexico. Sixth. I don't know what invading armies you are talking about in the Yucatan. I don't know of any document, stela, monument, record, that has an invading army entering the Yucatan in 378ad. I'm willing to be educated in that regard, but as of this writing, I have never seen such evidence. In 387ad, I don't know what an army would have invaded, as there were almost no cities worth invading. The ancient writings of Chemuel(sp?) state that the main reason people migrated to this area was to get away from the nutty folks who were always warring with each other, trying to take over their cities. These people therefore moved to the Yucatan, as it was so unattractive, that they assumed no one would be crazy enough to invade them, as no one would want what they had. (That record that I just referenced, dates to 421ad) Seventh. If I was Mormon and decided to select a place for a final battle, in order "to gain advantage over the Lamanites," (see Mormon 6:4), the absolute last place I would schedule the battle would be on the Yucatan, as it would place me in a location with no retreat. Since the armies of the Lamanites came from their lands, it means they came from the south, marching to the north. That would place Mormon's army in the north of the Yucatan, with absolutely no direction for a retreat. Mormon describes the land of Cumorah and states it is a land of rivers and fountains, (see Mormon 6:4). There are no rivers on the Yucatan, nor are there any fountains that I am aware of. There are ceynotes, but Mr. Webster and I have already resolved that issue. We know that a ceynote is not a fountain, nor is it a spring, as some people try to convert what Mormon wrote into something different. They say what Mormon really meant to say was spring, not fountain. Wrong. He meant exactly what he wrote. He was a supurb historian. Had Mormon meant a spring, rather than a fountain, I am confident that he would have written spring, rather than fountain. Eighth. I have spent an inordinate amount of time in the Yucatan. I have driven and/or walked most of it. I know of no hill on which Mormon and Moroni could secret themselves and not be discovered by the Lamanites, and yet stay there long enough for Mormon to recover from his wounds. Remember, he was wounded and left for dead during the battle, (see Mormon 6:10). The hill also had to be tall enough to see cohorts of 10,000 fall in battle, (see Mormon 6:10-13). The Yucatan is flat, and from what Mosiah 8:8 says, as well as Mormon 6:4, the land/hill Cumorah was by the ocean. There are a few hills in the center of the Yucatan, the Puuc hills, but none that I know of by the ocean. If you read Mormon 6:7 carfully, it tells us, "...that my people,...did behold the armies of the Lamanites marching towards them; and with that awful fear of death, which fills the breasts of all the wicked, did they await to receive them." The land of Cumorah undulates enough that allowed the Nephites to be high enough to see across a valley, to the other side, in order to see the Lamanites marching toward them. I know of no place in the Yucatan, by the coast, that would allow for such a visual for the Nephites. Indeed, just the opposite. The brush of the Yucatan is so thick and so tall, that you cannot see squat when standing at ground level. Ninth. There were 230,000 Nephites killed at the battle of Cumorah. The Lamanites lost at least that many men, probably more like 500,000. I know of no location in the Yucatan that has evidence of that kind of battle, the remains of dead people, their weapons of war, etc. Nor am I aware of any record that indicates such a battle. And we then have to add the million Jaredites that were killed in the same land, with all of their weapons. Tenth. Mormon selected a place for the battle that was to give him an advantage. If he selected the Yucatan, that means he would have selected a place with no rivers, land that was almost non-productive, because of the lack of top soil, (remember, he had to feed 230,000 for five years, as well as have water for them, etc.). The Yucatan would have placed them in one of the hottest places in Mesoamerica, remember the gathering took close to five years - so for at least four years they would have had to stand the brutal sun of the Yucatan summers. It would have placed them in a place where water was hard to come by, food was almost impossible to produce, was infested by snakes, and left no place for them to retreat. That does not sound like an advantage to me. I could give many additional reasons for my conclusions about the Yucatan, but it seems as if these should suffice. Once again, I appreciate your willingness to write, question, speculate and offer alternative views. Until someone with authority speaks, we are all free to have our own views about this, and I have learned that every view is worthy of consideration and discussion. I thank you for yours. Ask a Mormon - LDS Cyber Missionaries Forum lds1.org • View topic - Jerry's Mormon Sites Newsletters 2009 Feel free to write your own comments and ask questions for Jerry on the LDS1.org board. He is not comfortable with discussion boards but I often email posts to him and copy his reponses in his forum there. http://www.lds1.org http://www.ctr1.org

I was a Roman Catholic until my early twenties when the LDS missionaries knocked on my door and left me the Book of Mormon. It didn't take me long to find out that was true and to be baptized.That was about 40 years ago. The LDS Church has worked for me, I could not imagine what my life would have been like without it those 40 years. But I continue to appreciate the strong moral values I was taught by Catholic parents. I'm really looking forward to being with my family forever. I wish you the very best with your research Brenlae.

Try this link Maya: V. Garth Norman Israel

There is an entire website devoted to the Mesoamerican theory of Book of Mormon geography. You might find it useful: Mormon Sites - rising from the dust... .

I think the majority of LDS scholars today are of the opinion that Lehi's party originally landed on the west coast of today's Guatemala, and that the City of Nephi is where today's Guatemala City is located.

Dr. Jerry L. Ainsworth, author of "The Lives and Travels of Mormon and Moroni" has written several articles on the location of Cumorah of the Final Battles. Those articles can be read in their entirety in the "Reading Room" at Mormon Sites - rising from the dust... Here's an extract: Conclusion: From the information provided in the three articles I have written, it appears the following characteristics of the land and hill Cumorah are justified: 1. They were in a land adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico. 2. The land of Cumorah and the waters of the ocean were intermingled. 3. There were rivers and fountains around the hill Cumorah. There is no mention of lakes. 4. The hill Cumorah was very large, almost a mountain. 5. You could travel northeast from the hill Cumorah, reaching the ocean. 6. There was a country southeast of the land of Cumorah, between Cumorah and Desolation. 7. There were countries south of Cumorah, between Cumorah and the narrow neck. 8. The boundaries of Desolation extend to the boundaries of Cumorah. 9. The hill Cumorah was relatively close to the hill Shim. These nine points do not describe the hill in up-state New York. They describe the hill where the final Nephite battle took place in 385ad, in Southern Mexico. In 421ad, some 36 years later, Moroni buried the Nephite abridgment in the hill in up-state New York, where Joseph Smith retrieved it, along with the Breastplate and the Urim and Thummim.. Obviously, Moroni traveled a lot during those last 36 years of his life. I believe the best candidate for the land of Cumorah, is the area of Tampico, Mexico, and the best candidate for the hill Cumorah, is Cerro Bernal. Cerro Bernal is about seventy miles west of Tampico, and is located by the Mexican city of Ciudad Mante. Book of Mormon Geography - Reading Room - page 5 It is also my understanding that extensive archaeological projects have been completed around New York's Hill Cumorah and no weapons of war of any kind have been located on or or nearby that hill. It seems obvious once you have investigated this matter with an open mind that "Hill Cumorah" near Palmyra, NY is the hill where Moroni buried the record but is not the hill Cumorah where the final Jaredite and Nephite battles took place.

As far as I am aware nothing is yet proven to the satisfaction of professional archaeologists but the MesoAmerican theory of Book of Mormon geography strongly prevails among most LDS scholars. (Though many disagree among such things as which of two rivers is Sidon.) There is a whole lot of information on Book of Mormon geography, and a free monthly newsletter at: Mormon Sites - rising from the dust...

David Ridge's book is also available at Cedar Fort:LDS Books: 50 Signs of the Times and the Second Coming

That's just your opinion Hemi, personally I think the green water is ok, but watch out for that black stuff...

I don't know any of them but my guess is that the founders of "Deseret Nation" are sincere good living people who feel they have a mission. But I'd like to learn more from their leader because it's a subject of much interest to me even though I share your concerns at this time. I think this thread would be a great place for them to respond to such concerns, and to promote their venture. I look forward to hearing from them.

So what you're saying Hemi is that I shouldn't start drinking green or white or purple tea because it's hazardous to my health? How about that Los Angeles air? I'm standing down, I'm not a tea advocate, just wanted to see what members of this board thought about the grape/wine/green/black idea in the context of the Word of Wisdom. Thanks for responding.

Ludlow's field is Near Eastern and Judaic Studies and I don't think he is a general authority, so we may have to consider his statement opinion rather than authoritative. Wicki (google "green tea") says that black and green teas are from the same plant, but black tea is oxidized in a process (apparently falsely) called "fermentation". I'm just playing the 'devil's advocate' here but I continue to think that my analogy about grapes, grape juice, and wine, could be similar to the difference between black and green teas. (Same fruit/leaf but one is further processed and it's that processing that makes it offensive to the WOW compared to the format that is not further processed.) Comments/opinions?

Perhaps someone has a quote from a GA regarding green tea. If not, how about the following consideration: Eating grapes and drinking grape juice is ok. It is only when grape juice is aged/processed/fermented that it becomes offensive to the WOW if one partakes of it. Green tea is apparently made from green unaged tea leaves (I think.) Could the same reasoning as with grapes be applicable? Is it only aged/processed (comparable to "fermented") tea leaves (i.e. "black" tea) that are contrary to the WOW??

Personally I fail to understand why anyone would drink Coke, even in moderation, when Pepsi is so obviously a vastly superior better-tasting beverage. But setting that aside for a moment, I don't drink it, but I'm curious what the general consensus is here about green tea? Some people think it has therapeutic value. Is drinking green tea contrary to the WOW similar to black tea? Comments...

True, but we know that non-members (non-LDS) will be included in the Kingdom of God government that will begin in the Rocky Mountains and will rule the entire earth with Jesus Christ at its head during the Millennium.

I too am looking forward to a discussion of this important topic, in particular the role (if any) that LDS General Authorities would have in the development and operation of the proposed "Deseret Nation." The timing may be approaching for such an entity, but for it to have any legitimacy in my mind, the Senior Brethren would have to give it their blessing, even if quietly and unofficially in the beginning. Once that is done, there would be no shortage of perhaps highly qualified 'recruits', we love and trust the Brethren. But until then, I think it will remain a commendable dream. These are exciting times for those who feel they've spent their life preparing to participate in the final events before the Millennium, my guess is that there are many. This morning FoxNews.com is reporting the decline of America in the near future. ---- Alarming government report predicts environmental catastrophe, threat of nuclear war and the decline of America as the dominant global power by 2025. The next two decades will see a world living with the daily threat of nuclear war, environmental catastrophe and the decline of America as the dominant global power, according to a frighteningly bleak assessment by the U.S. intelligence community. "The world of the near future will be subject to an increased likelihood of conflict over resources, including food and water, and will be haunted by the persistence of rogue states and terrorist groups with greater access to nuclear weapons," said the report by the National Intelligence Council... "The international system will be almost unrecognizable by 2025, owing to the rise of emerging powers, a globalizing economy, a transfer of wealth from West to East, and the growing influence of non-state actors. Although the United States is likely to remain the single most powerful actor, the United States' relative strength -- even in the military realm -- will decline and US leverage will become more strained." Report: U.S. Dominance and Influence Predicted to Fade - FOXNews.com Transition Tracker .

Thanks Hemi for that abundance of information about the historical Council of Fifty. I extracted a few paragraphs that may be of immediate significance for those interested in this thread: "The first evident characteristic of the council of fifty's membership is the extent to which church office was important. From 1844 to 1884 the council of fifty included every contemporary member of the first presidency except the disaffected william law, every member of the quorum of the twelve apostles, every presiding patriarch except john smith (b. 1832, son of hyrum smith), every member of the presiding bishopric except jesse c. Little, and more than forty-four percent of the first council of the seventy. 60 of local officers during the period, forty-eight percent of the stake presidents and a much smaller percentage of the ward bishops were members of the council of fifty during their ecclesiastical service in these positions. This church identity of members of the council of fifty was mentioned in an 1882 revelation: Behold you are my kingdom and rulers in my kingdom and then you are also, many of you, rulers in my church according to your ordinations therein. For are you not of the first presidency, and of the twelve apostles and some presidents of stakes, and some bishops, and some high priests and some seventies and elders therein? And are ye not all of my church and belong to my holy priesthood?" My guess is that the founders of Deseret Nation are going to have some difficulty recruiting members until they can show some valid evidence that General Authorities are involved in some way, and that their organization, commendable as the effort may be, is not among those that are of concern during temple recommend interviews. Just my thoughts, it is my hope that the founders will participate here to respond to such concerns.

Thanks, that helps, it's a brand new venture led by two or three people then. If you can arrange it, it might be helpful to get your founders on this board to respond to questions and to provide information directly and openly. Can you make that happen?