Cal

Jenda--I've never understood why mormons would think that Chiasmus in the BoM is anything unusual. The Bible had it, JS was familiar with the Bible so he, either intentionally or subconscieously, included it as an aliterative style. I have NO problem believing that JS was an extremely bright guy, with an incredible memory and imagination. However, none of that makes what he did "super natural".The question is, did he have a little (or a lot) of the "con man" in him? Was he capable of "pulling a fast one on people"? The answer to that question is, clearly he did. As a young man he went around trying to convince people he could see buried treasure in a peep stone. The question is DID he do that when it comes to the BoM story? Let's put it this way, Jenda--do you think JS could actually see buried treasure in a peep stone as he told people he could? If you believe the rest of what he said, why don't you believe that?

Jenda--Maybe it is you that needs to study the whole issue and the circumstances around the production of the BoM. By the way I have read the BoM so many times I have lost track, so please don't make assumptions you haven't investigated. But--consider this---JS was intimately familiar with the Bible--he quoted it extensively in the BoM (or maybe you hadn't noticed--perhaps YOU need to read it a bit more with a more OBJECTIVE eye). Why do you think it so unusual that he would have repeated some of the patterns present in the Bible. The Bible was the primary literature of the 1800's and many people knew its contents. All it really took was a great imagination and the ability to weave an intricate story. The fact that someone writes something most of us couldn't hardly proves that it comes from a supernatural source. There is lots of impressive literature in the world--you don't need "other world" explanations for all of it. Give the human mind and imagination some credit. On top of that look at things like 1) the ultra-specific nature of prophesies of things that had ALREADY happened by JS' time and the shortage of anything SPECIFIC after as well as 2) many of the issues resolved by the BoM were issues hotly debated in the society of New England at the time of JS (what a coincidence that the Native Americans we discussing the same things 1500 years ago) 3) He described a Hebrew people whose scribes seemed to know little about common Hebrew customs--at least not even mentioned.. 4) The native americans the supposed Moroni described as Lamanites (and therefore Hebrews) have no genetic connection to the middle east. 5) When translating what was supposed to be Isaiah off the Plates of Laban, JS included the translation errors of the King James version. How interesting? These are raise serious questions about the authenticity of the BOM.

bat---yeah, but you ought to see the little green guys that live in my refrigerator, they can do the most amazing things. They can even make my food spoil. I KNOW it can't be fungus, because, as Peace would say, those scientists don't know anything!

Peace--so you subscribe to the inferences in the BoM that would have Jesus and God as the exact same person?

Peace--it's difficult to have faith in something whose effects are as inconsistent and indiscriminate at the healing power of the priesthood. Sometimes it works , sometimes it doesn't. Seems to coincide quite nicely with what happens ANYWAY. Some people recover from deadly diseases, some don't.

Snow--you will recall that the substance of my comments were regarding use of the priesthood for HEALING THE SICK; that is what the thread was addressing. The discussion went on to debate whether the priesthood was necessary for this kind of thing. My argument was that if healing, and other similar blessing are in the hands of God, which a number of people on the thread agreed was so, then why not just call upon God to exercise what was already HIS will. You don't need the priesthood, if God is going to exercize his will in his own way. I don't recall extending that to say that the Priesthood isn't good for anything ELSE, you read it that way and proceeded to rant on as though I had. Regarding my statement: "admitt(ing) that God does INDEED bless, favor, and heal WITHOUT the mormon priesthood being involved, you... establish(es) that Mormon Priesthood is UNNECESSARY" It should have been evident in light of the context of "heal, bless, and favor" that the word UNNECESSARY meant unnecessary FOR THAT or THOSE PURPOSES. (I shouldn't have to say it, but if you need the clarification, there it is). Whether God does or doesn't act outside of the mormon priesthood for OTHER PURPOSES really makes no difference to me. Since no one seems to understand the nature of the mormon God anyway, or exactly what this priesthood is, outside the definitions that mormons have given it, a debate on whether it is necessary for EVERYTHING God does is kind of a wasted effort.

Agreed! When ever I read or hear that "we are here to see if we will be obedient", it reminds me of some sort of dog obedience-school thing. I reduces us to little robots. Disgusting.

And apparently it has no wheels

Snow--I wasn't particularly interested in what YOU believed. I think I know that. I was refering to what many mormons believe. And Yes, I'm sure you are quite an authority on what YOU personally believe. I'm talking about someone who can speak for large numbers of mormons. No matter how YOU read my postings, hopefully you now understand what I was saying.

Actually, all JS had to have was a vivid imagination and great story telling ability--not something unknown in all of human history. Snow--as to faith. Just because someone doesn't believe the BoM to be accurate history or of some supernatural origin doesn't mean one doesn't have FAITH. I have faith in lots of things. It's just that I first find a REASON to have faith in them. If that REASON disapears, so does my faith in it. When it comes to statements about faith, you have to ask the question, "FAITH IN WHAT, and for WHAT REASON?". Faith without reason is folly! Case in point: I have faith that the scientific method is the best method man has found to discover truth. When someone shows me a better one, one that actually works better, I will then have FAITH in that. I don't just keep having faith inspite of a mountain of evidence to the contrary, which is what a lot of mormons have don't in relation to the BOM and BoA. Faith should be modified in the face of reason. If I have faith that JS was giving an accurate story of the history of the native americans it probably started because I had no reason NOT to believe it, and there was at least SOME good reason to believe. On the other hand, if the assumptions I made about JS, that ALLOWED me to start having faith in the first place, subsequently DISAPPEAR, then why would it not be rational to question that faith in light of the new evidence? Of course, if one had no commitment to rationality in the first place, then I suppose new information would be of little import. But then, one would wonder about such a person who would believe in things without a rational basis to begin with.

Yeah, and for the hallucinating schizophenic, his reality is just as convincing to HIM. Just not to anyone else. Thanks, but I chose to stay in the physical world where outlandish claims can be tested and either accepted or rejected on more objective grounds. I guess that makes me really SILLY, huh?

Paul---you said: I am going to stick it out until my last breath even if they find a letter written by Joseph Smith saying he faked everything. Do you actually think about what you are saying? Where did you get your faith from in the first place? Didn't it start with the story of JS? It's sort of like saying, even if the tires fall off my car, I'm going to keep on driving down the freeway anyway. Wouldn't it be more logical to get a better car?

Bat,Exactly!

My personal favorite argument. Hey, a monkey eats his own feces so you know it has to be natural. Good thinking! Snow--my point was that homosexuality does not necessarly lead to extinction since it exists in species that have been around in their present form, longer than we have. Try to stick to the issues.

Cal, How on earth can you object to being called a silly sort when this is what you post: You said: ""He can alliviate suffering and refuses to do so on a regular basis. Oh, he does it for whom he "choses", according to mormons. Only if you are rightous enough and have the "priesthood" I said: No that's not what we believe. You said: That's a bald assertion. Tell me that is not silly. You misrepresent our beliefs (any Mormon in the world can tell you that we believe God blesses people who are not righteous holders - and I gave examples), I correct you about what I/we believe and you retort that I am baldly asserting what I/we believe - as if I am not qualified to say what I/we believe. That's silly. You're silly. You want to be taken seriously but then say stuff like that. Tell you what. You find a single Mormon (out of the hundreds and hundreds who belong to LDSTalk) who thinks that God refuses to bless those who are rigtheous priesthood holders and I will stop thinking that you are silly. Burden of proof my boy. You are the one who is asserting and asserting an unlikely thing at that. Didn't they learn you nothing at science class. Burden of proof.

You might anticipate the question: Well, if all JS had to do was look into a hat with a rock in it, what did he need the "plates" for?

Apparently you have never been involved with the IRS. You forget, those so-called "laws" are imposed by force by a group of men and women who impose themselves on the people without their consent. Yeah, use the Gambino union and stay out of trouble. It's simple! What I recognize is a group of men and women who impose themselves on others. Too bad you can't recognize that. You don't recognize a man/woman's right to say no. Best ever devised? Please, even the best form of slavery is still slavery. How about the same services provided on a voluntary basis? Why impose a service on someone against their will? WHO will volunteer? WHO will pay for the street lights? WHO? How does your "voluntary society" function? I'm truly curious how it would work and what it would be like. Please share. I would like to live in a Utiopia, too. I simply believe it is not possible, given human nature.

Lookee here Cal, You have adopted a very deliberate strategy on LDStalk that essentially consists of insulting the Church whether they deserve it or not and misrepresent the LDS position to do it. You can't very well expect no one to notice. Besides, your complaint would have more weight if in fact I had called you any names in this thread.

Paul--you respond as if my response was not appropriate. If you will recall YOU made the assertion that YOUR God was my father. I simply disagreed. As far as I am concerned, my God can't be BIGGER than your God, because your doesn't even exist, for me at least. The two cannot coexist because they have entirely different characteristics.

The article certainly raises a lot of sensitive issues about life, love, children and marriage. Unfortunately there is no one set of rules that you can apply to every circumstance. However, there are a few things to be said: 1) No matter how good a job YOU do at trying to keep a relationship together, you can't always control what the other partner NEEDS or how he/she is going to change over time. I agree that being unfaithful is NEVER a good alternative. If you absolutely have to get out, do it with integrity and maturity. 2) In spite of divorce, children CAN still come out OK if...... a. The parents do a good job of not fighting in front of the children b. Treat eachother with respect, at least in front of the children c. The parents make it very clear to the children that the divorce is not their fault. d. Both parents stay positively involved in the lives of the children e. The parents are mature enough to realize that their children do not "belong" to them as though they were property to be "owned" and that it is often in the best interests of the children to be able to have good feelings about about step parents. This means that the parents do not denigrate the step parent, but support the relationship of their children with the step parent. Tough to do, but essential to the health development of the child. f. The parents put the welfare of their children ahead of their own need to "get even" or punish the ex spouse. g. The parents support the relationship the kids have with the ex spouse. Never criticizing the ex spouse. Unfortunately, this is an ideal not often achieved, and so kids suffer more than they should in divorces.

No bat, I was sarcastically responding to Peace's view of the meaning of life. Essentially it is "do what you are told to do by the mormon church" and you will be saved! Did you read her initial posting?

Bat--you silly, life is "dog obedience school", or did you forget?

Curvy and Peace--what Peace posted is a big load of ______. Like you said, Curvy, Eisenhower has been quoted out of context, and the author has obviously pieced together unrelated facts in order to manufacture a total distorted image of Eisenhower. Eisenhower supported the Marshall plan to rebuild Germany. Why would he do that if he hated Germans that much? Sorry but this is just another example of how Peace believes anything she reads without reference to the reliablity of the sourse or knowledge of history.

Peace--sorry but you lost me there. Just how is the existance of the earth and sun EVIDENCE of YOUR God? How do you know it isn't evidence of MY GOD?

Snow--as usual you are very good at bald assertions and some name calling, but poor at providing a counter argument laden with facts of your own. By the way, why do you need PD to do your thinking for you?