Snow

I don't ever hear this taught at church, but my son was taught this in Seminary this year. Also that Noah lived in America before the flood. He was quite disturbed by the teaching and didn't believe a word of it. Which part was he disturbed by? That "Noah (really) lived" or that there really was a flood or that Adam lived in America?

So is cannibalism in the aboriginies of Borneo.I fail to see your point.

What exactly is in the exhibit? Are there any of the actual scrolls or just pictures? Is this a traveling exhibit? I've always thought the DSSs were fascinating. As I understand it, and you know my understanding it a wide as the eternities and as bright as the promise of a new day, the exhibit or at least part of the exhibit is a BYU reproduction of the scrolls. I am told that the reproductions are very good. BYU has scholars on the translating team and DNA project and are seriously involved. Parry, who is speaking, is on the international team of editors of the DSS. He works with Frank Cross, the famous Harvard guy on the Samuel scrolls from cave 4 at Qumran. Dana Pike, David Rolph Seely and Andrew Skinner, all of BYu are also part of the international team. Although small fragments travel around in museum shows (I saw one at the Bowers Museum in Santa Ana) the scrolls themselves are locked down tight in the Israel Museum and the Rockerfeller Museum in East Jerusalem. Bug, you may have seen the reproductions at BYU.

i just read the piece(s) that you may be referring to: D&C 116, 117, Hx of the Church 3:35 and you are correct. McKonike talks about it extensively in the Millenial Messiah. I don't know what his sources are. A quick scan shows lot of secondary and terciary info, but no primary sources. WW says JS told him so. Oliver Huntington reports on the altar there built by Adam but Oliver is the same guy that reports that JS believed Quakers lived on the moon and true to form, Oliver waits 50 years before mentioning it.

Could ya try though. We all know how smart d'art you are.This is the fun part. He has no trouble believing in a literal Adam, cause that's good solid thinking - but heaven verboten that you try to physically locate Adam in a place he hasn't dogmatically bought into.

I knew that I would need to cut off the limb that you crawled out on. Given enough space, you'd jump off yourself.Let's see. Your claim... that Oliver Cowdery denied the devinity of the Bom. Your proof... a poem by J.H. Johnson “The wise shall understand.” Daniel. Amazed with wonder! I look round To see most people of our day, Reject the glorious gospel sound, Because the simple turn away. Or does it prove there is no time, Because some watches will not go? But does it prove there is no crime Because not punished here below? ...Or prove that Christ was not the Lord Because that Peter cursed and swore? Or Book of Mormon not his word Because denied, by Oliver? (Times and Seasons, Vol.2, p.482.) At least no one ever claimed that exmormons were critical thinkers. How hard do you think this will be to rebutt? What did JH mean by denied? Did he mean deny like Peter denied Christ (not denying Christ's divinity but denying his association with Him)? Did he mean that OC abandoned his calling to preach the BoM? Did he mean that after being excommunicated, OC hung out and worshiped with the Methodist while he was waiting to return to fellowship? Who knows. It doesn't matter. Even if he meant "deny" in the way you want him to have meant "deny, Johnson was in Kirtland at the time of OC's Missouri excommunication and his opinion is, at best, perpetuation of a rumor and has no evidential value. Big deal. On the other hand, here is what OC said publically 7 years after Johnson's little ditty, while OC was still a non-member: “I wrote, with my own pen, the entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages) as it fell from the lips of the Prophet Joseph, as he translated it by the gift and power of God..I beheld with my eyes, and handled with my hands, the gold plates from which it was transcribed. That book is true. ...It contains the everlasting gospel, and came forth to the children of men in fulfillment of the revelations of John, where he says he saw an angel come with the everlasting gospel to preach to every nation, kindred, tongue and people. It contains principles of salvation; and if you, my hearers, will walk by its light and obey its precepts, you will be saved with an everlasting salvation in the kingdom of God on high.” Later, after Oliver had rejoined the Church, was preparing to move to Utah and fell ill with tuberculosis, his half -sister Lucy reportsL “Oliver Cowdery just before breathing his last, asked his attendants to raise him up in bed that he might talk to the family and his friends, who were present. He then told them to live according to the teachings contained in the Book of Mormon, and promised them, if they would do this, that they would meet him in heaven. He then said, ‘Lay me down and let me fall asleep.’ A few moments later he died without a struggle.” You were doing good with the Jaredites and barges argument. You should try that again.

-See my post above.-No. -Have you read them?

Yeah, Earth to elinz... true in the sense that they accurately convey the gospel of Jesus Christ and were legitimately authored by those in authority and in a position to know the correct teaching of Christ and or the apostles. Are they? No.

If'n you're in the LA area, the LA Temple Visitor's center currently has a DSS exhibit. Next Sunday, Feb 22 at 7:00 at the chapel behind the Temple there will be a Fireside on the Scrolls. I heard that Donald Parry is presenting.

Who cares if they are reliably dated [century(s) after Christ] or correct transcriptions. The question is, are they true. Don't thing so.

Do a google on "One of the problems with relying on the Witnesses for the authenticity of Mormonism is the testimony of David Whitmer given later in life...." and it comes up as a verbatim hit on exmormon, meaning that it is all likely dishonest claptrap. Of course I can refute it. It is patently false. Cowdery did not recant his testimony about the divinity of the Book of Mormon. I just wonder how far out on a limb you are willing to commit before I saw it off. I know that it doesn't really matter to you though. You don't believe or don't not believe that Oliver lost his testimony of the BoM. It is not important to you or your purposes. Your intention is to thow as much crapola on the board as possible trying to proselytize for your cause. True or untrue is unimportant. Sowing seeds of doubt is what important. I have to laugh everytime some unsuspecting rube tries to engage you in a serious debate on stuff like this - like you have a vested interest in being right - you don't. That's pretty accurate, isn't it AS?

That's a website with hundreds of links.I am asking you for evidence to support your assertion that there were a bunch parables (from Christ) and that the assemblers of the NT discarded the majority of them. Not only is it not "new revelation," I doubt it is even old revelation. What is it that makes you think that it is revelation?

Alledged quotes you mean... Source please.

AS.Tell me how that isn't doing the same thing? Murder is Murder. Doesn't matter whether it is a "handle" on an electric chair to pull or a "trigger" on a gun. Marsha Not really.Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being. You may not agree with capital punishment but execution is not murder. By the way, a secondary defintion of murder is a brutal and unwarranted killing, neither of which applies to capital punishment either.

Well, I'm just telling you what I think. Lying is such a harsh word. Let's just say that you fabricated a wholesale falsehood. ...and for heaven's sake, if you are going to use exmormon.org as the source of your material and hence your neatly packaged opinion, then reference them.

Don't know, and not that part. Cowdery never denied the divinity of the BoM

And I think that I am the Queen of Sheeba. Thanks for sharing what you think. Oh yeah, sure, the bullied-into-mass-hallucination theory. Say, are to the Prince of Sheeba? I understand that you think that if you only say it enough times, that it will become true. For the rest of us, however, prove it. How desperate are you that you have to invent things that are just plain lies? Can't you find enough honest criticism?

Hey AS,Why do you want us to do all your work for you. Answer your own questions. You have answers don't you? That some of the witnesses were totally out of favor with the Church and had big personal issues with Joseph Smith, and even condemned him as a fallen prophet, as still didn't renouce their testimony, is a great testament to their experience with the BoM. Take Oliver, some 30 years out of the Church, angry about many things and believing that JS was a fallen prophet - never changed his story, never denied, never wavered. I think that those men had been called to one primary purpose in life and that was to bear witness of the BoM and no matter how disaffected they later became, God had revealed to them what eternal damnation would await them should they violate their calling - and they never did.

First, the plates were'nt hidden out in the woods. They may have been there some of the time but other times, they were not. Sometimes they were in the roon (presumably behind the curtain) and later under a cloth.Second, the plates were translated, in part, with the U&T - the 116 pages. Third. I think that there was a lot of imprecised terminology. Oliver talked about the U&T at a time when according to other accounts the U&T were already supposed to have been returned to Moroni. So Oliver was, evidently, calling the seer stone the U&T.

Meaning, I suppose, that I don't know anything about it.Wrong. I know 'about it' just what I quoted, right off the movies website. That is the part I criticized. I hope you enjoyed your sweeping romantic movie that resonates with anyone that has been in love. There is no topic so pure or uplifting enough (missionaries in the service of spreading the gospel) that some slime bucket hound will not try to exploit by truning it into something vile and reprehensible (betting on whether a gorgeous hunk can seduce someone who has been called and ordained into defiling his covenants and engaging in, premarital homosexual sex.)

Please, do tell us more about these thousands of poorly worded passages that have since been deleted. Can you mention a couple dozen - out of the 1000's? And while your at it, please cite your source for the 1000's or poorly worded passages.

AS, Off hand, I cannot think of a single doctrinal position on which my belief is not orthodox. Obviously you can. What?

AS, -Okay, I agree with you but there is a plausible alternate way to see it. -Yes, I have the references. In books by noted historians and scholars - not from BYU. I do not have the actual complete manuscripts (or type reproductions) but they exist. -Since the transaction never occurred and was thus not recorded, I don't know what the intended effect would have been. The whole topic, if I recall correctly, came from one of the people involved years after the fact. Not much is known.

Sanctuary, Well Quinn is a much better source - a real historian. His interpretation is a bit skewed but so is everybody's. Folllowing up from yesterday: You come across as having an agenda, that you already know the answers and ask and then pretend to be surprized when someone answers (Now you're scarring me). I can't hear your tone or watch your expressions but we have all seen this type of act dozens and dozens of times here at LDStalk. I am more suspicious than most but two others thought the same thing about you. You seem passive agressive. You certainly have an agenda though I may have overstated it. Either way, something hidden lies in your posts. You can handle this stuff anyway you want, there is no right or wrong but when I know what's coming, I am bound to let others know that, for me, the gig is up. I am not terribly polite in the process. Nothing personal. I am sure you are a good citizen. It the schtick that I don't care for. One way is the direct approach. Ex: "I heard this about LDS doctrince.... Is that correct?" or "I am so and so and believe this, however, I am not totally decided. Would anyone like to discuss/debate it?" Or even the agressive approach: Confront us right off the bat and see if anyone what to go toe to toe with you. Personally I think you are way wrong on most of what you are saying but that doesn't bother me so much, it is the seemingly hidden agenda that piques my interest and hence my obnoxiousness. Regards and happy posting.

Like SRM said, "and it came to pass" could have been a single character like "i". Hey, don't accept the Church's version. Go straight to the original documentation. It's available. Diaries, Newspaper accounts, letters, etc. It's no mystery. Yes he did - do get $$$ to print it (a failed prophecy on JS's part that he, in good humor attributed to either man or the devil) and no, it wasn't considered a novel - not by JS.