LeSellers

Why not? Because he is no conservative, and even less a libertarian. I don't like his stance on a host of issues, not least the II, nor his history of political meddling and using government for immoral, unconstitutional purposes. (For this last, though, I cannot blame him as much as he deserves because the law, set up as it is, makes not using government immorally catastrophic.) Lehi

What else are you going to do to insure that a truly evil and amoral woman does not take the oval office? I've only voted for a GOP candidate about a half dozen times (not just for president) in the last half decade. I'm not thrilled about it this time, but it's a better choice than voting for the crazed, scheming bat the DemoComms chose to run. Lehi

Their platform is still evil, united or disunited as they may be. Lehi

Because the Lord has revealed to me that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, led by prophets and Apostles of God, is His congregation, not some offshoot and apostate organization led by the whims of the unrighteous. And Joseph said that other men would lead the church when he was gone. But, and this is critical, any blessing depends on the worthiness of the recipient for its fulfillment. Brigham was that man, both by revelation (he was the president of the equal-authority-quorum, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. None of the men who formed the RLDS church (nor any other, possibly excepting Sydney Rigdon's twiglet in Pennsylvania, but Rigdon had suffered traumatic brain injury in Missouri) had any authority to reform the church. Lehi

What evidence do you have that this is the case? It seems you are implying that polygyny is immoral. How did you reach that conclusion, because that flies in the face of reality. You claim that your morality is based on survival of the species. Polygyny is vastly more likely to result in a continuation of humanity than monogyny. The best men (richest, best looking, strongest, most powerful in any way) will get the best women. The next best men will get the next best women until the least desirable men will have none at all. These men, unable to pass along their genes, become genetic dead ends, and the best men, having many more children than they could under monogamy, pass along superior genes, enhancing the species and insuring its survival. Lehi

This assumes, against all evidence, that government-run, tax-funded welfare schools provide "education" as opposed to "indoctrination". There are other ways, more just, more economical, and far more moral, to educate children, but we do not "morally choose" to do it the way we are doing it. In fact, grtf-welfare schools are among the most immoral means of achieving that end conceivable. Not only immoral, but wholly ineffective. Lehi

You continue to assume that there is no evidence. The fact that you reject it does not mean the evidence is not there. Until recently, no one knew there were atoms, nor their structure. That did not make atoms imaginary, nor did discovering them (such as we have) make them suddenly pop into existence. The only-what-I-see crowd has been wrong thousands of times before. Why should this time be any different? Lehi

This is not the topic of this conversation. You continue to inject this into a discussion you started about an entirely different thing. Lehi

That ignores the supposed facts surrounding the killing of the first born in Egypt. What did those children do? The god of the bible was not upset at them, he was upset at Pharoah for not letting the Hebrews leave. And because of pharoah's actions, god killed thousands of others who were entirely innocent to the question. Not all "first-born" were "children", incapable of sinning, so rein in your outrage a bit. Even De Mille's adaptation (and bowdlerizing) of the Exodus account shows one of Pharaoh's officer's son's dying in full armor. It was not just Pharaoh who benefited from the Israelite slavery: all of Egypt did, from the taskmasters to the others who were employed in building the cities (it wasn't all Israelites making bricks and mortaring them with slime). De Mille shows a young (8 or so) crown prince kicking Moses in the shin. We can imagine quite easily that youngsters in Egypt were quite capable of hating their slaves right along with their elders and priests (who also weighed in on the matter of letting the Israelites go). We should add the entire court of Pharaoh to the list of people who actively resisted letting the slaves go. It was not one man, it was a nation. Not everyone, possibly, probably, but far from the unilateral decision you portray. So a fraction, a tiny fraction of the dead first born were "children", not the rosy picture your paint of millions of infants dying. Most of those infants who did die (assuming there were any, the record is not exactly clear*) would have died anyway, given the high infant mortality of the ancient world, and it is conceivable that their deaths were more merciful than dying of the measles or cholera. And, as you have intimated earlier, we Saints do not look on the deaths of infants and young children the same way you must, given your lakc of faith in a life after death wherein these innocents are received in Celestial glory. * We might look to the "massacre of the innocents" in Bethlehem. Most people imagine that hundreds of children were killed, but, in reality, it was probably fewer than a half dozen. Lehi

If so, he hasn't made the point. He continues to attack the morality of God, not whether morality can exist without God. If God establishes a morality for us (love thy neighbor), and applies it in ways we do not understand, or even establishes a different morality for Himself (which is not a claim, just a hypothesis) makes no difference to the announced position, i.e., that morality can exist without God. He claims to have written an explanation of how the two moralities differ, but I haven't seen it (not looked at each post all that carefully, mind, but then, I have had five eye operations, and sometimes miss things). But he has not, nor has anyone else, established how anyone knows what "morality" is without an outside power that defines it. Lehi

Those who were sinning at the time the punishment was administered were sinning on their own: it wasn't their fathers who condemned them. It is moral to offer a covenant, no matter the conditions. Those who enter into the covenant make the choice to observe it or not. They get to choose whether to accept it and bind themselves to it. Lehi

It should be internally consistent, at least. Lehi

Why weird? does it matter who of them lied? Well, no, we don't. There are millions of us who know Moroni visited Joseph that night and the next morning and the following anniversaries. But that won't satisfy you, I'm sure. Nonetheless, there were three men who also saw Moroni: David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris. Lehi

No, I did not. I postfaced my comment of accuracy with Moroni's caveat. No, I haven't. I doubt that your experience was germane. Did you go as an archaeologist, a tourist, a missionary? I have read people whose research I trust and who demonstrate that the areas a few hundred miles north of Panama and northward to the Yucatan Peninsula is a very likely locale for the events' of the majority of the Book of Mormon account as we have it. Lehi

Nor did I say you had. This is all hypothetical, and in contrast to the truth. My point, which seems lost in the ether somewhere, is that your hypothetical is inconsistent with the reality of truth and the Restoration. Lehi

If you say so. Lehi

!00% is a superhuman standard, but, as Moroni said, we know of no errors. That hardly means there are none, but it does mean that the Book of Mormon is a truthful, historical account of a real people, and real events, and real prophets, and real promises and witnesses, and testimonies. It is not a big fat fairy tale. It is another Testament of Jesus Christ, written by the people who experienced that events it recounts. Lehi

Prove it Prove it "Proof" is tough, but Joseph said the Lehites landed in Peru. The geography demands a limited space, and the words show us where that must be in relationship to the landing site. "Prove it"?!?!? Who are you, Voldemort? Lehi

Not at all well. What do you propose? USAans are not very sophisticated when it comes to party politics. We'll end up with Trump or Hitliary. I prefer another candidate and another party, but it jes' ain't in the cards. No. I do not support Trump. But of the two likely candidates, I prefer him by several orders of magnitude over another Clinton. The reasons are many, but they all come down to 33¼ grandchildren. I have skin in this game like few others. Lehi

No one knows where to look, so the archaeological remains are wherever the Lamanites and the Nephites, and the Jaredites left them. As noted above, I believe Joseph when he said that the Lehite colony was originally in what he knew as "Peru". Based on that, we can deduce that the Jaredites and the Mulekites were south and east of the Yucatan Peninsula. There's not a lot of archaeology complete down there. But, as @Traveler notes, 100% of Lehi's Arabian trek is in accordance with the narrative we have from the small Plates of Nephi. That ought to receive more than a knowing wink or nod. Lehi

You can cherry pick all you like, but Emma knew of Plural Marriage long before others knew. No one would declare she liked Plural Marriage. No one would say she did more than tolerate it, and no one is saying she didn't rebel against it from time to time. But she knew where it came from, and whatever else one may say, she continued with Joseph, the Seer, and loved him, when, had she not known, she'd have left him, and gone back to her gloating family. Lehi

Then please explain Moroni's visit to Joseph in 1822. Either Moroni lied or he told the truth. It was no meteor, it was no fairy tale, fat, big or otherwise. It is the account of the people who traveled from the Middle East to Peru (extending further south than today's country) and to the Yucatan Peninsula (or nearly so). They lived, they fought, they died, and they bear record of the Risen Christ in their sacred and secular annals. If Moroni lied, then his "promise" is nullified. If no promise, what do we base our faith on? Christ Himself proclaimed the book to be true. Eleven men saw the plates, three of them saw Moroni. They say that God's voice witnessed the truth of the Book of Mormon to them. Is God, too, a liar? Lehi

You're not alone, brother, you're not alone. Lehi

There are also three kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't. Lehi

That's true, it's principles are eternal, and it is the most Christ-centered book on the planet. But if it is a big fat fairy tale, everything that Joseph did is based on a falsehood, and he is a false prophet, and the Church he Restored is false, and the Priesthood he received is false, and the ordinances he received are false. It's either true or it is not. If not, nothing else in the Restoration is true, either. Lehi