LeSellers
-
Posts
2354 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
10
Posts posted by LeSellers
-
-
3 hours ago, Colirio said:
Why back a candidate who 1. I don't like and 2. has even less support than the last two losers I voted for? Third time's the charm?
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
-
-
3 hours ago, Maureen said:
Briggs and Gurley were against polygamy, so it makes sense that they would not join with Brigham Young. How do you know that it was not Brigham Young who was in apostasy?
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.
3 hours ago, Maureen said:Sometime that spring of 1844, George J. Adams hurried from the red brick store to the Mansion to find Emma. He exclaimed, "The matter is now settled. We now know who Joseph's successor will be: it is little Joseph, [for] I have just seen him ordained by his father." ...Details of the ceremony, however, were preserved by James Whitehead, financial clerk for Joseph.
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
-
2 hours ago, EricE said:2 hours ago, rpframe said:
I don't know why polygamy was moral for a while either but I know God is smarter than me.
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
-
3 hours ago, rpframe said:
We morally choose to make sure that other peoples' children are educated - but the selfish person could come to the same decision by concluding that if other peoples' children are educated it will bring better and higher-paying jobs to the area and reduce crime and poverty.
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
-
1 hour ago, EricE said:
If you have no evidence for something, how can you determine if it is true?
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
-
2 hours ago, EricE said:
What is the morality of god? From your perspective, why is god's condoning of slavery good?
This is not the topic of this conversation.
You continue to inject this into a discussion you started about an entirely different thing.
Lehi
-
3 minutes ago, EricE said:9 minutes ago, LeSellers said:
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.
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
-
21 hours ago, Godless said:
his argument is that morality can exist without God. From what I've seen, he hasn't made any statements to suggest that his views on morality disprove God's existence
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
-
10 minutes ago, Godless said:
What I'm seeing here is 1) Amorites being punished (via genocide) for breaking covenants that were made by their ancestors, and 2) the slaughter of Egyptians because of the defiance of a single man (the Pharaoh). In both instances, I have a hard time connecting the people being punished with the people who directly sinned against God.
Yes, I understand the "contract" that was made. This raises a whole new moral issue in my mind. Is it moral for a God to bind his followers to covenants as a condition for their very survival? Not only does this put the notion of free will under question, but it also assumes the responsibility of children for the sins of their fathers. I'm well familiar with the term "born under the covenant", but is it fair (moral) to put that burden on a child who had no say on the matter?
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
-
8 minutes ago, rpframe said:
Who says my hypothetical has to be consistent?
It should be internally consistent, at least.
Lehi
-
9 minutes ago, Maureen said:
It's weird how you ask did Moroni lie and not did Joseph lie.
Why weird? does it matter who of them lied?
9 minutes ago, Maureen said:We only know of this character Moroni through Joseph Smith.
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
-
7 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:
You claim 100% accuracy, I asked you to back it up now it looks like you are side stepping.
No, I did not. I postfaced my comment of accuracy with Moroni's caveat.
8 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:I have been to Peru have you? I have been to Bolivia, I have been to the Yucatan, Guatemala, and many, many other archaeological sites nothing I have seen convinces me that any of the sites relates at all in any way to the BOM.
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
-
7 minutes ago, rpframe said:
I did not claim that it was a fairy tale... I did not claim that it did take place on another planet... I did not claim that Moroni lied.
Nor did I say you had. This is all hypothetical, and in contrast to the truth.
8 minutes ago, rpframe said:Simply put... someone could come up to me with thousands of pieces of "evidence" that the Book of Mormon is historically inaccurate, and I could easily still accept the Book of Mormon as true. The logic and science of men is incredibly inaccurate.
My point, which seems lost in the ether somewhere, is that your hypothetical is inconsistent with the reality of truth and the Restoration.
Lehi
-
5 minutes ago, Maureen said:
Plural marriage had been kept a secret from Emma for years.
If you say so.
Lehi
-
29 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
Could it be 100% historically accurate? Maybe. But the errors of men is a difficult thing to get around.
!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
-
12 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:14 minutes ago, LeSellers said:
It is the account of the people who traveled from the Middle East to Peru
Prove it
14 minutes ago, LeSellers said:Then please explain Moroni's visit to Joseph in 1822.
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.
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
-
7 minutes ago, Colirio said:
And how well has this strategy worked out for the GOP in the last 2 elections?
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.
7 minutes ago, Colirio said:Do you really believe the Republican Party has FINALLY picked the right candidate that we will all rally behind in record numbers?
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
-
7 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:
I will preface my comment by saying that while I think that the BOM is true I am unsure about its historical accuracy. As in a true history of the people who lived on this continent.
Where are the ruins? they built great cities didn't they? where are the battlefields on which their wars were fought? where are the fossils..... not one grave of anyone? Not one horse bone? not one sword? not one temple?
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
-
6 minutes ago, Maureen said:
Yes, I have read Emma Hale Smith:Mormon Enigma. I disagree that Emma knew that polygamy was from God.
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
-
4 minutes ago, rpframe said:
Sure, but my point was, I don't personally find the historical accuracy that consequential. Heck, for all I care, the entirety of the contents could have taken place on another planet similar to ours that exploded and a meteor fragment from that planet containing the gold plates could have landed in New York... And I would still believe it.
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
-
3 minutes ago, tesuji said:
If you all pay close attention, you'll see that I usually do about 5 edits to my posts before I get them correct.
You're not alone, brother, you're not alone.
Lehi
-
4 minutes ago, tesuji said:
Yes. There are two different questions in the OP - 1) Did the Book of Mormon exist as and actual document written on metal plates, as Joseph Smith reported, 2) Did Joseph translated it accurately and 3) is the information in the book accurate?
There are also three kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't.
Lehi
-
14 minutes ago, rpframe said:
Even if it is all a big fat fairy tale, it doesn't make the principles taught in it false.
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
I know who I'm voting for
in Current Events
Posted
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