Ray A

If it wasn't for science you wouldn't be on the computer you're on now. Rockets aren't designed by prayer. Space travel doesn't happen on hope. God expects us to use our intelligence. The reason I quoted Bruno was because there's a salient lesson to be learned from that. His Copernician worldview was so "heretical", so against what everyone one thought was scripture, and so blasphemous, that he was burnt at the stake. This "process" of discovery is as accurate as science can get in this field. The Grand Canyon wasn't formed in 6,000 years, but there are those who insist that it was. Why? Because the Bible says so. Which would you choose in this regard? The Bible, or what the scientists say? I've been thinking about, and reading up on these subjects which relate to Mormonism, for 33 years now. My conclusions are not the same as those who have studied these issues for a similar time, I grant that. I don't believe in things like lost tribes in polar ice caps, and great highways being opened up for them to come out of. If you want to believe such things, then all power to you if it makes you a better person. I don't think the modern Brunos are in any danger death by fire, and excommunication is a lot less painful, and for that I'm grateful, so think and believe as you please. I have little time left this day, and I also feel I ought not to any further disturb the true believers. I won't be posting here any more. I said from the start I probably would not be here long, and I think this prediction is proving to be true. It also explains why for 20 years now I've never been able to fit into the Church. There are some things just too impossible for me to believe, yet I still think Mormonism is a good thing in that it can change lives for the better. There was a time I was prepared to endure some of the fantasies for Church involvement, but I'm afraid those days are long gone. I am quite certain there are no Three Nephites roaming the earth, but I won't any further disturb the party. I don't think that's the purpose of this forum anyway. Doubters never make good bedfellows in places like this, even when they still have residual beliefs. Good luck in converting the world, And All the best to you.

I'm cool, Mok, thanks anyway. Getting ready for work later, putting on battle-gear for dealing with the occasional intractables. Such is life, such is work. Rough, rough stone rolling along.

They certainly didn't get kangaroos or wallabies or koalas. The Aborigines have been in Australia for at least 40,000 years, and we know they continuously inhabited it because archaeologists unearthed remains in Sydney which have neat layers of evidence right up to European colonisation in 1788. Contrary to some speculation about flood legends, no evidence has been found indicating a massive watery upheaval around 4,000 BC, anywhere in Australia. According to the Bible the highest mountains were underwater. This isn't possible, and it has never happened in earth's history, and if it did there would be overwhelming evidence of it. We have lots of evidence, and archaeologists have studied this for many years. The Americas have been inhabited since around 13,000 BC. The evidence is there in the ground. If there was a Book of Mormon population it was very small. Certainly not the major players, and certainly not the "principal ancestors". You can study it in detail at this site - to your hearts content: http://www.insecta-inspecta.com/fleas/bdeath/ Read especially how the Church reacted. It killed an estimated 75 million people worldwide, and some 25-50 million in Europe alone. A further reference from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death That's fair enough, but if people build their beliefs on the foundation that the Book of Mormon is literal history, they might be in for later disappointment. Joseph Smith emphasised the books teachings and principles, that is what he said would "bring a man nearer to God". The books stories illustrate how to do this, but then you have long sermons like King Benjamin's, and Alma's teachings. Whether or not they actually lived isn't important to me. I consider the teachings to be inspired.

I consider it modern revelation because what it teaches is revelant to today, not 2,600 years ago. It's a Christian book, with Christian teachings, applicable now, not 600 years before Christ even lived on earth. It makes no sense to have people living the Law of Moses and Christian teachings which weren't even given in its fulness until Christ was alive. Even Mormon scholar Blake Ostler admits that there are clear post-Christian teachings in the book that could not fit into a pre-Christian setting. It even expands, sometimes at great length, biblical teachings. Therefore it's a modern revelation.

It not only negates it, it makes it nonsensical speculation, at least in regard to scripture.

Look at it in full context: Note verse 8. It doesn't say that the garden was planted before the man was formed. But he placed the man in the garden, and the man was already formed (before the garden).

So are you saying that there is an error in the revelations?

Moby, it's not just about DNA. Here's something I posted a while ago on FAIR, April 9, 2006, to be exact: The Book of Mormon makes little sense as an ancient text, and even Mr. Magoo on ecstasy can see that. Yet, I still consider it a modern revelation.

And here is what McConkie quoted in his "mea culpa", not in regard to blacks being descendants of Cain, but the time frame for them getting the priesthood: 2 Nephi 26 I leave these same men to "assess" scientific evidence. They were wrong about scripture, but, somehow, what they say about the creation of the earth - has merit. And who, in a certain book, has stinging criticism of evolution as the "theories of men"? Guess. (maybe now you get my point of all this "digression"?)

And you believe this garbage? What's even more poignant is that you know this, but still seem to believe it! Are you for serious? Please explain. This is unscriptural trash. Not used as "dumb brutes"? But what about the pre-existence doctrine? No mention of that here. Unless they repent? Repent of WHAT? Considering being born black a curse? Has that been repented of? Sitting on the fence in pre-existence? Where is this justified in scripture? Where does it say black people were fence sitters, or not valiant? What is the current explanation of this by the Church? "We don't know the reason" Then why has there not been a formal apology for denying them their due privileges until 1978? "We don't know"? Or do some still believe this racist garbage? We DO know, and this is the reason - they were BLACK! That's the reason. Not "we don't know". Good grief. And what have you said? Nothing? So, are blacks still under some kind of stigma? A pseudo-stigma? They are still, really, "descendants of Cain"? When will we get clarification, or denial of this? Many still wonder, in a universal Church. True, but Why? Maybe because of some kind of intellectual dishonesty? You don't need to leave the Church, at any stage. All you and other Mormons need to do is stop BSsing people and tell them the truth. Tell them your past leaders were racist bigots like most in the 19th century, and urge them to offer a formal apology to black people. Don't come with this crap that "the negro" was somehow "inferior", as suggested in Mark E. Peterson's comments in the 1950s! And how much of this racism still lingers because of these teachings? I can only wonder. I thought you saw it all. Pardon me. My mistake. Evolution explains why people are black, or white. Pre-existent behaviour and curses of Cain don't. That's where science comes into it. And if someone believes the utter nonsense that the earth was created in six days, or even six thousand years, they're also likely to believe that black people came from Ham, and that some curse that never existed, was "lifted", in 1978. An apology for MY libel? When will The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints offer an official apology to black people?You want friends? You want converts who will stay? Tell them the truth! At the moment in Australia there's an 80% inactivity rate. I am only one voice telling you what the others don't have time for, or even care about, because they have long dismissed the trash like the doctrines about "negroes". They think you live in Fantasyland. In regard to these 19th century beliefs. I confess I'm an idiot. But I'd prefer you preface that with "heretical idiot". My aim is not to keep Mormonism from people, only from the idiocy that lingers in false doctrine and beliefs. How many Mormons still believe this rubbish because of what people like Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie have written in the past? Many, I suspect.

LOL. You got me. I'm mainly p***** off at Moksha's banning.

Then why did the Church change its Black policy? Why did it abandon polygamy? Revelation for circumstances? Do you know what Elder Mark E. Petersen taught about blacks? Or Alvin Dyer? You seem to speak from sheer ignorance. What do you think made the Church revise these policies? I won't quote Petersen's ideas, because they are too offensive, yet, at the time, they came from "the Lord's anointed". The Church has now buried them into a Black Hole, so naive people like you can't read them. They had no scientific basis whatsoever. And Brigham was the one who advocated that anyone who married a "negro" should have a javelin put through his heart. Did Brigham receive this utter garbage by revelation? Today, this idea is not only preposterous, but deeply offensive. Do you and others on this board think you will win converts by denying statements like this? Do you think the public are fools? Have you examined why so many leave Mormonism? It's because ignorant people like you don't study enough of your own religion. And now I suppose you may well turn against Mormonism one day, and be one of its fierciest critics, because you have such a superficial understanding of it. You, my friend, would like it all in black and white, wouldn't you? I have news for you - the world doesn't work that way. So answer my question - was there anything "scientific" about Brigham's revelations or ideas about blacks?

If all else fails - try 911.

Just make sure you separate the Sermon on the Mount from palaeontology;) And you'll be fine. No believer needs to argue the impossible against scientific evidence, and if you use science to bolster your religious beliefs (like six-day creationism, as an example) - then your religious beliefs are based on fantasy. A fantasy which is unbelievable to about 90% of the world.

Just when I thought I knew everything. Ego flattened. (ears still open to further assassination of my ignorance) Thanks Elphaba.

Cass, you're not missin' much anyway. Sorry I can't make any further recommendations. This site is far more interesting. So far it doesn't seem to have the Inquisitorial tendencies of MADB. Of course, I could be living in some kind of arbitrary eggshell, represented by an ostrich subathing at Bondi. Posting on MADB isn't important. This board seems better, so far. Heck, even Mok can post here!

Sounds almost like going through Maccas and choosing which meal you want. I like the MacUniversal Meal. No religious divisions or hatred. Just a common love of humanity, in all its various expressions. A world where we can live in peace without divisive dogma. Where we appreciate suffering and toil without giving favour to those who "think like us".

Why would Noah leave them out of the Ark, especially when God said to gather "two of every kind"? Two dinosaurs would take up all the space, I suppose, and feeding them would be impossible. Simple solution: Let them die in the flood. "Sorry guys, but you're too big, no room in the ArkInn for you". "Nothing personal." Sorry, but my sarcasm is merited. Why only the Mulekites and Jaredites? Both would have Jewish/Middle Eastern DNA, and Asiatic DNA dominates American prehistory. If they were the "principal ancestors", then Middle-Eastern DNA would predominate the population. It doesn't. It's only found in specks and traces, barely identifiable. 99% of New World population can be traced backed to Asiatic origins. To give a practical example: If you migrated to a Caribbean Island in 1700, and populated a large portion of that island, your genes and DNA record would be firmly established. Easily traced, even with future intermingling scientists can trace this, because the biology is like a computer record. All of the cures in history, for all of diseases in history, have been revealed by "men". Maybe God inspired some, no doubt. The Black Death is a prime example of what God didn't inspire. Millions died in this Death, and you know how the source of it was made known? After millions died, three-quarters of the population of Europe died, they discovered that it was caused by fleas biting infected rats, then biting humans. It was a rodent disease transferred to humans via fleas. One might ask, where was God at the start? It took scientific investigation to understand this, after a few thousand miles of graves lined the cities. Preachers capitalised on this - we need to repent! God has sent this plague! "It's the end of the world!" The answer came through science, not the scriptures. Your speculation is worthless if you reject science, which is not run by devils in disguise, but by humans trying their best to understand the human condition.

I love confessions! Especially if they lead me to make a better choice in the future. I could be a naive simpleton who lives in a MacPC (as in Donald) world who needs to - convert to Mac (minus PC). (I hate change, a rebel at heart, but....)

That's because layers of deposits are in - mud. Every human has a unique DNA. Even twins have different DNA. Barring complications of mixed DNA at crime scenes, forensic officers can pinpoint criminals who leave blood traces, or even skin fragments or sperm at crime scenes. DNA studies is what led the Church to revise its statement that the Nephites (or, more accurately, Lamanites) are not the "principal ancestors" of the American Indians, because the DNA evidence shows overwhelming evidence of Asiatic origin. That is why a smaller-scale geography has been proposed for BoM peoples. In the words of John Clark, a BYU archaeologist: So even Clark accepts this evidence. So do FARMS, who have been proposing a LGM for years. In fact the LGM goes back to the 19th century. Yet, contrary to this many still believe that the Nephites were all over America. It's not a question of "men's analysis". Do you doubt your doctor's prognosis and instead rely on scripture? If your doctor says you need a specific treatment to cure, or mitigate diabetes, or epileptic seizures, or ulcers, or bowel infections, do you turn to the Book of Mormon, or the Bible, for a better answer? This is the same science which gave us palaeontology, the systematic study of fossil evidence and human origins. Does this eradicate what Jesus taught on the Mount? It would be almost bizzare to think so. But apparently some do, and I'm not referring to you, specifically.

Just a shortlist if dinosaurs constructed from fossil evidence: Find Dinosaur Pictures - Illustrations of Dinosaurs - Dinosaurios - Dinosaur Art

You may have the cart before the horse here. Do you "believe" in forensic science, and DNA testing? Do you "believe" a police forensic officer can trace DNA samples to a criminal, and that this can be used in a court? Or do you think the courts accept this evidence on faith? If no evolution began until 4,000 BC, how do you explain dinosaur bones and fossils? What is your theory about when they died out, and did they enter Noah's Ark?

I'll have to investigate this, whether there is truly a MacTruth.

Is that canonised?

You got me there. I think mine was something like "goo-goo", or possibly "goo-gaa". Read the history of the man whose quote I use in my sig. line : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno Sometimes, religion has to come into line with science. The Church in the Middle Ages considered itself "the true religion" (still does, with some emendations, like an admission of guilt in regard to Giordano Bruno. Unfortunate.). I think Brigham Young put it pretty well: Brigham Young also believed the Genesis creation story to be a myth. Of course, that was his opinion. He wasn't God.