Traveler

You have got to be kiddin. Some little girl writes in her personal journal in 1892 that Joseph (who has been dead for almost fifty years) said something about men on the moon and you accept it as authority? This establishes doctrine? You are right about one thing your post does demonstrate exactly who is a complete moron and it is not Peace!!! WHAT A JOKE!!!! I cannot believe you posted this. The Traveler

Let me explain this a manner that might be a little clearer for you. Let us say that someone will pick up something from some obscure nook of history about Joseph Smith and suddenly claim that he taught of Men on the moon. This without any additional research or official published material.Then let them read the latest material published about a point concerning the Book of Mormon that indicates it accuracy and they say there is nothing to vindicate Joseph Smith. Can you give me a better example of a religious bigot? The Traveler

You proved nothing. Sheer conjecture on the part of FARMS or someone associeated with the "Nephi Project" (got that last one off the internet...). So you wrote a few paragraphs griping about BoM critics and how we don't believe in your "proof". Big deal. Well. Let's see what a quick internet search shows us: 1) Taqah was once a prosperous port and has been a significant trading centre of the ancient world. Ok... 2) There's some trees. No mention of being able to use them for ship building. Ok... 3) Frankincense route through the area. Ok... Do you have any idea where Taqah is located? It's at the bottom of the Arabian Peninsula. You're telling me an elitist Jewish family is going to make it across the Arabian peninsula, crossing through one tribal territory after another, all the while hunting and gathering...in a desert...for EIGHT YEARS? You're out of your mind, friend. Thank you so much from demonstrating exactly what I want all to see from my post. You are such an awesome example. First for fun. I challenge anyone to provide a more accurate account including geological or historical reference from any modern or ancient time, of travel along the ancient frankincense trail than the account given in the Book of Mormon. Of course all the lazy armchair experts will say as my friend Anti that an accurate account proves nothing. Nothing? You mean that a farm boy in New York with no experience and no references knows more than all the critics that say there is not proof that the farm boy knows something? This is rich. Where in Arabia can one find "wild honey". When you find the answer you will have proven that Joseph Smith knew more about Arabia than all his critics. You see my friends Arabia is one place we can prove the Book of Mormon for we know where Lehi and his family began and Nephi described exactly where they went. Anti thinks that it is impossible for anyone to have anciently passed along the frankincense trail in the days of Lehi. What support did he give of such a palpability absurd statement? I would guess he would have us believe no one ever traveled such a trail. Obviously he has never talked to anyone that is from that region. This is such a kick - Thank all you critics of the Book of Mormon for you input - you are soooo predicable. The Traveler

Like Traveler stated...it could be pushed right under your noses and you would still work at finding a way to claim they were fake. Thank you Peace: For some people there still is not enough evidence that the world is not flat. Go figure. The Traveler.

I thought I would clarify a “Christian Concept”. Jesus is the “Mediator” between mankind and the Father. No one come unto the Father but by Jesus. This also means that no blessings come to man from the Father but by Jesus. Since the Fall of Man any heavenly blessings that are possible for man come through Jesus. To teach another doctrine denies the Christ. The blessings of eternity come only through Jesus and all other thins of “good” fortune have an end in this life. It is LDS doctrine that only by the Priesthood of Jesus can anything be sealed for eternity. The Bible tells us that Peter was given such keys of the Priesthood. The D&C tells us that such priesthood authority can only be exercised in righteousness. The Traveler

First off I write this post to my LDS friends that need no such proof of the Book of Mormon. The reason is to demonstrate for them the complete insensibility of proof. Not because there is any lack of such proof but in spite of it. You see my friends - those that say there is no proof of the Book of Mormon will lie about anything. They will say it is night at noon day. For them the door of proof swings only one way. Against the Book of Mormon and the people that have come to believe it. Even if G-d will grant them the very proof they demand they will still deny the truth of the Book of Mormon and simply demand something more to prove it to them. In 1985, such a critic of the Book of Mormon, Thomas Key wrote in the Journal of American Scientific Affiliation that since Pleistocene times there has been no “Bountiful Land” in Arabia with “much fruit and also wild honey” (see 1 Nephi 17:5). He claimed that there was “no timber that Nephi could have used to build a ship” (see 1Nephi 18:1). The logic of Mr. Key is that if there is no such proof of such a place in Arabia and that Joseph simply made up the facts of fantasy and therefore, the Book of Mormon is false. In all the western libraries there is no record of any such place so Mr. Key justified his conclusions based on research done from an easy chair. In nearly 150 years since Joseph Smith not a single shred of evidence ever surface in western culture to support land of Bountiful in Arabia. Therefore with all the rhetoric of logic Mr Key and others denounce the Book of Mormon as not being historically or geographically accurate. But if it turns out that a poorly educated farm boy of New York frontier of the early 19th Century provided a more accurate account than the best scholars of western civilization for over 150 years that there might be some truth to the Book of Mormon? Not a chance my friends. For if such a “Bountiful” place was found in Arabia the critics will deny that it is any proof at all, implying that anyone could of guessed such a thing. But they didn’t. As it turns out there is such a place in Arabia on the Eastern cost of Oman on the Arabian Sea. The place is today called Taqah/Khor Rori. Not only does it exist but it possesses all the elements described in the Book of Mormon in case anyone is keeping score. Including an ancient method of building ships that dates back to 1000 BC which is before Lehi. And there are accurate ancient records of the place because it was an important place to the ancient world because of the export of frankincense from there. Some speculate that king Solomon’s ships called at the port anciently known as Dhofar. And as Paul Harvey would say “And now you know the rest of the story.” But as I said - don’t hold your breath. To bigots the doors of proof swing only one direction. Such a discovery which they claimed was proof when it was not known suddenly when it becomes known is no longer valid. The Traveler

The logic of the Spanish is a test case to demonstrate that steel artifacts have not been found in the rainforest of Central and South America. (Note that chain mail changed in Europe about the middle of the 14th century because of the crossbow and was made lighter and stronger as an alloy). It is logical to assume that prediction of artifacts found may not demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt but they demonstrate a possible link. Evidence may point to a suspect but not be enough to convict them. Consider some evidence. Things not known about Central and South America prior to the Book of Mormon. And there is the claim that there is no evidence what-so-ever that supports the Book of Mormon????? 1. Pre-Classic civilization (large cities to rival in size any in the world) before the time of Abraham 2. A written language in the Americas before Abraham. 3. Knowledge of Astronomy to rival Egypt prior to Abraham. 4. Ships that would travel under water that brought the founding settlers of Pre-Classic civilization. And there are legends of such things in Central America. (See Codex Vaticano A, p.66v) 5. A civilization of larger than most or giants. Besides murals found in later periods there are ancient dwellings and other artifacts indicating an extinct race of large peoples. Time period of such people matches the Book of Mormon. 6. Classic civilization beginning about 600 BC 7. A written language similar to Egyptian. (See the Book “A Forest of Kings” page 52. We are told by the archeologist that broke the Mayan code that the Mayan writing is most similar to Egyptian cuneiform. In fact it was the use of Egyptian that broke the Mayan code) 8. Stella 5 depicting most of the elements in the Book of Mormon “Tree of Life” parable. 9. The use or depiction of the jawbone for religious purposes. (Jawbone symbol in Egyptian means Lehi. 10. A written language (still unknown what language of Central America dated about 300 AD.) With several characters that match exactly the characters drawn by Joseph Smith on the Anthon Transcript. 11. Ability to build sea worthy ships. (See artifacts found at Tulum) 12. Use of straw in mortar (Learned by Israel in Egypt - but Straw must be cultivated but there are no animals in Central America that eat straw. Why is it used exactly as in ancient Egypt but no where else on earth during the same time period. 13. Religious legend of a benevolent G-d that came down from heaven and lived with the people for a time and returned to heaven with a promise that he would return (Reference the Legend of Quetzalcoatl at Cholula. Also the reason the serpent descends the temple at Chichen Itza during the vernal equinox.) A lucky guess perhaps but no where out side of the Americas has such a legend surfaced. 14. Metal plates used anciently for record keeping. Some other Book of Mormon Trivia. 1. 1Nephi 1:1-3 An Egyptian Colophon. Very clever of a 20 year old farm boy. 2. The Tree of life - a date palm tree in Arabia that bears “White Fruit” that is very sweet. 3. A valley in Arabia near the Red Sea that matches exactly the valley described as the Valley of Lemuel with the only stream that flows all year long into the Red Sea. And it is exactly where the Book of Mormon said it would be. 4. Prophecies unique to the Book of Mormon concerning Israel scattered on the “Isles of the sea” that are duplicated in the Zadokite Document of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 5. Baptism practiced before the time of Christ. 6. Hebrew forms of speech in the Book of Mormon including the “Lawsuit”, “Messenger speech”, “woe oracle”, “prophetic lament”, “priestly sermon”, “parable”, “song of salvation”, “synonymous parallelism”, “chiasm” and “Rhetorical Connections”. Other than the Bible no book in the world displays as many ancient Hebrew forms of religious writing as the Book of Mormon. Is this all - not by any means. These are only a drop in the bucket so to speak. But then I may not of said everything exactly right to meet the false logic of Rhetoric that is the only way some people make excuse for truth that is nothing more that silly opinion. The illogical Traveler

Just found something interesting. The book "Oaxaca in Ancient Mesoamerica" writen by John Paddock. Page 88. In Oxcat, six kilometers into Puebla from the Oaxaca state line was found the remains of a hourse that predates the Spanish by over 1500 years. Darn those pisky Mormons. The Traveler

One other point about steel in tropical rain forests. It rusts for those that never learned about chemical reactions. A car will completly rust away is less that 50 years, there is not going to be a sword after 1500 years - asking for or even expecting a steel artifact is really stupid. How stupid can cirtics be???? The Traveler

Baby, This argument is so full of fallacies I'm thinking of submitting it to the Smithsonian for preservation in the Historical Wing of Religious Cognitive Dissonance (it's right between the dinosaurs and the Korean art exhibit). Should I? Could I? Would I possibly take the time to Deconstruct (shout out to Snow) this very spurious and misleading pedantic diatribe!! Forsooth! Sincerely, Antius Shockius 8-tius I have to agree with AS on this. In this case Traveler was certainly pedantic, and not in a good way. Instead of saying "If you don't see the evidence for the Book of Mormon, you're blind, baby," Traveler said the same thing thusly: "If you claim there is no evidence of the Book of Mormon you are wrong and indicate a strong lack of propensity to comprehend or deal with any artifact supportive of the Book of Mormon." That's pedantic with a capital V and a capital P (verbose and pretentious). Simply, simply simply Traveler, my friend. Haven't you read Thoreau? Beyond that, for starters I can spot at least one logical fallacy. You lamment that critics claim that lack of evidence (of BoM steel) is proof that steel didn't exist, yet turn around and infer that since you know of no other society from the period in question, that as closely matched that of the Eastern Mediterranean, that no other more closely matching society existed. Snow: My friend. I offered the fact that the Pre-Classic and Classic eras indicate a migration that coresponds to the Book of Mormon from the Eastern Mediterranean- Those like your self that say there is no proof are much mistaken for the timing of the Pre-Classic and Classic eras and the technology are proof. It can be argued that the proof is not conclusive but to say there is no supportive evidence is not ture. Are you trying to tell me that Thoreau agrees that all truth can be demonstrated without any possible question or alternate possibility? I think you should read Thoreau again. Read the posts, there is not one suggestion that gives alternate reason for the rise of civilization in the Americas - that is except for Bat's silly little childish joke. Is that the best critics offer - silly little childish jokes? AS8 offered nothing but silly spoiled children cry-baby words. I asked for a trigger for the rise of civilization to rivel the Book of Mormon and all I get is nothing but completly unfounded criticism for asking. Those like yourself that contend that there is no valid evidence to support the Book of Mormon are completly blind to truth. Are you holding to the argument that primitive hunter gathers one day walked out of the rain foriest and invented an advanced complex civiliziation. I thank posters like Peace that listen to reason but to the rest of you are nothing but children at play. Put up or shut up. If you don't have a better theory be adult enough to admit it. The Traveler

Just adding a thought. Annointing is an indication of covenant. I have attempted to explain before but many do not seem to understand covenants. Besides the verbal exchange of covenant, which is to honor by mouth the ancients indicated that a trial of the "heart" was also a part of the covenant. Therefore a covenant was not complete or "perfect" until the covenant had been put to the test and proven loyal. In ancient societies the general punishment for covenant disobedience was to be blinded (as was Sampson). This is where the saying of Jesus came where he said "He who has eyes to see". Which is an indication of covenant obedience. The warning in scripture is to not speak ill of someone loyal to their covenants. There is no provision for which covenants. In general I do not support any denegration of covenants made to G-d, nor do I incourage anyone break any covenant they have made to G-d - regardless of their professed religion. As a final note I am not impressed with verbal commitments that are not backed up by how a person lives. I believe such a commitment of the heat is necessary. The Traveler

The early Spanish conquest never took place in the Americas? It is a well-known fact that the Spanish steel of Pre Industrial Ages was the most superior steel of Europe. Central to Spanish military strategy was the development and deployment of steel weapons. Superior steel was their tactical advantage and they would not go into battle without it. There has not been a single Spanish steel military artifact over 350 years old found by any recent excavations in the tropical rain forest of Central and South America. Nor has there been found any foundry for such steel in the Americas. According to the logic of the B of M critics of this forum we must not believe that the Spanish ever fought with or had influence on the Incas and Aztecs because there is no proof of Spanish steel in Central or South America prior to 1650. Two great civilizations arose in the Americas and are called the Pre-Classic and the Classic eras by the Experts. The timing of the rise of these civilizations match the time periods mentioned in the Book of Mormon for the Jaredite and Nephite migrations to the Americas. The evidence of civilizations in the Americas of these civilizations indicates that the technology of both the Pre-Classic and the Classic eras are most like the Eastern Mediterranean societies than any other society on earth for the same time periods. Some points to consider. Point 1: In the entire history of the world the rise of or major change based on technological improvement in a civilization has always occurred with the migration of people. Point 2: It is not unreasonable to assume that migrations originate from a place where same technology introduced into a new place already existed. Point 3: Since the publication of the Book of Mormon there has not been a reasonable counter theory stand for more than 50 years for the migrations of peoples to the Americas to account for the Pre-Classic and the Classic eras. Point 4: Proof and evidence is useless without proper interpretation or understanding. For example, for most of the 20th Century it was believed that dinosaurs were cold blooded reptilian related creatures. Now they are said to be warm-blooded creatures more closely associated to birds, not because the evidence has changed so drastically but because the interpretation of the evidence has drastically changed. Point 5: If you are going to come to an LDS forum and indicate that you are open to new ideas but that you are convinced that critics of the B of M are right on with their assessment of the Book of Mormon you better be prepared to prove you concepts are based on a much more reasonable theory. If you claim there is no evidence of the Book of Mormon you are wrong and indicate a strong lack of propensity to comprehend or deal with any artifact supportive of the Book of Mormon. Just to show my open mind – I would love to hear theories for the triggers of the Pre-Classic and Classic Eras of Civilization in the Americas that have stood as well as the Book of Mormon for the last 170 years. It appears to me that since the publication of the B of M that there have been excuses given not to accept or even consider the B of M as valid. Each time evidence has been discovered that indicates a B of M critic has made an irrational claim or jumped to conclusions the critics have simply moved to another claim jumping to another conclusion. The lack of some particular evidence is proof of absolutely nothing. If it is such a crime to lack conclusive proof of something then where is the conclusive proof of the critics? Final Point: The Book of Mormon and the Bible are to be used together to give witness that Jesus is the Christ – the Son of G-d. If you believe in one and not the other I would like to know why? Every argument that I have heard to believe in one, I find supports believing in the other. Every argument I find presented to not believe in one is just as valid not to believe the other. You are all welcome to believe whatever you want and make any excuse for your belief you want. But for me, I find the excuses against the B of M exactly that, excuses for the historical and present unkindness toward LDS most often displayed as an unwillingness to consider our point of view – even on an LDS forum. The Traveler

Point 1: There are a breed of horses native to the Americas that existed and still exist in the Grand Canyon. Point 2. Paul O. Thank you for trying to find a reference of someone riding a hourse but the reference you gave was not conclusive. All references in the B of M concerning hourses are in connections with chariots and carts. There are no references to hourses used for ridding in any battle. For all the references to battles you would think there is at least one where of a messinger or something of someone riding a horse - the possibility that horses were not ridden in the B of M must be considered. Point 3: On the subject of steel. I submit that if a society has developed iron and is able to work with any alloies that they will have developed steel. All that is necessary to develop steel from iron is a bellows and hammer. Point 4: Most that oppose the possibility of Hebrew migration in the B of M would have us believe that the Pre-Clasic, and Classic eras of the Americas was not from migration but native peoples. Yet Pre-Clasic society of the Americas were primitive hunter gathers with limited use of fire and tools. Hunting consisted mostly of small rodents. Then within a 200 year time span our critics would have the world believe that primitive hunter gathers of the Americas one day walked out of the rain forest, developted large cities, a written language, cultivated crops, demesticated animals, developed art, potery, science more advanced than any society on earth at the time, governments, systems of weights and measurements, money, advanced education in math and astromony and consturcion methods as fine as Egypt (that took thousand of years to develope). And yes my friends there are some nut cases that do not think they had the wheel. I would also point out that less the 1 percent of known ancients sites of central America have been studied and the smart posters (that cannot identify the ancient process of making steel from iron) have it all figgured out. The Traveler

What are all the experts on the forum that are asking the questings about steel expecting to find in the tropical rain forest of central America after 1500 to 2000 years? I would also like a description from the same experts of the difference between iron and steel of ancient times. What is the difference between a steel and iron sword for example? If you are looking for stainless steel I can understand your sarcasism - not your questions but your sarcasism. BTW just for fun what steel artifacts over 1500 years old have been found in a warm humid climit and how would it's age be determined? Carbon dating??? The Traveler

Thank you Cal for your post - It proves exactly what I posted. Even though there are horses known to be native to Americas and even though I pointed it out you are off making a big deal because the horses are not the breed you want. Perhaps if you would provide me with a reference in to Book of Mormon that indicates that the breed of horses was large enough to ride you may have a point.The Traveler

I missed your reference to swift horses in which men rode upon. Thank you The Traveler

Thank you for your interest. However, I am not sure you understood the connection made between Sodom and Gomorrah and the flood of Noah. Since both cases resulted in entire societies destroyed logic dictates a connection be considered with the similarities in the societies as the common reason for the annihilation. The next direction of my logic would be to ask if our modern society is developing the same characteristics present in both the society of Sodom and Gomorrah and the global society prior to the flood of Noah.I as quite surprised with the vigor you attempt to defend certain behavior that took place in Sodom at the home of Lot. Regardless of what ever was going on in the city of Sodom and/or Gomorrah that particular activity resulted in an immediate curse on all the participants of the activity – including bystanders that came to just to watch. Your difficulty in liking that activity to the destruction of Sodom is in my mind a little naïve. In addition, I think you missed my point in the previous post. I intended that a line be drawn at the point where sexual activity is pursued outside of the union blessed by G-d which is the blessed union of husbands and wives. I include any sexual activity pursued through– pre-marriage activity, same sex activity, solo activity, sexual child abuse (ether sex), activity with animals and activity with inanimate objects. I hope the above statement is a broad enough brush to cover the spectrum of impure sexual activities before G-d. All such activity is to be viewed as anti or contrary to the core family unit as blessed by G-d. I do believe you are right on with you connection of filthy lucre and the treatment of widows and orphans. The problem goes beyond taking care of widows and orphans and includes their exploitation for money. But filthy lucre covers more than an extraction of wealth from the poor (including widows and orphans). It appears that Gomorrah was involved in a rather broad spectrum of activities of exploitation to produce filthy lucre. Sometimes referred to as usury. The activities of exploitation in question include such thing as gambling (including lotteries), prostitution, interest on loans and money made from slave labor to name a few. It is interesting to me that Sodom and Gomorrah as well as pre-flood society was successful in combining impure sexual activities with obtaining wealth by filthy lucre. Interesting because according to the lost testament of Enoch it was the development of these tandem activities and a refusal to allow public display of anything associated to the worship of G-d in their society that brought about the destruction of the pre-flood societies. Enoch also prophesied that the same scenario would play out again in the last days. I am presenting this idea as an alternate concept to the idea that all who do not hold to a certain religion will be destroyed at the L-rd’s coming. Also a reminder that Jesus indicated in his assessment of serving two masters that continued participation or even indirect support in such cursed activities would nullify any religious connection as a hope of avoiding destruction. The Traveler

Not all cities were destroyed including the children. I attemempted to indicate why in another thread. The problem seems to stem around children that had been so abused there seems to be little hope. On another note it is interesting the number of children sacrificed at the birth of Jesus. It appears that their innocient sacrifice allowed the Christ child to survive. The Traveler

Concerning children - you might want to read my post on Sodom and Gomorrah in reference to children. Just as a side note this also relates to the state of children being froced to pass through "the fire". The Traveler

Even with a casual background most people are aware of the symbolic meaning of Sodom. Few have clue concerning the symbolic meaning of Gomorrah. How close are we to the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah? I would propose that the “sins” of Sodom and Gomorrah were not a new development unique to the time of Abraham nor did they end with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. See Ecclesiastes 1:9-11. I submit that there are 3 times of special destruction mentioned in scripture, the flood of Noah, Sodom and Gomorrah and the “Last Days”. There are other minor events of destruction but I thought I would stick to the major events. I submit that the reasons for destruction in each of the major event epochs are basically the same. We learn from one of the books of prophecy of Enoch some interesting things about addiction to sin by those destroyed in the Flood: 1. They knew what they were doing was evil and destructive to religious society devoted to G-d. 2. They loved their evil addiction and called it good. 3. They demanded under their law that all within their society not only accept but conform to their evil standards, outlawing the standards of those devoted to G-d. 4. They refused to give up their evil and in defiance challenged G-d to destroy them. I submit that these are the elements that comprise what is known as the ripening in inequity for destruction. Turning again to Enoch we find the shadow of Sodom in the pre-flood society in some rather interesting statements: 1. We are told that the “order of marriage” was changed. This is open to speculation but I think this has to do with seeking sexual pleasure other than men and women under the covenant of a marriage blessed by G-d. (I think it is interesting that some religious movements are trying to redefine the marriage union that G-d blesses) 2. Enoch also tells us “Children were conceived only for carnal purposes”. I am not sure what this means but I speculate that it means either children were conceived not by loving parents but adulterous partners seeking lustful pleasure. Or children were conceived and prepaired for the sole purpose to be used by adults seeking pleasure with children. I would comment that in today’s society there really is not a term for the blessed intimate family relationship of a man and a woman in marriage. The only word we have to describe such a thing is sex, which has come to mean a wide variety of activities that rewards participants with “sexual pleasure” of which the relationship of married couples are but a subset. What then were the sins of Gomorrah? The ancient term was filthy lucre. Anyone care to offer a perspective? The Traveler

There are horses mentioned in the Book of Mormon and there are breeds of horses native to the Americas. The native horses are quite small and are not big enough to ride. An example are the native horses of the grand canyon. Interesting there is no mention of horses in the Book of Mormon except for pulling carts and such. No mention of horses being ridden. Of course none of this proves anything for those that require such prof. The Traveler

The Book of Revelation tells us that the "testimony of Jesus Christ is the spirit of prophesy”. I would understand that if the spirit of prophesy is no longer with mankind there could be no prophets. Jesus told us that all scriptures given to mankind through the ancient prophets were likewise a witness of him. I am sorry and with deep regret that you do not recognize prophets with the Testimony of Jesus Christ among man in this day and age as there was in ages long past. But then Jesus says that for the most part – prophets have been rejected in their time – I do not see why our time should be an exception.The Traveler

Cal: It has been sometime since there was activity on this thread. The comment I made to you was in response to a previous post, which does not seem to be with us anymore. I may have misused your name when the particular response belongs to someone else – I do not remember. If you were not the author of the missing post my deepest apologies. Thanks for your kind attempt to straighten it out.On the topic of Trinitarians vs. the Mormons as far as authoritarian misuse of power I do not think there is that much to compare. Whereas the Mountain Meadows was a single exception of LDS behavior brought about by a minority group of LDS members the several hundreds of years of genocide on three continents by the Trinitarians is hardly the exception of their minority or majority behavior. According to my research it was not until 1823 before any Trinitarian society publicly went on record with a law allowing religious expression by someone belonging to a non-Trinitarian religion. It was not until 1549 before a Trinitarian society allowed by law the practice of another Trinitarian religion other than the one in political power. Generally any decent to Trinitarian authority was dealt with the punishment of death. If I have misrepresented history on this account I hope someone will correct me. I would like to think better of sincere folks that live out their lives with bible scriptures in hand. I believe something went major wrong. As far as the basic doctrine being preserved in the evolution of the Bible text – I have heard this said but for the life of me I do not know why anyone says such a thing. Perhaps if you or someone else would take the time to show how a specific doctrine has been preserved and remained unconfused during the last 2000 years it would really help me to understand what is meant by the Bible as a means of eliminating the evolution of Christian thought. As I read documents from history I find Christians of every age beginning with the death of Christ locked in struggles to keep doctrines from being overrun by popular doctrines of any particular time influencing the interpretation of scripture. There is a very good bench mark in the Dead Sea Scrolls which indicates how to interpret most of the Doctrines of the New Testament – But to be honest most Christian societies today would rather not make the comparison. The Traveler

The logic is not to prove G-d but the demonstrate that good and evil are opposit and have no intersection in their logical sets. The logic is to demonstrate that as G-d exist all good will always be opposed by evil. Also that only be selecting good can one remain happy. The happiness of ignorance is not happiness and only exist while the ignorant are protected. The Traveler

As I understand this thread we are discussing the matter of authority within the structure of the Church or the kingdom of G-d. Mr. Duck is correct, there are means and protocol for dissent and/or giving opinions. In fact the term “councilor” implies that council is to be given within protocols. However, we are addressing authority and how it operates within the kingdom, which is defined by the priesthood. I have made efforts to bring to light covenant and the responsibility of that covenant of authority as it relates to the priesthood. I believe it is important to understand what your covenants are. There are a number of ideas that have been missed in a rush to make certain points. For example I have learned something about the exercising authority as a parent within the family structure. There are two parents in a covenant family – a father and a mother. It is impossible for parents to completely agree on every matter – there is bound to be disagreement. How is this to be resolved? By each telling the other that they have prayed and will stand their ground at all costs? I have found that it is better that parents are “one” than it is that one of the parents to be right. Let me clarify this by saying that it is better that my wife and I act as one in exercising authority as parents than it is that I be allowed to be right even when I am right but we are divided. Being right but acting alone is still unrighteous dominion. I would also point out that there several examples of the course of things being altered because of this principal. For example a lessor law was given to Moses, the Book of Mormon manuscripts were given to Martin Harris. Under the covenant of the authority of the priesthood there are only two options. Either those under the covenant act as one or the covenant is broken and not completed. When I address Elder Brown about supporting your bishop when you “know” he is wrong he answered me directly. He said “You support your bishop – especially when you know he is wrong for he will need your support more then than at any other time.” How do we define support? There may be many way, but one thing for sure, when your support your bishop or your spouse you do NOT usurp their authority. The Traveler