Pahoran Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by srm+Feb 24 2004, 09:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (srm @ Feb 24 2004, 09:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Pahoran@Feb 24 2004, 08:36 PM It sounds to me as if Joseph Smith was making up his Book of Mormon years before he began to actually dictate it. Isn't that what it sounds like to you, srm? No, it sound like he received revelations regarding the Book of Mormon people. Before he received the plates. but it is clear that from our history that he continued to receive instuctions about the people and the work he would be doing. I'm not seeing it. Please elaborate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srm Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by Pahoran+Feb 24 2004, 08:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Pahoran @ Feb 24 2004, 08:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--srm@Feb 24 2004, 09:46 PM he is lying because he says that Lucy spoke of Joseph's story telling ability. From the context it is clear that that Lucy is saying that the information came via revelation not that it was spinning yarns. I don't see anything there that would indicate that the information was given via revelation. You're just making that up. Stop it. Here is the full quote pahoran."From this time forth, Joseph continued to receive instructions from the Lord, and we continued to get the children together every evening, for the purpose of listening while he gave us a relation of the same. I presume our family presented an aspect as singular as any that ever lived upon the face of the earth, all seated in a circle, father, mother, sons, and daughters, and giving the most profound attention to a boy, eighteen years of age, who had never read the Bible through in his life: he seemed much less inclined to the perusal of books than any of the rest of our children, but far more given to meditation and deep study. We were now confirmed in the opinion that God was about to bring to light something upon which we could stay our minds, or that would give us a more perfect knowledge of the plan of salvation and the redemption of the human family. This caused us greatly to rejoice, the sweetest union and happiness pervaded our house, and tranquillity reigned in our midst. [p.85] During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of travelling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life with them"Please read it and tell me who is making stuff up. Especially check out the first line where is says that he continued to receive instuctions from the Lord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pahoran Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 That sounds like his mother's opinion. If she is of the opinion that Joseph received revelations concerning the stories that he would tell, does that make it true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srm Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by Pahoran@Feb 24 2004, 08:55 PM That sounds like his mother's opinion. If she is of the opinion that Joseph received revelations concerning the stories that he would tell, does that make it true? it is her opinion...exactly my friend. But Albanes (and Cal) bases Joseph's storytelling on the fact that even his mother says he's a good story teller. this is incorrect. Lucy was not saying he was a good story teller...she is convinced that it is from revelation. here is what cal said on feb 12, "It is well documented that he, from a young age, had great powers of story telling AND of persuasion. His mother recalls in her diary of how he, as a young man, would keep the family spell bound for hours telling tales of the native american indians." Cal IS saying that Lucy felt that Joseph making up stories.here is what Albanes said, "Joe Smith . . . . loved hearing, as well as telling, tall-tales about American Indians. According to Joseph's mother, her son skillfully composed yarns about Native Americans while still just a teen; long before any golden plates had been found:Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals which could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare, and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life with them."This is an even more off base. again, he is clearly saying that Lucy felt that he was making up stories. Alanes is trying to foist his lies on others.BTW, a couple of other issues.You said that it was before he found the plates. This is in error too. Joseph did say that he was shown the Book of Mormon people in vision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pahoran Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Why should Richard Abanes or his readers assume that Joseph actually received a revelation on the subject? Abanes is presenting his view, i.e. Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet and was therefore making up stories. How does that make Richard Abanes a liar?You said that it was before he found the plates. This is in error too. Could you cite dates for me then?Joseph did say that he was shown the Book of Mormon people in vision. A. Does that make it true?B. If you don't know the specifics of these visions or of the stories that he would tell, then how can you conclude that the stories were not fabrications?C. You said revelation before. Are you now claiming "vision"? Please clarify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Starsky Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by Pahoran@Feb 24 2004, 08:55 PM That sounds like his mother's opinion. If she is of the opinion that Joseph received revelations concerning the stories that he would tell, does that make it true? Absolutely! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pahoran Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by Peace+Feb 24 2004, 11:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peace @ Feb 24 2004, 11:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Pahoran@Feb 24 2004, 08:55 PM That sounds like his mother's opinion. If she is of the opinion that Joseph received revelations concerning the stories that he would tell, does that make it true? Absolutely! What if Lucy Mack's father declared Joseph Smith to be a fraud? Would that be true too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Starsky Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by Pahoran@Feb 24 2004, 09:29 PM Joseph did say that he was shown the Book of Mormon people in vision. A. Does that make it true?B. If you don't know the specifics of these visions or of the stories that he would tell, then how can you conclude that the stories were not fabrications?C. You said revelation before. Are you now claiming "vision"? Please clarify. Joseph Smith is a prophet..not just was....If JS told them...they weren't fabrications....they were good enough for the Lord to back him up. The people of his day had multiple revelations and visions and varifications of the work he did. Yes...did you not know that visions are a form of revelation? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cal Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by srm@Feb 24 2004, 08:10 PM The QuoteOne Nation under Gods, page 64Joe Smith . . . . loved hearing, as well as telling, tall-tales about American Indians. According to Joseph's mother, her son skillfully composed yarns about Native Americans while still just a teen; long before any golden plates had been found:Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals which could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare, and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life with them.24The ReferenceEndnote 24, page 51124. Lucy Mack Smith, Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and His Progenitors for many Generations [Liverpool: S.W. Richards, 1853), 85, reprinted in Dan Vogel, ed., Early Mormon Documents [salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1996], vol. 1, 296.Quoting Albanes? Come on Cal. He skews what Lucy says. there are several problems with Lucy's quote and what you (and Albanes) say.1. You claimed it was her diary. it was not. it was a biography of her son (and her family)2. You siad that it was before moroni had visited him. This is not the case. It was after moroni's visit.3. You and Albanes claim that Lucy was saying that Joseph was making up stories about the ancient Americans. This is not the case. Lucy is clearly saying that joseph was relating information that he had received via revelation. Albanes is lying, you should not believe him and you're mistaken. Why would JS know the details of the BoM before he translated it? You are simply making an assumption. And, you are wrong about Albanes--he is quoting LMS's diaries directly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cal Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by srm+Feb 24 2004, 08:46 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (srm @ Feb 24 2004, 08:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by -Pahoran@Feb 24 2004, 08:33 PM Originally posted by -srm@Feb 24 2004, 09:27 PM Originally posted by -Pahoran@Feb 24 2004, 08:15 PM <!--QuoteBegin--srm@Feb 24 2004, 09:10 PM 2. You siad that it was before moroni had visited him. This is not the case. It was after moroni's visit. No, he said it was before Joseph found the gold plates. You are mistaken pahoran. Here is the quote from Cal from feb 16thsrm--wrong about the story telling--this comment was from Lucy Mack Smith's diary and was refering to a time BEFORE JS claimed to have the BoM or visitations from Moroni. Okay, you got him on that one. Can you cite the revelation that Joseph received in which:"He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them."?Or are you calling Richard Abanes a liar for not assuming that such a revelation was actually given? he is lying because he says that Lucy spoke of Joseph's story telling ability. From the context it is clear that that Lucy is saying that the information came via revelation not that it was spinning yarns. Where do you get that Lucy claimed it was from 'revelation"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cal Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by Pahoran@Feb 24 2004, 08:55 PM That sounds like his mother's opinion. If she is of the opinion that Joseph received revelations concerning the stories that he would tell, does that make it true? Not only that, but where is the connection between the supposed "revelations" and the stories of the native americans? Where does it say what the revelations were supposed to be about? You are only assuming they were connected to the stories. It certainly doesn't say that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cal Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by Jenda@Feb 24 2004, 08:44 PM So, I want you to answer the question Peace asked. It has become the topic of the day? If you have found something so much better than Mormonism/the BoM, why are you not preaching it? Why are you just trying to take away the faith of others without replacing it with something better? Speaking of which, if what you have is so much better, why do you sound so resentful and bitter? Jenda---You keep saying there are all these evidences and yet I haven't seen any yet. BTW, what makes you think I am bitter? You make claims that you can't back up with evidence, and I say, "then why should anyone believe it?" And you think that is bitter? I have no bitterness regarding the BoM. However, I don't mind exposing what I consider a fraud. It would be one thing if Mormons looked to the BoM as simply a book of inspiring stories and allegories; but to try to pawn it off as actual, literal history is to perpetuate a fraud. The LDS need to do what the RLDS have done, and down play the literalistic side of the history. There was a time when it might have been excusable to consider the BoM as MAYBE believable--but with DNA studies, linguistic studies, anthropologic and archaelogical information, it is no longer a viable theory. Unfortunately the LDS church has staked its whole crediblity on the literalness of the BoM, and now finds itself in a position that requires the "you just have to take it on faith" approach. Nevertheless, this is disingenuous because hostorically everytime something looks even consistent with the BoM story the LDS latch on to it like they had just found the holy grail. I see you refused to answer the question I put to you.What is it you believe that you can supplant the LDS doctrine with when you pull it out from under the unsuspecting people here on this board?That is the only thing I want an answer to, because in actuality, for every proof against the BoM that you make, I can make a proof for it. None of your's are conclusive, and none of mine are conclusive. It all comes down to faith. So tell me about your faith. What do you believe in? I am not interested in what you don't believe in.If you can't provide something for people to believe in when you try to destroy their myths, than you are an uncaring, insensitive oaf. And I want you to prove you aren't. Can you? With pleasure: Moroni was supposed to have told JS that the native americans of what is now the midwest were the Lamanites of the BoM and therefore had Hebrew heritage. Genetic tests of these native tribes show NO connection to the Hebrews or any thing connecting them to that area of the world. On the contrary, all the genetic markers show these peoples are most closely related to North East Asians.Therefore, JS was wrong about the origin of the very native americans that his 'Moroni" was supposed to know so much about. Crediblility down the drain.Do you want to hear more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pahoran Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by Cal@Feb 24 2004, 11:39 PM With pleasure: Moroni was supposed to have told JS that the native americans of what is now the midwest were the Lamanites of the BoM and therefore had Hebrew heritage. Genetic tests of these native tribes show NO connection to the Hebrews or any thing connecting them to that area of the world. On the contrary, all the genetic markers show these peoples are most closely related to North East Asians.Therefore, JS was wrong about the origin of the very native americans that his 'Moroni" was supposed to know so much about. Crediblility down the drain.Do you want to hear more? That sounds correct. Moroni lied to Joseph about who the Native Americans are, as evidenced by DNA testing. Moroni was obviously sent by Lucifer to lead Joseph astray, which he did quite sucessfully. Please continue.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cal Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by Peace+Feb 24 2004, 10:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peace @ Feb 24 2004, 10:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Pahoran@Feb 24 2004, 08:55 PM That sounds like his mother's opinion. If she is of the opinion that Joseph received revelations concerning the stories that he would tell, does that make it true? Absolutely! Yeah, Peace--I'm sure LMS was totally unbiased! Quite the credible witness!What she DID apparently witness was JS making up stories! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Starsky Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by Cal+Feb 24 2004, 10:43 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Feb 24 2004, 10:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by -Peace@Feb 24 2004, 10:19 PM <!--QuoteBegin--Pahoran@Feb 24 2004, 08:55 PM That sounds like his mother's opinion. If she is of the opinion that Joseph received revelations concerning the stories that he would tell, does that make it true? Absolutely! Yeah, Peace--I'm sure LMS was totally unbiased! Quite the credible witness!What she DID apparently witness was JS making up stories! No intelligent discussion here. If all you can say is....JS made up stories...JS made up stories...yadayadayada.....blablabla...babble babble babble...then you aren't worth discussing something with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cal Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by Pahoran+Feb 24 2004, 10:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Pahoran @ Feb 24 2004, 10:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Feb 24 2004, 11:39 PM With pleasure: Moroni was supposed to have told JS that the native americans of what is now the midwest were the Lamanites of the BoM and therefore had Hebrew heritage. Genetic tests of these native tribes show NO connection to the Hebrews or any thing connecting them to that area of the world. On the contrary, all the genetic markers show these peoples are most closely related to North East Asians.Therefore, JS was wrong about the origin of the very native americans that his 'Moroni" was supposed to know so much about. Crediblility down the drain.Do you want to hear more? That sounds correct. Moroni lied to Joseph about who the Native Americans are, as evidenced by DNA testing. Moroni was obviously sent by Lucifer to lead Joseph astray, which he did quite sucessfully. Please continue.... The importance of the fact that it was supposedly MORONI that told JS the the native americans were Hebrews lies in the fact that apologists can't get out of what JS claimed by saying that, "Oh, it was just JS's opinion that the midwest or east native americans were Lamanites. JS didn't really know who they were".But this is supposed to be Moroni speaking. Was JS mistaken about that too? If so, what else was he mistaken about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pahoran Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by Cal@Feb 24 2004, 11:47 PM But this is supposed to be Moroni speaking. Was JS mistaken about that too? If so, what else was he mistaken about? LOL! Everything that he got wrong. Should we compile a list? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Starsky Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Any post which contains profanity, obscenities, or anything which would be found offensive to the majority of those who are LDS members will result in the post being removed, and the poster being banned from the site. There is a zero tolerance policy in place for those who choose to break those guidelines. Pahoran and Cal....consider yourselves warned for the last time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pahoran Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by Peace@Feb 24 2004, 11:54 PM Any post which contains profanity, obscenities, or anything which would be found offensive to the majority of those who are LDS members will result in the post being removed, and the poster being banned from the site. There is a zero tolerance policy in place for those who choose to break those guidelines. Pahoran and Cal....consider yourselves warned for the last time. Excuse me? What exactly is it that you are considering to be offensive? The fact that Moroni told Joseph things that just aren't so? Or what?Can somebody that isn't Peace please explain where Cal or I have stepped out of bounds on this thread by merely discussing facts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Starsky Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 While you are waiting for someone other than myself...I will explain it to you... If you were putting out 'facts' and not opinions it would be one thing, but you are being extremely offensive in making statements that are not only not fact based, but which have already been proven wrong on several levels. You are putting these statements out just to goad...not to discuss. You are behaving no less discusting than those ignorant protestors out in front of the temple grounds and conference centers during conference. You aren't here to discuss....but to be disgusting rude and ignorant about our beliefs. Believe me....after being on these kinds of boards for over three years...it is easy to spot aggitators in contrast to discussionists... There is nothing to be gained from any interchange with you two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pahoran Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by Peace@Feb 25 2004, 12:23 AM While you are waiting for someone other than myself...I will explain it to you...If you were putting out 'facts' and not opinions it would be one thing, but you are being extremely offensive in making statements that are not only not fact based, but which have already been proven wrong on several levels.You are putting these statements out just to goad...not to discuss. You are behaving no less discusting than those ignorant protestors out in front of the temple grounds and conference centers during conference. You aren't here to discuss....but to be disgusting rude and ignorant about our beliefs.Believe me....after being on these kinds of boards for over three years...it is easy to spot aggitators in contrast to discussionists...There is nothing to be gained from any interchange with you two. You are being pigheaded and putting out your opinions as facts and then whining when somebody dares point out that your opinions are not based in reality. Grow up and join the real world. If you cared to show that you had even a shred of credibility, you'd stick to the argument and not refute it with "Joseph Smith said so, and that makes it true". Do you even know how stupid you sound? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Starsky Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 I know I don't sound even half as stupid as yourself...Now quit posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenda Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by Cal@Feb 24 2004, 10:39 PM So, I want you to answer the question Peace asked. It has become the topic of the day? If you have found something so much better than Mormonism/the BoM, why are you not preaching it? Why are you just trying to take away the faith of others without replacing it with something better? Speaking of which, if what you have is so much better, why do you sound so resentful and bitter? Jenda---You keep saying there are all these evidences and yet I haven't seen any yet. BTW, what makes you think I am bitter? You make claims that you can't back up with evidence, and I say, "then why should anyone believe it?" And you think that is bitter? I have no bitterness regarding the BoM. However, I don't mind exposing what I consider a fraud. It would be one thing if Mormons looked to the BoM as simply a book of inspiring stories and allegories; but to try to pawn it off as actual, literal history is to perpetuate a fraud. The LDS need to do what the RLDS have done, and down play the literalistic side of the history. There was a time when it might have been excusable to consider the BoM as MAYBE believable--but with DNA studies, linguistic studies, anthropologic and archaelogical information, it is no longer a viable theory. Unfortunately the LDS church has staked its whole crediblity on the literalness of the BoM, and now finds itself in a position that requires the "you just have to take it on faith" approach. Nevertheless, this is disingenuous because hostorically everytime something looks even consistent with the BoM story the LDS latch on to it like they had just found the holy grail. I see you refused to answer the question I put to you.What is it you believe that you can supplant the LDS doctrine with when you pull it out from under the unsuspecting people here on this board?That is the only thing I want an answer to, because in actuality, for every proof against the BoM that you make, I can make a proof for it. None of your's are conclusive, and none of mine are conclusive. It all comes down to faith. So tell me about your faith. What do you believe in? I am not interested in what you don't believe in.If you can't provide something for people to believe in when you try to destroy their myths, than you are an uncaring, insensitive oaf. And I want you to prove you aren't. Can you? With pleasure: Moroni was supposed to have told JS that the native americans of what is now the midwest were the Lamanites of the BoM and therefore had Hebrew heritage. Genetic tests of these native tribes show NO connection to the Hebrews or any thing connecting them to that area of the world. On the contrary, all the genetic markers show these peoples are most closely related to North East Asians.Therefore, JS was wrong about the origin of the very native americans that his 'Moroni" was supposed to know so much about. Crediblility down the drain.Do you want to hear more? I see you don't know how to answer questions. Or maybe its that you don't know how to read questions. I bet you did horribly on essay tests.The question specifically asked what you do believe in, not what you don't believe in. What is it you believe now that you can offer to mormons who believe your garbage and stop believing in the BoM? BTW, the other mods have been discussing the problems caused by both you and Pahoran. You have both been warned, and soon (later today) other actions will be taken. Stay tuned! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenda Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by Peace@Feb 24 2004, 11:23 PM While you are waiting for someone other than myself...I will explain it to you...If you were putting out 'facts' and not opinions it would be one thing, but you are being extremely offensive in making statements that are not only not fact based, but which have already been proven wrong on several levels.You are putting these statements out just to goad...not to discuss. You are behaving no less discusting than those ignorant protestors out in front of the temple grounds and conference centers during conference. You aren't here to discuss....but to be disgusting rude and ignorant about our beliefs.Believe me....after being on these kinds of boards for over three years...it is easy to spot aggitators in contrast to discussionists...There is nothing to be gained from any interchange with you two. Let me add that there are several rules in the Rules of Conduct which is posted above for all to see that you are not adhering to, it is the purpose the board was cleansed not too awfully long ago, and this type of behavior will not be tolerated. Specifically:Bashing ones church or faith will not be permitted.-- Including disrespectfully discussing Temple Ceremonies.Offensive name calling of any sort to anyone on this site will not be tolerated.Offensive name calling is obvious, I don't think I need to explain that one to you, if I do, then you shouldn't be posting here without your mommy's permission, anyway.Bashing includes just exactly what Peace was referring to in her post (which I quoted). Making statements just for the sake of inflaming the discussion, posting the same thing over and over, even though the discussion has shown that there can be no resolution. If people don't choose to believe you, JUST GROW UP, ACCEPT THAT FACT, AND MOVE ON. Because if you don't, you won't be around here long.If you choose to discuss things on an adult level, you are welcome to stay and discuss, but so far, you have not displayed that quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts