Mistakes In The News About Polygamy And Mormons

[Paul Osborne]

Originally posted by Peace@Mar 19 2004, 01:28 AM

Paul you have some good information...and you have done a lot of work and research...but you should present it with less agressive and mean attitudes...don't you think?

Not everyone is going to see things the way you do...

Not when someone attacks my prophet, as Cal does. I’m not going to let him get away with it and try and make everyone assume he has something over the prophet which overthrows my religion.

Cal is not dealing with a full deck and is trying to trick us into thinking our prophet was false. I'm not going to stand for that. The Book of Mormon has some pretty tough things to say about people like that. The Book of Mormon is more aggresive than me, by far. Shall I quote from it?

Paul O

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Paul Osborne+Mar 19 2004, 01:40 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Paul Osborne @ Mar 19 2004, 01:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Peace@Mar 19 2004, 01:28 AM

Paul you have some good information...and you have done a lot of work and research...but you should present it with less agressive and mean attitudes...don't you think?

Not everyone is going to see things the way you do...

Not when someone attacks my prophet, as Cal does. I’m not going to let him get away with it and try and make everyone assume he has something over the prophet which overthrows my religion.

Cal is not dealing with a full deck and is trying to trick us into thinking our prophet was false. I'm not going to stand for that. The Book of Mormon has some pretty tough things to say about people like that. The Book of Mormon is more aggresive than me, by far. Shall I quote from it?

Paul O

You are neither prophet nor God. I hope you like posting here enough to settle down... Cal isn't attacking anyone...who isn't attacking him.

[Outshined]

Paul is correct that "coincidence" does not explain the things JS got right. How is it explained, if he was not who he claimed to be? You can't write off as "speculation" the fact that he was correct, at a time when there were no experts to give him the answers.

I also see his insistence on discussing one topic at a time, instead of being inundated with several topics at once. It's one way of tryig to dismiss answers; by switchng to a different subject.

[Paul Osborne]

Well, hmmm, ok then-- let Cal open a new thread and explain to me how is it that Joseph Smith was able to get so many things right about the Hypocephalus and turn it into a symbolic window into heavenly things. I extend the same challenge to debate him as well as Stephen. In fact, I'll be all too happy to debate them at the same time and they can get all the help they want. If they don't want to debate me on this board, they are free to choose another board and send me an invitation. I'll be there with bells on and go over this matter point by point until the cows jump over the moon. I'll even come into their wasp nest and they can surround me with as many cronies as they like. I'll take them all on at the same time!

Peace, I think you are being just a bit sensitive to my returns on Cal. TYou know this world is made up of a lot of personalities and it is limiting to have to restrain ourselves at every move to satisfy your personal code of conduct. However, since you are the moderator, it is your prerogative to dole out justice any way you like but that doesn’t make it necessarily right even though you think it is. Cal is not losing any sleep in me thinking he is a cheat. He has his opinions and I have mine. In the two threads I have been dealing with him, I think my replies were sharp but it isn’t like I told him he could go to hell or something like that.

Yes, I like to post on this board but I can just as easily move on.

Paul O

[Cal]

Originally posted by Peace+Mar 19 2004, 01:47 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peace @ Mar 19 2004, 01:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Paul Osborne@Mar 19 2004, 01:40 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Peace@Mar 19 2004, 01:28 AM

Paul you have some good information...and you have done a lot of work and research...but you should present it with less agressive and mean attitudes...don't you think?

Not everyone is going to see things the way you do...

Not when someone attacks my prophet, as Cal does. I’m not going to let him get away with it and try and make everyone assume he has something over the prophet which overthrows my religion.

Cal is not dealing with a full deck and is trying to trick us into thinking our prophet was false. I'm not going to stand for that. The Book of Mormon has some pretty tough things to say about people like that. The Book of Mormon is more aggresive than me, by far. Shall I quote from it?

Paul O

You are neither prophet nor God. I hope you like posting here enough to settle down... Cal isn't attacking anyone...who isn't attacking him.

Thanks Peace---you are very correct--in fact, I admire GBH for the great man that he is. Whether he talks to God or not in a way you and I are not privy to, I have no idea; I haven't had all the epiphanies that Paul espouses. However, I don't recall saying one thing against him (GBH).

Paul-- you mistake honest intellectual inquiry for hostility. I can see that it makes you insecure to have your assumptions questioned. But, if it's good enough for Hugh B. Brown, it's good enough for me he believed that: beliefs that cannot withstand rational scrutiny are probably not worth having.

You seem to be of that ilk that can't bear the thought of questioning ANYTHING, nor that there could be anything we mormons believe that should be scrutinized or re-thought.

I guess we could all just affirm everything everyone else says, and no one would get their feathers ruffled--how interesting or even productive would that be. I'm not saying we disagree, just to disagree--that's why we give REASONS for what we say. There is nothing hostile in asking for reasoning to justify statements made here. In fact, it is kind of insulting to have someone expect you to believe them when they either give no reason, or fly into a tyrade when you disagree with their reasons---Keep a cool head, Dude :)

[Cal]

Originally posted by Paul Osborne@Mar 19 2004, 06:40 AM

Well, hmmm, ok then-- let Cal open a new thread and explain to me how is it that Joseph Smith was able to get so many things right about the Hypocephalus and turn it into a symbolic window into heavenly things. I extend the same challenge to debate him as well as Stephen. In fact, I'll be all too happy to debate them at the same time and they can get all the help they want. If they don't want to debate me on this board, they are free to choose another board and send me an invitation. I'll be there with bells on and go over this matter point by point until the cows jump over the moon. I'll even come into their wasp nest and they can surround me with as many cronies as they like. I'll take them all on at the same time!

Peace, I think you are being just a bit sensitive to my returns on Cal. TYou know this world is made up of a lot of personalities and it is limiting to have to restrain ourselves at every move to satisfy your personal code of conduct. However, since you are the moderator, it is your prerogative to dole out justice any way you like but that doesn’t make it necessarily right even though you think it is. Cal is not losing any sleep in me thinking he is a cheat. He has his opinions and I have mine. In the two threads I have been dealing with him, I think my replies were sharp but it isn’t like I told him he could go to hell or something like that.

Yes, I like to post on this board but I can just as easily move on.

Paul O

Paul--when you can explain away what JS got wrong--I will address the other stuff. The problem is the stuff he got WRONG is pivotal and crucial to his credibility. The fact that the papyrus were NOT 1) of the age of Abraham

2) were not written by the HAND OF ABRAHAM--as JS claimed 3) Did not contain the subject matter of the BoA--this is particularly relevant to the Small Sen Sen since it is clear that the first part of BoA was supposed to have come from them. Not only that but, the little "dictionary" JS had which supposedly explained the meaning of several heiroglyphics JS had written down contained, basically, was nothing but giberish, according to modern Egyptologists.

You have not refuted these things---and until you do, why should I debate anything else?

[Guest bizabra]

Originally posted by Paul Osborne+Mar 19 2004, 12:56 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Paul Osborne @ Mar 19 2004, 12:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Mar 18 2004, 09:47 PM

How can I lose when you already have? You have in effect admitted that JS WAS wrong about the Small Sen Sen. What else do we need. The rest of what you have sited is pure wishful thinking and speculation.

Cal,

The sensen argument is irrelevant to this facet of the BofA discussion and can be handled separately. Stay on topic, Cal. Whether Joseph Smith was wrong about something else makes little difference to whether he was right about the points in question.

Aside from the sensen issue, you say that the "rest" of my material is pure wishful thinking and speculation on my part; prove it! You're just talk and don't know what you're talking about! Show me how Joseph Smith was wrong in demonstrating his keen insight of things Egyptian within the Hypocephalus as he tied it to the gospel. Let’s start with the Four Quarters-- YOU show me how Joseph Smith got it wrong and I will concede that he was a false prophet and you have shown me up here on the board. Otherwise, you automatically withdraw your claim against the prophet by default seeing you have nothing to say other than you think he got it wrong based on the idea that he got something else wrong. You have a big bark but no bite, Cal. Now is your big chance to show how Joseph Smith got it wrong and was duped in giving us a sign through the Hypocephalus as confirmed by expert testimony given by Egyptologists.

The prophet gave this sign to all the world and YOU can’t refute it:

FACSIMILE No. 2 FIGURE 6, EXPLANATION

"Represents this earth in its four quarters." (Joseph Smith)

Egyptian iconography of the four sons of Horus (son of Osiris) is portrayed in figure six of the LDS papyrus Facsimile No. 2, from left to right:

1. Imseti (man headed)

2. Hapy (baboon headed)

3. Duamutef (dog headed)

4. Qebehsenuef (hawk headed)

QUESTION

How does the image of four Egyptian gods represent the "four quarters" or rather the four cardinal points of north, east, south, and west, as explained by the prophet Joseph Smith?

PAUL'S ANSWER

The coffin of the deceased was a symbolic representation of the physical world which encased or surrounded the body of the blessed dead. Under the coffin was the earth god called Geb and above the coffin was the sky goddess (wife of Geb) called Nut. The four sons of Horus were guardians of the world coffin and each god was posted at a corner of the coffin as divine sentinels of the world. This imagery is also paralleled in John's Book of Revelation when the four angels control the four directional winds of the earth at the four corners thereof (Rev 7:1). Some Middle Kingdom coffins demonstrate the religious four cardinal points of the four sons of Horus that take their place at the four corners of the coffin. EGYPTOLOGY PROVES JOSEPH SMITH'S INTERPRETATION

"The Four Sons of Horus had various other relationships. Geographically, Imsety was linked with the South, Hapy with the North, Duamutef the East, and Kebehsenuef the West." (The Ancient God's Speak a Guide to Egyptian Religion; Aidan Dodson, edited by Donal B. Redford, p. 134)

"In the panel nearest the head end on the left side of the box the painted eyes look out over the bolted doors of the dead man's eternal dwellings…the house coffin and its deceased occupant were thought of as ringed about and protected by a special set of tutelary divinities, whose individual stations and responsibilities had already been established by ancient tradition...The four corners of the coffin are watched over by the so-called Genii of the dead, Imsety and Hapy paired on either side of the shoulders of the mummy, Dewau-mautef and Kebeh-snewef flanking the legs" (The Scepter of Egypt; Egyptologist William C. Hays, former Egyptian Curator of NY Metropolitan Museum; p. 314)

"A further strip of text usually extended along the (coffin) lid. This invoked the goddess Nut, the sky-deity whose body spanned the heavens, and who swallowed the sun at evening, giving birth to it again at dawn. It was significant for the conceptual interpretation of the coffin, which came to be regarded as a microcosm of the world, its lid symbolizing the heavens." (The Mummy in Ancient Egypt; Egyptologist Salima Ikram & Aidan Dodson & Illustration; p197)

"Connected with one of the forms of Horus, originally, were the four gods of the cardinal points, or the 'four spirits of Horus,' who supported heaven at its four corners; their names were Hapi, Tuamutef, Amset, and Qebhsennuf, and they represented the north, east, south, and west respectively." (Egyptian Ideas of the Afterlife; E.A. Wallis Budge p. 107)

"The four pillars of the sky in still later times represented the Four Cardinal Points, and the pillars were thought to be kept in position by the four gods who stood by them. These four gods were the Children of Horus, who were called Amset, Hap, Tuamutef, and Qebhsenuf. Each god ruled over one quarter of the world". (The Book of the Dead; E.A. Wallis Budge, p. 130,131)

"In one passage they are called the four Khu's of Horus and originally they represented the Four Horus gods, who held up the four pillars which supported the sky, or their father Horus. Each was suppose to be lord of one of the quarters of the world, and finally become the god of one of the cardinal points, Hep represented the north, Tuamutef the east, Amset the south, and Qebhsenuf the west." (E.A Wallis Budge; The Book of the Dead, p. 192)

Paul O

The sky Goddess, Nut, that would be me (or at least my avatar, LOL)

[Outshined]

I think the questions Cal is asking are addressed HERE. To be fair, it's a long article, and I don't expect you to just whiz through it quickly.

I know Paul is more than capable of holding up his end, I'm just putting in my two cents.

I also understand that Cal is asking an honest question, and is not trying to undermine the Church.....

Further note: Paul himself may not agree with the information in the article, I simply present it to address Cal's question.

[Stephen]

Originally posted by Cal@Mar 18 2004, 07:48 PM

You born-agains BELIEVE without evidence, that Jesus was resurrected (which is what had to have happened to make your faith believable). It is ALL based on FAITH. Quit jerking us around with your side-stepping.

Mormons also believe Jesus was resurrected, but we have something MORE, there is AT LEAST some evidence that Jesus visited the americas---I will admit the evidence can go either way--but it IS something, and more than you have.

One other statement you made--to the effect that nothing in the bible has been disproven. Actually, there is plenty of evidence that many of the events of the New Testament NEVER took place. For one, there was no town called Nazareth at the time JEsus was supposed to have lived. Archaeologists have found that, what is now Nazareth, was just a grave yard at the time of Jesus, and it is well known that the Jews did not build towns on graveyards. It is also a fact that the narative gospels were almost certainly heresay, as they were written a good 50 to 100years after Jesus. And, even the epistles were written as though they had no CLUE as to the historical Jesus.

So don't be so smug about how much EVIDENCE you have for the accuracy of the bible (no person insult intended)

There is no side-stepping. If disagreeing with you is considered side-stepping then so be it, but you have strange definitions of things.

There actually was a town of Nazareth at the time Jesus Christ was supposed to have lived. That is one of the verifiable evidences of the Bible no matter what kind of story you have read most likely on a athiest website bent on trying to discredit the Bible. If you have anything more than hearsay on this then bring it forward or admit you have no references to back up what you say. I suggest that you are relying on out- dated information to come to your above quoted conclusion regarding the city of Nazareth.

Here is some quoted information with a website link for your perusal:

Here are a couple of quotes on the archeological data:

"Despite Nazareth's obscurity (which had led some critics to suggest that it was a relatively recent foundation), archeology indicates that the village has been occupied since the 7th century B.C., although it may have experienced a 'refounding' in the 2d century b.c. " ([MJ]A Marginal Jew--Rethinking the Historical Jesus, (vol 1), p.300-301)...cites Meyers and Strange, Archeology, the Rabbis, and Early Christianity, Abingdon:1981. pp.56-57

Although I do not have the Meyers/Strange work, more detail from it is given by Paul Barnett[bSNT], Behind the Scenes of the New Testament, IVP:1990, p.42:

"Despite the Hellenization of the general region and the probability that Greek was known to many people it seems likely that Nazareth remained a conservative Jewish village. After the Jewish war with the Romans from AD 66-70 it was necessary to re-settle Jewish priests and their families. Such groups would only settle in unmixed towns, that is towns without Gentile inhabitants. According to an inscription discovered in 1962 in Caesarea Maritima the priests of the order of Elkalir made their home in Nazareth. This, by the way, is the sole known reference to Nazareth in antiquity, apart from written Christian sources... (next paragraph) Some scholars had even believed that Nazareth was a fictitious invention of the early Christians; the inscription from Caesarea Maritima proves otherwise."

hope this helps...glenn miller

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/nazy.html

The other thing I take issue with is your assumption that there is proof that Jesus Christ visited the Americas.............Where is this proof? You must know more then the wisest archeologists and greatest scholars that the earth knows!!!

Are you referring to the Quetzalcoatl connection to Jesus Christ as your evidence?

I suggest you read the information on the following website if that is your supposed evidence.

http://www.tektonics.org/quetz.html

Also according to the religioustolerance.org website there is no archeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon teaching that Jesus Christ visited the Americas.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_migr.htm

[Guest Starsky]

Interesting Stephen. But one mans proof is another mans non-proof.

I saw a documentary by the Christian community which showed that they were just now digging up evidence of Christ's early church in and around Jerusalem.

Who knows what we will find here in America in the future. Also, there was evidence of the devistation which took place just before Christ came here....cities which sunk into the earth and mountains which rose out of vallies.

What archialogical evidence would Christ have left here? Plates of history like the BofM? Also, if you are trying to raise up a strong-in-faith people....a remnant who will ultimately be strong enough to battle the dragon and his forces of evil...would you spoon feed them with physical evidence...give them testimonies of early evidence? Or would you raise them in the harshest spiritually deprived society on the planet with nothing more than a few 'stones' and a sling....so that they had to depend upon the Lord for their strength and not on men..

Also....If you consider the OT...and how the Israelites, after 400 years of not having anything Godly surrounding them....and then they get all the miracles...physical proof...witnessing for themselves the presence of the Lord....couldn't stay righteous for even a few months....you would see just how important it is that the Lord have only the best.....that there be a sifting of the weak through such means as living by faith alone.....to fulfill the Lord's agenda....not men's.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Stephen@Mar 19 2004, 09:46 AM

There actually was a town of Nazareth at the time Jesus Christ was supposed to have lived. That is one of the verifiable evidences of the Bible no matter what kind of story you have read most likely on a athiest website bent on trying to discredit the Bible.

Well for pity's sake, then let's ignore the atheist and check with the believers:

The Encyclopaedia Biblica, a work written by theologians, the greatest biblical reference work in the English language, says: "We cannot perhaps venture to assert positively that there was a city of Nazareth in Jesus' time."

But whether there was or wasn't is not the issue. The issue is whether or not Jesus existed and was/is God or the Son of God.

I defy you, Stephen, to give a single, solid piece of evidence - you know, the kind of evidence that you demand of the BoM - that Jesus lived, was born of a virgin, converted water to wine and was the Son of God? Come on now, don't be a Tannercrite.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Outshined@Mar 19 2004, 09:40 AM

I think the questions Cal is asking are addressed HERE. To be fair, it's a long article, and I don't expect you to just whiz through it quickly.

I know Paul is more than capable of holding up his end, I'm just putting in my two cents.

I also understand that Cal is asking an honest question, and is not trying to undermine the Church.....

Further note: Paul himself may not agree with the information in the article, I simply present it to address Cal's question.

Outshined--you are correct. Nothing I say is DESIGNED to undermine the church. If it does, then that is the conclusion one comes to on his own, independent of what I may say. I try to stick to what is most credible and factual (I will be the first to admit that is often a hard row to hoe), and raise the questions that come up as they logically.

If Paul is upset, then it is because he perceives that the issue I raise, are raising doubts in HIS mind. I already have a clear picture of what some of this means, but I am not intending to foist that on anyone else. In fact, I rarely say what I think the "big picture" is. IMHO that is for each person to answer for himself.

[Paul Osborne]

Originally posted by Cal@Mar 19 2004, 08:38 AM

You have not refuted these things---and until you do, why should I debate anything else?

Because, Cal, YOU said there was no evidence to support Joseph Smith. I gave you evidence. Go figure.

Paul O

[Paul Osborne]

bizabra,

You will always be one of my goddesses!

Paul O

[Paul Osborne]

Originally posted by Peace@Mar 19 2004, 01:47 AM

You are neither prophet nor God.

No kidding? Oh, come on Peace, really-- need you say that? I wasn’t born yesterday and I am quite aware that I am not a god, yet, and neither have I been ordained a prophet to the world through the holy priesthood.

My standards by which I judge are taught clearly in the teachings of the Book of Mormon which does not kiss up against the world but clearly condemns those who speak evil against the Lord’s Church in the last days and except they repent they will find themselves at the Lord’s left hand when he comes again. The Book of Mormon does not tolerate those who fight against the Lamb and his Church. You can however do as you wish with your board.

Wouldn’t it be nice if board members could post honest spiritual discussions without having people like Cal come along and ruin them by dumping poison into the stream of pure water? I’m a afraid your desire to kiss up with these people has clouded your vision. Carry on how ever you like but I will stick to the confines of the Book of Mormon regarding those who seek to undermine our testimonies and the testimonies of those who are lurking.

Paul O

[Paul Osborne]

2 Ne. 6: 13

Wherefore, they that fight against Zion and the covenant people of the Lord shall lick up the dust of their feet; and the people of the Lord shall not be ashamed. For the people of the Lord are they who wait for him; for they still wait for the coming of the Messiah.

2 Ne. 10: 13

And he that fighteth against Zion shall perish, saith God.

2 Ne. 10: 16

Wherefore, he that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female, shall perish; for they are they who are the whore of all the earth; for they who are not for me are against me, saith our God.

Paul O

[Paul Osborne]

Opposition to the Work of God Carlos E. Asay, “Opposition to the Work of God,” Ensign, Nov. 1981, 67

"These faith-killers and testimony-thieves use personal contacts, the printed word, electronic media, and other means of communication to sow doubts and to disturb the peace of true believers."

"And with all this marveling and wondering, we tend to niche the anti-Christs in some corner of ancient history and go about our unguarded ways. This is dangerous. It could result in loss of faith; and, in a spiritual sense, it could put us out of existence."

"Other times he has worked through those who have stepped to his side of the line. For instance, in the Book of Mormon, we read of three anti-Christs. Each was deceived, each preached against those who believed in Christ, and each sought openly to destroy the church of God. Their patterns of deceit were similar. They taught false doctrines, spread lies, referred to prophecies as foolish traditions, accused Church leaders of perverting the right way of God, and baited the people by referring to their faith as a foolish and vain hope. (See Jacob 7; Alma 1; and Alma 30.)"

"Avoid those who would tear down your faith. Faith-killers are to be shunned. The seeds which they plant in the minds and hearts of men grow like cancer and eat away the Spirit. True messengers of God are builders—not destroyers. We send our missionaries into the world to teach and to assist people in receiving truth line upon line until the fulness of the gospel is received. (See D&C 98:112.) As one new convert testified: 'My previous church provided me the chapter on mortality. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints added two more chapters pertaining to the premortal and postmortal existences'."

"Do not contend or debate over points of doctrine. The Master warned that “the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil.” (3 Ne. 11:29.) We are inconsistent if we resort to Satanic tactics in attempting to achieve righteous ends. Such inconsistency results only in frustration, loss of the Spirit, and ultimate defeat. Remember, “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege.” (Eleventh Article of Faith.)"

Paul O

[Guest Starsky]

QUOTE (Peace @ Mar 19 2004, 01:47 AM)

You are neither prophet nor God. 

No kidding? Oh, come on Peace, really-- need you say that? I wasn’t born yesterday and I am quite aware that I am not a god, yet, and neither have I been ordained a prophet to the world through the holy priesthood. 

Then why don't you recognize your own 'ignornace'? Your pride is dripping off as thick toxic waste....

If I were to attach a recognizable/comparable character to your persona...it would be the JOKER from Batman.

My standards by which I judge are taught clearly in the teachings of the Book of Mormon which does not kiss up against the world but clearly condemns those who speak evil against the Lord’s Church in the last days and except they repent they will find themselves at the Lord’s left hand when he comes again. The Book of Mormon does not tolerate those who fight against the Lamb and his Church. You can however do as you wish with your board.

If you truly live by the BofM...then why aren't you living according to Mosiah 4, Moroni 7, and Alma 5 and many many others....you show no love, patience, long suffering, spiritual guidance, or uplifting ability what so ever in your posts....

Wouldn’t it be nice if board members could post honest spiritual discussions without having people like Cal come along and ruin them by dumping poison into the stream of pure water? I’m a afraid your desire to kiss up with these people has clouded your vision.

<span style=\'font-family:Geneva\'>First of all, it is people, honest people, caring people, searching people like Cal which makes it worth coming to these boards.</span>

I have yet to meet two more mean hearted posters than you and Stephen...the very ones who claim to be born again.. You know charity is the 'fruit of the Spirit'....where is your charity? Did you know that knowledge vanishes away? Did you know that true intelligence is love UNFEIGNED?

Carry on how ever you like but I will stick to the confines of the Book of Mormon regarding those who seek to undermine our testimonies and the testimonies of those who are lurking.

Paul O

Try reading the BofM as more than a war text...try finding the 'true' message in it....

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Paul Osborne@Mar 20 2004, 05:08 AM

2 Ne. 6: 13

Wherefore, they that fight against Zion and the covenant people of the Lord shall lick up the dust of their feet; and the people of the Lord shall not be ashamed. For the people of the Lord are they who wait for him; for they still wait for the coming of the Messiah.

2 Ne. 10: 13

And he that fighteth against Zion shall perish, saith God.

2 Ne. 10: 16

Wherefore, he that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female, shall perish; for they are they who are the whore of all the earth; for they who are not for me are against me, saith our God.

Paul O

For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

*****

Mosiah 18: 21

21 And he commanded them that there should be no contention one with another, but that they should look forward with one eye, having one faith and one baptism, having their hearts knit together in unity and in love one towards another.

Moro. 9: 5

5 For so exceedingly do they anger that it seemeth me that they have no fear of death; and they have lost their love, one towards another; and they thirst after blood and revenge continually.

[Guest Starsky]

First off...Cal is hardly a faith killer. There can and will be...and even must be opposition in all things....

You are way over the top on this Paul. Your pride has gotten the better of you.

"Do not contend or debate over points of doctrine. The Master warned that “the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil.” (3 Ne. 11:29.) We are inconsistent if we resort to Satanic tactics in attempting to achieve righteous ends. Such inconsistency results only in frustration, loss of the Spirit, and ultimate defeat. Remember, “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege.” (Eleventh Article of Faith.)"

Paul O

You contend daily...in a spirit of contention and belittling...and you have, as a result...been frustrated, and lost the Spirit.

[Paul Osborne]

Peace,

Judge thus how you like; it matters not to me. I will take my little self someone else. I don't need to stand for this. Go ahead and feast with those who seek to overthrow testimonies-- I'm out of here. You can't ban me.

Paul O

[Stephen]

Originally posted by Snow+Mar 19 2004, 03:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Mar 19 2004, 03:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Stephen@Mar 19 2004, 09:46 AM

There actually was a town of Nazareth at the time Jesus Christ was supposed to have lived. That is one of the verifiable evidences of the Bible no matter what kind of story you have read most likely on a athiest website bent on trying to discredit the Bible.

Well for pity's sake, then let's ignore the atheist and check with the believers:

The Encyclopaedia Biblica, a work written by theologians, the greatest biblical reference work in the English language, says: "We cannot perhaps venture to assert positively that there was a city of Nazareth in Jesus' time."

But whether there was or wasn't is not the issue. The issue is whether or not Jesus existed and was/is God or the Son of God.

I defy you, Stephen, to give a single, solid piece of evidence - you know, the kind of evidence that you demand of the BoM - that Jesus lived, was born of a virgin, converted water to wine and was the Son of God? Come on now, don't be a Tannercrite.

I am not discussing miracles here Snow. One cannot prove or disprove a miracle. A miracle by its very nature is an un-natural and abnormal event.....thus the reason why it is called miraculous. You are talking apples and oranges. I am asking you.... where is the archeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon? You are asking me to prove that past miracles actually happened!

I can no more prove that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin or that he actually turned water into wine then you could prove to me that there are three Nephites that actually exist and still walk the earth today.....unless you have a polaroid photo that you would like to show us Mr. Snow. It would be impressive if you could actually prove that the Nephites ever really existed at all.

Don't even bother posting anything to me Mr. Snow if you are just going to be asking purposefully assanine questions that you could not even answer yourself. I am not interested in having little wars of words with you and wasting my time posting messages to somebody who would rather play games. You put all Born Again Christians in the same category as Ed Decker and Walter Martin as you mock and criticize me and others simply because we disagree with you theologically and you label us all as you put us all in your neat pigeon holes.

Also, if you want to quote from an out-dated Encyclopedia Biblica go for it, but it does not impress anybody here I'm sure. When you ignore the up-dated information that I provided about the city of Nazareth as you go on in your bigoted hate spree about Born Again Christians in general you dont intice anybody to get into a conversation with you about anything. When you decide that you actually want to have a real serious conversation about something........let me know.

[Stephen]

As far as the Book of Abraham is concerned one who is looking for real answers about it needs to disregard theories that contradict what Joseph Smith said as well as the comments made by several eye-witnesses to the Book of Abraham translation process. One such theory is: THE DIRECT REVELATION THEORY...which surmises that Joseph Smith did not need the scrolls at all, but that Joseph Smith received the Book of Abraham text from direct revelation from God as he was studying the Egyptian Papyri scrolls. Several objections to this can be made and most people with a modicum of common sense would agree with these points.

1) Joseph Smith on several occasions claimed that he could read and translate what was on the scrolls.

2) Joseph Smith on at least one occasion read from the scrolls in front of a group of Mormons as he claimed to be reading to them a portion of what was written on the scrolls.

3) Joseph Smith challenged people in his day to prove that he did not translate correctly what was on the Egyptian papyri scrolls.

4) The Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar that Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery and others worked on showed that they would take actual Egyptian hieroglyphic characters and they would give the English translation off to the side of those characters. This showed that they were attempting to literally translate the Egyptian characters on the scrolls.

An interesting thing about point #3 is that they would take one Egyptian character and translate it into a couple paragraphs of English words which is impossible to literally do. Any Egyptologist would acknowledge that it is impossible to get that many English words from one Egyptian character.

There are more points then this, but those points are enough for any logically minded person to reject the "direct revelation theory" as nothing more then an escape hatch theory some Mormons created to try and avoid the embarrassing situation that the Book of Abraham has put the Mormon Church in.

[Outshined]

The only people "embarassed" by the BOA are the ones who don't know anything about it. Nice rhetoric, though.....

Anyone "looking for real answers" can read the links I posted above. There's a LOT of reading involved, but you don't have to take someone else's word for what scholars think.

I might add that Paul is definitely not in the direct translation camp.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Paul Osborne@Mar 20 2004, 12:29 PM

Peace,

Judge thus how you like; it matters not to me. I will take my little self someone else. I don't need to stand for this. Go ahead and feast with those who seek to overthrow testimonies-- I'm out of here. You can't ban me.

Paul O

Your loss bro....it appears that you can dish it out, but you can't take it. So be it. :) There will be one less for dinner as we feast upon the word. :)