What Is Anti-Mormon?

[Cal]

Originally posted by Peace@Mar 25 2004, 10:36 PM

Peace--I think Maureen was talking to Porterrockwell when she said "prove it". He said he could prove Jesus walked the earth.

I know...but I love to butt in... LOL...( I know you've noticed... )

Also, your are REALLY "seeing what you want to see" in a "fish surrounded by 12 dots". That could mean almost anything, and certainly says NOTHING about Jesus visiting anything.

Yes...we all have that problem sometimes...but it still doesn't totally eliminate the possibility of it being a proof of Christ's visit there.

Do you even know when it was carved, as though that really made a difference (but if it were carved after the arival of the christian missionaries, then it would say absolutely nothing about Jesus' visit to the americas.

I can't hardly see missionaries doing the hieroglyphics...besides which they have already be 'dated' and they are in the same era as Christ.

Besides that, the Hawaiians are not decendents of the native americans

They wouldn't have to be would they? Christ said there were other sheep that were not of this fold....He said he would visit the lands and islands....and I am sure that He did.

They are decendents of the polynesians of the south seas (the Marquesas most directly) and eventually the micronesians of south east asian areas. All the polynesians are decendents of the early micronesians--genetic and linguistic markers prove it beyond doubt.

There are studies with some credibility which suggest that the ships of Hagoth went to asia... :)

Peace--you are driving me nuts!

First, You said: Yes...we all have that problem sometimes...but it still doesn't totally eliminate the possibility of it being a proof of Christ's visit there.

Are you kidding me? Of course it ELIMINATES it as proof. It's only PROOF if there is no other rational explanation for it--I just showed you how there are plenty! (The missionaries didn't have to make the marks, THE HAWAIIANS WERE CONVERTED TO CHRISTIANITY !!!!!!!!!!" Also, if the marks were made 2000 years ago as you say, they must have been made by ALIENS then, because the Hawaiian Islands WEREN'T EVEN INHABITED 2000 years ago!!!!! SHHEEEEEZZZZ!!!!

The Hawaiian Islands were first inhabited less than 600 years ago (I could be off by a hundred or so years)

Next, what STUDIES show that some HAGOTH guy visited Hawaii? All there is, is an obtuse reference to this guy, and it was in HELAMEN, if I remember right, which was BC. So, even if he did, he didn't stay ( read my last statement in the previous paragraph). You seem to believe everything you hear. No offense, but your theories are really "out there today" girl! :)

[Guest Starsky]

Peace--you are driving me nuts!

LOL Sorry.

You seem to believe everything you hear. No offense, but your theories are really "out there today" girl! 

Yeah...I guess to a scientist it appears that way...LOL

There really were some studies...about Hagoth... B)

[restornu]

Originally posted by Snow@Mar 25 2004, 10:07 PM

Restornu,

Do you think we just fell of the parsnip truck?

“It would never enter anyone’s head, to ask whether Jesus had lived, unless before asking the question the mind had been darkened by the wish that he had not lived.”

(Roderic Dunkerley, Beyond the Gospels, 29-30)

Can you provide independent proof you were ever on a parsnip truck?

Restornu

[Faerie]

How do you know someone wasn't taking a joy ride to Maui?? Maybe those glyphs were early "confetti" saing "Makalahaki was here"

Don't be so serious and PLEASE don't call Helaman "BC"

[Maureen]

Originally posted by restornu@Mar 26 2004, 05:37 AM

“It would never enter anyone’s head, to ask whether Jesus had lived, unless before asking the question the mind had been darkened by the wish that he had not lived.”

(Roderic Dunkerley, Beyond the Gospels, 29-30)

That's the goofiest statement ever.

A person can question historical events without loosing faith (hope) that those events are indeed true.

M.

[Snow]

Originally posted by restornu+Mar 26 2004, 05:37 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (restornu @ Mar 26 2004, 05:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Mar 25 2004, 10:07 PM

Restornu,

Do you think we just fell of the parsnip truck?

“It would never enter anyone’s head, to ask whether Jesus had lived, unless before asking the question the mind had been darkened by the wish that he had not lived.”

(Roderic Dunkerley, Beyond the Gospels, 29-30)

I think I that I can safely state, without fear of disagreement, that Roderic Dunkerley is a big freaking idiot.

Besides which Restornu, the point is not whether Jesus lived, the point is whether there is any evidence for it. You acted like there was but you were mistaken. Now, do you have some real evidence or are you going to put up more goofy quotes that make no sense.

Seriously, that quote was inane, demonstrably false and inane. Oh, did I already say inane?

[AFDaw]

Maureen and Snow - You guys gave me a good laugh over those last 2 replies.

I do agree though, it's a very odd statement.

[restornu]

Originally posted by Snow+Mar 26 2004, 11:38 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Mar 26 2004, 11:38 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -restornu@Mar 26 2004, 05:37 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Mar 25 2004, 10:07 PM

Restornu,

Do you think we just fell of the parsnip truck?

“It would never enter anyone’s head, to ask whether Jesus had lived, unless before asking the question the mind had been darkened by the wish that he had not lived.”

(Roderic Dunkerley, Beyond the Gospels, 29-30)

I think I that I can safely state, without fear of disagreement, that Roderic Dunkerley is a big freaking idiot.

Besides which Restornu, the point is not whether Jesus lived, the point is whether there is any evidence for it. You acted like there was but you were mistaken. Now, do you have some real evidence or are you going to put up more goofy quotes that make no sense.

Seriously, that quote was inane, demonstrably false and inane. Oh, did I already say inane?

There is more historical evidence for the life of Christ than most of the historical personages of comparable antiquity. Read Habermas' book and Please leave the snide comments behind.

[Faerie]

leave the snide comments behind.

That's impossible on this board ROFL

[Tr2]

I'm wouldn't consider myself "anti-mormon", I'm just pro-bible. If they happen to be the same thing, then that's life.

[Snow]

Originally posted by restornu@Mar 26 2004, 01:12 PM

There is more historical evidence for the life of Christ than most of the historical personages of comparable antiquity. Read Habermas' book and leave the snide comments behind.

Do you mean that we should making snide remarks - like that clown Durnkerly who thinks that anyone who questions Christ's existence wishese Christ hadn't existed -- like that?

Let's examine you claim that there is more historical evidence for Christ than most historical personages (is personage like a person - only fancier?): The world population at the time of Christ was 170 million, give or take. There is no (contemporary) historical evidence for the vast majority of the 170 million - individually. Interestingly, there is no (contemporary) historical evidence for the existence of Christ either.

So sorry Restornu, your assertion is mistaken. Do you think that you will win many arguments by making up information?

[porterrockwell]

Originally posted by Tr2@Mar 26 2004, 03:19 PM

I'm wouldn't consider myself "anti-mormon", I'm just pro-bible. If they happen to be the same thing, then that's life.

Nice try, but semantics you are using are quite worn out by the anti-mormon crowd.

[serapha]

The world population at the time of Christ was 170 million, give or take.

source please.

~serapha~

[serapha]

What Is Anti-Mormon?

Hi there!

:)

Before defining "anti-mormon", I would like someone to define mormon.

~serapha~

[AFDaw]

Are you serious?

[Faerie]

Mormon is an ancient prophet who lived in the Americas some 1700 years ago. He was a great and brave man who begat a son by the name of Moroni who appeared to the young prophet Joseph to reveal a great and wonderful message from the Lord almighty. Moroni showed Joseph some golden plates buried deep beneath the earth in upstate New York. Joseph was later allowed to translate said plates into a wonderful and true book called "The Book of Mormon." In the days to come many people who were opposed to the message that Joseph Smith was preaching began calling his followers "Mormons" The nickname stuck.

What strikes me funny, is that you claim to be such an expert on what we believe, yet you yourself have NOT read the BoM from cover to cover.Tsk Tsk.

[Outshined]

Mor·mon n.

1. An ancient prophet believed to have compiled a sacred history of the Americas, which were translated and published by Joseph Smith as the Book of Mormon in 1830.

2. A member of the Mormon Church. Also called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[Tr2]

Interestingly, there is no (contemporary) historical evidence for the existence of Christ either.

Funny, I have been saying the same thing about the golden plates, but you don't seem to need evidence to believe in those! You may need to make up your mind why you believe what you believe.

[Snow]

Originally posted by AFDaw@Mar 26 2004, 05:24 PM

Are you serious?

I think it is a valid question. I don't know what it has to do with the issue of anti-Mormonism but is Mormon a member of the Church of Jesus Christ or is it a wider term like Christian that applies to tons of different people with completely contradictory opinions about religion.

This is an LDS board. When I say Mormon, I mean member of the LDS Church, who has some level of committment to the restored gospel.

Technically Stephen and Bat are Mormon because they were baptised and haven't turned in their resignation but in terms of anti-Mormon, it makes no sense because the ones opposed to "Mormons" would be opposed to them.

It might make sense to expand the definition to include people who accept the restoration and Book of Mormon but we Mormon certainly don't think of the Church of Christ (no offense to our RLDS friends) as Mormon any more. We don't think of Cutlerites or Strangites or Fundamentalist as Mormon.

So Mormon means believing or at least cultural LDS member in a narrow sense and believers in the Book of Mormon is a broader sense but please let's draw the line at the Fundamentalist Polygamists.

Note: being Mormon is not the same as in being Christian when Christains use the word Christian to denote being saved. Being Mormon does not equate with salvation.

[Snow]

Originally posted by serapha@Mar 26 2004, 05:14 PM

The world population at the time of Christ was 170 million, give or take.

source please.

~serapha~

US Census Bureau. Historical estimates of world population.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Tr2@Mar 26 2004, 06:32 PM

Interestingly, there is no (contemporary) historical evidence for the existence of Christ either.

Funny, I have been saying the same thing about the golden plates, but you don't seem to need evidence to believe in those! You may need to make up your mind why you believe what you believe.

Have you ever thought about giving up your amateur status in missing-the-point and turning pro?

Explicitly or implicitly you asserted two things: That I don't believe in Christ and that the Book of Mormon has no evidence.

Both are wrong.

I believe in and accept Christ based on faith, but am not afraid to state the truth of evidence regarding his existence. And, I believe in the BoM based upon my faith but also take comfort in the many non-archeological evidences for it.

[Lindy]

I voted none of the above....because it's a lot more than the given choices. (IMO)

PD said it very well, and I think I will second (or third, or fourth) these statements:

"A person who actively works to draw Mormons away from the Church, or keep people from joining the Church"

"A person who holds the Church to a standard he doesn't apply to other institutions, including those he favors, is anti-Mormon. (Unless we're talking about a member of the Church who holds the Church to a higher standard because he believes that where much is given -- like the fulness of the gospel -- much is required.)"

"A person who makes a career out of criticizing the Church is anti-Mormon."

"A person who obsesses with criticizing the Church, as opposed to religions generally or all religions but his own, is anti-Mormon."

That about covers it for me too.....

There has been times, when it seems like they may be prodded on by someone (or something) of the religiously negative persuasion

I don't think that being an anti-mormon means that the person is bad, (even if it seems like it at times).....just a royal pain here and there :)

[serapha]

Mor·mon  n. 

1. An ancient prophet believed to have compiled a sacred history of the Americas, which were translated and published by Joseph Smith as the Book of Mormon in 1830.

2. A member of the Mormon Church. Also called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

And "anti" defined...

against, hostile to.

therefore, the entirity of the word "anti-mormon"is a hostility to the prophet Mormon, or to the members (the people) of the CoJCoLDS.

And what person is hostile towards the people? Very few. My point is that the word is overemphasized and overused.

~serapha~

[Faerie]

Ah but you forget that magical word "Mormonism"

Mormonism

\Mor"mon*ism\, n. The doctrine, system, and practices of the Mormons.

Awww, too bad so sad...your point is dull and oh so un-witty...

[restornu]

B. F. WESCOTT, cited by Paul Little in Know Why You Believe, p. 30.

“Indeed, taking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it.”

F. F. BRUCE, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, p. 15.

“The evidence for the New Testament writing is ever so much greater than for many writing of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning... And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would be regarded as beyond all doubt.”