Political Crossfire Forums

MJB · Joined: 14 Apr 2006 Posts: 594

LetsGetReal wrote: Maybe not entirely but enough to call it Mormonism and have a different book for all its followers to read. Same could go with catholicism but they don't claim that an angel told them to write their beliefs. Just intense religious study, research, and questioning. Sorry not in the BoM but in the religious doctrine followed by people of the Mormon faith, happy?

1 Cor 15:40 wrote: 40There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another Where does it say three heavens there?? Also the other one does say it but I'm doing a little research on it before I respond....

Research is good, and so is reason.

Paul described being caught up to the third heaven (in the 2 Corinthians 12:2 verse).

Reason tells us that when there is a, "third," something, there must also be a first, and a second of that thing, and when we're talking about a third anything, we're talking about the number three.

Call me simple minded, but if there is a third heaven, there must, of necessity, be at least three of what is called heaven.

Aqualung · Joined: 03 Jun 2006 Posts: 2260 Location: Washington

MJB wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: Maybe not entirely but enough to call it Mormonism and have a different book for all its followers to read. Same could go with catholicism but they don't claim that an angel told them to write their beliefs. Just intense religious study, research, and questioning. Sorry not in the BoM but in the religious doctrine followed by people of the Mormon faith, happy?

1 Cor 15:40 wrote: 40There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another Where does it say three heavens there?? Also the other one does say it but I'm doing a little research on it before I respond....

Research is good, and so is reason.

Paul described being caught up to the third heaven (in the 2 Corinthians 12:2 verse).

Reason tells us that when there is a, "third," something, there must also be a first, and a second of that thing, and when we're talking about a third anything, we're talking about the number three.

Call me simple minded, but if there is a third heaven, there must, of necessity, be at least three of what is called heaven.
:tu:

MJB · Joined: 14 Apr 2006 Posts: 594

LetsGetReal wrote: Her link is from Brigham Young University :lol:. Sweetie I know you believe these mis-teachings but please find an unbiased link to explain your point.

Well then, from now on I guess one should never be allowed to use any material that originates from any University with a connection to the Christian faith, to explain his Christian views. Care to guess how many mainstream institutions of higher learning that would leave out of the mix?

And one should never be allowed to use a Christian related web site to support his Christian views, or a Jewish related site to support his Jewish views, etc.

After all, having any connection they must be biased, so must automatically be deemed invalid, as nothing they report could possibly be true, accurate, trusted, or of scholarly merit.

Now that makes sense, doesn't it?

soyleche · Joined: 28 Jun 2006 Posts: 5

cap'n queasy wrote:
But it hasn't been so the article is totally irrelevant to the point. And furthermore it would put any such genetic marker in doubt if it ever were found.
You realize that someone with the oposite view would be derided for closed-mindedness, don't you? You are basically saying "it's not true, and nothing that is put forward will convince me otherwise. If it seems to, the method used must be wrong" - and then you are closing your eyes, putting your fingers in your ears and singing "la la la, I can't hear you, la la la".

If you are unwilling to accept any evidence in suport of the BoM (or bring any evidence to the table at all), there is really no reason to be discussing it.

soyleche · Joined: 28 Jun 2006 Posts: 5

MJB wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: Her link is from Brigham Young University :lol:. Sweetie I know you believe these mis-teachings but please find an unbiased link to explain your point.

Well then, from now on I guess one should never be allowed to use any material that originates from any University with a connection to the Christian faith, to explain his Christian views. Care to guess how many mainstream institutions of higher learning that would leave out of the mix?

And one should never be allowed to use a Christian related web site to support his Christian views, or a Jewish related site to support his Jewish views, etc.

After all, having any connection they must be biased, so must automatically be deemed invalid, as nothing they report could possibly be true, accurate, trusted, or of scholarly merit.

Now that makes sense, doesn't it?
Like I've already said, there are no unbiased studies on the validity of the BoM claims. It's either a member of the church looking for evidence, or some other person looking to discredit. At least FARMS takes a scholarly approach. There aren't many groups that are intent on discrediting the BoM that come anywhere near the level of scholarship of FARMS.

Aqualung · Joined: 03 Jun 2006 Posts: 2260 Location: Washington

cap'n queasy wrote: There is nothing to concede. Amerindians come from Mongoloid stock, not Semitic. That article said nothing that disputed that at all. Not soley. The article stated that there is A LOT of variation in DNA-type evidence that any sort of conclusion (such as "Amerindians come from Mongoloid stock, not Semetic") is completely fallacious and shows an ignorance of the DNA studies that have been done (which is also obvious due to your lack of any support for any of your claims). To add to that is the fact the BoM never claims that the Lehites are the SOLE ancesestors of ALL American Indians. In fact, Hugh Nibley has made a very good case that the Jaredites (who are mentioned in the BoM) are in fact an Asiatic people, and that they survived at had pretty impressive numbers by the time the Lehites came over. (If you want to look at the evidence, read Hugh Nibley's The World Of The Jaredites.)

MJB · Joined: 14 Apr 2006 Posts: 594

LetsGetReal wrote: Todd D. wrote: Quote: No they would say an angel revealed it to Joseph Smith
Who do angels work for, again? Last time I checked wasn't Satan a fallen angel.

Key word there is fallen, not angel.

By suggesting that any communication from an, "angel," is therefore of Satan, you may as well say the annunciation to Mary by the angel Gabriel was a satanic visitation.