It is currently Sat Oct 25, 2014 8:59 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 157 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:58 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 11:29 am
Posts: 2871
The Nehor wrote:
thestyleguy wrote:
and does that increase or decrease in a single generation on your beliefs or increase or decrease over generations with where you live....or stay the same based on where you live.


Generally not to my knowledge. It is possible of course that God caused an alteration. It is also possible that the Lamanites melded quickly with a pre-existing population with a different skin tone in which case the shift could be made in a single generation though it would likely take several for the change to be complete.


which would create a lot of offspring which would produce a lot more offspring and the DNA results could be found today just like the Lemba tribe in Africa.

_________________
I want to fly!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:18 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:05 pm
Posts: 11830
thestyleguy wrote:
The Nehor wrote:
thestyleguy wrote:
and does that increase or decrease in a single generation on your beliefs or increase or decrease over generations with where you live....or stay the same based on where you live.


Generally not to my knowledge. It is possible of course that God caused an alteration. It is also possible that the Lamanites melded quickly with a pre-existing population with a different skin tone in which case the shift could be made in a single generation though it would likely take several for the change to be complete.


which would create a lot of offspring which would produce a lot more offspring and the DNA results could be found today just like the Lemba tribe in Africa.


Perhaps, we'll see.

_________________
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:48 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 12:16 pm
Posts: 1895
Location: Lehi, UT
The Nehor wrote:
thestyleguy wrote:
The Nehor wrote:
thestyleguy wrote:
and does that increase or decrease in a single generation on your beliefs or increase or decrease over generations with where you live....or stay the same based on where you live.


Generally not to my knowledge. It is possible of course that God caused an alteration. It is also possible that the Lamanites melded quickly with a pre-existing population with a different skin tone in which case the shift could be made in a single generation though it would likely take several for the change to be complete.


which would create a lot of offspring which would produce a lot more offspring and the DNA results could be found today just like the Lemba tribe in Africa.


Perhaps, we'll see.


What makes you think we'll see? If there is no genetic link as the critics contend, is it possible that believers will always erroneously be awaiting future evidence that doesn't exist?

_________________
Mormon Expression


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:48 pm 
Founder & Visionary
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:07 pm
Posts: 10048
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
William Schryver wrote:
Whether or not anyone ever authoritatively pronounced on the topic at hand is irrelevant to you.


??? OF COURSE it's relevant to me!

Quote:
From your fundamentalist viewpoint, everything a prophet or apostle ever said is absolute truth.


God is a fundamentalist, too. God only calls apostles who are also fundamentalists. God also calls prophets only after they have been groomed for maximum fundamentalism.

Quote:
Of course, it's no wonder you fell away if that's what you believed. They were guaranteed to eventually disappoint you.


So tell us, Will: Which of the Lord's mouthpieces' other teachings consistently promulgated over the last 150 years are also pure bunk?

_________________
"Apparently it takes LDS Inc. about 5 to 10 years to forget how much it hurt the last time it shot itself in the foot."

--Brother of Jerry, Recovery from Mormonism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:50 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:58 am
Posts: 1671
Location: Elsewhere
guy sajer wrote:
William Schryver wrote:
Whether or not anyone ever authoritatively pronounced on the topic at hand is irrelevant to you. From your fundamentalist viewpoint, everything a prophet or apostle ever said is absolute truth. Of course, it's no wonder you fell away if that's what you believed. They were guaranteed to eventually disappoint you.


Taking seriously a claim made repeatedly by numerous of the Lord's annointed (sic) over a period of over 150 years hardly qualifies as taking everything a prophet or apostle says as "absoute truth."

Again, revisionist BS.

What "claims" are you talking about? Let's see you assemble a small collection of these "claims" that you say were made "repeatedly" over the course of the last century and a half. I'm really interested to see what was "claimed" that you think is now being "revised."



Man, I just love to interact with you fundie apostates . . .

_________________
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:50 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 12:16 pm
Posts: 1895
Location: Lehi, UT
Dr. Shades wrote:
So tell us, Will: Which of the Lord's mouthpieces' other teachings consistently promulgated over the last 150 years are also pure bunk?


It is clear to me the Will not only holds in contempt all of the critics, but most of the faithful also.

_________________
Mormon Expression


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:53 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:05 pm
Posts: 11830
John Larsen wrote:
What makes you think we'll see? If there is no genetic link as the critics contend, is it possible that believers will always erroneously be awaiting future evidence that doesn't exist?


Yes, but I believe the Book of Mormon took place on Titan so I'm not expecting anything.

_________________
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:59 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:58 am
Posts: 1671
Location: Elsewhere
Shades:

Quote:
So tell us, Will: Which of the Lord's mouthpieces' other teachings consistently promulgated over the last 150 years are also pure bunk?

First you tell us what "teachings consistently promulgated over the last 150 years" I've already pronounced as bunk. I missed that part.

All I've done is argue (and you've tacitly agreed with me) that the Book of Mormon makes it clear that "Lamanite" is a purely political, not an ethnic, designation. And that there is nothing in the Book of Mormon that would suggest that everyone mentioned is a descendant of Lehi. Indeed, there are some passages that appear to suggest a contrary conclusion.

You are apparently suggesting that my argument contradicts "teachings consistently promulgated over the last 150 years" -- apparently from something you term "the Lord's mouthpieces." I don't see it, and you haven't demonstrated it. Perhaps you and guy can collaborate and come up with something.

_________________
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 1:05 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:58 am
Posts: 1671
Location: Elsewhere
John Larsen wrote:
Dr. Shades wrote:
So tell us, Will: Which of the Lord's mouthpieces' other teachings consistently promulgated over the last 150 years are also pure bunk?


It is clear to me the Will not only holds in contempt all of the critics, but most of the faithful also.

Really? How so?




(This is such a typical fundie exmo reaction! I should start making a list of them:

1. Will insinuate that it has always been taught and expected in the church that everything said by a prophet and/or apostle is absolute truth and cannot be subject to later revision or amplification, let alone contradiction.

2. Will claim that apologetic arguments contradict everything said and taught in the church since its inception.

3. Will claim that apologetic arguments are an affront to the cherished beliefs of the vast majority of faithful LDS.)

_________________
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 1:34 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:16 pm
Posts: 1372
William Schryver wrote:
Shades:

Quote:
So tell us, Will: Which of the Lord's mouthpieces' other teachings consistently promulgated over the last 150 years are also pure bunk?

First you tell us what "teachings consistently promulgated over the last 150 years" I've already pronounced as bunk. I missed that part.

All I've done is argue (and you've tacitly agreed with me) that the Book of Mormon makes it clear that "Lamanite" is a purely political, not an ethnic, designation. And that there is nothing in the Book of Mormon that would suggest that everyone mentioned is a descendant of Lehi. Indeed, there are some passages that appear to suggest a contrary conclusion.

You are apparently suggesting that my argument contradicts "teachings consistently promulgated over the last 150 years" -- apparently from something you term "the Lord's mouthpieces." I don't see it, and you haven't demonstrated it. Perhaps you and guy can collaborate and come up with something.


Wow, you've pronounced it as bunk. Imagine that. I guess that settles the issue.

How many quotes by how many of the Lord's annointed would be necessary to convince you that this was both believed and taught for over 100 years by presumed prophets and apostles?

I've not agreed with you tacitly or explicitly that the the term Lamanite is a purely political designation.

What do you define the Lord's mouthpieces? Do prophets and apostles qualify under your definition? They do under mine, and they likewise make the claim for themselves.

I don't see your agument, and you have not even come close to demonstrating it.

It's revisionist BS.

_________________
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:19 pm 
Founder & Visionary
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:07 pm
Posts: 10048
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
William Schryver wrote:
Shades:

Quote:
So tell us, Will: Which of the Lord's mouthpieces' other teachings consistently promulgated over the last 150 years are also pure bunk?

First you tell us what "teachings consistently promulgated over the last 150 years" I've already pronounced as bunk. I missed that part.


YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT. I never said you already pronounced X teachings as bunk; I'm asking you to start pronouncing X teachings as bunk. In other words, please tell us which others of the Lord's mouthpieces' clear and consistent teachings over the last 150 years are falsehoods.

You've already given us the example of the Lamanites being the principal ancestors of the American Indians. What other examples are there that you've figured out?

Quote:
All I've done is argue (and you've tacitly agreed with me) that the Book of Mormon makes it clear that "Lamanite" is a purely political, not an ethnic, designation.


Right. And everyone who was ever given the political designation of "Lamanite" was a descendant of Lehi.

Quote:
And that there is nothing in the Book of Mormon that would suggest that everyone mentioned is a descendant of Lehi.


Are you kidding me?? There's LOTS in the Book of Mormon that would suggest that everyone mentioned is a descendant of Lehi. For just one example, Nephi, in vision, talked about the Spirit of the Lord moving upon a certain gentile who crossed the waters (clearly Christopher Columbus), after which many other gentiles came forth upon the land. In other words, the gentiles--non-Israelites--were to begin showing up after the Nephites were wiped out some 1,000 years later. They were not already there when Lehi & co. were due to arrive.

Quote:
Indeed, there are some passages that appear to suggest a contrary conclusion.


Only if one grasps at straws.

Quote:
You are apparently suggesting that my argument contradicts "teachings consistently promulgated over the last 150 years" -- apparently from something you term "the Lord's mouthpieces." I don't see it, and you haven't demonstrated it. Perhaps you and guy can collaborate and come up with something.


I think it's beyond dispute that something I term "the Lord's mouthpieces," a.k.a. "prophets" and "apostles," clearly and consistently taught over the last 150 years that the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the American Indians. Take a look at any random Central or South American temple dedicatory prayer for just X examples among many.

(Are you really claiming that the Lord's mouthpieces never taught any such thing? WOW--that's so Orwellian it's scary.)

_________________
"Apparently it takes LDS Inc. about 5 to 10 years to forget how much it hurt the last time it shot itself in the foot."

--Brother of Jerry, Recovery from Mormonism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:43 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:58 am
Posts: 1671
Location: Elsewhere
Shades:

Quote:
... everyone who was ever given the political designation of "Lamanite" was a descendant of Lehi.

Thus saith Shades.

But it's not in the Book of Mormon, and it's never been taught as "doctrine." Again, these are nothing more than your fundie assumptions.

Quote:
I think it's beyond dispute that something I term "the Lord's mouthpieces," a.k.a. "prophets" and "apostles," clearly and consistently taught over the last 150 years that the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.

I'll bet you can't find a single instance of a "prophet" or "apostle" using the phrase "principal ancestors", whether in a temple dedicatory prayer or a conference talk, or whatever.

Quote:
(Are you really claiming that the Lord's mouthpieces never taught any such thing? WOW--that's so Orwellian it's scary.)

I have no doubt that some people, including prophets and apostles, may have believed in extreme notions of the origins of native Americans -- that they were all 100% descended from Lehi. But I am aware of no formal dogma to that effect; no "teachings" per se along those lines. Yes, when Spencer W. Kimball speaks of the Navajo, his language may convey his assumption that they are 100% descendants of Lehi. But, again, I know of no "teachings" along those lines.

I challenge you to find something, anything, that will prove your assertion that "the Lord's mouthpieces ... consistently taught over the last 150 years that the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the American Indians." That means you'll need to start with Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and continue on to our lifetimes.

And remember, an opinion implied in the context of talking about something else does not constitute a "teaching." I want to see prophets and apostles TEACHING this precept. I couldn't care less what a prophet or apostle may have believed regarding this, that, or the other minutiae of LDS doctrine or practice. But you have assured us that "the Lord's mouthpieces ... consistently taught over the last 150 years that the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the American Indians." I want to see the evidence of that bold claim.

I have seen considerable evidence to the contrary. Matt Roper (and others) have assembled a large body of evidence that would seem to contradict your claims. So, have at it Shades. Let's see you establish your fundie argument that: ""the Lord's mouthpieces ... consistently taught over the last 150 years that the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the American Indians."

I'll check back later . . .

_________________
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:47 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 11:29 am
Posts: 2871
I'll bet you can't find a single instance of a "prophet" or "apostle" using the phrase "principal ancestors", whether in a temple dedicatory prayer or a conference talk, or whatever.

I think Bruce R. McConkie wrote that the Lamanites were the principal ancestors.

_________________
I want to fly!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:00 pm 
Founder & Visionary
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:07 pm
Posts: 10048
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
Thanks, thestyleguy.

William Schryver wrote:
Let's see you establish your fundie argument that: "the Lord's mouthpieces ... consistently taught over the last 150 years that the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the American Indians."


Well, the Lord, through his mouthpiece Joseph Smith, conveyed that the Lamanites were the people on the borders of Missouri, according to D&C 54:8.

So God apparently thought that Lamanites and American Indians were one and the same. When God gave Joseph Smith that revelation, was He wrong?

_________________
"Apparently it takes LDS Inc. about 5 to 10 years to forget how much it hurt the last time it shot itself in the foot."

--Brother of Jerry, Recovery from Mormonism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:14 pm 
Regional Representative

Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 1:59 pm
Posts: 657
Location: SLC (behind the Zion Curtain)
Dr. Shades wrote:
Thanks, thestyleguy.

William Schryver wrote:
Let's see you establish your fundie argument that: "the Lord's mouthpieces ... consistently taught over the last 150 years that the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the American Indians."


Well, the Lord, through his mouthpiece Joseph Smith, conveyed that the Lamanites were the people on the borders of Missouri, according to D&C 54:8.

So God apparently thought that Lamanites and American Indians were one and the same. When God gave Joseph Smith that revelation, was He wrong?


No, don'tcha see? The new spin is that they ARE the Lamanites -- politically. That way, what all the profits said was accurate. The only question I have is what "blessings" are they supposed to receive for being "political Lamanites," the chosen people?

Political blessings?

_________________
Überzeugungen sind oft die gefährlichsten Feinde der Wahrheit.
[Certainty (that one is correct) is often the most dangerous enemy of the
truth.] - Friedrich Nietzsche


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 6:02 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:26 pm
Posts: 13429
Another problem is the fact that "Lamanite" leaders often self-identified themselves on the basis of their own lineage.

BTW, I've never met a single exmormon who thought the prophet spoke for God every time he opened his mouth. What we do tend to expect is that when the prophet addresses a congregation, functioning in his role as prophet, and speaking "in the name of Jesus Christ", he would actually take the time beforehand to seek inspiration and, you know, be accurately inspired in that talk.

Otherwise, we might have to conclude the the whole idea of inspiration and "personal revelation" is, well, you know, "bunk".

Here's a post I put together a while ago that contains pertinent information:

From “background information” on the church’s website, regarding the Book of Mormon:

http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=
64da8bd9eeb9f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=3e0511154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD

Quote:
Latter-day Saints also consider the Book of Mormon to be a record of great ancient-American civilizations.
According to the record, one of these civilizations stemmed from a man named Lehi who left Jerusalem with his family around 600 B.C. They traveled to the sea, built a boat and continued over sea to the Americas.

Following the party’s arrival in the New World, growing disharmony caused family groups to fragment into clans that evolved eventually into two opposing nations. Conflicts ensued during the recorded 1,000 years, leading to the eventual demise of one of these nations.

Within the context of this story is a series of prophecies and testimonies about Jesus Christ as the Savior of the world, including, strikingly, a visit by the risen, resurrected Jesus to the people in the New World.

The Book of Mormon records that during Christ's ministry to the people of ancient America, He established His church, as in the Old World.

According to the record, the people lived in unity and prosperity for nearly 200 years following Christ's visit.
Then, over time, many people began to abandon Christ's teachings. Wickedness prevailed among them, and a war of extermination resulted in the destruction of an entire nation.


Now, notice the statement "one of these civilizations, certainly a nod to LGT. However, LGT does not allow for the "destruction of an entire nation".

A talk by Mark E. Peterson, “The Last Words of Moroni”, Ensign, Nov 1978

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnex ... RD&locale=
0&sourceId=15d2d0640b96b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

Quote:
Moroni’s father was commander of the armies of this ancient people, known as Nephites. His name was Mormon. The war of which we speak took place here in America some four hundred years after Christ. (See Morm. 6.)
As the fighting neared its end, Mormon gathered the remnant of his forces about a hill which they called Cumorah, located in what is now the western part of the state of New York.

Their enemies, known as Lamanites, came against them on this hill. Of that dreadful event Mormon wrote:

“My people, with their wives and their children, did now behold the armies of the Lamanites marching towards them; and with that awful fear of death which fills the breasts of all the wicked, did they await to receive them.

“… Every soul was filled with terror because of the greatness of their numbers.

“And it came to pass that they did fall upon my people with the sword, and with the bow, and with the arrow, and with the ax, and with all manner of weapons of war.

“And it came to pass that my men were hewn down, yea, even my ten thousand who were with me, and I fell wounded in the midst.” (Morm. 6:7–10.)

Then he spoke of other leaders serving with him in the Nephite army, all of whom had fallen with the forces under their command. He accounted for about a quarter of a million Nephite soldiers killed in that final encounter at Cumorah.


A big battle in New York??? Bzzzt, thanks for playing.


Marion G. Romney, “America’s Destiny”, Ensign, Nov 1975

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnex ... RD&locale=
0&sourceId=314761cb2b86b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

Quote:
In the western part of the state of New York near Palmyra is a prominent hill known as the “hill Cumorah.” (Morm. 6:6.) On July twenty-fifth of this year, as I stood on the crest of that hill admiring with awe the breathtaking panorama which stretched out before me on every hand, my mind reverted to the events which occurred in that vicinity some twenty-five centuries ago—events which brought to an end the great Jaredite nation.

You who are acquainted with the Book of Mormon will recall that during the final campaign of the fratricidal war between the armies led by Shiz and those led by Coriantumr “nearly two millions” of Coriantumr’s people had been slain by the sword; “two millions of mighty men, and also their wives and their children.” (Ether 15:2.)

As the conflict intensified, all the people who had not been slain—men “with their wives and their children” (Ether 15:15)—gathered about that hill Cumorah (see Ether 15:11).


The Jaredites in New York??? Bzzzt. Thanks for playing.

_________________
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 7:04 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 7:40 am
Posts: 1183
What's the difference between a mormon who doesn't believe what the prophets say, and an exmormon who doesn't believe what the prophets say? One is called an apostate and the other is called an apologist.

_________________
"We of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith." - Gordon B. Hinckley

"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true." - Dallin H. Oaks


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:47 pm 
Valiant B
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 8:37 pm
Posts: 187
Hi folks,

For those who may be interested in my (fully documented, yet concise) take on the leitmotif(s) of this thread, see:

My best,

</brent>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 6:54 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:16 pm
Posts: 1372
William Schryver wrote:
Shades:

Quote:
... everyone who was ever given the political designation of "Lamanite" was a descendant of Lehi.

Thus saith Shades.

But it's not in the Book of Mormon, and it's never been taught as "doctrine." Again, these are nothing more than your fundie assumptions.

Quote:
I think it's beyond dispute that something I term "the Lord's mouthpieces," a.k.a. "prophets" and "apostles," clearly and consistently taught over the last 150 years that the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.

I'll bet you can't find a single instance of a "prophet" or "apostle" using the phrase "principal ancestors", whether in a temple dedicatory prayer or a conference talk, or whatever.

Quote:
(Are you really claiming that the Lord's mouthpieces never taught any such thing? WOW--that's so Orwellian it's scary.)

I have no doubt that some people, including prophets and apostles, may have believed in extreme notions of the origins of native Americans -- that they were all 100% descended from Lehi. But I am aware of no formal dogma to that effect; no "teachings" per se along those lines. Yes, when Spencer W. Kimball speaks of the Navajo, his language may convey his assumption that they are 100% descendants of Lehi. But, again, I know of no "teachings" along those lines.

I challenge you to find something, anything, that will prove your assertion that "the Lord's mouthpieces ... consistently taught over the last 150 years that the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the American Indians." That means you'll need to start with Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and continue on to our lifetimes.

And remember, an opinion implied in the context of talking about something else does not constitute a "teaching." I want to see prophets and apostles TEACHING this precept. I couldn't care less what a prophet or apostle may have believed regarding this, that, or the other minutiae of LDS doctrine or practice. But you have assured us that "the Lord's mouthpieces ... consistently taught over the last 150 years that the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the American Indians." I want to see the evidence of that bold claim.

I have seen considerable evidence to the contrary. Matt Roper (and others) have assembled a large body of evidence that would seem to contradict your claims. So, have at it Shades. Let's see you establish your fundie argument that: ""the Lord's mouthpieces ... consistently taught over the last 150 years that the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the American Indians."

I'll check back later . . .


Our good friend here is sadly misusing his talents. Here he is schilling for revisionist Mormon history at no compensation trying to argue with a straight face and in all feigned sincerity that what Mormon prophets and apostles have taught for over 150 years (and what Mormon scripture affirms with any reasonable reading of it) is not only not true but that they didn't actually teach it (and that it is not actually found in Mormon scripture) and how the vast majority of faithful Mormons who believe it are silly fundamentalist fanatics.

I'm sure that somewhere there's some other fringe group who's willing to pay good money for a skilled dissembler to deny and distort. to proclaim the obvious to be false, and to twist history and common sense to fit some pre-determined fringist fantasy.

Ten years from now Will may well be arguing that Mormons never actually believed the BofM to be scripture, that the inspired men of God who proclaimed it thus were wrong, and the members (and critics) who took the inspired men of God at their word are foolish fanatics. Anyone want to take bets?

_________________
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 7:23 am 
Founder & Visionary
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:07 pm
Posts: 10048
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
SatanWasSetUp wrote:
What's the difference between a mormon who doesn't believe what the prophets say, and an exmormon who doesn't believe what the prophets say? One is called an apostate and the other is called an apologist.


LOL!! So true! Into the signature line with ye!

guy sajer wrote:
Our good friend here is sadly misusing his talents. Here he is schilling for revisionist Mormon history at no compensation trying to argue with a straight face and in all feigned sincerity that what Mormon prophets and apostles have taught for over 150 years (and what Mormon scripture affirms with any reasonable reading of it) is not only not true but that they didn't actually teach it (and that it is not actually found in Mormon scripture) and how the vast majority of faithful Mormons who believe it are silly fundamentalist fanatics.


As I've stated, it's downright Orwellian. "Oceania is at war with Eurasia, Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia," then along comes Winston Smith/William Schryver who, with the stroke of his pen, changes it to "Oceania is at war with Eastasia, Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia." The fact that the human mind is capable of such doublethink is enough to make one lose one's faith in mankind.

But let's face it: Mormonism needs people like Will Schryver so that they can keep a tithepayer base whenever they need to do a 180° doctrinal flip.

Quote:
I'm sure that somewhere there's some other fringe group who's willing to pay good money for a skilled dissembler to deny and distort. to proclaim the obvious to be false, and to twist history and common sense to fit some pre-determined fringist fantasy.


Agreed. Will should've been a lawyer.

Quote:
Ten years from now Will may well be arguing that Mormons never actually believed the BofM to be scripture, that the inspired men of God who proclaimed it thus were wrong, and the members (and critics) who took the inspired men of God at their word are foolish fanatics. Anyone want to take bets?


Oh, I'm sure you're correct. I've noticed that all Mormon doctrines pass through five distinct stages:
  • Inspired revelation from God,
  • Doctrine, but not official doctrine;
  • Only his opinion,
  • Fringe interpretation believed only by fundamentalists, then
  • Anti-Mormon lie.
Will is at the cutting-edge, blazing the trail as the Lamanites/Native Americans doctrine moves into its "fringe interpretation believed only by fundamentalists" phase.

Thanks to folks like Will leading the charge, within 50 years the Lamanite/Native American connection will be an anti-Mormon lie.

_________________
"Apparently it takes LDS Inc. about 5 to 10 years to forget how much it hurt the last time it shot itself in the foot."

--Brother of Jerry, Recovery from Mormonism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 7:36 am 
Cupcake Queen
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 7:03 am
Posts: 3171
beastie wrote:
BTW, I've never met a single exmormon who thought the prophet spoke for God every time he opened his mouth. What we do tend to expect is that when the prophet addresses a congregation, functioning in his role as prophet, and speaking "in the name of Jesus Christ", he would actually take the time beforehand to seek inspiration and, you know, be accurately inspired in that talk.


I'm in agreement with your side note here, Beastie. As a Mormon, I never thought the "prophets" spoke on behalf of God every time they opened their mouths, but when they did claim to function as such, I expected them to be spot-on correct.

KA


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 157 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DarkHelmet, Fence Sitter, Google [Bot], Gunnar, Lucretia MacEvil, SteelHead, Uther and 35 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group