LDS

[skyrider44]

In all serousness, RandFan, I don't get it. What does she hope to accomplish? She looks like a complete fool and it get's worse everytime she posts. What is her point?

She is defending her faith, which she has every right to do, just as you have every right to question her faith. Is it really your position that she is not entitled to defend her faith but you are entitled to challenge it? If your answer is yes, what is it that you hope to accomplish?

 

[RandFan]

She is defending her faith, which she has every right to do, just as you have every right to question her faith. Is it really your position that she is not entitled to defend her faith but you are entitled to challenge it? If your answer is yes, what is it that you hope to accomplish?

• No one is saying she doesn't have a right to defend her faith.
• We are asking her to defend her faith using logically valid arguments and evidence.
• We are asking her to not simply preach to us. We want her to answer our questions.

Look, I don't personally care if she doesn't answer all of the questions. I care that she posts banalities and platitudes and then pretends that those are legitimate answers to the questions.

 

[kerikiwi]

She is defending her faith, which she has every right to do, just as you have every right to question her faith. Is it really your position that she is not entitled to defend her faith but you are entitled to challenge it? If your answer is yes, what is it that you hope to accomplish?

Vic Vega said nothing that even hinted at her not having the right to defend her faith.
There's a common name for the fallacy you are indulging in...

 

[abaddon]

She is defending her faith, which she has every right to do, just as you have every right to question her faith. Is it really your position that she is not entitled to defend her faith but you are entitled to challenge it? If your answer is yes, what is it that you hope to accomplish?

No. She is simply stating her faith, then not allowing anyone to question it.

 

[arthwollipot]

She is defending her faith, which she has every right to do, just as you have every right to question her faith. Is it really your position that she is not entitled to defend her faith but you are entitled to challenge it? If your answer is yes, what is it that you hope to accomplish?

She came to us in order to defend her faith. No-one went to her and started attacking.

 

[jsfisher]

She is defending her faith, which she has every right to do, just as you have every right to question her faith. Is it really your position that she is not entitled to defend her faith but you are entitled to challenge it? If your answer is yes, what is it that you hope to accomplish?

Seriously? How do three sticking-out-her-tongue smilies defend her faith? How do the kindergarten playground equivalent of "Is not!" defend her faith? She (and you) are entitled to believe what you will, but please do not try to pass off mindless, empty rhetoric as defending the faith.

Pup's wife, by proxy, has done quite an excellent job of defending her faith. Perhaps others could benefit from her example.

 

[AdMan]

The Book of Mormon is not in error. Those who criticise it are.

Wow, what an arrogant, indefensible position.

You are clearly not here to engage in any kind of meaningful discussion. Do you realize most of the posters here are non-believers in your faith or the Book of Mormon?

What do you mean to accomplish here, if that is your attitude? If anything, you are turning off those who may be curious about Mormonism by refusing to address valid arguments, and confirming the belief of others that it's all a bunch of BS.

 

[AdMan]

Why do you think it is poor forum etiquette? I disagree.
If one navigates to a profile to read the posts of a particular poster it is so much easier if they are before the quoted post.

Nonsense.

It makes sense to quote the post you are responding to before your response, just like a question comes before an answer.

Why do you think virtually everyone else but you does it that way?

 

[jsfisher]

By the way, skyrider44, welcome to the forums. Don't let this one thread poison your opinion of us or the forums or the JREF.

 

[kerikiwi]

Nonsense.

It makes sense to quote the post you are responding to before your response, just like a question comes before an answer.

Why do you think virtually everyone else but you does it that way?

Because we don't have scripture on our side.

 

[Quad4_72]

Why do you think it is poor forum etiquette? I disagree.
If one navigates to a profile to read the posts of a particular poster it is so much easier if they are before the quoted post.

Incorrect. People do not read from the bottom up they read top down. So when you respond to posts the way you do it makes it confusing and frustrating to read. You are not clever postng that way. It is annoying and discredits what you say when you cannot follow simple rules of etiquette, and basic grammar structure.

 

[arthwollipot]

Incorrect. People do not read from the bottom up they read top down. So when you respond to posts the way you do it makes it confusing and frustrating to read. You are not clever postng that way. It is annoying and discredits what you say when you cannot follow simple rules of etiquette, and basic grammar structure.

I've been through this. She'll just say "oh, well we have different opinions about this" and keep doing it the way she does it. It's annoying, I know, but it's not technically against the rules.

 

[AdMan]

Because we don't have scripture on our side.

Ah, yes.

And it came to pass that the Almighty Lord commanded, "Thou shalt not placeth the quote you are responding to before thy response, for it maketh thy Lord displeased, and thou shalt not respond to any questions that thou cannot answer because thy Scriptures make no sense. So sayeth your Lord thy God."

Am I close, Janadele? Yeah, my old fashioned English is as crappy as Joseph Smith's.

 

[Krikkiter]

The Book of Mormon is Scripture and LDS Doctrine... and therefore true. All things are possible with the Lord.

The book of Christians, Islam, Judaism, Scientology, Raelism etc, are all scripture and doctrine and therefore true.

How do you reconcile this?

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

Who gets selected as a prophet, how does the selection process work, and after selection how does what they say after, compare to the things they said before, would be questions that sprung to mind immediately.

Each district sends two children between 12 and 18, one male and one female, to compete in a battle to the death. The winner gets to be prophet.

Ooops. Wrong fictional book...

 

[pakeha]

Hi, Janadele.

I've been following the thread and started reading the Book of Abraham.

It says:

1:23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;

Yet I understand Egypt is from the Greek, not the Chaldean.
How could scripture have gotten this wrong?

It also says:

1:25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.

Here, Egyptus is now a woman.

And Pharaoh is cited as a name, when Pharaoh was a title, first used as far as we know in a letter to Akhenaten, the heretic (1353-1336)

I find this puzzling and would appreciate your take on these points.

 

[Janadele]

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp?lang=engThe Book of Abraham:

Hi Pakeha,
The Pearl of Great Price is official LDS Scripture.
I find it enlightening, my favourite being Moses.
The Book of Abraham is a part of the Pearl of Great Price.
"A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus." (See History of the Church, 2:235–36, 348–51.)
Chapter 1
Abraham seeks the blessings of the patriarchal order—He is persecuted by false priests in Chaldea—Jehovah saves him—The origins and government of Egypt are reviewed.

23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;

24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.

25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.

HAM
In the Old Testament, the third son of Noah (Gen. 5:32; 6:10; Moses 8:12, 27).
Noah, his sons, and their families entered the ark, Gen. 7:13
Canaan, Ham’s son, was cursed, Gen. 9:18–25
The government of Ham was patriarchal and was blessed as to things of the earth and wisdom but not as to the priesthood, Abr. 1:21–27
Ham’s wife, Egyptus, was a descendant of Cain; the sons of their daughter Egyptus settled in Egypt, Abr. 1:23, 25 (Ps. 105:23; Ps. 106:21–22).

EGYPTUS
The name of both the wife and a daughter of Ham, the son of Noah. In Chaldean, the name signifies Egypt, or that which is forbidden (Abr. 1:23–25).

 

[dafydd]

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp?lang=engThe Book of Abraham:

Hi Pakeha,
The Pearl of Great Price is official LDS Scripture.
I find it enlightening, my favourite being Moses.
The Book of Abraham is a part of the Pearl of Great Price.
"A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus." (See History of the Church, 2:235–36, 348–51.)
Chapter 1
Abraham seeks the blessings of the patriarchal order—He is persecuted by false priests in Chaldea—Jehovah saves him—The origins and government of Egypt are reviewed.

23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;

24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.

25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.

Nonsense. Made-up nonsense.

 

[pakeha]

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp?lang=engThe Book of Abraham:

Hi Pakeha,
The Pearl of Great Price is official LDS Scripture.
I find it enlightening, my favourite being Moses.
The Book of Abraham is a part of the Pearl of Great Price.
"A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus." (See History of the Church, 2:235–36, 348–51.) ....(snipped for space)...

EGYPTUS
The name of both the wife and a daughter of Ham, the son of Noah. In Chaldean, the name signifies Egypt, or that which is forbidden (Abr. 1:23–25).

Thanks so much for your reply, Janadele.
That clears up my confusion about Egyptus being a man or a woman.
But even so, Egyptus isn't a Chaldean word, but a Greek one.

And Pharaoh was never a given name but an honourific used in adressing the ruler of Egypt for the first time during the reign of Anhketaten, long after Egypt was founded as a nation.

 

[Pixel42]

Does this mean you think the errors which have been listed(barley, horses, steel etc) are not, in fact, errors?
A simple yes or no will do.

There's also the stuff about native Americans being the descendants of a lost Jewish tribe, which is disproved by DNA analysis.

No sceptic is going to take a church seriously when its "scripture" is such an obvious clumsy fake.