tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post3142547756489097330..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Evaluating Book of Mormon Claims: Where Do We Stand after 187 Years?Jeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger112125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-56092697158758624352017-02-22T15:26:36.353-06:002017-02-22T15:26:36.353-06:00Yes, God speaks to me through a rock in my hat.......Yes, God speaks to me through a rock in my hat.... and no you can't look.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-45860962084330787962017-02-18T11:43:23.353-06:002017-02-18T11:43:23.353-06:00Jeff, @OK's analyses are very unbalanced. He i...Jeff, @OK's analyses are very unbalanced. He is actually doing a hack job in this comment section. For instance, he wrote of how badly the BofM reads compared to the KJB. He is very unstudied and unbalanced in his approach. I point this out so that others who may be vulnerable to his criticisms will know that they are actually one-sided and mischaracterize things.<br /><br />For example, OK writes of going from reading Isaiah in the BofM to reading non-Isaiah portions, and how the nonbiblical BofM suffers by comparison. Well, that is going from poetry to prose. And the Lord meant BofM prose to be clearer than KJB prose, so it reads like a clearer version of a 16c chronicle at times and sometimes like rather plain 16c, 17c, or 18c sermon language. In 1 Nephi we encounter a lot of Revelation-type language, couched in grammar that is archaic, both biblical and extrabiblical. The BofM is an exceedingly complex text that OK refuses to do justice to. Sad and rather transparent, to anyone with a background in this sort of thing.Hiserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17250666941335667674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-37140562929159532062017-02-18T09:39:06.256-06:002017-02-18T09:39:06.256-06:00OK, your harsh assessment of John Clark's stat...OK, your harsh assessment of John Clark's statement requires far too much modern hindsight and some errant assumptions. My response is the subject of my latest post, "<a href="http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2017/02/in-defense-of-dr-john-e-clarks.html" rel="nofollow">In Defense of Dr. John E. Clark's 'Ludicrous' Assessment of Early Criticism of the Book of Mormon</a>." Nobody is saying that that absolutely nobody knew of ancient American civilization, but that it was far from common knowledge and, in terms of common knowledge of the day, was a subject of criticism and laughter. That changed dramatically around 1840 with John Lloyd Stephens' impressive publication that began to change the popular view of ancient America and led at least to the LDS recognition that there was some evidence to defend the Book of Mormon against common attacks and support its basic claims about the ancient Americas. Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-10304227381041090762017-02-18T01:13:04.734-06:002017-02-18T01:13:04.734-06:00To get back to the OP, this statement by John E. C...To get back to the OP, this statement by John E. Clark, quoted by Jeff in his update, is just ludicrous:<br /><br /><i>The [Book of Mormon's] description of ancient peoples differs greatly from the notions of rude savages held by nineteenth-century Americans. The book's claim of city-societies was laughable at the time, but no one is laughing now.</i><br /><br />That's idiotic. In the 1820s, everyone and their uncle knew the basic stories of Pizarro and the "city-society" of the Incas, and Cortez and the "city-society" of the Aztecs; they knew about pyramids and other ruins around Mexico City---they knew that Montezuma ruled over a great city---they knew about the big burial mounds studded with strangely worked artifacts in the northeast U.S., etc.<br /><br />The big question for early 19th-C Americans, with their "notions of rude savages," was what happened to the obviously "civilized" people who built these burial mounds. How did those people come to be replaced by the "rude savages" inhabiting the area when the white colonists arrived? That was the question, a big question back then, and the Book of Mormon was just one of many books of its era that claimed to answer it. <i>View of the Hebrews</i> is another.<br /><br />Anyway, the BoM's "claim of city-societies" was anything but "laughable at the time."<br /><br />Equally ludicrous is this statement by Clark:<br /><br /><i>Mesoamerica is a land of decomposing cities with their pyramids or towers, temples, and palaces--all items mentioned in the Book of Mormon but foreign to the gossip along the Erie Canal in Joseph Smith's day.</i><br /><br />Is he kidding? The incredible story of Cortez's conquest of Mexico was well known throughout the western world. One of the most popular chronicles of the time was Bernal Diaz del Castillo's <i>Conquest of New Spain</i>, which describes much that we find in the BoM. It contains passages like this:<br /><br />"When we saw so many <b>cities</b> and villages built in the water and other <b>great towns</b> on dry land we were amazed ... on account of the great <b>towers</b> and <b>cues [pyramids]</b> and buildings ... all built of masonry...."<br /><br />Castillo's book also mentions several other things that Clark thinks would have been unknown in Smith's circle, including temples, human sacrifices (<i>everyone</i> knew of these---they were infamous), and even the <i>cement</i> about which Clark makes such a big deal: "[W]e came upon a fortress strongly built of stone and lime and some other <b>cement,</b> so strong that with iron pickaxes it was difficult to demolish it...."<br /><br />I'm not saying Joseph Smith himself read <i>Conquest of New Spain</i>. It's possible, as the book was available in America at that time in English translation, but I rather doubt he did. Lots of other Americans, however, did read it---plenty enough to know that Tenochtitlan was a city with pyramids and towers and such---and the story of the conquest, as I said above, was much more widely known, just as the basic story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is known by many more people than have actually read Robert Louis Stevenson's novel. What I am saying is that Clark is wrong to suggest that such matters were "foreign to the gossip along the Erie Canal in Joseph Smith's day."<br /><br />Our forebears were not as ignorant as Clark seems to think. For him to cite the BoM's description of a bunch of widely known ideas as evidence of the book's ancientness is really, really embarrassing. That BYU speech you quoted is hackwork. <br /><br />-- OKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-86895818812323152792017-02-17T19:32:00.382-06:002017-02-17T19:32:00.382-06:00"They were very, very different from you and ..."They were very, very different from you and I."<br /><br />If you learn one thing from scripture, it's that human nature doesn't change. That's one of the lessons the story of Adam and Eve teaches us. Those early prophets weren't different, they just handled matters much differently than you or I would because their level of accountability was much different--they were a community and a law unto themselves. <br /><br />Reminds me of this:<br /><br />We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-6689663931682852262017-02-17T19:29:46.812-06:002017-02-17T19:29:46.812-06:00Yes, now that you mention it, the Christian God is...Yes, now that you mention it, the Christian God is a wackadoodle. Or rather, the Christian idea of God is a wackadoodle idea. (Unlike Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, the Christian God does not exist.) It's not that other Christians don't believe some silly stuff, just that orthodox Mormons believe even <i>more</i> silly stuff.<br /><br />And no, I would not have drowned had I been alive "at the time/place of Noah." There is no "time/place of Noah," no more than there is a "time/place of Luke Skywalker." The Noah story is myth, not history.<br /><br />And who says I'm demanding infallibility? Where have I said anything even remotely like that? Strawman argument.<br /><br />Anyway, suppose you were to criticize the Scientology leaders for their deceptions, and a Scientology apologist excused them by saying, "Well, their deceptions are okay because, after all, Xenu and the Supreme Being work through imperfect vessels, and anyway, none of us are infallible."<br /><br />You wouldn't buy that nonsense for a minute.<br /><br />Suppose you were still around in the year 2150 and criticized L. Ron Hubbard and David Miscavage, and the Scientology apologist of that time responded by saying "In the past 100 years, our world has been turned upside down, in almost every possible way. We think we understand what it was like to be in L. Ron's or David's shoes, but we don't. Projecting our reality upon those pitiful pioneers is unreasonable. They were very, very different from you and I. If you look at the vast majority of what they did and taught, you see the Supreme Being's hand acting through them. They were wonderful, albeit imperfect men."<br /><br />You wouldn't buy that either. We both know perfectly well that Hubbard and Miscavage were scoundrels even by the standards of their own era. So were Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. Their rascality cannot be explained away through some thinly veiled moral-relativist argument that, well, morals were different back then.<br /><br />What I'm trying to say here is that you keep giving us arguments that you yourself would never accept if applied to any other group but your own.<br /><br />-- OK<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-55410657519199463402017-02-17T15:09:57.750-06:002017-02-17T15:09:57.750-06:00Perhaps you also believe the Christian God to be a...Perhaps you also believe the Christian God to be a "wackadoodle"? Sorry to say it, but if you had been around at the time/region of Noah, you would have drowned. Elder Holland helps to explain: "Sadly enough, my young friends, it is a characteristic of our age that if people want any gods at all, they want them to be gods who do not demand much, comfortable gods, smooth gods who not only don’t rock the boat but don’t even row it, gods who pat us on the head, make us giggle, then tell us to run along and pick marigolds."<br /><br />We have a combination of issues we deal with as Mormons. <br /><br />First, God likes to test his people, with counter-intuitive commands. This builds faith among the believers, and unfortunately, engenders anger in the Godless. <br /><br />Second, we are weak and pitiful. God knows this, yet he continues to work through imperfect vessels. Just like our own children, we let them stumble and fall. You know that we don't claim infallibility, so why do you demand it?<br /><br />Third, in the past 100 years, our world has been turned upside down, in almost every possible way. We think we understand what it was like to be in Joseph or Brigham's shoes, but we don't. Projecting our reality upon those pitiful pioneers is unreasonable. They were very, very different from you and I. If you look at the vast majority of what they did and taught, you see God's hand acting through them. They were wonderful, albeit imperfect men.<br /><br />If President Monson commanded all of those things that you described above, I would be surprised. Why? Because we live in a different time, and we need different faith-building trials. I'm grateful I don't have to blindly follow the prophet, but that I can seek confirmation through the Holy Ghost to any question/concern I have. I've done this, and God has helped me, over and over again.<br /><br />I'm praying for you my friend. I know that God loves you, and wants you to return. Please consider it.<br /><br />I'll leave you this time with 2 Nephi 9:<br /><br />28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.<br /><br />29 But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.<br />Leo Winegarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14781460227854168796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-46483931045020752332017-02-17T14:29:53.790-06:002017-02-17T14:29:53.790-06:00If President Monson or the Apostles began to teach...<i>If President Monson or the Apostles began to teach something radically different today, I would spend time on my knees, and ask for direction.</i><br /><br />If the President of the Church were to announce today that interracial marriage is death on the spot, that the Catholic Church is the Church of the Devil and the Whore of All the Earth, that polygamy was once again doctrinal (and that if his wife didn't like it she would be "destroyed"), or any of the other wackadoodle pronouncements from the good old days, I'd like to think you wouldn't need to "ask for direction" at all before concluding that the president is a wackadoodle.<br /><br />And--truth being timeless and all that---if you would think that about a contemporary prophet, why not an earlier one?<br /><br />Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were wackadoodles, not prophets.<br /><br />-- OKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-32385299226713324912017-02-17T13:49:00.810-06:002017-02-17T13:49:00.810-06:00We focus on both consistency and recency. Like an...We focus on both consistency and recency. Like any church on earth, as we look further into our past, some of our ancillary doctrines and practices have become unimportant. We are no different in this regard. As a whole, the core doctrines and practices of our church have remained unchanged. The gospel of Jesus Christ is our primary focus: "Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost".<br /><br />Joseph Smith: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 121)."<br /><br />If President Monson or the Apostles began to teach something radically different today, I would spend time on my knees, and ask for direction. Personal revelation is something I strongly believe in. If some great new direction from our leadership occurs, it would be up to each member to come to grips with it.<br /><br />Listen to General Conference with an open mind and heart. I plead with you. I know that you will feel a great love from your Heavenly Father if you do. God bless.Leo Winegarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14781460227854168796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-38702373073050894742017-02-17T13:03:28.942-06:002017-02-17T13:03:28.942-06:00@troll
"beginning"? As far as I can tel...@troll<br /><br />"beginning"? As far as I can tell you always agreed with me, you merely pretend not to momentarily.Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-64769454876924761122017-02-17T12:46:17.231-06:002017-02-17T12:46:17.231-06:00With all due respect, Leo, given some of the prono...With all due respect, Leo, given some of the pronouncements by earlier "prophets"---especially Brigham Young---I find it hard to believe that any of the Church's presidents have any special access to the truth. I'm sorry, but a guy who says "If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so" is not a man of God. He's a man who cannot distinguish his own prejudices and folk beliefs from the Word of God, which is to say he's an arrogant blasphemer. Yet to this day the Church considers this man a prophet, which in turn means the Church has such horribly bad judgment I cannot possibly trust it.<br /><br />-- OKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-85403748253499198602017-02-17T12:30:44.920-06:002017-02-17T12:30:44.920-06:00@Mormography, does that mean you agree with my app...@Mormography, does that mean you agree with my approach? That's awesome! I'm glad that you are beginning to see it my way. God bless you.Leo Winegarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14781460227854168796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-8792528303351338502017-02-17T12:24:19.247-06:002017-02-17T12:24:19.247-06:00@troll
Now that you have expelled great energy de...@troll<br /><br />Now that you have expelled great energy deflecting from the original thread, are you ready to concur on the original item?:<br /><br />After 187 years theories of wandering Israelites, Romans, Atlanteans are laughable compare to 187 years ago.Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-83419477426245321552017-02-17T12:23:53.293-06:002017-02-17T12:23:53.293-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-74316631024434975632017-02-17T11:13:36.329-06:002017-02-17T11:13:36.329-06:00Ezra Taft Benson
We are admonished to “seek out o...Ezra Taft Benson<br /><br />We are admonished to “seek out of the best books words of wisdom” (D&C 88:118). Surely these books must include the scriptures. Alongside them must be the words of the Presidents of the Church. The Lord said of the President of the Church, “His word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth” (D&C 21:5). These books make up what has been referred to as “the Lord’s library”—namely the standard works and the various volumes that contain the words of the different Presidents of the Church. Of the latter volumes, that which would be of greatest importance to you would be the words of the current President of the Church, for his words are directed to our day and our needs. (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p.137-138)<br /><br />“I bear witness to the world today that more than a century and a half ago the iron ceiling was shattered; the heavens were once again opened, and since that time revelations have been continuous. …<br /><br />“Since that momentous day in 1820, additional scripture has continued to come, including the numerous and vital revelations flowing in a never-ending stream from God to his prophets on the earth. …<br /><br />“… We testify to the world that revelation continues and that the vaults and files of the Church contain these revelations which come month to month and day to day. We testify also that there is, since 1830 when The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized, and will continue to be, so long as time shall last, a prophet, recognized of God and his people, who will continue to interpret the mind and will of the Lord.<br /><br />“Now, a word of warning: Let us not make the error of the ancients. Numerous modern sectarians believe in the Abrahams, the Moseses, and the Pauls, but resist believing in today’s prophets. The ancients also could accept the prophets of an earlier day, but denounced and cursed the ones who were their contemporaries.<br /><br />“In our day, as in times past, many people expect that if there be revelation it will come with awe-inspiring, earth-shaking display. For many it is hard to accept as revelation those numerous ones in Moses’ time, in Joseph’s time, and in our own year—those revelations which come to prophets as deep, unassailable impressions settling down on the prophet’s mind and heart as dew from heaven or as the dawn dissipates the darkness of night.<br /><br />“Expecting the spectacular, one may not be fully alerted to the constant flow of revealed communication. I say, in the deepest of humility, but also by the power and force of a burning testimony in my soul, that from the prophet of the Restoration to the prophet of our own year, the communication line is unbroken, the authority is continuous, a light, brilliant and penetrating, continues to shine. The sound of the voice of the Lord is a continuous melody and a thunderous appeal. For nearly a century and a half there has been no interruption” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1977, 114–15; or Ensign, May 1977, 77–78).<br /><br />Yes, our standard works require a formal sustaining vote, but if you ask any rank and file member of the church, about whether or not the most recent conference addresses are considered canon, they will emphatically say "Yes". I know why FAIR is conservative with their definition of canon (because of a few deviations in our history). But, what I'm talking about is consistency and recency, and what modern-day revelation means for day-to-day living. What really matters to me? Our standard works, and the most recent general conference talks. This constitutes God's word.Leo Winegarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14781460227854168796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-39208464955687904672017-02-17T10:44:58.905-06:002017-02-17T10:44:58.905-06:00@troll, It sounds like you are violently agreeing ...@troll, It sounds like you are violently agreeing with me. It is hard-hearted arrogance to think other religions are not full of such anecdotes.<br /><br /><i>”Mormons believe their leaders to be inspired and that if a concept is repeatedly/recently taught over the pulpit, that it is reliable, and is considered canon.”</i><br /><br />Wow, you really are new here. Mormanity and FAIR could not disagree with you more. The question of what is canon comes up repeatedly. Their definition differs from yours. To them canon needs to be presented to the church and voted on. Of course, their definition of canon has not been presented to the church and voted on, a contradiction they have yet to respond to.<br /><br />---<br /><br />Focusing on a speck of dust in someone else’s eye is one to way to forget about the beam in your own. It is also a behavior trait of those that know they are in the wrong.Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-75343860474822831022017-02-17T09:54:28.066-06:002017-02-17T09:54:28.066-06:00Regarding D&C 9: 6-9, President Monson said: &...Regarding D&C 9: 6-9, President Monson said: "That counsel will guide you. It has guided me." Simple confirmation from the Prophet. In fact, these verses have been referenced ~61 times in general conference, and (hint, hint) it wasn't to give us a history lesson on Oliver Cowdery. This clear pattern of revelation was explained to Oliver, and like many other scriptures, it equally applies to us.<br /><br />As you may know, Mormons believe their leaders to be inspired and that if a concept is repeatedly/recently taught over the pulpit, that it is reliable, and is considered canon. In other words, Mormon leaders have consistently taught that a binary approach to prayer is an appropriate method for receiving answers.<br /><br />In addition to my personal experience with asking "Yes/No" questions and receiving clear answers, I have a close friend that recently prayed about a new job, which he was desperately seeking because his (then) current employer was letting him go. An amazing job offer came, amounting to a 70% salary increase. No brainer to accept, right? <br /><br />He prayed and fasted, and fervently asked God, "Should I take this job?" He felt a stupor of thought and uneasy during the process. So, he clarified his line of questioning, "Should I keep looking and say 'no' to this particular job?" Keep in mind, that he had no other job offers on the table, and with a small family of 4, he was desperate to secure something.<br /><br />So, as he attended the temple, after revising his line of questioning to, "Should I keep looking?", his answer clearly came, "Yes". He felt an overwhelming spiritual peace.<br /><br />He notified the recruiter and the company came back with a message, "The SVP wants to meet with you to discuss." At this point in his experience I thought, surely he would visit with the SVP and re-consider the offer. But, this faithful man, filled with confidence that the Lord would provide, said "No, but thanks" to the recruiter.<br /><br />He had no other offers at this point.<br /><br />So, fast forward a couple of weeks, and this dear friend now has an even better job. The Lord knew what he was doing, and he directed his humble son to wait, and try again.<br /><br />Albeit anecdotal, this counts as extremely strong evidence for me. Just like a friend who is a "promoter" and recommends their favorite restaurant to family and friends, I listen carefully to good people like him. He is extremely bright, and shows no signs of brainwashing/manipulation. His experience was absolutely authentic.<br /><br />I too have experienced events like this in my life. I know that God speaks to us today, and we can hear him if we listen. He is real. The few scriptures he has provided about answering prayer, are valid and have contemporary application.<br /><br />I am praying for the critics on this thread, that your hearts may soften, and you will one day hope to believe. God bless each of you.Leo Winegarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14781460227854168796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-65746020089660153292017-02-17T03:43:38.997-06:002017-02-17T03:43:38.997-06:00The Mormon religion has its own name because of un...The Mormon religion has its own name because of unique items to it. No one has suggested otherwise. For example, Mormon’s have a once monthly practice of fasting and sharing of a testimony in a group. Do other religions fast? Yes. Do other religions give testimony? Yes. Does the Mormon monthly practice make them unique? Of course, not.<br /><br />For all of Leo Winegar’s insincerity (ex – “I'll honestly answer any question “, then ignoring most) his behavior is true to the internal contradictions of Mormonism. Moroni 10 is the typical scripture given in Leo situation. I have never observed a Mormon claim Moroni 10 applies as a line for line read out of scripture. Leo recognized the unary communication channel difficulties, so he switched to DC9 hoping to overcome them.<br /><br />In all, what one can see in Leo’s interaction is the immature arrogance of believing one’s religion is the one true religion. His behavior is the fruit of that belief.Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-82939377135116954082017-02-17T00:19:57.092-06:002017-02-17T00:19:57.092-06:00Leo, isn't D&C 9:8-9 directed specifically...Leo, isn't D&C 9:8-9 directed specifically to Oliver Cowdery? And isn't it specifically about translating the Book of Mormon?<br /><br />On its face, D&C 9 is not a revelation about how other people might receive answers to other questions.<br /><br />Maybe, as you say, Mormons do "ask God Yes/No questions all the time," and then wait for the ol' burning in the bosom, but such a practice is not justified by D&C 9. Is it more of a folk practice, maybe?<br /><br />-- OKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-57858642522758872252017-02-16T16:40:10.335-06:002017-02-16T16:40:10.335-06:00@troll, Who is the exmo with the silly perception?...@troll, Who is the exmo with the silly perception?<br /><br />Sigghh ... what u just did is called misdirection. You switch from determining veracity of scripture to producing scripture. DC9 refers to Oliver Cowdery's desire to produce scripture. So how effective was this "unique" process for OC. The fact that it did not work is undisputed. Also, y r the first I have seen interrupt this as a strict 0 and 1 process. So, by your standard the BoM is fraud, because way, way more people claim a 0 answer than a 1 answer. Now this makes the every-fiber-of-being thing wierd .... after all it is only a 0 or 1<br /><br />The Qu'ran has very similar verses. Islamic apologism is built into the Qu'ran. In it Muhammad is accused of being just a talented poet vice prophet, much like JS. The Qu'ran addresses this with open challenges for anyone to produce similar scripture. OC could not, but JS and Muhammed answer each other's challenge.<br /><br />So did James Strange, which you have yet to explain.Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-3664594330125327552017-02-16T15:59:10.513-06:002017-02-16T15:59:10.513-06:00@Mormography, Mormons do, in fact, claim to practi...@Mormography, Mormons do, in fact, claim to practice binary questioning. They ask God Yes/No questions all the time. I have to laugh/cry at the silly perception that some exmo's have. Here's what D&C 9 states:<br /><br />8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.<br /><br /> 9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.<br /><br />So, Mormons ask, "Is the Book of Mormon true (right)?" and God answers them with a burning in their bosom. You seemed to argue above that this practice is common among other religions, so therefore this would prove all religions are claiming to have the truth, discovered through a similar process. This is obviously faulty logic. Mormons are absolutely unique in this practice, and anyone who prays specifically about the truth of the Book of Mormon can receive a binary (true/false) answer from God.<br /><br />Oh, and my credo? I'm a Mormon hahah. God bless you!Leo Winegarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14781460227854168796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-54934858321748961132017-02-16T15:03:54.785-06:002017-02-16T15:03:54.785-06:00@troll, I knew it. You are a troll!
"Why d...@troll, I knew it. You are a troll! <br /> <br /><i>"Why don't you provide some evidence that shows boolean/binary questioning happens in non-LDS faiths?"</i><br /><br />Because I never claimed it does. If you are suggesting Mormon's claim "boolean/binary questioning", you are obviously not Mormon. So troll, do claim any credo? Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-85317886926854039072017-02-16T14:54:40.964-06:002017-02-16T14:54:40.964-06:00@Mormography, I'll honestly answer any questio...@Mormography, I'll honestly answer any question you ask me, because I'm an honest person. Why don't you provide some evidence that shows boolean/binary questioning happens in non-LDS faiths? You claimed above to have known a lot of people that have specifically asked God about their unique truth claims. I'm questioning your ability to prove that claim. Third time's the charm?Leo Winegarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14781460227854168796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-36529136699202892742017-02-16T14:48:07.008-06:002017-02-16T14:48:07.008-06:00@Leo Winegar, I was just asking myself that same q...@Leo Winegar, I was just asking myself that same question. What makes me think your Mormon? You are probably one of those atheist. I'll take your silence to mean you are an atheist and any response to mean that you are troll.<br /><br />Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-9487156429835605432017-02-16T14:46:19.371-06:002017-02-16T14:46:19.371-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.com