tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post511828377237377536..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: Of Crocodiles and KingsJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-79678113112156707732012-01-08T23:24:24.758-06:002012-01-08T23:24:24.758-06:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Openmindedhttp://omsthought.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-59496185473033025582012-01-08T22:40:46.645-06:002012-01-08T22:40:46.645-06:00openminded;
Anyways, I'm entirely sure that i...openminded;<br /><br /><i>Anyways, I'm entirely sure that if you applied the standard of criticism you're approaching Zelph with, you would completely reject the majority of the bible. oral transmission, years to decades between the event and its recording, sensationalism, and a great deal of it being what some person thought made sense to put in (which is the issue of redaction, re-interpretation, and etc.</i><br /><br />When evidence of that comes up, I do. I already think that the Psalm of Solomon should not be part ofthe Bible canon (and I've recieved rebukes from that position from the Christian community)simply because I do not think it was written under the guidance ofthe Holy Spirit to bring people unto Christ (YHWH). It's beautiful literature; just not "spiritual". Also, i forgetthe passage right now but I recently learned that one part ofthe New Testament was inserted around the fourth or fifth century AD to make the Bible seem more trinitarian. That the original Greek manuscripts did not say what the Bible (or at least some editions of today's Bible) says. When that was attempted to be corrected around the 16th century (I may have these dates completely wrong), you can say, "all heck broke loose", from the masses and forgeries were made in Greek in order to reintroduce the pro-trinitarian declaration. If this is the case, then i say said passage has no business in the Bible.<br /><br />But ultimately knowing the bible is following the Spirit. Yes, study it and appy ctirical thinking; but follow the Spirit. There's nothing spiritual about Zelf. It's dramatic but I would not say "spiritual".<br /><br /><i>And that line of reasoning just does not exist with the level of opposition you give to a story that was recorded in a much more reliable way than the majority of the books in the bible.</i><br /><br />I don't know. Overall, the bible is most definitely one of the best kept records in the history of record keeping.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12117356557847616816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-57913980423384214382012-01-08T19:59:44.234-06:002012-01-08T19:59:44.234-06:00@bookslinger,
"In essence, all your argument...@bookslinger, <br />"In essence, all your arguments are /moot/ to anyone who believes that God is a God of miracles who hides things from those who don't meet certain criteria He set for being found (see various passages in the Bible and Moroni 10:3-5 about that.)"<br /><br />When in doubt, shove fingers in ears and say, "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!" at the top of your lungs until they go away. <br /><br />What you just posted is EXACTLY why so many people have trouble with religious belief. All religious ideas have a "get out of jail free card." If this gives you a satisfying sense of truth then so be it, but such logic can be used to defend all sorts of religious ideas with which you would not agree.Mateohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18021537443072398547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-87108134360985564822012-01-08T00:26:09.827-06:002012-01-08T00:26:09.827-06:00Sorry, Darren. I got extremely busy in the past fe...Sorry, Darren. I got extremely busy in the past few days. I hope your new year's celebrations have been fun as well! (I was definitely not busy celebrating while I was away, but new year's is a <i>whole</i> different story.)<br /><br /><br />Anyways, I'm entirely sure that if you applied the standard of criticism you're approaching Zelph with, you would completely reject the majority of the bible. oral transmission, years to decades between the event and its recording, sensationalism, and a great deal of it being what some person thought made sense to put in (which is the issue of redaction, re-interpretation, and etc. which you'll find a ton of in the OT. and maybe even the gospels?)<br /><br />Here's something you may have heard somewhere or told yourself, especially when pondering the Articles of Faith: sure, there may be errors in the bible. but that doesn't mean the overall credibility of the message is lost.<br /><br />And that line of reasoning just <i>does not</i> exist with the level of opposition you give to a story that was recorded in a much more reliable way than the majority of the books in the bible.Openmindedhttp://omsthought.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-71323804062980332952012-01-05T00:49:25.076-06:002012-01-05T00:49:25.076-06:00Openmined;
As for commenting on my previous respo...Openmined;<br /><br />As for commenting on my previous response to you, quite frankly, I had forgotten about it at this point. But, sure, if you desire to comment, I'd love to hear from you. <br /><br />I hope you had a happy new year celebration.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12117356557847616816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-72598953741823305682012-01-05T00:47:44.469-06:002012-01-05T00:47:44.469-06:00do you realize how high-caliber some of the witnes...<i>do you realize how high-caliber some of the witnesses' status was?</i><br /><br />Yup. But it doesn't change a single thing I said. go to my link to FAIR and see for yourself how the final editor picked and chose fromtheir passages to create the image that joseph Smith made this great revelatory vision regarding Zelf beng a white Lamanite and followed a great ancient prophet of ancient America. Wilford Woodroof, for example, wrote that *perhaps* the bones belonged to the Lamanites but <i>History ofthe Church</i> makes it seem as though ithe bones was from the Lamanite era of the Book of Mormon. Furthermore, "Lamanite" became a general term amongs Mormons to refer to American Indians et HotC makes it seem that Joseph Smith referred directly to Book of Mormon stories to reveal this "Zelph" person. There is nothing in anybody's accounts to concude that Joseph made any divine revelatory statements about the history of the body he and some of the brethren found. But HotC sure makes it sound as thoug he did.<br /><br /><i>They weren't out to undermine joseph or misrepresent the stories he told</i><br /><br />Nobody did but...<br /><br /><i>and their recounting of smith's story don't contradict each other in a significant way</i><br /><br />Perhaps not but the final addition did take some long liberties to insert what the final author of the account perhaps thought at the moment should be said about Joseph Smith and Zelph. this was a common practice at the time. Spice up tales t make them dramatic, regardless of accuracy. In the end we the recipients get a highly unreliable account about what happened.<br /><br /><i>in other words, there's no dismissing that smith made a story about this white Lamanite character named Zelph. Which is probably why eveningsun deliberately portrayed Smith as telling a story that Smith himself didn't put into writing.</i><br /><br />Eveningsun clearly propped up the Zelph story (as is written today) to portray Joseph Smith as a person who made things up as he went along. This is a very common line of argument among those interested in discrediting Joseph Smth and/or the LDS faith.<br /><br /><i>Once again, it's because Smith actually told this story to his followers.</i><br /><br />He told *something* to his followers. Nobody can rationally take today's account of Joseph Smith's Zelph story and use it as some sort of evidence that Joseph made things up when it became convenient for him to do so.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12117356557847616816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-18731380354589414922012-01-04T22:22:06.274-06:002012-01-04T22:22:06.274-06:00Darren,
do you realize how high-caliber some of th...Darren,<br />do you realize how high-caliber some of the witnesses' status was? Wildrow Woodruff, Heber Kimball, etc. They weren't out to undermine joseph or misrepresent the stories he told, and their recounting of smith's story don't contradict each other in a significant way. <br /><br />in other words, there's no dismissing that smith made a story about this white Lamanite character named Zelph. Which is probably why eveningsun deliberately portrayed Smith as telling a story that Smith himself didn't put into writing.<br /><br />Once again, it's because Smith actually told this story to his followers.<br /><br /><br />(also, sorry for not responding to your response to what i said. was celebrating new year's. I can reply to them if you're still interested)Openmindedhttp://omsthought.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-75735350938579527212012-01-03T23:56:42.473-06:002012-01-03T23:56:42.473-06:00I'm curious, Darren. Had you really not heard ...<i>I'm curious, Darren. Had you really not heard of Zelph before I mentioned the name?</i><br /><br />For the life of me, I cannot recall any memory of "Zelf" in my 40 years of active LDS church life. If it was mentioned in Seminary, I sure do not remember it (but that's not hard to do ;>) )<br /><br />For an unscientific survey, I just asked Mrs. Darren if she ever heard of Joseph Smth teaching about "Zelf, the White Lamanite warrior". She twisted her eyes and I will not repeat here everythnig she said in reply (you're welcome). So that's two life-long active Mormons who have never heard of "Zelf". <br /><br />Again, why do you purport this high intellect and this desire for self-review of original documents when you yourself deliberately portrayed Joseph Smith of telling a story which is not at all based upon original documents?Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10074265168754077171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-47829631114869461042012-01-03T14:14:49.154-06:002012-01-03T14:14:49.154-06:00Iow, I think it is entirely plausible for people t...Iow, I think it is entirely plausible for people to consider the story in detail and reach teh conclusion that Joseph made it up - but most of the more detalied arguments are based on a version of the original that probably isn't accurate. <br /><br />I don't see it as any kind of "prophecy" (not even close) - and "visions" of any kind, but especially ones like this, tend to be ambiguous and general enough that conclusions will be just what you'd expect: Most believers accepting them and pretty much all non-believers rejecting them. <br /><br />Personally, I'm agnostic on this one.Papa Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06704974609266088416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-67197482549592803542012-01-03T14:10:17.066-06:002012-01-03T14:10:17.066-06:00EveningSun, I don't know how Darren will answe...EveningSun, I don't know how Darren will answer that question, but it isn't surprising at all that he might not have. It's not exactly a core part of what is taught (or has been taught ever) in the LDS Church - especially, as he notes, since the exact nature of the statement as we have it is very, very vague and suspect as to its accuracy. There is passing reference to it here and there, but, from my own memory (which might or might not be accurate) it's not part of any manual I've had in my multiple decades in the Church - and it hasn't been mentioned in any lesson of any kind I can remember. I know of it from my own studies and discussions with others - not from "the Church" itself, and I have no problem with that. <br /><br />I agree it probably is ridiculous IF the statement was that he was killed in battle with the Nephites - but, based on the totality of the evidence, I personally doubt that was how the original statement was phrased. Unfortunately, we never will know.Papa Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06704974609266088416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-45079121004505656942012-01-03T13:26:47.904-06:002012-01-03T13:26:47.904-06:00Who in the world is "Zelph"?
I'm cu...<i>Who in the world is "Zelph"?</i><br /><br />I'm curious, Darren. Had you really not heard of Zelph before I mentioned the name?<br /><br />-- EveningsunAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-37705157476793624952012-01-03T09:19:17.772-06:002012-01-03T09:19:17.772-06:00Eveningsun;
Darren, there are multiple accounts o...Eveningsun;<br /><br /><i>Darren, there are multiple accounts of Joseph Smith's telling of the Zelph story that predate The History of the Church.</i><br /><br />Did you read my italacized portion and the go to the link itself at FAIR LDS? It explains that the account we have today in <i>History of the Church</i> is based on cutting and pasting the "multiple accounts" of the Zelf story. Most accounts agree of a "Zelf" being mentioned andas well as an "Onandagus". Beyond that the details are highly questionable. Here's another excerpt from the same link:<br /><br /><i>If the history of the church were to be revised today using modern historical standards, readers would be informed that Joseph Smith wrote nothing about the discovery of Zelph, and that the account of uncovering the skeleton in Pike County is based on the diaries of seven members of Zion's Camp, some of which were written long after the event took place. We would be assured that the members of Zion's Camp dug up a skeleton near the Illinois River in early June 1834. Equally sure is that Joseph Smith made statements about the deceased person and his historical setting. We would learn that it is unclear which statements attributed to him derived from his vision, as opposed to being implied or surmised either by him or by others. Nothing in the diaries suggests that the mound itself was discovered by revelation. <br />Furthermore, readers would be told that most sources agree that Zelph was a white Lamanite who fought under a leader named Onandagus (variously spelled). Beyond that, what Joseph said to his men is not entirely clear, judging by the variations in the available sources. The date of the man Zelph, too, remains unclear. Expressions such as "great struggles among the Lamanites," if accurately reported, could refer to a period long after the close of the Book of Mormon narrative, as well as to the fourth century AD. None of the sources before the Willard Richards composition, however, actually say that Zelph died in battle with the Nephites, only that he died "in battle" when the otherwise unidentified people of Onandagus were engaged in great wars "among the Lamanites."</i><br /><br />The manner by which you were presenting Joseph Smith here regarding Zelf left a clear implication that Joseph Smith spoke "crazy talk" when he himself never wrote a single word of what today's account states he said. <br /><br />You being the desirous one to have original manuscripts for first-hand critique need to be more careful on how you apply your critique.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12117356557847616816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-88544651045981257212012-01-03T08:19:38.275-06:002012-01-03T08:19:38.275-06:00Darren, there are multiple accounts of Joseph Smit...Darren, there are multiple accounts of Joseph Smith's telling of the Zelph story that predate <i>The History of the Church</i>.<br /><br />-- EveningsunAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-17880294178668754052012-01-02T21:52:06.465-06:002012-01-02T21:52:06.465-06:00Because we consider them evidence of Joseph Smith&...<i>Because we consider them evidence of Joseph Smith's considerable abilities as a storyteller.</i><br /><br />Even though he didn't tell the story you say he told?<br /><br />I thought you were all about reason.<br /><br />/SighDarrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10074265168754077171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-57565441116262675832012-01-02T18:03:34.289-06:002012-01-02T18:03:34.289-06:00Why are people who are interested in discrediting ...<i>Why are people who are interested in discrediting the LDS church so fascinated in quirky stories like Zelph?</i><br /><br />Because we consider them evidence of Joseph Smith's considerable abilities as a storyteller.<br /><br />-- EveningsunAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-42187731047283722272012-01-02T16:01:31.024-06:002012-01-02T16:01:31.024-06:00Eveningsun;
In 1842 Willard Richards, then church...Eveningsun;<br /><br /><i>In 1842 Willard Richards, then church historian, was assigned the task of compiling a large number of documents and producing a history of the church from them. He worked on this material between 21 December 1842 and 27 March 1843. Richards, who had not joined the church until 1836, relied on the writings or recollections of Heber C. Kimball, Wilford Woodruff, and perhaps others for his information regarding the discovery of Zelph. Blending the sources available to him, and perhaps using oral accounts from some of the members of Zion's Camp, but writing as if he were Joseph Smith, historian Richards drafted the story of Zelph as it appears in the "Manuscript History of the Church, Book A-1." With respect to points relative to Book of Mormon geography, Richards wrote that "Zelph was a white Lamanite, a man of God who was a warrior and chieftain under the great prophet Onandagus who was known from the [hill Cumorah is crossed out in the manuscript] eastern Sea, to the Rocky Mountains. He was killed in battle, by the arrow found among his ribs, during a [last crossed out] great struggle with the Lamanites" [and Nephites crossed out]. <br /><br />Following the death of Joseph Smith, the Times and Seasons published serially the "History of Joseph Smith." When the story of finding Zelph appeared in the 1 January 1846 issue, most of the words crossed out in the Richards manuscript were, for some unknown reason, included, along with the point that the prophet's name was Omandagus. The reference to the hill Cumorah from the unemended Wilford Woodruff journal was still included in the narrative, as was the phrase "during the last great struggle of the Lamanites and Nephites." </i><br /><br />Is this the Zelph story you referenced? Why are people who are interested in discrediting the LDS church so fascinated in quirky stories like Zelph? (That's a rhetorical question for it answers itself)<br /><br />If it's worth anything, my experience is that <i>History ofthe Church</i> is a terrible source fo reliability unless corrborated by first-hand sources. <br /><br />http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/Statements/Nineteenth_century/Joseph_Smith%27s_lifetime_1829-1840/Joseph_Smith/ZelphDarrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12117356557847616816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-25479330404499651462011-12-31T14:10:49.239-06:002011-12-31T14:10:49.239-06:00Eveningsun;
Don't mess with Texas!
We finall...Eveningsun;<br /><br /><i>Don't mess with Texas!</i><br /><br />We finally agree!!!<br /><br />Happy New Year to you too, sir.<br /><br />And a Happy New Year to all.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12117356557847616816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-46483643375652489602011-12-31T07:04:20.223-06:002011-12-31T07:04:20.223-06:00To PapaD and Pops: Sorry for confusing your names....To PapaD and Pops: Sorry for confusing your names.<br /><br />To Darren, who is mighty in writing: With a feeling of awe at your prowess, I yield.<br /><br />To the people of the late great state of Massachusetts, reeling as you are under the death blows of Romneycare and gay marriage: Don't mess with Texas!<br /><br />Happy New Year, everyone.<br /><br />-- EveningsunAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-65063387237277389722011-12-31T00:45:05.522-06:002011-12-31T00:45:05.522-06:00All the evidence thus far suggests society will ge...<i>All the evidence thus far suggests society will get along just fine. Has Massachusetts fallen apart?</i><br /><br />Ummmmm, I sure do not want to live there. I like it right here in Texas. Statewide surplus rojected, recovering from the recession much fasterthan progressive states lie Massachuessets, no mandatory helathcare by the state (which constitutionally states can do, NOYT the federal government but I suppose you support Obamacare - sorry to get off the BoA topic), and no state income tax. New Englanders can keep their states, I'll keep mine.<br /><br /><i>There's a right (not a "right") to gay marriage under the Fourteenth Amendment.</i><br /><br />Huh? Due process? What are you talking about. I do not mind giving out my email to you, or have Jeff send it to you privately if he so desires to get invovled so that we can discuss this on the back channels. You're so way off.<br /><br /><i>which is to say the U.S. Constitution will prevail over LDS theology and moral panic</i><br /><br />Again, huh? I witnessed video of Gay rights activists ripping out a cross from a Christian woman, chasing off a singing and praying Christian group using the foulest of profanity towards them,and a video where Mormon missionaries will come ot a gay couple's door and physically take away their marriage liscense. Who's panicking? agai, I do nt mind taking this tothe back channels as this is really of topic.<br /><br />/I'm now of this topic for this blog.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12117356557847616816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-33336718434954414452011-12-31T00:31:05.537-06:002011-12-31T00:31:05.537-06:00Evennigsun;
"Random gibberish based on regur...Evennigsun;<br /><br /><i>"Random gibberish based on regurgitating Bible verses"? </i><br /><br />It's not what Jeff said either. he is correct that the entirety ofthe Book of Abraham was dismissed as gibberish. That Joseph Smith had no clue as to what he was writing about. That's exactly the content ofthe argument I engaged in two years ago regarding the Book of Abraham. Jeff is also correct that as archeology increasesw, more and more of the Book of Abraham is authenticated by it. And i've no doubt thisd pattern will continue, even if a "set back" in encountered here and there.<br /><br /><i>2. Cite evidence for your position, but when your opponents point out contrary evidence, discount the value of evidence itself.</i><br /><br />Your evidence is nothing more than philosophy and analogy. Jeff's is based on archeology. Which do you prefer. Especially as one as yourself who seems to seek signs of "proof".<br /><br /><i>3. Inflate the evidentiary value of your subjective experiences. Testimony uber alles.</i><br /><br />Who "inflated" evidence?<br /><br /><i>4. Ignore just how perfectly trite and ordinary your religious experience appears to those who know the exact same kinds of experiences have been had by billions of other people of other faiths. Insist that unlike them, you are special. Unlike their experience, your experience is true. When your synapses start firing away to produce that special feeling, it's the work of the Holy Spirit. Theirs? Bogus. Maybe even the work of Satan!</i><br /><br />how about, I know tha what i believe is true because the Holy Spirit has testified it to me and that all will know for themselves by that very same means, that the restored gospel is/was true? Would that be OK?<br /><br /><i>As someone working in the campaign for gay rights (including gay marriage), I have a political interest in undermining the political authority of my political opponents, one of which happens to be the LDS Church.</i><br /><br />What you just said is that you have a set biase against the LDS Church. Why, then, should your posts be deemed "reasonable" when your own stated end game is to discredit the LDS church for political reasons? Furthermore, not only is the LDS church your "opponent" in your predetermined mind, but so are many other religions, including your own Judaism. If your own religion, which is the foundation of Christianity and most certainly, Mormonism, is not accepted by you. That if your own religion is your "opponent" than why would you say or admit to anything that's shows the divine authenticity of the LDS faith?Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12117356557847616816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-32955360348369569642011-12-31T00:16:48.277-06:002011-12-31T00:16:48.277-06:00Evennigsun;
OK. A man's wife has learned that...Evennigsun;<br /><br /><i>OK. A man's wife has learned that her husband is "marrying" other women. She's justifiably upset, and I suspect not even you can really blame her. So what kind of a husband in that situation justifies his behavior by saying that if she doesn't like it, too bad, she'd bettter fall into line or God will destroy her?<br /><br />Doesn't that sort of thing raise your eyebrows? Or has your obedience inured you so much to basic human feelings as not to see that there's a problem with Joseph Smith's basic character?</i><br /><br />When God commands something, do it. Now, joseph Smith was far from the cold hearted snake you're portraying him to be. He was *very* upset (innerly resistent) about polygamy. He didn't teach it until God said (paraphrasing), "Joseph, I told you about polygamy now teach it." Your depiction that Joseph Smith simply replied to Emma's concerns, "God said you better cleave unto me or He'll destory you" is way off the mark. Frankly I find it very disingenuous.<br /><br />Yes, polygamy is hard to obey, especially for women. That's no secret. How Joseph reacted to Emmas concerns is far from cold heartedness.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12117356557847616816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-37687292453976463842011-12-31T00:10:36.047-06:002011-12-31T00:10:36.047-06:00Eveningsun;
if I flipped a coin a hundred times a...Eveningsun;<br /><br /><i>if I flipped a coin a hundred times and at some point it came up heads five times in a row, would you give me brownie points for that and count it as evidence that my coin is somehow magic?</i>.<br /><br />What if you told the audience te nnumber of times the coin will respectively turn up on heads and then on tails and got it right? what if over time your certainty was lost to the world and all that remained was the belief that you got the coing right only 5% of the time. That your successes were dismissed as random, even have some people saying, "well, if you ignore the failures he had then it does look good,"? Then, suppose that new evidence emerged which proved to be evidence that the number of times you succeeded in predicting/foretelling the number of tmes you successfully got the result right went from 5% to let's say 20%? That would be telling, wouldn't it. But, still, shall we dismiss such findings because afterall, the world's knowledge of your success was off by 80%? But, suppose one looks at the evidence provided and says, "hey, look how over time more and more evidence points to Eveningsun being correct more than previously thought." <br /><br />I find my later example much more in line with archeological and historical evidence that validates what Joseph Smith revealed to the world. <br /><br />But I remind you that I don't need any of man's science to know that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God. And neither do you.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12117356557847616816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-69909807952267824862011-12-30T23:59:38.657-06:002011-12-30T23:59:38.657-06:00It did occur to me that Bookslinger's theory m...<i>It did occur to me that Bookslinger's theory might explain what happened to those WMDs in Iraq. They really were there, but then God hid them from our troops in order to discredit President Bush.</i><br /><br />Cute sarcasm will only get you so far, Eveningsun. Bookslinger was clearly talking about the things of God ad mysteries of God. I fail to connect the necessity of findding WMDs in Iraq (which there were; just not the kind we were told we would find) and gaining exaltation by the grace of God. Who was it that dismissed Joseph Smith as a reasonable person?> oh yeah, it was that Eveningsun guy. If you meet hm ,tell him I say hi but that while he makes me chuckle, I'd rather read reasonable posts from him.<br /><br /><i>not to mention a God so pitifully weak as to be incapable of winning an argument fair and square, but there's no end to the nonsense people will believe nowada</i><br /><br />god will never force His will or eternal truths upon anyone. I believe this has a direct connection to the fact that you and I are "gods". That as children of the "most High", we are inherently divine. Wer'e not some brute animal of the field or dust of the earth (unless we choose to be lower than that according to King Mosiah); but children of the living God "most High". As such we stand to inherit all He has if we but *choose* His divine will.<br /><br />(Psalms 82:6; John 10:34)Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12117356557847616816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-31232542188049570942011-12-30T22:53:59.593-06:002011-12-30T22:53:59.593-06:00Not feeling the spirit in islam? Just have patienc...<i>Not feeling the spirit in islam? Just have patience.<br /><br />Surefire evidence that Buddha was wrong? patience. <br /><br />You're a member of Westboro and you just don't see the point in doing what you do? have patience, it'll all come together with a wonderful reward in the end.</i><br /><br />I agree. I'm ofthe mindset that the fulness ofthe gospel will be taught to all to some point in time. That each individual, a child of God, will have the opportunity for him or herself to accept or reject it. And regardless oftheir initial choice, choose how much of it to live by. All are free to choose and so, yes, patience is required for the gospel of Jesus Christ in its fulness to eventually reach to "every living creature".Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12117356557847616816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-8777789592219519062011-12-30T22:43:41.552-06:002011-12-30T22:43:41.552-06:00Thanks for answering my question, EveningSun. (I ...Thanks for answering my question, EveningSun. (I know it's confusing have a "Pops" and a "Papa D" commenting on the same thread. *grin*) <br /><br />Everyone else: <br /><br />This thread is NOT about gay rights of any kind. It also isn't the place to call gay marriage a destroyer of society. Frankly, the heterosexual population of this country is FAR more responsible for the downfall of the morals in this country than the homosexual population has any chance of being. I mean that seriously, and there is no doubt in my mind about it. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, and the heterosexual population of the USA is living in a big, far, stinking glass house right now. It's far too easy to blame "those others" than to look introspectively and realize we are our own worst enemies with regard to issues like this. <br /><br />Let's try not to derail this thread completely, OK. I didn't mean to make my question a "gotcha" question; it was asked sincerely and honestly, with no hidden agenda. Frankly, I'm almost sorry I asked, after reading the subsequent comments. <br /><br />EveningSun, I truly am sorry for the practical effect of my question, even as I really am grateful for your honest answer. I really do understand better now, and, fwiw, the two of us aren't as far apart when it comes to the legal issues as you might assume. I'm about as orthoprax a Mormon as it gets (and I just returned from a New Year's Eve Eve party at church), but I believe there is a HUGE difference between many moral issues and the political issues they create. <br /><br />Now, let's get back to the actual post, OK?Papa Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06704974609266088416noreply@blogger.com