tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post8099794389970961441..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: Elijah in the Book of MormonJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-65022648090279867222018-12-10T08:07:38.477-06:002018-12-10T08:07:38.477-06:00Beary,
Your anonymous friend who is here for the ...Beary,<br /><br />Your anonymous friend who is here for the debate posted 11/24. I try to make relevant, cogent observations. Others are just here to pick a fight it seems. They tend to do this by posting inflammatory, often off-topic comments. It's up to you to decide who you respond to and how you respond. Not all fights are noble or worthwhile. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-82912087925404957802018-12-08T14:52:22.168-06:002018-12-08T14:52:22.168-06:00Yaaawwnnn ... how exhaustively tiring ...Yaaawwnnn ... how exhaustively tiring ...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-16637022417781046632018-12-07T16:26:01.354-06:002018-12-07T16:26:01.354-06:00Will the real Anonymous please raise their hand?
...Will the real Anonymous please raise their hand?<br /><br />I only say this because a few days ago someone with that designation offered that, "I’m here for probably a similar reason you’re here—Jeff presents interesting ideas, then opens up a forum for debate about those ideas. I like being part of the debate."<br /><br />So where is the debate about Jeff's "interesting ideas?" From the get go, the first response to this post was a "dodge" (or something), totally setting aside the ideas presented in the post and leap-frogging straight to other, tired arguments from other times and places.<br /><br />I say it that way because the next Anonymous reply (from that same individual or not, I can't tell) said, about one of my responses, "The 'can't leave it alone' and 'move on' are tied(?) apologist rebuttals for when they have none."<br /><br />Is that what this is?bearybhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06489716403013822895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-36727882356502088132018-11-27T12:43:45.822-06:002018-11-27T12:43:45.822-06:00You anons sure don't know me very well.You anons sure don't know me very well.Ramernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-40956271400789350112018-11-27T01:44:01.865-06:002018-11-27T01:44:01.865-06:00I re-read your comment, 6:41. Sorry. And yes, Rame...I re-read your comment, 6:41. Sorry. And yes, Ramer exhibits disingenuousness and inattention to details (the latter of which I myself have often been guilty of). Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-25250984898645950922018-11-26T23:18:56.294-06:002018-11-26T23:18:56.294-06:00You cannot be serious, Anon @ 6:41. Read the full ...You cannot be serious, Anon @ 6:41. Read the full context of Brig's quote and you'll see how serious he was. And then read section 132, and then read all of the other leaders who have made the same assertion: polygamy is required of those who want to attain the highest sphere of the Celestial Kingdom. Deny that and you deny Mormon leaders. <br />Anyway, back on topic: the Book of Mormon was made up. It's fake. Face it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1110340497727316422018-11-25T18:41:00.876-06:002018-11-25T18:41:00.876-06:00It is doubtful that Ramer is unaware of the Deuter...It is doubtful that Ramer is unaware of the Deutero-Isaiah problem.<br /><br />He repeatedly trolls and baits on items that have already been disproven on other threads, like above, where he decietfully reasserts, "For the record, the supposed "requirement" for polygamy for exaltation comes from a quote from Brigham Young taken out of context."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-70473573416778913282018-11-25T16:43:54.307-06:002018-11-25T16:43:54.307-06:00Yes, it’s really plagiarism if the author does not...Yes, it’s really plagiarism if the author does not attribute EVERY quote to the source. It’s also plagiarism if the author never indicates where the quote ends and his own words resume. As for your second question: Isaiah chapters 40-55 were written by Deutero-Isaiah during the Exile, which is after Nephi’s departure.<br /><br />— OKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-64208853771870105022018-11-25T16:20:00.100-06:002018-11-25T16:20:00.100-06:00Is it really plagiarism if the author directly say...Is it really plagiarism if the author directly says that they will be quoting from Isaiah?<br /><br />And what quotations from Isaiah were supposedly written after Nephi left Jerusalem?Ramernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-22877531941370256832018-11-25T10:50:59.285-06:002018-11-25T10:50:59.285-06:00Good point, Anon 7:06.
To what you say above, I w...Good point, Anon 7:06.<br /><br />To what you say above, I would add that Jeff's phrase "heavy and artful use of Isaiah" is a funny way of saying "massive plagiarism from Isaiah, including large portions written <i>after</i> Nephi left Jerusalem."<br /><br />LDS apologetics is simply ludicrous---an endless exercise in explaining away the obvious evidence of the Book of Mormon's 19th-century origins.<br /><br />-- OKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-18473309678021667352018-11-24T19:06:59.119-06:002018-11-24T19:06:59.119-06:00Classic Jeff. He bookends this statement:
“a clos...Classic Jeff. He bookends this statement:<br /><br />“a closer looks shows that the favorable treatment of David that Beshears demands is a characteristic of the ancient tribe of Judah in the southern Kingdom, and ancient Hebrews from the northern kingdom and its tribes, such as Lehi and his tribe of Joseph, could easily have held less favorable views of the fallen king and the security of his kingdom.”<br /><br />With these two (emphasis added by me):<br /><br />“I am increasingly touched by the way in which <i>subtle elements from ancient Judaism can be found in the Book of Mormon</i> in ways that don't fit the popular model of Joseph as a sponge.”<br /><br />“Those who look at the intricate and extensive references to the Exodus in the Book of Mormon and to its heavy and artful use of Isaiah <i>must recognize that the Book of Mormon shows strong affinity with ancient Jewish thinking</i>”<br /><br />He expects us to believe that the text is <i>strongly</i> Jewish when it fits his argument, but not so much when it doesn’t. This is a common inconsistency I find in much of Mormon apologetics—and not just relating to the idea of the BoM as a Jewish text. Mormon apologists tend to want to have their cake and eat it too. . .Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-86092587646989133942018-11-22T11:23:42.021-06:002018-11-22T11:23:42.021-06:00Meanwhile, the Church continues, in its own way, t...Meanwhile, the Church continues, in its own way, to reconcile itself to the reality that the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham are <i>not</i> translated from ancient originals. Consider <a href="https://ldsmag.com/reconciling-the-book-of-abraham-and-the-papyri/" rel="nofollow">this stunning passage</a> from <i>Meridian Magazine</i>:<br /><br /><i>As we get to know Joseph better, Robin [Jensen] notes that our previous understanding of the Prophet’s translation efforts may need to be upgraded: "There may be some correctives in the process." That is, our previous assumptions about how the Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham were "translated," may need to be revised.<br /><br />It is possible that Joseph Smith's "translations" involved more revelation and less traditional translating than previously suspected. If so, the relationship between the dictated texts might not strictly resemble the literal meanings of the engravings on the gold plates or the Egyptian hieroglyphics on the papyri. Joseph may not have even been aware of the discrepancies.<br /><br />Robin states unapologetically: "It could be that Joseph Smith assumed that he was translating from the papyri when he was not, in fact translating from the papyri." How could that be? After mentioning the 1838 account from Warren Parrish, who wrote that Joseph received "the translation of the Egyptian hieroglyphics ... by direct inspiration of Heaven," Robin further explains: "Joseph Smith received revelation for the text of the Book of Abraham. He may have through that revelation, made assumptions about where that text came from." And those assumptions may have attributed a greater connection between the revelation and the papyri than was justified.</i><br /><br />Thanks in large part to the maturing of its own approach to Church history --- as exemplified by the Joseph Smith Papers project --- the Church seems to realize that genuine, honest scholarship is not going to establish that the BoM and BoA are based on ancient originals. If anything it will bear out many of the claims of the skeptics. That's why the Church is moving away from "translation" in the traditional sense and toward a pure "revelation" model: because pure revelation is immune to scholarship. I suspect that the ultimate aim is to walk back every single claim to a position that cannot be falsified by secular scholarship.<br /><br />This shift might eventually eliminate the need for LDS apologetics as currently practiced, which to be honest would be a mercy for all concerned.<br /><br />Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!<br /><br />-- OKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-22387907646188925982018-11-21T17:30:48.297-06:002018-11-21T17:30:48.297-06:00Anon at 8:08 brought the goods. It's undeniabl...Anon at 8:08 brought the goods. It's undeniable that this monstrous idea has been taught as Mormon doctrine, and is still believed to be Mormon doctrine by many.<br />Here is a worthy experiment: write to your apostles. "Please answer a simple yes or no question: is polygamy required for the highest degree of the celestial kingdom?"<br />There is doctrinal confusion. There is conflicting teaching happening. Clarity needs to be found.<br />You know what, I think I will do this. What could it hurt?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-18986292736580126112018-11-20T06:58:57.310-06:002018-11-20T06:58:57.310-06:00With regards to official statements regarding poly...With regards to official statements regarding polygamy in heaven, the official answer today is the that divinely inspired leadership has no knowledge on the subject. But here we have random, anonymous, lay, internet apologist insisting they have received revelation on behalf of the church and the answer is that in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom polygamy is optional.<br /><br />Isn’t this modern form of revelation great, those with “divine” “authority” to give us answers say the answer is we do not know the answer. Awesome. Then almost as good as a rock in hat, anonymous, random, unofficial internet apologist tell us what the actual answer is at the moment. Modern Revelation!<br /><br />------<br /><br />“Latter-day Saints do not understand all of God’s purposes in instituting, through His prophets, the practice of plural marriage.”<br /><br />“The precise nature of these relationships in the next life is not known, and many family relationships will be sorted out in the life to come. Latter-day Saints are encouraged to trust in our wise Heavenly Father, who loves His children and does all things for their growth and salvation.”Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-15187851741720600962018-11-20T06:54:45.748-06:002018-11-20T06:54:45.748-06:00While the Bible is the word of God, many plain and...While the Bible is the word of God, many plain and precious things were removed from it. For example, while God did give Adam Eve as a help meet, thanks to modern revelation, we now know God also gave Adam Alice. Long ridicule as Mormon nonsense, modern science has proven a few men have an extra rib pair. That is right folks, 2 extra ribs, one on each side of the spine. So we see, what was once a weakness is now a strength.<br /><br />The above is a parody of how tiresome and absurd Mormon apologetics is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-66790399261227383652018-11-19T21:10:23.879-06:002018-11-19T21:10:23.879-06:00Jeff, I reject your circular logic and ridiculous ...Jeff, I reject your circular logic and ridiculous reasoning. You seem to think the solution to all the oddities in the book of Mormon can be explained away by strange and obscure notions that no right thinking person would consider reasonable. Mormon apologetics are DEAD! They spew nonsense and spread lies!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-60495914045592841812018-11-19T21:01:05.836-06:002018-11-19T21:01:05.836-06:00Yep, that is the point. Sometimes a restoration i...Yep, that is the point. Sometimes a restoration is more confusing than the thing it is restoring.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-29148733947766710142018-11-19T20:08:33.714-06:002018-11-19T20:08:33.714-06:00Nice dodge on the “highest degree” of the celestia...Nice dodge on the “highest degree” of the celestial kingdom. Yes, Ramer, many people, especially those who die before the age of eight or adulthood, will go to Mormon heaven and be polygamously married in Mormon heaven.<br /><br />And yes Ramer, we were the ones who originally pointed the seminary quote out to you, which is in its entirety below. Most clever is how the manual turns “Sometime teachers <b>repeat what they were taught</b>” with “Sometimes teachers <b>‘specualte’</b> ”. But like the manual says, there is no knowledge. Another clever dodge.<br /><br />More quotes below to continue playing your game, but the fact that many can play your game is the point, isn’t it?<br /><br />---------<br /><br /><i>Note: Avoid sensationalism and speculation when talking about plural marriage. Sometimes teachers speculate that plural marriage will be a requirement for all who enter the celestial kingdom. We have no knowledge that plural marriage will be a requirement for exaltation.</i><br /><br />https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-seminary-teacher-resource-manual/nauvoo-period/doctrine-and-covenants-132?lang=eng<br /><br />Doctrine and Covenants 132:<br /><br />"For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.... And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God."<br /><br />The "new and everlasting covenant" was understood by Joseph Smith's contemporaries to mean polygamy. <br /><br />Doctrine and Covenants 131:<br /><br />"In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; And if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase." <br /><br /><br />John Taylor:<br /><br />The voice of the Lord came to President Taylor saying - "My son John: You have asked me concerning the New and Everlasting Covenant and how far it is binding upon my people. Thus saith the Lord All commandments that I give must be obeyed by those calling themselves by my name unless they are revoked by me or by my authority and how can I revoke an everlasting covenant."<br /><br />Brigham Young:<br /><br />"The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them." <br /><br />Joseph F. Smith:<br /><br />"Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential, to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false. "Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-74179117520314230942018-11-19T19:04:00.959-06:002018-11-19T19:04:00.959-06:00"President Young said there would be men save..."President Young said there would be men saved in the Celestial Kingdom of God with one wife, with many wives, and with no wife at all."<br /><i>Wilford Woodruff, 1870</i><br /><br />"I am perfectly satisfied there are men who will be counted worthy of that [celestial] glory who never had a wife; there are men probably in this world now, who will receive exaltation, who never had a wife at all, or probably had but one."<br /><i>George Q. Cannon, 1884</i><br /><br />"...it is not stated that plural marriage is thus essential [for a fulness of celestial glory]."<br /><i>Charles W. Penrose, 1912</i><br /><br />"We have no knowledge that plural marriage will be a requirement for exaltation."<br /><i>D&C Seminary lesson manual, 2001</i><br /><br />"During the years that plural marriage was publicly taught, <b>not all Latter-day Saints were expected to live the principle,</b> though all were expected to accept it as a revelation from God."<br /><i>Gospel Topics essay, 2014</i><br /><br />There we go, several official statements.<br />Watch, though: Mormography is still going to act like these quotes "concede" his point.Ramernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-44113746576775050902018-11-19T16:13:19.862-06:002018-11-19T16:13:19.862-06:00So the Great Restoration produced mass confusion r...So the Great Restoration produced mass confusion resulting in many misconceptions, top among them being the misconception that it would reduce confusion, not increase it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-77838480699621324832018-11-19T14:37:40.381-06:002018-11-19T14:37:40.381-06:00The fact that there r no official statements, as u...The fact that there r no official statements, as u concede, proves it is not a misconception. Again, Isaiah 5:20. Your need to strap in is a complementAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-68899118117193494562018-11-19T13:32:29.526-06:002018-11-19T13:32:29.526-06:00...inability to find official lds statements expli...<i>...inability to find official lds statements explicitly stating...</i><br />Even if there WERE explicit official statements the critics and anti-Mormons wouldn't budge from their misconceptions.<br /><br /><i>defacto concession</i><br />Strap yourselves in, everyone, Mormography is here.Ramernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-80539924004322934932018-11-19T13:27:55.701-06:002018-11-19T13:27:55.701-06:00For the record, the supposed "requirement&quo...For the record, the supposed "requirement" for polygamy for exaltation comes from a quote from Brigham Young taken out of context.Ramernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-15376708296483975482018-11-19T12:36:47.932-06:002018-11-19T12:36:47.932-06:00It is not a gish gallop fallacy. After two decades...It is not a gish gallop fallacy. After two decades, mormon apologectics inability to find official lds statements explicitly stating that polygamy is not required in the highest degree of heaven is defacto concession. That reality does not make critics nasty, etc., Though it may make apoligist dishonest. The lds may make such a statement tomorrow, but critics would be w in the norms of this realm of discussion to point out that it is odd that such a statement took 150 years. Nor is it nasty for critics to claim that lay internet apologist r the ones now receiving "revelatatory" clarity church.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-59721674270146126912018-11-19T11:33:43.067-06:002018-11-19T11:33:43.067-06:00"There are reasonable responses to many other..."There are reasonable responses to many other objections and alleged anachronisms, which over time are becoming steadily fewer, with some of the most serious problems becoming strengths".<br /><br />Only in your head. Weakness become strengths by the sheer Fiat of your proclamation. Isaiah 5:20 warned of u.<br /><br />"Where is this requirement for polygamy"<br /><br />Everyone see what deceitful human being he has turned into? Where is this requirement to get married in the temple that drives members to far off lands?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com