A Very Limited Geography

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Simon Belmont

Re: A Very Limited Geography

Post by _Simon Belmont »

jon wrote:Okay, third and last time.
Can you articulate the structure Jesus set up and reference it against the appropriate scripture please?


Okay, second and last time.

THE NEW TESTAMENT.
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: A Very Limited Geography

Post by _Buffalo »

Simon Belmont wrote:
jon wrote:Okay, third and last time.
Can you articulate the structure Jesus set up and reference it against the appropriate scripture please?


Okay, second and last time.

THE NEW TESTAMENT.


Jesus wrote the new testament?
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_jon
_Emeritus
Posts: 1464
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:15 am

Re: A Very Limited Geography

Post by _jon »

Simon Belmont wrote:
jon wrote:Okay, third and last time.
Can you articulate the structure Jesus set up and reference it against the appropriate scripture please?


Okay, second and last time.

THE NEW TESTAMENT.


Just read it and I'm struggling to find the bit where Jesus sets up a Church structure. Please can you point me in the direction of the specific verses that you are obviously referring to...?
'Church pictures are not always accurate' (The Nehor May 4th 2011)

Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told.
Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.
_jon
_Emeritus
Posts: 1464
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:15 am

Re: A Very Limited Geography

Post by _jon »


Okay, second and last time.

THE NEW TESTAMENT.


Just read it and I'm struggling to find the bit where Jesus sets up a Church structure. Please can you point me in the direction of the specific verses that you are obviously referring to...?[/quote]

Anyone? Can anyone help Simon climb out of the hole he dug for himself? Anyone at all?
'Church pictures are not always accurate' (The Nehor May 4th 2011)

Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told.
Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.
_Simon Belmont

Re: A Very Limited Geography

Post by _Simon Belmont »

jon wrote:Anyone? Can anyone help Simon climb out of the hole he dug for himself? Anyone at all?



Wait . . . you "just read" the New Testament? Just now? LOL!

Jesus sets up a heirarchal structure of apostles

Matthew 10:1-4 wrote:1 And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus,whose surname was Thaddaeus;
4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.


Peter, James, and John become the presidency.

2 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.
_sock puppet
_Emeritus
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: A Very Limited Geography

Post by _sock puppet »

Simon Belmont wrote:
jon wrote:Anyone? Can anyone help Simon climb out of the hole he dug for himself? Anyone at all?



Wait . . . you "just read" the New Testament? Just now? LOL!

Jesus sets up a heirarchal structure of apostles

Matthew 10:1-4 wrote:1 And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus,whose surname was Thaddaeus;
4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
Wait ... you mean
Jesus has also given Monson, Eyring, Uchtdorf, Packer, Perry, Nelson, Oaks, Ballard, Scott, Hales, Bednar, Cook, Christofferson, and Andersen the 'power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease'? Why aren't they curing all manner of sickness and disease? To use the mopologists' overused exclamation phrase, why on earth would those men not be using that power to cure cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc.? Now I'm really pissed off at these so-called modern 'apostles'.
Simon Belmont wrote:Peter, James, and John become the presidency.
2 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.

So you believe that Jesus has taken with him Monson, Eyring, and Uchtdork and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves, to be transfigured before them? That's what it takes for Jesus to put you in the FP?

Well, I'll be. You learn something new everyday, don't you, Simon?
_stemelbow
_Emeritus
Posts: 5872
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: A Very Limited Geography

Post by _stemelbow »

Hey all,

I havne't had much of a chance to show up here very much as of late. Every time I attempt to catch myself up on this thread i get interrupted and am diverted from the discussion with my real life. Dang life.

Anyway, i'm not so sure I'm all that interested to continue here. It seems I've been a bit misunderstood by many of the respondents and that's probably my fault more than anything. I can't quite put my finger on the communication errrors so for the sake of getting too concerned about each point I, for brevity's sake, will draw a few concluding remarks. And, for the sake of clarity I might just be silly enough to respond to any additional responses that come my way.

It seems to me looking back and trying to provide classifications for certain groups of people (like the ancient Israelites) in the past seems like a much easier activity then being able to answer for the genetic make-up of certain people in the past, even those who can be considered part of an ancient group (like Lehi). Yet in all of this we simply cannot pinpoint the genetic make-up of Lehi and co, for starters.

On top of that, we can't be sure there were not smaller populations of "others" introduced into the western hemisphere, appreciably, engulfed by the majority, genetically.

On top of that, the debate regarding the origin of the native Americans, themselves, rages on, albeit there are many agreed upon ideas and concepts, which I've conceded do not fit well with the Book of Mormon story.

On top of that, the debate concerning the genetic make-up of ancient Israelites also rages on, even though there are significant headways in terms of assuming great hegemony among jewish peoples.

These things tend to suggest in my mind, the questions still remain. The issues aren't resolved. While I get from a critical perspective the issue doesn't look good for LDS, I maintain, as do many LDS experts in the field, that there is considerable room for questioning the criticisms. There is considerable room for debate among many conclusions and assumptions. I simply can't see this as the open and shut case as has been attempted to be presented here by critics. Thus, i commented.

Other than that, I simply don't think there is much reason to quibble about some of the issues that were highlighted and argued in this thread. I'm not the only one in over his head on this issue, albeit I don't think I'm necessarily in over my head talking about this issue with most who have commented here.

One last clarification. My participation in this thread was meant to be one of clear questioning the assumptions by critics. It was not meant to be a ploy by me to get other believers to manufacture more hope in the LDS cause. I wished to explore the issue for my own benefit.

Thanks.
Love ya tons,
Stem


I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
_Morley
_Emeritus
Posts: 3542
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: A Very Limited Geography

Post by _Morley »

Stem-- Thanks for the update. I appreciate your honesty and attempts at openness and understanding.

stemelbow wrote:
...I don't think I'm necessarily in over my head talking about this issue with most who have commented here.



However, given your arguments and their resulting conclusions--and assuming that you did, indeed, read all of the referenced work in the thread--I do respectfully disagree with your (above) statement.

Or perhaps the way you read the data is just influenced by your bias.

That opinion is, of course, my bias.

Take care.
_stemelbow
_Emeritus
Posts: 5872
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: A Very Limited Geography

Post by _stemelbow »

Morley wrote:Stem-- Thanks for the update. I appreciate your honesty and attempts at openness and understanding.


Wow, a nice comment. Thanks.

Sadly it seems only made to set up:

However, given your arguments and their resulting conclusions--and assuming that you did, indeed, read all of the referenced work in the thread--I do respectfully disagree with your (above) statement.

Or perhaps the way you read the data is just influenced by your bias.

That opinion is, of course, my bias.

Take care.


Kindness and generosity only goes so far around these parts. Take care.
Love ya tons,
Stem


I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
_sock puppet
_Emeritus
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: A Very Limited Geography

Post by _sock puppet »

stemelbow wrote:Hey all,

I havne't had much of a chance to show up here very much as of late. Every time I attempt to catch myself up on this thread i get interrupted and am diverted from the discussion with my real life. Dang life.

Anyway, i'm not so sure I'm all that interested to continue here. It seems I've been a bit misunderstood by many of the respondents and that's probably my fault more than anything. I can't quite put my finger on the communication errrors so for the sake of getting too concerned about each point I, for brevity's sake, will draw a few concluding remarks. And, for the sake of clarity I might just be silly enough to respond to any additional responses that come my way.

It seems to me looking back and trying to provide classifications for certain groups of people (like the ancient Israelites) in the past seems like a much easier activity then being able to answer for the genetic make-up of certain people in the past, even those who can be considered part of an ancient group (like Lehi). Yet in all of this we simply cannot pinpoint the genetic make-up of Lehi and co, for starters.

On top of that, we can't be sure there were not smaller populations of "others" introduced into the western hemisphere, appreciably, engulfed by the majority, genetically.

On top of that, the debate regarding the origin of the native Americans, themselves, rages on, albeit there are many agreed upon ideas and concepts, which I've conceded do not fit well with the Book of Mormon story.

On top of that, the debate concerning the genetic make-up of ancient Israelites also rages on, even though there are significant headways in terms of assuming great hegemony among jewish peoples.

These things tend to suggest in my mind, the questions still remain. The issues aren't resolved. While I get from a critical perspective the issue doesn't look good for LDS, I maintain, as do many LDS experts in the field, that there is considerable room for questioning the criticisms. There is considerable room for debate among many conclusions and assumptions. I simply can't see this as the open and shut case as has been attempted to be presented here by critics. Thus, i commented.

Other than that, I simply don't think there is much reason to quibble about some of the issues that were highlighted and argued in this thread. I'm not the only one in over his head on this issue, albeit I don't think I'm necessarily in over my head talking about this issue with most who have commented here.

One last clarification. My participation in this thread was meant to be one of clear questioning the assumptions by critics. It was not meant to be a ploy by me to get other believers to manufacture more hope in the LDS cause. I wished to explore the issue for my own benefit.

Thanks.

stem, would you be able to handle the DNA truth, whichever way it blows?

If so, then it would seem that you'd not just look to 'LDS experts in the field'. You'd look to the best qualified experts in the field that have no agenda--no dog in the hunt.

Any thing short of that is seeking either to confirm a bias or set up a strawman to knock down, also so you can confirm a bias.
Post Reply