For Maklelan: LDS beholden to biblical claims

[_JAK]

I'm not a Mormon and have never been to an LDS service, but it's always been my understanding that LDsism is not literalists and that they/it can discard anythng it wishes. There's that whole "as far as it's translated correctly" thing.

Which, imho, invites a whole new set of problems. All I have to do is make it seem reasonable that the universe was created in 6 days and that all the animals would fit on the ark. (insert smiley)

It’s not just LDS that can “discard anything it wishes.” Any religious individual can do exactly that. While the official United Methodist Church rejects any consumption of alcohol, The fact is that individual members of virtually any organized religion can re-invent the position of a religious organization and do as he/she pleases including UMC members.

Such people use any number of devices to do as they please regardless of some religious dogma in a religious organization to which they belong.

JAK

[_Simon Belmont]

God is angry with Balaam for going to Moab, knowing that he hopes for some reward from Balak. While on his way, Balaam learns the dangers of displeasing God when his donkey and an angel speak to him.
................
The Lord chastened Balaam through the angel and the donkey.

Does it specifically say the manner in which the donkey "spake?" No. Making normal donkey noises is speaking, for the donkey.

Me=1 DJ=0

Prophet Joseph Smith said of these creations: “I suppose John saw beings there of a thousand forms, that had been saved from ten thousand times ten thousand earths like this,—strange beasts of which we have no conception: all might be seen in heaven. The grand secret was to show John what there was in heaven” ( Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 291).

It could not be more clear that this is a supposition made by Joseph Smith. A guess. Once again, you fail at knowing what we teach and believe.

Me=2 DJ=0

“for we were on the Lord’s business, and had not mocked God’s prophet as did the forty-two wicked children who said to Elisha ‘Go up thou bald head,’ for which they were torn by bears [see 2 Kings 2:23–24].

I don't see the problem with this. That you do shows your malevolence toward the church.

Me=3 DJ=0

Elisha performed many great miracles, showing compassion for the people and giving further evidence that he was Elijah’s authorized successor. He parted the waters of Jordan, healed the waters of Jericho, multiplied a widow’s oil, raised a boy from the dead, healed people who had been poisoned, fed the hungry, healed Naaman’s leprosy, caused an ax to float, and guided kings in war.

Um... so? These are miracles. There are a bunch of them in the Bible. You should read about them sometime. I've made an ax float, too. It was a plastic Halloween ax, but an ax nonetheless.

Me=4 DJ=0

“Are we to reject it as being an impossibility and say that the Lord could not prepare a fish, or whale, to swallow Jonah? . . . Surely the Lord sits in the heavens and laughs at the wisdom of the scoffer, and then on a sudden answers his folly by a repetition of the miracle in dispute, or by the presentation of one still greater. . . .

“I believe, as did Mr. William J. Bryan, the story of Jonah. My chief reason for so believing is not in the fact that it is recorded in the Bible, or that the incident has been duplicated in our day, but in the fact that Jesus Christ, our Lord, believed it. The Jews sought him for a sign of his divinity. He gave them one, but not what they expected. The scoffers of his day, notwithstanding his mighty works, were incapable, because of sin, of believing.

“‘He answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the Prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.’” ( Doctrines of Salvation, 2:314–15.)

Of course it's within the realm of possibility. Who ever said it wasn't? Sea creatures have eaten Human flesh in recorded history, and some whales are definitely large enough for such a feat. It doesn't mean it definitely happened or definitely didn't happen. Joseph F. Smith believed it happened, and it's entirely possible. So what?

Me=5 DJ=0

Wow, you really suck at this.

And, by the way, I am not autistic.

[_sock puppet]

Simon,

Want to go for another point in your tally?

Here is the other part of one of Darth J's quotes, under the title Doctrine and Covenants 77:2–3—What Do We Know about the Beasts That John Saw? in Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Student Study Guide

At another time he said: “The four beasts were four of the most noble animals that had filled the measure of their creation, and had been saved from other worlds, because they were perfect: they were like angels in their sphere. We are not told where they came from, and I do not know; but they were seen and heard by John praising and glorifying God” (History of the Church, 5:343–44). Certainly this revelation opens our eyes to a universe much more complex and grand than we often suppose.

Was that also just JSJr supposing/guessing?

Was that the correlation committee just supposing/guessing?

[_Simon Belmont]

Too easy, Sock.

You're not reading the quote: the key phrase is this: "We are not told where they came from, and I do not know"

Which is exactly right, we do not know. Anything else is speculation or personal opinion.

[_sock puppet]

Too easy, Sock.

You're not reading the quote: the key phrase is this: "We are not told where they came from, and I do not know"

Which is exactly right, we do not know. Anything else is speculation or personal opinion.

No, but it is declared by JSJr in this quote that John the Revelator saw the beasts, they were not merely symbolic. JSJr declared this, not merely supposed it, which was the wiggle you tried on the Teachings' quote. As for where the beasts come from--brothers from another planet--illustrates just how furtive of an imagination JSJr had. An imagination that could, say, conjure up a mere ancient civilization of Jews having transplanted from Jerusalem to the Americas?

[_Simon Belmont]

No, but it is declared by JSJr in this quote that John the Revelator saw the beasts, they were not merely symbolic. JSJr declared this, not merely supposed it, which was the wiggle you tried on the Teachings' quote. As for where the beasts come from--brothers from another planet--illustrates just how furtive of an imagination JSJr had. An imagination that could, say, conjure up a mere ancient civilization of Jews having transplanted from Jerusalem to the Americas?

He didn't have to imagine it, though. The Bible talks about the beasts.

I'm sure he had an imagination: so do you. So do I. I don't think that proves anything.

[_Dad of a Mormon]

I doubt any LDS, including LDS leadership, would be willing to endorse this:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html

WE AFFIRM that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration.

Of course, the originals don't exist and therefore, when faced with an intractable contradiction in the Bible, inerrantists can use this fact for whatever wiggle room they think is necessary to explain the "Bible difficulty".

For an inerrantist to complain that the Mormon only affirms the Bible to be true "as far as it is translated correctly" and yet still use the fact that we don't have the originals as an escape hatch for any difficulties they can't explain seems rather hypocritical to me.

[_brade]

Does it specifically say the manner in which the donkey "spake?" No. Making normal donkey noises is speaking, for the donkey.

Right, so that happened. We just don't know whether that donkey made ordinary donkey noises or used human language. Either way, that donkey spoke.

It could not be more clear that this is a supposition made by Joseph Smith. A guess. Once again, you fail at knowing what we teach and believe.

Nonetheless, John saw actual lifeforms from somewhere. What's written in Revelations isn't merely metaphor.

I don't see the problem with this. That you do shows your malevolence toward the church.

It was right of God to cause the mauling of 42 people for making fun of somebody.

Um... so? These are miracles. There are a bunch of them in the Bible. You should read about them sometime. I've made an ax float, too. It was a plastic Halloween ax, but an ax nonetheless.

Right, so those things happened.

Of course it's within the realm of possibility. Who ever said it wasn't? Sea creatures have eaten Human flesh in recorded history, and some whales are definitely large enough for such a feat. It doesn't mean it definitely happened or definitely didn't happen. Joseph F. Smith believed it happened, and it's entirely possible.

To borrow part of an amusing story from Peter Unger, in terms of mere possibility, it's also possible that at the next session of General Conference Thomas Monson's body opens up and he's found to be stuffed with fried shrimps, even unto the inner reaches of his thighs.

[_Buffalo]

I think one thing that is clear is, like almost all Mopolgists and internet Mormons, Maklelan is a heretic. How ironic that one has to resort to heresy to stand up for the Church.

her·e·tic

1. a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church.

Internet apologetics is all about heresy in the service of defending the end truth value of the church.

[_Chap]

God is angry with Balaam for going to Moab, knowing that he hopes for some reward from Balak. While on his way, Balaam learns the dangers of displeasing God when his donkey and an angel speak to him.
................
The Lord chastened Balaam through the angel and the donkey.

Does it specifically say the manner in which the donkey "spake?" No. Making normal donkey noises is speaking, for the donkey.

Numbers 22, KJV:

22And God's anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him. 23And the ass saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and the ass turned aside out of the way, and went into the field: and Balaam smote the ass, to turn her into the way. 24But the angel of the LORD stood in a path of the vineyards, a wall being on this side, and a wall on that side. 25And when the ass saw the angel of the LORD, she thrust herself unto the wall, and crushed Balaam's foot against the wall: and he smote her again. 26And the angel of the LORD went further, and stood in a narrow place, where was no way to turn either to the right hand or to the left. 27And when the ass saw the angel of the LORD, she fell down under Balaam: and Balaam's anger was kindled, and he smote the ass with a staff. 28And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times? 29And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee. 30And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? And he said, Nay.

Does Belmont ever engage brain before typing? Enough maybe to read the relevant Bible passage before opining on what it said? The story clearly tells us that the animal had a conversation with Balaam in normal human language, because the Lord had miraculously "opened the mouth of the ass".

Sometimes I have the sense that an old atheist like me knows the Bible a damn sight better than all these people who profess to think that it is the word of their deity.