ThomasK wrote:
Sir John the Apostate wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Your problem appears to be this Kent. You are not capable of seeing the big picture.

You are not capable of grasping the enormity of truth...in all it's forms.

You have never gotten past requiring the milk of the gospel...and have never developed a taste for the meat of the matter.

Perhaps one day you will grow out of this infantile stage, and perhaps then we can carry on a mature conversation.

But until you get over this phase...this is not possible.


Ahhh, there's the arrogance coming out of cliffy, the guy who doesn't believe 95% of the Gospel, but then lectures others (in his long winded diatribes) about how they don't know the gospel

I'll stick with the spirit, and the Prophets for my beliefs Jaye, but thanks.

If your belives are the more enlightened and mature, I wonder why the Prophets and most of the church disagree's with your beliefs? Telling.


belives



What's funny is, he mispelled when he got on JR's case for mispelling.

even funnier was that where he got on me about mis-spelling there were no mis-spellings in my posts,
this guy said that I had bad spelling and punctuation,
but that was not true, my spelling was correct just my punctuation was rotten

Dubbs wrote:
Uncle_Bud wrote:
[b * Contrary to the Bible prophecy concerning the Lord�s birth in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), and the fulfillment of that prophecy in Matthew 2:1, the Book of Mormon reads: �And behold, he (Jesus) shall be born of Mary at Jerusalem� (Alma 7:10, parenthetical comment and emp. added). The writer of the Book of Mormon was simply wrong.


Another silly arguement by the anti's.


In Alma's time, 500 years after Nephi arrived in the New World, details of the geography of Israel were long forgotten. We should not be surprised to see that the land of Jerusalem is referred to as the place of Christ's birth - an entirely accurate and useful description, given the meaning of the phrase - rather than the nearby village of Bethlehem, a virtual suburb of the city of Jerusalem, roughly 5 miles away.
On this point, critics have long argued that the Book of Mormon is false because "everybody knows that Christ was born in Bethlehem." Certainly Joseph Smith knew that - he was familiar with much of the Bible and had heard the story of Christ's birth numerous times. If he were making the Book of Mormon up, why on earth would he make such a terrible blunder, placing Christ's birth in Jerusalem? How could he make such a thoughtless and stupid blunder in the midst of an otherwise enormously clever fraud? The "blunder" makes no sense if Joseph Smith were the author - but it is not a blunder at all and makes perfect sense if he were only translating an authentic ancient document. The use of the term "land of Jerusalem" in Alma 7:10 and many other locations can now be viewed as powerful evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, based on recent discoveries about the use of that term in the ancient world. Joseph Smith could not possibly have made that up.

Biblical cities, like those of the Book of Mormon, controlled nearby land. Hence, we read of "the king of Ai, and his people, and his city, and his land" (Joshua 8:1) and of the city of Hebron, its suburbs, fields and villages (1 Chronicles 6:55-56). In the Bible, cities are sometimes called by the term "land." Tappuah is called a "land" in Joshua 17:8, but a "city" in Joshua 16:8. Jeremiah prophesied that Jerusalem would become "a land not inhabited" (Jeremiah 6:8; cf. 15:5-7). The Mesha or Moabite stela of the ninth century B.C. provides contemporary archaeological evidence for the interchange of "city" and "land." The text, reporting the rebellion of Mesha, king of Moab, against Israel, lists a number of "lands" which are known from the Bible to be cities. Internal evidence also implies that they are cities, since Mesha noted that he had "built" these lands. The reason that lands were named after their principal cities was that some cities controlled other nearby sites. In the account of the assignment of lands to the tribes under Joshua, we frequently read of "cities with their villages" (Joshua 13:23, 28; 15:32, 36, 41, 44, 46-47, 51, 54, 57, 59-60, 62; 16:9; 18:24, 28; 19:6-8, 15-16, 22, 30-31, 38-39, 48; 21:12). Sometimes the word "daughters" was used in the Hebrew text to mean "villages," in the sense of satellites (Exodus 21:25, 32; 2 Chronicles 28:18; Nehemiah 11:25, 27, 30-31). In some cases, a known city is named and is said to have other cities, towns or villages under its dominion. Thus, we read of "Heshbon and all her cities" (Joshua 13:17), "Ekron, with her towns and her villages" (Joshua 15:45), "Megiddo and her towns" (Joshua 17:11), and "Ashdod, with her towns and her villages" (Joshua 15:47). Jeremiah 34:1 speaks of "Jerusalem and . . . all the cities thereof." The use of the name Jerusalem to denote both a city and a land is followed, in the Bible, by references to Samaria, the capital city of the northern kingdom of Israel. Old Testament scriptures frequently extend the term Samaria to include surrounding regions or "the cities of Samaria" under the political control of the state (1 Kings 13:32; 2 Kings 17:24, 26; 23:19).

Clay tablets written in the fourteenth century B.C. and found in 1887 at el-Amarna in Egypt use the term "land" for Canaanite sites known to have been ancient cities. For example, one text (EA 289)speaks of the "town of Rubutu," while another mentions the "land of Rubutu" (EA 290). The first of these also speaks of "land of Shechem," and "the land of the town of Gath-carmel" (both ancient cities) and says of Jerusalem, "this land belongs to the king." A third text mentions the lands of Gezer, Ashkelon, and Jerusalem (EA 287).

But there is evidence that, even in the Old World, Bethlehem was considered to be part of the "land of Jerusalem." One of the Amarna texts (EA 290) speaks of "a town in the land of Jerusalem" named Bît-Lahmi, which is the Canaanite equivalent of the Hebrew name rendered Beth-lehem in English Bibles.

We conclude that Lehi's descendants in the New World followed authentic Old World custom in denominating each land by the principal city in the land. This kind of detail lends evidence to the authenticity and antiquity of the Book of Mormon text.

John Tvedtnes

Interesting to know, thanks for that post.

Betzz wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Betzz wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
live out their Golden years without such a burden of responsibility on their frail shoulders.

burden? Another little insight into Jaye's attitudes about the gospel.

So, guiding 12 million (or whatever the number is) church members to their exaltation and salvation is not a heavy responsibility or burden?

I doubt they look at it as a burden, responsiblity? Yes, burden, No.

I know I'm going back on my word to not attempt to educated your narrow little mind, but . . . please read #3. (eye roll & smirk!)

re·spon·si·bil·i·ty Audio Help /rɪ�sp�ns��bɪlɪti/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-spon-suh-bil-i-tee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
�noun, plural -ties.
1. the state or fact of being responsible.
2. an instance of being responsible: The responsibility for this mess is yours!
3. a particular burden of obligation upon one who is responsible: the responsibilities of authority.
4. a person or thing for which one is responsible: A child is a responsibility to its parents.
5. reliability or dependability, esp. in meeting debts or payments.



Illogical post, because Jaye is saying the calling is a burden, here's burdens definition...

bur·den
noun 1. that which is carried; load: a horse's burden of rider and pack.
2. that which is borne with difficulty; obligation; onus:

3 to load oppressively; trouble.


I doubt they look at it in this way, at least the one's I know personally do not, they love their lives, their callings. And think that's why they were chosen by God, because they love serving.

Betzz wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
[b]
But neither me, you, OR the Church can prove that God considers the Book of Mormon to be of higher import than the Bible...and that overrules individual belief.



And you can't prove that it thinks the bible is above any other.


But it says alot when they call one the "keystone" of our religion.

It says more when your apostles call the Bible the foundation of the latter day gospel. A keystone rests on the foundation. Capiche, Guiuseppe?

No, a Keystone rests in a doorway archway, a Cornerstone rests on the foundation dar dar.

A keystone can also mean "something on which associated things depend". We are talking philosophy here, not a building.


So the Book of Mormon is something we depend on for our doctrine, same diff, big whoop.

Dubbs are you going to write as Everybody Loves Raymond next "LOL"

Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
[b]
But neither me, you, OR the Church can prove that God considers the Book of Mormon to be of higher import than the Bible...and that overrules individual belief.



And you can't prove that it thinks the bible is above any other.


But it says alot when they call one the "keystone" of our religion.

It says more when your apostles call the Bible the foundation of the latter day gospel. A keystone rests on the foundation. Capiche, Guiuseppe?

No, a Keystone rests in a doorway archway, a Cornerstone rests on the foundation dar dar.

Nope, Gino, everything (cornerstone, keystone, your boots with you in them) rests on the foundation, the Bible. As Jaye has proven conclusively and without any refutation from you, you are out of step with the LDS leadership.

Get in step, podjo.


Wrong profesor dumby,

Keystone...
the wedge-shaped piece at the summit of an arch, regarded as holding the other pieces in place. Typically a doorway.