Dubbs wrote:
Uncle_Bud wrote:
[b Dear Mr. McAreavy:

Thank you for your letter of Au­gust 30th regarding temple ordinances for Adolph Hitler and Eva Braun.

We searched the International Genealogical Index TM Addendum and found no information listed for either. The enclosed printout is the closest we could find and you will note that birth dates are 1836 and 1838.

No additional information is available.

Sincerely,

Mae Dean Ashton
Team Leader
Photoduplication Unit




So the church sent a printout, something they don't claim they do, but this guy just happened to get one showing the ordinances?


Riiigggggghhht. When the churches policy is they don't do that, and the church said we don't show that it has been done.

This story is about is diluted and confused as Wren's lectures to his third graders.

The records are available, Dubbs. Go to your Family History Center and they will show you.

I counsel you to not talk about what you don't know, but then again you cancel your name here for the final time and not come back.

And you are good for the laughs and the education of how not to be a Mormon for the other LDS.

So please stay.

Dubbs wrote:
Uncle_Bud wrote:
[b] In October 1998, McAreavy was able to obtain copies of LDS temple ordinance records for Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun from Philip Roberts of the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention.


So this McAreavey, supposedly already got them from the family history center, now he get's them again from Mr. Roberts? Who is an anti Mormon obviously, and where did he get them? When the church doesn't hand them out?


So Mr. Mcareavy, already had them, so why did he get them again from Mr. Roberts?

As I said, I'm pretty good and sniffing out BS, and this one stinks to high heaven.

As long as you keep stuffing your head up your own butt, you will certainly sniff it out.

Dubbs wrote:
Uncle_Bud wrote:
[b] In October 1998, McAreavy was able to obtain copies of LDS temple ordinance records for Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun from Philip Roberts of the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention.


So this McAreavey, supposedly already got them from the family history center, now he get's them again from Mr. Roberts? Who is an anti Mormon obviously, and where did he get them? When the church doesn't hand them out?


So Mr. Mcareavy, already had them, so why did he get them again from Mr. Roberts?

As I said, I'm pretty good and sniffing out BS, and this one stinks to high heaven.


Boy Dubbs you sure did change this post

Now what the heck are you talking about Dubbs???

where did it say that Mr. McAreavy, already had them from the family history center???

I THINK YOU ARE SMELLING YOUR OWN BS DUBBS

Flip flop, flippety flop by Dubbs.

Wren wrote:
Flip flop, flippety flop by Dubbs.


Poor Dubbs he fails to realize that when one lives in a fish bowl he gets a distorted picture at best.

Dubbs wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
JLD wrote:
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.

what's even more interesting is that it is all conjecture, "LOL"

Boy some people are good they can make an excuse for anything "LOL"

Actually those are all facts from ancient writings, and the Bible, The Bible even uses the term "At Jeruselem" to refer to another city also.

Didn't know that did you bigdummy? Well of course you don't. Why would you, you were never a gospel scholar of any stretch of the imagination, you probally read the cartoon versions of the Bible stories, that's about it.

"LOL" NO Dubbs the key word is "AT" look it up, it means near or about stupid "LOL"
I find it funny you didn't know that,
I use to tell that to all the new missionaries when they would come over as a test...I was a stake missionary then

but it is still just an excuse..!!! "LOL"


First you say "AT" means near or about,(surprisingly you are correct) but then say the usage of it in the Book of Mormon is an excuse?

Your about as dumb as they come bro, seriously.


I guess the Bible is also wrong, because it uses the same "at" to describe and area also, so is that also an excuse? shakes head at the idiotic logic of big

No Dubbs it all depends on in what contexts you use the word at,
what Joseph wrote could be either way,
and in the end the you are just using it as an excuse....
you see the historical facts show that Joseph Smith was a con man a liar and a thief,
so there is more leaning towards that he just made a mistake, that can have a good excuse


How could it be a mistake if the same phrasing is used to describe city's in the Bible in the same fashion? Are they also a mistake?


Think dumby think.

were not talking about the bible Dubbs,
were talking about how the liar and con-man Joseph Smith used the word "at"....


Listen dumby, your simply not bright enough to argue this stuff, just stop.


Fact is, if the Bible and the Book of Mormon use Old World terminology in a similar fashion, to me that shows uniformity and shows Joseph didn't make it up, but Nephi was using language that was common in those days.


Funny thing you also won't get bigdummy, the church has changed 4000 spelling errors in the BofM, and a few other errors, you don't think they would have noticed this one and changed it if it was wrong? Fact is, it is lingistically accurate for the time, and they knew it. It points to Joseph translating, and makes it more authentic.

"LOL" now Dubbs admits the book of mormon had spelling errors, Dubbs not all of those 4000 errors were just spelling errors, what about the other errors Dubbs??
when are you goin to admit them???

Remember this Dubbs:
In 1841, Joseph Smith declared the Book of Mormon to be "the most correct of any book on earth,
and the keystone of our religion," and suggested that "a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book" (History of the Church, 4:461).

This certainly is an astounding claim.
Surely, a book that is the "most correct" on Earth would contain no mistakes
but as you just admitted this is not the case.

If the Book of Mormon was translated by the "power of God," it is reasonable to assume that it would be completely free from error.

but the original edition is filled with many
mistakes.

and again acording to the LDS Church history Joseph Smith could not have made any mistakes in the book of mormon:

Martin Harris, another of the three witnesses, wrote:
"The translation was just as it was engraven on
the plates precisely in the language then used" (The Myth of Manuscript Found, p. 71,).

He went on to state:
"The translation of the characters appeared on the Urim and Thummim, sentence by sentence, and as soon as one was correctly translated the next appeared" (p. 91,).

Joseph F.Smith, sixth president of the Mormon church, said:
"Some persons have thought that the Lord revealed to Joseph the ideas, and that Joseph conveyed those ideas into the English language. But this is not so.
The Lord gave not only the ideas but the language itself-the very words" (The Territorial Inquirer, March 2, 1881,).

Again, he explained:

Joseph did not render the writing on the gold plates into the English language in his own style of language as many people believe,
but every word and letter was given to him by the gift and power of God....
The Lord caused each word spelled as it is in the book to appear on the stones in short sentences
or words, and when Joseph had uttered the sentence or word before him and the scribe had written it properly, that sentence would disappear and another would appear. And if there was as a word wrongly written or even a letter incorrect, the writing on the stoned would remain there (Journal of Oliver Huntington,
Utah State Historical Society, p. 168,).

Now this is just too funny Dubbs that you would admit that there are mistakes in the book of mormon



I like you you lose one argument, have nothing else to say, so you move on to another topic, throwing crap against the wall to see what sticks.

Which argument did I lose????


Fact is, the Bible has more than 156,000 errors in it, it is still the word of God, (when translated correctly) When men are involved, mistakes happen, espeically when a guy with a 6th grade education is involved. Small and simple things will great things be accomplished. And it was. A miracle really.


errors?? "LOL"

Dubbs that's only to be expected in a set of texts written and collected over several thousand years.
In any other collection, errors and contradictions would be unremarkable.

Dubbs the Bible was written by approximately 40 different authors over a period of around 1500 years. Each writer wrote from a different perspective, to a different audience, for a different purpose in different languages.

But Dubbs you don't seem to grasp what the changes were in the Bible, almost all of the changes are spelling changes, punctuation changes, Changes in type face etc.

You see Dubbs, the Bible you buy off the shelf today is printed in the ROMAN TYPE FACE! The Bible of 1611 was printed in the GOTHIC TYPE FACE! There you have it, Dubbs. Changes in TYPE FACE there are a lot of your 150,000 "changes" also Dubbs in the bible of 1611 there are over 300 words that no longer mean what they did in 1611, more changes

here is the main thing Dubbs, that you don't mention, none of changes in the Bible affects any major doctrine what so ever...!!!


What you don't get is there are still many errors in the bible, I have posted them in the past, a partial list, so for you to say it's only changes from Roman to Gothic shows your paralegal eduction.

"LOL" what you don't get Dubbs is that the errors in the bible change none of the doctrine in it and that the changes are mostly type face changes and spelling and punctuation errors "LOL"

Dubbs what is paralegal eduction ???
How did I educe paralegal??

"OH WAIT" you ment Paralegal Education
boy that is some real good spelling Dubbs


Also Dubbs it is from Gothic to Roman type face not Roman to Gothic like you wrote "LOL" this and your spelling sure shows your education Dubbs...