Announcement

Collapse

LDS - Mormonism Guidelines

Theists only.

Look! It's a bird, no it's a plane, no it's a bicycle built for two!

This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to the LDS - Mormons. This forum is generally for theists only, and is generaly not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theists may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.

Due to the sensitive nature of the LDS Temple Ceremonies to our LDS posters, we do not allow posting exact text of the temple rituals, articles describing older versions of the ceremony, or links that provide the same information. However discussion of generalities of the ceremony are not off limits. If in doubt, PM the area mod or an Admin


Non-theists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Where is the archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • seven7up
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    Um, that isn't cement. That is basically adobe bricks. Clay and straw. Not even close to cement.
    The 19th Century definition of "cement" was not as technical, and was something more like: "any substance applied in a soft or glutinous state to the surfaces of solid bodies to make them cohere firmly". (Oxford English Dictionary)

    -7up

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill the Cat
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    Mammuthus exilis lived on the channel islands of California. They were only small BECAUSE of their isolated location.

    Not to mention that according to the book of Mormon, the Nephites didn't come to America until 600BC. That's 1,100 years AFTER the Mammuthus exilis would be extinct according to your date above. That doesn't help your case at all.
    Elephants are only mentioned in Ether, as being domesticated by the Jaredites, so it wouldn't apply to the Nephites.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill the Cat
    replied
    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    7up: Brush burns quite well, but is not good for building houses or other structures. There is plenty of brush available, even in desert-like regions.



    Who told you that bushes don't burn hot?
    My fireman friend's fire chief.


    If they did not have large timbers of good enough quality for construction, all they would need to do is find materials that burn well. Even in the high desert where I live, the bushes that grow everywhere have a six inch thick trunk, but they grow low and don't grow straight, and would be terrible timber for construction purposes.
    Here is how the Mayans used the wood to make cement:



    http://www.theoldexplorer.com/index....hnology/cement

    If you lack sufficient wood to make this 4 meter high kiln, you can't melt the limestone. Bushes are insufficient.

    Yeah, and some guy just throws some stuff together in his back yard to make "survival cement".

    http://www.practicalprimitive.com/sk...valcement.html
    Sorry, but that's clay and straw adobe.

    You cannot assume that all groups in ancient Americas were making cement in the same way. Or that even all of the Mayans made it the same way.
    Sorry, but your claim (and the BOM's) is that they had cement buildings, and then your evidence was limestone filler cement from the Mayans, not clay adobe bricks. Now, you are shifting the claim once you have been thoroughly refuted on your misused evidence (Or should I say FAIR's misuse).

    7up: Just because two people had "noted" it, does not mean that the information was readily available to all learned people. It's not like they could "google it" Bill.



    What percentage of people in the late 1800s or early 1900s do you think actually sat down and read that book? How many were there in circulation?
    Source: amazon.com

    Stephens's book, first published in two volumes in 1841, has been abridged by Karl Ackerman, a freelance writer. Stephens made his journey in 1839-40, accompanied by an artist, Frederick Catherwood, who made detailed drawings of the Mayan ruins. The book was extremely popular upon publication;
    - George M. Jenks, Bucknell Univ., Lewisburg, Pa

    © Copyright Original Source



    Again, any "learned doctor" worth their salt would have known of this book. Not that I buy Grant's fable anyway...

    LDS critic John L. Smith, even in the 1980s gave this claim, "There is zero archaeological evidence that any kind of cement existed in the Americas prior to modern times" (John L. Smith, "What about those Gold Plates?" The Utah Evangel 33:6 (September 1986): 8.)
    First off, you stole this citation. It's been reported. Second, John L. Smith was a Baptist preacher, not a mesoamerican archaeologist. He had no formal training in any archgaeological field. Third, I can find no online copy of The Utah Evangel to even verify the validity of this quote, or the context.

    7up: It is you who ignorant of the extent in which cement was used. Not even just as "binding material", which obviously is still valid, but David S. Hyman even notes whole "slabs" of cement flooring that were discovered.



    If you are saying that making concrete slabs does not count as a use of cement, then you are being absolutely unreasonable.
    I am saying that cement was used to bind the aggregate rock together to form concrete. They were made of aggregate bound together by hydraulic cement. It would be like building a wall today with wood and drywall, but saying the wall was made of nails. But again, the slabs were not "made of cement" any more than a wall today is made of insulation or nails.

    Yes, they were using cement to fill pore spaces and as a binding material (Can you think of ANY kind of use for cement that is not in some way considered as "binding"? That is the entire point of any kind of "cement").
    Exactly. But the Book of Mormon to say that the house was "made of cement", which is not how cement was used by the Mayans.

    They were using the cement to make concrete slabs. They obviously they had many uses for the cement.
    It was used to bind rock together for added strength and weather resistance. It was never used by itself as a building material, as the Book of Mormon claims.

    7up: As time moves forward, more discoveries will be revealed, and you will remain in denial.


    That has not been the trend. The trend is that these old criticisms become less and less valid.
    The trend is that no archaeologist holds the Book of Mormon as an archaeological text except the ones that are Mormons. And even then, the Mormon ones are beginning to abandon the historicity of the BOM. Even FARMS admits "The truth of the Book of Mormon is spiritual"

    It was only a few years ago that scientists had to readjust the date for "elephants" in the Americas, again much later than previously thought. One specimen found was a stegomastadon, found in the Madalena river valley in Colombia and dated to about 4000BC. This kind of creature stood about (9-10 ft) tall and looked like a "robust" version of the modern elephant. It weighed about 6 and a half tons. Like modern elephants, it had only two tusks.

    A smaller kind of mammoth species, Mammuthus exilis, has been dated to live as late as 1700 BC.
    None of these lend credence to the existence of the Book of Mormon people.


    Again, as there are more discoveries, I am confident that there will be more and more evidence for this "anachronism" as well. The animals have to be in special conditions in order to be preserved, and that is difficult in tropical and temperate climates, however, more discoveries demonstrate the trend of more and more validation of Joseph Smith's claims.
    No. All they validate is that these animals existed at one point on this continent. They do not validate any domestication of them. Nor do they validate the existence of any of the 3 people groups of the Book of Mormon.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Mammuthus exilis lived on the channel islands of California. They were only small BECAUSE of their isolated location.

    Not to mention that according to the book of Mormon, the Nephites didn't come to America until 600BC. That's 1,100 years AFTER the Mammuthus exilis would be extinct according to your date above. That doesn't help your case at all.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    [I]



    Yeah, and some guy just throws some stuff together in his back yard to make "survival cement".

    http://www.practicalprimitive.com/sk...valcement.html
    Um, that isn't cement. That is basically adobe bricks. Clay and straw. Not even close to cement.

    Leave a comment:


  • seven7up
    replied
    7up: Brush burns quite well, but is not good for building houses or other structures. There is plenty of brush available, even in desert-like regions.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    But does not provide sufficient heat to make cement.
    Who told you that bushes don't burn hot?

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Anyone who has tried to burn brush knows that trying to keep brush anywhere near hot requires constant attention, ...
    If they did not have large timbers of good enough quality for construction, all they would need to do is find materials that burn well. Even in the high desert where I live, the bushes that grow everywhere have a six inch thick trunk, but they grow low and don't grow straight, and would be terrible timber for construction purposes.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    The Maya used limestone as the raw material and produced a thermodynamic reactor using a self-consuming timber assembly, similar to a blast furnace which elevated the temperatures of the timber fuel to 1600 degrees C.

    http://blog.world-mysteries.com/scie...on-discovered/
    Yeah, and some guy just throws some stuff together in his back yard to make "survival cement".

    http://www.practicalprimitive.com/sk...valcement.html

    You cannot assume that all groups in ancient Americas were making cement in the same way. Or that even all of the Mayans made it the same way.

    7up: Just because two people had "noted" it, does not mean that the information was readily available to all learned people. It's not like they could "google it" Bill.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    That's just plain stupid. Anyone with a passing knowledge of the Mayans knew of their book.
    What percentage of people in the late 1800s or early 1900s do you think actually sat down and read that book? How many were there in circulation?

    LDS critic John L. Smith, even in the 1980s gave this claim, "There is zero archaeological evidence that any kind of cement existed in the Americas prior to modern times" (John L. Smith, "What about those Gold Plates?" The Utah Evangel 33:6 (September 1986): 8.)

    7up: It is you who ignorant of the extent in which cement was used. Not even just as "binding material", which obviously is still valid, but David S. Hyman even notes whole "slabs" of cement flooring that were discovered.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Those were CONCRETE slabs he mentioned in his book, not cement (see sample J-2 from page 4-13 for example). The mentions of cement were in relation to filling "pore spaces" in limestone and rock structures.
    If you are saying that making concrete slabs does not count as a use of cement, then you are being absolutely unreasonable. Yes, they were using cement to fill pore spaces and as a binding material (Can you think of ANY kind of use for cement that is not in some way considered as "binding"? That is the entire point of any kind of "cement"). They were using the cement to make concrete slabs. They obviously they had many uses for the cement.

    7up: As time moves forward, more discoveries will be revealed, and you will remain in denial.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Sorry, but no. The more time goes, and the more we learn about the Mayans, the more we come to realize that there was no imaginary "Nephite" civilization in the Mayan back yard.
    That has not been the trend. The trend is that these old criticisms become less and less valid.

    It was only a few years ago that scientists had to readjust the date for "elephants" in the Americas, again much later than previously thought. One specimen found was a stegomastadon, found in the Madalena river valley in Colombia and dated to about 4000BC. This kind of creature stood about (9-10 ft) tall and looked like a "robust" version of the modern elephant. It weighed about 6 and a half tons. Like modern elephants, it had only two tusks.

    A smaller kind of mammoth species, Mammuthus exilis, has been dated to live as late as 1700 BC.

    Again, as there are more discoveries, I am confident that there will be more and more evidence for this "anachronism" as well. The animals have to be in special conditions in order to be preserved, and that is difficult in tropical and temperate climates, however, more discoveries demonstrate the trend of more and more validation of Joseph Smith's claims.

    7up: And proud of it.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Then don't act like you aren't heavily invested.
    I am heavily invested because of my personal relationship with God. Not because of archeology.

    -7up

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill the Cat
    replied
    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    Brush burns quite well, but is not good for building houses or other structures. There is plenty of brush available, even in desert-like regions.
    But does not provide sufficient heat to make cement. Anyone who has tried to burn brush knows that trying to keep brush anywhere near hot requires constant attention, and produces high volumes of half-burned wood that will not reignite. Brush is simply not able to be used in the Mayan cement production.

    The Maya used limestone as the raw material and produced a thermodynamic reactor using a self-consuming timber assembly, similar to a blast furnace which elevated the temperatures of the timber fuel to 1600 degrees C.

    http://blog.world-mysteries.com/scie...on-discovered/


    Just because two people had "noted" it, does not mean that the information was readily available to all learned people. It's not like they could "google it" Bill.
    That's just plain stupid. Anyone with a passing knowledge of the Mayans knew of their book.

    Source: http://www.planeta.com/ecotravel/mexico/yucatan/tales/0502explorer.html


    Shortly after their return to the States in 1842, the Caste War of the Yucatán broke out, closing the Yucatán's borders to foreigners for nearly 60 years. But the writings and renderings of these two men stoked the imaginations of countless minds on two continents, as the world clamored to know more about this then unknown, advanced civilization. Their tale, this incident of travel in Yucatán, kept the world hanging on for half a century until the next installment would come on the mysterious Maya, by yet another explorer of the Yucatán.

    © Copyright Original Source



    Even nowadays when people CAN "google it", supposedly learned people still make outdated criticisms of the Book of Mormon.
    And supposed Mormon "apologists" still cherry pick historical data for anything that they can shoe horn into the fictional Book of Mormon.


    Typical hypocritical statement from an Evangelical.
    Ah, the tu quoque...

    Are you against home schooling by Christian mothers? Or is that just a way that protestants can "indoctrinate" innocent minds?



    That's right Bill. Foolish critics of the LDS faith continue to make accusations against Mormons, even after those accusations are proven false by academia.
    Again, Grant claimed a supposed "learned man" without naming him. That's pure cowardice at the least and more likely an outright lie, just like Joseph Smith and the supposed "learned Jew" he "bested". It's a joke.

    You find yourself among these fools.
    Sorry, but I think you have you and me confused. Anyone who knew anything about the Mayans would have known about Stephens' and Catherwood's book.

    7up wrote: Good one Bill. I guess you "got me" there.



    Of course I know what was being said.
    No you don't. You stole this citation from someone else with no attribution. And I told you how Hyman mentioned cement in the work you gave.

    It is you who ignorant of the extent in which cement was used. Not even just as "binding material", which obviously is still valid, but David S. Hyman even notes whole "slabs" of cement flooring that were discovered.
    Those were CONCRETE slabs he mentioned in his book, not cement (see sample J-2 from page 4-13 for example). The mentions of cement were in relation to filling "pore spaces" in limestone and rock structures. So, no you do NOT know what you are talking about. You are just stealing "evidences" from other places without even doing any research for yourself.

    As time moves forward, more discoveries will be revealed, and you will remain in denial.
    Sorry, but no. The more time goes, and the more we learn about the Mayans, the more we come to realize that there was no imaginary "Nephite" civilization in the Mayan back yard.

    7UP: It was annoying to see a forum under "World Religions - LDS Mormonism" where a bunch of non Mormons sit here and mock our religion , in utter ignorance and hypocrisy concerning their own issues of faith.



    And there are certain forum members who would rather spend their time here, attempting to mock LDS while their own foundation shakes out from underneath them.
    Like who? Who do you think has a crumbling foundation? All I see is you trying desperately to defend the un-defendable fiction of the Book of Mormon while every doctrine we are discussing against you is resoundingly in our favor.


    And proud of it.

    -7up
    Then don't act like you aren't heavily invested.

    Leave a comment:


  • seven7up
    replied
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    The volume of flamable material available had to be tremendous to make as much cement as needed to build houses completely out of cement.
    Brush burns quite well, but is not good for building houses or other structures. There is plenty of brush available, even in desert-like regions.



    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Of course. Your point was that some Mormon leader claimed that some "learned man" (unidentified to be sure) in the late 1800s was making fun of him for the BOM claim of cement existed in MesoAmerica . The funny thing is that before Heber Grant was even born, John Lloyd Stephens and Frederick Catherwood had already noted the cement in the temple complexes of Copan and Palenque in Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan. If this unidentified "doctor" was worth the paper his PhD was written on, he would have known that cement was found in mesoamerica with the first organized visit decades before this supposed event.
    Just because two people had "noted" it, does not mean that the information was readily available to all learned people. It's not like they could "google it" Bill.

    Even nowadays when people CAN "google it", supposedly learned people still make outdated criticisms of the Book of Mormon.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    He had his mother teaching him everything.
    Typical hypocritical statement from an Evangelical. Are you against home schooling by Christian mothers? Or is that just a way that protestants can "indoctrinate" innocent minds?

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    "years later"??? It was well known in academia WELL before Grant was even born. So, Grant was yet another blubbering Mormon fool who claims that he bested a "learned man".
    That's right Bill. Foolish critics of the LDS faith continue to make accusations against Mormons, even after those accusations are proven false by academia. You find yourself among these fools.

    7up wrote: Good one Bill. I guess you "got me" there.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Yet, you plagiarized this citation without understanding what was even being said yet again.
    Of course I know what was being said. It is you who ignorant of the extent in which cement was used. Not even just as "binding material", which obviously is still valid, but David S. Hyman even notes whole "slabs" of cement flooring that were discovered. As time moves forward, more discoveries will be revealed, and you will remain in denial.

    7UP: It was annoying to see a forum under "World Religions - LDS Mormonism" where a bunch of non Mormons sit here and mock our religion , in utter ignorance and hypocrisy concerning their own issues of faith.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    If you think that is the case, then you are a bigger moron than I assumed. We have at least a DOZEN areas here where we discuss matters of our faith.
    And there are certain forum members who would rather spend their time here, attempting to mock LDS while their own foundation shakes out from underneath them.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Regardless of WHEN it happened, you are Mormon first and foremost before anything else in your life.
    And proud of it.

    -7up

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill the Cat
    replied
    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    they did enable the people in the land northward that they might build many cities, both of wood and of cement. (Helaman 3:11)




    Jeff Lindsay: "...making cement does not require high-quality timber suitable for making buildings, but merely material that can burn. There can be a shortage of high-quality trees yet plenty of flammable material that can support cement making.



    It is true that anything that can burn can be used for making cement. That is not speculation. It was debunking your assertion above, because it was an issue of having (or not having) quality timber suitable for construction.
    The volume of flamable material available had to be tremendous to make as much cement as needed to build houses completely out of cement.

    7UP : Are you going to deny that cement existed in the Americas?



    So, then maybe you can grasp the point being made here.
    Of course. Your point was that some Mormon leader claimed that some "learned man" (unidentified to be sure) in the late 1800s was making fun of him for the BOM claim of cement existed in MesoAmerica . The funny thing is that before Heber Grant was even born, John Lloyd Stephens and Frederick Catherwood had already noted the cement in the temple complexes of Copan and Palenque in Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan. If this unidentified "doctor" was worth the paper his PhD was written on, he would have known that cement was found in mesoamerica with the first organized visit decades before this supposed event.

    Yet Grant's testimony was not shaken, because he had a spiritual witness of the truth.
    He had his mother teaching him everything.

    Then, years later, it turns out that ancient people on the American continents DID use cement.

    - David S. Hyman, A Study of the Calcareous Cements in Prehispanic Mesoamerican Building Construction (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1970), ii, sec. 6, p. 7.
    "years later"??? It was well known in academia WELL before Grant was even born. So, Grant was yet another blubbering Mormon fool who claims that he bested a "learned man".


    Good one Bill.

    I guess you "got me" there.
    Yet, you plagiarized this citation without understanding what was even being said yet again.


    It was annoying to see a forum under "World Religions - LDS Mormonism" where a bunch of non Mormons sit here and mock our religion , in utter ignorance and hypocrisy concerning their own issues of faith.
    If you think that is the case, then you are a bigger moron than I assumed. We have at least a DOZEN areas here where we discuss matters of our faith.

    So yes, here I am.

    -7up
    So, don't act like you aren't heavily invested in your strong delusion. Regardless of WHEN it happened, you are Mormon first and foremost before anything else in your life.
    Last edited by Bill the Cat; 06-16-2014, 01:41 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    From above, it was the "Bank Scandal" and more than anything else the "revelation to destroy Emma" that convinced you. Not the Spirit of God. You contradict yourself.
    Nope, I had been praying about the whole thing... I asked God to show me if the Book of Mormon was true or not. It was the "God's gonna destroy Emma" lie that the Spirit used to show me 100% that the BoM is false.

    It looks like you read some anti-mormonism material,
    Yes, it's called the Book of Mormon. And LDS.org. And FairMormon.org.

    and then you bought into it.
    No, I rejected it for the steaming pile of horsie poo it is.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    You miss the point.
    Nope. You do.

    Jesus said, "Blessed are they who do not see, yet will believe".

    -7up
    Well, yeah, but he wasn't talking about Joseph Smith - that's for SURE!

    Leave a comment:


  • seven7up
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    I just got back from Israel. I touched the Western Wall. I heard Jews who do not believe that Jesus was Messiah explaining where he walked and how he lived. I visited cities where Jesus ministered. I waded in the Jordan River where Jesus was baptized.

    I didn't NEED that to know that Christ was who He said He was, but it sure was nice being able to see ACTUAL THINGS that spoke of Jesus' existence and to visit places where Jesus actually walked.

    You miss the point.

    Even knowing that Jesus existed is not the same as believing that Jesus was Deity. The Jews who did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah demonstrated that.

    It is revelation from God that brings us the truth. That is what I refer to when I referenced against "trust in the arm of the flesh", because we depend on God for all things. Including God being a source for truth, rather than leaning on man's understanding. That was also my point in bringing up President Grant's story.

    The same goes for those who mock the historicity of events in the Biblical text, whether it be Noah's flood, Jonah and the fish, Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, the Exodus, etc.

    Christians have the same kinds of discussions with Atheists/Agnostics. I know because I have done it.

    Jesus said, "Blessed are they who do not see, yet will believe".

    -7up

    Leave a comment:


  • seven7up
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    I used to be a little embarrassed when my friends here would outright call Mormonism a "cult", and Smith a "fraud".

    It was, finally, Smith's GOOFY "revelation" that God would destroy his otherwise faithful wife if she didn't go along with his polygamy scam that finally did it.

    ...

    I was willing to consider my "religion" was wrong, and BoM was true. The Holy Spirit of the Living God convinced me otherwise.

    From above, it was the "Bank Scandal" and more than anything else the "revelation to destroy Emma" that convinced you. Not the Spirit of God. You contradict yourself.

    It looks like you read some anti-mormonism material, and then you bought into it.

    -7up

    Leave a comment:


  • seven7up
    replied
    they did enable the people in the land northward that they might build many cities, both of wood and of cement. (Helaman 3:11)


    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Cement is able to be made because you have a lot of wood. If you don't have a lot of wood, you can't make cement, period. Yet the fictional "Helaman" said they made cement because they had little wood.
    Jeff Lindsay: "...making cement does not require high-quality timber suitable for making buildings, but merely material that can burn. There can be a shortage of high-quality trees yet plenty of flammable material that can support cement making.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Jeff is merely speculating here with no evidence ...
    It is true that anything that can burn can be used for making cement. That is not speculation. It was debunking your assertion above, because it was an issue of having (or not having) quality timber suitable for construction.

    7UP : Are you going to deny that cement existed in the Americas?

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Of course not. It was used, as I stated, as binding material
    So, then maybe you can grasp the point being made here.

    President Grant, as a young man, was being mocked by a "learned man" who claimed that ancient people on the American continents knew nothing about cement. Yet Grant's testimony was not shaken, because he had a spiritual witness of the truth.

    Then, years later, it turns out that ancient people on the American continents DID use cement.

    - David S. Hyman, A Study of the Calcareous Cements in Prehispanic Mesoamerican Building Construction (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1970), ii, sec. 6, p. 7.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Which states the cement was used as "binding mortar" for the actual building material, as he references the sample taken from the "Quetzalbutterfly" Temple. Hyman makes no claim that the structure is made of cement.
    Good one Bill.

    I guess you "got me" there.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Yet here you are here defending Mormonism against any and all comers.
    It was annoying to see a forum under "World Religions - LDS Mormonism" where a bunch of non Mormons sit here and mock our religion , in utter ignorance and hypocrisy concerning their own issues of faith.

    So yes, here I am.

    -7up

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    You are unwilling to humble yourself to God and consider the possibility that your religious views may be wrong.

    -7up
    I was totally willing to consider that Mormonism was true when I was in my late teens, early 20's.
    Even visited the Temple at Kirtland. (Which, subsequently, I learned was the home of the Bank Scandal Smith foisted on his own trusting people)
    I spent "Family Home Evenings" with a Mormon family.
    I was given a BoM, and prayed the prayer more than a few times.
    I read the BoM through TWICE, and partially a third time.

    I never got a "peace" that Smith was a prophet, let alone a "burning in the bosom".
    I never got a sense that the BoM was anything more than a copy-cat Bible.

    I used to be a little embarrassed when my friends here would outright call Mormonism a "cult", and Smith a "fraud".

    It was, finally, Smith's GOOFY "revelation" that God would destroy his otherwise faithful wife if she didn't go along with his polygamy scam that finally did it.

    Smith is a fraud. The BoM is the invention of his wild imagination, along with a heavy dose of plagiarism of other works. Those who follow Smith and the BoM are deceived.

    I was willing to consider my "religion" was wrong, and BoM was true. The Holy Spirit of the Living God convinced me otherwise.

    Leave a comment:

widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Working...
X