Re: [ZION] LDS Writer Expects to Be Excommunicated
On Saturday, November 30, 2002, at 09:44 PM, Jim Cobabe wrote: Saturday, November 30, 2002 BY PATTY HENETZ THE ASSOCIATED PRESS A graduate student at the University of Washington says he likely will be excommunicated next week for articles he has written questioning the validity of the Book of Mormon. Good riddance. Once more the Signaturi raise their fetid little heads. This time they are trying to use hard science to discredit the Book of Mormon. Sigh... I've actually read this guy's paper. It's sad he doesn't use his brain for better purposes. Let's see what we do and don't know about the Nephites and Lamanites: 1: They were technically not Jews, i.e. they were not of the tribe of Judah. I know the tribes inter-married, but it's hard to compare apples and oranges. This fact is conveniently missing from the paper. 2: They were relatively small in number for many years, and grew at an amazing rate. Jaradite names became very common in their culture (look at what Alma named his sons), and their weights and measures system may have also been derived from the Jaradites (look at what their weights and measures were named, and cross-reference the book of Ether. It's interesting.) In my opinion, they probably inter-married with the peoples that were already here. Making assumptions about their genetic makeup is just plain stupid. 3: We don't know where they lived. Many people believe Mezo-America, others believe upstate New York. Still others believe South America. I hold one of these theories personally, but it doesn't matter a bit. Assuming the Lamanites to be the ancestors of today's American Indians is foolish, given what we don't know. It's hard to find good data if you don't know where to look. There are several other questions that could be raised about his assumptions, but let's look at other things the publicity hound here is ignoring: 1: 11 witnesses saw the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. Three of them had a personal visitation from an angel, and heard the voice of God declaring that everything was on the up and up. All of the three died professing their testimonies, and none of the 11 ever denied what they had seen. 2: The Book of Mormon bears the hallmarks of an ancient book. Go read the FARMS web site for more details. 3: Millions of people around the world have read the book, and have received powerful witnesses from God as to its divinity. I am one of them. Beware of the latest scientific theory. We don't know everything about genetics and DNA. We do know that the Signaturi are evil people that are hell-bent to destroy the church. They are not objective investigators. They have many times bent, twisted, or invented evidence to suit their own needs. One needs look no further than their patron saint, Mark Hoffman, for examples of their methods. This paper will be thoroughly discredited within the next few years. I pray for those who propagate and believe this stuff. Harold Stuart // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] True Christians
John, our BLT said (but without so many sideways carrots as appear in this reply - but that's because I can't get Zion to appear in my e-mail box and have to use this clunky reply system on Topica. Rant, rave. Oh - where was I?): I agree that many members of the Church are not true Christians, but I disagree that there are true Christians outside the Church. Chet sez: This is something I have always had a problem with. I know many good and wonderful people who profess to be Christians who are not LDS (such as my parents). And I wonder (and I ask them) how can one love Christ and reject some of his scriptures? Rarely do I get any kind of an answer, and when I do it's the evasive the Mormon Bible isn't scripture nonsense. I call it evasive because the people stating so haven't read the Book of Mormon and don't intend to. Thank goodness I'm not the final judge. I'd never figure out how to get through this problem. *jeep! --Chet Start by doing what's necessary, then what's possible, and suddenly you are doing the impossible. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
[ZION] Ignore previous rant
Chet wrote: John, our BLT said (but without so many sideways carrots as appear in this reply - but that's because I can't get Zion to appear in my e-mail box and have to use this clunky reply system on Topica. Rant, rave. Oh - where was I?) Happily, it appears that them there sideways carrots turn into vertical purple lines when appearing on the board. Ignore previous rant, though I remain the right to be frustrated with Topica. *jeep! --Chet Start by doing what's necessary, then what's possible, and suddenly you are doing the impossible. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] True Christians
But this is a confrontational definition of Christianity. Of course, the Book of Mormon says that there are only two churches - the Church of the Lamb of God and the Church of Satan, of the Whore of the world. However, even given that this is true (and it most certainly is), those who live the truth and light that they have to the best of their ability seem to me to be followers of Christ, regardless of what lying whore they listen to on Sunday :-(. And in reality, is it their fault or our fault if we can't reach them. When we confront people with the New Testament, what are they to do? Some will be intellectually honest, but most will be the true enemy of God (i.e., the natural man). It is up to us to find a way to speak to their spiritual self and not to their natural man. As Ammon showed us, we do this with pure service, expecting nothing in return. We don't do this by arguing scripture with them (which is something that I am prone to do, if left to my own devices). I am as frustrated as anyone that the Bible is so plain in its rejection of current mainstream Christian doctrine. I feel like I want to grab there heads and shove their faces into the Bible and have them read and explain the hundreds of segments that say they are wrong. but that, of course, is the NM in me. Jon - Original Message - From: Chet [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2002 11:45 AM Subject: RE: [ZION] True Christians John, our BLT said (but without so many sideways carrots as appear in this reply - but that's because I can't get Zion to appear in my e-mail box and have to use this clunky reply system on Topica. Rant, rave. Oh - where was I?): I agree that many members of the Church are not true Christians, but I disagree that there are true Christians outside the Church. Chet sez: This is something I have always had a problem with. I know many good and wonderful people who profess to be Christians who are not LDS (such as my parents). And I wonder (and I ask them) how can one love Christ and reject some of his scriptures? Rarely do I get any kind of an answer, and when I do it's the evasive the Mormon Bible isn't scripture nonsense. I call it evasive because the people stating so haven't read the Book of Mormon and don't intend to. Thank goodness I'm not the final judge. I'd never figure out how to get through this problem. *jeep! --Chet Start by doing what's necessary, then what's possible, and suddenly you are doing the impossible. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] LDS Writer Expects to Be Excommunicated
Jim Cobabe: Saturday, November 30, 2002 BY PATTY HENETZ THE ASSOCIATED PRESS A graduate student at the University of Washington says he likely will be excommunicated next week for articles he has written questioning the validity of the Book of Mormon. Harold Stuart: I've actually read this guy's paper. It's sad ... ___ Is there a link to the AP article (or others) or to the paper itself? It is sad, but there will be questions at work this week, and I would like to be up to speed on this. Thanks, Larry Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] LDS Writer Expects to Be Excommunicated
Perhaps this might help. Richley Crapo is an LDS anthropologist at Utah State (Logan). This is forwarded from Scripture-L with his permission: My initial reference is from information provided to me by Lou Midgley at BYU, and I also have his permission to quote him on Murphy's lack of professional credentials, relatively speaking (he's the head of anthropology at a small NW Washington state community college where the only other anthropology instructor is a part-timer). [EMAIL PROTECTED] 30/11/02 13:19 PM Perhaps we have a clue as to why a 35-year-old instructor at a community college has thusfar failed to achieve his PhD., despite having submitted several theses on various topics. I'll ask you the same thing I asked Brant, Richley: do you mind if I forward this to a couple of apologetics lists I'm on? Richley Crapo wrote: Brant, As an anthropologist and Book of Mormon scholar, can you comment on: http://mormonscripturestudies.com/bomor/twm/lamgen.asp --- [Richley] I'm not a BoM scholar, but I am an anthropologist. My assessment is that the essay does an excellent job as a piece of anthropological writing until he reaches the last three paragraphs, when the author misconstrues what constitutes a scientific perspective: ¶42 From a scientific perspective, the BoMor's origin is best situated in early 19th century America, not ancient America. - [Richley] So far, so good. - There were no Lamanites prior to c. 1828 and dark skin is not a physical trait of God's malediction. Native Americans do not need to accept Christianity or the BoMor to know their own history. The BoMor emerged from Joseph Smith's own struggles with his God. Mormons need to look inward for spiritual validation and cease efforts to remake Native Americans in their own image. --- [Richley] Here, he drops the qualification that made the first sentence okay. It's absence makes this part of the paragraph read as an absolute assertion, something that science cannot make. So, were I on his dissertaion committee (and were this part of his dissertation), I would require that he insert the appropriate qualifiers explicitly. Scientific methods cannot prove that there were no Lamanites prior to c. 1828. They can merely fail to support the claim that there were. So saying that there were none overstates the case. The assertion that the BoM emerged from JS's mind (which I take struggles with his own God to mean) is, by its nature, an assertion that belongs to the magisterium of religion rather than science, since it is a claim that about the truth-value of a *religious* belief (i.e., that the BoM account of the origin of the Lamanites is untrue). The final sentence is a value judgement (Mormons need to . . .) and is, therefore, inherently not a scientific statement. -- ¶43 In 1973, after weighing the overwhelming archaeological evidence against an ancient origin for the BoMor, Michael Coe implored Latter-day Saints: . . . - [Richley] Here, the writer, demonstrates a lack of understanding of the epistemology of science. Science does not deal with evidence against anything. All evidence is for something. Scientifically, the writer is only entitled to say, the overwhelming *lack* of evidence for an ancient origin of the BoM . . . [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jim Cobabe: Saturday, November 30, 2002 BY PATTY HENETZ THE ASSOCIATED PRESS A graduate student at the University of Washington says he likely will be excommunicated next week for articles he has written questioning the validity of the Book of Mormon. Harold Stuart: I've actually read this guy's paper. It's sad ... ___ Is there a link to the AP article (or others) or to the paper itself? It is sad, but there will be questions at work this week, and I would like to be up to speed on this. Thanks, Larry Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
Re: [ZION] LDS Writer Expects to Be Excommunicated
Just a couple more things... Our intrepid Signaturus writes: There were no Lamanites prior to c. 1828 This cannot be shown from his data. As I said in my last post, he has no idea what the Lamanite genome looks like. He is only guessing. It is not likely to be what he thinks it is. and dark skin is not a physical trait of God's malediction. This can't be shown from his data either. This man does not understand the workings of God very well. God's curses often work to the benefit of those cursed. Native Americans do not need to accept Christianity or the BoMor to know their own history. And how does he show this??? This guy is a scientist? He acts more like a stump preacher. The BoMor emerged from Joseph Smith's own struggles with his God. The only thing he has said that is true so far. Unfortunately, it is a half-truth. Yes, Joseph had struggles with God that lead him to ask. The rest, however, can't be explained away as easily. Mormons need to look inward for spiritual validation and cease efforts to remake Native Americans in their own image. And here we have a Sig that needs to stop trying to project his own internal struggles on the rest of us. Perhaps if he really read the book he is attacking... We have here the sad case of someone with an axe to grind. He has taken a limited set of data, generalized it excessively, and stretched it to prove his theory. Do I feel strongly about the Signaturi? Yes. They nearly got me about 20 years ago, and it was only by a miracle that I survived. This is not hyperbole. I don't relate the experience often, but suffice it to say that I learned enough about the devil and his minions to last me the rest of my life. Please, beware these people. They, like the master they serve, want all men to be miserable like unto themselves. Harold Stuart // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] LDS Writer Expects to Be Excommunicated
Oh. Should have added one more minor thing. BoMor is a contraction preferred by Brent Metcalfe, who edited the book in which this paper appeared, and who likewise does not believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon -- Metcalfe was exxed I think sometime after the infamous September Six. No big deal, just a stylism that shows which school he belongs to. JWR might call it a Signaturi tatoo ;-) Marc A. Schindler wrote: Perhaps this might help. Richley Crapo is an LDS anthropologist at Utah State (Logan). This is forwarded from Scripture-L with his permission: My initial reference is from information provided to me by Lou Midgley at BYU, and I also have his permission to quote him on Murphy's lack of professional credentials, relatively speaking (he's the head of anthropology at a small NW Washington state community college where the only other anthropology instructor is a part-timer). [EMAIL PROTECTED] 30/11/02 13:19 PM Perhaps we have a clue as to why a 35-year-old instructor at a community college has thusfar failed to achieve his PhD., despite having submitted several theses on various topics. I'll ask you the same thing I asked Brant, Richley: do you mind if I forward this to a couple of apologetics lists I'm on? Richley Crapo wrote: Brant, As an anthropologist and Book of Mormon scholar, can you comment on: http://mormonscripturestudies.com/bomor/twm/lamgen.asp --- [Richley] I'm not a BoM scholar, but I am an anthropologist. My assessment is that the essay does an excellent job as a piece of anthropological writing until he reaches the last three paragraphs, when the author misconstrues what constitutes a scientific perspective: ¶42 From a scientific perspective, the BoMor's origin is best situated in early 19th century America, not ancient America. - [Richley] So far, so good. - There were no Lamanites prior to c. 1828 and dark skin is not a physical trait of God's malediction. Native Americans do not need to accept Christianity or the BoMor to know their own history. The BoMor emerged from Joseph Smith's own struggles with his God. Mormons need to look inward for spiritual validation and cease efforts to remake Native Americans in their own image. --- [Richley] Here, he drops the qualification that made the first sentence okay. It's absence makes this part of the paragraph read as an absolute assertion, something that science cannot make. So, were I on his dissertaion committee (and were this part of his dissertation), I would require that he insert the appropriate qualifiers explicitly. Scientific methods cannot prove that there were no Lamanites prior to c. 1828. They can merely fail to support the claim that there were. So saying that there were none overstates the case. The assertion that the BoM emerged from JS's mind (which I take struggles with his own God to mean) is, by its nature, an assertion that belongs to the magisterium of religion rather than science, since it is a claim that about the truth-value of a *religious* belief (i.e., that the BoM account of the origin of the Lamanites is untrue). The final sentence is a value judgement (Mormons need to . . .) and is, therefore, inherently not a scientific statement. -- ¶43 In 1973, after weighing the overwhelming archaeological evidence against an ancient origin for the BoMor, Michael Coe implored Latter-day Saints: . . . - [Richley] Here, the writer, demonstrates a lack of understanding of the epistemology of science. Science does not deal with evidence against anything. All evidence is for something. Scientifically, the writer is only entitled to say, the overwhelming *lack* of evidence for an ancient origin of the BoM . . . [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jim Cobabe: Saturday, November 30, 2002 BY PATTY HENETZ THE ASSOCIATED PRESS A graduate student at the University of Washington says he likely will be excommunicated next week for articles he has written questioning the validity of the Book of Mormon. Harold Stuart: I've actually read this guy's paper. It's sad ... ___ Is there a link to the AP article (or others) or to the paper itself? It is sad, but there will be questions at work this week, and I would like to be up to speed on this. Thanks, Larry Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland
Re: [ZION] LDS Writer Expects to Be Excommunicated
At 07:18 PM 12/1/02 -0700, Marc A. Schindler wrote: Oh. Should have added one more minor thing. BoMor is a contraction preferred by Brent Metcalfe, who edited the book in which this paper appeared, and who likewise does not believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon -- Metcalfe was exxed I think sometime after the infamous September Six. No big deal, just a stylism that shows which school he belongs to. JWR might call it a Signaturi tatoo ;-) At least he doesn't prefer simply dropping the o from the more common abbreviation . . . --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] LDS Writer Expects to Be Excommunicated
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Is there a link to the AP article (or others) or to the paper itself? --- http://www.sltrib.com/2002/nov/11302002/saturday/7024.htm // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
[ZION] Secular dissonance
This science study is only a minor skirmish, but a significant portent of things to come, nonetheless. As apologists for politically correct humanist ideals grow more agressive and dogmatic, there will be increasing tension between the secular and religious. In Salt Lake City, a troublesome argument has been escalated further and further between the Mayor and the Church over legal provisions regarding the Church Main Street Plaza, the short section of street having been sold to the Church to incorporate into the Temple Square complex a while back. Today's comments from the Mayor focused on his honesty and integrity as a benvolent ACLU lawyer, as contrasted with the supposed avaricious cheating, lying, and extortionate political manuvering of those evil LDS Church leaders with whom he disagrees. --- Mij Ebaboc // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] LDS Writer Expects to Be Excommunicated
In Germany we used to refer to attempts to place Books of Mormons (usually in small Pensionen or inns) as buming, which is Missionary German. It's pronounced booming and comes from BuM (das Buch Mormon), pronounced boom but with a relatively short duration oo. When you dangle a child on your knee in German, you don't say, bumpity bumpity... but bums bums (booms booms, with a sibilant s, not a z s). In Swabian (Schwäbisch) dialect it's bumsele bumsele (BOOM-sel-uh) Ronn Blankenship wrote: At 07:18 PM 12/1/02 -0700, Marc A. Schindler wrote: Oh. Should have added one more minor thing. BoMor is a contraction preferred by Brent Metcalfe, who edited the book in which this paper appeared, and who likewise does not believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon -- Metcalfe was exxed I think sometime after the infamous September Six. No big deal, just a stylism that shows which school he belongs to. JWR might call it a Signaturi tatoo ;-) At least he doesn't prefer simply dropping the o from the more common abbreviation . . . --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
[ZION] Revisionist History
A quote from Louis Midgley regarding those who question the Book of Mormon historicity--Sterling McMurrin, former philosophy prof at the University of Utah, typifies this crowd, and was the poster child of many of the current followers of the dissident camp. Revisionist HistoryThe Great Leap Forward Some are still insisting that the Church must abandon the traditional understanding of the beginnings of the faith. Why is such a revisionist history, as it is now being called, especially by RLDS historians, either desirable or necessary? Presumably, a competent, honest scrutiny of the historical foundations of the faith, that is, a serious look at the beginnings, discloses what Sterling McMurrin labels a good many unsavory things. McMurrin, for example, charges that the Church has intentionally distorted its own history by dealing fast and loose with historical data and imposing theological and religious interpretations on those data that are entirely unwarranted. For McMurrin, the Mormon faith is so mixed up with so many commitments to historical eventsor to events that are purported to be historicalthat a competent study of history can be very disillusioning. Mormonism is a historically oriented religion. To a remarkable degree, the Church has concealed much of its history from its people, while at the same time causing them to tie their religious faith to its own controlled interpretations of its history. The problem, as McMurrin sees it, is a fault of the weakness of the faith which should not be tied at all to history. fn He strives to separate faith from history, substituting naturalistic humanism fn for prophetic faithpromoting the enterprise of philosophical theology as a substitute for divine special revelations. McMurrin provides the least sentimental statement of the intellectual grounds for a secular revisionist Mormon history, that is, one done entirely in naturalistic terms. McMurrin sees the Mormon past in what Leonard Arrington once called human or naturalistic terms. We should, from McMurrin's perspective, begin with the dogma that you don't get books from angels and translate them by miracles; it is just that simple. fn A history resting on that premise would require a fundamental reordering of the faith. fn His program would retain only fragments of a culture resting on abandoned beliefs. Marty, straying from the core of his argument, eventually introduces many kinds of integrity. Some of these are appropriate to insiders and others to outsiders, some to church authorities and some to historians. fn But given what Marty had already shown about the necessity of the decisive generative events surviving the acids of modernity, it is difficult to see how he could defend the integrity of a stance such as McMurrin's. Certainly McMurrin's denials do not permit the survival of the crucial historical foundations. But still, Marty defends the history being done by some of those on the fringes of the Church whose arguments are not as coherent as those of McMurrin, yet whose premises are not unlike certain of his dogmas. fn The Book of Mormon, when viewed as a fictional or mythical account, and not as reality, no longer can have authority over us or provide genuine hope for the future. To treat the Book of Mormon as a strange theologically motivated brand of fiction, and in that sense as myth, is to alter radically both the form and content of faith and thereby fashion a new church in which the texts are told what they can and cannot mean on the basis of some exterior ideology. To reduce the Book of Mormon to mere myth weakens, if not destroys, the possibility of it witnessing to the truth about divine things. A fictional Book of Mormon fabricated by Joseph Smith, even when his inventiveness, genius, or inspiration is celebrated, does not witness to Jesus Christ but to human folly. A true Book of Mormon is a powerful witness; a fictional one is hardly worth reading and pondering. fn Still, the claims of the text must be scrutinized and tested, then either believed or not believed without a final historical proof. An historically grounded faith is vulnerable to the potential ravages of historical inquiry, but it is also one that could be true in a way that would make a profound difference. We are left, by God, with a witness to mighty acts, but we must judge, for we are always at the turning point between two ways. And listening to the text, not proving it truean impossibility if not a presumptionto discover what its truth is for us, both reveals its truth and makes the sacred past plausible and thereby gives meaning to the life and deepest longings of the believer. The truth of the prophetic message found in the Book of Mormon is linked to both its claim to be an authentic history and to Joseph Smith's story of how we came to have the book. To be a Latter-day Saint is to believe, among other things, that the Book of
Re: [ZION] Canada: Your ignorance makes you look silly
You really want me to respond to this? Why not just own up to the fact that you made a few slips and let it go? We all make errors. This is a discussion group, not a history exam, for crying out loud. Don't trip over your own words even more than you already have, iow. OTOH, if, as I've come to suspect, when you write a post with a sig that has your name written backwards, you mean it on an other-than-literal level, then I apologize for not taking it in the spirit intended. Jim Cobabe wrote: I've been thinking about this all day, and still cannot imagine how ignorance is reflected in one's appearance. To appear silly would seem not to be a very exacting quality. I would propose that we require some comparative or objective standard to judge the relative measure of silly appearance. I have been trying to envision Stephen Beecroft with his countenance marred by some hallmark indicator of ignorance. Perhaps both of his eyes have migrated to one side, like a flounder. Or perhaps both of his ears are constantly presented with the same aspect, like Mickey Mouse. I know what I look like, and would never argue that I look anything but silly, but I cannot say how this relates to the face of Beecroft. Stephen, help me out. Please describe your appearance in detail. What does true ignorance look like? Exactly how is it silly? --- Mij Ebaboc -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [ZION] True Christians
After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with: If someone (a) takes on the name of Christ, and (b) keeps His commandments which he has given them, then that person IMVHO is a true Christian. The first thing a person must do to qualify as a true Christian is to believe in him. Then he must keep the commandment to be baptized. Unless he does at least these two things he cannot qualify as a true Christian. One cannot keep the commandments of Christ without an authorized baptism because such a baptism is the first commandment that must be kept after a person professes a belief in Christ. They may not have as many commandments given to them as we have, but then again the Nephites didn't have all the commandments given to them that we have had given to us, and neither has anyone else that I have a firm knowledge of. This point is not relevant in my opinion. Each people has to keep the law that they have. The Lord does not expect anyone to live a law that he does not have. But in the case under discussion, the full law of Christ is available to anyone to accept or reject. This has been true since the Church was organized in 1830. One cannot reject the gospel and claim to follow Christ. It is an oxymoron. Of course, I haven't read a real definition of a True Christian so I guess we may each have our own. A true Christian is one that follows Christ in thought, word and deed. And that means accepting the gospel from our missionaries. Those who claim to accept Christ and refuse his only baptism are either dishonest or confused. But in any event, I am not going to go around telling people that they are not true Christians, and I know that you are not going to do that either. I think that we will both do our best to get as many of our Bros and Sisters to do all their own work, and not leave it to someone else later on to complete. I agree that we shouldn't go around telling people that they are not 'true' Christians. Nor did I suggest such a thing. But we need to understand the truth even if others reject it. Besides, here on this list I am speaking to a converted, Mormon audience. I'm not talking to some hypothetical people who are not members of the Church. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** ...by proving contraries, truth is made manifest --Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Volume 6, p.248 *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] LDS Writer Expects to Be Excommunicated
Jim Cobabe wrote: Not really anything new here. Just more evil detractors continuing the attempt to dilute and de-emphasise sacred doctrines of the Church, so that it becomes indistinguishable from other corrupt sects. It is Not to disagree with you in principle, but just to pick a nit: it's the so-called intellectual crowd, and I quote Pres. Packer on this deliberately, for there are people -- and I count myself amongst them -- who are quite able to accept the details of secular history but put them into their proper perspective and not miss the forest for the trees. We have a cultural problem here, and this time it is not US vs. everyone else, as I suspect some here see my worldview as bifurcating ;-) but rather a modern west liberal democratic intellectual tradition which is neo-hellenistic, versus sacred history, which is semitic in nature. The neo-hellenistic approach is analytical, which means to tease apart concepts for their constituent meanings, whereas what I call the semitic approach is synthetic, which means to see out of the parts a whole that is greater than the sum of the parts. Some of us appreciate art, so to speak, and others specialize in jig-saw puzzles. The so-called New Mormon historians are jig-saw puzzle addicts. I prefer art, myself. becoming quite respectable in the intellectual crowd to maintain that the Book of Mormon has origins in the 19th century, was somehow composed and fabricated by Joseph Smith, and is not the historical record it claims to be. This particular school of self-appointed apologists argue that it doesn't make any difference to their religious understanding, since, like the Bible, the story is simply figurative. Simply figurate is not really their error, in my opinion. There are meanings in scripture which are difficult to get at which transcend a literalistic reading. Ironically, that is what the new historians do: they read a sacred history as if it were a secular history, and in doing so they destroy the thing they profess to study. [and again, I emphasize, I am not arguing your point; I am trying to bolster it and to enlarge upon it] -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [ZION] Revisionist History
Thanks for digging this up. Midgley does not think much of the new historians, and has taken Murphy to task for his paper. If you read the paper, you'll see that he refers to papers Midgley wrote about the Church in New Zealand, but Midgley has told me he confronted Murphy about twisting the meaning of what Midgley had wrote. Murphy was squirming, as I understand it, but stood by his position. I would urge all to take this the same way we have taken Bagley's book on the MMM; more heat than light, and it shall pass quickly enough. Those with a real interest in it might want to sign up for FAIR's listserve -- this has been a topic of fruitful discussion there. Jim Cobabe wrote: A quote from Louis Midgley regarding those who question the Book of Mormon historicity--Sterling McMurrin, former philosophy prof at the University of Utah, typifies this crowd, and was the poster child of many of the current followers of the dissident camp. Revisionist HistoryThe Great Leap Forward Some are still insisting that the Church must abandon the traditional understanding of the beginnings of the faith. Why is such a revisionist history, as it is now being called, especially by RLDS historians, either desirable or necessary? Presumably, a competent, honest scrutiny of the historical foundations of the faith, that is, a serious look at the beginnings, discloses what Sterling McMurrin labels a good many unsavory things. McMurrin, for example, charges that the Church has intentionally distorted its own history by dealing fast and loose with historical data and imposing theological and religious interpretations on those data that are entirely unwarranted. For McMurrin, the Mormon faith is so mixed up with so many commitments to historical eventsor to events that are purported to be historicalthat a competent study of history can be very disillusioning. Mormonism is a historically oriented religion. To a remarkable degree, the Church has concealed much of its history from its people, while at the same time causing them to tie their religious faith to its own controlled interpretations of its history. The problem, as McMurrin sees it, is a fault of the weakness of the faith which should not be tied at all to history. fn He strives to separate faith from history, substituting naturalistic humanism fn for prophetic faithpromoting the enterprise of philosophical theology as a substitute for divine special revelations. McMurrin provides the least sentimental statement of the intellectual grounds for a secular revisionist Mormon history, that is, one done entirely in naturalistic terms. McMurrin sees the Mormon past in what Leonard Arrington once called human or naturalistic terms. We should, from McMurrin's perspective, begin with the dogma that you don't get books from angels and translate them by miracles; it is just that simple. fn A history resting on that premise would require a fundamental reordering of the faith. fn His program would retain only fragments of a culture resting on abandoned beliefs. Marty, straying from the core of his argument, eventually introduces many kinds of integrity. Some of these are appropriate to insiders and others to outsiders, some to church authorities and some to historians. fn But given what Marty had already shown about the necessity of the decisive generative events surviving the acids of modernity, it is difficult to see how he could defend the integrity of a stance such as McMurrin's. Certainly McMurrin's denials do not permit the survival of the crucial historical foundations. But still, Marty defends the history being done by some of those on the fringes of the Church whose arguments are not as coherent as those of McMurrin, yet whose premises are not unlike certain of his dogmas. fn The Book of Mormon, when viewed as a fictional or mythical account, and not as reality, no longer can have authority over us or provide genuine hope for the future. To treat the Book of Mormon as a strange theologically motivated brand of fiction, and in that sense as myth, is to alter radically both the form and content of faith and thereby fashion a new church in which the texts are told what they can and cannot mean on the basis of some exterior ideology. To reduce the Book of Mormon to mere myth weakens, if not destroys, the possibility of it witnessing to the truth about divine things. A fictional Book of Mormon fabricated by Joseph Smith, even when his inventiveness, genius, or inspiration is celebrated, does not witness to Jesus Christ but to human folly. A true Book of Mormon is a powerful witness; a fictional one is hardly worth reading and pondering. fn Still, the claims of the text must be scrutinized and tested, then either believed or not believed without a final historical proof. An historically grounded faith is vulnerable to the potential ravages of historical inquiry, but it is also one that could be true in a way
Re: [ZION] True Christians
I think what John's trying to say, if I may be so presumptuous, is that the principle is clear. It is the judgement at the individual level that we are cautioned about. I believe my grandmother, who passed away in April at 96 to have been one of the most Christian people I ever knew, yet she never accepted the Gospel (although of course we are having the work done for her). I don't believe she was in a position, despite having two grandsons, a step-great-grandson, two great-grandsons, a great-grandson-in-law and a soon-to-be great-granddaughter-in-law who all served missions (Germany, French Polynesia, Toronto, Russia, Philippines, Australia and Temple Square respectively) to truly comprehend the Gospel. As she is too close to me for me to accurately judge -- were I even to attempt to -- I express only a prayer and a hope. But she was a huge spirit. John W. Redelfs wrote: After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with: If someone (a) takes on the name of Christ, and (b) keeps His commandments which he has given them, then that person IMVHO is a true Christian. The first thing a person must do to qualify as a true Christian is to believe in him. Then he must keep the commandment to be baptized. Unless he does at least these two things he cannot qualify as a true Christian. One cannot keep the commandments of Christ without an authorized baptism because such a baptism is the first commandment that must be kept after a person professes a belief in Christ. They may not have as many commandments given to them as we have, but then again the Nephites didn't have all the commandments given to them that we have had given to us, and neither has anyone else that I have a firm knowledge of. This point is not relevant in my opinion. Each people has to keep the law that they have. The Lord does not expect anyone to live a law that he does not have. But in the case under discussion, the full law of Christ is available to anyone to accept or reject. This has been true since the Church was organized in 1830. One cannot reject the gospel and claim to follow Christ. It is an oxymoron. Of course, I haven't read a real definition of a True Christian so I guess we may each have our own. A true Christian is one that follows Christ in thought, word and deed. And that means accepting the gospel from our missionaries. Those who claim to accept Christ and refuse his only baptism are either dishonest or confused. But in any event, I am not going to go around telling people that they are not true Christians, and I know that you are not going to do that either. I think that we will both do our best to get as many of our Bros and Sisters to do all their own work, and not leave it to someone else later on to complete. I agree that we shouldn't go around telling people that they are not 'true' Christians. Nor did I suggest such a thing. But we need to understand the truth even if others reject it. Besides, here on this list I am speaking to a converted, Mormon audience. I'm not talking to some hypothetical people who are not members of the Church. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** ...by proving contraries, truth is made manifest --Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Volume 6, p.248 *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [ZION] True Christians
To add to this perspective, how many people who claim to be true Christians: 1. Visit the sick. 2. Visit people in prison. 3. When they have a feast they invite the halt, lame and the blind. Stacy. At 05:56 AM 12/02/2002 -0900, you wrote: After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with: If someone (a) takes on the name of Christ, and (b) keeps His commandments which he has given them, then that person IMVHO is a true Christian. The first thing a person must do to qualify as a true Christian is to believe in him. Then he must keep the commandment to be baptized. Unless he does at least these two things he cannot qualify as a true Christian. One cannot keep the commandments of Christ without an authorized baptism because such a baptism is the first commandment that must be kept after a person professes a belief in Christ. They may not have as many commandments given to them as we have, but then again the Nephites didn't have all the commandments given to them that we have had given to us, and neither has anyone else that I have a firm knowledge of. This point is not relevant in my opinion. Each people has to keep the law that they have. The Lord does not expect anyone to live a law that he does not have. But in the case under discussion, the full law of Christ is available to anyone to accept or reject. This has been true since the Church was organized in 1830. One cannot reject the gospel and claim to follow Christ. It is an oxymoron. Of course, I haven't read a real definition of a True Christian so I guess we may each have our own. A true Christian is one that follows Christ in thought, word and deed. And that means accepting the gospel from our missionaries. Those who claim to accept Christ and refuse his only baptism are either dishonest or confused. But in any event, I am not going to go around telling people that they are not true Christians, and I know that you are not going to do that either. I think that we will both do our best to get as many of our Bros and Sisters to do all their own work, and not leave it to someone else later on to complete. I agree that we shouldn't go around telling people that they are not 'true' Christians. Nor did I suggest such a thing. But we need to understand the truth even if others reject it. Besides, here on this list I am speaking to a converted, Mormon audience. I'm not talking to some hypothetical people who are not members of the Church. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** ...by proving contraries, truth is made manifest --Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Volume 6, p.248 *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.399 / Virus Database: 226 - Release Date: 10/09/2002 // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Can Anyone Become A Fully Qualified Member In Good Standing Af
Wouldn't this also mean confession of sin and serious sin where committed? Doesn't that person have an obligation to discuss this with the presiding authority before baptism? If he doesn't, shouldn't he be suspect? Stacy. At 11:05 AM 11/30/2002 -0800, you wrote: As I have been reading this issue, the one thing that keeps coming to mind is that phrase: Judge not, lest ye be judged. As I contemplate the numerous helpful tips being given, the one that it appears to me is so many people are trying to get God to renege on his agreement to that individual. Did this person go into the waters of baptism and was his sins forgiven? Did this individual repent of his sins? Sorry folks, but no one on this planet has the authority to go against Gods word. If I am forgiven of my sins because God has so indicated, no one has that authority to so no to God, no he hasn't. No bishop, stake president can take back what God has given, and that is forgiveness. period - end of sentance. Vic --- Jon Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Paul - this is excellent advice. If one's motivation for telling on someone is along the lines of that person shouldn't have a temple recommend, then do yourself a favor and keep the lips sealed. However, if you are truly concerned for an individual's eternal blessings and wish to help them avoid trying to mock the Lord, then do as Paul (Paul O. that is :-) suggests. Talk to them. if they are too afraid to go to the Bishop alone, then offer to go with them. After that, in love and faith, seek the assistance of your Priesthood leadership to help this individual. Jon Paul wrote: If I tried to make this public what could happen to me? Is this considered gossip? and heresay? I don't know about your situation but if I was close to someone whom I was pretty sure had committed a serious sin and was not repenting I would probably let the bishop know about it and leave it in his hands for the time being. Keep it a private matter with the priesthood authorities. Depending on the circumstances I might warn the person that the bishop will be tipped off so if there is something to confess they best do it of their own free will and choice and get the matter resolved properly. I don't think it is gossip or what not. Nothing should be said outside the bounds of love and general concern for the welfare of the individual involved. / / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / _ Washington DC's Largest FREE Email service. --- http://www.DCemail.com --- A Washington Online Community Member --- http://www.DCpages.com _ Select your own custom email address for FREE! Get [EMAIL PROTECTED] w/No Ads, 6MB, POP more! http://www.everyone.net/selectmail?campaign=tag // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.399 / Virus Database: 226 - Release Date: 10/09/2002 // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] True Christians
If we only go by that definition, then those living up to the only light they know and following Christ all the way to the best of their ability cannot be considered Christians. I think I'd have a problem with that. Can they go to the celestial kingdom? Maybe, in some cases. Can they progress to the highest level? No. Stacy. At 04:06 AM 11/30/2002 -0600, you wrote: I agree with JWR in so much as a true Christian must be a baptized member of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and have a testimony given by the Holy Ghost. Paul O [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.399 / Virus Database: 226 - Release Date: 10/09/2002 // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Temperature conversion chart
How do I decrease my sensitivity to cold? Stacy. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
