1 Timothy 3:15

[laska]

Most people haven't read every thread on this forum and have no desire to do so. It isn't fair to expect people to be familiar with everything you have ever posted. If you've already dealt with it in this thread, you would have a point. But if not, it's just a cop-out. Why don't you go grab your previous response and cut and paste it instead?

It is not a cop out if you have been following and comprehend what is going on. I've answered plenty of criticisms, always ignored, never give credit that it showed the criticism was faulty, no apologizing for slandering the LDS faith with an untruth when it is shown easily that it was, and then just throw out a bunch more bs they expect me to respond to knowing they are just going to ignore the response. That is always the MO of these types whether you are smart enough to see it or not. I linked him a site where I told him he could find answers to most of the criticisms he's pasting from sites like the mighty cult fighters CARM, The Cracked Planet of Jeff Lindsay - Jeff Lindsay's Site and the Shake Well Blog, and I linked him to a thread http://www.debatepolitics.com/relig...31-issues-joseph-smith-and-mormon-church.html where I told Phattonez to list ANY 10 criticisms and I'd respond, knowing if I didn't put a limit they would do the ignore the responses throw out more endless crap ad nauseaum. I told him ANY because I am confident there is nothing new I haven't heard and that LDS scholars have easily shown the weakness and ignorance in the criticism. So it is not a cop out, it is not wanting to spend hours responding in a useless debate with dishonest debaters. The cop out is them avoiding the evidence I've been presenting and not admitting what they are posting is untrue slander. If you think I am copping out pick ONE of ANY criticism that these dishonest debaters have brought up that I ignored and I''ll show it to be the crap that it is.

Then respond to the fpllowing LDS evidences and prove you are not copping out:

 

[laska]

In a post apocalypse world a few thousand years in the future, if there was an archaeological discovery of an ancient text that tells a story of a group of 2014 Americans escaping the destruction of New York with exotic names such as Steve, Joe, Lauren, etc, the first thing that scientists would do to test it for forgery would be see if the names fit 2014 A.D. America(assuming when the ancient text was discovered many years before, very little was known about that window in history). Names are usually transliterated, so if the names fit the window, that pretty much seals that you are dealing with an authentic ancient text. The characters we find in the opening pages of the Book of Mormon are Sariah, Lehi, Nephi, Sam, Laman, Lemual, and Ishmael. Do these names fit the small window of 600 B.C. Judea/Near East?

Sariah- "The conjectural Hebrew spelling of Sariah would be s'ryh and would be pronounced something like Sar-yah. The skeptic might suggest that this name was an invention of Joseph Smith, since Sariah does not appear in the Bible as a female personal name. However, in a significant historical parallel to the Book of Mormon, the Hebrew name Sariah, spelled sryh, has been identified in a reconstructed form as the name of a Jewish woman living at Elephantine in Upper Egypt during the fifth century B.C.
The reference to Sariah of Elephantine is found in Aramaic Papyrus #22 (also called Cowley #22 or C-22) and appears in Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. [Arthur E. Cowley, ed. and trans." (Oxford: Clarendon, 1923), 67].

"In an article in The Improvement Era for April 1948, the author drew attention to the peculiar tendency of Book of Mormon names to concentrate in Upper Egypt, in and south of Thebes. At the time he was at a loss to explain such a strange phenomenon, but the answer is now clear. 7 When Jerusalem fell, most of Lehi's contemporaries who escaped went to Egypt, where their principal settlement seems to have been at Elephantine or Yeb, south of Thebes. It would seem, in fact, that the main colonization of Elephantine was at that time, and from Jerusalem. 8 What then could be more natural than that the refugees who fled to Egypt from Lehi's Jerusalem should have Book of Mormon names, since Lehi's people took their names from the same source?"



From Lehi in the Desert by Nibley: "There is a remarkable association between the names of Lehi and Ishmael which ties them both to the southern desert, where the legendary birthplace and central shrine of Ishmael was at a place called Be'er Lehai-ro'i. 50 Wellhausen rendered the name "spring of the wild-ox jawbone," 51 but Paul Haupt showed that Lehi (for so he reads the name) does not mean "jaw" but "cheek," 52 which leaves the meaning of the strange compound still unclear. One thing is certain, however: that Lehi is a personal name. Until recently this name was entirely unknown save as a place name, but now it has turned up at Elath and elsewhere in the south in a form that has been identified by Nelson Glueck with the name Lahai, which "occurs quite frequently either as a part of a compound, or as a separate name of a deity or a person, particularly in Minaean, Thamudic, and Arabic texts." 53 There is a Beit Lahi, "House of Lahi," among the ancient place names of the Arab country around Gaza, but the meaning of the name has here been lost. 54 If the least be said of it, the name Lehi is thoroughly at home among the people of the desert and, so far as we know, nowhere else.


The name of Lemuel is not a conventional Hebrew one, for it occurs only in one chapter of the Old Testament (Proverbs 31:1, 4), where it is commonly supposed to be a rather mysterious poetic substitute for Solomon. It is, however, like Lehi, at home in the south desert, where an Edomite text from "a place occupied by tribes descended from Ishmael" bears the title, "The Words of Lemuel, King of Massa." These people, though speaking a language that was almost Arabic, were yet well within the sphere of Jewish religion, for "we have nowhere else any evidence for saying that the Edomites used any other peculiar name for their deity" than "Yahweh, the God of Hebrews." 55
The only example of the name of Laman to be found anywhere to the writer's knowledge is its attribution to an ancient Mukam, or sacred place, in Palestine. Most of these Mukams are of unknown, and many of them of prehistoric, date. In Israel only the tribe of Manasseh built them. (Lehi's family in the Book of Mormon were from the tribe of Manasseh) 56 It is a striking coincidence that Conder saw in the name Leimun, as he renders it (the vowels must be supplied by guesswork), a possible corruption of the name Lemuel, thus bringing these two names, so closely associated in the Book of Mormon, into the most intimate relationship, and that in the one instance in which the name of Laman appears. 57 Far more popular among the Arabs as among the Nephites was the name Alma, which can mean a young man, a coat of mail, a mountain, or a sign.

58 While Sam is a perfectly good Egyptian name, it is also the normal Arabic form of Shem, the son of Noah."

Nephi is an Egyptian hero name. "Recently there have discovered lists of names that Nebuchadnezzar brought back to Babylon from his expeditions in Syria and Palestine. Among them are a respectable portion of Egyptian names. According to D. H. Thomas, this list shows that it was popular at the time to name children after Egyptian hero kings of the past.[5] The name Aha, which a Nephite general bestowed on his son, means "warrior" and was borne by the legendary first hero king of Egypt. (The Book of Mormon names) Himni, Korihor, Paanchi, Pakumeni, Sam, Zeezrom, Ham, Manti, Nephi and Zenoch are all Egyptian hero names"



Do these names fit the small window of 600 B.C. Judea? They are an absolute bullseye.

 

[laska]

The opening three verses in the Book of Mormon:

1 I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen many afflictions in the course of my days, nevertheless, having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days; yea, having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God, therefore I make a record of my proceedings in my days.
2 Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians.
3 And I know that the record which I make is true; and I make it with mine own hand; and I make it according to my knowledge.



LDS scholar Hugh Nibley:
Nephi's introduction is typical of Egyptian writings.

The first three verses of 1 Nephi, sharply set off from the rest of the text, are a typical colophon, a literary device that is highly characteristic of Egyptian compositions. Typical is the famous Bremer-Rhind Papyrus, which opens with a colophon containing

the date,
the titles of Nasim, the author,
the names of his parents and a word in praise of their virtues, with special mention of his father's prophetic calling,
a curse against anyone who might 'take the book away,' probably 'due to fear lest a sacred book should get into impure hands.'

Compare this with Nephi's colophon:

his name,
the merits of his parents, with special attention to the learning of his father,
a solemn avowal (corresponding to Nasim's curse) that the record is true, and the assertion, 'I make it with mine own hand' (1 Nephi 1:3)--an indispensable condition of every true colophon, since the purpose of a colophon is to establish the identity of the actual writer-down (not merely the ultimate author) of the text.

Egyptian literary writings regularly close with the formula iw-f-pw 'thus it is,' 'and so it is.' Nephi ends the main sections of his book with the phrase, 'And thus it is, Amen' (1 Nephi 9:6; 14:30; 22:31)." (Lehi in the Desert/The World of the Jaredites, p. 15.)



Matthew L. Bowen:
"A proposed etymology of the Book of Mormon name Nephi is that it derives from the ancient Egyptian word nfr which is an adjective that means "good," "fine," or "goodly" and as noun denotes "kindness" or "goodness". By Lehi's time, this word was probably pronounced "nefe" (NEH-fee)...Nephi's use of words that translate into English as "goodly" and "goodness" makes this passage even more beautiful and meaningful if we also understand the name Nephi to denote "goodly" or "goodness." The wordplay perhaps suggests why the name Nephi so befits its bearer: he is nf, or "goodly", because he was born of "goodly parents" and is one endowed with a "knowledge of the goodness and mysteries of God."




And it came to pass. This phrase in the 1830 edition of the BoM is used a ton. "Mark Twain joked that if the phrase, 'And it came to pass,' were removed from the Book of Mormon, it would be just a pamphlet. However, the phrase is very typical of ancient texts."
Hugh Nibley
"Nothing delighted the critics more than the monotonous repetition of 'it came to pass' at the beginning of thousands of sentences in the Book of Mormon. Here again is something that Western tradition found completely unfamiliar. Instead of punctuation, the original manuscript of the Book of Mormondivides up its phrases by introducing each by an 'and,' 'behold,' 'now,' or 'It came to pass . . . .' Simply outrageous--as English literature, but it is standard Egyptian practice. Egyptian historical texts, Grapow points out, 'begin in monotonous fashion' always with the same stock words; at some periods every speech is introduced with the unnecessary 'I opened my mouth.' Dramatic texts are held together by the constant repetition of Khpr-n, 'It happened that' or 'It came to pass.' In Egyptian these expressions were not merely adornments, as Grapow points out, they are a grammatical necessity and may not be omitted. Paul Humbert has traced the origin of prophetic biblical expressions to archaic oracular formulas. At any rate they are much commoner in Egyptian than in the Bible, just as they are much commoner in the Book of Mormon. However bad they are in English, they are nothing to be laughed at as Egyptian." (Since Cumorah, p. 29)


The word Mormon is Egyptian. "Mor" means "love" and "mon" means "established forever".

 

[laska]

I recommend reading at least the first chapter of the Book of Mormon to get a feel of Lehi's world as the next bit of evidence will compare it with the world of the Lachish Letters, which is a peek into the same window https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/1?lang=eng

From wikipedia on the siege of Jerusalem: "Following the siege of 597 BC, Nebuchadnezzar installed Zedekiah as tributary king of Judah at the age of twenty-one. However, Zedekiah revolted against Babylon, and entered into an alliance with Pharaoh Hophra, king of Egypt. Nebuchadnezzar responded by invading Judah and began a siege of Jerusalem in January 589 BC. During this siege, which lasted about thirty months, "every worst woe befell the city, which drank the cup of God's fury to the dregs". In 587 BC, the eleventh year of Zedekiah's reign, Nebuchadnezzar broke through Jerusalem's walls, conquering the city. Zedekiah and his followers attempted to escape, but were captured on the plains of Jericho and taken to Riblah. There, after seeing his sons killed, Zedekiah was blinded, bound, and taken captive to Babylon, where he remained a prisoner until his death.
After the fall of Jerusalem, the Babylonian general Nebuzaraddan was sent to complete its destruction. Jerusalem was plundered and Solomon's Temple was destroyed. Most of the elite were taken into captivity in Babylon. The city was razed to the ground. Only a small number of people were permitted to remain to tend to the land. Gedaliah was made governor of the remnant of Judah, the Yehud Province, with a Chaldean guard stationed at Mizpah. On hearing this news, the Jews who were in Moab, Ammon, Edom, and in other countries returned to Judah. Gedaliah was assassinated two months later, and the population that had remained and those who had returned then fled to Egypt for safety.

If the 597 B.C. date is correct from wikipedia on the 1st yr reign of Zedekiah then Lehi began as a prophet warning Israel that year, and shortly thereafter Lehi's family fled Israel journeying in the south desert for eight years before building a ship and crossing the ocean to the Americas. That would put Lehi's group crossing the ocean to the Americas at about the same time the Babylonian siege began in 589 B.C.

Nephi Ch 5:
1 And it came to pass that after we had come down into the wilderness unto our father, behold, he was filled with joy, and also my mother, Sariah, was exceedingly glad, for she truly had mourned because of us.
2 For she had supposed that we had perished in the wilderness; and she also had complained against my father, telling him that he was a visionary man; saying: Behold thou hast led us forth from the land of our inheritance, and my sons are no more, and we perish in the wilderness.
3 And after this manner of language had my mother complained against my father.
4 And it had come to pass that my father spake unto her, saying: I know that I am a visionary man; for if I had not seen the things of God in a vision I should not have known the goodness of God, but had tarried at Jerusalem, and had perished with my brethren.
5 But behold, I have obtained a land of promise, in the which things I do rejoice; yea, and I know that the Lord will deliver my sons out of the hands of Laban, and bring them down again unto us in the wilderness.

It is interesting that in the Lachish Letters, contemporary window with the opening scenes in the BoM, we have confirmation about prophets running around undermining the morale of the people and execution orders for them, but also the term used for these prophets "characterizing the man of prophetic calling as ha-piqqeah, which Torczyner, (the 1938 publisher) translates as “the open-eyed or visionary man”. The Lachish letters and the opening scenes of the Book of Mormon paint a very consistent picture. https://www.lds.org/ensign/1981/12/the-lachish-letters-documents-from-lehis-day?lang=eng

 

[laska]

The names Lehi and that of his two oldest sons, Laman and Lemuel, as well as Ishmael, are names of the south desert. Laman and Lemuel are pendant names, commonly given to the two oldest sons in this region. Ishmael, the family that left with Lehi's family, and whose sons and daughters married, likely was a relative of Lehi, possibly his brother, as Nibley points out “it has ever been the custom among the desert people for a man to marry the daughter of his paternal uncle." Lehi tells us he is from the tribe of Manasseh. Nibley states “Now of all the tribes of Israel, Manasseh was the one which lived farthest out in the desert, came into most frequent contact with the Arabs, intermarried with them most frequently, and at the same time had the closest traditional bonds with Egypt."


"Nephi says that Lehi set up camp by a "river of water." What does he mean? What other kind of river is there? Even today, the traveler in Arabia will distinguish between the dry river, "the river of sand," and the near torrents produced by spring run off. Dr. Nibley points out that, "The very fact that Nephi uses the term 'a river of water' (1 Nephi 2:6), to say nothing of Lehi's ecstasies at the sight of it, shows that they are used to thinking in terms of dry rivers."(10)
Lehi, the Desert Poet

"For the people of the desert there is no more miraculous and lovely thing on earth than continually running water. Bertram Thomas gives us an excellent example. Describing how his Arabs reacted upon reaching a "river of water," he says that they "hailed it with a song in praise of the 'continuous and flowing rain,' whose bounty filled the bed of the wadi, 'flowing along between sand and stream course.'" Lehi was also moved to impressive and spontaneous poetic expression by the sight of his "river of water."
And when my father saw that the waters of the river emptied into the fountain of the Red Sea, he spake unto Laman, saying:
O that thou mightest be like unto this river, continually running into the fountain of all righteousness!
And he also spake unto Lemuel:
O that thou mightest be like unto this valley, firm and steadfast, and immovable in keeping the commandments of the Lord! (1 Nephi 2:9-10)
There is a primitive Arabic poetic form called a qasid. Dr. Nibley says that it's the "oldest actual poetry of the desert." The qasid always consists of a pair of poems which follow a very precise pattern. Nibley gives these criteria:

They are inspired by the sight of water gushing from a spring or running down a valley.
They are addressed to one or (usually) two traveling companions.
They praise the beauty and the excellence of the scene, calling it to the attention of the hearer as an object lesson.
The hearer is urged to be like the thing he beholds.
These are extemporaneous poems recited with great feeling.
They are very short, each couplet being a complete poem in itself.
One verse must be followed by its "brother," making a perfectly matched pair.

 

[laska]

The most mocked aspect of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon in Joseph's day was the golden plates. Joseph gave several details about the plates: buried in a cement box on the side of a large hill, title page being in the back of the record, some parts of the record being sealed.

Hiding Sacred Records like the Golden Plates: A Well Established Ancient Practice

Metal Plates and the Book of Mormon

 

[laska]

[h=2]Foolish or Hebrew?[/h]In the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon Alma 46:19 reads, "When Moroni had said these words, he went forth among the people, waving the rent of his garment in the air." Of course, the rent is the hole, the tear, the space that now separated what was once a whole. Yes, the Prophet made an error which has been corrected in later printings to read, "rent part." But, perhaps not foolish. Rather, this almost silly omission has become one thread in a tapestry of evidence pointing to the truth of this young prophet's claim: he was really translating a Hebrew text. "Waving the rent," may be ludicrous English but it is a literal translation of perfectly good Hebrew. John Tvedtnes explains that in Hebrew, the noun modified by a verbal substantive like rent is assumed from its context. Thus, "part" would not be included in the Hebrew text. It must be supplied by the translator.[SUP](1)[/SUP] Yes, Joseph failed to supply the missing word, thus leaving us this interesting evidential strand: Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon

 

[laska]

Chiasmus is a form of parallelism used as a poetical structure in some ancient writings from the Middle East and Greece [note 1]. The word chiasmus derives from the Greek letter chi (X) which symbolizes the top-to-bottom mirror image reflection achieved by elements of text. An example of a very simple chiasmus is found in Psalms 124:7: Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon: Possible Evidence of Authenticity

 

[laska]

Now I never get responses to LDS evidences that show they are untruths like I easily do with those that attack the LDS faith. Always ignored. So respond to these above, a tiny fraction that you guys have thrown at me, and prove you are not copping out. After these I have tons more that I will post and I want you guys to not cop out on them either. I am going to play you guys' game. If you respond to each of these and prove to me they are not evidences, I will answer ANY 100 criticisms you throw out. The readers will see who can respond and who cannot.

 

[laska]

Here is a video of Matt Slick, the creator and head man at Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, one of the leading anti-Mormon organizations that sensationalizes, gives half truths and untruths against the LDS faith(that ludin is quick to copy and paste from). Watch this video, give it time to really get to know this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPJ28zOfqgs

 

[laska]

Can't wait to hear the intelligent responses. I have so many more to throw out to you guys! It is fun doing what you guys do. DON'T COP OUT. Remember I will answer 100 of ANY of your criticisms if you prove my evidences are dishonest and untrue above.

 

[American]

St. Paul states very differently:

"Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood." 1 Timothy 4:14

"Who, when they were come, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost. For he was not as yet come upon any of them; but they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." - Acts 8:15-16. Hmm, they were baptized but had not received the Holy Spirit. Interesting.

"Then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost." Acts 8:17. Hmm, only after the laying on of hands did they receive the Holy Spirit. Interesting.

The same way Jesus received it.

 

[laska]

The same way Jesus received it.

I guess phattonez didn't read the following article at a link I gave him. Why I dislike debating with him, he doesn't take time to read and understand my responses to him. It is a great article and explains you have to be baptized by those with real authority from Heaven and then a second ordinance is necessary, those with the Melchizadech priesthood laying on the hands and giving the person The Gift of the Holy Ghost. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints does this.

“The baptism of water, without the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost attending it, is of no use; they are necessarily and inseparably connected.”: https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-7?lang=eng

 

[American]

I guess phattonez didn't read the following article at a link I gave him. Why I dislike debating with him, he doesn't take time to read and understand my responses to him. It is a great article and explains you have to be baptized by those with real authority from Heaven and then a second ordinance is necessary, those with the Melchizadech priesthood laying on the hands and giving the person The Gift of the Holy Ghost. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints does this.

“The baptism of water, without the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost attending it, is of no use; they are necessarily and inseparably connected.”: https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-7?lang=eng

Matthew 3:[4] Now John wore a garment of camel's hair, and a leather girdle around his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey.
[5] Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan,
[6] and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.
[7]
But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sad'ducees coming for baptism, he said to them, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

[8] Bear fruit that befits repentance,
[9] and do not presume to say to yourselves, `We have Abraham as our father'; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham.
[10] Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
[11]
"I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

[12] His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the granary, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire."
[13]
Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him.

[14] John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?"
[15] But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness." Then he consented.
[16] And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him;
[17] and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."

As I said.

 

[CrabCake]

I've answered plenty of criticisms, always ignored, never give credit that it showed the criticism was faulty, no apologizing for slandering the LDS faith with an untruth when it is shown easily that it was, and then just throw out a bunch more bs they expect me to respond to knowing they are just going to ignore the response.

Yet you keep coming back for more. If you don't like it, wouldn't it make more sense to either stop or ignore the people you have a problem with?

That is always the MO of these types whether you are smart enough to see it or not.

You expect respect but don't respect others. How do you think that saying others may not be smart enough to see what is going on will help your point? Do you think we are more likely to see you and your faith in a positive light when you say others lack intelligence?

If you think I am copping out pick ONE of ANY criticism that these dishonest debaters have brought up that I ignored and I''ll show it to be the crap that it is.

You were copping out. Agreeing not to cop out now doesn't change the fact you were up until now.

But again, when you call other people's opinions "crap that it is", do you think it makes you and your faith look good?

Then respond to the fpllowing LDS evidences and prove you are not copping out:

I don't have an opinion on the LDS worth sharing (other than the opinion I already shared in post #97). It's not a cop out to avoid answering questions on topics I have no opinion on. It is a copout to claim you've answered such questions before elsewhere so they are no longer worth answering.

 

[laska]

Yet you keep coming back for more. If you don't like it, wouldn't it make more sense to either stop or ignore the people you have a problem with?



You expect respect but don't respect others. How do you think that saying others may not be smart enough to see what is going on will help your point? Do you think we are more likely to see you and your faith in a positive light when you say others lack intelligence?



You were copping out. Agreeing not to cop out now doesn't change the fact you were up until now.

But again, when you call other people's opinions "crap that it is", do you think it makes you and your faith look good?



I don't have an opinion on the LDS worth sharing (other than the opinion I already shared in post #97). It's not a cop out to avoid answering questions on topics I have no opinion on. It is a copout to claim you've answered such questions before elsewhere so they are no longer worth answering.

You are not seeing the source of my frustration. You have not been following my debate in other threads over the course of time with ludin and phattonez. Ludin introduced himself to me in another thread by calling the Book of Mormon the book of "moron". Repeatedly. Someone who has never even read the book. You have not seen where I started out answering their questions sincerely in a friendly way but after they followed the pattern of typical anti-Mormons of ignoring the response and never admitting to error of any kind even when it is black and white, and then just throwing out a bunch of more stuff, the typical MO of those with biases against the LDS faith. I've developed a hatred for it. That frustration is what you are seeing. I've told them several times when they start copying and pasting from anti-Mormon sites that they do not even check out thoroughly before posting, that I am not going to respond anymore to these cut and paste attacks on the LDS faith(if they were not sensationalist, half truths, and untruths, they wouldn't be attacks). Now you come in and state I should ignore them, which I stated I was doing, but when I do I am copping out. I've been on this site a long time and any long time member familiar with me knows I treat people with respect who are honest debaters. And they know I am a honest debater. I don't criticize other faiths using sensationalism, half truths, and untruths. I don't throw out stuff constantly I have no clue about.

 

[laska]

ludin and phattonez, if you will respond to my LDS evidences and show where they are in error and of no merit, showing me you are not copping out, I will answer any 100 of Matt Slicks or any other anti-Mormons "genius" criticisms that you guys like to copy and paste. And CrabCake, the offer is still out that you can choose ONE of ANY of the accusations you think I am copping out on by ignoring in this thread, and I'll respond to it.

 

[laska]

Ludin, see you are lurking. What do you think of your man Matt Slick. When you get time watch 20 or 30 minutes of the video I posted, enough time to get to know this "man of God". What an ugly Christianity he has. He believes God has his elect that are predestined, and that he made everyone else for the purpose of burning in hell. Obviously he's one of the elect. This is the guy that drives down the road and sees Mormons and jumps out of his car to argue with them.

 

[laska]

Who bets they cop out on the LDS evidences. That they will play their rhetorical game of spin and redirect without giving adequate responses to them.

No brainer, take the bet, it is a given.

 

[ludin]

Now I never get responses to LDS evidences that show they are untruths like I easily do with those that attack the LDS faith. Always ignored. So respond to these above, a tiny fraction that you guys have thrown at me, and prove you are not copping out. After these I have tons more that I will post and I want you guys to not cop out on them either. I am going to play you guys' game. If you respond to each of these and prove to me they are not evidences, I will answer ANY 100 criticisms you throw out. The readers will see who can respond and who cannot.

you don't get any reponses because we are asking for specific details and you went and spammed the thread with stuff that has nothing to do with what we are even talking about.
so i will go over these again and maybe you can focus for just a little bit to actually address what someone says instead of an endless rant that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

1. You have claimed that there are 3 heavens. i have seen you post it in other threads. it is even in the book of mormon that there are 3 heavens. There is nothing biblically based to support 3 heavens. there is only 1 heaven and 1 earth. That is an inconsistantcy that you claim doesn't exist. There is zero biblical support for 3 heavens. out of all the biblical translations that have been done there is exactly 1 heaven. So the only place that 3 heavens is found is in teh book of mormon.
since there is no biblical cannon support for this that means it was an addition to the book of mormon by joseph smith that has no supporting evidence other than joseph smith says it is true. this is circular reasoning which is a logical fallacy.

2. You stated in this Thread that JEsus was the brother of lucifer as you believe that we are all spiritual offspring of God. There is absolutely again 0 biblical evidence to support this in the bible. Jesus is not an offspring of God. He was not created by God. He and God exist as one spiritual being. Lucifer was an arch-angel. that was created by God. he was cast out for trying to be greater than God. he let his pride get in his way.

3. You claim and the book of mormon claims that God is or was a man that ascended and is a physical being of flesh and bone. again there is simply nothing that can support this
biblically. the bible specifically claims that God is a spirit.

4. You and the book of mormon claim that God had a physical sexual relationship with Mary. Again the bible says the exact opposite.

so lets go beyond the theological and look at the actual archeological.

so far there has been 0 evidence to support the book of mormon more so the civilzations that they claim to exist.

Nephites are one of four groups (including the Lamanites, Jaredites, and Mulekites
No known archeological organization or group has ever found a trace of any of these groups of people.
this is highly different from the bible which has tons of archeological support for. so how does the book of mormon account for this?

The golden tablets that you mention. no one outside of joseph smith and the supposed 11 have ever seen these tablets. so there is no way to validate their authenticity if they even exist. you would think that such an important artifact would have been preserved and kept safe so that it could be recalled at any point. i mean how can you lose the 1 artifact that is used to translate your bible. unless the fact it isn't an artifact at all and that it is nothing tangible.

So if it was a vision or something we have no way of athenticating what was written was suppose to be writen.
this would explain why when the orginal document was burned smith couldn't put it back together and began copying parts out of the bible.

this is highly different than that bible which has plenty of manuscripts and orginal writings that can be found to support itself.
these have all been cannonised as well.

"Archeologists and other scholars have long probed the hemisphere's past and the society does not know of anything found so far that has substantiated the Book of Mormon." Statement by the National Geographic Society

In 1952 Thomas Fergason start the NWAF which was suppose to go find historic backing for the book of mormon. the organization was fully funded by the LDS church. they were not able to find any historical evidence to support the book of mormon.

yet we have tons of historical and supporting evidence for the bible.

 

[ludin]

Who bets they cop out on the LDS evidences. That they will play their rhetorical game of spin and redirect without giving adequate responses to them.

No brainer, take the bet, it is a given.

you are the one spinning by refusing to acknowledge or go over what we are talking about

 

[ludin]

Ludin, see you are lurking. What do you think of your man Matt Slick. When you get time watch 20 or 30 minutes of the video I posted, enough time to get to know this "man of God". What an ugly Christianity he has. He believes God has his elect that are predestined, and that he made everyone else for the purpose of burning in hell. Obviously he's one of the elect. This is the guy that drives down the road and sees Mormons and jumps out of his car to argue with them.

actually what he says isn't to far off. there is biblical support that God knows those that will accept him and reject him. being litteral of course he knows as he knows past present and future.
not that he made others to burn but the rejection of Christ's saving grace and the acceptance of sin is what causes them to be thrown into the lake of fire.

 

[ludin]

You are not seeing the source of my frustration. You have not been following my debate in other threads over the course of time with ludin and phattonez. Ludin introduced himself to me in another thread by calling the Book of Mormon the book of "moron". Repeatedly. Someone who has never even read the book. You have not seen where I started out answering their questions sincerely in a friendly way but after they followed the pattern of typical anti-Mormons of ignoring the response and never admitting to error of any kind even when it is black and white, and then just throwing out a bunch of more stuff, the typical MO of those with biases against the LDS faith. I've developed a hatred for it. That frustration is what you are seeing. I've told them several times when they start copying and pasting from anti-Mormon sites that they do not even check out thoroughly before posting, that I am not going to respond anymore to these cut and paste attacks on the LDS faith(if they were not sensationalist, half truths, and untruths, they wouldn't be attacks). Now you come in and state I should ignore them, which I stated I was doing, but when I do I am copping out. I've been on this site a long time and any long time member familiar with me knows I treat people with respect who are honest debaters. And they know I am a honest debater. I don't criticize other faiths using sensationalism, half truths, and untruths. I don't throw out stuff constantly I have no clue about.

never called it the book of moron if it was then it was a simple typo as i type to fast sometimes and i am thinking faster than i type.

 

[laska]

never called it the book of moron if it was then it was a simple typo as i type to fast sometimes and i am thinking faster than i type.

You made several typos then, after I pointed it out to you. And the rest of your responses is what I predicted.

 

[laska]

OK you see the responses when I bring up evidences in support of the LDS faith. Now go and look at this thread http://www.debatepolitics.com/relig...31-issues-joseph-smith-and-mormon-church.html where I told phattonez to list any ten criticisms against the LDS faith and that I'd give responses. Did I avoid, did I not adequately respond? What was his responses to my responses. Did he even respond to them. In anyway did he admit any error? Or did he just keep giving more and more criticisms. I've spent many years and countless hours responding to these criticisms from many, many different people through several message boards and email exchanges. That is what always happens. I started out many years ago very friendly and respectful to these type of people sort of naively thinking they were honest debaters who were just deceived. After a few years of hours upon hours of answering these criticisms, and always the pattern of never responding to my responses or admitting anything I responded to in even any minor detail was correct, and always just posting more and more criticisms off these anti-Mormon sites for me to answer and then ignore, it is obvious these are just very biased, dishonest people. That is why I quickly become snarky with people who display this behavior.