Posted on 05/21/2007 11:48:40 AM PDT by TexanSniper
Why do we want to argue an argument that is 40 years old? When the critics catch up with today’s argument and research, then we will take them on.
Oh yeah. He was living the good life for 30+ years while supporting and promoting legal abortion, too. He was a good family man when he came out for gun-grabbing and said he'd be a champion for gay rights.
What changed?
Well, he's still a family man.
But now he's running for president and all his beliefs are different.
The articles mentioned by the poster (which are prepared by an arm of the LDS) simply points out another reason why Romney would be a disaster for the Republicans.
When you actually go in and read these articles, they are so confusing, full of misinformation, and misdirection they leave the typical person saying “this is all too confusing for me, I’ll just have to take their word for it.”
Those are the same type of argument techniques used by people that believe things like there was no holocast. They say the evidence for the holocast is confusing, complicated, and contriversial, and persent it as such. That might be enough for someone that wants to believe there wasn’t a holocast, but they aren’t taken seriously by anyone else, becuase the evidence for the holocast is simple and compelling.
It only took about 10 minutes to determine the Leiden Papyrus reference in one of the articles, that was supposed to show a reference to Abraham in another ancient Egyptian document, in fact did no such thing. And it doesn’t matter anyway, since it doesn’t address the main point: that the papyrus the Book of Abraham was translated from not only doesn’t have a reference to Abraham, but bears no resemblence to the translation done by Joseph Smith.
All this misses the bigger point. Some democratic special interest group starts running adds pointing out Joseph Smith stated men and women lived on the moon, and calling Romney the “moon man” candidate.
Smith did say people lived on the moon. What response will we have? What response can we have? Opps?
"him" being Romney or Dobson?
Thompson has said he would never take the second position on a ticket.
There is no such provision in the constitution. Voters are allowed to qualify their voting choice based upon any test they desire. It is the government which cannot add restrictions over who may or may not run as a candidate.
Romney’s church is not in line with mainstream Christianity, so considering his Christian values is a dead end. It needs to be examined from a different perspective altogether.
Did you forget that Senator Byrd used to be in the KKK? If the Dems try it, trotting out Byrd’s record will shut them up. An actor playing a role is in no way similar to a Sentor’s past involvement in the KKK.
>>>>>These evidences... show that the Book of Abraham is not the composition of Abraham, not historical, and, in fact, the product of Joseph Smith's creative--inspired, if you will--exegesis. This auctorial conclusion can be made with confidence. It is far from a wild speculation. In contrast it must be noted that much of the scholarship that has been written defending the antiquity of the book (and Abrahamic authorship or its historicity), most of it by Hugh Nibley, is weak and speculative if not essentially flawed by lack of precision in reading texts and by methodological looseness.
Your assertion about Hugh Nibley is hilarious. He is wideley accalimed by non-Mormon biblical scholars (and Mormon biblical scholars) as one of the greatest scholars and archeologists. He spoke and could read over 17 languages many of them fluently. He is dead now though, in the 1960's he did a lot of research but the field has long eclipsed the work of one man 40 years ago. Here is a quote from Evangelical scholars about the body of literature and research and a non-Mormon perspective on Hugh Nibley.
The intellectual weakness of the standard anti-Mormon position has been pointed out by a number of non-LDS writers. In one interesting example, two evangelical critics of the Church, Carl Mosser and Paul Owen, presented a paper at the 1997 Evangelical Theological Society Far West Annual Meeting, April 25, 1997 that warned the evangelical community about the impressive efforts of LDS scholars and criticized the blind approach of typical anti-Mormon literature. Their article, "Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?" (later published in Trinity Journal, Fall 1998, pp. 179-205), is one of the most intriguing non-LDS articles I've ever encountered from critics of the Church. (One of several copies of it on the Web can be found at ComeToZarahemla.org or Cephas Ministry.)
Mosser and Owen note that anti-LDS writers have ignored the significant work of respected LDS scholars who are providing "robust defenses" of the LDS faith. In preparing their paper, Mosser and Owen did something that few critics have done: they have actually read a wide variety of LDS scholarly writings. As a result, they came to the following five conclusions:
The first [conclusion] is that there are, contrary to popular evangelical perceptions, legitimate Mormon scholars. We use the term scholar in its formal sense of "intellectual, erudite; skilled in intellectual investigation; trained in ancient languages." Broadly, Mormon scholarship can be divided into four categories: traditional, neo-orthodox, liberal and cultural. We are referring to the largest and most influential of the four categories--traditional Mormon scholars. It is a point of fact that the Latter-day Saints are not an anti-intellectual group like Jehovah's Witnesses. Mormons, in distinction to groups like JWs, produce work that has more than the mere appearance of scholarship. The second conclusion we have come to is that Mormon scholars and apologists (not all apologists are scholars) have, with varying degrees of success, answered most of the usual evangelical criticisms. Often these answers adequately diffuse particular (minor) criticisms. When the criticism has not been diffused the issue has usually been made much more complex.
A third conclusion we have come to is that currently there are, as far as we are aware, no books from an evangelical perspective that responsibility interact with contemporary LDS scholarly and apologetic writings. In a survey of twenty recent evangelical books criticizing Mormonism we found that none interact with this growing body of literature. Only a handful demonstrate any awareness of pertinent works. Many of the authors promote criticisms that have long been refuted; some are sensationalistic while others are simply ridiculous. A number of these books claim to be "the definitive" book on the matter. That they make no attempt to interact with contemporary LDS scholarship is a stain upon the authors' integrity and causes one to wonder about their credibility.
Our fourth conclusion is that at the academic level evangelicals are losing the debate with the Mormons. We are losing the battle and do not know it. In recent years the sophistication and erudition of LDS apologetics has risen considerably while evangelical responses have not. Those who have the skills necessary for this task rarely demonstrate an interest in the issues. Often they do not even know that there is a need. In large part this is due entirely to ignorance of the relevant literature.
Finally, our fifth conclusion is that most involved in the counter-cult movement lack the skills and training necessary to answer Mormon scholarly apologetic. The need is great for trained evangelical biblical scholars, theologians, philosophers and historians to examine and answer the growing body of literature produced by traditional LDS scholars and apologists.
Now more on Hugh Nibley from Evangelicals...
Hugh Nibley is without question the pioneer of LDS scholarship and apologetics. Since earning his Ph.D. at University of California at Berkeley in 1939, Nibley has produced a seemingly endless stream of books and articles covering a dauntingly vast array of subject matter. Whether writing on Patristics, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Apocrypha, the culture of the Ancient Near East or Mormonism, he demonstrates an impressive command of the original languages, primary texts and secondary literature. He has set a standard which younger LDS intellectuals are hard pressed to follow. There is not room her for anything approaching an exhaustive examination of Nibley's works.(6) We must confess with Truman Madsen, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy and Religion at Brigham Young University: "To those who know him best, and least, Hugh W. Nibley is a prodigy, an enigma, and a symbol."(7)
The few evangelicals who are aware of Hugh Nibley often dismiss him as a fraud or pseudo-scholar. Those who would like to quickly dismiss his writings would do well to heed Madsen's warning: "Ill-wishing critics have suspected over the years that Nibley is wrenching his sources, hiding behind his footnotes, and reading into antique languages what no responsible scholar would ever read out. Unfortunately, few have the tools to do the checking."(8) The bulk of Nibley's work has gone unchallenged by evangelicals despite the fact that he has been publishing relevant material since 1946. Nibley's attitude toward evangelicals: "We need more anti-Mormon books. They keep us on our toes."(9)
Mormon Apologetic Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?
The first assertion you make is that Joseph Smith made The book of Abraham up and it is not historical. To counter that claim I put forward this evidence.
Note 1: The "Angel of God's Presence" in Abraham 1:15-16
One of the most striking extra-biblical accounts in the Book of Abraham is the story of Abraham's harrowing escape from the idolatrous priests who were about to sacrifice him.
And as they lifted up their hands upon me, that they might offer me up and take away my life, behold, I lifted up my voice unto the Lord my God and the Lord hearkened and heard, and he filled me with the vision of the Almighty, and the angel of his presence stood by me, and immediately unloosed my bands; And his voice was unto me: Abraham, Abraham, behold, my name is Jehovah, and I have heard thee, and have come down to deliver thee, and to take thee away from thy father's house, and from all thy kinsfolk, into a strange land which thou knowest not of . . . . (Abraham 1:15-16)
Certainly the passage seems innocuous enough at first glance, but upon reflection certain phrases in this passage become troubling. The angel figure who came to save Abraham is identified as the "angel of [God's] presence," a rather unusual phrase, but on the other hand the angel identifies himself as Jehovah! Was the "angel of the presence" merely a messenger, speaking as if he were Jehovah, or was this actually the manifestation of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? The answer is given away when Jehovah says, "I have heard thee, and have come down to deliver thee . . . ." And so we can be reasonably sure that Jehovah himself was the "angel of God's presence." ........
The "Angel(s) of the Presence"
We have seen in this chapter that Yahweh was originally thought of as both God and angel, but what of this strange title, "Angel of the Presence"? Barker intimates that this was once one of Yahweh's titles as well, which was later given to the archangels.313 Segal explains that whoever was designated as the chief angel in the Israelite literature was also given the title "Angel of the Presence," and was regarded as superior to the others. 314
Accordingly, Luke and the apocryphal book of Tobit refer to angels who stand in the presence of God. "And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God . . . ." (Luke 1:19, KJV) "I am Raphael, one of the seven angels who stand in attendance on the Lord and enter his glorious presence." (Tobit 12:15, NEB) However, Isaiah is the only Biblical writer to use the phrase "angel of his presence." Speaking of the goodness of Yahweh toward the house of Israel, the Hebrew text of Isaiah 63:8-9 (followed by the KJV) reads: "For he [Yahweh] said, Surely they are my people, children that will not lie: so he was their Saviour. In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them . . . ." It is clear from the text that Yahweh saved his people by the "angel of his presence," but it is not at all evident that Yahweh was equated with this angel, although this is most certainly the case. The ancient translators of the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint or LXX, translated in the second and third centuries B.C.) knew of this tradition, and therefore made no reference to the "angel of his presence," but translated the verse in question as, "It was no envoy, no angel, but he himself that delivered them." (Isaiah 63:9, NEB) Clearly, Yahweh was the "angel of his presence."
Jesus as Yahweh and the "Angel of the Presence"
The belief in Yahweh as Israel's second God, the chief angel, was the basis of early Christian Christology. But even more to the point is Jean Daniélou's claim that in certain early Jewish Christian traditions both Jesus and the Holy Spirit were believed to be the two "Angels of the Presence transcending all others."315
Conclusion
We have established that Abraham's identification of Yahweh with "the angel of his presence" was consistent with the earliest Israelite traditions, and with the earliest Christian traditions. But if we assume, as the critics of the Book of Abraham do, that Joseph Smith created this remarkable document by applying his fertile imagination to the sources he had at hand, how did he come up with this strange designation for Yahweh? The only Biblical source for the phrase would have been Isaiah 63:9, but we have seen that this verse gives no hint that Yahweh was equated with "the angel of his presence." This conclusion can only be drawn when the Greek text is compared with the Hebrew. However, it seems unlikely that Joseph Smith had access to a translation of the Septuagint, so again we are at a loss to find a source for the Prophet's teaching. Consider also that we have not been able to find even a single case where Joseph Smith used this title to refer to Yahweh, apart from this solitary passage in the Book of Abraham, or even to the Septuagint. Therefore, we are forced to conclude that Joseph Smith was inconceivably lucky in his choice of words, or the Patriarch Abraham actually chose these words to describe his God.
You would think putting a forty year argument to rest would be easy and that you would welcome doing so... so that you can move on to what you consider more pressing issues.
Just because others disagree with you, nowandlater, doesn’t mean that the conversation should be ignored. By exercising dissent, both sides can sharpen their debating skills and learn from each other.
It is this type of discussion that FR is made for.
It is considered bad form on FR not to ping someone you are talking about.
>>>>>Those are the same type of argument techniques used by people that believe things like there was no holocast. They say the evidence for the holocast is confusing, complicated, and contriversial, and persent it as such. That might be enough for someone that wants to believe there wasn’t a holocast, but they aren’t taken seriously by anyone else, becuase the evidence for the holocast is simple and compelling.
Equating mormons with holocaust deniers is ridiculous. You have violated Godwin's Law which means you automatically lose the debate.
>>>they leave the typical person saying “this is all too confusing for me
Now back to your original assertion in which you contradict yourself. you say first those who belive there was no holocaust say the evidence is too confusing. Then you go on to say the evidence is simple. but in your post you are the one saying the explanations are too confusing so technically you would fit in with the holocaust deniers in your own analogy.
Technically true but I wouldn''t want to be the one professing on a public forum dedicated to conservatism that I disagree with the intent if not letter of the constitution. IOW, what other parts of the constitution do your personal beliefs contradict... justice, domestic tranquility, liberty? Right to bear arms? Abolition of slavery?
Just to be fair i know you don't believe in slavery but I am just pointing out that your argument, that you don't personally follow the intent of the constituion is not something I'd trumpet on FR
In the first place, you misread my post.
YOU wouldn’t want to be me pointing out the letter of the law as written in the constitution? Why in heaven’s name would you care that I correct a poster’s misrepresentation about the actual contents in the constitution and her faulty reasoning when it comes to the litmus test.
I FIRMLY AGREE WITH THE LETTER AND INTENT OF THE CONSTITUTION.
I also know that as a citizen I do NOT have to answer to another citizen about my voting habits including how or why I vote for a candidate. I’m allowed to make distinctions based upon party, marital status, divorces, voting record, religion, race, and a candidate’s circle of friends... even the brand of car the candidate drives or whether or not he recycles.
There could be HUNDREDS of characteristics in a candidate’s life that sway my vote this way or that. And my consideration of those facts and any weight that I give to them is also a private matter.
THANK HEAVEN THAT I WON’T HAVE YOU STANDING OVER MY SHOULDER WATCHING HOW I VOTE... HINT HERE: THAT IS THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN DETERMINE HOW I VOTE.
And that being the case... that is the only way YOU can attempt to characterize my voting practices. One thing you have forgotten, though...
you STILL won’t know which criteria I chose. I don’t have to TELL you. You’d only be looking over my shoulder.
I’m a citizen and I live under the protection and enforcement of the constitution. You cannot have one without the other.
Why don’t you run along now and worry about your own voting record? The men in big black boots may be curious about YOUR voting record, comrade.
What is it with Godwin's law having to be invoked on FR so much these last few days? You automatically lose the debate.
From your anti-mormon posting history long before Romney was considering running for Pres. It is obvious how and why you opppose him. I don't care who you pull the lever for. As you have said someone could oppose a Presidential candidate say based on their race. Technically it doesn't violate the constituion as you can vote for whomever you will. But not voting for someone based on their race is bigotry opposeed to the intent of the Constitution. And, I still contend that when it comes to the religious litmus intent of the constitution you will oppose Romney for his Mormonism. Since I won't be "the Nazi spying" on you in the voting booth I am just basing that assertion on your extensive rants over the years against the Mormon religion. Your posting history is there for any who really care.
Who said his statements are made up?!? I didn’t. I said his position has changed. Even if it changed six months ago, at least it’s changing in the right direction.
Go ahead support Tancredo or Ron Paul or whoever you like. They don’t have a snowball’s chance.
Sure, we can argue this all day, but I am not sure I want to do it in the news forum area. Can’t we create an open religous thread and refer to it whenever the topic comes up in the news forum? Is that reasonable or do we need to battle it out again and again?
Here is a beautiful song of our worship. Notice how moving it is. I guess even those are fooled can be touched by Jesus.
Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Og2PPbWt_1k
Come, Thou Fount of every blessing,
Tune my heart to sing Thy grace;
Streams of mercy, never ceasing,
Call for songs of loudest praise.
Teach me some melodious sonnet,
Sung by flaming tongues above.
Praise the mount! I’m fixed upon it,
Mount of Thy redeeming love.
Sorrowing I shall be in spirit,
Till released from flesh and sin,
Yet from what I do inherit,
Here Thy praises I’ll begin;
Here I raise my Ebenezer;
Here by Thy great help I’ve come;
And I hope, by Thy good pleasure,
Safely to arrive at home.
Jesus sought me when a stranger,
Wandering from the fold of God;
He, to rescue me from danger,
Interposed His precious blood;
How His kindness yet pursues me
Mortal tongue can never tell,
Clothed in flesh, till death shall loose me
I cannot proclaim it well.
O to grace how great a debtor
Daily I’m constrained to be!
Let Thy goodness, like a fetter,
Bind my wandering heart to Thee.
Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it,
Prone to leave the God I love;
Here’s my heart, O take and seal it,
Seal it for Thy courts above.
O that day when freed from sinning,
I shall see Thy lovely face;
Clothed then in blood washed linen
How I’ll sing Thy sovereign grace;
Come, my Lord, no longer tarry,
Take my ransomed soul away;
Send thine angels now to carry
Me to realms of endless day.
Hi.
Hunter.
Fred.
Bye.
"But not voting for someone based on their race is bigotry opposeed (definition?) to the intent of the Constitution.
You are confusing race with what you perceive to be a slight against his religion... Romney's race is neutral in American politics. Or haven't you noticed that approximate all 98% of all candidates and the majority of voters are white in America? During the upcoming election, you'll not see ONE political ad by Romney where he is called to explain his race and how it effects America.
I voted for Herman Cain for Senate. One of his attractive qualities WAS his race... but it was attractive in that it made a resounding noise in Georgia politics. He is an intelligent, upstanding, thought-provoking black American who has well-known skills when it comes to his ability to govern in the Senate. To pretend that his race, or JC Watts' race don't factor into an election is dishonest. The two of them ARE attractive to black conservative voters in America. And BOTH of these men would NEVER hide from their race. That is a ridiculous notion. They are proud of themselves... ALL aspects and characteristics.
These voters were given an attractive alternative, rather than sticking with the Democratic formula that gives them promises if they vote as a bloc to support the most liberal candidate. And these voters are a reminder to us all that people are not all created from the same mould. It is INTELLIGENCE that matters the very most. And even in Georgia, a black man can run for the Senate. This was historical in Southern politics.
You are the one who resorts to the lowest denominator. Again, I didn't accuse you of being a NAZI. I do not sling about that term. You doth protest too much, and you are looking foolish.
I'm opposing your tactics and socialist ideology in general. And it's got your dander up... the best you can do is scream NAZI! I'm not impressed. You'll have to try harder than that.
Maybe you need to peruse a ditionary and thesaurus and see the multiple meanings of the word "comrade". Why do you think that term is used consistently when in connection with Hillary Clinton? That analogy that is used, isn't based on Nazism, either. If you are intellectually honest, you will see that when used against her it carries an even more devastating blow because of her socialist and communist IDEOLOGY. So, research the term "comrade". I doubt you'll do that... you DON'T like having to backtrack on one of your tirades. Hint for you... (THINK COMMUNISM, NOT NAZI GERMANY!")
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.