LDS LDS---YIKES!

[mmksparbud]

It was not hogwash in 1850 to think that men lived on the moon or the sun. You keep forgetting, BY made this statement around 1850, when it was thought that men lived on the moon and sun.

That is why I said, "if you are interested in the truth, then read this article". You obviously are not interested in the truth, but only interested in bashing BY.

And you are obviously not interested in answering my question. What did Paul say, that is a personal opinion, comparable to what BY said?

 

[mmksparbud]

I said that because of Phoebe Ann's total reliability on the bible, I felt that she would have problems in the time of Christ to convert to Christianity, knowing that the name of Jesus was not in her bible, and he was teaching to love your enemy and teaching that gentiles would be let into his gospel, teaching that he was the Son of God and was divine, meaning that he was a god too, and his radical preaching and his uneducated disciple rabble, etc., etc,. etc, all contrary to what her bible said.

I was not talking about everyone in Israel at the time of Christ, I was talking about Phoebe Ann.

Then, again, Phoebe Ann may very well have looked past all of that and joined, but I don't know.
Her bible had very little of what Jesus was preaching, she may have not been able to get over it.

Again, it was those who studied the scriptures that were converted. Compared to those who just were taught whatever the Rabbis said. All first Christians were converted by reading the OT. You do not seem to comprehend that. Which means, that because Phoebe Ann does study her bible---or she'd still be Mormon---then she would have also seen that Jesus was indeed the promised Messiah.

 

[Peter1000]

Again, it was those who studied the scriptures that were converted. Compared to those who just were taught whatever the Rabbis said. All first Christians were converted by reading the OT. You do not seem to comprehend that. Which means, that because Phoebe Ann does study her bible---or she'd still be Mormon---then she would have also seen that Jesus was indeed the promised Messiah.

 

[Peter1000]

And you are obviously not interested in answering my question. What did Paul say, that is a personal opinion, comparable to what BY said?

Read Romans 3:5
1 Corinthians 7:6
1 Corinthians 7:12
2 Corinthians 8:8
2 Corinthians 11:17

All these scriptures refer to this general idea: I am speaking as a man, not for the Lord. IOW Paul was giving his opinion. He was very outspoken when he talked about women speaking in the church, his opinion was that is was a shame (1 Corinthians 14:39) Now if I were a headstrong, intelligent woman, that would be hogwash to me.

 

[mmksparbud]

Read Romans 3:5
1 Corinthians 7:6
1 Corinthians 7:12
2 Corinthians 8:8
2 Corinthians 11:17

All these scriptures refer to this general idea: I am speaking as a man, not for the Lord. IOW Paul was giving his opinion. He was very outspoken when he talked about women speaking in the church, his opinion was that is was a shame (1 Corinthians 14:39) Now if I were a headstrong, intelligent woman, that would be hogwash to me.

You do not understand the background of that scripture. Men and women were in separate places in the church. The women had a tendency to get together and you know what it means when women get together---they were yacking--it was a distraction to the men who were studying and preaching. Look it up. As for the rest---no, it is not hogwash and nowhere near the same thing as the sun and moon being inhabited. If he had said that there were little green men living underground, then we'd have a reasonable comparison. Our bodies no longer being our own but each others, is no where near the same category and goes with the concept that we are to submit to each other---in the Lord. And BY didn't say---this is my opinion.

 

[BigDaddy4]

It was not hogwash in 1850 to think that men lived on the moon or the sun. You keep forgetting, BY made this statement around 1850, when it was thought that men lived on the moon and sun.

That is why I said, "if you are interested in the truth, then read this article". You obviously are not interested in the truth, but only interested in bashing BY.

Which is more problematic for BY to be a prophet of God if he is being influenced by the incorrect thoughts of men when he is speaking from the pulpit. And yet your religion name its flagship university after him...

 

[He is the way]

Which is more problematic for BY to be a prophet of God if he is being influenced by the incorrect thoughts of men when he is speaking from the pulpit. And yet your religion name its flagship university after him...

And by your own conviction Peter denied Christ three times. Are you therefore saying Peter is not worthy?

 

[BigDaddy4]

And by your own conviction Peter denied Christ three times. Are you therefore saying Peter is not worthy?

Irrelevant. Was Peter in the pulpit? Jesus predicted Peter's denial. Jesus also restored Peter. You are reaching out of desperation.

 

[Peter1000]

Which is more problematic for BY to be a prophet of God if he is being influenced by the incorrect thoughts of men when he is speaking from the pulpit. And yet your religion name its flagship university after him...

You are right, our best university is named after BY and we are proud of his name, regardless that he and the top astrologer (non-Mormon scientist) of his day thought there was people living on the sun and the moon.

You see what you do with evidence, even from non-Mormon scientists. You disregard it as if it were from BYU. IOW it does not matter if there is true evidence or not, you have it in for BY, so nothing that a non-Mormon scientist says means anything if he agrees with BY.
So here we have a case where in 1850, the astrology community of scientists (if the best one does, then certainly lesser ones would agree with him) think there were people living on the sun or the moon. I would think that would make you stop and think, huh, if the best scientists in America in the 1800's thought there were people living in the sun or the moon, maybe its not such a far-fetched idea that BY could think that too.
But you give BY nothing. Whether he agrees with the science of the day or not. Thank you for proving my point with evidence.

 

[mmksparbud]

You are right, our best university is named after BY and we are proud of his name, regardless that he and the top astrologer (non-Mormon scientist) of his day thought there was people living on the sun and the moon.

You see what you do with evidence, even from non-Mormon scientists. You disregard it as if it were from BYU. IOW it does not matter if there is true evidence or not, you have it in for BY, so nothing that a non-Mormon scientist says means anything if he agrees with BY.
So here we have a case where in 1850, the astrology community of scientists (if the best one does, then certainly lesser ones would agree with him) think there were people living on the sun or the moon. I would think that would make you stop and think, huh, if the best scientists in America in the 1800's thought there were people living in the sun or the moon, maybe its not such a far-fetched idea that BY could think that too.
But you give BY nothing. Whether he agrees with the science of the day or not. Thank you for proving my point with evidence.

It wasn't held by every scientist!:


some though it was actually hell, some thought it was made if ice:
"Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, textbooks and astronomers were torn between two competing ideas about the sun’s nature. Some believed that its dazzling brightness was caused by luminous clouds and that small holes in the clouds, which revealed the cool, dark solar surface below, were the sunspots. But the majority view was that the sun’s body was a hot, glowing liquid, and that the sunspots were solar mountains sticking up through this lava-like substance.

No less a distinguished astronomer than William Herschel, who discovered the planet Uranus in 1781, often stated that the sun has a cool, solid surface on which human-like creatures live and play. According to him, these solar citizens are shielded from the heat given off by the sun’s “dazzling outer clouds” by an inner protective cloud layer—like a layer of haz-mat material—that perfectly blocks the solar emissions and allows for pleasant grassy solar meadows and idyllic lakes."

Which still doesn't alter the fact that none of these people, were supposedly prophets of God with much more knowledge of "truth." He was teaching this from the pulpit, not stating an opinion only. This was not a matter of having failed to acknowledge Jesus, or of having sinned. It's not a matter of having it in for BY---facts are facts. This was a firmly held believe he taught from the pulpit as truth.
.

 

[Peter1000]

You do not understand the background of that scripture. Men and women were in separate places in the church. The women had a tendency to get together and you know what it means when women get together---they were yacking--it was a distraction to the men who were studying and preaching. Look it up. As for the rest---no, it is not hogwash and nowhere near the same thing as the sun and moon being inhabited. If he had said that there were little green men living underground, then we'd have a reasonable comparison. Our bodies no longer being our own but each others, is no where near the same category and goes with the concept that we are to submit to each other---in the Lord. And BY didn't say---this is my opinion.

You are looking at BY's statement in 2019 time frame, that is your problem. It is no problem for us, we are looking at it through the eyes of an astrology expert in BY's day (1800's). Look it up.

BY said he 'rather thought so', which is the same as says 'in my opinion'. He certainly did not say, 'in the name of the Lord'. Whether BY was at the pulpit or on the street it did not matter to him, he was always preaching.

Are we making a mountain out of an ant hill. Yes, so let's just end it. You will not persuade me to think one iota differently about BY, and you are not interested in anything that would exonerate BY of saying hogwash. So we just need to agree again to disagree.

 

[Peter1000]

It wasn't held by every scientist!:


some though it was actually hell, some thought it was made if ice:
"Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, textbooks and astronomers were torn between two competing ideas about the sun’s nature. Some believed that its dazzling brightness was caused by luminous clouds and that small holes in the clouds, which revealed the cool, dark solar surface below, were the sunspots. But the majority view was that the sun’s body was a hot, glowing liquid, and that the sunspots were solar mountains sticking up through this lava-like substance.

No less a distinguished astronomer than William Herschel, who discovered the planet Uranus in 1781, often stated that the sun has a cool, solid surface on which human-like creatures live and play. According to him, these solar citizens are shielded from the heat given off by the sun’s “dazzling outer clouds” by an inner protective cloud layer—like a layer of haz-mat material—that perfectly blocks the solar emissions and allows for pleasant grassy solar meadows and idyllic lakes."

Which still doesn't alter the fact that none of these people, were supposedly prophets of God with much more knowledge of "truth." He was teaching this from the pulpit, not stating an opinion only. This was not a matter of having failed to acknowledge Jesus, or of having sinned. It's not a matter of having it in for BY---facts are facts. This was a firmly held believe he taught from the pulpit as truth.
.

I'm sure if BY wanted to bother Jesus about this subject he could have found out for sure, but he did not think it that important, so he didn't. Just remember prophets of God are real men too, and they have their own opinions about things. They do not sit on thrones and pray and meditate all day and night about the mysteries of the universe, and then stand before the people and expound the littlest tid bits about stuff. Some of their opinions are not exactly correct, does this make them a false prophet? No, it just means their opinion was not exactly correct.

So I have confessed that BY opinion was not correct (as far as we know), but I will not call him a false prophet because of his wrong opinion. He lived in the 1800's where it was plausible to have this opinion. Now if our current prophet Russell Nelson said this over the pulpit, I might think differently, but alas, no such statements from him.

 

[mmksparbud]

You are looking at BY's statement in 2019 time frame, that is your problem. It is no problem for us, we are looking at it through the eyes of an astrology expert in BY's day (1800's). Look it up.

BY said he 'rather thought so', which is the same as says 'in my opinion'. He certainly did not say, 'in the name of the Lord'. Whether BY was at the pulpit or on the street it did not matter to him, he was always preaching.

Are we making a mountain out of an ant hill. Yes, so let's just end it. You will not persuade me to think one iota differently about BY, and you are not interested in anything that would exonerate BY of saying hogwash. So we just need to agree again to disagree.

To you, everything that JS and BY and all your prophets say and do is quite acceptable. To the rest of the world----when you put everything together---just one more proof that they are not of God. If one of our ministers teaches what is not biblical from the pulpit---there will be repercussions from the congregation.

 

[BigDaddy4]

You are right, our best university is named after BY and we are proud of his name, regardless that he and the top astrologer (non-Mormon scientist) of his day thought there was people living on the sun and the moon.

You see what you do with evidence, even from non-Mormon scientists. You disregard it as if it were from BYU. IOW it does not matter if there is true evidence or not, you have it in for BY, so nothing that a non-Mormon scientist says means anything if he agrees with BY.
So here we have a case where in 1850, the astrology community of scientists (if the best one does, then certainly lesser ones would agree with him) think there were people living on the sun or the moon. I would think that would make you stop and think, huh, if the best scientists in America in the 1800's thought there were people living in the sun or the moon, maybe its not such a far-fetched idea that BY could think that too.
But you give BY nothing. Whether he agrees with the science of the day or not. Thank you for proving my point with evidence.

I could care less if it was Einstein that thought there were men on the sun. Any "non-Mormon scientist" is/was not considered an lds prophet who proclaimed his words from the pulpit were equal to God.

It seems you lds have difficulty understanding what evidence means. Sometimes is like you want to compare car tires and brown sugar.

 

[Peter1000]

To you, everything that JS and BY and all your prophets say and do is quite acceptable. To the rest of the world----when you put everything together---just one more proof that they are not of God. If one of our ministers teaches what is not biblical from the pulpit---there will be repercussions from the congregation.

Remember if BY said that today you would have some need to worry. Remember he said this in the 1800's when it was thought that the sun and the moon were inhabited. Big difference. You would have applauded him in the 1800's, but not now. Big difference.

 

[Peter1000]

I could care less if it was Einstein that thought there were men on the sun. Any "non-Mormon scientist" is/was not considered an lds prophet who proclaimed his words from the pulpit were equal to God.

It seems you lds have difficulty understanding what evidence means. Sometimes is like you want to compare car tires and brown sugar.

Everytime I bring up a non-Mormon scientist that agrees with what we say on a particular issue, you fight it tooth and toenail. Interesting.

 

[mmksparbud]

Everytime I bring up a non-Mormon scientist that agrees with what we say on a particular issue, you fight it tooth and toenail. Interesting.

Doesn't matter how grand, well known, or knowledgeable any scientist is---they do not claim to have God's ear and His truth. Enormous difference.

 

[BigDaddy4]

What she said. ^^^

 

[He is the way]

Irrelevant. Was Peter in the pulpit? Jesus predicted Peter's denial. Jesus also restored Peter. You are reaching out of desperation.

It maters not that Peter was not behind the pulpit or that Jesus predicted what Peter would do, he did it and it was wrong. I am not comparing car tires here to brown sugar. Both of these men are servants of God in a high capacity and both are capable of making mistakes. How many of the prophets were perfect? The only one I know of was Jesus Christ. Even Isaiah made a prophesy that did not come to pass.

 

[dzheremi]

It maters not that Peter was not behind the pulpit or that Jesus predicted what Peter would do

What? If It doesn't matter that Jesus predicted what he was going to do, then why did Jesus do that?