Posts by Cold Steel

19

According to JW.org it's now ok to celebrate xmas.....pass it on! Faders..Lurkers...SEE THIS

by Lied2NoMore in

one fb friend posted the faq link about "why dont jw's celebrate xmas?

" after reading the link i concluded that it is either another collossal lie the wt is telling, or it is now ok to celebrate x-mas!.

from jw.org faq:.

Ever consider joining The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

by rawe in

has anyone here left jehovah's witnesses to join the churuch of jesus christ of latter-day saints?

what was your motivation for doing so and how has it worked out?.

if you haven't joined the lds or considered it, as an ex-jw, what is your general view of the lds faith?.

Cold Steel

Band On the Run: Why would anyone here even consider becoming Mormon? They make the Witnesses look sane.

It would be nice if people would explain their reasoning. It all depends on what one knows and understands. I know quite a bit about both religions, and I can’t cobble up any reasons why I’d prefer being a Witness. As pointed out, we don’t skunk people like the Jehovah’s Witnesses do; we can attend church anywhere we wish; we’re actually encouraged to seek higher education; we don’t have any restrictions on religious materials that we read; our eschatology is far more in line with early Christianity and Judaism; we have an incredible welfare system; our scholars are recognized outside of our religion; and, if one believes in ancient Christianity, we don’t believe in anything outside of those bounds, meaning, of course, angels, revelation, apostles and prophets and gifts of the Spirit.

So in what way does all this make the Jehovah’s Witnesses look sane? Or, possibly, we have two different ideas what sanity is all about.

Rawe/Randy: The reason why I've been pointing to 2 Nephi 22, is it shows a translation style of the KJV translators. Where the divine name YHWH appears in Hebrew, they typically did not translate it, but instead substituted the word LORD.

The translation issue is one of the far most misunderstood issue of the religion. We LDS have never claimed that Joseph Smith used the same translating process as scholars and linguists. We even have no issues with the KJV of Isaiah being used in the Book of Mormon, as long as the translations are accurate. For example, people get upset when they see the word “Christ” being used in the translation of a Hebrew document produced several hundred years B.C. Mormons understand that “Messiah” would have worked equally as well, but “Christ” means the same thing in English. Or the word “adieu” in the book of Jacob. It wasn’t the word Jacob used or even a derivation of it, but readers of the Book of Mormon knew what the word meant, and it was a word that Smith knew and used in his day. So again, the final and enduring question is and remains, is the Book of Mormon translated correctly? And our reply is, it is.

Note: This article, from BBC, reports these gold
plates date back to 600 B.C., same date as the
gold plates found by Joseph Smith.

Following the directions given in the Book of Mormon, members of
the Nephi Project ended up just where Nephi did...in a great valley
("steadfast and immovable"), with a stream of water running con-
tinually through it. Subsequent research showed the encampment
dates back to 600 B.C. So did the river of water.

1 Nephi 2:9-10: 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!

.

43

Disciplinary Actions

by Cold Steel in

during a disciplinary procedure, what would the response be if you wanted representation?

an advocate?.

why don't they have a group of unbiased men, a prosecutor to present the case against you and an advocate that would represent the accused?

Cold Steel

Thank you all for your responses. Alas, I fear we may drive off The Dawg if everyone jumps down his throat. He's one of the few active JW members (and an elder to boot) that is actually interactive. Others posit hit and run messages and almost never, if ever, respond to replies. I hope he sticks around.

Rawe/Randy: There are very good reasons why court systems in most countries work they way they do. Why everything spoken in court is recorded. How evidence is handled, how questions are asked and responded to, etc.

Yep, and it’s one reason the bill of rights under the U.S. Constitution was deemed so important to the very liberty the Jehovah’s Witnesses enjoy. I suspect that if a town court prosecuted the JWs, and sought to deny them representation, that they would vigorously appeal it as both illegal and unfair. You know what they say about people who represent themselves (“they have fools for clients”). How, then, can they deny that the courts are the prosecutors? The scripture states that in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. Often the courts include the witnesses themselves and, if not, the elders many times are unduly influenced by the witnesses.

This allows for many ways in which the pooch is screwed. First, what happens if one doesn’t confess, but simply repents? Armageddon comes and what happens? This good person who has repented gets blasted into oblivion? Not if their God is just, merciful and loving. If the person has a heavenly hope, does he get demoted to one of the great crowd?

Also, here’s a hypothetical. Jim is hauled into the church court and accused of committing certain indiscretions (because, after all, slaves have to be discreet). Although he denies the charges, the court has witnesses, and 1) because he has denied them and, 2) because he fails to confess and repent of them, he’s disfellowshiped. His friends and employer skunk him and though he manages to keep his job, his reputation is ruined. And, a year later, when he seeks to be reinstated so he can get married, he’s asked if he’s repented. So he confesses and is reinstated.

Now Jim, who was out, is now back in. Two weeks after his marriage, he makes an appointment with the judicial committee to confess about another transgression. The elders and overseer are agitated, but they agree to a meeting. Jim shows up and, when given the floor, admits to having willfully borne false witness to the previous court. He lied, he admits, when he confessed to having committed the offenses he was charged with. He also lied when he said he repented of them because he never actually had anything to repent of.

So what happens?

.

139

Ever consider joining The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

by rawe in

has anyone here left jehovah's witnesses to join the churuch of jesus christ of latter-day saints?

what was your motivation for doing so and how has it worked out?.

if you haven't joined the lds or considered it, as an ex-jw, what is your general view of the lds faith?.

Cold Steel

Cofty:Mormon "scholars" are wasting their time polishing a turd.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, baseless as it is. If you had an advanced degree in ancient scripture or had committed yourself to any serious critical study, I might be more impressed. But I’ve read some of your other posts here, Cofty, and find they’re of almost no substance. You also tend to lift your points from other sources without doing any of your own groundwork. In short, if I'm polishing turds, you're throwing them. You put quotes around the word "scholars" but you know nothing about them or their backgrounds. You cite no examples of shoddy work, so you're just engaging in ad hominem attacks and essentially nothing more.

I have read large parts of the book. It's childish nonsense.

See? You did it again. Which parts of the book, exactly, are childish nonsense? And why do we have to ask? Again, based on your other posts on this website, you apparently think people are interested in your opinions without your having to back them up or document them. There are numerous non-Mormon scholars of ancient scripture who do not share your views of the Book of Mormon. Why should your views be valued over theirs?

When Joe Smith wrote down the parts he clearly plagiarized from the King James bible why did he not have the wit to update the language?

Just which parts are you referring to? Nephi and other prophets in the Western Hemisphere had the book of Isaiah and likened portions of it to themselves; however, these passages were very intelligently used and applied. They just weren’t data dumps. And if you compare the texts, they also weren’t word-for-word transliterations. Many verses contained corrections, and some passages were more closely related to the Septuagint than the KJV. Here is one article that may enlighten you. And here are some others:

Does the Book of Mormon plagiarize the King James Bible?

Discrepancies Between Translations?.

The Nephites carried with them their scriptures, which meant they not only had the same scriptures we had up to that time, but others we don’t have. And the Hebrews didn’t have the strict attribution rules we do in our culture today. Note these two quotes, one from Isaiah and one from Micah. Did one quote the other, or did they both quote another source we don’t have? Or could the Holy Spirit have dictated the same to both? So yes, whatever is happening here could also have happened in the Book of Mormon.

.

2+2=5:Were you once a JW Cold Steel? Why the fascination with this site? Are you here to convert us?

If I am here to convert you guys, I’m making a lot of headway, don’t you think?

No, for a long time I never mentioned my religion. Then someone either asked me what religion I was or I jumped in to a conversation about how Mormons were no better than Jehovah’s Witnesses and came to the defense of the LDS church, then came the cascade of insults.

When I had some JW missionaries over for a “Bible” study back in 2006, I also refused (at first) to tell them my religion. Why? (they asked). Because as soon as I tell you my religion, the discussion will change to what’s wrong with my religion and not what’s right about yours. No, they wouldn’t do that, they said. So I told them. The very next session, the two guys showed up with a guy they called an elder. Rather than sitting back in their seats like the other two, this elder sat on the very edge of the sofa. Then, bang, he began this attack on the LDS church. The other two guys just looked at him as though he were Gandhi and let him rant. We argued about premortality, the Godhead, theosis—you name it. Then he started in to “adding to the Bible” as warned about in the book of Revelation. (Apparently he didn’t know that that passage only refers to that one book and not the entire Bible, but we talked about that, too.)

I’ve always been interested in religion...all religion. Also, back a number of years ago, part of the family joined the Jehovah’s Witnesses. They immediately cut the rest of the family off and we never heard much from them after that. So that’s probably one of the biggest reasons I’m here. (If you really have to know, I’m actually here to secretly convert Cofty, but don’t tell him. I’m making a lot of progress.)

Actually, I don't mind people asking me about Mormonism, but I prefer they contact me by PM rather than start a thread that doesn't have anything to do with Jehovah's Witnesses. Oh, and BTW, I didn't start this thread. I just responded to some misunderstandings.

139

Ever consider joining The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

by rawe in

has anyone here left jehovah's witnesses to join the churuch of jesus christ of latter-day saints?

what was your motivation for doing so and how has it worked out?.

if you haven't joined the lds or considered it, as an ex-jw, what is your general view of the lds faith?.

Cold Steel

Pre-Columbian Wheels
Just a few years ago, no one thought the Mayans had wheels, yet toys have now been found with wheels. The Book of Mormon also mentions level roads, and in Mesoamerica are the only level roads ever discovered. Most use the Roman design, which has a higher top so water runoff would occur; however, the Mayans didn't need or use such roads. And why would they have such large roads if there were no wheels? But back in the 60s, archeologists found four massive wheels of stone with square peg holes cut in the middle. They were enormous. Besides, how did they get the stones from the quarries if they didn't have conveyances of some sort? And what pulled them?

Anachronisms: Our scholars have made a list and have been checking it twice. So why do the list of anachronisms continue to plummet like a rock? In 1842, our list had only eight confirmed; in 2005, it has dropped to 36 confirmed. If the Book of Mormon was false, it should be going the other direction. When the Book of Mormon first appeared, do any of you guys know how many gold or other metal plates had ever been discovered with writing on them? Close your eyes...whaddya see? That's right, nothing! No gold plates in stone boxes in ancient America or ancient Old World. Now they've been found all over the place.

Chariots

Proof of wheels didn't exist until fairly recently.

Book of Mormon Animals

Deutero-Isaiah and the Book of Mormon
Isaiah in the Book of Mormon

.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qkydMSmv1Zo

6

Jesus The Archangel

by cipher7836 in

hi all, i joined to learn more about jws.

is it true that you guys believe that jesus is an archangel?

i'm confused on this point..

Cold Steel

Yes, it's one of the more bizarre points of the religion.

We can find out who Jesus was in the premortal life by going to the book of Zechariah. Regardless of what the JWs say, Armageddon will happen in the Middle East, in Jerusalem. We know this by reading Ezek. 38-39, Zech. 12-14, and Rev. 11-13. All these things occur in Jerusalem, without a doubt. But let's just concentrate on Zechariah's passages.

As we see, this will happen in the day that Jehovah will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. Clearly this has not yet happened because the last time Jerusalem was beseiged, the Romans won and then scattered the Jews to the four corners of the earth, as the prophets had foreseen. So we see Jehovah saying, "And they shall look upon me whom they have pierced." Who was pierced? Jesus. We then see the embedded references to "only son" and "his firstborn," titles of the Son of God, again Jesus. And after the Jews see that he is pierced, what do the Jews do? They go into mourning. Why? Because they'll know that their messiah is Jesus Christ, and that they and their fathers had made a terrible mistake. Zechariah also writes:

This really doesn't need a comment, but.... Again Jerusalem is under seige and, again, Jehovah is coming to fight their battles. As Jesus ascended into Heaven after his resurrection, the two angels told the apostles that he would come "in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." That was on the Mount of Olives. Now we see that Jehovah is coming and that "his feet" shall stand upon the Mount of Olives.

So my question to the Society is, whose feet are going to stand on the Mount of Olives that day? Sounds like Jesus, but the scripture states, "the Lord my God shall come." So as Methodist scholar Margaret Barker and other scholars have concluded, Jesus was known in premortality, not as Michael, but as Jehovah.

When Adam sinned, man needed an intercessor. That intercessor was Jehovah, the only begotten son of the Father. Thus, it was Jesus who was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. That's why Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I AM." It was a clear, concise statement that he was Yahweh, and it's why the Jews went berzerk and tried to stone him. So it may have gone over the heads of the Governing Body, but not the leaders of the Jews.

.

6

Went to church for the first time in a long long time.

by Crazyguy in

well its been since i was around 5 years young that i last went to church.

so today i went to a church of a friend and it was very nice.

they sang some songs with a band, good songs unlike jw's.

Cold Steel

They have nothing to worry about from a Mormon standpoint, collectively speaking.

With all the various near death experiences I've read, the first question people are usually asked is, "What have you done for others?" Not, "Which church do you belong to?"

.

6

Went to church for the first time in a long long time.

by Crazyguy in

well its been since i was around 5 years young that i last went to church.

so today i went to a church of a friend and it was very nice.

they sang some songs with a band, good songs unlike jw's.

Cold Steel

Yes, too bad those worldly people will be destroyed forever at Armageddon.

139

Ever consider joining The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

by rawe in

has anyone here left jehovah's witnesses to join the churuch of jesus christ of latter-day saints?

what was your motivation for doing so and how has it worked out?.

if you haven't joined the lds or considered it, as an ex-jw, what is your general view of the lds faith?.

Cold Steel

Lisa Rose: I don't know why you keep posting on this board, nobody here will ever want to join the Mormons. One stupid cult is enough in a lifetime.w

Don't read it if you don't like it. I didn't think up this weird thread. I'd rather talk about Jehovah's Witnesses.

So unless anyone has anything pertinent to say:

139

Ever consider joining The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

by rawe in

has anyone here left jehovah's witnesses to join the churuch of jesus christ of latter-day saints?

what was your motivation for doing so and how has it worked out?.

if you haven't joined the lds or considered it, as an ex-jw, what is your general view of the lds faith?.

Cold Steel

Qcmbr: I don't believe in that person as a divine being and the myth of Christ is awful to me. A cult is a cult. So agreed.

So you’re willing to pre-judge any religious group based on the negative things people say about them? I don’t understand how anyone can read Isaiah 53 without seeing Christ...or understanding the law of sacrifice. What other reason would God have for commanding that an animal without blemish be offered up unless to act as a teaching device? I don’t know why the Greeks, Babylonians and others would offer up animal sacrifices because, to them, the smell of the sacrifices pleased their gods. But to the Hebrews, animal sacrifice had a much deeper meaning in that it pointed to Christ.

You could argue that it wasn't sexual but then you'd have to argue that since the sealing keys weren't given till later on, that Joseph was simply marrying pluraly with no celestial hope or promise. I can think of no rational reason why someone would simply marry additional women for no particular reason.

Since I haven’t made the plural marriage issue a point of study, I know that the vast majority of disdain came from external sources. But as we’ve stated, God is the author and framer of all righteousness. If there is no God, there can be no right nor wrong. FairMormon describes the Fanny Alger incident thus:

Probably the wife about whom we know the least is Fanny Alger, Joseph's first plural wife, whom he came to know in early 1833 when she stayed at the Smith home as a house-assistant of sorts to Emma (such work was common for young women at the time). There are no first-hand accounts of their relationship (from Joseph or Fanny), nor are there second-hand accounts (from Emma or Fanny's family). All that we do have is third hand accounts, most of them recorded many years after the events.

Unfortunately, this lack of reliable and extensive historical detail leaves much room for critics to claim that Joseph Smith had an affair with Fanny and then later invented plural marriage as way to justify his actions. The problem is we don't know the details of the relationship or exactly of what it consisted, and so are left to assume that Joseph acted honorably (as believers) or dishonorably (as critics).

There is some historical evidence that Joseph Smith knew as early as 1831 that plural marriage would be restored, so it is perfectly legitimate to argue that Joseph's relationship with Fanny Alger was such a case. Mosiah Hancock (a Mormon) reported a wedding ceremony; and apostate Mormons Ann Eliza Webb Young and her father Chauncery both referred to Fanny's relationship as a "sealing." Ann Eliza also reported that Fanny's family was very proud of Fanny's relationship with Joseph, which makes little sense if it was simply a tawdry affair. Those closest to them saw the marriage as exactly that—a marriage.

The keys for eternal sealing were restored by Elijah in 1836. All marriages up to that point were systematically sealed with the proper keys, but not everything came at once. Helen Mar Kimball, the one I mentioned earlier, she suffered through the persecutions in Nauvoo and made it out to Utah, where she lived to a ripe old age. She was the one supposedly victimized by Joseph Smith, but shortly before her death she wrote:

I have long since learned to leave all with [God], who knoweth better than ourselves what will make us happy. I am thankful that He has brought me through the furnace of affliction [and] that He has condescended to show me that the promises made to me the morning that I was sealed to the Prophet of God will not fail [and] I would not have the chain broken for I have had a view of the principle of eternal salvation [and] the perfect union which this sealing power will bring to the human family [and] with the help of our Heavenly Father I am determined to so live that I can claim those promises.

I was referring to the Book of Mormon which Joseph tried to sell the copyright of with its impossible historical events, incorrect flora and fauna and anachronisms. I did post links to the books he lifted style and content from earlier in this thread but you missed them; I care enough about you to do your homework though....

First, please tell me about the incorrect “flora and fauna and anachronisms” the Book of Mormon is guilty of. Meanwhile, I took a look at your “books [Joseph Smith] lifted style and content from and I’m stunned. Do you really believe these books are where Joseph Smith got his writing style from? (As far as content, I’m unsure of how to piece your arguments together here.) It’ll take more than a few “it came to pass” phrases to get very far with that argument, which is why no modern anti-Mormon I know of today uses it.

In the books you listed, where are the Hebraisms that are found throughout the Book of Mormon? All I saw were some “thees” and “thous” and some of the formal English used in the Book of Mormon. But where are the chiasms? Where are the simile curses?

Apologist Dr. Daniel C. Peterson said the Book of Mormon would be more fairly compared with another well known book:

The only book that I could think of that may even resemble it in some way (some people have pointed this out) is something like J. R. R. Tolkiens Lord of the Rings. But we need to remember that Lord of the Rings was produced over a period of about 30 years by a man with a doctorate who taught at Cambridge and Oxford Universities. It's quite a different thing than a book that was produced in about two months. So the very existence of the book is an astonishing thing. It was not something that could just be produced by an upstate New York farm boy just off the top of his head.

The Book of Mormon was produced in two months and comprised some 420,000 words, a phenomenal feat, plus, as Peterson notes, it generates “a plausible and coherent geography can be deduced from the book that was produced so rapidly.” The writers quote from each other frequently and appropriately, small, obscure towns that are mentioned once turn up many pages later and a long time in the future, yet the town is in the same spot. Writers of fiction usually always get these things wrong, he said.

Then there are the witnesses to the Book of Mormon. Martin Harris gave hundreds of accounts of it, and the story was always the same. There were no lapses in memory or contradictions. The same was true of David Whitmer. Again, Peterson notes: “[Whitmer] was given many opportunities to step back from his witness, to say, ‘Well, I might have been mistaken’ or ‘Joseph Smith fooled me,” or something like that. He never availed himself of that opportunity. He always stood by his witness. In fact, he did more than stand by it—he insisted on it. He had his testimony of the Book of Mormon placed on his tombstone. That, I think, is striking.”

Very similar things can be said of all the witnesses—all those who saw the plates directly, or those who felt them while in a canvas bag.

Peterson also has notes: “...ancient Near Eastern law did distinguish between thieves and robbers very rigidly, and particularly, ancient Israelite law did. Thieves were thought to be local. They stole from their neighbors; they were common; they were a nuisance, but they weren't really a threat to society. So when they were caught, they were dealt with judicially, civilly, usually by their neighbors, their townspeople, and they weren't a big deal. Robbers, on the other hand, were a very big deal. They were a threat to society. They were seen as outsiders, as brigands, as highwaymen. They would organize in groups, they would swear binding oaths; they would extort ransom from the people around them. And when they were caught, they were often caught by the military. This was a military thing, a kind of war. They were dealt with not civilly, but militarily, and they were subject to summary execution. They were quite a different thing [from thieves].

“Now, it's notable in the Book of Mormon,” he adds, that “thieves and robbers are never confused, and robbers—specifically the Gadianton robbers—are dealt with as a military problem, just as they would have been under ancient Israelite law, but not necessarily the way we think of them today because we don't make this clear distinction. So the Book of Mormon is found to be in precise agreement with ancient Near Eastern—and specifically, Israelite—concepts and usage.”

These are only a few items, and there are many more. You really think your evidence against is better than my evidence for?

.