LDS Freedom Forum

Posted: **May 1st, 2019, 2:29 pm**

Alaris wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 2:25 pm
justme wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 1:52 pm I like thestock summary. Either our data is wrong or incomplete or our doctrine is wrong or incomplete.

I like how Elder Holland put it in his April 2015 conference address.

"there was an actual Adam and Eve who fell from an actual Eden, with all the consequences that fall carried with it.

I do not know the details of what happened on this planet before that, "

He acknowledges that our understanding is incomplete.
Abraham 3:24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;

I am unaware of the talk, but doesn't Abraham 3 predate what happened on this planet before that? Or are we talking about before before that? Or in between before that and before before that?

I think we are talking about the eons of time between God planning and beginning the creation process and the time that there was found a creation upon the earth ready for God to place into it a living soul and bringing forth Adam and Eve.

What happened during those eons we don't know the details. Elder Holland admits so. Scientists are slowly working at uncovering the process, sometimes with fits and starts, but we have been commanded to study these things so some of us devote our lives to science so that we can understand God's creation and thus God.

Posted: **May 1st, 2019, 2:58 pm**

justme wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 11:10 am I just saw a headline from the Wall Street Journal about a fossil jaw found in the Himalayas belonging to a vanished human species.

It got me wondering how this forum responds to or feels about such findings.

I've never believed in the Adam was the first man thing. However, it could be true.

This is one scripture that has always made me doubt that:
Genesis 4:14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.

So keep in mind that Cain was the first son born to Adam and Eve. And he had no children as far as we know, because he married and had children later. And so who are all these people that shall slay him? It's still Generation 2. If he left the presence of God, where presumably all of the other children of Adam and Eve lived, then he should be alone. Anyway, I could go on and on about this but I don't want to spend the time to really list out every possibility and show that there is almost no logical conclusion that would make this statement true except that there were other people.

Posted: **May 1st, 2019, 3:09 pm**

harakim wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 2:58 pm
justme wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 11:10 am I just saw a headline from the Wall Street Journal about a fossil jaw found in the Himalayas belonging to a vanished human species.

It got me wondering how this forum responds to or feels about such findings.
I've never believed in the Adam was the first man thing. However, it could be true.

This is one scripture that has always made me doubt that:
Genesis 4:14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.

So keep in mind that Cain was the first son born to Adam and Eve. And he had no children as far as we know, because he married and had children later. And so who are all these people that shall slay him? It's still Generation 2. If he left the presence of God, where presumably all of the other children of Adam and Eve lived, then he should be alone. Anyway, I could go on and on about this but I don't want to spend the time to really list out every possibility and show that there is almost no logical conclusion that would make this statement true except that there were other people.

But Cain wasn't the firstborn son. Adam and Eve had already had sons and daughters previous to bearing Cain.

Posted: **May 1st, 2019, 3:13 pm**

thestock wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 1:08 pm
Cheetos wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 1:06 pm
thestock wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 1:01 pm
Cheetos wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 12:59 pm

I believe the data is wrong
How about the footprint. Do you think it is wrong? In what way is it wrong?
I don't believe in carbon dating. It has no way to validate it's methods.
But you agree a footprint was found yes? No matter the age....something was found. You just disagree on the accuracy of the reported age (I accounted for that in my post, because I, too, take issue with the accuracy).....?

Sure, there may have been a footprint. That doesn't validate the age.

Posted: **May 1st, 2019, 3:26 pm**

Cheetos wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 3:09 pm
harakim wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 2:58 pm
justme wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 11:10 am I just saw a headline from the Wall Street Journal about a fossil jaw found in the Himalayas belonging to a vanished human species.

It got me wondering how this forum responds to or feels about such findings.
I've never believed in the Adam was the first man thing. However, it could be true.

This is one scripture that has always made me doubt that:
Genesis 4:14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.

So keep in mind that Cain was the first son born to Adam and Eve. And he had no children as far as we know, because he married and had children later. And so who are all these people that shall slay him? It's still Generation 2. If he left the presence of God, where presumably all of the other children of Adam and Eve lived, then he should be alone. Anyway, I could go on and on about this but I don't want to spend the time to really list out every possibility and show that there is almost no logical conclusion that would make this statement true except that there were other people.
But Cain wasn't the firstborn son. Adam and Eve had already had sons and daughters previous to bearing Cain.

That seems odd. Because Genesis really makes it sound like he is.

Gensis 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.

She sounds like she is surprised, having gotten a man from the Lord. Like it's the first time.. No record of children before that.

Genesis 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

Maybe it's just replacing Abel, but it seems like it's giving her another .

In any case, even if you think they had more kids, my statement about the presence of the Lord stands, as does the fact of how many kids did they have that everyone is going to slay him? That he can't go somewhere where there aren't people because there are so many people? Did Adam and Eve have like 100000 kids?

Posted: **May 1st, 2019, 3:31 pm**

harakim wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 3:26 pm
Cheetos wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 3:09 pm
harakim wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 2:58 pm
justme wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 11:10 am I just saw a headline from the Wall Street Journal about a fossil jaw found in the Himalayas belonging to a vanished human species.

It got me wondering how this forum responds to or feels about such findings.
I've never believed in the Adam was the first man thing. However, it could be true.

This is one scripture that has always made me doubt that:
Genesis 4:14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.

So keep in mind that Cain was the first son born to Adam and Eve. And he had no children as far as we know, because he married and had children later. And so who are all these people that shall slay him? It's still Generation 2. If he left the presence of God, where presumably all of the other children of Adam and Eve lived, then he should be alone. Anyway, I could go on and on about this but I don't want to spend the time to really list out every possibility and show that there is almost no logical conclusion that would make this statement true except that there were other people.
But Cain wasn't the firstborn son. Adam and Eve had already had sons and daughters previous to bearing Cain.
That seems odd. Because Genesis really makes it sound like he is.

Gensis 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.

She sounds like she is surprised, having gotten a man from the Lord. Like it's the first time.. No record of children before that.

Genesis 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

Maybe it's just replacing Abel, but it seems like it's giving her another .

In any case, even if you think they had more kids, my statement about the presence of the Lord stands, as does the fact of how many kids did they have that everyone is going to slay him? That he can't go somewhere where there aren't people because there are so many people? Did Adam and Eve have like 100000 kids?

Read Moses in the PoGP, it clarifies.

Posted: **May 1st, 2019, 3:31 pm**

harakim wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 3:26 pm In any case, even if you think they had more kids, my statement about the presence of the Lord stands, as does the fact of how many kids did they have that everyone is going to slay him? That he can't go somewhere where there aren't people because there are so many people? Did Adam and Eve have like 100000 kids?

Well they lived for hundreds of years. With no birth control. Hm. So I believe Adam and Eve had a very, very large number of children.

Posted: **May 1st, 2019, 4:11 pm**

Cheetos wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 3:31 pm
harakim wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 3:26 pm
Cheetos wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 3:09 pm
harakim wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 2:58 pm

I've never believed in the Adam was the first man thing. However, it could be true.

This is one scripture that has always made me doubt that:
Genesis 4:14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.

So keep in mind that Cain was the first son born to Adam and Eve. And he had no children as far as we know, because he married and had children later. And so who are all these people that shall slay him? It's still Generation 2. If he left the presence of God, where presumably all of the other children of Adam and Eve lived, then he should be alone. Anyway, I could go on and on about this but I don't want to spend the time to really list out every possibility and show that there is almost no logical conclusion that would make this statement true except that there were other people.
But Cain wasn't the firstborn son. Adam and Eve had already had sons and daughters previous to bearing Cain.
That seems odd. Because Genesis really makes it sound like he is.

Gensis 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.

She sounds like she is surprised, having gotten a man from the Lord. Like it's the first time.. No record of children before that.

Genesis 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

Maybe it's just replacing Abel, but it seems like it's giving her another .

In any case, even if you think they had more kids, my statement about the presence of the Lord stands, as does the fact of how many kids did they have that everyone is going to slay him? That he can't go somewhere where there aren't people because there are so many people? Did Adam and Eve have like 100000 kids?
Read Moses in the PoGP, it clarifies.

It clarifies, but my second point still stands: how many kids did they have? All octuplets every 9 months?

Posted: **May 1st, 2019, 5:12 pm**

harakim wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 4:11 pm
Cheetos wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 3:31 pm
harakim wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 3:26 pm
Cheetos wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 3:09 pm

But Cain wasn't the firstborn son. Adam and Eve had already had sons and daughters previous to bearing Cain.
That seems odd. Because Genesis really makes it sound like he is.

Gensis 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.

She sounds like she is surprised, having gotten a man from the Lord. Like it's the first time.. No record of children before that.

Genesis 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

Maybe it's just replacing Abel, but it seems like it's giving her another .

In any case, even if you think they had more kids, my statement about the presence of the Lord stands, as does the fact of how many kids did they have that everyone is going to slay him? That he can't go somewhere where there aren't people because there are so many people? Did Adam and Eve have like 100000 kids?
Read Moses in the PoGP, it clarifies.
It clarifies, but my second point still stands: how many kids did they have? All octuplets every 9 months?

This is apocryphal, but there are certainly gems here (and the Lord said the Apocrypha is mostly true after all - so bear that in mind)

The Life of Adam and Eve

24.2 After Adam begot Seth, he lived for 800 years and begot 30 sons and 30 daughters 63 altogether and they were multiplied over the earth in its nations.

As for Cain, I believe he is a type of the devil himself. Compare these verses:

21.3a She brought forth a son who shone brilliantly. At once the infant stood up and ran out and brought some grass with his own hands and gave it to his mother. His name was called Cain.
...
14.2 Michael himself worshipped first then he called me and said: 'Worship the image of God Jehovah.'
14.3 I (the devil) answered: 'I do not have it within me to worship Adam.' When Michael compelled me to worship, I said to him: 'Why do you compel me? I will not worship him who is lower and posterior to me. I am prior to that creature. Before he was made, I had already been made. He ought to worship me.'

Posted: **May 1st, 2019, 5:21 pm**

There's a reason Adam and Eve were told to "Multiply and Replenish the world"
The word "Replenish" has a very specific meaning: "to fill or build up again... - replenished his glass"

"Populate" has a very different meaning: "to furnish or provide with inhabitants : PEOPLE"

The key issue is one is to re-fill, and the other is to fill from nothing.

So Adam & Eve were to re-fill the earth with their posterity.
(I have no clue what happened before, or what inhabited the earth prior that was no longer there).

Posted: **May 1st, 2019, 6:25 pm**

justme wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 11:10 am I just saw a headline from the Wall Street Journal about a fossil jaw found in the Himalayas belonging to a vanished human species.

It got me wondering how this forum responds to or feels about such findings.

The same way I feel about other propaganda.

This is the average sciency article: clickbait title followed by false absolutes followed by enormous assumptions followed by lies followed by a number almost always bigger than 6000 years.

Posted: **May 1st, 2019, 6:27 pm**

justme wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 11:10 am I just saw a headline from the Wall Street Journal about a fossil jaw found in the Himalayas belonging to a vanished human species.

It got me wondering how this forum responds to or feels about such findings.

I believe all fossils that are found on earth were created during the Great Flood. Dinosaurs, homowhatever, big and small, whatever.

Posted: **May 1st, 2019, 6:37 pm**

The Airbender wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 6:27 pm
justme wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 11:10 am I just saw a headline from the Wall Street Journal about a fossil jaw found in the Himalayas belonging to a vanished human species.

It got me wondering how this forum responds to or feels about such findings.
I believe all fossils that are found on earth were created during the Great Flood. Dinosaurs, homowhatever, big and small, whatever.

I bought one of Rod Meldrum's DVDs on this topic - haven't watched it yet though. He explained it to me in my brother's kitchen while we snacked on refreshments - that the conditions to create fossils are intense pressure and heat .. and water. IIRC

Super awesome guy - he's actually a little taller than I. =\

Posted: **May 1st, 2019, 6:39 pm**

The Airbender wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 6:27 pm
justme wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 11:10 am I just saw a headline from the Wall Street Journal about a fossil jaw found in the Himalayas belonging to a vanished human species.

It got me wondering how this forum responds to or feels about such findings.
I believe all fossils that are found on earth were created during the Great Flood. Dinosaurs, homowhatever, big and small, whatever.

So how old would that make the oldest fossils? And all fossils are the same age? hmm?

Posted: **May 1st, 2019, 6:49 pm**

Alaris wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 2:25 pm
justme wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 1:52 pm I like thestock summary. Either our data is wrong or incomplete or our doctrine is wrong or incomplete.

I like how Elder Holland put it in his April 2015 conference address.

"there was an actual Adam and Eve who fell from an actual Eden, with all the consequences that fall carried with it.

I do not know the details of what happened on this planet before that, "

He acknowledges that our understanding is incomplete.
Abraham 3:24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;

I am unaware of the talk, but doesn't Abraham 3 predate what happened on this planet before that? Or are we talking about before before that? Or in between before that and before before that?

In my mind, Abraham 3 rules out an intelligent explosion

from which everything naturally “evolved”.

Posted: **May 1st, 2019, 7:00 pm**

justme wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 6:39 pm
The Airbender wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 6:27 pm
justme wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 11:10 am I just saw a headline from the Wall Street Journal about a fossil jaw found in the Himalayas belonging to a vanished human species.

It got me wondering how this forum responds to or feels about such findings.
I believe all fossils that are found on earth were created during the Great Flood. Dinosaurs, homowhatever, big and small, whatever.
So how old would that make the oldest fossils? And all fossils are the same age? hmm?

How could you verify the age of any fossil when they all supposedly predate the written record?

Posted: **May 1st, 2019, 7:48 pm**

justme wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 6:39 pm
The Airbender wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 6:27 pm
justme wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 11:10 am I just saw a headline from the Wall Street Journal about a fossil jaw found in the Himalayas belonging to a vanished human species.

It got me wondering how this forum responds to or feels about such findings.
I believe all fossils that are found on earth were created during the Great Flood. Dinosaurs, homowhatever, big and small, whatever.
So how old would that make the oldest fossils? And all fossils are the same age? hmm?

Fossil dating is bad "science." It's like me telling you how old you are because of how old your city is. The city you live in was founded 400 years ago; therefore, you are between 300 and 400 years old. When they "date" fossils, they're not dating the animal. They're "dating" the earth the animal came to rest in and around (quotes around dating because I'm also not sold on the dating methods themselves).

EDIT: editing the rest of this out. I don't like my tone.

Posted: **May 1st, 2019, 8:58 pm**

i'mnotspecial wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 7:48 pm
justme wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 6:39 pm
The Airbender wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 6:27 pm
justme wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 11:10 am I just saw a headline from the Wall Street Journal about a fossil jaw found in the Himalayas belonging to a vanished human species.

It got me wondering how this forum responds to or feels about such findings.
I believe all fossils that are found on earth were created during the Great Flood. Dinosaurs, homowhatever, big and small, whatever.
So how old would that make the oldest fossils? And all fossils are the same age? hmm?
Fossil dating is bad "science." It's like me telling you how old you are because of how old your city is. The city you live in was founded 400 years ago; therefore, you are between 300 and 400 years old. When they "date" fossils, they're not dating the animal. They're "dating" the minerals the animal came to rest in as it decomposed (quotes around dating because I'm also not sold on the dating methods themselves).
The universal flood did a lot of things to the earth and the life on it. People who believe in the universal flood aren't allowed in the science religion, so their research is rejected.
Uniformitarianism is also a bad theory. We've seen massive change just in our lifetimes. Big things happen that create massive change in short time periods. At what point do we stop doubting that fact? Maybe we'll wake up to it soon enough. We just need a jolt large enough. Of course, contemporary mainstream science will just revise their anti-Christ propaganda to fit the new model.
When I think of all the people of the science faith in the church who reject what the scriptures teach about the past, I sit here and wonder how they can possibly accept what the scriptures teach about the future. There can't be such a thing as a universal flood, but there can be such a thing as a God coming down from the sky with angels, burning everything not sanctified by the glory of His countenance? There can't be such a thing as an ark that save only 8 souls, but there can be such a thing as all the land masses uniting into one? There can't be such a thing as actual Nephites living in America in history, but there can be such a thing as a person who lived 2000 years ago still being alive today, and we'll all see Him soon, and he'll heal the sick by the power of His word and their faith?
Science is an interesting faith indeed.
It's sad that what starts as an "innocent" rejection of the past becomes a reinvention of the future in so many cases. Now, the land masses won't actually unite, it's just that all the people in the world will be united in one cause, thanks to socialism. Now, Jesus won't actually come with angels, but society will just progress really far. The resurrection isn't actually a thing, it's just we all live on in the memory of others, or our thoughts are "found" and uploaded to a server.
I understand why so many members who get entangled in the mainstream science religion lose their testimonies. If I spent most of my time around people who told me that God and religion are fairytales, and if they had information that seemed like it supported their claims, I'd probably struggle against my testimony too. I'm so thankful for inquiring minds unafraid of inquiring against the groupthink in science today.

wow. just. wow

Posted: **May 1st, 2019, 9:23 pm**

justme wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 6:39 pm
The Airbender wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 6:27 pm
justme wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 11:10 am I just saw a headline from the Wall Street Journal about a fossil jaw found in the Himalayas belonging to a vanished human species.

It got me wondering how this forum responds to or feels about such findings.
I believe all fossils that are found on earth were created during the Great Flood. Dinosaurs, homowhatever, big and small, whatever.
So how old would that make the oldest fossils? And all fossils are the same age? hmm?

It would make the oldest fossils and the newest fossils all about 4500ish years old. Carbon dating is invalid on fossils in that case, yes, because it doesn't take into account the heat, pressure, and water that changed the organic matter into a fossil.

Posted: **May 1st, 2019, 11:52 pm**

About 6000 years ago Adam and Eve were made to leave the Garden of Eden, we do not know when exactly. It is impossible to figure out when the flood happened because we do not know how long after Adam left the garden he continued to live, or even if that information matters. This also is partially why we cannot figure out when the 6000 years will be complete, or even what that really means, we would like to know when the millennial reign will commence but no one can figure it out. People believe that science gives them the knowledge to figure out what is going on in a lot of ways and to prove things, IMO that is very foolish. Since God has no limitations, like man has, He can make science look as though it has answers, these answers can purposely look like they contradict scripture, why(?), that is obvious. God is not a temporal being, like man is, He does not look at things like man does, He does not lack power and control of elements like man does, He does not lack intelligence like man does, He is beyond the comprehension of man and everything that man thinks he knows is questionable, no matter how hard man tries to reason a version of reality and no matter how hard man tries to put puzzle pieces together to try to prove what he believes.
Were there Pre-Adamites? Maybe. If there were does it make any difference? No. Can we prove there were or weren't any? We can't prove anything. Is it better to suppose, or is it better to just say, we found this? You can choose, but supposition tends to make a person look like a fool. Almost anything beyond "look at what we found" is potentially false conclusion. Saying "this is what we think happened" is far better than saying "this is what happened and this is when it happened."

Posted: **May 2nd, 2019, 5:46 am**

Also know this, that anything that doesn't fit the theory of evolution is rejected. You cannot have data contrary to it because it is rejected as implausible. This taints everything, and guides all conclusions to be consistent with the (unproven!) theory of evolution (we're talking macroevolution here, of course). I have seen this personally in my own branch of science, and if you look you can see this is how things are done. Truth can hardly make it past the gatekeeper, unless they have a way to justify it with their almighty theory.

Posted: **May 2nd, 2019, 7:17 am**

If one were to tell an anthropologist that in America's ancient past there was a war between two warring nation's and a couple million soldiers on one side we're killed they would laugh you to death. And yet this is what LDS believe happened. I have never accepted mainstream science when they have tried to piece together the ancient past. Not only do they get it wrong, they are off so far it borderlines on the completely ridiculous.

Posted: **May 2nd, 2019, 7:30 am**

Cheetos wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2019, 7:17 am If one were to tell an anthropologist that in America's ancient past there was a war between two warring nation's and a couple million soldiers on one side we're killed they would laugh you to death. And yet this is what LDS believe happened. I have never accepted mainstream science when they have tried to piece together the ancient past. Not only do they get it wrong, they are off so far it borderlines on the completely ridiculous.

No disrepect but the reason they laugh is the same reason you are mocking them: each side is so firmly engrained in their belief of the truth that they are unwilling to entertain the notion the other may be correct. That doesn't make you any better than they, it just makes you the same as them. A truth seeker who is humble will consider ALL available information. You are only willing to consider a supposedly ancient text that came to light in 1830 and has no supporting evidence whatsoever. They laugh at you because you are unwilling to consider the scores of factual evidence that supports the book is not an ancient text or that America's history shows no trace of those civilizations. You mock them because they are unwilling to look beyond the facts of science and see the spiritual pearls of wisdom that are found within the text and conclude that alone merits some credibility.

Have an open mind. Perhaps a reconciliation between the two sources of truth is possible.

Posted: **May 2nd, 2019, 7:37 am**

thestock wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2019, 7:30 am
Cheetos wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2019, 7:17 am If one were to tell an anthropologist that in America's ancient past there was a war between two warring nation's and a couple million soldiers on one side we're killed they would laugh you to death. And yet this is what LDS believe happened. I have never accepted mainstream science when they have tried to piece together the ancient past. Not only do they get it wrong, they are off so far it borderlines on the completely ridiculous.
No disrepect but the reason they laugh is the same reason you are mocking them: each side is so firmly engrained in their belief of the truth that they are unwilling to entertain the notion the other may be correct. That doesn't make you any better than they, it just makes you the same as them. A truth seeker who is humble will consider ALL available information. You are only willing to consider a supposedly ancient text that came to light in 1830 and has no supporting evidence whatsoever. They laugh at you because you are unwilling to consider the scores of factual evidence that supports the book is not an ancient text or that America's history shows no trace of those civilizations. You mock them because they are unwilling to look beyond the facts of science and see the spiritual pearls of wisdom that are found within the text and conclude that alone merits some credibility.

Have an open mind. Perhaps a reconciliation between the two sources of truth is possible.

Look in the mirror when you speak, it appears your mind is already closed.

Posted: **May 2nd, 2019, 7:43 am**

Cheetos wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2019, 7:37 am
thestock wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2019, 7:30 am
Cheetos wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2019, 7:17 am If one were to tell an anthropologist that in America's ancient past there was a war between two warring nation's and a couple million soldiers on one side we're killed they would laugh you to death. And yet this is what LDS believe happened. I have never accepted mainstream science when they have tried to piece together the ancient past. Not only do they get it wrong, they are off so far it borderlines on the completely ridiculous.
No disrepect but the reason they laugh is the same reason you are mocking them: each side is so firmly engrained in their belief of the truth that they are unwilling to entertain the notion the other may be correct. That doesn't make you any better than they, it just makes you the same as them. A truth seeker who is humble will consider ALL available information. You are only willing to consider a supposedly ancient text that came to light in 1830 and has no supporting evidence whatsoever. They laugh at you because you are unwilling to consider the scores of factual evidence that supports the book is not an ancient text or that America's history shows no trace of those civilizations. You mock them because they are unwilling to look beyond the facts of science and see the spiritual pearls of wisdom that are found within the text and conclude that alone merits some credibility.

Have an open mind. Perhaps a reconciliation between the two sources of truth is possible.
Look in the mirror when you speak, it appears your mind is already closed.

Yeah. At times I close it. But I try to keep it open. Its a work in progress.

LDS Freedom Forum

Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites