Well my 6 months of mourning are over. My predictions for Mitt in California Primary were so off, I have decided to never predict anything dealing with politics again. I have little hope of Mitt becoming the next Vice President. I decided to move on, put my shoulder to the wheel, and begin to Blog. I love to write about Mormonism, and pop culture. So it's time for me to get back to it.
I was listing to one of my favorite mediums of pop culture, Talk Radio the other day. I don't like to argue a point here without a clear quote from what was said. But I was driving the freeway, and I could not write it down, so please forgive me. It was on the Michael Medved program. The conversation was on Obama, and the Rev. Wright controversy. The conversation was something along this line. How could somebody be involved in a church for 10 years, and not know what the pastor was saying.... especially when those words were against your principals.
So a gentleman calls up, and tells Michael Medved that he(Michael Medved) supported Mitt Romney in the primaries( Michael Medved really supported John McCain, One of the few who did. He did not support Mitt. Though He did have very kind words for Romney sometimes! ). He said support for Mitt, was not that much different then support for Obama. The man went on to say, the reason they are similar is because of all the Archaeological Evidence that has been found that contradicts Mormonism. His point, someone that belives that nonsense( LDS faith, in the face of new "archaeological Evidence), should not be taken serious as a candidate. WOW, I was blown away, I really wanted to know what he was thinking. Of course Michael Medved, being a devout Jew... Is not the best person to defend Mormonism. Sadly, Michael did not ask the man for a example of this "Archaeological Evidence". The statement just went as a cheap shot to the doctrine of the Mormon church.
The man did not say Biblical, DNA, Carbon Dating, Astrological, or Geothermal Evidence...... All of which might have given him more credibility. He choose to say modern "Archaeological Evidence" proved Joseph Smith, The Book of Mormon, and thus the LDS faith wrong.
This is the kind of thing that just strengthens my testimony of Joseph Smith, and the truth fullness of the Book of Mormon. Joseph writes of a vast civilisation in South America and publishes it to the world in 1830. He did NOT write that this civilization was at the North Pole, South Pole. That would have lead in time to "Archaeological Evidence" against his writings. He wrote instead of a vast civilization in South America. An area that in 1830, to a twenty five year old boy in New York, was not much more foreign and extreme as the North Pole is to us today. I know many of his detractors would say, a poor farm boy in New York had plenty of information about the ancient civilizations in South America. I would take issue with that assumption, but lets just say he new EVERYTHING!!! that had been discovered, written, spoken, and known about the ancient civilizations in South America in 1830. The discovery's since 1830 in South America are amazing. They are certainly "Archaeological Evidence" supporting the Book of Mormon, not detracting from it. One of the most popular is Peru's Machu Picchu, found in 1911.
I was listing to one of my favorite mediums of pop culture, Talk Radio the other day. I don't like to argue a point here without a clear quote from what was said. But I was driving the freeway, and I could not write it down, so please forgive me. It was on the Michael Medved program. The conversation was on Obama, and the Rev. Wright controversy. The conversation was something along this line. How could somebody be involved in a church for 10 years, and not know what the pastor was saying.... especially when those words were against your principals.
So a gentleman calls up, and tells Michael Medved that he(Michael Medved) supported Mitt Romney in the primaries( Michael Medved really supported John McCain, One of the few who did. He did not support Mitt. Though He did have very kind words for Romney sometimes! ). He said support for Mitt, was not that much different then support for Obama. The man went on to say, the reason they are similar is because of all the Archaeological Evidence that has been found that contradicts Mormonism. His point, someone that belives that nonsense( LDS faith, in the face of new "archaeological Evidence), should not be taken serious as a candidate. WOW, I was blown away, I really wanted to know what he was thinking. Of course Michael Medved, being a devout Jew... Is not the best person to defend Mormonism. Sadly, Michael did not ask the man for a example of this "Archaeological Evidence". The statement just went as a cheap shot to the doctrine of the Mormon church.
The man did not say Biblical, DNA, Carbon Dating, Astrological, or Geothermal Evidence...... All of which might have given him more credibility. He choose to say modern "Archaeological Evidence" proved Joseph Smith, The Book of Mormon, and thus the LDS faith wrong.
This is the kind of thing that just strengthens my testimony of Joseph Smith, and the truth fullness of the Book of Mormon. Joseph writes of a vast civilisation in South America and publishes it to the world in 1830. He did NOT write that this civilization was at the North Pole, South Pole. That would have lead in time to "Archaeological Evidence" against his writings. He wrote instead of a vast civilization in South America. An area that in 1830, to a twenty five year old boy in New York, was not much more foreign and extreme as the North Pole is to us today. I know many of his detractors would say, a poor farm boy in New York had plenty of information about the ancient civilizations in South America. I would take issue with that assumption, but lets just say he new EVERYTHING!!! that had been discovered, written, spoken, and known about the ancient civilizations in South America in 1830. The discovery's since 1830 in South America are amazing. They are certainly "Archaeological Evidence" supporting the Book of Mormon, not detracting from it. One of the most popular is Peru's Machu Picchu, found in 1911.
Machu Picchu was found eighty one years after the Book of Mormon was published. I am researching all the discovery's in South America since the year 1830. They are vast, and amazing! I am sure some people are not impressed by Joseph Smiths prophetic vision of ancient civilizations in South America. I do say this, if the discovery's since 1830 where not in his favor, we would hear about it from them everyday. It's bad enough, that when he was prophetic, we still hear "Archaeological Evidence" proves him wrong. All this in the face of such incredible Archaeological Evidence in his favor, makes you only wonder about his detractors motives.
3 comments:
I know what you mean Devon! I have a hard time listening to some of these guys that like to smear mormons. I haven't listened to Michael Medved for a long time. I most listen to Rush, Hannity, and Glen Beck. Have you listened to them lately? I have never heard a negative word about mormons from them. Hannity and Rush came out before the Florida primary and backed Mitt. I am so sick of people who are voting without doing research on the canidate they just want change. If Obama gets in we will get change and not the kind of change that will be good. It sure is a sign of the times. Obama made a fool of himself and America in Germany last week. What a self righeous snob!
Devin,
I don't know how much of the Michael Medved show you listen to or for how long so I might be pointing out something you already know. Michael has been a pretty good defender of Christianity despite the fact that he practices Judaism. But you are right that Michael is very empirical evidence kind of guy. He doesn't like operating outside of the facts as he sees them.
With that said, you and I both know that undeniable evidence of any kind will still not convince the doubters of Jesus Christ's gospel as proclaimed by the LDS church, its prophets or the Book of Mormon. Many have said, "Show me the gold plates and I'll believe." No they won't! How many times has someone been proved wrong with overwhelming evidence only to maintain their original position. How many people in Utah are still under the delusion that the BYU cougar football team is #1 in the nation? They could lose every game forever more and still have a large populous maintain that position. If the heart and mind are not open to it, no amount of evidence will convince one soul of the truth of Joseph Smith's testimony, the Book of Mormon, nor the civilizations named within its pages. It's nice to know that we do have hard evidence as a supporting resource. But it's like a branch in a tree. Its existence couldn't be without the tree, but it shifts the focus from the tree itself and the roots from which it sprung. (It's not the best analogy, but sufficient for my little five minute comment.)
Alma's words to Korihor should be repeated to those looking for additional evidence contingent to their believing: (paraphrasing) "You have evidence enough. All of the testimonies of the saints and apostles are before you. Will ye tempt the Lord?"
Thanks for letting me comment.
Todd Linde
Another good one, Devo.
Post a Comment