Vineyard vs. Orchard & Oliveyard

[Moksha]

There is nothing divine or inspiring about how the God of Israel refers to his prized olive grove as a grapey vineyard.

Almost everyone (except Mormons) prefers their wine to be grapey and their olives to have a pimento in the center. The Ghostbusters know not to cross their metaphors.

[Shulem]

Almost everyone (except Mormons) prefers their wine to be grapey

Moksha,

You bring up an interesting point and you cause me to think. But first, bear in mind the general use of wine (alcohol) in the church was not frowned upon until after the suggestive nature of the Word of Wisdom was given through D&C 89 in 1833: "And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make." But prior to that, is it not fair to think the early Mormons loved their fermented wine whether on the dinner table or sacrament table? Yes, I can imagine the early Mormons loved their wine! But all that would soon come to an end when the Utah church would convert the Word of Wisdom into a commandment and the very words therein would serve as condemnation for those who drank real wine: "That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father."

So, what is the point of using an allegory of a vineyard in the first place? Why the hell are there prophecies of the vineyard of the Lord in the Book of Mormon (and D&C) when in the last days wine would be completely forbidden? Did not the Lord foresee how in the future and during the last days the Word of Wisdom would end the use of vineyards and winepresses in God's kingdom? Apparently not!

Due to the fact that Mormonism would eventually phase out the need for vineyards it seems entirely reasonable to think that Mormon scripture and revelation should not have used the expression: Vineyard of the Lord, because nobody in the church drinks wine which has been condemned as "not good" in the sight of the Lord!

Gotcha!

[Moksha]

Due to the fact that Mormonism would eventually phase out the need for vineyards it seems entirely reasonable to think that Mormon scripture and revelation should not have used the expression: Vineyard of the Lord, because nobody in the church drinks wine which has been condemned as "not good" in the sight of the Lord!

Gotcha!

Medical science found that those who consumed a glass of red wine every day were healthier and lived longer. LDS apologetics had no answer until they thought of uttering Uh uh! Now thanks to this board they can say that medical science does not apply on Earth 2 where all Mormon action takes place.

[Shulem]

Modern science vs. Mormonism

That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father.

Medical science found that those who consumed a glass of red wine every day were healthier and lived longer. LDS apologetics had no answer until they thought of uttering Uh uh! Now thanks to this board they can say that medical science does not apply on Earth 2 where all Mormon action takes place.

Just say, "No" to Mormonism and the cult it rode in on!

It's a cult!

14 year old girls please apply, Joe hath need of thee

[Brack]

It basically reminds me that Bethlehem isn't mentioned in the Book of Mormon even though the Old Testament Prophet Micah lived and ministered before Lehi and his crew left the land of Jerusalem at about 600 B.C.

The Book of Mormon also had Jesus being born in Jerusalem.

Yes, and I have read the LDS Apologetics on Jesus being "born at Jerusalem" in Alma 7:10. But I don't ever remember reading why Bethlehem isn't mentioned anywhere within the Book of Mormon text while the Old Testament Prophet Micah lived and had his ministry over 100 years before Lehi and his crew left the land of Jerusalem. The Micah prophecy about Bethlehem in Micah 5:2 should have been contained within the brass plates, and likely should have been mentioned somewhere within the Book of Mormon text.

[Shulem]

Yes, and I have read the LDS Apologetics on Jesus being "born at Jerusalem" in Alma 7:10. But I don't ever remember reading why Bethlehem isn't mentioned anywhere within the Book of Mormon text while the Old Testament Prophet Micah lived and had his ministry over 100 years before Lehi and his crew left the land of Jerusalem. The Micah prophecy about Bethlehem in Micah 5:2 should have been contained within the brass plates, and likely should have been mentioned somewhere within the Book of Mormon text.

Brack & Moksha,

Please allow me to settle this issue for you, once and for all. I am Shulem the Great!

We must cut Joseph Smith slack on the "born of Mary, at Jerusalem" prophecy (Alma 7:10) which fails to specify Bethlehem (Micah 5:2). I believe Smith did that on purpose when dictating the Book of Mormon between April and June of 1829. He knew full well that Jesus was born in Bethlehem but elected to use Jerusalem in his Book of Mormon prophecy. I will explain how the apologists win the argument on this critical issue. The proof is found in D&C 11 which was given in May of 1829, during the time Smith was translating with Cowdery.

And now, verily, verily, I say unto thee, put your trust in that Spirit which leadeth to do good—yea, to do justly, to walk humbly, to judge righteously; and this is my Spirit.

Now, note the pair of clauses marked above in D&C 11:12 are found in one place only in the entire Bible -- MICAH -- thus it's a dead ringer:

1) to do justly
2) to walk humbly

He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

Joseph Smith knew full well about the prophecies of Micah and quoted clauses of Micah 6:8 in the D&C revelation while translating the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith was very familiar with the Bible. I hope Daniel C. Peterson is happy with this post.

Hi Dan!

[Moksha]

I thought the apologetic answer was that Joseph could see that, with urban growth and development, Bethlehem would one day be a suburb of Jerusalem.

Perhaps the towns were already linked on Earth 2, which already supports Mormon errors and speculations, such as a ship-building center on the Arabian coast that could convert sand into curious ocean-worthy vessels.

[Brack]

I thought the apologetic answer was that Joseph could see that, with urban growth and development, Bethlehem would one day be a suburb of Jerusalem.

The apologetic answer is basically that Jerusalem was a city-state during the time of Jeremiah and Lehi.
From Daniel Peterson:

Jerusalem enjoyed manifestly higher status than other cities in the immediate area. It was not, contrary to Bill McKeever, "just a city within a kingdom."144 Thus, for instance, Babylonian texts describe Jerusalem as "the city," par excellence, of Judah: "In the month of Kislimu, the King of Akkad called up his army, marched against the city of Judah [Jerusalem] and seized the town."145 Assyrian provincial terminology had generally used the name of the capital of a province to designate that province as a whole146�a practice which would therefore have been familiar to Lehi147�and such usage appears to have continued among the Babylonians.148 Whatever its origins, however, the practice of naming an area after its leading city was obviously widespread in the ancient Near East. And if Jerusalem was "the city of Judah," would it have been unreasonable to regard the region of Judah as "the land of Jerusalem"? This is precisely the same ambiguity between land and capital city that is displayed in the Book of Mormon, in a record that dates from precisely the time of Nephi. And Lehi's contemporary, the prophet Jeremiah, describing the siege of Jerusalem, says that Nebuchadnezzar's armies fought "against Jerusalem and all its surrounding towns" (Jeremiah 34:1; New International Version)�by which he apparently means the other cities and towns of Judah (Jeremiah 34:7). In this, Jeremiah was entirely consistent with common biblical usage, according to which the name "Jerusalem" was often used to designate the entire southern kingdom.149 - Link

[Shulem]

I thought the apologetic answer was that Joseph could see that, with urban growth and development, Bethlehem would one day be a suburb of Jerusalem.

The apologetic answer is basically that Jerusalem was a city-state during the time of Jeremiah and Lehi.
From Daniel Peterson:

Don Bradley loves to demonstrate how the Book of Mormon parallels and echos things from the Bible and this is pretty much what Joseph Smith was doing when referencing Jesus' birth in the Old World from a New World perspective. Smith had his thumbs as place markers throughout the Bible and had an excellent memory. He was brilliant. Let's look at what Smith processed when piecing his material together:

Bible:

I shall see him, but not now: I shall behold him, but not nigh: there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of Sheth.

When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.

Book of Mormon:

And behold, there shall a new star arise, such an one as ye never have beheld; and this also shall be a sign unto you.

And it had come to pass, yea, all things, every whit, according to the words of the prophets.

And it came to pass also that a new star did appear, according to the word.

Bible:

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,

And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

Book of Mormon:

... And they were like unto the Jews who were at Jerusalem
... I should not have known the goodness of God, but had tarried at Jerusalem, and had perished with my brethren.
... those who are at Jerusalem, saith the prophet, they shall be a scourged by all people, because they crucify the God of Israel
... for those who are at Jerusalem for had not the Lord been merciful
... lost from the knowledge of those who are at Jerusalem
... in the body he shall show himself unto those at Jerusalem
... But because of priestcrafts and iniquities, they at Jerusalem
... I, of myself, have dwelt at Jerusalem

... why will he not show himself unto us as well as unto them who shall be at Jerusalem?

... O ye people of the house of Israel, ye that dwell at Jerusalem, as ye that have fallen;
... I should  tell it unto your brethren at Jerusalem.
... write these sayings after I am gone, that if it so be that my people at Jerusalem,

... and did seek to kill them, even as the Jews at Jerusalem sought to kill Jesus

And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the  land of our forefathers

Joseph Smith was spot on and the apologists are right in defending the prophecy of Alma regarding the geography where Christ was born.

I REST MY CASE!