The Truth about Mormons

[Truthspeaker]

I don't know why you think we are so weird. I am sure there are plenty of non-Christians who think you are weird too.

All of your attacks on my church are futile. They don't change my opinion and I think the educated person would be forced to consider the other point of view because of your extreme stances.

Believe what you want but I am keeping my faith. Good luck with your crusade.

 

[N4mddissent]

I don't know why you think we are so weird. I am sure there are plenty of non-Christians who think you are weird too.

Hard to call any belief weird when a thread here has 13 pages debating whether the Noah's Ark story represents an actual historical event.

 

[Avatar4321]

Truth, I believe in keeping faith simple. The simpler the better. The more you bring religion into it, the more problems you have with misunderstanding and ridicule.

Take for instance the Mormon position that the American Indians were descended from Jewish tribes that immigrated to this continent in two migrations. One across the Atlantic and one across the Pacific under water.

I have fun with that with my Mormon friends and ask them about where the Nuclear Power submarines came from that allowed the Jews/Indians to breath underwater with Oxygen generators... They always have trouble with that one.

Of course they would. You see they've read the Book of Mormon and know your question is quite insane.

Then I ask about all the great cities that the Indians had in the New World, but none of them correspond with the actual locations of archeological digs. I had one good Mormon friend who could only theorize that there were tremendous earthquakes just before Columbus came to the Americas and that those earthquakes moved all of the Indian cities around, as much as five hundred miles in some cases. Do you realize what tremendous tidal waves that would have created? That would have wiped all of the sea ports off of the surface of the earth, yet no tidal waves were reported.

You realize that we know little to anything about America prior to Columbus dont you? Archaelogy has barely scratched the surface.

We do know plenty about the Middle East though and Joseph's accurate descriptions of a path through the Arabian penninsula with corresponding name and descriptions is pretty dang impressive. Pretty impressive for a wilderness farmboy to be able to accurately describe a route no one knew about in the early 1800s.

Then add to that the fact that the Indians do not have any Jewish DNA Not a drop in the pure natives of this land. There was a Jewish mountain man by the name of Goldberger who impregnated over 100 Indian women in the late 1700's and early 1800's, but all of his DNA was documented in the Cherokee and various Plaines Indian tribes. What a man!

The problem with your DNA analysis is that you assuming we have any kind of evidence for what Lehi & families DNA look like. You can't test for DNA you dont have knowledge of. Not to mention any people they intermarried in a 2000 period since. The best DNA can offer is inconclusive evidence.

Nope, dude, it is better that you guys stress that God does forgive sin and that all we have to do to be forgiven is repent and ask for forgiveness and then ask for guidance. IF you teach that, most people can not disagree with you and you will have many followers. That can be a very good thing in this day and age.

I am not looking for followers. If fact, Id be quite surprised if people wanted to follow me. My concern is truth. And the Lord has revealed to me the Book of Mormon is true, so why should I stop teaching people about it and encouraging them to learn for themselves from the Lord? If you dont want to believe, that's fine. Live by the light you have and the Lord will bless you. But I see no point to hide the light I have been blessed with. Especially when I know the Lord has power to convince who He will.

 

[Avatar4321]

Hard to call any belief weird when a thread here has 13 pages debating whether the Noah's Ark story represents an actual historical event.

It's always amazed me that the same people who believe that the Lord rose from the dead, preformed countless miracles, had servants who did likewise, etc can believe that God cant give a boy the power to translate ancient records and show them to others.

 

[Truthspeaker]

I don't know why you think we are so weird. I am sure there are plenty of non-Christians who think you are weird too.

Hard to call any belief weird when a thread here has 13 pages debating whether the Noah's Ark story represents an actual historical event.

The History Channel hasn't ruled it out with their multiple shows on the issue.

 

[Truthspeaker]

Truth, I believe in keeping faith simple. The simpler the better. The more you bring religion into it, the more problems you have with misunderstanding and ridicule.

Take for instance the Mormon position that the American Indians were descended from Jewish tribes that immigrated to this continent in two migrations. One across the Atlantic and one across the Pacific under water. We never claimed this exclusively.

I have fun with that with my Mormon friends and ask them about where the Nuclear Power submarines came from that allowed the Jews/Indians to breath underwater with Oxygen generators... They always have trouble with that one.

Of course they would. You see they've read the Book of Mormon and know your question is quite insane.I took care of that one a long time ago, ah.... the memories are coming back now.

Then I ask about all the great cities that the Indians had in the New World, but none of them correspond with the actual locations of archeological digs.That's an interesting question because Teotihuacan didn't need to be excavated. It was made entirely of cement and stone. Just like the Nephites who moved into the land Northward. I maintain that nearly all the ancient cities found in the jungles of mesoamerica and mexico were civilizations that bear strong resemblances to the claims of the book of Mormon. I had one good Mormon friend who could only theorize that there were tremendous earthquakes just before Columbus came to the Americas and that those earthquakes moved all of the Indian cities around, as much as five hundred miles in some casesYour good friend, bless his heart, didn't do his research.. Do you realize what tremendous tidal waves that would have created? That would have wiped all of the sea ports off of the surface of the earth, yet no tidal waves were reported.

You realize that we know little to anything about America prior to Columbus dont you? Archaelogy has barely scratched the surface. Studies show that 2% of Meso America has been excavated.

We do know plenty about the Middle East though and Joseph's accurate descriptions of a path through the Arabian penninsula with corresponding name and descriptions is pretty dang impressive. Pretty impressive for a wilderness farmboy to be able to accurately describe a route no one knew about in the early 1800s.

Then add to that the fact that the Indians do not have any Jewish DNA Not a drop in the pure natives of this land. There was a Jewish mountain man by the name of Goldberger who impregnated over 100 Indian women in the late 1700's and early 1800's, but all of his DNA was documented in the Cherokee and various Plaines Indian tribes. What a man!

The problem with your DNA analysis is that you assuming we have any kind of evidence for what Lehi & families DNA look like. You can't test for DNA you dont have knowledge of. Not to mention any people they intermarried in a 2000 period since. The best DNA can offer is inconclusive evidence.

Nope, dude, it is better that you guys stress that God does forgive sin and that all we have to do to be forgiven is repent and ask for forgiveness and then ask for guidance. IF you teach that, most people can not disagree with you and you will have many followers. That can be a very good thing in this day and age.

I am not looking for followers. If fact, Id be quite surprised if people wanted to follow me. My concern is truth. And the Lord has revealed to me the Book of Mormon is true, so why should I stop teaching people about it and encouraging them to learn for themselves from the Lord? If you dont want to believe, that's fine. Live by the light you have and the Lord will bless you. But I see no point to hide the light I have been blessed with. Especially when I know the Lord has power to convince who He will.

It's time to start considering all angles.

 

[Eightball]

http://www.frontiernet.net/~bcmmin/priestod2.htm

The Aaronic Priesthood was allegedly given to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery by John the Baptist on May 15, 1829, and sometime later, but before August 1830, they received the Melchizedek Priesthood from Apostles Peter, James and John.

Is this taught by the LDS/Mormon church?

The N.T. book of Hebrews clearly says that the priest Melchizedek was a "one of a kind" and the imbodiment of Christ, as He Melchizedek had no geneology, and was Christ pre-carnate.

How can a sinful human being/s, who is/are not the Son of God, receive this title or priesthood reserved for Jesus Christ only?

Abraham who was deemed righteous/justified before God, payed tithes to Melchizedek.

Is the Mormon church placing Joseph Smith Jr, and others who allegedly receive this priesthood at age 12 or older and usually males, on a level with Jesus Christ?

 

[Avatar4321]

FABRICATING THE MORMON PRIESTHOOD

The Aaronic Priesthood was allegedly given to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery by John the Baptist on May 15, 1829, and sometime later, but before August 1830, they received the Melchizedek Priesthood from Apostles Peter, James and John.

Is this taught by the LDS/Mormon church?

The N.T. book of Hebrews clearly says that the priest Melchizedek was a "one of a kind" and the imbodiment of Christ, as He Melchizedek had no geneology, and was Christ pre-carnate.

How can a sinful human being/s, who is/are not the Son of God, receive this title or priesthood reserved for Jesus Christ only?

Abraham who was deemed righteous/justified before God, payed tithes to Melchizedek.

Is the Mormon church placing Joseph Smith Jr, and others who allegedly receive this priesthood at age 12 or older and usually males, on a level with Jesus Christ?

No its not right. He recieved the Melchesidek Priesthood before April 1830.

And you are contradicting you own intepretation. Abraham paid tithes to Melchesidek. You said it yourself. You can't possibly argue that Christ was the only Priest after the Order of Melchesidek when you already cited Melchesidek. If we are to accept your view of the Bible there can be no fewer than 2 Priests of the Melchesidek Priesthood.

Moreover, Paul, in the scriptures you are refering to stated that there was an Order of Melchesidek, much like there was an Order of Aaron.

11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? (Hebrews 7:11)

An Order is defined as:

1 a: a group of people united in a formal way: as (1): a fraternal society <the Masonic Order> (2): a community under a religious rule ; especially : one requiring members to take solemn vows b: a badge or medal of such a society ; also : a military decoration

2 a: any of the several grades of the Christian ministry bplural : the office of a person in the Christian ministry plural : ordination

If you are actually reading the Bible, its clear that there is an Order and an Order has multiple members.

No one recieves the Melchesidek Priesthood at age 12. No clue where you even got that idea.

Why do you think it's such sin to become like Christ? That's the whole point of Christianity. Christ atoned for our sins so that we might partake of the divine nature and be made perfect through Him. He rose from the dead to restore us to our bodies perfect in the resurrection. The scriptures promise that we will be joint heirs with Christ. We are adopted as His Children. And the Children do the work of their Father.

The scriptures are clear that their is a Priesthood after the Order of Aaron and a Priesthood after the Order of Melchesidek. Christ was a High Priest after the Order of Melchesidek. The very scriptures you cited support that. You are free to disagree with the scriptures and us. But from my understanding, you believe the Bible. So why are you upset when we follow it and you dont? If you are wrong about this, which the text shows that you are, what makes you think you are correct in other interpretations?

 

[Eightball]

FABRICATING THE MORMON PRIESTHOOD

The Aaronic Priesthood was allegedly given to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery by John the Baptist on May 15, 1829, and sometime later, but before August 1830, they received the Melchizedek Priesthood from Apostles Peter, James and John.

Is this taught by the LDS/Mormon church?

The N.T. book of Hebrews clearly says that the priest Melchizedek was a "one of a kind" and the imbodiment of Christ, as He Melchizedek had no geneology, and was Christ pre-carnate.

How can a sinful human being/s, who is/are not the Son of God, receive this title or priesthood reserved for Jesus Christ only?

Abraham who was deemed righteous/justified before God, payed tithes to Melchizedek.

Is the Mormon church placing Joseph Smith Jr, and others who allegedly receive this priesthood at age 12 or older and usually males, on a level with Jesus Christ?

No its not right. He recieved the Melchesidek Priesthood before April 1830.

And you are contradicting you own intepretation. Abraham paid tithes to Melchesidek. You said it yourself. You can't possibly argue that Christ was the only Priest after the Order of Melchesidek when you already cited Melchesidek. If we are to accept your view of the Bible there can be no fewer than 2 Priests of the Melchesidek Priesthood.

Moreover, Paul, in the scriptures you are refering to stated that there was an Order of Melchesidek, much like there was an Order of Aaron.

11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? (Hebrews 7:11)

An Order is defined as:

1 a: a group of people united in a formal way: as (1): a fraternal society <the Masonic Order> (2): a community under a religious rule ; especially : one requiring members to take solemn vows b: a badge or medal of such a society ; also : a military decoration

2 a: any of the several grades of the Christian ministry bplural : the office of a person in the Christian ministry plural : ordination

If you are actually reading the Bible, its clear that there is an Order and an Order has multiple members.

No one recieves the Melchesidek Priesthood at age 12. No clue where you even got that idea.

Why do you think it's such sin to become like Christ? That's the whole point of Christianity. Christ atoned for our sins so that we might partake of the divine nature and be made perfect through Him. He rose from the dead to restore us to our bodies perfect in the resurrection. The scriptures promise that we will be joint heirs with Christ. We are adopted as His Children. And the Children do the work of their Father.

The scriptures are clear that their is a Priesthood after the Order of Aaron and a Priesthood after the Order of Melchesidek. Christ was a High Priest after the Order of Melchesidek. The very scriptures you cited support that. You are free to disagree with the scriptures and us. But from my understanding, you believe the Bible. So why are you upset when we follow it and you dont? If you are wrong about this, which the text shows that you are, what makes you think you are correct in other interpretations?

No, you are wrong, and didn't read my message.

Melchezedek is considered Pre-incarnate Christ, not a person other than Christ, or a second priest.

I clearly wrote that.

Hebrew's flatly says that Christ is the only Melchizedek, not anyone else. No mortal human can take that position.

Hebrews Chapter 7, verses 11-28

Jesus Like Melchizedek

11If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come—one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?
12For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law.
13He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar.
14For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.
15And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears,
16one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life.
17For it is declared:
"You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek."[a]
18The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless
19(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

20And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath,
21but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:
"The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind:
'You are a priest forever.' "
22Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.
23Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office;
24but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25Therefore he is able to save completely[c] those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

26Such a high priest meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens.
27Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.
28For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.

 

[Avatar4321]

No, you are wrong, and didn't read my message.

Melchezedek is considered Pre-incarnate Christ, not a person other than Christ, or a second priest.

I clearly wrote that.

Hebrew's flatly says that Christ is the only Melchizedek, not anyone else. No mortal human can take that position.

Hebrews Chapter 7, verses 11-28

Jesus Like Melchizedek

11If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come—one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?
12For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law.
13He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar.
14For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.
15And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears,
16one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life.
17For it is declared:
"You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek."[a]
18The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless
19(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

20And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath,
21but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:
"The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind:
'You are a priest forever.' "
22Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.
23Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office;
24but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25Therefore he is able to save completely[c] those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

26Such a high priest meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens.
27Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.
28For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.

Believe whatever you want man. Melchesidek isnt Christ. Nor does it change the fact that there is an Order of Melchesidek. However, it be nice if you actually believed what the Bible said.

 

[N4mddissent]

I don't know why you think we are so weird. I am sure there are plenty of non-Christians who think you are weird too.

Hard to call any belief weird when a thread here has 13 pages debating whether the Noah's Ark story represents an actual historical event.

The History Channel hasn't ruled it out with their multiple shows on the issue.

The history channel is to history what "Survivor" is to actually be a castaway somewhere. A committed attempt at presenting similarity, but content is chosen for entertainment over accuracy.

 

[Truthspeaker]

Hard to call any belief weird when a thread here has 13 pages debating whether the Noah's Ark story represents an actual historical event.

The History Channel hasn't ruled it out with their multiple shows on the issue.

The history channel is to history what "Survivor" is to actually be a castaway somewhere. A committed attempt at presenting similarity, but content is chosen for entertainment over accuracy.

I agree with you to a point. They try to be as accurate as possible but I do admit they have to sell the channel first. They sometimes cling to old dogmas like bering straight theories and big bang theories.

 

[Eightball]

The History Channel hasn't ruled it out with their multiple shows on the issue.

The history channel is to history what "Survivor" is to actually be a castaway somewhere. A committed attempt at presenting similarity, but content is chosen for entertainment over accuracy.

I agree with you to a point. They try to be as accurate as possible but I do admit they have to sell the channel first. They sometimes cling to old dogmas like bering straight theories and big bang theories.

Bering Strait Theory? It is indeed, but during the last major ice age, there was enough sea water locked up in cap ice, iceberg ice, glacial ice, that the Aleutian chain was very-much exposed as a land bridge between Asia and North America.

Interestingly, the geologic aging of the last major global ice age also coincides with the archeological aging/date of the advent of man's appearance in North America.

This all happened before metalurgy happened in the rest of the world, and these folks were then isolated geographically/physically when the ice age subsided and the Aleutians became an unpassable island chain in the Arctic Ocean.

So metalurgy happened or dawned in the rest of the world, and was easily evidenced, but did not ocurr in the New World or N./S. America.

The first actual contact of Old World man that has been substantiated is Vikings in the New Foundland area of N.America, but their settlement was abandoned in less than a century, and they never returned again, as far as archeological evidence can reveal.

For many many years the many Old World cities and civilizations have been unearthed/found, that continue to substantiate many areas of the bible where geographical, or city areas were described.

This cannot be said for one bit of the Book of Mormon.

Faith is not a "blind" leap, as the LDS church espouses, but is based on evidences.

 

[Valerie]

For many many years the many Old World cities and civilizations have been unearthed/found, that continue to substantiate many areas of the bible where geographical, or city areas were described.

This cannot be said for one bit of the Book of Mormon.

Faith is not a "blind" leap, as the LDS church espouses, but is based on evidences.

Eightball, I agree. And to those who say faith is some sort of cop out for the weak minded, I say au contraire! Faith takes strength and courage and I think of Christianity as a discipline of my faith that manifests itself in my actions. The meaning of disciple is "one who teaches" as the disciples taught Jesus' faith by spreading the gospel teachings. I haven't read this entire thread, but I really appreciate your thoughtful posts on this subject.

 

[Avatar4321]

Faith is not a "blind" leap, as the LDS church espouses, but is based on evidences.

And this is why you have no credibility. Because you insist on making these straw men arguments. No one is asking for a blind leap. Quite the opposite. We invite people to read the Book of Mormon for themselves. We encourage them to ask questions and seek out the Lord.

The Lord didnt expect people to take a blind leap. He provides witnesses. When Christ rose from the dead, He had twelve witnesses to testify to the world. (There were others of course as well). When the Book of Mormon was translated, the Lord called 12 witnesses as well.

Moreover, the Lord sends His Holy Spirit with power to testify to each individual who seeks divine knowledge that these things are of God. There is nothing blind about it.

There is more evidence for the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon than there is for the resurrection of the dead. If the Book of Mormon were false, there should be absolutely no evidence. But there is evidence. There is linguistic evidence. There are accurate places/paths described in the Book of Mormon. There are the actual witnesses. And most important there is the Power of the Holy Ghost.

You dont have to believe the evidence. That's between you and God. But this complete denial that evidence exists is disingenous.

 

[Eightball]

How can reading the Book of Mormon instill solid evidenciary based faith?

Nothing of Geographical, or Archeological, or early N./S. American culture stated in the Book of Mormon is substantiated.
******
To this day, how did a sinful man like Joseph Smith Jr. get a special greeting from John the Baptist.

Why did God pick a con-man to validate His message or gospel?
*******
You folks "want" to believe, cause that is your "straw man". Your desire and hope that Mormonism is the truth, is all you have going for you. Nothing evidenciary. No Golden plates, nothing.

Joseph Smith's teachings as well as B.Y.'s go against so much of Jesus' and His apostles teachings.

The whole premise of your religion is based on God's alleged weakness and ineptitude.

God somehow allowed His truth become corrupted. What other explanation could it be.

Avatar: Do you really know what it means when God is described as "omnipotent"? What does omnipotent mean to you? Does it mean that God controls or can intervene in somethings but does not in others, even when it makes Him out to appear weak and not in control?

Avatar: God does nothing that will diminish who He is in nature, character, or attributes. When He inspires men to pen down His words, does He somehow forget to "protect" His communication via the scriptures throughout time?

Then He/God has to refix things and thence we have the "real" church and "Real" gospel ala J.S. jr.?

What kind of God do we have here, as defined by the LDS/Mormon religion? From my observations, He is extremely weak, forgetful, and easily changes His mind. First He bans the Negroid race from full church participation, then He says, "ok".......Of course conveniently this new change comes through a 20th century Mormon President/apostle, who just conveniently happens to be under public scrutiny/pressure for banning negroid raced people from the Mormon priesthood. How convenient.

Joseph Smith condones along with the early Apostles, polygamy, and then the U.S. government starts to weigh down on the church and the possibility of Utah statehood, and "wa la!" a new prophecy from the ever-changing LDS/Mormon God...........Polygamy is wrong!

So much of Joseph Smith teachings as well as B.Y. center on the carnal side of man's nature, and as a result, condones areas of human behaviour that the bible specifically rejects as Godly.

The outward presentation ot the "newbie" or possible LDS convert is this group of people who fly the American flag, are clean cut, don't smoke, drink, or swear, and don't go out with bad boys or girls on dates.

Their familial appearance to the outsider is one of strength and cohesiveness.

Yet.........if one is to scratch that "pretty" veneer, we see a religion that promotes a "striving" to "be", and is devoid of the bible's resounding call to "grace". In order to defend this religion of legalistic works in order to please their god, they twist or take out of context scripture pertaining to the true definition of faith, and skew it to support their doctrine. They claim that works is pre-requisite to salvation, yet the bible when talking about works is talking to already saved/converted believers. The bible simply says that truth Christian faith, will reveal itself in fruitful, and Godly inspired works.

Works do not earn us salvation, or position. Going through Masonic inspired rituals within the "temple" to become "endowed" or become part of a priesthood, is just works and rituals. I can't count how many times God told Moses to tell the Israelites, that it isn't things, but "Me!" you must venerate. It isn't secret handshakes, passages, veils, nor bloody oaths, that make a pact with God. This is all occult in origin, and places faith in works of man, rather than God's interest in the inner man or heart of man.

There is a Christian church that is very steeped in legalism that flatly teaches that one must be water baptized and it must be total water immersion in order to be saved. Again this is that insidious thing called "works" or "legalism".

Paul called them "Judiazers" in his epistle to the Galatian church. Judiazers said that simple salvation by faith in Christ's attoning work on the cross, through the grace of God was not enough for the gentile believers of the Galatian church. These folks were believing Jews that still held tight to many of their sacred rituals, and rights that had nothing to do with God's work of saving souls, yet these Judiazers were telling Gentile Christians that they needed to observe Jewish traditions and laws that even involved circumcision!

Paul said that a true believer is "circumcized" internally, not externally. Sure, one can be circumcized and be a true Christian, but God's work is not on the physical of man to make Him a new creature/creation in Christ Jesus, but is a work on man's soul that was once dead to God and is now alive to God. God's surgery or doctoring is on the heart or innner man/woman.

Mormons place all their faith or bets on rights, works and priveledges, and don't understand or comprehend the true mechanics or ownership that God has in the area of man's salvation.

 

[Avatar4321]

How can reading the Book of Mormon instill solid evidenciary based faith?

Can't imagine how actually knowing what something says can give you reason to believe it.

I think the more appropriate question is: How can not reading the Book of Mormon disprove it?

Nothing of Geographical, or Archeological, or early N./S. American culture stated in the Book of Mormon is substantiated.

There is plenty substantiated. However, you are also ignoring that not everything took place in N&S America. The details about the trip through the Arabian Penninsula are extremely accurate. Some places even use the same name! No one had a clue about this path in 1830. Yet now, its documented.

But of course, nothing has been substantiated.

To this day, how did a sinful man like Joseph Smith Jr. get a special greeting from John the Baptist.

Why did God pick a con-man to validate His message or gospel?

You're begging the question. If what Joseph claimed was true, he wasn't a con-man.

How did sinner in the New Testament get Christ to talk to them? How does a sinner like you expect to recieve salvation?

God has to work through sinners. He doesn't have a lot of other options.

You folks "want" to believe, cause that is your "straw man". Your desire and hope that Mormonism is the truth, is all you have going for you. Nothing evidenciary. No Golden plates, nothing.

I had no reason to want mormonism to be true when I asked the Lord. You can claim it all you want, your claim isnt true. Not to mention, this isnt a straw man.

Ive already cited multiple evidences to you. The 12 witnesses are evidenciary.

Joseph Smith's teachings as well as B.Y.'s go against so much of Jesus' and His apostles teachings.

Which is why every time you try to cite something they taught that you say was contrary, I refute it using Jesus an the Apostles own teachings.

The whole premise of your religion is based on God's alleged weakness and ineptitude.

God somehow allowed His truth become corrupted. What other explanation could it be.

Actually the whole premise is based on the corruption and weakness of man. It is men who turn away from the truth of God repeatedly. It's men who draw near to Him with their lips but place their hearts far from Him.

But that is exactly why God continues to reach out to man. That is why God speaks to man and continually reveals His truths to them. Because God is consistant. He isnt going to stop talking and teaching just because someone compiled the ancients testimonies into records and declared the heavens closed. He isnt going to stop reaching out for His children because of the weakness of man. That is why the Atonement was preformed.

Avatar: Do you really know what it means when God is described as "omnipotent"? What does omnipotent mean to you? Does it mean that God controls or can intervene in somethings but does not in others, even when it makes Him out to appear weak and not in control?

Seems rather irrelevant to the discussion, another attempt to change the topic I suppose. But I have no problem answering:

Saying that God is omnipotent simply means that He has the power to do anything that is possible to do. And He uses that power as He chooses to. His hand is usually very subtle, unless He is trying to prove a point.

Avatar: God does nothing that will diminish who He is in nature, character, or attributes. When He inspires men to pen down His words, does He somehow forget to "protect" His communication via the scriptures throughout time?

You act as though all things God has taught men are meant for all people to know. God's protection is the fact that He still does speak. And that's the problem you have. You dont believe God can still speak. I think God hasnt changed.

The fact that we have the scriptures in the form we do is a miracle. But it's absurd to think that anything touched by human hands is perfect. God has to condescend to our level and use our language to communicate to us most of the time.

The scriptures are given to us as a record of our parents dealings with God. The revelations they recieved, cannot save us. Revelations given to Adam couldnt save Noah. God's revelations to Noah couldnt save Abraham.

We have the testimony of our fathers to build our faith. We have their witness to teach us that Jesus is the Christ and to trust in the Father. But if we don't humble ourselves and learn from them and recieves revelations for our days we cannot be saved. We cant be saved by reading the testimonies of others. We have to recieve our own.

Then He/God has to refix things and thence we have the "real" church and "Real" gospel ala J.S. jr.?

The scriptures have promised us that the Lord will continue to call Apostles and Prophets to teach the people. In fact, they are the foundation to Christ's church. If you go to a Church without Apostles, the logical question must be asked is whose church is it? Because Christ's was built with the foundation of Apostles and Prophets with Christ being the chief cornerstone.

Do you honestly believe that God is the author of the confusion that is modern Christianity? Do you honestly think God expect us to just figure it out on our own by relying on revelations He gave our Fathers? Do you honestly think that we are somehow unworthy to learn from Him ourselves?

Because it's not God that's holding back revelation. It's our own lack of faith.

What kind of God do we have here, as defined by the LDS/Mormon religion? From my observations, He is extremely weak, forgetful, and easily changes His mind. First He bans the Negroid race from full church participation, then He says, "ok".......Of course conveniently this new change comes through a 20th century Mormon President/apostle, who just conveniently happens to be under public scrutiny/pressure for banning negroid raced people from the Mormon priesthood. How convenient.

There was no public scrutiny in 1978. However, I suggest you read the Book of Acts sometimes and see what the early Christians thought of those heathen gentiles before conveniently recieving revelation to take the Gospel to them.

God doesnt need to bless all His children with the same things at the same time. In fact, there is wisdom in what He does. He does not have to give everyone His authority. In fact, throughout most of history He hasnt. The Priesthood was limited to one tribe in the House of Israel for generations. The gentiles werent even allowed to hear the Gospel before Peter recieved the revelations.

The beauty of it all is that all people are still entitled to the blessings in their own due time if they are true and faithful to God. This has always been the case. That is why the Gospel is preached to the dead.

Joseph Smith condones along with the early Apostles, polygamy, and then the U.S. government starts to weigh down on the church and the possibility of Utah statehood, and "wa la!" a new prophecy from the ever-changing LDS/Mormon God...........Polygamy is wrong!

You really dont know what prophecy is do you? Utah was denied statehood multiple times before the polygamy issue was ever came to a head. Statehood wasnt even an issue with the revelation. A statement which demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about.

The issue is simple. There were two commandments involved: Command to live the principle of plural marriage and the command to obey the laws of the land. The Church fought the government through the legal system to try to overturn the polygamy laws, the Supreme Court upheld the law.

So the Prophet asked the Lord what to do about the matter. Which commandment should be followed?

It matters not who lives or who dies, or who is called to lead this Church, they have got to lead it by the inspiration of Almighty God. If they do not do it that way, they cannot do it at all. . . .

I have had some revelations of late, and very important ones to me, and I will tell you what the Lord has said to me. Let me bring your minds to what is termed the manifesto. . . .

The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the Spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter.

The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?

The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for . . . any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners.

This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have.

. . . I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. . . .

I leave this with you, for you to contemplate and consider. The Lord is at work with us. (Cache Stake Conference, Logan, Utah, Sunday, November 1, 1891. Reported in Deseret Weekly, November 14, 1891.)

This is exactly why revelation is important. Because God sees things in our lives that was unthinkable to the ancients. He commands as He chooses and revokes commands when He chooses; to both try and to ease the trials ouf His people.

He commanded Noah to build an ark. He doesnt command us to do that

He commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and then commanded him not to when Abraham showed He was willing to obey.

How can any religion be of God and deny the power of God to reveal His will now?

So much of Joseph Smith teachings as well as B.Y. center on the carnal side of man's nature, and as a result, condones areas of human behaviour that the bible specifically rejects as Godly.

I doubt you've studied what they tought enough to make such a claim. Teaching against covetness and pride is carnal? Teaching the saints to be chaste, honest, generous, and brave is carnal?

The outward presentation ot the "newbie" or possible LDS convert is this group of people who fly the American flag, are clean cut, don't smoke, drink, or swear, and don't go out with bad boys or girls on dates.

Their familial appearance to the outsider is one of strength and cohesiveness.

Maybe in the United States. We have more members outside of the States and I dont really think they care about flying the American flag.

I also doubt who we date comes out in the missionary discussion.

Keeping the commandments, of course, would. So why wouldnt we teach what God asks of us?

Yet.........if one is to scratch that "pretty" veneer, we see a religion that promotes a "striving" to "be", and is devoid of the bible's resounding call to "grace". In order to defend this religion of legalistic works in order to please their god, they twist or take out of context scripture pertaining to the true definition of faith, and skew it to support their doctrine. They claim that works is pre-requisite to salvation, yet the bible when talking about works is talking to already saved/converted believers. The bible simply says that truth Christian faith, will reveal itself in fruitful, and Godly inspired works.

You really dont understand grace do you? You also have no clue what the LDS position on grace is. Ill try to sum it up clearly and concisely:

Nothing is possible without the Atonement of Jesus Christ. It's through Christ that we rise from the dead. It's through Christ that we heal. It's through Christ that our human nature can change and we can repent of our sins. It's Christ that gives us the power to keep His commandments as quickly as we are capable. The whole point of the Atonement is to become the sons of God in word and deed.

Works do not earn us salvation, or position. Going through Masonic inspired rituals within the "temple" to become "endowed" or become part of a priesthood, is just works and rituals. I can't count how many times God told Moses to tell the Israelites, that it isn't things, but "Me!" you must venerate. It isn't secret handshakes, passages, veils, nor bloody oaths, that make a pact with God. This is all occult in origin, and places faith in works of man, rather than God's interest in the inner man or heart of man.

No one is claiming that salvation can be earned.

What did Christ teach the Apostles during the 40 days after His resurrection?

There is a Christian church that is very steeped in legalism that flatly teaches that one must be water baptized and it must be total water immersion in order to be saved. Again this is that insidious thing called "works" or "legalism".

The Bible itself says we are saved by Water, Blood, and Spirit.

Paul called them "Judiazers" in his epistle to the Galatian church. Judiazers said that simple salvation by faith in Christ's attoning work on the cross, through the grace of God was not enough for the gentile believers of the Galatian church. These folks were believing Jews that still held tight to many of their sacred rituals, and rights that had nothing to do with God's work of saving souls, yet these Judiazers were telling Gentile Christians that they needed to observe Jewish traditions and laws that even involved circumcision!

Yet Paul himself testified that men must be baptized and recieve the Holy Ghost. You think He did this because they weren't necessary? What's the point of the Atonement if you don't accept it?

Paul said that a true believer is "circumcized" internally, not externally. Sure, one can be circumcized and be a true Christian, but God's work is not on the physical of man to make Him a new creature/creation in Christ Jesus, but is a work on man's soul that was once dead to God and is now alive to God. God's surgery or doctoring is on the heart or innner man/woman.

All well and good, however, no ones arguing that we need to be circumcized.

Mormons place all their faith or bets on rights, works and priveledges, and don't understand or comprehend the true mechanics or ownership that God has in the area of man's salvation.

No, we simply choose to accept the Atonement in our lives, comply with the ordinances and recieve the blessings God has for us. Nothing sinister about that.

 

[Shogun]

Critics note that the Book of Mormon mentions several animals, plants, and technologies that are not substantiated by the archaeological record between 3100 B.C. to 400 AD in America,[6][7][8][9] including the following: ass,[10] cow,[11] horses, ox, sheep, swine,[12] goats,[13] elephants,[14] wheat,[15] barley,[16] silk[17] , steel,[18] bellows, brass, breast plates, iron, ore (mining), plows, swords,[14] scimitars, chariots[19] and other elements.

Archaeology and the Book of Mormon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Eightball]

Critics note that the Book of Mormon mentions several animals, plants, and technologies that are not substantiated by the archaeological record between 3100 B.C. to 400 AD in America,[6][7][8][9] including the following: ass,[10] cow,[11] horses, ox, sheep, swine,[12] goats,[13] elephants,[14] wheat,[15] barley,[16] silk[17] , steel,[18] bellows, brass, breast plates, iron, ore (mining), plows, swords,[14] scimitars, chariots[19] and other elements.

Archaeology and the Book of Mormon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Excellent point Shogun.

Evidence does matter when one is suppose to exercise faith in anything.

The Mormon/LDS premise of faith is based on nothing but conjecture.

******
Also, I've wondered about the well know "Battle of Crooked Creek" that happened in the 1830's in Missouri?

Seems that there was a pretty big battle with Mormons and non-Mormons fighting with guns.

There was even a "no man's land" between Mormon settled areas and non-Mormon settled areas that extended over 20 miles wide.
*******
Anyway, what precipitated this very violent battle? I know the LDS church has it's version, but no doubt a secular version would might shed some light too.
******

 

[Truthspeaker]

I have already dealt with the so called contradictions you brought up. And by the way, just because a thing hasn't been found doesn't mean it ain't there. by the way horses? That's the oldest one in the anti-mormon book. It's already been proven that horses were here pre-columbus, but the anti's have been blabbering on about it for so long they don't know how to stop. You think that is gonna rock my faith?
Why don't you guys get a life and go practice what you believe and stop trying to tear down others faiths?
happy reading!
and please, I double dog dare you to actually read this and repeat back to me that you comprehend it. Then if you have a problem with something, let address one issue at a time so we can take time to answer your "honest" questions.
Book of Mormon Problems: Plants and Animals