I'm wondering how people feel about this subject around here.
I truly believe that Mormons are sincere Christians, and that the majority of people who don't agree are simply ignorant to Mormon beliefs, or the Bible.
I would like to hear, do you agree that Mormons are Christians? If so, why not, and would you allow someone to explain any perceived discrepancies and keep an open mind?
Yes, I believe Mormons are Christians. I have an old friend who's a Mormon.
no i don't think they are christian. It starts where the Mormon beliefs begins, the great apostasy. 2 thess 2. this is where the book of mormon believes that the apostasy is prophesied. but if you read the scripture carefully, you find that the lds have it wrong. this is what i believe
The Great apostasy has not happen yet.
John 15:2, Every branch (believer, disciple, true Christian) that beareth fruit, He (God) shall prune it, that it may bring forth more fruit. (The true Word of God will continue forever.) The branches are the believers and/or teachers and the fruit are those who are taught. God will get those people ready (prune) and the cycle will continue forever.
This is what God promised.
The Great apostasy is talked about in 2 Thessalonians Ch 2. When the people thought that the day of the Lord had already began. 2Thess 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away fi rst (The Great apostasy) AND that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition (Satan).
The Great apostasy (the Great falling away) will happen when the anti christ (the son of perdition"damnable to die") comes and teaches his false doctrine (Rev 13). The people will be tricked into worshiping the beast (satan) and will be turned away from the true Christ. The great Apostasy.
Jesus promised us that he would never leave us or forsake us. Hebrews 13:5, And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever; John 14:16 we will always have the Holy spirit we will always have Jesus.
Everything aside, passing, does someone have to have the correct understanding about every gospel principle to be a Christian?
If so, then what church has the real Christians?
the bible. the bible is the word of God. Religion is what take words out of the bible and twists it. just like satan does. just like the LDS does or any religion that contradicts the bible.
You do know that it was the Catholic Roman Church that compiled the Bilble...
You didn't answer my question.
Does someone have to have the correct understanding of every gospel topic in order to be a Christian?
You seem to be unfamiliar with the history of the Catholic Church: her imitation of the priesthood and temple of heaven, her exaltation of one man as the head of the church, her persecution of heretics (who were often true believers), her selling of salvation, her hiding of the Bible from the common people, the invention of saints, images, idols, immortality of the soul, confession to priests, playing the harlot with the kings of the nations, etc.
You won't find a better apostasy than this one, and every true Reformer who arose in the 14th to 18th centuries had no problem identifying that system with 2 Thessalonians 2, the Thyatiran church period of Revelation, the little horn of Daniel 7, and the beast of Rev. 13.
Not only that, but there is a time period given for this apostasy: 1260 days. In prophecy, a day equals a year. This fits perfectly to the reign of the Catholic church over the kings of Europe, from 538AD (when the last of the Arian nations were wiped out - ie. the "three horns" who were to be uprooted by the little horn), to 1798AD (when Napoleon's general took the pope captive). "He that leads into captivity must go into captivity." (Rev. 13:10).
There is no need to look for another.
Sure they are Christians, Jesus Christ had a magic under pant and it clearly says in the bible that jesus walked in america and the native americans are cursed...
Lie upon a lie is still a lie...
pedrog do you see the error of their translation of 2 thess?
Do you actually care to understand LDS beliefs, or do you prefer to simply ridicule?
The Bible never said Jesus *didn't* go anywhere else, in fact, Christ does refer to 'other sheep'. What you interpret that to mean is personal, but it can be argued that that is evidence for him visiting other people.
Mormons don't have magic underpants, and that statement simply shows ignorance regarding the subject.
Well, i do believe the bible is just a big scam, if you based a religion on the bible with some outrageous claims it is just a bigger scam...
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof." Marcello Truzzi
And you have no proof...
Ok, I understand now.
Proof of religion, according to human technology, is currently not possible. Not objective, scientific proof.
Instead, religion is a personal subject. The proof lies in personal, subjective experiences. I have my proof, but it would mean nothing to you.
You have no proof! What you have is some wishful thinking and a very delusional one, if you really believe something it doesn't make it happen... Ask the starving children in Africa...
How do you know I don't have proof of God?
How do you know what I've experienced in my life?
Well, do you have it?
If you do, you do realize that it would be the greatest revelation in the history of mankind!!!
I will be waiting for it to be announced in every tv channel in the world and for every scientist to verify your claim, thank you for this big revelation!!!
I do, I already told you.
My proof is based off of personal experiences. It works perfectly for me, but it doesn't work for anyone else.
Let's just say, again, that I had seen and spoken to God. I could tell you 'My proof is that I saw and spoke with God', but of course, that wouldn't prove anything to you. It would to me, but not to you.
You would think I was either lying or crazy. It's a personal subject, and the proof is subjective.
What part of 'I have my proof' do you not understand?
You've already proven the point of the thought-experiment I provided. No matter what my personal proof is, it doesn't make any difference to you.
Not that it matters anyway, as I'm trying to find more reasons why people don't think Mormons are Christians.
Well, i just had a revelation, and God appeared himself to me, and he told me there are no gods and every religion in the world is just a big scam, especially Christianity and the mormon religion!!!
And this is my very true personal experience!!
Should you take this subjective personal truth as your own truth?
Do you care about this really true and divine experience i just had?
Absolutely not. Nor did I say anything along those lines. I specifically said that I do have proof, but it's personal proof and only works for myself.
I'm always interested to hear about the experiences of others, but I don't feel like you are being sincere(I am human though, I could be wrong).
Not to mention that your revelation is contradictory to itself.
Really? You have seen and spoken to God?
What does He look like? Did he appear to be male or female? Does he have the same shape as humanity or a true ET? What color was he? What race?
Did He have a high, feminine voice or low masculine one? Or maybe androgynous? What language did He use? Did he sound childish or mature adult? Did he speak clearly or slur his words?
Or was it all just inside your own imagination, this seeing and speaking to God? In your feelings, not actually seeing Him or hearing Him speak? Is that why the "proof" only works for you - because it didn't really happen outside your own feelings and imagination?
I explained that it was a thought experiment for the sake of argument. What's the point of your criticism? I wouldn't share my personal experiences in a forum like this where they would be ridiculed anyway.
The point of the thought experiment was, that If I had seen God, all I would be able to do is tell you 'I saw God.'. That wouldn't be proof. There is no way to use personal experiences, no matter what they are, to prove something to someone else. They have to experience it personally.
Sorry - if you said it was a thought experiment I missed it in the thread.
The point? Other's experiences can be quite valid, if nothing else as a starting point to find truth. Had you done this or that, said this or that, or climbed a high mountain - whatever it took - and actually saw and spoke to God this is something that someone else (myself, perhaps) could also do.
But when you have a "thought experiment" and assign your feelings to God, that means little to me. You have no indication that it was God at all - you have merely called it that. Unfortunately, it is all too common with those that make similar claims.
Those that have been blessed by God know that God exists
Is that some kind of club that only some privileged people can access?
Or delusion spreed by the power of persuasion?
This was not the answer you should have given. You should have laid aside any conclusion you previously had and thought about what the sentence actually said. Through you insinuation I can tell that you could care less about the information conveyed in my post and less about its effect that should have in ones life.
Ponder it long and well and others posts too.
I can agree that Mormons are "Christians" I will state that "IF" Mormon Beliefs, whatever they might be are Holy Bible substantiated, in other words backed up by Biblical Scripture, then those beliefs I could uphold as good. Any Mormon beliefs that are not scriptural are not of God and have no right to be followed.
I am a Catholic, But I have attacked Catholic beliefs and dogma, which are not Biblicallly Scripturally proven correct, and I refuse to follow them.
I like seeing an accepting attitude among those who profess to be Christians. All Mormon beliefs have some basis in the Bible, although many don't agree with their interpretation.
Let me ask though, do you think God could have the same relationship with other people than the Jews? Do you think God could have sent scripture to other nations as well?
A Christian is someone who believes in the divinity of Christ. That is, Jesus being both man and God. If you don't believe that, you may well be a good and saintly person, but you aren't a Christian.
What does the bible say about the divinity of Christ?
What do Mormons say about the divinity of Christ?
All too often, it isn't what the bible says, but what a church says the bible means, that is used as a requirement for Christianity.
We know that Christ was conceived by God, which means he was both man and God.. There is no ambiguity about that.
I don't know what the Mormon position is on that.
All too often, people speak about the Bible as if it magically appeared without the aid of a Church.
I believe there is stuff in the Bible that shouldn't be there(it wasn't put together by prophets and apostles, which are the foundation of Christ's church), and stuff that should have been included.
Mormons do believe that Christ inherited divinity from the Father, including the ability to lay down his life and take it back up, as well as mortality from his mother, making it possible to lay down his life.
Practicing Christians put the New Testament together based on what they knew to be true, based on the graces they recieved from the Holy Spirit.. There was more left out than was put in. In the protestant reformation, more stuff was taken out to match with the beliefs of protestants. So you must be part of a new wave of protestantism which thinks even more should be taken out?
Spin it any way you want, but the fact is that the revelation and authority to make decisions regarding Christ's Church was with the prophets and apostles. Without prophets and apostles, the foundation of the church, there is no truly authorized basis for deciding what should and shouldn't go in the Bible.
I can provide one verse that says no man can see Elohim, and another verse that says many men have seen Elohim. Maybe it was mistranslated, or maybe corrupted, or maybe something was put in that wasn't meant to be there.
I think one should be careful studying the bible, and try to compare to the overall message, other scripture, and depend on prayer to know what is correct. I'm not advocating taking anything out or adding anything else, but it's good to understand where the Bible came from.
It's also good to look at other texts such as the Apocrypha. God will reveal the truth as we seek
Apostolic tradition. You're absolutely right.
Yes, they claim to have apostolic succession without apostles.
The Bible says nothing about this. It says apostles and prophets are the foundation. Clearly the Catholic Church is not the same, or it would have them too.
The RC church is fundamentally based in the Apostolic tradition, starting with Peter and then the decent of the Holy Spirit on the apostles.
Apostolic tradition isn't in the Bible. In the bible, when an apostle was lost, he was replaced with another. The bible says the apostles must have been present during the ministry, and be eye-witnesses to christ.
Without apostles and prophets, a church cannot claim to be the same church Christ established. True apostolic succession would be a continuation of the apostleship.
The Apostolic tradition means that the word of Christ is passed from person to person, in an unbroken and unchanging chain ,beginning with the apostles. The truth was not established by the Bible but by those practicing the truth of Christianity, before the Bible was assembled.
The canon of the early church could not be stopped. The letters that circulated around the churches and were used by the churches are the ones we have in the NT. The OT is without dispute. Its not that the compilers of canon mechanically picked and chose which books to put in, it is more like: these letters circulated among the churches, these gospels are from apostles.
The tricky part of canon was keeping out manuscripts that contradicted the true beliefs. If you read any apocrypha and psuedepigrapha book you will come across practices and beliefs that are not in compliance with the bible, that is to say that certain things mentioned are not backed up in other books of the bible.
To say that apocrypha is important to the bible is completely wrong as it is not needed at all and promotes wrong practices. They may be good for history lessons but certainly are not beneficial for spiritual growth.
Yes, if you believe in the integrity of the history books, the integrity of the church at the time, and the integrity of men.
If you believe, when religious position carried more power than military position, that religious leaders were in it for only love and faith.
If you believe that when the leader of the 'one Christian Church' was killed by an army, and that nation put in place their own leader, that they did so to uphold the truth of the Church of Christ.
If you believe that there is no way that things could have been corrupted through all that time...
I believe that corruption is not stronger than God.
There is overwhelming textual evidence concerning the first century a.d. Christian movement. Yes copies of the originals - but originals would be disputed, just like everything else - but copies in circulation amongst the true churches of Jesus. Copies because the originals through use - not sitting on a shelf in holy adoration and never used - but used letters that needed to be copied for preservation and use.
I believe that king james had a soft heart when he decreed the bible be translated word by word as best they could. I cannot say so strongly for truth about the catholic bishops that received the translations before king james. But the book is amazing to this day and in my opinion quite reliable.
I believe humanistic doubt is damaging to understanding the truth about God. I believe the bible shows explicitly that human understanding is not a conveyor of Christian reality, in other words, the way God does things. The whole world may be a war and flames throughout jerusalem but Gods people will come out and so will historical documentation. The walls of Jericho will fall if God says, 'march around them' and a child can be conceived by the power of the creator of the cosmos, if he so wants it to happen.
Good discussion, out of which can come greater understanding. Latter-day Saints believe in Christ's divinity, that he walked among men in mortality, died a mortal death on the Cross, rose from death and the tomb, and sits on the right hand of God The Father just as seen by Stephen. They also believe Christ to be the Jehovah of the Old Testament and that Elohim is God, the Heavenly Father to whom Christ prayed as recorded in the scriptures. They believe that the Bible is true to the extent to which it was translated correctly down to and beyond the King James Version. They believe that Almighty God and a resurrected, eternal Christ have infinte power to act in the past, the present, and the future. They believe that God is unchanging, and the only righteous judge, and that Christ will act as man's advocate at the time of man's judgement. They believe that the family is ordained of God as a man (the father) and a woman (the mother); that the two with any children sealed to them on earth can be an eternal family, and that mortals who keep and practice Christ's gospel can one day return to dwell with Christ and their Heavenly Father in His celestial kingdom. They believe that all mankind will be resurrected and judged, irregardless of whether they are Christians or not. And that all mankind will know Christ's disciples and followers in that they have (and practice) love one for another. They also believe in Christ's return, the millenium, and all else that Christ taught his disciples, and that God will never leave His children without the guidance of a prophet today just as there were prophets to guide His children in the past. They believe that the Book of Mormon is a second testament to Jesus Christ's divinity and that it and the Bible are the two sticks which can be held in one hand as referred to in Ezekiel 37:16. Latter-day Saints follow Christ, teach of Christ, and revere Christ the Son of God, as well as God The Father, and the Holy Ghost. It is in their names that Latter-day Saints are baptized and confirmed beginning at age eight, and make covenants at baptism and in temples to remain faithful to the teachings of Jesus Christ while granting to all men, women, and children the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience how, where, or what they may as described and set forth in their 11th of 13 of "The Articles of Faith" first published over 150 years ago and available today for anyone to read and understand more of what Latter-day Saints believe.
Ezekiel 37:16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions:
Ezekiel 37:17 And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.
Ezekiel 37:18 And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not shew us what thou meanest by these?
Ezekiel 37:19 Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.
Ezekiel 37:21 And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land:
Ezekiel 37:22 And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:
The bible and the book of mormon is not what is being talked about here. The sticks are representative of God bringing his nation back to one nation. These are clearly not one stick being the bible and another stick being the book of mormon.
Clearly there are a multitude of passages in the Bible which have more than one meaning. But this one, well there's just no way that could happen! Parish the thought!
I don't see what all the fuss is about over what scripture means. A huge large portion of the bible is quite obvious is stated clearly and intentionally means exactly what it purports to mean.
You are absolutely right, particularly when the objective of the interpreter is to invalidate the beliefs of other sects of Christianity of whom they disagree.
It is important, in order to maintain an exclusionary standard, to only allow leniency when interpreting passages of the Bible that fit into your specific set of beliefs. Anything less would be heresy.
We know that Christ was conceived by God, which means he was both man and God.. There is no ambiguity about that
No lizzie, "we don't know that" that is what you believe. Belief and knowledge are not synonymous.
Amazing how the words "no ambiguity" can be used for complete fallacy and are meant to be taken seriously. In this case they are intended to mean there is no doubt in anyone's mind, as if the poster knew such an impossible thing to be true. Those indoctrinated fully into a cult rarely check out the false teachings they've been instilled with from an early age. Such is the danger of religious cults in today's society.
Yes, when in "reality" there is lots of ambiguity and the reason why this is up for debate. No ambiguity, no debate. Hmm, how do we get that across??
Right Randy. Thank you for your usual poisonous remarks.
Since when is truth "poisonous"?
Unless you are the sole arbiter of "ambiguity" then this IS a fallacious statement!
Unless you came by your religious beliefs without being taught them by others then you WERE indoctrinated.
Unless your particular sect of religion is the only one in existence then it IS a cult.
Unless Jim Jones did his christian followers a service by encouraging them to die then there IS a danger from false religious beliefs.
And my reply is certainly not as "poisonous" as the Kool-aid Jones' christian cult drank and gave to their children also.
Jim Jones was an evil bastard heading an evil cult.
Catholicism is not a cult.
If your idea of religion is Jim Jones then you need to get out more.
I certainly don't need to get out more, LB! You can't sling a cat around here without hitting self-proclaimed christian in the head. And the catholics had a little murder of their own during the Inquisition. Or perhaps you haven't heard of this minor incident. They killed and tortured many more innocent people than Jones ever though of. But that's different, right?
Tell me how many the inquisition killed?
Interesting, nobody has any actual figures on the subject of the Spanish inquisition. In England and northern Europe, people talk about tens of thousands of deaths, in Spain they can find evidence of 3 deaths at the hands of the Inquisition.
Tudor England were at war with the Spanish at the time. They were also making use of the newly invented printing press to discredit the Spanish with mass-propaganda. We are still living by the legacy of war-time lies.
The Catholics don't advocate murder. That is a slander.
So it never happened? Torquemada himself is blamed with the burning of over 2,000 souls and this is merely the Spanish Inquisition. Next you'll tell me the indigenous population of the New world was not enslaved and murdered by the Spanish invaders. 90% of them were gone in a few generations as they either were worked to death or killed by diseases brought by the Europeans.
And, slavery in the Americas was approved by the Catholics as it was thought better to enslave Africans under the catholic god than let them remain free as heathens. Get real, Lizzie!
I don't disagree about the Spanish invaders. There were many different inquisitions over a few hundred years; some of whom were approved by corrupt Popes but none of whom tied to or responsible for altering Catholic doctrine. The doctrine has remained unchanged because it wasn't where the faults lay.
You're not going to suggest Catholics are to blame for the slavery of Africa? I think you'll find the Protestants lead that particular movements heads and shoulders above anyone else, beginning with Elizabeth I, being stepped up by the atheistic Portuguese, the mercenary Spanish, peaking with the Enlightenment colonizers and finally being campaigned away by Wilberforce, a Catholic.
The Spanish began by enslaving and destroying the population of the Caribbean islands and then came to the Floridas looking for more native labor to work in the cane fields in Cuba. Only after depleting the native population did they start importing Africans to do their dirty work. This caught on rather quickly and the protestants soon saw the advantage of enslaving the Africans for profit themselves. I've written and researched this carefully. I suggest you do the same before posting such incorrect info.
I said I don't disagree about the Spanish invaders. Although it was Arabs who started African slavery, wasn't it? It's also a fact that Protestant Britain built its huge empire on the back of slavery, as did America build it tremendous wealth.
A person can write and research things carefully and still come to different conclusions to another person who has done the same. I see your angle is blame religion. That's not my angle.
Well, I’m really heart and mind with you. I’m uh, you know, an agnostic. We have a— some emphasis on the terms of paranormal, because uh, it brings results, uh, there is something to therapeutic healing, all medical science has proven, but we don’t link that with any kind of causative factor of a loving God. Off the record, I don’t believe in any loving God. Our people, I would say, are ninety percent atheist. Uh, we— we think Jesus Christ was a swinger..
Well, thank you for the feedback, ‘cause, I must say, I felt somewhat hypocritical for the last years as I became uh, an atheist, uh, I have become uh, you— you feel uh, tainted, uh, by being in the church situation. But of course, everyone knows where I’m at. My bishop knows that I’m an atheist.
It it what is doctrinally true.
But who cares.
Life and what it means is completely subjective.
Geez what am I doing here?
It is not "doctrinally true" it is theory. If life and what it means is completely subjective then you have to concede that it is also ambiguous. However, I do agree on one point. the bible did appear with the aid of the church, with the aid of man. Not god.
Why would anyone feel they can say someone is not Christian? If someone says they are Christian that makes them Christian. It would be unchristian to not accept them. There are many Christian religions that completely disagree with each other on doctrine, and even ministers from among one faith. So why is it that so many Christian religions disagree with each other, yet accept the Christianity of all, except the Mormons? Why do people feel need to attack Mormon beliefs when more often than not Mormons agree with other Christian faiths? Truth is truth no matter where it comes from. Embrace it and make friends.
It's not about attacking, it's about what is believed. There is a difference between saying someone is "not a Christian" and calling someone "Un-Christian". This is not a moral judgement, we are trying to decipher what it means to be a believing Christian. Jehovah's witnesses for example, don't think Christ was God. Therefore they aren't Christians.
The dictionary includes far more people under the label of Christian than Christians do themselves, it seems.
That dictionary definition is very flawed. No mention of Catholic or Orthodox, and yet it mentions Plymouth Brethren. Biased I think.
And now that a completely random internet person has given their opinion of the definition of Christianity on a writer's forum, all Jehovah's Witnesses are now required to turn over their Christian cards immediately. That's it you all, you are out of the club!
You all are free to become Followers of Christ however. You can't be Christian though unless you follow a bunch of old guys that lived in the fourth century. Please remind the "Christians" to not include you in their inflated numbers when they are touting the success of Christianity.
Let's see, according to what I've read on these forums so far that means all Catholics, Unitarians, Mormons, and JWs need to get out of the pool. It's okay though, the Baptists pee in the water.
Jehovah's Witnesses don't call themselves Christians. They don't want to be affiliated with Christians. Nobody is pushing anyone else out of the "club".
Why is it not ok to have a definition?
On this side of the pond, JW consider themselves the only Christians. You would be the heretic.
I know quite a few JWs that do call themselves Christians but I can most certainly understand not wanting to be affiliated with the label. The problem with having a definition is that it needs to be the same definition to everyone, otherwise it is just an opinion.
The problem with opinions as definitions is they always seem to go along the lines of "I believe this way and if you don't then you are wrong by my definition". It's the "No REAL Scotsman" argument.
The "Jesus is a God" definition of Christianity is your own construct or at most the construct of your sect. It's fine if you want to believe that, but it should in no way shape or form be stated as an official definition. Neither you nor your sect have that kind of authority.
The problem with having a definition is that it needs to be the same definition to everyone, otherwise it is just an opinion.
Not true. Nuclear reaction is caused by the splitting of atoms is not an opinion its the proper definition, the correct one, so anyone with a different definition is just wrong and wrong is wrong and not 'just' an opinion.
You use opinion when something doesn't agree with your definition of a belief system, because belief systems are more open to interpretation and less concrete but nevertheless, some beliefs are wrong and others correct.
People who can read the bible and then say that Jesus is not God come in the flesh are just ignoring the truth of the bibles message. To say that Jesus was only a prophet falls far short of what the bible portrays and even lacks support from Jesus' own psychological profile. Just that Jesus was sinless during his entire life is certainly indicative of something only God can do.
"In nuclear physics and nuclear chemistry, a nuclear reaction is semantically considered to be the process in which two nuclei, or else a nucleus of an atom and a subatomic particle (such as a proton, or high energy electron) from outside the atom, collide to produce products different from the initial particles." ~~ wiki
No, they can all be wrong.
Melissa, To be a Christian means to believe that Christ was God in human form. The first Christians compiled the Bible with that view in mind. The word was made flesh and dwelt among us.
By your thinking, there is no right or wrong... only opinion. I don't buy into that Modernist, anti-absolutism. There is such a thing as truth. It isn't about fairness. It isn't about how this or that person have decided to have a fresh new version of Christianity, and we should all start sharing and stop complaining. Truth is a serious matter. Its what gets Troubled Man so angry, and I understand him there.
Christianity is an oral tradition. That is how it started out, that is how it continued. The wisdom in avoiding the written word is illustrated perfectly in the divisions and divisions of the original church. It is a heartbreaking fact that Christianity is divided up into many parts. The solution is not to declare that everyone is right, that everyone has a right to their own version of Christianity. That is not how you preserve truth. That's how truth gets corrupted.
I don't believe Jesus rowed to America in his spare time, wrote a pile of essays which were found 2000 years later, translated by John Smith, or was it Joe Brown or Fred Blogs, and lost in a fire. I don't accept that story, nor should I have to. There is no evidence, nor any reasonable cause based on what we know of scripture.
This definition is not my own construct, nor is it uniquely Catholic. Every Christian believes that. Anglicans, Methodists, Born Agains...
Of course I see.
Every Christian believes that Christ was a god because those Christians that don't believe that he was a God aren't Christians.
Which amounts to "Those who don't believe the way I do aren't REALLY following Christ".
Call it truth as much as you want to, unless you want to challenge the definition of opinion OR provide proof that what you think is absolutely correct, then it will remain your opinion.
What IS A FACT is those other groups are counted among Christianity by all recognized official definitions. So really, your opinion or "truth" doesn't mean dick. Hows that for anti-absolutism?
Right, so you're quite happy to have the government tell you what truth is. Ok.
I actually think that setting up a new Christian sect, all fresh, blond-haired and blue eyed, nice and separate from the North African Jews, is a little bit suspect. No wait, I think it's divisive and wrong. There, I said it.
As opposed to just living by his words?
Yes, it's called reality.
<--- me being angry
Of course not, you weren't brainwashed in Mormonism.
Since their other name is " Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints"
I would sadly say yes
Why would you be offended if you were not grouped into a classification connoted with ignorance itself?
Meh, Christianity, Islam... Mormonism... Scientology...
All of them... Nuts.
If people can read and listen they will figure it out. Let's see :
Church Of Jesus Christ For Latter Day Saints
How can someone ask when the answer is in the name.
A lot of people don't know that LDS = Mormons...
A Christian is one who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ. Usually someone will say 'they misinterpret the Bible so that means they aren't really Christians', but by that logic there could only be one Christian church, and there isn't
And the LDS church is not it.
This is why they have to change their views every so often to try and fall in line with Christianity.
Why would they want to be called Christians, when they say that everyone beside The Mormons are an abomination (damnable to die)
First, Mormons don't say non-mormons are an abomination.
Secondly, God himself(if you believe the Bible) has given commandments that are at odds with each other at different times. Compare the laws of the OT to the NT.
You still haven't answered my question.
Mormons say non-mormons are an abomination?
Hmm, I know I didn't pay very close attention some Sundays in church, but I must have missed the hellfire, non-mormons-suck rant. Strange. I love a good abomination story.
Some people seem to think so... I'm pretty sure it's somewhere in 5th Nephi though...
Joseph Smith History 1:18-20:
"My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join."
"I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw• near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” He again forbade me to join with any of them;..."
"that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw• near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof."
Do you know who the bold pronoun is referring to?
Go back until you meet the first noun that fits: professors.
This is talking about the professors, those who teach doctrines.
Joseph was asking which church to join, as he had been visiting the local churches and talking to their preachers. Joseph was told that those preachers were corrupt.
This doesn't say anything about all non-Mormons being an abomination.
"What does the Christian world know about God? Nothing...Why so far as the things of God are concerned, they are the veriest fools; they know neither God nor the things of God." (John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 13:225).
Yup, from the Mormon point of view, God has a physical body, and is separate from Christ and the Holy Ghost. Trinitarians have the same view of Mormons, that they don't know anything about God.
What's the point?
Did Joseph not say that his god told him not to join any other church because they were all an abomination?
Jaxson i grew up mormon.
The LDS always talk bad about the bible or try to discredit to make the mormon book look good.
OT vs NT If you read the Old testaments you will see that it all was leading to the new. The promise of grace the promise of mercy the promise of Jesus, the promise of forgiveness all through the Christ.
The coincide together.
Responding to your ? You don't have to understand everything to be a man of God. no. But you should not change the word of God to make it say what you want it to say. like the scriture is shared above.
The churches. Not the practitioners. Meaning that the church(a collection of teachings and ordinances) were corrupted.
This might just be an exaggeration based off of a bad personal experience. I spent years and years attending Mormon meetings, and never saw what you claim the LDS always do.
If you read the NT you see it leads to other things too. Christ never said 'I'm leaving, this is it until I return'.
The question was whether or not two people with different beliefs can both be Christians. I take it from your answer that you mean they can both be. So, you can only judge Mormons' sincerity and intent when you say they aren't Christians.
passingtheword- If I had a penny for every naysayer I ran across who tried to justify their words by claiming they were raised Mormon or were Mormon or whatever, I would be extremely rich.
The Protestant Christians say the same thing.
Take Jesus Christ out of the LDS, and you still have Mormons.
They deny the Divinity of Christ, what more doctrine is needed to show you that they are NOT Christian.
Heck, the LDS promotes the Book of Mormon way more than the Bible.
One guy told me that the Book of Mormon was God's revelation of all things lost since Jesus' day!
How is that true. By saying that, they negate and mock the Bible as false. IE Book of Mormon supersedes it.
I have no problem believing they are lovely people, but that is just a part of the equation. Nice people don't cut it with God. "For all have sinned and fallen short of His glory". Nice just ain't enough.
They have taken the true Christ out of it. My Jesus did not have multi able wives, kids ect.......
If you take Jesus Christ out of the LDS you have 'The church of of Latter-Day Saints'. Your little argument about that doesn't make any sense.
What do you mean? Mormons believe Christ is the Son of God, Savior of the world, and the only-begotten of the Father.
One guy? That's not the Mormon position on what the Book of Mormon is.
They promote the Book of Mormon because most Christians already have a Bible. They want to share the Book of Mormon too. That doesn't mean they don't use the Bible or believe in it.
They are both the word of God. They don't mock the Bible. This is what I'm referring to. If you go to lds.org or mormon.org you can look up what they actually believe.
Even if they are wrong, they believe in Christ, believe in the Bible, so that makes them Christians. To say otherwise, you have to say that their interpretations of the Bible are wrong, and that they aren't sincerely following after Christ(because, as you said, none can do that perfectly).
I'm happy for you.
You seem sold out to the Church and it's doctrine.
That's fine by me.
I'm just looking for more viewpoints, and reasons why people don't consider Mormons Christians.
My personal 'religion' is different than most... as I believe God interacts with all of his children through different religions. As such, I don't believe in 'one true' religion, or in one true book of scripture.
Thanks for your comments though.
Jaxson you don't worship Jesus Christ of the Bible
Even Prophet Hinkey said it himself.
"In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ.' 'No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.'" (LDS Church News Week ending June 20, 1998, p. 7).
If you say you are like everyone elso, why does the church try to seperate them selfselves from everyone else?
The church's predominant theology is Mormonism, the belief that the original doctrines and priesthood authority of Christ were restored.
The LDS Church considers itself to be a restoration of the church founded by Jesus Christ, which was later lost in the centuries after Christ in a Great Apostasy. Adherents, referred to as Latter-day Saints or, more informally, Mormons, view faith in Jesus Christ and the atonement as the central tenet of their religion.
 LDS theology includes the Christian doctrine of salvation only through Jesus Christ,
 though LDS doctrines regarding the nature of God and the potential of mankind differ significantly from mainstream Christianity.
Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus, under the direction of Heavenly Father, leads the church by revealing his will to its president, whom adherents regard as a modern-day "prophet, seer, and revelator."
Fantastic topic, witch nonsense is the right one, the older Christians (catholic, protestant, watever) or new Christians (mormons)?
Unfortunately, you calling it nonsense doesn't necessarily make it nonsense.
Let's just assume, for arguments' sake, that I have seen and spoken with God. He told me that the problems people have with the Bible, contradicting itself or science, are the result of mistranslation, misinterpretation, and corrupted text. He then showed me the correct text and meaning, and it aligns perfectly with science.
Would you thinking that it is nonsense make it so? Would your belief make my experience any less real?
I'll think that you are complitly delusional and need serious professional help, really, seek help!
Give me a break by definition you are none of the above. I do not care what you believe but they are not Christian or they would be called that. Now go talk to your 3 Gods and claim you can ascend to become one and read that other book you carry that is not the Bible. I am still waiting for the Mormon Church to show us all the tablets God re-portably gave you. Do not make me pull out the book called the Kingdom of the Cults, everyone will get sick of hearing all the facts. So why is the statue of John Smith facing away from your temple? You better get back to knocking on some doors I love it when you stop by.
Mormons only believe in one God.
The Bible never states that it is a closed book or that it is all of God's revelation to man. In fact, the Bible didn't exist at the time it was written, it was just individual books and letters.
You assume much about me, but that's ok. Do you believe the Bible? Can your church present the original manuscripts?
According to many Mormons, traditional church doctrine states that humans can become gods who procreate and populate as their Heavenly Parents before them. The fifth LDS president Lorenzo Snow stated, "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become." I would therefore argue that Mormons (in most cases) do in fact believe in more than one God, or at least that they believe that other Heavenly Parents can reach His status.
Not His status, and not become God. God is a title(and/or a name). God refers to our God, our Father, the one who created us. Nothing will ever change that, He is the only one.
As to what the true potential we contain... Christ did command us to be as perfect as the Father, so it can be argued that the Mormon belief is in line with the Bible.
Consider a father and his son. The father started a business, worked hard, grew the business, and taught his son as his son grew. When his son grows old enough, he will be able to work in the business, help manage it, and maybe take it over or go start his own business with what he has learned. Nothing will ever change his father's status as his father, and nothing will change the fact that his father is the founder of that business. It's kind of like that.
"To inherit the same power, the same glory, and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a God and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before." -Joseph Smith
I am trying to understand, if men may become Gods with the same power, the same glory, and same exaltation as God, who also create spirit beings and populate the earth, is the only difference then that God the Father was the first?
I cannot reconcile in my mind that this agrees with Isaiah 42:8 "I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols."
The key point is to become *a* god. If you became a god and created your own universe, you would be God of that universe. However, your Father, your God, would still be your God.
God and Lord and all that in the bible are used as titles and names. They refer to the one who created us and our universe, the one to whom we owe life, and the one we worship. This will never change, even gods would still worship their God. Nothing would take away from God's praise or glory. In fact, when a son is successful, it speaks well of the father(in general). God's children becoming perfected brings more glory to Him.
Does that make sense? You don't have to agree with it, but it's good to understand it.
I think I understand where you are coming from, but I'm still confused with the fact that if a God were to create a universe he would become the God of that universe.. Are you saying then when you believe there is only one God that there is only one God of this universe, but possibly other equal Gods in other universes?
That would be my personal belief. These kinds of details aren't addressed in official Mormon doctrine, but it's what I have derived from my studies of the scriptures and my understanding of science.
As far as them being equal, just think of your father. Your father is your father, even though there are other fathers to other children in the world. They don't diminish the meaning of your father, nor are they your fathers
I guess the real question is do you actually give a flying fig if a bunch of fundamentalists (usually baptists) consider you a christian or not? As much as they would like to think so, they will not be making the decision if/when judgment day arrives. Let them have their club and pat themselves on the back for how holy they are. You know what you are and how your God feels about it.
Let me explain to you why Mormonism is incompatible with Christianity - but please recognize that I don't give a flip what anyone thinks about this, it's just facts.
1. Mormonism teaches that you can become a God.
2. In both Judaism and Christianity...and even Islam, there is only ONE God.
...therefore, as Christianity is a monotheistic religion (everyone knows this) - Mormonism is not Christianity.
Christianity is only monotheistic if one takes into account the "trinity" doctrine. (Which is not mentioned in the bible, but contrived by "scholars")
Otherwise, Jesus and God would both be counted as deities. The holy spirit is a little more vague, but would probably be a third. That's a pantheon.
Trinity is a perfect example of confusing interpretation with source. What one group(or many groups) believe a set of scriptures mean doesn't make that the only correct and acceptable interpretation. Most problems with Mormons = Christians comes from Mormons not agreeing with the 'traditional' interpretation, regardless of what the source says.
I've never known a son that wasn't a different being than his father. I've never seen a person stand next to them-self. I've never seen a person's voice talk about them-self from a different location. That's why I like the Mormon interpretation, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three personages, making one Godhead.
The trinity supports a view of more than one God and that appeased the paganistic doctrine. catholicism upholds mary to be of divine status and that appeased the mother of heaven worshipers.
We need to root out, even today, the catholic doctrines to make orthodoxy align with bible teachings.
I don't like you BO. Let's just leave it at that.
I don't need you to help me root out anything nor do I care what you feel like digging in to root out all on your own.
Don't respond to my posts, don't quote me. Seeing my name anywhere near your picture makes me feel vaguely ill. There is nothing you could say to me ever that wouldn't turn my stomach. Seeing you type the word "God" or quote bible verses is actually the closest thing to an abomination that I have ever witnessed. I honestly think that watching someone wipe their butt on the pages of the Bible would be more of an honor to Jesus than having you vomit his words.
So now I guess I am one more person that you can disrespect after I am dead because I said something that interfered with your God-complex.
I do not hate you nor do i have truths to say about you after you die.
You do not even interfere with my belief in God.
But the real issue here is not that i told my truth; its the impression left by the one i spoke about. Sorry you have taken such great offense but reality is reality, like it or not.
It is not always about you.
So i suggest you suck it up and think about the repercussions of death much more closely. You and everyone else, surely, does not want that kind of epitaph come judgment time.
It's about me when you are quoting me and responding to me. I'm sure that upsets you since then its not about YOU.
If you don't understand why what you did was deplorable, then the bible isn't helping you at all. I don't care about your relationship with God, I don't care about your opinions. I just don't want you speaking to me or replying to my posts. You make my skin crawl.
Or does it not matter at all whether contact with you is unwanted? Is it so much to ask that you simply don't speak to me? Or is it okay in your warped mind to force attentions on someone who you make physically ill?
Just for the record, if there is a heaven Earnest has 10 times the shot of getting in then an insensitive, abusive egomaniac who must be cruel to those in mourning to prove their holiness.
Like I said, just leave me alone. There is absolutely no reason to reply to my posts other than to be sadistic.
Just for the record, if there is a heaven Earnest has 10 times the shot of getting in then an insensitive, abusive egomaniac who must be cruel to those in mourning to prove their holiness.
10 times the shot. BO knows this is the case, too. If only he could
be Earnest. I suppose I'd be that bitter and nasty, too if I could never walk in that mans shoes.
Thats a nice opinion i suppose but lets look at the facts shall we?
Did he ever have anything nice to say about the creator or Jesus?
Did he ever give any christian the benefit of a doubt?
Did he post information, have it refuted and then go on like he didn't care?
Did he ever try to be understanding? loving? even sympathetic to any christian opinion or situation?
Did he ever do anything that warranted acceptance by God in his posts?
Did he ever cease to destroy any work of God no matter how few words he had to type?
The list goes on...
Will God embrace him and say "good work earnest, I love how you encouraged the saints in there".
Get the blinkers off your eyes.
My words were true
Get over it.
Try to do better than him
No morals or ethics whatsoever, just pure hatred. Wow!
Mormonism teaches that you can become a god, not God.(We are taking teachings outside of scripture here for clarification). There is, and always will only be one God(God is the creator), and one Father. If you become like your father in stature, does that diminish your father in any way? No, in fact, the success of the son reflects well on his father.
Christ commanded us to be like the Father, in fact. There isn't an inherent discrepancy with the Bible, the discrepancy is with misunderstanding of Mormon teachings and comparing that to interpretations of the bible(teachings of churces), rather than comparing it to the Bible.
Hey, that's interesting! I really like that reply!
Thank you. My belief is that if everyone were more open to others' beliefs, we would see an underlying, universal harmony among different religions from different nations and different eras.
Being open to other religions is what got the OT people into trouble. Solomon was open to other religions and he backslid. God warns about having anything to do with other religions. Jesus never said, embrace hinduism, rally to dagon, attend pagan rituals. Jesus was very distinct about what to study, practice and preach.
We don't need universal harmony, we need truth and correctness.
I didn't say worship in every religion.
What about the billions of people who never had access to the Bible or teachings of Christ? You don't think God revealed truths to them?
God helps people enter into what God is doing if they sincerely want to be part of it. Theres a muslim testimony of a woman who was a bit confused about her muslim religion and one day out of despondancy she said aloud, "jesus help me". Well she was taken aback by hearing that name come out of her mouth and today she is a christian.
I would like to have an answer to what about those billions throughout history but I don't think i do. I know that God does. He knows my needs he has to know others needs but i also know that He set up the OT scenario of worship, including sacrifice and then he sacrificed jesus on the cross and to just walk around this like none of it ever happened, to me is absolutely crazy. The cross of christ has to be so very important to God otherwise he would not have done that.
So we will have to worry more about ourselves and others whom we come into contact with than untold and unknown peoples long dead eons ago.
Which is exactly what causes holy wars.
No, Troubled. Ego creates wars, including the un-holy ones.
You mean ego like someone claiming Jesus parted a boulevard of snarled traffic just so they could get through? That would be enormous ego.
That's not ego, it may be a thought which stemmed from some odd traffic abnormality that opened a clear lane or some inclination that made a person turn down a different street and carve a few minutes off the journey.
But if God gets the glory, then it is not such a big deal is it.
What is christian reality, however, is that if God wants a person to be somewhere, that person is gonna be there even if God has to part a sea or teleport them. The real astonishment are those new eyes Jesus spoke about that rendered a person able to perceive the workings of God and the heart that enables a person to thank God even if he didn't have a thing to do with it.
Do you actually believe for even a second that anyone here thinks you're a follower of Christs words? The things you said about Earnest were despicable and deplorable and you still to this day hold those views.
If real evil exists in the world, it most certainly exists in your words.
I think calling him evil gives him the status he so desperately craves. Sad, bitter, lonely and insecure are far more fitting. IMHO.
You only wish but your bias is obvious. Your opinion sums nothing up but to expose you. The posts are judged by all and christian they are indeed. You don't think i can tell the truth about a man after he dies?
I am never afraid to tell the truth.
@brother, perhaps what got them into trouble was the Jews following "religions" of those around them that used graven images, practiced divination and witchcraft, horoscopes and the like.
We need to follow truth and light. But is your interpretation equivalent to that of God? Mine isn't and I don't think yours is, too.
I have found great truths in Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Jewish mysticism (Kabbalah) and even Scientology. The key problems are those of non-spiritual trappings (graven images) and idolizing ego.
of course there are subtle differences. Jesus mentions some of these differences. Jesus intensifies the law and desires to get back to pure worship of God with good hearts in right standing.
Idols are everywhere just the shape has changed. Money and the desire to live ones own life as they wish, are idols. True we do not put our babies on the heated metal idols of molock but we do have abortion. Some look to the stars for direction; astrology and God is not relied upon. Some think gems and trinkets can be imbued with some power to aid people in life but this is false hope and not God - just another weak substitute. There is no real difference between what the hebrews went through and what abounds today, the form is different but the end result is the same.
Jesus confronts his enemies with the comeback, "ye are gods."
And Genesis 1:26 says that God created man in His own image and likeness. Baby gods.... Non-physical, spiritual and immortal sources of creation. Mind you, this isn't the Homo sapiens body we wear or the ego through which we view the world. This is the dead asleep true self (soul, Holy Ghost), within.
Interesting topic. Although I am not a Christian myself. I take it as default that if one believes in Christ is therefore a Christian. In reference to be made as gods, isn't there a reference in the Bible that says so?
It depends on interpretation. Personally, I think there are inherent problems in the Bible, whether mistranslation, accidental corruption of text, purposeful corruption of text, missing books, and books that shouldn't be there.
This is how I see it. If I were God, all-loving, I wouldn't pick one small group of my children and give them prophets and direction, and ignore everyone else. I would do my best to help all of my children. For this reason, I am very open to scriptures other than the Bible, as it makes sense to me that God would speak to all nations.
But then you would not be speaking the truth. Truth does not have many paths but is only one path and that is the right one. No where does God omit anyone but gives all a chance to come by his one path.
What you have said is that you will institute rules to the people of your country but if other ways are designed those are fine too.
God purposed that all nations should come to him through the example of one nation blessed by God. As in the christian walk others should come to God because they see how God has worked in our life.
I do believe that most Mormons are sincere in their belief that they are serving God...
The Problem is that they are teaching a "Different Gospel"... In very important Details... An Entirely Different Gospel which is NOT THE SAME as the Gospel given in the Bible.
Someone implied that anyone who does not agree with them being Christians must be ignorant... Far from the case. Their are even internet sites written by their own people who come out of that Church... Their argument that people are just ignorant is false.. its just "Yah Yah Yah" to keep people who do not know better from hearing the truth.
The more educated in Bible Theology and Church History and the original Doctrines of the Church one is, the more impossible it becomes to accept this type of "Other Gospel" which the Apostle Paul warned us about in his letter to the Church at Galatians.
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
If the Mormon Church was the same as the rest of Christianity and had the same message then they would not have spent the last 100+ years telling the world that their message was a New One to Replace the Old one which had expired.
Theirs is a Replacement Theology and maintained that the Original Church Jesus had Founded was extinct.. Apostate and Rejected.
Something that Jesus Himself said would Never Happen!!!
So either Joseph Smith Lied... Or Jesus did.
Now.. Instead of them Searching out the Truth of the matter..
Watch what happens.. two or three will state that "Yes they are Christians" and several more will attack this post...
Or they will pretend it has not been posted, or remove the Post... or even try to have me banned for posting this TRUTH.
They will normally automatically support the Dogma of their church and reply in the programmed manner.
They will not Search the Bible (God's own WORD) for the Truth... they will read the BOM or POGP commentaries instead of the Bible which is GODS WORD!!!
Not the same as the traditional understanding of the meaning of the Bible. Don't confuse interpretation with source.
I said the majority of people who don't consider them Christians. Every church has people who leave it, that means nothing as to whether or not they are Christians.
It can be said that the Catholic teachings departed from the Bible, so that anything based on Catholic interpretation of the Bible would also be a departure. You have to go back to the source.
Why do Mormons have to be the same as the rest of Christianity? All churches have different teachings, otherwise they would just be one church.
The Church of Christ was founded on prophets and apostles. What happens if you take away the foundation of a building? The Catholic Church didn't have that foundation.
Did he, or is that just what you think he meant?
It's a false dichotomy based on your understanding of the Bible, nothing more. There are more than one way to interpret the meaning of scriptures.
Why don't you address specific problems, and I'll show you how it can be supported by biblical teachings? All you are doing is saying things with no source, no support.
Mormons read the Bible, actually.
Dude, I have read and searched the bible. Actually, I've probably read the bible more than I have the BOM.
If Christians are all like you, (Mrmarantha), then maybe I don't want the rest of the world to consider Mormons Christian, because you are most certainly NOT filled with the love of Christ, IMHO.
Seriously, I can tell you the arguments don't work against these kinds of people. I'm not Mormon, but I'm also not a conservative Christian. They've been telling me that I'm not a Christian for months. To clarify on the boards I go with "follower of Christ" as is separates me from the zealots that claim the title at the same time reminds them that I have absolutely no idea who THEY follow, but I know who I do.
Would you like to join the "follower of Christ" club? We accept all denominations
I think this is the kind of attitude(MrMaranantha, not Shanna) Christ was referring to when he said some honor Him with their lips, but their hearts are far from Him. Why would a Christian so attack another person claiming to be a follower of Christ?
It is hard to tell people things they do not want to hear...
In response to two or three of you...
The Roman Catholic Church is in some ways very much like the Mormon Church in its claim on being the only institution...
It is also a false claim.
They do have a legitimate root however that is not based upon False Prophets and Prophecies that have failed... Theirs goes back to Pre-Constantine Bishops...
But the important part of this is that the Roman Catholic Church, Like the Mormon Church did its best to REPLACE and Expunge the Original Church with its own Authority...
The Dark ages were a rough time for all of the Christians who existed through that time.. What galls me most about your claim to fame.. Is that in doing so you spit on the graves of about 53,000,000 People who were burned at the stake and otherwise killed to maintain the testimony of Christ.
There was Never a Complete Apostasy. There were however Many Martyrs for the cause of Christ.
Or maybe it's just hard to listen to someone standing on a soap box screaming their own opinions as truth. That's why I switch to the other side of the street when encountering street-preachers. They always strike me as a bit buggy.
But I'm sure you are completely right and will surely be the only one entering heaven.
Regardless, I'll just go on believing what my heart feels is true. Strange people proclaiming "truths" on a writer's site forums aside.
Unfortunately MrMarantha, I'm sure you think you're right here, but I think it's worth pointing out that you're talking complete bollocks.
MrMarantha you are taking your scripture quote out of context. If you read the whole of Galatians chapter one. The very first verse of the chapter says,
" 1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)"
then after your quote it says,
" 10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."
In context, your quote would actually defend the mormon position. Mormons believe a person must have authority from god to be an apostle. That last verse is the key to what Paul meant by false gospels. It was a gospel of revelation. One of the big problems many Christian churches have with mormons is that they believe in modern revelation. Mormons don't claim to teach a new gospel. They claim to teach the old one that was lost through the great apostasy.
Interestingly one time Joseph Smith was asked what the difference was between his religion and the other Christian sects. His reply was "We believe in the bible."
As a Mormon myself, I find this argument totally stupid. Sorry, but I do. We are Christian, and you need only sit in our meetings to understand that. We believe in Christ and God and study the bible. We believe in being baptized (Christ was baptized by immersion in the Bible, therefore, so are we).
Being a Christian does not mean fitting yourself through tiny, man-dictated hoops. It means living and following Christ.
I don't see what it matters anyway. Just because an ignorant person or a bigot says I'm not a Christian doesn't change the fact that I do believe in Christ and in his atonement.
I'm so sick of people telling ME what I am and am not as if they know me better than I know myself.
Exactly, very well said!
That's why I said most Mormons probably don't care as much as I do
In all actuality, I have had a great many conversations with people that wouldn't have happened unless they decided to listen with an open mind. I've talked to many people that found Mormon teachings intriguing, and agreed with me that they are Christians, once they learned more about it.
Let me ask you, what do you, as a Mormon, think about someone like me? I believe in the Bible and Book of Mormon. I also believe in the Quran, and believe there are many holy scriptures I haven't had the chance to find/read from other people. I think they all come from the same God, and all lead to the same place. Just as the teachings of the OT were different than the NT, God could give yet other teachings to people in Asia, Africa, Europe, America, etc...
What do I think about someone like you?
Personally, I think people can believe in a lot of different things. Faith is a very personal things and people are so very different in the way they think and process things that one single religion may not be just right for them.
I also think it's great that you are reading other religious texts. The more educated about different faith's a person is, the greater their tolerance and respect is. I need to find a copy of the Koran (Okay, I don't know how to spell that at all, but I think I've seen it spelled like that once) and read up on some other religions. God loves all his children and you can't force your particular brand of Faith on people.
You know, it really makes sense to me. Obviously, there is a reason for adversity, or God wouldn't have put us here with it.
So, if there is a reason for adversity, wouldn't it be interesting for God to teach different people in different ways? Then we would have all these ideas that can seem to conflict, but can also be seen to be in harmony. We can learn tolerance, we can learn acceptance, and we can learn love.
I completely agree with you. God is the god of the whole world and he has been giving his words to everyone on the planet from Adam on down to today. James E Faust, a mormon apostle said,
"We believe that the fulness of the gospel of Christ has been restored, but this is no reason for anyone to feel superior in any way toward others of God’s children. Rather, it requires a greater obligation to invoke the essence of the gospel of Christ in our lives—to love, serve, and bless others. Indeed, as the First Presidency stated in 1978, we believe that “the great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.” 25 Thus, we have respect for the sincere religious beliefs of others and appreciate others extending the same courtesy and respect for the tenets we hold dear."
The analogy on here by some is that anyone who uses the bible as a base to their Religion can be called a Christian. In that case every Jew and Muslim is one two, maybe they should pick up a book of Mormon. Maybe start a new Religion holding a Koran in one hand and the book of Mormon in the other. You could knock on doors in Saudi Arabia and say no we only believe in the Koran but look at this book. Some angel swooped down and gave you the golden tablets to the Koran I bet that would go over real well. Still I bet someone will believe you even David Koresh had followers.
Jews don't believe in the NT. In English, when speaking about Christianity, it is generally understood that the Bible is the OT and NT.
Nor do Muslims believe in the Bible, or the teachings of Christ contained in the NT(at least, not all of them).
So that argument is irrelevant.
Let me ask, are you Christian? If so, do you think that Christ wants you to ridicule other peoples' beliefs?
Mormons use the Bible and Book of Mormon together and both help to form the base of our religion. Directly from one of the main tenants of the Mormon Church: We believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly (For hundreds of years, it has been translated, things omitted, things changed...we can't be sure it's exactly right). We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
Basically, the Bible is an account from the Eastern part of the world, and the Book of Mormon is an account from the America's. The Book of Mormon is called "Another testament of Jesus Christ" and serves as a further witness of the Bible.
Being a Christian isn't about what you believe, but what you are. The term 'Christian' means 'Christ-like'. That is anyone who lives a life of virtue, purity and holiness, and can do a few healings and miracles whilst they are about it, in fact a veritable image of Christ Himself, is 'Christ-like', and therefore a Christian.
Now hands up if you think you satisfy the requirements above..... Anyone....? Thought not. You might aspire to be 'Christ-like' but I bet you are not and have never met anyone who is.
I passed my Chemistry final.... does that count as a miracle?
Mmmm.. Did it involve a couple loaves and a few fishes?
....Do Swedish fish count? I ate lots of those while studying and I could have sworn they were multiplying. That bag was endless.
You must be from Utah... I don't know what it is about Utah Mormons and Swedish Fish... Is that hidden somewhere in the word of wisdom?
Haha, actually, I grew up in Brazil, Detroit and Georgia. I only moved to Utah last September to go to BYU.
I actually hate Swedish Fish, but I needed something to snack on to keep from grinding my teeth in frustration. So I stole it from my roommates.
Utah Mormons are weirder than other Mormons, which is saying a lot. It was such a culture shock for me.
Especially BYU Mormons. Let's see, you've been at BYU for 5 months, so I'm guessing you also got married since then, or at the very least engaged?
Most of my best friends are Utah Mormons actually, and my biggest heroes in life are Mormons... Not saying being Mormon makes you perfect, but there are some who have shown Christlike attributes to such a degree as I have never seen elsewhere.
There's this guy I know, kind of well, but we weren't life-long friends or anything like that. He called me one morning, asked me to stop by his house, told me where his hidden key was, told me to get the keys to his van and drive it to pick him up about 3 hours away where his truck had broken down. I did so, and on the way back he kept trying to pay me for my time. He pulled out his checkbook, and I noticed he had $75 left in his account.
Now, this guy drilled wells for a living. His wife was dying of cancer, he had 2 daughters in college, and one in high school. Two weeks earlier a hose broke on his drill truck, and the entire thing caught fire and was destroyed. I told him repeatedly not to worry about it, but when I got home later that day, I found an envelope with a check for $75 and a note that said 'Don't worry about us, I figure Christ would want me to pay you for spending your time away from work.'
Well, I cashed it, as I didn't want to hurt our friendship. Then I went to the grocery store and bought food with it and took it back to them. Cooked dinner and the family and I ate it together...
Anyway, I think I might be rambling, but any Christian who tries that hard to follow Christ is ok in my book.
Ahaha, you know Mormons pretty well!
But marriage is still on the far off horizon I'm in the dorms still, so I'm around the clueless Freshmen boys who are all going on their missions soon anyway. I'm moving off campus in April though, so all bets are off. However, Mormons guys are kind of shallow, according to what I've noticed. May not jive well with me.
BUT, I'm younger than most here. I'm a sophomore, and I just turned eighteen last November. So I've got a few more years yet.
Good for you I'll tell you one thing about Mormon boys from Utah... they have a lot of opportunity to 'grow up' and become men on their missions. Not saying that every RM is great, but it can definitely help. To be fair, it's difficult when you grow up in a 'bubble' community like much of Utah.
It might be sooner than you think though, that you see an RM across the room, and you both start walking towards each other singing 'I've seen that smile somewhere before! I've heard that voice somewhere before!'
I watched Saturday's Warrior with one of my friends in High School... I'll never stop laughing at how cheesy that movie is!
Ahaha, all Mormon movies are ridiculously cheesy. I find myself cringing when I watch them.
I'm still trying to not feel like a little kid here. It's just weird for me being so young. I work with guys who are 23 and 24 and I feel so young. I can't even imagine being married...Yikes! I'd like to explore a little bit more by myself before I gotta start churning out kids. At the very least, I have to wait until my brother gets back from his mission this September. We're planning on studying abroad in Europe or Jerusalem the following summer. Can't do that if I'm married.
However, if I wait too long, I'll be twenty four before I know it and an old maid!
Even worse, a 'menace to society' lol.
The newer movies by whatever that company is are much better than Saturday's Warrior was. The Best Two Years was my favorite out of all of them.
Is BYU-Jerusalem open again?
I'm sure you'll know when you meet the right guy. Don't rush and don't settle.
The Best Two Years was good-- I liked Mobsters and Mormons. It just made fun of all the little funny Mormon things.
Part of BYU-J is, I think. I read something in the BYU newspaper about it being open for those who are taking Hebrew. I wanted to study Arabic, but I may switch to Hebrew. If not, there's a study abroad thing in Jordan with opportunities for life sciences majors. I may look into that.
My community college started offering Arabic, but they only did so on the condition that the professor do it in a volunteer capacity. He only did one semester, but learning Arabic, Hewbrew, Greek, and Aramaic are all on my bucket list.
Have you ever read any of Hugh Nibley's stuff?
No, I haven't! I've heard of him, and I think my roommate has one of his books, but I just did a quick google search... I think I'll have to pick up some of his stuff. Sounds very interesting!
If you are interested in history/archaeology/languages, it is very good. It can be very in-depth as well.
He has a tendency to make a claim about something at the beginning of a chapter, leaving you 'uh, what? Where did he get that?'. Then he explains it, and you see how it makes sense, he was an amazing person.
Actually, being a follower of Christ isn't the same as being perfect.
First, the term Christian as found in the NT means follower of Christ.
The disciples of Christ were called Christians.
Disciple is from Mathetes, meaning a learner or pupil.
In truth, the greatest 'summary' of the teachings of Christ is contained in Matthew 5:48. "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."
The interesting thing about the word perfect here, Teleios, is the root of the word, tello. Tello means to start out for a definite point or goal. Christ knows that we aren't perfect, and we won't be perfect in our lives. But, the goal is to be as perfect as the Father.
Perfect or not perfect, the verses you quote make it clear to me that being a Christian is about action, who we are. It is not about doctrines and beliefs.
Correct. It's not about performing miracles or being perfectly virtuous. It's about trying.
There have been many good posts in response to this question and if we are comparing "churches" why not look for what Jesus Christ did in terms of establishing his church and its structure. It had several festures which I don't recall anyone here mentioning, and it is a good starting point for answering the question I Hubbed. If you want a taste of LDS doctrine, go back to my earlier posted answer to this question.
The Bible is based on the old Testament word for word the pure Orthodox faith does not accept the New Testament. Yes one has the right to defend their faith with the facts and facts do not ridicule the faith or religion of others. Its the facts that ridicule those who do not accept them. Even Christians screw up the facts from time to time. If your Mormon then stick to your doctrine and to your facts. If you our ignorant and the facts do not matter then your argument is worthless. If you change the Bible then you our not Christian. If you claim to recognize something other then the Bible then you our not Christian. If your other book is in conflict with the Bible then you our a house divided and can not stand. I only ridicule your information if it is contrary to the facts, anything else is a lie. You can choose to be ignorant or you can be a liar that's up to you. I do not call you ignorant or a liar but can not deny what you make yourself out to be.
I choose to be what and who I want to be. And I am neither ignorant nor a liar, thanks.
Many people have changed the bible. Translations differ, meanings differ, and some verses contradict others. A prophet has the authority to correct corrupted texts.
The Bible never says that it contains all scripture, nor that it is a closed book. There is no biblical foundation for this claim.
The Book of Mormon doesn't contradict the Bible.
Okay SanXuary, you seem to argue that mormons aren't Christians because the screw up the facts, but then you say that even Christians screw up the facts sometimes. That doesn't make sense. I'm really curious which religion do you subscribe to?
My comments were never personal and I am not prejudice against Mormons. I just do not make the claim to be Christian and then tell a Mormon, Muslim, Buddhist or anything else for that matter that I am one of them and to accept my doctrine as one. I can not even do that from one church to the next. Stating the facts is not being mean and you do not need to be any faith in order to do that.
OK, so throw your book of Moron away and come be one. If that's true you should not need it any way. If you do I guess you better brush up and include the Watch Tower, the non included agnostics and I am sure I could include a few others. Maybe we can read verses out of context together. I went to a funeral once and followed the bishops quotes from his Bible. Out of context they read give the church money and we will forgive him. I could spend endless days in dedicated study and show you the difference but in the end you will only deny it because your Earthly status is more important. I knew Mormons who admitted this was the case but how could they leave with so much invested.
Yep with a capitol D
tELL mEE yOUU didddddddddddddnt jUUUUSTSTT SAAAAAAEEEEEY tHAAAAATATATTATAT
Predudice is NOT ignorance. They are two completely different concepts.
A title can be considered the summary of a post. Did you bother to read my post?
"... the majority of people who don't agree are simply ignorant to Mormon beliefs"
Mormons are Christians, and Prejudice against Mormons in this regard mostly stems from Ignorance.
Would that have been a better title?
You caught me, I couldn't get passed the retarded title to get at the "meat" of your ....whatever it is....that I can't bother with reading because I actually couldn't care less, nor understand how anyone actually could.
But ignorance allows prejudice to exist and truth will always be truth.
All I do is look at the facts. You claim Mormons are Christians and if I do not claim other wise then I am prejudice. Despite all the denominations all Christians agree on several facts that form their compliance. I did not personally claim other wise I just stated the facts and agreed with them. Regardless of anything I agree with or disagree with in the Bible and regardless of if I believe or not the facts, they our written and I can not change it. What do you want me to do, call you one so I can get past the facts? I can be a Mormon or I can call myself something else, unfortunately I can not be in both clubs because they are different. Its honestly nothing personal and I can pick all day. The Mormon Church opposed gay marriage should I claim that you our prejudice because you our a Mormon? Of course not because I am opposed to it as well. I am in favour of Civil Unions because it does not contain the Word marriage and protects the Church from having to violate the protocols of the Bible and its beliefs. Most of all Civil Unions are already imposed on us. Go live with a guy for several months in some states and you get to take half by law. If your agenda is different then why ask the question on here? It is not a forum unless you only wanted for people to agree with you or some other agenda. I believe in free will and most of all honest choices.
There are many denominations who claim to be under the umbrella of Christianity.
(You can read b/w the lines)
if all Christians would stop arguing over stupid things and unite the world would be a far greater place
The argument is about truth. People get hot under the collar about that kind of thing.
Jesus certainly did. God in the OT certainly did.
Truth is paramount
and there be those who find it because they allow the truth to shape them and because of that they get more truth and so the ball rolls.
any person who wants to know God must first invite God - however innocently or naively and God will reveal himself - in any other situation there is no guarantee of finding the real God, except that God answer peoples hearts.
Good point, @Smokes Angel.
The key problem there is ego. The really sick thing about ego is that most people think it's them. It's only a false self masquerading as them. This is the "self" that Jesus said we must let die in order to gain everlasting life. And that's why it's so difficult.
Arguing usually comes from ego. @Brother has a good point about "letting" God into our hearts. That kind of humility is what subdues ego.
I Did a little research(sorry knowledge geek) and i found that they dont use the Bible except on rare occasions. Strike 1. They also belive that, like catholic saints, that there are prohets who are Holy, just like God; even though in the Bible it says that all men(women too) of God are saints. Strike 2. And last but not least they belive in a simmilar but diffrent afterlife. Its like a twisted form of reincarnation. Strike 3, sorry buddy ure out. The way i see them is the same way i view the catholic faith(remember im non-denominatinal). There on the right track, just lost a little. BUT THEY STILL BELIVE IN JESUS CHRIST, OUR LORD AND SAVIOR. SO DON'T GO DISSIN THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That's just not true. Mormons spend just as much time on the Bible as they do on the Book of Mormon in their classes. More, actually. One year, in one class, they will focus on and read through the OT together. Then the NT the next year. Then the BoM the next year. So, the Bible gets twice the study time as the BoM.
What are you referring to? If you could be a little more specific.
Nothing like reincarnation. Mormons believe in resurrection, just as Christ was resurrected. I have a feeling you got your information from a strongly anti-Mormon source.
So wait, are you saying they are Christians but they're just wrong?
This is what the LDS think about the Bible
1 Nephi 13:28-29 …The bible causes many people to stumble.
Journal of Discourses Vol.2p75...The Bible is not a sufficient guide; the words contained in this Bible are merely a history of what is gone by;
The Is the LDS views of the Bible
Not just taken out of the Bible, taken from the Gospel. The gospel principles of priesthood authority, personal revelation, and prophetic revelation were lost. The church fell away from having apostles and prophets as its foundation within the first 100 years. This verse states that people stumble because of what is lost.
If you read this in context, you would see that the meaning is that scripture alone is never enough. We need personal revelation. Note the preceding sentence:
"There is a Spirit that is ever ready, and points out, under varied and conflicting circumstances, the very course which the servants of God should pursue."
The LDS view of the Bible is that it is the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly.
which scriptures were not translated correctly? Its funny that all the scriptures that Joseph said the were wrong are the bases of The lds faith.
I see that he changed the True Word of GOd to make his own religion.
He transformed the the True Word of GOd to fit what he wanted.
Talk about miss translation. Look at the book of Abraham. If you look at the Papyrus Scrolls:where it was translated from it has no mention of Abraham. it wasn't event in the same time period.
Joseph took what he wanted and fooled his followers.
Oh, I don't know... how about John 1:18(No man has seen God at any time) and Genesis 32:30 (... for I have seen God face to face and lived). There are many scriptures on both sides of this issue... did God mean for his perfect word to teach that no man can see God, while teaching that many men have seen God?
If the bible can have 1 mistake, it can have many, and I could point out many more other than the can-God-be-seen issue.
There are problems with that. 1 - we don't know if that's the right papyrus. 2 - It isn't complete, and what is in the Pearl of Great Price doesn't fit with the explanation Egyptologists have given. Much of the imagery is wrong for it to refer to what they say it refers to. 3 - Even if Mormonism isn't the 'right' church doesn't mean it's not a Christian church.
4 - Joseph would have been a stupid man to do what he did, and go through what he went through, for a con. Perhaps you think he was a masochist, and enjoyed being tarred, feathered, beaten, imprisoned, losing his children due to persecution, etc...
In my oppinion yes. any1 who belives that Christ died for thier sins and rose again is a Christian gerneraly speaking. now wheather he or she is a good christian or not is another story for another day. And for my reserch typed mormon in google and did a quick overview of their mormon.com site and typed based on my preivious knowledge and wat i read. But ure right i should do more reserch. ill write on it later and get back 2 dude, thx for letting meh know. its not good to write on something u know little about.
All Christians are wasting their time arguing with these people. Their only truth is the continued deception of others into believing their lies and nonsense. They are not even here to argue but only to condemn Christians who disagree with them. This is nothing but the same game they play when they knock on your door. A complete waste of time and proof that God did not intend to save everyone, especially those who lie to themselves. This is not a forum but just another promotion and they can convince themselves all day if they want.
I'm not a Mormon, so what do you mean by 'these people'?
But, responses like yours are what I was looking for. Ideally, I would like to know the truth behind your prejudice against Mormons though...
SLOW DOWN DUDE, God is love. The entire reason me, you and every1 else on this pathetic peice of rock exists is becuase he wanted some1 to love. If some1 u love needed help wouldn't save them 2. (if not, ure not a good friend man, u got to work on that). We we also told by Jesus himself to go and make disciples of EVERY1, mormans and all.(mathew 28:16-20). So were not "wasting our time arguing with these people", were wasting time doing wat Jesus told us to do.
The verse said make disciples in all nations and that is my point. We write whatever we feel like saying to continue to distort the facts when we deny that the facts even exist. Their is nothing that said we must save everyone. In truth most people are not going to be saved and its no ones job to save anyone, they can only save their self. Its called free will and it requires the recognition of sin in order over come it and to mature spiritually. Few of us will ever live long enough to ever mature and God has a special place for those who deceive the children of this World.
You're right we can't save every1, BUT GOD CAN. Since we have God in us, we have to try. if you look further in the verse it says and I quote, "(verse 19)Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (verse 20) and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”(Once again Matthew 28:19-20) Because God loves us he doesn’t want us to go to that place. He gives us the choice to make the right decision. But he always calls us back, and in his time we will see him. It’s up to us to listen to his call pick up the phone and go.
Then you would know that a Mormon is not a Christian. They are Mormons by choice.
Not quite, because they still believe in God and Mormons do not. Have the Mormons not told you about three Gods yet and hey if you do what they tell you , you can be one to.
Mormons believe in one God, as in an office, the Godhead. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Trinitarians believe in one God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, three personages but one in substance or whatever.
There really isn't that much difference, but if you believe in the Bible you have to somehow reconcile that the Father is God, and Jesus is God, but the son of the Father, and the Spirit is God.
So, Mormons do believe in God.
Yes they are Catholic by choice and Christians are Christians by choice and Mormons are still Mormons by ---------------choice
Deborah found out being a Christian is in a dictionary. A Mormon walks around with a Bible in one hand and a book claiming that 3 of the tribes of Israel came to America. John Smith of European descent then claims the book of Mormon based on the native races of America who do not even recognize the freak Mormon church are you kidding me. Then you go on with some blah blah crap on your Idea of the trinity claiming that you believe in it. OK do you believe in Jesus Christ as your savour the one the Holy Trinity Father Son and Holy Ghost. all one being no answer but yes or no.
You really don't seem to understand what Mormonism is about... it doesn't claim that it is based on native american races. In fact, the BoM actually claims that there were other people here already, so it was probably more of a small group assimilating into a larger group. Especially if you look at the timeline and the sizes of armies.
There is no reason to think that Native Americans would recognize the Mormon church.
I don't believe in the Trinity, as the Trinity isn't in the Bible. It's one possible explanation for concepts that are in the Bible, but it isn't directly in the Bible.
I believe in one God, which is a plurality. In other words, an office. In that office, there are three distinct personages, the Father(with a body), the Son(with a body), and the Holy Spirit(spiritual body).
The Bible doesn't say the Trinity is all one being.
I didn't have to look in a dictionary to find Christian because they are on the forums wherever you look. I did look up Mormon
I can tell you are a Christian by your attitude.
There is no trinity there is one God Jesus was a man. Born.
We all knew you would do anything but answer the question and we all know why. yes or no
Then sorry, you our not a Christian because you must accept it to be one and it is not my choice or yours. This conversation is over. So go be a Mormon and stop claiming to be something you are not. We do not hate you for it and there is no prejudice its free will and you are not one because you chose not to be a Christian.
If you really want to know then pick up a bible and read it and ask yourself how one can exist with out being the other. They can not be separated and I can not sit here and recite scripture to you because its to much to look at on a computer screen. You can not read a false book of Mormon and destroy your reasoning. A great Archaeologist travelled to the Holy land to prove the Bible and discovered the truth that it existed. He then went to South America and found nothing. In his life time the lies of such knowledge continued after he searched for it and he wrote his story and released it after his death. There was no proof for the book of Mormon but all the proof was in the Bible and reading it and knew a house divided can not stand and one book could not exist with out the other existing first and so the other book could not exist at all. Even an Atheist could determine what was true and what never existed to begin with. With one book the other book can not exist at all you pick the book to throw away.
Come on SanXuary, you really want to claim that belief in the Trinity is required to be a Christian, but you can't provide one verse to back up your claim?
I've read the Bible many, many times. It's not in there.
The Father and Son can be, and were separated. The Father spoke from Heaven while Jesus was in a river. Jesus stood at the right hand of the Father. Jesus is the Son, nobody can be their own son.
Give me a verse, back up your claim.
If I may, Meso-American archaeology can not even come close to being compared to Middle Eastern Archaeology. They are two completely different dynamics. On the one hand you have civilizations which have never been lost, and on the other you have practically zero written history, and a multitude of lost languages and cities which may never be recovered, or at least have yet to be deciphered.
It is also apparent that even in the old world there existed societies in areas which were previously thought without question to be nonexistent.
But there is still a problem, OO. The Mormon bible mentions several metals including brass, iron, and steel being used by the Nephite and Lamanite societies. Also many animals which weren't here for the last 13,000 years or so, or never at all, are mentioned in the Book of Mormon.
Why is there no evidence of these things ever being found?
Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
History has been full of new discoveries that were previously thought impossible.
The Olmecs worked with iron as early as 1000 BC. Brass could be interchangeable with Bronze in thinking or linguistics, and steel we have learned has been used much earlier in some parts of the world than previously thought.
People used to ridicule Mormons(some still do) for claiming to have gotten reigious texts from gold plates, but every year it seems there are metallic plates found all across the world. Some bound, some sealed, some buried in stone boxes, like the plates of Darius.
Who knows what we'll discover tomorrow?
Even if Mormons are wrong, they are still Christians though.
That is a logical fallacy because they are making absolute claims without a shred of evidence.
Claims of belief. You don't have burden of proof to claim a belief.
Mormons encourage others to make their own decision, not to believe what they say because of logical argument.
Then, the belief can be considered unfounded and irrelevant.
It can be considered personal and subjective.
Many, many years ago, there are 2 people. John lives in a hot, dry country, which has never seen snow. Jane lives in a cold, mountainous country, with abundant snow.
Jane travels and meets John. She tries to tell John about snow, but he has never seen it, and doesn't believe her.
Is Mary's experience valid?
So what? Many delusions are personal and subjective.
False premise leading to a logical fallacy. John can travel to where Jane lives and see the snow for himself.
Was that the best you could muster?
John is an invalid. Is Jane's experience valid?(not Mary, sorry)
You're trying to avoid the issue. The issue is: Does one person's disbelief about another person's personal experience invalidate that personal experience?
Then, John could easily have traveled to where Jane lived to see the snow for himself.
Or perhaps, you're trying to muddy the issue.
Snow is not a personal experience, it can be verified. Try again.
How? He's invalid, remember?
It can only be verified if someone else can see it. I see you are incapable of conducting a thought-experiment, and you go as far as to insist that John, an invalid, could easily travel to verify it. If something doesn't fit with your argument you will just twist it or laugh at it.
Can I get a 'coveted double-laughie'?
And, John can travel to where Jane lives and see snow.
No, you are incapable of providing a valid thought experiment.
Duh. Of course he can. Are you saying invalids cannot travel?
Your failed thought experiment doesn't deserve one.
John's an invalid, remember? He can't make the journey. That's the whole point of the thought experiment.
Invalid: 1. an infirm or sickly person.
2. a person who is too sick or weak to care for himself or herself: My father was an invalid the last ten years of his life.
In other words, John can't travel. Seriously, I would say you are thick, but I think you are just being difficult because you enjoy it.
Vehicle: A conveyance that transports people or objects.
You're the one saying people can't travel and are calling me thick. Hilarious.
No wheel, remember?
He's sick anyway, so even if someone carried him it wouldn't work. Just like I said, you're avoiding the issue by trying to find a loophole.
Yeah, Jane will carry him piggy-back, even though he's sick, across countries...
A vehicle does not necessarily require wheels.
Wow, you just keep digging that hole deeper and deeper.
It doesn't matter whether Jane carries John, puts him in a sled pulled by horses or any other various forms of transportation. If John really wants to see snow, he'll make the journey.
Your thought experiment is completely useless.
But, I'm sure you'll continue to argue people can't journey somewhere. Hilarious.
He's an invalid, sick, and travelling would kill him. He wouldn't be able to make it to see the snow. Happy? You have dodged the actual issue... I can't imagine how annoying you must have been as a kid... You would have been one of those kids playing Cops and Robbers always saying 'No, you didn't shoot me, you missed!'.
Nope, both brass and copper were mentioned in the Book of Mormon. If the writer confused the two then what else did he get wrong? And a link to the Olmecs using or working with iron would be helpful to your claim. Even the iceman had only copper to use as material for an ax over 5000 years ago. The link, if you please.
Got anything by reputable sources? The link concerning the carved stone beads with iron content wass apparently done by BYU and therefore is questionable as to being a truly scientific study. Besides, carving stone with iron content is much different than forging steel or cast iron into useful objects.
Using Mormon studies to back up Mormon claims helps nothing at all in this discussion.
Using a BYU study doesn't necessarily invalidate it. If you care to, you can do your own research on Olmec iron beads, or you can reference the citations in the article.
The BoM doesn't reference using iron as an everyday object, in fact it barely mentions it as all. Metals are listed as precious things.
Steel would probably be something like the steel in certain places in the bible, which isn't true steel either. It's hardened bronze, if I recall correctly.
The first iron smelting was by the Hittites perhaps as much as 2000 years before Christ was rumored to have existed. They worked in both copper, nickle and iron. Of course the anonymous writer who wrote Genesis under the pseudonym of Moses claimed these metals were around shortly after the creation, which basically nullifies the truth of the bible even more than is already known.
There was no confusing the two metals as there was no reason to do so. And no, I do not rely on anything concluded by the Mormon church or any of its preferred or financially supported educational institutions.
You don't think there is leniency on what the word means? Even today scholars aren't sure between steel, bronze, and brass. The issue is, one word can mean more than one thing. There is reason to wonder what exactly is being referred to.
You don't have to rely on a BYU study, but to completely dismiss it, and its sources, is ignorant.
It's interesting... you can't be bothered to present your own specific arguments. You want me to go to a link you provide, get the arguments, and refute them. You also won't put in the work to go to links I provide, so what are you even doing here? Do you really expect me to take both sides of the argument for lolz?
I expect you to do nothing but make excuses for the con man Smith's ludicrous novel if you cannot tell the difference in science and fantasy. If you have some actual evidence of Smith's claims other than "Maybe they got the words mixed up" I'm sure you will post it. Otherwise, we are both wasting our time here.
There is no evidence of Smith's book being anything but a fraud.
You brought up the issue of bronze and steel. I showed how different versions of the bible translate the SAME WORD as bronze, brass, and steel. That's the bible.
Your arguments are classic, if one thing is refuted, you just move to another with no acknowledgement.
Your dismissal of any research done at BYU shows extreme prejudice.
You can't be bothered to look up basis for your own arguments, or to look up basis for my arguments. You don't actually care, and you present a double standard in doing so.
Which bible are you referring to? Are you using the original text or a translation for your references? I am knowledgeable in Native American history and archeology as I've collected and studied both relics, projectile points, and many ancient cultures in this country for over 50 years. I don't require using "what ifs" or "maybes" to attempt to prove my assertions.
I do indeed have prejudice for any institution which makes a mockery of modern scientific research and actual known facts. Most fundies believe the earth is only about 7,000 years old. Why? Because their cults refuse to believe in evolution or anything other than the silly Eden story.
We have plenty of evidence of Native American cultures in existence long before the Smith fraud claimed the mythical tribes built their great civilization here. And these ancient known cultures had no iron or even brass to make weapons with. If any such group of people mentioned in the BoM we would have evidence of it by now.
You have shown me nothing new. I could easier prove the Tooth Fairy exists as you can Smith's fictional saga.
I gave you the link, you must have skipped it thinking it was rubbish... See, amazing things can happen when you read.
KJV vs NIV vs ASV
Steel - Bronze - Brass
Mormons don't believe the earth is 7,000 years old, what does that have to do with anything? What do they mock?
1 - BoM doesn't state that the Jews populated the Americas. Just that they went there, and it suggests there were already other people.
2 - Olmecs used Iron, if you can't be bothered to read through what I provided, look it up yourself. Iron in the BoM isn't referred to as being smelted or used as weapons. It refers to it as a precious thing, ornamental.
3 - The idea that we would have evidence of anything is fallacious. Do you really think we have discovered everything in history that we will ever discover?
I disproved two of the assertions from your infallible source.
You've proved nothing thus far. I never stated bronze or steel did not exist in the old world as I know it did. But there is nothing to show it was used by Smith's fictional people in the new world, unless of course you think smith's main characters were Olmecs and not of Hebrew descent. No DNA evidence has shown any Jewish blood to have existed in the ancient ancestors of Native Americans to this date.
So far you have shown nothing to back up Smith's claims other than guesses and maybes. Citing verses from the bible doesn't help the BoM at all. But at least the authors of that novel had a better grasp of names of animals.
1 - I proved that the wording can refer to more than one thing. Knowledge was less refined back then, and distinctions not as important.
2 - No DNA evidence? There actually is evidence that there could have been influx from Europe or the near East in one of the DNA markers. Again, BoM doesn't claim that the Jews populated America, and it suggests that they assimilated, so their genetic contribution could have easily been miniscule.
You cited a website that you claimed was right on every topic. I showed 2 of them to be wrong. Three, actually, with Iron. But, you can just change topics again and again, like you did with this post.
Actually the 'conventional wisdom' that metal was not used in the New World prior to A.D. 900 cannot now be sustained. Copper sheathing on an altar in the Valley of Mexico dates to the first century B.C. Furthermore, in 1998, a discovery in Peru pushed the earliest date of hammered metal back to as early as 1400 B.C.
"Much to the surprise of archaeologists, one of the earliest civilizations in the Americas already knew how to hammer metals by 1000 B.C., centuries earlier than had been thought.
An ABC news story titled "Early Central Andean Metalworking from Mina Perdida, Peru," had this to say;
"Based on the dating of carbon atoms attached to the foils, they appear to have been created between 1410 and 1090 B.C., roughly the period when Moses led the Jews from Egypt and the era of such pharaohs as Amenhotep III, Tutankhamen and Ramses. 'It shows once again how little we know about the past and how there are surprises under every rock,' comments Jeffrey Quilter, director of Pre-Columbian Studies at Dumbarton Oaks, a Harvard University research institute in Washington, D.C."
Archaeologists also have found that the ancient Olmecs indeed had a knowledge of iron, silver, copper, and Gold.
As we can see archaeology, like all other sciences, changes over time as we unearth more information. And just because we have not yet discovered something does not prove that it does not exist, it only proves that there is much more out there that we do not know about than we realize.
Hammering copper was not rare in the New World and that is why I didn't mention the metal in my previous post. Many of the mound builders used hammered copper for ceremonial decorations and I've posted examples in some of my hubs.
As far as steel being used. or even primitive cast iron or brass, I'd like to see a link to such use in the pre-Columbian Americas if you have one. You didn't address the many animals mentioned in the Book of Mormon either.
I did however address brass and iron, never mind that that was addressed. But also I addressed everything else as well. re read the last sentence.
I fail to see where you addressed the lack of animal remains from the period claimed by your novel the Book of Mormon. Even though there is plenty of evidence of the Clovis culture from over 13,000 years ago--a rather small group of people at the time--there is absolutely none from your claimed great civilization which purportedly used all sorts of metals and had herds of horses, sheep, oxen and other species we've found absolutely no evidence of. Bogus!
Joseph Smith was a well known con man before his sudden revelations and this is a matter of public knowledge. Spin that if you can!
Not everything mentioned in the Book of Mormon is mentioned as being abundant. Many of the metals, and animals, were considered rare and precious.
Why would animals be rare if they were indeed used as herds for food? And why would they suddenly disappear after the demise of the mythical civilization? You are indeed grasping at straws to explain obvious falsehoods contained in the Book of Mormon.
Pull up some specifics and we can discuss it. You are just throwing out generalities. What herds of what animals?
Clovis man, the rightful heir to the Western United States, or at least Lubbock Texas. First found in Clovis New Mexico. A city named after the Catholic king of the Franks. He definitely lived thousands of years after this culture died out, and through the whims of the station master's daughter we would other wise refer to them as "Riley's Switch Man" vise "Clovis man".
This culture was discovered in 1930, had someone told you they existed previous to this archaeological find you might have laughed in their faces. Because what you are suggesting is that we have found everything there is to find, when clearly we have not.
So which do you think the Clovis people would have preferred to be called? From a scientific standpoint.
The designation "Clovis" is merely a name used for the group of people who first inhabited this country. Contrary to your post, Clovis "type" projectile points are found all over the US with the most controversial site now being the Topper site along the Savannah River near Augusta SC. Claims made by the leading archaeologist there suggest the site had been occupied perhaps 50,000 years ago. Whether this can be proven or not is still to be decided.
But there is still nothing whatsoever to show any of Smiths ramblings about any other great civilization--such as he addressed in his fictional novel-- had any basis in fact. Did you even read this link at all? It's a very simple list of scientific impossibilities claimed by Smith. Feel free to dispute them if you dare.
Yes I have read the link, and it poses many questions which have been asserted for many years, not much new content. The assertions are a bit dated. Although there have been questions about metallurgy, contained therein, which have been recently uncovered they have neglected to purge them from their assumptions in light of recent discoveries.
In ten years they will have to purge a few more, and in twenty years a few more. Such is the modus operandi of modern science to purge misinformation in light of new discoveries, and thus is the failing of the folks at "whatismormonism.com".
Fine! Feel free to update the new discoveries which makes their assertions outdated. Only respected archaeological opinions not Mormon guesses, if you please!
Wheat/barley: Hordeum pusillum is the same Genus as barley.
Copper: Smelted in the Americas as early as 1000 BC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallurgy … an_America
But of course, that website is infallible, right?
This is why I did not mention copper in my original post. Copper, silver, and gold are easily melted and were done so mainly for ornamental purposes. However, steel and iron is another story. And no, although often referenced and usually correct in most cases, Wikipedia is not always a reliable source of factual information. Not saying these articles are not factual, just that they can be changed at will by those with differing opinions.
But whatever, saying the wrong words were used or items or animals were mislabeled is still not acceptable as being proof of anything.
You will complain about anything. It's easier to reference wikipedia for information on a plant than telling you what botanical book to order off Amazon.
Do you think you would know the difference, especially 2000 years ago, between Hordeum pusillum and Hordeum vulgare? They are both edible, by the way. That is a very viable explanation for Barley.
I have said several times, Iron is listed as an ornamental material, not a smelted material. It doesn't matter though, you will dismiss anything I say and point to those that haven't been found yet. It's funny how few people use the Golden Plates as a valid criticism anymore, since we have learned since Joseph Smith's time that such plates have been used all over the world.
Suppose this, suppose that, don't you have anything at all to associate with the claims of Smith? Sure, there are golden plates all over the world with a complete book written on them, in Hebrew, I suppose? And why didn't the angels come take those identical golden plates away as Smith claimed happened to his? But I promise to take a look at the plates you claim exist if you put a link here. Now we are getting somewhere!
Can you answer me about the barley?
It used to be "Plates? What a ridiculous idea!"
Then, metallic plates were found, and it became "Yeah, but they aren't books and they aren't religious texts."
Then, religious plates were found, and it became "Well, it's not a book."
Now, we have found books, and it's "We haven't found any in Hebrew."
If we did find some in Hebrew, in book form, with the OT written on it, I guess it would become "It's not reformed Egyptian". You'll always have a complaint.
Your attitude... you wouldn't believe it if you saw it, but you ask for me to provide the plates that the Church doesn't claim to have? Yeah, that's not a ridiculous requirement.
"we have learned since Joseph Smith's time that such plates have been used all over the world."
Your words. I only asked you to show me a link to these plates used all over the world you claim "we" have learned about. You insinuate these plates somehow prove Smith was telling the truth. Back up your words. I merely asked you what language Smith's plates were written in, or do you know?
You are still stuck on "perhaps" and "maybe" and supposing barley was called something else proves nothing at all. We are back where we started, with you having nothing but conjecture and bad comparisons. Got anything concrete? Perhaps the oxen were merely rabbits!
You want plates? Here you go:
Bound and Sealed:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … story.html
Bound and unsealed:
http://www.tkasian.com/pages/metals/gol … intro.html
http://exhibitions.nlb.gov.sg/kaalachak … ation5.htm
Sealed in a stone box:
http://www.templestudy.com/2011/04/07/a … al-plates/
Plates and scrolls:
http://www.getty.edu/art/collections/im … 828901.jpg
http://www.sbvibonese.vv.it/sezionec/im … inetta.jpg
There are many, many more.
No, we don't know what language they were written in. The BoM claims it is a condensed language, but whether that is one they created, or another language, nobody knows without being able to look at the plates.
The bible does the same thing from translation to translation. Older languages had less words, as there were less distinctions. I showed you how the same word can mean different metals, but you will just dismiss anything I present. If they cultivated a cousin of barley and called it barley(being of the same family) then I don't see any issue.
Your links are nothing new to anyone knowledgeable about ancient cultures. Tablets, scrolls, metal foil, all have been used from time out of mind. So which of these known items resemble those "plates" described by Smith? And he didn't know or try to identify the language on the plates? How simple it would have been to copy a few inscriptions so historians could verify their origin. But alas, it seems nothing is left to back up his tale. pure coincidence, I'm sure.
And I cannot help but dismiss conjecture without anything to ensure it is anything but speculation. It just doesn't work that way. Sorry, but you are stuck with tales of missing proof and assumptions, nothing more.
Really? First you ask for evidence of metal books worldwide, then you claim they are nothing new?
The Etruscan book was discovered 60 years ago, a bit after Joseph Smith's time.
The lead books 5 years ago.
The Burmese book was catalogued about 90 years ago.
Dead Sea Scrolls 60 years ago.
Silver scrolls 33 years ago.
Pyrgi tablets some 60 years ago.
Korean gold plates 55 years ago.
Darius plates 75 years ago.
Joseph Smith was ridiculed for the idea of a metal book in a stone box, and now 'it's common knowledge'. It wasn't back then, that's the point. Only recently we have discovered that it was, so it is no longer a criticism.
The Darius plates are probably closest in the level of preservation, the lead plates in manner of binding and sealing.
He did write them down. It's a matter of he-said/he-said now. The characters were taken to a linguist who confirmed them as probably-authentic, but that same linguist took back his confirmation upon learning where the characters came from.
I love how you brush off any possible explanation of your problems with Mormonism, then quickly change topic.
I have nothing to brush off as you have offered nothing. I've never claimed there were no incised tablets of gold or other metal found throughout history, merely that Smith never proved he had ever been in possession of any. You aren't comparing those metal tablets and scrolls to those Smith claimed to find, are you? Anyone cam claim anything if they don't have to prove it and this is just what Smith did.
he was known as a con man before his fraudulent revelations concerning the tablets and used the same technique in his con game of a treasure finder as when he later claimed to be communicating with god. He stuck his face in his hat. What a coincidence he used the same method he used in his failed treasure finding scams. You'd have thought god could have come up with something different. Or perhaps you wouldn't. Barnum was right!
Not my job, if they are honest truth seekers they will do it themselves. I doubt they will. You see they are not interested in the truth, they only want to be right. Thus they will spread their propaganda as long as people are motivated to buy into it, or until they begin to look ignorant.
Whereas, you as a truth seeker try to be as nonobjective as possible, right? So you are interested in the truth but are afraid it might not agree with your indoctrination.
Scientists are seekers of truth and rely on each other to test their theories as they do others. But your cult starts off with a scam and tries to make it fit known facts, a losing proposition for over a century now. Surely not comparable to the scientific method by any means. Your last sentence works equally well for members of your cult.
Those are some ugly words dude. From an objective standpoint it is evident that you have some negative emotional stock in your crusade to prove my religion wrong. The nobility of it all is less than impressive.
I have yet to see the truth disagree with my beliefs. And the scientific world's lack of knowledge coupled with your presumptuousness hardly disproves a thing.
Yes, you know more than the world's most educated scientists and archaeologists. You'll never see the truth with your eyes closed, but I suppose you like it that way. Carry on!
You don't have any proof of absence. Only absence of proof.
Guess what? For thousands of years humans have discovered things that it didn't know about before. Just as I showed with the metal books.
Sure they knew about incised plates, but not those supposedly taken by an angel or imagined by a charlatan. Nothing you have attempted to show has any bearing on the claims of Smith. Just because items exist elsewhere doesn't prove in the least they existed here.
That's like me saying I saw a mastodon behind my house because they used to exist 13,000 years ago. "Prove it? Isn't my word good enough for you?" Show me anything you can authoritatively say was definitely connected to the Nephites or Lamanites during Smith's claimed time period and you will have something. Otherwise, keep on trying to associate unrelated items to a culture that exists only in your imagination.
People knew about them at Joseph's time? The point is, there have been many criticisms that have been shown to be invalid. No, not all can be addressed yet, but you assume we know everything we will ever know.
Do you know how many times the metallurgy history has been 'moved back'?
If you want to believe it, I will let you believe it. See, there's the difference. You are trying to disprove someone else's belief.
I was doing what you asked. You provided a link of what 'the most educated scientists and historians know', and I showed some criticism that are simply invalid.
So, you changed the topic to another point. You can always win if you shift the goal posts.
There is no "winning" with someone willing to believe pure conjecture. But if it is any consolation to you, I believe in the BoM as much as I do any other religious book used by self-proclaimed christians of any cult.
And no, I don't assume we know everything we will ever know. Science doesn't work that way and science is the only way to find the truth, not through the claims of a well known con man such as Smith. But you will not believe he was such because you refuse to face the known facts about him. He showed nothing of any worth to prove his claims and was probably just as surprised as anyone when people fell for his scheme. And they still do so today.
Nope, I've just got faith.
Maybe it is so that my religion is not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt but that simply means that it takes faith to believe in it. Not an uncommon theme in the religious world.
Now I see that you have used the words charlatan, and con man to describe Joseph Smith, I disagree. Would a con man risk his life, face unrelenting persecution and death all on a religion that he fabricated out of whole cloth? Not a chance.
On his dying day while he sat in jail after having been dragged into court on trumped up charges he read with his companions from the words in the Book of Mormon; “Thou hast been faithful; wherefore … thou shalt be made strong, even unto the sitting down in the place which I have prepared in the mansions of my Father. And now I, Moroni, bid farewell … until we shall meet before the judgment-seat of Christ.”
No one who had simply made up a religion would be reading from the very book they had fabricated for words of consolation in their dying hour.
Sure a charlatan would do such! If he didn't then all of those he had swindled into buying his tale would be the ones trying to kill him instead. Trumped up charges? LOL! Sorry, but his days as a con man were well documented as well as his rather sad claims to have found the mythical gold plates.
He was a fake to the end and surely didn't expect to be caught for his many lies. Nothing he claimed has ever come to light and never will. Enjoy your fantasy as no doubt you are not looking for truth very hard. I suppose you've been indoctrinated well and cannot help yourself. More's the pity!
Jim Jones is a prime example of such a man.
Jim Jones and his doomsday cult are hardly comparable to Joseph Smith, that accusation is purely absurd. It is also well documented that Joseph Smith's character was nothing less than honorable and upright. Even his enemies couldn't deny it. He had multiple witnesses to the gold plates who never denied what they had seen to their dying days.
A truly objective analyst would take into consideration both sides of the story and not just a bunch of cherry picked propaganda the way you obviously do.
I would be glad to take a look at any "documents" not created by the Moromons themselves, OO! I rely only on info from substantiated sources myself, such as newspapers and court records. And the only reports of the plates were made by Smith's partners in crime, including his kin. But feel free to prove me wrong if you have anything other than church dogma.
And I suppose you consider yourself truly objective?
Of course I'm not objective, it's my religion. You as a critic however are unreputable in that you cite criticisms from anti-Mormon propagandists most of which are religious denominations. And saying that you use only media and court papers is undeniably false. The fact is all of the court records you will find on the subject are acquittals and dismissals based on trumped up charges.
I never figured you to be objective, OO. You have been told not to be so by your church. You must do what you are instructed to, otherwise you are forced to think on your own. Not good for any indoctrinated religious person to do. Most cults have the same attitude.
Nothing could be further from the truth, the LDS church teaches that it necessary for the individual to test and try the doctrines and principles of the church through diligent study and prayer.
"If we give you counsel, we do not ask you to obey that counsel without you know that it is right to do so. But how shall we know that it is right? By getting the Spirit of God in our hearts, by which our minds may be opened and enlightened, that we may know the doctrine for ourselves, and be able to divide truth from error, light from darkness and good from evil." -Joseph F. Smith
"I have always regarded, and do today, that the first thing most important in connection with our Sunday schools, and indeed with all the other auxiliary organizations of the Church, is to make Latter-day Saints of our children, to develop within them a faith that shall grow with increasing years, an understanding faith, a faith that, while it appeals to the heart, will also appeal to the head, and be able to give a reason for the hope that is within; not a blind obedience, as it is sometimes called, but a comprehensive understanding of the revelations of God and the work that He is performing in this generation." - George F. Richards
While there are many that find it difficult to separate "blind" from "obedience," (a symptom of the times we live in), there is no need to conclude that obedience to the doctrines, practices and teachings of the Lord's Church and His chosen leaders must be considered "blind" obedience. It is simply not so.
It was not blind obedience when the children of Noah went to build a ship. It was not blind obedience when the children of Israel wandered in the desert for forty years, or built a temple.
Clearly obedience is not a principle unique to the LDS church, and I would never credit a staunch unbeliever such as yourself with the ability to make the distinction between obedience in faith and blind obedience.
To study what other things besides what the Mormon church approves of? If had dome so you would not be arguing with me now. The beliefs of Mormon do not agree with mainstream science. No ancient civilizations such as Smith invented ever existed in America.
What sort of ships brought the Nephites and Lamanites to the New World? If they indeed had such ships all of the tribes of Israel would have used them to escape the Pharaoh's wrath instead them wandering in the wilderness for so long. Jewish ships capable of crossing the Atlantic? Yeah right! Give me an example if you believe this to be true.
I'll ask you like I did Jaxone, what time period was Smith referring to when the tribes were here?
There is nothing that the church disproves of their members reading with maybe the exception of pornography.
You have no proof to the contrary, and as I have said previously lack of proof is not proof that something didn't happen.
The book of Mormon states exactly how they came to the new world, as unbelievable as you may think it is, it is just as fathomable as believing that Noah built a ship as well.
Now I believe you are referring to the time of Moses when the people wandered in the wilderness which is not when or where the Book of Mormon takes place.
There were two groups who left for America according to the Book of Mormon; the Jaredites who left at the time of the Tower of Babel, and Lehi's family who left around 600 BC.
And lack of proof is certainly not evidence something did happen either. Proof is what counts in either event and that's something you do not have. You cannot prove there aren't literally millions of different gods much stronger than the one you prefer to believe in.
Or unicorns, for that matter, can you prove they do not exist? Or fairies and leprechauns or bigfoot, the abominable snowman, little red riding hood, Snow white and the seven dwarfs, Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, etc. Can you prove these are all imaginary? Lack of proof and all that!
Sure, your church cannot keep you from studying or reading real scientific facts, but they can indoctrinate you so you are afraid to or don't understand if you do read the material. Otherwise you would know the difference between BS and scientific facts.
There is plenty of evidence from Native American cultures much older than either the time of the supposed tower of Babel or Lehi's mythical migration. So there is no reason Smith's claimed culture isn't evident at this late point in time. I find projectile points 12 to 14,000 years old by accident on my farm. Why is there nothing to show the claimed exodus ever existed? Yes I know, "It just hasn't been found yet"!
Now how many people was supposed to be here in the Americas before the great final battle? And what weapons did they use to fight with? And who removed all of the dead bodies and picked up all of the weapons left from the battle? And how many survived?
And I certainly don't believe Noah built a ship either. It's well known that this particular bible story was plagiarized from The Epic of Gilgamesh. But I'm sure you already knew that because of your need to obtain knowledge, correct?
One does not need hard evidence when one abides by faith. It doesn't need hard proof, it just needs to coincide with the facts, and all of the facts have not been revealed, certainly not through archaeology. Archaeology is comparable to having ten pieces to a ten thousand piece puzzle, You simply have no evidence to prove my religion wrong.
I'm not the one on a crusade to disprove the existence of those things, and I would be quite content to allow others who might, the dignity of holding to their beliefs regardless of whether or not I share them.
My church teaches that fear is the opposite of faith, and the fact that it supports three colleges, a perpetual education fund for the less fortunate, and a multitude of other education related programs is a testament that not only do we cherish knowledge and growth, but that it is a responsibility to pursue a higher education in order to better ones self.
So you are saying it is impossible for more than one culture to inhabit the northern and southern continents of America? I think if you look at a map you will find that there are presently several different cultures living in the Americas right now.
And you have a farm near the Red sea along the path of the exodus of Israel? Impressive.
Hmmm lets see, Lots of people, I'm thinking swords, other people, and sorry didn't see a body count.
Yes, I've read the epic of Gilgamesh, to me it's just more evidence that a flood actually did occur as there is more than one source which makes the claim. Now just because the Sumerians learned how to write first, does not mean that they came up with the story first.
So, where did all of the "swords" from the fallen warriors go? Such a great battle with many fallen warriors and we've never found one single sword or any indication of any such battle or the people who supposedly fought it.
Look, we are getting nowhere here. You make claims you cannot back up, just like Jaxon did. Anyone can do this as one cannot prove a negative in such a case. How long have you been a Mormon? Did you inherit this particular religion or were you exposed to others before and then made your choice?
Apparently, it makes no difference to you if there is absolutely no evidence there is nothing to show Smith's claims are true. I cannot dispel delusions when the deluded ignore known facts. If you ever have anything at all to show such a civilization ever existed or how they got here in the first place, I will be more than glad to say you are correct. But until then we are merely wasting our time arguing these "what ifs" and "maybes".
As far as I know, there are no ships--especially from a non-seafaring Hebrew related culture-- capable of crossing the ocean with any chance of making the voyage to the Americas. Especially with enough passengers to create such a civilization as Smith claimed. So far you have nothing!
There is evidence.
Every ridiculous claim Joseph Smith made that was contrary to the knowledge of historians and scientists, which has been shown to be true, is evidence.
The list of anachronisms has grown smaller and smaller as the years go. Just in this very thread, you learned that the BoM talking about iron isn't an anachronism, as it was worked at the time.
As far as crossing the ocean, that's ridiculous. Thor Hyerdahl showed that the Egyptians had the ability to build ships which could cross the ocean as far back as 3000 B.C. Not to say that they did, but that they could have. The same kind of story is found among different cultures, many ancient people had the ability to cross oceans.
And again, the BoM doesn't claim that they populated America... there were other people already there.
The same thing! "Could have" doesn't mean anything, Jaxson. When you show they "did" you will have something concrete. Show me anything which directly relates to Smith's claims of such events and I'll be glad to listen. Until then, all you have is speculation about how things "may" mean something.
Archeologists have found the tiny settlement in the Americas claimed in the Norse sagas but have found nothing to show Smith's mythical civilization--which I suppose was much more extensive than the Norse visits--ever existed. How do you explain such?
No, Randy. You said that it would have been impossible for them to cross the ocean. You are the one saying 'this would have been impossible'. If I show something that 'could have' happened, that counters your claim, then your claim of impossibility is REFUTED.
I showed you ornamental iron from the time period of the BoM, and you dismissed that. You will always dismiss everything and move on to another anachronism.
How do you know? The characters in the BoM didn't populate the continent. They met with and assimilated into other cultures. They very well could have assimilated into Olmec culture for all we know.
See, I can show how the claims could be possible, but you claim that, since it isn't concrete, that means it is definitely false.
It doesn't work that way. If something is possible, it can't also be impossible.
So you are saying because modern man crossed the oceans on a papyrus boat that ancient man could have done the same? There is a big difference in someone "knowing" there is land they are heading for and ignorant, non-seafaring, people heading out into the unknown without any sort of directional guidance at all. If you cannot understand this then we are still getting nowhere.
There was no known motive for setting out on such a voyage nor any evidence they had the capability to construct such a ship. With all of my discussions with those of the Mormon faith none have put forth anything concrete other than "perhaps" to show any of Smiths claims were true. And he made many such claims.
The truth is I have seen evidence for many different cultures in the Americas in the form of artifacts left by those people. I have observed nothing but speculation by your ilk and so far nothing to show it is anything else. Believe me, if I see anything at all which backs up Smiths claims I will be pleased to say so. Science and archaeology does not rely on speculation for proof. No such civilization as Smith claimed would vanish without some sort of artifacts left behind. End of story!
Randy, you keep saying 'This could have possibly happened', even when I can provide examples of how it could happen.
Beside, you have to consider, if God does exist, he could have easily told them where to go. You are arguing against the logic of the story by using a different premise. The premise is God told them which direction to go.
As far as the civilizations, you have constantly ignored my statements about the characters of the BoM assimilating into existing cultures.
You say 'there was no iron, but iron is mentioned in the BoM.'. I show you that there was iron, and you say there is no proof that it was the same culture.
You say 'there was no way they could have made the journey.' I show you a way they could have and you say there is no proof they did so.
You say 'there was no barley at the time'. I show you a member of the Barley family that is edible and was present, and you say there is no proof that is what they were talking about.
You don't care about proof or truth. You think lack of proof is proof, and you will always talk about the lack.
Many, many of Smith's claims that were anachronisms no longer are, but your kind will always focus on the ones that haven't been proven yet, and ignore the ones that have been.
Okay, show me something proven to be definitely connected with Smith's claims and not merely speculation. As you said "lack of proof is not proof"! Speculate some more if it pleases you. Anyone can do this about anything. You have nothing.
That iron was used in the Americas as ornamental around the time period ~600BC.
The discovered iron ore has no markings which associate it with Smiths claims in any way. You still have nothing. Live with it!
No, you claimed that iron wasn't used at the time of the Book of Mormon. I showed you that it was.
Where in the BoM does it state they were even here in 600 BC? And how did they know it was 600 years before the supposed birth of Jesus? I suspect another "perhaps" or "maybe" is coming!
The BoM has a fairly comprehensive timeline written into it. You asking that simply shows ignorance.
1 Nephi 1:4 - "For it came to pass in the commencement of the afirst year of the reign of bZedekiah"
So how did the immigrants have this knowledge unless they were they were still in the old world? Ignorance? HA! It's obvious Smith used the bible to compose the BoM. Twice, wasn't it? You have nothing and I'm weary of discussing speculation with you. Sorry, but unless you have anything else it's futile to converse with you. Unless you have something to directly show some facts we are at odds. I do not accept speculation in lieu of facts. Deal with it!
You really know nothing about the BoM, do you?
They start in Jerusalem at that time. It's unbelievable the conclusions you will jump to out of sheer ignorance.
Joseph Smith claimed that iron was used ornamentally as early as 600BC. Now we know it has been used ornamentally in the Americas as early as 1000BC.
Yes, I do know it is a fake. You however, pay no attention to the fact that there is nothing to show your reference to the primitive iron working of the Olmecs is in any way connected to Smiths claims. Either give some connection or don't expect to get anywhere with this. You have nothing but speculation and will never have anything else but. Smith was a con man and you are one of his victims. Live with it1
Again, you posted that, at the time of the BoM events, there was no iron being worked in the Americas. I showed that to be false. You cannot deny that.
In other words, Joseph Smith claimed that iron was worked in America around the 600BC timeframe, and we now knows that to be true.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "iron working". Drilling holes in and polishing pieces of this crude iron ore is not much different than doing the same to any other stone. The "iron" ore you mention--which was also composed of other elements-- was not smelted at all.
Saying the Olmecs were "iron workers" is a bit misleading as the process is practically the same as stone working at the time. Yes, copper appears to have been smelted in South America and perhaps a crude type of bronze may have been made. But no iron was smelted in the manner we usually refer to as "iron working."
Besides, the BYU study you posted is far from believable especially since it seems to try and prove verses in Smiths novel more than anything else. They proved nothing which links the crude ore beads to Smiths claims.
Again, iron ore must be smelted to remove impurities before it can be called iron. Otherwise it is simply iron ore. But if it makes you feel better then go right ahead and think you've proved something.
Now I understand how Smith succeeded in scamming so many people if they all were as easily misguided with such silly arguments. Once again you've showed nothing but speculation and not a hint of actual proof which connects Smith's novel to any artifacts found so far.
What would you call working with stone? Do you have to smelt it? No.
Do you have to smelt iron to work with it? No.
The BoM doesn't claim anything along the lines of iron being smelted.
Iron = check.
The idea of cement was ridiculed, but that's been shown to have been used.
I already explained barley to you.
But, it doesn't matter. Even if something previously thought to be anachronistic is shown to be true, you will just focus on the next un-proven one.
Even if every claim of the BoM were proven plausible, you would say that there is no direct proof. All I'm doing is showing that these topics aren't anachronistic like you claim.
Working with stone is called flint napping, stone chipping, masonry, or other descriptions not associated with smelting. I suppose if Smith said clean water was being used here it would prove Smith's novel to be true. But have it your way, call it what you want!
Your excuses are-->
You Randy, have made claims that have been proven false, hence you are not nor will you ever be satisfied with any evidence which is presented to you. You will only refute it. I can not dispel your delusions when you have been diluted to ignore the facts.
How long have you been an unbeliever? And who brainwashed you into not believing in God after the clear evidence of his existence has been presented to you in such abundance?
Raw copper used to be found laying on the surface of the ground. Thats where we get the name 'Copperfield" from, from the copper that was laying around in the fields. That copper could be hammered without any need for smelting or furnaces. That is why primitive societies all started their metal working technologies with hammered copper.
This is common knowledge to anyone familiar with Native American culture and is usually the first type of metal working learned by any primitive culture. But the claims made in Joseph Smith's partially plagiarized novel mention using swords and other implement which could only be produced by smelting or casting certain metals.
Smith did not do his homework before creating his fictional account, End of story!
I love you Deborah if you said Mormons are not Christians but then again I just love you I have no idea why.
Not me I look deeper and wow its al-right to joke but your serious- weird.
Your not here for the truth or you would look it up yourself. Go visit any real Church and they will show it to you. I know this site only has an agenda to confuse the lost with their lies and their deceptions. I am not here to play your games but to make you find out for yourself. Look at all the countless people on this site who have brought you the evidence that you decided to ignore any way. Your forum stinks and serves only your purpose.
Religion is so controversial! I have head that Mormons pray to someone other than Jesus Christ, but I honestly don't know to be honest.
Religion is so controversial! I have head that Mormons pray to someone other than Jesus Christ, but I honestly don't know to be honest.
Randy, I want to see if you can accept truth, even if you don't agree with it.
Can you concede that the Book of Mormon doesn't necessarily contradict history as far as worked iron is concerned, since I have pointed out that iron in the BoM isn't referenced as a smelted material, but as ornamental?
Can you concede that Hordeum pusillum could be what is referred to as Barley?
Truth is what I always agree with, not conjecture
Sure, if you can show the fictional people in the novel were using the same iron and nickle ore to contrive their trinkets.
Nope, why would the plates get it wrong if they were god inspired?
Your complaint was that the BoM mentions iron, but iron wasn't used in the Americas around that time. I proved you wrong. Now you poison the well in your argument.
It's not wrong. Botany wasn't as developed at the time. Plants weren't divided into the KPCOFGS organization we have today. You think it is wrong to call Little Barley 'barley'?
What time frame are you referencing? When DID the tribes mentioned in the BoM supposedly reach the Americas? Using iron and nickel ore by drilling holes in it is a much simpler process than smelting iron or making brass. So what time period are you claiming the events in the BoM took place? Before or after the Pleistocene?
He can not accept the truth and my only disagreement is that Mormons are not Christian. I do not even care about his false faith. In fact I could careless if he ever believes in anything else. I am not trying to convert him to anything. If he was a Christian I would have to change my faith. So take your Mormon butt and walk up into the front of every Church and make your claim. Go tell those people that your a Mormon and a Christian no different then them. Go tell them what you believe and then tell them your a Christian. No amount of scripture will prove anything to this person and no amount of evidence will matter either.
I will not continue to play your game or feed your poison God Machine. You have already admitted that you do not believe in the Trinity. That is one of the Universal requirements to be called a Christian. There is nothing to argue, please go be a Mormon and stop claiming to be a Christian. No Church claims to be a Mormon in your temples and you decided to leave the faith of the Church long ago. We do not care and we do not want to be associated with your false teachings. If anyone is confused you are. Did you know that all Christians believe that Jesus is a part of three fold Spirit of one and only one God. Because we believe that we have the title as Christians. To be one you have to believe in that as well. You should be claiming that you are a Jehovah witness, Scientologist or Adventist instead. I think their faith is better then yours and not to pick on them because they accept their own faith and do not make the false claims to be something else. I still think that you have more in common with them to make your claim. Even some Satanist believe in the Trinity perhaps they are Mormon? I do not believe that but it makes about as much sense as your claim does. I do not need to argue scripture to make this point so leave the faiths of others alone.
And yet, you can't provide a single verse of scripture that says it is a requirement? The idea of Trinity is an idea of interpretation, it isn't directly in the scriptures. Believe me, I know.
If you really believe so strongly in that requirement, just prove it with the Bible.
Honestly, I think this is how you think it should have happened if it was true, Randy:
Nephi lands in America. His people start to build shelters, and discover a grain with seeds that resembles Barley. Nephi pulls out his iPad, jumps on the Wikipedia, and starts comparing dimensions, structure, seed/blade count, etc... and determins that rather than this being Hordeum vulgare, which they are familiar with, it is Hordeum pusillum. Nephi finds out that this grain is also edible, and writes in his journal:
And we did work all manner of hordeum pusillum...
Please, I certainly don't need someone who believes in a con man to tell me what I should think. I suppose the Nephi docked their motorboats and unloaded their horses, oxen, and sheep and said "Wait till Joseph reads about this"! LOL!
What pure desperation!
Your unable to argue your own verses out of the Book of Mormon, why would I use a book that you contradict and do not believe in? If I was a Mormon I would be disgusted with your claim on here.
What are you going on about? Mormons believe the Book of Mormon and the Bible. I just asked you to proved biblical support of your claim that one must accept the concept of Trinity to be a Christian.
I believe the Bible, so give me a verse that proves your point.
Nor do I see why you would be disgusted if you were a Mormon... I'm friends with many, many Mormons and none of them are disgusted with me...
If a person says they are Christian, then why do others have a right to judge them as non-Christian?
That's what it amounts to when it comes to Mormons being Christian.
They do believe in Jesus, and they do accept him as their Savior.
Yes, they have lots of other beliefs that Christians find weird or objectionable. But really, the whole issue of polygamy is moot, when the BIBLE, not the Book of Mormon, is the book that set the stage and the example. And mainstream Mormons these days are NOT polygamists, only the break offs, which the mainstream Mormons believe are apostate groups.
Anyway, I find it so completely odd that other Christians feel they have the right, duty and obligation to define who can be a Christian and who can not, when being a Christian based on a personal belief and relationship with Jesus Christ. If Mormons belief in that concept and claim to be Christians, then that's pretty much the end of the discussion. The rest is arguing about dogma and doctrine, which is what all Christians are best at doing. And I don't find that Christian at all.
That would make Mormons pretty much like all the other "Christian" religions.
Plates which you need special glasses to read, all over the world? Glad I brought flotation devices cause itsa gettin' deep. Have you read the true story of the Jedi Knights...that's a good one. Joseph Smith? Con man. Brigham Young? Opportunist. Christianity? Deluded and diluted. Paul was no better than Smith or Young. Roman agent.
I agree. It's truly sad that con men, no matter the cult, can prey upon the fears of ignorant people and can convince them of anything, no matter how ridiculous it may be.
But most of these marks are started out young and take up the same con from their parents and so on down through the generations. It all depends on where you happen to be born and what religion your parents inherited, in most cases.
If Onus had been born in the middle east he would most likely be Muslim now and vilifying both Christians, Jews, and Mormons.
Muhammad dug into the Mount trying to touch the hidden Ark of the Covenant, suceeded, and was the true inspiration fot transporter technology aboard the Starship Enterprise...oopsie.
To me the title "Christian" applies if the baptized believer in Jesus as the promised Messiah (Christ) seeks in their daily life to do as Christ would do to the fullest extent of their knowledge of Jesus Christ, the prophecies of his coming, the records of his teachings, and the testimony of him through the Holy Ghost (Comforter).
What sectarian name is given to a Christian or taken on by that person, to me says that their understanding and search of what they consider to be holy scriptures and sacred teachings best conforms to their personal beliefs, not that they have made themselves to conform to those sectarian beliefs.
I suppose that makes me a Protestant by aligning myself to what I most closely believe, rather than aligning my beliefs to a given fath's doctrines.
It seems true that just as in heaven there are many mansions, so it seems that on earth Christianity has many mansions. If one rather than another brings out the best in you as a professing, and practicing Christian, that should be your home church more than any other.
A teaching from The Talmud in this regard states that "The test of a man's life is not his theology but his life."
May we each be tested and found worthy.
Joe Smith dug up antiquities on Iroquois land....could we please have our feast platters back?
by Shawn Yeager 3 years ago
What are the main differences between Christians and Mormons?
by Hokey 8 years ago
If Mormons are Christians than why the discrepancies between tThe Book OF Mormon and The Bible?Ex- The Bible says believers were first called Christians after Paul's ministry in Antioch.Acts 11:26 "And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and...
by charlie 22 months ago
How can anyone believe in the book of mormon since scripture warns against it?Scripture warns against believing doctrine other than than what Paul preached-- even if an "angel from heaven" brings it. Yet thousands follow this cult in spite of scripture. With a specific...
by neocobra5 8 years ago
This religion interests me. Can anyone give me their opinions on it good or bad and some of the Mormon beliefs that prove or disprove this religion.
by Daniel Carter 9 years ago
Very curious about this. Mit Romney didn't cut it. Mostly because of flip-flopping. Or was it really because he's a Mormon? Most Christians don't think Mormons are Christians at all, but rather a cult. Lots of very anti-stuff out there about the Mormons. Why is it so important to dis this religion?...
by Chaplain Bernell Wesley 5 years ago
If Jesus never wrote anything why is the New Testament the basis of Christianity?If Paul wrote 2/3 of the New Testament is Christianity not a Pauline invention since Jesus wrote none of it?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|