quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Actually, I was quoting someone who's made an even more in-depth and scholarly study of Mormonism, but essentially, there is absolutely no evidence for -- and a lot of evidence against -- the truth of the Book of Mormon. Between linguistics, anthropology, archeology, DNA, biology and just about anything else you can think of, nothing whatsoever backs up the claims of the Book of Mormon.

And that's without getting into Mormon theology.

---

quote:

---

Main Entry: chi·as·mus
Pronunciation: kI-'az-m&s, kE-
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from Greek chiasmos, from chiazein to mark with a chi
: an inverted relationship between the syntactic elements of parallel phrases (as in Goldsmith's to stop too fearful, and too faint to go)

---

quote:

---

3) Heaven. Christians believe in one heaven, for all believers, and most basically acknowledge the role of grace in getting there. Mormons have three classes, steerage, coach and first class, based on a misunderstanding of Paul's reference to the Classical view of the universe, and where you go depends largely on works. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
from mirriam-webster.com:

quote:

---

an inverted relationship between the syntactic elements of parallel phrases (as in Goldsmith's to stop too fearful, and too faint to go)

---

i fail to see why anyone would be unable to use a figure of speech. all it requires is to have read something in which that type of figure of speech occures, and copy the format.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
I'm aware of that but not participating.

---

What, the three-heaven issue? Because it was mentioned on the other thread? Then what issues will you respond to? It doesn't exactly impugn Joseph Smith's character, the nature of the plates, temple ceremonies or clothing, so what's the problem with explicating that one?

Heck, I don't subscribe to Mormon doctrine but I've wondered what Paul meant about the man "caught up to the third heaven" for years, and so far as I know there's no definitive consensus on the subject, Dante (he had nine levels each for Hell, Purgatory and Heaven) notwithstanding. Some argue that the first heaven is the sky, the second is higher up (the stars?), both of which have been called "the heavens," and the third is what we usually think of as Heaven now, where God's Throne is. I have no idea.

I will also point out that the notion of gradations of glory, or crowns, or whatnot in Heaven, based on our behavior on Earth, is not exactly exclusive to Mormons (or Protestants or Roman Catholics).

David
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Elder Moroni: Not true. Chiasmus is a fairly simple figure of speech, and you don't need to know the fancy Greek word for it to use it or to recognize the effect. People have been enjoying and imitating Mae West's line for decades: "It's not the men in your life, it's the life in your men" (or something like that).

{edited because of cross-post}

[ 06. May 2005, 17:57: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 

---

Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
Is LDS really any more or less true than anything else? Golden Plates, burning bush. Joseph Smith, Gnostic gospels. Virgin births, corporal resurrection.

A huge element of faith is what, in fact, you choose to be faithful about.
 

---

Posted by Margaret (# 283) on :
 
If there's lots of chiasmus in the Bible then it's hardly surprising that there's so much in the Book of Mormon, since Joseph Smith drew so heavily on the Bible. This is not necessarily to argue that he was a deliberate fraud, but that he was someone with an unusually good verbal memory, who seems to have been able to reproduce material he'd heard or read with great accuracy.

Elder Moroni, can you point us to any non-LDS support for the historicity of the Book of Mormon?
 

---

Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
but there are many christians who do not believe in the literal truth of much of the bible.

a serious question. are mormons allowed to not believe in the literal truth of the book of mormon? is it neccessary to believe in the blatently incorrect archeology?
 

---

Posted by ORGANMEISTER (# 6621) on :
 
Ruth, thanks for changing the title. I do appreciate it.
 

---

Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
YOu know, I'm realizing I use lots of chiasmus myself, except I've never heard the term before or the concept.

So hardly shocking to me that someone else could do the same.
 

---

Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
I'm aware of that but not participating.

---

What, the three-heaven issue?...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
I'm aware of that but not participating.

---

What, the three-heaven issue? Because it was mentioned on the other thread? Then what issues will you respond to? It doesn't exactly impugn Joseph Smith's character, the nature of the plates, temple ceremonies or clothing, so what's the problem with explicating that one?

Heck, I don't subscribe to Mormon doctrine but I've wondered what Paul meant about the man "caught up to the third heaven" for years, and so far as I know there's no definitive consensus on the subject, Dante (he had nine levels each for Hell, Purgatory and Heaven) notwithstanding. Some argue that the first heaven is the sky, the second is higher up (the stars?), both of which have been called "the heavens," and the third is what we usually think of as Heaven now, where God's Throne is. I have no idea.

I will also point out that the notion of gradations of glory, or crowns, or whatnot in Heaven, based on our behavior on Earth, is not exactly exclusive to Mormons (or Protestants or Roman Catholics).

David

---

quote:

---

Is LDS really any more or less true than anything else? Golden Plates, burning bush. Joseph Smith, Gnostic gospels. Virgin births, corporal resurrection.

A huge element of faith is what, in fact, you choose to be faithful about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
... I just won't participate in any thread where there's a sacreligious link to a sacred perversion. You can ask me anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:

quote:

---

Is LDS really any more or less true than anything else? ...
A huge element of faith is what, in fact, you choose to be faithful about.

---

... the stuff about Jewish colonists evangelising the Native Americans is a matter of the historical record and therefore subject to rational scrutiny.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
However, when the Nephites went to the new world, they were unfarmiliar with the area - they gave new names for everything - they described what they saw - how could anybody be farmiliar with it? Unless archaeology can account for the whole west coast of the American continent no unequivecal facts can be stated about Mormon archaeology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Micole:
ok, i'll ask again... serious question. in order to be a christian it is not neccessary to believe in the literal truth of every bit of the bible. is it neccessary to believe in the literal truth of the book of mormon in order to be a mormon?

---

quote:

---

ok, i'll ask again... serious question. in order to be a christian it is not neccessary to believe in the literal truth of every bit of the bible. is it neccessary to believe in the literal truth of the book of mormon in order to be a mormon?

---

quote:

---

Yes, but y**ng **rth cr**t**n*sm is an article of faith with some Christian groups, and no one suggests they should be excluded from the WCC(*) on the basis of rational scrutiny. (Avoid the deceased quadruped, please, step around it, thank you!)

*World Council of Churches - which requires Trinitarian Christianity as an entrance test.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
However, when the Nephites went to the new world, they were unfarmiliar with the area - they gave new names for everything - they described what they saw - how could anybody be farmiliar with it? Unless archaeology can account for the whole west coast of the American continent no unequivecal facts can be stated about Mormon archaeology.

---

The archeological record should show SOME signs of this alleged civilization. It does not. There are no remnants of building foundations, no city walls, no coins. For that matter, Smith's America was filled with animals that weren't here in pre-Columbian times.

And then there's DNA...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Micole:
ok, i'll ask again... serious question. in order to be a christian it is not neccessary to believe in the literal truth of every bit of the bible. is it neccessary to believe in the literal truth of the book of mormon in order to be a mormon?

---

I know some (mostly younger, mostly cradle) Mormons who claim Smith was just "channelling" it, since the story of the alleged translation is too preposterous for words. But my understanding is that, yes, they're supposed to take it all literally. You may have noticed the EM got rather heated on the subject of the Garden of Eden, although he doesn't seem to have anything to back it up.

[edited to include an answer to Nicole]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
thats what i was asking, elder moroni. is it neccessary to believe in the historical truth of the book of mormon? that there were really civilizations in the americas that were colonists from the middle east, and that the book of mormon is a fairly accurate historical document about them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by churchgeek:
Re: chiasmus (sorry, I'm a latecomer to this discussion) -

Are we talking simple chiasmus (e.g., "It's not the men in your life, it's the life in your men") or chiastic structures (e.g., the book of Daniel)?

---

Both
 

---

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
hosting

Ronist - nicolemrw is correct. We do frown on people taking the names of others in vain on this board. It tends to lead to personal arguments which belong in Hell. Thanks - C.

hosting ends

[ 06. May 2005, 19:12: Message edited by: Callan ]
 

---

Posted by ORGANMEISTER (# 6621) on :
 
Just thinking our loud. The pre-Columbian civilizations of Central and South America were very advanced socially, politically, and artistically, althought they were not so advanced technologically, no wheel. Now that we can read Maya glyphs and have a better understanding of the other pre-Columbian civilizations doesn't it seem to follow that if these people had come across a society of middle eastern Jews they would have recorded it in their histories and inlcuded it in their stories of myths and legends. A Jewish culture in the Americas would be sufficiently different from the surrounding cultures that the other native people would surely take notice.

Are there any references to possible Jews and Jewish culture in any of the histories and myths of pre-Columbian peoples? (Note: You can't site the B of M as a source.)
 

---

Posted by Ronist (# 5343) on :
 
Noted.
 

---

Posted by Elder Moroni (# 9432) on :
 
Organmeister,

Respectfully, as I mentioned in one of my latter posts, I am going to do a little research on the history! I'm no historian! I've never needed any evidence before now - and so I will compile an argument for the history for tomorrow.

I do however, have access to a very appealing essay which is by a member of BYU (although strangely non-LDS) who has written about the correlation between the maya people (their traditions) and Christians - possible asserting an influence - but please do not quote me on this - or even take me seriously! I have no knowledge of such things. I'll post the article later when I find it!
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ORGANMEISTER:
Just thinking our loud. The pre-Columbian civilizations of Central and South America were very advanced socially, politically, and artistically, althought they were not so advanced technologically, no wheel. Now that we can read Maya glyphs and have a better understanding of the other pre-Columbian civilizations doesn't it seem to follow that if these people had come across a society of middle eastern Jews they would have recorded it in their histories and inlcuded it in their stories of myths and legends. A Jewish culture in the Americas would be sufficiently different from the surrounding cultures that the other native people would surely take notice.

Are there any references to possible Jews and Jewish culture in any of the histories and myths of pre-Columbian peoples? (Note: You can't site the B of M as a source.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ORGANMEISTER:
Just thinking our loud. The pre-Columbian civilizations of Central and South America were very advanced socially, politically, and artistically, althought they were not so advanced technologically, no wheel. Now that we can read Maya glyphs and have a better understanding of the other pre-Columbian civilizations doesn't it seem to follow that if these people had come across a society of middle eastern Jews they would have recorded it in their histories and inlcuded it in their stories of myths and legends. A Jewish culture in the Americas would be sufficiently different from the surrounding cultures that the other native people would surely take notice.

Are there any references to possible Jews and Jewish culture in any of the histories and myths of pre-Columbian peoples? (Note: You can't site the B of M as a source.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Remember, it has taken man centuries to uncover the Holy Land's biblical places, and the LDS church is really in its prime (restoration wise.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
There is precious precious little (some would say none) archaeological evidence of a herd of Israelites leaving Egypt. Egypt being one of the best documenting ancient civilizations around. Does that mean the bible erred on The Exodus?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flubb:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
There is precious precious little (some would say none) archaeological evidence of a herd of Israelites leaving Egypt. Egypt being one of the best documenting ancient civilizations around. Does that mean the bible erred on The Exodus?

---

Not exactly true.David Rohl talks about this in his 'A test of time' where he deals with the Pre-Exodus Egyptian climate and amongst other things, their hatred for the Jews.

On a more whimsical fling, Immanuel Velikovsky claims to have found Egpytian papyrii which deal with the 10 plagues. He is steeped in controversy,(principally because of his conclusions) but he's worth reading if you can get hold of his 'Ages in Chaos'.

---

quote:

---

Reform Mormons are different from LDS Mormons in that they:
• are more liberal, less literal
• view authority as individual and universal, not corporate
• do not view God as someone who requires obedience
• view all scripture and sacred writing as art and therefore do not take it literally
• view women as equals
• view gays as equals
• openly acknowledge the error of, and apologize for, historical racial doctrines and practices
• praise and applaud their scientists, historians, and intellectuals, rather than excommunicate them
• welcome scientific advancement (we fully embrace evolution and other theories which have advanced human understanding of our existence)
• feel that churches should exist to support individuals, not dominate them, and that church involvement in politics is misguided

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Living in Gin:
Those are all laudible traits that many religious traditions share (including my own)...

---

[missed the edit window]

Clarification: I'll admit that the second point would seem to contract the authority of our bishops, which I didn't catch before I posted. But that's irrevelent to this thread, anyway.
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
Thanks Louise for stealing my thunder.
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
A quick bout of Google yielded up Reform Mormonism, which says that

---

[Whine]
But IIIIiii posted about it FIIIRRRRssstt...

[/Whine]

David
has not lost his touch

PS: T-minus twelve hours and three minutes till departure for Mouse-land
 

---

Posted by Elder Moroni (# 9432) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
A quick bout of Google yielded up Reform Mormonism, which says that

quote:

---

Reform Mormons are different from LDS Mormons in that they:
• are more liberal, less literal
• view authority as individual and universal, not corporate
• do not view God as someone who requires obedience
• view all scripture and sacred writing as art and therefore do not take it literally
• view women as equals
• view gays as equals
• openly acknowledge the error of, and apologize for, historical racial doctrines and practices
• praise and applaud their scientists, historians, and intellectuals, rather than excommunicate them
• welcome scientific advancement (we fully embrace evolution and other theories which have advanced human understanding of our existence)
• feel that churches should exist to support individuals, not dominate them, and that church involvement in politics is misguided

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
...it's basically changing Mormonism to suite themselves, rather than changing them selves to adhere to Mormonism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Is Christianity True?

- A "virgin" gave birth to Jesus. Not possible.

---

quote:

---

- Monotheists yet believe in three gods, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Since when does 1+1+1 equal 1?

---

quote:

---

- Miracles? When was the last time you saw one that didn't involve you contributing to some Used Car Salesman Look-alike behind a pulpit?

---

quote:

---

- Some guy put all the creatures of the earth into a very tiny boat and then the whole earth was covered with water? The entirity of geologic history says that's quite possibly the biggest whopper ever told. We now are fairly certain it's an account of the The Black Sea Deluge

---

quote:

---

- God is love. Yet he orders his Isreali shock troops to kill every living creature in the cities he doesn't like.

---

quote:

---

- Seven Day Creation, two different versions.

---

quote:

---

- Israelites wander around the wilderness for a hell of a long time. Where's the archaeological evidence?

---

quote:

---

- Jonah stayed in a fish for three days and lived.

---

quote:

---

That's just off the top of my head.

This is faith people, not fact. If you can justify the errata in the bible, then you should let the LDS justify theirs.

Your "truth" also is subject to fiction.

---

Fiction, mind you, is not the same things as falsehood. In fact, _good_ fiction is another way of telling truths - like Jesus telling a fictitious story about some foreign guy who stopped to pick up a robbery victim.

But the Bible is a big book, written by lots of people over lots of time. Sounds like a library, in fact. I have no problem with the idea that a library contains some books of fiction, and some of non-fiction. And that both are worthwhile reading. Sounds like every library I ever went into.

But the issue always comes back to Christ. How do you really _feel_ about the idea that the Son of God has come into the world? Are you repelled, attracted, indifferent? Do you wish it were true? Do you wish it were false? Do you think it wouldn't matter, even if the Son of God were to come?

Where are you?
 

---

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
I'd add to MSHB's response to Mad Geo that my reason for doubting Mormonism isn't in the least that it teaches a different set of miracles to mainstream Christianity.

The miraculous translation of the golden plates I see in exactly the same way as I see the virgin birth - not something that would happen naturally, but prima facie possible to God. I accept the birth of Jesus, and reject the Book of Mormon, not according to intrinsic scientific probability (close to zero in both cases), but because Jesus and his biographers seems to me to be reliable, and Joseph Smith and his church seem to me to be unreliable.

I don't see people here are attacking as impossible what Mormons claim to be miraculous, but as improbable and unfounded what is claimed as history.
 

---

Posted by Ronist (# 5343) on :
 
Every church wants to paint itself as the only ones that God works through or give revelation to.

So what if the God of the universe doesn't grant exclusive franchise to any organization? I think it is sort of His perogative.
 

---

Posted by plaintif cry (# 9271) on :
 
Is Mormonism true? Simple answer is that it is not historically substantiated by archeology nor anthopology unlike the testaments. Also, in Galatians 1:8-9 Paul writes

"But if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preach to you. let him be eternally condemned. As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accept, let him be eternally condemned!"

It is hard talking stuff but the fact is that Moroni was an angel who is supposed to have given Joseph Smith the direction to the gold plates on which the book of Mormon is said to be transcribed in an ancient unknown language. Joseph Smith was the only one to see these plates. Even though there are testimonies from people who say they did see the plates, in the front of the book of Mormon, what they do not say is that after falling out with Smith these were retracted. Smith used a couple of stones that are called Urim and Thurim that he had previously used for occult divining to "translate" the book of Mormon. This book tells the story of a people of Semitic origin living in the U.S.A and engaged in tribal wars. Of a visit from Christ and purports to give the place of Jesus second coming as Jonesville in the U.S. The story is thought to have been writen by a congregational minister as a fictional work during the mid eighteenth century and found by Smith in a Pawn Shop.

My question, respectfully, to any one who is a part and promoter of the LDS is How can a religion founded on such an obvious deception be true? How can a different gospel from a supernatural being and given by such an unreliable source with no other substantiation be a God given revelation for our salvation?
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz:

Well done, indeed!
 

---

Posted by Elder Moroni (# 9432) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by plaintif cry:
Is Mormonism true? Simple answer is that it is not historically substantiated by archeology nor anthopology unlike the testaments. Also, in Galatians 1:8-9 Paul writes

"But if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preach to you. let him be eternally condemned. As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accept, let him be eternally condemned!"

---

quote:

---

Rev 14:6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

---

quote:

---

2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

---

quote:

---

It is hard talking stuff but the fact is that Moroni was an angel who is supposed to have given Joseph Smith the direction to the gold plates on which the book of Mormon is said to be transcribed in an ancient unknown language. Joseph Smith was the only one to see these plates. Even though there are testimonies from people who say they did see the plates, in the front of the book of Mormon, what they do not say is that after falling out with Smith these were retracted.

---

quote:

---

Smith used a couple of stones that are called Urim and Thurim that he had previously used for occult divining to "translate" the book of Mormon. This book tells the story of a people of Semitic origin living in the U.S.A and engaged in tribal wars. Of a visit from Christ and purports to give the place of Jesus second coming as Jonesville in the U.S. The story is thought to have been writen by a congregational minister as a fictional work during the mid eighteenth century and found by Smith in a Pawn Shop.

---

quote:

---

My question, respectfully, to any one who is a part and promoter of the LDS is How can a religion founded on such an obvious deception be true? How can a different gospel from a supernatural being and given by such an unreliable source with no other substantiation be a God given revelation for our salvation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Faith is not faith until it has been tried. We have received a witness - and as I mentioned, I have no need for physical evidence - that clearly demonstrates weakness on your behalf. Would you still have faith in the bible if there were no scriptural evidence?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:


Did you know that this same thing happened to the early Christians? A common godess amongst pagans was MITHRA - who has, by the way an almost identical story to Jesus Christ - born of a virgin, had 12 apostles, tought fasting and prayer, humility, and MANY more other factors contributing to its similarity. But still - I could quote this to you and all the facts, but still you would obtain, what you might call "blind faith." The kind of faith you are asserting that we have.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peronel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Faith is not faith until it has been tried. We have received a witness - and as I mentioned, I have no need for physical evidence - that clearly demonstrates weakness on your behalf. Would you still have faith in the bible if there were no scriptural evidence?

---

Your last sentence - on the face of it - makes little sense. The Bible is scriptural evidence. Do you mean "would you still believe the Bible if there was no other evidence?" Because, if so, the answer to that is "it depends".

Jesus' presence on Earth is grounded in a real time, in a real place. That's the scandal of particularity, of course. If archeology were to show conclusively that there were no such place as Jerusalem, and no such people as the jews then, yes, I think that would be a very severe challenge to anyone's faith.

Yet, as I said above, and as you have yet to answer, the important places in the Gospel narratives are undoubtedly real. We know where Jerusalem is and was; mormonism, as I understand it, cannot identify the sites in its scriptures. That, it seems to me, is a major problem.

I do not think expecting the physical evidence to back up the scriptural shows a weakness of faith. Rather, to look at the scriptures in their historical context is to approach them with the same God-given intelligence and discernment as I use on other text. To do otherwise would be to become, to paraphrase Dave Tomlinson, a cabbage for Jesus.

Much of the Biblical narratives, of course, are not subject to archeological investigation. It's unlikely we'll ever dig up a 2000 year old manger, complete with bloodstains from the new born babe and, even if we did, how could we conclusively link them to Luke 2? That's where faith comes in. It's also where it is important to look at the Bible not just in terms of external evidence, but also as a created text, with the same flaws and layers of meaning as any other. That means that it doesn't matter over much to my faith (others will disagree) whether the details of the birth narratives, for example, are historically accurate. The manger is a potent type of the tomb and, for me, that is its point.

This means that whether scholarly research proves or disproves the Garden of Eden doesn't really matter. I never approached that story as being true in that way.

Yet, as I understand it, Mormons do not have the flexibility to understand the historical elements of their scriptures as anything other than an accurate account of what happened. Others have asked you if this understanding is true and I've yet to spot you answer. That does mean that, if all the evidence is that the history is nonsensical, it does throw doubt on the authenticity of that revelation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:


Did you know that this same thing happened to the early Christians? A common godess amongst pagans was MITHRA - who has, by the way an almost identical story to Jesus Christ - born of a virgin, had 12 apostles, tought fasting and prayer, humility, and MANY more other factors contributing to its similarity. But still - I could quote this to you and all the facts, but still you would obtain, what you might call "blind faith." The kind of faith you are asserting that we have.

---

The goddess Mithra is a new one on me. The god Mithra, however, is not, although my knowledge is scanty at best. (Where is Wood when you need him?) I know just enough to know that, whilst there are superficial similarities between the Mithra figure and the Christ figure, "almost identical" is a substantial overexaggeration. There is a brief account
here , an article on wikipedia , and a comprehensive article which covers the similarities between Mithra and Christ on the Catholic Encyclopedia. The latter is, of course, rather dated, but is the most comprehensive I have been able to find online from a scholarly source. Thus I'm not quite sure why disagreeing with you that "the goddess Mithra" and Christ are "almost identical" is an issue of "blind faith".

As I've said before, I'm deeply suspicious of blind or unquestioning faith. I've seen "you must have faith" used to often by (usually male) priests to control those who disagree. This happens where any questioning is seen as a threat to the authority of that priest, and too often their response boils down to "trust me, I'm right, God has told me". I don't think faith is about believing 100 impossible things before breakfast, and I definately don't think it's about seperating the faith bit of your intellect from the rest. Which is why, for me, argueing that anyone should ignore other evidence and just have faith simply doesn't buy it.

This, I guess, is why I'm Anglican and not Mormon.

Peronel.

---

quote:

---

A common godess amongst pagans was MITHRA - who has, by the way an almost identical story to Jesus Christ - born of a virgin, had 12 apostles, tought fasting and prayer, humility, and MANY more other factors contributing to its similarity. But still - I could quote this to you and all the facts, but still you would obtain, what you might call "blind faith." The kind of faith you are asserting that we have.

---

quote:

---

In each mithraic temple there was a central scene showing Mithras sacrificing a bull (often called a tauroctony)... Various figures surround this dramatic event. Under the bull a dog laps at the blood dripping from the wound and a scorpion attacks the bull's testicles... On the viewer's left stands a diminutive male figure named Cautes, wearing the same garb as Mithras and holding an upraised and burning torch. Above him, in the upper left corner, is the sun god, Sol, in his chariot. On the viewer's left there is another diminutive male figure, Cautopates, who is also clad as Mithras is and holds a torch that points downards and is sometimes, but not always, burning. Above Cautopates in the upper right corner is the moon, Luna. This group of figures is almost always present, but there are variations, of which the most common is an added line of the signs of the zodiac over the top of the bull-sacrificing scene.

---

quote:

---

The structure of the cult was hierarchical. Members went through a series of seven grades, each of which had a special symbol and a tutelary planet. From lowest to highest these grades were Corax (raven, under Mercury), Nymphus (a made-up word meaning male bride, under Venus), Miles (the soldier, under Mars), Leo (the lion, under Jupiter), Perses (the Persian, under Luna, the moon), Heliodromus (the Sun's courier, under Sol, the sun), and finally Pater (father, under Saturn). Those who reached the highest grade, Pater, could become the head of a congregation. Because mithraea were so small, new congregations were probably founded on a regular basis when one or more members reached the highest grade.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Margaret:
I thought the RLDS began well after the death of Joseph Smith, and was the result of the unhappiness many people felt with the leadership of his successor Brigham Young. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
Bonaventura,
Thanks for that. I don't want to start a big tangent but you might also want to add Manfred Clauss's book to your list. The Roman Cult of Mithras: The God and his Mysteries. (Translated by Richard Gordon. Edinburgh University Press, 2000). His view seems to be that there's not much influence going either way at all - and that what similarities there are, seem to be explained by the common roots of oriental religions in antiquity.

cheers,
Louise

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peronel:
There is a huge difference, it seems to me, between "similar to other stories" and "radically at odds with the evidence". The Book of Mormon, it appears, falls into the latter category. And you still haven't answered the question: are you allowed to treat the history in the Book of Mormon as myth, or is it considered to be as much revelation as the doctrinal stuff? If the latter, then that the history is, as others have said with more knowledge than I can, "demonstrably untrue", then you have a very significant problem.

Peronel.

---

quote:

---

That Joseph Smith did NOT copy or get ideas from other books - just as Jesus Christ is not derived from a Mythrian myth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:

quote:

---

That Joseph Smith did NOT copy or get ideas from other books - just as Jesus Christ is not derived from a Mythrian myth.

---

Now this is a total non-sequitur. If the story of Jesus turned out to be plagiarised wholesale from an ancient fantasy novel, it would tell us nothing about whether Joseph Smith had copied or got ideas from other books, anymore than it would tell us which 21st century university students have plagiarised their essays from the internet. They are two completely separate cases.


Texts can share elements, and that doesn't make them true or false. If I decide to plagiarise Antonia Fraser's book on Mary Queen of Scots, then that doesn't mean Mary didn't get her chopped off - the historical facts remain true whether I plagiarised them or not. It just makes me a plagiarist. On the other hand if I plagiarise JRR Tolkien and claim I've found an ancient Scottish manuscript and that Edinburgh was really Minas Tirith, and Lord of the Rings was all true ( Mount Doom being situated somewhere around Glasgow) the book might still be a good book and a good read, but that doesn't make it factual.

I have no doubt the gospels are influenced by other texts and the cultures around them. Neither do I doubt that you get some common elements between early Christianity and other religions of that time or place - sacrificial imagery, shared meals, military imagery, these are parts of a shared contemporary culture, so no big suprise. There are things in the New Testament I think did happen, and things I think didn't happen, but one thing I don't doubt is the antiquity of the texts in it- that they were actually written in the ancient Roman empire by people who actually lived there. The historical evidence for that is fine, and so looking for valid historical content in them is not a fools errand. The same cannot be said of the Book of Mormon, which does not exist prior to the early 19th century and for which there is no archaeological or historcal data to show that it has anything valid to say about the ancient world.

Whether it's plagiarised or not, I leave to people like Rosswesse who have studied the subject.

L.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Hi Louise,

You are completely missing my point here altogether. What I mean is - in the same way YOU can challenge me about where the Book of Mormon derived from, in a similar way I can challenge YOU about the roots of the story of Jesus. I didn't state that they were related - or that if the story of Jesus was plagarized it would say anything about the book of Mormon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
I wasn't arguing against the archaeology or geography of the bible.

---

quote:

---

Remember, it has taken man centuries to uncover the Holy Land's biblical places, and the LDS church is really in its prime (restoration wise.)

---

quote:

---

That Joseph Smith did NOT copy or get ideas from other books - just as Jesus Christ is not derived from a Mythrian myth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
...You are completely missing my point here altogether. What I mean is - in the same way YOU can challenge me about where the Book of Mormon derived from, in a similar way I can challenge YOU about the roots of the story of Jesus. I didn't state that they were related - or that if the story of Jesus was plagarized it would say anything about the book of Mormon.

---

quote:

---

YOU can challenge me about where the Book of Mormon derived from, in a similar way I can challenge YOU about the roots of the story of Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Is Christianity True?

- A "virgin" gave birth to Jesus. Not possible.

---

Of course, it was "not possible" - it would hardly be a miracle if it were "possible" in the ordinary course of events. But the whole point of the virgin birth is that what is impossible under natural circumstances (unaided by God's special purpose) _is_ possible when God so wills it.

Also, our notion of what is possible is generally based on experience - and so it is open to being overturned by contrary experience. Are black swans possible? Until naturalists explored Australia they thought the answer was "No".

Or are you claiming that virgin birth is somehow impossible by definition, rather than by experience? If so, the onus is on you to show it, because I know nobody who would argue that virgin birth is by definition impossible.

In fact, using artifical insemination these days, it would be quite possible for a female to become pregnant without ever having been in the same room as a male (assuming the AI doctor is female), i.e. it is possible to become pregnant without losing virginity. _Virgin birth_ is quite possible - the miracle was divine conception - no doctor except God. But then, a God who created the universe, who keeps it in existence moment by moment, could manage that, I think. IF He wills it. WHEN He wills it.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

- Monotheists yet believe in three gods, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Since when does 1+1+1 equal 1?

---

What Christians believe in three Gods? I don't, and I don't know any Christians who do. Nor any church which teaches three Gods. Might be the odd one - but even if there are, it is a long way from mainstream Christianity.

And three Gods would be by definition impossible, unlike the virgin birth: if there are three almighties, which one wins a fight? By definition one or more must fail to achieve their will - which disproves their almightiness.

Unless they are so completely and tightly bound together that they actually have one will, one power, one mind ... _exactly_ like one God. A unity of three persons far closer than any union we human persons ever experience. A union in which they are eternally and utterly of one mind and purpose and knowledge (omniscient), eternally in exactly the same place (omnipresent), with no _possible_ difference in will.

And your arithmetic is wrong. Take the set of all integers (1,2,3 ... infinity); throw away all the even-numbered ones (2,4,6...); do you now have fewer integers than before? No, because infinities follow different rules to finite quantities. Infinity + infinity + infinity = infinity.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

- Miracles? When was the last time you saw one that didn't involve you contributing to some Used Car Salesman Look-alike behind a pulpit?

---

I don't know. Modern day miracles aren't a huge topic of interest for me. I do agree that there are many counterfeit miracles, and many bogus "miracle-workers". I also believe that there are many fake gold watches for sale - but that doesn't stop me from believing that real gold watches also exist.

If something is valuable, someone will try to counterfeit it for their own use. That doesn't tell us a thing about whether the valuable thing also exists. Counterfeits just prove that the thing they copy is valuable.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

- Some guy put all the creatures of the earth into a very tiny boat and then the whole earth was covered with water? The entirity of geologic history says that's quite possibly the biggest whopper ever told. We now are fairly certain it's an account of the The Black Sea Deluge

---

Some guy took a ring and carried it over mountains to a great volcano and threw it in and brought down the great evil wizard of the age... And they're publicising this all over the world. Oops that's "Lord of the Rings". Why do these mad earthlings show such falsehoods in their cinemas?

Oh, it's called literature? It has a significance other than its literal truth? But these earthlings spend a large part of their time watching things that are just made up... You mean it may have some value - even when it is made up?

Personally, I don't take anything before Genesis 12 as historical narrative - although some of it may preserve historical memories. But then, I have never felt that historical narrative (or non-fiction in general) is the only kind of writing worth reading. I have never seen any reason to think that "inspired by God" means "non-fiction". And taking one part of the Bible figuratively does not, in any way, commit me to taking other parts figuratively. You have to take each passage on its literary merits.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

- God is love. Yet he orders his Isreali shock troops to kill every living creature in the cities he doesn't like.

---

I know people who cut up living bodies with knives, which sounds rather scary and gruesome ... but they're called doctors. An awful lot depends on how you look at these things. After all, I find childbirth pretty shocking (I've only ever been a spectator, mind you), but it also has its compensations. It all depends on what you know and how you view the circumstances. They can look and sound pretty awful - and yet there is a reason that justifies them. It is just not obvious to the uninformed spectator (imagine a girl with no knowledge of human reproduction, who finds her stomach swelling up, and then starts getting labour pains ... it would be terrifying).

I start with the fact that Christ - when being arrested, healed one of the men that were arresting him - and I don't ever read of Christ killing anyone. This is where I start with my image of God as love, because geo-politics (and theo-geo-politics) can be a bit too big to take in all the reasons and wherefores.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

- Seven Day Creation, two different versions.

---

One seven day creation story (Genesis 1); one single day creation story (Genesis 2). Again, I see these as true as literature, not true as science journal article nor true as 6pm TV news report.

Others might indeed take them literally. However, even long ago great Christian leaders took them in a literary sense. St Jerome, the fourth century Christian who translated the Bible into Latin, said that Moses described the creation after the fashion of a poet. Being a traditional Christian, that sounds good to me.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

- Israelites wander around the wilderness for a hell of a long time. Where's the archaeological evidence?

---

No idea. What are you looking for? McDonald's packaging may last forever, but I'm not sure about the remains of the Israelites in the desert. They didn't stop to build monuments, did they?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

- Jonah stayed in a fish for three days and lived.

---

And according to modern writings, Rip van Winkle stayed asleep for twenty years, which only goes to prove that modern writings are a fraud. Oops, that was literature, wasn't it? It is important to identify the type of writing before criticising it - otherwise you can get it very wrong.

St John the apostle said: "That which we have heard ... seen ...touched ... that is what we proclaim". He wasn't proclaiming Jonah, he was proclaiming the risen Christ. That is what the church is asking you to believe: Christ is risen.

People were there, they saw him, they touched him, they ate with him. They subsequently died for him. And they acknowledged that they were utter fools if what they believed was false. They knew what they were doing when they proclaimed: He is risen!

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

That's just off the top of my head.

This is faith people, not fact. If you can justify the errata in the bible, then you should let the LDS justify theirs.

Your "truth" also is subject to fiction.

---

Fiction, mind you, is not the same things as falsehood. In fact, _good_ fiction is another way of telling truths - like Jesus telling a fictitious story about some foreign guy who stopped to pick up a robbery victim.

But the Bible is a big book, written by lots of people over lots of time. Sounds like a library, in fact. I have no problem with the idea that a library contains some books of fiction, and some of non-fiction. And that both are worthwhile reading. Sounds like every library I ever went into.

But the issue always comes back to Christ. How do you really _feel_ about the idea that the Son of God has come into the world? Are you repelled, attracted, indifferent? Do you wish it were true? Do you wish it were false? Do you think it wouldn't matter, even if the Son of God were to come?

Where are you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peronel:
...Does that make any sense?

---

Tons of it -- to my mind, anyway.
 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
Mad Geo,
I see where you're coming from but there is at least one important difference here.

You're a geologist, I'm a historian. Someone claiming that the Book of Mormon could be a valid source about the ancient world is the equivalent of somebody claiming that the Book Of Genesis has something valid to tell us about the fossil record. It's making faith trump history in the same way as a Creationist makes faith trump geology. You correctly point out that a lot of Christians do this, but it doesn't make Mormon historical claims any less historically dubious.

If someone came to you with a lump of plastic and insisted it was an ancient rock-sample from the Devonian, you wouldn't be impressed. Any claims they made on the basis of it about geology would fall at the first hurdle. As a historian I'm in a similar position with regard to Mormonism - their texts don't even make the historical starting line for being worth examining for authentic ancient material.


I can see the point you're making that lots of people believe things which are no better, but to me that doesn't remove the fact that Mormonism is, in terms of its claims about the ancient world, without any sort of valid historical basis. Christianity at least makes the starting line as it has a corpus of contemporary and near contemporary texts to the time it is making claims about.

L.
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
Louise:

A most excellent post!
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
Louise, as a historian, if a person said to you that a very large tribe of people were in a foreign country for 430 years and that their culture has no trace of that foreign language, pottery, architecture, writing systems,
literary traditions, or clothing after spending 430 years there, would you think they were cracked?

Yet that is what Christians (and Jews) say about the Israelites. Yet there is no archaelogical evidence of the Exodus. There is no mention of Yahweh or Isrealite names in any tombs of Egypt. In spite of 430 years of occupation. To say that is historically odd is to be supremely minimalist.

I happen to be friends with a professor of Biblical Literature that specializes in the New Testament. When I talk to him he is not nearly so convinced of the historicity of the New Testament as some are here.

But that is not really the issue. Let's assume for a moment that a Little Green Alien was observing a Mormon advocating the veracity of his form of Truth and a Christian advocating the veracity of her form of Truth.

The alien might weigh the ratio of facts to fiction documents, the alien might weigh the facts to fiction within the individual books, or the alien might weigh the historical factuality. When the alien was done with this analysis somebody would have to explain what faith is because the Alien would most assuredly come to the conclusion that both sets of beliefs were categorically full of whoppers (literary if not historical) that could not be reconciled without a time machine (let's hope the alien has one).

To me this is not really about the accuracy of the bible. I learned a long time ago that arguing the accuracy of the bible was a lot like pissing into a hurricane. The bible is not a historical document, it is a faith document.

I keep coming back to the thought that an infamous criminal once said:

"3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
Matthew 7:5 (New International Version)
 

---

Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:


To me this is not really about the accuracy of the bible. I learned a long time ago that arguing the accuracy of the bible was a lot like pissing into a hurricane. The bible is not a historical document, it is a faith document.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Is a document who's authors used "creative fiction" and who's subsequent interpreters and scribes modified to fit the party line count as historical?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Louise, as a historian, if a person said to you that a very large tribe of people were in a foreign country for 430 years and that their culture has no trace of that foreign language, pottery, architecture, writing systems,
literary traditions, or clothing after spending 430 years there, would you think they were cracked?

Yet that is what Christians (and Jews) say about the Israelites. Yet there is no archaelogical evidence of the Exodus. There is no mention of Yahweh or Isrealite names in any tombs of Egypt. In spite of 430 years of occupation. To say that is historically odd is to be supremely minimalist.

---

quote:

---

I happen to be friends with a professor of Biblical Literature that specializes in the New Testament. When I talk to him he is not nearly so convinced of the historicity of the New Testament as some are here.

---

quote:

---

But that is not really the issue. Let's assume for a moment that a Little Green Alien was observing a Mormon advocating the veracity of his form of Truth and a Christian advocating the veracity of her form of Truth.

The alien might weigh the ratio of facts to fiction documents, the alien might weigh the facts to fiction within the individual books, or the alien might weigh the historical factuality. When the alien was done with this analysis somebody would have to explain what faith is because the Alien would most assuredly come to the conclusion that both sets of beliefs were categorically full of whoppers (literary if not historical) that could not be reconciled without a time machine (let's hope the alien has one).

To me this is not really about the accuracy of the bible. I learned a long time ago that arguing the accuracy of the bible was a lot like pissing into a hurricane. The bible is not a historical document, it is a faith document.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
... The Bible and the Book of Mormon are both faith documents and historical documents. People can get stuff out of them regardless of their historicity, but they are also historical sources. There are useful historical sources in various bits of the Bible if you know how to use them with appropriate caution and context. There's nothing like that in the Book of Mormon because it's almost completely a work of fiction written at a time very distant from the one it purports to describe.

I resist attempts by people to claim that the Book of Mormon is literally true in the same way that I resist attempts by Creationists to claim that Genesis is literally true or attempts by the David Rohls and Velikovskys of this world to prove that Exodus is literally true. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Is a document who's authors used "creative fiction" and who's subsequent interpreters and scribes modified to fit the party line count as historical?

---

quote:

---

I have had sufficient evidence and readings to find fiction laced with truth throughout the Bible such that I choose not to make the "historical" distinction any longer. This has little to do with my "faith", however, it has to with my "facts".

---

quote:

---

Louise, so a book that is 45% historically inaccurate matters compared to say a book that is 55% inaccurate? When both are 100% faith documents?

---

quote:

---

However, it must be noted that if members of a church sincerely believe that their church is true - sceptic nor opposer cannot argue or try to change their position. I suppose the whole purpose of discussion is to learn from other people - and by learning one changes one's opinion on certain things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Louise, as a historian, if a person said to you that a very large tribe of people were in a foreign country for 430 years and that their culture has no trace of that foreign language, pottery, architecture, writing systems,
literary traditions, or clothing after spending 430 years there, would you think they were cracked?

Yet that is what Christians (and Jews) say about the Israelites. Yet there is no archaelogical evidence of the Exodus. There is no mention of Yahweh or Isrealite names in any tombs of Egypt. In spite of 430 years of occupation. To say that is historically odd is to be supremely minimalist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:

quote:

---

Yes, but y**ng **rth cr**t**n*sm is an article of faith with some Christian groups, and no one suggests they should be excluded from the WCC(*) on the basis of rational scrutiny. (Avoid the deceased quadruped, please, step around it, thank you!)

*World Council of Churches - which requires Trinitarian Christianity as an entrance test.

---

You're confusing a doctrinal tenet with the demarcation between science and metaphysics. I think that as a matter of scientific fact it is possible to say that - lets take the Dead Horse out of the equation - that the Flat Earth society is wrong. That they may believe this for sincere religious reasons does not render their belief above rational criticism.

It is not possible to say that Trinitarianism is right or wrong on that particular ground. There are arguments for or against the existence of God but any metaphysical belief (including the belief that metaphysical statements are meaningless) requires an element of faith. One is obliged to engage in a degree of politesse about religous belief, no matter how bizarre one finds it, because we see through a glass darkly (although that need not preclude rational enquiry). Religious practice, I hasten to add, is another matter - I don't care who your God hates, leave them alone.

Once we enter the realm of the falsifiable that is a different matter. We can speak with greater certitude. The earth is emphatically not flat and we need not pussy foot around the issue. The same is true of a number of other beliefs. That they are sincerely held by religious believers matters not one jot. They are wrong and we need not be afraid to say so.

---

quote:

---

Even if Joseph Smith did read this book, there is no way that he would have been intelligent enough to, himself, link this to a biblical setting through the tribe of Manasseh, and have the amount of profound scriptural insight that would be required to present such a plagarized document.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by plaintif cry:
[QB] A really interesting debate has developed from which EM now seems to be missing.

---

I posted a lot last week because I had the week off as my wife's just had a baby! But now I'm back on my mission which doesn't allow me much time to post here.

quote:

---

The comparison of the Bible and the BoM as historically accurate documents needs a bit of qualification. Honestly, check out "The changing world of Mormonism" Tanner to see how ex-(deeply committed) Mormons see the BoM as deeply flawed.

---

quote:

---

The point I made before, that it is a work of fiction which was not "plagurised" by JS but fraudulently presented as truth puts the mockers on any crediblity for BoM advocates. They argue, as does EM that I claim a "blind faith". I don't I argue that many are misguided by the call to respond because of how you feel and that a few are still actively tied into the original deception of Smith. His hands, and his hands alone are said to have been the earthly source of the translation.

---

quote:

---

When his credibility and character are argued against by those who are part of what the Mormons call "apostasy" they do get a bit angry. The fact is that for the Mormon anything that isn't Moroni (never seen his name in the Bible never mind in Revelation!) is apostasy. Equally, I argue that what is presented through human guile and is not honest, if also fallible, needs a serious looking at.

---

quote:

---

The Bible, on the other hand, is not the product of any one venerated saint. Instead it is a construct from the witness of the times often given context from the archeology, anthropology and history of the time (unlike Smiths work).

---

It is our opinion of course, that the Book of Mormon was not written by one person but many - since we don't believe in dictation but translation. The Book of Mormon does make many references to the times - like the Babylonian capture of Jerusalem - and the many things and names that were present in Jerusalem at that time. Of course - we cannot justify archaeology by means of the new world, since it was for the Nephites a virgin land (this is disputable though.)

As for the bible - you have to rely upon the knowledge of the witnesses. A sceptic could easily acknowledge that Jesus Christ lived. But as for His resurrection, crucifixion, ascension... this is all testimony of the New Testament authors - which requires as much faith as believing that the Liahona in the Book of Mormon guided the Lehites to the promised land!

Overall let me tell you that you have given a very intelligent post. I can fully accept your post, as I think it has worth and you have supported your beliefs, unlike the many who just make observations without any logical thought whatsoever.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Who might that be EM? And congratulations by the way. One wife eh? Isn't that unorthodox?
 

---

Posted by Elder Moroni (# 9432) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Who might that be EM? And congratulations by the way. One wife eh? Isn't that unorthodox?

---

Haha! As if that's the first time I've ever heard that! One wife's enough thanks!
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
You're OK mate. Heretic and all - and you're in VERY good company round here on that. You're OK If you can put up with my sense of humour, we'll be together somewhere after the deep six I'm sure.
 

---

Posted by plaintif cry (# 9271) on :
 

quote:

---

I posted a lot last week because I had the week off as my wife's just had a baby! But now I'm back on my mission which doesn't allow me much time to post here.

---

Congratulations! right oh mission huh! Well, can't wish you luck but then we wouldn't believe that luck is a theological proposition

quote:

---

Yes - in a similar way how many ex-Christians do you think there are who think the bible is flawed - and the whole idea of God in general?

But then there are a heck of a lot of people who dismiss the Bible without ever doing their homework. If the ex-Christians dismiss the Bible without considering the substantive historical evidence they miss the point. The Bible has always spoken for itself, its historicity has never been reason for rejection. Personal faith can be flawed (as I believe is mine inc.) but those who have rejected their Christianity have rarely made a case against the Bible. The Tanners, on the other hand, have made their case against Mormonism and the BoM with insight and intelligence. I don't argue that people may not reject Christianity. I do argue that none have made the same co-herent case about the Bible that the Tanners have done about Mormonism's text.

---

quote:

---

When his credibility and character are argued against by those who are part of what the Mormons call "apostasy" they do get a bit angry. The fact is that for the Mormon anything that isn't Moroni (never seen his name in the Bible never mind in Revelation!) is apostasy. Equally, I argue that what is presented through human guile and is not honest, if also fallible, needs a serious looking at.

---

By this do you mean that instead of us calling other Christian denominations apostasized, they in turn say that we have apostasized and become angry by it? I would agree.

Not an apostacy but a cult produced by a powerful deception. Sorry, an apostacy has to begin with the truth. Morminsm begins with a fraud.

I used this argument against Mormons many years ago. Again, of course I don't agree with you but I don't think that it would be worth me arguing with you! I respect your opinion.

Cool, I don't mind you believing in your religion and your church. I would not be being honest if I could say that its o.k but I respect your freedom of choice and the fact that you are willing to talk about it with me and others

quote:

---

It is our opinion of course, that the Book of Mormon was not written by one person but many - since we don't believe in dictation but translation. The Book of Mormon does make many references to the times - like the Babylonian capture of Jerusalem - and the many things and names that were present in Jerusalem at that time. Of course - we cannot justify archaeology by means of the new world, since it was for the Nephites a virgin land (this is disputable though.)

The book of Mormon, as I first said, was the work of fiction written by a Congregational minister during the evangelical revival of the mid-nineteenth century. So in that case it was the work of a single author. JS perpetrated the fraud of claiming Moroni's direction and the gold plates for translation. The book was already written and in his possession. He claims to be a prophet but a prophets work stands to examination. A false prophet does not say that men who dress in puritan clothing live on the moon and then, through later scientific disclosure is found to be wrong. You and I both know that Brigham Young later said that they too live on the Sun.

---

quote:

---

Overall let me tell you that you have given a very intelligent post. I can fully accept your post, as I think it has worth and you have supported your beliefs, unlike the many who just make observations without any logical thought whatsoever.

---

quote:

---

2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Rev 14:6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

---

quote:

---

Deu 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Ken,

I think you must have misunderstood me. I am not saying their is no evidence of Semites at all. I was saying there is no evidence of semites in Egypt in great quantities. The evidence indicates they were not in Egypt but elsewhere. On that we can agree.

Historians,

I personally see the works of the bible as having a huge mythological/fictional component. I do understand the meaning and use of the term "Myth" when it comes to religious texts. Others, with a less nuanced, yet possibly justifiable view might use the word "Lies" instead of "Myths". To them, the bible is full of lies which taint the factuality of the truths that you see when you read it. They might assert that a book that is so full of lies that cannot be discerned from Truths is no better or worse than a book such as the Book of Mormon. They might see it as "The best way to sell a lie is to mix it with bunch of truths".

They might see Mormons and Christians as one side of the same coin from the perspective that they have their individual truths and lies that they hold dear. Same smell. Different Taste.

Faith really isn't historically, rationally, and certainly not scientifically measurable, nor accurate. Faith is faith. The lies that you hold dear are no more precious than the lies that they hold dear.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
...thats a hell of a lot to take on faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I think you must have misunderstood me. I am not saying their is no evidence of Semites at all. I was saying there is no evidence of semites in Egypt in great quantities. The evidence indicates they were not in Egypt but elsewhere. On that we can agree. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:
I'm currently taking an OT survey course through a seminary, and the Exodus is -- not surprisingly -- one of the topics we covered. No, there's no historical evidence for the Exodus as reported in the Bible. But there were indeed Semites (Habiru and others) in Egypt. That part is in the Egyptian record.

What seems most probable, according to a lot of recent thinking, is that there was a small group of Egyptian slaves who DID depart a la the Exodus. They worked their way to the Canaanite highlands, where there were already a fair number of folks who didn't care for the dictatorial rule of the city-states, and had taken themselves up to turf where war chariots didn't work. Recent developments in metallurgy meant that the highlands could now be cultivated, making the move feasible. The various groups (and most of the Israelites seem to have been in fact Canaanite in origin, judging by pottery and whatnot) then adopted the Exodus story as their own. There does seem to be a kernal of literal truth in there.

It makes sense to me; your mileage may differ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:

Theologians really shouldn't try to play with the Science. It almost always gets embarrassing for the Theologians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
There is a key difference between the Bible and the BoM, however. For most Christians, Christianity does not stand or fall on the detailed accuracy of the history recounted in the Bible. If it could be shown that Jesus never existed, or was never resurrected, that might take it down, but short of that Christianity can tolerate a lot of myth, misunderstanding, scribal error, propaganda, and even forgery, simply because the Bible is the product of a community, with its roots in oral tradition (the same goes for Judaism, of course). If it were shown that Buddha never existed, it probably wouldn't make a lot of difference to most Buddhists--it wouldn't make the Four Noble Truths into lies. If the BoM is a hoax, it means that Joseph Smith was a charlatan, not a prophet, and that means the whole religion is without foundation. For that reason the authenticity of the document itself is of primary importance in a way that is quite distinct from the accuracy of the content. The relevance of the inaccuracy of the content is that it casts doubt on the authenticity of the document.

Timothy

---

Yes and Yes again, just my point. My goodness thanks be to God. Someone who is living up close and personal with LDS but sees the light. Hallelujah.
 

---

Posted by plaintif cry (# 9271) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Well what I mean is, that everything we believe, or have believed we can justify by biblical means. On the other hand - everything you believe, and have believed, can also be based on biblical scripture.

---

quote:

---

I suppose the whole argument comes down to faith, and the witness one receives to their endeavours. I respect your witness, and all I ask is that the members of the board accept mine! Although I believe that I am a member of the true church of Jesus Christ, I have no arguments against other who believe that they are in the same. I think we should all move past this and just start focusing on real debate rather than carry on trying to disprove each others religion.

---

EM God bless you! I do accept your faith but I do not believe that it embodies the good news of Jesus Christ. Elements of it are certainly expressions of the gospel but the nature of the organ (Josephe Smith's LDS) in which it is contained leaks dreadfully. I am not judging any person who puts their faith in Jesus Christ who died for the whole of humanity not trying to limit the grace of God! I am happy for you to say to me that Christ is your saviour and not seek to dissuade you of the validity of that claim. What I do object strongly too is a "Church" that puts the emphasis on conforming to flawed doctrines from a disreputable character (I know he is your prophet but there is lots to say he was a charlatan!). An organisation that claims exlusive status as "The" church (I have the same problem with exclusivity in the "Christian" Church too!). So, my friend, I do not seek to persecute or wish you ill. What I do wish you is all the grace of God and the reality of the freedom of the Holy Spirit to see Christ outside of the religious institution in which you believe. See Jesus outside of the doctrines of exalted manhood and extra-terrestrial plants and gods. Realise Jesus as the God/Man who gives life through his death and resurrection. Believe with simplicity that we are not bound to the religious ordinance of an earthly institution, but to Jesus (and putting his name ahead of your church does not make him head of your church).

[ 10. May 2005, 08:44: Message edited by: Callan ]
 

---

Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Ooh, ooh, may I play?

I distinctly remember a post which included the phrase, "When our children were little,..."

This suggests to me that we have a multiple source text, possibly redacted by an LDS author, but then differently interpreted by the Ship community, in such a way that the center cannot hold, and free play escalates to the point that a potential shipmate is marginalized. Assuming for the moment that he/she/they are actual, and not an authorial construct intended to inspire confidence....

Oops, my bad. I just mentioned "intention." I'm out of the game, revealed as an essentialist, and I repent me in sackcloth and ashes.

Your round.

---

• Personal attacks are reserved for Hell. They aren't tolerated here. What you have said amounts to calling Elder Moroni a sockpuppet. If you have tangible evidence that someone may be a sockpuppet then PM an Admin or a Purgatory Host for action - don't talk about it on a thread
• My attitude (stated elsewhere but repeated here for the hard of understanding): I disagree with what Elder Moroni believes in, but I accept his sincerity. He has a right to have his views debated in a reasonable and courteous manner. Consider me as the enforcer and defender of that right.
• Elder Moroni says goodbye

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mormon Boy:
If God says it, it is true. There are no two ways about it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Campbellite:
Mormon Boy, thank you for sticking around. This whole recent business has been alternately disturbing and instructive. I, for one, appreciate your input.

---

Amen, and well said Campbellite.
 

---

Posted by Mormon Boy (# 9409) on :
 
You are welcome for me sticking around

I have a question, we have been accused of violating the warning against adding to or taking away from the Gospel because of the Book of Mormon and modern revelation. Yet I see post after post on this site where people say things like, "Well I just discount the first 12 chapters of Genesis." or "I don't think the Exodus really happened the way it says in the Bible, if at all." or (most unfathomable to me) "It wasn't really a virgin birth" It seems to me that picking and choosing the parts of the Bible that are palatable to you is at least as much a violation of that admonition as making up a book and claiming it is new scripture.

I know that some of the things I mentioned are debated in this and other forums, however it seems to me that when discussing the Book of Mormon, we are whackos that added to the Bible and will be removed from the Book of Life, but if you decide that anything you don't like or understand in the Bible is literary instead of factual then you are a progressive. What gives?
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mormon Boy:
I have a question, we have been accused of violating the warning against adding to or taking away from the Gospel because of the Book of Mormon and modern revelation.
I know that some of the things I mentioned are debated in this and other forums, however it seems to me that when discussing the Book of Mormon, we are whackos that added to the Bible and will be removed from the Book of Life, but if you decide that anything you don't like or understand in the Bible is literary instead of factual then you are a progressive. What gives?

---

quote:

---

Deuteronomy 4:2 "You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."

Deuteronomy 12:32 "Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it."

---

quote:

---

Lots of people here have their own ideas about what to believe or not believe. Every single Christian organization, however, officially believes certain basic things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mormon Boy:
What are those things that you are all in agreement on? I have been told that for a long time but haven't seen anything here or elsewhere that lists them, or anything to indicate that such a list exists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Campbellite:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mormon Boy:
If God says it, it is true. There are no two ways about it.

---

This, ISTM, is the very heart of the matter. The LDS believes that the BoM is, in fact, God's Word. Mainstream Christians do not.

I don't see either side changing their minds about this any time in the forseeable future.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Campbellite:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mormon Boy:
What are those things that you are all in agreement on? I have been told that for a long time but haven't seen anything here or elsewhere that lists them, or anything to indicate that such a list exists.

---

The List

---

Except for those of us that don't (agree with the all of the creeds statements, that is). Unitarians, Spong, and a whole bunch of individuals.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Sub-Christians? Pre-Christians? Post-Chrsitians?
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
<Raises Sarcasm Flag>

Yes, because we need to label and dismiss anyone that does not perfectly fit within every single one of the lines.

<Lowers Sarcasm Flag>



[ 11. May 2005, 14:13: Message edited by: Mad Geo ]
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
As has been argued to the point of you have to draw the line somewhere or the word Christian is useless.

Traditionally, the Nicene Creed has been used as a standard.
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
As has been argued to the point of you have to draw the line somewhere or the word Christian is useless.

Traditionally, the Nicene Creed has been used as a standard.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Sounds to me like the Christians, not the Archaeologists, are interpreting the Archaeology. You know, kinda like what they do with Geology and Genesis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I am ass-deep in them here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Absolutely, the tradition of division, seperation, and legalism should be continued at all costs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I am ass-deep in them here.

---

Get out there and teach the little buggers some geology then!

Isn't this a failure of the scientific community in the USA to communicate effectively with non-scientists?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Absolutely, the tradition of division, seperation, and legalism should be continued at all costs.

---

I presume you'll be starting a new tradition of calling every human, every faith, every belief and every truth claim Christian on the grounds of a refusal to exclude?

---

No by all means continue to seperate, divide, and conquer. Please. Be sure to throw in a few pogroms and Crusades too! I mean if we are going to do it right......
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Mad Geo, I suspect what [some] people are talking about is a simple definitional issue. It's not about dividing, for me, anyway. I'd say, if you buy the resurrection and atoning death of Jesus Christ for us all, then you're a Christian. Most people who do not accept the resurrection and atonement (however that worked) are definitionally not Christian, and most would say so. I know lots of Quakers, for example, who don't consider themselves Christians for this reason.

Now, that's a totally different question from the princple of universality -- that is, whether God reaches people where they are. As to that, I think God can reach people, universally, on the (for want of a better word) wavelength they're on. Buddhist, Sikh, Jain, Mormon.

The LDS has been very wise about selecting for a prime mission focus this deal about being with family forever (after death) because I think this is a huge concern for a lot of people in life. A lot of folks can't imagine wanting a heaven away from spouse, kids, etcetera. The way I see it, Christian scripture is pretty clear that this is not promised, rather, what is promised is some unknown status during a period after death until we are resurrected at the Last Day to eternal life. However, based on Mormon teachings, what happens after death is far clearer and more comforting to people on earth. In the end, I think to the extent that something happens after death (heaven-like, that is) it will be so wonderful that earthly desires won't matter much.

Now, for those folks who want that sort of reassurance that the Mormons (or the Buddhists, or the Siks, or the Orthdox Church) offer, I'd say God gets to them that way. As long as the fruit is generally good, I haven't got a problem with it.
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
Stop avoiding the question please, Mad Geo.

Are you prepared to accept any definition of the term "Christian" or not? If not, do I have to stop using it? Are there any other words you object to for similar reasons?
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
Laura, as usual, you are the voice of reason. I have to point out that you said:

"It's not about dividing, for me, anyway."

I absolutely believe you that you are not about dividing. I do not agree that others present on this thread and others spewing divisiveness on the threads this week, are not.

GreyFace

I do not like creeds. I see the "definition" of Christian as "Follower of Christ". And THAT is a mighty, mighty wide tent. I think Creeds are of the devil. If there was a devil.
 

---

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
As a credal Christian, I find that divisive.

You see what I mean. If you make a judgement that something is true or false you bracket some people into the 'false' category. On the other hand it is impossible not to make such distinctions. The overwhelming majority of Christians have made their distinction of what a Christian is on 'acceptance of the doctrines set forth in the Nicene Creed'. The Mormons make theirs (rather more narrowly) on 'acceptance of the LDS interpretation of scripture and the doctrines set forth in later additions to the canon since the invention* of the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith. The Muslims make theirs on 'acceptance of the doctrines set forth in the Quran'. I could multiply examples. Any body of thought or doctrine is going to have a limit that one eventually runs up against. I fail to see why Christians should be an exception to this rule.

*Which you can interpret in the modern or archaic sense depending on your POV.
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
<Whips out Webster's Collegiate dictionary>

Christian n. a follower or disciple of Christ; a professed adherent of the Church of Christ

Christianity n. the religion of the followers of Christ.

Maybe I'm relying on Webster's too much, but it seems to me that good ole Webster knew something about Christians that they might not want to admit in their zest for dividing themselves up into neat little antagonistic packages. Namely, the definition of the very word Christian itself doesn't go:

Christian n. a follower or disciple of Christ, the Nicene Creed, the Apostle's Creed, and the individual congregations esoteric little squablings over theology.

No.

It is "Follower or Disciple of Christ". More inclusive, more loving, less hostile. All good.

But that's just my opinion. Asked and answered GreyFace.


 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
They're synonymous.
 

---

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
I'm with you all the way on that, MG. If someone is following Christ to the best of their ability and understanding, they're a Christian as far as I'm concerned. Even if I think they've got him wrong.

Timothy
 

---

Posted by plaintif cry (# 9271) on :
 
I do think that the point is being missed here with many people wishing to be conciliatory. Mormonism is not true! Why? Because the whole theology is against Christian belief. Oh say you, why?

The god of Mormonism, Elohim, is an exalted man who became god over this planet by living as a Mormon man on another planet. He is one of many splendiferous god's who achieved their godhood the same way. They are all masculine and they all have many Mormon wives. Elohim came down to earth and had sexual intercourse (over shadowed) the virgin Mary who had a son, the Mormon Jesus. Mormon Jesus achieved his godhood by living a good Mormon life. The way of salvation is not his crucified sacrifice but to live to the Mormon way of life and achieve the same state of exalted manhood. Please correct me if I have it wrong, but where is the Christianity in this religion? If we are talking about gospel "true", then I respectfully submit that Mormonism is as much another religion as any of the other world faiths who have a view of Jesus (Judaism, Islam, Hinduism). I do not wish to be as divisive as GM says in theological argument between Christian people. I can accept the broad diversity in ways of Christianity. But when it comes to who Jesus is (his nature) and how we are to be reconciled with God (his cross) Mormonism does not fit any breadth.

[ 11. May 2005, 19:11: Message edited by: plaintif cry ]
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
Plaintif Cry, do they or do they not follow Christ? If so, then I call them Christian. If not then not.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
That's going to make the group even smaller, MG. How many of us can claim that we truly follow Christ? At best I can claim that I make the effort sometimes.
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
Judas.

"To follow" has broader meaning than "To perfectly replicate", does it not?

Webster is just plain useful today:

follow: v.t. to go after; to move behind; to succeed (in a post); to adhere to (a belief); to comprehend; to watch carefully; to keep in touch with; v.i. to come after to pursue; to occur as a consequence; n. the act of following

So to websterize my earlier post:

quote:

---

Plaintif Cry, do they or do they not pursue/go after Christ? If so, then I call them Christian. If not then not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:

...
I do not like creeds. <snip!> I think Creeds are of the devil. If there was a devil.

---

Why?

[ 11. May 2005, 23:34: Message edited by: duchess ]
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
They are used as methods of exclusion. They imply that to be a follower of Christ is not enough. I find that sad.
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
P.S. The "Judas" in my earlier post was a swear directed to the winds, not at Ruth lest there be any confusion......

I am not feeling betrayed, currently.
 

---

Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
... In the end, I think to the extent that something happens after death (heaven-like, that is) it will be so wonderful that earthly desires won't matter much.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Sounds to me like the Christians, not the Archaeologists, are interpreting the Archaeology. You know, kinda like what they do with Geology and Genesis.

Theologians really shouldn't try to play with the Science. It almost always gets embarrassing for the Theologians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
...The LDS has been very wise about selecting for a prime mission focus this deal about being with family forever (after death) because I think this is a huge concern for a lot of people in life. A lot of folks can't imagine wanting a heaven away from spouse, kids, etcetera. The way I see it, Christian scripture is pretty clear that this is not promised, rather, what is promised is some unknown status during a period after death until we are resurrected at the Last Day to eternal life....In the end, I think to the extent that something happens after death (heaven-like, that is) it will be so wonderful that earthly desires won't matter much. ...

---

Brava, Laura.
 

---

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
They are used as methods of exclusion. They imply that to be a follower of Christ is not enough. I find that sad.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
They are used as methods of exclusion. They imply that to be a follower of Christ is not enough. I find that sad.

---

Mad Geo, who is this Christ you speak of following?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Plaintif Cry, do they or do they not follow Christ? If so, then I call them Christian. If not then not.

---

quote:

---

by Mad Geo:
They are used as methods of exclusion. They imply that to be a follower of Christ is not enough. I find that sad.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Those of you that are advocating creedalism: doesn't it bother you that you are actively trying to exclude people that want to be Christians?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
They are used as methods of exclusion. They imply that to be a follower of Christ is not enough. I find that sad.

---

Mad Geo, who is this Christ you speak of following?

---

Sine, was that a bit unpurgatorial, or was there a real question in there?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
How can one declare one is following Christ - stumbling, distracted, ignorant, stupid, weak as we are - and NOT say amen to the Nicene creed, UNLESS one really is a LONG way behind. Despite being a secular saint perhaps? Despite being an unusually decent person? There is something amiss. A mote compared with my beams, but blinding nonetheless.

---

quote:

---

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible...

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God...

And we believe in the Holy Spirit,

---

quote:

---

WE believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost

---

quote:

---

who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.

---

quote:

---

We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

---

quote:

---

(He) spoke by the prophets.

---

quote:

---

We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.

---

quote:

---

And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church

---

quote:

---

We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

So the purpose of the Creed isn't to exclude people. It's to exclude wrong beliefs about Christ. People are free to change their beliefs accordingly to match what the Church teaches, or not. Or they would be if you'd all vote for me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
If a Mormon tells me (s)he is a follower of Christ, bully for them! Excellent. The water is warm, join the party!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
If a Mormon tells me (s)he is a follower of Christ, bully for them! Excellent. The water is warm, join the party!

---

quote:

---

there are more principalities and powers at work in the picture. Jesus warns of those who will claim to be him. The deceptions are deep and wide.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mormon Boy:
Plaintiff, what do you mean by:

quote:

---

there are more principalities and powers at work in the picture. Jesus warns of those who will claim to be him. The deceptions are deep and wide.

---

I have obviously heard lots of these claims, but I am wondering what specifically it is to which you are referring.

---

quote:

---

In addition the Third Article of Faith states that:

quote:

---

We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sienna:
MormonBoy wrote:

quote:

---

In addition the Third Article of Faith states that:

quote:

---

We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

---

---

I want to make sure I'm understanding this properly. Does the Mormon faith hold that "obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel" is required in addition to grace to achieve salvation, that grace alone is not sufficient? Also, what precisely is included in the "Gospel"? Would it encompass the BoM?

---

quote:

---

I want to make sure I'm understanding this properly. Does the Mormon faith hold that "obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel" is required in addition to grace to achieve salvation, that grace alone is not sufficient? Also, what precisely is included in the "Gospel"? Would it encompass the BoM?

---

quote:

---

But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

---

quote:

---

(God) will render to every man according to his deeds:

---

quote:

---

For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

---

quote:

---

14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

---

quote:

---

I believe the BoM to be a hoax and Joseph Smith to be a pure charlatan who invented a religion as a way to get money, power, and sex. I consider the LDS church to be a rather pernicious organization that preaches false doctrine and oppresses many of its members.

---

quote:

---

Mormon Boy wrote:
I will say that the points you made display an ignorance (in the strict definition of the word) of the facts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
That wasn't the point of my post anyway--it was, rather, to state that being a member of an apostate church doesn't necessarily make one an apostate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by boppysbud:
There are many and vast differences between Christianity and mormonism.

The articles of faith look pretty Christian on the surface, but what the mormons do not tell us is that they redefine their terms to be very different from the way Christians define those terms.

The mormon articles say they "Beleive in God the Eternal Father", but what they don't tell you is that they don't believe in God they same way or in the same God as Christians. The mormon "God" is just another human being complete with a human body of "flesh and bone" who worked his way up to being a "God". They beleive that "heavenly Father" (a term used much more often than God between mormons) is our literal Father having conceived our "prexistent souls" by sexual intercourse with one of God's wifes "heavenly mothers".

---

quote:

---

The articles say they believe in his Son, Jesus Christ, but what they don't tell you is that we are all chidren of God in the same way. Mormons teach that Jesus and Satan are brothers, they also disbeleive in the Virgin Birth but that Jesus was conceived by sexual intercourse between "heavenly father" and Mary.

---

quote:

---

Mormons say that men (what about women?) may be saved by obedience to the commands and ordinances of their gospel, but what they don't tell you is that they have a different gospel (didn't St Paul say something about people preaching a different gospel?). The LDS church has a different definition of saved as well, to mormons saved means ressurected only and every one will be "saved". It is "exhaltation" that matters to the mormon not their version of "salvation".

---

quote:

---

Mormons teach that Jesus is Jehovah (a made up nonsense word) the God of the Old Testament.[/b]
True... but how you think "Jehovah" is a made up nonsense word I don't know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mormon Boy:
We use as Scripture the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. These four books make up the Standard Works of the Church. They can be found online here. We use them each and none takes precedence over the other. They work together and compliment each other to teach us the truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

---

quote:

---

the falsity of the "history" in the BoM has been demostrated beyond any reasonable doubt

---

quote:

---

as has the falsity of Joseph Smith's claim to have translated it from the nonexistent language "Reformed Egyptian."

---

quote:

---

His (Joseph's) personal character, including his sexual behavior, has been well documented (in large part by Mormon scholars)

---

quote:

---

I hear stories from my clients of stuff that I consider oppressive and even sometimes abusive. That is a matter of interpretation, and no doubt there is another way of looking at it--

---

quote:

---

I don't propose to argue about the facts

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mormon Boy:
Plaintiff, what do you mean by:

quote:

---

there are more principalities and powers at work in the picture. Jesus warns of those who will claim to be him. The deceptions are deep and wide.

---

I have obviously heard lots of these claims, but I am wondering what specifically it is to which you are referring.

---

I don't think this has any concequence with regards to the fallibility of "Mormonism" whatsoever. Since Joseph Smith did not claim to be Jesus, but only claimed to see Him. This prophecy clearly reveals that people will come testifying that they are Jesus Christ - whereas Prophet Joseph did nothing of the sort.

---

O.K no consequence in following a prophet who misrepresents the person of Jesus? No consequence in following a religion that has a theological position (as stated in my earlier post and not rebutted!) that is not biblical? What did Jesus mean when people will come saying I am he, there he is? Any biblical scholar or interested party should see that Jesus was saying that he will be misrepresented. He also says, don't believe them. I don't believe that Joseph Smith represents Jesus Christ in any way. With all due respect this makes him a false prophet and LDS a misleading religion. Not intended to be abusive but direct in the way to see orthodoxy in a generous way as the embracing faith of Christ. God Bless you EM and MB, pax and illumin. PC
 

---

Posted by plaintif cry (# 9271) on :
 
Sorry, I should say that I do not believe the evidence shows JS to represent Jesus in any way. That means that I don't believe that Mormonism is a valid expression of Christian faith. (Lets not be so subjective!)
 

---

Posted by boppysbud (# 4588) on :
 
This is how "jehovah" is a made-up nonsense word.

The word was invented by the producers of the Authorised Version (JKV) of the Bible. It never existed before the KJV was written. They made it up by combining the consonants of the Hebrew word Yaweh with the vowels of the completely seperate word Adonai. This word exists nowhere in reality.

The reason that they invented this word is that the Jewish people considered the name of God too sacred to pronounce verbally, and started writting it without the vowel pointers used in Hebrew. The vowels were lost over the millenia, and even Yahweh is at best an educated guess. To this day Jews consider the name of God too sacred to pronounce (they usually call God Hashem) or to write. Jewish people (and "messianic Jews") do not write God, they write G-d since the paper with God written or typed on it could possibly be destoyed which would be sacrilege.

The words for the various names of God are all refering to God the Father. They are not different words for different Gods as the mormons would have us beleive.

And yes Moroni the mormon "heavenly father" is completely different from the God of Christianity. Christians beleive that God has always been God (never a human being), is changeless (no "eternal progression", has no body, and is one, not three or many. I am aware that mormons get around this by saying they only worship one "god" but the fact is not many how many "gods" you worship, you beleive in the existence of many. Christians are monotheists beleiving in one God, mormons are polytheists or panentheists believing in many "gods".

Yeah sure mormons are Christians.
 

---

Posted by ORGANMEISTER (# 6621) on :
 
Mormon Boy, may I suggest you continue reading Paul's letter to the Romans when he says (paraphrase) ...for we hold that we are saved by grace apart from works of the law.

This is most certainly true!
 

---

Posted by Mormon Boy (# 9409) on :
 
Boppysbud, you had plenty of mischaracterizations in your rant. Unfortunately I only have time to respond to a few.

First, there is no official Church Doctrine on the nature of God before we knew him. There has been plenty of speculation, but I don't think that that is peculiar to the LDS people.

There is no official Church Doctrine on the way that we became God's Children or the existance of a Heavenly Mother.

We do teach that we are all God's children and that we all lived together with Him before this Earth was formed. This included Jesus, who was our oldest brother and Lucifer. Jesus took upon himself the role of our Saviour and Lucifer rebelled against God and was cast out.

One thing that I don't understand, even though I have heard it many times, is how anyone can say that we deny the Virgin Birth. This is a blatant and egregious falsehood. There is nothing in Church Doctrine that teaches anything other than that Mary was a Virgin when Jesus was born. I have seen the Virgin Birth denied a number of times in these forums, but never by any one or any teaching in the LDS church.

We adhere to the Gospel of Jesus Christ as outlined in the Holy Scriptures. As I said earlier this includes the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price and the Bible. You will not find anything in the other three that is contrary to the Gospel in the Bible, they serve to compliment each other and work together to give a fuller understanding of God's Word.

If the Trinity is different than what is taught in the Bible (which I understand it is) then yes we don't adhere to that belief.

Jehovah is not a made up nonsense word, you might want to check the Old Testament as He is listed there any number of times, you might also want to take note of the titles He is given such as Lord, Lord God Almighty, The Most High, etc.
 

---

Posted by boppysbud (# 4588) on :
 
Mormon Boy has said:

"But the fact of the matter is that there is ample anthropological and archological evidence that the Book of Mormon is an accurate record."

Then post some of your "ample anthropological and archological (sic) evidence" for the BOM. Being sure to include citations for it. I am especially interested in how thousand of ancient Jews immigrated to the Americas, and had major wars, built large cities without leaving a trace of evidence. You can even quote FAIR and FARMS as long as you identify your sources clearly.
 

---

Posted by Mormon Boy (# 9409) on :
 
Organmeister, I agree completely that we are dependant on the Grace we receive through the atonement of Christ for our Eternal Salvation. However I don't think that a responsible person can read the Bible and feel that even though it is repleat with commandments and directives and guides for how we should live our lives and example after example of the blessings given to those who do good and the condemnation that falls on those who do not and even the explanations given by Paul and James, I don't see how that responsible person could then come to the conclusion that there is no requirement on their part to act.

Jesus said, "Come follow me" not y'all hang out there on the couch and I will take care of everything.
 

---

Posted by Elder Moroni (# 9432) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by boppysbud:
This is how "jehovah" is a made-up nonsense word.

The word was invented by the producers of the Authorised Version (JKV) of the Bible. It never existed before the KJV was written. They made it up by combining the consonants of the Hebrew word Yaweh with the vowels of the completely seperate word Adonai. This word exists nowhere in reality.

---

quote:

---

The reason that they invented this word is that the Jewish people considered the name of God too sacred to pronounce verbally, and started writting it without the vowel pointers used in Hebrew. The vowels were lost over the millenia, and even Yahweh is at best an educated guess. To this day Jews consider the name of God too sacred to pronounce (they usually call God Hashem) or to write. Jewish people (and "messianic Jews") do not write God, they write G-d since the paper with God written or typed on it could possibly be destoyed which would be sacrilege.

---

quote:

---

The words for the various names of God are all refering to God the Father. They are not different words for different Gods as the mormons would have us beleive.

---

quote:

---

And yes Moroni the mormon "heavenly father" is completely different from the God of Christianity.

---

quote:

---

Christians beleive that God has always been God (never a human being), is changeless (no "eternal progression", has no body, and is one, not three or many. I am aware that mormons get around this by saying they only worship one "god" but the fact is not many how many "gods" you worship, you beleive in the existence of many. Christians are monotheists beleiving in one God, mormons are polytheists or panentheists believing in many "gods".

---

quote:

---

Yeah sure mormons are Christians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ORGANMEISTER:
Could we take a short break from arguing Mormon theology........I'd really like to know how it is that Mormonism has become such a fast growing belief system. What is the attraction? Why is it that mainstream Protestantism struggles to hold its own while Mormonism seems to flourish?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ORGANMEISTER:
Could we take a short break from arguing Mormon theology........I'd really like to know how it is that Mormonism has become such a fast growing belief system. What is the attraction? Why is it that mainstream Protestantism struggles to hold its own while Mormonism seems to flourish?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
...Here are a few things I think attract people to the church:
1)The promise the families can be together forever - not untill "death do we part."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
2)A strict alternative lifestyle

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
3)Sometimes pure curiosity of the Temple - ie: join just to see what the Temple is like.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
4)If you're partner is a Mormon and you want to get married, there's more of a chance that you will marry in the Temple, therefore you will have to be a baptized member for atleast one year.

---

Coercion. Good.
 

---

Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
sorry, just reread my post, i do of course mean "mormon boy's assertion", not "mormons boys"
 

---

Posted by ORGANMEISTER (# 6621) on :
 
Mad Geo, how is South American Catholicism "tougher" than Mormonism? Mormonism seems very strict, very straight-laced, works oriented, no gin, no cigarettes, no even coffee or tea. It also seems to require an unquestioning belief in what seems to me like 19th century home-made science fiction (Sorry about that, Mormon Boy and Moroni). At least South American Catholics can flavor their Catholicism with a touch of voodoo and/or a soupcon of Candomble.
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
I truly don't know. ALl I know is this friend of mine that was a catholic converted as a youngish girl because she saw is as easier than Catholicism. I was stunned too when she told me that. She was clearly a believer so I'm sure she was impressed with the message as well.
 

---

Posted by Elder Moroni (# 9432) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I truly don't know. ALl I know is this friend of mine that was a catholic converted as a youngish girl because she saw is as easier than Catholicism. I was stunned too when she told me that. She was clearly a believer so I'm sure she was impressed with the message as well.

---

quote:

---

But the fact of the matter is that there is ample anthropological and archological evidence that the Book of Mormon is an accurate record

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Here are a few things I think attract people to the church:
1)The promise the families can be together forever - not untill "death do we part."
2)A strict alternative lifestyle
3)Sometimes pure curiosity of the Temple - ie: join just to see what the Temple is like.
4)If you're partner is a Mormon and you want to get married, there's more of a chance that you will marry in the Temple, therefore you will have to be a baptized member for atleast one year.

---

quote:

---

quote: Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:

quote:

---

That wasn't the point of my post anyway--it was, rather, to state that being a member of an apostate church doesn't necessarily make one an apostate.

---

Then it was a point that was made in an unnecessarily inflammatory way.

Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host

---

I honestly don't see how it's more imflammatory than telling Mormons that they are not Christians, which was the burden of the posts I was responding to. I was trying to be at least semi-conciliatory, in fact, but obviously I failed, so I apologize.

Timothy
 

---

Posted by Mormon Boy (# 9409) on :
 
Nicole, that is a quote from me directly. And I stand by it. Unfortunately Friday is my busiest day of the week, and I have not been able to put together a decent list of links yet, but it is coming.
 

---

Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
please make it unbiased links if possible.
 

---

Posted by Mormon Boy (# 9409) on :
 
Organmeister, I think the obvious answer to your question is that those people find something that they are looking for in the Church.

Of course it is my belief that what they find is the Truth and the peace that comes through the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But I know that not everyone here shares that opinion

I think that any Church that wants to duplicate our success would do well to try and discover what the something really is that people are finding when they investigate the LDS Church, because as Sharkshooter so abley demonstrated, the "more practical and tangible" things that bring some people in to begin an investigation of the Church are duplicated in plenty of other places, so there has to be something deeper.
 

---

Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Youth find the LDS church VERY interesting. There's many, many dances scattered over weeks of the month, and it's a fabulous place to meet new friends.

---

Wow! what kind of religion is this that promotes dancing but disallows tea and coffee? One very different to the one I grew up in, that's all I can say!

[ 13. May 2005, 19:56: Message edited by: Gracious rebel ]
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracious rebel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Youth find the LDS church VERY interesting. There's many, many dances scattered over weeks of the month, and it's a fabulous place to meet new friends.

---

Wow! what kind of religion is this that promotes dancing but disallows tea and coffee? One very different to the one I grew up in, that's all I can say!

---

Yea, the world has really gone astray these days
 

---

Posted by SisterLove (# 7637) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Marriage is obligatory, however men and women are no different when it comes to exaltation. We read in D&C 131v2:

And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];
3And if HE does not, HE cannot obtain it.

NB also:

Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.

Therefore, when they are out of the world, they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory. D&C 132:15-16

---

quote:

---

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

---

quote:

---

Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ORGANMEISTER:
Could we take a short break from arguing Mormon theology........I'd really like to know how it is that Mormonism has become such a fast growing belief system. What is the attraction? Why is it that mainstream Protestantism struggles to hold its own while Mormonism seems to flourish?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ORGANMEISTER:
Could we take a short break from arguing Mormon theology........I'd really like to know how it is that Mormonism has become such a fast growing belief system. What is the attraction? Why is it that mainstream Protestantism struggles to hold its own while Mormonism seems to flourish?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
please make it unbiased links if possible.

---

Now that's a loaded and inflammatory statement. This is not Hell.

Just trying to keep things reasonable.

Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host
 

---

Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
duo seraphim, i have addressed your post on the thread louise started in the styx.
 

---

Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on :
 
Ooooh - I would try to get excommunicated if I was a Mormon converting to Christianity, I'm thinking alcohol, electrodes and tea with the bishop!

It would be a bit of a laugh actually

-103
 

---

Posted by Elder Moroni (# 9432) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
Ooooh - I would try to get excommunicated if I was a Mormon converting to Christianity, I'm thinking alcohol, electrodes and tea with the bishop!

It would be a bit of a laugh actually

-103

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Marriage is obligatory...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:

If being a Christian means worshipping a false representation of the true God, having statues in churches, and missing a big gap from the gospel, then I don't want to be any part of it! Whether you call us Christians or not is absolutely irrelevant to us. The whole point of Mormonism is NOT to have lots in common with "Christianity" since we believe other churches have apostasized. Being classed as the same group as such other groups would defeat the object of Mormonism respectively.

For me... I am a Christian in the dictionary term, but I am certainly not a Christian in the traditional interpretation of the word.

---

I do think this has shown your colours pinned to the mast EM. It goes something like this "We are Christian and you lot (apostates) aren't!" You claim misunderstanding and persecution for LDS beliefs by the apostate church. Yet consistently these beliefs fall down when measured against the "traditional" Christian scripture. When asked to answer why it is that Mormon credibility has no substance (archeology, anthropology and theology) outside of the BoM, Mormon literature and scholarship you are strangely silent (although you have posted a great deal). In the Christian world at large the claim to have the truth and all others to be apostate has usually one conclusion. Far from not being a traditional kind of Christianity (there are many whose Christianity ain't traditional but still quantifiably orthodox), Mormonism stands out as a Cult. This is not said to condmen or berate. It is said to ask you to weigh up LDS in the light of the fullest gospel (- JS, BoM and LDS Doctrine). GBY
 

---

Posted by Elder Moroni (# 9432) on :
 

quote:

---

I do think this has shown your colours pinned to the mast EM. It goes something like this "We are Christian and you lot (apostates) aren't!"

---

quote:

---

You claim misunderstanding and persecution for LDS beliefs by the apostate church. Yet consistently these beliefs fall down when measured against the "traditional" Christian scripture. When asked to answer why it is that Mormon credibility has no substance (archeology, anthropology and theology) outside of the BoM, Mormon literature and scholarship you are strangely silent (although you have posted a great deal).

---

quote:

---

In the Christian world at large the claim to have the truth and all others to be apostate has usually one conclusion. Far from not being a traditional kind of Christianity (there are many whose Christianity ain't traditional but still quantifiably orthodox), Mormonism stands out as a Cult.

---

quote:

---

This is not said to condmen or berate. It is said to ask you to weigh up LDS in the light of the fullest gospel (- JS, BoM and LDS Doctrine). GBY

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mormon Boy:
Nicole, that is a quote from me directly. And I stand by it. Unfortunately Friday is my busiest day of the week, and I have not been able to put together a decent list of links yet, but it is coming.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
If you ask me a SPECIFIC question regarding a "weakness" in the Book of Mormon, I will answer it for you. The whole subject of the "fallibility of the Book of Mormon" is simply TOO big to comment on generally. Give me some specifics, and I will certainly answer them for you.

---

quote:

---

Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

---

quote:

---

The problem for "mainstream Protestantism" is that it requires people to think for themselves. Mormonism, like some forms of Christian fundamentalism and certain other religions, lays it all down for you. In fact, thinking for yourself will get you into deep, deep trouble, as many Mormon intellectuals have discovered to their pain.

---

quote:

---

We're getting an unusually obvious look at the system with proselytizers like Elder Moroni and Mormon Boy, reading from their scripts, and checking with their bosses when someone asks something outside the usual. You can be sure that there are folks at higher levels reading over their shoulders, and making sure they stick to the approved answers.

---

quote:

---

consistently these (LDS) beliefs fall down when measured against the "traditional" Christian scripture

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mormon Boy:
Rossweise you said...Nuh Uh, my people are way smarter than yours are, neener neener.

---

quote:

---

...I am just a dude that spends too much time on the internet and likes to talk about the Gospel.

---

quote:

---

But you're talking about Mormonism, not the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:
But you're talking about Mormonism, not the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ -- and we can be sure that someone in some part of the Mormon hierarchy is keeping an eye on these discussions and making sure that the Mormons here keep it orthodox. I'm sure they see it as being for your own protection and that of the religion you're endorsing, but that's just the way the outfit works.

---

Move off this, Rossweisse - you've already said this and received a reply. Repeating this statement is moving into the area of personal attack. The first part of your response was a little too personal too, Mormon Boy.

There's enough here to discuss without getting sidetracked.
Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host

[ 17. May 2005, 03:42: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
 

---

Posted by Mormon Boy (# 9409) on :
 
I apologize if I was inappropriately personal in Purgatory.
 

---

Posted by boppysbud (# 4588) on :
 
Mormon boy, where is your list of the many links proving the historic, archeological, geographic, veracity of the stories in the Book of Mormon?

We have been waiting for several days now, no answers are forthcomming?
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mormon Boy:
You sound just like Dale from King of the Hill (and I pray you are at least familiar with the show so you know what I mean...)

---

quote:

---

You really just have no clue what the LDS Church is all about if you think that anyone in a leadership position has anytime to sit around and scour the internet to make sure that some yabo like me doesn't go posting something that doesn't fit in with the party line.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:

quote:

---

You really just have no clue what the LDS Church is all about if you think that anyone in a leadership position has anytime to sit around and scour the internet to make sure that some yabo like me doesn't go posting something that doesn't fit in with the party line.

---

That has not been my experience. My experience is that someone in SLC is always keeping a finger on the pulse.
<snip>
Rossweisse // sorry, Duo...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:
And the personal attack on me....?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mormon Boy:
I apologize if I was inappropriately personal in Purgatory.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:
And the personal attack on me....?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mormon Boy:

And for those of you who said there is no connection between Ancient America and the Middle East, a connection between Egypt and Peru

---

quote:

---

He is credited with writing over 140 titles, many of which are still widely reprinted today. Many of his works, however, did not receive careful attention to detail; and were flawed even by the standards of his day.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Living in Gin:
I just read on this site that over 4000 changes have been made to the Book of Mormon since it was written by Joseph Smith. Is there any truth to this, and if so, how is this reconciled with the idea that the BoM is supposedly the inerrant word of God?

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0