Hello, I used to be a Mormon

Status
Not open for further replies.

Chaucer

Active Member
Mar 17, 2004
382
5
✟548.00
Faith
skylark1 said:
Chaucer, sorry that you have such a problem with the numbers. My point is that Jesus fulfilled many OT prophesies, and the chances of one person fulfilling them is amazingly small. It doesn't muck up the view for me at all, but helps me to appreciate how specific the prophesies concerning Christ actually are. Bat didn't ask us what drew us to Christ, but how we know that the Bible is true. I don't consider prophesy to be window dressing, and it certainly doesn't "muck up my view." It gives light and knowledge.

Numbers are hardly the point. the point is that the apoligist in question putting a big ole spin on it and acting as if it means something. It does not. Ask a Jew if Christ fullfilled the prophecies and you will be told quite simply that He did not.

The proof of Jesus's divinity is not some apologist's opinion on whether or not some prophecy was fullfilled and then plugging his opinion into a statistical model. The ONLY proof lies in the hearts and minds of the believer and the change Christ has wrought in our hearts.

Ask the poster if he is convinced by the 1 with all the zero's after it. To hear the apologist talk, it is 1000's of times more accurate than DNA.
 
Upvote 0

Chaucer

Active Member
Mar 17, 2004
382
5
✟548.00
Faith
Chaucer said:
Now the way authorship of John works is a matter of deduction. The author only identifies himself as the disciple who Jesus loved. His knowledge indicates he is probably a Palestinian Jew and he represents himself as an eyewitness to the events he describes. Then a "loved disciple" had to come from the inner circle and the inner circle is considered to be Peter, James and John. Peter, it seems is seperate, so that leaves James and John but James died too early...

So, by means of supposition and elimination we arrive at the apostle John.

Our supposition also matches the supposition of earlies Church figures so we all feel good about that.

.

I was just thinking about this. I don't want to understate the case, While many Bible book's are unknown and many are educated guesses, Johannine authorship of John is widely understood and agreed upon - it goes beyond plain speculation and into the realm of reasonable and solid attribution.

That having been said, not everyone agrees that John was the author - without a doubt.

"The Beloved Disciple is mentioned elsewhere in the Gospel, too. However, there are some problems with this idea - if John was of such arrogance as to herald himself as the foremost disciple, the one Jesus loved (implying Jesus did not love the others, or not as much) throughout the Gospel, why did he not put his name at the beginning? It is true that Chapter 21 does seem to suggest that the Beloved Disciple (whoever he was) did write the Gospel:- 24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. However, it is felt by many Biblical scholars that Chapter 21 is a later addition, as there is another ending to the Gospel in Chapter 20. Also, why does the author suddenly switch to the third person - we know his testimony is true, rather than saying, I know my testimony is true? It seems very much as if a group of people - a church, perhaps - added this chapter to give it authenticity. John's Gospel had a stormy ride in the second century, almost not making it into the canon - it was not seen as having undoubted apostolic or eyewitness authority. Irenaeus (c170CE) stated that “John, a disciple of the Lord, who also leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia." - Irenaeus knew Polycarp, who had listened to the author of the Gospel. However, as CK Barrett noted, Irenaeus does not say that Polycarp told him that John wrote the Gospel. Added to this the difficulty with John's Gospel that comes from it being so very different to the Synotic Gospels (the other three), and we have a problem on our hands. If these were all written by eyewitnesses, why are they so different?"
 
Upvote 0

Chaucer

Active Member
Mar 17, 2004
382
5
✟548.00
Faith
Serapha said:
Excavations at the Wadi El-Kharrar show that John the Baptist did baptise people, in fact, they now know that the baptisms were done, not IN the River Jordon but in pools beside the River Jordon with separate pools for the men and women to comply with Judaic teachings.... and the written record identifies that the purpose was for repentance.

Come now. I don't pretend to be an acheologist but I seriously doubt that there is any acheological evidence that JOHN THE BAPTIST baptized in pools, and certainly zero evidence that he did not baptize in the River Jordan, (it's impossible to prove a negative). Sounds like someone has been reading too much Josh McDowell.

Besides, that is not even the point. Though there is hardly a scrap of solid historical evidence that the Christ of the NT wa a real person as described in the NT, we all, even non Christians, accept that he was. Likewise, it is probably not in dispute that baptism was a practiced custom.

So what. The Essenes baptized. Methodists baptize. Mormons baptize, Jehovah Witnesses Baptize as do Baptists.(Don't tell me you think that the JW movement is true just because you can prove they baptize.) The crux is not whether there were baptisms, the key is whether John the Baptist was called of God and whether Christ went to John to fullfill all righteousness and whether such an act had any true significance - all things that are beyond the ability of archeology to demonstrate.
 
Upvote 0

leeuniverse

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2003
813
2
52
Las Vegas
✟988.00
Faith
Mormon
skylark1 said:
Hi Bat,

Welcome to CF. :wave:

I also live in Utah, but I have never been LDS. Please don't hestitate to pm me, if there is anything that I can help you with. I don't know if you have a church home, or if you are looking for one.

Serapha has given you a lot of wonderful advice already, but I would like to add that the OT prophesies that were fulfilled in Christ are overwhelming evidence. You do not only have to look at the New Testament. I read somewhere that the odds of someone fulfilling all of the OT prophesies concerning the Messiah, would be equivalent to The state of Texas being buried a foot deep in silver dollars, and one of these silver dollars being the "right one."

Thesre are about 100 prophesies that Jesus fulfilled. The chart on the site linked below, lists them, gives the OT verse, and the NT fulfillment.
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txh/proph.htm

Have you ever read the Case for Christ by Lee Strobel? If you live in SL County it is in the library system, and they will send it to your local library if you place a hold on it.
http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/toughLawyer.htm
Nothing I disagree with I'm sure.... But interesting you would use this, because you ever read the listing 101 Bible Prophecies of the Mormon Church? (google)
While not the only such list or a Full One at that, it is of one perspective though somewhat general in several areas.
 
Upvote 0

leeuniverse

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2003
813
2
52
Las Vegas
✟988.00
Faith
Mormon
skylark1 said:
This is from http://www.carm.org/bible/prophecy.htm

The article also discusses some of the prophesy that Jesus fulfilled, with references.

The Mathematical Odds of Jesus Fulfilling Prophecy
Also an interesting thing.
Do you know the mathematical probability of Joseph getting all the details right mentioned in 1 Nephi, for them to actually exhist in the exact order and place they were supposed to?

Here it is..... Compare your numbers of Christ with One of His True Prophets. :)

A Tribute to Joseph Smith

Joseph of Egypt taught that a choice seer would be raised from one of his descendants, and his name would be Joseph (2 Ne. 3:7,15).
This prophecy of Joseph's was realized in Joseph Smith Jr. One great prophet saw the ministry of the other through the mists of four thousands years of time. It was Joseph Smith who was to be the welding link in the house of Joseph, restoring the covenants and returning the blessings to the remnant of the house of Joseph on the Native Americans. But more than this, this seer would not only bring the Lord's gospel of salvation to the members of the House of Joseph, but also to the other members of the House of Israel. (2Ne. 3:13)
The effect that Joseph Smith had on the world can only fully be appreciated when we realize that there is no person on this earth who is not affected by his legacy. For it is by way of the gentiles1 that the house of Israel will be restored in the last days (1 Ne. 15:13).

He was responsible for bringing the gospel to the gentiles and thence to the House of Israel. In this way he is like the great patriarch Abraham, in that through him "shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed" (1 Ne. 15:18). Whether they appreciate it or not, there is no one who is not affected by Joseph Smith. Perhaps then it can now be seen why the Church of Jesus Christ so boldly claims: "Joseph Smith, the Prophet and seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it" (D&C 135:3).
Not since father Adam has a prophet had a mission to all the nations, kindreds, tongues, and peoples of the earth. Many have belittled the Prophet Joseph, but if the world only knew the truth, they would be clamoring to hear his words. For "no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith. ... He holds the keys of the last dispensation."2

But what does the world make of Joseph Smith . . . prophet or fraud? In this book we have looked at only the smallest part of the knowledge given to mankind by the prophet Joseph Smith. We have concentrated on only eighteen chapters of the Book of Mormon, a mere forty-two pages out of the hundreds and thousands of pages that the Prophet brought forth. Yet there is not a verse that we have discussed that does not speak eloquently of the truthfulness of the revelations given, that does not shout out the testimony that Joseph Smith was a true Prophet. Joseph Smith claimed that the Book of Mormon was an ancient record which he translated. His critics have alleged that he, or others, were the true authors, and that the Book of Mormon was the modern work of an imaginative young mind. Yet we will here boldly claim that an examination of the process by which Joseph Smith translated the record and the contents of the book of First Nephi reveals that it is impossible that Joseph Smith could have concocted this story.

Recent evidence indicates that Joseph Smith produced the text of the Book of Mormon in an incredibly short time. While carrying out the process of translation of the text, he also had to carry on his everyday life. During the translation period we know that Joseph also moved on horse and buggy from Harmony to Fayette, made at least one (and possibly two) trips to Colesville thirty miles away, received and recorded thirteen revelations that are now sections of the Doctrine and Covenants, converted and baptized Hyrum and Samuel Smith, preached a few days and baptized several people near Fayette, acquired the Book of Mormon copyright and began making arrangements for the Book of Mormon's publication, sought employment, experienced manifestations with the Three and Eight Witnesses, received the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods, as well as taking time to eat, sleep, and perform all the other household chores of a loving husband. Within this busy schedule, Joseph Smith translated the entire Book of Mormon in about sixty-three days, or just under eight and a half pages per day. In other words, all of the Book of First Nephi would have been translated in about a week.

By contrast we have been researching this material for six years and writing for four. We have made numerous field trips each year to examine the terrain and the lands over which Joseph proposed the family traveled. Between us we have covered some fifty thousand miles of desert. Each chapter has been written and rewritten, researched for accuracy, proofread and submitted for criticism, then rewritten again. We have had access to hundreds of works, many of which we cite in this book. Yet our work is only a commentary on Joseph's original, which he wrote, with no time for outside research, in his "spare time" in little over a week.

Each original draft of a chapter of this book had hundreds of errors, even with the help of modern word processing programs, and we spent much of our time proofreading each other's work for errors. We have invariably returned chapters with numerous crossed out or eliminated passages on every page. There has not been a time when we have proofread a chapter, when we have not found errors, no matter how meticulous we were in its preparation. By contrast, Joseph Smith made amazingly few changes in the Book of Mormon.

About a quarter of the original manuscript is held by the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints and the pages hold few crossed out passages. The vast majority of the changes that were made when the book went to publication were spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and grammar. This is all the more remarkable when one considers that his wife, Emma reported that in the late 1820s Joseph
could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well worded letter, let alone dictate a book like the Book of Mormon.... The larger part of this labour [of translation] was done in my presence and where I could see and know what was being done . . . During no part of it did Joseph Smith have any [manuscripts] or book of any kind from which to read or dictate except the metallic [sic] plates which I knew he had. If, he had had anything of the kind he could not have concealed it from me.3

She added, writing to her son:
I am satisfied that no man could have dictated the writing of the manuscripts unless he was inspired; for, when acting as his scribe, your father would dictate to me hour after hour; and when returning after meals, or after interruptions, he would at once begin where he had left off without either seeing the manuscript or having any portion of it read to him. This was a usual thing for him to do. It would have been improbable that a learned man could do this; and, for one so ignorant and unlearned as he was, it was simply impossible.4
In concluding our six-year study, we are convinced that Arabia and its history holds straight-forward and compelling evidence that Joseph Smith could not have authored the Book of Mormon. Rather the prophet had to have been amongst the greatest, if not the greatest, translator of ancient script who has ever lived. So perfect is the work that every First Nephi place-name in Arabia can now be readily identified with a potential site that fits with complete harmony the Book of Mormon narrative. Eleven out of eleven identified with a high degree of certainty. Yet in 1830, each of these nine remote desert places, The Borders, River ofLaman, Valley of Lemuel, Shazer, the Most Fertile Parts, the More Fertile Parts, Nahom, Land Bountiful and Place Bountiful (where the ship was built), would have been known only to the Arabs living in the immediate vicinity of each of these places. We had to travel in the desert back roads of Arabia for nearly six years to find these places. How could Joseph Smith have known about them in upstate New York in 1830?

In the course of this book we have discussed, in detail, some eighty-one points obtained from the first book of Nephi pertaining to the geography or topography of the trail and Nephi's ship and voyage. (The eighty-one points are briefly identified at the end of this chapter.)
What is the chance that Joseph Smith could have guessed these eighty-one details of Arabia correctly and gotten them in the correct order and direction from each other? What is the chance of correctly guessing that a river exists in the desert of Saudi Arabia? 1 in 1,000? 1 in 1,000,000? What is the chance of guessing that wild bees found hardly anywhere else in Arabia exist on the south coast of Arabia? That a trail exists on the southern edge of the Rub' al Khali leading east? That two parallel mountain ranges, one near and the other nearer the Red Sea, run along the Red Sea in Midian? Let us be very generous. Let us assume that Joseph Smith had a one in two chance of guessing any one of these eighty-one points. This would mean that:

By the time they reached Shazer, Joseph Smith's chances of having guessed the details correctly would be 1 in 8,388,608. 5
By the time they reached Nahom, Joseph Smith's chances of having guessed the details correctly would be 1 in 140,737,488,355,328.
By the time they reached Bountiful, Joseph Smith's chances of having guessed the details correctly would be 1 in 36,028,797,018,964,000.
By the time they were sailing to the Americas, Joseph Smith's chances of having guessed the details correctly would be 1 in 24 1 ,785,000,000,000,000,000,000.

This number is over 2.4 septillion, which could also be written 2.4 x 1024 (24 with twenty-three zeros after it). Of course the number should be much higher than this because we only gave a 1 in 2 chance for each of these occurrences, and they should in fact be more like 1 in a million or higher. In this case the chance of Joseph Smith guessing these details would be incomprehensible, as if 2.4 septillion isn't! To put this number into some perspective let us undertake a simple exercise. There are estimated to be 5 x 108 (5 followed by eight zeros) stars in our galaxy. The Hubble telescope, the most powerful yet available, has been able to site distant galaxies previously unknown to mankind.

There are now estimated tobeSx 108 galaxies in the universe. That makes 2.5 x 10'7(25 with sixteen zeros after it) stars in existence in all the known universe. To put things in perspective, the chance of Joseph Smith guess-ing all of these points in a row would be far higher than the chances of you and I pointing into the sky and pointing to the exact same star in the exact same galaxy, remembering that there are 500,000,000 stars in our galaxy and the sky contains 500,000,000 galaxies! In fact to give us the same odds as Joseph Smith guessing those eighty-one points we would both have to choose the same star from 100,000 skies, all the same as our own! And that is when we give Joseph Smith a 50/50 chance of guessing each point right. In reality the chances of Joseph Smith having guessed this all is so infinitely small as to have been rationally impossible.

This leads us to the only one possible conclusion, something that the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have claimed for over 150 years. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the Book of Mormon is an ancient book giving a first hand account of a journey through Arabia by Nephi, and that Joseph Smith truly was what he claimed to be: one who was entrusted with the Book of Mormon by God, and who translated it by the powers of Heaven.
Our final tribute to Joseph Smith, the man who brought this record of the Book of Mormon to us though countless trials and hardships, is that it is true. Our appreciation goes out to him across the hands of time.

Notes:

1. The word gentile here is used meaning those individuals who are members of the House of Israel by adoption rather than by birth.
2. Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, 7:289-90 (October 9, 1859).
3. Emma Smith to Joseph Smith III, 289-90.
4. Ludlow, Companion to Your Study of the Book of Mormon, 24.
5. The probability of two events occurring by chance at the same time is equal to the product of their separate probabilities of occurring at all. In other words, two events that are likely to occur half the time independently are likely to occur jointly only one quarter of the time (.5 x .5 = .25). Reynolds, Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited, 9, 10.
6. Translation of the Turkish inscription on the cover of volume 2 of El-Khazreji, Pearl-Strings.
 
Upvote 0

Doc T

Senior Veteran
Oct 28, 2003
4,744
66
✟5,246.00
Faith
Mormon
Serapha said:
While archaeology does support the names, places, and accounts of the Bible... archaeology does not support the names, places, and accounts of the book of mormon.

~serapha~

I believe that you know (or should know) why this is the case. In the Bible the place names (toponyms) have remained constant for the most part since Biblical times. Bible scholar Yohanan Aharoni has stated in his book "The Land of the Bible":

"In the final analysis the most certain identifications [of biblical place names] are still those dependent upon preservation of the ancient name, albeit with careful examination of written sources and archaeological data. Out of the approximately 475 place names mentioned in the Bible only about 262 have been identified with any degree of certainty, i.e., 55 per cent. Of these 190 are based upon preservation of the name, viz. 40 per cent of the over-all total. . . . Only 72 places (15 per cent of the over-all total) have been identified in situations where the ancient name is not to be found somewhere in the vicinity, of which only about half carry a degree of certainty, the remainder being more or less conjectural. [pp 128-129]​

The problem we have with the BofM is a discontinuity of the name places. This I understand is a fairly common occurance throughout the world, especially in periods of major cultural, linguistic, and political transformations, similar to those described in the Book of Mormon itself. This is particularly the situation in Mesoamerica. Many of the Pre-Classic and Post-Classic place sites now bear Spanish names. Even those few places where we have surviving Mesoamerican name places comes from four languages, Aztec (Nahuatl), Mixtec, Zapotec, and various dialects of Maya. A vast majority of these name places were recorded only in the 16th century, a thousand years after the BofM. There are many other problems that complicate the situation such as the translation from one language to another which were done by transliteration phonetically so you end up with "Hill of the Bird" in Aztec being Tototepec and Hill of the Jaguar being Ocelotepec. 'Hill of the Bird' in Mixtec would be Yucu Dzaa, from yucu (hill) + dzaa (bird); 'Hill of the Jaguar' in Zapotec would be Tani Guebeche, from tani (hill) + guebeche (fierce carnivore). [Joyce Marcus, Mesoamerican Writing Systems: Propaganda, Myth, and History in Four Ancient Civilizations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992)].

So while examining Bible name places is interesting and fruitful in identifying cities, doing the same with Book of Mormon name places is not comparable.

Doc

~
 
Upvote 0

GOD'S ARMY

Active Member
Jun 7, 2004
390
16
42
Vallejo, CA
✟8,107.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
bat said:
Unfortunately, I am left with the same questions regarding the Bible.

How am I supposed to believe in Jesus, if the only writings of him were written centuries after his death? What makes those accounts accurate and reliable?
The books of the new testament were complete within about 70 years after the death of Christ. I wouldn't discount them. I am not trying to tell you that you should go back to the LDS church, but remember that with any religion there will be someone who can cast doubt on it and that person may be you. Christ is love.

“The minute a man stops supplicating God for His Spirit and direction, just so soon he starts out to become a stranger to Him and His works. When men stop praying for God's Spirit, they place confidence in their own unaided reason, and they gradually lose the Spirit of God.”

Heber J. Grant

I suggest prayer with real intent. Again, I don't know you, but I think communication with the Lord is key. God bless.
 
Upvote 0

AMMON

LATTER-DAY SAINT
Jan 30, 2004
1,882
32
52
Sacramento, California
Visit site
✟2,223.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
bat said:
I live in Utah, and was raised as a Latter Day Saint (Mormon). One of my biggest reasons for leaving the LDS Church, was it's inability to make good on it's claims. I can elaborate, but I'm sure most of you are already familiar with the issues.

I am struggling to remain a Christian. I was expected to take the Book of Mormon, D&C, and PoGP on faith, but I found them to be implausible and unlikely to be substantiated in basis.

Unfortunately, I am left with the same questions regarding the Bible.

How am I supposed to believe in Jesus, if the only writings of him were written centuries after his death? What makes those accounts accurate and reliable?

My faith has run out. I don't know if I should belive in anything anymore.

How do you all deal with this? How do you have faith in one book that has no tangible basis, but embrace another book that has no tangible basis?

Any helpful comments will be welcomed.

Bat, you can still come back to the fold. You just need to put faith before the word of man. That is the key to believing in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as set forth by Him and fully restored in these Latter-Days.
 
Upvote 0

gogoGoddess

Active Member
May 21, 2004
91
3
where i lay my hat
✟221.00
Faith
Other Religion
Ammon said:
Bat, you can still come back to the fold. You just need to put faith before the word of man. That is the key to believing in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as set forth by Him and fully restored in these Latter-Days.
I applaud your courage, Bat, to look beyond what was set forth, especially when everything and/or everyone has left you questioning the truth. I have walked in your shoes and it is not an easy road. Believe in yourself and you will find your answers.
May I suggest reading,"Illusions", by Richard Bach
and "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and
Henry Lincoln. I also have a fantastic book called, "Within You Is The Power", by H.T Hamblin :angel:
 
Upvote 0

Svt4Him

Legend
Site Supporter
Oct 23, 2003
16,711
1,132
52
Visit site
✟53,618.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
bat, may I suggest going into a Christian area to ask your questions? Here you will find people debate why LDS is or isn't correct, and if you've already found it lacking, then you don't really need to debate that anymore.

Also there are some great books. I like Josh McDowell's book on apologetics.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Chaucer

Active Member
Mar 17, 2004
382
5
✟548.00
Faith
gogoGoddess said:
May I suggest reading,"Illusions", by Richard Bach
and "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and
Henry Lincoln. I also have a fantastic book called, "Within You Is The Power", by H.T Hamblin :angel:

And may I suggest reading:

I was a Teenage Werewolf
I am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang

or any book on apologetics by Josh McDowell.
 
Upvote 0

Frankie

Forgiven
May 4, 2004
1,495
115
54
Earth
✟2,253.00
Faith
Christian
leeuniverse said:
Also an interesting thing.
Do you know the mathematical probability of Joseph getting all the details right mentioned in 1 Nephi, for them to actually exhist in the exact order and place they were supposed to?

Here it is..... Compare your numbers of Christ with One of His True Prophets. :)
Why is this such an astounding thing? He did write the book, of course the "details" about him would be in the right order and "place".

This makes me think of a situtation with an lds person I was talking to awhile back and I asked him if Gorden B. Hinkley had made any new prophecies. He said, "yes, he prophecied that many new temples would be built while he was prophet". Not a hard prophecy to "fullfill" considering GBH is the one who orders the building of new temples.

It would be like me writing in my journal "tommorrow I am going to pull weeds in my garden" and then tomorrow comes and I go outside and pull weeds.

Frankie
 
Upvote 0

leeuniverse

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2003
813
2
52
Las Vegas
✟988.00
Faith
Mormon
Frankie said:
Why is this such an astounding thing? He did write the book, of course the "details" about him would be in the right order and "place".

This makes me think of a situtation with an lds person I was talking to awhile back and I asked him if Gorden B. Hinkley had made any new prophecies. He said, "yes, he prophecied that many new temples would be built while he was prophet". Not a hard prophecy to "fullfill" considering GBH is the one who orders the building of new temples.

It would be like me writing in my journal "tommorrow I am going to pull weeds in my garden" and then tomorrow comes and I go outside and pull weeds.

Frankie
AMAZING..... What have you been reading??? My statment has NOTHING TO DO with what you are talking about.
"details about him" have nothing to do with my info, and neither does your President Hinckley example.
Totally different subject..... Read again please. :eek:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

skylark1

In awesome wonder
Nov 20, 2003
12,545
250
Visit site
✟14,176.00
Faith
Christian
Ammon said:
I suggest reading the newspaper comics daily.
You might want to start with BC.
smile.gif




BC%2008-23-01%20-%20Lay%20Down%20Your%20Life.jpg
 
Upvote 0

Frankie

Forgiven
May 4, 2004
1,495
115
54
Earth
✟2,253.00
Faith
Christian
BAT, I have heard excellent things about the MIT support group. It is called Mormons in Transition. It is a Christian support group for those coming out of MOrmonism into Christianity. The link is http://www.irr.org/mit/mit-talk.htmlThe God of the Bible welcomes you with open arms. My prayers are with you.

Frankie
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.