I'm EXLDS now bought by the blood ;-)

[Alma]

I'm not gone, just occupied. I'll get back to you when I have more time.

Alma

 

[Drotar]

Thank you.

The verses that I added to jkrsf's are my main emphases.

But here's one thing that made me think about it and cut off all my LDS roots:

Do you agree that one of us is right? (we can't both be)

Do you agree that if I'm wrong, and you're right, I should convert back to the LDS church or else never receive exaltation? And if I'm right and you're wrong, you should become what Jesus called a "born again" Christian, or else go to what we'll call "outer darkness?"

And lastly- Do you agree that the entire premise of the LDS church and your belief in it is entirely dependent on whether or not that teenage boy was telling the truth?

We can't both be right.
One of us suffers the consequences if we're wrong.
The entire basis for you depends on whether or not he was telling the truth.

If JS was lying, and the so-called restoration never happened, then the LATTER-DAY saint church is false. In essence, your eternal security rests on whether or not that guy was telling the truth. Our entire basis for our faith, the very pillar of who we are is in Biblical infallibility, inerrancy, and authority. I'd be willing to suffer the consequences of the 2nd heaven if I'm wrong, and have been glad to be entirely dependant on the Bible. I just pray that you'll see that the potential consequences are hell, and you're completely dependant on what Joseph Smith Jr. said. TTYL Jesus loves you!

 

[Alma]

In the first edition of the BOM we read as follows:

"... These last records ... shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior ... " (Book of Mormon, 1830 edition, page 32)

In the 1964 edition it reads as follows:

"... These last records ... shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the [Son of] the Eternal Father, and the Savior ..." (Book of Mormon, 1964 edition, 1 Nephi 13:40)

This correction is a doctrinal change...Smith's first edition which claims it was inspired by God and was correct...says that Jesus Christ is God the eternal Father.... The later editions say he is the Son of the eternal father. The reason for the first statement is clear...the Bible says that Jesus is God the Eternal Father....and Smith correctly stated this doctrine...but later he changed his doctrine and denied what the Bible clearly teaches.

I was reading forum rules this morning and I saw that plagiarism isn’t allowed. Did you know that someone else wrote exactly the same thing you came up with - - including ellipses on this website? http://www.bible-truth.org/inveslds.htm If I were you, I’d contact that website and let them know that they should give you credit for your writing.

Frankly, I don’t generally respond to cut and paste criticisms of Mormonism. There’s simply too much stuff out there to try to overwhelm somebody (like me) by sheer volume. It’s the “avalanche” theory of apologetics: If he can avoid a few rocks, if we keep throwing tons of rocks, even if none of them is valid, he’ll still be unable to reply to everything.

The Book of Mormon says the people of the Americas possessed and used, such things as iron, steel, brass, gold and silver coins, swords, cimeters, breast plates, arm shields, armor, horses, and chariots, wheat, barley, olives, and silk. Also they are said to have had domesticated animals of cattle, oxen, cows, sheep, swine, horses, asses, elephants, cureloms and cumoms.

They did it again! Don’t you think those people should figure out some things for themselves, or do you think they believe the thinking has already been done?

******* The BOM dates up to ...

Before the 1840s, Joseph Smith made ...
You are acquainted with the mail ...
By turning to the 529th and 530th pages ...
The story about Zelph presents ...

Not one single, original thought. I think you should be ashamed of yourself. Rather than cutting and pasting other people’s thoughts, why not just give the URL? Say, “I’m sure these people know what they’re talking about. Go here: http://www.mormonstudies.com/geo1.htm they’ll set you straight!” And if you really want to be forceful, add nine or ten exclamation points. I assure you that will really convince me and frighten me at the same time.

Alma

 

[Alma]

That makes even less sense. Why ON EARTH would God give a prophecy that He foresaw would not come to pass. You mentioned the agency element. Well, if God foresaw that a person would NOT respond positivly to the prophecy, why would He give it in the first place? In other words, if He foresees or foreknows that it won't happen because they WON'T choose to follow it, why would He give that prophecy? If He knows in His perfect knowledge that it actually WON'T happen, because they won't comply, why would He waste His breath? Is it that He doesn't know the future? Or holds false views of it?

I think those are questions you need to ask even of biblical prophets, Will. You seem not to be able to see the responses I am providing you. Several times I have stated emphatically that this section was not a prophecy. However, each response from you begins from the same erroneous premise: “Why would God give a prophecy ....” I have stated that it isn’t a prophecy. You apparently think it was. Rather than continue to argue with me from an a priori assumption (that’s called “begging the question,”). Why don’t you try to really address what I’ve said?

From my perspective, David Patten chose a circumstance that meant he could be killed rather than go on a mission to England. Either way, whether he died or went to England, the counsel was to get his affairs in order so that he could leave. God told him to prepare to leave his family. Whether this was counsel to a man who was going to leave either as a missionary or through death, the counsel was appropriate. Of course, the reason this section appears in the D&C was because Patten was president of the Quorum of 12, and his replacement did go with the twelve the following spring. Early on, Joseph Smith established that many of the revelations applied to the office rather than the individual.

It seems to me that if this circumstance in the D&C troubles you, that you should also be troubled with the word of God to Hezekiah through Isaiah. You can read the account in two places in the Old Testament. Essentially, Hezekiah was on his deathbed. God sent Isaiah to him telling him to put his things in order because he was going to die and not recover. Isaiah delivered the message and left. Hezekiah fell on his knees and pleaded with God to spare his life. As a consequence of this prayer, God came back to Isaiah and told him to tell Hezekiah he had 15 more years. Now, your question to me above apply equally to this circumstance. Did God know that Hezekiah was going to pray and get a reprieve? Of course he did. Why then did he tell Isaiah to make a prophecy that he knew WOULD NOT HAPPEN? Is it that He doesn’t know the future or holds false views of it? (Those are your words, not mine.)

BTW, I'm Calvinist and believe in efficacious grace and total depravity. I'm exempt from that question if you try to pull it on me.

Let me see if I understand your premise. Since you hold to a false theology, you’re exempt from having to deal with its ramifications?

You missed my question. Why did God not make an attempt to reform the church until 1830?

How do you know He didn’t? Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Savonarola immediately spring to mind. But, unfortunately, Luther and Calvin ended up believing that it was all right to execute those who disagreed and Savonarola was burned at the stake.

Was there no man righteous for 1,670 years? But JS jr was of course? Why LET the apostasy happen, and for so long?

It wasn’t a matter of no righteous men because there are none righteous, remember? I already answered why such a thing could happen – and Jesus and his apostles repeatedly warned the people that this would occur.

God converted Saul against his will. Why couldn't he do it to ANYONE for so long?

The question isn’t why “couldn’t” he do something, because God is omnipotent. The question must be why “didn’t” He. But even that may be based upon a misconception of how God works. The length of time of the apostasy is irrelevant because all are alive to God.

Answer: The great apostasy of the Christian church NEVER happened. If it did, God would have had to allow it, by all logical measures even if I WERE Arminian. TTYL Jesus loves you!

The complete and utter apostasy is clearly evident to those who have eyes to see. Just look at the difference between the premise of Christianity as taught by Jesus compared to what it was 400 years later. Jesus taught a doctrine that was behavior centered. (see the sermon on the mount.) Within a few centuries, behavior took a back seat to orthodoxy. What you believed was more important than how you lived. The Christianity of the philosophers of Nicaea would have been unintelligible to the apostles. “The time will come that they will not endure sound doctrine.” (2 Tim. 4:3)

Alma

 

[Alma]

Alma

Will, you suggested that I was relying on too literal of an English translation, and I pointed out I was relying on a Greek version. To that you replied: “Well that's comforting news. For a second I thought "Elohim" was Hebrew.”

I cited the Greek because I think most English translations of that passage try to water down the Hebrew. When you accused me of citing an English translation, I answered honestly that I was using a Greek version. I’m aware of the meaning of the Hebrew term “elohim” but your comments are just an attempt to divert attention away from the passage and its clear meaning. Why don’t you see if using the term “elohim” resolves the difficulty you’re in? I’ll put it in where it appears.

“Elohim stands in the congregation of El and among them will judge elohim.”


Alma

 

[Alma]

Honestly do I have to elaborate on everything?

No, you just need to pay more attention to what I actually write and not jump to ridiculous assumptions. Do you really, honestly believe that I was proposing that Satan created the earth or was exalted? If what I wrote was too difficult to decipher, let me put it more bluntly:

There is no passage in LDS scripture that entails a man getting his “own planet.” That is simply a distorted or ignorant assumption proposed by people who are ignorant or intent on distorting the teachings of Mormonism.

Alma

 

[Alma]

Tell you what there Alma, you pick three. Or why dont you just tell me why there has never been even one archeological finding. Not one of the coins, the bodies of the millions killed in all the wars, the great cities, Nada. None of the land descriptions in the book of mormon are even accurate, like no river dumps into the red sea. Lets begin here with nothing to back it up then move on.

I suggested that you pick your top three criticisms, because most people like you jump to another subject as soon as they realize that their criticism doesn’t hold water. Your questions from yesterday were full of misconceptions and inaccuracies, and your comment above is typical of such misguided misinformation.

Do you really want me to explain why there “has never been even one archaeological finding?” There have been lots of archaeological findings, (Aztec, Mayan, Olmec, Dead Sea Scrolls, Roman ruins in England, etc.) Must I re-phrase your question so that it is coherent as it relates to Mormonism?

Do you really think that there is no evidence that anyone was killed in wars in North America or that there are no great cities discovered by archaeologists? Of course not, but in order to address that, I would again have to re-write your question.

You presume that coins must be discovered in order to validate the Book of Mormon. My question would be two fold: 1) if someone did find an ancient coin, what bearing would that have on Book of Mormon claims? It would simply be dropped as an irrelevant discovery.

2) Since the text of the Book of Mormon never specifically mentions “coins” why would they need to show up? I know that the chapter heading of Alma 11 refers to “Nephite coins” but that is an assumption by a later compiler and it is not canonized as scripture and was not part of the text produced by Joseph Smith. The discovery of ancient coins wouldn’t validate the Book of Mormon and their absence has no bearing on what the Book of Mormon claims.

When you claim that “none of the land descriptions in the Book of Mormon are even accurate” what are you saying they are not accurate to?

When you state the obvious that no perennial rivers feed the Red Sea, does are you claiming that no rivers have ever emptied into the Red Sea - - including seasonal wadis?

Finally, why do you think archaeology should validate scripture? What bearing could that have on faith?

Still looking for your three most important criticisms....

Alma

 

[Alma]

Why so quiet?

 

[Drotar]

Why so quiet?

Why is everyone so quiet?? Because we're just stunned in silence- you're just THAT GOOD.



We need to take time to observe our apostate theology crumbling beneath us.

 

[Drotar]

I think those are questions you need to ask even of biblical prophets, Will. You seem not to be able to see the responses I am providing you. Several times I have stated emphatically that this section was not a prophecy. However, each response from you begins from the same erroneous premise: “Why would God give a prophecy ....” I have stated that it isn’t a prophecy. You apparently think it was. Rather than continue to argue with me from an a priori assumption (that’s called “begging the question,”). Why don’t you try to really address what I’ve said?

From my perspective, David Patten chose a circumstance that meant he could be killed rather than go on a mission to England. Either way, whether he died or went to England, the counsel was to get his affairs in order so that he could leave. God told him to prepare to leave his family. Whether this was counsel to a man who was going to leave either as a missionary or through death, the counsel was appropriate. Of course, the reason this section appears in the D&C was because Patten was president of the Quorum of 12, and his replacement did go with the twelve the following spring. Early on, Joseph Smith established that many of the revelations applied to the office rather than the individual.

It seems to me that if this circumstance in the D&C troubles you, that you should also be troubled with the word of God to Hezekiah through Isaiah. You can read the account in two places in the Old Testament. Essentially, Hezekiah was on his deathbed. God sent Isaiah to him telling him to put his things in order because he was going to die and not recover. Isaiah delivered the message and left. Hezekiah fell on his knees and pleaded with God to spare his life. As a consequence of this prayer, God came back to Isaiah and told him to tell Hezekiah he had 15 more years. Now, your question to me above apply equally to this circumstance. Did God know that Hezekiah was going to pray and get a reprieve? Of course he did. Why then did he tell Isaiah to make a prophecy that he knew WOULD NOT HAPPEN? Is it that He doesn’t know the future or holds false views of it? (Those are your words, not mine.)



Let me see if I understand your premise. Since you hold to a false theology, you’re exempt from having to deal with its ramifications?




How do you know He didn’t? Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Savonarola immediately spring to mind. But, unfortunately, Luther and Calvin ended up believing that it was all right to execute those who disagreed and Savonarola was burned at the stake.




It wasn’t a matter of no righteous men because there are none righteous, remember? I already answered why such a thing could happen – and Jesus and his apostles repeatedly warned the people that this would occur.



The question isn’t why “couldn’t” he do something, because God is omnipotent. The question must be why “didn’t” He. But even that may be based upon a misconception of how God works. The length of time of the apostasy is irrelevant because all are alive to God.



The complete and utter apostasy is clearly evident to those who have eyes to see. Just look at the difference between the premise of Christianity as taught by Jesus compared to what it was 400 years later. Jesus taught a doctrine that was behavior centered. (see the sermon on the mount.) Within a few centuries, behavior took a back seat to orthodoxy. What you believed was more important than how you lived. The Christianity of the philosophers of Nicaea would have been unintelligible to the apostles. “The time will come that they will not endure sound doctrine.” (2 Tim. 4:3)

Alma

OK fine then. You can win. Not a PROPHECY in D&C 114. Sheesh.

Oh, there's just one more thing (anyone else watch Columbo?). Why did God announce to mankind taht something MIGHT happen, when He knew full well that it wouldn't? Just curious. If you don't know the answer, just ignore it like you did for the other posts of mine. It'll go away if you ignore it.

Why did God tell him that he was going to die? First, because it was true. Second, because it incited weeping and repentance. Third, because that weeping and repentance healed him, as God announced. By telling Hezekiah the truth of his imminent death, yet veiling His deeper plans, he managed to get Hezekiah on his knees. By prayer and faith, he was healed, as God then announced. Did God lie in the first prophecy? No, he was actually dying. But his being told taht led him to his cure.

Now, God said that David Patten MIGHT serve a mission. If God knew that he wasn't, why did He say that? (For the example. of Hezekiah, God told him he was dying, but the fact is that Hezekiah actually WAS.)


Is Calvinism a false theology now? Now we're getting somewhere. Please I IMPLORE you to start a discussion on Calvinism. That wil be an EXTREMELY interesting discussion to engage in.


There are two ways to handle the examples that you gave of Luther and Calvin believing that execution for religious beliefs was all right. First, how do you know? Second, what ON EARTH does that have to do with whether or not God attempted to appear to him as he did to Smith jr. Why would God wait it out for Smith? Third, Meadows Mountain Massacre. I'm not so ignorant so as to foget ALL LDS history. And what about if someone is considering apostacizing, "let his blood be spilt?" Would you like a quote? It's in History of the Church, but I forgot which section.


God justifies men and works in their hears so that they act in a righteous manner. That's what He does. It's His job- volunteer service to be exact. I consider them quite linked. I've heard that the reason why God waited until 1830 was because he was the only one who was righteous enough until then and would respond in a proper way to a theophany. Absolutely shallow response. I hope that you don't hold to that opinion.

"The length of time of the apostasy is irrevlant because all are alive to God."

What on earth?- that doesn't even make sense. Read the next verse in Tim. It commands them to be ready to defend the faith. Meaning that at the time then, there would be believers alive to fight off the unsound doctrine, much like today as is being done here. The doctrines of 400 were not created then (actually its 325, but hey who's counting), but rather explained. The Bible CLEARLY teaches the deity of the Father, the deity of the Son, and the deity of the Holy SPirit. It cleary teaches one God. It clearly teaches that Christ was God BEFORE his existence on earth, as is evident by His creating all things and by many verses.

This is crazy man. I gave verses. Are you here to examine Scripture, or are you waiting for your turn to speak. Note, no verses you have given have gone ignored on my part. TTYL Jesus loves you!

 

[Drotar]

No, you just need to pay more attention to what I actually write and not jump to ridiculous assumptions. Do you really, honestly believe that I was proposing that Satan created the earth or was exalted? If what I wrote was too difficult to decipher, let me put it more bluntly:

There is no passage in LDS scripture that entails a man getting his “own planet.” That is simply a distorted or ignorant assumption proposed by people who are ignorant or intent on distorting the teachings of Mormonism.

Alma

Well, now, that depends on what you call "Scripture." If you are talking about the four books, then I say you'reright.

But if you consider modern revelation as you call it, to be Scripture, then I'd say that yes passagES in LDS scripture entail a man getting his own planet.

If you're interested, say the word and I'll start looking. TTYL Jesus love syou!

 

[jsfrk2]

You know this is pointless... the real question is.... Is the Bible infallible?

Well think of it like this... I think for the few who don't believe that it is then what was the point of the father sending his only son to die for the sins of the world?

Did the father not know what he was doing?

Did the father send his only son knowing that him dying on the cross for our sins would not cover ALL sins?

did Jesus pick apostles that he knew would screw up everything and not share the gospel and not live and die for the word of God?

THE TRUTH>.>.>.>...... The father DID know what he was doing by sending his only son to die for the sins of the world.....

and Jesus death on the cross DOES cover ALL sins....

and all the apostles exept judas died a Martyrs death for the word of God.....

So I think that God DID know what he was doing and that it was recorded in the Bible.

God is Omniscient...Omnipotent....Omnipresent....

So God does not do anything he does not mean to do.


To think OTHERWISE is BLASPHEMOUS!!!!!!!!

Think about it....really..... the Bible is the infallible ONLY word of God and he didn't make it knowing that others must follow.


Your brother in Christ Jesus,jsfrk2

 

[Wrigley]

I have a few things tosay in defense of Alma:

First, let's be realistic. We've been overwheliming him becuase it's been 5 on one.

You got to give him props though. He did a lot better than I thought he would have. Than the others before him anyways. Having been in that exact situation before, I can empathize. I guarantee that if we went one at a time he'd still be here.

YOU TOO ByGrace? Wlikers! Myself included, how many ex-LDS do we HAVE here?

It could have been six on one, but when I saw that Alma will not and cannot answer tough questions, I decided to stay out.

And I don't think Alma has done well at all.

 

[Wrigley]

By Alma

They did it again! Don’t you think those people should figure out some things for themselves, or do you think they believe the thinking has already been done?

LOL. This coming from a group that believes that once the President, Seer, Prophet and General Relevator speaks, all has been said.

LOL.

 

[rnmomof7]

They did it again! Don’t you think those people should figure out some things for themselves, or do you think they believe the thinking has already been done?

Why repeat what was already done?

Not one single, original thought. I think you should be ashamed of yourself. Rather than cutting and pasting other people’s thoughts, why not just give the URL? Say, “I’m sure these people know what they’re talking about. Go here: http://www.mormonstudies.com/geo1.htm they’ll set you straight!” And if you really want to be forceful, add nine or ten exclamation points. I assure you that will really convince me and frighten me at the same time.

Alma

You do need to be afraid of your eternity Alma. There will not be a bevy of wives to have continual sex with. You will not have your own planet to be god over. The end will not be a pleasant time for the LDS members . Instead of needing Joe Smiths permission to enter you and Joe will be stoking the furnace.

 

[Alma]

Well, now, that depends on what you call "Scripture." If you are talking about the four books, then I say you're right.

But if you consider modern revelation as you call it, to be Scripture, then I'd say that yes passagES in LDS scripture entail a man getting his own planet.

If you're interested, say the word and I'll start looking. TTYL Jesus loves you!

I'm very interested. I'm also interested to know how you quantify "modern revelation." I think it would be fascinating if you could identify something that could be classified by a practicing Mormon as "revelation" that treated deification. I await with anticipation....

Alma

 

[Alma]

It could have been six on one, but when I saw that Alma will not and cannot answer tough questions, I decided to stay out.

Isn't that interesting? I thought you decided to stay out after I challenged you to document your assertion about FARMS. Your assertion that you read somewhere sometime about steel arrowheads wasn't the least bit convincing.

I willingly admit that I don't respond to every post. I regularly ignore cut and paste messages that come from other web sites. I also ignore messages that appear to be hysterical or from someone who is unable to backup their assertions. I have never been impressed by the drive-by shooting method of apologetics. If someone really thinks he has a legitimate criticism of my faith, I think he should have the courage to actually discuss that criticism rather than move from assertion to assertion as is so often the case.

And I don't think Alma has done well at all.

And I don't think I have needed to. By the way, which tough questions do you think I should have answered or could not answer?

Alma

 

[galatians2:20]

The last responce I see in this thread is from ALMA on August 3rd. Where did everybody go?

 

[Snowy]

I am a ExMormon(LDS) now born again Christian.

so am I!!!....congrats to you and me!

 

[Wrigley]

Isn't that interesting? I thought you decided to stay out after I challenged you to document your assertion about FARMS. Your assertion that you read somewhere sometime about steel arrowheads wasn't the least bit convincing.

LOL.

I willingly admit that I don't respond to every post. I regularly ignore cut and paste messages that come from other web sites. I also ignore messages that appear to be hysterical or from someone who is unable to backup their assertions. I have never been impressed by the drive-by shooting method of apologetics. If someone really thinks he has a legitimate criticism of my faith, I think he should have the courage to actually discuss that criticism rather than move from assertion to assertion as is so often the case.

I have yet to see a mormon here actually do what you said in your last sentence.

And I don't think I have needed to. By the way, which tough questions do you think I should have answered or could not answer?

Alma

All of them.