To all Mormons

"irresponsible absurdity...." How old do you think I am? Questioning my intelligence,now thats immature.

"utterly defenseless" .... from what your pitter patter on the keyboard?


Good ones!!


Are you Mormon or not? Stop evading the inevitable...

Are you saying that God allows satan to fill the LDS church and its members? You do believe that the LDS are the most divisive of any other chuch, don't you? You think God would continue to allow satan to have a church that has grown as the LDS church has? I assure you it is not getting smaller.

Click to expand...

Your statements are lriduculous and unresearched. God has continued to allow evil to be in the hearts of man since He created them. What about the Islamic faith, the Hindu faith, the Buddist way of life, etc. What about the Jehovah Witnesses. The followers of Jim Jones? You would agree that Satan has filled these groups, would you not? The growth rate of a group that claims to have the true God means nothing.

Please show me in LDS scripture where it says that the only way to gain a testimony of truth is from "a nice warm feeling in [our] hearts". Also please tell us how you know that "their entire testimony is based on a nice feeling" as I totally reject that notion.

Click to expand...

It's nuce that you reject that notion, but every single other Mormon that I've ever talked to came into believing that the Mormon church is God's only ture church based on a burning of the 'bosom.

Positive. They are not two gospels. They are one. They so beautifully compliment eachother. What is the use questioning the Holy Spirit? I tell you it is real and it works and you say I am being fooled. Well, you haven't felt it. You have not felt what I have felt or you would understand. Do you really not believe that God can speak to you through the Holy Spirit? If not, then what is the Holy Ghost there for anyway? He is sent to fill us with the pure love of Christ and the love of our Father in Heaven.

Click to expand...

Ummm....no, no, no and NO. The LDS gospel and the Christian gospel are two entirely different gospels. They teach two different Christs. Here ya go, I wrote an essay on it. Give it a read if you haven't already.

LDS Jesus VS. Bible Jesus

The Differences between the Christ of the Latter-day Saints and the Christ of the Bible





Founded by a self-proclaimed prophet of God in the nineteenth century named Joseph Smith Jr., the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS, also commonly known as the Mormons) is one of the fastest growing churches in the world. As of February 27, 2002, the LDS was among the top five largest church denominations in the United States. Their 5.2 million members in the US displaced the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America as the fifth largest church body in that nation. The worldwide population of the LDS exceeds 11 million.

There are a number of other different churches that follow Joseph Smith. The largest of these, other than the LDS Church itself, is the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (RLDS). They splintered off from the original group after Joseph Smith died in 1844. The LDS followed Brigham Young, while the RLDS followed the descendents of Smith. Today they are known as the Community of Christ. They do not regard the Doctrine & Covenants as one of their scriptural works. A number of other small groups also left the main church when it outlawed polygamy in 1890.

Including the Bible, the LDS have a total of four different canonical works. They are the Holy Bible (King James Version, in so far as it has been translated correctly), the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price.

The LDS teach that during the time of Jeremiah, around 600 BC, a Hebrew prophet named Lehi and his family, including his four sons named Laman, Lemuel, Sam and Nephi, fled east across the Indian and Pacific oceans to arrive in the Americas. It was there that two of the sons, Laman and Lemuel, rebelled against God and were cursed with dark skin. The other two sons, Sam and Nephi, remained faithful to God.

Lehi’s descendants became divided into two nations; the light skinned God obeying Nephites and the dark skinned, rebellious Lamanites. The Book of Mormon tells the tale of these two warring nations.

Included in the story of the Book of Mormon, is an appearance of Jesus Christ to the Americas after his resurrection. Apparently Jesus set up a church in America very similar to the church in Palestine, complete with 12 Apostles, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Eventually, that church became divided into denominations and fell into apostasy. More wars between the Nephites and the Lamanites occurred, with a significant battle, taking place in about 400AD, where the Nephites were nearly completely destroyed. Mormon, one of the last surviving Nephites, collected a set of golden plates written in reformed Egyptian and gave them to his son Moroni. Moroni added one more book, chronicling the history of America prior to 600BC, and buried the plates in a hill called Cumorah. This hill is located near Palmyra, New York. The plates stayed there until 1823.

It was in 1820 that Joseph Smith Jr., while contemplating which church to join, claims to have had a vision. Although the exact account of the vision varies somewhat, the Mormon Church accepts that both the Father and the Son visited Smith. They informed him that he was to join ‘none of them’. He was later visited by the angel Moroni, the same Moroni that buried the golden plates, and told where they were located. Joseph, however, was not allowed to view the plates until 1823. In 1827, he was permitted to take possession of the plates in order to translate them. The Book of Mormon was published in 1830 and the golden plates were returned to the angel Moroni, who took them back to heaven. Since being published, the Book of Mormon has under gone nearly 4000 alterations in its numerous revisions.

Are any of these things that are described in the Book of Mormon true? Do the beliefs of the Latter-day Saint conflict with the beliefs of Orthodox Christians? Can Mormons be considered Christian? Do Mormons worship a different Jesus?

The current President of the LDS, Gordon B. Hinckley, claims that his church worships a different Jesus then that of orthodox Christianity:

In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints ‘do not believe in the traditional Christ. No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fulness [sic] of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.

One way to answer the question of whether or not the Jesus of the LDS is the same Jesus as in traditional Christianity is to compare the christological teachings of the LDS to the teachings of Christianity.

There are many different christological areas that could be examined when comparing the traditional Christian belief of Christ to the view of the Latter-day Saints. These include the idea of Jesus being an eternal God, the view of Jesus being the only God and one with the Father, Jesus being the creator, the immaculate conception of Mary, the idea of Jesus being married, the events surrounding His death, and the concept of Sola fide.


Was Jesus always God?


Christianity teaches that Jesus has always been God. He was God from the beginning of time, is the same God now, and will always be God. This is based on such scripture as John 1:1-4,

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.


and Colossians 1:15-19,

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him.

These verses make it quite clear that Jesus is Lord and therefore God.

There are many biblical scholars that agree with these claims as well. A Christian scholar, Frank J. Matera, concludes that “[to] see and hear him [Jesus] is to hear and see the Father, Jesus is the way in which those who believe in him know God.” Matera later goes on to say that “Christ takes on a Godly status, and it is not surprising that…Christ is called “our great God and Savior”.” In concluding his Christological study in the gospel of John, Matera claims that “there is no doubt that Christ is the preexistent Son of God, the Word of the Father made flesh…the Father dwells in him, and he dwells in the Father.” This is one example of many, claiming that Jesus is eternally God: the Son of God, equal with the Father.
.
The Latter-day Saint idea of Christ as eternally God is somewhat different from that of Christianity. It is generally acknowledged, within the LDS Church, that Jesus was born of the Father at some point in history. Strangely, this doctrine does not always come across in Mormonism. Various doctrines and members of the Latter-day Saints often provide conflicting answers to the question of the eternal nature of Jesus.

Thelma Geer, a long time Mormon and a descendant from some of the original Mormons whom made the journey to Utah with Brigham Young, describes what she had been taught to believe about Jesus:

I believed, along with all other Mormons, that Jesus is merely one of God’s billions of sexually begotten sons. He supposedly was the first one born in heaven to God and His wives, and “the Only Begotten in the flesh.”
We Mormons believed also that Lucifer and Jesus were brothers; both had been sexually sired and born in heaven.

The doctrine that Thelma Geer has presented cannot be found within the Bible, and therefore is not found within true Christianity. Not all Latter-day Saints espouse this view of Jesus however.

Based on various conversations that I have had with Mormons, it is clear that the idea of Jesus not being existent from eternity is not universal within Mormonism. Some believe that Jesus was in existence from eternity and some do not. Two members of the LDS Church have presented opposing views in an online conversation, which took place on March 1, 2004. Tom White, a member of the LDS Church, commented that he believes that “…Jesus is God from eternity to eternity as attested by LDS scripture.” Another member of the LDS Church, known as ‘Helaman’, disagreed with White. When asked: “Do you believe that Jesus was always God?”, he answered, “No. God the Father created Jesus Christ; Jesus is God's firstborn spiritual child. This is official church doctrine.” Further exaggerating his point, he said:

Jesus is a member of the Godhead. He became such when the Father begat[sic] Him spiritually. Jesus, who was formed from intelligences[sic], as we all were, was so advanced, even as an intelligence, that He automatically rose to the Godhead upon his Spiritual creation.

It certainly appears that there are conflicting views on the nature of Jesus within the Mormon Church. These views come from a few different sources.

Of the previous two different Christological doctrines presented in the previous paragraph, the doctrine that most closely represents LDS scripture is the view that Tom White presented when he said that, “Jesus is God from eternity to eternity as attested by LDS scripture”. Ironically, this is remarkably similar to the view that is presented in orthodox Christianity. These beliefs come straight from Latter-day Saint scripture. Examples of this can be found in the Second Book of Nephi in the Book of Mormon,
And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God.


and in various chapters in the Doctrine & Covenants,
Listen to the voice of the Lord your God, even Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, whose course is one eternal round, the same today as yesterday, and forever. I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified for the sins of the world, even as many as will believe on my name, that they may become the sons of God, even one in me as I am one in the Father, as the Father is one in me, that we may be one.
,

Thus saith the Lord your God, even Jesus Christ, the Great I AM, Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the same which looked upon the wide expanse of eternity, and all the seraphic hosts of heaven, before the world was made...

It is evident that these verses are in agreement with the Christian doctrine of the eternal nature of Jesus. The question is then, from where does this conflicting doctrine come?

The conflicting doctrine is coming from the ‘living prophets’ of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other Mormon leaders. Joseph Smith is the primary source for these doctrines. A good example of one of the conflicting teachings of Joseph Smith is found in the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith:

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man … I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute the idea… What did Jesus do? Why; I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my Father… He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself.

This, of course, does conflict with the previously given verses. It seems that some LDS church members have noticed that the teachings coming from the LDS presidency are not always in line with their own scriptures.

This realization has brought some new and bizarre ideas into the membership of the LDS Church. One such example is from Bo Gritz. Mr. Gritz pondered that Joseph Smith may have been only a prophet for a little while: "I don't know whether Joseph Smith was a prophet a little bit, a long time, or always or never." A statement such as this is not surprising, giving the conflicting teachings.

Even with the conflicting teachings within the LDS Church, it appears that the official stance is that Jesus was not always God. At least, not the same God that he is now. This conflicts with the LDS doctrinal teaching that Jesus is “the same today as yesterday, and forever”.







How Many Gods are there?


Orthodox Christianity teaches us that there is only one God. This comes from the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians: "There is no God but one" . Since Christianity teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God, it is logically assumed that all three are but one God. This is known as the triune God. Although all three are different, they all are the same one God. This can be a confusing doctrine to comprehend for some, nevertheless that is what is taught in the Bible and in Christianity. Robert Kolb agrees with this. He writes: “There can be no doubt that by assuming this title he claimed to be Yahweh come in human form.” Thomas also claimed the same thing when he said: “My Lord and my God!”. The Bible is clear that Jesus is God, which is the only God of the Old Testament: Yahweh.

The LDS also worship Jesus as God but separate Jesus and the Holy Spirit from the Father; thereby making them separate deities. Although from the Book of Mormon seems to place Jesus as part of the triune God (“Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son” ), many other Mormon doctrines and teachings do not. The general understanding with most members of the Latter-day Saints appears to be that Jesus and the Father are separate, and not on equal levels. This can be found within the Pearl of Great Price:

And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all. (Abraham 3:19)

Jesus is clearly separated from the Father in this case. The same case naturally follows for the Holy Spirit as well. The late LDS apostle, Bruce McConkie attests to this. He announces that “three separate personages- Father, Son, and Holy Ghost- comprise the Godhead. As each of these persons is a God, it is evident, from this standpoint alone, that a plurality of Gods exists. To us, speaking in the proper finite sense, these three are the only Gods we worship.” It is clear that the original position of Joseph Smith was strict monotheism, but then it later developed into tritheism when he separated the trinity into three separate gods.

The number of gods in Mormon theology does not end at the number three. The number of gods worshipped is three, but the number of gods is much, much more. In the creation account of chapter 4 of the Book of Abraham, there are ‘Gods’ mentioned numerous times. Although it does not state the number of gods, it does imply that there is more than one God. Bruce McConkie boldly stated: “There is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn form worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation, and are thus gods.” This stems from the teachings of none other than Joseph Smith. He taught that "you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you" . He then went on to say:

"Now," says God, when He visited Moses in the bush, (Moses was a stammering sort of a boy like me) God said, "Thou shalt be a God unto the children of Israel." God said, "Thou shalt be a God unto Aaron, and he shall be thy spokesman." I believe those Gods that God reveals as Gods to be sons of God, and all can cry, "Abba, Father!" Sons of God who exalt themselves to be Gods, even from before the foundation of the world, and are the only Gods I have a reverence for."

It is evident that the teachings within the LDS Church include an infinite number of gods.

The Bible, along with Christianity, teaches one God. That God is triune God, which is made up of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Christianity contests that this triune God is inseparable and is one God. Clearly the teaching about God, and gods, within the Mormon Church not only disagrees with the Bible, but it also contradicts itself.



Jesus Christ: The Creator of All Things?



We are taught in the Bible that Jesus, because he is God, created all things. We read in John that, through him (Jesus, the Word) all things were made. 1 Corinthians tells us that “there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.” In Colossians, we learn that “by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.” Finally, in the book of Hebrews, it is written that, “in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.” The Bible makes it clear that though Jesus, everything was created.

The biblical teaching that Jesus created all things is not prevalent within Mormonism. The original creator is an unknown God, who is a God, probably a distant unknown God, to the Father. Joseph Smith explains that “God was once as we are now, and is an exalted man…if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form.” It is clear that Joseph Smith not only claimed that Jesus was not the creator of all, but that the Father was not either. Smith claimed that God himself, as in the Father as well as the Son, is a created being. Just as we are, God once was. It can therefore be assumed that God was once born as a man, and that, prior to that, God was a spiritually born child of an even more ancient God.

In researching Mormonism, we find that all of the angels and all of mankind are spirit children of the Father. It has been mentioned that Mormonism teaches that Jesus is a spiritually born child of God. He was the first of many spiritually born children of the Father and a heavenly mother. Roberts Philip mentions this belief, saying that the “LDS Church teaches that we are literally sons and daughters of God and his wife.” It would follow then, that Jesus and Lucifer are spiritual brothers. McConkie, agreeing with that, states that “the Devil is a spirit son of God who was born in the pre-existence.”

Not only did Jesus not create all, but also neither did the Father. Furthermore, we are all children of the Father, who was the child of a different God before him.


Jesus was not Born of a Virgin


We read in the gospel of Matthew, that Mary “was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.” Luke further elaborates on this by telling us that the “Holy Spirit will come upon you [Mary], and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.” Both of these verses explain that the Holy Spirit had caused Mary to become pregnant with the Messiah.

Matera agrees that it was the Holy Spirit who impregnated Mary. He doesn’t even think twice about it, as he casually mentions that the “Holy Spirit will come upon her” Kolb barely even addresses that issue. It is such an obvious thing to him that it was of the Holy Spirit that Mary became with child that he only bothers to mention it in passing. It is very clear that Christians believe that the Holy Spirit caused Mary to become pregnant.

I addition, Halley’s Bible Handbook explains to us that “Luke is thought to have gotten his story of Jesus’ birth directly from Mary herself. Matthew probably got his from Joseph.” The different accounts of this tell us that, indeed, Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. Mary was a virgin that became pregnant with Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Mormonism does not directly dispute that Mary was a virgin, yet their doctrine implies that she is not.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that the Holy Spirit did not cause Mary’s Holy pregnancy. It attests that it was God the Father, in a literal sexual union with Mary, mixed his seed with her. In a blatant disregard for the teachings of both Matthew and Luke, Joseph Fielding Smith writes that “Christ [was not] Begotten of the Holy Ghost… Jesus Christ is the only Begotten Son of God in the flesh… He was not born without the aid of Man, and that Man was God!” A recent President of the LDS Church, Ezra Taft Benson, taught that the LDS Church “proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense… [He] was sired by the same Holy Being we worship as God our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, nor was He begotten by the Holy Ghost. He is the Son of the Eternal Father!” As strange as this doctrine is, the Mormon Church teaches it.

The LDS Church not only teaches that it was though a union with the Father that Mary became with child, but that Mary was not even a virgin.




Jesus was Married?



Nowhere in the Bible does it teach or imply that Jesus was married or had any children. Yet, the Mormon Church teaches this very thing.

Jesus did attend weddings, included the wedding at Cana. The gospel of John states that “Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding.” This does not imply at all that Jesus was married himself. This is not the case within Mormonism. In the Journal of Discourses: Volume 2, we read that: “Jesus was the bridegroom at the marriage of Cana of Galilee…to be brought into the relation whereby he could see his seed, before he was crucified…before the Savior died, he looked upon his own natural children.” In defending the now outlawed law polygamy, Jedediah M. Grant claims that “the grand reason why the Gentiles and philosophers of his school persecuted Jesus Christ was, because he had so many wives. There were Elizabeth, and Mary, and a host of others that followed him According to this teaching, Jesus was married and had offspring.

Why would this be taught? The only way to attain godhood, in Mormon doctrine, is to be married for eternity so that the potential god would have a wife in which to populate their world.

There are three different heavens, in LDS doctrine, where one may go to after they are dead. These are the telestial, the terrestrial, and the celestial kingdom.

The telestial is reserved for “all who have been filthy and who would not receive the truth and have not had the testimony of Jesus Christ.” This lowest level of eternal existence is no permanent punishment though. They will “have no part in the first resurrection”, but “nevertheless, even these are heirs of salvation” after “recognizing that Jesus is the Christ, the Redeemer of the world.” They will eventually progress to the next level of salvation.

The next level of salvation is called the terrestrial kingdom. The residents of this kingdom were “honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men” They were generally good people, who were not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and therefore must spend eternity in this place. Although this kingdom is a pleasant place to spend eternity, there is a higher level of heaven.

The absolute highest level of the Mormon idea of heaven is the celestial kingdom.
Those who keep the full law and obey all the commandments of God are heirs of full salvation in the celestial kingdom, the glory of which the sun is spoken of as being typical. These overcome all things and receive a fulness of the blessings, power, and glory of the Father. All who have died without a knowledge of the gospel, or the opportunity to receive it, who would have accepted it had the opportunity been presented to them while living, are also heirs of this kingdom.

In other words, those members of the LDS Church, who have been baptized in the LDS Church, and who have kept the full law and obeyed all the commandments of God are admitted into this highest heaven. It is within this kingdom that one might progress to become a god. To advance to become a god, one must receive his temple endowments. Included in these endowments is a temple marriage. One must become married to his wife for eternity. This, as has been earlier stated, is essential for producing children in which to populate one’s own world after they have become a god. Those who have not been married for eternity are to be servants for the gods.

It is for that reason that Jesus had to be married in LDS teachings. The only way that Jesus could become a God over his own world, like the Father is God over this world, is by eternal marriage. His death was only part of his exultation unto full godhood.


The Atonement of Christ



The gospel of Jesus Christ is seen plainly in the New Testament. The gospel of John announces, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” Paul continues this in his first letter to the Corinthians, telling us: “By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures”. We are saved because of Jesus Christ. He, as God’s son and also being God himself, kept the law of God perfectly in his life and in his death, became the ultimate sacrifice, taking away our sins so that we might be clean from sin in front of God. Martin Luther agrees with this. He confirms Paul by saying that, “God offers the forgiveness of sins only in the Gospel, the good news that we are freed from the guilt, the punishment, and the power of sin, and are saved eternally because of Christ’s keeping the Law and His suffering and death for us.” Jesus, though his death, atones us from our sins and justifies us before God.

Why would we need justification before God? According to the apostle Paul: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.” No one is good in the eyes of God, the Bible teaches. There is nothing that we can do to become good in front of God. Kolb understands that, “human performance does not produce human righteousness”. There is nothing that we can do to justify ourselves. We all break God’s laws and have to rely on sacrifice to cover our injustice. God provided us with the ultimate sacrifice, the only sacrifice that is needed. That ultimate sacrifice is Jesus. Paul again confirms this: all “are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood.” Nothing we can do makes us good enough for God. It is only the sacrifice of Jesus that covers our wrong doings.

That is not the teaching of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Mormons teach that the atonement of Jesus began when the agony of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:36-46; Mark 14:32-42; Luke 22:39-46) and ended with the death of Jesus on the cross. In fact, LDS place even greater emphasis on Gethsemane than on the cross or the blood of Jesus. The Luke account of Gethsemane reads: “And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.” It is this, sweat being like drops of blood, which the LDS focus on. Douglas J. Davis confirms this view: “[Mormonism] gives higher priority to Christ in Gethsemane than to Christ on the Cross”. So the atonement of Christ, within the LDS Church, begins with Christ’s agony (placing emphasis on it) and ends with his death, while orthodox Christianity places all emphasis on the death of Christ.

Although that is not a significant difference in itself, it shows that the LDS Church doesn’t view the death of Christ as the ultimate climax of Christianity. The atonement, according to Mormonism, “ends the effect of original sin and stands at the commencement of the new life of obedient faith involving commitment to the rites of the temple”. This implies that it is not by Sola fide (faith alone), but by faith plus works, that one is justified before God. James White, in his Letters To a Mormon Elder, notes that “gaining eternal life in Mormon thought is the same as gaining “exaltation,” and this in not by grace alone but grace coupled with obedience to laws and ordinances.” He then continues to remark that “the atonement does not, in and of itself, accomplish this “higher” salvation, this personal exaltation, but it simple makes it a possibility.” The point is that Mormonism teaches that grace, along with works, equals salvation.

In an e-mail from a LDS elder when asked how he knew if he was saved, the response was given that, “I tried to hard to get into heaven, and lived my life in a way that shows dedication to Jesus Christ, and His Father.” This seems to point out that, within the LDS Church, the belief is that living a good life is a requirement for celestial glory, and that one can never know if they will attain that or not. If a Mormon does enough works and has their temple endowments, they can only hope to spend eternity with God in the celestial kingdom and have a chance to become a god themselves. Orthodox Christianity, on the other hand, teaches that one can know if they are going to spend eternity with God or not.


Conclusion



The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is on its way to being a major worldwide faith. The church membership has doubled in the past 20 years and has a number approaching sixty thousand missionaries on over 160 countries. Because it is growing at such an astonishing rate, it is important to recognize the differences between Mormonism and traditional Christianity. These differences include, but are not limited to: the eternal nature of Jesus, the actual number of gods, the creator of the universe, the virginity of Mary, the celibacy of Jesus and his atonement of sins, and the teaching of salvation though works.

Due to the very nature of these differences in the central figure to Christianity, Jesus, it is unlikely that the LDS Church teaches the same Jesus Christ that is taught within Christianity and within the Bible. Although it appears that some of its members are indeed Christians, it is doubtful whether those members are closely following the teachings of their church. The teachings of the LDS presented here are not Christian teachings. The true gospel, of faith on Christ alone, is absent. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a pseudo-Christian church at best.

Breetai said:

Yes it is. He made predictions. They didn't come true. He was a false prophet.

Click to expand...

Hmm. Does that make the entire Book of Revelations untrue?

Breetai said:

As for Peter and Paul being called of Christ not being testable, why isn't it? It is talked about in more than one book, which have all been found copied in many different places in many different times, They back each other up, all saying that these men were called of Christ.

There IS evidence of these things. It is not a matter of faith alone that these things are true.

Click to expand...

Breetai, I hate to point out the horrible problem with this reasoning, but just because several 'books' recount that Peter and Paul stated that they were called of Christ, this does not prove anything. Unless the author of every 'book' you speak of was personally visited by Christ and informed of that fact, rather than by Peter and Paul themselves. And, even if you claim that, how can you verify it?

Have a nice night,

spike-

Eldest said:

The differences are pretty minute in the Christian Bibles as compared to the different changes in TBOM. The Dead Sea Scrolls can confirm that the Old Testament is pretty much accurate, as well as 1000's of other scrolls, books, and whatever have you, can prove that BOTH testaments are fairly accurate and are credible. Name one source of proof for TBOM? What you can't?

Click to expand...

Okay, I'm back.

I looked for a source critical of Mormonism to find the worst possible case. On google I found a site that says that there have been 3913 plus changes in the Book of Mormon. After some checking I found that most were spelling or punctuation but the critic was able to indentify 21 actual textual changes [like changing the name of a person, or subtituting "wrecked" for "racked" or adding a word like "were".] A check of another Mormon critical site verifies that multiple people have found the same thing. So of the 4000 plus changes, we know that most are spelling and punctuation but lets be generous and imagine that there are a hundred or two or three hundred word changes.

Now, the King James version has 783,137 words in it. We know from scholars the about 90% of the NT verbiage is taken straight from the Tyndale Bible, about 70% of all that Tyndale translated was brought forward into the KJV. At that rate the number of text changes number in the hundreds of thousands.

Of course the Tyndale and KJV are remarkably similar. I myself have 5 Bible versions but there are many, many more. If we compare the textual differences between each Bible version against every other Bible version and then do the same thing for the various dated revisions, the number of differences number in the millions and millions. If you add in spelling and punctuation you wind up with tens and tens if not hundreds of millions of differences compared to the critics or the Book of Mormon's 3913 changes.

Sorry.

http://www.saintsalive.com/mormonism/bomchanges.htm
http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/3913intro.htm
http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q10_bible-facts.html

Eldest said:

"irresponsible absurdity...." How old do you think I am? Questioning my intelligence,now thats immature.
[/font]

Click to expand...

I really don't know. Maybe 22 or 24 or 28, something???

I am not sure why you think I am questioning your intelligence. I haven't even thought about it.

Chaucer said:

Hi Skylark and thank you for the welcome.

Answer: maybe, maybe not. I've posted on three message boards where religion was involved. I found that how people chose to label themselves - agnostic, Christian, atheist, Muslim, Wiccan, Lutheran, 7th Day, etc, was completely useless in predicting whether the person's posts, behavior and character would be honest, insightful, intelligent, kind, Christlike, factual, enjoyable, stimulating, challenging, entertaining, gloryifying of God, or disnhonest, offensive, a poor example for Christ, unkind, stupid, dogmatic and unsound... with the possible exception that people who self identify as agnostic seem, on average, to be more honest and insightful.

I do suppose that knowing someone's background is useful in making a very broad assumption about their mindset and I suppose that is why we have those little icon thingys. However, in this particular thread my observation was that a belief that Paul and Peter were called of Christ is purely a matter of faith based upon dogmation assertion with the Bible being the asserter. And, people who believe in religious tenets be they Catholic, Hindu, Mormon, Lutheran, whatever, believe as they do as a matter of faith that has its genesis in dogmatic assertion.

BTW, I do believe that the Spirit can touch a person's heart and convey truth to the individual but that is completely personal, and not externally provable to anyone besides that individual.

Click to expand...

Chaucer,

I agree that a person's religion does not determine the qualities about them that you have listed. Nevertheless, I value honesty and appreciate it when a person is upfront about their beliefs. Are you LDS?

Thanks.

Chaucer said:

Okay, I'm back.

I looked for a source critical of Mormonism to find the worst possible case. On google I found a site that says that there have been 3913 plus changes in the Book of Mormon. After some checking I found that most were spelling or punctuation but the critic was able to indentify 21 actual textual changes [like changing the name of a person, or subtituting "wrecked" for "racked" or adding a word like "were".] A check of another Mormon critical site verifies that multiple people have found the same thing. So of the 4000 plus changes, we know that most are spelling and punctuation but lets be generous and imagine that there are a hundred or two or three hundred word changes.

Now, the King James version has 783,137 words in it. We know from scholars the about 90% of the NT verbiage is taken straight from the Tyndale Bible, about 70% of all that Tyndale translated was brought forward into the KJV. At that rate the number of text changes number in the hundreds of thousands.

Of course the Tyndale and KJV are remarkably similar. I myself have 5 Bible versions but there are many, many more. If we compare the textual differences between each Bible version against every other Bible version and then do the same thing for the various dated revisions, the number of differences number in the millions and millions. If you add in spelling and punctuation you wind up with tens and tens if not hundreds of millions of differences compared to the critics or the Book of Mormon's 3913 changes.

Sorry.

http://www.saintsalive.com/mormonism/bomchanges.htm
http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/3913intro.htm
http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q10_bible-facts.html

Click to expand...

Chaucer,

I am not sure why you are questioning the reliability of the Bible, but I thought that this article might be of interest. I apologize in advance for the length, but I think that in this case it is best to read the entire article. One point that the article makes is that thousands of manuscripts that exist that verify the reliability of the Bible.



Manuscript Support for the Bible's Reliability

by Ron Rhodes


Manuscript Evidence for the New Testament

There are more than 24,000 partial and complete manuscript copies of the New Testament.

These manuscript copies are very ancient and they are available for inspection now.

There are also some 86,000 quotations from the early church fathers and several thousand Lectionaries (church-service books containing Scripture quotations used in the early centuries of Christianity).

Bottom line: the New Testament has an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting its reliability.

The Variants in the New Testament Manuscripts Are Minimal
In the many thousands of manuscript copies we possess of the New Testament, scholars have discovered that there are some 150,000 "variants."

This may seem like a staggering figure to the uninformed mind.

But to those who study the issue, the numbers are not so damning as it may initially appear.

Indeed, a look at the hard evidence shows that the New Testament manuscripts are amazingly accurate and trustworthy.
To begin, we must emphasize that out of these 150,000 variants, 99 percent hold virtually no significance whatsoever.

Many of these variants simply involve a missing letter in a word; some involve reversing the order of two words (such as "Christ Jesus" instead of "Jesus Christ"); some may involve the absence of one or more insignificant words.

Really, when all the facts are put on the table, only about 50 of the variants have any real significance - and even then, no doctrine of the Christian faith or any moral commandment is effected by them.

For more than ninety-nine percent of the cases the original text can be reconstructed to a practical certainty.

Even in the few cases where some perplexity remains, this does not impinge on the meaning of Scripture to the point of clouding a tenet of the faith or a mandate of life.
Thus, in the Bible as we have it (and as it is conveyed to us through faithful translations) we do have for practical purposes the very Word of God, inasmuch as the manuscripts do convey to us the complete vital truth of the originals.

By practicing the science of textual criticism - comparing all the available manuscripts with each other - we can come to an assurance regarding what the original document must have said.

Let us suppose we have five manuscript copies of an original document that no longer exists. Each of the manuscript copies are different. Our goal is to compare the manuscript copies and ascertain what the original must have said. Here are the five copies:
Manuscript #1: Jesus Christ is the Savior of the whole worl.

Manuscript #2: Christ Jesus is the Savior of the whole world.

Manuscript #3: Jesus Christ s the Savior of the whole world.

Manuscript #4: Jesus Christ is th Savior of the whle world.

Manuscript #5: Jesus Christ is the Savor of the whole wrld.
Could you, by comparing the manuscript copies, ascertain what the original document said with a high degree of certainty that you are correct? Of course you could.

This illustration may be extremely simplistic, but a great majority of the 150,000 variants are solved by the above methodology.

By comparing the various manuscripts, all of which contain very minor differences like the above, it becomes fairly clear what the original must have said.

Most of the manuscript variations concern matters of spelling, word order, tenses, and the like; no single doctrine is affected by them in any way.

We must also emphasize that the sheer volume of manuscripts we possess greatly narrows the margin of doubt regarding what the original biblical document said.

If the number of [manuscripts] increases the number of scribal errors, it increases proportionately the means of correcting such errors, so that the margin of doubt left in the process of recovering the exact original wording is not so large as might be feared; it is in truth remarkably small.


The New Testament Versus Other Ancient Books

By comparing the manuscript support for the Bible with manuscript support for other ancient documents and books, it becomes overwhelmingly clear that no other ancient piece of literature can stand up to the Bible. Manuscript support for the Bible is unparalleled!

There are more [New Testament] manuscripts copied with greater accuracy and earlier dating than for any secular classic from antiquity.

Rene Pache adds, "The historical books of antiquity have a documentation infinitely less solid."

Dr. Benjamin Warfield concludes, "If we compare the present state of the text of the New Testament with that of no matter what other ancient work, we must...declare it marvelously exact."
Norman Geisler makes several key observations for our consideration:

No other book is even a close second to the Bible on either the number or early dating of the copies. The average secular work from antiquity survives on only a handful of manuscripts; the New Testament boasts thousands.

The average gap between the original composition and the earliest copy is over 1,000 years for other books.

The New Testament, however, has a fragment within one generation from its original composition, whole books within about 100 years from the time of the autograph [original manuscript], most of the New Testament in less than 200 years, and the entire New Testament within 250 years from the date of its completion.

The degree of accuracy of the copies is greater for the New Testament than for other books that can be compared. Most books do not survive with enough manuscripts that make comparison possible.
From this documentary evidence, then, it is clear that the New Testament writings are superior to comparable ancient writings. "The records for the New Testament are vastly more abundant, clearly more ancient, and considerably more accurate in their text."

Support for the New Testament from the Church Fathers
As noted at the beginning of this chapter, in addition to the many thousands of New Testament manuscripts, there are over 86,000 quotations of the New Testament in the early church fathers. There are also New Testament quotations in thousands of early church Lectionaries (worship books).

There are enough quotations from the early church fathers that even if we did not have a single copy of the Bible, scholars could still reconstruct all but 11 verses of the entire New Testament from material written within 150 to 200 years from the time of Christ.


Manuscript Evidence for the Old Testament

The Dead Sea Scrolls prove the accuracy of the transmission of the Bible.

In fact, in these scrolls discovered at Qumran in 1947, we have Old Testament manuscripts that date about a thousand years earlier (150 B.C.) than the other Old Testament manuscripts then in our possession (which dated to A.D. 900).

The significant thing is that when one compares the two sets of manuscripts, it is clear that they are essentially the same, with very few changes.

The fact that manuscripts separated by a thousand years are essentially the same indicates the incredible accuracy of the Old Testament's manuscript transmission.
A full copy of the Book of Isaiah was discovered at Qumran.

Even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (A.D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text.

The 5 percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling."
From manuscript discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls, Christians have undeniable evidence that today's Old Testament Scripture, for all practical purposes, is exactly the same as it was when originally inspired by God and recorded in the Bible.

Combine this with the massive amount of manuscript evidence we have for the New Testament, and it is clear that the Christian Bible is a trustworthy and reliable book.

The Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the copyists of biblical manuscripts took great care in going about their work.

These copyists knew they were duplicating God's Word, so they went to incredible lengths to prevent error from creeping into their work.

The scribes carefully counted every line, word, syllable, and letter to ensure accuracy.


God's Preservation of the Bible

The Westminster Confession declares: "The Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek, being immediately inspired by God and, by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them."

The Westminster Confession makes a very important point here.

The fact is, the God who had the power and sovereign control to inspire the Scriptures in the first place is surely going to continue to exercise His power and sovereign control in the preservation of Scripture.
Actually, God's preservational work is illustrated in the text of the Bible.

By examining how Christ viewed the Old Testament, we see that He had full confidence that the Scriptures He used had been faithfully preserved through the centuries.

Because Christ raised no doubts about the adequacy of the Scripture as His contemporaries knew them, we can safely assume that the first-century text of the Old Testament was a wholly adequate representation of the divine word originally given.

Jesus regarded the extant copies of His day as so approximate to the originals in their message that He appealed to those copies as authoritative.

The respect that Jesus and His apostles held for the extant Old Testament text is, at base, an expression of the confidence in God's providential preservation of the copies and translations as substantially identical with the inspired originals.
Hence, the Bible itself indicates that copies can faithfully reflect the original text and therefore function authoritatively.

http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Manuscript.html

skylark1 said:

Chaucer,

I am not sure why you are questioning the reliability of the Bible, but I thought that this article might be of interest. I apologize in advance for the length, but I think that in this case it is best to read the entire article. One point that the article makes is that thousands of manuscripts that exist that verify the reliability of the Bible.

Click to expand...

Hi Skylark,

Thanks for the article, but I am not questioning the Bible at all. Or better said I accept that the Bible contains the truth of the gospel and was inspired of God. I have lost of questions and some good answers about the Bible. My issue was with the absurd comment made by Eldest, a comment he can't defend because it is factually untrue. One thing that kind of gets me is not the brand of a person's theology but rather the unfair attacks they make on other's theology and their refusal to apply the same standards to their own beliefs that they apply to others.

I'll read the article and am sure I will learn something from it but mostly I prefer to get my information from non-polemical scholarly sources. Not that anything is wrong with what Mr. Rhodes wrote but I know how unintended bias can creep into the thoughts of someone who has a point to prove, even if he means well.

...and about your other question: After reading for two days, I have seen how other posters here marginalize and treat in a most un-Christ-like manner those they disagree with, not on the basis of the other person's sincerity, honesty, charity and insight/intelligence but based upon a label they wield as a weapon. One person has already refused to talk to me because he suspects that I might be Mormon. So, respectfully, I am not going to get into that but I will say that recently I have attended Catholic, Episcopal, Lutheran, Mormon, Methodist, Presbyterian, Jehovah's Witness, Baptist, Greek Orthodox, Calvary Chapel, Pentecostal and Vineyard Church and enjoyed every single service though some more than others. I am searching for truth where ever I find it.

Chaucer said:

Hi Skylark,

Thanks for the article, but I am not questioning the Bible at all. Or better said I accept that the Bible contains the truth of the gospel and was inspired of God. I have lost of questions and some good answers about the Bible. My issue was with the absurd comment made by Eldest, a comment he can't defend because it is factually untrue. One thing that kind of gets me is not the brand of a person's theology but rather the unfair attacks they make on other's theology and their refusal to apply the same standards to their own beliefs that they apply to others.

I'll read the article and am sure I will learn something from it but mostly I prefer to get my information from non-polemical scholarly sources. Not that anything is wrong with what Mr. Rhodes wrote but I know how unintended bias can creep into the thoughts of someone who has a point to prove, even if he means well.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply Chaucer. I am disappointed that you seem to have dismissed the article that I posted without having read it.

...and about your other question: After reading for two days, I have seen how other posters here marginalize and treat in a most un-Christ-like manner those they disagree with, not on the basis of the other person's sincerity, honesty, charity and insight/intelligence but based upon a label they wield as a weapon. One person has already refused to talk to me because he suspects that I might be Mormon. So, respectfully, I am not going to get into that but I will say that recently I have attended Catholic, Episcopal, Lutheran, Mormon, Methodist, Presbyterian, Jehovah's Witness, Baptist, Greek Orthodox, Calvary Chapel, Pentecostal and Vineyard Church and enjoyed every single service though some more than others. I am searching for truth where ever I find it.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, perhaps the person who will not talk to you won't because he feels that you are being evasive or insincere. Since you say that you have came to this conclusion after reading the posts here for two days, perhaps some of the responses are on the basis of one's honesty and sincerity, rather than one's religion, and you are simply unaware of it. I am sorry that you allow fear of unfair treatment to prevent you from honestly disclosing your beliefs, and hope that you will find that your conclusions about unfair treatment of posters is not true for the majority of the people that post here. People can disagree without being disagreeable.

The majority of the Book of Revelation is about future events and is allegorical in nature

Anyay...

Chaucer, a lot of people here have called you a few different things that you have not claimed or denied to be, including being a member of the CoJCoLDS and/or being an alternate name for someone who is a regular here(possible a member of the CoJCoLDS). You seem to present an arrogent attidude towards things. I'm not saying that others here do not, but you have come here from virtually nowhere and have had an arrogent or condensending aura about your posts. You probably don't mean to come off this way, but that's the immpression that you are giving. I just thought that you may need to know that.

You say that you are searching for truth. I'll buy that. If you don't mind, I want to ask you a question(I guess I'm asking anyway): What does being a Christian mean to you?


For the record...
there are some Mormons on this board who I would consider my friends(at least 'virtual friends') We PM each other back and fourth, e-mail each other outside of CF and even use internet instant messaging. I'm saying this because I think that this shows that I do not judge a person based on their beliefs. I judge a persons beliefs based on their beliefs, but never do I judge their personnality or sincerity based upon this. I do believe that they are wrong on some things, but as their friend, as a Christian and as a fellow human, I am obligated to point this out to them.

Skylark,

I didn't dismiss the article and I did read the entire thing. What I said or intended to say is that I perfer to take my information from a non-polemical scholarly source. Mr. Rhodes has an agenda, albeit a noble one. I would take exception with a couple of his points. For example he says that "By practicing the science of textual criticism - comparing all the available manuscripts with each other - we can come to an assurance regarding what the original document must have said." That's kind of a slick way of saying it... "must have said." That's not the same as "did in fact say" and that's because there is no way that we can say what the original book of Luke did in fact say - word for word - or indeed, who wrote the book of Luke and what happened to the original manuscript, who had it, who gave it to who, what they did or did not do to it. What we can say with a high degree of certainity is that at some point the book of Luke began to be copied and circulated. As it was circulated and copied - at some point very early on it seems - the text was fixed or set and thereafter reproduced with a high degree of fidelity.

Likewise we can say that the OT books of Genesis or Job at some point well after their composition became set and thereafter faithfully reproduced but we cannot say who wrote them, when, what the chain of custody was and what alterations to the text there may or may not have been before the texts were circulated and fixed or set. But Mr. Rhodes doesn't say that, even though it is true. He doesn't dispute it but he gives a different impression.

On the other matter, I don't fear unfair treatment, in fact my current stance will probably generate more unfair treatment. Louts will behave like louts. I just think that beyond the general statement my icon makes, my background is my business and I feel no compulsion to say more than I want to say, when and where I want to say it. As you can tell, I like to challenge assumptions and for now I think this works to my advantage. Think of me how you will.

Breetai,

I will grant you that I can come across as arrogant although you might be generous in assuming that it is unintentional. Call it an affect or a debating style if you like. I think you will find that I generally act that way towards those that themselves act arrogantly, usually when I don't think that they have good reason to be arrogant. As you can tell I don't much care for a person acting like they have or know the absolute truth when the source of their knowledge is really nothing more than faith and dogma. Grant you that they are secure in their beliefs (even if their beliefs differ from mine) is not the issue - I just think that when it comes to trying to prove your point in a debate or discussion, matters of faith require you to acknowledge that it is based upon faith and show a little humility. Anyway, people who mean well and are honest and decent get treated pretty well by me - maybe with a little teasing but treat well.

Your question about what it means to me to be a Christian... that's fair... that I have accepted Christ as my Savior and have felt his countenance touch my heart. I recognize, now, that I am a sinner and not worthy of his grace, nevertheless, he has given it to me as a free gift. In return I follow him and try to follow his word. I belive that improvement comes from humility, a willingness to be taught - by the spirit, or by others, or by truth where ever I find it, and regular repentance - that is recognizing my shortcomings and calling upon God to free of them.

My understanding of theology is not the same today as it was yesterday and will likely be different tomorrow but in as much as salvation comes from faith and grace, not perfect doctrinal understanding, I am content to allow God to teach me as he chooses - of course I try to do my part as well. It is my hope that I do not offend God with my constant questioning.

As you can tell, I like to challenge assumptions and for now I think this works to my advantage.

Click to expand...

Why would you want an advantage? Not that you would say...

Isn't hiding something no different than lying?

me said:

What does being a Christian mean to you?

Click to expand...

Am I right in assuming that you are not willing to answer this?

BTW, the general statement that your icon makes is that you believe and accept everything stated in the Nicene Creed is true.

Breetai said:

[/size][/color][/font] Am I right in assuming that you are not willing to answer this?

BTW, the general statement that your icon makes is that you believe and accept everything stated in the Nicene Creed is true.

Click to expand...

See my answer to you above; and yes, that is so.

Hi Chaucer,

My comment about you fearing unfair treatment was quite ..... well, unfair, as was my querying you on your religion. Please accept my sincere apology.

I look forward to future discussions with you.

Chaucer said:

See my answer to you above; and yes, that is so.

Click to expand...

Right-o.

Well I've gotta say, you certainly are an interesting person.

"I just think that beyond the general statement my icon makes, my background is my business and I feel no compulsion to say more than I want to say, when and where I want to say it. As you can tell, I like to challenge assumptions and for now I think this works to my advantage. Think of me how you will."

I'm just curious to know what your religious background is. It might help us out better to understand where you are coming from. What are you hiding from? I'm not trying to prove that you are wrong, just TBOM and most Mormon Doctrine. My closest guess now is that you are an ex-mormon who is trying to figure things out. If you argued over the authenticity and accuracy over the testaments as compared to TBOM, that leads us to believe that you are a Mormon apologetic. Correct me if I am wrong. As for errors in TBOM, I didnt even mention the plagorisms, or the manner in which it was supposedly translated. I'm just saying that TBOM has NO archealogical proof to back up its claim, or scriptual evidence to support it. Where as Christianity does, are you going to tell me that I am wrong, because doing so is only fooling yourself, and yet again you have evaded me and my questions directly.

Breetai said:

It's nce that you reject that notion, but every single other Mormon that I've ever talked to came into believing that the Mormon church is God's only ture church based on a burning of the 'bosom.

Click to expand...

"Every single other Mormon"? That I find hard to believe, but at least you know that one Mormon rejects the idea and you can stop with all the "burning in the bosom" posts.

Doc

~

Breetai said:

It's nuce that you reject that notion, but every single other Mormon that I've ever talked to came into believing that the Mormon church is God's only ture church based on a burning of the 'bosom.

Click to expand...

That is not true. I have told you that I do not have a testimony based on a burning bosom. You have made a false statement here.

Eldest said:

"I just think that beyond the general statement my icon makes, my background is my business and I feel no compulsion to say more than I want to say, when and where I want to say it. As you can tell, I like to challenge assumptions and for now I think this works to my advantage. Think of me how you will."

I'm just curious to know what your religious background is. It might help us out better to understand where you are coming from. What are you hiding from? I'm not trying to prove that you are wrong, just TBOM and most Mormon Doctrine. My closest guess now is that you are an ex-mormon who is trying to figure things out. If you argued over the authenticity and accuracy over the testaments as compared to TBOM, that leads us to believe that you are a Mormon apologetic. Correct me if I am wrong. As for errors in TBOM, I didnt even mention the plagorisms, or the manner in which it was supposedly translated. I'm just saying that TBOM has NO archealogical proof to back up its claim, or scriptual evidence to support it. Where as Christianity does, are you going to tell me that I am wrong, because doing so is only fooling yourself, and yet again you have evaded me and my questions directly.

Click to expand...

Hi Eldest,

Welcome to CF!

As Chaucer is not the subject of this discussion, has stated that he/she is a Christian, seems quite capable of reading the rules of this board when registering, and displays a cross on their post, indicating that he/she agree that he/she believes in the Nicene Creed, I think that it is best to cease questioning him/her. There is an option to hide one's religious preference, so we are incorrect if we assume that one must disclose to all readers their religious preference.

Furthermore, I agree with Chaucer when he/she stated "I have seen how other posters here marginalize and treat in a most un-Christ-like manner those they disagree with, not on the basis of the other person's sincerity, honesty, charity and insight/intelligence but based upon a label they wield as a weapon. One person has already refused to talk to me because he suspects that I might be Mormon." The claim was not made that all posters do this, but some. Perhaps we all are guilty of this, albeit in varying degrees. Rather than demand full disclosure from Chaucer, perhaps we should take his/her words to heart and examine ourselves and our own biases towards others.

As Joseph Smith is the subject of this thread, not Chaucer, I think that we should stick to the topic.