Mormons

Started by Quark_666119 pages
Originally posted by docb77
Let me point you to another section of the Bible - Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane. Jesus prayed that the apostles and his disciples could be one even as he and the father were one. So using your logic, Peter, James, John, and the rest must have all been the same person! Ridiculous.
Originally posted by ushomefree
Provide the passage, please.

John 17:21 comes to mind, at least according to the King James version:

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be cone in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

You might want to read back a little farther to figure out who they are, but it’s there.

Originally posted by Quark_666
You heard about the hat. 😐

indeed. sad story.

Quark 666-

John 17:21--regardless of biblical version--applies "they" to the Christian Church; and prior, if you read the entire chapter--or simply v. 6-19--"they" refers to the Disciples. In any case, Jesus is praying that the church--believers in Christ--would be one in "union" with the Father. If you are reading this docb77, it is important--in fact, imperative--to put Scripture into proper context. The versus the Quark 666 was kind enough to repost, does not negate the "biblical" concept of a triune God (existing as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

Originally posted by ushomefree
Quark 666-

John 17:21--regardless of biblical version--applies "they" to the Christian Church; and prior, if you read the entire chapter--or simply v. 6-19--"they" refers to the Disciples. In any case, Jesus is praying that the church--believers in Christ--would be one in "union" with the Father. If you are reading this docb77, it is important--in fact, imperative--to put Scripture into proper context. The versus the Quark 666 was kind enough to repost, does not negate the "biblical" concept of a triune God (existing as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

dont go back to saying someones name with a dash. quote them or i swear i will hunt you down....

I’m open to the possibility of the Trinity being correct, I just haven’t seen any reason to believe it yet. It turns out that you simply have to decide what part of the Bible to take literally and what part of the Bible to take metaphorically.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Quark 666-

John 17:21--regardless of biblical version--applies "they" to the Christian Church; and prior, if you read the entire chapter--or simply v. 6-19--"they" refers to the Disciples.

That’s kind of what I was saying in my last post…

Originally posted by ushomefree
In any case, Jesus is praying that the church--believers in Christ--would be one in "union" with the Father. If you are reading this docb77, it is important--in fact, imperative--to put Scripture into proper context.

Are you quiet certain that your interpretation of the Bible is in proper context? I can't prove either point Biblically.

Originally posted by ushomefree
The versus the Quark 666 was kind enough to repost, does not negate the "biblical" concept of a triune God (existing as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

I must agree. I can’t prove anything Biblically…I don’t pretend to. I don’t believe anyone but God can, and until you prove to me that you are God (which is going to be a particularly tough task for you, ushomefree), I don’t believe in the Trinity.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Provide the passage, please.

I would have thought you'd already know about the intercessory prayer in Gethsemane, but since you asked it's in John 17. The specific verse I was referencing is:

John 17:11

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. (italics mine)

Originally posted by ushomefree
Quark 666-

John 17:21--regardless of biblical version--applies "they" to the Christian Church; and prior, if you read the entire chapter--or simply v. 6-19--"they" refers to the Disciples. In any case, Jesus is praying that the church--believers in Christ--would be one in "union" with the Father. If you are reading this docb77, it is important--in fact, imperative--to put Scripture into proper context. The versus the Quark 666 was kind enough to repost, does not negate the "biblical" concept of a triune God (existing as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

Nor do the verses that you previously posted negate the concept of the godhead being one in the same way - in union.

Originally posted by docb77
I would have thought you'd already know about the intercessory prayer in Gethsemane, but since you asked it's in John 17. The specific verse I was referencing is:

John 17:11

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. (italics mine)

Nor do the verses that you previously posted negate the concept of the godhead being one in the same way - in union.

I'm going to be really impressed if ushomefree pulls this off...

Originally posted by Quark_666
I've been looking for some good books that actually delve into the details of anti-Mormonism (something more intellectual and more convincing then Ed Decker). Any suggestions?

I live in Oklahoma. I don't mean to use another religion by name...but you can go to a Baptist church on Wednesday nights, sometimes, and there will be an anti-Mormon guest speaker spreading the "truth". They will offer you books, pamphlets, and tapes, especially if you are a Mormon attending their session.

The truth is, you really won't find a really "good" book or article that is anti-Mormon. The reason? Because the vast majority of all of the "points" that people come up with are not new concepts. All of these arguments are the same sad tired arguments that were brought up in the 19th century.

"anti-Mormon literature is often ignorant of what Latter-day Saints really believe and especially ignorant of LDS authors have written in response to anti-Mormon attacks. Many of the common attacks against the Church are regurgitated arguments from the nineteenth century, arguments which have been thoroughly and carefully treated by responsible LDS writers who do much more than just talk about some warm feeling in their hearts. But the anti-Mormon writers and speakers of today make it sound as if no Mormon has ever dared to respond to their awesome arguments, and that the Church can only retreat and hide when faced with an intellectual battle."

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_antis.shtml

Oh, and if you want a little something to give back to a person AFTER* you refute their sad, old, and tired points, here are a few things that really piss them off:

http://www.jefflindsay.com/myturn.shtml#arabia

As far as something "good" that was recent, I did read a little on something about the Book of Abraham being very "close" to the Egyptian book of the dead, but I also read a little on the refute to that and the refute made the "anti-Mormon" writing look shameful. (I believe that even non-Mormon scholars commented on the ridiculousness of the comparison.) It seemed legit at the time but was quickly refuted by Mormon apologetics...that is what usually happens with any "new" work. Mormons are a bunch of nerds. 😄

*I said "after" because it is important that if you are presented those points, you have the know how to overcome those points and THEN zing them right back. Of course, that is in stark contrast to what we are told to do as Mormons and I let pride get the best of me sometimes.

P.S. This is the real definition of "Cleveland Steamer". The #2** definition is the best one.

**Heh heh....#2..... 😈....(dude, I'm sorry for being such a perv.)

Originally posted by ushomefree
Quark 666-

John 17:21--regardless of biblical version--applies "they" to the Christian Church; and prior, if you read the entire chapter--or simply v. 6-19--"they" refers to the Disciples. In any case, Jesus is praying that the church--believers in Christ--would be one in "union" with the Father. If you are reading this docb77, it is important--in fact, imperative--to put Scripture into proper context. The versus the Quark 666 was kind enough to repost, does not negate the "biblical" concept of a triune God (existing as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

On the subject of a consubstantial God, one individual and single God that is God the Father, Christ and the Holy Spirit, typically the verse used to support this claim of constustantiation is John 10: 30, exact term is "one" which was translated from the Greek term "eiúv." "eiúv" is the exact same word used in John 17:21-23 in all instances of the term "one." Thus if you use 10:30 as support, you must concede that man or, using your statement of context, the apostles can be/are "one" with God in the exact same manner as Christ is. Thus, the Trinity is now a quorum of 15.

Originally posted by dadudemon
**Heh heh....#2..... 😈....(dude, I'm sorry for being such a perv.)

I'd hunt you down for that if the thought didn't creep me out so bad 😘

Originally posted by Quark 666
I've been looking for some good books that actually delve into the details of anti-Mormonism (something more intellectual and more convincing then Ed Decker). Any suggestions?

I recommend reading "Kingdom of the Cults," authored by Walter Martin; unbeknownst to dadudemon, much literature has, in fact, been written about the Mormon faith. Refer to Amazon (or major book retailers) for purchase. In the meantime, reference the website, "Walter Martin's Religious Info Net" for book excerpts, audio commentary, and more.

Originally posted by ushomefree
I recommend reading "Kingdom of the Cults," authored by Walter Martin; unbeknownst to dadudemon, much literature has, in fact, been written about the Mormon faith. Refer to Amazon (or major book retailers) for purchase. In the meantime, reference the website, "Walter Martin's Religious Info Net" for book excerpts, audio commentary, and more.

There is tons and tons of anti-mormon literature available...I never denied that: I did, and cited sources, that most of the information out there isn't "new" information. Just rehashes of things already disproved. Most of those arguments are b.s.

I would mock you and say "unbeknownst to [ushomefree]" but it wouldn't work that way because my post clearly indicated plenty of "new"* material.

Try paying attention to what you read a little bit better.

*"new" is in quotes for a reason. I don't expect you to pick up on it.

Originally posted by ushomefree
I recommend reading "Kingdom of the Cults," authored by Walter Martin; unbeknownst to dadudemon, much literature has, in fact, been written about the Mormon faith. Refer to Amazon (or major book retailers) for purchase. In the meantime, reference the website, "Walter Martin's Religious Info Net" for book excerpts, audio commentary, and more.

Well, thanks for the effort. I just read it all. It was a bit more informative than most religious bashing of any type, which still didn't impress me much. It mostly talked about talking to Mormons like me, which I was partially amused at but mostly just annoyed.

Toward the end of the article, he finally starts getting on subject, and was citing the argument supporting the Trinity...and suddenly went off on H2O and geometrical theorems. Okay...impressive. We have a theologian who knows ninth grades science. But it has nothing to do with the Bible.

I understand he is just making a point about how obvious his age-old argument for the Trinity is, but it isn't that obvious when the Bible has so many supports for both arguments...certainly not as obvious as ninth grade geometry.

Other than that, it was great 😐

Originally posted by Quark_666
Well, thanks for the effort. I just read it all. It was a bit more informative than most religious bashing of any type, which still didn't impress me much. It mostly talked about talking to Mormons like me, which I was partially amused at but mostly just annoyed.

Toward the end of the article, he finally starts getting on subject, and was citing the argument supporting the Trinity...and suddenly went off on H2O and geometrical theorems. Okay...impressive. We have a theologian who knows ninth grades science. But it has nothing to do with the Bible.

I understand he is just making a point about how obvious his age-old argument for the Trinity is, but it isn't that obvious when the Bible has so many supports for both arguments...certainly not as obvious as ninth grade geometry.

Other than that, it was great 😐

I read a lot more than just the article he posted. Just more of the typical BS.

*yawn*

Not much of it is new "stuff". Just more rehashes of stuff that has already been addressed...INCLUDING the Spaudling manuscripts.

Even myself, just an average joe who likes to read up on these things, can pick out many mistakes and falsehoods from his supposed "truths". It is this kind of crap that is circulating all over the place that give people the idea that Mormons are a bunch of blind idiots.

Bleh.

Give someone a nice healthy dose of BOTH sides of the story with some nice Mormon apologetics and its is easy to see that the persecutors are the blind idiots. Granted, the apologetics can't always do a perfect job of explaining things and they do sometimes leave doubts, but the majority of the time, the Mormon apologetics make those types of things look foolish and absusd.

Why is there so much persecution and anger towards Mormons? Why is there so much hatred? With as much stuff nowadays proving the validity of our religion as there are things "disproving"* it, you'd think people would finally take a hint. In fact, the evidence wagered in favor of the Book of Mormon being an accurate historical document is so overwhelming that it really just boils down to whether or not the book is divine. Have you seen some of the stuff that has been proven true in favor of the BoM? Just one of them is a hefty discovery in our favor...but the dozens upon dozens of these things makes it just ridiculous.

A truly objective person would review all of the anti-Mormon points, check on the validity of those points, review the Mormon and non-Mormon apologetics to those points, figure out that 98-99% of those points are invalid, review all points in favor of the validity of Mormonism, and HAVE to conclude that it boils down to a faith based decision.

Why do I say this? Because, the BoM may be a legit archaeological find and accurate translation...but it doesn't mean the primary authors (Mormon and the BoM prophets) were inspired of God.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Not much of it is new "stuff". Just more rehashes of stuff that has already been addressed...INCLUDING the Spaudling manuscript[b]s.[/B]

I've seen all sorts of intellectual, well-written books by Atheists, Catholics and Mormons. Surely the anti-Mormons can scrounge up something good? Some of them do make a living our of it...

Originally posted by dadudemon
I read a lot more than just the article he posted. Just more of the typical BS.

*yawn*

Not much of it is new "stuff". Just more rehashes of stuff that has already been addressed...INCLUDING the Spaudling manuscripts.

Even myself, just an average joe who likes to read up on these things, can pick out many mistakes and falsehoods from his supposed "truths". It is this kind of crap that is circulating all over the place that give people the idea that Mormons are a bunch of blind idiots.

Bleh.

Give someone a nice healthy dose of BOTH sides of the story with some nice Mormon apologetics and its is easy to see that the persecutors are the blind idiots. Granted, the apologetics can't always do a perfect job of explaining things and they do sometimes leave doubts, but the majority of the time, the Mormon apologetics make those types of things look foolish and absusd.

Why is there so much persecution and anger towards Mormons? Why is there so much hatred? With as much stuff nowadays proving the validity of our religion as there are things "disproving"* it, you'd think people would finally take a hint. In fact, the evidence wagered in favor of the Book of Mormon being an accurate historical document is so overwhelming that it really just boils down to whether or not the book is divine. Have you seen some of the stuff that has been proven true in favor of the BoM? Just one of them is a hefty discovery in our favor...but the dozens upon dozens of these things makes it just ridiculous.

A truly objective person would review all of the anti-Mormon points, check on the validity of those points, review the Mormon and non-Mormon apologetics to those points, figure out that 98-99% of those points are invalid, review all points in favor of the validity of Mormonism, and HAVE to conclude that it boils down to a faith based decision.

Why do I say this? Because, the BoM may be a legit archaeological find and accurate translation...but it doesn't mean the primary authors (Mormon and the BoM prophets) were inspired of God.

The "Walter Martin's Religious Info Net" website provides an indepth representation/analysis of the Mormon faith; when referencing "Anachronisms and Contradictions"--the first sub-section--you become acquainted with the following opening paragraph:

"Not only does the Book of Mormon plagiarize heavily from the King James Bible, but it betrays a great lack of information and background on the subject of world history and the history of the Jewish people. The Jaredites apparently enjoyed glass windows in the miraculous barges in which they crossed the ocean; and 'steel' and a 'compass' were known to Nephi despite the fact that neither had been invented, demonstrating once again that Joseph Smith was a poor student of history and of Hebrew customs."

Initially, on this thread, I was presenting a disagreement that voiced the fact that Mormons are not Christian. And we disagree, but are you willing to concede--at minimum--that the Mormon faith is "polytheistic"? You have made bold claims about Mormonism--rather, claims about the views in opposition to Mormonism--that I strongly disagree with, i.e., being blind and/or old. I wish not to rain on your parade, but all you have done throughout this thread is attempt to hinder the credibility of Mormon oppositional arguments; you have yet to rebuke the arguments directly.

With no further ado, please provide a counter argument relating to the sub-section "Anachronisms and Contradictions," mentioned above. And keep in mind, the chapter on Mormonism, in the book entitled, "The Kingdom of the Cults," is much, much more indepth. It's time for you to refrain from saucy phrase like: outdated, blind, old, ignorant, or (whatever)! It's time to be critical; help me understand.

At minimum, aren't you aware that the Smithsonian--yes, the Smithsonian!--rejected the book of Mormon as "historical"?

Please read, "Anachronisms and Contradictions."

I was sent to shoot a story yesterday on how the heads of the Mormon Church here in Las Vegas have chosen a new leader since their old one passed away. It was kind of creepy. They gave me stacks of information on him and I was like, "Okay, thanks!" I'm not even sure if we ran the story. Mormons.

Originally posted by Quark_666
I've seen all sorts of intellectual, well-written books by Atheists, Catholics and Mormons. Surely the anti-Mormons can scrounge up something good? Some of them do make a living our of it...

Unfortunately, like I posted about earlier, they continue to rehash the same things as if they were new ideals. People seem to be prone to listen to someone speak out against the Mormons a whole lot faster than they will to Mormon and non-Mormon apologetics. I don't know why. 😐

Yes, quite a bit of money is made by "preachers" who travel to churches on Wednesday nights to "help" people understand the "evils" of Mormonism.

Originally posted by ushomefree
The "Walter Martin's Religious Info Net" website provides an indepth representation/analysis of the Mormon faith; when referencing "Anachronisms and Contradictions"--the first sub-section--you become acquainted with the following opening paragraph:

"Not only does the Book of Mormon plagiarize heavily from the King James Bible, but it betrays a great lack of information and background on the subject of world history and the history of the Jewish people. The Jaredites apparently enjoyed glass windows in the miraculous barges in which they crossed the ocean; and 'steel' and a 'compass' were known to Nephi despite the fact that neither had been invented, demonstrating once again that Joseph Smith was a poor student of history and of Hebrew customs."

You have just proved my point. These are OLD comments on Mormonism.

"Steel

The steel of the Book of Mormon is surely not modern steel, since such a metal did not exist even in Joseph Smith's day (the Bessemer process upon which modern steel depended until 1968 was not patented until 1855).

Steel is formed from iron in one of two ways:

* quenching (hot, non-molten iron is immersed in water to harden it)
* folding (molten iron is folded and hammered to bind carbon atoms to it)

Any Mesoamerican production likely depended upon the first method, which requires lower temperatures and less sophistication. Laban's "steel sword" is not anachronistic; Middle Eastern smiths were making steel by the tenth century B.C.[8]

"Steel" in Joseph Smith's day also referred to simply "making hard," and not necessarily to the specific metal with which we now associate the term. This is consistent with ancient usage and conflations of metals (e.g. copper and iron among the Egyptians) modern readers now consider to be separate entities.[9] Consider the entry from Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary of American English:

'STEEL, n. [G.]

1. Iron combined with a small portion of carbon; iron refined and hardened, used in making instruments, and particularly useful as the material of edged tools. It is called in chemistry, carburet of iron; but this is more usually the denomination of plumbago.
2. Figuratively, weapons; particularly, offensive weapons, swords, spears and the like...
4. Extreme hardness; as heads or hearts of steel. off-site'"

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms:Metals#Steel

And to the very old "compass" comment:

"Alma2 explained why the director the Lord gave to Lehi was called the Liahona:

...I have somewhat to say concerning the thing which our fathers call a ball, or director — or our fathers called it Liahona, which is, being interpreted, a compass; and the Lord prepared it (Alma 37:38).[1]

Believing it was called a compass because it pointed the direction for Lehi to travel is the fault of the modern reader, not the Book of Mormon.

* As a verb, the word "compass" occurs frequently in the King James Version of the Bible[2]; and it generally suggests the idea of surrounding or encircling something.

* In a few cases (e.g. Exodus 27:5; Proverbs 8:27; Isaiah 44:13) it is used as a noun, and suggests something which encircles another thing.

* A third common situation in the KJV is the use of the phrase "to fetch a compass" (e.g., Numbers 34:5; Joshua 15:3; Acts 28:13), which if not recognised as a verbal phrase could be wrongly seen as presenting "compass" as a noun.

In every case, it is clear that, at least in Jacobean England, the word was regularly treated as meaning either a round object, or something which moved in a curved fashion.

Further evidence of the archaic meaning of the word comes from a study of the rather lengthy listing for the word in the Oxford English Dictionary. It includes definition 5.b.:

"Anything circular in shape, e.g. the globe, the horizon; also, a circlet or ring."

To use the word compass as a name for a round or curved object is well attested in both the King James Version of the Bible and the OED. The Book of Mormon refers to the Liahona as "a compass" not because it anachronistically pointed the way to travel, but because it was a perfectly round object."

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms:Compass

And to the mention of windows in Ether...which should NEVER have been "talking point" for anti-Mormons. The talking points can sometimes be so rediculous that the points don't even need an apologetic to address them:

"The term window originally referred to an opening through which the wind could enter. It is found 42 times in the Bible, where it does not refer to glass windows as we know them. In one passage (2_Kings 13:17), we read that a window in the palace was opened. So windows sometimes had doors or shutters. The same is true of the window that Noah built into the ark (Gen. 6:16; Gen. 8:6).

It seems likely that Eth. 2:23 means that the barges themselves would break if they had windows or openings built into them. In the next verse, the Lord explains that this is because they would go through extremely turbulent conditions at sea, sometimes being buried beneath the waves. Windows would mean weakening the wooden structure, by creating openings, making it more fragile and thus liable to be "dashed in pieces." If we read only the sentence containing the word "windows" and read it out of context, then the antecedent of "they" would, indeed, be "windows." But it is probable that the antecedent is "vessels," the last word in the preceding sentence.[1] "

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_and_windows

And to the mention of Joseph Smith being "a poor student history and of Hebrew customs"...that is just absurd. As time passes, more and more evidence is brought in favor of Historical accuracy of the BoM.

Read all of these points and all associated articles. It should take you an entire day if you research it properly. You may even run into some arguing points that you have not seen yet and those points are countered as well.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/myturn.shtml

Again, make sure you read the official sources thoroughly. This is just an index for great counter points.

Originally posted by ushomefree
[size=2]Initially, on this thread, I was presenting a disagreement that voiced the fact that Mormons are not Christian. And we disagree, but are you willing to concede--at minimum--that the Mormon faith is "polytheistic"? You have made bold claims about Mormonism--rather, claims about the views in opposition to Mormonism--that I strongly disagree with, i.e., being blind and/or old. I wish not to rain on your parade, but all you have done throughout this thread is attempt to hinder the credibility of Mormon oppositional arguments; you have yet to rebuke the arguments directly.

With no further ado, please provide a counter argument relating to the sub-section "Anachronisms and Contradictions," mentioned above. And keep in mind, the chapter on Mormonism, in the book entitled, "The Kingdom of the Cults," is much, much more indepth. It's time for you to refrain from saucy phrase like: outdated, blind, old, ignorant, or (whatever)! It's time to be critical; help me understand.

At minimum, aren't you aware that the Smithsonian--yes, the Smithsonian!--rejected the book of Mormon as "historical"?

Please read, "Anachronisms and Contradictions."

Please research your points before you post them so I don't have to waste my time like I did above.

I am no trying to "help" you understand things or trying to "convert" you and nor will I. That could never happen on both accounts. I can, however, show everyone else all the lies and misunderstandings out there that anti-Mormons like to put on the Mormons. Forgive me for being "saucy" when you refuse to research your old and ignorant points before rehashing them: I am NOT a latter day "saint" as my church would have me be. 😄

To be continued...

Originally posted by ushomefree
are you willing to concede--at minimum--that the Mormon faith is "polytheistic"?
Polytheism is defined as the belief and worship of many gods. Our beliefs to not support such an idea. We do believe other gods may exist, although we have no knowledge of such.
Originally posted by ushomefree
At minimum, aren't you aware that the Smithsonian--yes, the Smithsonian!--rejected the book of Mormon as "historical"?
If the Smithsonian were to acknowledge it as historical with the limited evidence that exists currently they would be laughable. This does not discredit the BoM. We, the general educated public, have ample evidence that various peoples have lived in the Americas, we don't currently know everything about any of them. Any of them might be the people of the BoM. There is no evidence against the BoM.

The rest of your post was mainly rant, so I won't respond to it.

Here are some things to consider when attacking the BoM, it's taken from a response I made on another forum:

The Book of Mormon was scripture given to people that did not have access to the Bible following about 600 BC. Do you believe God only spoke to those in the Bible? What of:

John 10: 16
16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
We believe the Americas was one of the places where Christ went to visit his "other sheep... which [were] not of [the Jewish] fold." What do you believe was meant by this? And would these other sheep not need to write Christ's visit down? Shouldn't there be a record of these other people? They are already Christ's, He stated "other sheep I have." They are already His, why do we, according to you, not have, and never will have, this record? The Book of Mormon is merely another Testament of Christ.

And finally:

Matt. 18: 16
16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
The Bible is witness one, the Book of Mormon is witness two. We use both completely and thoroughly.

We do not have a version that leaves anything out. It is not the Bible, it is not a Bible, it is scripture from a separate people. At times the message is very close to the same. We have been attacked because Christ gives the beattitudes to the people of the Book of Mormon. They say we copied the Bible. Would it not be more probable that if Christ did speak to another group of people without access to the Bible that His message would be the same?

Finally, why should we not use scripture God gave man?