A LDS article on the subject: Is the LDS View of God Consistent with the Bible?
The link doesn't work in the url tag, so here it is to cut and paste into the browser:
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=338871ec9b17b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
Originally posted by Regret
A LDS article on the subject:
you lost me at hello.
(but I have a couple of solid gold inscribed plates that i'm willing to sell to whatever angel, or con artist, that comes along*.)
*auction includes little orphan annie decoder ring and transcripts of previous criminal record.
Originally posted by RegretLol, it was there, don't know what happened to it.
A LDS article on the subject: Is the LDS View of God Consistent with the Bible?The link doesn't work in the url tag, so here it is to cut and paste into the browser:
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=338871ec9b17b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
Originally posted by Devil KingWell, it takes a lot of skill to attack a religion on unverifiable facts, isn't that the basis for most religion?
you lost me at hello.(but I have a couple of solid gold inscribed plates that i'm willing to sell to whatever angel, or con artist, that comes along*.)
*auction includes little orphan annie decoder ring and transcripts of previous criminal record.
I must bow to you, oh, lord of the idiots.
Originally posted by ushomefree
Please read, "Anachronisms and Contradictions."[/size]
Gen. 4: 22Please show me some evidence of pre-flood brass and iron while I'm looking at this site.
22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubal-cain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.
Originally posted by Regret
Well, it takes a lot of skill to attack a religion on unverifiable facts
Unverifiable, except the public record? Unless you want to get into the conspiracy angle, which you're welcome to do. But his criminal records remain, from up-state New York to Utah.
Originally posted by Adolf Hitler
By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise
Originally posted by Devil King[/QUOTE] Given his reception from the people in the areas back east, including the government, I do doubt the validity of the claims. Now, I do know that these accusations exist, but show me where he was found guilty of such, these are more difficult to find due to their lack of existence.
Unverifiable, except the public record? Unless you want to get into the conspiracy angle, which you're welcome to do. But his criminal records remain, from up-state New York to Utah.[quote=Adolf Hitler]By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise
Originally posted by ushomefree
To be continued...
It didn't take me very long to post my reply to your post. I didn't really put much thought into it either. I just copied and pasted from another site because like I said, this stuff has been addressed already many times before so there is not much thinking to do on my part...all I have to do is search and post.
I hope you are reading that information I posted for you. If you do, my respect for you just sky rocketed. Most "Mormon-bashers" don't take the time to read information like that because they would like to just bash all of the time instead of having a two way discussion. Regardless of whether or not the information you find out helps you appreciate Mormonism better, you AT LEAST took the time to consider the information which speaks more to your character than most typical Mormon haters.
Originally posted by ushomefree
"Not only does the Book of Mormon plagiarize heavily from the King James Bible, [/url]
God does not plagiarize himself.
It is understandable that Walter Martin believes the Book of Mormon plagiarizes the Bible, because he does not believe that God is responsible for the material in both books. That is part of the controversy. If Walter Martin would like to discuss that concept, I’m happy to talk. But neither argument about the original source of the Book of Mormon is related to the similarities in the two books. As a Mormon, I believe God inspired both works, and when God plagiarizes himself, he is not plagiarizing. The Book of Mormon does teach that Christ gave the exact same words to the people in America as he did in the Sermon on the Mount. The Sermon on the Mount consists of several chapters, and the Book of Mormon has an almost identical set of chapters in 3rd Nephi.
If you could pick any part of the Bible to repeat to another civilization, which part would you decide? God picked the Sermon on the Mount, which turns out to be one of the best teachers of Christ-like behavior in the New Testament. While some parts of the Bible confuse Christians and non-Christians alike (I’m referring to the parts that seem to hint at excessive violence or other inhumane messages), the simple message from the Sermon on the Mount is unquestionably one of the most compassionate, virtuous influences in theological history. When Ghandi decided he liked Christ more than he liked modern Christians, he was likely remembering the Sermon on the Mount. Despite its simplicity I think most of us always have something to learn from that message.
Originally posted by ushomefree
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." [/url]
I do not know where Walter Martin got the windows, but the Jaredites had clear rocks, as transparent as glass (which was surely cloudy since back then they didn’t have real glass). While Walter Martin is correct that glass didn’t exist at the time, he is perhaps unaware that the word for window still existed (just look at Noah). In the book of Ether, which Martin’s argument employs, God forbids windows for obvious reasons. Martin apparently assumed the Jaredites still used windows and that the windows were glass. That’s one reason I’m not impressed with his logic so far.
The most unbelievable part of the Jaredite story is the part where God touches rocks and causes them to emit light, allowing a certain amount of vision for the Jaredites in the barges. I can understand why ordinary people can’t believe this story, but for Christians who already believe that Moses parted the Red Sea and that Jesus raised a man from the dead, it should not be a question of whether God can illuminate rocks…only a question of whether God was with the Jaredites. The real question challenges only God, not his abilities. As far as I can see, Walter Martin hasn’t even touched on the real question.
As for the compass, I’m surprised Martin isn’t jumping all over the Mormon belief that the compass is from God. Is he leaving that premise unchallenged? The fact that the workmanship of the compass wasn’t known to men at that time is completely irrelevant as long as God is behind its creation. Again, the real issue is whether God did it…and if God did it, then all Nephi had to do was write “pointer” and of course any modern interpreter would eventually have resorted to the word “compass.”
In all reality, each and every one of these arguments is dependent on what God decided to do. The real argument is whether God exists. Once we have established that God exists (which is logically impossible) and that God is at the root of all good (which many people challenge anyway), all these little acts of mercy from God are almost given.
The tough part most Christians run into when criticizing Mormonism is that they can’t do it without challenging Christianity as well. That is yet another reason why Mormons claim to be Christians.
Originally posted by ushomefree
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. [/url]
You mean the one argument about the Trinity? The one where I admitted I couldn’t prove my point Biblically and proved you couldn’t either? Either argument is utterly null and void without revelation to back it up…if you want to tell me otherwise, I’ll continue arguing.
Originally posted by ushomefree
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. [/url]
Just decide what you want to defend on that site and post it. I’m not going to waste my time arguing with a website until you post the text.
Originally posted by ushomefree
At minimum, aren't you aware that the Smithsonian--yes, the Smithsonian!--rejected the book of Mormon as "historical"? [/url]
Let me know what Smithsonian you are talking about and then we’ll continue.
Originally posted by ushomefree
Please read, "Anachronisms and Contradictions."
Please read:
Originally posted by Quark_666
Just decide what you want to defend on that site and post it. I’m not going to waste my time arguing with a website until you post the text.
Please read, "Smithsonian Letter regarding Book of Mormon."
Originally posted by ushomefree
Please read, "Smithsonian Letter regarding Book of Mormon."
The header of the web site says:
"Bringing the biblical Jesus to the Latter-day Saints"
I get the feeling, without even reading anything from the site, that they have a bias.
Originally posted by ushomefree
Who cares Shakyamunison?! Nevermind the website; that is not the issue. The letter speaks for itself; read it! Sheesh....
The problem is that you seem to never consider the source you are putting forth. What is your intent?
Are you so desperate to be heard that you would demand that a Buddhist read Christian propaganda on a Mormon thread? 😆
Originally posted by ushomefreeHere is a response from Mormon apologetics - The Smithsonian Institution's 1996 "Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon" Response prepared by Jeff Lindsay, © 2001
Please read, "Smithsonian Letter regarding Book of Mormon."
I assumed that, given your propensity for posting a link and expecting others to read through it, I could expect you to read through this.
Shakyamunison-
The letter in question--regardless of websites presenting it--was written by the Anthropology Smithsonian Institution, and therefore, is irrelevant. Again, who cares about the websites?! The letter speaks for "itself"--the Anthropology Smithsonian Institution. This has nothing to do with Christian propaganda; stop being ridiculous.