Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The Bible




vs.


The Book of Mormon





My personal beliefs that The book of Mormon is false and doesn't hold a candle to "The Bible" at all, historically"The Bible" is one and only anything else is "false".

Originally posted by the Darkone
The Bible




vs.


The Book of Mormon





My personal beliefs that The book of Mormon is false and doesn't hold a candle to "The Bible" at all, historically"The Bible" is one and only anything else is "false".
Way to insult any Moroms at KMC...

the demons are fallen angels, so naturally they would still look like angels, wouldn't it be ideal for satan to send a deamon disguised as an angel of light to trick his "rivals", christians, into being decieved into satan's way of thinking.

or watch southpark, the one making fun of mormons.

Originally posted by the Darkone
The Bible
vs.
The Book of Mormon


My personal beliefs that The book of Mormon is false and doesn't hold a candle to "The Bible" at all, historically"The Bible" is one and only anything else is "false".

Nice belief...lol. The argument is rather stupid as no Mormon believes that the Bible is not historically accurate. The Book of Mormon does not attack in any way the Bible, and the Bible does not attack the Book of Mormon, so a versus argument exists only in your head.

It is typically mainstream Christianity, including the Catholics, that are unsure as to the historical accuracy of much of the Old Testament. Books that are often questioned are Job, Judges, and portions of Genesis. Perhaps others, but I do not know which they may be.


As far as historical accuracy goes, here are some things to consider.

1) The Bible was written by Jews and Christians who have people who claim descent. This therefore makes historical confirmation of locations and character existence rather more simple than it is for the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon, if it were believed to be true, has nothing but the descendants of people that claimed that the teachings recorded in it were false.

2) Book of Mormon scholars that believe the book to be true are a rather small population compared to the scholars that believe the Bible to be true. If a person believes something to be false, it is easy to discredit, they are not looking for anything to support it, only things that do not. Scholars that believe in it and have looked for support of the Book of Mormon believe they have found some things as such. Scholars that do not believe in it claim they have not. From either side you can claim one thing or another, I have a difficult time believing that anyone considering the Book of Mormon does not have bias for one side or the other.

3) Location and Character existence do not necessarily mean that it is true. It is without a doubt true that the Prophet Muhammad existed, and that the cities described in the Holy Qur'an actually exist. If this is enough to prove true the Bible then it follows that this book is also true. Presence of such evidence does not equate to historical accuracy as far as whether the spiritual portion is correct

4) It seems that the Jews do not believe that the New Testament is entirely historically accurate. There is doubt in their minds as to many occurrences in the New Testament.

5) Many locations in the Bible have not been located. They have merely been speculated as to the location.

Originally posted by Legion_of_Maul
the demons are fallen angels, so naturally they would still look like angels, wouldn't it be ideal for satan to send a deamon disguised as an angel of light to trick his "rivals", christians, into being decieved into satan's way of thinking.

or watch southpark, the one making fun of mormons.

exactly.

Wrong, They have been located.

yeah, so maybe check your sources before you say the bible isn't true, find a TRUE source Contradicting the bible, and is Factual (not non-christians planting evidance and making stuff up so that they are correct)

Originally posted by Legion_of_Maul
yeah, so maybe check your sources before you say the bible isn't true, find a TRUE source Contradicting the bible, and is Factual (not non-christians planting evidence and making stuff up so that they are correct)

I assume this was directed at me, and so will respond.

yeah, so maybe check your sources before you say the Book of Mormon isn't true, find a TRUE source Contradicting the Book of Mormon, and is Factual (not non-mormons planting evidence and making stuff up so that they are correct)

I am unsure of whether there have ever been anyone other than non-mormons to have attacked the Book of Mormon.

Also, I believe the Bible to be true.

Originally posted by the Darkone
Originally posted by Regret
5) Many locations in the Bible have not been located. They have merely been speculated as to the location.


Wrong, They have been located.

I did not say all, so I have to assume you are stating that all of them have been located.

Not all, the sea that Moses parted is not positively identified.
The location of the mountain the Ark rested on has not been identified.
The location of the tomb that Jesus Christ was placed in has not been identified to a high degree of certainty.
There are more, but I am not going to research and list them all.

no it was at darkone or someone i can't remember

Originally posted by Regret
I assume this was directed at me, and so will respond.

yeah, so maybe check your sources before you say the Book of Mormon isn't true, find a TRUE source Contradicting the Book of Mormon, and is Factual (not non-mormons planting evidence and making stuff up so that they are correct)
well the fact that he said jesus lived in america, when the bible says he went into heaven, and that jews are american indians...

a better title for this thread would be : THE BOOK OF MORMON VS. CHRISTIANITY

Originally posted by Legion_of_Maul
well the fact that he said Jesus lived in america, when the bible says he went into heaven, and that jews are american indians...

It does not say he lived in America. It says he descended from heaven following his ascension in the Bible, and we believe that this visit supports the statement found in John 10:16

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, one shepherd.

The Book of Mormon does not claim that the Jews are American Indians. Although it does state that the American Indians are descended from the Israelites. It also states that God altered the genetic makeup of their ancestors in some way to change their skin color.

You use the term "he said Jesus..." are you attacking the Book of Mormon or something else?

Originally posted by Legion_of_Maul
well the fact that he said jesus lived in america, when the bible says he went into heaven, and that jews are american indians...

Jesus being born in Jerusalem and it's a history fact that he was born in Nazareth. And smith talking to God, yeah right the fool was talking to the devil and a demon.

Originally posted by .pace Opera:.
a better title for this thread would be : THE BOOK OF MORMON VS. CHRISTIANITY

I think it would be better as : mainstream Christianity vs the Mormons

Originally posted by the Darkone
Jesus being born in Jerusalem and it's a history fact that he was born in Nazareth. And smith talking to God, yeah right the fool was talking to the devil and a demon.

A Jew might say the same thing about Jesus if he wouldn't be attack by the Christian world.

Originally posted by Regret
It does not say he lived in America. It says he descended from heaven following his ascension in the Bible, and we believe that this visit supports the statement found in John 10:16

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, one shepherd.

The Book of Mormon does not claim that the Jews are American Indians. Although it does state that the American Indians are descended from the Israelites. It also states that God altered the genetic makeup of their ancestors in some way to change their skin color.

You use the term "he said Jesus..." are you attacking the Book of Mormon or something else?

Native Americans are not descended from Israelites, what B's is that. The skin tone or Malina is what determines what area of the world you are from.

Originally posted by the Darkone
Native Americans are not descended from Israelites, what B's is that. The skin tone or Malina is what determines what area of the world you are from.

So you are saying that God could not do something like that?

Book of mormons has no history, as where the Bible has over 2,000 years of history. BOM has none, all those cities supposley existed they don't and you know which ones I'm talking about in South America.

Originally posted by the Darkone
Book of mormons has no history, as where the Bible has over 2,000 years of history. BOM has none, all those cities supposley existed they don't and you know which ones I'm talking about in South America.

LOL

Don't start sputtering just because you don't have any facts. There isn't evidence that the cities of the Book of Mormon never existed.

You keep claiming things for the Bible. The Bible, at most, has 1500 years of history, Moses period, sometime around 1450 BC began the written record and Shortly after Christ it ends.

I have never claimed the Bible wasn't true.

Originally posted by Legion_of_Maul
the demons are fallen angels, so naturally they would still look like angels, wouldn't it be ideal for satan to send a deamon disguised as an angel of light to trick his "rivals", christians, into being decieved into satan's way of thinking.

or watch southpark, the one making fun of mormons.
I just love it when a Christian mocks another religion... So ironic.

Before you go around saying the Book of Mormon isn't true, show me some evidence the bible is true. From unbiased sites please, opusdei.com doesn't exactly do it for me.

Originally posted by Eis
I just love it when a Christian mocks another religion... So ironic.

Before you go around saying the Book of Mormon isn't true, show me some evidence the bible is true. From unbiased sites please, opusdei.com doesn't exactly do it for me.

If you read the bible code, it shows factors of the bible that are extremely true, its stated the deaths of JFk and JFK Jr as assinations, that guy in africa or zimbabwe, cant remember, and across his name (coded) it sais 'Assasin to be assasinated' , the moon landing, hitler, etc.

Originally posted by rickyduck
If you read the bible code, it shows factors of the bible that are extremely true, its stated the deaths of JFk and JFK Jr as assinations, that guy in africa or zimbabwe, cant remember, and across his name (coded) it sais 'Assasin to be assasinated' , the moon landing, hitler, etc.
Oh really? Show me evidence then.

Originally posted by Eis
I just love it when a Christian mocks another religion... So ironic.

Before you go around saying the Book of Mormon isn't true, show me some evidence the bible is true. From unbiased sites please, opusdei.com doesn't exactly do it for me.

Tbie Bible is historically correct as where Book of Mormons is not. Smith talking to god and Jesus, yeah right he was talking alright but it wasn't god or Jesus he was talking too, he was talking to fallen angels that are now demons. BOM have no historically evidence, well know scholars even stated that.

Originally posted by the Darkone
Tbie Bible is historically correct as where Book of Mormons is not. Smith talking to god and Jesus, yeah right he was talking alright but it wasn't god or Jesus he was talking too, he was talking to fallen angels that are now demons. BOM have no historically evidence, well know scholars even stated that.
The Bible is historically correct? Ok, show me proof.

Originally posted by the Darkone
Tbie Bible is historically correct as where Book of Mormons is not. Smith talking to god and Jesus, yeah right he was talking alright but it wasn't god or Jesus he was talking too, he was talking to fallen angels that are now demons. BOM have no historically evidence, well know scholars even stated that.

I am sorry, but I don't believe that Biblical archeology is unbiased. I cannot believe anyone would waste their time in something that they did not believe in. Also, scholars that went to theology schools to become some form of Christian Minister or Christian teacher are not scholars, they are Theologians that are only credible by religions that subscribe to that school's particular type of religion or by someone wanting to learn about that school's brand of Christianity. I doubt you could show me one scholar that supports all historical "evidence" for the Bible that does not believe in the Bible. I am not attacking the Bible, but it doesn't have as firm a support as Christians want to believe. You live in a Christian world, find some support from a Muslim, Buddhist, Taoist, or some other non-Christian doctor for your evidence. I would doubt that such support is easily found. You haven't stated evidence thus far for your views, only uneducated persecutory comments with no non-Christian support and reference.

Now, just to reclarify, because someone will make a comment about it, I believe that the Bible is true.

Originally posted by the Darkone
The Bible




vs.


The Book of Mormon





My personal beliefs that The book of Mormon is false and doesn't hold a candle to "The Bible" at all, historically"The Bible" is one and only anything else is "false".

you mine as well say the bible vs. tacos or vs. baseball with that argument. If it is already your view that anything other than the bible is "false" than theres no discussion. You didnt even make any reasons for why everything else is false, which is the problem with discussion religion with someone who is religious, they have no real reasons and are not open to anything new. Religious discussion really needs to be left to those who arnt relgious as odd as that sounds, or to the few who may be, and are actually open-minded about it.

Thats not true. I know relgious people who can back up why they are religous. THe point is good though, if you want to make claims, its nice if you bakc them up.

But if you don't i'll argue with you anyway...just for the sake of it.

Originally posted by Alliance
Thats not true. I know relgious people who can back up why they are religous.

thats why at the end i said there are the few religious people who are capable of discussing the topic open-mindly, its just not common

Sorry I missed that. I agree.

The Book Of Mormon VS Christianity?

Not a good idea,...because Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses and many other groups call themselves Christians. The word Christian has become generically used. Let's stick with the title of this thread (as is) and let truth prevail on it's own.

What truth?

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
The Book Of Mormon VS Christianity?

Not a good idea,...because Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses and many other groups call themselves Christians. The word Christian has become generically used. Let's stick with the title of this thread (as is) and let truth prevail on it's own.

The title is a misnomer. The Book of Mormon claims to support the Bible. No verse in the Bible categorically says the Book of Mormon could not be God's word as well. The idea that the Bible does is based in interpretation, and even mainstream Christians do not always agree on interpretation of the Bible unless it is to attack someone else.

Often people that attack the Book of Mormon refer to Revelations 22:18 to attack the Book of Mormon on the basis that it is something being added to the Bible. The problem with the use of this verse is Deuteronomy 4:2 which states the same thing prior to the majority of the Bible being "added" to the previously existing Bible.

Deuteronomy 4:2
2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Revelations 22:18
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book

"Versus"?

How about: The Bible and The Book of Mormon: Differences and Similarities

Versus. Yeah, that sure reflects the proper spirit. Sheesh.

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
The Book Of Mormon VS Christianity?

Not a good idea,...because Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses and many other groups call themselves Christians. The word Christian has become generically used. Let's stick with the title of this thread (as is) and let truth prevail on it's own.

People who believe in Christ are Christians. Kind of makes sense, doesn't it?

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
People who believe in Christ are Christians. Kind of makes sense, doesn't it?

Arachnoid...you just opened my eyes surprise

Originally posted by Eis
The Bible is historically correct? Ok, show me proof.



The proof is there if you read it and check it's history, it's historically correct the cities, the people, animals, money, wars, rivers etc. Where in world history that the book of Mormons is correct, none, everything in the book of Mormons is not correct. And if you are willing to put your soul and salvation on the line, then go right ahead, but remember in revelations is states do not add to the bible, if anyone dose you are erase from the book of life.

Thats not proof, thats rhetoric. YOu could provide some examples....

I'd like to expand/clarify on Eis's request (with his kind permission): Prove that your bible is not historical fiction.

Originally posted by the Darkone
And if you are willing to put your soul and salvation on the line, then go right ahead, but remember in revelations is states do not add to the bible, if anyone dose you are erase from the book of life.

I guess I pre-responded to this and someone didn't pay attention.

Originally posted by Regret
Often people that attack the Book of Mormon refer to Revelations 22:18 to attack the Book of Mormon on the basis that it is something being added to the Bible. The problem with the use of this verse is Deuteronomy 4:2 which states the same thing prior to the majority of the Bible being "added" to the previously existing Bible.

Deuteronomy 4:2
2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Revelations 22:18
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book

Everything following Moses writings was added to the Bible. Read more scripture your statement also makes the Bible following Moses' writings false on the same grounds.

Originally posted by the Darkone
The proof is there if you read it and check it's history, it's historically correct the cities, the people, animals, money, wars, rivers etc. Where in world history that the book of Mormons is correct, none, everything in the book of Mormons is not correct. And if you are willing to put your soul and salvation on the line, then go right ahead, but remember in revelations is states do not add to the bible, if anyone dose you are erase from the book of life.

first off i'd just like to state, it's Books of Mormon, not book of mormons, book is the plural not mormon. Next, there is historical proof of the Book of Mormon, all the ancienct burial grounds, the cities. Instead of giving the native americans a chance to tell us their cities names, we killed them and forced them to move then renamed them ourselves, just because somebody came in killed lots of people and made the rest leave then change the name doesn't mean its not true. I mean lets say I assemble a large army and take over all the area's that are spoken of in the Bible and change their names, a few years down the road when everybody has forgotten what they used to be named, is that going to make the Bible untrue? by your logic i'd have to say yes. but by my logic, it's the word of God, it will always be true, every word in it that has been translated CORRECTLY. I also believe that the book of mormon is the word of God given to the people on the american continent, we know that they were there, and there was no way for them to keep in contact with the prophets on the otherside of the world, so God called prophets in the American continents and they recorded of their lives, and even if it isn't true, it still teaches great truths and gives excellent advice on how to live and by abiding by the principals in the book, you will get to know God better. so if you haven't read it, read it before you say it isn't true then I'd also like to point out some scriptures from the bible that talk about another book of scripture which I believe to be the book of mormon.

Ezek. 37: 16
16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions:


Ezek. 37: 19
19 Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.

somebody has already stated that the people who wrote the book of mormon were decendants Israelites who held the stick of ephraim and were commanded to write a book, just as the Jews who are named after Judah were commanded to write a book so in other words Stick of Judah=Bible stick of Joseph=Book of Mormon

Did you know that they actually have definitively found a Book of Mormon place? Where you ask? Jerusalem. What, that doesn't count? How about Nahom (place at a place currently called Nehem), or Bountiful.

As for New world geography, there are several competing theories among LDS scholars as to where things were. And most of them fit in the Geography mentioned in the book. So while the definite places in the new world haven't been found, Several in the old have and there are possible sites for the new world places.

Bible? Where's the city of enoch? Where's eden? Where's the tower of Babel? How about the land of Nod?

You see, aside from certain places that retained their place names, the bible has the same problems that the BoM has.

Originally posted by docb77
Did you know that they actually have definitively found a Book of Mormon place? Where you ask? Jerusalem. What, that doesn't count? How about Nahom (place at a place currently called Nehem), or Bountiful.

As for New world geography, there are several competing theories among LDS scholars as to where things were. And most of them fit in the Geography mentioned in the book. So while the definite places in the new world haven't been found, Several in the old have and there are possible sites for the new world places.

Bible? Where's the city of enoch? Where's eden? Where's the tower of Babel? How about the land of Nod?

You see, aside from certain places that retained their place names, the bible has the same problems that the BoM has.

Babel was actually in Iraq I believe, but I am unsure of this. My father worked for the federal government there for a while. As to the rest, I do not know of locations for them.

Originally posted by Regret
Babel was actually in Iraq I believe, but I am unsure of this. My father worked for the federal government there for a while. As to the rest, I do not know of locations for them.

Yes, Babel, or Babylon, was in that region (either that or iran anyways, I don't remember). I was actually referring to the tower though. They haven't found the ruins of this massive architectural undertaking.

Well, the city of Enoch was taken off the earth, says so in the Bible, so that city will never be found. Just figured I would state that.

Babylon was in moder day Iraq. It was one of the greatest cities of the ancient world. Imo ranked:

Rome
Babylon
Alexandria
Athens

You left out tenochitlan, I mean they had brain surgery in ancient america, Pyramids as big or bigger than the egyptian ones, all kinds of neat stuff. They were as advanced as any of their contemporaries.

-edit-

by the way, that sort of supports the BoM

One of the most impressive things about the aztecs were ground quartz lenses...they just didnt put them to very good use. The romans were 1400 years ahead fo their time with steam power, again, they just ddint put it to good use...they had it opening doors for their priests etc to make the spectacle...you know.

The Aztec/Mayan pyramids were smaller than egyptian, but El Castillo is im more beautiful. Its amazing that heavean was only 10 sotries high.

and this supports the Book of....what?

The whole story of ancient people writing on metal plates to preserve a document for future generations was ridiculous in 1830. It was unheard of. Anti-Mormon books emphasized the stupidity of such an idea. And now museums around the world offer numerous examples of recently discovered ancient writings on gold, copper, lead, and other metals. The copper scroll from Israel is a remarkably strong parallel - sacred writings on metal to be preserved for the future.


Nephi gives specific directions, descriptions, a place name for a burial site (Nahom) and a description of a beautiful, green, tree-rich coastal location nearly due east of Nahom which Nephi's group called Bountiful. Today, numerous details of the account have been verified - right down to the location of the ancient burial place called Nahom ("Nehem" on modern maps) and the discovery of a sterling candidate for Bountiful nearly due east of Nahom on the coast of Oman. This place, Wadi Sayq, meets every criteria offered by the Book of Mormon text (abundant fruit, trees, fresh water, cliffs, a mountain, flint, ore, etc.).

Anti-Mormon books still poke fun at Bountiful, for "everyone knows" that there can be no such place in the barren, dry Arabian Peninsula. They have been proven terribly wrong, and the only logical explanation for the accuracy of Nephi's account is that it was written by someone who actually made the journey described in the Book of Mormon. (See In the Footsteps of Lehi by Warren P. Aston and Michael K. Aston, Deseret Book Comp., Salt Lake City, UT, 1994)


Today the use of concrete in ancient Mesoamerica is well known. Tourists to Mesoamerica can find ancient cement work in abundance at Teotihuacan (which is in the right area for cement use according to modern models for Book of Mormon geography). Mesoamerican cement was being used at least by the first century B.C. It was a blunder for anyone writing in 1830 - but now is one more piece of evidence (though a tiny one!) of authenticity.


Book of Mormon names were also a target for attack - and still are, even by people who know better. Most laughable of all was the name Alma, one of the most prominent in the Book of Mormon. Alma is a woman's name of Latin origin (as in alma mater) and is common in Spanish and occurs in America as well. Yet it is a man's name in the Book of Mormon. Smith really blew it - using a Latin woman's name in a Semitic society! However, the name Alma has now been discovered as an authentic ancient Jewish man's name. In the Judean Cave of Letters, on 15 March 1961, Professor Yadin found a bundle of papyrus rolls wrapped in a cloth. And among them was a deed to some land near En-Gedi owned by four men, one of whom was "Alma the son of Judah." This papyrus was (and may still be) displayed prominently in the Shrine of the Book (or is it Scroll?) in Jerusalem (the dome-like white building not far from the Jerusalem Hilton). For more information about the authenticity of Book of Mormon names, see the online article "Book of Mormon Names Attested in Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions" by John A. Tvedtnes, John Gee, and Matthew Roper in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2000, pp. 41-51.

....BoM means book of Mormon.

Actually, I believe the Mayans used cement before the Aztecs. They were a brilliant peoples.

Originally posted by Regret
The whole story of ancient people writing on metal plates to preserve a document for future...

I cut the post


I got this info from a website, and did a bad thing. I forgot to place the link to it in the post. I do not remember the site now, and I am sorry for any inconvenience this may cause. I am sure that by doing a search on the text you can find it.

I have heard of such writing on metal too, but not specifically religous texts.

Mormons believe the Book of Mormon was translated off gold plates, and they were taken away after completion.

Originally posted by Regret
Mormons believe the Book of Mormon was translated off gold plates, and they were taken away after completion.

How were the gold plates found?

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
How were the gold plates found?

Divine guidance through angelic messenger.

Originally posted by Regret
Divine guidance through angelic messenger.

This is not good Regret

" I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, TO A DIFFERENT GOSPEL, WHICH IS NOT ANOTHER; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, OR AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN, PREACH ANY OTHER GOSPEL TO YOU THAN WHAT WE HAVE PREACHED to you, let him be accursed."

Galatians 1:6-8

I am happy you left the Mormon Church Regret.

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
This is not good Regret

" I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, TO A DIFFERENT GOSPEL, WHICH IS NOT ANOTHER; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, OR AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN, PREACH ANY OTHER GOSPEL TO YOU THAN WHAT WE HAVE PREACHED to you, let him be accursed."

Galatians 1:6-8

I am happy you left the Mormon Church Regret.

I am a Mormon

Originally posted by Regret
I am a Mormon

Well, please don't be offended, but that is a big issue regarding this book being delivered/transfered by an angel wouldn't you say?

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
Well, please don't be offended, but that is a big issue regarding this book being delivered/transfered by an angel wouldn't you say?

I am not, as of yet offended.

No, there is absolutely nowhere in the Bible that would say this was inappropriate. I believe the gospel of the LDS church in no way is different than that found in the Bible. It may be different than your interpretation of the gospel, but not in the language itself as interpreted by myself and those of my faith.

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
" I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, TO A DIFFERENT GOSPEL, WHICH IS NOT ANOTHER; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, OR AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN, PREACH ANY OTHER GOSPEL TO YOU THAN WHAT WE HAVE PREACHED to you, let him be accursed."

This is interesting, because not only does it say that angels are dangerous, but its a wonderful statement of that self-sustaining delision principle.

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
This is not good Regret

" I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, TO A DIFFERENT GOSPEL, WHICH IS NOT ANOTHER; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, OR AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN, PREACH ANY OTHER GOSPEL TO YOU THAN WHAT WE HAVE PREACHED to you, let him be accursed."

Galatians 1:6-8


but, if you continue reading

Galatians 1:9-12


9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.


before the Angel came that led Joseph Smith to the Golden plates, he was visited by God and Christ, who then sent the Angel Moroni, to Joseph to tell him about the plates and where to find them, it took Joseph years before he was allowed to take the golden plates therefore the messenger of Christ, and trust me the Mormon church is not appealing to man at all, man is appealed to drugs, alcohol, sex, and many other things that the Mormon church teaches against, and therefore not appealing to man, as the scripture states a religion should not do. it isn't preached to appeal to man, but to God, I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and I am glad I am, I'm extremely happy, my life is healthier then most of my non-mormon friends, i honestly feel i know my Savior and even if the LDS church is incorrect then I'm living a clean life, and we are told we need to be clean to be with God again, so even if the church teaches false doctrine, at least i'm clean and can be with my father again, if everybody in the world lived the lifestyle of the LDS church think about how much better the world would be, no wars, no murders, no crime whatsoever. sure the members of the church aren't perfect and they make mistakes, but they admit when they've done something wrong and do their best o not do it again.

Or in other words, we aren't turning away from the original gospel for a new one like the scripture says - instead we're going back to the original one after generations of people disregarding that scripture.

do you have a copy of the original?

Originally posted by Regret
I am not, as of yet offended.

No, there is absolutely nowhere in the Bible that would say this was inappropriate. I believe the gospel of the LDS church in no way is different than that found in the Bible. It may be different than your interpretation of the gospel, but not in the language itself as interpreted by myself and those of my faith.

There is no other interpretation possible here in these verses than literal. I am by no means out to bash you as a believer in Mormonism. But again, the Gospel according to Joseph Smith has enough variation to clearly qualify it as "A different Gospel" in which according to the bible, would place it as a "different gospel" of which the Apostle Paul to the gentiles warned the church would come.

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
There is no other interpretation possible here in these verses than literal. I am by no means out to bash you as a believer in Mormonism. But again, the Gospel according to Joseph Smith has enough variation to clearly qualify it as "A different Gospel" in which according to the bible, would place it as a "different gospel" of which the Apostle Paul to the gentiles warned the church would come.

Like yours that includes teachings that did not exist for 100-300 or more years after the Bible (New Testament) was written? Trinity as believed in by the majority of Christians was not "Gospel" until the council at Nicaea. Pre-existence was taught until 150-250 years after the New Testament. More examples exist.

Originally posted by Regret
Like yours that includes teachings that did not exist for 100-300 or more years after the Bible (New Testament) was written? Trinity as believed in by the majority of Christians was not "Gospel" until the council at Nicaea. Pre-existence was taught until 150-250 years after the New Testament. More examples exist.

I will let God's Word do what it was sent out to do. I am not in the mood for a shooting match today. We could easily get into a back and forth ping-pong game and thier would be no winners. I will keep off this thread since rebuke about the Book of Mormon is apparently a tender subject.

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
I will let God's Word do what it was sent out to do. I am not in the mood for a shooting match today. We could easily get into a back and forth ping-pong game and their would be no winners. I will keep off this thread since rebuke about the Book of Mormon is apparently a tender subject.

To all those people who are sensitive about criticism of their beliefs, I would like for you to think about this.

If something is so week that we have to protect it, then is it worthy of following? If something is strong, people could beat against it all day and it will not brake.

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
I will let God's Word do what it was sent out to do. I am not in the mood for a shooting match today. We could easily get into a back and forth ping-pong game and thier would be no winners. I will keep off this thread since rebuke about the Book of Mormon is apparently a tender subject.

There are always ways to interpret statement other than literal.

And besides...you yourself have gotten upset when we revoke your relgion. You yourslef didn't respond to any of Regret's points.

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
I will let God's Word do what it was sent out to do. I am not in the mood for a shooting match today. We could easily get into a back and forth ping-pong game and thier would be no winners. I will keep off this thread since rebuke about the Book of Mormon is apparently a tender subject.

I apologize if I came off as overly aggressive. It was not meant as aggressively as it seems you took it. I do believe I have valid points. It seems that the issue at hand is merely a matter of interpretational difference.

You stated that "There is no other interpretation possible here in these verses than literal." I believe that Regulus' statements were a literal interpretation of the scripture you were referring to.

I didn't think you were overagressive....

...but thats coming from me.

Yeah, compared to what I've seen and received from you I was not aggressive

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
There is no other interpretation possible here in these verses than literal. I am by no means out to bash you as a believer in Mormonism. But again, the Gospel according to Joseph Smith has enough variation to clearly qualify it as "A different Gospel" in which according to the bible, would place it as a "different gospel" of which the Apostle Paul to the gentiles warned the church would come.

A different gosper perhaps when compared to mainstream christianity perhaps, but when you actually look at first and second century christianity? Not so much. There's a book by a guy named Barry Bickmore that was a good discription of that. I don't remember the title of the book, but you could probably google it or find it on amazon.com.

I suppose I'm just dittoing what regret said. I don't think anyone who accepts the BoM has gotten offended about people arguing it. But maybe that's just me.

Originally posted by Regret
I apologize if I came off as overly aggressive. It was not meant as aggressively as it seems you took it. I do believe I have valid points. It seems that the issue at hand is merely a matter of interpretational difference.

You stated that "There is no other interpretation possible here in these verses than literal." I believe that Regulus' statements were a literal interpretation of the scripture you were referring to.

yes it was a literal interpretation of the scripture because most people today rely on physical witnesses for their faith. So when talking with people who I don't know if they do or not, I use the literal interpretation because with that proof most people would understand and believe what's been said.



my personal interpretation of this scripture is

A gospel that does not teach that Christ is the literal son of God, that he isn't the savior of the world, that it is set out for men to gain, for selfish purposes. Which you could not say is true about the Mormon church,
The Mormon Church teaches that Christ and all of us are literal sons and daughters of God, that Christ is the savior and redeemer of the world, the leaders of our church are not paid, which it does mention in the scriptures that they should not be paid to teach the Gospel of Christ, and there is nothing selfish about the Mormon church.

oh, and here are Scriptures pointing out the whole unpaid ministry thing along with an interpretation, my interpretation

1 Corinthians 9:18

18 What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.

Somebody's reward in preaching the gospel of Christ should not be money, or anything temporal, which means anything on this earth, but an eternal reward in the world to come

John 10:13

13 The ahireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.

Somebody who accepts payment to preach the gospel doesn't care about those he teaches

Originally posted by Alliance
There are always ways to interpret statement other than literal.

And besides...you yourself have gotten upset when we revoke your relgion. You yourslef didn't respond to any of Regret's points.

I find you so far most interesting of anyone here Alliance. Someone who can sit on a fense and lean one direction or the other...

Wow! What ever side works best huh?

Must be easy not taking a stand for something but taking a stand for anything.

Originally posted by Alliance
There are always ways to interpret statement other than literal.



This too is often used by those who don't understand context or use a Stong's greek/hebrew concordance to REALLY translate the scriptures. Another comment it seems from someone who is quick to judge and yet has no defined stand on anything.

Must be easy Reminds me of a Politician of sorts...

Originally posted by Regret
It seems that the issue at hand is merely a matter of interpretational difference.


I will discuss other matters on other threads with you. The "interpretational differences" will be used no matter what I say here.

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
I will discuss other matters on other threads with you. The "interpretational differences" will be used no matter what I say here.

Interpretational differences will exist in most aspects of our discussions. They are at the core of the splintering that has occurred in Christianity since the time of Christ's death. Very few people agree as to the meaning and interpretation of much of the Bible. You used your interpretation of a Bible verse to attack the Book of Mormon, my response was a logical response to your attack, and was in defense of the Book of Mormon. It fit in the context of the debate. If you are leaving this debate due to this I will assume that you have conceded that there is an interpretational difference and that you were unable to rebut the statement that the Gospel described in the Bible could be different than the one you believe in. If this is the case then it is possible that the LDS (Mormon) Church is not teaching a different Gospel, and thus the verse you quoted does not conflict with the LDS view on the subject. And thus it does not conflict with the Book of Mormon.

Originally posted by Regret
Interpretational differences will exist in most aspects of our discussions. They are at the core of the splintering that has occurred in Christianity since the time of Christ's death. Very few people agree as to the meaning and interpretation of much of the Bible. You used your interpretation of a Bible verse to attack the Book of Mormon, my response was a logical response to your attack, and was in defense of the Book of Mormon. It fit in the context of the debate. If you are leaving this debate due to this I will assume that you have conceded that there is an interpretational difference and that you were unable to rebut the statement that the Gospel described in the Bible could be different than the one you believe in. If this is the case then it is possible that the LDS (Mormon) Church is not teaching a different Gospel, and thus the verse you quoted does not conflict with the LDS view on the subject. And thus it does not conflict with the Book of Mormon.

Well put Regret, I concur

Hey guys, I found that book by Bickmore. It's called "Restoring the Ancient Church". Great book, it has tons of references to the earliest known Christians - from just after the time of the apostles. It shows how many of the doctrines that other churches reject now where actually around back then.

Biblical historical accuracy




And on the subject of American Indians being of Jewish decent.




and in response to:

Originally posted by docb77
Hey guys, I found that book by Bickmore. It's called "Restoring the Ancient Church". Great book, it has tons of references to the earliest known Christians - from just after the time of the apostles. It shows how many of the doctrines that other churches reject now where actually around back then.

I did some research on this text. While there are probably accuracies in Bickmore's work, his work has been credibly criticized in a number of areas. I would not appeal to his work in this book as support in a debate with a non-LDS person. While there are undoubtedly accuracies, there are definitely some inaccuracies.

Originally posted by Regret
Interpretational differences will exist in most aspects of our discussions. They are at the core of the splintering that has occurred in Christianity since the time of Christ's death. Very few people agree as to the meaning and interpretation of much of the Bible. You used your interpretation of a Bible verse to attack the Book of Mormon, my response was a logical response to your attack, and was in defense of the Book of Mormon. It fit in the context of the debate. If you are leaving this debate due to this I will assume that you have conceded that there is an interpretational difference and that you were unable to rebut the statement that the Gospel described in the Bible could be different than the one you believe in. If this is the case then it is possible that the LDS (Mormon) Church is not teaching a different Gospel, and thus the verse you quoted does not conflict with the LDS view on the subject. And thus it does not conflict with the Book of Mormon.


I do not intend on leaving the debate. "Interpretational difference" creates an endless discussion with no concession or logical conclusions...literal or not.

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
I do not intend on leaving the debate. "Interpretational difference" creates an endless discussion with no concession or logical conclusions...literal or not.

Agreed, but the fact that there can be interpretational differences is a integral part of our debate. You say that the Gospel you believe in is not the same as the one I do. You also state that the Bible supports your belief and not mine. If it can be interpreted to mean something different than what you believe it to mean, which interpretational differences means, then it means that my interpretation of the Gospel found in the Bible, which interpretation is not in conflict with the Book of Mormon, is not necessarily false based in only the Biblical text.

My argument was that there is the possibility of different interpretation of the Biblical text. If there is then I am not wrong according to the text, only according to your interpretation, which could possibly be in error.

You were stating that I could not interpret the text as I have.

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
I do not intend on leaving the debate. "Interpretational difference" creates an endless discussion with no concession or logical conclusions...literal or not.

This sounds like a common problem.

Originally posted by Regret
Agreed, but the fact that there can be interpretational differences is a integral part of our debate. You say that the Gospel you believe in is not the same as the one I do. You also state that the Bible supports your belief and not mine. If it can be interpreted to mean something different than what you believe it to mean, which interpretational differences means, then it means that my interpretation of the Gospel found in the Bible, which interpretation is not in conflict with the Book of Mormon, is not necessarily false based in only the Biblical text.

My argument was that there is the possibility of different interpretation of the Biblical text. If there is then I am not wrong according to the text, only according to your interpretation, which could possibly be in error.

You were stating that I could not interpret the text as I have.

Would you like me to post all the reasons why the Book of Mormon is a "Different Gospel"?

The Book of Mormon is a "Different Gospel" as the Apostle Paul warned about. This would not be an assult against you Regret by any means, but it will show side by side the Book of Mormon next to the Bible and show Joseph Smith to be who he is.

I think paul was simply warning against any other thing that might attempt to destroy his grip on Christianity.

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
The Book of Mormon is a "Different Gospel" as the Apostle Paul warned about. This would not be an assult against you Regret by any means, but it will show side by side the Book of Mormon next to the Bible and show Joseph Smith to be who he is.

And will they include a number of verses that contradict other Bible references? Or will they be verses that could be interpreted in ways that do not have the same meaning as you place in them? Or will you be taking verses out of context? I doubt you have any verses that won't fit into these categories. If you feel like doing this one at a time, giving me and others that may join in the ability to rebut your stance on each verse individually, then I would do so.

Will this be going on at the same time he is doing intellignet design with me?

Dunno, I'd hope so, I'm not on for long enough periods to respond adequately every day, some of my responses may take time if his attacks are of any merit.

i'm betting for every verse we get where the Bible contradicts the BOM I can find a verse in the Bible that contradicts the Bible

Sounds reasonable.

Originally posted by Regulus A Black
i'm betting for every verse we get where the Bible contradicts the BOM I can find a verse in the Bible that contradicts the Bible

I bet every Bible verse used can be interpretted 2-4 different ways, or is out of context.

Cant you do that with every line of almost anything?...especially in fiction?

yeah, everything can be interpreted in any number of ways, its just usually 2-4 reasonable ways

I think you can always get two.

Originally posted by Alliance
I think paul was simply warning against any other thing that might attempt to destroy his grip on Christianity.

Well, at least that's your opinion. Thank you for sharing Alliance.

Originally posted by Alliance
Will this be going on at the same time he is doing intellignet design with me?

No, I won't duel intelligent design. Simply look at DNA and call me in the morning.

Originally posted by Regulus A Black
i'm betting for every verse we get where the Bible contradicts the BOM I can find a verse in the Bible that contradicts the Bible

This isn't the Bible VS Book of Mormon ping-pong. This would be to dis-prove that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God according to the Biblical standards as set by Jeremiah. Interested anyone?

Go ahead, keep the arguments to one at a time. That way rebuttals will make more sense, and be concise.

Originally posted by Regret
Go ahead, keep the arguments to one at a time. That way rebuttals will make more sense, and be concise.

Remember Regret, the things I will post will not be pointed at you but at Joseph Smith. Fair enough?

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
Remember Regret, the things I will post will not be pointed at you but at Joseph Smith. Fair enough?
Fair enough

Might be best in a new thread.

Be sure to include the one argument at a time clause in the opening post.

Originally posted by Regret
Fair enough

Might be best in a new thread.

Be sure to include the one argument at a time clause in the opening post.
I will start a new thread per your request.

AHH HA! I have found the source of the endless mormon threads!!!!

I shall vanquish thee thread! football

You are absolutely right! Now tell others

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
The Book of Mormon is a "Different Gospel" as the Apostle Paul warned about. This would not be an assult against you Regret by any means, but it will show side by side the Book of Mormon next to the Bible and show Joseph Smith to be who he is.

You are 110% correct Justbyfaith!

If you are debating doctrinal differnces between the Bible and the BOM, you can not.. they agree doctrinal. Now, the Bible/BOM vs Mormon Doctrine is a vialbe debate since the two contradict.

The Bom can be disproven with the bible as well as the non-existent archaeology the mormons claim to have as well as the dna proof that shows the native americans came across the ladnbridge form alaska. Theres a thing in the old testament abotu false prophets (its in deuteronomy but i forget the exact number ill post it later). It basically says that if a person claimign to eb a prohpet prophesizes false only once, hes not a prophet. Even an angel messenger can be false as well so even if j smith saw moroni, he coudl have been a demon or soemthign pretednignt o be an angel. Anyways there were multiple occasions when j smith prophesized wrong. Ill name a few: God told him that he would ahve success selling the bom in canada that failed. Independence, Missorui was supposed to be new jerusalem and ahve a temple there during j smiths generation. Has not even happened to this day. He predicted that jesus woudl coem with in 56 years at a church sermon, didnt happen. he tried translating the kinderhook plates which was a hoax made by guys tryign to show he wasnt a prophet and they successfully fooled him. He tried translating the book of abraham that was shown later to be nothign more thna hieroglyphics and had a tranlation not even close to what it was supposed to be. Thats only a few, theres hundreds of other thigns that ur avergae mormon doesnt know even thoguh its true.

To any mormons who read this dont tell me what that these facts are nto true until uve done the research and dont tell me that uve had the feelign and u no that j smith was a prophet because logic always prevails before belief

Originally posted by gordomuchacho
The Bom can be disproven with the bible as well as the non-existent archaeology the mormons claim to have as well as the dna proof that shows the native americans came across the ladnbridge form alaska. Theres a thing in the old testament abotu false prophets (its in deuteronomy but i forget the exact number ill post it later). It basically says that if a person claimign to eb a prohpet prophesizes false only once, hes not a prophet. Even an angel messenger can be false as well so even if j smith saw moroni, he coudl have been a demon or soemthign pretednignt o be an angel. Anyways there were multiple occasions when j smith prophesized wrong. Ill name a few: God told him that he would ahve success selling the bom in canada that failed. Independence, Missorui was supposed to be new jerusalem and ahve a temple there during j smiths generation. Has not even happened to this day. He predicted that jesus woudl coem with in 56 years at a church sermon, didnt happen. he tried translating the kinderhook plates which was a hoax made by guys tryign to show he wasnt a prophet and they successfully fooled him. He tried translating the book of abraham that was shown later to be nothign more thna hieroglyphics and had a tranlation not even close to what it was supposed to be. Thats only a few, theres hundreds of other thigns that ur avergae mormon doesnt know even thoguh its true.

To any mormons who read this dont tell me what that these facts are nto true until uve done the research and dont tell me that uve had the feelign and u no that j smith was a prophet because logic always prevails before belief

It would be nice if a detractor of the BoM and Joseph Smith would do research before making their claims. There are apologetics available on issues such as these. I am not going to try to respond to all of your statements as it would take longer than I am willing to devote to the task.

I responded to the 56 year prophecy in the Mormons thread, if you would like to check that out. That "prophecy" does not state what you are suggesting.

Now, if you are incapable of researching your own attack thoroughly then you should avoid making the attack. I would suggest that you read up on the subjects you have quoted, and I would suggest reading Mormon defense for each subject and not just the anti-Mormon literature, prior to making claims.

Anti-Mormon literature, by its nature, is suspect. I believe you are a liar, my evidence is that one of your statements was false. Are you a liar then? Or am I merely stating this because I oppose your view? If you are not a liar, then I merely stated it because I oppose your view. Anti-Mormon literature is the same, it may not be a liar, but it is probable that the statements are inaccurate and stated only due to an opposing view.

Actually Regret Gordo isn't wrong if you have studied the Church as thorough as you claim you have, then you would know that what Gordo says is true. But, I honestly don't think you want an answer that contradicts your beliefs. You are just merely trying to cover for a possible false prophecy. I'm more concerned that you believe the Bible to not be trustworthy, yet yourself feel that a Book that has 36,000 documented changes is worthy to be called scripture.

I suggest you get a copy of the 1830 version of the BOM and compare it to todays (you can find a photocopy of it in Joseph Smith Begins His Work Vol. 1). You will actually find out that more than grammatical changes were made and that whole passages and meanings also were changed.

Originally posted by Joseph_Kerr
Actually Regret Gordo isn't wrong if you have studied the Church as thorough as you claim you have, then you would know that what Gordo says is true. But, I honestly don't think you want an answer that contradicts your beliefs. You are just merely trying to cover for a possible false prophecy. I'm more concerned that you believe the Bible to not be trustworthy, yet yourself feel that a Book that has 36,000 documented changes is worthy to be called scripture.

I suggest you get a copy of the 1830 version of the BOM and compare it to todays (you can find a photocopy of it in Joseph Smith Begins His Work Vol. 1). You will actually find out that more than grammatical changes were made and that whole passages and meanings also were changed.

Never claimed the BoM was perfect, you need to pay attention to the qualifiers in the claims. And you still need to research out more than just the anti-Mormon views, your claims are only perpetuated by them. Find me a source for your claims that is not an anti-Mormon site with some religious motivation.

Originally posted by Joseph_Kerr
If you are debating doctrinal differnces between the Bible and the BOM, you can not.. they agree doctrinal. Now, the Bible/BOM vs Mormon Doctrine is a vialbe debate since the two contradict.

Actually, if you read the posts from the Mormons on these threads you would discover little agreement. You see, it appears that the book of mormon supercedes the bible according to the Mormons I see here.. So, when this happens... there is no unity of faith.

I have done this myself Regret... when I was 14.... half way done I found a copy with them already done, and bought it (saved a lot of time). And just for the record, I'm not anti Mormon.. I am pro Biblical Christianity. I was the 5th generation born LDS. I am the first generation since 1833 to be Born in Covenant but not baptized. So, I am not ignorant of the things pertaining to the LDS faith.

regret go look it up urself, obviously ur gonna look at ur churhcs information as beign the most credible, but that doesnt necessarily mean it is. I dotn no if uve heard of the tanners but they ahve doen many works on the issues and they dotn spew otu lies because thats pointless and it loses them credibility. Ive seen many mormon responses especailly FARMS based out fo BYU and they have horrible responses to many of these claims, many of which basically say "well you can't totally prove that j smith did this". Look up the facts urself and at the bom and bible. The bibel has more proof archaeologically, the bom lacks any of this and the onyl thign that can hodl the mormon faith together is the idea that j smith told the truth. Read the book biographical sketches because his mother has soem testimony that he even talked about the inhabitants of america pre A.D. before he was supposedly visited by moroni. Plus his family was not well respected in the community and thye were alwasy seeking for money by digging in peoples yards. Im not lyign about this.

Here is 2 contradicting things the mormon church teaches
1. D&C 130:22 "god is flesh and bone" 1 Nephi 11:13 "god is a great spirit"
explain to me how that can be possible

2. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith p.370 - speaks of the plurality of gods
Bible - Isaiah 43:10, 44: 6-8, 1 Corinthians 8:4 all state that there is one god,

christianity preaches monotheism not polytheism like lds

i jsut want to let every1 no that i dotn hate mromon ppl, in fatc my best friend is mormon, and i dotn dislike regret im just tryign to throw soem of this out there so that its taken into consideration. I dotn care if ppl dont get out of the church because of the facts, i just want mormons to be more aware because many are not openminded ppl inclduign some of my mormon friends. Its not really their fault, but their whoel life has become part of the church and theres an imbalance there. I'm a catholic and i believe that my church has a lot to offer but there has to be a balance between my churchs teachings and my opinions through knowledge. My expereince with lds ppl has showed me that they cant coem to their own opinions on a lot of thigns because they ahve to follow their lds teachings

i no the connotation for polytheism is that u worship more than one god but look up the definition and it states that u recognize more than one god not necessarily worship, and it defienitly says in those bible references that there is only oen god that exists

Originally posted by gordomuchacho
i no the connotation for polytheism is that u worship more than one god but look up the definition and it states that u recognize more than one god not necessarily worship, and it defienitly says in those bible references that there is only oen god that exists

yeah, but look at the timing of the verse, at that time there was only one God, because in order to become as God, you must prove yourself on this earth and then be ressurected, which didn't start until after Christ was ressurected, plus theres the fact that we only have one God, as OUR God, but I believe that many of the Prophets that have now been ressurected have gone on and become Gods over their own worlds, but they are not OUR God, so we have one God, but there are many Gods

but then why werent there any teachigns about this when jesus did his work i mena this stuff is only begins to eb talked about after the mormon religion begins, this is obviosuly soemthign very important i dont think god woudl disreagrd soemthign liek this and then only tell it to ur prophets later on

Quick question here - How can you deny that God is both spirit and flesh and blood, the Bible teaches both according to you. Mainstream Christians believe that Christ and God are one, Christ obviously had a body, (make that has a body since he was resurrected). Yet the Bible also says God is spirit.

to make it more explicit,

plus what abotut he adam-god doctrine brigham yougn introduced, he obviosuly coudltn be ressurected and yougn claimed that he was the god of this world

Originally posted by gordomuchacho
but then why werent there any teachigns about this when jesus did his work i mena this stuff is only begins to eb talked about after the mormon religion begins, this is obviosuly soemthign very important i dont think god woudl disreagrd soemthign liek this and then only tell it to ur prophets later on

Well, during Christ's time the ressurection had not begun, and therefore it would not be taught because it hadn't exisited yet, now after Christ's ressurection, the prophets were killed, and until Joseph Smith, there were no Prophets, no Prophet = no revelation, no revelation = no new teachings from God

take a look at soem of these websites, the appear onyl to bash the church but they have information that ive personally looked around for that is true josephlied .c o m utlm . o r g (im a newbie to this forum and i cant do links yet so i just spaced out the characters, u put it togther)

Yeah, cause those sites sound really unbiased don't they?

why would a religoius site be unbiased towards its religion ?

Originally posted by gordomuchacho
Here is 2 contradicting things the mormon church teaches

1. D&C 130:22 "god is flesh and bone" 1 Nephi 11:13 "god is a great spirit"
explain to me how that can be possible

2. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith p.370 - speaks of the plurality of gods
Bible - Isaiah 43:10, 44: 6-8, 1 Corinthians 8:4 all state that there is one god,

christianity preaches monotheism not polytheism like lds

I know the references are wrong, but I will answer the question.

God the Father - Always had flesh and bones in Mormon belief, at least as far as is relevant to us. We do believe that God became God, and so at some point in the dim eternal past he was spirit, but that is irrelevant. It is the question of where did God come from. He is Alpha and Omega to us, he was there when we came into being and will be there at our end. What occurred previously is irrelevant.

Jesus - Was spirit, was created as spirit first of all things God did. So Jesus is eternal. Jesus, for us can be considered Alpha and Omega, he was there when we came into being and will be there at our end.

Holy Spirit - Is a spirit, not much is known about him. He was created shortly after Jesus in the spirit. He will gain a body at some point, speculation is either at the beginning or the end of the Millennial reign of Jesus Christ.

We believe that much of the speaking by God in the Old Testament was Christ. Christ, prior to his birth, was a spirit. Christ had already achieved his status as a God by volunteering to be the sacrificial lamb. He was God. Now, I do not believe that God the Father never spoke to man in the Old Testament. Thus there will be some conflict as to statements made prior to Christ's birth.

Did I make all that clear?

Now, the early Hebrews are believed to have been polytheistic by some historians and archaeologists, and that some alterations have been made to the Old Testament to cover this. I do not have the references handy, and so, if I am wrong, I apologize. I have read that the modern Jews vehemently deny this suggestion, but if Mormon beliefs are true this idea is not without some merit.

We do not believe in worshipping other Gods though. We also do not believe that another God is capable of influencing our existence. Now this talk of Gods and possibly becoming a God is premature for our existence, and may as well be similar to the question of where did God come from.

edit: The Book of Mormon includes passages that would be prior to the New Testament as well as during the New Testament and following it. Also, the Book of Mormon was abridged, and at times altered slightly by Mormon during the abridging. It is possible errors could exist due to this.

Now, I have never studied the Book of Mormon (as I am now the Old and New Testament texts proper, as well as Kaballistic and Islamic texts) but the entire principle of the religion has always seemed to me to be....well, to be entirely honest, the biggest load I've ever heard. Comparable also is "Scientology," (is was invented by a science-fiction author people!).

Still, I'd love to study the Book even simply for its æsthetic values.

The Holy Spirit was present in Genesis 1:2 along with Jesus who is the spoken Word of the Father. All three are present in Genesis 1:1-3.

Jesus is also the creator: John 1:4; Col. 1:16-17

Originally posted by Joseph_Kerr
The Holy Spirit was present in Genesis 1:2 along with Jesus who is the spoken Word of the Father. All three are present in Genesis 1:1-3.

Jesus is also the creator: John 1:4; Col. 1:16-17

Thanks Joseph. I pray eventually the truth of God's Word will penetrate.

Originally posted by Joseph_Kerr
The Holy Spirit was present in Genesis 1:2 along with Jesus who is the spoken Word of the Father. All three are present in Genesis 1:1-3.

Jesus is also the creator: John 1:4; Col. 1:16-17

Which does not conflict with Mormon belief.

Originally posted by Regret

Jesus - Was spirit, was created as spirit first of all things God did. So Jesus is eternal. Jesus, for us can be considered Alpha and Omega, he was there when we came into being and will be there at our end.


How can you say you don't disagree that Jesus is the creator when you write that Jesus was created. Jesus was never created, he is Yahweh Elohiem the creator of the universe.

Originally posted by Joseph_Kerr
How can you say you don't disagree that Jesus is the creator when you write that Jesus was created. Jesus was never created, he is Yahweh Elohiem the creator of the universe.

Just because something existed prior to what we know and understand does not mean it was not created. There is no place in the Bible that states that Christ was not created. If he was created and then God created things through him, he still created everything, where is there contradiction? He created the all of existence as we know it, that does not make it impossible for God to create Christs spirit prior to that creation. Did you read the entire post?

regret, can u explain to me why it states in the bom that god has been around from all eternity and will be there til eternity becuz that contradicts that he became a god, he either existed forever as god or became a god it cant be both (Moroni 8:18) "For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchageable from all eternity to all eternity" (Dont worry this citation si right im looking at it right now)

God has always been God, he is the Alpha and Omega. To say he achieve God hood is ridiculous, because he was God before time ever existed.

Originally posted by gordomuchacho
regret, can u explain to me why it states in the bom that god has been around from all eternity and will be there til eternity becuz that contradicts that he became a god, he either existed forever as god or became a god it cant be both (Moroni 8:18) "For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchageable from all eternity to all eternity" (Dont worry this citation si right im looking at it right now)
This is speaking of his unchangeable nature, God will always behave the same way. For all of eternity God will behave in the same way. You are reading more into the verse than is actually there.




___________________________________________

Originally posted by the Darkone
God has always been God, he is the Alpha and Omega. To say he achieve God hood is ridiculous, because he was God before time ever existed.
Read my post, I explain the Mormon stance on the subject there. If you disagree that is nice, but there is no solid Bible backing for your stance. There are interpretational supports for the stance, but I will probably interpret them differently than you do. Also, if you find the support, make sure that the Bible itself doesn't contradict the support you use.

Like I said before


Originally posted by the Darkone
God has always been God, he is the Alpha and Omega. To say he achieve God hood is ridiculous, because he was God before time ever existed.



God is the Alpha and Omega, he is the beginning and the end.

What if time loops around so there is no beginning and no end? what do you say then? And why can't your god use letters that aren't cool?

Originally posted by Alliance
What if time loops around so there is no beginning and no end? what do you say then? And why can't your god use letters that aren't cool? True as in many theories in quantum physics.....Circular just as it seems everything flow in that way...season, etc..etc....blah blah..........

I'm tired.

I borrowed QM's ideas. Its a cool theory anyway.

Funny you should say that, since Joseph Smith taught that for God time was "one eternal round".

The idea of a circle is hardly anything new.

Which doesn't hurt his credibility one way or the other since he said he was restoring an ancient religion.

Originally posted by Alliance
What if time loops around so there is no beginning and no end? what do you say then? And why can't your god use letters that aren't cool?

To tell you the truth, I don't believe in time as a dimension or much of anything else. I believe it is merely man's manner of labeling the space between events. It is useful, but I do not believe there is any going back, I enjoy thinking about the possibility as in the thread on the philosophy forum, but I do not believe it is a variable that can truly be manipulated. So I don't believe a loop is possible.

Originally posted by Regret
To tell you the truth, I don't believe in time as a dimension or much of anything else. I believe it is merely man's manner of labeling the space between events. It is useful, but I do not believe there is any going back, I enjoy thinking about the possibility as in the thread on the philosophy forum, but I do not believe it is a variable that can truly be manipulated. So I don't believe a loop is possible.

I believe it is merely man's manner of labeling the gaps between events.

I think gaps may have been a better term.

Originally posted by Regret
To tell you the truth, I don't believe in time as a dimension or much of anything else. I believe it is merely man's manner of labeling the space between events. It is useful, but I do not believe there is any going back, I enjoy thinking about the possibility as in the thread on the philosophy forum, but I do not believe it is a variable that can truly be manipulated. So I don't believe a loop is possible.
Then you are misunderstanding me.

Time is a dimension, it is part of the fabric o f the universe. Things have duration. Time is rather unidirectional, but it does change relativistically when speed increases. It can be very experimentally proven.

Time travel is a different story and not necessarily a credible one. It is possible for spacetime to loop upon itself, though it has never been observed.

Originally posted by Alliance
Then you are misunderstanding me.

Time is a dimension, it is part of the fabric o f the universe. Things have duration. Time is rather unidirectional, but it does change relativistically when speed increases. It can be very experimentally proven.

It can be shown that things change state. It cannot be shown that time changes relativistically, the only observable item is that the rate of change is somehow altered. Time is not an observable entity, and cannot be measured per say. We measure the rate of change in a given material and using it we count. Time does not have evidence to support it's existence. There are only alterations in the state of the universe that occur following other alterations. It is semantics, but there is nothing that makes "time" a real thing, it is a construct used as a description of man's observation of change in the universe.

Originally posted by Regret
It can be shown that things change state. It cannot be shown that time changes relativistically, the only observable item is that the rate of change is somehow altered. Time is not an observable entity, and cannot be measured per say. We measure the rate of change in a given material and using it we count. Time does not have evidence to support it's existence. There are only alterations in the state of the universe that occur following other alterations. It is semantics, but there is nothing that makes "time" a real thing, it is a construct used as a description of man's observation of change in the universe.

No it does not. I believe it has been shown that time changes relativistically. Time (concept) is out measurement in seconds etc of (time) the physical entity. They should not be confused. THis is no differnent to measuring the space part of space time with meters.

Originally posted by Alliance
No it does not. I believe it has been shown that time changes relativistically. Time (concept) is out measurement in seconds etc of (time) the physical entity. They should not be confused. THis is no differnent to measuring the space part of space time with meters.

Perhaps, I have not read the studies on it. I would like evidence of times existence outside of alterations in physical entities though, I am still skeptical that it can truly be measured apart from some type of physical change.

edit: it is a bit odd that I am more skeptical of time than I am of God...