F
Fatherof4
Guest
Sorry guys! I am in an unusually great mood today!
Just consider it my "Mormon" way of getting drunk.
Don
Just consider it my "Mormon" way of getting drunk.
Don
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Book of Mormon is Christian?
- Thread starter ormond
- Start date
Don:
If never heard Book of Mormons, then why topic starter many replies from all repliers and thread is of 80 answers ?
If never heard Book of Mormons, then why topic starter many replies from all repliers and thread is of 80 answers ?
F
Fatherof4
Guest
pinoy:
If never heard Book of Mormons, then why topic starter many replies from all repliers and thread is of 80 answers ?
Don:
That would be the Book of Mormon. It was named after a Nephite prophet, Mormon. He was only one man.
If never heard Book of Mormons, then why topic starter many replies from all repliers and thread is of 80 answers ?
Don:
That would be the Book of Mormon. It was named after a Nephite prophet, Mormon. He was only one man.
Maverick
Member
The BOM is as Christian as the Egyptian Book of the Dead if I cut and paste large sections of the KJV into it.
I have read it and about the boys who started the Mormons.
Mormonism Research Center
Joseph and the boys have taken many people on a fantasy ride to Hell.
I find it Interesting that if you take the i out of Moroni and the second m our of Mormon you come up with moron and I am afraid that is what Joseph felt about his followers. Brigham and the boys are not much better.
I once sat down with a couple of missionaries and when all was said and done I bore them witness that the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints is not the true church of God. It is a cult and that is all. No Mormon is my brother anymore than satan is the brother of Jesus.
I pray they will be saved before they find out two late that once in Hell there is no way out.
I have read it and about the boys who started the Mormons.
Mormonism Research Center
Joseph and the boys have taken many people on a fantasy ride to Hell.
I find it Interesting that if you take the i out of Moroni and the second m our of Mormon you come up with moron and I am afraid that is what Joseph felt about his followers. Brigham and the boys are not much better.
I once sat down with a couple of missionaries and when all was said and done I bore them witness that the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints is not the true church of God. It is a cult and that is all. No Mormon is my brother anymore than satan is the brother of Jesus.
I pray they will be saved before they find out two late that once in Hell there is no way out.
I am well versed in textual criticism and the suspect portion wasn't even part of the above quote, read it again, the contended portion which is found in the TR(KJV,NKJV,etc) "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, The Word, and the Holy Ghost and these three are one"
Tell me how do you defend a faith that is based on written records that have a good possiblity of being false.
Earlier I had commented about earning salvation according to your so called prophets Christ's sacrifice was only for Adam's transgression and that Salvation is obtained by "faith, repentance, baptism, receiving the H.Spirit by the laying on of hands, morality, loyalty, tithing, word of wisdom, duty, celestial marriage"(Articles of Faith)
"Men have work to do if they would obtain salvation."(Doctrines of salvation vol.3 p.91)
"Individual (salvation) that which man merits through his own acts through life and by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel." (Doctrines of salvation vol.1 p.134)
So tell me how is that not earning your salvation. If Christ died for you as a free gift of salvation then there would be no need to do anything to earn salvation
[ September 07, 2002, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: Chemnitz ]
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Lookbeyond -
You have not addressed the point that The BoM fails to endorse the distinctive teachings of Mormonism.
No acceptance of salvation after death according to the BoM.
Polygamy is an abomination before God - according to the BoM - and that predates J Smiths endorsement of Polygamy
No return from Hell according to the BoM
And the First Momrmon missionaries were sent out with the BoM and NO copies of Doctrines and Covenants or Pearl of Great Price. They had nothing by way of distinctive Mormon doctrines - to teach.
In Christ,
Bob
You have not addressed the point that The BoM fails to endorse the distinctive teachings of Mormonism.
No acceptance of salvation after death according to the BoM.
Polygamy is an abomination before God - according to the BoM - and that predates J Smiths endorsement of Polygamy
No return from Hell according to the BoM
And the First Momrmon missionaries were sent out with the BoM and NO copies of Doctrines and Covenants or Pearl of Great Price. They had nothing by way of distinctive Mormon doctrines - to teach.
In Christ,
Bob
F
Fatherof4
Guest
Chemnitz:
I am well versed in textual criticism and the suspect portion wasn't even part of the above quote, read it again, the contended portion which is found in the TR(KJV,NKJV,etc) "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, The Word, and the Holy Ghost and these three are one"
Don:
At the risk of appearing dense, whaaaaat? I read it three times, and it just doesn't make sense to me. I believe that I know where you are going, but please clarify.
Chemnitz:
Tell me how do you defend a faith that is based on written records that have a good possiblity of being false.
Don:
Again, that would be your opinon. Tell me, how is it that Joseph Smith, who was completely uneducated with respect to any formal education, was able to forge, plagurize, or wing it in regard to the Book of Mormon?
Let me provide you a very few examples of why this would be so very difficult.
1. Semitic writing is read from right to left. Joseph would comment as he translated that it was difficult to read right to left. How would he know that Semitic languages were written in this manner?
2. In the Semitic language capitals are not used. As the Book of Mormon was translated, Joseph was unsure as to which words should be capitalized. I have a reproduction copy of the original printing.
It still has a number of errors in regard to capitalization.
3.The original translation (before it made it to the editor) reads something like this:
(1 Nephi 3:1-3)
and it came to pass that i nephi returned from speaking with the Lord to the tent of my father and it came to pass that he spake unto me saying behold I have dreamed a dream in the which the Lord hath commanded me that thou and thy brethren shall return to jerusalem for behold laban hath the record of the jews and also a genealogy of my forefathers and they are engraven upon plates of brass
This sounds very awkward in English. Smith was heavily criticized for this style. But it turns out that it is very Semitic.
4. From William Beardall:
"There are no punctuation marks. E.B. Grandin (the publisher) said this was going to be too difficult to publish in this form. He had a man, John H. Gilbert, go through and add punctuation (commas, periods, question marks).This took several weeks. This was done to give it a semblance of order and structure."
5. Cognate accusitves (using the same base for the verb and the noun)
The preceding example utilizes a form of Hebraic literary technique known as a cognate accusative. It is awkward in English, but makes perfect sense in Hebrew. The "dreamed a dream" example is how the Semites would express the thought. In English, we would say that we "had a dream." There are dozens of similar examples.
6. Function words instead of commas. Here is one example.
(From Mr. Beardall once more
"But behold, a hundredth part of the proceedings of this people, yea, the account of the Lamanites and of the Nephites, and their wars, and contentions, and dissensions, and their preaching, and their prophecies, and their shipping and their building of ships, and their building of temples, and of synagogues and their sanctuaries, and their righteousness, and their wickedness, and their murders, and their robbings, and their plundering, and all manner of abominations and whoredoms, cannot be contained in this work" (Helaman 3:14). If we were writing this sentence we would probably use sixteen commas and one "and". To be Semitically correct it had to contain seventeen "ands". If Joseph Smith had written the Book of Mormon, most likely he would be consistent in all of his writing. And yet in the Doctrine in Covenants he recorded the following passage utilizing only one "and": "And faith, hope, charity and love, with an eye single to the glory of God, qualify him for the work" (D&C 4:5).
Consider this second example utilizing the words "and" and "his": "And it came to pass that he departed into the wilderness. And he left his house, and the land of his inheritance, andhis gold, andhis silver, and his precious things, and took nothing with him, save it were his family, and provisions, and tents, and departed into the wilderness" (1 Nephi 2:4). The "and"s and "his"s (pronouns) must be there to be Semitically correct.
More in a following post. There is that length thing!
Don
I am well versed in textual criticism and the suspect portion wasn't even part of the above quote, read it again, the contended portion which is found in the TR(KJV,NKJV,etc) "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, The Word, and the Holy Ghost and these three are one"
Don:
At the risk of appearing dense, whaaaaat? I read it three times, and it just doesn't make sense to me. I believe that I know where you are going, but please clarify.
Chemnitz:
Tell me how do you defend a faith that is based on written records that have a good possiblity of being false.
Don:
Again, that would be your opinon. Tell me, how is it that Joseph Smith, who was completely uneducated with respect to any formal education, was able to forge, plagurize, or wing it in regard to the Book of Mormon?
Let me provide you a very few examples of why this would be so very difficult.
1. Semitic writing is read from right to left. Joseph would comment as he translated that it was difficult to read right to left. How would he know that Semitic languages were written in this manner?
2. In the Semitic language capitals are not used. As the Book of Mormon was translated, Joseph was unsure as to which words should be capitalized. I have a reproduction copy of the original printing.
It still has a number of errors in regard to capitalization.
3.The original translation (before it made it to the editor) reads something like this:
(1 Nephi 3:1-3)
and it came to pass that i nephi returned from speaking with the Lord to the tent of my father and it came to pass that he spake unto me saying behold I have dreamed a dream in the which the Lord hath commanded me that thou and thy brethren shall return to jerusalem for behold laban hath the record of the jews and also a genealogy of my forefathers and they are engraven upon plates of brass
This sounds very awkward in English. Smith was heavily criticized for this style. But it turns out that it is very Semitic.
4. From William Beardall:
"There are no punctuation marks. E.B. Grandin (the publisher) said this was going to be too difficult to publish in this form. He had a man, John H. Gilbert, go through and add punctuation (commas, periods, question marks).This took several weeks. This was done to give it a semblance of order and structure."
5. Cognate accusitves (using the same base for the verb and the noun)
The preceding example utilizes a form of Hebraic literary technique known as a cognate accusative. It is awkward in English, but makes perfect sense in Hebrew. The "dreamed a dream" example is how the Semites would express the thought. In English, we would say that we "had a dream." There are dozens of similar examples.
6. Function words instead of commas. Here is one example.
(From Mr. Beardall once more
"But behold, a hundredth part of the proceedings of this people, yea, the account of the Lamanites and of the Nephites, and their wars, and contentions, and dissensions, and their preaching, and their prophecies, and their shipping and their building of ships, and their building of temples, and of synagogues and their sanctuaries, and their righteousness, and their wickedness, and their murders, and their robbings, and their plundering, and all manner of abominations and whoredoms, cannot be contained in this work" (Helaman 3:14). If we were writing this sentence we would probably use sixteen commas and one "and". To be Semitically correct it had to contain seventeen "ands". If Joseph Smith had written the Book of Mormon, most likely he would be consistent in all of his writing. And yet in the Doctrine in Covenants he recorded the following passage utilizing only one "and": "And faith, hope, charity and love, with an eye single to the glory of God, qualify him for the work" (D&C 4:5).
Consider this second example utilizing the words "and" and "his": "And it came to pass that he departed into the wilderness. And he left his house, and the land of his inheritance, andhis gold, andhis silver, and his precious things, and took nothing with him, save it were his family, and provisions, and tents, and departed into the wilderness" (1 Nephi 2:4). The "and"s and "his"s (pronouns) must be there to be Semitically correct.
More in a following post. There is that length thing!
Don
F
Fatherof4
Guest
Continuing with certain Hebraic evidence that has come to light from the Book of Mormon:
6. In English we say something like, "And it was 427 years since Lehi left Jerusalem." The Semitic language would say it this way: "And it was 400 and 20 and 7 years since Lehi left Jerusalem." The Book of Mormon consistently follows the Hebraic pattern.
7.Sentence structure. (Beardall once again) "In Enos 1:5 reads, "Thy sins are forgiven thee." We might have written, "Your sins are forgiven". In the Semitic language, the sentence would mean nothing without the "thee". This might be poor English, but Joseph was translating from the original language. The phrase, "And it came to pass" is poor English, but good Egyptian.
8.Idioms. An idiom is an expression that is peculiar to a particular culture and cannot be translated directly. Definition from an grammar book: An expression in good use that is characteristic of or peculiar to a language. Perfectly acceptable idioms may seem illogical if taken literally or may violate established rules of grammar. Some idioms we are familiar with:
- He gave himself away
- He gets under my skin
- A ticklish situation
- She keeps needling me
- A poker face
Some Book of Mormon idioms having Semitic meanings:
- In Alma 32:7 "he stretched forth his hand" he didn't just reach out
- In Alma 32:8 they were "lowly in heart"
- "stiffnecked people"
- "fountains" a Semitic word for springs and streams
- "many waters" a Semitic word for oceans
- "turned aside their ears" meaning they forsook the Lord
- "four quarters of the earth" meaning everywhere, the whole earth"
- "by the hand of" meaning written by
- "having dwelt" meaning came from
These Semitic idioms are found in Mosiah 1:14 & 16: "extended his arm", "fallen into the hands of", and "by the hand of the Lord". Notice also the following Semitic usage in these verses (in Hebrew known as the construct state):
- "plates of brass" not "brass plates"
- "plates of Nephi" not "Nephi's plates"
- "sword of Laban" not "Laban's sword"."
There are literally dozens of additional examples of why the Book of Mormon COULD NOT possibly have been written by Joseph Smith, Spaulding, Allen, or any other 19th century American or Westerner. We have not even discussed the Olive Culture, Semitic names in the Book of Mormon (for example, the Jewish name Alma has been found at Nahal Hever, dating from the time of the Bar-Kochba revolt), or perhaps the most convincing of all, complex chiasms (Alma 36 being perhaps the most pristine example of a chiasm anywhere in scripture.) These are all very strong indications that the Book of Mormon had it's origins in the Middle East and not in New York.
Non-LDS scholars have also begun to take notice. Perhaps the most notable was Sami Hanna. However, Mr. Hanna no longer qualifies as a non_LDS scholar. I will end this post, and include his story in the next.
Don
6. In English we say something like, "And it was 427 years since Lehi left Jerusalem." The Semitic language would say it this way: "And it was 400 and 20 and 7 years since Lehi left Jerusalem." The Book of Mormon consistently follows the Hebraic pattern.
7.Sentence structure. (Beardall once again) "In Enos 1:5 reads, "Thy sins are forgiven thee." We might have written, "Your sins are forgiven". In the Semitic language, the sentence would mean nothing without the "thee". This might be poor English, but Joseph was translating from the original language. The phrase, "And it came to pass" is poor English, but good Egyptian.
8.Idioms. An idiom is an expression that is peculiar to a particular culture and cannot be translated directly. Definition from an grammar book: An expression in good use that is characteristic of or peculiar to a language. Perfectly acceptable idioms may seem illogical if taken literally or may violate established rules of grammar. Some idioms we are familiar with:
- He gave himself away
- He gets under my skin
- A ticklish situation
- She keeps needling me
- A poker face
Some Book of Mormon idioms having Semitic meanings:
- In Alma 32:7 "he stretched forth his hand" he didn't just reach out
- In Alma 32:8 they were "lowly in heart"
- "stiffnecked people"
- "fountains" a Semitic word for springs and streams
- "many waters" a Semitic word for oceans
- "turned aside their ears" meaning they forsook the Lord
- "four quarters of the earth" meaning everywhere, the whole earth"
- "by the hand of" meaning written by
- "having dwelt" meaning came from
These Semitic idioms are found in Mosiah 1:14 & 16: "extended his arm", "fallen into the hands of", and "by the hand of the Lord". Notice also the following Semitic usage in these verses (in Hebrew known as the construct state):
- "plates of brass" not "brass plates"
- "plates of Nephi" not "Nephi's plates"
- "sword of Laban" not "Laban's sword"."
There are literally dozens of additional examples of why the Book of Mormon COULD NOT possibly have been written by Joseph Smith, Spaulding, Allen, or any other 19th century American or Westerner. We have not even discussed the Olive Culture, Semitic names in the Book of Mormon (for example, the Jewish name Alma has been found at Nahal Hever, dating from the time of the Bar-Kochba revolt), or perhaps the most convincing of all, complex chiasms (Alma 36 being perhaps the most pristine example of a chiasm anywhere in scripture.) These are all very strong indications that the Book of Mormon had it's origins in the Middle East and not in New York.
Non-LDS scholars have also begun to take notice. Perhaps the most notable was Sami Hanna. However, Mr. Hanna no longer qualifies as a non_LDS scholar. I will end this post, and include his story in the next.
Don
The suspect portion isn't even in the translation I quoted, that is my point. So trying to use that as an illustration of problems is pretty poor. I almost wonder if you bothered to read my original response.
No need to lecture me on the difficulties of translation, one of my many talents is a working knowledge of Hebrew, Koine Greek, and a smattering of Latin.
Your illustrations of his "semantic language" only show how he was influenced by the KJV. It doesn't prove anything. I would like to know if anybody has ever seen the original text of this supposed revelation. Imagination and plagarism do not require an education. I know many people who do not have the level of education that I have recieved who could do the same thing. My Grandfather was the asst. National Security Advisor to a VP and he barely had a highschool diploma, formal education doesn't not directly correspond to levels of intelligence.
Until there is verifiable proof of the originals to use, Joseph Smith's miraculous "translation" as proof of authenticity is nothing more than fantasy. Particularly, when as others have pointed out he blew some prophecies big time.
[ September 07, 2002, 10:25 PM: Message edited by: Chemnitz ]
F
Fatherof4
Guest
Testimony of Sami Hanna:
LDS leaders have sought to have the Book of Mormon translated into every tongue on earth. It is a lengthy and difficult process. Sometimes, it is not possible to translate it, if a suitable translator cannot be found in regard to a particular language. Such seemed to be the case when, in the 1970s, the church sought to translate the Book of Mormon into Arabic.
In the 1970s, there were not any qualified Arabic speaking members of the church, so they looked without. They asked Mr. Sami Hanna if he would take the job. He had taughtat the University of Chicago, and had recently transferred to the University of Utah. We was Egyptian and was learned in Semitic languages. These are his words:
"When I began reading the Book of Mormon, and began making myself familiar with it, I expected to find a very poorly written book, as I had been told by critics of the unschooled nature of the youthful Joseph Smith as he had purportedly translated the book.
"What I found, however, was not a book of poor English; but to the contrary, I found myself reading the most beautiful Semitic book I had ever read! Naturally, it wasn't long before I knew that I must join the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This I did, and I now hold the office of elder in the Church." (source, William Beardall, Evidences of the Book of Mormon.)
Just another example of the evidence as presented in the Book of Mormon.
Don
[ September 08, 2002, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: Don Layton ]
LDS leaders have sought to have the Book of Mormon translated into every tongue on earth. It is a lengthy and difficult process. Sometimes, it is not possible to translate it, if a suitable translator cannot be found in regard to a particular language. Such seemed to be the case when, in the 1970s, the church sought to translate the Book of Mormon into Arabic.
In the 1970s, there were not any qualified Arabic speaking members of the church, so they looked without. They asked Mr. Sami Hanna if he would take the job. He had taughtat the University of Chicago, and had recently transferred to the University of Utah. We was Egyptian and was learned in Semitic languages. These are his words:
"When I began reading the Book of Mormon, and began making myself familiar with it, I expected to find a very poorly written book, as I had been told by critics of the unschooled nature of the youthful Joseph Smith as he had purportedly translated the book.
"What I found, however, was not a book of poor English; but to the contrary, I found myself reading the most beautiful Semitic book I had ever read! Naturally, it wasn't long before I knew that I must join the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This I did, and I now hold the office of elder in the Church." (source, William Beardall, Evidences of the Book of Mormon.)
Just another example of the evidence as presented in the Book of Mormon.
Don
[ September 08, 2002, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: Don Layton ]
Dualhunter
New Member
Sounds alot like the praise that Muslims give to the Koran. Some "expert" that nobody has ever heard of who was previously not a member of said religion, said it was the most beatiful book ever written in some language that the people being told this can't read and then converted to said religion. It is a common tactic used by many groups who have no real evidence in their favor and it makes it very difficult for the average person to verify the claim, but since the so-called evidence can't be verified it doesn't prove anything but instead strongly suggests that the representatives of the religion in question are being deceptive either intentially or because they themselves have been deceived.
F
Fatherof4
Guest
Hello Chemnitz,
Every time I post, you try to prove that you can't be lectured to...that you are a scholar and too learned to learn. You miss the purpose of my intent. I am not trying to "outsmart" you as much as I am supporting my beliefs that you belittle. If you are set on not accepting that evidence, that is your right. But I am not attempting to outsmart you. I am certain that you are much more qualified than I am in a number of areans...perhaps nearly every arena.
You said:
Until there is verifiable proof of the originals to use, Joseph Smith's miraculous "translation" as proof of authenticity is nothing more than fantasy.
Don:
I don't see it that way. But to each their own. I simply want to present some evidence, and hopefully you can see some of the reasons that I believe.
Chemnitz:
Particularly, when as others have pointed out he blew some prophecies big time.
Don:
Once again, non sequitur. I don't see any evidence that Joseph "blew" any prophecies. If we use the Biblical standard for prophecies, i.e. they are conditional upon certain things happening and so on, I don't find any problem any more than I do with Biblical prophets such as Jeremiah and Jonah.
Actually the list of things that Joseph got right on the money is impressive. Perhaps I could get to that in a later post. You see what my hands have typed in the last hour. I'm a pretty slow typist. I'm worn out!
Best to you,
Don
Every time I post, you try to prove that you can't be lectured to...that you are a scholar and too learned to learn. You miss the purpose of my intent. I am not trying to "outsmart" you as much as I am supporting my beliefs that you belittle. If you are set on not accepting that evidence, that is your right. But I am not attempting to outsmart you. I am certain that you are much more qualified than I am in a number of areans...perhaps nearly every arena.
You said:
Until there is verifiable proof of the originals to use, Joseph Smith's miraculous "translation" as proof of authenticity is nothing more than fantasy.
Don:
I don't see it that way. But to each their own. I simply want to present some evidence, and hopefully you can see some of the reasons that I believe.
Chemnitz:
Particularly, when as others have pointed out he blew some prophecies big time.
Don:
Once again, non sequitur. I don't see any evidence that Joseph "blew" any prophecies. If we use the Biblical standard for prophecies, i.e. they are conditional upon certain things happening and so on, I don't find any problem any more than I do with Biblical prophets such as Jeremiah and Jonah.
Actually the list of things that Joseph got right on the money is impressive. Perhaps I could get to that in a later post. You see what my hands have typed in the last hour. I'm a pretty slow typist. I'm worn out!
Best to you,
Don
F
Fatherof4
Guest
DualHunter writes:
Sounds alot like the praise that Muslims give to the Koran. Some "expert" that nobody has ever heard of who was previously not a member of said religion, said it was the most beatiful book ever written in some language that the people being told this can't read and then converted to said religion. It is a common tactic used by many groups who have no real evidence in their favor and it makes it very difficult for the average person to verify the claim, but since the so-called evidence can't be verified it doesn't prove anything but instead strongly suggests that the representatives of the religion in question are being deceptive either intentially or because they themselves have been deceived.
Don:
Turning my thoughts now, let me share an observation or two.
This demonstrates a common problem in debate. If you watch political debates, say between the leading Democratic Presidential candidate, and the leading Republican (go Republicans!) candidate, what do we immediately see after the debate is over? Leaders from both parties, spinning their claim to victory.
What we have here now, is me on one end...thinking man, if they would only open their minds a little bit, to the point where they could investigate the other side of their biases, they would be amazed at the answers. They have read the anti LDS books and works, but have not considered that there could possibly be another side to this.
Then, the Baptists on the other hand saying: What an idiot (grin)! How could anyone get so brainwashed as to believe that a lying money digger like Smith could be a prophet of God? Doesn't he see that the Bible warns us not to pay attention to these false prophets? (Should I go on?)
In spite of these differences, I would like to tell all of you that I love the Jesus of the Bible. He is my Savior and I know that without Him I am completely lost. I AM a Christian. And I do believe that you love the Savior also. I may disagree with you on a number of issues, but I DO believe that you are sincere.
I respect those of you who can discuss our differences without accusatory language. I really must compliment most (not all) of what I have seen here.
Don
Sounds alot like the praise that Muslims give to the Koran. Some "expert" that nobody has ever heard of who was previously not a member of said religion, said it was the most beatiful book ever written in some language that the people being told this can't read and then converted to said religion. It is a common tactic used by many groups who have no real evidence in their favor and it makes it very difficult for the average person to verify the claim, but since the so-called evidence can't be verified it doesn't prove anything but instead strongly suggests that the representatives of the religion in question are being deceptive either intentially or because they themselves have been deceived.
Don:
Turning my thoughts now, let me share an observation or two.
This demonstrates a common problem in debate. If you watch political debates, say between the leading Democratic Presidential candidate, and the leading Republican (go Republicans!) candidate, what do we immediately see after the debate is over? Leaders from both parties, spinning their claim to victory.
What we have here now, is me on one end...thinking man, if they would only open their minds a little bit, to the point where they could investigate the other side of their biases, they would be amazed at the answers. They have read the anti LDS books and works, but have not considered that there could possibly be another side to this.
Then, the Baptists on the other hand saying: What an idiot (grin)! How could anyone get so brainwashed as to believe that a lying money digger like Smith could be a prophet of God? Doesn't he see that the Bible warns us not to pay attention to these false prophets? (Should I go on?)
In spite of these differences, I would like to tell all of you that I love the Jesus of the Bible. He is my Savior and I know that without Him I am completely lost. I AM a Christian. And I do believe that you love the Savior also. I may disagree with you on a number of issues, but I DO believe that you are sincere.
I respect those of you who can discuss our differences without accusatory language. I really must compliment most (not all) of what I have seen here.
Don
That is my point what evidence? Not to mention everytime somebody points out a problem or inconsistancy in the teaching of the mormons your standard answer is fallacy or non sequitor. You didn't even address some of the things that I questioned you on.
So far the only consistant factor is everything for you boils down to a feeling. I'm sorry but your feelings aren't a viable piece of evidence of validity of a particular religion.
If you love the Jesus of the Bible then why are you a mormon? They are not the same.
F
Fatherof4
Guest
Chemnitz:
That is my point what evidence? Not to mention everytime somebody points out a problem or inconsistancy in the teaching of the mormons your standard answer is fallacy or non sequitor. You didn't even address some of the things that I questioned you on.
Don:
That's because they express opinion without documentation. That's what the terms mean. They say, "You don't believe in the true Jesus". Am I supposed to say, "Oh, okay, I see that now." I haven't seen anything that would convince me that you are right and I am wrong. I read the King James Bible. I beleive it. I just don't read it the same way that you do.
BTW, if I haven't answered each and every point you have made, I truly apologize. I really do try. Go back and look. I am working on answering a number of posts from a number of people.
The truth is that nobody from this board has responded to numerous issues that I have brought up. They flippintly dismiss hard evidence with causal phraseology.
How do you explain the idioms in the Book of Mormon? Don't give me the KJ garbage. Most of them don't even occur in the Bible. They are definitely Semitic, but not found in our current Bible. How did they get in the Book of Mormon?
What about Chiasmus? Alma? Synthetic Paralellisms? Antitheitcal Parallelsims? NHM? Bountiful? Bat Creek? Cognate Accusatives? The literal dozens of Hebraisms that have been discovered in the Book of Mormon? The Colophon? The accurate prophecies of Joseph Smith. (And yes, I am still trying to find time to get to this. Perhaps I will just cut and paste them in.) The simple fact that we HAVE the Book of Mormon? Would someone please explain these things away? I hate to keep bringing this one up, but nobody has even acknowleged my posts referring to Mosser and Owens. They are two of YOUR own. They are highly respected in Evangelical apologetic circles. Why is it that they say:
"However, much like testifying
against a loved one in court, we cannot hide the facts of the matter. In this
battle the Mormons are fighting valiantly. And the evangelicals? It appears that
we may be losing the battle and not knowing it.
It is a point of fact that the
Latter-day Saints are not an anti-intellectual group like Jehovah's Witnesses.
Mormons, in distinction to groups like JWs, produce work that has more than the
mere appearance of scholarship. The second conclusion we have come to is that
Mormon scholars and apologists (not all apologists are scholars) have, with
varying degrees of success, answered most of the usual evangelical criticisms.
A third conclusion we have come to is that currently there are, as far as we are
aware, no books from an evangelical perspective that responsibily interact with
contemporary LDS scholarly and apologetic writings.3 In a survey of twenty
recent evangelical books criticizing Mormonism we found that none interact with
this growing body of literature. Only a handful demonstrate any awareness of
pertinent works. Many of the authors promote criticisms that have long been
refuted; some are sensationalistic while others are simply ridiculous. A number
of these books claim to be "the definitive" book on the matter. That they make
no attempt to interact with contemporary LDS scholarship is a stain upon the
authors' integrity and causes one to wonder about their credibility.
Our fourth conclusion is that at the academic level evangelicals are losing the
debate with the Mormons. We are losing the battle and do not know it. In recent
years the sophistication and erudition of LDS apologetics has risen considerably
while evangelical responses have not.4 Those who have the skills necessary for
this task rarely demonstrate an interest in the issues. Often they do not even
know that there is a need. In large part this is due entirely to ignorance of
the relevant literature.
Finally, our fifth conclusion is that most involved in the counter-cult movement
lack the skills and training necessary to answer Mormon scholarly apologetic.
The need is great for trained evangelical biblical scholars, theologians,
philosophers and historians to examine and answer the growing body of literature
produced by traditional LDS scholars and apologists." (Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect:Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It? By Carl Mosser and Paul Owen)
Would someone care to clarify why two leading Evangelicals would admit such things if they were not true? Do the words of Mosser and Owens constitute my feelings? BTW, if anyone on this board would like to discuss the TRUE state of contemporary apologetics with me, feel free to email me and we can discuss things in more detail. I will be more than happy to supply you with some of the details that Mosser and Owens are referring to.
Chemnitz:
So far the only consistant factor is everything for you boils down to a feeling. I'm sorry but your feelings aren't a viable piece of evidence of validity of a particular religion.
Don:
Please. That's simply not so. It's not even close. I do believe that you may have it in reverse however.
Chemnitz:
If you love the Jesus of the Bible then why are you a mormon? They are not the same.
Don:
I think I know what you mean. It is not what you said. I think you are claiming (your feelings) that the LDS Jesus and the Biblical Jesus are not the same. I believe you have done nothing more than express your feelings here, my friend.
That is my point what evidence? Not to mention everytime somebody points out a problem or inconsistancy in the teaching of the mormons your standard answer is fallacy or non sequitor. You didn't even address some of the things that I questioned you on.
Don:
That's because they express opinion without documentation. That's what the terms mean. They say, "You don't believe in the true Jesus". Am I supposed to say, "Oh, okay, I see that now." I haven't seen anything that would convince me that you are right and I am wrong. I read the King James Bible. I beleive it. I just don't read it the same way that you do.
BTW, if I haven't answered each and every point you have made, I truly apologize. I really do try. Go back and look. I am working on answering a number of posts from a number of people.
The truth is that nobody from this board has responded to numerous issues that I have brought up. They flippintly dismiss hard evidence with causal phraseology.
How do you explain the idioms in the Book of Mormon? Don't give me the KJ garbage. Most of them don't even occur in the Bible. They are definitely Semitic, but not found in our current Bible. How did they get in the Book of Mormon?
What about Chiasmus? Alma? Synthetic Paralellisms? Antitheitcal Parallelsims? NHM? Bountiful? Bat Creek? Cognate Accusatives? The literal dozens of Hebraisms that have been discovered in the Book of Mormon? The Colophon? The accurate prophecies of Joseph Smith. (And yes, I am still trying to find time to get to this. Perhaps I will just cut and paste them in.) The simple fact that we HAVE the Book of Mormon? Would someone please explain these things away? I hate to keep bringing this one up, but nobody has even acknowleged my posts referring to Mosser and Owens. They are two of YOUR own. They are highly respected in Evangelical apologetic circles. Why is it that they say:
"However, much like testifying
against a loved one in court, we cannot hide the facts of the matter. In this
battle the Mormons are fighting valiantly. And the evangelicals? It appears that
we may be losing the battle and not knowing it.
It is a point of fact that the
Latter-day Saints are not an anti-intellectual group like Jehovah's Witnesses.
Mormons, in distinction to groups like JWs, produce work that has more than the
mere appearance of scholarship. The second conclusion we have come to is that
Mormon scholars and apologists (not all apologists are scholars) have, with
varying degrees of success, answered most of the usual evangelical criticisms.
A third conclusion we have come to is that currently there are, as far as we are
aware, no books from an evangelical perspective that responsibily interact with
contemporary LDS scholarly and apologetic writings.3 In a survey of twenty
recent evangelical books criticizing Mormonism we found that none interact with
this growing body of literature. Only a handful demonstrate any awareness of
pertinent works. Many of the authors promote criticisms that have long been
refuted; some are sensationalistic while others are simply ridiculous. A number
of these books claim to be "the definitive" book on the matter. That they make
no attempt to interact with contemporary LDS scholarship is a stain upon the
authors' integrity and causes one to wonder about their credibility.
Our fourth conclusion is that at the academic level evangelicals are losing the
debate with the Mormons. We are losing the battle and do not know it. In recent
years the sophistication and erudition of LDS apologetics has risen considerably
while evangelical responses have not.4 Those who have the skills necessary for
this task rarely demonstrate an interest in the issues. Often they do not even
know that there is a need. In large part this is due entirely to ignorance of
the relevant literature.
Finally, our fifth conclusion is that most involved in the counter-cult movement
lack the skills and training necessary to answer Mormon scholarly apologetic.
The need is great for trained evangelical biblical scholars, theologians,
philosophers and historians to examine and answer the growing body of literature
produced by traditional LDS scholars and apologists." (Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect:Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It? By Carl Mosser and Paul Owen)
Would someone care to clarify why two leading Evangelicals would admit such things if they were not true? Do the words of Mosser and Owens constitute my feelings? BTW, if anyone on this board would like to discuss the TRUE state of contemporary apologetics with me, feel free to email me and we can discuss things in more detail. I will be more than happy to supply you with some of the details that Mosser and Owens are referring to.
Chemnitz:
So far the only consistant factor is everything for you boils down to a feeling. I'm sorry but your feelings aren't a viable piece of evidence of validity of a particular religion.
Don:
Please. That's simply not so. It's not even close. I do believe that you may have it in reverse however.
Chemnitz:
If you love the Jesus of the Bible then why are you a mormon? They are not the same.
Don:
I think I know what you mean. It is not what you said. I think you are claiming (your feelings) that the LDS Jesus and the Biblical Jesus are not the same. I believe you have done nothing more than express your feelings here, my friend.
F
Fatherof4
Guest
Some quick cut and pastes:
The name Nehem/Nahom ("nhm" - which can also be rendered "Nihm") is a rare place name - with the only known site in the Arabian peninsula being at a place consistent with the Book of Mormon account. Along with detailed documentation and references, the Astons' book includes a photograph of the 1976 Royal Geographical Society map - apparently from the University of Sana'a in Yemen - showing Nehem as a significant burial site in the right place to agree with the Book of Mormon description of Nahom. The existence of this site was not known to LDS scholars until a few years ago and certainly could not have been known to Joseph Smith. (By the way, the Semitic name Nahom can refer to mourning and consolation, and may also refer to groaning and complaining, giving it special significance in Nephi's account. See 1 Nephi 16:35.)
Some critics have argued that references to Nahom/Nehem/Nihm in writing could be traced no earlier than about 900 A.D., not to 600 B.C. That argument lost it basis with a recent discovery of an artifact dating to the sixth or seventh century B.C. bearing the tribal name of "Nihm." S. Kent Brown describes the find (note that I have simply left out several Semitic markings in the names below that I cannot type with ANSI characters):
"A German archaeological team under the leadership of Burkard Vogt has been excavating the Baran temple in Marib, the ancient capital of the Sabaean kingdom that lies about 70 miles due east of modern Sana, the capital of Yemen. (It is likely that the queen of Sheba began her journey to visit King Solomon from Marib.) Among the artifacts uncovered at the temple, the excavators turned up an inscribed altar that they date to the seventh or sixth centuries B.C., generally the time of Lehi and his family. A certain "Biathar, son of Sawad, son of Nawan, the Nihmite" donated the altar to the temple. the altar has been part of a traveling exhibit of artifacts from ancient Yemen...."
(S. Kent Brown, "'The Place That Was Called Nahom': New Light from Ancient Yemen," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1999, pp. 66-68.)
Thus, there is ancient evidence referring to the tribe of Nihm, a member of which was wealthy enough to donate an altar to a temple. The reference cited above shows a picture of the finely carved, beautiful altar. The reference to the tribe of Nihm doesn't prove the existence of a place by the same name. But as S. Kent Brown puts it, "it is reasonable to surmise that the tribe gave its name to the region where it dwelt, evidently a few dozen miles north of modern Sana, in the highlands that rise to the north of Wadi Jawf. Was it this name that Nephi rendered Nahom in the record? Very probably." (ibid.)
As one travels south-southeast of Jerusalem along the major trunk of the ancient Arabian trade route, the route branches east toward the southeastern coast at only point: in the Jawf valley (Wadi Jawf) just a few miles from Nehem. From thence the eastern branch of the trade route goes toward the ancient port of Qana - modern Bir Ali - on the Hadhramaut coast, where most of the incense was shipped. This eastern branch was the major route - the pathways to the south were less used.
Now if Nehem is the Book of Mormon site Nahom, then is there a Bountiful to the east of it on the coast? Amazingly, we have the luxury of two excellent candidate sites that are roughly due east of Nehem on the Oman coast. The Astons propose Wadi Sayq as the best candidate for Bountiful. It is a most unusual seashore site which appears to meets virtually every criterion for the site Bountiful in the Book of Mormon. George Potter and Timothy Sedor in their new video, "Following the Words of Nephi: The Land Bountiful," propose the area of Salalah and the nearby ancient port of Khor Rori as the general site for Bountiful (to order the video, see George Potter's site, www.nephiproject.com). It meets all the criteria that Wadi Sayq does, if we allow Bountiful to include a harbor two or three miles away from an area rich in tropical fruit (the port Khor Rori and the lush regions of Salalah aren't all within a stone's throw of each other, but are close enough).
The Astons make an impressive case and clearly show that the book of First Nephi could not have been fabricated by Joseph Smith. Their candidate site of Wadi Sayq appears to offer almost all that we could hope for in terms of marvelous, even stunning evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon. Their work is further supplemented by the photographic work of Maurine and Scot Proctor, reported in the article, Where Did Nephi Build the Ship?" from Meridian Magazine, Sept. 30, 2000. The Proctors provide some additional details beyond the work of the Astons that show the plausibility of the Wadi Sayq location.
Sorry for the copout (cut and paste), but I wanted to introduce an interesting possibility in my limited time. Certainly not proof, but strong evidence indeed.
Don
The name Nehem/Nahom ("nhm" - which can also be rendered "Nihm") is a rare place name - with the only known site in the Arabian peninsula being at a place consistent with the Book of Mormon account. Along with detailed documentation and references, the Astons' book includes a photograph of the 1976 Royal Geographical Society map - apparently from the University of Sana'a in Yemen - showing Nehem as a significant burial site in the right place to agree with the Book of Mormon description of Nahom. The existence of this site was not known to LDS scholars until a few years ago and certainly could not have been known to Joseph Smith. (By the way, the Semitic name Nahom can refer to mourning and consolation, and may also refer to groaning and complaining, giving it special significance in Nephi's account. See 1 Nephi 16:35.)
Some critics have argued that references to Nahom/Nehem/Nihm in writing could be traced no earlier than about 900 A.D., not to 600 B.C. That argument lost it basis with a recent discovery of an artifact dating to the sixth or seventh century B.C. bearing the tribal name of "Nihm." S. Kent Brown describes the find (note that I have simply left out several Semitic markings in the names below that I cannot type with ANSI characters):
"A German archaeological team under the leadership of Burkard Vogt has been excavating the Baran temple in Marib, the ancient capital of the Sabaean kingdom that lies about 70 miles due east of modern Sana, the capital of Yemen. (It is likely that the queen of Sheba began her journey to visit King Solomon from Marib.) Among the artifacts uncovered at the temple, the excavators turned up an inscribed altar that they date to the seventh or sixth centuries B.C., generally the time of Lehi and his family. A certain "Biathar, son of Sawad, son of Nawan, the Nihmite" donated the altar to the temple. the altar has been part of a traveling exhibit of artifacts from ancient Yemen...."
(S. Kent Brown, "'The Place That Was Called Nahom': New Light from Ancient Yemen," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1999, pp. 66-68.)
Thus, there is ancient evidence referring to the tribe of Nihm, a member of which was wealthy enough to donate an altar to a temple. The reference cited above shows a picture of the finely carved, beautiful altar. The reference to the tribe of Nihm doesn't prove the existence of a place by the same name. But as S. Kent Brown puts it, "it is reasonable to surmise that the tribe gave its name to the region where it dwelt, evidently a few dozen miles north of modern Sana, in the highlands that rise to the north of Wadi Jawf. Was it this name that Nephi rendered Nahom in the record? Very probably." (ibid.)
As one travels south-southeast of Jerusalem along the major trunk of the ancient Arabian trade route, the route branches east toward the southeastern coast at only point: in the Jawf valley (Wadi Jawf) just a few miles from Nehem. From thence the eastern branch of the trade route goes toward the ancient port of Qana - modern Bir Ali - on the Hadhramaut coast, where most of the incense was shipped. This eastern branch was the major route - the pathways to the south were less used.
Now if Nehem is the Book of Mormon site Nahom, then is there a Bountiful to the east of it on the coast? Amazingly, we have the luxury of two excellent candidate sites that are roughly due east of Nehem on the Oman coast. The Astons propose Wadi Sayq as the best candidate for Bountiful. It is a most unusual seashore site which appears to meets virtually every criterion for the site Bountiful in the Book of Mormon. George Potter and Timothy Sedor in their new video, "Following the Words of Nephi: The Land Bountiful," propose the area of Salalah and the nearby ancient port of Khor Rori as the general site for Bountiful (to order the video, see George Potter's site, www.nephiproject.com). It meets all the criteria that Wadi Sayq does, if we allow Bountiful to include a harbor two or three miles away from an area rich in tropical fruit (the port Khor Rori and the lush regions of Salalah aren't all within a stone's throw of each other, but are close enough).
The Astons make an impressive case and clearly show that the book of First Nephi could not have been fabricated by Joseph Smith. Their candidate site of Wadi Sayq appears to offer almost all that we could hope for in terms of marvelous, even stunning evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon. Their work is further supplemented by the photographic work of Maurine and Scot Proctor, reported in the article, Where Did Nephi Build the Ship?" from Meridian Magazine, Sept. 30, 2000. The Proctors provide some additional details beyond the work of the Astons that show the plausibility of the Wadi Sayq location.
Sorry for the copout (cut and paste), but I wanted to introduce an interesting possibility in my limited time. Certainly not proof, but strong evidence indeed.
Don
If you want us to even concider any of your "proof" you will need to use sources outside of the LDS propoganda machine.
The statement "I feel" has been a consistant response from you. You see I don't feel, I know.
I also know that who the LDS teaches is Jesus is not the Jesus of the Bible. I also know that LDS teaches that Christ only died for Adam's transgression and that you still have to earn salvation.
If I recall the Mormons have their own version of the KJV, that was "corrected" by Smith. So maybe we should change the venue just to make sure you aren't using a corrupted version of the Bible to, lets say the NKJV, ESV, or NASB, any of the three are excellent translations. Maybe then you can see why I can safely say that the Jesus of mormonism is not the Jesus of Christianity.
The statement "I feel" has been a consistant response from you. You see I don't feel, I know.
I also know that who the LDS teaches is Jesus is not the Jesus of the Bible. I also know that LDS teaches that Christ only died for Adam's transgression and that you still have to earn salvation.
If I recall the Mormons have their own version of the KJV, that was "corrected" by Smith. So maybe we should change the venue just to make sure you aren't using a corrupted version of the Bible to, lets say the NKJV, ESV, or NASB, any of the three are excellent translations. Maybe then you can see why I can safely say that the Jesus of mormonism is not the Jesus of Christianity.
Don, it's already been demonstrated that the Jesus of Mormonism and the Jesus of the Bible are two very different Jesus'.
We can do it again, if you like.
Mike
BTW, If you don't mind, I'd like to respond to you privately on the issue of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods because I'd really like to keep this as focused on the nature of Jesus as possible.
If you would rather air it out publicly, please feel free to start another thread and I'll meet you there.
[ September 08, 2002, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: Smoke_Eater ]
P
pcreilly
Guest
Hi I am new to the board today, and I just want to say, that I myself was a believer in the mormon church for 5 years. I was set free over a year ago now. I was just like you my friend, full of the church. But I had no relationship with the Jesus I claimed to worship. I am not a christian because I believe the bible. I am a christian because Christ died for MY sins, and He forgave me, and gave me the Holy Spirit.
Yes I believe the bible because the bible is the word of God, and the WORD WAS GOD. Jesus is the Word. The Jesus of the bible will show you the truth if you ask him to. And the truth will set you free.
You may love your church,
but the your church doesn't love you!
Why defend what is built upon sand.
Only Jesus love you
And if you have HIM you will be standing upon A Rock!
Yes I believe the bible because the bible is the word of God, and the WORD WAS GOD. Jesus is the Word. The Jesus of the bible will show you the truth if you ask him to. And the truth will set you free.
You may love your church,
but the your church doesn't love you!
Why defend what is built upon sand.
Only Jesus love you
And if you have HIM you will be standing upon A Rock!
F
Fatherof4
Guest
From Chemnitz:
If you want us to even concider any of your "proof" you will need to use sources outside of the LDS propoganda machine.
Don responds:
I didn't realize that Mosser and Owen were now considered part of the "LDS propaganda machine". What you are saying is that because I am LDS, there is absolutely no validity to what I say. I couldn't possibly have anything of valid to offer, because I am LDS. Anything that an LDS member offers, is to be immeditately discounted, simply for the fact that they are LDS. Nevermind if there are no answers to the evidence. It doesn't matter if we cannot disprove their claims. They are LDS, and that is just below Moron on the intelligence scale. What a closed mind you have!
Most sources who are not LDS who do come to the conclusions that I share, are convinced and become baptized. Therefore they become LDS and in your view, are no longer qualified to have an opinion. I gave you one example, that of Sami Hanna. He is an educated scholar. He read the Book of Mormon as a sceptic and was converted because of the undeniable internal evidence that it offered him. But I realize that he is now an uninformed and unqualified idiot, because he dared act upon his convictions. Let's discount him too.
One of my friends, Mike Karosy, up until about one year ago was an Evangelical Pastor. He studied the claims, and is now a member of the restored church. Discount him as well. He just reduced his IQ by 75 points.
Chemnitz:
The statement "I feel" has been a consistant response from you. You see I don't feel, I know.
Don:
Upon what do you base your "know"ledge? I know that I have the truth, but it is not by my own understanding that I know it, rather it is by the Spirit of God that I know. You rely on your interpretation of scripture. You rely on the arm of the flesh.
Chemnitz:
I also know that who the LDS teaches is Jesus is not the Jesus of the Bible. I also know that LDS teaches that Christ only died for Adam's transgression and that you still have to earn salvation.
Don:
Sir, you are wrong again. Here we go again. It's around and around we go and where we stop nobody knows. You claim that I post my feelings, and when I provide solid evidence, I don't get any response...instead I get more of your feelings (that you call knowledge.) I STILL HAVE NOT SEEN ONE ISSUE ADDRESSED THAT I HAVE PROVIDED EVIDENCE FOR. Where is the answer? Where is the refutation of evidence? If we were in a court of law, the jury would have been back, the verdict rendered and you would have been out on your ear.
If you're half the scholar that you proclaim yoruself to be, you would be much more diligent in adhering to the principles of accepted scholarship. Instead you accuse me of the very things that you yourself are guilty of.
Chemnitz:
If I recall the Mormons have their own version of the KJV, that was "corrected" by Smith. So maybe we should change the venue just to make sure you aren't using a corrupted version of the Bible to, lets say the NKJV, ESV, or NASB, any of the three are excellent translations. Maybe then you can see why I can safely say that the Jesus of mormonism is not the Jesus of Christianity.
Don:
I use primarily the KJ version. Do you understand that Joseph never completed the translation? He never had a chance to because he was murdered by some of your good ol' boys. The mob was composed of the "Christians" of the day, with one of the probable leaders being a Baptist Preacher. (The charges were never proven.) Modern Christianity is NOT the same Christianity that Christ established.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Smoke_Eater:
Don, it's already been demonstrated that the Jesus of Mormonism and the Jesus of the Bible are two very different Jesus'.
We can do it again, if you like.
Mike
Don:
I would love to. I'll begin on the next post. When I demonstrate the Christianity of the Savior that I adhere to, I will want to use the Bible, as well as ancient texts that help us understand what the original Christians understood.
If you want us to even concider any of your "proof" you will need to use sources outside of the LDS propoganda machine.
Don responds:
I didn't realize that Mosser and Owen were now considered part of the "LDS propaganda machine". What you are saying is that because I am LDS, there is absolutely no validity to what I say. I couldn't possibly have anything of valid to offer, because I am LDS. Anything that an LDS member offers, is to be immeditately discounted, simply for the fact that they are LDS. Nevermind if there are no answers to the evidence. It doesn't matter if we cannot disprove their claims. They are LDS, and that is just below Moron on the intelligence scale. What a closed mind you have!
Most sources who are not LDS who do come to the conclusions that I share, are convinced and become baptized. Therefore they become LDS and in your view, are no longer qualified to have an opinion. I gave you one example, that of Sami Hanna. He is an educated scholar. He read the Book of Mormon as a sceptic and was converted because of the undeniable internal evidence that it offered him. But I realize that he is now an uninformed and unqualified idiot, because he dared act upon his convictions. Let's discount him too.
One of my friends, Mike Karosy, up until about one year ago was an Evangelical Pastor. He studied the claims, and is now a member of the restored church. Discount him as well. He just reduced his IQ by 75 points.
Chemnitz:
The statement "I feel" has been a consistant response from you. You see I don't feel, I know.
Don:
Upon what do you base your "know"ledge? I know that I have the truth, but it is not by my own understanding that I know it, rather it is by the Spirit of God that I know. You rely on your interpretation of scripture. You rely on the arm of the flesh.
Chemnitz:
I also know that who the LDS teaches is Jesus is not the Jesus of the Bible. I also know that LDS teaches that Christ only died for Adam's transgression and that you still have to earn salvation.
Don:
Sir, you are wrong again. Here we go again. It's around and around we go and where we stop nobody knows. You claim that I post my feelings, and when I provide solid evidence, I don't get any response...instead I get more of your feelings (that you call knowledge.) I STILL HAVE NOT SEEN ONE ISSUE ADDRESSED THAT I HAVE PROVIDED EVIDENCE FOR. Where is the answer? Where is the refutation of evidence? If we were in a court of law, the jury would have been back, the verdict rendered and you would have been out on your ear.
If you're half the scholar that you proclaim yoruself to be, you would be much more diligent in adhering to the principles of accepted scholarship. Instead you accuse me of the very things that you yourself are guilty of.
Chemnitz:
If I recall the Mormons have their own version of the KJV, that was "corrected" by Smith. So maybe we should change the venue just to make sure you aren't using a corrupted version of the Bible to, lets say the NKJV, ESV, or NASB, any of the three are excellent translations. Maybe then you can see why I can safely say that the Jesus of mormonism is not the Jesus of Christianity.
Don:
I use primarily the KJ version. Do you understand that Joseph never completed the translation? He never had a chance to because he was murdered by some of your good ol' boys. The mob was composed of the "Christians" of the day, with one of the probable leaders being a Baptist Preacher. (The charges were never proven.) Modern Christianity is NOT the same Christianity that Christ established.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Smoke_Eater:
Don, it's already been demonstrated that the Jesus of Mormonism and the Jesus of the Bible are two very different Jesus'.
We can do it again, if you like.
Mike
Don:
I would love to. I'll begin on the next post. When I demonstrate the Christianity of the Savior that I adhere to, I will want to use the Bible, as well as ancient texts that help us understand what the original Christians understood.