Print

[HeLiuM]

QUOTE (Mr. Chips @ Jul 28 2004, 05:24 AM)

I personally, would not ridicule you, for your beleifs...but evolution does not make sense unless your judgement is really clouded. your history: 1) 4.6 billion years ago, a blip in space starts spinning, and explodes 2) explosion creates the solar systems and galaxy ...I could go, there is much more these first 2 steps makes even more questions than answers. Let's look at some the questions: what was the blip?  why did it spin?  where was the physical law to create motion?  why did the law exist?  Who made this law?  what created the motion?  Why was ANYTHING there in the first place?  Why did it explode?  Why is the universe not equally distrubuted then?  Why was space there?  How could all the mass of the universe fit into this blip?  How do we know how big it was?  How do we know it was 4.6 bya?

A couple of your questions could be answered (black holes fit a helluva lot of mass in a tiny area.  We don't know how big it was.  Nobody made the law, its simply how the universe works. To ask that is like asking "who made yellow".)  The rest of your questions, well they're the reason science exists.  We like to figure out things.
Evolutionary theory (and science in general) is for those who like to find answers about their surroundings, instead of immediately accounting it to a deity, one we have no way of testing for any shred of existence, and moving on.  I can't imagine what life would be like if everyone had chosen religion over science (say goodbye to modern living).

And nemt, that was truly a worthless flame.  Stop wasting time/electricity/oxygen.
Cute fish.

[Foe-hammer]

QUOTE

I've yet to see a single LDS ward in all of South Dallas.... But there won't be one....too many blacks and too much poverty for the church to gain anything out of it...

Why the hell does the location of their meeting place have anything to do with their relationship with the poorer class?  It's just common sense not to construct a church in a run down drug infested parts of town.  The place would be looted in a week.  Really, you are going no where with this argument.

QUOTE

And don't tell me that I'm being racist and spreading lies. The Mormon Church of today in America is vastly middle class white.....

And your point?

QUOTE

Blacks were not allowed in the church until the 1960s cause they were "damned" and they weren't allowed as leaders until 1982...

Wrong.  Blacks have always been allowed in the LDS church (baptism).  The mormon church never did segregate its church, unlike the protestant christen churches that you belong to did.

QUOTE

Excuse me??? THey aren't bashing other churches? Isn't that what their missionaries go around and do??? If a Mormon missionary walks up to a house and the person living there tells them that they are a Christian, will the missionary not try to convert the Christian into the LDS faith??? They are gonna just let them keep going to a Baptist, Methodist, or Catholic church???

Bashing is to engage in harsh, accusatory, threatening criticism.  The LDS missionaries do not do this, all they do is share with people their beliefs about Christ and invite them to learn more.  Bashing is what people do who are insecure, who feel the need to tear down others to make them feel/look better.

You really have a hatred for anything that might threaten your beliefs.  Try taking off your blinders for all but two seconds, you might learn something.

[gronne]

QUOTE (Mr. Chips @ Jul 28 2004, 05:24 AM)

I personally, would not ridicule you, for your beleifs...but evolution does not make sense unless your judgement is really clouded. your history: 1) 4.6 billion years ago, a blip in space starts spinning, and explodes 2) explosion creates the solar systems and galaxy ...I could go, there is much more these first 2 steps makes even more questions than answers. Let's look at some the questions: what was the blip?  why did it spin?  where was the physical law to create motion?  why did the law exist?  Who made this law?  what created the motion?  Why was ANYTHING there in the first place?  Why did it explode?  Why is the universe not equally distrubuted then?  Why was space there?  How could all the mass of the universe fit into this blip?  How do we know how big it was?  How do we know it was 4.6 bya?

To be honest, I have no idea whether to believe in the big bang or not, it's by no means crucial in the theory of evolution. There are heavy documentations of how it happened, so I can't explain(and don't know) all here. As we speak a lot of scientists believing in the theory of evolution are trying to develop different theories of how it all started instead of the big bang theory. I don't even think Charles Darwin wrote about the big bang theory, I truly doubt it. The theory of evolution is provable without knowing anything about big bang. And your knowledge is truly lacking since it was Tellus that came to be 4.6 billion years ago. Big bang occured about 14 billion years ago.

I eventually believe they will come up with a bulletproof theory. If it's big bang or not, who knows. What I do know is that it'll include the theory of evolution.
Will religious people accept it? Most likely not. But more and more will.

[Mr. Chips]

QUOTE

I eventually believe they will come up with a bulletproof theory.

they may come up with a good theory at some point...but anything that wasn't witnessed is up to speculation.
As for 14 billion years, I have not heard that one, I have seen charts and things saying it was about 4.6... I even had to draw a timetable in Biology back in high school.   It has been changing quite a bit.  Originally, the spinning "blip" was said to be trillions of kilometers wide, now the average 7th grade textbook says "it was as big as a period on this page." so these things change, part of my reason for not putting any faith in their ideas... after all, Almighty Stephen Hawking himself beleives firmly in the Big Bang (or at least seems to be the specialist on the subject)...or maybe he just likes to write about things to sell books?  You won't find him in this debate, that's for sure!

[Foe-hammer]

QUOTE

Because if they won't go to the poor, it shows how they think of the poor. They are never gonna change a city if all they do is treat them like leppers and run special little food runs into the city every once in awhile. It's not common sense. The church I'm staying at right now is in the worst part of South Dallas. There have been three shootings in the past 2 weeks. Drugs and prostitution do infest this part of town. Infact, the very apartments we are staying in used to be the #1 location for selling crack cocaine in all of Dallas. There are steps across the street that lead to nowhere (lots that used to be whorehouses and drughouses)....but since the church has come here, everything has changed. The place would be looted in a week? Isn't that pretty hardcore discrimination. I don't think the Mormon church knows the poor, it doesn't know the city, it just wants to get its money. I'm not going anywhere with this arguement because the Mormon church refuses to put the poor in equality with the rich - so much so that its afraid to build churches here to reach out to the people because its scared that they'll be looted?

Did you fail to read my second to last post?  The LDS missionaries DO actively seek out and teach the less fortunate poorer class, and all else who will listen.  I've seen them do this, but if you want to assume things, as you do so well, go on telling your lies.  Just because there is not an LDS church in these part doesn't mean a damn thing.

QUOTE

Absolutely wrong. "Salt Lake City -- Mormon church leaders describe what happened 25 years ago as a shared, simultaneous revelation from God. While gathered inside the faith's Salt Lake City Temple, the officials said God revealed that they should allow black men to become members of the Mormon priesthood, reversing more than a century of church practice. The church ended the ban with a four-paragraph statement released on June 8, 1978, that said ''every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood.'' "

You said "Blacks were not allowed in the church until the 1960s cause they were damned".  You are the one who is absolutely wrong.  Like I said, the LDS church has never discriminated anyone (black, Jew, etc.) from becoming a member of the LDS church through baptism.  The revelation you speak of was allowing blacks to hold the priesthood in 1978.  And while you can scream discrimination all you want, God has throughout time chosen certain tribes to hold the priesthood.  Levites for example.  So while you’re at it accuse God of being discrimination as well.

QUOTE

And to you, what I'm doing is YOUR definition of bashing. I think I'm telling the truth.

I quoted the dictionaries definition of "bashing", what is yours?

QUOTE

Excuse me? I have hatred (if I have any) for lies.

Then you should really stop telling them then.

[Mick Garvey]

WOLFBLADE12 im sorry i just have to get this out now its killing me. NINTENDO gargles big fat stupid monkey balls, they make the most kiddy games i know of their system is shit and the ds looks like crap as well (have you seen the games with that bongo controller. Those people are on some funny poisn mushroom shit.

[Foe-hammer]

QUOTE

I'm not assuming things. The fact is, there is not a single Mormon ward in all of South Dallas, and I have to wonder why.

So you wondering why, and guessing a reason is not assuming?  Wow!  Talk about irony.  Good one.

13)  

QUOTE

That's quite different than the Book of Mormon claiming that God damned the Lamanites and therefore darkened their skin....

So you ditched your African American rant, and now are focusing on dark skin in general now.  You know that there are groups of people who have just as dark of skin, and even darker then African American.  So you'll have to include them all in your rant now if you’re going to attach dark skin.  
In the Book of Mormon the Lamanites were indeed cursed with a darkening of the skin, but the darkening of the skin in itself was not the curse, it was to distinguish the unfaithful Lamanites, at the time, from the light skinned Nephites.  Later on in the Book of Mormon there were many dark shinned Lamanites who were more righteous and blessed from the Lord then the light skinned Nephites.

14)  

QUOTE

The Mormon church was blatantly racist from its foundation. Now, you might say that Christian churches have been segregated or perhaps racist. This is true, but in no way does the Bible, nor Christ, make any comments that sets one race as inferior to another, and the Bible is very clear that Jew and Gentile all are treated equally like God.

You need to study your bible more.  The Lord throughout time has chosen/blessed/favored different tribes of people due to their righteousness, while others have not been.  For example: the Jews were the Lords chosen people, the Levites where the only tribe who were chosen to hold the Melchezidech Priesthood, and the gentiles where not actively proselyted tell some time after Christ’s ascension into heaven; Paul was the Apostle chosen to take the gospel to the gentiles.  This is but a few examples of the Lord giving special blessing to one group of people over another.  This is the same thing found in the Book of Mormon.  It is called being blessed for roughhouses.  It is not setting people inferior to another.  If you have a problem with this, then you better take it up with the Lord, and tell him he is wrong.

QUOTE

And actually, you were correct. Upon further study, I seen no evidence that blacks were not admitted into the church prior to the 1960s.

And yet you posted this false info anyways.  Why?  At least you admitted on one of the many occasions that the info you posted was false.  Now how about the others...

QUOTE

Now, you are claiming that everything I have to say, despite the fact that a lot of it is from outside, nonChristian sources is all lies.

Not everything, just 95% of what you have accused the Mormon church of.
Let’s go through the many occurrences where you have over assumed, and been false on, just to refresh your memory:

1)  

QUOTE

but they also believe that Jesus is Satan's brother

True, but in the sense that all of Gods children are brothers and sisters, and Lucifer was also one of Gods spirits but fell (Morning star).

2)  

QUOTE

They believe in salvation by works (ie. you can work your way into heaven).

Not true. They believe in salvation by grace (Christ Atonement), after all one can do. This does make more logic to me then death bed repentance. "Faith without works is dead".  They do believe that works is very important, but no matter how many good works a person does while they are alive, if it were not for christ atonement they could not be saved, because christ paid for the sins of all humankind. But if someone does evil all their days, and does not repent (repentance requires more then just confessing your sins, it requires a godly sorrow and a change of heart and actions), then christ's atonement will have no effect on that individual. Read the book of James again, and then maybe you'll understand what i'm talking about.

3)  

QUOTE

Joseph Smith also has a court order from New York state on the charge of looking into a stone to tell the future.  This court order is from several years before the Book of Mormon was ever published.

It was called the uramin in thumum (sp?). He used it to aide him in translating the book of mormon from off of gold plates.  The book of mormon wasn't published tell 1830, joseph smith started translating the plates 1821. So he was using the sear stone well before the book was published; not to tell the future.

4)  

QUOTE

The Book of Mormon itself has absolutely no credence in modern archaelogy. It has gone over many many changes in its text in the 170 years its been in publication.

The only changes i noticed were grammatical. No points of their doctrine were changed. I have studied the LDS faith for some time now (quite interesting), and have compared 1890 and present editions of the book. If you want to talk about changes, the bible has been through many translations, and messed with during the early days of catholicism.

5)  

QUOTE

Mormonism itself is a direct copy of Islam. God calls his "prophet" to reform something messed up. He sees an angel (both instances Gabriel), receives a revelation and receives new "scripture".

The angle was called Moroni, not Gabriel that visited Joseph Smith. God has always used prophets and apostles to run his kingdom when the church was on the earth. Question is why are there not any prophets and apostles today?

6)  

QUOTE

Did he [Joseph Smith] sacrifice anything? He got murdered (but not willfully). Infact, wasn't he killed in a shoot out? Oh, yeah, he was.....

Joseph Smith was held in jail unlawfully, and was killed by a mob. He did not even have a gun. So yes, i would call that sacrificing his life. And so what if he died fighting, he is not Christ and never claimed to be. Many of the Apostles gave up a good fight before they died.

7)  

QUOTE

Could you explain this for me.....why does the Book of Mormon not have a single bit of archaelogical evidence in America when archaelogists (Mormons and nonMormons) have been searching for over a century?

The book of Mormon does have archaelogical evidence in the New World, and in the Old World. There are explicit burial rituals mounds described in the book of Mormon found in North America. Architectural structures and materials described in the book of Mormon have been found in ancient building in Central America. Part of the Book of Mormon does occur in the Old World, and there references to real places like Jerusalem; to caves outside the city wall (Joseph Smith did not even know there were walls around Jerusalem) - and such caves have been discovered in abundance, but were not known to him; to a place of mourning and burial called Nahom, described as being far to the "south-southeast" of Jerusalem which corresponds with an ancient place of a similar name (Nehem) right where the Book of Mormon says it should be; there is a newly discovered place directly east of Nahom on the coast of present-day Oman (a place called Wadi Sayq) that fits the Book of Mormon description of "Bountiful" perfectly - and this was unknown and even ludicrous until recent years. There is also confirmation of the existence of the Valley of Lemuel and the River of Laman, locations found in the book of mormon. The River of Laman, said by to be "continuously flowing" into the Red Sea, was long said to be ridiculous by anti-Mormon critics, who alleged that there were no continuously flowing rivers feeding the Red Sea. But there is definitely a substantial and continuously flowing stream in an impressive valley by the Red Sea in the place required by the Book of Mormon text. These are but a few examples. Also, much more has been studied and known about the holy lands then Central and South America, so generally more has been found. Most of the peoples and cultures on the American continents did not leave written records. The only place they did is the area where the Book of Mormon says there were ancient record-keeping people who prized literacy - near the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. Wait several hundred years until we know a lot more about the area, and then request the piles of evidence that you want.

 

QUOTE

Why is the piece of papyri that Joseph Smith claimed to be reformed Egyptian that he translated parts of the Book of Mormon turn out to be Egyptian death rites now that we know how to translate heiroglyphics?

The LDS church owns the only piece of the papyri left that Joseph Smith used to translate, and they have let many archeologists look it over. While you are right some of the papyri does mention Egyptian death rites (which is referred to as the book of breathing), so what? Josephs translations of the papyri, collectively called the peril of great price, also refer to such death rites.

9)  

QUOTE

And, from another source also revered as sacred in Mormonism: “(1)A revelation of Jesus Christ unto his servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and six elders, as they united their hearts and lifted their voices on high. (2)Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem. (3)Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased. (4)Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation. (5)For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord...“(D&C: Section 84:1-5) Funny thing is, this "prphecy" was made by Jospeh Smith in 1833. Certainly, none of the people of that generation are living today.... Yet, Joseph Smith prophesied that not only a temple would be built there, but all of New Jerusalem. But wait a second??? Guess what? The Mormons don't even own that land today. A splinter cell of the Mormon church, whom the Latter-Day Saints completely reject owns it... One of many false prophecies of Joseph Smith. I will not stand by to hear anyone glorify that liar......

I truely loved this acusation of yours.

Yes you are right, that is exactly what is said in the Mormon doctrine and covenants. But you are dead wrong. The real question is what is meant by "this generation"? Read Matt 24. Jesus fortells the doom of Jerusalem, and great calamities that will precede his second coming.

"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come (24:14). Immediately after the tribulations of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heavens, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other (24:29-31). Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled (24:34)."

So according to your interpretation, Christianity was preached to all the world and all nations, signs of the second coming of Christ, and the second coming of Christ has already happened, and specifically during period of the early Church, during the time period of Christs Apostles. Are you going to call Jesus Christ a lier, and accuse him of false prophecies too?

10)  

QUOTE

If the Mormon church isn't a financial institution, in what way is it serving poor inner city neigborhoods? Where are the wards, the temples, the missionaries? Why are they all in middle-white class neighborhoods?

You definently recieved your moneys worth out of this one.

There you go again assuming, and spreading lies again. The LDS church sends hundreds of millions of dollars in the form of food and medication relief to places here in the US and around the world to those who are in need. The LDS has a lay ministry (no one is paid) for their services. How about your church's ministry, are they paid? The LDS missionaries serve for two years and pay their own way; the church doesn't pay for their mission (food, housing, etc.). Who pays for your short month missions? While this should not matter at all, I’ve seen many LDS missionaries living in the poor part of the city, in government housing. What matters is they preach to everyone. I see them teaching people in the projects and other extremely less fortunate parts of the city.

11)  

QUOTE

Blacks were not allowed in the church until the 1960s cause they were "damned" and they weren't allowed as leaders until 1982...

Atleast you admitted that you were wrong on this accusation.

Wrong. Blacks have always been allowed in the LDS church (baptism). While you can scream discrimination all you want, God has throughout time chosen certain tribes to hold the priesthood. Levites for example. So while you’re at it accuse God of being discrimination as well.  The mormon church never did segregate its church, unlike the protestant christen churches that you belong to did.
 
12)  

QUOTE

Excuse me??? THey aren't bashing other churches? Isn't that what their missionaries go around and do??? If a Mormon missionary walks up to a house and the person living there tells them that they are a Christian, will the missionary not try to convert the Christian into the LDS faith??? They are gonna just let them keep going to a Baptist, Methodist, or Catholic church???

Bashing is to engage in harsh, accusatory, threatening criticism. The LDS missionaries do not do this, all they do is share with people their beliefs about Christ and invite them to learn more. Bashing is what people do who are insecure, who feel the need to tear down others to make them feel/look better.


Well there you have it.  Now that is a lot of false accusations.  Now try answering my questions for a change, instead of conveniently forgetting what you have said, and explain your ignorance in the above situations.

QUOTE

May Christ open your heart to hear his truth. Lord, I ask that you would open the heart and the eyes of this man so that he might see and believe in the real you, and not a false God made up by a follower of the father of lies. In Jesus name, Amen.

And i would pray the same for you.  

I must tell you thanks for the time i have had discussing the LDS religion with you.  You have made me realize how much truth the Mormon church has in their teachings.  In the past i have been to lazy to act on what i've kown to be true, but now i think i'll finally join the LDS faith.

[melon]

A couple of questions for all you religous types..

If god exists, where is he physically? to exist he must have a physical presense and a mass.
When was he born?
What was before god?
What laws govern what god can do?
How old is the earth?
Did dinosaurs exist?
IF evolution does not exist explain how over time animals adapt to there surroundings and why animals today are more intelligent than 100 million years ago.

[Foe-hammer]

QUOTE (melon @ Jul 30 2004, 10:59 AM)

A couple of questions for all you religous types.. If god exists, where is he physically? to exist he must have a physical presense and a mass. When was he born? What was before god? What laws govern what god can do? How old is the earth? Did dinosaurs exist? IF evolution does not exist explain how over time animals adapt to there surroundings and why animals today are more intelligent than 100 million years ago.

God doesn't do things by magic, He follows the same laws of physics that we understand; He just understands them better.

Probably 5 billion yrs old, as science has proposed.

Yes, dinosaurs existed; it's kind of hard to refute that considering we have their fossils.

Evolutions does exist to some degree.  I believe a species can evolve within a species (adapt to environment, etc.), just not to the point of species evolving into another species.  No educated person would be fool enough to disclaim evolution entirely.  If you understand how evolution works (mutations and the law of probability) it makes sense.

[melon]

Good to see you have a more balance view than others, but if follows rules, the rules must have existed before god. So when was god born and why? Who are gods parents?
Did he evolve?

On evolution why cant a species evolve into another?

How do you explain elephants and mammoths?

[Foe-hammer]

QUOTE (melon @ Jul 30 2004, 11:56 AM)

Good to see you have a more balance view than others, but if follows rules, the rules must have existed before god. So when was god born and why? Who are gods parents? Did he evolve? On evolution why cant a species evolve into another? How do you explain elephants and mammoths?

True.  I have an idea, but do not know.  The LDS religions has the best answers I have heard on some of the questions your asking.

The simplest definition of species is, organisms that can reproduce with eachother.  Under this classification, i believe that if it were possible (that is Mammoths being alive today) they could indeed reproduce with an elephant.

[melon]

there is no proof either way to carry on that argument.

How about horse's and donkeys. They evolved from a singular species. They can mate but the offspring is infertile and doesnt live long.

[Mr. Chips]

QUOTE

True. I have an idea, but do not know. The LDS religions has the best answers I have heard on some of the questions your asking.

before this topic "evolved" ... partly my fault I guess, I get worked up about that
it was about Mormons, and my question is to foe-hammer, you seem to know a lot about the LDS church.  You said you are not one, so do you have a friend who is?
If not, where did you get all the information?  I estimate you spent about 45 minutes typing !

[jesusphreak]

QUOTE

So you ditched your African American rant, and now are focusing on dark skin in general now. You know that there are groups of people who have just as dark of skin, and even darker then African American. So you'll have to include them all in your rant now if you’re going to attach dark skin. In the Book of Mormon the Lamanites were indeed cursed with a darkening of the skin, but the darkening of the skin in itself was not the curse, it was to distinguish the unfaithful Lamanites, at the time, from the light skinned Nephites. Later on in the Book of Mormon there were many dark shinned Lamanites who were more righteous and blessed from the Lord then the light skinned Nephites.

Brigham Young, "Cain slew his brother.... and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is a flat nose and black skin."(Journal of Discourses, Vol 7, page 290)

Joseph Smith, "Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race." (The Way to Perfection, page 101)

This is cleary making reference to the fact that those of black skin are an inferior race. In the Bible, it is very clear that no race is discriminated against at all. Infact, in the early part of Acts, one of the first Christian converts is a black.

QUOTE

You need to study your bible more. The Lord throughout time has chosen/blessed/favored different tribes of people due to their righteousness, while others have not been. For example: the Jews were the Lords chosen people, the Levites where the only tribe who were chosen to hold the Melchezidech Priesthood, and the gentiles where not actively proselyted tell some time after Christ’s ascension into heaven; Paul was the Apostle chosen to take the gospel to the gentiles. This is but a few examples of the Lord giving special blessing to one group of people over another. This is the same thing found in the Book of Mormon. It is called being blessed for roughhouses. It is not setting people inferior to another. If you have a problem with this, then you better take it up with the Lord, and tell him he is wrong.

In no way does the Bible say that one race is inferior to another. Yes, the Levites received the blessings of the priesthood, but the Judahites received the blessing of leadership. All of the tribes had a special role to play, which is very similar to the Biblical idea of the church being the body of Christ, and different people being different parts and performing different functions, but in no way being inferior.

Again, I quote Joseph Smith and Brigham Young:

Brigham Young, "Cain slew his brother.... and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is a flat nose and black skin."(Journal of Discourses, Vol 7, page 290)

Joseph Smith, "Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race." (The Way to Perfection, page 101)

They are saying that Cain became a black man, and then his offspring was made an inferior race...How racist is that???

QUOTE

And yet you posted this false info anyways. Why? At least you admitted on one of the many occasions that the info you posted was false. Now how about the others...

And you keep touching upon this fact that I admitted that I may have been wrong. Is admittance to a fault wrong?

QUOTE

Not everything, just 95% of what you have accused the Mormon church of.  Let’s go through the many occurrences where you have over assumed, and been false on, just to refresh your memory:

Let's do that.

QUOTE

but they also believe that Jesus is Satan's brother  ----------------------------------------------- True, but in the sense that all of Gods children are brothers and sisters, and Lucifer was also one of Gods spirits but fell (Morning star).

Except, the definition in the Bible that Jesus is God, not just the son of God, which is part of the trinity, and Mormons definitely do not follow that.

John 8:58, Jesus says, "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was, I AM."

This was the name that God told Moses to tell the Israelites when Moses was first called. He told Moses that his name was, I AM.

Jesus tells the Jews that his name is I AM. He is calling himself God. It's why the Jews tried to stone him, because he was calling himself God.

Mormons deny that Jesus is God.

The Mormon Jesus -
*The literal son of god and his goddess wife begotten in the pre-existence.
*The brother of all spirits born in heaven in the premortal existence.
*One of 3 gods in the godhead.
*The Trinity is three separate gods.
*First one to receive a spirit body.
*Atoned for sin on the cross and in the garden of Gethsemane.

The Christian Jesus -
*Not the literal son of god and his goddess wife.
*Not the brother of all spirits born in heaven in a premortal existence.
*Not one of 3 gods in the godhead.
*The Trinity is 3 persons in one God.
*Was always spirit from eternity.
*Atoned for sin on the cross alone

QUOTE

They believe in salvation by works (ie. you can work your way into heaven).  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not true. They believe in salvation by grace (Christ Atonement), after all one can do. This does make more logic to me then death bed repentance. "Faith without works is dead". They do believe that works is very important, but no matter how many good works a person does while they are alive, if it were not for christ atonement they could not be saved, because christ paid for the sins of all humankind. But if someone does evil all their days, and does not repent (repentance requires more then just confessing your sins, it requires a godly sorrow and a change of heart and actions), then christ's atonement will have no effect on that individual. Read the book of James again, and then maybe you'll understand what i'm talking about.

In order to reach the highest level of heaven in the three-tired structure of the Mormon view of heaven, quote, "good works must be obtained". All those who believe in Jesus have the right to the first level of heaven, and quote, "those who show grace and mercy to those who are the Latter-Day saints" will make it to the second level. However, only by having a temple marriage, having a successful mission, being baptized in the name of the dead, being baptized into the Mormon church, and serving the church in a form of higher office as ordered to be fulfilled by your patriachal blessing (which again, is what the blacks were denied). Unless all of these criterias are met, you do not stand a chance of gaining the highest level of heaven. This is a stark difference between the Biblical view of heaven.

However, many Mormons will argue that the Bible in the Old Testament argues about three levels of heaven. However, the Hebrew words simply mean , "the sky", "the space (more literally the upper sky)", and then the "heavenly realm", which is interesting considering they had no form of science to even know a "space" existed.

So think about this. According to the Biblical view, all "who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved". Think about the criminal on the cross. Did he not repent on his deathbed? He didn't do any works, but in asking for forgiveness, Christ then told him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise".

The fact also that Mormons enter the third heaven by works is proof that in their theology, works are greater than the salvation of Christ.

You'd better get busy, or you are gonna be stuck with me in the first level.....

But think about this also, the priesthood and church office blessings that blacks were denied meant that they were also restricted to only the first and second levels of heaven.

I've read the book of James. James is very clear, "faith without works is dead". However, he isn't saying that faith is based on works. The Bible is very clear about that. It just is saying that if you truly are in the faith of Jesus Christ, it is inevitable that good works will start to show. If this was not the case, the book of James contradicts the entire Bible (which it obviously does not).

QUOTE

Joseph Smith also has a court order from New York state on the charge of looking into a stone to tell the future.  This court order is from several years before the Book of Mormon was ever published.  -------------------------------------------------------------------- It was called the uramin in thumum (sp?). He used it to aide him in translating the book of mormon from off of gold plates. The book of mormon wasn't published tell 1830, joseph smith started translating the plates 1821. So he was using the sear stone well before the book was published; not to tell the future.

This reminds my friend automatically of the story of Paul and Barnabbas coming upon a girl possessed by a demon telling fortunes and speaking other languages. There is no differentiation between this young girl being demon possessed and telling the future, and Joseph Smith making a quick buck by using these "seeing stones" to tell the future.

When the Bible does speak of the Uramin and Thuramin, it speaks more of them as a type of die. The Bible always says, "they cast lots" to determine the Lord's will. It does not in anyway speak of them as these seeing stones. Seeing stones in themselves are blatantly a pagan device. The prophets of the Bible saw God and knew God face to face, they didn't need any seeing stone.

QUOTE

The Book of Mormon itself has absolutely no credence in modern archaelogy. It has gone over many many changes in its text in the 170 years its been in publication.  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The only changes i noticed were grammatical. No points of their doctrine were changed. I have studied the LDS faith for some time now (quite interesting), and have compared 1890 and present editions of the book. If you want to talk about changes, the bible has been through many translations, and messed with during the early days of catholicism.

In the opening pages of the Book of Mormon, the prophet rights a statement saying "additions and subtractions will be made to this book in light of new revelation". This cleary found in the Book of Mormon, just a page after the story of how Joseph Smith came to write the Book of Mormon admits itself that the book has changed over time due to "revelation". You can see the obvious problem in that. God cannot contradict himself, and does God change?
Would God really, after 140 years of saying that blacks are an inferior and cursed race all of a sudden decide that blacks were worthy of the third heaven (of which they weren't before)? Or is it more likely that pressure upon the church by outside society forced them to change their practices? Is this not unlike polygamy? And this is just the start of the problems with that.

QUOTE

Mormonism itself is a direct copy of Islam. God calls his "prophet" to reform something messed up. He sees an angel (both instances Gabriel), receives a revelation and receives new "scripture".  ------------------------------------------------------- The angle was called Moroni, not Gabriel that visited Joseph Smith. God has always used prophets and apostles to run his kingdom when the church was on the earth. Question is why are there not any prophets and apostles today?

I don't deny that there are. The Bible never says that there won't be any more prophets nor apostles. Infact, one of the stated gifts of the church was the gift of prophecy, and I and a few of my friends have personally talked with people who could be said to be prophets. An apostle was one that is said to have seen the Lord. I recall a story of a man named Sunghar Singh. He was actually a Nepali Hindu in the early 1930s and decided one night as a young man that if the real God of the universe didn't reveal himself, he would go down to the train tracks, put his head on them, and wait for the morning train to kill him. While waiting, a light filled the room and he believed that Jesus Christ appealed to him. You could call him an apostle. Christians do not deny modern-day apostles nor prophets.

However, the Bible is very clear in Deuteronomy 18 that if a prophet does not continue on in previous revelations of God, he is not a prophet. They must continue on in the work already set forth. Joseph Smith did not do that, neiter do his so called modern day prophets. They continually recieve this "new revelation" which completely abolishes what has been set before. The main case is the case of Joseph Smith. His revelation of Mormonism is completely unlike what they Bible sets forth (as I have shown earlier).

Now, relating to the issue of Islam.

If I were to describe a religion that was founded by a prophet, whom was given instruction on golden tablets, that are now buried and hidden for safe keeping, whom many people rebelled against and thought was crazy, but was sure that he was given a new divine revelation from God, took his people on a pilgrimage to a promised land, and was even promised that plurality of wives would be a blessing, you would automatically assume that I was talking about Mormonism and the story of Joseph Smith. However, the truth is, this is taken from the first two books of the Hadith, and the first five Surahs of the Koran, and is the story of the quote, "blessed prophet Muhammad".

Is it a coincidence that both of these men were raised as CHristians and suddenly received this new, "correct" revelation of God, or is it just Satan trying an old trick once more, to lie, distort, and decieve God's people?

QUOTE

Did he [Joseph Smith] sacrifice anything? He got murdered (but not willfully). Infact, wasn't he killed in a shoot out? Oh, yeah, he was..... -------------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Smith was held in jail unlawfully, and was killed by a mob. He did not even have a gun. So yes, i would call that sacrificing his life. And so what if he died fighting, he is not Christ and never claimed to be. Many of the Apostles gave up a good fight before they died.

There's no proof that any of the apostles gave a good fight. Infact, while Stephen was being stoned, he prayed, "Lord, forgive them for what they do". Doesn't sound like fighting back to me. Paul, when given the decision between leaving and heading to Rome where he knew he would die, willfully went to Rome and died.
Infact, you won't find a single story about one of the apostles fighting back. They willingly gave their lives.

Now, what about this Joseph Smith?

He was arrested, the police reports said that he had a gun in his hand, and he did infact "give a good fight"....

quote, "In 1844 Smith, Mayor of Nauvoo, orders the newspaper The Nauvoo Expositor destroyed since it was printing information considered detrimental to him. In 1844 Smith and his brother Hyrum are shot and killed in a shootout with a mob (during which Joseph Smith mortally wounded two non-Mormons) while they were being held in jail for charges based upon destroying The Nauvoo Expositor."

This seems like a pretty lawful reason to be jailed. And, I wonder how these two nonMormons were wounded if there was no shootout. And infact, doesn't Jesus say to turn the other cheek and pray, instead of killing those who persecute us. Sounds like a wolf in sheeps clothing to me....

QUOTE

Could you explain this for me.....why does the Book of Mormon not have a single bit of archaelogical evidence in America when archaelogists (Mormons and nonMormons) have been searching for over a century?  ---------------------------------------------------- The book of Mormon does have archaelogical evidence in the New World, and in the Old World. There are explicit burial rituals mounds described in the book of Mormon found in North America. Architectural structures and materials described in the book of Mormon have been found in ancient building in Central America. Part of the Book of Mormon does occur in the Old World, and there references to real places like Jerusalem; to caves outside the city wall (Joseph Smith did not even know there were walls around Jerusalem) - and such caves have been discovered in abundance, but were not known to him; to a place of mourning and burial called Nahom, described as being far to the "south-southeast" of Jerusalem which corresponds with an ancient place of a similar name (Nehem) right where the Book of Mormon says it should be; there is a newly discovered place directly east of Nahom on the coast of present-day Oman (a place called Wadi Sayq) that fits the Book of Mormon description of "Bountiful" perfectly - and this was unknown and even ludicrous until recent years. There is also confirmation of the existence of the Valley of Lemuel and the River of Laman, locations found in the book of mormon. The River of Laman, said by to be "continuously flowing" into the Red Sea, was long said to be ridiculous by anti-Mormon critics, who alleged that there were no continuously flowing rivers feeding the Red Sea. But there is definitely a substantial and continuously flowing stream in an impressive valley by the Red Sea in the place required by the Book of Mormon text. These are but a few examples. Also, much more has been studied and known about the holy lands then Central and South America, so generally more has been found. Most of the peoples and cultures on the American continents did not leave written records. The only place they did is the area where the Book of Mormon says there were ancient record-keeping people who prized literacy - near the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. Wait several hundred years until we know a lot more about the area, and then request the piles of evidence that you want.

"There are explicit burial rituals mounds described in the book of Mormon found in North America."

These burial mounds were found by the English in Spanish during the 1500s. How again was this a divine revelation when Joseph Smith lived after thier discovery?

"Architectural structures and materials described in the book of Mormon have been found in ancient building in Central America."

Was Coronado a Mormon prophet because he found these, too? Again, Joseph Smith lived after the Spaniards had colonized central and South America. Testimonies even say that Smith was well read. Would it be suprising if he read a book about Central America or the Spanish conquest? How is this divine revelation again?

"Part of the Book of Mormon does occur in the Old World, and there references to real places like Jerusalem; to caves outside the city wall (Joseph Smith did not even know there were walls around Jerusalem) - and such caves have been discovered in abundance, but were not known to him;"

For goodness sake, the Bible even talks about caves outside Jerusalem. There are caves everywhere in the world, and why is this divine revelation if Joseph Smith puts a cave in his story? Even the earliest accounts of the conquest of America contain statements such as, "this wall was like the old walls around Jerusalem". The Crusaders brought back a lot of material about Jerusalem and the holy lands......Anyone with a library at their disposal could say half the things Smith did. The Crusaders of the early Middle Ages often hid in caves outside Jerusalem, and in the story of Robin Hood, he hides in a cave outside Jerusalem until he can escape...

"to a place of mourning and burial called Nahom, described as being far to the "south-southeast" of Jerusalem which corresponds with an ancient place of a similar name (Nehem) right where the Book of Mormon says it should be; there is a newly discovered place directly east of Nahom on the coast of present-day Oman (a place called Wadi Sayq) that fits the Book of Mormon description of "Bountiful" perfectly - and this was unknown and even ludicrous until recent years."

So because he madeup a name that sounds similar to another name, he is a prophet???

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I mean, really, I could go on and on....

I just ask that before you make some quick replies on what I've said, please really read what I've put and study some of this and think about it.

If you'd really look at some of this stuff, and stop listening to what Mormon apologists tell you, you might find a truth different than what they have to say.

Good luck, man, and God bless....

[Colonel32]

This is hilarious. Do you guys realize your arguing on the point that "my book says your wrong".

Neither of you can know who's right, why not just accept your books say something different and accept each other.


Jesusphreak: you seem to be appalled that some of the LDS literature can be taken as racist. Do you feel the same way when you read some of the Christian scripture about women. The whole slaving your daughter thing, that always bothered me.