i'll give u 5 reasons y our church is right 1. (the church of jesus christ of the latter day saints) we r da only 1s wif the lords name in it meaning the church belongs to him 2. in our church the 1st thing we care about is da families 3.we help others who need more help den we do 4.we have a temple dat makes us feel lyk we a r in heaven nd5. our church is a well organized church wif leaders to help. my dad is a bishop in our ward,ever since his calling my family has changed, Proud 2 b a saint
@TheJuliet579 - Nothing personal, but I'd like to offer a suggestion. Grammar, spelling and punctuation go a long way in making a good case for your position.
FUCK ALL RELIGION. YOU BRAINWASHED FREAKS ARE DESTROYING THE WORLD WITH YOUR MORAL SUPERIORITY COMPLEXES. YOUR SHITTY GOD IS AS REAL AS SANTA CLAUSE. GROW UP.
@chbrules - I think you'll actually find, if you open up your eyeballs, is that LACK of morals in today's society is what is destroying the world. The creed "Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die" leaves people spiritually destitute.
@Kneel956 See what I mean? You have a double standard with the prophets of the Lord. I said do some research, not just read the names on here & create your idiotic opinions. Not all prophecies of the prophets of old happened and yet you still call them true prophets even though Joseph Smith made prophecies that came true & a very few haven't happened YET just like the prophets of old.
@majinish There's a difference between those that haven't happened and those that cannot happen. We find Joseph Smith telling us that the end of the world is brought forth by the Civil War. 146 years since, there's been no final judgement that I'm aware of.
There are a lot more, of course, but how many false prophesies does it take to be called a false prophet?
@moparmonster1965 "There's a difference between those that haven't happened and those that cannot happen" Ezekiel said Tyre would be conquered by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and Babylon would receive the riches of Tyre. Yet the scriptures say Babylon did NOT get anything from Tyre. That was a prophecy not fulfilled 100%.
@moparmonster1965 I gave what the scriptures teach. It has nothing to do with personal interpretation. Part of the prophecy was Babylon would get Tyre's riches. Babylon didn't get any riches from Tyre. That means the prophecy wasn't 100% fulfilled.
@majinish You don't have to convince me that you don't accept the Bible; I already believe that. But, as I said, I need to research this when I have more time.
@moparmonster1965 "You don't have to convince me that you don't accept the Bible; I already believe that" this, along with everything else so far, is where you're wrong. I do believe in the Bible. Unlike you I know prophets of God are still human and can make mistakes.
@moparmonster1965 There's no research needed for it. Ezekiel 26:12 And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water.
@moparmonster196529:18 Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon caused his army to serve a great service against Tyrus: every head was made bald, and every shoulder was peeled: yet had he no wages, nor his army, for Tyrus, for the service that he had served against it:
Babylon did not receive the riches of Tyrus (Tyre) even though Ezekiel said that's what would happen.
@moparmonster1965 "We find Joseph Smith telling us that the end of the world is brought forth by the Civil War."
False. This comes from people misinterpreting what was said. By the way, when you attempt to bring up a criticism make sure its your own and not one others have used over and over. I've heard this one before and its shut down easily.
I don't concern myself with what other critics are doing, but I wish them well. I'm on my own course and this is my own point, but thanks for your concern. I could say the same since apologists tend to rely pretty heavily on puppet organizations of the church like FAIR and FARMS. Even if you were to accurately dismiss this as a false prophesy, the fact is that the church still hasn't bothered to address any of these points because it has its flunkies doing its work.
With Revelation coming in at 22 chapters, it's rather silly to imagine that just over 200 words would be an accurate description of the end of the world according to the real God Almighty.
Since his prophesies were coming from the Mormon god, he wasn't made aware of any of the coming conflicts, of which there have been dozens between 1865 and now. Since it states that all of the following would begin 'at this place,' South Carolina, it stands to reason that it refers to the Civil War in its proper context.
@moparmonster1965 "Since his prophesies were coming from the Mormon god" Do you anti-Mormons know how ignorant statements like that are? We believe in the God the Bible speaks of, God the Father.
"Since it states that all of the following would begin 'at this place,' South Carolina, it stands to reason that it refers to the Civil War in its proper context." Ugh. READ THE SECTION. It does not say what you claim.
@majinish You believe in two separate gods, although the BOM can't make up its mind as to whether it's Trinitarian or polythesitic. While the Bible has Jesus talking about He who sent Him, we also see that they are one and the same (John 10:30, 38), so unless they're in some sort of celestial incestuous gay relationship, they're actually a lot closer than mere;y being father and son.
@moparmonster1965 "they are one and the same" In every aspect EXCEPT being one God. They, with the Holy Ghost, are not a 3-in-1 God. The Book of Mormon is neither trinitarian nor polytheistic, its monotheistic. In fact, the word "one" in the verse you gave is in the neuter gender, not masculine. It means they're one in person. If it was masculine, and its not, then you might have a very slim chance of making a case with that verse.
This isn't German and we therefore don't use those same gender references, but nice try. But if the BOM is monotheistic, how, then, do you use it as the springboard to get to polytheism? I don't think you know what you're talking about here any more than I do.
@majinish You're being deceptive; if we can all become gods, to gain 'all that Father hath (D&C 84:38),' that's clearly polytheism because if we can become gods, there are therefore more than one god.
No, I'm onto something here, but making you understand it is the hard part.
@moparmonster1965 Haven't been deceptive once. The Father has given all to Christ. Christ is the heir of all things. Those that are his true followers will be joint-heirs with him as the Bible says thus all will belong to Jesus Christ's followers.
@majinish The BOM still has 'one God' references through it, and we also see that parts have been altered to fit Smith's then-evolving opinions of God, but the wholesale revision wasn't completed and never will be because there's too many of us watching.
@moparmonster1965 There is more than 1 prophecy in that section. The Civil War being started in South Carolina. That was 1 prophecy. The wars between nations. That was 1 prophecy. Earthquakes and other disasters leading up to the 2nd Coming. That was 1 prophecy. The Civil War prophecy was fulfilled. We see the wars of nations happening. That's being fulfilled. Natural disasters are occurring more than ever. That's a prophecy being fulfilled.
@majinish The problem with viewing it as such is that the possibility of a civil war was common knowledge back then. Your claim that they were different prophecies in it, however, is a new one. The excuses have to evolve like all of Mormonism, I suppose. I guess the Mormon god and/or the prophet play the mix 'n match game with revelations.
Where it says Great Britain had to defend itself--how is that accurate?
@majinish The text is pretty clear: we have the separation of the North and South, and then the involvement of Britain, who provided support to the Southern states. The 'prophesy' says that Britain was supposed to call for help, drawing others into the mounting conflict. We then find mention of slaves going to war, but no mentionof the Emanication Proclamation, so we're still prior to 1863. We then have some vague Biblical-flavored nonsense and then a sudden and 'full end of all nations.'
@majinish You're delluding yourself; the first and third verses are about the Civil War, so it wouldn't make sense that the second wildly deviates from the pattern of chronology, and then picks up again in verse four. In reality, from beginning to end, it's talking about the Civil War and that era, since we have mention of slaves rising against their masters. Last I checked, slavery had been outlawed for the last 148 years.
@moparmonster1965 "There are a lot more, of course, but how many false prophesies does it take to be called a false prophet?" Then you would be calling some of the Old Testament prophets false. The spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus Christ, not foreseeing the future.
@majinish Again, there's a difference, so if you're talking about the Ninevites' being threatened to get their act together or they would be destroyed, that's not really a prophesy because when they were good with God, destruction was averted.
But we're not talking about real prophets now, we're discussing Joseph Smith, so let's get back to the point.
So why haven't we seen the end of the world brought upon us by the Civil War? Last I checked, it was already over.
@moparmonster1965 "Again, there's a difference" No duh Sherlock. As I already pointed out, a prophecy made by Ezekiel wasn't fulfilled 100%. So by your belief you'd call Ezekiel a false prophet if you existed when he did.
@moparmonster1965 "But we're not talking about real prophets now, we're discussing Joseph Smith, so let's get back to the point." Joseph Smith was a real prophet of God. To you there is no real prophet unless he's dead. As I already said, if you lived back in the day of any Old Testament prophets you would have rejected them too.
Since I don't know of any modern prophets, I'll stick with the old ones, thank you , kindly. There are plenty who call themselves prophets of God, but they all fail the test, up to and including those you're most familiar with.
@moparmonster1965 You would have said the same thing back then too. If you were alive in Ezekiel's day he would have been the modern-day prophet for that time. You would have stuck with the dead ones and deny the living ones just like you do now. Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God. You're no different from those that denied the ancient prophets.
@majinish You must've already attained exaltation if you know what I would and wouldn't have said. Had Smith been correct, you might have something to stand on, but he maintains a perfect 0% accuracy rate, so at least he's consistant.
@moparmonster1965 "You must've already attained exaltation if you know what I would and wouldn't have said" Has nothing to do with that. Its because anti-Mormons repeat each other.
"Had Smith been correct, you might have something to stand on, but he maintains a perfect 0% accuracy rate, so at least he's consistent." No, he wasn't inaccurate. He was very accurate. The Book of Mormon is true spiritually and historically.
@majinish The man who couldn't tell the same story about the most momentous religious event in all of mankind's history, the Furst Vision? That man? The man who used folk magic to dig for buried trewasure, and then used the same old schtick to translate a book that he'd already written?
And a prophet need not necessarily be dead, just in communion with the real and living God, not one man's misunderstanding of Him.
@moparmonster1965 "So why haven't we seen the end of the world brought upon us by the Civil War?" Have you paid attention once? So far I can say that's a no. There wasn't a prophecy about the Civil War ending the world. Why is that section of D&C so hard for anti-Mormons to understand? Joseph Smith didn't prophesy the end of the world because of the Civil War. Reread the section and this time don't take it out of context.
@majinish Yes, I have and the revelation clearly says: "And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place." It goes on to talk about the division of the states, so we know we're still talking about the Civil War.
That's the proper context and I'm reading without the desire for the church to be true.
@Kneel956 Nahom, Bountiful, the names of Nephi & Lehi, Valley of Lemuel, being a descendant of Cherokee and the fact that I do know my ancestors' ancestors were Jews, I can go on about the things found. What you want is for me to go away from the truth when I already know the truth.
@majinish To use NHM as support is foolish because the area it's found in would spell it Nihm, Nehem, or Nahm. We also have another two variants of the spelling from Jewsih texts: Nahum and Naham. We also know that the name Lehigh is used all over Pennsylvania, predating the BOM. Nephi is probably stolen from Nephilim in the Old Testament.
I know of no other usage of Laman or Lemuel outside of Mormonism either.
@moparmonster1965 "To use NHM as support is foolish" Why, because evidence is against everything anti-Mormons are taught? As an anti-Mormon when you're given evidence for the Book of Mormon you're required to look the other way.
"Nephi is probably stolen from Nephilim in the Old Testament." So when's proven then its supposedly stolen. Gotcha. Seriously, get real. (Continued)
Since we know that the BOM incorporates parts of Joseph Smith's world, his father's dreams as Lehi's visions, and parts of the New Testament built into the text, the book already has a questionable pedigree. Added to that are the facts that there's nothing in it unique to Mormonism and the changes that the church has made over the years, and you have a book that is decidedly not of God.
@moparmonster1965 The Jesus Christ we believe in is the Biblical Jesus. The Jesus Christ of the Bible is the Jesus Christ of the Book of Mormon. And if you believe in the "trinity" you don't believe in the Biblical Jesus Christ.
The Trinity, however, is another matter. I have a somewhat hard time placing the Holy Spirit into the Father and the Son, but we already know that they are closer than mere parent and offspring.
@majinish Since Mormonism assumes that mankind is inherently good, it forces a redefinition of the role of the savior, one that hawks exaltation instead of salvation. Since Christianity accepts the Bible as the word of God and accepts mankind's nature is inherently sinful, the role of the Biblical Jesus and the Mormon jesus are very different.
@moparmonster1965 False. We don't redefine anything. Yes, our nature is sinful. The church teaches that. However, we are not BORN WITH SIN. That's something that is false. Nobody is born with sin. A sinful nature, yes, sin itself, no. Traditional Christianity accepts the Bible but it doesn't believe in all of the Bible. We believe in the only Jesus Christ there is.
"the Mormon jesus offers exaltation and the Biblical Jesus offers salvation, two very different things" Again with the ignorant separate phrases. We believe in the only Jesus Christ there is. Jesus Christ offers salvation to all mankind and exaltation as well. I guess you missed that part in the Bible or the part where we'll, his TRUE followers, will be joint-heirs with him.
The Mormon jesus' sacrifice was incomplete and had to be finished with and endless supply of works for the church and in the temple, whereas the Christian knows works to be the fruit of his faith in God.
Mormon salvation is a sort of generic resurrection of the dead, from which point there's the appointment of which kingdom you'd go to, as dictated by Joseph Smith. Since 1 Cor 15:40-42 is about the earth, moon, and stars, it offers no support for the different levels of mormon heaven you believe in. It also ties into the LDS concept of mankind's nature as being essentially good instead of essentially selfish and wicked.
@majinish Where you go wrong is that while we use the same terminology, Mormonism has hijacked it and affixed much different meanings to it. That's the reason Christians often walk away from a conversation with a Mormon either confused or thinking that we're basically the same.
@moparmonster1965 We don't apply different meanings to anything. We understand what the Bible teaches.
"That's the reason Christians often walk away from a conversation with a Mormon either confused or thinking that we're basically the same." Usually anti-Mormons walk away because they can't refute what Mormons say. Trust me, I've seen it happen. :) We Mormons are Christians and we don't need your approval to say we are.
I'm now on the missionary blacklist in my area and they don't come here any more.
You're free to claim to be whatever you like, but there will always be people like me to stand for truth and facts. I can claim to be Jean Luc Picard, but that doesn't make it so, does it?
Part of me felt bad because they're just kids, thrown into a situation they should never be part of, armed only with the whitewashed history and doctrine of their faith. Hit them with the real facts about either and they usually can't recover.
@majinish The funny thing is that I'm not one of those people. Have you ever seen hate in a missionary's eyes? I have. Do you know why? Because when I pulled out the same materials they have and asked them the questions based on deep LDS history or doctrine, it was they who couldn't answer. In fact, the last missionaries who stopped by left without knowing what hit them.
@moparmonster1965 "How does Christianity not accept the Bible?" Not what I said. Leave it to anti-Mormons to twist what others say. Traditional Christianity accepts the Bible as the word of God, they just don't believe in all of it.
"And yes, I believe that you believe that there's only one Jesus, but you've substituted the Mormon jesus for Him." The Jesus Christ we believe in is the Jesus Christ of the Bible, the same Jesus Christ that's of the Book of Mormon.
That all said, the Mormon jesus has the ability to make mistakes whereas the Biblical Jesus does not. The Mormon jesus is 'the Son of' the Mormon god with the understanding that they are separate and distinct, literally father and son, creating another contrast to the Biblical Jesus.
@moparmonster1965 Are you blind? Well, that's a yes. Anyway, you sound really ignorant when you use the phrase "Mormon Jesus". We believe in the ONLY Jesus Christ. God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are 3 distinct beings as the Bible teaches.
@majinish I believe that you believe that, but it's not correct. I use the term "Mormon jeus" to separate the LDS misconception of Him from the Biblical reality of Him.
The difference between your little jesus and the Biblical Jesus is that yours is a married and polygamous product of incest who makes mistakes in the BOM and offers exaltation, not salvation.
@moparmonster1965 "I believe that you believe that, but it's not correct" We believe in the Jesus Christ of the Bible whether you agree or not. I know what we believe, you do not. You use the term to make it APPEAR that we believe in a Jesus not of the Bible. Of course the reason you do it is false. We DO believe in the Jesus Christ of the Bible, the only Jesus Christ there is. We believe in his true teachings, not the creeds' teachings.
Again, since your church doesn't have the corrected version of the Bible, you really have no idea what is and isn't correct in it. You have some notes, about 22 pages worth, but not the full edition that the Mormon god told Joseph Smith to complete, which he claimed he did. But he then turned around and allowed them to go to the RLDS, didn't he? Was he on vacation like when the fictional apostacy occurred? He's not very powerful if he can't get his celestial act together better than that.
@majinish There are dozens of examples that show the church accepts the Bible to a degree, but keeps it at arms' length because the leadership knows it doesn't have anything to do with Mormonism.
@moparmonster1965 Jesus Christ, the one of the Bible which is the same one of the Book of Mormon, is the Jesus Christ we believe in and follow. Jesus Christ offers salvation and exaltation. You don't believe that because of course you don't believe in all of the Bible. You cleared up the fact that no matter what you're going to remain ignorant. You insult our beliefs. You insult Jesus Christ and the Bible. I have no reason to continue conversation with you.
@majinish Taking your bat and ball and going home so soon? This was just getting interesting. Oh well, if you can't beat them, play the victim role and give up.
@moparmonster1965 You're very blind because of your anti-Mormon peers. They've taught you what you're to believe. You don't believe in Jesus Christ or the Bible by faith either, you believe in them by evidence. Unlike you, I believe in Christ and the Bible by faith just as I believe in the Book of Mormon by faith. You've shown you're not a real Christian. No real Christian would act the way you do. You're against Christ. I hope you ask the Father, in Christ's name, to forgive you.
Am I a Christian? I am, and I know that I'm saved, but Mormons are tied to endless temple ordinances and work for the church, hoping to be saved. Jesus told us that His yoke is easy and His burden light, but not so with Mormonism. The work He'd have us do isn't regulated by a specific denomination or set of rules; we simply need to do what He's laid on our hearts, and this is what He's laid out for me for the time being.
Your 'belief' in the Bible is conditional and limited to what you can use to confirm Mormonism; all else is false. The Mormon god didn't even bother to give you corrected version of the Bible, so you're left trying to decide what it and isn't correct, and then forcing into the round peg of Mormonism into the square hole of reality.
No, I don't need to believe strictly by faith because while the lack of any evidence forces Mormons into that corner, the Bible tells Christians to prove all things and hold fast to that which is true (1 Thess 5:21). What we want to believe isn't always fact because the heart is decietful above all things (Jer 17:9).
@majinish Unfortunately, you're wrong again. I'm 100% solo on this mission and have little contact with anyone who feels the same way except through this medium. I came to every conclusion by researching everything I could get my hands on, pro- and con- alike.
The problem with Mormonism's use of the BOM is that it doesn't accurately represent Mormonism as it exists today. Nothing that defines it is found in it because when Smith wrote it, he was basically a Protestant. He also wrote it with the KJV's help, and thus, the BOM is closer to Biblical Christianity than the rest of Mormonism.
@moparmonster1965 I find it sad that people think Joseph Smith could have written the Book of Mormon. Have you not read it? Are you unaware of the chiasmus found in it? It would be impossible for anyone in the 1800s to write something like the Book of Mormon. Nobody at that time had the knowledge to do so. The Book of Mormon proves itself to be ancient scripture. No, Joseph Smith didn't plagiarize from the Bible either.
And if, as you claim no one at that time could've created it, why do we find it in the old nursery rhyme "Old King Cole?" We also have Mae West and John F. Kennedy using chiasmus at different times, so were they prophets as well?
If you take a look at 3 Nephi 20:23, we find the Mormon jesus using the words of Peter from Acts 3:22-23, which were a paraphrase of Moses' words in Deut 18:15. Now tell me again how the BOM doesn't plagiarize the Bible.
@moparmonster1965 There you go with the ignorant "Mormon Jesus" phrase. You realize you're not taken seriously, right? Jesus quoted Peter who quoted Deuteronomy. And? Jesus taught Peter and the other apostles so of course he can quote them.
"Now tell me again how the BOM doesn't plagiarize the Bible." The Book of Mormon doesn't plagiarize the Bible. You also saying the New Testament plagiarizes the Old Testament by quoting it? Yes, you are.
@majinish You've clearly missed the point. The Mormon jesus attributed the words of Peter, a paraphrase of Moses' words, to Moses himself.
That's a problem. Not only that, he uses identical word-for-word speech found in a text not yet written by men not yet born, and then put into a dialect that hadn't yet evolved on another continent.
@moparmonster1965 ...And the 'Christian Jesus' healed lepers, turned water to wine, and brought a man back from the dead. He predicted the destruction of the temple at (or shortly after) his crucifixion. I dont know about you, but to me, these things dont make much sense either. The fact that Jesus Christ knows all things that are expedient for him to know (if not all things) probably qualify him to quote whoever, whenever, and however he feels, regardless of a timeline.
The chiasmus argument is an old one that has long been shown to hold no water. You claim that Smith couldn't have done so, but we already know that he said he studied the Bible for some 12 years before the BOM was published, so he had plenty of time to become well acquainted with its content and structure. Not only that, but we find chiasmus in D&C 3:2, 74:1, 101:42, 104:49-50, don't we?
@moparmonster1965 Chiasmus weren't discovered in the Bible until about 1942. Now you're denying the fact that chiasmus proves the Book of Mormon is authentic ancient scripture. You've asked for evidence and every time its given you ignore it. Anti-Mormons have really got to you. You're not allowed to see anything as evidence.
If you accept chiasmus, however, the BOM must be a literal word-for-word translation, which would then bring into play the fact that we have Elizabethan English all through it. How would the fictional Nephites be able to speak a regional-specific dialect that hadn't yet evolved on another continent?
What you offer as evidence is flimsy at best, and is easily refuted. Sure, I'm asking for proof and have yet to see any.
If you accept chiasmus, however, the BOM must be a literal word-for-word translation, which would then bring into play the fact that we have Elizabethan English all through it. How would the fictional Nephites be able to speak a regional-specific dialect that hadn't yet evolved on another continent?
@majinish You brought up chiasmus as support for the BOM being ancient and I showed you that Smith was able to use it as part of his regular speech, which would negate that claim. Were Smith's claims of studying the Bible for 12 years before the BOM was first published, he should've been able to duplicate that fairly well, which the D&C sections demonstrate.
@majinish Yes, I have and I put it firmly on par with Mein Kampf as one of the worst-written books of all time. In fact, when comparing the two, I find more facts and accurate prophesis in Adolph Hitler's work than Joseph Smith's.
@majinish You said: "Traditional Christianity accepts the Bible but it doesn't believe in all of the Bible," and I simply paraphrased it, which you refuted.
Parts of the Bible detail things that were later superceded, such as the priesthood. Since there's no longer a need for it, you cannot restore it. Not only that, the Melchizadek priesthood wasn't even intended for mankind to begin with, so your faith holding it means it is not of God.
@moparmonster1965 You didn't paraphrase, you gave a different meaning. I said traditional Christianity accepts the Bible but doesn't believe in all of it; you claim I said traditional Christianity doesn't accept the Bible. Nothing says anything about not needing the Priesthood. That's something a person must have to do a legitimate baptism. Otherwise the authority that person doing the baptism has isn't of God.
That, of course, doesn't take into account that no man ever held the Melchizadek priesthood; it was for Jesus Christ alone, not mankind.
Your concept of baptism leads you to believe that it requires 'authority' to be legitimate, but since baptism is merely the public display of dedicating one's life to God, no such authority is required by the real God. The church teaches otherwise, however, because it then makes their word essential.
@moparmonster1965 If anyone can baptize then Jesus wouldn't have had to walk to far to John to seek baptism. A person, like John did, must have the authority of God, the Priesthood, to baptize. Baptist (ironically), Protestant, Catholic, or any other non-LDS baptism are not real baptisms.
@majinish Since John would be pivotal to later events, he was needed to support the Savior and apostleship. Again, we've seen that the LDS priesthood has nothing to do with the Biblical priesthood, so it's a just a mode of control that the church uses to keep you in the fold. I guess Mormonism has taken more than one page from the Vatican's playbook.
After a succession of occupying forces held Israel in bondage, and having already fulfilled its purpose, it was lost. What your priesthood calls for and what the Bible details for it are very different, indeed. Any attempts to restore something that has run its course is not what it claims.
@majinish The priesthood is no longer required because I can guarantee that some 99% of modern Mormons cannot trace their lineage back to Aaron, which was one hallmark of those who truly held the Aaronic priesthood.
@majinish If you cited Eccl 7:29, you'd be right, but when we read further, we find that Adam's transgression affected all of human kind in Romans 5:12. But that, of course, but one reason that the church has to distance itself from the Bible so it can add its own spin on things.
If you cited Eccl 7:29, you'd be right, but when we read further, we find that Adam's transgression affected all of human kind in Romans 5:12. But that, of course, but one reason that the church has to distance itself from the Bible so it can add its own spin on things.
@moparmonster1965 False. We don't redefine anything. Yes, our nature is sinful. The church teaches that. However, we are not BORN WITH SIN. That's something that is false. Nobody is born with sin. A sinful nature, yes, sin itself, no. Traditional Christianity accepts the Bible but it doesn't believe in all of the Bible. We believe in the only Jesus Christ there is.
@moparmonster1965 False. We don't redefine anything. Yes, our nature is sinful. The church teaches that. However, we are not BORN WITH SIN. That's something that is false. Nobody is born with sin. A sinful nature, yes, sin itself, no. Traditional Christianity accepts the Bible but it doesn't believe in all of the Bible. We believe in the only Jesus Christ there is.
@majinish No, again, because to base your entire world-view on three letters is. We already know that the region in which it was found probably wouldn't have spelled it 'Nahom' to being with.
@moparmonster1965 Get over yourself. The evidence has been found. You want to throw it out. With you being an anti-Mormon you're not allowed to look at any evidence. You have to turn your eyes away from it.
@majinish Is that right? I guess you'd better tell the church leadership because this is news to everyone. I welcome any evidence you think you can provide, so the floor is now yours.
@majinish The problem is that your 'evidence' is only such within the boundaries of Mormonism. If I asked Tom Cruise the reason that Scientology is correct, he could point to anything he accepts as proof and declare it a victory for his position. That doesn't mean it has any basis in fact or that anyone outside of Scientology accepts it as fact.
@moparmonster1965 The names of Nephi, Lehi, and Sam were found in Saudi Arabia which is the area the Book of Mormon describes them travelling in. Explain the Izapa Stela 5 depicting the dream Lehi had involving the tree of life. Ironically, the Izapa Stela 5 is also called the "tree of life" stone.
And just because someone from, say, Poland, goes to another country, it doesn't mean that his name suddenly becomes Swedish, does it? In other words, the fictional Lehi and Nephi were allegedly Jews, so it makes no sense that their names would somehow survive there and yet not one such example survived in the New World.
@majinish Well, we already know that the visions of Lehi were actually the dreams that Joseph Smith Sr. had in 1811. Joseph Jr. simply worked them into the BOM as he wrote, consciously or otherwise.
@Kneel956 Be careful with using Deuteronomy. You'll borderline call prophets such as Jeremiah false. Not all of the prophecies from the prophets of old came true either. You're forced to conclude because the world wants you to believe what it believes. You're saying a prophet is also God. You forget prophets are human and make mistakes as happened in the Bible. So in fact, Joseph Smith has been proven to be true. Why the double standard?
@Kneel956 That's what we're used to. Even when facts are in your face you still can't take it. Yes, the Bible proves the Book of Mormon is true. Have you read either? Doubt it.
@Kneel956 Look up "parallels between dead sea scrolls and book of mormon." By the way, what argument? You might deny Christ's church but that doesn't change the fact that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is His church and that the Bible & Book of Mormon are the word of God & are true. Both prove each other to be true as well as history & archeology backing BOTH.
In another century the word "MORmON" will be fully synonamous with the words stupid, fraud, con, scam, sham & liar. The Golden Plates/ BOM is a scam of such laughable magnitude that it truly is miraculous.... that people could be that stupid & still live.
@settypatch Dead Sea Scrolls say otherwise. They've proven the Bible was mistranslated in areas while the Dead Sea Scrolls prove the Book of Mormon to be correct.
@majinish "the Dead Sea Scrolls prove the Book of Mormon to be correct"
Chevy should have hired the idiots from FARMS & Hugh Nibley 7 cohorts to prove that God was responsible for the defective cylinder design on the chevy vega.
No doubt that MORmON *intellectuals* would have been abel to do it!
i'll give u 5 reasons y our church is right 1. (the church of jesus christ of the latter day saints) we r da only 1s wif the lords name in it meaning the church belongs to him 2. in our church the 1st thing we care about is da families 3.we help others who need more help den we do 4.we have a temple dat makes us feel lyk we a r in heaven nd5. our church is a well organized church wif leaders to help. my dad is a bishop in our ward,ever since his calling my family has changed, Proud 2 b a saint
TheJuliet579 2 months ago
@TheJuliet579 - Nothing personal, but I'd like to offer a suggestion. Grammar, spelling and punctuation go a long way in making a good case for your position.
stayl1971 2 months ago
FUCK ALL RELIGION. YOU BRAINWASHED FREAKS ARE DESTROYING THE WORLD WITH YOUR MORAL SUPERIORITY COMPLEXES. YOUR SHITTY GOD IS AS REAL AS SANTA CLAUSE. GROW UP.
chbrules 4 months ago
@chbrules - I think you'll actually find, if you open up your eyeballs, is that LACK of morals in today's society is what is destroying the world. The creed "Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die" leaves people spiritually destitute.
stayl1971 2 months ago
chicks in utah are ugly
llamascanplaynitendo 6 months ago
@Kneel956 See what I mean? You have a double standard with the prophets of the Lord. I said do some research, not just read the names on here & create your idiotic opinions. Not all prophecies of the prophets of old happened and yet you still call them true prophets even though Joseph Smith made prophecies that came true & a very few haven't happened YET just like the prophets of old.
majinish 1 year ago
@majinish There's a difference between those that haven't happened and those that cannot happen. We find Joseph Smith telling us that the end of the world is brought forth by the Civil War. 146 years since, there's been no final judgement that I'm aware of.
There are a lot more, of course, but how many false prophesies does it take to be called a false prophet?
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
@moparmonster1965 "There's a difference between those that haven't happened and those that cannot happen" Ezekiel said Tyre would be conquered by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and Babylon would receive the riches of Tyre. Yet the scriptures say Babylon did NOT get anything from Tyre. That was a prophecy not fulfilled 100%.
majinish 5 months ago
@majinish I'll research this one a bit more since I don't remember much about it now.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
@moparmonster1965 I gave what the scriptures teach. It has nothing to do with personal interpretation. Part of the prophecy was Babylon would get Tyre's riches. Babylon didn't get any riches from Tyre. That means the prophecy wasn't 100% fulfilled.
majinish 5 months ago
@majinish You don't have to convince me that you don't accept the Bible; I already believe that. But, as I said, I need to research this when I have more time.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@moparmonster1965 "You don't have to convince me that you don't accept the Bible; I already believe that" this, along with everything else so far, is where you're wrong. I do believe in the Bible. Unlike you I know prophets of God are still human and can make mistakes.
majinish 5 months ago
@moparmonster1965 There's no research needed for it. Ezekiel 26:12 And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water.
majinish 5 months ago
@majinish Thanks, but I don't take anyone's word for anything. You're free to, of course, but I'd rather think for myself.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
@moparmonster1965 29:18 Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon caused his army to serve a great service against Tyrus: every head was made bald, and every shoulder was peeled: yet had he no wages, nor his army, for Tyrus, for the service that he had served against it:
Babylon did not receive the riches of Tyrus (Tyre) even though Ezekiel said that's what would happen.
majinish 5 months ago
@moparmonster1965 "We find Joseph Smith telling us that the end of the world is brought forth by the Civil War."
False. This comes from people misinterpreting what was said. By the way, when you attempt to bring up a criticism make sure its your own and not one others have used over and over. I've heard this one before and its shut down easily.
majinish 5 months ago
I don't concern myself with what other critics are doing, but I wish them well. I'm on my own course and this is my own point, but thanks for your concern. I could say the same since apologists tend to rely pretty heavily on puppet organizations of the church like FAIR and FARMS. Even if you were to accurately dismiss this as a false prophesy, the fact is that the church still hasn't bothered to address any of these points because it has its flunkies doing its work.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
With Revelation coming in at 22 chapters, it's rather silly to imagine that just over 200 words would be an accurate description of the end of the world according to the real God Almighty.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
Since his prophesies were coming from the Mormon god, he wasn't made aware of any of the coming conflicts, of which there have been dozens between 1865 and now. Since it states that all of the following would begin 'at this place,' South Carolina, it stands to reason that it refers to the Civil War in its proper context.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@moparmonster1965 "Since his prophesies were coming from the Mormon god" Do you anti-Mormons know how ignorant statements like that are? We believe in the God the Bible speaks of, God the Father.
"Since it states that all of the following would begin 'at this place,' South Carolina, it stands to reason that it refers to the Civil War in its proper context." Ugh. READ THE SECTION. It does not say what you claim.
majinish 5 months ago
@majinish You believe in two separate gods, although the BOM can't make up its mind as to whether it's Trinitarian or polythesitic. While the Bible has Jesus talking about He who sent Him, we also see that they are one and the same (John 10:30, 38), so unless they're in some sort of celestial incestuous gay relationship, they're actually a lot closer than mere;y being father and son.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
@moparmonster1965 "they are one and the same" In every aspect EXCEPT being one God. They, with the Holy Ghost, are not a 3-in-1 God. The Book of Mormon is neither trinitarian nor polytheistic, its monotheistic. In fact, the word "one" in the verse you gave is in the neuter gender, not masculine. It means they're one in person. If it was masculine, and its not, then you might have a very slim chance of making a case with that verse.
majinish 5 months ago
This isn't German and we therefore don't use those same gender references, but nice try. But if the BOM is monotheistic, how, then, do you use it as the springboard to get to polytheism? I don't think you know what you're talking about here any more than I do.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@moparmonster1965 "But if the BOM is monotheistic, how, then, do you use it as the springboard to get to polytheism?" We don't.
"I don't think you know what you're talking about here any more than I do." Then you think wrong.
majinish 5 months ago
@majinish You're being deceptive; if we can all become gods, to gain 'all that Father hath (D&C 84:38),' that's clearly polytheism because if we can become gods, there are therefore more than one god.
No, I'm onto something here, but making you understand it is the hard part.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
@moparmonster1965 Haven't been deceptive once. The Father has given all to Christ. Christ is the heir of all things. Those that are his true followers will be joint-heirs with him as the Bible says thus all will belong to Jesus Christ's followers.
majinish 5 months ago
@majinish What you neglected to mention, however, is that being a 'joint-heir' is quite different from being a god like God.
You may actually believe what you say, which would mean that you bear less responsibility when you repeat it.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
@majinish The BOM still has 'one God' references through it, and we also see that parts have been altered to fit Smith's then-evolving opinions of God, but the wholesale revision wasn't completed and never will be because there's too many of us watching.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
@majinish It says this, but it actually means this, instead. Is that only seen as fact when viewed through the LDS-issued rose-colored glasses?
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
@moparmonster1965 There is more than 1 prophecy in that section. The Civil War being started in South Carolina. That was 1 prophecy. The wars between nations. That was 1 prophecy. Earthquakes and other disasters leading up to the 2nd Coming. That was 1 prophecy. The Civil War prophecy was fulfilled. We see the wars of nations happening. That's being fulfilled. Natural disasters are occurring more than ever. That's a prophecy being fulfilled.
majinish 5 months ago
@majinish The problem with viewing it as such is that the possibility of a civil war was common knowledge back then. Your claim that they were different prophecies in it, however, is a new one. The excuses have to evolve like all of Mormonism, I suppose. I guess the Mormon god and/or the prophet play the mix 'n match game with revelations.
Where it says Great Britain had to defend itself--how is that accurate?
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
@moparmonster1965 "The excuses" Its no excuse. Its a fact. You took the section out of context.
majinish 5 months ago
@majinish The text is pretty clear: we have the separation of the North and South, and then the involvement of Britain, who provided support to the Southern states. The 'prophesy' says that Britain was supposed to call for help, drawing others into the mounting conflict. We then find mention of slaves going to war, but no mentionof the Emanication Proclamation, so we're still prior to 1863. We then have some vague Biblical-flavored nonsense and then a sudden and 'full end of all nations.'
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
@moparmonster1965 No that is not what the context states. I just gave a comment on the prophecies from the section you take out of context so badly.
majinish 5 months ago
@majinish You're delluding yourself; the first and third verses are about the Civil War, so it wouldn't make sense that the second wildly deviates from the pattern of chronology, and then picks up again in verse four. In reality, from beginning to end, it's talking about the Civil War and that era, since we have mention of slaves rising against their masters. Last I checked, slavery had been outlawed for the last 148 years.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
@moparmonster1965 "There are a lot more, of course, but how many false prophesies does it take to be called a false prophet?" Then you would be calling some of the Old Testament prophets false. The spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus Christ, not foreseeing the future.
majinish 5 months ago
@majinish Again, there's a difference, so if you're talking about the Ninevites' being threatened to get their act together or they would be destroyed, that's not really a prophesy because when they were good with God, destruction was averted.
But we're not talking about real prophets now, we're discussing Joseph Smith, so let's get back to the point.
So why haven't we seen the end of the world brought upon us by the Civil War? Last I checked, it was already over.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
@moparmonster1965 "Again, there's a difference" No duh Sherlock. As I already pointed out, a prophecy made by Ezekiel wasn't fulfilled 100%. So by your belief you'd call Ezekiel a false prophet if you existed when he did.
majinish 5 months ago
@moparmonster1965 "But we're not talking about real prophets now, we're discussing Joseph Smith, so let's get back to the point." Joseph Smith was a real prophet of God. To you there is no real prophet unless he's dead. As I already said, if you lived back in the day of any Old Testament prophets you would have rejected them too.
majinish 5 months ago
Since I don't know of any modern prophets, I'll stick with the old ones, thank you , kindly. There are plenty who call themselves prophets of God, but they all fail the test, up to and including those you're most familiar with.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
@moparmonster1965 You would have said the same thing back then too. If you were alive in Ezekiel's day he would have been the modern-day prophet for that time. You would have stuck with the dead ones and deny the living ones just like you do now. Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God. You're no different from those that denied the ancient prophets.
majinish 5 months ago
@majinish You must've already attained exaltation if you know what I would and wouldn't have said. Had Smith been correct, you might have something to stand on, but he maintains a perfect 0% accuracy rate, so at least he's consistant.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@moparmonster1965 "You must've already attained exaltation if you know what I would and wouldn't have said" Has nothing to do with that. Its because anti-Mormons repeat each other.
"Had Smith been correct, you might have something to stand on, but he maintains a perfect 0% accuracy rate, so at least he's consistent." No, he wasn't inaccurate. He was very accurate. The Book of Mormon is true spiritually and historically.
majinish 5 months ago
@majinish The man who couldn't tell the same story about the most momentous religious event in all of mankind's history, the Furst Vision? That man? The man who used folk magic to dig for buried trewasure, and then used the same old schtick to translate a book that he'd already written?
And a prophet need not necessarily be dead, just in communion with the real and living God, not one man's misunderstanding of Him.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
@moparmonster1965 "So why haven't we seen the end of the world brought upon us by the Civil War?" Have you paid attention once? So far I can say that's a no. There wasn't a prophecy about the Civil War ending the world. Why is that section of D&C so hard for anti-Mormons to understand? Joseph Smith didn't prophesy the end of the world because of the Civil War. Reread the section and this time don't take it out of context.
majinish 5 months ago
@majinish Yes, I have and the revelation clearly says: "And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place." It goes on to talk about the division of the states, so we know we're still talking about the Civil War.
That's the proper context and I'm reading without the desire for the church to be true.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
@moparmonster1965 "That's the proper context" You're not even close.
majinish 5 months ago
@Kneel956 Nahom, Bountiful, the names of Nephi & Lehi, Valley of Lemuel, being a descendant of Cherokee and the fact that I do know my ancestors' ancestors were Jews, I can go on about the things found. What you want is for me to go away from the truth when I already know the truth.
majinish 1 year ago
@majinish To use NHM as support is foolish because the area it's found in would spell it Nihm, Nehem, or Nahm. We also have another two variants of the spelling from Jewsih texts: Nahum and Naham. We also know that the name Lehigh is used all over Pennsylvania, predating the BOM. Nephi is probably stolen from Nephilim in the Old Testament.
I know of no other usage of Laman or Lemuel outside of Mormonism either.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
@moparmonster1965 "To use NHM as support is foolish" Why, because evidence is against everything anti-Mormons are taught? As an anti-Mormon when you're given evidence for the Book of Mormon you're required to look the other way.
"Nephi is probably stolen from Nephilim in the Old Testament." So when's proven then its supposedly stolen. Gotcha. Seriously, get real. (Continued)
majinish 5 months ago
Since we know that the BOM incorporates parts of Joseph Smith's world, his father's dreams as Lehi's visions, and parts of the New Testament built into the text, the book already has a questionable pedigree. Added to that are the facts that there's nothing in it unique to Mormonism and the changes that the church has made over the years, and you have a book that is decidedly not of God.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
@moparmonster1965 The Book of Mormon is of God whether you agree or not. Unlike you I choose to listen to all of the words of Christ.
majinish 5 months ago
@majinish Yes, I agree that you listen to the Mormon jesus. I'll take the Biblical Jesus, however, thank you.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
@moparmonster1965 The Jesus Christ we believe in is the Biblical Jesus. The Jesus Christ of the Bible is the Jesus Christ of the Book of Mormon. And if you believe in the "trinity" you don't believe in the Biblical Jesus Christ.
majinish 5 months ago
The Trinity, however, is another matter. I have a somewhat hard time placing the Holy Spirit into the Father and the Son, but we already know that they are closer than mere parent and offspring.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
@majinish Since Mormonism assumes that mankind is inherently good, it forces a redefinition of the role of the savior, one that hawks exaltation instead of salvation. Since Christianity accepts the Bible as the word of God and accepts mankind's nature is inherently sinful, the role of the Biblical Jesus and the Mormon jesus are very different.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
@moparmonster1965 False. We don't redefine anything. Yes, our nature is sinful. The church teaches that. However, we are not BORN WITH SIN. That's something that is false. Nobody is born with sin. A sinful nature, yes, sin itself, no. Traditional Christianity accepts the Bible but it doesn't believe in all of the Bible. We believe in the only Jesus Christ there is.
majinish 5 months ago
You can think that, but the fact is that the Mormon jesus offers exaltation and the Biblical Jesus offers salvation, two very different things.
How does Christianity not accept the Bible?
And yes, I believe that you believe that there's only one Jesus, but you've substituted the Mormon jesus for Him.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You can think that, but the fact is that the Mormon jesus offers exaltation and the Biblical Jesus offers salvation, two very different things.
How does Christianity not accept the Bible?
And yes, I believe that you believe that there's only one Jesus, but you've substituted the Mormon jesus for Him.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You can think that, but the fact is that the Mormon jesus offers exaltation and the Biblical Jesus offers salvation, two very different things.
How does Christianity not accept the Bible?
And yes, I believe that you believe that there's only one Jesus, but you've substituted the Mormon jesus for Him.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
You can think that, but the fact is that the Mormon jesus offers exaltation and the Biblical Jesus offers salvation, two very different things.
How does Christianity not accept the Bible?
And yes, I believe that you believe that there's only one Jesus, but you've substituted the Mormon jesus for Him.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@moparmonster1965 Its something that I know.
"the Mormon jesus offers exaltation and the Biblical Jesus offers salvation, two very different things" Again with the ignorant separate phrases. We believe in the only Jesus Christ there is. Jesus Christ offers salvation to all mankind and exaltation as well. I guess you missed that part in the Bible or the part where we'll, his TRUE followers, will be joint-heirs with him.
majinish 5 months ago
The Mormon jesus' sacrifice was incomplete and had to be finished with and endless supply of works for the church and in the temple, whereas the Christian knows works to be the fruit of his faith in God.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
Mormon salvation is a sort of generic resurrection of the dead, from which point there's the appointment of which kingdom you'd go to, as dictated by Joseph Smith. Since 1 Cor 15:40-42 is about the earth, moon, and stars, it offers no support for the different levels of mormon heaven you believe in. It also ties into the LDS concept of mankind's nature as being essentially good instead of essentially selfish and wicked.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
@majinish Where you go wrong is that while we use the same terminology, Mormonism has hijacked it and affixed much different meanings to it. That's the reason Christians often walk away from a conversation with a Mormon either confused or thinking that we're basically the same.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@moparmonster1965 We don't apply different meanings to anything. We understand what the Bible teaches.
"That's the reason Christians often walk away from a conversation with a Mormon either confused or thinking that we're basically the same." Usually anti-Mormons walk away because they can't refute what Mormons say. Trust me, I've seen it happen. :) We Mormons are Christians and we don't need your approval to say we are.
majinish 5 months ago
I'm now on the missionary blacklist in my area and they don't come here any more.
You're free to claim to be whatever you like, but there will always be people like me to stand for truth and facts. I can claim to be Jean Luc Picard, but that doesn't make it so, does it?
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
Part of me felt bad because they're just kids, thrown into a situation they should never be part of, armed only with the whitewashed history and doctrine of their faith. Hit them with the real facts about either and they usually can't recover.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
@majinish The funny thing is that I'm not one of those people. Have you ever seen hate in a missionary's eyes? I have. Do you know why? Because when I pulled out the same materials they have and asked them the questions based on deep LDS history or doctrine, it was they who couldn't answer. In fact, the last missionaries who stopped by left without knowing what hit them.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
@moparmonster1965 "How does Christianity not accept the Bible?" Not what I said. Leave it to anti-Mormons to twist what others say. Traditional Christianity accepts the Bible as the word of God, they just don't believe in all of it.
"And yes, I believe that you believe that there's only one Jesus, but you've substituted the Mormon jesus for Him." The Jesus Christ we believe in is the Jesus Christ of the Bible, the same Jesus Christ that's of the Book of Mormon.
majinish 5 months ago
That all said, the Mormon jesus has the ability to make mistakes whereas the Biblical Jesus does not. The Mormon jesus is 'the Son of' the Mormon god with the understanding that they are separate and distinct, literally father and son, creating another contrast to the Biblical Jesus.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
@moparmonster1965 Are you blind? Well, that's a yes. Anyway, you sound really ignorant when you use the phrase "Mormon Jesus". We believe in the ONLY Jesus Christ. God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are 3 distinct beings as the Bible teaches.
majinish 5 months ago
@majinish I believe that you believe that, but it's not correct. I use the term "Mormon jeus" to separate the LDS misconception of Him from the Biblical reality of Him.
The difference between your little jesus and the Biblical Jesus is that yours is a married and polygamous product of incest who makes mistakes in the BOM and offers exaltation, not salvation.
Does that help to clear it up for you?
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
@moparmonster1965 "I believe that you believe that, but it's not correct" We believe in the Jesus Christ of the Bible whether you agree or not. I know what we believe, you do not. You use the term to make it APPEAR that we believe in a Jesus not of the Bible. Of course the reason you do it is false. We DO believe in the Jesus Christ of the Bible, the only Jesus Christ there is. We believe in his true teachings, not the creeds' teachings.
majinish 5 months ago
Again, since your church doesn't have the corrected version of the Bible, you really have no idea what is and isn't correct in it. You have some notes, about 22 pages worth, but not the full edition that the Mormon god told Joseph Smith to complete, which he claimed he did. But he then turned around and allowed them to go to the RLDS, didn't he? Was he on vacation like when the fictional apostacy occurred? He's not very powerful if he can't get his celestial act together better than that.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
@majinish There are dozens of examples that show the church accepts the Bible to a degree, but keeps it at arms' length because the leadership knows it doesn't have anything to do with Mormonism.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
@moparmonster1965 Jesus Christ, the one of the Bible which is the same one of the Book of Mormon, is the Jesus Christ we believe in and follow. Jesus Christ offers salvation and exaltation. You don't believe that because of course you don't believe in all of the Bible. You cleared up the fact that no matter what you're going to remain ignorant. You insult our beliefs. You insult Jesus Christ and the Bible. I have no reason to continue conversation with you.
majinish 5 months ago
@majinish Taking your bat and ball and going home so soon? This was just getting interesting. Oh well, if you can't beat them, play the victim role and give up.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
@moparmonster1965 You're very blind because of your anti-Mormon peers. They've taught you what you're to believe. You don't believe in Jesus Christ or the Bible by faith either, you believe in them by evidence. Unlike you, I believe in Christ and the Bible by faith just as I believe in the Book of Mormon by faith. You've shown you're not a real Christian. No real Christian would act the way you do. You're against Christ. I hope you ask the Father, in Christ's name, to forgive you.
majinish 5 months ago
To be clear, I'm against the Mormon christ and the Mormon god, which are not the Biblical Christ and Biblical God. And I am forgiven, thank you.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
Am I a Christian? I am, and I know that I'm saved, but Mormons are tied to endless temple ordinances and work for the church, hoping to be saved. Jesus told us that His yoke is easy and His burden light, but not so with Mormonism. The work He'd have us do isn't regulated by a specific denomination or set of rules; we simply need to do what He's laid on our hearts, and this is what He's laid out for me for the time being.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
Comment removed
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
Your 'belief' in the Bible is conditional and limited to what you can use to confirm Mormonism; all else is false. The Mormon god didn't even bother to give you corrected version of the Bible, so you're left trying to decide what it and isn't correct, and then forcing into the round peg of Mormonism into the square hole of reality.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
No, I don't need to believe strictly by faith because while the lack of any evidence forces Mormons into that corner, the Bible tells Christians to prove all things and hold fast to that which is true (1 Thess 5:21). What we want to believe isn't always fact because the heart is decietful above all things (Jer 17:9).
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
@majinish Unfortunately, you're wrong again. I'm 100% solo on this mission and have little contact with anyone who feels the same way except through this medium. I came to every conclusion by researching everything I could get my hands on, pro- and con- alike.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
The problem with Mormonism's use of the BOM is that it doesn't accurately represent Mormonism as it exists today. Nothing that defines it is found in it because when Smith wrote it, he was basically a Protestant. He also wrote it with the KJV's help, and thus, the BOM is closer to Biblical Christianity than the rest of Mormonism.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
@moparmonster1965 I find it sad that people think Joseph Smith could have written the Book of Mormon. Have you not read it? Are you unaware of the chiasmus found in it? It would be impossible for anyone in the 1800s to write something like the Book of Mormon. Nobody at that time had the knowledge to do so. The Book of Mormon proves itself to be ancient scripture. No, Joseph Smith didn't plagiarize from the Bible either.
majinish 5 months ago
And if, as you claim no one at that time could've created it, why do we find it in the old nursery rhyme "Old King Cole?" We also have Mae West and John F. Kennedy using chiasmus at different times, so were they prophets as well?
If you take a look at 3 Nephi 20:23, we find the Mormon jesus using the words of Peter from Acts 3:22-23, which were a paraphrase of Moses' words in Deut 18:15. Now tell me again how the BOM doesn't plagiarize the Bible.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
@moparmonster1965 There you go with the ignorant "Mormon Jesus" phrase. You realize you're not taken seriously, right? Jesus quoted Peter who quoted Deuteronomy. And? Jesus taught Peter and the other apostles so of course he can quote them.
"Now tell me again how the BOM doesn't plagiarize the Bible." The Book of Mormon doesn't plagiarize the Bible. You also saying the New Testament plagiarizes the Old Testament by quoting it? Yes, you are.
majinish 5 months ago
@majinish You've clearly missed the point. The Mormon jesus attributed the words of Peter, a paraphrase of Moses' words, to Moses himself.
That's a problem. Not only that, he uses identical word-for-word speech found in a text not yet written by men not yet born, and then put into a dialect that hadn't yet evolved on another continent.
Does that make any sense to you? Me neither.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
@moparmonster1965 ...And the 'Christian Jesus' healed lepers, turned water to wine, and brought a man back from the dead. He predicted the destruction of the temple at (or shortly after) his crucifixion. I dont know about you, but to me, these things dont make much sense either. The fact that Jesus Christ knows all things that are expedient for him to know (if not all things) probably qualify him to quote whoever, whenever, and however he feels, regardless of a timeline.
StyxAndChildren 2 weeks ago
The chiasmus argument is an old one that has long been shown to hold no water. You claim that Smith couldn't have done so, but we already know that he said he studied the Bible for some 12 years before the BOM was published, so he had plenty of time to become well acquainted with its content and structure. Not only that, but we find chiasmus in D&C 3:2, 74:1, 101:42, 104:49-50, don't we?
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
@moparmonster1965 Chiasmus weren't discovered in the Bible until about 1942. Now you're denying the fact that chiasmus proves the Book of Mormon is authentic ancient scripture. You've asked for evidence and every time its given you ignore it. Anti-Mormons have really got to you. You're not allowed to see anything as evidence.
majinish 5 months ago
If you accept chiasmus, however, the BOM must be a literal word-for-word translation, which would then bring into play the fact that we have Elizabethan English all through it. How would the fictional Nephites be able to speak a regional-specific dialect that hadn't yet evolved on another continent?
What you offer as evidence is flimsy at best, and is easily refuted. Sure, I'm asking for proof and have yet to see any.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
What you offer as evidence is flimsy at best, and is easily refuted. Sure, I'm asking for proof and have yet to see any.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
If you accept chiasmus, however, the BOM must be a literal word-for-word translation, which would then bring into play the fact that we have Elizabethan English all through it. How would the fictional Nephites be able to speak a regional-specific dialect that hadn't yet evolved on another continent?
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
@majinish You brought up chiasmus as support for the BOM being ancient and I showed you that Smith was able to use it as part of his regular speech, which would negate that claim. Were Smith's claims of studying the Bible for 12 years before the BOM was first published, he should've been able to duplicate that fairly well, which the D&C sections demonstrate.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
@majinish Yes, I have and I put it firmly on par with Mein Kampf as one of the worst-written books of all time. In fact, when comparing the two, I find more facts and accurate prophesis in Adolph Hitler's work than Joseph Smith's.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
@majinish You said: "Traditional Christianity accepts the Bible but it doesn't believe in all of the Bible," and I simply paraphrased it, which you refuted.
Parts of the Bible detail things that were later superceded, such as the priesthood. Since there's no longer a need for it, you cannot restore it. Not only that, the Melchizadek priesthood wasn't even intended for mankind to begin with, so your faith holding it means it is not of God.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
@moparmonster1965 You didn't paraphrase, you gave a different meaning. I said traditional Christianity accepts the Bible but doesn't believe in all of it; you claim I said traditional Christianity doesn't accept the Bible. Nothing says anything about not needing the Priesthood. That's something a person must have to do a legitimate baptism. Otherwise the authority that person doing the baptism has isn't of God.
majinish 5 months ago
That, of course, doesn't take into account that no man ever held the Melchizadek priesthood; it was for Jesus Christ alone, not mankind.
Your concept of baptism leads you to believe that it requires 'authority' to be legitimate, but since baptism is merely the public display of dedicating one's life to God, no such authority is required by the real God. The church teaches otherwise, however, because it then makes their word essential.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
@moparmonster1965 If anyone can baptize then Jesus wouldn't have had to walk to far to John to seek baptism. A person, like John did, must have the authority of God, the Priesthood, to baptize. Baptist (ironically), Protestant, Catholic, or any other non-LDS baptism are not real baptisms.
majinish 5 months ago
@majinish Since John would be pivotal to later events, he was needed to support the Savior and apostleship. Again, we've seen that the LDS priesthood has nothing to do with the Biblical priesthood, so it's a just a mode of control that the church uses to keep you in the fold. I guess Mormonism has taken more than one page from the Vatican's playbook.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
After a succession of occupying forces held Israel in bondage, and having already fulfilled its purpose, it was lost. What your priesthood calls for and what the Bible details for it are very different, indeed. Any attempts to restore something that has run its course is not what it claims.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
@majinish The priesthood is no longer required because I can guarantee that some 99% of modern Mormons cannot trace their lineage back to Aaron, which was one hallmark of those who truly held the Aaronic priesthood.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You can think that, but the fact is that the Mormon jesus offers exaltation and the Biblical Jesus offers salvation, two very different things.
How does Christianity not accept the Bible?
And yes, I believe that you believe that there's only one Jesus, but you've substituted the Mormon jesus for Him.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
@majinish If you cited Eccl 7:29, you'd be right, but when we read further, we find that Adam's transgression affected all of human kind in Romans 5:12. But that, of course, but one reason that the church has to distance itself from the Bible so it can add its own spin on things.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you cited Eccl 7:29, you'd be right, but when we read further, we find that Adam's transgression affected all of human kind in Romans 5:12. But that, of course, but one reason that the church has to distance itself from the Bible so it can add its own spin on things.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@moparmonster1965 False. We don't redefine anything. Yes, our nature is sinful. The church teaches that. However, we are not BORN WITH SIN. That's something that is false. Nobody is born with sin. A sinful nature, yes, sin itself, no. Traditional Christianity accepts the Bible but it doesn't believe in all of the Bible. We believe in the only Jesus Christ there is.
majinish 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@moparmonster1965 False. We don't redefine anything. Yes, our nature is sinful. The church teaches that. However, we are not BORN WITH SIN. That's something that is false. Nobody is born with sin. A sinful nature, yes, sin itself, no. Traditional Christianity accepts the Bible but it doesn't believe in all of the Bible. We believe in the only Jesus Christ there is.
majinish 5 months ago
@majinish And that's the beginning of where Mormonism deviates from Christainity. Yes, I believe that there's only one Mormon jesus.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
@majinish No, again, because to base your entire world-view on three letters is. We already know that the region in which it was found probably wouldn't have spelled it 'Nahom' to being with.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
@moparmonster1965 Get over yourself. The evidence has been found. You want to throw it out. With you being an anti-Mormon you're not allowed to look at any evidence. You have to turn your eyes away from it.
majinish 5 months ago
@majinish Is that right? I guess you'd better tell the church leadership because this is news to everyone. I welcome any evidence you think you can provide, so the floor is now yours.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
@moparmonster1965 I've already provided an evidence. That's just one of many that exist. You ignored it.
majinish 5 months ago
@majinish The problem is that your 'evidence' is only such within the boundaries of Mormonism. If I asked Tom Cruise the reason that Scientology is correct, he could point to anything he accepts as proof and declare it a victory for his position. That doesn't mean it has any basis in fact or that anyone outside of Scientology accepts it as fact.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
@moparmonster1965 The names of Nephi, Lehi, and Sam were found in Saudi Arabia which is the area the Book of Mormon describes them travelling in. Explain the Izapa Stela 5 depicting the dream Lehi had involving the tree of life. Ironically, the Izapa Stela 5 is also called the "tree of life" stone.
majinish 5 months ago
Comment removed
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
And just because someone from, say, Poland, goes to another country, it doesn't mean that his name suddenly becomes Swedish, does it? In other words, the fictional Lehi and Nephi were allegedly Jews, so it makes no sense that their names would somehow survive there and yet not one such example survived in the New World.
And your source for your claim is...?
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@majinish Well, we already know that the visions of Lehi were actually the dreams that Joseph Smith Sr. had in 1811. Joseph Jr. simply worked them into the BOM as he wrote, consciously or otherwise.
moparmonster1965 5 months ago
@Kneel956 Be careful with using Deuteronomy. You'll borderline call prophets such as Jeremiah false. Not all of the prophecies from the prophets of old came true either. You're forced to conclude because the world wants you to believe what it believes. You're saying a prophet is also God. You forget prophets are human and make mistakes as happened in the Bible. So in fact, Joseph Smith has been proven to be true. Why the double standard?
majinish 1 year ago
@Kneel956 That's what we're used to. Even when facts are in your face you still can't take it. Yes, the Bible proves the Book of Mormon is true. Have you read either? Doubt it.
majinish 1 year ago
@Kneel956 Look up "parallels between dead sea scrolls and book of mormon." By the way, what argument? You might deny Christ's church but that doesn't change the fact that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is His church and that the Bible & Book of Mormon are the word of God & are true. Both prove each other to be true as well as history & archeology backing BOTH.
majinish 1 year ago
In another century the word "MORmON" will be fully synonamous with the words stupid, fraud, con, scam, sham & liar. The Golden Plates/ BOM is a scam of such laughable magnitude that it truly is miraculous.... that people could be that stupid & still live.
settypatch 1 year ago
@settypatch Dead Sea Scrolls say otherwise. They've proven the Bible was mistranslated in areas while the Dead Sea Scrolls prove the Book of Mormon to be correct.
majinish 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@majinish "the Dead Sea Scrolls prove the Book of Mormon to be correct"
Chevy should have hired the idiots from FARMS & Hugh Nibley 7 cohorts to prove that God was responsible for the defective cylinder design on the chevy vega.
No doubt that MORmON *intellectuals* would have been abel to do it!
MORmON!
settypatch 1 year ago