Reader comments
Theology: LDS god is in harmony with the Bible
395 comments | Read story
How easy would it be..... | 3:50 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
To have "false plates" made? Really easy now (and I imagine fairly
easy then.) The fact that a number of people claimed to "see" or
"touch" the plates carries little weight with me.
Who would teach that? | 3:51 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
To Jon | 3:00 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
"Re: your "harrowing experience " sounds truly horrible. So much needless suffering over a gross mis-interpretation of the Bible.
The Bible is clear - salvation does not require baptism. Baptism serves only as a public testimony of our faith; an act simulating Christ's death (going under the water) and risen life (coming out of the water). It is through baptism that we tell the world we are His.
God is a God of mercy and justice - He will do the right thing always. Scripture points to the fact that those who go to hell are those who reject Him."
Jesus was baptized to fulfill all righteousness...
The apostles were commanded to baptize...
Rebaptized those that had not been given the HG...
The 'clear' teaching that you mention is in paranthese in the KJV...
(not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,)
That fits in "real nice" faith not faith and works saves, and a misunderstanding being born again.
If it simulates ressurection...Be free of sin...You need to be part of the first ressurection to be saved in heaven?
Baptism Why?
"Re: your "harrowing experience " sounds truly horrible. So much needless suffering over a gross mis-interpretation of the Bible.
The Bible is clear - salvation does not require baptism. Baptism serves only as a public testimony of our faith; an act simulating Christ's death (going under the water) and risen life (coming out of the water). It is through baptism that we tell the world we are His.
God is a God of mercy and justice - He will do the right thing always. Scripture points to the fact that those who go to hell are those who reject Him."
Jesus was baptized to fulfill all righteousness...
The apostles were commanded to baptize...
Rebaptized those that had not been given the HG...
The 'clear' teaching that you mention is in paranthese in the KJV...
(not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,)
That fits in "real nice" faith not faith and works saves, and a misunderstanding being born again.
If it simulates ressurection...Be free of sin...You need to be part of the first ressurection to be saved in heaven?
Baptism Why?
Comments continue below
Jim III | 3:55 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
To "Celestial Kingdom" read 1 Corinthians 15: 40-41.
It talks of degrees of glory. In LDS doctrine there are 3 levels of glory.
There is a kingdom of celestial glory, one of terrestrial glory and one of telestial glory. Then these is a kingdom of no glory or outer darkness, where Satan and his followers will reside for eternity.
In LDS doctrine, the Celestial Kingdom, is where God, the Eternal Father lives. It is where the really faithful will end up, who do all that they can do to get there. Jesus Christ is there standing/sitting on his right side. See Acts 7:55-56. Stephan's stoning. You should actually read verses 51-60 for a more complete understanding.
As for Paradise it is a holding cell/tank. It is split in half. On one side the followers of Christ reside, on the other side the non-followers, unrightous reside. The 2 sides can communicate with each other. Do not believe so? Read Luke 16: 19-31.
pay special attention to verses 23-26. I do not know of any protestant minister, evangelicals or other assorted Christian ministers who can explain verses 23-26. They jump right past those verses, without explaining what they mean.
It talks of degrees of glory. In LDS doctrine there are 3 levels of glory.
There is a kingdom of celestial glory, one of terrestrial glory and one of telestial glory. Then these is a kingdom of no glory or outer darkness, where Satan and his followers will reside for eternity.
In LDS doctrine, the Celestial Kingdom, is where God, the Eternal Father lives. It is where the really faithful will end up, who do all that they can do to get there. Jesus Christ is there standing/sitting on his right side. See Acts 7:55-56. Stephan's stoning. You should actually read verses 51-60 for a more complete understanding.
As for Paradise it is a holding cell/tank. It is split in half. On one side the followers of Christ reside, on the other side the non-followers, unrightous reside. The 2 sides can communicate with each other. Do not believe so? Read Luke 16: 19-31.
pay special attention to verses 23-26. I do not know of any protestant minister, evangelicals or other assorted Christian ministers who can explain verses 23-26. They jump right past those verses, without explaining what they mean.
Don't believe in "package deals" | 4:08 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
Although I find good things in each religion that I research; I don't
believe in the whole "package" of any of them. In the religion
we're talking about, I find I like the Book of Mormon. It doesn't
necessarily matter to me whether it was written or "translated", but
it is a good companion (and corresponds well with the King James version of the
Bible).
As far as the other teachings in the LDS religion, I find that they are not for me and I don't believe the stories that go with them regarding "revelation". These teachings are not located in the B.O.M or the Bible(in my opinion as well as many others' opinions.) Although there are arguments here that would say otherwise; I don't find them valid.
I don't believe that "God" would give "everything" to one man (or woman) since there is such a wide variety of people and inspiration in the world.
As far as the other teachings in the LDS religion, I find that they are not for me and I don't believe the stories that go with them regarding "revelation". These teachings are not located in the B.O.M or the Bible(in my opinion as well as many others' opinions.) Although there are arguments here that would say otherwise; I don't find them valid.
I don't believe that "God" would give "everything" to one man (or woman) since there is such a wide variety of people and inspiration in the world.
McAfreak | 4:10 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
Orson, all I can say to you is... wow. That was a very good article that you
wrote.
To all you out there who are attacking the Mormon Religion: First, look at Exodus 20:3-17 and get a clue as to what you should feel for your neighbor. Whoever said we needed a "second testament" is severely mislead. The Book of Mormon is ANOTHER Testament of Christ. And you can't base your claim on "where are their gold tablets?". If you study 6th grade history, you learn that the Spanish took most, if not all, of the gold out of the Americas.
Why can't people just stop attacking us? We were harmless, and we had an extermination order set upon us. We move to Utah, and you still find a reason to hate us when you don't even know us. Many of you also just look for the negative. You can find infinite negativity in anything if that's your viewpoint. Change your viewpoint to look for everything positive about others, and this world will be a much more peaceful place.
Oh, and just because ONE person is bad does not mean the entire religion is bad. So stop this dumb attack.
To all you out there who are attacking the Mormon Religion: First, look at Exodus 20:3-17 and get a clue as to what you should feel for your neighbor. Whoever said we needed a "second testament" is severely mislead. The Book of Mormon is ANOTHER Testament of Christ. And you can't base your claim on "where are their gold tablets?". If you study 6th grade history, you learn that the Spanish took most, if not all, of the gold out of the Americas.
Why can't people just stop attacking us? We were harmless, and we had an extermination order set upon us. We move to Utah, and you still find a reason to hate us when you don't even know us. Many of you also just look for the negative. You can find infinite negativity in anything if that's your viewpoint. Change your viewpoint to look for everything positive about others, and this world will be a much more peaceful place.
Oh, and just because ONE person is bad does not mean the entire religion is bad. So stop this dumb attack.
How easy indeed | 4:35 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
Great point. Where are the plates now?
I have seen the Dead Sea Scrolls in person, though I was not allowed to touch them. It certainly gives the preponderance of credibility that they actually exist and we can verify it. Also the fact that the difference between the Scrolls and today's Old Testament contains only 2 translation errors in over 2,000 years is amazing.
If God could see to it that we have the Scrolls, would He not also see fit to leave the plates?
Perhaps they and other archeological evidence remains undiscovered, but I think there is a more reasonable, simpler explanation.
I have seen the Dead Sea Scrolls in person, though I was not allowed to touch them. It certainly gives the preponderance of credibility that they actually exist and we can verify it. Also the fact that the difference between the Scrolls and today's Old Testament contains only 2 translation errors in over 2,000 years is amazing.
If God could see to it that we have the Scrolls, would He not also see fit to leave the plates?
Perhaps they and other archeological evidence remains undiscovered, but I think there is a more reasonable, simpler explanation.
to Jim III | 4:45 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
Luke 16 contains a parable. Parables are stories used to illustrate points -
not prove them.
This passage was not meant to be taken as a literal, histoical occurrence. It was mean to demonstrate the finality of our decisions while here.
Any Christian familiar with the Bible should be able to point that out.
This passage was not meant to be taken as a literal, histoical occurrence. It was mean to demonstrate the finality of our decisions while here.
Any Christian familiar with the Bible should be able to point that out.
Re: Package Deals | 5:00 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
"the Book of Mormon. It doesn't necessarily matter to me whether it
was written or "translated", but it is a good companion (and
corresponds well with the King James version of the Bible)."
It should correspond well - it contains copies of hundreds of excerpts from the King James (1610) Version of the Bible. The plagiarism is hard to ignore.
Does it trouble anyone that the Book of Mormon was translated into a version of english that had not been used for 200 years? I mean, the vernacular of the 1820's and 1830's was markedly different than how the BOM was written. Odd.
It should correspond well - it contains copies of hundreds of excerpts from the King James (1610) Version of the Bible. The plagiarism is hard to ignore.
Does it trouble anyone that the Book of Mormon was translated into a version of english that had not been used for 200 years? I mean, the vernacular of the 1820's and 1830's was markedly different than how the BOM was written. Odd.
Anonymous | 5:10 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
God is not dead.
But God is also not a man.
God is much bigger and wonderous than any man could ever become.
But God is also not a man.
God is much bigger and wonderous than any man could ever become.
Good Point | 5:21 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
I believe then, it does matter. I wanted to give some "benefit of the
doubt", but now I can't find much to give. Thank you
"From: "Don't take Package Deals"
"From: "Don't take Package Deals"
Anonymous | 5:39 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
Man with his odors, phlegm, bile, excrement, etc. ... yech! why on earth would
God want to be anything resembling a man?
Re: Who would teach that? | 5:44 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
"Jesus was baptized to fulfill all righteousness.."
If you examine the words as translated in the KJV, a better phrase for "to fulfill all righteousness" would be: "all such things as it has appointed for us to keep". The Greek is clearer. Jesus's baptism was appointed to him to - pardon my slang - "kick off" his ministry on Earth.
"The apostles were commanded to baptize..."
Sort of. Actually, baptism was not the FIRST thing they were commanded to do, nor was it ALL they were commanded to do. Matt 28:19 - "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." Disciples first, baptized second.
"Rebaptized those that had not been given the HG.."
Nope. Read all the New Testament accounts of baptism. It is a statment of faith and a public expression of loyalty and following Christ.
It is not an issue of works - frustrating as that is. It is an expression of love.
"Born again" is clearly described in John 3:5-8, with the result in John 3:15-16. Pretty much sums up salvation by faith alone.
If you examine the words as translated in the KJV, a better phrase for "to fulfill all righteousness" would be: "all such things as it has appointed for us to keep". The Greek is clearer. Jesus's baptism was appointed to him to - pardon my slang - "kick off" his ministry on Earth.
"The apostles were commanded to baptize..."
Sort of. Actually, baptism was not the FIRST thing they were commanded to do, nor was it ALL they were commanded to do. Matt 28:19 - "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." Disciples first, baptized second.
"Rebaptized those that had not been given the HG.."
Nope. Read all the New Testament accounts of baptism. It is a statment of faith and a public expression of loyalty and following Christ.
It is not an issue of works - frustrating as that is. It is an expression of love.
"Born again" is clearly described in John 3:5-8, with the result in John 3:15-16. Pretty much sums up salvation by faith alone.
Timoteo Velasco | 5:49 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
Dear Mr. Card, (Part I)
"Theology: LDS god is in harmony with the Bible"
With a title like that I was expecting a Theological explanation. Not once did you directly quote the Bible or Book of Mormon or expound on a verse. You used Plato as the agent of change in Traditional Christian doctrine, but you never explained Traditional Christian doctrine from the words of a single Traditional Christian theologian or even a single passage of scripture. You came up with your definition of it, certainly arrived at through your extensive study, but you did not prove your extensive study with a single quote! Very misleading I have to say.
I am at loss to understand why Mormons keep trying to convince me that they are indeed Christians. Why does my opinion matter? Joseph Smith in his vision was told:
"Theology: LDS god is in harmony with the Bible"
With a title like that I was expecting a Theological explanation. Not once did you directly quote the Bible or Book of Mormon or expound on a verse. You used Plato as the agent of change in Traditional Christian doctrine, but you never explained Traditional Christian doctrine from the words of a single Traditional Christian theologian or even a single passage of scripture. You came up with your definition of it, certainly arrived at through your extensive study, but you did not prove your extensive study with a single quote! Very misleading I have to say.
I am at loss to understand why Mormons keep trying to convince me that they are indeed Christians. Why does my opinion matter? Joseph Smith in his vision was told:
Timoteo Velasco | 5:50 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
Part II
�I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all awrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those bprofessors were all ccorrupt; that: �they ddraw near to me with their lips, but their ehearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the fcommandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the gpower thereof.� The Official Scriptures of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints � 2006 Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved.
�I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all awrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those bprofessors were all ccorrupt; that: �they ddraw near to me with their lips, but their ehearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the fcommandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the gpower thereof.� The Official Scriptures of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints � 2006 Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved.
Timoteo Velasco | 5:53 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
Part III
I accept that Traditional Christian doctrine and creed and all those who profess it are an abomination to God according to what Joseph Smith was told. I have been officially declared by God, according to Joseph Smith, to be an abomination. I accept that. I don�t go around claming to be a Mormon because I believe in Jesus. I know that we are not one and the same doctrinally, and I am ok with that. So why does the LDS Church insist on asking to be accepted by the �unacceptable� according to this vision? I think the answer in the fact that the Book of Mormon�s account of what transpired here in the Americas is not supported by what is currently known in the fields of Archeology and History. Reformed Egyptian is not supported in the field of Linguistics. The DNA evidence does not support the claim of a Semitic presence in the Americas prior to Columbus.
I accept that Traditional Christian doctrine and creed and all those who profess it are an abomination to God according to what Joseph Smith was told. I have been officially declared by God, according to Joseph Smith, to be an abomination. I accept that. I don�t go around claming to be a Mormon because I believe in Jesus. I know that we are not one and the same doctrinally, and I am ok with that. So why does the LDS Church insist on asking to be accepted by the �unacceptable� according to this vision? I think the answer in the fact that the Book of Mormon�s account of what transpired here in the Americas is not supported by what is currently known in the fields of Archeology and History. Reformed Egyptian is not supported in the field of Linguistics. The DNA evidence does not support the claim of a Semitic presence in the Americas prior to Columbus.
Timoteo Velasco | 5:54 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
Final
Yet, I will be helping with an Archeological dig in Israel next year, God willing, and the evidence there supports the claims of the Bible in that field. I don�t think I need to go in to the Greek and Hebrew languages and in particular to the extra Biblical support that exist in the works of Josephus as an example.
I don�t mean to offend, and by the power of the Holy Spirit, I strive to live a life that reflects my love for God and for my neighbors (mostly LDS). Yet, I find that the more I read and study, the more I listen to Mormon apologists; I am convinced that this is the fabrication of a very evil man.
Sincerely,
Timoteo Velasco
Yet, I will be helping with an Archeological dig in Israel next year, God willing, and the evidence there supports the claims of the Bible in that field. I don�t think I need to go in to the Greek and Hebrew languages and in particular to the extra Biblical support that exist in the works of Josephus as an example.
I don�t mean to offend, and by the power of the Holy Spirit, I strive to live a life that reflects my love for God and for my neighbors (mostly LDS). Yet, I find that the more I read and study, the more I listen to Mormon apologists; I am convinced that this is the fabrication of a very evil man.
Sincerely,
Timoteo Velasco
Jim III | 6:12 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
TO: 4:45 p.m. The story of Lazarus and the rich man was not a parable. In the
all of the parables that Jesus Christ gives in the NT. He only names someone in
Luke 16. The good samaritan, the unjust steward and the rest he does not state
any names. At least as far as I can remember. Even if it is just a parable, it
still does not do away the facts of what verse 26 says: "And beside all
this, there is a great gulf fixed; so that they which would pass from hence to
you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence."
unless you are willing to say the either the translators mistranslated or worst case that Jesus spoke out of turn somehow.
You stated that it was not a historical account, How do you know this? Are you a prophet? Is verse 26 true or not?
It is a known fact that we do not have all the words of Jesus. Read John 21:25. I just love it when evangelicals say that the Bible is true, until you point out something in the Bible they cannot explain.
unless you are willing to say the either the translators mistranslated or worst case that Jesus spoke out of turn somehow.
You stated that it was not a historical account, How do you know this? Are you a prophet? Is verse 26 true or not?
It is a known fact that we do not have all the words of Jesus. Read John 21:25. I just love it when evangelicals say that the Bible is true, until you point out something in the Bible they cannot explain.
Hmmmm???? | 6:28 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
Written by Hmmmm:
"Again, Mormons interpret the Bible and its teachings very differently, from what Biblical Christians interpret the Bible. Very differently!
That interpretation is so different that the Mormon church consistently turns down invitations to participate in Biblical Christian enclaves where Biblical teachings are discussed and the meanings thereof decided upon. These enclaves are very democratic and quire scholarly as well, which is something Mormons undoubtedly have a problems with since they would be in the minority where Biblical teachings and doctrine are concerned.
My response: REALLY? You get together and DECIDE what the Bible means? By voting? How democratic!! Does God get a vote? It's awfully arrogant to think you can DECIDE what the Bible means. No wonder Mormons don't want to come.
"Again, Mormons interpret the Bible and its teachings very differently, from what Biblical Christians interpret the Bible. Very differently!
That interpretation is so different that the Mormon church consistently turns down invitations to participate in Biblical Christian enclaves where Biblical teachings are discussed and the meanings thereof decided upon. These enclaves are very democratic and quire scholarly as well, which is something Mormons undoubtedly have a problems with since they would be in the minority where Biblical teachings and doctrine are concerned.
My response: REALLY? You get together and DECIDE what the Bible means? By voting? How democratic!! Does God get a vote? It's awfully arrogant to think you can DECIDE what the Bible means. No wonder Mormons don't want to come.
Thomas | 7:07 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
Whenever an evangelical tells me I worship a "different Jesus," I say
that I worship the one born to Mary in Bethlehem sometime between 7 B.C. and 3
A.D., Galilean social security number MCM-IX-VIII, and ask if they're
worshipping someone else.
write | 7:38 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
Timoteo Velasco | 5:53 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
"You came up with your definition of it, certainly arrived at through your extensive study, but you did not prove your extensive study with a single quote!"
Because of the space limitations in this article he explains that you can go to the book that discusses it...The book is named in the article...It's readily available...I have a copy. Very in depth.
"Reformed Egyptian is not supported in the field of Linguistics. The DNA evidence does not support the claim of a Semitic presence in the Americas prior to Columbus."
Coptic can be considered a reformed egyptian written language...
Phonecian letters which we are writing with are based on a bunch of symbols that were later turned into letters...The Hebrew letter Bet which means house is an example. Notice how letter "B" looks like two story house.
Written language was first symbols...then letters.
Chinese's language based on symbols that now represent a written language.
The ME is cradle of civilization...Do you really think that no one traveled outside of the ME for thousands of years Didn't colonize other areas? Lost ten tribes went north! Abraham's seed are worldwide! DNA proves Bible false too!
"You came up with your definition of it, certainly arrived at through your extensive study, but you did not prove your extensive study with a single quote!"
Because of the space limitations in this article he explains that you can go to the book that discusses it...The book is named in the article...It's readily available...I have a copy. Very in depth.
"Reformed Egyptian is not supported in the field of Linguistics. The DNA evidence does not support the claim of a Semitic presence in the Americas prior to Columbus."
Coptic can be considered a reformed egyptian written language...
Phonecian letters which we are writing with are based on a bunch of symbols that were later turned into letters...The Hebrew letter Bet which means house is an example. Notice how letter "B" looks like two story house.
Written language was first symbols...then letters.
Chinese's language based on symbols that now represent a written language.
The ME is cradle of civilization...Do you really think that no one traveled outside of the ME for thousands of years Didn't colonize other areas? Lost ten tribes went north! Abraham's seed are worldwide! DNA proves Bible false too!
Really | 7:58 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
Re: Who would teach that? | 5:44 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007"
"If you examine the words as translated in the KJV, a better phrase for "to fulfill all righteousness" would be: "all such things as it has appointed for us to keep". The Greek is clearer. Jesus's baptism was appointed to him to - pardon my slang - "kick off" his ministry on Earth."
Well it would be hypocritical on his part wouldn't it to require baptism of his converts if he didn't get baptized also? "All such things as it has been required for us to keep" - The Greek doesn't mean anything different! How about commandment as a better dictionary definition?
It would be hypocritical on his part wouldn't it to command baptism of his converts if he didn't get baptized also?
"It is not an issue of works - frustrating as that is. It is an expression of love."
"Born again" is clearly described in John 3:5-8, with the result in John 3:15-16. Pretty much sums up salvation by faith alone."
SOOOOOO!You really couldn't baptize them w/o converting first!
I'm not frustrated...Jesus never taught saved by faith alone...Paul's misinterpreted teachings do! Frustrating for you? Part one!
"If you examine the words as translated in the KJV, a better phrase for "to fulfill all righteousness" would be: "all such things as it has appointed for us to keep". The Greek is clearer. Jesus's baptism was appointed to him to - pardon my slang - "kick off" his ministry on Earth."
Well it would be hypocritical on his part wouldn't it to require baptism of his converts if he didn't get baptized also? "All such things as it has been required for us to keep" - The Greek doesn't mean anything different! How about commandment as a better dictionary definition?
It would be hypocritical on his part wouldn't it to command baptism of his converts if he didn't get baptized also?
"It is not an issue of works - frustrating as that is. It is an expression of love."
"Born again" is clearly described in John 3:5-8, with the result in John 3:15-16. Pretty much sums up salvation by faith alone."
SOOOOOO!You really couldn't baptize them w/o converting first!
I'm not frustrated...Jesus never taught saved by faith alone...Paul's misinterpreted teachings do! Frustrating for you? Part one!
Dear Jim III | 8:17 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
Talk to Scholars who understand the history and context of Christ's
teachings. It is a parable.
I'm not sure I understand your point about verse 26. It refers to the rich man being in Hell and the poor man in Heaven. It means that the great chasm between heaven and hell is impassable forever. The rich man�s former status meant nothing now. Once dead, the opportunity for a decision is over. It's Heaven or Hell.
The irony and joy of the story is that what is denied the rich man�s brothers, a word of warning from beyond the grave, is given to the reader of the Gospel in this exchange.
We have the Word - and are thus without excuse.
Does this answer your question?
If I may suggest - get a Greek Lexicon to aid in your studies. Also - you may wish to study the customs and practices of the ancient world. It makes the context of the Bible so much richer.
I'm not sure I understand your point about verse 26. It refers to the rich man being in Hell and the poor man in Heaven. It means that the great chasm between heaven and hell is impassable forever. The rich man�s former status meant nothing now. Once dead, the opportunity for a decision is over. It's Heaven or Hell.
The irony and joy of the story is that what is denied the rich man�s brothers, a word of warning from beyond the grave, is given to the reader of the Gospel in this exchange.
We have the Word - and are thus without excuse.
Does this answer your question?
If I may suggest - get a Greek Lexicon to aid in your studies. Also - you may wish to study the customs and practices of the ancient world. It makes the context of the Bible so much richer.
I'm not jim | 8:28 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
Dear Jim III | 8:17 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
"Talk to Scholars who understand the history and context of Christ's teachings."
I'm just curious if you are advising him to talk to the scholars who believe? There is a difference...
The one's that don't believe in the TC doctrines tend to be more honest about the errors in the Bible, etc.
"Talk to Scholars who understand the history and context of Christ's teachings."
I'm just curious if you are advising him to talk to the scholars who believe? There is a difference...
The one's that don't believe in the TC doctrines tend to be more honest about the errors in the Bible, etc.
WWJ-Think? | 8:42 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
I think that this discourse has run its course, and the contention contained
herein is not of the Jesus I've come to know and love.
Are you part of the problem - or part of the solution?
Are you part of the problem - or part of the solution?
To: Really | 8:49 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
I think you mis-read Scripture. You have been taught out of context. Many
error in this way.
Example: Matt 19 and Mark 10 tell the same story of the rich man who asks Jesus what he (the rich man)must do to "inherit eternal life". What did Jesus tell him to do that he rejected? Sell everything he owns, give the proceeds to the poor, and follow Jesus. Now - does this mean that if I own a house I'm going to Hell? How about a car? A new pair of shoes? No, of course not.
The correct answer is in the follow-up Mark 10:23-27.
Note this passage: "Who then can be saved?"
Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God."
When He said "with man this is impossible", it means our works, our efforts, our participation counts as NOTHING toward our salvation. God and God alone. We believe by faith in the death and ressurection of Christ. This alone saves.
Paul and his contemporaries understood and preached this very message, but people reject it out of pride. They want to be involved - to merit life eternal.
Example: Matt 19 and Mark 10 tell the same story of the rich man who asks Jesus what he (the rich man)must do to "inherit eternal life". What did Jesus tell him to do that he rejected? Sell everything he owns, give the proceeds to the poor, and follow Jesus. Now - does this mean that if I own a house I'm going to Hell? How about a car? A new pair of shoes? No, of course not.
The correct answer is in the follow-up Mark 10:23-27.
Note this passage: "Who then can be saved?"
Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God."
When He said "with man this is impossible", it means our works, our efforts, our participation counts as NOTHING toward our salvation. God and God alone. We believe by faith in the death and ressurection of Christ. This alone saves.
Paul and his contemporaries understood and preached this very message, but people reject it out of pride. They want to be involved - to merit life eternal.
To: I'm not jim | 9:06 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
"I'm just curious if you are advising him to talk to the scholars who
believe?"
It doesn't matter. The teachings are plain enough. The differences are one of conclusion - believers follow the teachings because they "believe" they apply, and non-believers don't because they don't.
As to the "errors" in the Bible, please. Nice shift in topic, but it fails to address the issue raised - parable or literal truth. Do you have a comment on that, or did you just want to shift and fish?
It's funny - Christians wrestle with plenty of things in the Bible - were that not so we would not see so many denominations. But after 2000 years I think it's safe to say the Bible has been fully vetted.
Sad to say, but in 30 years the only direct, to the point, and fully honest discussions I've had about Mormon theology is with the Christians and ex-Mormons. Wonder why that is?
It doesn't matter. The teachings are plain enough. The differences are one of conclusion - believers follow the teachings because they "believe" they apply, and non-believers don't because they don't.
As to the "errors" in the Bible, please. Nice shift in topic, but it fails to address the issue raised - parable or literal truth. Do you have a comment on that, or did you just want to shift and fish?
It's funny - Christians wrestle with plenty of things in the Bible - were that not so we would not see so many denominations. But after 2000 years I think it's safe to say the Bible has been fully vetted.
Sad to say, but in 30 years the only direct, to the point, and fully honest discussions I've had about Mormon theology is with the Christians and ex-Mormons. Wonder why that is?
To: write | 7:38 p.m | 9:40 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
In The Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith wote that his colleague, Martin Harris
took an example of the writings of the plates from which the Book of Mormon was
supposedly derived, to a professor in New York, Charles Anthon of Colombia
University. Smith writes further that Anthon validated Smith's translation
of the characters on the plates.
Unfortunately for Joseph Smith, when Professor Anthon read about this he refuted it publicly, and in writing. Professor Anthon wrote in a letter dated Feb 17, 1834 that what Joseph Smith wrote was "perfecty false". Anthon did examine a paper give him by Harris, and in his letter Anthon states that upon examination of the characters "I came to the conclusion that it was all a trick, perhaps a hoax."
All reputable linguists who have examined the claims put forth by Mormons have dismissed them as lacking any credibility.
Despite what Mormons claim, the DNA, archeology, and linguistic evidence do in fact prove otherwise.
Unfortunately for Joseph Smith, when Professor Anthon read about this he refuted it publicly, and in writing. Professor Anthon wrote in a letter dated Feb 17, 1834 that what Joseph Smith wrote was "perfecty false". Anthon did examine a paper give him by Harris, and in his letter Anthon states that upon examination of the characters "I came to the conclusion that it was all a trick, perhaps a hoax."
All reputable linguists who have examined the claims put forth by Mormons have dismissed them as lacking any credibility.
Despite what Mormons claim, the DNA, archeology, and linguistic evidence do in fact prove otherwise.
Theology: LDS god is in harmony | 10:00 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
The God of the Bible and the God of Mormons are two different Gods. Read both
books, Bible and Book of Mormon. Of course, you have to know which version of
the BOM to read - it's had 100 verses and 4000 words changed since the
original.
I wonder...how did the Mormons know which words and verses to change? I mean, think about it..the plates are gone...how did they know to go "ah, this verse is incorrect.." Incorrect based on what source? The latest changes appear to help them skate around the DNA issue. Come on, guys. Did you really think no one would notice??
I don't have a problem with a Mormon in the White House - but lets not package it with a "his God is your God too" promotion. Please. It's insulting. The American public can be pretty dumb, but we're not THAT stupid.
I wonder...how did the Mormons know which words and verses to change? I mean, think about it..the plates are gone...how did they know to go "ah, this verse is incorrect.." Incorrect based on what source? The latest changes appear to help them skate around the DNA issue. Come on, guys. Did you really think no one would notice??
I don't have a problem with a Mormon in the White House - but lets not package it with a "his God is your God too" promotion. Please. It's insulting. The American public can be pretty dumb, but we're not THAT stupid.
Ms. S. (again) | 11:12 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
Just one more thing, and then I'm moving on - why is God in lower case in
this headline?
Thomas | 11:43 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
"Theology," I would say that the God of Exodus, the God of 1 John, the
God of Revelation, and the God of Job are four different Gods. Seriously -- the
characteristics ascribed to God in those four books differ from each other at
least as much as they differ from the God of the Book of Mormon (which you
haven't read). (That God strikes me as kind of a hybrid Romans/Judges kind
of deity.)
Re: your last sentence -- don't flatter yourself.
Re: your last sentence -- don't flatter yourself.
Jon Shurtleff | 2:00 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007
"The point is that DNA proves conclusively, without a doubt, that the Book
of Mormon account of the Americas being populated by Israeli descendants is not
and cannot be true."
This is absolute rubbish and a perfect example of the very common practice of people extrapolating legitimate scientific evidence far beyond what it actually shows.
To be clear, DNA evidence shows that a DNA marker found in present day Israeli's is not found in present day American Indians.
That is the scientific fact and that's all it says. Anything else is subject to interpretation.
It has absolutely nothing to say about the DNA composition of a very small group of people who emmigrated to the Americas from the middle east 2600 years ago and what might have been preserved in present day populations particular when one considers that there were undoubtely other groups in America when this small band of immigrants arrived, a fact which is also well established.
The DNA issue is far more complex than that and the verdict is far from being in and it's just silly to think it is.
This is absolute rubbish and a perfect example of the very common practice of people extrapolating legitimate scientific evidence far beyond what it actually shows.
To be clear, DNA evidence shows that a DNA marker found in present day Israeli's is not found in present day American Indians.
That is the scientific fact and that's all it says. Anything else is subject to interpretation.
It has absolutely nothing to say about the DNA composition of a very small group of people who emmigrated to the Americas from the middle east 2600 years ago and what might have been preserved in present day populations particular when one considers that there were undoubtely other groups in America when this small band of immigrants arrived, a fact which is also well established.
The DNA issue is far more complex than that and the verdict is far from being in and it's just silly to think it is.
Jon Shurtleff | 2:09 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007
"Which version of the BOM to read - it's had 100 verses and 4000 words
changed."
When are you people going get tired of advancing the same tired old rubbish arguments about the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.
There are no 'different' versions of the Book of Mormon in the sense that you imply, that of substantial difference being made to the text.
The original manuscript as dictated by Joseph Smith did not contain any punctuation. This was added by the printer who was also not friendly to the Church. The changes to the text all fall in the category of correcting errors made by the original printer and to bring things in line with Joseph's original text.
The changes are all trivial in nature and do not make a gnats difference to the meaning of the text.
When are you people going get tired of advancing the same tired old rubbish arguments about the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.
There are no 'different' versions of the Book of Mormon in the sense that you imply, that of substantial difference being made to the text.
The original manuscript as dictated by Joseph Smith did not contain any punctuation. This was added by the printer who was also not friendly to the Church. The changes to the text all fall in the category of correcting errors made by the original printer and to bring things in line with Joseph's original text.
The changes are all trivial in nature and do not make a gnats difference to the meaning of the text.
Catachoo | 6:14 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007
For Ms. S: In the headline "god" is in lower case because the word is
not used as the name of god. It is used as a generic noun. "Which god are
we talking about?" "We're talking about the god that inhabits
that stone carving." "Oh, I thought we were talking about the LDS
god." In the preceding imaginary conversation, I think you can see how the
word "god" is not used as a proper noun.
you said it | 7:54 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007
To: I'm not jim | 9:06 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
"Sad to say, but in 30 years the only direct, to the point, and fully honest discussions I've had about Mormon theology is with the Christians and ex-Mormons. Wonder why that is?"
You said it...You are steeped in the dogmatic creeds that the TC doctrines are formed around...
Honest? In your mind you probably thought it was honest but you are product of the training you've recieved...It's a bias that's clearly evident by the tone of your post.
If you would have had a chance to interview ex-members that left Jesus(See John 6:66 interestingly the number 666?)what would they have said about Christ and his doctrines?
Ex members of the LDS church aren't going to be the best source of accurate information about the LDS church because of an obvious bias against the church!
"Sad to say, but in 30 years the only direct, to the point, and fully honest discussions I've had about Mormon theology is with the Christians and ex-Mormons. Wonder why that is?"
You said it...You are steeped in the dogmatic creeds that the TC doctrines are formed around...
Honest? In your mind you probably thought it was honest but you are product of the training you've recieved...It's a bias that's clearly evident by the tone of your post.
If you would have had a chance to interview ex-members that left Jesus(See John 6:66 interestingly the number 666?)what would they have said about Christ and his doctrines?
Ex members of the LDS church aren't going to be the best source of accurate information about the LDS church because of an obvious bias against the church!
Amen | 7:56 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007
Jon Shurtleff | 2:00 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007
You hit it out of the park Brother!
You hit it out of the park Brother!
To: Jon Shurtleff | 8:53 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007
Anyone can look at a copy of the original manuscript and see plainly that your
assertions of "minor...punctuation changes" are incorrect.
I understand your need to defend the accuracy of the text because subtended to the idea of errors is the idea of veracity, but the facts are the facts.
The changes to the BOM are entire phrases and words - not of punctuation. Many changes alter entirely the meaning. The changes include changing the names of characters (proper nouns) in the text. One can only speculate as to why this was done - many changes were not accompanied by explanations.
Please check this for yourself. It's easy to do.
I understand your need to defend the accuracy of the text because subtended to the idea of errors is the idea of veracity, but the facts are the facts.
The changes to the BOM are entire phrases and words - not of punctuation. Many changes alter entirely the meaning. The changes include changing the names of characters (proper nouns) in the text. One can only speculate as to why this was done - many changes were not accompanied by explanations.
Please check this for yourself. It's easy to do.
To Jon on the DNA | 9:05 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007
Read the works of a Mormon anthropologist, Thomas W. Murphy. Read the book:
American Apocrypha (Signature, 2002). it contains an essay by Murphy titled
Lamanite, Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics.
Murphy said "Now what do we as Mormons do? We've got a problem. Our beliefs are not validated by the science." Murphy believes that Mormons have a moral and ethical responsibility to relegate this notion as a "mistake of men." He is correct.
Intersting that Murphy was NOT accused of apostacy by the Mormon Church. Their silence says a LOT.
This is all public information - nothing is secret. You can do the research yourself and verify it.
Murphy said "Now what do we as Mormons do? We've got a problem. Our beliefs are not validated by the science." Murphy believes that Mormons have a moral and ethical responsibility to relegate this notion as a "mistake of men." He is correct.
Intersting that Murphy was NOT accused of apostacy by the Mormon Church. Their silence says a LOT.
This is all public information - nothing is secret. You can do the research yourself and verify it.
To Jon on text differences | 9:15 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007
The printer messed up so the church waited until 1920 to fix it? And 1986?
Huh????
Why wouldn't Joseph, upon receiving the bad copy, simply take it elsewhere? Didn't he notice the problem with it?
If it truly was "punctuation" only, then change it once - not dozens of times over 150 years.
Come on...Your explanation makes no sense.
Why wouldn't Joseph, upon receiving the bad copy, simply take it elsewhere? Didn't he notice the problem with it?
If it truly was "punctuation" only, then change it once - not dozens of times over 150 years.
Come on...Your explanation makes no sense.
TO:To: I'm not jim | 10:09 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007
TO:To: I'm not jim | 9:06 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
"It's funny - Christians wrestle with plenty of things in the Bible - were that not so we would not see so many denominations. But after 2000 years I think it's safe to say the Bible has been fully vetted."
Actually if they were fully vetted this thread wouldn't have even happened.
The questions and controversies that existed at the time the creeds were created are still legitimate today. Constantine tried to sweep it under the rug with the creeds, and by the power of the combination of the Catholic Church and the Roman Empire it was suppressed for several centuries. With the publication of the Bible and it's being made available to the masses. People started to question the accepted doctrines of orthodoxy...The creeds and their definition of God are not off limits!
To the honest of heart the Triune God is glaringly non-Biblical...If you believe...It's not your fault...You and many others like you have inherited lies from Constantine's time and from his political agenda...Even many honest scholars of orthodox religions are starting to admit the errors.
Joseph Smith's vision has turned Orthodox Religion's doctrines on their head.
"It's funny - Christians wrestle with plenty of things in the Bible - were that not so we would not see so many denominations. But after 2000 years I think it's safe to say the Bible has been fully vetted."
Actually if they were fully vetted this thread wouldn't have even happened.
The questions and controversies that existed at the time the creeds were created are still legitimate today. Constantine tried to sweep it under the rug with the creeds, and by the power of the combination of the Catholic Church and the Roman Empire it was suppressed for several centuries. With the publication of the Bible and it's being made available to the masses. People started to question the accepted doctrines of orthodoxy...The creeds and their definition of God are not off limits!
To the honest of heart the Triune God is glaringly non-Biblical...If you believe...It's not your fault...You and many others like you have inherited lies from Constantine's time and from his political agenda...Even many honest scholars of orthodox religions are starting to admit the errors.
Joseph Smith's vision has turned Orthodox Religion's doctrines on their head.
Bull | 10:33 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007
To Jon on the DNA | 9:05 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007
Murphy doesn't talk for the LDS church...If that's his opinion...He's welcome to it!
LDS members are encouraged to read and study, but our testimony isn't based on science it's a religion...That's not to say that we don't value science, but science fact can turn to science fiction very quickly...Especially in the areas of archeology...Turn over the right shovel full of dirt and the whole proof in that science is now in our court.
DNA evidence? The ME according to acccepted science is the cradle of our western civilization and maybe even Far Eastern civilization...Africa is supposed to be where the human species originated.They had to travel through the ME to get to Siberia.DUH!Either those theories are flawed or this DNA study is wrong. The Bible says that Noah's posterity spread out from the ME!(So is the Bible false also?)
You'd have to be an absolute simpleton no matter your background to believe that over many thousands of years that someone or several someones from the ME didn't travel the world! No ME DNA?...The interpretation of that data is flawed...It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.
Murphy doesn't talk for the LDS church...If that's his opinion...He's welcome to it!
LDS members are encouraged to read and study, but our testimony isn't based on science it's a religion...That's not to say that we don't value science, but science fact can turn to science fiction very quickly...Especially in the areas of archeology...Turn over the right shovel full of dirt and the whole proof in that science is now in our court.
DNA evidence? The ME according to acccepted science is the cradle of our western civilization and maybe even Far Eastern civilization...Africa is supposed to be where the human species originated.They had to travel through the ME to get to Siberia.DUH!Either those theories are flawed or this DNA study is wrong. The Bible says that Noah's posterity spread out from the ME!(So is the Bible false also?)
You'd have to be an absolute simpleton no matter your background to believe that over many thousands of years that someone or several someones from the ME didn't travel the world! No ME DNA?...The interpretation of that data is flawed...It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.
If only... | 10:42 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007
TO:To Jon on text differences | 9:15 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007 The printer messed up so
the church waited until 1920 to fix it? And 1986? Huh????
"Why wouldn't Joseph, upon receiving the bad copy, simply take it elsewhere? Didn't he notice the problem with it?
If it truly was "punctuation" only, then change it once - not dozens of times over 150 years.
Come on...Your explanation makes no sense."
If only you had taken the time to read the reasons why the LDS church made the changes when they did.
The reorganized church had the original hand written manuscripts...Emma had them...They were passed down through the Reorganized church..We were able to get copies in 1978(?).
Joseph Smith had to borrow the money to get the BOM printed in the first place...He had to deal with the printing as it was.
It doesn't make sense to you because you are trying so hard to find fault with the LDS church that NOTHING a member would say would make sense to you!
"Why wouldn't Joseph, upon receiving the bad copy, simply take it elsewhere? Didn't he notice the problem with it?
If it truly was "punctuation" only, then change it once - not dozens of times over 150 years.
Come on...Your explanation makes no sense."
If only you had taken the time to read the reasons why the LDS church made the changes when they did.
The reorganized church had the original hand written manuscripts...Emma had them...They were passed down through the Reorganized church..We were able to get copies in 1978(?).
Joseph Smith had to borrow the money to get the BOM printed in the first place...He had to deal with the printing as it was.
It doesn't make sense to you because you are trying so hard to find fault with the LDS church that NOTHING a member would say would make sense to you!
It doesn't make sense | 11:46 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007
Jon,
Your arguments don't make sense because your explanations don't square with the known (and readily accessible) facts.
I think that in time the Mormon church will recant parts of the BOM - along with their teachings. I bet the FARM group is figuring out a way to do that gracefully - right now.
Three options:
1 - ingnore the facts (like what those who deny the Holocaust do)
2 - re-frame the facts and attack their source (like Hillary did defending Bill "it's a vast righ-wing conspiracy"..)
3 - accept the facts
Mormons will be able to move on only after they take position #3.
And that's a fact.
Your arguments don't make sense because your explanations don't square with the known (and readily accessible) facts.
I think that in time the Mormon church will recant parts of the BOM - along with their teachings. I bet the FARM group is figuring out a way to do that gracefully - right now.
Three options:
1 - ingnore the facts (like what those who deny the Holocaust do)
2 - re-frame the facts and attack their source (like Hillary did defending Bill "it's a vast righ-wing conspiracy"..)
3 - accept the facts
Mormons will be able to move on only after they take position #3.
And that's a fact.
Fruits | 3:06 p.m. Dec. 12, 2007
As far as beliefs of the LDS church go, "It is by their fruits that ye
shall know them." There are millions of good, strong, kind LDS people, who
live their lives as closely to Christ's teachings as they can. Whether or
not DNA evidence can prove that the Nephites once lived on this continent is
immaterial. We as LDS people CHOOSE to believe it. We believe that Christ
loves all of us, that Heavenly Father loves all of His children and that the
Holy Ghost is the means with which it is confirmed to us. It is not Christian
to attack another's beliefs, and it is not loving to attempt to destroy
another's faith because you do not have a testimony of it. Let us all
promote faith, moral living and kindness. God Bless you all. Let us all have
good "fruits."
Timoteo Velasco | 3:13 p.m. Dec. 12, 2007
Dear Mr. "write"
Because of the space limitations in this article he explains that you can go to the book that discusses it...The book is named in the article...It's readily available...I have a copy. Very in depth. �Still dies not answer the absence of a single direct quote�
Because of the space limitations in this article he explains that you can go to the book that discusses it...The book is named in the article...It's readily available...I have a copy. Very in depth. �Still dies not answer the absence of a single direct quote�
Timoteo Velasco | 3:18 p.m. Dec. 12, 2007
TO Mr. "write" part II
Coptic can be considered a reformed Egyptian written language..."but is it reformed Egyptian? Is this the script of the tablets?"
Phoenician letters which we are writing with are based on a bunch of symbols that were later turned into letters... �Give me one example of an ancient document written in reformed Egyptian vis a vi any other ancient language and then we have a valid starting point for discussion.� The Hebrew letter Bet which means house is an example. Notice how letter "B" looks like two story house. Written language was first symbols...then letters. �I am familiar with Hebrew Sir ;-) In particular with pictographic representation of ancient Hebrew characters. The original pyctographic symbol for Bet was similar to today's Pey on it's side. I don't understand what you are talking about regarding the letter B and Bet�
Coptic can be considered a reformed Egyptian written language..."but is it reformed Egyptian? Is this the script of the tablets?"
Phoenician letters which we are writing with are based on a bunch of symbols that were later turned into letters... �Give me one example of an ancient document written in reformed Egyptian vis a vi any other ancient language and then we have a valid starting point for discussion.� The Hebrew letter Bet which means house is an example. Notice how letter "B" looks like two story house. Written language was first symbols...then letters. �I am familiar with Hebrew Sir ;-) In particular with pictographic representation of ancient Hebrew characters. The original pyctographic symbol for Bet was similar to today's Pey on it's side. I don't understand what you are talking about regarding the letter B and Bet�
Timoteo Velasco | 3:20 p.m. Dec. 12, 2007
TO Mr. "write"
The ME is cradle of civilization...Do you really think that no one traveled outside of the ME for thousands of years Didn't colonize other areas? �I never said that, nor do I believe that. Reread my post, Please� Lost ten tribes went north! �Please read the following verses and explain to me the �lost tribes�. James 1:1, 2 Chronicles 11:16, 1 Kings 12:20, 2 Chronicles 30:5 (years after the deportation to Assyria)11/25 34:6, 15:9, I still have many verses to go, but will stop here. The bottom line is Jesus is from Judah, the Levites were at the Temple, Paul said he was a Benjamite, etc�Abraham's seed are worldwide! �Yes and your point is?� DNA proves Bible false too! �Uncorroborated conclusion! Prove your point. I can prove mine. There is no Semitic marker (actually it occurs in only 40% of Jews) in the Americas prior to Columbus. Prove me wrong, and we have a valid point to start an intelligent discussion Have a great day and God Bless you!�
The ME is cradle of civilization...Do you really think that no one traveled outside of the ME for thousands of years Didn't colonize other areas? �I never said that, nor do I believe that. Reread my post, Please� Lost ten tribes went north! �Please read the following verses and explain to me the �lost tribes�. James 1:1, 2 Chronicles 11:16, 1 Kings 12:20, 2 Chronicles 30:5 (years after the deportation to Assyria)11/25 34:6, 15:9, I still have many verses to go, but will stop here. The bottom line is Jesus is from Judah, the Levites were at the Temple, Paul said he was a Benjamite, etc�Abraham's seed are worldwide! �Yes and your point is?� DNA proves Bible false too! �Uncorroborated conclusion! Prove your point. I can prove mine. There is no Semitic marker (actually it occurs in only 40% of Jews) in the Americas prior to Columbus. Prove me wrong, and we have a valid point to start an intelligent discussion Have a great day and God Bless you!�
To Fruits | 3:36 p.m. Dec. 12, 2007
Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the
kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
TRUTH MATTERS!
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
TRUTH MATTERS!
My point is | 10:42 p.m. Dec. 12, 2007
Timoteo Velasco | 3:20 p.m. Dec. 12, 2007
"�Uncorroborated conclusion! Prove your point. I can prove mine. There is no Semitic marker (actually it occurs in only 40% of Jews) in the Americas prior to Columbus."
You said it...Yet you don't see it!
The marker only occurs in 40% of Jews?
If it doesn't occur in American Indians there is no connection and you've proved your point?
What did you prove?
I don't see it!
You just proved that you can contradict yourself!
How can we have an "intelligent" conversation?
The irony is...We can't!You've proved you can't look at your own data and see the flawed thinking in your conclusions!
"Have a great day and God Bless you!�
"�Uncorroborated conclusion! Prove your point. I can prove mine. There is no Semitic marker (actually it occurs in only 40% of Jews) in the Americas prior to Columbus."
You said it...Yet you don't see it!
The marker only occurs in 40% of Jews?
If it doesn't occur in American Indians there is no connection and you've proved your point?
What did you prove?
I don't see it!
You just proved that you can contradict yourself!
How can we have an "intelligent" conversation?
The irony is...We can't!You've proved you can't look at your own data and see the flawed thinking in your conclusions!
"Have a great day and God Bless you!�
Carl Rockrohr | 5:23 a.m. Dec. 13, 2007
I am a Lutheran theology university professor and I have never heard of such
logic for the Trinity made by a Christian, 3 parallels lines. Is this Mormon
make believe abuot orthodox Christians? PLease provide a reference for that
example. Come on, use a historic argument -- you have mis-represented
Christians. Romney might or might not be elected, but Mormon beliefs and the
teachings of historic Christianity will never, ever coincide. They are two
completely different religions. Say it out plain and quit trying to hide,
otherwise you are a deceiver and so is your presidential candidate is a
deceiver. He is not worthy to be president if he hides what he really believes.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
Orson Scott Card
Related content
- Utah Utes football starters 1:25 a.m.
- BYU football starters 1:24 a.m.
- Jazz involved in 4-team race 1:22 a.m.
- Which coach will take the 5th? 12:54 a.m.
- Flash roll to season-opening win 12:48 a.m.
- Dixie, SLCC notch wins 12:44 a.m.
- Alabama squeaks past Auburn 12:34 a.m.
- UVU, SUU suffer tourney setbacks 12:33 a.m.
- Editorial: Food is not the enemy 12:17 a.m.
- U.S. must has work in Afghanistan 12:17 a.m.
- BYU would like friendlier rivalry
264 - Protests against Phoenix LDS temple211
- Thunder rolls by Jazz136
- Letters: Rushing to judge Palin133
- Boys basketball rankings128
- Editorial: Poor welcome for Palin112
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies109
- Letters: Trump card for believers93
- Rivalry Week is highly profane84
- Utah, BYU are top choices for bowls75
I wanted to tell them not to go. I dropped subtle hints. "My money is on...
When I was a kid, I worshipped my grandpa. He was undoubtedly my hero....
Latest comments
"You are the very epitome of self-indulgence liberal crassness. You care...
I thought it was a great parade. Isn't it the only one in Salt Lake County?...
is struggling in some aspects of his game. We saw what he did last year early...
Having explored caves as a youth and spent 31 yrs working occasionally...
How do the Utes continue to do this? They are bad enough to lose to lousy...
A little help here. Harmon says Utah should be on a 3-0 win streak. I assume...
disgruntled parents need to stay off the blogs...
Honk if you intercepted Max Hall.
however it pertinent to look at their schedule and then look at ours. Because...
and there are no ute fans, only bandwagon fans, nice try though
Advertisements
The point is that the DNA evidence proves conclusively, without a doubt, that the Book of Mormon account of the Americas being populated by a Isreali descendants is not and cannot be true.
I appreciate your trying to change the subject to a discussion Dr Leaky's speculations of the origins of man, or what you think the Spaniards think they found. These tactics (change the subject, shift the focus) are what I expect. I said as much in my original post.
Show me a geneticist who disagrees with what I said. I would be delighted to engage them in a detailed discussion.
The core issue is that since this part of the Book of Mormon is obviously wrong, where does it lead? What next? What does it mean for Mormonism overall.