Reader comments
Theology: LDS god is in harmony with the Bible
395 comments | Read story
Love it! | 11:19 a.m. Dec. 13, 2007
I enjoyed every word. I wish that more of us could put it so eloquently. I am
just amazed at how so many people want to argue about this. Maybe if we all
calmed down a bit and just accepted the fact that we are different and have
differing opinions we might be able to just get along. Isn't that what
true Christianity would be? Love your neighbor as yourself.
Anonymous | 11:47 a.m. Dec. 13, 2007
It doesn't make sense | 11:46 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007
"I think...Mormon church will recant...BOM..."
Nah! Who died...Made you prophet?
"I bet the FARM group is figuring out a way to do that gracefully - right now."
I believe that you should drive down to Provo and help them draft that statement....
You should do it on April 1st for irony's sake.
As a fool on a fool's errand...
"Three options:
1 - ingnore the facts (like what those who deny the Holocaust do)"
Would those be "scientific facts"? The rest of the Christian world does too...Scientific age of the universe and the earth, human genome/monkey genome roughly 90% same, evolution, etc.
I believe God and I'm patient...He'll reveal it when he's ready/Scientists in 1970s were convinced ice age was coming...Now global warming?...We trounce on politicos for flip/flopping?
"2 - re-frame the facts and attack their source (like Hillary did defending Bill "it's a vast righ-wing conspiracy"..)"
We could learn our tactics from experienced sources like Catholics/Evangelicals/etc.! SAY CAPERNICUS!
"3 - accept the facts"
DNA? FACT 40% of Jews tested didn't have marker either...They're not Jews?/From/ME?
DNA/Study ignored AmericanIndian/DNA that showed/ME decent! Became contaminated somehow? Yeah right!
RESPECTED/SCIENTISTS/AGREE/W/BOM?/NOT/LIKELY!/......FACT/IF/THEY/DID/THEY'D/LOSE/RESPECT/OF/PEERS!/BIAS/IN/STUDY?/MORE/THAN/LIKELY!
"I think...Mormon church will recant...BOM..."
Nah! Who died...Made you prophet?
"I bet the FARM group is figuring out a way to do that gracefully - right now."
I believe that you should drive down to Provo and help them draft that statement....
You should do it on April 1st for irony's sake.
As a fool on a fool's errand...
"Three options:
1 - ingnore the facts (like what those who deny the Holocaust do)"
Would those be "scientific facts"? The rest of the Christian world does too...Scientific age of the universe and the earth, human genome/monkey genome roughly 90% same, evolution, etc.
I believe God and I'm patient...He'll reveal it when he's ready/Scientists in 1970s were convinced ice age was coming...Now global warming?...We trounce on politicos for flip/flopping?
"2 - re-frame the facts and attack their source (like Hillary did defending Bill "it's a vast righ-wing conspiracy"..)"
We could learn our tactics from experienced sources like Catholics/Evangelicals/etc.! SAY CAPERNICUS!
"3 - accept the facts"
DNA? FACT 40% of Jews tested didn't have marker either...They're not Jews?/From/ME?
DNA/Study ignored AmericanIndian/DNA that showed/ME decent! Became contaminated somehow? Yeah right!
RESPECTED/SCIENTISTS/AGREE/W/BOM?/NOT/LIKELY!/......FACT/IF/THEY/DID/THEY'D/LOSE/RESPECT/OF/PEERS!/BIAS/IN/STUDY?/MORE/THAN/LIKELY!
Comments continue below
Anonymous | 12:04 p.m. Dec. 13, 2007
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,"
I had christians tell me the egg, yolk, shell on my mission...In this thread to water, ice, steam.
"3 parallels lines. Is this Mormon make believe abuot orthodox Christians?"
No! It was the authors own attempt to explain it...Re-read the article...Go to official LDS websites...No chracterization of others specific beliefs anywhere!
"PLease provide a reference for that example. Come on, use a historic argument -- you have mis-represented Christians."
See above!
"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."
So are Lutheran and Catholics....So?
"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."
We don't hide it...Neither does he...However he's running for president now...He went on a religious LDS mission...He talked about his beliefs then...If anyone wants to know...The missionaries would love to talk.
"I am a Lutheran theology university professor and
"I have never heard of such logic for the Trinity made by a Christian,"
I had christians tell me the egg, yolk, shell on my mission...In this thread to water, ice, steam.
"3 parallels lines. Is this Mormon make believe abuot orthodox Christians?"
No! It was the authors own attempt to explain it...Re-read the article...Go to official LDS websites...No chracterization of others specific beliefs anywhere!
"PLease provide a reference for that example. Come on, use a historic argument -- you have mis-represented Christians."
See above!
"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."
So are Lutheran and Catholics....So?
"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."
We don't hide it...Neither does he...However he's running for president now...He went on a religious LDS mission...He talked about his beliefs then...If anyone wants to know...The missionaries would love to talk.
Here's a suggestion | 12:19 p.m. Dec. 13, 2007
Carl Rockrohr | 5:23 a.m. Dec. 13, 2007
Rather than ranting...If you feel your views on the trinity have been misrepresented...Write an article explaining your view/history of the trinity...Why you broke w/Catholics...Contrast it with not only LDS views , but other faiths as well...submit it.
I'm sure we could have other views submitted from other churches also contrasting their views/history/etc...
Honestly-Get it all out in the open...There are different faiths for a reason!
Then we could have balanced, honest dialougue about beliefs in God!
Rather than ranting...If you feel your views on the trinity have been misrepresented...Write an article explaining your view/history of the trinity...Why you broke w/Catholics...Contrast it with not only LDS views , but other faiths as well...submit it.
I'm sure we could have other views submitted from other churches also contrasting their views/history/etc...
Honestly-Get it all out in the open...There are different faiths for a reason!
Then we could have balanced, honest dialougue about beliefs in God!
Dear: Anonymous | 11:47 a.m. | 12:55 p.m. Dec. 13, 2007
When faced with the facts, you do one of two things:
1.Draw conclusions that are the opposite of what most others (including experts) draw.
2.Discuss your beliefs (not facts) about DIFFERENT issues.
That's fine.
If I place a cake in the oven to bake and then leave the kitchen, does it bake because I placed it in the oven or because I left the kitchen? Which seems the LOGICAL, REASONABLE opinion to draw?
Your choice.
1.Draw conclusions that are the opposite of what most others (including experts) draw.
2.Discuss your beliefs (not facts) about DIFFERENT issues.
That's fine.
If I place a cake in the oven to bake and then leave the kitchen, does it bake because I placed it in the oven or because I left the kitchen? Which seems the LOGICAL, REASONABLE opinion to draw?
Your choice.
Yes | 1:04 p.m. Dec. 13, 2007
Timoteo Velasco | 3:20 p.m. Dec. 12, 2007
"DNA proves Bible false too!"
Humans and Gibbons(Monkey flavor of the month?) share about 90%(Far higher probability than your 40% ratio!) of their genome...
Bible/Genesis=Humans/animals separate creation?
In this and many other instances I just happen to believe God over scientists.
"DNA proves Bible false too!"
Humans and Gibbons(Monkey flavor of the month?) share about 90%(Far higher probability than your 40% ratio!) of their genome...
Bible/Genesis=Humans/animals separate creation?
In this and many other instances I just happen to believe God over scientists.
I think i agree w/you | 1:24 p.m. Dec. 13, 2007
Carl Rockrohr | 5:23 a.m. Dec. 13, 2007
I am LDS...I went to a Lutheran website to peruse Luther's writings...It didn't seem to me that Luther taught the three in one substance/triune Gods doctrine from what I read?
I am LDS...I went to a Lutheran website to peruse Luther's writings...It didn't seem to me that Luther taught the three in one substance/triune Gods doctrine from what I read?
reply to Dear Anon | 1:42 p.m. Dec. 13, 2007
Dear: Anonymous | 11:47 a.m. | 12:55 p.m. Dec. 13, 2007
"When faced with the facts, you do one of two things:
1.Draw conclusions that are the opposite of what most others (including experts) draw."
Christ...Did he go with the majority? The "experts"?
Actually the only expert he listened to was Heavenly Father!
He espoused many unpopular beliefs...At least with majority religion(s)!
If you're in Iraq do you convert to Islam? India...Hindu? Just because they're the majority?
In fact Christ chose his Apostles from the crowd that were most likely not to be experts! Common people!
Religion is not a popularity contest...Just because most Lemmings jump over a cliff?
"2.Discuss your beliefs (not facts) about DIFFERENT issues."
We do! Just wish those discussing our religion could do the same!
"That's fine.
If I place a cake in the oven to bake and then leave the kitchen, does it bake because I placed it in the oven or because I left the kitchen? Which seems the LOGICAL, REASONABLE opinion to draw?"
It seems you'd have to turn on the oven or your supposition doesn't work either...That's why the need for a restoration...God need to turn on the oven besides...
Your choice.
"When faced with the facts, you do one of two things:
1.Draw conclusions that are the opposite of what most others (including experts) draw."
Christ...Did he go with the majority? The "experts"?
Actually the only expert he listened to was Heavenly Father!
He espoused many unpopular beliefs...At least with majority religion(s)!
If you're in Iraq do you convert to Islam? India...Hindu? Just because they're the majority?
In fact Christ chose his Apostles from the crowd that were most likely not to be experts! Common people!
Religion is not a popularity contest...Just because most Lemmings jump over a cliff?
"2.Discuss your beliefs (not facts) about DIFFERENT issues."
We do! Just wish those discussing our religion could do the same!
"That's fine.
If I place a cake in the oven to bake and then leave the kitchen, does it bake because I placed it in the oven or because I left the kitchen? Which seems the LOGICAL, REASONABLE opinion to draw?"
It seems you'd have to turn on the oven or your supposition doesn't work either...That's why the need for a restoration...God need to turn on the oven besides...
Your choice.
actually? | 2:05 p.m. Dec. 13, 2007
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.
Intersting that Murphy was NOT accused of apostacy by the Mormon Church. Their silence says a LOT."
Apologist?
I thought he left the church on his own?
If he did...
No church court necessary?
If he didn't...
The results(Not always excommuncation...sometimes disfellowship, and even No action is warrented!) of LDS Church disciplinary actions are not made public(To protect the privacy of the indidual.)...If the person that is the subject of the court wants to make it public...That's their choice!
So super sleuth the truth is...You're wrong!
"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.
Intersting that Murphy was NOT accused of apostacy by the Mormon Church. Their silence says a LOT."
Apologist?
I thought he left the church on his own?
If he did...
No church court necessary?
If he didn't...
The results(Not always excommuncation...sometimes disfellowship, and even No action is warrented!) of LDS Church disciplinary actions are not made public(To protect the privacy of the indidual.)...If the person that is the subject of the court wants to make it public...That's their choice!
So super sleuth the truth is...You're wrong!
To: actually? | 3:34 p.m. Dec. 13, 2007
Anthropologist...not apologist. Two different things..
Your response fails to address the conclusions Murphy reached when faced with the facts.
Stay focued.
Your response fails to address the conclusions Murphy reached when faced with the facts.
Stay focued.
To: reply to Dear Anon | 3:37 p.m. Dec. 13, 2007
You are still re-framing the discussion to avoid addressing the facts.
Stay on topic.
If I say "it's cold outside", you can agree or disagree, and we can talk about what "cold" means, but saying "it's blue" makes no sense. In the same way, your responses to my posts make no sense.
Stay on topic.
If I say "it's cold outside", you can agree or disagree, and we can talk about what "cold" means, but saying "it's blue" makes no sense. In the same way, your responses to my posts make no sense.
DNA and the Bible | 3:51 p.m. Dec. 13, 2007
Someone posted that DNA proves the Bible false.
This is not correct, and is clearly the result of flawed thinking.
By way of illustration: If the Bible said that Chinese people settled Australia 2300 years ago AND DNA evidence found NO link between Chinese ancestry (living and skeletal remains) and modern (and ancient) Australians, THEN the DNA would prove that claim of the Bible was incorrect.
But the Bible says none of those things. It makes no such claims at all. In fact, there are no claims made in the Bible's historical account that conflict with modern DNA science.
On the other hand, the Book of Mormon does make claims of people settling in a region (America) and the DNA (along with the archeology, anthropology, linguistc history) proves that the BOM claim is incorrect.
This is not correct, and is clearly the result of flawed thinking.
By way of illustration: If the Bible said that Chinese people settled Australia 2300 years ago AND DNA evidence found NO link between Chinese ancestry (living and skeletal remains) and modern (and ancient) Australians, THEN the DNA would prove that claim of the Bible was incorrect.
But the Bible says none of those things. It makes no such claims at all. In fact, there are no claims made in the Bible's historical account that conflict with modern DNA science.
On the other hand, the Book of Mormon does make claims of people settling in a region (America) and the DNA (along with the archeology, anthropology, linguistc history) proves that the BOM claim is incorrect.
RE: DNA and the Bible | 2:50 a.m. Dec. 14, 2007
You left out that the Book of Mormon also teaches that those people were almost
completely obliterated. There's absolutely no factual evidence from the
Book of Mormon that the surviving indigenous people of the Americas are the same
Book of Mormon people. I realize that church scholars have said so, and even
church leadership, but every word out of a church leader's mouth is not
scripture. All revelation is equal to scripture.
The church never received revelation that blacks could not have the priesthood, but it was decided by faulty, imperfect men. However, the church DID receive revelation to the contrary (that blacks would receive the priesthood)....although this is an argument for the another day, I personally believe that the policy was wrong from the beginning and it took until the 1970's for the bretheren to look past prejudism and their own beliefs and listen to God's revelation.
The church never received revelation that blacks could not have the priesthood, but it was decided by faulty, imperfect men. However, the church DID receive revelation to the contrary (that blacks would receive the priesthood)....although this is an argument for the another day, I personally believe that the policy was wrong from the beginning and it took until the 1970's for the bretheren to look past prejudism and their own beliefs and listen to God's revelation.
Anonymous | 5:56 a.m. Dec. 14, 2007
BoM and DNA: It's obvious that you cannot disprove the BoM on DNA evidence
unless you have samples from Lehi's little band or from the other groups
which emmigrated. (from between 2600 and 4000 years ago)You cannot assume that
they would have the marker.
Also, if the marker really only exists in 40% of Jews - This is news to me. I would appreciate references. - then the argument vanishes.
Original BoM vs present version: I own a reproduction of the original. There are no significant differences in the parts I've compared. Also, If the original was translated by inspiration then it can be corrected by inspiration. It was never claimed to be perfect. In fact readers are warned explicitly not to reject it on the basis that it is imperfect.
Evidence of the authenticity of the BoM: There is lot's of evidence for the honest, open minded reader. Nahom and the land Bountiful in the Arabian peninsula, cement in the new world, Chiasmus and other semitic literary forms, etc. etc. lend enough credibility to consider reading the book with an open mind and heart and putting it to the Moroni 10 test.
Google Jeff Lindsay for more.
Also, if the marker really only exists in 40% of Jews - This is news to me. I would appreciate references. - then the argument vanishes.
Original BoM vs present version: I own a reproduction of the original. There are no significant differences in the parts I've compared. Also, If the original was translated by inspiration then it can be corrected by inspiration. It was never claimed to be perfect. In fact readers are warned explicitly not to reject it on the basis that it is imperfect.
Evidence of the authenticity of the BoM: There is lot's of evidence for the honest, open minded reader. Nahom and the land Bountiful in the Arabian peninsula, cement in the new world, Chiasmus and other semitic literary forms, etc. etc. lend enough credibility to consider reading the book with an open mind and heart and putting it to the Moroni 10 test.
Google Jeff Lindsay for more.
Jon Shurtleff | 6:18 a.m. Dec. 14, 2007
Martin Harris and Charles Anthon: It's Harris' word against
Anthon's. No one knows what happened except by what they wrote. One of
them was lying. Who? And how do you judge? Harris was weak in faith and his
wife was hostile to the project. He wanted confirmation from a reputable source
that he was not being duped. Would he lie? Why? A lie wouldn't help him.
Would Anthon be willing to support the project when he was putting his
professional reputation on the line for a book allegedly revealed to a farmboy
by an angel? Or, would he cover his behind? I have not found anything on the
character of the man Charles Anthon but there is much about Martin Harris and I
believe that he was an honest man and therefore I am inclined to believe his
version.
Contrary to what appears to be popular opinion, if this thread is to be believed, we Mormons are not just stupid, ignorant dupes. We probably put more thought and consideration into our beliefs than most. A religion that demands as much as Mormonism requires this or you don't, you *can't* stay with it.
Contrary to what appears to be popular opinion, if this thread is to be believed, we Mormons are not just stupid, ignorant dupes. We probably put more thought and consideration into our beliefs than most. A religion that demands as much as Mormonism requires this or you don't, you *can't* stay with it.
To: Jon | 11:17 a.m. Dec. 14, 2007
Fair questions.
I think Anthon would have everything to gain by being part of a discovery like this. This is the type of find academics dream of. Remember - Anthon was not being asked to verify if an angel visited Joseph Smith (who was hardly just a "farm boy" - but that's another discussion), he was being asked to evaluate some written characters - as was his field of expertise.
It's safe to say that had these writings appeared real in any way, Anthon would have been very motivated to pursue this further � except that he did not. He didn't just dismiss it - he dismissed it fervently and publicly.
As to Harris being duped by Smith � this happens all the time. Our news is filled with charlatans who con people out of their life savings. How many times have we watched a story on 60 minutes about people being swindled and thought �how could they be so gullible?�
But some people just are gullible.
I think Anthon would have everything to gain by being part of a discovery like this. This is the type of find academics dream of. Remember - Anthon was not being asked to verify if an angel visited Joseph Smith (who was hardly just a "farm boy" - but that's another discussion), he was being asked to evaluate some written characters - as was his field of expertise.
It's safe to say that had these writings appeared real in any way, Anthon would have been very motivated to pursue this further � except that he did not. He didn't just dismiss it - he dismissed it fervently and publicly.
As to Harris being duped by Smith � this happens all the time. Our news is filled with charlatans who con people out of their life savings. How many times have we watched a story on 60 minutes about people being swindled and thought �how could they be so gullible?�
But some people just are gullible.
To: Anonymous | 5:56 a.m. | 11:31 a.m. Dec. 14, 2007
I understand that you feel the evidence is not sufficient to refute the Book of
Mormon.
By way of parallel example - many who thought OJ Simpson was guilty of murder were stunned when the jury reached a not guilty verdict. Obviously opinions vary.
I think the real issue here is a lack of understanding of DNA, and a general mistrust (hostility?) toward science overall. In time this will resolve itself, juat as Galileo was eventually exonerated.
By way of parallel example - many who thought OJ Simpson was guilty of murder were stunned when the jury reached a not guilty verdict. Obviously opinions vary.
I think the real issue here is a lack of understanding of DNA, and a general mistrust (hostility?) toward science overall. In time this will resolve itself, juat as Galileo was eventually exonerated.
Jon Shurtleff | 1:20 p.m. Dec. 16, 2007
"I think Anthon would have everything to gain ..."
Maybe if it were now. Don't make the mistake of judgint what happened by modern standards. Things have changed drastically. If that's what you think then you don't understand the circumstances at the time. Read some history. I suggest starting with 'Rough Stone Rolling'. If Anthon had endorsed this it would follow that the translation and the Book of Mormon really existed and if he was honest that would have led to him having to face up to joining the movement. Even if he didn't go that far, by this time with what was happening even being associated with the Book of Mormon would would have destroyed his reputation plain and simple.
Maybe if it were now. Don't make the mistake of judgint what happened by modern standards. Things have changed drastically. If that's what you think then you don't understand the circumstances at the time. Read some history. I suggest starting with 'Rough Stone Rolling'. If Anthon had endorsed this it would follow that the translation and the Book of Mormon really existed and if he was honest that would have led to him having to face up to joining the movement. Even if he didn't go that far, by this time with what was happening even being associated with the Book of Mormon would would have destroyed his reputation plain and simple.
Lee | 6:25 p.m. Dec. 16, 2007
As an Anglican, let me offer this from the founder of my own church -- not a
theologian, but a very wise woman -- Elizabeth I: "There is one faith and
one Lord, Jesus Christ; all else is dispute over trifles."
Anonymous | 11:41 a.m. Dec. 17, 2007
To: Anonymous | 5:56 a.m. | 11:31 a.m. Dec. 14, 2007
"I understand that you feel the evidence is not sufficient to refute the Book of Mormon.
By way of parallel example - many who thought OJ Simpson was guilty of murder were stunned when the jury reached a not guilty verdict. Obviously opinions vary."
The big difference between the OJ case and the ME DNA is that the police had a sample of OJ's DNA.
Where's the sample of any other Israelites other than Jews?
"I think the real issue here is a lack of understanding of DNA, and a general mistrust (hostility?) toward science overall. In time this will resolve itself, juat as Galileo was eventually exonerated."
I think you don't understand DNA science as much as you would like us to believe!
Doubtful this will ever be resolved by science...The DNA samples the scientists don't have to prove their conclusions may never be found!
God is the source of truth if you want this resolved.
"I understand that you feel the evidence is not sufficient to refute the Book of Mormon.
By way of parallel example - many who thought OJ Simpson was guilty of murder were stunned when the jury reached a not guilty verdict. Obviously opinions vary."
The big difference between the OJ case and the ME DNA is that the police had a sample of OJ's DNA.
Where's the sample of any other Israelites other than Jews?
"I think the real issue here is a lack of understanding of DNA, and a general mistrust (hostility?) toward science overall. In time this will resolve itself, juat as Galileo was eventually exonerated."
I think you don't understand DNA science as much as you would like us to believe!
Doubtful this will ever be resolved by science...The DNA samples the scientists don't have to prove their conclusions may never be found!
God is the source of truth if you want this resolved.
Israel scattered four corners. | 12:10 p.m. Dec. 17, 2007
DNA and the Bible | 3:51 p.m. Dec. 13, 2007
"Someone posted that DNA proves the Bible false.
This is not correct, and is clearly the result of flawed thinking... THEN the DNA would prove that claim of the Bible was incorrect.
But the Bible says none of those things. It makes no such claims at all. In fact, there are no claims made in the Bible's historical account that conflict with modern DNA science."
Deut. 32: 26 I said, I would scatter them into "CORNERS", I would make the "remembrance of them to cease from among men:"
Neh. 1: 8 Remember, I beseech thee, the word that thou commandedst thy servant Moses, saying, If ye transgress, I will scatter you "abroad among the nations:"
Zech. 2: 6 Ho, ho, come forth, and 'flee from the land of the "NORTH",' saith the LORD: for I have "spread you abroad as the four winds of the heaven," saith the LORD."
Isaiah 5:26 And he will lift up an ensign to the "nations from FAR", and will hiss unto them from the "end of the earth": and, behold, they shall come with speed swiftly:
"Someone posted that DNA proves the Bible false.
This is not correct, and is clearly the result of flawed thinking... THEN the DNA would prove that claim of the Bible was incorrect.
But the Bible says none of those things. It makes no such claims at all. In fact, there are no claims made in the Bible's historical account that conflict with modern DNA science."
Deut. 32: 26 I said, I would scatter them into "CORNERS", I would make the "remembrance of them to cease from among men:"
Neh. 1: 8 Remember, I beseech thee, the word that thou commandedst thy servant Moses, saying, If ye transgress, I will scatter you "abroad among the nations:"
Zech. 2: 6 Ho, ho, come forth, and 'flee from the land of the "NORTH",' saith the LORD: for I have "spread you abroad as the four winds of the heaven," saith the LORD."
Isaiah 5:26 And he will lift up an ensign to the "nations from FAR", and will hiss unto them from the "end of the earth": and, behold, they shall come with speed swiftly:
I didn't quote the whole thing | 1:21 p.m. Dec. 17, 2007
To: actually? | 3:34 p.m. Dec. 13, 2007
"Anthropologist...not apologist. Two different things..
Your response fails to address the conclusions Murphy reached when faced with the facts.
Stay focued."
The person I quoted used the word apologist in anther paragraph...I just thought I might have more to say, and with a 200 word limit...Well, when you copy and paste to quote someone and the someone likes to pontifacate 200 words aren't enough....Read all the posts and stay focused!
He left the church over this?...He had one or both feet out the door already!
"Anthropologist...not apologist. Two different things..
Your response fails to address the conclusions Murphy reached when faced with the facts.
Stay focued."
The person I quoted used the word apologist in anther paragraph...I just thought I might have more to say, and with a 200 word limit...Well, when you copy and paste to quote someone and the someone likes to pontifacate 200 words aren't enough....Read all the posts and stay focused!
He left the church over this?...He had one or both feet out the door already!
thread not about BOM, etc | 1:32 p.m. Dec. 17, 2007
TO: To: reply to Dear Anon | 3:37 p.m. Dec. 13, 2007
"You are still re-framing the discussion to avoid addressing the facts.Stay on topic."
And To:To: actually? | 3:34 p.m. Dec. 13, 2007
"Anthropologist...not apologist. Two different things..
Your response fails to address the conclusions Murphy reached when faced with the facts.
Stay focued."
You're probably one and the same...The thread is about "Theology: LDS god is in harmony with the Bible"
So you and your anti-buddies are the ones that got off topic!
Traditional Christian Triune God is non-Biblical...LDS God is Biblical is on topic!
Thanks!
"You are still re-framing the discussion to avoid addressing the facts.Stay on topic."
And To:To: actually? | 3:34 p.m. Dec. 13, 2007
"Anthropologist...not apologist. Two different things..
Your response fails to address the conclusions Murphy reached when faced with the facts.
Stay focued."
You're probably one and the same...The thread is about "Theology: LDS god is in harmony with the Bible"
So you and your anti-buddies are the ones that got off topic!
Traditional Christian Triune God is non-Biblical...LDS God is Biblical is on topic!
Thanks!
You're human? | 1:53 p.m. Dec. 17, 2007
To:To: Jon | 11:17 a.m. Dec. 14, 2007 "As to Harris being duped by Smith
� this happens all the time. Our news is filled with
charlatans who con people out of their life savings. How many times have we
watched a story on 60 minutes about people being swindled and thought
�how could they be so gullible?�
BTW-Back to the thread...JS has to be a charlatan for the TC to explain away the LDS....
"But some people just are gullible."
You couldn't be the one being duped? You're too smart for that aren't you! You couldn't have been duped by a bunch of people like Constantine, the council that came up with the creeds, etc. The creeds say it so it must be true! Adherence to creedal Orthodoxy, Tradition, etc. is more important than the pattern laid out in the scriptures...Revelation, authority, organization, etc.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm! Sounds familiar!
Isaiah 30:9 That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD:
10 Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits:
Just like the Jew in ancient time?
BTW-Back to the thread...JS has to be a charlatan for the TC to explain away the LDS....
"But some people just are gullible."
You couldn't be the one being duped? You're too smart for that aren't you! You couldn't have been duped by a bunch of people like Constantine, the council that came up with the creeds, etc. The creeds say it so it must be true! Adherence to creedal Orthodoxy, Tradition, etc. is more important than the pattern laid out in the scriptures...Revelation, authority, organization, etc.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm! Sounds familiar!
Isaiah 30:9 That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD:
10 Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits:
Just like the Jew in ancient time?
To :You're human? | 1:53 p.m. | 4:34 p.m. Dec. 17, 2007
Only the Mormon apologists believe the Book of Mormon account. No other who have
seen the evidence - including those with no horse in the race.
It is simply a work of fiction, which means the LDS god cannot be in harmony with the Bible.
Simple as that.
Show me one - only one - person with an advanced degree who is not employed by the Mormom church and who believes in the history (not the theology - just the history) Book of Mormon. There are none, no not one.
This should tell you something.
It is simply a work of fiction, which means the LDS god cannot be in harmony with the Bible.
Simple as that.
Show me one - only one - person with an advanced degree who is not employed by the Mormom church and who believes in the history (not the theology - just the history) Book of Mormon. There are none, no not one.
This should tell you something.
Jon Shurtleff | 6:12 a.m. Dec. 18, 2007
The Book of Mormon is not fiction. There *is* evidence of it's
authenticity. A few example:
1. Internal evidence such Chiasmus and other semitic literay forms.
2. The journey through the Arabian Peninsula described in the BoM fits the Arabian Peninsula precisely. Including details of geography that no one knew of in the 19th century.
2. Geographical models which fit the New World. It's little surprise that no hard evidence has yet been found. New World archeology is not that mature. No knows who built Teohihuacan, as just one obvious example.
3. Knowledge of the use of cement in the New World when absolutely no one believed this in the 19th century.
4. The shear beauty and honesty of the the content which adds so much to the understanding of the Gospel that I don't believe could have been written by a committee or a conman.
This and more all the time. None of it is open and shut, hard evidence. But it's enough to give the book the benefit of the doubt and read it and ultimately apply the promise found in Moroni 10.
But don't trust me. See mormon.org. lds.org and as a supplement jefflindsay.com for more.
1. Internal evidence such Chiasmus and other semitic literay forms.
2. The journey through the Arabian Peninsula described in the BoM fits the Arabian Peninsula precisely. Including details of geography that no one knew of in the 19th century.
2. Geographical models which fit the New World. It's little surprise that no hard evidence has yet been found. New World archeology is not that mature. No knows who built Teohihuacan, as just one obvious example.
3. Knowledge of the use of cement in the New World when absolutely no one believed this in the 19th century.
4. The shear beauty and honesty of the the content which adds so much to the understanding of the Gospel that I don't believe could have been written by a committee or a conman.
This and more all the time. None of it is open and shut, hard evidence. But it's enough to give the book the benefit of the doubt and read it and ultimately apply the promise found in Moroni 10.
But don't trust me. See mormon.org. lds.org and as a supplement jefflindsay.com for more.
I could but they'd be LDS | 9:28 a.m. Dec. 18, 2007
To :You're human? | 1:53 p.m. | 4:34 p.m. Dec. 17, 2007
"Only the Mormon apologists believe the Book of Mormon account. No other who have seen the evidence - including those with no horse in the race.
It is simply a work of fiction, which means the LDS god cannot be in harmony with the Bible.
Simple as that.
Show me one - only one - person with an advanced degree who is not employed by the Mormom church and who believes in the history (not the theology - just the history) Book of Mormon. There are none, no not one."
What a silly test to the authenticity of the BOM...If they believed the history THEY'D BE LDS!...So what's your point?
Show me one "SECULAR Scientist" that believes the Bible is accurrate history from Genesis to Judges...Judges on? Then let's talk about the rest given to Man by "REVELATION FROM GOD"? Jesus Divine?
Jesus' miracles?
If a secular scientist believes the history...He wouldn't be secular...He'd be a believer!
THIS SHOULD TELL YOU SOMETHING...ABOUT YOUR POST!
"Only the Mormon apologists believe the Book of Mormon account. No other who have seen the evidence - including those with no horse in the race.
It is simply a work of fiction, which means the LDS god cannot be in harmony with the Bible.
Simple as that.
Show me one - only one - person with an advanced degree who is not employed by the Mormom church and who believes in the history (not the theology - just the history) Book of Mormon. There are none, no not one."
What a silly test to the authenticity of the BOM...If they believed the history THEY'D BE LDS!...So what's your point?
Show me one "SECULAR Scientist" that believes the Bible is accurrate history from Genesis to Judges...Judges on? Then let's talk about the rest given to Man by "REVELATION FROM GOD"? Jesus Divine?
Jesus' miracles?
If a secular scientist believes the history...He wouldn't be secular...He'd be a believer!
THIS SHOULD TELL YOU SOMETHING...ABOUT YOUR POST!
Evangelicals inferior doctrine | 10:16 a.m. Dec. 18, 2007
Evangelicals love to quote:
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Saying see..."All you have to is believe in Jesus and you are saved!"
However does their doctrine really mesh w/the bible and Jesus' gospel?
Their doctrine says that those who do not accept Jesus will not be saved...Will be eternally damned to Hell in Fire and Brimstone...No matter how moral a life they've lived! Even a baby born into an Evangelical Christain home that died before reaching an age of understanding of Jesus would fall under this condemnation!
Their doctrine of Grace is a gift you cannot earn...But a talismitic like prayer earns them their way to heaven?...It's a contridiction!
Billions of people live now and have died not having had a chance to even hear of Jesus!...Let alone know they need to accept Jesus through a prayer as their Saviour before they die?
God created the non-christians, He knows the end from the beginning..He knew he that He was creating them to be damned to Hell?
He's all knowing...He didn't have a better plan?
Part 1
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Saying see..."All you have to is believe in Jesus and you are saved!"
However does their doctrine really mesh w/the bible and Jesus' gospel?
Their doctrine says that those who do not accept Jesus will not be saved...Will be eternally damned to Hell in Fire and Brimstone...No matter how moral a life they've lived! Even a baby born into an Evangelical Christain home that died before reaching an age of understanding of Jesus would fall under this condemnation!
Their doctrine of Grace is a gift you cannot earn...But a talismitic like prayer earns them their way to heaven?...It's a contridiction!
Billions of people live now and have died not having had a chance to even hear of Jesus!...Let alone know they need to accept Jesus through a prayer as their Saviour before they die?
God created the non-christians, He knows the end from the beginning..He knew he that He was creating them to be damned to Hell?
He's all knowing...He didn't have a better plan?
Part 1
Evangelicals inferior part2 | 10:40 a.m. Dec. 18, 2007
He doesn't have a plan B for the people that never had a chance to hear of
and accept Jesus?
Maybe He doesn't Love them?
Maybe He doesn't understand Grace and His own description in the scriptures?
He states in:
John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Sounds like at least according to the Evangelical brand of doctrine he's certainly condemning the world and not saving them by sending His Son to the world to me!
OR
The Evangelicals don't really have a handle what God preaches in the Gospel after all!...
John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
People are condemned because they don't believe, but they don't believe because their works are evil...People that don't get the chance to hear of Jesus aren't making a choice...It's because of circumstances!
Maybe He doesn't Love them?
Maybe He doesn't understand Grace and His own description in the scriptures?
He states in:
John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Sounds like at least according to the Evangelical brand of doctrine he's certainly condemning the world and not saving them by sending His Son to the world to me!
OR
The Evangelicals don't really have a handle what God preaches in the Gospel after all!...
John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
People are condemned because they don't believe, but they don't believe because their works are evil...People that don't get the chance to hear of Jesus aren't making a choice...It's because of circumstances!
Evangelical Inferior? | 11:21 a.m. Dec. 18, 2007
Read the first chapter of Romans.
but what you preach isn't | 12:29 p.m. Dec. 18, 2007
Evangelical Inferior? | 11:21 a.m. Dec. 18, 2007
"Read the first chapter of Romans."
You just don't know that you don't preach a gospel that accounts for God's love for all his children even those who haven't heard of his Gospel...Which would most likely be the majority of humankind!
Out of knee jerk reaction you've recited Romans, but
as I've shown you don't preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ...I've shown that your version condemns the world when most of the world hasn't even heard of Jesus!
If you believe according to your Gospel that grace and heaven are not earned...Why are the peoples that are circumstainally unable to accept Jesus condemned?
You then preach that some work saves you-A talisamtic prayer!
The LDS preach that everyone gets the chance to hear either in this life or in the afterlife, and ultimeately attain a degree of glory. There's grace in action for you!...God being kind, merciful, loving and being the perfect judge to people that haven't had a chance to hear of him! Remember...No law, no condemnation!...Not imputing sin where was none! Wow! We believe in Grace more than the Evangelicals...And they believe in works more than they say we do!
"Read the first chapter of Romans."
You just don't know that you don't preach a gospel that accounts for God's love for all his children even those who haven't heard of his Gospel...Which would most likely be the majority of humankind!
Out of knee jerk reaction you've recited Romans, but
as I've shown you don't preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ...I've shown that your version condemns the world when most of the world hasn't even heard of Jesus!
If you believe according to your Gospel that grace and heaven are not earned...Why are the peoples that are circumstainally unable to accept Jesus condemned?
You then preach that some work saves you-A talisamtic prayer!
The LDS preach that everyone gets the chance to hear either in this life or in the afterlife, and ultimeately attain a degree of glory. There's grace in action for you!...God being kind, merciful, loving and being the perfect judge to people that haven't had a chance to hear of him! Remember...No law, no condemnation!...Not imputing sin where was none! Wow! We believe in Grace more than the Evangelicals...And they believe in works more than they say we do!
BTW | 12:42 p.m. Dec. 18, 2007
Evangelical Inferior?
BTW-The whole post is Evangelical "doctrine" is inferior...The title area is just too small to contain the whole title and parts 1, 2, & 3...
So I am not calling Evangelicals 'inferior' just their understanding of the Gospel plan for the salvation of man.
AND it's not their fault...They are just victims of the great gentile apostasy that happened shortly after the deaths of the apostles and the loss of authority, gifts of the spirit such as prophesy, etc and the priesthood power.
So evangelicals...I love ya!
BTW-The whole post is Evangelical "doctrine" is inferior...The title area is just too small to contain the whole title and parts 1, 2, & 3...
So I am not calling Evangelicals 'inferior' just their understanding of the Gospel plan for the salvation of man.
AND it's not their fault...They are just victims of the great gentile apostasy that happened shortly after the deaths of the apostles and the loss of authority, gifts of the spirit such as prophesy, etc and the priesthood power.
So evangelicals...I love ya!
part 3 didn't post | 12:45 p.m. Dec. 18, 2007
Part 3
They aren't making a choice between good and bad by not believing...They haven't had a chance to make that choice...How can their works be evil?
Romans 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
This would also have to include the Gospel Law!
The Christians lost the Gospel!
There is a better plan A for those that believe while here and a better plan B for those that didn't get a chance while they were here!
It's laid out in the revelations given to a Prophet restoring this knowledge that the ancient christian church had but was lost through the great gentile apostasy...The REAL GOOD NEWS OF THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST! That everyone regardless of when or where they lived will get the chance to hear of Jesus Christ and get the chance to accept it...
"Every knee will bend and every toungue will confess that Jesus... " How can every knee bend and every toungue confess?...If they haven't heard!
Good news preached by other religions? Isn't good news to circumstance non-believers.
I think you know the LDS Church doctrine on this...Call the Missionaries!
S ONeill | 8:46 p.m. Dec. 23, 2007
The God "I AM" reveals Himself to be the ONE AND ONLY TRUE GOD, and
ALL other gods are false, no matter how you desire,define or deny it.
Becky | 4:54 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007
Brilliant!
Anonymous | 2:03 a.m. Jan. 13, 2008
I am a christian (non LDS) and I find the article to be somewhat clear although
probably not totally well positioned.
If LDS moves from it's "there are other God's besides Jehova" type of ideas perhaps they will begin to understand the protestant a bit more. But unfortunatley just as many protestants are BLIND to mormonism so many mormons are BLIND to protestantism.
Auggybendoggy
If LDS moves from it's "there are other God's besides Jehova" type of ideas perhaps they will begin to understand the protestant a bit more. But unfortunatley just as many protestants are BLIND to mormonism so many mormons are BLIND to protestantism.
Auggybendoggy
Ryan | 11:48 p.m. Feb. 13, 2008
According to Brigham Young, a Mormon prophet, "There is not a man or woman,
who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay
the debt. THE BLOOD OF CHRIST WILL NEVER WIPE THAT OUT, YOUR OWN BLOOD MUST
ATONE FOR IT." Journal of Discourses, Volume 3, pgs 243-249. This is
definitely not the view of mainstream Christianity. You even said in your
article, "...only by his grace can we be cleansed of our sins and return to
the presence of the Father. As far as I'm concerned, anybody who believes
that is a Christian."
Also, in your article you state, "Mormons believe that they're going to become gods. Now, that's just not accurate." Joseph Smith, the founder of the LDS church, said, "Here, then, is eternal life--to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves..." Lorenzo Snow, another LDS prophet stated "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.'' How, then, is it not accurate to say that Mormons believe they will become gods?
Also, in your article you state, "Mormons believe that they're going to become gods. Now, that's just not accurate." Joseph Smith, the founder of the LDS church, said, "Here, then, is eternal life--to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves..." Lorenzo Snow, another LDS prophet stated "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.'' How, then, is it not accurate to say that Mormons believe they will become gods?
Ben | 10:16 p.m. Sept. 21, 2008
Ryan,
ok so you made your comment several months ago and your likely never going to read this, but you can't expect to take a rather obscure quote from a President of the Church from long ago, without context and say that thats what Mormons really believe. Its just not fair for you to define one of our believes, with one single quote ignoring our scriptures and the writings of other living prophets, not to mention comments from Brigham Young himself that go against what your telling us our believes are. As a matter of fact a single quote from the journal of discourses does not go to define our beliefs.
ok so you made your comment several months ago and your likely never going to read this, but you can't expect to take a rather obscure quote from a President of the Church from long ago, without context and say that thats what Mormons really believe. Its just not fair for you to define one of our believes, with one single quote ignoring our scriptures and the writings of other living prophets, not to mention comments from Brigham Young himself that go against what your telling us our believes are. As a matter of fact a single quote from the journal of discourses does not go to define our beliefs.
cam | 1:22 a.m. March 5, 2009
Ben,
so you say that you say you cant take a quote from a long time ago. thank you for admitting that mormon doctrine is changing over time. it's about time someone did. it is true that the new mormon doctrine has changed and is ever changing. but i like to believe that God doesnt make mistakes. Hebrew 6 says "Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath." His "Unchanging nature".. but please, explain the context of that quote from the journal of discourses. to me they dont seem obscure at all. but that seems to be the excuse of every LDS member i have spoken to, yet they themselves cant exlpain how the context would help their argument.
so you say that you say you cant take a quote from a long time ago. thank you for admitting that mormon doctrine is changing over time. it's about time someone did. it is true that the new mormon doctrine has changed and is ever changing. but i like to believe that God doesnt make mistakes. Hebrew 6 says "Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath." His "Unchanging nature".. but please, explain the context of that quote from the journal of discourses. to me they dont seem obscure at all. but that seems to be the excuse of every LDS member i have spoken to, yet they themselves cant exlpain how the context would help their argument.
Anonymous | 12:41 p.m. June 19, 2009
How can a finite however big it is become an infinite? and how can you ever
split an infinite?
To find the Platonic God, perhaps look at Islam..
To find the Platonic God, perhaps look at Islam..
Religion is ever changing | 12:54 p.m. June 19, 2009
The bible isn't even in harmony with the bible, nor is LDS doctrine in
harmony with LDS doctrine. Nor is the old Testament in harmony with the new
testament.
re shenpa warrior | 8:51 a.m. | 1:04 p.m. June 19, 2009
We are forever "his" children?
True, just as I will always be my parents children.
Why does God call everything "his" creation but call us "his" children?
For the same reason babies grow up to be people, and calfs grow up to be calfs.
Children eventually grow up to become like their parents else they wouldn't be called the children of the parents.
There is one God, and that one god is the Elohiem, or the collective or group. Don't believe it? Look it up in strongs concordance where it says god created the heavens and the earth in Genesis, also read Jesus words where he said, to the people "ye are gods" see
John 10:34
If you don't believe this you don't believe the text of the bible, rather you believe the traditions passed down to you in your culture, which is fine, but you need to realize what it is that you believe and stop saying you believe the bible in its entirety.
True, just as I will always be my parents children.
Why does God call everything "his" creation but call us "his" children?
For the same reason babies grow up to be people, and calfs grow up to be calfs.
Children eventually grow up to become like their parents else they wouldn't be called the children of the parents.
There is one God, and that one god is the Elohiem, or the collective or group. Don't believe it? Look it up in strongs concordance where it says god created the heavens and the earth in Genesis, also read Jesus words where he said, to the people "ye are gods" see
John 10:34
If you don't believe this you don't believe the text of the bible, rather you believe the traditions passed down to you in your culture, which is fine, but you need to realize what it is that you believe and stop saying you believe the bible in its entirety.
Re: Religon is ever changing | 1:35 p.m. June 19, 2009
To a certain degree, however God is God and the Savior is the Savior. Alfa and
Omega... Yes the Law of Moses was fulfilled and the Savior gave himself as an
example to the new laws. But that is WHY we have revelation and why the
Lord's church has a prophet who He selects, through which He leads His
church. If you believe God is "all knowing" then you must believe He
knows what is best for our progression and you cannot deny that he has
formulated a plan that leads to our happiness.
If you raise a child and you tell the child he is not allowed to drive your car does that mean he is never ever again allowed to drive a vehicle? Okay then, the rules change, and there may be reasons, but that doesn't mean the rules are justified!
If you raise a child and you tell the child he is not allowed to drive your car does that mean he is never ever again allowed to drive a vehicle? Okay then, the rules change, and there may be reasons, but that doesn't mean the rules are justified!
RE:RE: Religon is everchanging | 1:39 p.m. June 19, 2009
EDITED Last sentence: "...doesn't mean rules are NOT justified"
To a certain degree, however God is God and the Savior is the Savior. Alfa and Omega... Yes the Law of Moses was fulfilled and the Savior gave himself as an example to the new laws. But that is WHY we have revelation and why the Lord's church has a prophet who He selects, through which He leads His church. If you believe God is "all knowing" then
you must believe He knows what is best for our progression and you cannot deny that he has formulated a plan that leads to our happiness.
If you raise a child and you tell the child he is not allowed to drive your car does that mean he is never ever again allowed to drive a vehicle? Okay then, the rules change, and there may be reasons, but that doesn't mean the rules are NOT justified!
To a certain degree, however God is God and the Savior is the Savior. Alfa and Omega... Yes the Law of Moses was fulfilled and the Savior gave himself as an example to the new laws. But that is WHY we have revelation and why the Lord's church has a prophet who He selects, through which He leads His church. If you believe God is "all knowing" then
you must believe He knows what is best for our progression and you cannot deny that he has formulated a plan that leads to our happiness.
If you raise a child and you tell the child he is not allowed to drive your car does that mean he is never ever again allowed to drive a vehicle? Okay then, the rules change, and there may be reasons, but that doesn't mean the rules are NOT justified!
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
- Small plane crashes near Lehi 4:02 p.m.
- Increase anti-tobacco campaigns? 3:25 p.m.
- 4th Redskins starting RB of season 3:23 p.m.
- 'Bama wins $32M bet on Saban 3:22 p.m.
- Texas preps strike Nike deal 3:21 p.m.
- IOC withholds Jones' 100-meter gold 3:18 p.m.
- Texas' Brown gets new $5 million deal 3:16 p.m.
- Liukin saving college gymnastics 3:15 p.m.
- Pettitte, Yankees agree 3:14 p.m.
- Stocks ended higher 2:59 p.m.
- Hot Rod behind mic for Lakers
- Cougars use depth to beat ASU
- Max Hall wants to look ahead
- Non-BCS schools not given fair shot
- Snow brings big chill
- Panel passes BCS playoff bill
- Jazz go up against 'the best'
- Many seek to wipe clean misdeeds
- Haws playing like a veteran
- Doctor calls Mitchell 'naive,' 'inept'
- Y. profs: Beck not all-knowing
288 - Letters: Global warming a lie225
- TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl206
- BYU football: Bronco weighs in on Hall176
- Cougars going back to Vegas150
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil145
- Andersen apologizes for Jordan hoax133
- George lost in rivalry hatefest121
- Ed Smart 'appalled' at testimony100
- Revive full food tax?98
My wife Lisa and I would prefer never to argue. But that's not going to...
For the latest news in the health care debate and how it affects you...
Latest comments
TO "Stalwart Sentinel | 3:39 p.m." so you want to just part ways, once I lie?...
The article refers to cutting funds to the "Utah Restaurant Association",...
Remember that Sarah Palin have studied Journalism at an university. That...
"Its sort of embarrassing to be from a state where people will wait in line...
What a bunch of cry-babies on this board. No wonder Utah has a "strange"...
I am going to buy her book, just because I can. It is good to see her with...
For the record there, "exactly", if you read the story you'll see that Fess...
Put down your crayons, get someone to show you how to turn on the computer...
Is bad at college basketball. No one ever wins in the NCAA tournament. Utah...
Tonight we will see if Matthews is the great defender you all claim he is. I...
Advertisements
Well, how about a quote from the Book of Mormon to illustrate what we believe? I think we can consider that an accurate source of mormon doctrine.
Mormon 7:8 "...unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are ONE GOD, in a state of happiness which hath no end." (emphasis mine)
So, stop trying to tell me that my belief in the Godhead is so different from that of other so-called "traditional christians."
And yes, I see why some could be offended by Brother Card attempting to explain their beliefs. Heaven knows I hate it when people do that to me. The problem is that he tried to lump all non-mormon christians into one group. We all know that doesn't work.
And what a tiresome argument we get into.
LDS: we believe in three distinct beings who are one God
TC: well, we believe in three distinct beings who are one God, so there