|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 10:48 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 10:56 am
 |
|
|
|
PawzPrint
Quote: Mormons on the other hand are a cult.
The definition of cult is organized religion...
It's only been around for a little over 200 hundred years and there are no documented historical manuscripts.
Oh really? Proof?
Quote: Golden Plates that no one was aloud to see? Ha. Oh? Moroni took them back to heaven with him? Sounds convenient.
Quote: After the "Book of Mormon" was translated from the "tablets", it went to the printers and then to the bookstore in 1830? That's only 20 years after Smith had the "vision" of Moroni?
So, what's the problem with that?
Quote: It sounds like Mormonism is nothing but a money making fraud. Mormons are expected to give 10% of their income to the church?
Tithing 10% of ones income or increase is a biblical requirement. And it's not just the LDS church that follows that commandment. And I fail to see how that makes the Church a money fraud.
Quote: Smith used "magic" stones and was even charged and fined for it!
Hmm the Urim and Thummin....Aaron, Moses' brother used those too, did he use magic then?
Quote: His own wife held out from joining his "church" because even she was skeptical of the golden tablets. He ended up pressuring her into it.
Nope, Emma was faithful in joining the Church and not because Joseph forced her to.
Quote: Later he ended up taking many more "wives" and taught Mormon women that them entering heaven was largely dependent on the "worthiness" of her husband. Soooo, what happened to Jesus dying on the cross for everyone's sins?
Polygamy....Ah....Well Abraham, Issac, Jacob, David, Solomon were polygamists too. Does that make them less credible?
And proof that women cannot enter into heaven without their husband?
Besides, that has nothing to do with the atonementh of Christ. |
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 27, 2010 9:23 pm
|
|
|
|
So that automatically disqualifies the LDS church as being Christian because it's only 200 years old? Hmm... that's a bit hypocritical, considering random people start new churches every day.
Quote: According to X"Joseph Smith was careful to obey the command from the Lord that he not show the plates to others. As he translated the Book of Mormon, Joseph learned that special witnesses would be called to bear testimony of the ancient record written on metal plates. He was quite relieved when he was permitted to show the plates to several witnesses. Those witnesses were then commanded to testify of their experience to others and to write their testimonies concerning the Book of Mormon."
God has told people to do one thing, then turned and told them not to do it. There are lots of example of that in the bible, so why would Him doing the same thing with Joseph Smith be any different?
Quote: The Lord commanded that he not show the plates to others but then later was told he could to certain people. For me, that's a bit contradictory. Only a little.
Read above
Quote: Can you please show me the verse or verses where Aaron used the stones?
Urim and Thummim
An ancient instrument or tool prepared by God and used by Joseph Smith to aid in the translation of the Book of Mormon. God provided a Urim and Thummim to His prophets in ancient times (see Exodus 28:30; 1 Samuel 28:6; Ezra 2:63).
source
Quote: Can you please provide your proof that Emma was as faithful as you say?
I will see what I can find, but I know for a fact she supported Joseph Smith all that he did.
Quote: I have only touched on a few things you asked about, as you can see.
Okay
Quote: One of my main issues is this. Smith added to the Bible. This is what God says about that: Revelation 22:18-19 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
Ah here we go, the most over used Bible verse that is quoted when it comes to trying to disprove the LDS religion...... No Joseph did not add to the Bible and it's not forbidden to add to it either. If you read the history of the Bible, you will find that additions and subtractions have taken place ever since it was made into the collection of books that we know as the bible
I want you to look at the wording in those verses that have been cited. It says "this book of prophecy". John the Revelator is talking about the book of Revelation specifically.
If there was to be no revelation after the Book of Revelation was written, which was written in about 95AD or 96AD, then John broke his own rule and so did several other biblical prophets. The Gospel of John was dated 96 to 104AD and was thought to have been written by Ephesus. All three of John's epistles were believed to have been written about the same time that the Gospel of John (96 to 104AD). Also if stopping future revelation was the purpose of these scriptures that have been cited, then the saints of John's day and for hundreds of years afterwards greatly misunderstood this scripture. The Book of Revelation was a separate document for hundreds of years before it was assembled with the other writings of the scriptural library that we call the Bible.
Bible comes from the Greek word "ta biblia" meaning "the books". So John was only referring to the words that were written specifically in the book of Revelation. Hence his wording "the words of the prophecy of this book".
You know what else? This same prohibition that have been cited is also found in Deuteronomy 4:2. Does that mean that all scripture revealed after the Pentateuch (the first five books of the OT) are invalid? You agree with me that it does not, right? So why would the similar statement found in the NT invalidate all modern revelation?
The Book of Revelation was not meant to be the end of revealed scripture, it was just a recording of all the warnings of future events to come. Plus the Bible itself talks about additional scripture that is to come forth (Isaiah 29; Ezekiel 37) and future revelations (Matthew 17:11; Luke 10:22; John 16:12-15; Acts 2:17-18; James 1:5). The Book of Revelation itself even talks about future prophets and revelations from Heaven (Revelation 11:3; 14:6).
Also, let me add that the Bible says that revelation is part of the true Church iteslf. (See Amos 3:7; 1 Corinthians 14:29-33, 37-39).
And let me just add that the LDS Church didn't add to the Bible. We have the Book of Mormon which is NOT an addition to the canonized scripture that is the Bible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 27, 2010 10:24 pm
|
|
|
 |
Shadows-shine Ah here we go, the most over used Bible verse that is quoted when it comes to trying to disprove the LDS religion...... No Joseph did not add to the Bible and it's not forbidden to add to it either. If you read the history of the Bible, you will find that additions and subtractions have taken place ever since it was made into the collection of books that we know as the bible.
Yes, Smith added to the Bible: The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ, The Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price. He added to the Bible, which God forbids us to do!
Everything that is in the Bible is what God wanted in the Bible. No more and no less.
Shadows-shine I want you to look at the wording in those verses that have been cited. It says "this book of prophecy". John the Revelator is talking about the book of Revelation specifically.
Revelation came specifically from Jesus to John. Jesus commanded us to keep His Word pure.
I want you to look at this:
Proverbs 30:5-6
5 "Every word of God is flawless;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
6 Do not add to his words,
or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.
Shadows-shine You know what else? This same prohibition that have been cited is also found in Deuteronomy 4:2. Does that mean that all scripture revealed after the Pentateuch (the first five books of the OT) are invalid? You agree with me that it does not, right? So why would the similar statement found in the NT invalidate all modern revelation?
No, I don't agree with you at all.
If this is repeated in the Bible, it's probably important to follow! We are commanded to not add or subtract from the Bible as a whole! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 28, 2010 7:38 am
|
|
|
|
PawzPrint Yes, Smith added to the Bible: The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ, The Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price. He added to the Bible, which God forbids us to do! Everything that is in the Bible is what God wanted in the Bible. No more and no less
No he didn't. Those books are separate from the Bible. So what, the Book of Mormon is false because it's title has written in it "Another Testament of Jesus Christ"? Why would that make it false? The people who recorded that history recorded their testimonies of the Saviour just the the people of the Bible recorded their testimonies of the Saviour...What makes the Book of Mormon peoples so different than those of the Bible? Dont tell me there is no proof of the Book of Mormon being a hisotric record, because I have provided lots of sites in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints thread.
Quote: Revelation came specifically from Jesus to John. Jesus commanded us to keep His Word pure. I want you to look at this: Proverbs 30:5-6 5 "Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. 6 Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.
Yea, man cannot add to God's word, but God can add what ever He wishes to His words. Which is what He has done for as long as man has existed upon this earth and will continue to do until eternity! The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price came from God to Joseph Smith.
The Bible does not contain all the words God has ever spoken, nor does it record all the works Jesus has ever done. It even says that in the Bible.
And the commandment of keeping the words of the Lord pure has already been broken...the Bible is not in it's pure form any more. It's gone under too many revisions, translations, etc. to be in a pure form any more.
Quote: No, I don't agree with you at all. If this is repeated in the Bible, it's probably important to follow! We are commanded to not add or subtract from the Bible as a whole!
No, that's not true. If there was to be no further revelation after the bible was compiled then that commandment has been broken by biblical prophets, all the people who changed and added, subtracted to the Bible throughout it's history, etc. You cannot put blame squarely on Joseph Smith's shoulders for that.
And if those verses in Revelation meant the Bible as a whole then why didn't the Greek word that was translated out as BOOK, not say "ta biblia" which literally means BOOKS. That is where the word the Bible comes from "ta biblia". And the definition of bible is a collection of books. Plus, the Book of Revelation, along with several other books of the Bible, were separate documents for several centuries. The canon that we have today in the Bible, was not always there. There has been hundreds of different canons in the bible's history. Luther had his own canon, the catholics have their own canon (infact, the catholic bible has more books in it than yours or mine does)the Lutherans have their own canon too. Did they add and subtract from the Bible too?
If God forbade additions to the Bible way back in Moses' time after He gave that commandment in Deuteronomy then we shouldn't have any other books of the Bible beyond the the first five books of Moses, because the rest would just be additions and apparently that's an abomination. Also, the Bible was not the collection of books that we know today, during the time that it was being written, all the books were separated documents, so all those commandments within certain books that state don't add to these words, are only talking about the specific book that commandment is in, not the Bible as a whole.
This is why anti LDS literature and websites bug the tar out of me, because all the crap they put in the books and on the websites all goes back to one thing! Modern Revelation. Not to mention they're biased and don't provide a constructive arguement against the LDS Church. That to me is the main reason why a lot of people dont want to take a second look at the Church and why they say it's not a Christian Church. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
