What is odd about the Book of Mormon?

[madhatter85]

But does the book of Mormon portray CHRIST without error and as HE actually is?

Of course it does, Have you even read it for yourself?

Does the book of Mormon seem to throw a shadow on what the Bible says?

Not at all.. Again, have you even read it for yourself?

Just because People Magazine uses the name of JESUS CHRIST, doesn't make that magazine either truthful or scripture.

Of course it doesn't. However your statement was:

The Bible is about CHRIST. The book of Mormon is about an obscure people of questionable identity without historic purpose.

You implied the Book of Mormon was not about Christ and you are 100% false.

 

[Rogue Cardinal]

But does the book of Mormon portray CHRIST without error and as HE actually is?

One cannot say that about the Bible....much less the BOM. Have you READ the NT in the bible? Are you not aware of the contradictions? Let's take Easter Morning for example in the NT. IF you were to put the sotries of what happened in chronological order and list the miraculous events in them....what you would get as you went through the stories is a growing list that got more grand with each retelling fo the same story. This is what we call a "legend" in literary terms. The bible has a lot of errors to deal with.

Now what is really interesting is that Jesus would not appear to the writters of the NT and give them special help so as to get the story straight. Yet Mormons want us to believe that Christ would trust his "new improved version" to a guy that had a criminal record and dabbled in the occult.

Does the book of Mormon seem to throw a shadow on what the Bible says?

If you compare it to the Bible. Certainly. There are HUGE differences in what Christ is in Christianity vs. Mormon beliefs.

 

[madhatter85]

Now what is really interesting is that Jesus would not appear to the writters of the NT and give them special help so as to get the story straight. Yet Mormons want us to believe that Christ would trust his "new improved version" to a guy that had a criminal record and dabbled in the occult.

Actually, It is not a "new and improved" Bible, nor was it ever intended as a replacement. It works in perfect harmony with it as "Another Testament of Jesus Christ." The Book of Mormon came forth as a testimony of the Bible.

If you compare it to the Bible. Certainly. There are HUGE differences in what Christ is in Christianity vs. Mormon beliefs.

No, it is only the non-biblical creeds of medieval Christianity that the Bible and the Book of Mormon both conflict with.

 

[Autodidact]

But does the book of Mormon portray CHRIST without error and as HE actually is? Does the book of Mormon seem to throw a shadow on what the Bible says? Just because People Magazine uses the name of JESUS CHRIST, doesn't make that magazine either truthful or scripture.

How would you know? Unless you were in Israel 2000 years ago, you have no idea whether there was such a person, let alone how He actually was.

 

[jabberwockybruno]

Wow that was a long discussion to read through! I'm glad I did though because to Autodidact and Rogue Cardinal I must say that I really appreciate a lot of the criticisms/questions you have raised. Although of course, everything you said against LDS can be used against me, a Protestant Christian. (and of course feel free to do that, if you want)

I think a really valid point made by Autodidact was that standards of inquiry applied to religion should be the same as secular studies, so the Book of Mormon (or any other religious text) should be examined in the same way as any secular historic document. Now what that being said, one issue I have with the BOM is that it makes claims not supported by archeological evidence, for example that the Americas had tribes with bronze armor and swords. I want to know if any archeologist has ever found any of the weapons, armor, or coinage described in the Book of Mormon.

A valid point made by Rogue Cardinal was that there are many differences between the BoM and the Bible. He did not mention this, but here is an example of what I saw when I read the BoM. The Book of Mormon states that in order to be baptized, a person cannot be baptized in spirit--Holy Spirit--until he is first dunked in water. A person must first be literally dunked in water, and then afterwards he will be baptized in spirit. The Bible has it completely the other way around. In the Bible, a person becomes baptized in the Holy Spirit because of his/her belief in Jesus as God, coming down to earth as a man, dying on the cross for our sins and rising on the third day. It's the belief that causes baptism by the spirit, and then following that baptism comes the dunking, merely as a symbolic way to outwardly show the world what has happened to your soul.
That's a HUUUUUGE difference, even though it may seem trivial.

 

[Katzpur]

A valid point made by Rogue Cardinal was that there are many differences between the BoM and the Bible. He did not mention this, but here is an example of what I saw when I read the BoM. The Book of Mormon states that in order to be baptized, a person cannot be baptized in spirit--Holy Spirit--until he is first dunked in water. A person must first be literally dunked in water, and then afterwards he will be baptized in spirit. The Bible has it completely the other way around. In the Bible, a person becomes baptized in the Holy Spirit because of his/her belief in Jesus as God, coming down to earth as a man, dying on the cross for our sins and rising on the third day. It's the belief that causes baptism by the spirit, and then following that baptism comes the dunking, merely as a symbolic way to outwardly show the world what has happened to your soul.
That's a HUUUUUGE difference, even though it may seem trivial.

Hello, jabberwockybruno. I appreciate your comments and agree that the order in which the two forms of baptism (of water and of the spirit) is very significant. I disagree, though, that the Bible teaches that we are to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost prior to being baptized in water.

Acts 8:13-17 says, "Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost."

The Latter-day Saints believe that the first principles and ordinances of the gospel are: first, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, repentence, third, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, and fourth, the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Repentence is of little value unless we first have faith that Jesus Christ's sacrifice has the power to atone for those sins. Hence, faith in Jesus Christ is the first principle to which we must subscribe. This is followed by repentence, sincere remorse for our past sins and misdeeds. It is through baptism by immersion that we enter into a covenant relationship with our Savior, and agree to take upon ourselves His name. He, in turn, promises to make it possible for us to be forgiven for those sins and to be reconciled to our Father in Heaven. It is only after we have been cleansed of our sins that we are in a position to receive the Holy Ghost as a constant companion, which is what happens when those who hold the authority to do so, lay their hands upon our heads and say, "Receive the Holy Ghost."

This is not to say that the power and influence of the Holy Ghost cannot be felt prior to water baptism. There is no doubt in my mind that this power and influence can be felt by anyone who is seeking truth and a close relationship with God. It is often felt by people long before they are ever baptized by water. That feeling, however, is not the same as the spiritual gift bestowed by the laying on of hands. Until one receives the "Gift of the Holy Ghost," as did Simon and Philip, the companionship of the Holy Ghost is not constant and abiding as it is afterwards. This is why we believe as we do and why we do not see our doctrine as contradicting the Bible in any way.

 

[Humanistheart]

The Book of Mormon came forth as a testimony of the Bible. .

In a way this is true, in that the book of mormon plagerizes the bible in many places, specifically the king james version used at the time, one of the most innacurate bibles ever written no less.

 

[Autodidact]

Wow that was a long discussion to read through! I'm glad I did though because to Autodidact and Rogue Cardinal I must say that I really appreciate a lot of the criticisms/questions you have raised. Although of course, everything you said against LDS can be used against me, a Protestant Christian. (and of course feel free to do that, if you want)

Pretty much.

I think a really valid point made by Autodidact was that standards of inquiry applied to religion should be the same as secular studies, so the Book of Mormon (or any other religious text) should be examined in the same way as any secular historic document. Now what that being said, one issue I have with the BOM is that it makes claims not supported by archeological evidence, for example that the Americas had tribes with bronze armor and swords. I want to know if any archeologist has ever found any of the weapons, armor, or coinage described in the Book of Mormon.

Nope, none, zip, nada, zilch. No metal weapons, no horses, no concrete houses, no chariots, in fact, no wheels, no horses, no wheat, and no Middle Eastern DNA.

But, as you say, jabberwocky, although Biblical locations are verified by archeology, in general Biblical claims are not.

 

[Humanistheart]

Pretty much.
Nope, none, zip, nada, zilch. No metal weapons, no horses, no concrete houses, no chariots, in fact, no wheels, no horses, no wheat, and no Middle Eastern DNA.

But, as you say, jabberwocky, although Biblical locations are verified by archeology, in general Biblical claims are not.

I agree almost completely, but I would throw a qualifier in that only some biblical locations are verified by archeology. Many have not been.

 

[Katzpur]

I don't think it makes a great deal of sense to put too awfully much emphasis on what archeologists have unearthed to this point. As far as I know, they're still digging. For example, consider this one fact: For the Huns of Central Asia and Eastern Europe, horses represented wealth aned the basis of their military power. Scholars believe that each Hun warrior may have had a many as ten horses. Of the hundreds of thousands of horses that the Huns indisputably had, not a single, solitary [SIZE=-1]usable horse bone has even been discovered anywhere where the Huns were known to have lived. [/SIZE]

We can even find discrepancies of this sort when looking at Bible archeology. Ever student of the Bible is aware that lions were known in Israel in Biblical times. The very first two lion skeletons ever unearthed in that part of the world were found as recently as 1983. Prior to the 1960's, not even any artistic depictions of lions had been found. I'm wondering why Christians all all denominations didn't reject the Bible prior to 1983. After all, by their own logic, if there is no archeological evidence for something, obviously it's false.

 

[Katzpur]

In a way this is true, in that the book of mormon plagerizes the bible in many places, specifically the king james version

The Bible plagairizes itself in many places, specifically the King James Version, but nobody seems to care. Gotta love that double-standard.

 

[Humanistheart]

I don't think it makes a great deal of sense to put too awfully much emphasis on what archeologists have unearthed to this point. I say this because, just as an example, consider this one fact: For the Huns of Central Asia and Eastern Europe, horses represented wealth aned the basis of their military power. Scholars believe that each Hun warrior may have had a many as ten horses. Of the hundreds of thousands of horses that the Huns indisputably had, not a single, solitary [SIZE=-1]usable horse bone has even been discovered anywhere where the Huns were known to have lived. [/SIZE]

We can even find discrepancies of this sort when looking at Bible archeology. Ever student of the Bible is aware that lions were known in Israel in Biblical times. The very first two lion skeletons ever unearthed in that part of the world were found as recently as 1983. Prior to the 1960's, not even any artistic depictions of lions had been found. I'm wondering why Christians all all denominations didn't reject the Bible prior to 1983. After all, by their own logic, if there is no archeological evidence for something, obviously it's false.

The animals described in the book of mormon are a rather different situation (assuming your assertion about the huns and horses is correct). They either would have had to have crossed the bearing straight and evolved here in complete unision with their counterparts across the ocean, but in a completley different enviornment, or evolved here from animals completley native to the continant. Either way, the point is that they'd have been here far, far, far longer than any area's the huns occupied, more than enough time for fossilization to occur, unlike the example with the huns.

There are many other issues as well as several people have mentioned. The lack of any dna evidence, the fact that no history of any indeginous people comes anywhere close to anything discribed in the book of mormon, etc etc.

However, as far as archeology concerning things like the cities described, the money used, etc etc, I do agree with you that archeology is always turning up new things. IF they were actually out there, it would be presumable that one day they'd be uncovered. But given the lack of support in all other area's mentioned along this post and others, I see no reason to think anything is in fact out there to find. And I can't help wondering, if the lds church (and the human race) survives another 1000 years, that in lack of any archeological support, will this argument still be used? Seems quite possible.

 

[Humanistheart]

The Bible plagairizes itself in many places, specifically the King James Version, but nobody seems to care. Gotta love that double-standard.

I'd be curious to see which passages you're reffering to.

However, I'll assume I know some of the ones you may be reffering to. The new testament does plagarize the hebrew books quite a lot. But as for the parts of the hebrew bible which copies or reflects earlier portions, this is the same religon referencing their own books. A rather different situation.

However, now that you mention it, some of this does seem like plagarizm (specifically with the christian bible) and I agree, it is a double standard. But I've never said the bible was error free, in fact in many posts have pointed out the bible disproves the entire christian religion.

 

[Autodidact]

I don't think it makes a great deal of sense to put too awfully much emphasis on what archeologists have unearthed to this point.

Why, because it doesn't agree with your holy book?

As far as I know, they're still digging.

Well of course, and they always will be.

For example, consider this one fact: For the Huns of Central Asia and Eastern Europe, horses represented wealth aned the basis of their military power. Scholars believe that each Hun warrior may have had a many as ten horses. Of the hundreds of thousands of horses that the Huns indisputably had, not a single, solitary [SIZE=-1]usable horse bone has even been discovered anywhere where the Huns were known to have lived. [/SIZE]

Oh, Baloney. First of all, many horse fossils have been found in Central Asia since poor Professor Bokonyi was quote-mined in 1974, such as these five horse heads recently discovered in Mongolia. Secondly, we're not talking about trackless steppes here. We're talking about the Americas. It's been settled and dug and excavated and explored from one end to the other. Unless it's hiding in the Amazon rainforest, it's been found. But thirdly, and this is your biggest problem, it's not just horses. It's horses and elephants and asses and cows and ox and sheep and swine and goats and wheat and barley and silk and steel and bellows and brass and metal armor and iron and plows and swords and chariots and...on and on. It's a whole way of life, lived by millions of people, for which not a shred, not an iota, not a particle of evidence has been found. Ever.

We're not talking about small items, either. For example, if you're going to smelt ore and make steel, you need an entire industry, with mining and furnaces and smelting equipment--large items.

Meanwhile, we find all kinds of other stuff. We go everywhere any Mormon suggest the mythical Lamanites and non-existent Nephites were supposed to have lived, and we find corn and monkeys and Quetzal feathers and turquoise and stone pyramids and huge enormous civilizations with complex ways of living that do not match in any way what's described in the BoM.

If it were just horses, that would be one thing, but it's everything. It's the whole book from start to finish. No evidence for any of it. And, at the same time, lots and lots of evidence for other people. That's your problem.

We can even find discrepancies of this sort when looking at Bible archeology. Ever student of the Bible is aware that lions were known in Israel in Biblical times. The very first two lion skeletons ever unearthed in that part of the world were found as recently as 1983. Prior to the 1960's, not even any artistic depictions of lions had been found. I'm wondering why Christians all all denominations didn't reject the Bible prior to 1983. After all, by their own logic, if there is no archeological evidence for something, obviously it's false.

Well, if we excavate all over Israel, and never find any camel bones, or camel statues, or pictures of camels, or any other book or recording from the same period that refers to camels, or any evidence outside the Bible that there were ever camels there, we would doubt it, yes. That would be more like the situation you have.

If, in addition, we had no evidence of sheep or goats, asses or walls, temples, wheat, barley, gold, chariots, or any of the other technology, crops or animals mentioned in the Bible, we would certainly start to wonder if it had been written by people from the ANE. But that's not what we have.

That is what we have with the BoM.

 

[Autodidact]

The Bible plagairizes itself in many places, specifically the King James Version, but nobody seems to care. Gotta love that double-standard.

You don't see why this is not applicable? The BoM is supposed to have been written before the KJV. So if it quotes the KJV, it's obviously phony. The KJV can clearly quote from the KJV, because the KJV is not supposed to have been written before the KJV. Unlike the BoM.

 

[Autodidact]

Which is why, Katz, as you well know, after we go around this for 30 or 40 pages, a lot of Mormons here end up saying, "But I have faith that it will be found eventually." Which of course is an admission that it hasn't been.

 

[Rogue Cardinal]

Actually, It is not a "new and improved" Bible, nor was it ever intended as a replacement. It works in perfect harmony with it as "Another Testament of Jesus Christ." The Book of Mormon came forth as a testimony of the Bible.

No, it is only the non-biblical creeds of medieval Christianity that the Bible and the Book of Mormon both conflict with.

IS jesus divine? IS he the ONLY begotten son of GOd? IF not....then there is no harmony between Christianity and Mormonism.

Do you belief that God (not JEsus) is or once was a man of flesh and bone? OR do you belief he is something more? IF you think God was a man....then you have a big issue with Christianity....and Judaism.

Do you believe that baptism should happen when you accept Christ as your savior or do you believe it's something you can do after you are already dead? IF it's something you believe you can do after you are dead.....big issues with you and Christianity.

How many Gods are there? Smith says that God became god the same way that God's before him became God.....so what is this process? BTW Christianity says there is but ONE God. So again....Mormonism is not harmonious with Christianity.

 

[Katzpur]

IS jesus divine?

Absolutely.

IS he the ONLY begotten son of GOd?

Yes He is.

Do you belief that God (not JEsus) is or once was a man of flesh and bone?

Yes, we believe that God has a body of flesh and bone.

OR do you belief he is something more?

That shouldn't be "or"; it should be "and." While God has a physical body of flesh and bone, that is definitely not all He is. He is the archetypal man, celestial, glorious beyond description, immortal, perfect in every conceivable way, all-knowing, all-powerful, loving, merciful and just, the Father of the spirits of all of His creations and their Maker.

IF you think God was a man....then you have a big issue with Christianity....and Judaism.

I have no "issues" with Christianity, as I am a Christian. I have no issues with Judaism, either, as I believe the the Bible teaches that the children of Israel are God's chosen people.

Do you believe that baptism should happen when you accept Christ as your savior or do you believe it's something you can do after you are already dead?

I believe that baptism is something we do when we want to enter into a covenant relationship with our Savior, Jesus Christ. Of course, that requires that we be taught about Jesus Christ and His gospel. Billions have lived and died without having had that opportunity.

IF it's something you believe you can do after you are dead.....big issues with you and Christianity.

It would be pretty hard for someone to be baptized when his is lying "six feet under," since baptism requires that we be immersed in water. That's why proxy baptisms are performed. It's something the living can do for their deceased ancestors. The "dead," whose spirits, of course, are eternal, cognizant beings can choose to either accept or reject that baptism. With respect to this doctrine, I have no issues with Christianity of the first century, only with those who changed its doctrines over the many centuries which followed.

How many Gods are there? Smith says that God became god the same way that God's before him became God.....so what is this process?

Yes, he did say that. It is something he believed, but it is not part of our official canon. We are free to either believe it or not, as we wish. At any rate, if God became God at some point, it would have been long before the events described in the Bible took place, before the clock started ticking, so to speak.

BTW Christianity says there is but ONE God.

Paul actually taught that "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." That pretty much is how we would explain it, too.

So again....Mormonism is not harmonious with Christianity.

Christianity is the belief in Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, in His atoning sacrifice for the salvation of mankind and for His resurrection, ensuring that all will live again. That's the foundation upon which Christianity is built. It's the foundation upon which The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is built.

By the way, RC, were you raised Catholic, prior to your becoming an atheist? I'm just curious.

 

[Rogue Cardinal]

Absolutely.

Alrighty

Yes He is.

Alrighty

Yes, we believe that God has a body of flesh and bone.

Based on what?

That shouldn't be "or"; it should be "and." While God has a physical body of flesh and bone, that is definitely not all He is. He is the archetypal man, celestial, glorious beyond description, immortal, perfect in every conceivable way, all-knowing, all-powerful, loving, merciful and just, the Father of the spirits of all of His creations and their Maker.

based on what?

I have no "issues" with Christianity, as I am a Christian. I have no issues with Judaism, either, as I believe the the Bible teaches that the children of Israel are God's chosen people.

That's debatable....you don't believe in the Trinity...and that will get you booted out of the "Christian" camp pretty quickly.

Christianity is monotheistic (so to speak) while Mormonism is polytheistic since the father, son, and holy spirit are three separate gods (so to speak)

I believe that baptism is something we do when we want to enter into a covenant relationship with our Savior, Jesus Christ. Of course, that requires that we be taught about Jesus Christ and His gospel. Billions have lived and died without having had that opportunity.

Right so how does one that is dead get baptized? How does one that is dead accept Christ once dead? IT rather easy....but requires a much better understanding of salvation and much deeper understanding of how hell really works. One doesn't have to be baptized to get to heaven. There are plenty that get to heaven without ever being baptized or accepting Jesus.

It would be pretty hard for someone to be baptized when his is lying "six feet under," since baptism requires that we be immersed in water. That's why proxy baptisms are performed. It's something the living can do for their deceased ancestors. The "dead," whose spirits, of course, are eternal, cognizant beings can choose to either accept or reject that baptism. With respect to this doctrine, I have no issues with Christianity of the first century, only with those who changed its doctrines over the many centuries which followed.

To accept Christ one has to do it on their own. IF you are dead you can't accept a baptism and there is no need to. You just have to wait till the end times come and then accept Christ when given the opportunity.

Yes, he did say that. It is something he believed, but it is not part of our official canon. We are free to either believe it or not, as we wish. At any rate, if God became God at some point, it would have been long before the events described in the Bible took place, before the clock started ticking, so to speak.

So aren't you just cherry picking then? After all we are talking about the guy that wrote your new testament of Christ. He had the inside scoop from the big guy himself. So if the big guy tells him that there are many gods....and SMith tells you there are many gods....then aren't there many gods? Who is lying? Smith of God?

Paul actually taught that "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." That pretty much is how we would explain it, too.

Wow....what an absolute mangling of that scripture. That comes from I Corinthians 8:5-6 and you are taking it completely out of context.

Here is what it says in context.

what is really being said is that if we ASSUME there were more gods there would only be ONE God for them....the Father.


This is also a discussion about people that eat meat that have been sacrificed to idols. Some believers in the early church were not bothered by this and Paul was letting them know they SHOULD have an issue with it. There is no point, according to Paul, to eating meat sacrificed to a pagan god or idol. This has NOTHING to do with there actually being gods. It has everything to do with saying that even IF there were other gods.....there is only one for Christians that matters. But it doesn't say that there ARE other gods at all.

Christianity is the belief in Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, in His atoning sacrifice for the salvation of mankind and for His resurrection, ensuring that all will live again. That's the foundation upon which Christianity is built. It's the foundation upon which The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is built.

But there are huge differences in how these things are viewed in their entirety and that is why other Christians do not consider the LDS Christians at all.

By the way, RC, were you raised Catholic, prior to your becoming an atheist? I'm just curious.

Fair enough question. No. I started out Baptist....and then was later a Methodist (I know how you guys feel about Methodists! hehehehe) I have been a student of Christianity my whole life and to this day devote a ridiculous amount of my free time to understanding Christinity on multiple levels.

 

[madhatter85]

Based on what?

Scripture, including the Bible, the Book of Mormon as well as modern revelation by the Prophet Joseph Smith.

That's debatable....you don't believe in the Trinity...and that will get you booted out of the "Christian" camp pretty quickly.

the belief in a "Trinity" is not biblical founded, nor logical in any sense of the term.

Christianity is monotheistic (so to speak) while Mormonism is polytheistic since the father, son, and holy spirit are three separate gods (so to speak)

This is ridiculously false. We only worship God our Heavenly Father, through his son Jesus Christ. We receive inspiration and witness that these things are true by way of the Holy Ghost.

Right so how does one that is dead get baptized? How does one that is dead accept Christ once dead? IT rather easy....but requires a much better understanding of salvation and much deeper understanding of how hell really works. One doesn't have to be baptized to get to heaven. There are plenty that get to heaven without ever being baptized or accepting Jesus.

Let me pose a question to you. As a christian, did you believe everyone was going to be resurrected as it states in the New Testament?
1 Thessalonians Chapter 4 (after this I will be inserting linkes to the scriptures within my response to prevent post truncation)

16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

Then in Revelation 20 It explains that only Satan and his followers will be cast into the "lake of fire and brimstone": and that all of the unrepentant sinners will be resurrected and judged after the millennium. According to The Bible, "Hell" (spirit prison) and death are temporary states. Explained also in Paul's epistle to the Corinthians that the resurrection of the dead will have different degrees of glory to it.

To accept Christ one has to do it on their own. IF you are dead you can't accept a baptism and there is no need to. You just have to wait till the end times come and then accept Christ when given the opportunity.

Yes, one has to accept it for themselves. If you are dead you indeed can accept baptism as baptisms for the dead was practiced during Paul's day, as we established before spirit prison or "hell" is temporary. Would not a loving God allow them to repent whp had died without knowledge of the plan of salvation?

So aren't you just cherry picking then? After all we are talking about the guy that wrote your new testament of Christ. He had the inside scoop from the big guy himself. So if the big guy tells him that there are many gods....and SMith tells you there are many gods....then aren't there many gods? Who is lying? Smith of God?

Not at all. The doctrine that there are Gods many, is well established in the Bible. However, we are only subject to Our Father.

Wow....what an absolute mangling of that scripture. That comes from I Corinthians 8:5-6 and you are taking it completely out of context.

Not at all, please see my previous link to scripture from Genesis

Here is what it says in context.what is really being said is that if we ASSUME there were more gods there would only be ONE God for them....the Father.
This is also a discussion about people that eat meat that have been sacrificed to idols. Some believers in the early church were not bothered by this and Paul was letting them know they SHOULD have an issue with it. There is no point, according to Paul, to eating meat sacrificed to a pagan god or idol. This has NOTHING to do with there actually being gods. It has everything to do with saying that even IF there were other gods.....there is only one for Christians that matters. But it doesn't say that there ARE other gods at all.

You can assume your interpretation of scripture is correct, however we know it to be otherwise based on the pattern the bible has followed until the scripture.

But there are huge differences in how these things are viewed in their entirety and that is why other Christians do not consider the LDS Christians at all.

They just don't like the fact that we are not just Christians but rather Christians++

Fair enough question. No. I started out Baptist....and then was later a Methodist (I know how you guys feel about Methodists! hehehehe) I have been a student of Christianity my whole life and to this day devote a ridiculous amount of my free time to understanding Christinity on multiple levels.

But do you ask for guidance from Heavenly Father to understand the scriptures via the Holy Ghost? or do you read it with the intent of disproving it by way of your own understanding?