Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Well that is what you believe, but I don't, and I certainly cannot believe the book of Mormon to be from a god, with the vanishing gold tablets, and the hat trick to write it.
I don't take Wikipedia too serious, after all what you read there will be common knowledge by the church, so of course you wont find what I shared, you have to do you own homework.
Clearly that's the case and nothing's going to change your mind -- not even the facts.
It's like my friend Draka once noted: "Debating some people is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good at playing chess you are, the pigeon is just going to knock down all the pieces, poop on the board, and walk around all triumphant." We are witnessing the victorious pigeon in all his glory.
Well, there are several hundred websites other than Wikipedia you can go to for what is essentially the same information.
But you don't have the fact, if you did, everyone would be a Mormon.
This has absolutely nothing to do with Mormonism, psychoslice. It has as much to do with Buddhism and agnosticism as it does with Mormonism. We're talking about the first council at Nicea here; we're not talking about Mormon doctrine. A Mormon, a Buddhist and an agnostic have all told you that you don't know what you're talking about when you say this council was convened in order to establish the Christian canon.
What are you even going off about? This thread has nothing to do with the origins of the Bible, for crying out loud. Go find a soapbox somewhere else.
I don't really care what others think, I do that for myself, the majority are usually wrong anyway, but you have your beliefs and I'll stick to mine, it makes more sense.
Well you did argue with me, did you, so I replied back to you, and where the bible came from does have everything to do with what your going on about, its the back bone of your religion and everyone else's.
I hope we can assume from this comment that you're done with this thread.
Actually, the thread started out as a debate over whether or not Mormon doctrine is truly biblical. You're the one who derailed it, and most of us have been trying to get it back on track ever since. With any luck, you'll make a semi-graceful exit at this point and let us continue where we left off.
Well in that case, no, the Mormon doctrine isn't truly biblical, to me it was Joseph Smiths interpretation of how he himself believed in god, and the rest I believe he made up, especially about the gold tablets.
Mormons believe Michael is Adam. Or God, if you go back far enough.
That's nice.
Your logic, the persuasive power of your reply and your convincing use of evidence is truly mind-boggling.
Mormons believe Michael is the name by which Adam was known in the pre-mortal life. It's the Jehovah's Witnesses who believe Michael was Jesus' name.