LDS Contradiction of the Bible. Tenable?

[Katzpur]

That Jesus and Smith were killed for vastly different reasons. Yes.

Well obviously. But they were both killed while in prison. If one was justified and the other was not, what was the point of your comment in the first place?

 

[Mycroft]

See? There you go again. A discussion of the archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon has absolutely nothing to do with whether the teachings of Mormonism contradict the Bible. All you are doing is moving from one, "I hate Mormons because...." topic to another, "I hate Mormons because..." topic. Sorry, but I am simply unwilling to facilitate your attempts to hijack this thread.

It's all cumulative under 'Was Joseph Smith Full of ****?'

The answer is: Yes.

 

[Katzpur]

Yes. It is a fundamental part of your identity. If Joseph Smith was alive today he could tell you absolutely anything and you'd swallow it hook, line, and sinker.

You know, I've had enough, Mycroft. You are obviously either incapable of or unwilling to engage in a mature debate. I don't know how old you are, but my guess -- judging from your adolescent approach -- is that you're probably pretty young and inexperienced. I've been reasonably patient up to this point, but it's really not worth my while to try to have any further dialogue with you. From here on out, I will respond to any post in this thread that is a legitimate claim that can be addressed with evidence. But the name-calling and personal attacks just don't cut it with me. If I felt as if I were arguing with a peer, I might even be insulted. As it is, all I can really do is just shake my head in dismay.

 

[Mycroft]

You know, I've had enough, Mycroft. You are obviously either incapable of or unwilling to engage in a mature debate. I don't know how old you are, but my guess -- judging from your adolescent approach -- is that you're probably pretty young and inexperienced. I've been reasonably patient up to this point, but it's really not worth my while to try to have any further dialogue with you. From here on out, I will respond to any post in this thread that is a legitimate claim that can be addressed with evidence. But the name-calling and personal attacks just don't cut it with me.

I was serious. It is a fundamental part of your identity, that is the reason you keep defending it so much.

Now because that identity is being 'attacked', you're shutting down the communication lines.

classic case of indoctrination 101.

But, really, there's no debate to be had. Mormonism is so obviously not true that it's ludicrous. Nobody writes a book in 17th century english in the 1800's. Mormonism is a fake, and Joseph Smith a documented con-man.

 

[Lyndon]

I could say the same for atheism!!

 

[psychoslice]

See? There you go again. A discussion of the archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon has absolutely nothing to do with whether the teachings of Mormonism contradict the Bible. All you are doing is moving from one, "I hate Mormons because...." topic to another, "I hate Mormons because..." topic. Sorry, but I am simply unwilling to facilitate your attempts to hijack this thread.

And there you go again, if the Mormon religion can be exposed as a fraud, then everything of that religion collapse in one big heap, and showing that a particular religion is false has nothing to do with hating that religion, I don't hate Mormons, I do feel sorry for them though.

 

[zomg]

Well obviously. But they were both killed while in prison. If one was justified and the other was not, what was the point of your comment in the first place?

Because according to the story, Jesus was innocent. Smith was far from it.

 

[zomg]

Well obviously. But they were both killed while in prison. If one was justified and the other was not, what was the point of your comment in the first place?

To point out Smith is nothing like Jesus? To explain why Smith was arrested? Take your pick.

 

[Katzpur]

You know, zomg, between you, Mycroft and psychoslice you've got yourself a fine little team. Just look at the losers who identify with your cause. I'm done here -- at least with the three of you.

 

[psychoslice]

You know, zomg, between you, Mycroft and psychoslice you've got yourself a fine little team. Just look at the losers who identify with your cause. I'm done here -- at least with the three of you.

Wow, you do get upset when things don't go your way, interesting.

 

[Sapiens]

Just one more quick thing before I go. How do you, as an atheist, define "Christian"? Understanding that might make all the difference in the world to making sense of this seemingly catastrophic thread.

By and large I'd let folks self identify as Christians. The only exception, in my mind, is where a group self identifies as such, but a significant number of other self identifiers, individually and as organizations, voice (what they consider to be) serious doubts.

 

[zomg]

You know, zomg, between you, Mycroft and psychoslice you've got yourself a fine little team. Just look at the losers who identify with your cause. I'm done here -- at least with the three of you.

Speaking of personal attacks.

 

[InChrist]

And somehow this is different from what the Protestant Reformers did?.

I see it as very different. The Reformers who had studied the Bible for themselves saw that the Catholic Church was keeping the scriptures from the common people for its own power and control. They saw that the Catholic Church was in error in the following points:
1. Going beyond biblical scripture for doctrine.
2. Teaching that salvation/justification required more than faith in Jesus Christ alone.
3. Claiming the priesthood was for only certain ones rather than each believer n Jesus Christ.
What the Reformers did was to restore the Bible to the common people in their common language.

Joseph Smith also condemned the Catholic Church calling it the "great and abominable church". It should be noted that by the lifetime of Joseph Smith the Reformation started by Martin Luther was widely recognized. Yet, in contrast to the Reformers, Smith claimed that many "plain and precious truths" had been taken from the Bible and he was the one to restore them. But it seems that Joseph Smith and the church he created are guilty of the same errors which the Reformers found the Catholic Church guilty of;
1. The Mormon Church imposes authority beyond the Bible - the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price ( all produced by Joseph Smith) and the teachings of LDS leadership authorities.
2. The Mormon Church has added many other requirements beyond faith in Jesus Christ.
3. The Mormon Church teaches the priesthood is only for worthy LDS males (by Church requirements ).

Joseph Smith may have believed that none of the Christian Churches that existed in 1820 were completely true, but he never tried to deny that their members were Christians.

He actually said, "“The Saints can testify whether I am willing to lay down my life for my brethren. If it has been demonstrated that I have been willing to die for a ‘Mormon,’ I am bold to declare before Heaven that I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholics, or of any other denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves."

Clearly he had a more charitable attitude towards non-LDS Christians than they had towards us

.[/QUOTE]

I think any Christian who believes in freedom of religion would be just as charitable and quick to defend the rights of Mormons to have the freedom to practice their religion.
Joseph Smith claimed that all Christian churches were wrong and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was the only true church, if this is not denying that members of those other churches were not Christians then I don't know what is. Contending for the biblical faith which was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3) is not uncharitable at all, it is a biblical necessity grounded in truth and love.

 

[InChrist]

I think if you read the history, Jesus was put to death too, following imprisonment.

Jesus was imprisoned, yet innocent of any crime. Joseph was imprisoned for committing a crime.
Jesus went to His death without resistance, Joseph resisted with gunfire.

 

[Mycroft]

You know, zomg, between you, Mycroft and psychoslice you've got yourself a fine little team. Just look at the losers who identify with your cause. I'm done here -- at least with the three of you.

First you condemn others for resorting to what you perceive to be personal insults...then you do the same yourself?

 

[leibowde84]

Yeah, I know. But I do always try to point out that the priesthood ban never was authorized by God, and while it's extremely regrettable that it ever existed, I'm glad that the Church is finally acknowledging the fact that it was a policy established by men and not by God.

Aren't all "policies" established by men?

pol·i·cy
ˈpäləsē/
noun

1. a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by a government, party, business, or individual.

 

[leibowde84]

Did Jesus also destroy a printing press to hide his polygamy/polandry? Because that's what Smith did.

Is that why they killed him?

 

[Pegg]

Sorry about your cough, Pegg. I didn't say they were from The Book of Mormon. I specifically noted that the Bible mentions other "gods." Either I'm missing your point or you're missing mind.

Your right, im missing yours...

Not the first time

 

[leibowde84]

Well, it's a fairly fine line between saying, "You're stupid," and saying "People who believe [such and such] are stupid." Maybe Scott's remark was personal, but when someone makes a statement like, "Mormons think that god knocked up mary by doing the horizontal hokey cokey with her (I'm hoping you now how sex works)", you've got to wonder about his maturity, intelligence and education. I actually love to debate this particular topic (i.e. Does LDS doctrine contradict the Bible?) but when I find myself interacting with someone whose posts sound like they are taken straight out of an elementary school recess fight, it's hard to remain composed indefinitely.

I don't know. I think you have to have a thick skin when debating religion and beliefs. While his comment was vulgar in a way, I don't think it is personally insulting to anyone. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So, if he claims that your beliefs are unfounded, it is up to you to prove him wrong.

 

[Jainarayan]

*** Thread closed pending staff review ***​