Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Please re-read my post, Jay. I didn't say anything about the Bible not contradicting something it doesn't mention. I said that some LDS doctrines are not found in the Bible, but the fact that they aren't in the Bible does not mean that they are not true. If the Bible does not, for example, say that water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit, would it be accurate to say that scientists have contradicted the Bible by providing us with this statement of fact?
Well, not to worry. We don't believe that God intends to make us llamas, so let's not digress too awfully far from what LDS doctrine actually does claim.
Okay... So what is a perfected being? How perfect would a perfect being have to be in order for it to be called divine?
Not until the 19th century? I'm afraid you're wrong about that. You don't have to agree with the doctrine, Jay, but you really do need to check your facts before making statements than can be so easily disproved.
In the second century, Saint Irenaeus said, “If the Word became a man, it was so men may become gods.” He also posed this question: “Do we cast blame on Him (God) because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and than later as gods?” At about the same period of time, Saint Clement made this statement: “The Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god.” And Saint Justin Martyr agreed, saying that men are “deemed worthy of becoming gods and of having power to become sons of the highest.” Some two centuries later, Athanasius explained that “the Word was made flesh in order that we might be enabled to be made gods. He became man that we might be made divine.” And, finally, Augustine, said, “But He that justifies also deifies, for by justifying he makes sons of God. For he has given them power to become the sons of God. If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods.”
Did I not warn you, Jay, that I have heard every last one of these anti-Mormon arguments before. This one is a classic. I'm actually kind of glad you brought it up (even though it doesn't appear to me to have anything at all to do with the topic of your OP).
Like Christians everywhere, we believe that Jesus Christ was born in the small middle-eastern village of Bethlehem. However, the Book of Mormon states:
"And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God." (Alma 7:10)
At first glance, it appears that we have a pretty significant contradiction on our hands. A closer look, however, reveals that this is not the case at all. In his prophecy concerning the coming of a Savior, the ancient American prophet Alma refers to Jerusalem as "the land of our forefathers," and said that Jesus Christ would be born in this land. Considering the fact that Bethlehem is, in fact, a suburb of the city of Jerusalem (roughly 5 miles away from the city itself), his choice of words makes perfect sense. If an individual today lived in a small suburb of Los Angeles, and were asked where he was from, he might very well answer, "I'm from L.A." No one would accuse him of lying or even of stretching the truth a bit.
In recent years, archeological findings have proven especially interesting as they relate to Joseph's translation of the plates. For instance, two non-LDS scholars (I point this out only because it seems this makes a great deal of difference to some people), Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise, discuss an example of the phrase "land of Jerusalem" in the Dead Sea Scrolls in their book, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered. They write that the use of this phrase "greatly enhances the sense of historicity of the whole, since Judah or 'Yehud' (the name of the area on coins from the Persian period) by this time consisted of little more than Jerusalem and its immediate environs" In other words, not only was the city of Jerusalem referred to in this way, but the entire surrounding area. Thus, what was known as "the land of Judah" was also known as "the land of Jerusalem."
Use of that phrase was utterly illogical for Joseph Smith, who published the Book of Mormon over a century before the Dead Sea Scrolls were even discovered. As a matter of fact, I imagine that he might very well questioned the translation when it came to him. After all, even a school child in 1830 would have known better than to say that Jesus was born in Jerusalem. Obviously, Joseph would have been very much aware of the supposed "blunder" he was making in translating the text according to what he knew it actually said.
Once again, what for years was considered yet another "proof" that the Book of Mormon was a fraud now can be added to the ever-growing list of evidences that it is exactly what it purports to be.
What about true prophets? Jesus Christ himself appointed prophets. Why do you think that was if He didn't intend to reveal anything more to them than He already had?
Did you even read what I posted from the Athanasian Creed? 1 billion Catholics believe that, too, Jay. Is there some reason why you are directing this accusation at the Latter-day Saints and not at the Roman Catholics.
2 Nephi 21:31 states, "And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end.
Mormon 7:7 states, "And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, 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.
Do I really need to ask you again to stop telling me what Mormons believe?
I'm not a liar, Jay. Don't make me out to be one. The fact that I interpret the scriptures differently than you do does not justify this accusation.
If you will read my opening post in the thread called 
