Hebrew Calendar testifies of the prophet Joseph Smith

[Riveroaks]

OK you think I am dishonest without showing anywhere where I have been dishonest, you call me a bigot with no evidence, and you think I've spent the last eleven or twelve years on this site as a pretend Mormon. Do you really think that is rational or logical? The fact is you have shown on this site to have a bias against Mormons. There is nothing wrong with that but you have a history of posting about LDS beliefs and LDS history that is not accurate. It very well may be due to arrogance and a lack of knowledge, reading a lot of attack websites on the LDS and "knowing" they are fact without checking your sources. These sites are notorious with being filled with inaccurate information. Maybe this is the reason for you posting inaccurate info and not outright dishonesty. Over the years I have lost patience with debaters like this, whatever their true motives are. So if I did characterize you incorrectly as dishonest i apologize. You can believe whatever you want about me, but you are wrong. One thing I will say, most Mormons are smart enough to ignore people like ludin, phatonez, Tosca, and a few others. I think I partly respond out of boredom. I would love to interact with a more intelligent, honest debater but that is not what I get in the religious discussions.

I think is great when people have a belief system, particularly if it is based on the Greek New Testament somehow.

Although you guys are a stretch, anything is better than nothing.

Moot is right though, you should stop lying to yourself. And stop being a sheeple.

We are both Masonic. You should check that out and find out where your own religion really comes from.

 

[Riveroaks]

Continued:

On the Catholic mass, I likely got you mixed up with Phatonez, I think he may be the anti-Mormon that is Catholic. Not sure. But it is good that you think they are wrong that the bread and wine literally becomes the flesh and blood of Christ(if that is an accurate Catholic belief. Unlike you and a few others here, I try and be careful to be accurate on stating other's beliefs. You have a bad habit of saying Mormons believe this and that when we don't such as we don't believe in hell when we do, etc, etc, etc etc. I have had a few Catholics tell me this, and I looked up an article on this from a pro Catholic site once and it appeared to be a legit Catholic doctrine). If you believe the Catholics got this wrong though, why is it not possible they got the nature of God wrong in the three persons one being without form, etc. Were they correct in imprisoning astronomers, killing millions for not believing, selling indulgences, etc? If they were wrong in all these, is not very possible they got your trinity doctrine wrong?

The "land of Jerusalem" was a test. There is no arguing that the LDS response diffuses the criticism. This is one of the reasons why I do not want to continue debating with you. Even in such a black or white case you cannot accept anything that goes against the criticisms you copy and paste off websites that lie, give half truths, and sensationalize LDS beliefs. My response in this post highlights some of the reasons why I consider it a waste of time debating with you. Now give your best three criticisms, ones you think I must avoid, I'll give responses that I know will not change your position no matter how strongly they show them to be incorrect, and then I'm done.

Catholic mass. Now you are on my turf.

We are the largest Christian denomination in the world. Always have been and always will be.

In our communions and our Seven Sacraments, we acknowledge the power of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

You can hardly exclude Holy Mary Mother of Christ however.

I worship and pray to them all.

 

[Riveroaks]

It may or may not be. It is an ignorant position but when you fudge with facts when presenting your case it becomes a dishonest attack. I think having a tiny fraction of similarities with masonry, the similarities that are also seen in other ancient traditions and in the bible, and then trying to make the case the religion derives from masonry is ignorant. Masonry doesn't explain 99.9999999999% of the religion.

Tiny fraction ...

... more like 99%.

 

[ludin]

In regards to your response on the oneness of God, you still do not seem to accurately comprehend the LDS nature of God. I've posted this to you before in another thread and have posted links to the below article several times yet you still call the LDS polytheistic when the following from Lindsay accurately describes LDS belief- "It is true that we believe the Father and the Son are separate beings, but they are one and comprise, with the Holy Ghost, one united Godhead. I consider myself a monotheist, a worshiper of the one true God. Rejecting the "one in substance" concept of post-biblical creeds does not make me a polytheist, in my opinion." You say the LDS concept of there being many gods but one God that we worship is polytheistic and not Biblical yet there are tons of Biblical verses that teach exactly this: "gods many and lords many, but to us there is but one God, the Father" (1 Cor. 8:5,6) "5. I know that the LORD is great, and that our God is above all gods.

because the LDS comprehension of God is not correct. you constantly change the narrative. you say one thing then say something else. They are not 3 separate beings first off. they are 1 God but God consists of 3 natures.
you have 3 individuals who you say are in 1 purpose. that is polythistic IE more than 1 God. they cant' all be God. The bible refers to 1 God but 3 natures. which is monothiestic.

you have been informed of this last paragraph before. you just read what you want to read. the god there can refer to many things. 1. other gods by other nations, 2 it can refer to people that God ordained to rule over other people which given that context would be the proper definition. not that these people were actual God's, but they were setup as judges over the people. you seriously need to study biblical context.

6. The LORD does what pleases him, in heaven and on earth, to do as he does; there is none like the LORD, and there is none who acts like the King of gods, in the seas and in all (their) depths."(Psalm 135 from the Dead Sea Scrolls). While these and many other verses fit very well with LDS doctrine, they do not fit your doctrines and so you say they do not mean literally what they say and that the LDS is misinterpreting it, and then you claim your interpretation is the only valid one and act like it is a given that the LDS is not Biblical. The same with your seeming acceptance of the Nicene Creed doctrine that the Godhead is three persons in one being instead of the LDS doctrine of three persons in three separate beings like Peter, James, and John are three separate persons but one in purpose in guiding the NT Church, and not the silly notion that they are morphed into one physical being. The verses I gave where Jesus defines this oneness in hope that His apostles and those who believed their words would become one in Them is totally consistent with the LDS position yet you have to say there is a dual meaning. And then as usual you claim your interpretation is correct and state as fact the LDS is not Biblical. This methodology is a joke.[/QUOTE]

the Nicene Creed is consistent with a monotheistic God the LDS is not that is a huge difference.
The Psalmist is making the claim that there is 1 true God and that all the false gods are exactly that. False. That He is also that ruler of all rulers.
so it doesn't fit well unless you distort it to say something else.

the LDS doctrine doesn't fit what the bible says. that is the whole problem. Joseph Smith distorted scripture to fit his view point. which is what Paul not only condemns but issues a threat against those that do what Smith did.
it isn't just my interpretation it is cannon.

Jesus defines his oneness because in His view He, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit are One. they are not separate working in 1 purpose but they are One.

1. Jesus is presented in Scripture as eternally existing as God (e.g., John 1:1, 18; Phil. 2:6-11[14]; Heb. 1:3).
2. Jesus created “all things” including all the angels as with Lucifer (e.g., John 1:3; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:8-10).
3. Only God is to be worshipped (cf. Exod. 20:5), yet Jesus was worshipped: e.g., by wise men (Matt. 2:11); by a leper (8:2); by His disciples (14:33; 28:17); by a blind man (John 9:38); by all the angels (Heb. 1:6); by all of creation (Rev. 5:13-14).

 

[ludin]

Continued:

On the Catholic mass, I likely got you mixed up with Phatonez, I think he may be the anti-Mormon that is Catholic. Not sure. But it is good that you think they are wrong that the bread and wine literally becomes the flesh and blood of Christ(if that is an accurate Catholic belief. Unlike you and a few others here, I try and be careful to be accurate on stating other's beliefs. You have a bad habit of saying Mormons believe this and that when we don't such as we don't believe in hell when we do, etc, etc, etc etc. I have had a few Catholics tell me this, and I looked up an article on this from a pro Catholic site once and it appeared to be a legit Catholic doctrine). If you believe the Catholics got this wrong though, why is it not possible they got the nature of God wrong in the three persons one being without form, etc. Were they correct in imprisoning astronomers, killing millions for not believing, selling indulgences, etc? If they were wrong in all these, is not very possible they got your trinity doctrine wrong?

you just told me what you believe about communion and i don't agree with you either neither does the bible.
communion is a rememborance of what Christ did. It cannot save you it cannot cleanse your soul it cannot forgive your sins like you stated.


Just because they might be wrong in 1 aspect or interpritation doesn't mean they are wrong in all of them that is a logical fallacy.
the bible 100% supports 1 God not 3 Gods like the LDS claim.


the rest is nothing more than a distration argument.
however if you want to go that route i have pointed out how wrong the LDS are one their interpritation of scripture consistantly. does that mean you are wrong on everything else as well?
i have proven that there were not an ancient people as described in the book of mormon.
I have proven that the book of abraham is 100% wrong as Joseph Smith translated. so using your own logic that means the mormons are wrong on everything else.

The "land of Jerusalem" was a test. There is no arguing that the LDS response diffuses the criticism. This is one of the reasons why I do not want to continue debating with you. Even in such a black or white case you cannot accept anything that goes against the criticisms you copy and paste off websites that lie, give half truths, and sensationalize LDS beliefs. My response in this post highlights some of the reasons why I consider it a waste of time debating with you. Now give your best three criticisms, ones you think I must avoid, I'll give responses that I know will not change your position no matter how strongly they show them to be incorrect, and then I'm done.

again you can't argue the point. the fact is he was 100% wrong. the LDS uses a bunch of hoops to attempt to justify it yet there is no justification as i posted in the link above.
it didn't lie or give half truths. it took the claims of your Jeff Lindsay himself and refuted every single point that HE MADE.

and we are back to your default arguments. you can't actually address the argument. bethlehem is not part of Jerusalem. even to the point that the writer in matthew goes to make the distinction between the two of them.
are you saying that the author in matthew is wrong and Smith is correct? that would be an awefully hard claim to back up.

i even went as far as to post the biblical definition of a city used. you still ignored it.

 

[Cable]

Catholic mass. Now you are on my turf.
We are the largest Christian denomination in the world. Always have been and always will be.
In our communions and our Seven Sacraments, we acknowledge the power of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
You can hardly exclude Holy Mary Mother of Christ however.
I worship and pray to them all.

Worshiping Mary and praying to her as you might the Father has always puzzled me. Where do you get this idea from in the scripture?

 

[laska]

because the LDS comprehension of God is not correct. you constantly change the narrative. you say one thing then say something else. They are not 3 separate beings first off. they are 1 God but God consists of 3 natures.
you have 3 individuals who you say are in 1 purpose. that is polythistic IE more than 1 God. they cant' all be God. The bible refers to 1 God but 3 natures. which is monothiestic.
you have been informed of this last paragraph before. you just read what you want to read. the god there can refer to many things. 1. other gods by other nations, 2 it can refer to people that God ordained to rule over other people which given that context would be the proper definition. not that these people were actual God's, but they were setup as judges over the people. you seriously need to study biblical context.

the Nicene Creed is consistent with a monotheistic God the LDS is not that is a huge difference.
The Psalmist is making the claim that there is 1 true God and that all the false gods are exactly that. False. That He is also that ruler of all rulers.
so it doesn't fit well unless you distort it to say something else.

It is you and those that follow the Nicene council on the nature of God that have to distort things like the term gods to mean something else other than gods. When the Father is called the king of Gods, the God of gods, when Jesus is about to be stoned for being a man and calling Himself a God and then states does it not say in your law that ye are gods, when over and over we are called the offspring of God, over and over Jesus tries to show that God is not only His Father but our Father, when it states we are created in God's image, that He is the Father of our spirits, all of these things you guys have to state is not meant to be literal for your nature of God to be true. Your nature of God is WEIRD, as it would mean Jesus was His own Father, and that He was praying to Himself. It would mean when He got baptized and the voice of the Father came from the Heavens saying He was well pleased with His Son, that it was Jesus Himself talking to Himself in like the third person from two different locations. Completely absurd concept from a medieval age where they locked up astronomers that went against their warped interpretation of scripture. No one from the Nicene Council ever actually was visited by God yet they set the foundation doctrine for all of Christianity on the nature of God. The emperor of Rome, the same Rome that use to send Christians to the lions, had control of the Church and was appointing bishops and setting councils yet the thought that the authority from Heaven still rested in the Church is not doubted by many who accept their doctrines. Not to mention the great sins of the Church. The reason why the trinity was set up as it was with the very weird three persons in one being without form or passions is because these bishops were steeped in pagan Greek learning and to them it was embarrassing that the Bible and early Christians made God to be a man, as physical matter was seen as corrupt. So they had to interpret the scriptures non literally in order to fit the scriptures with their own biases. When The Church of Jesus Christ was restored through the latter day prophet Joseph smith, the 14 year old Joseph saw with his own eyes the nature of the Father and the Son, and they were both exalted Men with glory beyond description. Two separate beings, not the weird three persons in one being of the Pagan Greek trinity. You keep saying "the Nicene Creed is consistent with a monotheistic God" yet you do not seem to see how the LDS concept of God is monotheistic as it is only one God that we worship. Then you have to explain away all the verses in the Bible that show polytheism and that as the offspring of God that we are gods and monotheism in their being the Father above all other gods, and the only God we should worship. There are plenty of non LDS scholars that interpret the verses you claim are out of context and not to be interpreted literally like the LDS does. You state "the LDS doctrine doesn't fit what the bible says. that is the whole problem. Joseph Smith distorted scripture to fit his view point. which is what Paul not only condemns but issues a threat against those that do what Smith did." when it can just as easily be said that you and the Nicene Council are the ones that have distorted scripture. Anyway it is obvious neither one of us is going to change the other's mind. I'm completely comfortable going with Joseph Smith and the LDS interpretation of scripture rather than you and the Nicene Council.

 

[laska]

I think is great when people have a belief system, particularly if it is based on the Greek New Testament somehow.

Although you guys are a stretch, anything is better than nothing.

Moot is right though, you should stop lying to yourself. And stop being a sheeple.

We are both Masonic. You should check that out and find out where your own religion really comes from.

So following your belief system would make me not sheeple? Lol. Do you know there is a study that shows out of all the major U.S. religions, only one has the opposite trend of on average an adult member showing less faith in their religion as they gain education. That one religion was the LDS. And it was quite dramatic. Only like 40 something percent of LDS members with less than a high school education had high faith in their religion, whereas over 90% of LDS scientists had high faith in the LDS religion. The other religions, there were major dropoffs in faith in their religions as they gained education with the next highest percentage scientists with high faith in their religion in the forties. Also, studies have shown the LDS are better educated on average than Protestants and Catholics and on par with Jewish and unaffiliated. So maybe it is you who is the sheeple and don't see the truth.

 

[Riveroaks]

So following your belief system would make me not sheeple? Lol. Do you know there is a study that shows out of all the major U.S. religions, only one has the opposite trend of on average an adult member showing less faith in their religion as they gain education. That one religion was the LDS. And it was quite dramatic. Only like 40 something percent of LDS members with less than a high school education had high faith in their religion, whereas over 90% of LDS scientists had high faith in the LDS religion. The other religions, there were major dropoffs in faith in their religions as they gained education with the next highest percentage scientists with high faith in their religion in the forties. Also, studies have shown the LDS are better educated on average than Protestants and Catholics and on par with Jewish and unaffiliated. So maybe it is you who is the sheeple and don't see the truth.

Misdirection.

We were not even discussing that.

The discussion was the plagiarism of Freemasonry.

 

[Riveroaks]

Worshiping Mary and praying to her as you might the Father has always puzzled me. Where do you get this idea from in the scripture?

Do you pray to Jesus? Most Protestants do. That's not in the "scriptures" either.

 

[laska]

you just told me what you believe about communion and i don't agree with you either neither does the bible.
communion is a rememborance of what Christ did. It cannot save you it cannot cleanse your soul it cannot forgive your sins like you stated.


Just because they might be wrong in 1 aspect or interpritation doesn't mean they are wrong in all of them that is a logical fallacy.
the bible 100% supports 1 God not 3 Gods like the LDS claim.


the rest is nothing more than a distration argument.
however if you want to go that route i have pointed out how wrong the LDS are one their interpritation of scripture consistantly. does that mean you are wrong on everything else as well?
i have proven that there were not an ancient people as described in the book of mormon.
I have proven that the book of abraham is 100% wrong as Joseph Smith translated. so using your own logic that means the mormons are wrong on everything else.



again you can't argue the point. the fact is he was 100% wrong. the LDS uses a bunch of hoops to attempt to justify it yet there is no justification as i posted in the link above.
it didn't lie or give half truths. it took the claims of your Jeff Lindsay himself and refuted every single point that HE MADE.

and we are back to your default arguments. you can't actually address the argument. bethlehem is not part of Jerusalem. even to the point that the writer in matthew goes to make the distinction between the two of them.
are you saying that the author in matthew is wrong and Smith is correct? that would be an awefully hard claim to back up.

i even went as far as to post the biblical definition of a city used. you still ignored it.

The sacrament is in remembrance of the Atonement. What is the Atonement? Christ suffering for our sins in order to cleanse us from them. So to try and state the sacrament has no relation to forgiveness of sins is silly imo. But pretty much everything you say I find silly.

AGAIN, the Bible literally supports the LDS doctrine of their being a head God of gods. Tons of non LDS scholars agree with this.

That you cannot see how archaeological discoveries diffuse the land of Jerusalem argument and is actually an evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon is on you. Any intelligent reader should be able to see this. When the Amarna letters, written in the 13th century B.C. and discovered in 1887, recounted the capture of "a city of the land of Jerusalem, Bet-Ninib"" ie BETHLEHEM, to then continue to condemn the Book of Mormon for referring to Bethlehem as the land of Jerusalem when anciently the small villages that surrounded Jerusalem were in "the land of Jerusalem" is beating on a dead horse. Non LDS scholars have even stated the use of the term adds authenticity. If you want, start a thread and give both the Jeff Lindsay link and your link and let readers decide. You may get no interest and a few biased posters like Phatonez, Moot, Tosca may agree with you, but I predict if you get any action, the vast majority of posters will agree the criticism against the Book of Mormon here is invalid.

 

[laska]

Misdirection.

We were not even discussing that.

The discussion was the plagiarism of Freemasonry.

Maybe more intelligent people will see that when you try and imply that 99% of the LDS religion is plagiarized from free masonry that it is ignorant. Have you read the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenants? Do you want to show how 99% of these texts was copied from masonry? Again, nly a tiny fraction of the LDS temple ceremony has similarities to masonry and these similarities are also found in the Bible and other ancient traditions which suggests these similarities could be due to an ancient shared source instead of Joseph Smith copying from Masons. I haven't studied this tiny fraction of similarities in detail so I have an open mind to the possibility that Joseph may have been impressed with some of the symbolism/rituals in masonry and in areas where the Lord may have allowed implemented similarities to them in the in order to better teach gospel principles. When Joseph received revelation on the temple endowment, he may have been given some freedom in regards to symbolic rituals involved. Or these similarities simply derive from a more ancient shared source. Either way I have no problem. As the material I copy and pasted on this states, this tiny fraction of similarities with Masonry does not explain the LDS temple endowment.

 

[ludin]

It is you and those that follow the Nicene council on the nature of God that have to distort things like the term gods to mean something else other than gods. When the Father is called the king of Gods, the God of gods, when Jesus is about to be stoned for being a man and calling Himself a God and then states does it not say in your law that ye are gods, when over and over we are called the offspring of God, over and over Jesus tries to show that God is not only His Father but our Father, when it states we are created in God's image, that He is the Father of our spirits, all of these things you guys have to state is not meant to be literal for your nature of God to be true.

holy brick wall batman. there are thing called paragraphs. No it hasn't. You can check any theological dictionary and the term god will very based on the context that it is used in. more so the Hebrew dictionary for the word god.

that verse is correct as he referred to himself as I AM. meaning he was claiming the deity of God himself.
gods in that verse that comes out of psalms is translated as judges. they had God's authority to judge the people according to God's will. Not that they were actual gods. this has been explained to you by more than 1 person yet you refuse to educate yourself.

It is clear from the next three verses that the word “gods” refers to magistrates, judges, and other people who hold positions of authority and rule. Calling a human magistrate a “god” indicates three things: 1) he has authority over other human beings, 2) the power he wields as a civil authority is to be feared, and 3) he derives his power and authority from God Himself, who is pictured as judging the whole earth in verse 8.

Your nature of God is WEIRD, as it would mean Jesus was His own Father, and that He was praying to Himself. It would mean when He got baptized and the voice of the Father came from the Heavens saying He was well pleased with His Son, that it was Jesus Himself talking to Himself in like the third person from two different locations.

100% false. as they are all part of the Trinity that make up God 1 being but they are separate in nature. having their own individual characteristics.

Completely absurd concept from a medieval age where they locked up astronomers that went against their warped interpretation of scripture. No one from the Nicene Council ever actually was visited by God

wrong the first century church were baptized or studied under one of the apostles.
PS Joseph Smtih never met God either nor did he meet some angel and nor did he get any gold books.

yet they set the foundation doctrine for all of Christianity on the nature of God. The emperor of Rome, the same Rome that use to send Christians to the lions, had control of the Church and was appointing bishops and setting councils yet the thought that the authority from Heaven still rested in the Church is not doubted by many who accept their doctrines. Not to mention the great sins of the Church. The reason why the trinity was set up as it was with the very weird three persons in one being without form or passions is because these bishops were steeped in pagan Greek learning and to them it was embarrassing that the Bible and early Christians made God to be a man, as physical matter was seen as corrupt. So they had to interpret the scriptures non literally in order to fit the scriptures with their own biases. You state "the LDS doctrine doesn't fit what the bible says. that is the whole problem. Joseph Smith distorted scripture to fit his view point. which is what Paul not only condemns but issues a threat against those that do what Smith did." when it can just as easily be said that you and the Nicene Council are the ones that have distorted scripture. Anyway it is obvious neither one of us is going to change the other's mind. I'm completely comfortable going with Joseph Smith and the LDS interpretation of scripture rather than you and the Nicene Council.

that is so much wrong here I can't even begin to correct it all.
the church never left and Joseph smith was never anything that you said.

he was a man never ordained by God or anyone else.
you can't have a monotheistic God if they are 3 separate individuals. there is only 1 God not 3 as you have claimed constantly.

I have explained it you ignore it and continue to ramble the same distortions that were just refuted.


yes you are 100% correct joseph smith distorted scripture to fit his view point and Paul condemns anyone that delivers a message other than
what was pasted from Christ as a false prophet and a false message and they should not be listened to.

you can be as comfortable as you want in joseph smith my salvation lies in Christ Jesus not joseph smith.
he never saved anyone from anything Christ did.

 

[Riveroaks]

Maybe more intelligent people will see that when you try and imply that 99% of the LDS religion is plagiarized from free masonry that it is ignorant. Have you read the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenants? Do you want to show how 99% of these texts was copied from masonry? Again, nly a tiny fraction of the LDS temple ceremony has similarities to masonry and these similarities are also found in the Bible and other ancient traditions which suggests these similarities could be due to an ancient shared source instead of Joseph Smith copying from Masons. I haven't studied this tiny fraction of similarities in detail so I have an open mind to the possibility that Joseph may have been impressed with some of the symbolism/rituals in masonry and in areas where the Lord may have allowed implemented similarities to them in the in order to better teach gospel principles. When Joseph received revelation on the temple endowment, he may have been given some freedom in regards to symbolic rituals involved. Or these similarities simply derive from a more ancient shared source. Either way I have no problem. As the material I copy and pasted on this states, this tiny fraction of similarities with Masonry does not explain the LDS temple endowment.

You should just understand where Smith and Young got their stuff from.

Maybe if you join a local Masonic lodge you will see.

Otherwise I think you will remain a sheeple.

It is not that hard to replace the reinactment of the 3 builders of Solomon's Temple with a reinactment about Adam and Eve in the Garden.

Note however that the signs and tokens are the same -- Smith and Young got them from us. The words have been changed -- you guys use 3 different names and a phrase.

Our words come from the Hebrew Old Testament. That's the only difference. Very little difference.

 

[ludin]

The sacrament is in remembrance of the Atonement. What is the Atonement? Christ suffering for our sins in order to cleanse us from them. So to try and state the sacrament has no relation to forgiveness of sins is silly imo. But pretty much everything you say I find silly.

you just said it. sacrament is REMEMBERANCE. see that is a key word. no it isn't because you can take all the communion you want to not accept Christ as your savior and end up in hell. Christ said I AM the WAY the TRUTH and the LIGHT no MAN come before the FATHER but THROUGH ME.

most people who live in darkness find the light of the gospel silly because it means they were wrong. I am not ashamed of the Gospel or his Name.
yet for all the silliness you can't disprove anything I say.

AGAIN, the Bible literally supports the LDS doctrine of their being a head God of gods. Tons of non LDS scholars agree with this.

well they support it but just not in the way that you think they do. you are not a God and never will be. of course there was another person that said if you eat of this tree you will be like gods. In fact he was thrown out of heaven for attempting to upsure God. however those claims seem to be consistent with Mormon teaching that you can be like gods.

That you cannot see how archaeological discoveries diffuse the land of Jerusalem argument and is actually an evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon is on you. Any intelligent reader should be able to see this. When the Amarna letters, written in the 13th century B.C. and discovered in 1887, recounted the capture of "a city of the land of Jerusalem, Bet-Ninib"" ie BETHLEHEM, to then continue to condemn the Book of Mormon for referring to Bethlehem as the land of Jerusalem when anciently the small villages that surrounded Jerusalem were in "the land of Jerusalem" is beating on a dead horse. Non LDS scholars have even stated the use of the term adds authenticity. If you want, start a thread and give both the Jeff Lindsay link and your link and let readers decide. You may get no interest and a few biased posters like Phatonez, Moot, Tosca may agree with you, but I predict if you get any action, the vast majority of posters will agree the criticism against the Book of Mormon here is invalid.

:roll: No the archaeological discoveries do not. what they do prove is that Bethlehem is close to Jerusalem and it is. they are 5 miles from each other.
and the ad hominems start simply because you were proven 100% wrong just like smith was proven wrong.

a city of the land of Jerusalem, Bet-Ninib

unfortuantly for him there is no such thing as the land of Jerusalem. there is the land of Judea and in the land of Judea there are
2 cities. 1 is called Bethlehem and the other is called Jerusalem.

matthew 2 distinctly points out the difference that they are not one in the same.

they weren't in the land of Jerusalem that is why the author matthew says in verse 1

Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men[a] from the east came to Jerusalem.

and the final nail in the coffin

“In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it is written by the prophet:



6
“‘And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for from you shall come a ruler
who will shepherd my people Israel

so if there is a land of Jerusalem why would the author Matthew not say ol Bethlehem in the land of Jerusalem?
ol yea there is no such thing.

those 2 verses disprove what he said 100% unless you want to call the author of matthew a liar and that he doesn't know what he is talking about.
clearly any intelligent person can see they are not the same place or the same thing.

 

[Cable]

Do you pray to Jesus? Most Protestants do. That's not in the "scriptures" either.

Actually there is quite a bit in the scripture about Christ and worshiping him.

John 5:21
“For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes. 22“For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, 23so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

Rev 7: 10 and

“Salvation to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb.” 11And all the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures; and they fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, 12saying,
“Amen, blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might, be to our God forever and ever. Amen.”
.....
6“They will hunger no longer, nor thirst anymore; nor will the sun beat down on them, nor any heat; 17for the Lamb in the center of the throne will be their shepherd, and will guide them to springs of the water of life; and God will wipe every tear from their eyes.”

John 14:
12“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father. 13“Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14“If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.

Right?

 

[Riveroaks]

Actually there is quite a bit in the scripture about Christ and worshiping him.

John 5:21
“For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes. 22“For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, 23so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

Rev 7: 10 and

“Salvation to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb.” 11And all the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures; and they fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, 12saying,
“Amen, blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might, be to our God forever and ever. Amen.”
.....
6“They will hunger no longer, nor thirst anymore; nor will the sun beat down on them, nor any heat; 17for the Lamb in the center of the throne will be their shepherd, and will guide them to springs of the water of life; and God will wipe every tear from their eyes.”

John 14:
12“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father. 13“Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14“If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.

Right?

So you are supposed to pray to Jesus ???

That's very Protestant indeed.

 

[Cable]

So you are supposed to pray to Jesus ???

That's very Protestant indeed.

You believe in the trinity understanding of God, right?
Catholic or Protestant are man made designations we give ourselves and fall short of God.
These are our golden calves to some degree I think, and get between us and God, and truth.

 

[ludin]

You believe in the trinity understanding of God, right?
Catholic or Protestant are man made designations we give ourselves and fall short of God.
These are our golden calves to some degree I think, and get between us and God, and truth.

If he is catholic then he should.

of course catholics also pray to the saints and to mary not sure why that is but they do.
I see no point in praying to them when Jesus taught us how to pray and exactly who we should pray to.

 

[laska]

Blah blah blah. Ludin, riveroaks, I'm tired of debating with you guys. We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Riveroaks]

You believe in the trinity understanding of God, right?
Catholic or Protestant are man made designations we give ourselves and fall short of God.
These are our golden calves to some degree I think, and get between us and God, and truth.

Trinity was invented by the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.

You'll never find it anywhere in the Hebrew Old nor in the Greek New Testaments.

It is the opposite of Arianism.

It's ok to believe in extra-Biblical doctrines if you want, but I think you should know where they each originally came from.

St. Mary was just Mother Mary in the Greek New Testament and during apostolic times.

Her status of veneration was elevated sometime after the times of Eusebius because he never mentions anything like that at all. In her case, the Eastern Orthodox have a lovely tradition of her and about why.

There are lots of example.

However I thought this thread was about Smith and Young and how they pilfered Freemasonry to build a clandestine Masonic church which filled itself with lots of sheeple who believe anything and everything that Smith and Young told them, combined with the Hebrew calendar about some kind of numerology that is supposed to justify it all ??

 

[ludin]

Blah blah blah. Ludin, riveroaks, I'm tired of debating with you guys. We'll have to agree to disagree.

it isn't agree to disagree. you simply refuse to see the facts that are presented.
that is the problem. I have no disagreement at all with the truth of scripture.

the problem is that Smith has some very big disagreements with scripture.
I believe the word of God over Smith.

you choose to put your faith in smith rather than God.

smith was a man and from what I have read historically not a very good person in general. He is not someone that I would turn to for spiritual guidance
given the lack of training he had in scripture among other things.

 

[laska]

The Book of Enoch states this about the angel Phanuel, one of the "four angels of the most high God" and who Enoch implies will be one of the Lord's servants on the earth during his mortality:
"And the fourth, who presides over repentance, and the hope of those who will inherit eternal life, is Phanuel." From my perspective Joseph Smith fits perfectly as baptism into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the gate all must enter to inherit eternal life. The living or the dead by proxy must be baptized into the Lord's true church. When you consider all those past, present, and future that must do this, and embrace Christ's true gospel, you are talking an enormous amount of people. Just as Christ presides over repentance and the hope of all who inherit eternal life, the servant of God who was the instrument in laying the foundation of Christ's true church fits here. As it states in the D&C after Joseph's martyrdom, no man who has lived on the earth except Christ has done more for the salvation of souls than Joseph Smith. Below I find these quotes from Joseph Smith fits well with the angel who "presides over repentance, and the hope of those who will inherit eternal life."

While "it is the nature and disposition of almost all men . . . to exercise unrighteous dominion," Joseph Smith chose instead to lead "by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned." 1 "I love your soul," he said to a friend in 1833, "and the souls of the children of men, and pray and do all I can for the salvation of all." 2 Years later, Joseph reaffirmed, "My heart is large enough for all men." 3

"The nearer we get to our heavenly Father," Joseph told the Relief Society sisters, "the more we are disposed to look with compassion on perishing souls; we feel that we want to take them upon our shoulders, and cast their sins behind our backs." 4

Joseph Smith's love for the people grew out of his service to them. "It is a time-honored adage," he taught, "that love begets love. Let us pour forth love—show forth our kindness unto all mankind, and the Lord will reward us with everlasting increase."

 

[laska]

In regards to the character of Joseph Smith, one of the first things that the angel that visited him in his youth told him was that his name would be had for good or evil by all nations. Basically that his character would be dishonestly assassinated by evil men and his name would be had for good or evil depending on the person. The evidence highly favors that this is exactly what happened. Joseph Smith was legally harassed pretty much constantly his entire adult life, enduring over 40 trials against him in the space of about twenty years yet he was not convicted even once, all of them dismissed by non Mormon judges and pretty obvious to those who have studied these trials that Joseph was the victim of extreme religious persecution and character assassination because of his religion. One of the earliest attempt at character assassination of Joseph, and the one that has been the primary source of Joseph's character by anti-Mormons ever since, comes from affidavits to his character from people in his home town published in an 1834 anti-Mormon book Mormonism Unvailed. This anti-Mormon committee before they wrote the book sent a guy that was convicted by a non Mormon judge of attempted murder on Joseph, to Palmyra, NY where Joseph grew up to get people in the town sign affidavits, that he or other members of this anti-Mormon committee had wrote, that tried to make Joseph and his family look like lazy, dishonest scoundrels that could not be trusted. This in a town that at this time was highly biased against the "Mormon" prophet. A town where the local paper had helped rouse up bitter persecution on Joseph by an editor who stole parts of the Book of Mormon from the printing house where it was first being printed before Joseph and Oliver had officially presented it to the world with commentary mocking it and attempting to assassinate Joseph's character. The title of these satirical articles was the Book of Pukei and they were written under a pseudonym. Back to the affidavits, they basically state the Smith's were lazy untrustworthy people. They are not consistent with real evidence. Tax records show that the Smith's farm was one of the more prosperous farms in the neighborhood, quotes from non Mormon neighbors state the Smith's were very hard working and that they were the best family in the neighborhood at helping and consoling people who were sick, and quotes from those that knew Joseph and his family the best paint an entirely different picture than what the affidavits do. It is revealing that those that try and ruin Joseph's reputation are the ones that have proven bad character from stealing copyrighted material and printing it without approval to a man convicted of trying to kill Joseph creating the affidavits and these affidavits have many proven false statements in them. But this was all foretold years earlier by the angel that visited the young Joseph. To try and character assassinate the Lord's true servants is nothings new and was foretold by Christ:



Mathew5:

11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.



12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

 

[CLAX1911]

I am sorry laska but anybody that claims secret knowledge is dabbling in the occult by definition. These ridiculous claims that Joseph Smith used magic rocks to decipher from imaginary tablets he dug up in the wilderness is ridiculous. God speaks to all his people. He doesn't request secrecy. So Joseph Smith's failure to produce the actual tablets he claimed were the third testament, makes him a charlatan.

I'm sorry I mean no disrespect, MMormonism appears to be a complete scam not quite on the order of scientology but similar to other cults such as JWs