Mormons (or church of latter-day saints)

Zombrex · 05-02-2009 11:13AM

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Actually not. Anything past the flood, or Genesis 15 has been shown to be historically accurate. Archaelogy supports the accounts.

Depends what you mean by "supports the accounts"

For example Exodus talks about the Jews in Egypt, how Moses became their leader, freed his people and lead them north.

From a historical point of view we are pretty much sure Egypt did exist. So that is something I guess. :rolleyes:

The Mormons could say historical accounts confirm there was an American continent.

By the way, are you saying that you don't believe in the Flood as described in the Bible? If you do then what is the difference between believing in that and believing in the stories of the Book of Moromon? There is zero historical evidence that a Biblical Flood happened, and tons that it didn't. Doesn't stop millions of Christians taking it as valid history.

Nodin · 05-02-2009 11:29AM

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Actually not. Anything past the flood, or Genesis 15 has been shown to be historically accurate. Archaelogy supports the accounts..

In brief - theres no evidence for King David as he's described in the Bible, likewise the Biblical version of Solomon. There in all probability never was a united kingdom of Israel, but rather two Jewish kingdoms, the northern prosperous Israel and the poor Judah. The Jewish history of monotheism as described in the Bible is not supported by archaeological evidence. In fact, the writing of the Bible seems to be an attempt to create a uniform montheistic faith, with a shared history, thus creating a single practice and cultural tradition.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The NT does mention places and names and all have been shown to be accurate.

In brief - Herod never carried out a slaugher of the innocents. No census as described occurred during his Reign. Theres the problem of Jesus method of execution in Roman and Jewish tradition.

Skadi · 05-02-2009 11:36AM

BrianCalgary wrote: »

In order to get to know God and Jesus you have to read the Bible as it is God's word to mankind. The book of Mormon is not God's word.

Just to put you straight, Mormon religion places as much emphasis on the OT and NT as the book of mormon. They also have other scriptures called the "Doctrine and Covenants" and "The pearl of great price".

Maybe the version of the bible they take is different from the one you read, for they follow the King James version but believe that not all parts were correctly translated. Where they disagree with translation they give a reason which is often a pretty logical explanation.

Do you take the word of the pope as the word of god? Mormon believe that their living prophet speaks for God, so of course they take his words and counsel as truth and guidance as well.

MrPudding · 05-02-2009 12:48PM

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The NT does mention places and names and all have been shown to be accurate.

So does The Da Vinci Code.

MrP

ChocolateSauce · 05-02-2009 06:13PM

My grandmother converted to Momonism when she was in her late 40's, after a lifetime as an agnostic.

South park actually portrays them in a fair and accurate light; they're uncannily friendly (a bit too friendly :pac:), always happy, they don't have vices like drinking coffee or tea, or anything "hot".

Apart from their *new* beliefs, they aren't any zanier than other christian sects. What does it matter if Jesus died in west Asia or South America, right?

I find them to be very tolerable.

Now, the fundamentalist church...they're a bunch of pedophiles.

wolfsbane · 05-02-2009 10:51PM

MatthewVII said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Satan does not want us to think about the truth. Sounds like he's doing a roaring trade then

Indeed:
1 John 5:19 We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one. 20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
That is true - but only if we are talking about the Jesus of the Bible and His atonement as our only claim to justification.

Why is your brand of Jesus the only one worth accepting? It seems to me that the differences between Mormon Jesus and Christian Jesus are minimal and superficial, whereas his overall message (the important bit) is pretty much the same.

You are mistaken about the differences between Biblical Christianity and Mormonism. They are fundamental, not minimal and superficial. A different God, a different means of salvation.

Sure, we share many points of morality - but we do so also with Muslims, Jews and others. If you think those are Christ's overall message you are mistaken. Love of neighbour is only the second half of His summation of God's law:
Matthew 22:35 Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”
37 Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

Unless we do the first and great commandment, all our attempts at the second one are worthless.

Loving God completely means turning to Him in repentance and trusting in His Son Jesus Christ for salvation. Believing in a different God, and trusting in him and our works for salvation, is not Biblical religion.

wolfsbane · 05-02-2009 11:10PM

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Now, the fundamentalist church...they're a bunch of pedophiles.

Really? You have the statistics to justify that assertion? A comparison of the Fundamentalist churches with Liberal churches, the Roman Catholic and with the Mormon?

We are well aware of the RC figures, and I hear of the occasional fundamentalist, but I have never heard it to be widespread among them.

Here's a bit on paedophilia and Mormonism - seems they share more than just infallibility and a sacred priesthood with Roman Catholicism:
http://nowscape.com/atheism/mo_pedophile.htm

Zombrex · 05-02-2009 11:38PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

Loving God completely means turning to Him in repentance and trusting in His Son Jesus Christ for salvation. Believing in a different God, and trusting in him and our works for salvation, is not Biblical religion.

i am pretty sure Mormons say it is all the same God (God the Father). they just have more detail about him than is revealed in the Bible

The Bible doesn't actually say that much about the nature of God. Passages such as "I am the alpha and omega" can be interpreted in various different ways.

All this stuff about God being outside of time and existing outside of the universe are all modern interpretations of what these Bible passages mean. The Mormons aren't really any different, they are interpreting these passages as Christians do .

Mormon wrote:

When the scriptures refer to Alpha and Omega, they are, "we" (Latter-Day Saints) believe they are speaking of Jesus Christ. God (the Father) DID create the heavens and the earth. But he did so (as the owner) by his son (Jesus Christ, who premortally was known as the great Jehovah, and was the "general contractor", so to speak, in the creation of the world. (So, if you will, "both" created it). God the Father ordered the creation, and Jesus Christ executed it.

Just also as promised in the scriptures, the "heavens and earth will pass away", but his (Jesus') word will NOT pass away, but will all be fulfilled.

Of course, though, we know that Jesus does nothing but the Father's will. Again, this does NOT mean they are one in person. But one in purpose.

For example, when Jesus prayed to his Father that their disciples may be one as they (God the Father and Jesus) are one, do you suppose that Jesus meant (taking the "Trinitarian" view of God) that his disciples would then meld into some great (Hinduistic-like) 'Nirvana'???

No. Such is absurd. And, on close examination, one finds that the New Testament often is not giving flowering language in regards to what is said there of the Father and the Son, but is actually largely being quite straightforward.

BrianCalgary · 06-02-2009 04:08PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Depends what you mean by "supports the accounts"

For example Exodus talks about the Jews in Egypt, how Moses became their leader, freed his people and lead them north.

From a historical point of view we are pretty much sure Egypt did exist. So that is something I guess. :rolleyes:

The Mormons could say historical accounts confirm there was an American continent.

Wicknoght unfortunately you repeatedly show ignorance of hirstorical fact.

Historically there was a group of paople referred to as the habiru who came out of Egeypt crossed the Sinai and settled in the region west of teh Jordan, conquering as they went.

And yes there is evidence to show that.

BrianCalgary · 06-02-2009 04:10PM

MrPudding wrote: »

So does The Da Vinci Code.

MrP

Nope, read up on teh Davinci code there is nothing to show the any organisation exists today that derived from teh Knights Templar in order to preserve the Holy Grail. The Priory of Sion was something taht was made up in teh late 50's.

BrianCalgary · 06-02-2009 04:21PM

Nodin wrote: »

In brief - Herod never carried out a slaugher of the innocents. No census as described occurred during his Reign. Theres the problem of Jesus method of execution in Roman and Jewish tradition.

The slaughter as you described it would have been a few children killed as Bethlehem was quite small at that time.
And for Herod to have committed such a crime would not have been out of the orinary.

Yes there was a census. It occured during the reign of Herod, who died in 4 BC and when Quirinius was of Syria and Galicai from 11 BC. I know you going to get jumpy and say , but wait, Quirinius didnt start ruling until 6 AD. It has been discovered that there was another Quirinius who began ruling in 11 BC.

What is the problem between Roman execution and Jewish tradition that you are speaking of?

BrianCalgary · 06-02-2009 04:26PM

Skadi wrote: »

Just to put you straight, Mormon religion places as much emphasis on the OT and NT as the book of mormon. They also have other scriptures called the "Doctrine and Covenants" and "The pearl of great price".

Maybe the version of the bible they take is different from the one you read, for they follow the King James version but believe that not all parts were correctly translated. Where they disagree with translation they give a reason which is often a pretty logical explanation.

Do you take the word of the pope as the word of god? Mormon believe that their living prophet speaks for God, so of course they take his words and counsel as truth and guidance as well.

I am very well aware of all the books that Mormons use. I live in the heartland of Mormonism in Canada.

They use the KJV and claim it is not translated properly, no big deal, I agreew with them. More modern translations as translated form teh original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic are very accurate.

The explanation may be sound logical but they aren't.

Why would you ask if I take the word of the Pope as the word of God? I don't. Never have and never will. I take the Word of God as being teh Word of God (The Bible).

You make this statement:
Mormon believe that their living prophet speaks for God, so of course they take his words and counsel as truth and guidance as well.

The Bible tells us to test all against the Word of God to determine whether or not someone is a false prophet. The Mormon prophets havd contradicted teh Biblr and therefore have failed this test. The Mormon Church is led by false prophets.

BrianCalgary · 06-02-2009 04:28PM

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

My grandmother converted to Momonism when she was in her late 40's, after a lifetime as an agnostic.

South park actually portrays them in a fair and accurate light; they're uncannily friendly (a bit too friendly :pac:), always happy, they don't have vices like drinking coffee or tea, or anything "hot".

Apart from their *new* beliefs, they aren't any zanier than other christian sects. What does it matter if Jesus died in west Asia or South America, right?

I find them to be very tolerable.

Now, the fundamentalist church...they're a bunch of pedophiles.

They do drink tea and coffee and drink coke.

What does it matter if he where Jesus died? it is a matter of truth.

BrianCalgary · 06-02-2009 04:31PM

Wicknight wrote: »

The Bible doesn't actually say that much about the nature of God. Passages such as "I am the alpha and omega" can be interpreted in various different ways.
.

Wicknight sometimes you show such ignorance. I can't tell you how misguided this satement is. The entire Bible reveals the nature of God.

Please stop it. You are getting rather tiresome. :mad:

The Bible is clear on the nature of God beingthree persons. We have been over this a number of times since I have been on the boards. Or you have conveniently ignored all the evidence that shows this particular theology. What other stuff do you ignore to suit your own view?

Mormons claim otherwise. They are not interpreting the same passages, they are interpreting some passages in order to suit their point of view. Something I would say makes you a kin.

ChocolateSauce · 06-02-2009 04:53PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

Really? You have the statistics to justify that assertion? A comparison of the Fundamentalist churches with Liberal churches, the Roman Catholic and with the Mormon?

We are well aware of the RC figures, and I hear of the occasional fundamentalist, but I have never heard it to be widespread among them.

Here's a bit on paedophilia and Mormonism - seems they share more than just infallibility and a sacred priesthood with Roman Catholicism:
http://nowscape.com/atheism/mo_pedophile.htm

The fundamentalist Church of Latter-day saints, aka the Fundamentalist branch of Mormons, practice polygamy, and are infamous for regularly marrying off girls under 18, sometimes as young as 13 or 14, to much, much older men, frequently uncles or cousins.

Brian wrote:

They do drink tea and coffee and drink coke.

What does it matter if he where Jesus died? it is a matter of truth.

Strict Mormons do not drink anything "hot". This can be widely interpreted to mean anything which burns (like alcohol), and since coffee and tea are usually served hot, they extend this definition to include any stimulant found in hot drinks, like caffeine, which is found in coke. This is all according to my Mormon family members (all 3 of then).

As for where Jesus died and does it matter, that is a theological argument which I don't really care to address in detail. I'll just state that I don't think Jesus, if he existed, should matter.

MrPudding · 06-02-2009 04:53PM

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Nope, read up on teh Davinci code there is nothing to show the any organisation exists today that derived from teh Knights Templar in order to preserve the Holy Grail. The Priory of Sion was something taht was made up in teh late 50's.

I think, unsurprisingly, you are missing the point somewhat, though you also sort of make my point.

You said this:

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The NT does mention places and names and all have been shown to be accurate.

I then said so does the Da Vinci Code, and it does, it mentions Paris & London, to name but two. It also mentions several people that we know, historically existed. The point being, just because you get a few historical names and places right does not mean the book is "The Truth (TM)"

And besides, is there some some debate as to just how historically accurate the NT is? Obviously the people raising these doubts are unlikely to have "hearts filled with the holy spirit (TM)" but it is still not 100% in favour of it being accurate.

MrP

BrianCalgary · 06-02-2009 05:46PM

MrPudding wrote: »

I think, unsurprisingly, you are missing the point somewhat, though you also sort of make my point.

I then said so does the Da Vinci Code, and it does, it mentions Paris & London, to name but two. It also mentions several people that we know, historically existed. The point being, just because you get a few historical names and places right does not mean the book is "The Truth (TM)"

And besides, is there some some debate as to just how historically accurate the NT is? Obviously the people raising these doubts are unlikely to have "hearts filled with the holy spirit (TM)" but it is still not 100% in favour of it being accurate.

MrP

I understand yoour point, thanks for the clarification.

However, there is plenty within teh Da Vinci Code that is not accurate. Whereas in the NT at least, all the events spoken of that can be determined through archaeology have been discovered to be higly accurate.

Hence, if the author is accurate on those points that have been shown to be accurate it is surmised, not just with teh Bible but any document, that a credibility has been established and the author is indeed being truthful.

To give a point, wicknight has read so much into the article on the nurse being disciplined and has stated so much in error on what the Bible and history says that he has lost all credibility on aything in my books. I just do not believe a word he says anymore.

BrianCalgary · 06-02-2009 05:50PM

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

The fundamentalist Church of Latter-day saints, aka the Fundamentalist branch of Mormons, practice polygamy, and are infamous for regularly marrying off girls under 18, sometimes as young as 13 or 14, to much, much older men, frequently uncles or cousins. .

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Strict Mormons do not drink anything "hot". This can be widely interpreted to mean anything which burns (like alcohol), and since coffee and tea are usually served hot, they extend this definition to include any stimulant found in hot drinks, like caffeine, which is found in coke. This is all according to my Mormon family members (all 3 of then). .

I understand that, yet the number of strict Mormons on such topics is not I would say that high.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

As for where Jesus died and does it matter, that is a theological argument which I don't really care to address in detail. I'll just state that I don't think Jesus, if he existed, should matter.

It nmatters hugely and hits my points on Mormonism, they do not know who Jesus is. Where and how hHe died is not theology but history.

Rev Hellfire · 06-02-2009 06:08PM

BrianCalgary wrote: »

However, there is plenty within teh Da Vinci Code that is not accurate. Whereas in the NT at least, all the events spoken of that can be determined through archaeology have been discovered to be higly accurate.

Hence, if the author is accurate on those points that have been shown to be accurate it is surmised, not just with teh Bible but any document, that a credibility has been established and the author is indeed being truthful.

That's not strictly true, surely the NT is not important as a historical text book, but rather as a document detailing the life and teaching of jesus.
Just as the Da Vinci Code's important elements aren't the historical references it contains but the story of the main players in its narrative, the history it includes is window dressing. Interesting yes, but secondary to the main story.

Likewise with the NT (and Old), you'd expect there to be some historical ties to events at the time of its writing or events it references. But its the main player Jesus that matters.

I'm not aware of any verifiable evidence concerning the acts that Jesus performed.

Zombrex · 06-02-2009 06:23PM

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Wicknight sometimes you show such ignorance. I can't tell you how misguided this satement is. The entire Bible reveals the nature of God.

The entire Bible?? That is just nonsense hyperbole. It is like saying the entire works of Shakespeare reveal his love of humanity. :rolleyes:

What is God made of. Where does he exist. What does the Bible mean when it says God "created" the universe. How does God think. What does time appear like to God.

etc etc etc

None of these questions are answered in the Bible. The Mormons religion has expanded on some of the nature of God through newer interpretation. You guys say that can't work because of the framework you have developed from interpretation, not because of what the Bible actually says.

Both Christians and Mormons are trying to figure out what it means when the Bible refers to God as "one" in some parts and plural or as multiple entities, in other parts.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The Bible is clear on the nature of God beingthree persons.

The Bible is as clear as mud though on what that actually means. Three entities are mentioned (the father, the son, the holy spirit), but it was early Christians who were left to figure out what that means, and came up with the doctrine of the Trinity (a word never mentioned in the Bible)

Zombrex · 06-02-2009 06:31PM

BrianCalgary wrote: »

However, there is plenty within teh Da Vinci Code that is not accurate. Whereas in the NT at least, all the events spoken of that can be determined through archaeology have been discovered to be higly accurate.

That is nonsense. Hardly any of the events described in the New Testament are verified through archaeology, and quite a few are contradicted by historical records.

If you think the New Testament has been verified as more accurate than the Da Vinci Code, the latest Sex and the City movie (yes New York existed, and it was hard for single women), you are very very much mistaken.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

To give a point, wicknight has read so much into the article on the nurse being disciplined and has stated so much in error on what the Bible and history says that he has lost all credibility on aything in my books. I just do not believe a word he says anymore.

You never believed a word I said Brain, and that is hardly surprising when you come out with nonsense like what you have said above.

Nodin · 06-02-2009 06:50PM

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Wicknoght unfortunately you repeatedly show ignorance of hirstorical fact.

Historically there was a group of paople referred to as the habiru who came out of Egeypt crossed the Sinai and settled in the region west of teh Jordan, conquering as they went.

Theres no evidence for a massive Jewish slave population in Egypt in that period (or any other, for that matter). Nor is there any evidence for the fighting between the Caananites and the Israelites as described in the Bible.

The slaughter as you described it would have been a few children killed as Bethlehem was quite small at that time.
And for Herod to have committed such a crime would not have been out of the orinary.

There is no record of it outside one Gospel, as far as I recall. In addition, and in connection with the census, its highly unlikely that there was any requirement to travel to Bethlehem, thus further undermining the idea.

BrianCalgary · 06-02-2009 08:02PM

Wicknight wrote: »

That is nonsense. Hardly any of the events described in the New Testament are verified through archaeology, and quite a few are contradicted by historical records.

If you think the New Testament has been verified as more accurate than the Da Vinci Code, the latest Sex and the City movie (yes New York existed, and it was hard for single women), you are very very much mistaken.

Wicknight you are so full of nonsense it amazes me. :mad: They think themselves wise yet they are fools.

Almost all of the events and places in the NT have been verified through archaelogical finds.

Name one that hasn't?

BrianCalgary · 06-02-2009 08:09PM

Nodin wrote: »

Theres no evidence for a massive Jewish slave population in Egypt in that period (or any other, for that matter). Nor is there any evidence for the fighting between the Caananites and the Israelites as described in the Bible.

There is no record of it outside one Gospel, as far as I recall. In addition, and in connection with the census, its highly unlikely that there was any requirement to travel to Bethlehem, thus further undermining the idea.

Oh my goodness:

Gaius Vibius Maximus, Prefect of Egypt:
Seeing that the time has come for the house to house census, it is necessary to compel all those who for any cause whatsoever are residing out of their provinces to return to their own houses, that they may carry out the regular order of the census and may also attend diligently to the cultivation of their allotments.

So yes, Rome had census' and required that everyone return to their ancestral homes and yes one was held around 4 BC.

And since Bethlehem was the City of David, Joseph woul dhave been required to go there with his betrothed.

As for the Israelites and Canaanits I dont have the info here with me, but it does exist.

BrianCalgary · 06-02-2009 08:13PM

Wicknight wrote: »

You never believed a word I said Brain, and that is hardly surprising when you come out with nonsense like what you have said above.

Go back and read post 113 of that thread and you will see where you wrre making assumptions and reading into a document to suit your own purposes. I have come to the conclusion that you have shown no interest in seeking out truth. You continue to raise the same old trash that you raise although you are given evidence to the contrary.

To compare the Da Vanci code as a story based on historical truth has been overwhelmingly nonsense yet it gets raised as such from thoise who claim to know?

C'mon. :mad::mad:

BrianCalgary · 06-02-2009 08:21PM

Wicknight wrote: »

The entire Bible?? That is just nonsense hyperbole. It is like saying the entire works of Shakespeare reveal his love of humanity. :rolleyes:

What is God made of. Where does he exist. What does the Bible mean when it says God "created" the universe. How does God think. What does time appear like to God.

etc etc etc

None of these questions are answered in the Bible. The Mormons religion has expanded on some of the nature of God through newer interpretation. You guys say that can't work because of the framework you have developed from interpretation, not because of what the Bible actually says.

Both Christians and Mormons are trying to figure out what it means when the Bible refers to God as "one" in some parts and plural or as multiple entities, in other parts.

The Bible is as clear as mud though on what that actually means. Three entities are mentioned (the father, the son, the holy spirit), but it was early Christians who were left to figure out what that means, and came up with the doctrine of the Trinity (a word never mentioned in the Bible)

Try reading it wicknight. The Bible shows God's nature as being a nature of love.

Who gives a rats butt whether or not the word Trinity is ever mentioned, that is an argument I only ever hear from those who really know nothing about Christianity and history.

It is a word used to describe in human terms what God is.

The trinitarian concept is quite clear throughout biblical passages. Does it surprise me that you can't see it? Not really.

God is spirit, There that ones answered.
God exists everywhere, there so is that.
It means that He created the universe, He spoke it into existence, ther another answered.
Time to God is as folows: a thousand years is like a day and a day is like a thousand years I belive is the quote.
God thinks quite rationally and with purpose.

There answered them all. As for Mormonism bringing a new interpretation on teh deal, they can if they please but it contradict Biblical truth.

Zombrex · 06-02-2009 09:21PM

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Name one that hasn't?

You can't be serious?

Ok, off the top of my head, events in the Bible that have not been confirmed by archaeological evidence.

- The census of Quirinius
- The birth of Jesus
- The journey of the wise men
- The slaying of the children
- Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist
- Jesus teaching and healing in Galilee
- Matthew being a tax collector in Capernaum
- The sermon on the mount
- Jesus in Jerusalem
- Jesus in the temple
- Jesus arrest and execution
- Jesus resurrection
- Jesus tomb (empty or otherwise)
- Romans guarding Jesus tomb
- Jesus appearing after his death

So, to some up, the vast majority of it :rolleyes:

We have non-Christian sources for John the baptist, and we have non-Christian sources that there were Christians in the middle of the 1st century. That is about it.

We have archaeological evidence that the places described existed, but not any for the events that are supposed to have taken place at them. Which is a bit like saying the Da Vinci Code is probably real because Paris exists.

Zombrex · 06-02-2009 09:33PM

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The Bible shows God's nature as being a nature of love.

A "nature of love" ... wonderful, now you can explain what that actually means?

Does it mean God could not be as described by the Mormons? Does it mean he exists in or outside of time. Does it mean he was the creator of everything or just the creator of this universe (does anything exist other than this universe, is God outside of of our universe or part of it).

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Who gives a rats butt whether or not the word Trinity is ever mentioned

The Mormons apparently.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

It is a word used to describe in human terms what God is.

It is a word used as part of a early Christian interpretation of ideas in the Bible. It is an idea used to reconcile various passages in the Bible, rather than an idea from the Bible itself.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The trinitarian concept is quite clear throughout biblical passages.

No offence Brian but your credibility for what is or is not "quite clear" is not something I consider in that high regard.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

God is spirit, There that ones answered.

Wonderful, now all you have to do is define "spirit" and we are all set. You might as well say God is "Je ne sais quoi"

BrianCalgary wrote: »

It means that He created the universe, He spoke it into existence,

So he vibrated his vocal cords and the universe appeared. God has vocal cords now does he.

These are all just words Brain. Your rather silly attempts to suggest that you understand any supposed meaning behind them is just beating a bush. You have no idea that it actually means to say God spoke the universe into existence (the universe by the way is not a word found in the Bible, heaven and Earth are the terms used, that this is the universe is another interpretation)

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Time to God is as folows: a thousand years is like a day and a day is like a thousand years I belive is the quote.

Ok, so to God the universe has been like 13.4 million days?

Except that is nonsense, because god is supposed to exist outside of time.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

There answered them all.

You have answered them merely by quoting back the Bible, despite the fact that you clearly have no clue what any of these passages actually mean.

But don't worry I seriously doubt any of you guys do.

wolfsbane · 06-02-2009 09:37PM

ChocolateSauce said:

The fundamentalist Church of Latter-day saints, aka the Fundamentalist branch of Mormons, practice polygamy, and are infamous for regularly marrying off girls under 18, sometimes as young as 13 or 14, to much, much older men, frequently uncles or cousins.

My apologies, ChocolateSauce, for misunderstanding you. I was driving to work about 20 minutes after I posted that, when I realised you might not have been referring to Protestant fundamentalists. I had forgotten about the Mormon fundies.

I take it this group aim to return to the teaching and practices of the original Mormons? Does that include them viewing the negro people as sub-human? If so, do they actually teach it publically?

wolfsbane · 06-02-2009 09:45PM

Wicknight said:

Hardly any of the events described in the New Testament are verified through archaeology, and quite a few are contradicted by historical records.

I can see how many events in the NT and in secular histories are not verified through archaeology - one doesn't raise a monument or strick a coin for every occasion.

But I would like to see your list of NT events that are contradicted by historical records. That gives much more food for thought to the historical detective.

Mormons (or church of latter-day saints)

Comments