I’m not really looking to spark some intense debate. I’m just thinking of things like:
The Old Testament says god is unchanging and won’t change his mind, but then he creates the New Covenant…hmmmm.
The New Covenant fulfills His Promise…no changing of the mind
Historical inaccuracies in the bible. But that’s a whole different argument in itself, lets just use the fact that Egypt seems to have no record of any type of exodus, let alone Jewish rulers, in their own historical records.
Historical inaccuracies are a matter of record and who writes the record. That is a far cry from the complete lack of evidence of anything in the B of M Strike 2
Mary was never predicted to be a virgin by the prophets who wrote the Old Testament, she was simply described as a “young woman” in the original language, I believe.
So, if I predict overcast skies tomorrow, is my prediction wrong because it also rains? No. Strike 3
And, I’d also say the Jews have a pretty good argument for remaining Jews, considering Jesus didn’t really meet the exact criteria for being the messiah at the time.
Whose criteria? Jews or God’s? Strike 4
Now, it’s very likely that basically everybody on this website will disagree with these statements, and I’m not looking for a big debate. I’m simply pointing out that a lot of religious history is up for interpretation and has different points of view, so there’s no point in being all high and mighty about how you’re better than Mormans, because there are many common arguments and debatable facts about Christianity as a whole. That’s not even counting the crusades and corrupt years the church had a few hundred years ago.
Your point is not only incorrect, it is misplaced.
(Also, as a disclaimer, I basically agree that the Mormon faith is very shaky, I’m just argueing against OP’s attitude)
Attitude? We have had discussions on every one of the points I made. Since the Mormons failed on each point, I was curious what they based their faith on, apart from a burning in their bosom…
