What does the Book Of Mormon bring . . . .

  • Thread starter Thread starter mark_a
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Karin said:
You are thick aren’t you??!!
Once again go and read (as you suggested to someone else) the link I gave you several times…here it is again.
jewfaq.org/looking4.htm
Click to expand...
You have gone right off your head. Your brains don’t work (assuming you had any). Go and get some sleep. Have a nice day.

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
You have gone right off your head. Your brains don’t work (assuming you had any). Go and get some sleep. Have a nice day.

zerinus
Click to expand...
You have gone off your head …I assume nothing but I will assume this…that Mormon cult has brainwashed you and you are now unable to read the english language and comprehend what is written (perhaps the Temple elders have your brains…may I suggest that you look for them;) ) … TA-TA! Have a great day!
 
Karin said:
majick275-
What does “amgid” stand for? I have seen you use it several times in various posts.
Click to expand...
zerinus used to post as amgid. If you look at his anti-catholic rants under that name youo will see where he proved himself wrong with this own evidence. The blow to his credibility was so severe that he decided to change his name and stop responding to those who know the truth. That way he appears to be a new person who distances from “naysayers” instead of what he really is.
 
majick275 said:
zerinus used to post as amgid. If you look at his anti-catholic rants under that name youo will see where he proved himself wrong with this own evidence. The blow to his credibility was so severe that he decided to change his name and stop responding to those who know the truth. That way he appears to be a new person who distances from “naysayers” instead of what he really is.
Click to expand...
Ah…thank you majick275.
It would seem that he/she has issues with how Jews understand/practice/believe etc. their own religion now.😦
 
zerinus said:
I said that the Jews who wrote the OT believe in Jesus, not the Jews who live today, or even all the Jews who lived in the time of Jesus. Can’t you tell the difference between the two?

zerinus
Click to expand...
actually the only thing you proved is that via your post #70that the jews/early christian in the NT believed in Jesus:D cant you tell the difference between the two?
 
Karin,
When I was in high school I discovered Mormon logic.
A Mormon told me that the wine in the Bible was grape juice and
not wine as we know it. Even though Noah got drunk on wine, here is the logic:
  1. Jesus would not do anything wrong
  2. Drinking alcohol is wrong
  3. Wine was not alcohol
As you can see step #2 is pure belief/opinion

It seems we have the same logic hear
  1. Jews wrote the OT which contains prophesy of the Messiah
  2. Jesus is the Messiah
  3. Jews believe Jesus was the messiah…and wrote the NT
Again step #2 is the problem. Only Christians believed Jesus was the Messiah

Hope this helps
 
Stephen168 said:
Karin,
When I was in high school I discovered Mormon logic.
Click to expand...
LOGIC and Mormons…the two words contradict each other, IMHO
A Mormon told me that the wine in the Bible was grape juice and
not wine as we know it. Even though Noah got drunk on wine, here is the logic:
  1. Jesus would not do anything wrong
  2. Drinking alcohol is wrong
  3. Wine was not alcohol
As you can see step #2 is pure belief/opinion
Click to expand...
I can agree with that
It seems we have the same logic hear
  1. Jews wrote the OT which contains prophesy of the Messiah
  2. Jesus is the Messiah
  3. Jews believe Jesus was the messiah…and wrote the NT
Again step #2 is the problem. Only Christians believed Jesus was the Messiah

Hope this helps
Click to expand...
yes…their “logic” is laughable and a total fallacy!!!
 
yeah, it’s the definition of “the Jews” that is in question in my mind. That sounds like an institution. One would think that it specifically referrring to the sanhedrin or at least “the scribes” or some governing body seen a s having authority to speak for the Jewish people. In the case of the Bible this didn’t happen. Jesus was rejected by the governing body and thus so were the NT scriptures. Individual Jews who believed formed together a new church. The Christian Church. I guess you could say by amgid’s logic then that The Catholics are the Jews. I doubt you would be believed but it’s the same principle. Which is why none of us here believe that “the Jews” wrote the Bible.
 
I think the main problem amgid is having with all this is that he is superimposing a Book of Mormon concept of OT-era prophets onto the bible.

Mormons believe, as the Book of Mormon and PofGP report and the Endowment ceremony reflects, that OT-era prophets (and even Adam and Eve) were well acquainted with all of the intimate details about Jesus, including his name, his mother’s name, the names of John the Baptist and all of the apostles, etc. BoM prophets even prophesied about Joseph Smith being the eventual translator of the plates, and stated that his name would be Joseph!

So amgid needs to believe that the OT bible prophets not only looked forward to the coming of the messiah, but actually knew his earthly name and all the details about him. Somehow, by the time Jesus actually showed up, the Jews had somehow forgotten his name and all the other pertinent details they once knew so well, and the OT records of these details had been expunged.

When amgid says that the OT Jews believed in Jesus, that is what he means.

Paul
 
Chris_LaRock said:
Black people weren’t even allowed into the LDS church for more than 100 years because of the teaching that the mark of Cain was thier physical appearence. This had to change as social attitudes shifted.
Click to expand...
This isn’t true. Blacks were always allowed to attend church, be baptized, and become members of the church. They were not however allowed to be ordained to the priesthood or to attend the temple.
 
oops!:o

I recently got a replica of the 1830 BOM. I compared it to the current one. There were a lot of doctrinal changes made since then!:eek:
 
Chris_LaRock said:
oops!:o

I recently got a replica of the 1830 BOM. I compared it to the current one. There were a lot of doctrinal changes made since then!:eek:
Click to expand...
I have both versions, including a redlined version showing all the changes between today’s (1980) and the first (1830). Since you have compared it, care to share one of those doctrinal changes? I’d love to see and discuss it.

Alma
 
The 1830 one calls Jesus ‘Eternal Father’ and ‘Everlasting God’, while the modern one calls Him ‘son of the eternal father’, and ‘sone of the everlasting god’. This is obviously a shift from the traditional trinity doctrine, to the modern Mormon teaching that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are 3 gods.
 
Alma147 said:
I have both versions, including a redlined version showing all the changes between today’s (1980) and the first (1830). Since you have compared it, care to share one of those doctrinal changes? I’d love to see and discuss it.
Alma
Click to expand...
Alma (from the BoM no doubt?):

The most obvious contradiction in current Mormon teaching and the early editions of the BoM is the Mormon doctrine that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are actually 3 separate gods. This is found in Alma 11:28-31: and I quote: “Now Zeezrom said:‘Is there more than one God?’ and [Amulek] answered, ‘No.’ And Zeezrom said unto him again, ‘How knowest thou these things?’ And he said: ‘An angel hath made them known unto me.’”

A more important question might be: where was THAT angel from???
Click to expand...
 
2 Nephi 31:21

"…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. Amen.
 
Marat said:
This isn’t true. Blacks were always allowed to attend church, be baptized, and become members of the church. They were not however allowed to be ordained to the priesthood or to attend the temple.
Click to expand...
This is an outright lie. Your own church hierarchy issued ‘prophecies’ in the early 1970s that black americans were to be welcomed into your church.
The ‘mark of Cain’ was whitewashed (irony of ironies) to be a mark on one’s soul.
You Mormons are always acting like your magic, talking chameleon of Joseph Smith days: changing stories, changing ‘scripture,’ changing views to get the ignorant and the gullible.
 
I was LDS when this happened. I remember my uncle, who was a bishop at the time was LIVID b/c he heard about it on the eveining news before the church heirarchy bothered to inform local leaders. A bishop in the LDS church is equivalent to the pastor.

Not much time to expound-- gotta go look for Kolob with my telescope.
 
This is similar to the JW change surrounding the 1914 issue. Charles Russell set it as the date the world would end in his book ‘the time is at hand’ (1908 edition). Now, they say that 1914 is when Christ began his invisible rule in the Heavens.:rolleyes:
 
mark_a said:
. . . . .that is morally superior to the bible?
Click to expand...
Nothing.

It has been shown to have plagiarized whole chapters from the KJV Isaiah and a minor novel called The Hebrews by a minister from Connecticut.

The Book of Mormon is a fraud that the Mormon hierarchy has been working ferverishly to rewrite (they call it ‘clarification’) to fit mainstream Christianity. Their doctrines about multiple gods and Jesus and Satan being ‘spirit brothers’ shows them for the non-Christian sect they are.

Sure, they’re nice people. Most of us were raised in our parents’ beliefs. However, as adults who inquire and ask the hard questions…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top