God is who He is.  I am glad He is just.  I am even more glad that He is loving, merciful and gracious.

Justice requires ... what word shall we use?  Balance?  Resolution?  Restoration?  Punishment, even? All of those and more?

How can God be just if He simply closes His eyes to sin?  Especially when sin destroys people?

God demands payment for sin because of who He is - and then makes the payment Himself because of who He is.

And those who trust Him have their sins forgiven and are born again.  They become new creatures in Christ, with a promise of receiving a sinless body in the future ...  but as long as we have this mortal life we remain in these mortal bodies, and they crave sin just as they have always done.  But Jesus dwells within us and helps us to overcome temptation if we let Him.

Revelation tells us that God will melt the elements with a fervent heat. (How about that!  Breaking atoms and nuclear energy in that old, old non-scientific Bible.)   And that God will create a new heavens and a new earth.  All those that have received that new birth will have those new bodies - that do not crave sin.  

God will have restored it all.  No sin.  No desire to sin.  Perfect fellowship - between God and man, and between man and their fellows.

Those that wanted no part will have no part, they excluded themselves.  There was no other place for them, and so they end up in the lake of fire that was prepared for the devil and his angels.  That was not God's will.  But they did not want reconciliation with God, on God's terms.

And that is why I do my level best to convince you to reject a religion, and turn to God Himself, the Lord Jesus Christ, who is willing and able to save your soul and give you everlasting life.

When attacking people with insults and demeaning their religion is your "level best" you might want to take a step back and reconsider your tactics because, sadly, that taints any message you are trying to convey.  

If you choose to recharacterize honest criticism, and care for the souls of men into personal insults and personal attacks, that is your action, not mine.

Mormonism is not Christian.  I can demonstrate that to any unbiased person, and have done so.

In order to do that, I have to show why.  The problem is not with my tactics, the problem is, religious people (not just Mormons) do not like to have their religion "critiqued" and compared to the truth from the Bible.

It is not my fault that Mormonism claims to be Christian, even though it completely altered the nature of God and made Him into a man. Nor is it my fault that Mormonism completely altered the nature of man, and makes him divine.

I don't know exactly what you are referring to, but maybe it is that  I make it clear that Mormonism has no problem with gods that are sinners.

It seems that you want to make that  a personal attack, personal insult... whatever.

The fact of the matter it is not.  Mormonism has many doctrines that need to be seen under the light of day.

Don't blame me for opening up the windows.

If it was honest criticism,  we wouldn't have a problem with it.  

You have been proven over and over though to lie, twist truths, misquote,  ignore actual doctrine,  present false doctrine as true beliefs, and more, in an attempt to slander the church.

Look at the misquote and deception I mentioned near the end of the previous page.

You make claims that "the Mormon church calls people liars"  but can't show where they did.


If you want an honest discussion,  it needs to start with you.  We have shown you where you can find our actual doctrine and beliefs, yet you ignore them and continue to push your deceptive narrative.

Fra

Not so.

There are probably many members who have been around for a while that are reading this thread.

And many will remember the Mormon who came into a thread, and admitted that what I said was an accurate statement of Mormon doctrine.  Of course he had to say that - I quote Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, Bruce McConkie and other Mormon leaders.

And, then, the LDS jumped on him and called him a fraud.  It went so far that some LDS member(s) called his bishop to verify that he was a Mormon.

Guess what.  He was.

And then, instead of apologizing for calling him a fraud they went after him for being a sinner, faithless, whatever.

Now THAT is a personal attack.

What I do is discuss doctrine.

YOU are the one who attacks me personally.  Not the other way around.

Frankly it doesn't bother me, I know it comes with the territory.  I realize that what I do makes you uncomfortable because you have to deal with the logical conclusions to your doctrines and you would rather not do that.

You aren't forced to, though.  You don't have to participate.

People understand where you are coming from.  You are 100% bought in to your religion.  You don't want to hear any criticism.  ANY criticism you hear you believe to be dishonest.

OF COURSE you are entitled to believe that way.  Say what you will.  Call me a liar.  Call me dishonest.

I am just going to keep on making that comparison between what the Bible teaches and what Mormon leaders have taught, and let people decide for themselves.

So what is your point?  Because an anonymous person on a forum says he agrees with you, he is an official church representative and his word is doctrine?  

That actually sounds like the credibility of the sources you rely on.  

So I guess a page or two ago when one of the LDS critics on here claimed the Baptists were wrong,  that is 100% truth, right?  Because someone on a forum said it, it must be true.

I have shown repeatedly the problems with the validity of the sources you use that you claim are doctrine.    To someone without reason, though,  they keep lying and claiming them as doctrine.





What is my "personal attack"?  Claiming you are a liar?

Well prove me wrong.   Show us where the Mormon church called people liars if they "said that Joseph Smith put a rock in his hat and put his face in that hat to translate the BOM", as you so boldly proclaimed.  

Every time you ignore it,  it just reveals who you are more and more.

That lie is just one of many, as I have shown over and over.


If you were truly concerned about being "honest', as you claim,  you would man up and admit you lied.

I keep noticing this thread on my list of "active topics."  Just an observation, but if any of you think that you're going to argue someone else into changing their religious views, everyone is likely to be disappointed.  

I imagine that the original topic has already been addressed by this point.  Usually, if there are still any sincere questions or concerns, they can be taken to IM where the ego plays a much smaller role in the conversation.

Have a good day, folks.

I'm betting the person you are refering to is me.  You said the Baptist church sent you the sinners prayer and again that at an upward game at a Baptist church, your son was told to recite it and he would be saved.  I said reading that prayer doesn't save anyone.  I didn't say all Baptist were wrong.  I am not Baptist, but can tell you there are MANY groups who call themselves Baptist, and they have different beliefs.  Some may say that reading that saves you.  They are wrong.  I know of others who say that if you repent and truly accept that Jesus died for your sins and accept his death and resurrection as the debt that you owe, you will be saved.  Different things.  To say that a sinners prayer being read saves you is like saying I can put on a set of BDUs and now I am in the Army.  There are probably other groups who claim reading that prayer is all you need too and who aren't Baptist.  They are wrong too.

I know that you were not meaning all Baptists were wrong.  I referenced your comment to point out the sillyness of his argument. He is essentially claiming that because one Mormon may have agreed with his view,  It validated it and made it official doctrine.  It doesn't matter to him that several others disagreed with it.  He clings on to that one, like his life depends on it.  He relies on random anonymous internet quotes to back up his claims of what Mormon doctrine is, when it actually isn't.  Referring to your comment was meant to show him, that not everything everyone says online is accurate.  

If he was really wanting to be "honest" about our actual doctrine, and critique it,  it is very easy to find it.  LDS.org is a great place to start.  

https://www.lds.org/youth/learn/guidebook/doctrinal?lang=eng

Ya, I saw that coming. Typicaly anti-Mormon threads are locked when the accusation of cult gets thrown out as it is derogatory to ones religion.  ARFCOM I guess does not consider it a COC violation anymore and has let this thread run its course, Dogface had enough of it I guess and was calling a spade a spade, thier site their rules so whatever.

Sad.

A sad reminder why such discussions have to be handled carefully.  Those who call the LDS Church a "cult" and other such terms in a derogatory manner will probably get away with it.  Respond in a similar manner and we stand to lose.  Be careful to avoid getting trolled.

This is one reason why I've generally avoided the thread.  I saw it devolve into a criticism of religious institutions instead of a discussion of the original topic.

If the Discourses are not "official" and enough support, why does the stuff I've already posted from the Doctrines and Covenants not get explained?

It blatantly discusses people becoming gods, which contradicts the OT and NT with solidarity.

If I report it, there could be another casualty or two from this thread.  At this point I'd rather calm things down than inflame.

Good advice about not giving insult for insult.

From ldslearning.org, with a BYU copyright:

Not according to BYU.

BYU says four sources and the fact they do not contradict support accuracy

Joseph Smith sure taught it, according to those who were there and wrote it down. I'll take their word instead of yours.  BYU seems to be confident with its accuracy, as well.

And as always, thanks for helping me prove my point.

Your criticisms just help me nail it down tighter, and tighter.

More lies.

It's not that I don't care for Orson Pratt,  It comes down to the fact that THE CHURCH AND THE AUTHOR disowned the entirety of THE SEER and other writings.   When an entire work is disowned,  who are you to claim parts of it are not?  Just more attempts at deception.



Look at your exact quote at the start of page 39:

"When your religion told Mormons that anyone who said that Joseph Smith put a rock in his hat and put his face in that hat to translate the BOM was a liar."


That has never happened and you know it.   You are just too dishonest to man up to what you said as a lie.

LIEly

Quote History

Quoted:


From ldslearning.org, with a BYU copyright:

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Do you even look at your sources.  

In relation to you quoting the ensign article.  It is just a reprint of the sermon and contains the following disclaimer:

"This was not a stenographic report, but a carefully and skillfully prepared one made by these men who were trained in reporting and taking notes. Evidently, there are some imperfections in the report and some thoughts expressed by the Prophet which were not fully rounded out and made complete. …”

And if you look at the May 1971 ensign for the second half of the sermon, It has the disclaimer: "Readers should be reminded that the account of the talk was reconstructed from longhand notes taken by four brethren. "


So no, it is not straight from the leaders mouth.  it is a second hand report written after he died and is known to contain errors. It had to be reconstructed by taking notes from four different sources.   That is why it was never accepted as doctrine.  If Joseph had been alive and had a chance to correct the errors and approve the writings,  maybe it would have been accepted.   As it stands,  it is not a topic necessary for our salvation, contains speculation, and therefore is not taught as official doctrine by the Mormon church.

From ldslearning.org, with a BYU copyright:

The King Follett Discourse of 7 April 1844, perhaps the most significant sermon delivered by the Prophet Joseph Smith, was preserved in manuscript form by Thomas Bullock, William Clayton, Willard Richards, and Wilford Woodruff.

It may, in all fairness, be wondered just how accurate the reports of the King Follett Discourse are. In an absolute sense, it is impossible to determine since there is no way to recover the words actually spoken that day in April of 1844 and thereby judge the accuracy of the reports. However, it should be noted that the reports have no irreconcilable parts—no contradictory statements—and it is sometimes quite amazing how easily the various accounts combine. A high degree of agreement and harmony exists among them. There is no evidence that any account was made by copying and/or expanding any other account. Every indication points to the Bullock, Clayton, and Richards versions, being written as Joseph spoke; this fact deserves emphasis. Of all the speeches given by Joseph Smith, this one has the greatest contemporary manuscript support, which certainly strengthens claims of its reliability and authenticity.

Did you even read that article?  It is essentially a student's research paper.  

http://www.ldslearning.org/lds-king-follett-discourse-a-newly-amalgamated-text-byu.pdf

The notes were similar, but there was much adding and deleting to even make things coherent.  One persons notes were written on his hat.

It was a complete amalgamation to try and mesh notes together.   There are still errors in it.  

That is why the church posted the disclaimers along with the sermon.  

That student does not speak for the church. The church itself has said, it is not doctrine,  and contains errors.  

Your failure at logic and reading comprehension are your problem.

The quote you cite and what I wrote above are not contradictory.

MORMONISM depicted Smith translating the BOM - WITHOUT  a peep stone.  MORMONS saw it - on Mormon publication magazine covers.

You are living proof of how quickly a Mormon will call any critic a liar.

People would criticize Smith for using a peep stone, and Mormons, having seen Mormon depictions of Smith translating WITHOUT the stone would call those critics, "liars"  JUST LIKE YOU CALL CRITICS LIARS IN EVERY POST.


" />

Does BYU copyright every student's research paper?

And put it on ldslearning,org?

Didn't think so.

Wow, your dishonesty is reaching new levels.    

That is your proof?

A picture of Joseph STUDYING the plates, in your mind is equivalent to The Mormon church calling people liars.  Notice how the pen is in the ink well.  There is no translation occurring in that artists depiction.



So a picture on a magazine=calling people liars?   WOW!

You claim to give "honest" criticism, but a 2 year old can see your blatant attempts at deception.

Just one of your flat out lies:

"When your religion told Mormons that anyone who said that Joseph Smith put a rock in his hat and put his face in that hat to translate the BOM was a liar"

Never happened and you know it.

LIEly

FYI, Joseph Smith didn't only use a single method for translation.  As his abilities to translate matured, there were times when he used a Urim and Thumim, a seer stone, and at some point he may not have required any aids in translation.

"Smith reportedly told Orson Pratt that the Lord gave him the Urim and Thummim when he was an inexperienced translator but that as he grew in experience, he no longer needed such assistance." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urim_and_Thummim_(Latter_Day_Saints)

The whole "liar" issue aside, the point is that a picture showing a picture of Smith without a seer stone or Urim and Thummim doesn't make it a misleading portrayal.

That might be your conclusion, but many current and former LDS have cited it as just another in a line of deceptions.

That is readily seen by anyone willing to do a google search.

I cited examples earlier in this thread,

Silly me, trying to be informative and non-combative.

Reminds me of why I held off participating in the thread in the first place.

Have fun with the thread.

Does BYU copyright every student's research paper?

And put it on ldslearning,org?

Didn't think so.



On many they do.  

So did you even read the article.   It is far from being "straight from the horses mouth".   And there is also still the problem that the JOD is not even an official church publication.

https://www.lds.org/topics/journal-of-discourses?lang=eng

I knew nothing of these stones before this thread.  Then a month or so ago the LDS (HQ)?? ( I don't know what it is called) released pictures of them and we discussed them here.  In the link you posted it says they were described as being clear and 3 sided diamonds.  That is not what we were shown, those stones were brown and black.  Is that something different?

Deceptions about what? What does it profit us to deceive anyone about what we believe? Do you really believe that what Mormons profess to believe in and do is just a facade for what "really" happens behind the scenes?

I really am curious to know, what was it the mormons did to you that caused you to post after post to accuse us and call any of the answers that some members have given as being "deceptions". You have stated that your own beliefs do not fall in line with the majority of modern christianity yet I have yet see you accuse them or try to tear down their beliefs but like a bloodhound when a post mentions mormons you are there.

This question has always fascinated me after seeing as a kid the protesters/evangelist that surround temple square during conferences, it wasn't the fact the the man I talked to did not agree with my religion, it was the vitriol and hate that was present in his arguments to me as I asked him why he was there. Why is it that most people and religions can disagree with us respectfully when the topic of our religion come up yet others will make it their mission to try and destroy our beliefs?

Those were referring to the stones in the Urim and Thummim, another instrument of translation used by Joseph Smith

I  think I'm about with you.   Criley has sunk to new lows in an attempt to defend his lies.

If he is unable to man up and admit that he was wrong with his statement that the church is calling people liars and instead  actully posts a picture as his proof,  there is zero logic or reason  in him.

Good luck with your life criley, hope it works out for you.

I'll just keep serving and trusting my Lord with all the other saved Mormons.

SLC Tribune:


Statements from others:



The LDS above was referring to the Mormon movie about Joseph Smith, and the seer stone was NOT included in the movie when Smith was doing the translating, according to him.

You talk about Christians saying Mormonism is deceptive?

Talk to some EX mormons if you really want to hear people talk about how deceptive Mormonism is.

Huh...



Smith never acknowledged that he was the leader of a "cult." There is no woman that Smith was married to who claimed it was for convenient relations... What a ridiculous thing to say.



I was warned in this thread for using the word "idiot." No I am not kidding.

These gems came from M-1975 *before* Dogface claims he hit the "report" button... And it was Dogface who was banned... Irony. Dogface hitting the "report" button only got Dogface banned...





I do not want *anyone* banned. Honestly...

But there is most-certainly a double-standard here... And the double-standard has contributed to the detriment of these kinds of threads...

No one should be banned, and Dogface should receive just a warning...

And LDS folks... Use the *ignore* button on the folks not asking *honest* questions...

You are correct. There is most-certainly a double-standard at play...

In a sick way its kinda funny and sad.. because a disgruntles ex-member who has a bone to pick's words are worth more to you than and of the active members here. I really don't think there is a single thing mormon's could say that you would believe due to how slanted your views of us are. Thats alright, continue to bask in your self-righteous, paranoid delusions of what we believe, continue to whip aside the answers LDS members here have given you as if they were lies. In the end you can damn us to hell, but no man can give that judgment for God is the judge of us all.

Amen

Its actually kind of sad someone who claims to be honest can be so deceptive.

For someone that has been shown where actual LDS doctrine IS located, and told what is not doctrine about 100 times now, and still can't grasp the concept,  I don't think there is much hope for him.




It's almost like he is denying the sun is out during the middle of the day, because he is looking the wrong way.

I could imagine a conversation with him going something like this.:

Criley:  the sun is not out.

Yes it is.

Criley: No it's not.

It's over there.

Criley :  I'm looking at the sky right there and there is no sun!

Look over there.

Criley:  No,  look there, there is no sun.

Turn your head and you will see the sun.

Criley:  No, you're lying.  I am looking  over here and there is no sun.

Look to the west, and see for yourself.

Criley :  You are just trying to deceive people.  Look right there. There is no sun.

Can I hold a mirror in front of your face so you can see the sun.

Criley : No. You're just trying to spin things.  I have already proved many times there is no sun.  Any logical person that can reason, can plainly see there is no sun where I am pointing.

Allright,  have a nice life.

"High status" is not "scripture."

I have never held an actual copy of the Inspired Version. Only one I have *ever* seen was on the *shelf* of an LDS College Professor.

We hold *many* things in "High status" including the journals of early saints, the journals of those who crossed the plains... The conversion stories of modern converts...

Many things are held in "high status" but ***not*** "scripture."



Your guess is as good as mine... But I doubt it was a "compromise" solution. Smith himself could have produced them as scripture, to *replace* the KJV, but he never did. Just published excerpts for reference.

It could have been that all-along he wanted it used as a reference, and not a replacement. Either way he never published it during his lifetime, and the LDS Church never had full-possession of the transcripts, ever.

And the FLDS Church has published at least two *different* versions in its history... Besides the small sections released by Smith himself, the *entire* document is not trusted as "scripture."



The small portions I have seen do not contradict the teachings of the LDS Church...

It was never published in its *entirety* by Smith. It was never published as scripture by Smith.

It was incomplete, and unpublished in its entirety when Smith was killed.

You guess as to why Smith didn't publish it in its entirety is as good as mine... But once it left the hands of a prophet, it is compromised, even if it was *originally* intended to be scripture... Which I am not sure it ever was...



He may have "finished" the divine task of divine "translation" but still needed to revise and review... Either way, we know for an absolute fact that Smith himself never published in its entirety as "scripture." We know for a fact that he did not replace the KJV with it... And for all we know he may have only intended it to be used as a reference for the KJV. That is all the limited-few parts are used-for now...

The LDS Church under Smith officially used the KJV of the Bible as sacred scripture.

The LDS Church continues to officially use the KJV of the Bible as sacred scripture... That is not to say that we do not fully-agree with the earliest Christians Martyr, Origen, and Dionysius who claimed that parts were potentially removed with what we have as the Bible in the first three centuries before Constantine organized the church under his sole rule...

First of all, you trying to claim that my positions are based on EX Mormon's statements is absurd.

I go by what Smith, Young, Pratt,  McConkie, et al have stated, NOT EX Mormons.

I simply responded to your comment about being "negative" about Mormonism and claim that the religion is deceptive - and the people who  claim the religion is deceptive the most are ex Mormons.

What you have provided is yet more emotional response, with no merit.  Self-righteous?  That is a person who believes he makes himself righteous through his own obedience.  Like keeping commandments and ordinances... and continues to espouse that position even though he can't keep the law and the ordinances.  Paranoid?  I am not the one having the persecution complex, or having to go after any Mormon personally -  that is what YOU are doing as you call me paranoid .  Damning someone to hell?  I am telling you how you can stay out.  That is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you claim.

You have told us how you FEEL.

That's fine.  I have not been discussing FEELINGS I have been discussing DOCTRINE - straight from the horse's mouth, if you will, and Mormons end up undermining the words of their own leaders.

Now you know how I feel in every creationist thread.



"Christians" lying their ass off to attack science with that they somehow think is a threat to their god.



 

apples/oranges. I see no threat or problem of science .vs God. I do see folks creating discrepancies that do not exist - and then 'proving' their way is better. Like you just did?

We claim that Smith had the same ability as the early-Apostles did... The authority to produce scripture.

The problem... We do not possess the *original* writings of the early-Apostles. The closest we can get is into the 100-200 year time period. The same period that Dionysius, Origen, and Martyr claim that parts of the early manuscripts were lost...

From the ninety-fifth [ninety-sixth] Psalm they have taken away this short saying of the words of David: ‘From the wood.’ For when the passage said, ‘Tell ye among the nations, the Lord hath reigned from the wood,’ they have left, ‘Tell ye among the nations, the Lord hath reigned. -Justin Martyr, Dialogus cum Tryphone 73




Smith claimed that the original un-changed words from the Biblical prophets was absolutely authoritative as well... "I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors."

There is *absolutely* no way that Smith would have known what Origen, Dionysius, and Martyr claimed had happened to God's word in the first three centuries...

But we believe the Bible is the word of God. The saints in Smiths time read from the KJV, and we read from the KJV... As scripture.

The word of God *is* authoritative... As given to the early-Apostles, and as given to the Latter-Day Prophets... Authoritative.

As for smiths, "translation" of the Bible... It was never adopted as scripture, the RLDS Church published two different versions at two different times, and what limited parts are accepted as "scripture" are in the *footnotes* of the LDS version of the Bible. I am not sure that Smith ever intended the book to be anything more than a reference, anyway. He never published in its entirety in his lifetime.



Smith... As a prophet of God had the ability to bring-forth scripture.

He brought-forth the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. He brought-forth a tremendous amount of scripture.

Christ's apostles wrote the New Testament *after* Christ's ascension. *They* had the ability to bring-forth scripture. Smith had the same authority as them.

Something to keep in mind... We do not have the *original* writings of the earliest apostles. The earlies manuscripts we have are into the same three centuries that Origen, Dionysius, and Martyr claimed that evil things took-place with the earliest writings. We do not have Pauls own handwriting. No such document exists. We do not have Peters own handwriting. No such document exists. You can get into 100-200 years later. Close. But no smoking-gun.

We do not have the *original* writing of the Bible.. So any claim that Smith got it wrong, you have to look at the claims of Origen, Martyr, and Dionysius who claim the same-thing (--1700 years prior, and there is no way Smith would have known--) that Smith's claim that the manuscripts were tampered with is 100% accurate.

We believe the Bible is the word of God. And we read (as the early saints in the LDS Church did) from the KJV of the Bible.



If you believe that Smith was a prophet, there is no shortage of evidence.

If you don't believe that Smith was a prophet, there will never be enough evidence... Honestly.

The JS Bible was never published by Smith as a prophet, and the majority of the transcripts left the Prophet (Young) and the LDS Church possession when the Church left to go West... The transcripts were not in the possession of the prophet, and since then -- at least two different versions were published by the RLDS Church. They were suspect (besides the small portion that had been published by Smith that Young and the LDS Church had) as purely-doctrinal for a long, long time... Smith never published it as "scripture" and it was never (ever) considered "scripture." High status =/ "scripture." We hold the journals of Saints crossing the plains in "high status," that is not even close to "scripture."

I have been LDS my *entire* life, and have never actually *touched* a copy... Been on a mission, served in callings. Graduated from Seminary and Institute. Only copies I have ever seen was on an LDS professors book shelf. Gathering dust.

Smith only published a relatively small portion that we consider on-par with scripture. You will find as footnotes and references in our KJV Bible... The KJV... *That* we consider scripture.

Smith never released or published the manuscripts in its entirety, and certainly never published them as "scripture"... When he had published a great-deal of "scripture" in his lifetime, and he was no stranger of controversy. If he was commanded to "publish" it as "scripture" he would have done it. He wasn't and he didn't... He never published it as scripture.

Young never did, either. Neither did any subsequent Prophet... We have a small amount that Smith released and published that we use as a reference in notes in the KJV... But that is it...

What changes did the RLDS Church make? Seriously? Who knows?-?-? Honestly.

You are trying to hold something to an ideal that we don't. We do not, (and have never) considered Smiths Bible translation --in its entirety-- to be "scripture." It was never published by Smith as "scripture." And the LDS Church does not even own the copyright to it..

You are a good dude, and most-certainly an asset to the site.

Most-certainly.

Your level-headedness, and pure-gentlemanliness make you a tremendous asset to the site...

No.

No it isn't apples/oranges. He has made some good points. Nobody on our side asked him into this thread...

But I think the best point he made in this thread is that the *earliest* Christian Church was referred to as a "cult" by the Roman Pagans... Back in its day...

We claim to be the restored *early* Christian Church, by the way...








The funny thing... You did not intend it as a compliment...

Neither do I.  But the fact is that they do it, and behave exactly as he's describing.





And no, I don't lie, create logical fallacies, ask for evidence and then move the goal posts when that evidence is presented.



They say: "Show me one instance of evolution"

So you show them an instance of adaptation and they say:

"No, you need to show a new species forming"

So you show them an instance of speciation being observed and they say:

"No you need so show a new kind being created, like a dog giving birth to a chimp"



Like it or not, people behave that way. I see allot of parallels between those people and people in this thread
 

New Brother Jake!

There's a lot of love in here.

Nice to see that  you are taking your own advice.

Posted by Shane earlier:

"I keep noticing this thread on my list of "active topics." Just an observation, but if any of you think that you're going to argue someone else into changing their religious views, everyone is likely to be disappointed.

I imagine that the original topic has already been addressed by this point. Usually, if there are still any sincere questions or concerns, they can be taken to IM where the ego plays a much smaller role in the conversation.

Have a good day, folks."

This pretty much sums up this thread in one picture.

More like "what LDS sources have taught or do teach today" vs. "what Mormon apologists admit to in this thread."