Joseph Smith claimed to be a heretic.

[Flyonthewall]

It has been proposed that it was 600 lunar years between the beginning of Lehi's ministry and the Noel.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=7&num=1&id=170

Yours under the calendric oaks,

Nathair /|\

Ah, I see...that seems very flimsy to be able to prove something true or false. I don't want to derail, so will leave it be.

[ERayR]

Okay, So like I said... about or roughly 600 years before Christ. Man you people just like to disagree so much you end up disagreeing with your own statements.

It was a Mormon who told me that to begin with. Of course it's written right there in the BoM so it doesn't really matter.

I have told you before and I say it again, you are wrong. The Book of Mormon was not written 600 years before Christ. The Book of Mormon is a compiliation of more ancient writings. The compilation or if you will the writing took place about 350 - 420 AD.

[Glenn101]

Okay, So like I said... about or roughly 600 years before Christ. Man you people just like to disagree so much you end up disagreeing with your own statements.

It was a Mormon who told me that to begin with. Of course it's written right there in the BoM so it doesn't really matter.

I'm not sure what you are saying about "written right there in the Book of Mormon". Are you referring to the text of the Book of Mormon itself or the timelines given in the headers?

Glenn

[ERayR]

Ah, I see...that seems very flimsy to be able to prove something true or false. I don't want to derail, so will leave it be.

It's nothing more than a straw man anyway. The writing of the Book of Mormon took place at the time of Mormons abridgement of more ancient records. BLT is tilting at windmills.

[ERayR]

Now consider the Word of God:

[BenjaminL.Toms]

Nephi writes down his dad's record and his. He writes that it is the time of the first year of Zedekiah, King of Judah. It is the fourth verse in the Book of Mormon. It was not written later at the time of the Mormons. The Mormons may have taken the writing and abridged them but the writings they were abridging were written in the first year of Zedekiah, King of Judah. That what it says. You cannot get around it. Nephi wrote his book (as claimed in the book) around 600 B.C. It was not 420A.D. It was originally written by NEPHI. IT IS HIS BOOK. HE WROTE IT. OR AT LEAST THAT IS THE CLAIM IN THE PAGES OF THE BOOK. AND IF WE ARE TO BELIEVE THAT HE WROTE IT, THEN WE MUST AND CAN ONLY GATHER THAT HE WROTE IT WHEN HE SAID HE DID.

IN THE FIRST YEAR OF ZEDEKIAH, KING OF JUDAH, WHICH HAPPENS TO CORRESPOND TO ABOUT 600 B.C.

PLEASE, do not tell me that you cannot understand this and then try and expound on scripture.

[ERayR]

Nephi writes down his dad's record and his. He writes that it is the time of the first year of Zedekiah, King of Judah. It is the fourth verse in the Book of Mormon. It was not written later at the time of the Mormons. The Mormons may have taken the writing and abridged them but the writings they were abridging were written in the first year of Zedekiah, King of Judah. That what it says. You cannot get around it. Nephi wrote his book (as claimed in the book) around 600 B.C. It was not 420A.D. It was originally written by NEPHI. IT IS HIS BOOK. HE WROTE IT. OR AT LEAST THAT IS THE CLAIM IN THE PAGES OF THE BOOK. AND IF WE ARE TO BELIEVE THAT HE WROTE IT, THEN WE MUST AND CAN ONLY GATHER THAT HE WROTE IT WHEN HE SAID HE DID.

IN THE FIRST YEAR OF ZEDEKIAH, KING OF JUDAH, WHICH HAPPENS TO CORRESPOND TO ABOUT 600 B.C.

PLEASE, do not tell me that you cannot understand this and then try and expound on scripture.

Please don't tell me you understand anything about the Book of Mormon until you can actual understand what it is. You are lecturing those who have spent years studying this book and you presume to tell those who have studied it when you obviously haven't read more than the first page.

By the way your posting sounds extremely juvenile or extremly arrogant. Either way you don't make an impressive spokesperson for evangelical christianity.

[Nathair/|\]

Nephi writes down his dad's record and his. He writes that it is the time of the first year of Zedekiah, King of Judah. It is the fourth verse in the Book of Mormon. It was not written later at the time of the Mormons. The Mormons may have taken the writing and abridged them but the writings they were abridging were written in the first year of Zedekiah, King of Judah. That what it says. You cannot get around it. Nephi wrote his book (as claimed in the book) around 600 B.C. It was not 420A.D. It was originally written by NEPHI. IT IS HIS BOOK. HE WROTE IT. OR AT LEAST THAT IS THE CLAIM IN THE PAGES OF THE BOOK. AND IF WE ARE TO BELIEVE THAT HE WROTE IT, THEN WE MUST AND CAN ONLY GATHER THAT HE WROTE IT WHEN HE SAID HE DID.

IN THE FIRST YEAR OF ZEDEKIAH, KING OF JUDAH, WHICH HAPPENS TO CORRESPOND TO ABOUT 600 B.C.

PLEASE, do not tell me that you cannot understand this and then try and expound on scripture.

I realize Taliesin got the three drops from your mother's cauldron that were intended for you, but surly you can do better than this. The first and second books of Nephi were started within a short time of 600 BCE. The collection continued through 420 AD when Moroni wrote the last chapters of our present Book of Mormon.

Yours under the disturbed oaks,

Nathair /|\

[Skywalker]

Hi Ben,

Thanks for sticking around. I was sure that you, like many before you, were going to be a "hit and run" poster. I realize that you have gotten a lot of great answers to your questions, and I thank you for taking the time to discuss some of them with me.

Yes, basically for the most part. I won't quible with this statement for now; however, your book says that Jesus and satan were brothers and that satan was mad when the Father chose Jesus to be the savior and not him. So if this is your official church statement about Jesus then I think there is some misleading going on... perhaps some false representation to ensnare Christians. This is off topic and perhaps at a later time I will post a discussion about the different statements of the Bible and the LDS concerning Jesus; who, what, when, why and how He is.

I assure you that there is no false representation to "ensnare" people of other Christian denominations. We believe that Jesus is the Christ. We preach of Him, we follow His teachings, we hold that He died on the cross to atone for the sins of mankind. You do as well. In this regard we hold the same beliefs.

Now, it logically follows that if God is the father of everything, then he would be the father of me, you, Jesus, that guy over there, my pet Lassie, and Lucifer as well, correct? Is this really so odd of a belief? If you do not accept this, from where did Lucifer come?

Perhaps you just misunderstood me. When I said, "... your doctrine" I meant Mormon doctrine as stated in the LDS scriptures.

As long as you don't put a spin on it, our doctrine is found in the four books of scripture: The Holy Bible, The Book of Mormon, The Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants.

I don't know if you believe it but that is what it says.

That is what what says? I am unsure what you mean here.

It is not in any way arrogant of me to state what has been presented to me as Mormon doctrine as just that... Mormon doctrine.

It depends on who or what presented "Mormon doctrine" to you. Might I ask what aspects of Mormonism you have studied?

Sorry that you were misunderstanding me and subsequently upset.

I apologize if I sounded upset.

If you are unaware of that doctrine then perhaps some study is required of you.

Snide comments are not becoming of you, Ben.

The doctrine in the Bible does not include this idea.

Forgive me, what idea are you referring to?

So whether or not you bring up those things you mentioned or not and claim that we (Bible believing Christians) have the doctrine that was stated is irrelevant to me.

We are both Bible believing Christians, Ben.

We do not hold that doctrine (that we have a head prophet at all or that what he says or any other preacher or speaker says is scripture or doctrine)

Funny, because prophets and apostles and priesthood is found throughout the Bible.... where are your prophets? Where are your apostles? And please don't tell me about a "priesthood of believers" when the Bible makes mention of no such thing. I wonder which faith holds more true to Biblical teachings.

I love and am kind to the people who believe in Mormonism but I do not have to accept any and all "faith's" that are not my own.

No, you don't. But you also don't have to attack them, or be "at war" with them.

For instance my faith is one that is marked by being the only one that is the way to a relationship with the Father. I cannot accept other "faith's" and still retain this one. There is nothing at all wrong with this.

Here's where you run into a serious problem. Do you understand how many different protestant Christian faiths there are? How do you know that, of the hundreds of different denominations, yours is it? For example, are you: Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Anabaptist, Brethren, Methodist, Baptists, Irvingite, Pentecostal, Charismatic, Quaker, Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement, Southcottite, Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox? Are you post-tribulational-premillenialist, pre-tribulational-premillenialist, postmillenialist or amillenialist?

[BenjaminL.Toms]

I realize Taliesin got the three drops from your mother's cauldron that were intended for you, but surly you can do better than this. The first and second books of Nephi were started within a short time of 600 BCE. The collection continued through 420 AD when Moroni wrote the last chapters of our present Book of Mormon.

Okay. the point being that it was begun around 600 B.C. The two Books of Nephi were written then. It continued to be written, so forth and so forth. and it was concluded in about 420 AD. Lets not hash that out again.

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

Okay. the point being that it was begun around 600 B.C. The two Books of Nephi were written then. It continued to be written, so forth and so forth. and it was concluded in about 420 AD. Lets not hash that out again.

What is your point?

The books of the Bible started to be written out from the time that Moses was in the desert with the Israelites (Some say 1300 BC, others as early as 1500 or 1600 BC), and continued to be written until about 100 AD.

It was not organized as such untill around 400 AD, when a Catholic scribe by the name of Jerome compiled la Sacra Vulgata.

[BenjaminL.Toms]

Please don't tell me you understand anything about the Book of Mormon until you can actual understand what it is. You are lecturing those who have spent years studying this book and you presume to tell those who have studied it when you obviously haven't read more than the first page.

By the way your posting sounds extremely juvenile or extremly arrogant. Either way you don't make an impressive spokesperson for evangelical christianity.

Thank you for your observations and opinions. I have studied the BoM, the D&C(both extensively), the pearl of great price (although admittedly not too much), many of the writings of JSJr and some of the other head prophets, as well as the book "the great apostasy" by James Talmage. I started my study of the LDS church about 6 years ago.

I do disagree with most of your assessment of those things but that does not mean I am less studied. You are the one who sounds arrogant. Did you even read all of my posts? And you have the audacity to say it is obvious that I have only read the first page? Well, I will tell you, from one who studied the Bible for many, many more years than 6, that I only read the first couple of pages before I saw an irreconcilable doctrine of your BoM. It stems from the fourth verse. That's right. So maybe that's all one has to read is the first couple of pages to spot the lie, if they know their Bible well.

[BenjaminL.Toms]

I'll bite,

What you really mean is that you want to bring up the topic anyway even though I don't but pass the blame to me so you look innocent as if you are just going along with me.

No thanks, You will just have to wait for when I post that topic.

I will answer your question though and at least not leave you completely dry.

Zedekiah had a first year.

I am not sure what the "it" is that does not correspond to roughly 600 B.C. So I will have to say that it doesn't sound like that is my point.

Zedekiah was king of Judah.

Where were we?

Oh yeah, I was just about to put this topic in another form to see if you can understand me. Let's take out the word heretic. I think many of you can start to understand and even agree with me but fear that I will trap you and that what I am saying is just a clever trick to make you look foolish. I only chose the word heretic to get your attention. It is true what I said though. But I will put it another way.

JSJr claimed to have a restoration of the Gospel. For there to be a restoration there needs to be something lost. If there was something lost then the Bible at that time was incomplete. If the Bible was incomplete and JSJr was bringing the completion, then he was bringing something different than what was in possession at that time. The people who lived at that time, if they opened up their Bibles to Galatians, would say that what JSJr was bringing was false, because it corresponds directly with Paul's warning. Whether or not their was missing parts or not the part that wasn't missing is Galatians. That scripture was there. And what JSJr brought was new scripture. It may contain some of the same things in scripture but it changes some things. The new scripture that JSJr brought was more correct out of his own mouth. More correct means corrections are taking place. Corrections taking place means that the BoM changes some things by correcting them. So out his own mouth he claimed to bring new scripture or Gospel that had changes in it. He claimed that he had a restoration of the Gospel. He can't have a restoration and not change anything. Restoration mean you are taking something that has been changed or altered from it's original state and changing it back to it's original state. That is changing all day, everyday even on tuesday when it's raining. there is no way to escape the fact that JSJr was bringing a change. HE claimed it. The BoM claims it. It is one of the central parts of your doctrine or so I've heard from Mormon mouths.

That qualifies for Pauls warning. He warned against it. I have the distinct feeling that you (Mormons in general) think that Paul's warning does not apply to you because the Bible was missing stuff. But if the Bible was missing stuff that doesn't mean that what was still there isn't the Word of God. I believe I have a quote from 'Muc' talking about the Bible.

Not so much imperfect as it is incomplete. The principles taught within are true.

I assume that most of you agree with this. That means that the Galatians scripture is the Word of God.

So why would God write that and then allow parts to be lost, knowing He would just restore them, if restoring them meant He would be in contradiction with His own Word?

The Galatians scripture means that God was not planning that.

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

What you really mean is that you want to bring up the topic anyway even though I don't but pass the blame to me so you look innocent as if you are just going along with me.

No thanks, You will just have to wait for when I post that topic.

I will answer your question though and at least not leave you completely dry.

Zedekiah had a first year.

I am not sure what the "it" is that does not correspond to roughly 600 B.C. So I will have to say that it doesn't sound like that is my point.

Zedekiah was king of Judah.

Where were we?

Oh yeah, I was just about to put this topic in another form to see if you can understand me. Let's take out the word heretic. I think many of you can start to understand and even agree with me but fear that I will trap you and that what I am saying is just a clever trick to make you look foolish. I only chose the word heretic to get your attention. It is true what I said though. But I will put it another way.

JSJr claimed to have a restoration of the Gospel. For there to be a restoration there needs to be something lost. If there was something lost then the Bible at that time was incomplete. If the Bible was incomplete and JSJr was bringing the completion, then he was bringing something different than what was in possession at that time. The people who lived at that time, if they opened up their Bibles to Galatians, would say that what JSJr was bringing was false, because it corresponds directly with Paul's warning. Whether or not their was missing parts or not the part that wasn't missing is Galatians. That scripture was there. And what JSJr brought was new scripture. It may contain some of the same things in scripture but it changes some things. The new scripture that JSJr brought was more correct out of his own mouth. More correct means corrections are taking place. Corrections taking place means that the BoM changes some things by correcting them. So out his own mouth he claimed to bring new scripture or Gospel that had changes in it. He claimed that he had a restoration of the Gospel. He can't have a restoration and not change anything. Restoration mean you are taking something that has been changed or altered from it's original state and changing it back to it's original state. That is changing all day, everyday even on tuesday when it's raining. there is no way to escape the fact that JSJr was bringing a change. HE claimed it. The BoM claims it. It is one of the central parts of your doctrine or so I've heard from Mormon mouths.

That qualifies for Pauls warning. He warned against it. I have the distinct feeling that you (Mormons in general) think that Paul's warning does not apply to you because the Bible was missing stuff. But if the Bible was missing stuff that doesn't mean that what was still there isn't the Word of God. I believe I have a quote from 'Muc' talking about the Bible.

I assume that most of you agree with this. That means that the Galatians scripture is the Word of God.

So why would God write that and then allow parts to be lost, knowing He would just restore them, if restoring them meant He would be in contradiction with His own Word?

The Galatians scripture means that God was not planning that.

The warning of Galatians 1:6-9 doesn't apply to the Book of Mormon. We should see what Paul was saying to the Galatians, especially in the verses before and after. I'll comment more on this later...

[BenjaminL.Toms]

Hi Ben,

Thanks for sticking around. I was sure that you, like many before you, were going to be a "hit and run" poster. I realize that you have gotten a lot of great answers to your questions, and I thank you for taking the time to discuss some of them with me.

thank you.

I assure you that there is no false representation to "ensnare" people of other Christian denominations. We believe that Jesus is the Christ. We preach of Him, we follow His teachings, we hold that He died on the cross to atone for the sins of mankind. You do as well. In this regard we hold the same beliefs.

Yes but you differ in other beliefs that put this at risk. namely the Priesthood.

Now, it logically follows that if God is the father of everything, then he would be the father of me, you, Jesus, that guy over there, my pet Lassie, and Lucifer as well, correct? Is this really so odd of a belief? If you do not accept this, from where did Lucifer come?

Jesus is the Word. The Word was with God and the Word was God. Jesus is not on the same level as any created being. Satan is created. Jesus is the Creator. They are not brothers.

That is what what says? I am unsure what you mean here.

Your doctrine, which comes from the BoM, D&C, and Pearl of Great Price. In which doctrine it is stated that what the prophet says is inspired and doctrine itself. So you have to add that in there. The Bible may be what you claim to hold doctrine from But the Bible does not say that what the head prophet says is doctrine so I am only talking about the doctrine you hold that I do not. Know that when I say "Your doctrine" I mean the doctrine that is specific to Mormons only.

It depends on who or what presented "Mormon doctrine" to you. Might I ask what aspects of Mormonism you have studied?

Answered that previously. And I have studied with many of the missionaries and even the head guy at the temple in my home town. I studied with one missionary in particular for almost a year every Saturday.

I apologize if I sounded upset.

okay, no biggy

Snide comments are not becoming of you, Ben.

I wasn't being snide. I meant it very seriously. If you don't know that, then how else will you gain that knowledge other than your own study? I do not suggest you take my word for it. read it again but take out the snide tone you thought it and see for yourself.

Forgive me, what idea are you referring to?

that we have a head prophet at all or that what he says or any other preacher or speaker says is scripture or doctrine

We are both Bible believing Christians, Ben.

No you are a Bible, Bom, D&C, Pearl of great price believing Mormon, who claims to also be Christian.

But Christians are not Mormons. Only Mormons are. I am a Bible believing Christian. You are much different.

Funny, because prophets and apostles and priesthood is found throughout the Bible.... where are your prophets? Where are your apostles? And please don't tell me about a "priesthood of believers" when the Bible makes mention of no such thing. I wonder which faith holds more true to Biblical teachings.

That is an incoherent response. Finding those things throughout the Bible does not mean that you can find a statement that says what the head prophet says is doctrine and scripture. Firstly because there is no statement about having a head prophet and secondly because if there is no head prophet then he can't be speaking scripture.

And I have already answered the thing about where are the apostles and prophets.

I am not exactly sure what the other thing is. I am guessing that you are referring to the verse that says "we are a royal priesthood, a chosen generation" But that is definitely in the Bible.

No, you don't. But you also don't have to attack them, or be "at war" with them.

I am not attacking anyone but because I disagree I am labeled as such. I really just don't care if you want to think i am at war with you or not, so when someone brought it up and accused me of it i just went with it to get it out of my way. So to settle it:::: I am not at war with you or trying to attack you but if you think I am go right ahead. I am not at odds with it. If it's a war to you then I will fight, because even if i say i am not you will think it anyway and perceive it anyway. And if you think we are just discussing our beliefs and what we think about all of the scriptures that are and have been included in this discussion, then I will happily discuss them with you at length (when I have the time).

Here's where you run into a serious problem. Do you understand how many different protestant Christian faiths there are? How do you know that, of the hundreds of different denominations, yours is it? For example, are you: Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Anabaptist, Brethren, Methodist, Baptists, Irvingite, Pentecostal, Charismatic, Quaker, Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement, Southcottite, Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox? Are you post-tribulational-premillenialist, pre-tribulational-premillenialist, postmillenialist or amillenialist?

There is one faith and one way to the Father and that is through Jesus Christ. Paul answered this with: Is Christ divided? The answer is no. I do not have a denomination. there is no such thing as denomination. Christ is not divided. Christians are those who are a part of the undivided body of Christ, of which I am. I do not run into your problem. And neither did Joseph Smith. If JSJr asked God for wisdom about which denomination was correct and God really did give him wisdom it would have been what I just said because that wisdom is right there in the Bible; and it answers that question perfectly.

Now I say this, that each of you says,

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

To go back on Galatians 1:6-9, it says:

6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

I wonder what Gospel that Paul is referring to. Yesterday in my now fourth time of reading the Bible from cover to cover, I happened to come across these verses, and my understanding was made better.

Paul could not be referring to any of the Four Gospels (Had not yet been written when Paul wrote this to the Galatians).

But the answer lies a few verses before...

3 Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,

4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:

5 To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

The Gospel that is preached that Paul is referring, is the good news of the sacrifice or atonement of Jesus Christ, that thanks to that we can inherit eternal life (given that we could not do so under our own power, for that we need Christ). I think we could agree with that.

The Book of Mormon preaches that same gospel:

23 For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

24 And, notwithstanding we believe in Christ, we keep the law of Moses, and look forward with steadfastness unto Christ, until the law shall be fulfilled.

25 For, for this end was the law given; wherefore the law hath become bdead unto us, and we are made alive in Christ because of our faith; yet we keep the law because of the commandments.

26 And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins.

(2 Nephi 25:23-26, written about 550 years before Christ).

Paul also writes about what is explained in 2 Nephi 25:25 in the epistle to the Galatians, one chapter later.

16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

And how did he receive the Gospel? Not by man or through man, nor his vain intepretations of Holy Writ, but by the following method, explained right after Galatians 1:6-9:

10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Emphasis mine on all italicized and bolded scriptures.

It is apparent that Paul did not receive the Gospel by any other means except from God. And even his calling of Apostle is detailed even to the point that only those who understand better the temple ceremony can understand...also found in Galatians.

[ERayR]

Thank you for your observations and opinions. I have studied the BoM, the D&C(both extensively), the pearl of great price (although admittedly not too much), many of the writings of JSJr and some of the other head prophets, as well as the book "the great apostasy" by James Talmage. I started my study of the LDS church about 6 years ago.

I do disagree with most of your assessment of those things but that does not mean I am less studied. You are the one who sounds arrogant. Did you even read all of my posts? And you have the audacity to say it is obvious that I have only read the first page? Well, I will tell you, from one who studied the Bible for many, many more years than 6, that I only read the first couple of pages before I saw an irreconcilable doctrine of your BoM. It stems from the fourth verse. That's right. So maybe that's all one has to read is the first couple of pages to spot the lie, if they know their Bible well.

It may seem so but I can assure you it is just a reflection. It comes from dealing with those who misrepresent what I believe and what the LDS Church teaches then casually ignoring and dismissing others attempts to correct those misrepresentations. Your posts being a classic example. I assure you were you to approach me in an attitude of learning and discussion you would find me quite pleasant and exited to discuss. However, I don't take to well to the tone you have expressed. If you would really like to discuss then please try again qithout the attitude.

[Skywalker]

Yes but you differ in other beliefs that put this at risk. namely the Priesthood.

Other evangelical Christians have explained to me that they believe in a "priesthood of believers," but I obviously should not hold that comment to all traditional Christians. What do you believe about the priesthood?

Jesus is the Word. The Word was with God and the Word was God. Jesus is not on the same level as any created being. Satan is created. Jesus is the Creator. They are not brothers.

You are correct, we believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. He created the earth, the firmament, and mortal life. We believe that every spirit creation is the literal child of God the Father, and Lucifer falls under that umbrella. This is not really a problem, and it doesn't make us evil. All things we do, we do in Christ's name; We preach of him, we believe in him, and we believe in his divine mission.

Know that when I say "Your doctrine" I mean the doctrine that is specific to Mormons only.

Much of our doctrine that you find unique to Mormons is found in the Bible as well. We abide by the Bible, BoM, PoGP, and D&C almost as if one, large book.

I wasn't being snide. I meant it very seriously. If you don't know that, then how else will you gain that knowledge other than your own study?

I assure you that I am very well read in world religions.

that we have a head prophet at all or that what he says or any other preacher or speaker says is scripture or doctrine

We believe that a prophet is only a prophet when speaking as such, Ben. That is elementary Mormonism.

No you are a Bible, Bom, D&C, Pearl of great price believing Mormon, who claims to also be Christian.

And you are a Bible only believing non-denominational evangelical who claims to also be Christian. Yet, what does "Christian" really mean? Is your major problem with our belief about the Trinity?

"The exact theological definition of the doctrine of the Trinity," notes J. R. Durnmelow, "was the result of a long process of development, which was not complete until the fifth century, or maybe even later."

Comparing LDS Beliefs With First

[Zakuska]

JSJr claimed to have a restoration of the Gospel. For there to be a restoration there needs to be something lost. If there was something lost then the Bible at that time was incomplete. If the Bible was incomplete and JSJr was bringing the completion, then he was bringing something different than what was in possession at that time. The people who lived at that time, if they opened up their Bibles to Galatians, would say that what JSJr was bringing was false, because it corresponds directly with Paul's warning. Whether or not their was missing parts or not the part that wasn't missing is Galatians. That scripture was there. And what JSJr brought was new scripture. It may contain some of the same things in scripture but it changes some things. The new scripture that JSJr brought was more correct out of his own mouth. More correct means corrections are taking place. Corrections taking place means that the BoM changes some things by correcting them. So out his own mouth he claimed to bring new scripture or Gospel that had changes in it. [ The same thing could be said of any of the prophets writing after Moses ] He claimed that he had a restoration of the Gospel. He can't have a restoration and not change anything. Restoration mean you are taking something that has been changed or altered from it's original state and changing it back to it's original state. That is changing all day, everyday even on tuesday when it's raining. there is no way to escape the fact that JSJr was bringing a change. HE claimed it. The BoM claims it. It is one of the central parts of your doctrine or so I've heard from Mormon mouths.

That qualifies for Pauls warning. He warned against it. I have the distinct feeling that you (Mormons in general) think that Paul's warning does not apply to you because the Bible was missing stuff. But if the Bible was missing stuff that doesn't mean that what was still there isn't the Word of God. I believe I have a quote from 'Muc' talking about the Bible.

I assume that most of you agree with this. That means that the Galatians scripture is the Word of God.

So why would God write that and then allow parts to be lost, knowing He would just restore them, if restoring them meant He would be in contradiction with His own Word?

The Galatians scripture means that God was not planning that.

I'd like to concentrate on the bolded parts.

1) You claim that Paul warned "against" something NEW .

2) You claim that Gal 1:1-10 warns against a restoration.

3) Ultimately you claim nothing was lost.

On the other hand if one looks more closely at the data one quickly sees were your error lies.

For 1) + 2), Where in the world did Paul get the idea that an "ANGEL" would be preaching the everlasting Gospel from? I thought Christian Missionaries were already doing that?

and...

3) If nothing were lost, there would be no need for an Angel (in Johns future [ Rev 1:1 ] ) to have to come preaching the everlasting Gospel.

Rev. 14: 6

6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

If Christian missionaries were preaching the correct Gospel, then why in the world does an Angel have to come back from heaven with it and bring Judgement on them?

[Flyonthewall]

What you really mean is that you want to bring up the topic anyway even though I don't but pass the blame to me so you look innocent as if you are just going along with me.

No thanks, You will just have to wait for when I post that topic.

Actually, it was an honest question. I have never heard of that criticism before, and it sounded like it was well known. I simply wanted an overview not an in depth explaination. I received an answer, and that was enough.

I will answer your question though and at least not leave you completely dry.

Zedekiah had a first year.

I am not sure what the "it" is that does not correspond to roughly 600 B.C. So I will have to say that it doesn't sound like that is my point.

Zedekiah was king of Judah.

By "it", I meant the first year of the reign of Zedekiah did not correspond to roughly 600 B.C. Obviously there was a concept behind the quotation that I was not familiar with, and I was trying to break down the passage into the different elements that may contain the criticism.

...

JSJr claimed to have a restoration of the Gospel. For there to be a restoration there needs to be something lost. If there was something lost then the Bible at that time was incomplete. If the Bible was incomplete and JSJr was bringing the completion, then he was bringing something different than what was in possession at that time. The people who lived at that time, if they opened up their Bibles to Galatians, would say that what JSJr was bringing was false, because it corresponds directly with Paul's warning. Whether or not their was missing parts or not the part that wasn't missing is Galatians. That scripture was there. And what JSJr brought was new scripture. It may contain some of the same things in scripture but it changes some things. The new scripture that JSJr brought was more correct out of his own mouth. More correct means corrections are taking place. Corrections taking place means that the BoM changes some things by correcting them. So out his own mouth he claimed to bring new scripture or Gospel that had changes in it. He claimed that he had a restoration of the Gospel. He can't have a restoration and not change anything. Restoration mean you are taking something that has been changed or altered from it's original state and changing it back to it's original state. That is changing all day, everyday even on tuesday when it's raining. there is no way to escape the fact that JSJr was bringing a change. HE claimed it. The BoM claims it. It is one of the central parts of your doctrine or so I've heard from Mormon mouths.

For a restoration to be needed, then yes, something must be lost, but there is a disconnect here from something being lost to the Bible being incomplete. The scriptures were never completed, that is to say, there was always another prophet that added his words or teachings. The Bible, on the other hand, somebody had to decide a cutoff point and collect what had been given so far, and bind it together as one book, apparently with the implication that the Lord had nothing more to say or teach humankind.

Now there are other books out there that were not included in the bible, because someone decided they did not measure up to being scripture, but other versions of the Bible contain them. So if there is another Bible out there with more books than the one you use, does that mean your bible is incomplete?

[BenjaminL.Toms]

It may seem so but I can assure you it is just a reflection. It comes from dealing with those who misrepresent what I believe and what the LDS Church teaches then casually ignoring and dismissing others attempts to correct those misrepresentations. Your posts being a classic example. I assure you were you to approach me in an attitude of learning and discussion you would find me quite pleasant and exited to discuss. However, I don't take to well to the tone you have expressed. If you would really like to discuss then please try again qithout the attitude.

You have a false understanding of what humility is. Humility is a character or proponent of love.

Love is not love that only loves those who love it or those who continue in that love.

Consider:

You have heard that it was said,

[USU78]

In response to:

It may seem so but I can assure you it is just a reflection. It comes from dealing with those who misrepresent what I believe and what the LDS Church teaches then casually ignoring and dismissing others attempts to correct those misrepresentations. Your posts being a classic example. I assure you were you to approach me in an attitude of learning and discussion you would find me quite pleasant and exited to discuss. However, I don't take to well to the tone you have expressed. If you would really like to discuss then please try again without the attitude.

BLT quoth:

You have a false understanding of what humility is. Humility is a character or proponent of love. Love is not love that only loves those who love it or those who continue in that love.

Which is, at best, an equivocation. Most likely it is misdirection in the nature of the ventriloquist and his dummy. The ventriloquist creates all kinds of stage business involving the dummy to keep people's attention away from his moving lips. Edgar Bergen, Sheri Lewis, all of 'em do this. In the movie Magic, the dummy explains its tapdancing is so distracting you could drive a truck across the stage and nobody'd pay attention.

Thus it is with BLT and his refusal to engage his ignorant or, perhaps, malicious misrepresentations and his mindless regurgitations of standard antiMo pabulum. And how does he deflect? He attacks the nonChristian cultist upstart who accurately yet charitably describes his methodology and performance by questioning said nonChristian cultist's christianity, specifically his charity.

As Stephen, quoting G-d, says to William Wallace in the movie, Braveheart, "Answer the f****** question!" An ye dar', that is.

[BenjaminL.Toms]

To quote Forest Gump in a fashion

Arrogance is as arrogance does

[Deborah]

To inform you of my attitude it is this: one of teaching and learning, one of discussing and casting down arguments that exalt themselves above Christ. I speak what I need to in the situation to the best of my ability to listen for what the Father is saying. Like Paul who says that he becomes all things to all men. Sometimes what the Lord has to say is comfort and sometimes it is rebuke. If you want me not to teach, I caution you not to hold your breath.

You seriously give a lecture on humility and then spout this?

[BenjaminL.Toms]

In response to USU78

Quoting Forrest Gump in a fashion

Arrogance is as arrogance does