[Godzilla]

B) There are many denominations of Christians that does not make them equal, nor do they share all their buildings and meetings with each other.

Sharing facilities is not an issue. I can enter their buildings and worship with Catholics, baptists, Presbyterians, etc. I am personna nongrata in a temple. Very useful control tool for the mormon leadership to keep mormons at large in line and under control.

C) Non Mormons are and have been welcome in our chapels and even recently held a meeting in our tabernacle in Salt Lake.

But not the temple – big difference.

Uniformly has a specific meaning and if there is even one Non Mormon that accepts Mormons as Christian, you are being inaccurate, I am being kind.

Uniformly, within the context I presented, indicates that as a teaching of the denomination. One can find lots of uneducated Christians who have uncritically accepted Mormonism propaganda.

As for Joseph smith rejecting Christianity, just what are you smoking?

Pleading ignorance of your own history is not becoming of you.

This shows ho little you have read of the links I have provided you, Hippolytus was the Voice of the Church as he Condemned Noetus for the heresy of saying that God and Christ shared the same substance. The Doctrine is day and night and you are in the dark because you did not read what I linked to you to read. Here, try it one more time.

You don’t have the correct setting, not suprising. Noetus was espousing the doctrine of modalism (to distill the history), Hippolytus defended Trinitarian doctrine. Hippolytus defense echoed that of Tertullian (216 A.D), Ignatius of Antioch (110 A.D) and the teaching of the Apostle John (John 1:1). You might ask yourself, who Is Hippolytus, he was the foremost theologian of his day. He wrote the Definitive work for his day on refuting heresies for the Church.

So you are championed by a Trinitarian apologist.

Mormon Doctrine was published 16 years before Bruce R McConkie was ordained an apostle, he learned much in that time, that said it's not cannon of the church, consider it a really good concordenance on Mormonism, for that is what it was supposed to be, but definitive? no.

Mormon Doctrine was republished with revisions while he was an apostle (most recent edition is 1991). At the time of the first edition, McConkie was a member of the 70, one step away from apostleship (which MD did not appear to affect).

A question, do you use any concodenances, or the internet while studying the Bible? Are they definitive for you, or merely study helps?

Both. Within my evangelical community I accept most. However, I am not a Catholic, therefore I don’t accept all their material as definitive for me, same for Baptist, Methodist, etc. There is only one Mormonism.

The Godhead is made up of three personages:

Polytheism

(1) God the father representing the end goal of our sojourn in life, as a perfected, being with an eternal body.

I represented this accurately. This god had to be procreated as some time prior by other gods

(2) Jesus as a spirit at the beginning of time becoming a mortal at the meridian of time, and being a perfected being with an eternal body by the end of time represents our journey through life.

I was correct here too. Jesus cannot become god until he is perfected, which you indicate above has not happened yet (by the end of time).

(3) The Holy Ghost is a spirit for the whole of time representing where we started in the preexistance.

You choose your words correctly, since by mormon definition the Holy Spirit (interchangeable within Christianity as the Holy Ghost) is defined as a ‘divine substance, fluid or essence’. Again, though by mormon definition, the holy ghost is a spirit child it cannot be a god since it hasn’t been perfected or have a body of flesh and blood.

All are part of the Godhead, all can be called God, collectively or singly, To receive an answer from one is to receive an answer from all for they are so close that they think and act and have the same power. They are one. They are members of the Godhead.

Tritheism (subset of poly theism). I do not care if this squares with your perception of our doctrine, for it is our doctrine, not yours.

It is exactly as I represented it, you only confirmed it. :)

Actually, I have graduated form a four year seminary (LDS)

High sounding, but deceptive. Your ‘seminary’ training, if compatible with other mormons, consisted of a theology classes taken during your high school years (hence 4 year). My equivalent experience – 30+ years.

attended many Protestant Churches with friends growing up,

Attending does not equal study or knowing

While on a two year mission to Taiwan I graduated from a Buddhist monastery run by the translator fro the living Buddha in Taiwan, and I read at 1500 WPM with measured 92% comprehension rate, I love to study religions. You?

That might have something to do with the price of tea in china, but it doesn’t indicate you’ve know Christian doctrine. I have looked at the teachings of Mormonism over the past 20 years, have a copy of the BOM that I’ve read on my book shelf and have engaged in discussions like this for over 30 years.

I know, and Momrons believe more reasons than you do for that statement, but I'll just agree. However, you must admit this does set a prescident for vicarious works, I mean there is really nothing more central to the Gospel than Jesus' Sacrifice, right?

Reread the sentence, emphasis on the last half vicarious because He was the only one who could do it.

were you asking for me to list first Corenthians 15:29? 29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? The early Christians baptized for the Dead, why did they stop?

You are predictable. While there are 4 possible interpretations of the passage (none support mormon theology) Paul was using the logical argument form known as argumentum ad hominem—an argument based upon what men were doing at that time and with which the readers would be familiar. The Corinthians were familiar with people who practiced an immersion for the benefit of the dead. He used the third person pronoun “they” as opposed to “you” or “we.” New Testament baptism would have been referred to in the first or second person. This tactic of referring to what outsiders were doing (without implying endorsement) to make a valid spiritual point was used by Paul on other occasions (e.g., Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12).

Mormons believe in Grace and works, lets not leave out the grace...

Under mormon theology, I covered that with the etc.

Do you realize the bible speaks of God's physical body at in many palaces?

Many palaces??!!?? So you must also believe that god has feathers (Ruth 2:12), or a rock structure (Ps 18:2). In a word, no. The Bible is clear that God is a spirit (John 4:24) and a spirit does not have flesh and bones (Luke 24:39). Hosea 11:9 and Numbers 23:19 clearly state that God is not a man, and therefore cannot have a body of flesh and bones. The apostle Paul rebuked those who would liken the image "of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man." (Romans 1:22-23). Mormon problems circulate around misapplication of anthropomorphism to these common mormon proof texts of ‘god’. This was not the original teaching of Mormonism. In the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants Joseph Smith said the Father was a personage of spirit, as contrasted with the Son who is a personage of tabernacle (a physical body):
...We shall, in this lecture speak of the Godhead: we mean the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. There are two personages...They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: the Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle...And he being the only begotten of the Father...possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit... (1835 D&C, Lecture Fifth of Faith, 5:1-2, pp. 52-53, First edition.) There are no lds scriptures from 1830 to 1842 that contradict this.

Jesus as part of the Godhead was part of the design from the beginning, before any of the rest was put together. he is part of the Pattern, by your logic Adam breaks the pattern because he was not born of woman like everyone else. The pattern is God's pattern he can fashion it anyway he wants and there is nothing you or I can do about it. (except possibly understand it.)

No, Adam conforms to the pattern. Joseph Smith said "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens...I say, if you were to see him to-day, you would see him like a man in form -- like yourselves, in all the person, image, and very form as a man....it is necessary that we should understand the character and being of God, and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity, I will refute that idea, and will take away and do away the veil, so that you may see....and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 3). So Adam only broke the pattern in that he returned to earth again, as he could not bring one of his wives with him unless he was exalted.

Yes, I have an uncle that speaks greek, he speaks 11 languages, he agrees with my interpretation too BTW.

He stands contrary to most other true greek scholars, not just speakers of questionable ability.

There are many places throughout the Bible that can be used to support my claim a summary dismissal like you are now making is common, but hey the gospel is about Change, stay stagnant if you want to.

There is no changing in my God.

So, believe whatever you want, I'll tell you what I believe, you can believe it or not. However, when anyone takes it upon themselves to tell someone else what they belive, or tell others what they believe, or judge them in abeyance of your own commands from Jesus, you can expect a response from the adherents of this other faith and most responses will not be as polite and fact filled as mine has been.

Been there, done that, got asbestos underware. Your problem is that you are claiming that my Christian faith is invalid by invoking your prophets. I have presented mormon doctrine that you have confirmed although ‘fact filled’ has been selective.

Actually, under the Law of the time even healing the sick on the sabbath was a crime.

When confronted by the proper application of the law, they (the teachers of the law) backed down and did not prohibit His action.

one of us is not really familiar with Jesus' ministry, I wonder which it is you say Jesus was either an unremarkable teacher who made no waves, or a controversial figure who had to be killed or he would upset the balance of power.

Misinterpret my statement again. That Jesus challenged the status quo is not deniable. What is also undeniable is that he challenged the traditions overlaid on the law, not the actual law itself. This resulted in false righteousness.

As I am factually proving my points here and you like the Sanhedrin are refusing to see the logic behind my statements (although others can) Wow really good case in point you are putting up here.

Your statements to date are not logical, but founded upon sand as your following statement show.

Like the Trinity that was added to the Biblical teaching of the Godhead that we believe? (The word Godhead is in the KJV Bible, the trinity is not.)

The fact that theotes is used here ("deity") versus theiotes ("divinity") as essence differs from quality or attribute. If mormon interpretation was valid, theiotes would have been used. The teaching of the Trinitarian nature of God was not in dispute until various cults tried to move in and corrupt it. Here in 2008 there is another corrupter who’s been working since the 1830’s.

You mean like contradicting the Made up Trinity thingy?

Only when applying flawed, non-contextral interpretation. But here are a few that I’m thinking of:

Alma 34:36 And this I know, because the Lord hath said he dwelleth not in unholy temples, but in the hearts of the righteous doth he dwell; yea, and he has also said that the righteous shall sit down in his kingdom, to go no more out; but their garments should be made white through the blood of the Lamb.
CONTRADICTS D&C 130:3, "The appearing of the Father and the Son, in that verse, is a personal appearance; and the idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man’s heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false."

Elephants, honey bees, cimitars, steel, horses, silk, and other items that either did not exist at the time or location.

There is only one God - Mosiah 15:1,5; Alma 11:28; 2 Nephi 31:21
Mormonism teaches there are many gods - Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 5

Polygamy condemned - Jacob 1:15; 2:23,24,27,31;3:5; Mosiah 11:2,4; Ether 10:5,7
Polygamy was taught and practiced - Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 266 and D&C Section 132.

Does or doesnot the Lord dwell within the heart. Alma 34:36 says that "the Lord" dwells in the hearts of the righteous.
D&C 130:3 says that the "idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man's heart" is false. (D&C 130:22 says that it is the Holy Ghost that "dwell[s] in us")

Who created the earth? PoGP Moses 2 says "I, God [created everything]..." (see also BoM 2 Nephi 2:14, Jacob 4:9, Alma 18:26-32).
PoGP Abraham 4 says "they (the Gods) [created everything]".

What was the name of the angel who appeared to Joseph Smith in 1823 and later delivered to him the gold plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated? Most Mormons believe his name was "Moroni," as reported in modern editions of the PoGP (JS-History 1:33).
However, the earliest reports by Joseph Smith and others gave his name as "Nephi" (a completely different character in the BoM who supposedly lived a thousand years before Moroni), including the 1851 edition of the PoGP (mormon standard work), the 1853 biography of Smith by his mother (Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith p 79), and two early Mormon periodicals The Millennial Star 3:53, 71, and Times and Seasons 3:749, 753 (the latter personally edited by Smith himself).

These are just a few

The Urim and Thummim were biblically also used for interpetaion, and revelation.

Only in association with the ephod within the temple by the high priest. Never in the context applied by mormon history.

As for the Seer stone, it was a preparatory stone and not a "Common rock" at all Think of it as a Urim and Thummim with training wheels.

The ‘seer stone’ was use instead of the Urim and thummin as clearly stated in my previous post. In fact, it was used far more.

Actually, I'm not, have you heard of word printing?

Then you must accept the extant MS that we have and use.

But you still believe the Bible,

Because of the overwhelming scholarship and supporting documentation that have been preserved for us.

I submit that if the church produced a set of Gold plates that fit the description exactly, and forensics agreed that they were really old, you would be claiming it was a fraud, fake or that the validators were lying, why not, you discount the witnesses who were there.

You’d lose that bet. Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer & Martin Harris were all excommunicated from Mormonism. Joseph Smith said Dec 16, 1838, "Such characters as McLellin, John Witmer, David Witmer, Oliver Cowdry, and Martin Harris are too mean to mention; and we had liked to have forgotten them." History of the Church, Vol 3, p232. Hardly resounding character references for me to believe these ‘witnesses’. Martin Harris and David Whitmer later testified that he did not see the plates literally with his fleshly eyes: He said he saw the plates "by the eye of faith" handled by an angel.(Palmyra Reflector, March 19, 1831).

You should do a little research into the Book of Enoch,

The Book of Enoch was well known during the time of Jesus. It was generally considered a part of the Jewish scripture immediately prior to and during the first century (until it was removed by the Sanhedrin in AD 90). Why isn't this wonderful book included in the Bible? The answer is that Jesus and the apostles never called it scripture. It is important to note that a few early church fathers highly valued the book of Enoch but they never referred to it as scripture. Therefore, we cannot view it as authorative since it is not the Word of God. To simply mention an extra-biblical document doesn’t canonize it. Oh, and this book isn’t ‘lost’, it is available for review.

punctuation and spelling were not as precise and formal as they are now, that accounts for most of the changes,

I have not included those in my count.

the bulk of the remainder of the changes come from the manuscript that Joseph marked up after it was dictated, but never made it into print.

Then he misrepresented the book when it was printed. The manuscript was copied as it was read by Smith. The Lord supposedly dictated the Book of Mormon letter by letter. To go back without the plates for reference and ‘mark up’ means his mark-up were of man and not plates or god.

There are a few changes that have been necessitated by changes in language "White" has been changed to "pure" in one instance that Anti Mormons have tried to make hay out of, but it's actually very simple, read it, pray about it, God will tell you if it's true or not. And that has been my point all along if you pray, these "logical" arguments become moot.

The mormon church for 150 years denied the bom was changed. Here are a few exceptions that are unexplainable without the plates:

Book of Alma p.315; (1830): "But behold, as the seed swelleth and sprouteth and beginneth to grow, and then ye must needs say, That seed is good; for behold, it swelleth and sprouteth and beginneth to grow."
Today: Alma 32:30: "But behold, as the seed swelleth and sprouteth and beginneth to grow, and then ye must needs say, That seed is good; for behold, it swelleth and sprouteth and beginneth to grow. And now behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say that I know that this is a good seed; for behold, it sprouteth and beginneth to grow."

A lot of words for a few grammar changes.

Book of Mosiah, p.200; (1830): "...on learning from the mouth of Ammon that king Benjamin had a gift from God..."
Today: Mosiah 21:28: "...on learning from the mouth of Ammon that king Mosiah had a gift from God..." As well as several other locations.

1 Nephi 5… O house of Jacob, which are called out of the waters of Judah, which swear by the name of the Lord …
Today: 1 Nephi 20:1 … O house of Jacob, which are called out of the waters of Judah, or out of the waters of baptism, which swear by the name of the Lord …

Also noting the change in text numbering.

the book of abraham scroll was destroyed in the Chicago fire when the museum storehouse it was in burned. What exists now is a copy of the book of breathings and a copy of the Book of the dead that were so common the museum didn't want it. Nice try though.

November 27, 1967, the church's Deseret News announced one of the most significant events in Mormon Church history: "NEW YORK--A collection of papyrus manuscripts, long believed to have been destroyed in the Chicago fire of 1871, was presented to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints here Monday by the Metropolitan Museum of Art.... Included in the papyri is a manuscript identified as the original document from which Joseph Smith had copied the drawing which he called 'Facsimile No. 1' and published with the Book of Abraham."

They were presented to President Eldon Tanner, who accepted the on behalf of the church. The mormon church has never issued a proclaimation that denies that these were Smith’s papyri.

LOL! Which God of the trinity are you referring to when you say God? You are funny. Pick "one" since they are "one" to know one is to know all three members of the Godhead.

Again, you show your ignorance of Christian theology. When I refer to God, I refer to the whole personage – Father, Son and Spirit. Trinitarianism is not modalism.

U Said: How do you find the lds website - type in www.believe.org. Actually, that is a missionary site we set up because Anti's wanted to put stuff there and tell people it was "our site" it's a very shallow site which exists solely for missionary efforts.

It is an abuse to deliberately misquote an individual. I did not say the above. My response was as follows:
How do you find the lds website - type in www.mormon.org.

See also http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1950542/replies?c=285

The Google sponsored link is listed as such:
Mormonism
www.mormon.org The truth about Mormonism. Visit the official site.

[DelphiUser]

U Said: Sharing facilities is not an issue. I can enter their buildings and worship with Catholics, baptists, Presbyterians, etc. I am personna nongrata in a temple. Very useful control tool for the mormon leadership to keep mormons at large in line and under control.

There are plenty of Mormons who though they could enter the temple, never do. Obviously your "Control" idea isn't working. Next you'll say that we shun them.

U Said: But not the temple – big difference.

Quick. call a Wambulance!

I can't go into a Jewish temple, nor can I partake of the Eucharist at a Mass, or walk into meetings at the Vatican. The pentagon seems to be off limits, Can I go into Cheyenne Mountain and see the big ring they have there? I think it's called a stargate.

Seriously, why do you care? There are tons of places you can't go and tons of things you can't observe some are secular, and some are religious, that's the way the world is. I am not bothered that I can't sit in on the meeting where the cardinals vote on who the next Pope is, why do you care what people you say have no authority do in their holiest places? Or is it just a point you think you can make hay with...

U Said: Uniformly, within the context I presented, indicates that as a teaching of the denomination. One can find lots of uneducated Christians who have uncritically accepted Mormonism propaganda.

I am a measurable defined unit of measure, therefore it is uniformly accepted that you are wrong, and uneducated about Mormonism, I am also sure that should I need to increase the size of my group to be allowed to bastardize "uniform" the way you have all I will need is to know the minimum number of people I have to add and pass around a survey.

I Said: As for Joseph smith rejecting Christianity, just what are you smoking?

U Said: Pleading ignorance of your own history is not becoming of you.

I was not pleading ignorance, you have a guy powerfully testifying of Jesus, who at the same time says Jesus Said all creeds were abominations and you say he is denying Christ? Do you even know how to get to reality from where you are?

I think you'll like this sign...

U Said: You don’t have the correct setting, not surprising. Noetus was espousing the doctrine of modalism (to distill the history), Hippolytus defended Trinitarian doctrine. Hippolytus defense echoed that of Tertullian (216 A.D), Ignatius of Antioch (110 A.D) and the teaching of the Apostle John (John 1:1).

Yeah, right, somebody needs to follow links, so maybe I'll just include a bit from my page witch has the links.

Some others are secretly introducing another doctrine, who have become disciples of one Noetus, who was a native of Smyrna,21 (and) lived not very long ago.21 This person was greatly puffed up and inflated with pride, being inspired by the conceit of a strange spirit. He alleged that Christ was the Father Himself, and that the Father Himself was born, and suffered, and died. You see what pride of heart and what a strange inflated spirit had insinuated themselves into him.

Reader this is from the first paragraph at this link from my page on Hippolytus. More...

Here is a piece from book X by Hippolytus that I like to quote because as a summation, it contains most of the plan of salvation as taught by the LDS church.

"Such is the true doctrine in regard of the divine nature, O you men, Greeks and Barbarians, Chaldeans and Assyrians, Egyptians and Libyans, Indians and Ethiopians, Celts, and you Latins, who lead armies, and all you that inhabit Europe, and Asia, and Libya.6 And to you I am become an adviser, inasmuch as I am a disciple of the benevolent Logos, and hence humane, in order that you may hasten and by us may be taught who the true God is, and what is His well-ordered creation. Do not devote your attention to the fallacies of artificial discourses, nor the vain promises of plagiarizing heretics,6 but to the venerable simplicity of unassuming truth. And by means of this knowledge you shall escape the approaching threat of the fire of judgment, and the rayless scenery of gloomy Tartarus, where never shines a beam from the irradiating voice of the Word!

You shall escape the boiling flood of hell's6 eternal lake of fire and the eye ever fixed in menacing glare of fallen angels chained in Tartarus as punishment for their sins; and you shall escape the worm that ceaselessly coils for food around the body whose scum6 has bred it. Now such (torments) as these shall you avoid by being instructed in a knowledge of the true God. And you shall possess an immortal body, even one placed beyond the possibility of corruption, just like the soul. And you shall receive the kingdom of heaven, you who, while you sojourned in this life, knew the Celestial King. And you shall be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved by lusts or passions, and never again wasted by disease. For you have become God:7 for whatever sufferings you underwent while being a man, these He gave to you, because you were of mortal mould, but whatever it is consistent with God to impart, these God has promised to bestow upon you, because you have been deified, and begotten unto immortality.7 This constitutes the import of the proverb, "Know yourself" i.e., discover God within yourself, for He has formed you after His own image. For with the knowledge of self is conjoined the being an object of God's knowledge, for you are called by the Deity Himself. Be not therefore inflamed, O you men, with enmity one towards another, nor hesitate to retrace7 with all speed your steps. For Christ is the God above all, and He has arranged to wash away sin from human beings,7 rendering regenerate the old man. And God called man His likeness from the beginning, and has evinced in a figure His love towards you. And provided you obey His solemn injunctions, and becomest a faithful follower of Him who is good, you shall resemble Him, inasmuch as you shall have honour conferred upon you by Him. For the Deity, (by condescension,) does not diminish anything of the divinity of His divine7 perfection; having made you even God unto His glory!7"

So between the time that Hippolytus died in 236 and the Council at Nicea in 325 AD the view of the church swung from three entities acting as one God to one God made up of three manifestations. The diefication of man is lost, and the true goal of the plan of salvation is lost so that it is preached then as a mere shell of it's former knowledge.

So you are championed by a Trinitarian apologist.

Not hardly. You state, excerpt and state, but you never link, I can find excerpts from any sufficiently large work to support any position, but in context the quotation can mean something entirely different. I link because my quotations are in context, you posted a carefully cut section without linking because... well, I'll let the Lurkers decide.

Please note that my links refute what you are saying, I have refuted you with scriptures, with definitions, and with documents, yet you are sure of your position because it is founded on faith not reason. I find it amusing that that is exactly what you accuse me of.

I submit to you that there is no surer way to keep someone from the truth than to teach them that truth is finite and that they have it already. Mormons believe in continual study, It's included in the 13th article of faith

"We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things."

U Said: Mormon Doctrine was republished with revisions while he was an apostle (most recent edition is 1991). At the time of the first edition, McConkie was a member of the 70, one step away from apostleship (which MD did not appear to affect).

So what? My statements still stand so he was an apostle soon after the last revision, that still doesn't make it Cannon, just a very good study Guide.

I Said: A question, do you use any concodenances, or the internet while studying the Bible? Are they definitive for you, or merely study helps?

U Said: Both. Within my evangelical community I accept most. However, I am not a Catholic, therefore I don’t accept all their material as definitive for me, same for Baptist, Methodist, etc. There is only one Mormonism.

Great, Mormon Doctrine is and was designed to be a study Guide for those learning about Mormonism, but it's not cannon, if it conflicts with cannon, then it is wrong, if it conflicts with the brethren, it is wrong. I know of many places it makes factual errors, but that is OK, Bruce R McConkie was not a perfect man, just a good one, who was called because the Lord saw him even as imperfect as he was as a tool he wanted to use at that time..

U Said: I represented this accurately. This god had to be procreated as some time prior by other gods

Maybe, even probably, but this has not been revealed, it is a logical construct just as the couplet, "As man is God once was, as God is Man can become" is. Do lots of Mormons believe this? Sure, is it doctrine? No.

U Said: I was correct here too. Jesus cannot become god until he is perfected, which you indicate above has not happened yet (by the end of time).

I told you, Jesus is the exception for he became a member of the Godhead before time was, thus he is God, from all eternity to all eternity. We came here to work out our salvation, Jesus was already "saved" or perfect when he as God created Time and later, the Earth, big difference.

U Said: High sounding, but deceptive. Your ‘seminary’ training, if compatible with other mormons, consisted of a theology classes taken during your high school years (hence 4 year). My equivalent experience – 30+ years.

2 Tim. 3: 7 "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."

I could argue my credentials, the only reason I listed them was you said I had none (you were wrong) but I don't believe years of study (Even though I have them) can equal spiritual experience and that, I have had, knowledge gained by dint of cracking books is great, but pales in comparison to revelation from God. If you know so much, why am I handily wining this debate? I am making you look foolish, because You make unsubstantiated assertions and I prove them wrong, you tell me what I believe, and I prove that wrong too. This is funny.

U Said: Attending does not equal study or knowing

But having their ministers try to recruit me into their ministry because of my knowledge does. (man you are batting ZERO today.)

I Said: While on a two year mission to Taiwan I graduated from a Buddhist monastery run by the translator for the living Buddha in Taiwan, and I read at 1500 WPM with measured 92% comprehension rate, I love to study religions. You?

U Said: That might have something to do with the price of tea in china, but it doesn’t indicate you’ve know Christian doctrine. I have looked at the teachings of Mormonism over the past 20 years, have a copy of the BOM that I’ve read on my book shelf and have engaged in discussions like this for over 30 years.

I may not be a professional theologian, but I stayed in a Holiday Inn last night...

I have been a Mormon for more than your 30 years, I have suffered the ignorant, misinformed, ill advised attacks from every preachers son in every town we moved to (which is a lot of towns), I have had co-workers ask me questions that their mother would have made them wash their mouths out with soap if she'd heard it. I have been in more discussions like this than you can possibly know, and My faith is intact for God sustains me. I have taught and baptized orthodox Jews and ministers of other faiths, why? is it because I am some great bastion of cerebral knowledge? Is it because I am smoother, faster, or slicker? No, it is because I have been called of God to do his work by the laying on of hands and by the authority he has placed here on the earth, have I done these things? Yes, I have because Jesus was guiding my lips, and my hands. I do not fear your 30+ years, or your paid ministry, I am called of God, I will go and do that which he wants me to do and I will fear no blogger, I will be as kind as I can while refuting your every misstatement about my church, rest assured if I wanted to, I could haul out the big guns, and you would probably cease to respond to me, or I'd get banned or some such, but I am content to just shoot your six-shooter out of your hand every time you draw. Why am I content to do this? Simple, having a discussion like this leads lurkers to read my page. Some who read my page will ask for a Book of Mormon. Some of those will read it. Some of those will pray about it, Most of those will get Baptized. Thanks for helping me to move the work along.

Reread the sentence, emphasis on the last half vicarious because He was the only one who could do it.

Yep, that is Momrons Doctrine too, Jesus, or his servants wielding his power, for they are one... Something you obviously don't understand, for it was lost from the Bible. Here it is in the D&C:
D&C 1: 38

38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

When Jesus gives you a command, he gives you a way to keep that Command, and we have been commanded to save out ancestors by allowing the righteous among them to chose to accept the ordinances they didn't have the opportunity to receive here while alive, thus they can be judged according to their works..

Consider an infant who lives two day and dies, he has Adam's sin washed away By Jesus' atonement, can he get into heaven? No. He has not been baptized, so he is damned to hell by a just God for no fault of his own? This is not justice. God is Just. He set up a way for this child to receive Baptism and thus be free to enter in at the Gate. Anyone who claims to know Jesus and yet believes that he who loved the children so much would treat a child this way has been deceived, and God have mercy on their dry and embitterd soul.

Revelation 20:12-15

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

I know this does not agree with what your theology teaches, but the Bible clearly teaches that Hell will be destroyed and that people will come out of it first to be judged...

This must be upsetting to you to see that your theology does not match with your scriptures. this is exactly what Jesus was talking to Joseph smith about. Many churches teach "simplified" stories and concepts from the scriptures, not the scriptures themselves, that's OK as far as it goes, it's a start. But then to make things fit that they don't understand, they take shortcuts, they have to lop off pieces of the Gospel. and that's a problem. Mormons speak of having the " Fullness of the Gospel", does that mean we know everything? No. I means we have the minimum pieces needed to get into heaven, and as soon as we have them, we are commanded to help those who didn't have those pieces

U Said: You are predictable. While there are 4 possible interpretations of the passage (none support Mormon theology)

Stop right there, so I used an impossible interpretation? ROTFLOL! there's got to be a tag line in here somewhere. So since you don't agree with my interpretation, it does not exist, or is impossible and thus you don't have to refute it? really this is funny! and the whole rest of your argument is just self congratulation on how right your interpretation is, so I won't include it here.

I Said: Mormons believe in Grace and works, lets not leave out the grace...

U Said: Under Mormon theology, I covered that with the etc.

So if someone says about your church, they believe in Satan, etc. you are "OK" with that because they included God in the etc? Again ROTFLOL!

Have you ever been referred to as a member of the "group" Boys, or maybe Girls? did you get upset if someone said there are 23 boys, and 31 girls and you were included, but say over 18? God is a spirit, and he also has a body of flesh and bones, Jesus is a spirit, he also has a body of flesh and Bones. Christians understand the Dual nature of Spirit and Body

You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body. -- CS Lewis.

I Said: My uncle speaks Greek...

U Said: He stands contrary to most other true greek scholars, not just speakers of questionable ability.

I am quite sure that both you and I could find scholars aplenty who support our views, through the miracle of the internet and google, however your stance of "there are only four possible interpretations and none agree with Mormonism" will be just as destroyed if I only point out that it is my interpretation, therefore it's possible, therefore your use of absolutes makes you wrong.

"Don't use words too big for the subject. Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite." -- CS Lewis (I just love his insights)

"I never speak in absolutes..." -- Me <Foghorn leghorn Voice>It's a joke son!</Foghorn leghorn Voice>

I Said: There are many places throughout the Bible that can be used to support my claim a summary dismissal like you are now making is common, but hey the gospel is about Change, stay stagnant if you want to.

U Said: There is no changing in my God.

I said nothing about Changing God, but about changing us, Repent, it's a word for change, be careful that in your rigidity you do not refuse to change for God.

U Said: Your problem is that you are claiming that my Christian faith is invalid by invoking your prophets.

I have specifically tried hard not to "invalidate" your faith. You have been trying to prove that I am not a Christian (which means I believe in Christ). I have been defending that. I am, a man who follows the teachings of Jesus as I understand them, that should make me a Christian. You say I am not, and post specific doctrines that you say refute that claim. You seem to expect that I will bow my head and just shuffle off, muttering, but I wanted to be right... Human nature wold dictate another course. I will of course begin to defend my position, I will quote scriptures and documents that support my position. Since you are the one saying that i am not a Christian, then the burden of proof is on you to prove it. I am not trying to say that you are not a Obviously, I am forced by your attacks to bring up history and doctrine that supports my view which means it invalidates yours. Don't want this stuff aired? Stop attacking. If I were indeed attacking your faith, you would no longer be reading my posts, trust me, and I would probably have been banned to boot. Luckily for you, attacking Momrons and Mormonism seems to be OK in todays society, where a similar attack on Jews, blacks or women would get you (metaphorically) tied to a stake in the public square and horse whipped.

Please Believe me when I say I am really good at invective, if I were attacking you, you would most defintatly know it, Instead I am merely defending my right to believe as I wish without others defining my faith for me.

As my Mom once told me, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging! Don't want us to defend (because you look bad?) stop attacking.

U Said: I have presented Mormon doctrine that you have confirmed although ‘fact filled’ has been selective.

I have no idea what you are talking about almost everything you have said about us is flawed in some respect, yet you claim to know more about my faith than I do. (Chuckles)

U Said: Your statements to date are not logical, but founded upon sand as your following statement show.

Your commentaries are always funny...

I Said: Like the Trinity that was added to the Biblical teaching of the Godhead that we believe? (The word Godhead is in the KJV Bible, the trinity is not.)

Well, the Word Godhead is in the Bible, the early christians believed in a sperate God and Jesus (Godhead), the Greek and Hellinistic influences on the Catholic Church are irrefutable to anyone who will actually look at the record. (Yes, I am linking Wikipedia because I don't want to add a ton of links here, this has already gotten too long.)

U Said: The fact that theotes is used here...<Snip>
IMHO, the rest of your argument boils down to "IF you were right we (Trinitarianists) would have interpreted the scriptures that way while we were translating them, since we didn't you are wrong."

I am just going to chuckle, as this is a self refuting argument.

U Said: Only when applying flawed, non-contextral interpretation. But here are a few that I’m thinking of:

What is the correct context for the Bible? Reading it with the Spirit, anything else is just natural man aggrandsement.


I am going to skip a bunch of blovation here...


U Said: The Book of Enoch was well known during the time of Jesus. It was generally considered a part of the Jewish scripture immediately prior to and during the first century (until it was removed by the Sanhedrin in AD 90).

So why did that stop it from being added to the Old Testament by the "Christian Church"?

U Said: Why isn't this wonderful book included in the Bible? The answer is that Jesus and the apostles never called it scripture.

That is funny, every time Jesus refers to himself or the Disciples refer to him as "The Son of Man" they are referencing a specific Messianic Prophecy in the Book of Enoch.

U Said: It is important to note that a few early church fathers highly valued the book of Enoch but they never referred to it as scripture.

Catholic church fathers? or other churches, funny that the Book of Enoch was used all the way up until well after the OT was compiled, and only fell out of use when everything including the services were moved into Latin the Pope did not have the Book of Enoch translated into Latin, so it gradually fell out of use.

U Said: Therefore, we cannot view it as authoritative since it is not the Word of God.

So it was good enough for Jesus and all the disciples to quote, but not good enough for you, I see.

U Said: To simply mention an extra-biblical document doesn’t canonize it.

To me that would depend on who is mentioning it, and for me, the Savior quoting from it is good enough.

U Said: Oh, and this book isn’t ‘lost’, it is available for review.

You've read it?, here, read it online, I have. (the relevance of the speed of reading thing, take your time, I'll wait and read other stuff...)

U Said: Then he misrepresented the book when it was printed. The manuscript was copied as it was read by Smith. The Lord supposedly dictated the Book of Mormon letter by letter. To go back without the plates for reference and ‘mark up’ means his mark-up were of man and not plates or god.

Joseph dictated it like a story, word by word, sometimes faster, sometimes slower, not letter for letter. the differences of the spelling of words by the different scribes should be proof enough of that for you since apparently his word is not.

U Said: A lot of words for a few grammar changes.

you can see how a scribe would miss that too.

U Said: They were presented to President Eldon Tanner, who accepted the on behalf of the church. The Mormon church has never issued a proclamation that denies that these were Smith’s papyri.

They were his papyri, just not the one from which the book of Abraham was translated, they don't even match the Description of those papyri by Joseph, or third parties.

U Said: Again, you show your ignorance of Christian theology. When I refer to God, I refer to the whole personage – Father, Son and Spirit. Trinitarianism is not modalism.

I can see how you might think that, but you are mistaken modalism is basically the Belief that God just changes form to be either Christ, God, or the holy Spirit (like a shape shifter), Trinity (as I understand it) is the belief that God is simultaneously God, Christ and the Holy spirit, but that they are of the same substance (which is impossible in physics, but hey this is religion...) Where the Godhead is the belief that God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are separate spirits and that God and Jesus now possess physical immortal bodies, but are so in tune with each other that they are one in heart might mind and strength. Of these three perspectives on the scriptures Modalisem and Trinitarianism are more closely related than the Godhead is to either one.

Here are some further Quotations from Hippolytus' book Against one Noetus:

Now they seek to exhibit the foundation for their dogma by citing the word in the law, "I am the God of your fathers: you shall have no other gods beside me; " and again in another passage, "I am the first," He says, "and the last; and beside me there is none other." Thus they say they prove that God is one. And then they answer in this manner: "If therefore I acknowledge Christ to be God, He is the Father Himself, if He is indeed God; and Christ suffered, being Himself God; and consequently the Father suffered, for He was the Father Himself." But the case stands not thus;

Gee, this sounds to me a lot like the arguments Trinitarians try to make with Mormons.

Let us look next at the apostle's word: "Whose are the fathers, of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever."21 This word declares the mystery of the truth rightly and clearly. He who is over all is God; for thus He speaks boldly, "All things are delivered unto me of my Father."21 He who is over all, God blessed, has been born; and having been made man, He is (yet) God for ever. For to this effect John also has said, "Which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."21 And well has he named Christ the Almighty. For in this he has said only what Christ testifies of Himself. For Christ gave this testimony, and said, "All things are delivered unto me of my Father; "21 and Christ rules all things, and has been appointed22 Almighty by the Father.

It Looks to me like Hippolytus understands that Jesus was appointed to be God by his father before time began.

Now for the Finishing nail in the "Hippolytus was a Trinitarian Hogwash".

If, again, he allege His own word when He said, "I and the Father are one,"22 let him attend to the fact, and understand that He did not say, "I and the Father am one, but are one."22 For the word are22 is not said of one person, but it refers to two persons, and one power.22 He has Himself made this clear, when He spoke to His Father concerning the disciples, "The glory which You gave me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and You in me, that they may be made perfect in one; that the world may know that You have sent me."22 What have the Noetians to say to these things? Are all one body in respect of substance, or is it that we become one in the power and disposition of unity of mind?22 In the same manner the Son, who was sent and was not known of those who are in the world, confessed that He was in the Father in power and disposition.

Now this proves that Hippolytus was no more a trinitarian than I am, let me also point out that Hippolytus understood God's oneness the way I do. (One in heart might mind and strength)

These things then, brethren, are declared by the Scriptures. And the blessed John, in the testimony of his Gospel, gives us an account of this economy (disposition) and acknowledges this Word as God, when he says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." If, then, the Word was with God, and was also God, what follows? Would one say that he speaks of two Gods?25 I shall not indeed speak of two Gods, but of one; of two Persons however, and of a third economy (disposition), viz., the grace of the Holy Ghost. For the Father indeed is One, but there are two Persons, because there is also the Son; and then there is the third, the Holy Spirit. The Father decrees, the Word executes, and the Son is manifested, through whom the Father is believed on. The economy25 of harmony is led back to one God; for God is One. It is the Father who commands,26 and the Son who obeys, and the Holy Spirit who gives understanding:26 the Father who is above all,26 and the Son who is through all, and the Holy Spirit who is in all. And we cannot otherwise think of one God,26 but by believing in truth in Father and Son and Holy Spirit.

What is really amazing to me is this was translated by the Catholics, and they left in it the refutations of their Creeds and Dogma (They also translated Economy as Trinity everywhere they could, but it still refutes them).

U Said: How do you find the lds website - type in www.believe.org.

Interesting, I followed back to post #285, where it says www.mormons.org, Somehow in cut and pasting it, it was changed to www.believe.org. I have no idea how that happened, believe.org is not a site I would frequent, it appears to be an evangelical site. The following comments are supposed to be about http://www.mormons.org. U Said: Actually, that is a missionary site we set up because Anti's wanted to put stuff there and tell people it was "our site" it's a very shallow site which exists solely for missionary efforts.

U Said: It is an abuse to deliberately misquote an individual. I did not say the above. My response was as follows:

The misquote was not deliberate, I assure you, I am amending it here, my comments were intended to be about the www.mormons.org site.

www.momrons.org is indeed owned by the church (as new advent the site I keep quoting about things early Obviously is Catholic owned), thus it is an "official" site of the Church. Many churches have more than one web site, http://catholic.org/ for example is yet another Catholic web site. I do not know if the Catholics have a "Main" web site, but as for the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, it's http://www.LDS.org, not http://www.mormons.org.