"For example, some popular 'Mormon' books show pictures of classic Maya, Inca, and Aztec ruins and attribute them to the Nephites.

Moroni 9:7

And now I write somewhat concerning the sufferings of this people. For according to the knowledge which I have received from Amoron, behold, the Lamanites have many prisoners, which they took from the tower of Sherrizah; and there were men, women, and children.

Gospel Library

Magazines

New Era » 1972 » September

Speak Up, Latin America

“Speak Up, Latin America,” New Era, Sep 1972, 22

In 1901 the total membership of the Church was 278,645. Seventy years later a count was taken of the number of members in the Church who have some Lamanite blood and the total was 282,536. This sum, 4,000 greater than the total Church membership in 1901, includes Lamanite members from the United States, Canada, Mexico, Central America, South America, and the islands of the seas.

To help meet the spiritual needs of many of these Saints, the Church held an area general conference in Mexico City in August. Attended by thousands of Saints from Mexico and Central America, representing the Lamanite as well as Anglo members there, the conference provided them with firsthand spiritual food from the General Authorities.

(From ---> http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=024644f8f206c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=1a0118e7c379b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 )

How is LAMANITE blood different from human blood??

Joseph Fielding Smith: "Mormonism, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground." Doctrines of Salvation, Page 188.

Well that above quote certainly explains why the apologists are dishonest condescending jerks. If they acknowledge the truth about Joseph Smith their entire worldview is turned upside down! So they have to win any and all debates even if it means lying and distorting data to do it.

Trouble is their biggest problem is this Lying for The Lord tactic of deception. Unfortunately for them it proves their entire faith is satanically inspired because God doesn't lie.

It's interesting to me that my short sentence elicits so much over interpretation by you. I never said the only valid prayer was one that was answered. I never said that only Mormon prayers were valid or answered, in fact, I will gladly state that often the most profound answers to prayers come to non Mormons (that's how they know to join...)

LOL, no DU, time and time again you challenge us by saying that we really did not pray to begin with, or some other excuse when you are confronted that the results of our prayers are diametrically opposed to yours. Interesting that in the same breath you say that the most profound answers are the ones to join mormonism. Again, as a non-mormon – my answer is diametrically opposed, therefore, according to you, my answer is not profound, thus not valid and I must have done something wrong.

The Bible tells us how to know when a message is from God in First John 4:1-3.
"The Test" is not based on feelings and emotions, my personal answer was not the "feeling" that is so often disparaged on these threads.

And how does this spirit answer DU? Verbally, vision in the night or the burning feeling in the bosom? Bottom line, by every basic means of definition it is based upon an emotionally linked feeling alone. And once again – since you continue to side step it, the 1John passage if focusing upon the teachings of Gnosticism at the time. 1 John is not exclusive and should be used with other scriptural tests and evaluations. When those are applied, the message of mormonism is found to be that of a false prophet.

Moonies are nothing like Mormons, thanks for the smear.

I never claimed that they were the same, except for the fact that they use the same test that mormonism. Are their prayer invalid, since they use the same standard as you apply? Apparently you are not denying that. Since your standard test is the same and there are different results one must conclude that your test is flawed. Since it is flawed, subsequent items of faith based upon that subjective answer will also be suspect and flawed.

I never said the Book of Mormon could be proven true, in fact, I don't believe God wants it to be.

Playing with the facts here DU, and the electronic paper trail makes it clear from this post to conservativegramma

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/1982682/posts?page=2310#2310

U Said (conservativegramma): 2nd correction: The only proof the BOM was translated by Joseph Smith is from Joseph Smith.
Nice try, Read Book of Mormon Evidences and Photographic evidence of the Book of Mormon How about a paper from Stanford about The Book of Mormon and Mesoamerican Archeology. Refusal to look at evidence for the Book of Mormon constitutes wilful ignorance of the topic you have chosen to debate.

Context here is that you were countering GCs assertion that proof of bom was Joey’s word. You also earlier cited other articles related as inferred proofs.

Jesus cannot be "prove" to be our savior either.

Maybe not your savior, but He proved to be mine.

So your refutation turns out to be a collection of Straw men and Guilt by association.

Ah yes, the old lets throw out an unsubstantiated logic fallacy citation. Too bad the burden of proof for that allegation is on you and you have not supported it at all. :0

I assure you I could generate a list of massive proportions if I wanted to, but I know that that does not make it any more correct. The point is and was that dismissing the Book of Mormon as having no support what so ever is a tactic without merit. and you prove it by arguing the point.

And everyone rolls eyes (not another DU behemoth). Now with that out of our system, it is not so much a list of massive proportions that matters, it is the scientific accuracy and veracity of the evidence that wins the war in this arena. Support is different from facts. Flat earthers will find things that support their point, but is it valid, scientifically supported interpretations? Thus you perpetuate Hypothesis Contrary to Fact since you’ve never demonstrably proven anything.

I never meant to, nor did I actually say these "proved the Book of Mormon to be true" That would not serve Gods purposes, we must act by faith. You cannot prove to me that Jesus actually walked on water, I must and do accept that on faith.

Again, CG was challenging proofs and you were demeaning her for failing to accept the proofs. As I have pointed out before, I can show you places in a real Jerusalem that Jesus walked

. Can you show me REAL places here in America that Jesus walked? (crickets). Show me something in America regarded and identified by the archaeological community as being associated with Nephi.

This whole section is a giant Strawman, In that I did not say it proved, the Book of Mormon, but was undeniably "evidence for it's authenticity" you can argue (and apparently want to) each piece of evidence, but that was not my point either, The very fact that you have to argue these factoids means my statement was right.

Oh, the Black Knight argument has risen its head, because it was very clear by what you were writing that you were presenting proofs. Unfortunately, no matter how much lipstick you put on your pig argument, it is still a pig. And even if that was not your purpose, the simple FACT that you put these easily refutable EVIDENCES forward to defend joey and the bom shows the complete bankruptness of so-called mormon archaeology and geography.

Your other problem is that the very references you cited go out of their way to weaken themselves as even evidence of the truth of the bom. Once again, you claim to be vindicated, if being humiliated by the very sources to support bom is vindication, then I will let you have your illusion.

If I state that there is no evidence that microbes exist, and you show me one and I start arguing that your evidence is flawed, by the very fact of arguing against your evidence I have conceded your point whether on not I win the argument, the point has been conceded by you already because you are arguing against these sites.

Now here is a strawman argument if there ever was one. If your evidence is true and valid, it would stand up to rigorous scientific evaluation and support. To be flawed in this instance would indicate that you took your observations incorrectly or followed an incorrect procedure and as a result obtained an incorrect answer. Thus the issue is the validity of the data and the claims. What is more applicable here is that you are saying that flies spontaneously developed from garbage, and I am saying that the scientific evidence says otherwise.

Thus, there is indisputably evidence, or this discussion would not be happening. As to individuals disagreeing with discrete pieces of evidence, of course they do. I never said otherwise.

Has Jerusalem suddenly dropped off the face of the earth? Jericho? No city has been identified as being Nephite, Lamanite, Jaredite, etc. For example, Zarahemla was occupied for hundreds of years, but we still don't have any real evidence of it ever existing. The Book of Mormon describes a time period from 2000 BC to 400 AD and millions of people. No city they occupied has yet to be found.

Really? I went there from a link that said she was still active... I accept with out argument your statement that she has joined, make that former Baptist minister (It really doesn't affect my argument either way, so thanks for correcting me!)

Your should read your source articles a little closer DU. First off it is a he and not a she. Secondly, he makes a point to not say which Baptist denomination he was ordained under. Thirdly, as CG said its an Argument by Generalization or more specifically an Argument by Selective Observation or more to the point: ‘cherry picking’. Show me any Baptist denomination that accepts mormonism.

The Bible does not say, God says, a moot point, but a point none the less.

Back to your circular logic CG clearly showed earlier

God sez joey is a prophet
How do you know
Because joey said so
How do you know joey is correct
Because God told him he was a prophet – (repeat cycle)

U Said: Point of the matter here is that of character. Smith has a documented history of lying. A forged documented history... Can anyone spell Mark Hoffman?

LOL – right the guy that FOOLED the LIVING PROPHET and SEER of the church and his apostles. How well is that gift been working these days. BTW, this has nothing to do with Moses.

His fruits indicate that he is a prophet of God.

See circular logic listed above

Objective evidence vindicates Joseph Smith.

Then tell me why joey could not tell the same story twice in a row without contradicting himself. Why was he preaching against polygamy two months after being given the everlasting covenant to begin polygamy?

Since he didn't lie about anything else, who is to believe he would lie about being called a prophet? (All examples of bald unsupported assertions refuted with equally bald unsupported assertions). I guess, to some people illogic and unsupported assertions are good argument if it supports the conclusion you have already arrived at.

Oh this is so typically fluffy! When all else fails obfuscate. Cannot dazzle with brillance, baffle them with ………

Please show where I have ever referenced the Weekly World news, or admit that this is a thinly veiled attempt at Guilt by Association for an entity i do not quote, nor I do not even associate with.

Feigning ignorance, you know it represents a low standard of evidential proof. No, the only guilt by association is between the website you cited and their deeper links. The bottom line is that these websites are simply bogus works. If you accept them as facts, you probably believe in Bigfoot, the lockness monster and ET. Anyone can make a website and put anything they want on it – does that make the information valid? Not in this case.

Most if not all the Anti sites here have been trashed, but anti's still quote them. I've been trashed.. has no one trashed you yet?

Want a waaambulance?

ask Mark Hoffman for some pointers on forging and off you go!

Well, you had the living prophet and seer – how far did that get you? :))

Here goes mister Peer Reviewed, you know, I lost M&M's on how long you could go without complaining about something being peer reviewed...

That’s right, because it is a rigorous standard when dealing with such scientific related matters such as archaeology and related. It is a significant part of my world.

So? We were refuting a statement that said there was absolutely no evidence, you are arguing that it's bad evidence, so what, even if I were to concede your point, it's not germane to the conversation I was having. Do you insist that their are no proofs for the Book of Mormon?

To argue that the bom documents real human events here but all archaeological evidence is non-existant and admitted by the author is laughable and more so when offered by you as an evidence.

So what is proof – Encarta defines it as:
proof n
1. evidence or an argument that serves to establish a fact or the truth of something
2. a test or trial of something to establish whether it is true
3. the quality or condition of having been proved
4. the evidence in a trial that helps to determine the court’s decision

What you have offered up as proof has failed critical examination or is even denied by its authors. I have pointed out many items which if found would prove the bom. You can go back and re-read them at your leisure. Show me the ruins of Zarahemla, or other bom city, etc. I still wait for PROOF, DU. The few, scattered freakish oddities (that even mormon investigators have written off) does not prove anything, as there are simpler, more sound interpretations. Your apologists sites are also at odds with your GA, isn’t their word on the matter enough for you?

I happen to agree with him, if by "Esoteric reasons" he means Faith. IMHO any one who joins the LDS church because of Academics will either gain faith or leave.

Well, the lack of objective truth to support that faith has cause many to leave the mormon church, and only those too ignorant to see the fallacies are the ones entering.

The argument was whether or not there were proofs, of course you can ad will tear down any work of faith, the bible is similarly destroyed by critics, does that bother you? No you realize the fallaciousness of their arguments as we do yours.

You may assert that the bible is destroyed, but that would not be the case. So far, archaeology has supported the history written the bible – both OT and NT. In that it is factual in those areas, it has greater credibility in the realm of faith. In the case of the bom, it has no support in the realm of archaeology, not textural support – apart from evidences learned from the boa and the kinderhook plates. No support except the say-so of joey.

U Said: How did God testify that the bom was his word – through the word of Joey. I challenge you to provide chapter and verse that clearly states that the bom is his word. What meaningless drivel, I'd be ashamed to have penned such a "Challenge" if I were you. Sure, and it won't even be from the Book of Mormon... Articles of Faith #8

Who saw to it that aof 8 was written – joey See Circular argument.

You then list your "proofs" There are unfulfilled prophecies in the Bible is it your contention that any unfulfilled prophecy negates the call of any prophet? (Yes or No, "just Joseph" not allowed by the rules of intellectual honesty)

Oh ho – intellectual honesty, sweet. Nor is just a yes or no argument, why DU, I am shocked, shocked to see you apply a Black or White fallacy (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/eitheror.html). As I said earlier regarding Jonah - God revealed why He did not destroy Nineveh often reveals conditions and timing for fulfillment. If I were to follow your argument rigorously, you would have called the prophecies of Christ first return as false. In the case of the prophecy I cited was conditioned to occur not many years hence. There has been no inspired revelation as to why it hasn’t occurred in a short time period under the conditions prophesied (as occurred with Jonah), in fact just the opposite happened.

Polygamy is not adultery by definition.

Splitting frog hairs again. It is and was under the law of Illinois and the USA at the time as a subset under bigamy, and when practiced while the wife was STILL married to and living with her first husband while joey was married and still living with his first wife meets the standard of adultery.

The Book of Abraham was translated so well that you can see where it was also quoted in the Book of Enoch which was recovered later.

Cite for me this quotation kind sir. Fact of the matter is joey failed to properly interpret the facimilies (nor even reconstruct them properly), his Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar clearly proves he used the scroll – and still translated it incorrectly. Papyrology has successfully reconstructed the pieces and it is more than adequately intact, and finally, your LIVING PROPHET and SEER of the church is silent in acceptance of them as announced to the world – the scrolls joey used.

The kinderhook plates were never translated, please proved me with the translation as proof it has or stop asking me to prove a negative.

It is a documented fact from mormon history that joey claimed to have begun a translation. For brevity, read this in History of the Church, vol. 5, p. 372, not an anti-mormon book but is the church’s official book.

As to the Greek psalter, do you have anything as a source beside Professor Caswell himself? He claimed there were forty people present, not one gave an account? Farms does mention this in their article: A One-sided View of Mormon Origins

Documented in his book and a newspaper article at the time. I can hear the old poisoning the well argument coming up already. However, Mr. McGee (FARMS reviewer) reviews of a book that reports the incident third hand as described and McGee does not question that the event took place. Your reference only has 6 lines of text on the issue – you should really read these first. You may find more information at this pro mormon site :

http://www.mormonthink.com/greekweb.htm

Swindler con man and convicted... - Please prove any of the above... You can't it's been tried.

Documented by Fawn Brodie (one of those excommunicated apostates – like the Three Witnesses to the bom). With supporting documentation discovered in 1971 of Justice Albert Neely's bill to the county for his fees in several legal matters he was involved with in 1826. The fifth item from the top mentioned the case of "Joseph Smith The Glass looker."

Violent criminal for ordering the sheriff to follow the city councils lawful orders? LOL!

Yep, the owners and operators of the Nauvoo Examiner were laughing too while running for their lives. As far as LAWFUL (do not be putting words in my mouth), it was unconstitutional then, it is unconstitutional now – but the constitution never mattered to joey, he was crowned as king already by that time.

Danites? ROTFLOL Prove it.

Jeff Lindsey sez: Joseph was not the mastermind behind the Danites, but he gave them at least partial support initially, and his encouragement of militant action to defend the Saints may have made it easier for Avard and his Danites to flourish.

This is funny, this is the best you've got? A bunch of made up paper charges unsupported slander against a prophet of God? Well, I guess they murdered Jesus for claiming to be... Himself. so it's not surprising.

See wishful thinking and circular arguments

Please show a link to Joseph Smith's journal containing Chiasmus, I'm curious.

No electronic link only reference, look it up yourself
Joseph Smith's diary, the entry for April 1, 1834.
A the Lord shall destroy him
B who has lifted his heel against me even that wicked man Docter P. H[u]rlbut
C he [will] deliver him to the fowls of heaven
and
c his bones shall be cast to the blast of the wind
b [for] he lifted his [arm] against the Almity
a therefore the Lord shall destroy him

well you might as well claim he invented the Internet.

If he were alive today, he probably would.

Only Moses was on the mountain when God called him and you have no problem with that. Give CG back her glasses, the squinting is driving me nuts.

Lessee, brought plagues upon Egypt, lead Israel out of same, parted the red sea, brought water and food – did joey ever display these proof his visit?

In order to refute the anti arguments I have to read and research them, it's easy to make assertions without doing the same. would you care to actually have a discussion on the merits of the Trinity being a biblical doctrine versus one that came from Constantine and Greek influence? No?? How about Greek influence on the early Christian church? No? ROTFLOL!

I could and HAVE presented the merits of the Trinity being a biblical doctrine - you are the one unable to get past Nicea. And I can easily discuss greek influence – standard part of early church history. Would you be able to discuss Alexanderian and western church influences too?

Please show the Scripture where God said they should, or he would spare them if they repented.

U Said (that’s me): (And Jonah KNEW that God would 'change His mind' if they repented and it angered him!--cf. Jonah 4.1ff: "But Jonah was greatly displeased and became angry. 2 He prayed to the LORD, "O LORD, is this not what I said when I was still at home? That is why I was so quick to flee to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity. "!!!! Thus not an absolute prophecy.

So it's OK for the God of Jonah's day to "Change his mind" but not for the God of Today? I thought God was unchanging... oh, that's the Mormon God, Got it, yours is a changeable God (not biblical) because it was defined in 325 AD by men.

Now you are getting confused – your mormon god had a daddy somewhere in the past and had to somehow progress and change. But then standard apples to dirt comparison I’ve come to expect from you.

As for Jonah's prophecy being a call to repent, that is not what Jonah said to them in God's name, he gave no conditions and that is all I needed to draw a parallel, CG is saying Joseph's prophecy that the second coming would begin on a specific date proves he is a false prophet and conveniently leaves out the first part of the prophecy that says if Joseph lives that long, he didn't, BLAM conditional prophecies from God, both of them. Your "Logic" lies in ruins exposed as emotion, and not even well researched emotion.

Then why did joey prophecy that SINCE he didn’t live that long NOR the prophecy indicated that it hinged upon that condition. Can’t your god get their future figured out, or are they making it up as they go. Or are your gods vengeful and unbending in the face of deep repentance?

U Said: Here is the standard: "And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously..." Deut 18:21-22 Which is a standard for any claiming to be the Messiahs, if this is applied to prophets, then Jonah has to go too. It's a simple thing really, a standard not applied across the board is not a standard.

Nothing about Messiahs here DU. Nor is there any presumptuousness in Jonah’s prophecy – God chose to suspend it due to their repentance. Ninevah was later destroyed under God’s judgement. Further, God explained it to Jonah – nothing of the sort has EVER been done in joey’s case.

(Moses had unfulfilled prophecies too, if those prove him not to be a prophet, then the Book of Deuteronomy goes along with your test... unintended consequences can be surprising!) you can start at the beginning, how many times did god create the earth according to the bible? (Chuckle Mormons know the answer to this BTW)

Sure, bring it on. And while you are at it, does our sun receive its light still from Kolob?

The prophecy you quote by the way is yet to be fulfilled, so?

Lessee – few years doesn’t equal 100+, mormon opponents not destroyed, within a few years mormons were driven out. Maybe god was talking about the mormons, cause is sure didn’t happen to the gentiles.

And I presented an "error" in the book of Genesis, which if you are insisting on this rule will force you to throw out the very book you are basing your test (which was a test of for people claiming to be Jesus) out too. (pretty funny huh?)

I would rather you be more specific, I hate second guessing.

Moses only had his and God's word in the beginning, Jesus also said God would testify of him, as his proof, remember? So it's not a stretch at all to ask God to testify of his prophets, like Moses, and Joseph and he does.

Again, did joey part the red sea and bring plagues? Did joey heal the sick and the lame as Jesus did? Did joey rise from the dead? Sorry, non starting comparison.

Show me a piece of truly hard evidence, and I'll show you something that is subjective to someone else.

Sorry, burden of proof for bom is on you for that hard evidence :)

(You can call even life subjective, does that make it less real?)

Can you say illogical.

Godhead (three personages, one power, might, mind and strength, Biblical)

Wishful thinking, non-biblical

I Said: Deification of Man, Biblical

Psalm 82 again with mormon failed Hebrew understanding as well as being contextually challenged.

The term “gods” (82:6) was used in this context to describe those who were to “preside over” or “judge” others (82:1); these were men who had been given authority on earth to represent God’s interests and enforce his law. Were these true gods, they would not be dealing with the daily application of God’s law nor would not die like men. Further context is Is 43: 10 Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

(Please note the plurality of gods listed here, the Bible is now a polytheistic book by the very definition you seek to stick on us.)

Only through cherry picking, gross ignorance of Hebrew context and ignoring those other bible verses like Is 43:10 which maintains overall integrity to the word.

Yes, the truth is priceless, too bad your "logic" is writing checks that you just can't cash.

My logic is more sound than the Kirkland bank was. Yet you could not refute Jesus’ words, could you.

We are children of God, we are also spirits, I am a spirit, I also have a body. Just because God has a Body, does not mean he does not have a spirit, it also does not make him less powerful, it makes him more powerful

Sorry, DU, spinning things again. Bible doe not teach that God has a physical and tangible body, he his finite in that he isn’t omnipresent, nor can he reside in our hearts.

Jesus was resurrected, was this some temporary sham resurrection? No? Then God has a Body today (That's why he's the living Christ).

His body does not fit the physical and tangible definition of mormonism. It is in a special category. While we are on the subject, how did the Holy Spirit become a god with getting his body too, or else why hasn’t he progressed?

You are displaying here that your knowledge of the Gospel has been corrupted by the same Greek influence and relying upon the arm of flesh thing that led to the corruption of the church initially, philosophy and Logic over spiritualism.

Greek influences? No actually mormonism is closer to greek corruption than Christianity. You know, all them gods running around with the fruit of the loins thing, getting bored in heaven and coming down to procreate with women. You know, a mormon thing. But it is not your fault you are confused – obfuscation and deceit have been hallmarks of mormon leadership from joey on.

Oh and thank YOU for showing the absolute intellectual vacuum that is mormonism today.

Placemark

Applause, applause, applause, STANDING OVATION!

Great job pointing out the following failed treatise by Delphi:

Delphi Said: I never said the Book of Mormon could be proven true, in fact, I don't believe God wants it to be.

Godzilla Said: Playing with the facts here DU, and the electronic paper trail makes it clear from this post to conservativegramma:

Link

I Said (conservativegramma): 2nd correction: The only proof the BOM was translated by Joseph Smith is from Joseph Smith.

Delphi Said: Nice try, Read Book of Mormon Evidences and Photographic evidence of the Book of Mormon How about a paper from Stanford about The Book of Mormon and Mesoamerican Archeology. Refusal to look at evidence for the Book of Mormon constitutes wilful ignorance of the topic you have chosen to debate.

As Emeril would say - BAM! Caught in a lie right there! I hope everyone can see here how Delphi deliberately LIES. If you are a non-mormon considering the LDS please see this as proof the BOM is false and the LDS is false. God does not (past, present or future) advocate LYING, but SATAN DOES.

The following was also FANTASTIC!

Delphi Said: Moses only had his and God's word in the beginning, Jesus also said God would testify of him, as his proof, remember? So it's not a stretch at all to ask God to testify of his prophets, like Moses, and Joseph and he does.

Godzilla Said: Again, did joey part the red sea and bring plagues? Did joey heal the sick and the lame as Jesus did? Did joey rise from the dead? Sorry, non starting comparison.

Amen! I had been wanting to bring this point out. When God established the old covenant, it was confirmed and evidenced through the miracles of Moses, i.e., parting of the red sea, turning the Nile into blood, and on and on. When God established the new covenant, it was confirmed and evidenced by the works of Christ, walking on water, calming the storm, raising the dead. (As well as being the confirmation and evidence that Christ was who He said He was). The Apostles themselves were also able to do these things as the New Testament was confirmed and evidenced. What exactly did Joseph Smith do when the BOM was ‘established’? Eh Mormons? A ‘restoration of the church’ would have been a monumental event if true (and I say that loosely) and should have been confirmed and evidenced the same way as the OT and the NT. What miracles did Smith EVER DO that confirmed this addition to the canon was of God? I’ll probably be waiting until Hell freezes over for that answer and when it does come it will be full of holes.

Great job again Godzilla!

Amen!

And ALLELUIA!

I get a chuckle every time I read DU or seven or tanti or resty claiming the ‘anti’ site garbage has been trashed. I guess when you want to believe in a cult badly enough, even false claims are a comfort to the cultist.

For your edification form:

http://packham.n4m.org/lds-prph.htm

PROPHECIES OF MORMONISM NOT USUALLY CITED BY MORMONS

Joseph Smith's Lying and Womanizing

Joseph Smith denied continually that the Mormons were practicing plural marriage; he insisted he had only one wife, as late as 1844 (when he had "married" over thirty women, many of them already with living husbands):
"What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers." (HoC 6:411)

This lying was prophesied more than 2000 years before:

Jeremiah 48:10
Cursed [be] he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully,...
(Compare D&C 50:17-18: Verily I say unto you, he that is ordained of me and sent forth to preach the word of truth by the Comforter, in the Spirit of truth, doth he preach it by the Spirit of truth or some other way? 18 And if it be by some other way it is not of God.)

Revelation 2:2
I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars...

Revelation 2:4 is a prophecy of Joseph Smith's unfaithfulness to his wife Emma:

Nevertheless I have [somewhat] against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.

Revelation 21:8 prophesies Smith's adulteries, his dabbling in magic, and his lying:

But the ... whoremongers, and sorcerers, ... and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Jeremiah 29:21-23 prophesies his adulteries with his friends' wives while pretending to be a prophet:

Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, of [false prophets]... 23 Because they have committed villany in Israel, and have committed adultery with their neighbours' wives, and have spoken lying words in my name, which I have not commanded them; even I know, and [am] a witness, saith the LORD. Even modern prophecy condemns Smith's many sins (this is a useful quote when Mormons ask us to overlook Smith's little "mistakes"):

D&C 50:26-28 (speaking of the president of the church):

He that is ordained of God and sent forth, the same is appointed to be the greatest, notwithstanding he is the least and the servant of all. 27 Wherefore, he is possessor of all things; for all things are subject unto him, both in heaven and on the earth, the life and the light, the Spirit and the power, sent forth by the will of the Father through Jesus Christ, his Son. 28 But no man is possessor of all things except he be purified and cleansed from all sin.

Joseph Smith's false prophecies were also prophesied of in the Bible.

Deuteronomy 18:20-22
But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. 21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? 22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that [is] the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Jeremiah 5:31
The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love [to have it] so...

Jeremiah 23:16
Thus saith the LORD of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, [and] not out of the mouth of the LORD.

Jeremiah 14:14
Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart.

Side comment: Note that this was said at the time Lehi was supposed to be a "prophet" in Jerusalem.

Matthew 24:11
And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

Matthew 24:24
For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if [it were] possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Joseph Smith claimed that he was ministered to by three personages claiming to be Peter, James and John. This event was also prophesied in the Bible:

Revelation 16:13
And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs [come] out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.

Mormon Leader Racism

Thanks fo posting that..

bump

I Said: but that he confirms the Book of Mormon as his word! I guess if you spin long enough everything starts looking circular. You imaged... ”circular”

it's not very circular, more trapezoidal, circles are round. never the less, it ignores the point I haver made back every time that the testimony comes from God

Here is this "Circular process with the "new" information included.

God says To try the spirits to see if they are of him (First John 4:1-3)

Joseph smith says he is a true prophet of God and translated the Book of Mormon

The Book of Mormon says that God will verify it as his word.

Read the Book of Mormon.

Pray about the Book of Mormon.

God testifies The Book of Mormon is true, and the answer conforms to
what the Bible says it must in order to be from him (First John 4:1-3).

Since the Book of Mormon is true, Joseph is a prophet of God.

So much for circular... More like linear.

U Said: More lying for the Lord there Delphi???

This is a heinous charge, as if God would allow anyone to lie on his behalf.

The answer is no, I try to strive fro complete truthfulness even when it will hurt my point.

U Said: Per Brigham Young there I’d say you’d BETTER be praying to J. Smith or denounce the LDS. And I’d also say that pretty much sums it up that you’re lying and you do indeed focus on Joseph Smith. This of course is a pious fraud argument given the above quote from one of your ‘prophets’.

I don't know whose site you are getting your quote mining material from, wait, this is from the tanners site still isn't it, LOL! Well all the newbie anti's seem to start there. It's taken out of Context, this particular quote gets thrown into maybe half the threads on Mormonism by some anti or another, I have personally seen this upwards of fifty times. IIRC, Brigham young was talking on the duties of a judge in Israel, and how they will testify (as ecclesiastical leaders) either for or against people from their flock when those people are judged of God. Besides, the JOD is just a collection of sermons, not Canonized scripture (surely the tanners told you we would say that) and as such, I can disagree with it completely and still be a Mormon in good standing. (So much for the you'd better aspect of your post) which means you have now lied about my process of coming to know the Book of Mormon is true, and accused me of "Lying for the Lord (an interesting concept to be sure), and now you yourself are lying (by omission) parts of my process that I have stressed when you left them out before, are you Lying for the Lord" as you have accused me of? I Said: If God testifies of it

to which you add "Bla blah blah" I am amazed that anyone who wishes to be considered an accurate conduit to Christ would so easily and disrespectfully dismiss any communication from God. U Said: then you give me links to Jeff Lindsay again (ROFL) and yet more Mormon sites, LOL.

Why not send you to Jeff Lindsay, you appear to be continuing to leech from the Tanners without even attributing. Tell me truthfully, did you read the Journal of Discourses, or use someone else's work to find this quote? If you used someone else's work, why didn't you attribute your source?

U Said: At the very least this would be “Argument by Repetition (Argument Ad Nauseum)” and more probably is a Hypothesis Contrary to Fact since you’ve never demonstrably proven anything.

While this is funny, I have, Actually, Among the many things I have proven is:

The Bible speaks of Multiple gods in many places, but only of one God whom we should worship.
Anti's use each other's work without attribution and often it is based on fallacious techniques that the "current poster" may not even know about.
Anti's employ double standard for if the reasoning (to use the term loosely) of their attacks on Mormonism were applied to their own beliefs they would not fare any better than ours. (thus as a rule, anti's are hypocrites)
As a rule, anti Mormons are more interested in the destruction of the LDS faith even if they have to mislead and lie to do it than in saving our souls.
The test of the Book of Mormon by seeking confirmation from God is Biblical, and that my answer meets all the tests supplied by the Bible for being an answer from God.

Of course you will vehemently deny these, but anyone who has been reading our posts will see I am speaking the truth. U Said: (Mormon sites don’t count due to BIAS).

Then none of your posts, or sites count due to bias. (didn't you state earlier that you were dedicating yourself to the destruction of my church? I can find it for you if you wish...) And I do find it interesting that you, being the one attacking are accusing me of Argument By Repetition (Argument Ad Nauseum), you are the one completely in control of this discussion, you attack, I defend, stop attacking, I'll stop defending, you are actually guilty of Argumentum ad Baculum, or trying to win by force of numbers and size of postings. IIRC, you are retired and have a tons of time, Godzilla is a professional theologian and seems to consider this "activity" part of his job, I have a job, and a family, I participate of FR because I can't stand for the lies inaccuracies and slanders to go unanswered.

If you've seen national treasure, he who can do something has the responsibility to do it. I can and do make you look silly when you attack my church, so it is my responsibility to do it. U Said: And once again we’re back to:

A flawed and dishonest rendition of events...

U Said: As to the link to the southern Baptist minister, first off, anyone who is a member of that church should leave immediately as the man is following a false prophet.

Apparently you did not see Godzilla's post, she did, the link I followed was out of date and said she was a practicing Baptist minister. I did not look up a bio, Godzilla did, and she has left.

U Said: Secondly, its an Argument by Generalization or more specifically an Argument by Selective Observation or more to the point: ‘cherry picking’.

Oh, this is rich, you post a "quotation" from the JOD that is at odds with the rest of the talk, then accuse us of "cherry picking", do you even know what irony is? LOL! U Said: Would you like a comprehensive list of Southern Baptist churches who DON’T share this man’s viewpoint and call Mormonism what it is, a cult???? Ooops there goes your ad hominem attack accusing me of lacking logic huh?

While your posts have been full of Ad Hominem attacks, actually you are right about the word cult, you see, any religion with a name, basically falls under one or the other definitions of the word cult, Catholics, Baptists, methodists, scientilogists, Buddhism, you name it, if it's got a name and it's even close to a religion, it can be called a cult. That is what is so tricky about calling us that, technically your right, but most people see it as a pejorative term, meaning of the occult, which would be incorrect.

U Said: And then we’re back to spouting off evidences for the BOM (when there are none) and spouting off again that a prophet of God ‘may be flawed’ blah blah blah – LOL! Back to Argument Ad Nauseum again are we?????

It's hard to spout nothing, try it in your next post, LOL!

Lets try a bit iv syllogism here:

A) All men are sinners.
B) The prophets in the Bible were all men.
C) The prophets were all sinners.

While it's fun giving you these little lessons in logic, it's hardly my mission in life.

U Said: Well, if you are going to do this so shall I…I repeat…..DNA evidence concretely proves the BOM to be false – deal with it.

I have dealt with it, it's a flawed study assuming a genetic purity where there is none and the "study" breaks down right there. even if we just go to historical records The Indians in historical times were happy to inter marry with Spaniards, and vikings and Europeans. They kept no records of Genealogy, so find for me a pure sample of Indian DNA today, and then here's the tricky part, prove it. You simply can't. We know that Portuguese and Vikings to name just a few found America at some time and then lost it again, The only argument you can make against the The Los Lunas Hebrew Inscription is that it's fake (IT would have been impossible to fake a carving in a dead language that was not understood until a hundred years after the stone was found and documented) or that some Hebrews found the Americas (with this as the only evidence) but yet were not the peoples of the Book of Mormon. LOL! I could list more, but that's been done, and you still didn't see the truth that was staring you in the face.

Your analogy for this is a group of Genetically pure peoples who would not marry outside of their group who were traced to the Jews with Genetics. Again, the problem is that the American Indians have been genetically promiscuous, and we know it. Not only that, but the assumed genetic purity from the Beginning is not there because they took non Hebraic people with them and married them in, and joined with "Others in the land", your Genetic profiling just can't be accurate, so who cares what it says?

U Said: And please don’t go posting another Jeff Lindsey URL – he’s been debunked, trashed, and thrown out in the garbage by every reputable scientist.

Well, you asked for it...

As for having been debunked, so have you...

Reputable Scientists, ROTFLOL!! Like that ones that support Darwin? or Global warming?

Do you know what site you are on? Scientists don't exactly garner a lot of respect here, they have been "used" to further obviously flawed causes too often.

I can't find an entry for Argument ad humorous anywhere, but this qualifies...

U Said: As to your archeological proofs – lol – you are aware that NONE of these provide one statement attesting to even so much as one city named in the Book of Mormon,

So? When the Crusades took place, the walls at Jerusalem didn't say "Welcome to Jerusalem" on them. archeology is seldom so neat that we find something with a name we laymen would know on it. This is funny, ancient Hebrew written on a big rock in America has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon which talks about ancient Hebrews coming to the Americas. Yeah, it's actually proof against, since it wasn't signed by Lehi.

U Said: or one name of any one person named in the Book of Mormon????

You like this kind of humor, read The Book of Lemuel, actually, it's funny, your rants are not.

U Said: And how about that Hill of Cumorah eh? Not one skeleton ever unearthed even though there was a large battle there and thousands died?????

Do you have any idea what it takes to preserve a skeleton? IF they are left out in the open, there are these animals who will drag them off, if just buried, they will rot, and if you didn't read the BOM, you might not have known that when there were too many to bury, they commonly threw them in the river, next? U Said: Please……..I would submit this continued assertion the BOM has been proven archaeologically when it most definitely has not would be an Argument by Pigheadedness.

I never said it was "proven true" I said there was undeniably evidence for it. Speaking of Argument by Pigheadedness. I Said: Now you were there when I was told by God that Joseph was a prophet?

U Said: I don’t have to be,

Then you don't know what God told me or how.

U Said: shall we go into the Greek construction of I John 4 again?????

It wasn't embarrassing enough last time? Greek by numbers is painful to watch, besides, there are reputable interpretations straight from the Greek and they read almost the same as my KJV with no differing meaning, so who cares what your "special" interpretation reads? not me.

U Said: No spirit of God would attack true, genuine Christology as Joseph Smith did, and no true prophet is going to issue false prophecies, and no true prophet is going to live a life of bad fruit.

"True Christology"? That's the point, that was lost when in 325 AD the whole church declared a false version of Christology now known as the Trinity.

False prophecies, like Moses, John the Beloved and let's not forget Jonah, your post would be funny if it wasn't clear you believe this stuff.

Joseph's life was one of Undeniable fruit, he stated a religion that now numbers in the millions, Founded a city which in it's day was one of the largest in the US, and inspired a migration that largely settled the inter mountain west. What have you done o great oracle of godliness, oh font of good deeds what have you done as fruit? Posted on this board? There is an old saying, those that can't do Teach, those that can't do or teach critique. You may find meaning there, or not

U Said: And yes I’ll keep bringing this up as all of these are the positive test that we are to make regarding him.

Ah, the Treat of continued posting = Argument Ad Nauseum + Argumentum ad Baculum , LOL! I will not bow to your oppression sir, you'll have to pry my Book of Mormon from my cold dead hands! (Cue a picture of Charlton Heston with a Book photo shopped in where the Rifle was) LOL!

U Said: For you to continue to assert this with no biblical proof or support is commit the Wishful Thinking fallacy.

If you think that I think that anyone can "Prove" the Book of Mormon true by the Bible, then you don't know what I am am thinking, you only think you know what I am thinking, LOL!

However, there are many places the Book of Mormon is prophesied of in the Bible: Ezek. 37: 15-17

15 ¶ The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying, 16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions:
17 And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.

What does this prophecy mean? To non Mormons it is an unfulfilled prophecy in the Bible, To Mormons this was fulfilled when the Church began printing "Quads" or Books containing the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants all Cross referenced (become one) and bound together in one binding (one in my hand). To us this was literal fulfillment of biblical prophecy. I don't expect you to accept that as proof, it was not designed to be, it is a faith promoting event for the faithful, and we understand it as it was intended.

John 10: 16

16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Now there are some who say the Other sheep are the Gentiles, (which makes no sense because Jesus said repeatedly they would not her his voice, he was sent unto the house of Israel) But, OK, where are the records of him visiting the Gentiles personally? I this was just talking about he coming missionary work then why say he was going? Orthodox Christianity does not understand the Bible they revere because of the loss of the understanding of the true nature of God, the "Christology" you spoke of earlier.

are these "proof" no, but they prove the bible was not intended to stand alone. U Said: And yes we’re back to:

Argument Ad Nauseum

U Said: Hardly. There is no assumption here.

Sadly, I believe you believe this.

U Said: He has PROVEN he is not a true prophet, you just refuse to see the evidence for it. Thus you commit the Argument Contrary to Fact or we could simply go back to the ‘Wishful Thinking’ fallacy, whichever you prefer.

There is no such proof. There are all sorts of flawed attempts, but each such attempt falls of it's own weight.

Let's look at some of the Attempts that have been tried by you.

Joseph committed some sin (Lying, adultery, polygamy, etc.)	Many Bible prophets committed sin if this disproves a prophet, the Bible just got smaller, worse, since it was compiled by men who claimed to be inspired, they are now shown to not be inspired, and that means the Cannon of the bible is worthless, worse yet, this is the same church that created the doctrine of the Trinity, it falls too.
Joseph prophesied of things that have not yet come to pass, or had prophecies that were not fulfilled.	Many Bible prophets that have not yet come to pass, or had prophecies that were not fulfilled if this disproves a prophet... See above. Moses Jonah, and John the Beloved are a few who will have to be thrown out of the Bible by this standard.
Joseph produced Bad fruit.	This is a highly subjective argument, and from my perspective, the fruit is excellent.
Some other prophet said X or the church taught Y, or Scientists say Z	Contradictions and inaccuracies are found in the Bible (X dies here or all the bible suffers again) Many things have been purged from the Church in the Bible by the prophets and apostles charged with keeping the church pure. we have done the same, and those have been removed, so? (Y dies here or all the Bible suffers again) Scientists have also said that men can't walk on water and Water cannot be turned into wine by pouring it from one pot to another, women don't have virgin births and men don't raise themselves from the dead. Science is a poor refuge for one religion to use as an attack on another, glass houses come to mind... (Y dies here or the Bible suffers the same fate)

I could go back through all your posts, and make such a table... Nah, nobody'd read it. At first you were an excellent foil to show the mendacity and pugnaciousness of our attackers upon, but when you just won't learn, well it gets as old as the two year old who has learned this new word "Why"

U Said: When you build a building do you continue to lay a foundation upon a foundation upon a foundation? No. Ditto with prophecy and prophets. It says so right here.

When a building is destroyed, you dig up the foundation and lay a new one, The Bible is the story of repeating this process over and over, (Calling people to repentance after they and the church have strayed... laying again the foundation of Jesus and building up the church on knowledge of him) it's funny you didn't get this from actually reading the bible.

Chuckle, you quote from Hebrews 1:2 Let's read the whole chapter, shale we? Hebrews 1

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall awax old as doth a garment;
12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? 14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

Your very quotation refutes the Trinity!
In verse 2 they talk about Jesus just having been there and talking to them. It does not say he will never talk again which is what you infer from it. Your inference is wrong.

in verse three, Paul discusses how alike the Father and the Son are. This makes no sense if they are of the same substance, which is why most "orthodox" Christians avoid these scriptures like the plague and see no meaning in them.

In verse four Paul talks about how Jesus inherits the kingdom, and the angels don't

Verse six, verse six is very interesting, First begotten? Jesus is the only begotten in the flesh, how then is he the First Begotten? Mormons believe that Jesus was the First begotten of the Spirits that God the father of Spirits Fathered, thus in the Beginning was the Word, and the word was with God and (as soon as he became a member of the Godhead) the Word was God. Since Jesus, the First begotten was chosen By God the Father to be the savior of all mankind, not just on this world, but on all the worlds where God the Father's children live, he was charged with Building the universe to hold those worlds. Since Jesus was Begotten first, he predates us and has to us always been. Since he will exist far after all these creations have been destroyed, he will always be. He is God and our older brother, who loved us so much that he came down into this existence and suffered for our sins, yea, he Died for us, and thus we have the opportunity to return and live with him and our Father in heaven again being Co-heirs with him of all that the father hath.

This verse plugs in neatly and completely into Mormons doctrine, for "Orthodox" Christians however, it is poison to their doctrines, so they ignore it.

In verse Eight, God the Father Crowns Jesus as God and king over us his brethren.

In verse Ten he speaks of Jesus' creative role in this universe.

U Said: Because we have Christ and HIS WORD prophets and prophecy have been done away with, that’s what Scripture teaches.

No, it's not what the scripture teaches, if you read the whole thing in context. Mormons shouldn't be surprised then you Quote mine us, you've been doing it to the Bible for a long time.

U Said: Yet one more PROOF Smith is false and you follow him at your own peril.

That's not a proof at all, but there are none so blind as those who do not see.

U Said: you commit the Argument Contrary to Fact or we could simply go back to the ‘Wishful Thinking’ fallacy, whichever you prefer.

I prefer the truth, and that is what I have been stating. You are the one who said there was no evidence to support the Book of Mormon or it's views, I presented some, you were wrong, and that's a fact.

Now you want to say that Corinthians says there will never be any more prophecy, Sigh, Revelations speaks of Prophets prophesying right before the savior comes and there are other prophecies prophesying of prophets, so now your interpretations have the Bible contradicting itself again just so you can claim it precludes the Book of Mormon, again. Some people never learn...

Now you talk about Against one Noetus, Noetus was a modalist which means he was a believer in the same substance of God, just not three persons, to him God was more of a shape shifter. Hippolytus destroys the very scripture used to support the trinity with earlier logic and that ruins the whole modern church.

Yes, God and Christ are on, yes they are in each other, just like all the other places in the Bible where husbands and wives are commanded to be one in each other, and just like we are commanded to be one in Christ, just like the apostles are commanded to be one. I have read this in more than just a cursory fashion as quote miners do, and I am the one who linked you to the text, get it? Read the whole thing, it says what i said it does for I have studied it carefully (which puts the lie to your earlier statement that I could not study anything out side the Cannon of my own church BTW)

Let me quote from your ending quotation: If, again, he allege His own word when He said, "I and the Father are one," let him attend to the fact, and understand that He did not say, "I and the Father am one, but are one." For the word are is not said of one person, but it refers to two persons, and one power.

Notice what you underlined, it is specifically the part that says He did not say this and then quotes it. Here is what I would underline: If, again, he allege His own word when He said, "I and the Father are one," let him attend to the fact, and understand that He did not say, "I and the Father am one, but are one." For the word are is not said of one person, but it refers to two persons, and one power. you stop too soon and take the emphasized part out of context, it specifically means the opposite of what you got from it. This is actually funny that you would do this while "refuting me" consider yourself owned PWND or whatever.

Then you go to my citation of Book X of a refutation of all heresies, again, this is funny.

U Said: Now once again to demonstrate Delphi’s cherry picking argumentative and arrogant debate style, this is what he deliberately LEFT OUT (Or in other words the above quote is the CONCLUDING address which cannot be fully understood without studying the PRECEDING part of the address!):

A couple of points before I continue with your tirade, I included the link, which precludes the art of cherry picking which requires the quotation to be obscure and difficult to find and therefore difficult to refute. I did not say it was a concluding address, but I did not say it was not, just that it is a passage likely to make you upset, apparently I was correct, you actually started to follow my links, cool.

U Said: The Logos alone of this God is from God himself;

So, the logos is separate from God the Father, Got it.

U Said: wherefore also the Logos is God,

So the Logos is a member of the Godhead, got it.

U Said: being the substance of God……

So the Logos is a child of God's, Got it.

U Said: This Logos the Father in the latter days sent forth, no longer to speak by a prophet, and not wishing that the Word, being obscurely proclaimed, should be made the subject of mere conjecture, but that He should be manifested, so that we could see Him with our own eyes.

So Jesus was sent forth from he Father, to speak for himself, manifesting himself so no one could say he didn't exist.

U Said: This Logos, I say, the Father sent forth, in order that the world, on beholding Him, might reverence Him who was delivering precepts not by the person of prophets, nor terrifying the soul by an angel, but who was Himself—He that had spoken—corporally present amongst us…….

So, Jesus went forth from the Father so the world would revere Jesus instead of God the Father, he delivered his message personally.

I see nothing in this carefully read passage to contradict what he says in his summation, nor to contradict Mormon doctrine at all.

U Said: What Delphi SHOULD HAVE DONE

This is gonna be good, in a bad way...

U Said: was pay attention to Hippolytus when he began his dissertation of the types of Gnostic heresies. He should have paid particular attention to the following ones:

So, to use your metaphor, i should have cherry picked these instead? No matter, Hippolytus is so in tune with the Gospel I'll go through those now, having already read all his extant works front to back that are on this site six times, let's go!

Please remember, you picked these...

Chapter 9. Valentinus - For some of them maintain that (the Father) is solitary and generative; whereas others hold the impossibility, (in His as in other cases,) of procreation without a female.

So some people think God is all alone at the Top and others think he is asexual both are wrong, Got it.

They therefore add Sige as the spouse of this Father, and style the Father Himself Bythus.

So some people think decided to call God "Bythos" which is a Greek name for kind of a Father nature, and that is wrong, Got it. Sige, or Basically a Greek name for the primal silence is his spouse and that's also wrong, Got it. Don't rename God after Greek Gods or Primal forces because that's not him, Got it.

From this Father and His spouse some allege that there have been six projections,—viz., Nous and Aletheia, Logos and Zoe, Anthropos and Ecclesia, —and that this constitutes the procreative Ogdoad.

So re-making the Godhead into Greek mythology is wrong, Got it.

U Said: [Sound familiar Mormons???? God the spirit Father and His wife procreating other spirit children on the planet Kolob???]

Not even remotely, one is God, remade into a Greek story so he can fit in with their other gods, the other is a twisted representation of what we believe, which is the truth. Would you like to actually discuss what we believe, or would you rather just keep misrepresenting it?

Chapter 16. Apelles -But Apelles, a disciple of this heretic, was displeased at the statements advanced by his preceptor, as we have previously declared, and by another theory supposed that there are four gods. And the first of these he alleges to be the "Good Being," whom the prophets did not know, and Christ to be His Son. And the second God, he affirms to be the Creator of the universe, and Him he does not wish to be a God. And the third God, he states to be the fiery one that was manifested; and the fourth to be an evil one.

U Said: [Hmmmm sounds eerily similar to Mormonisms pantheon of the Father Elohim, the unnamed goddess mother of all the spirit children wife of Elohim, the Holy Spirit, Christ the Son, and Lucifer the evil one brother of Christ the Son].

It doesn't sound familiar to me, the God head has three Entities, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Fiery one is God's wife? LOL? Again they are mixing pagan Gods into the Gospel, and that's not us. However, I can see how you might misconstrue things, Constantine thought the difference between same substance and similar substance was a "question of little import", I guess you are as familiar with these issues as he was with those of his day.

Chapter 18. Ebionaeans - They live, however, in all respects according to the law of Moses, alleging that they are thus justified.

U Said: [Hmmmm kind of like the works based salvation of Mormonism].

We don't believe in being saved by works (and if you have red my page, you know that.) We do however, read the whole Bible instead of just cherry picking from it, including:

14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Thus, I say unto you, Show me thy faith without thy works and I will show they my faith by my works.

Chapter 20. Melchisedecians - And others also make all their assertions similarly with those which have been already specified, introducing one only alteration, viz., in respect of regarding Melchisedec as a certain power. But they allege that Melchisedec himself is superior to all powers; and according to his image, they are desirous of maintaining that Christ likewise is generated.

U Said: [Wow, the whole Mormon focus of the Melchizedek Priesthood right here].

Mormons do not have any belief that Melchisedec is superior to Jesus, where do you get this off the wall inaccurate stuff? Melchisedec was indeed a great high priest, So? we don't worship him, the priesthoods complete name is "the priesthood after the order of the son of God" the Melchisedec priesthood for short. No one is preeminent over Jesus for God the father has given him "all power". U Said: Is it any wonder Delphi cherry picked this out????

Um, I linked the article, that's why it was easy for you to find this "stuff" you think is damning, I don't think it's relevant, that's why I didn't quote it, however, since I do indeed think the whole thing supports us I was not afraid to post the link to the whole thing, unlike your Quote mining... U Said: So now we can all see that Delphi is deceptive,

By linking the Source? LOL! By only quoting the points that I thought were germane Are you seriously saying I should either quote the pieces that have no bearing on the discussion, or the whole thing instead of excerpting? If that is your standard, have you posted quotes from the JOD while not quoting those parts of the JOD that support our claims? If so, you are then Deceptive by your own standards (see how your "Standards" for us condemn you? I see them as clear evidence of hypocrisy on your part, YMMV) U Said: he’s argumentative, not to mention obsessive compulsive,

It's a debate forum, if your not argumentative, Go somewhere else...

Also, is it your contention that you are not argumentative (chuckle)

OCD, it comes with the autism, what's your excuse?

U Said: he’s arrogant and presumptive,

And you I suppose setting in judgment on others is not presumptive? Only Jesus can judge a man's soul, your willingness to do so as well is not a resume enhancement.

U Said: he engages in the Lying for the Lord doctrine as well,

I do not, I have never lied to you, you have repeatedly lied about my beliefs and about my statements.

U Said: but most of all he is lost in darkness.

Funny, I feel very enlightened by the lord, well, the lurkers can decide for themselves.

U Said: At this point in time I am fed up with you,

I am sorry to hear that, I was hoping you'd see the light eventually.

U Said: if you post to me again, I will not answer you.

That is your option, however, if you continue to post about my church you will hear from me, respond or not, your call.

U Said: I refuse to continue in a debate with a lying pompous A$$ (your words, not mine, but they do fit don’t they?)

Yes, they look good with the pompous you are wearing (inside joke to those who haven't been following along)

U Said: P.S. As to your pompous statement I am not to judge your false prophet so you can continue to deflect and protect him,

An attack against the Man (Ad Hominem ) attack is not good form especially when the man is dead. You don't appear to want to debate the actual tenets of our religion, but slander a dead man, a man who was Martyred for his faith and a prophet of God.

U Said: I Corinthians 14:29 KJV – “Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge….NASV – “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment.” NIV - ”Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said.”

Many prophets have spoken since Joseph and they have testified of him.

Moses was called first on the Mount, then came fellow testifiers (like Aaron and Miriam). Joseph Smith, was similarly called, had similar supporters and is just as much a prophet as Moses truly, there are none so blind as those who will not see and none so deaf as those who will not hear.

U Said: Thank you, but I’ll obey GOD over a brainwashed heretic any day of the week.

GREAT! I have not commanded you to do anything, I have invited you to come unto Christ, I have invited you to Pray. I have encouraged you to ask God. I have commanded nothing, I have not asked anyone to believe me alone, I have asked no one to do anything without a confirmation from God.

CG, Go with God, if you don't wan to post to me, then fine, if you want to then Fine, as you wish, and if you stay off of my religion, I will not point out the flaws in your logic elsewhere, good luck, God bless, and please stay conservative.

I believe I said I would not respond to you. I don't respond to liars or to those who have been proven to use deceptive tactics. Since I consider outright lies and deception to be a form of abuse, if you post to me again I will report you to the RM.

You were caught red-handed lying both to me and to Godzilla. In consequence NOTHING you would ever have to say would be trustworthy or worthy of any sort of discussion.

Good luck with that Lying for the Lord thing in attempting to prove you have the truth. God doesn't lie, neither do true servants of His.

U Said: I believe I said I would not respond to you.

Yes you did, so why are you? Oh, did you mean I couldn't respond to you? you did not say that, neither can you because you cannot slander my church, and me by extension, and then deny me the right to respond to your slander.

BTW, on this forum, it is considered poor form for anyone to run from a fight they started crying for a moderator to keep the other guy from responding to their last post to the other guy, it just looks bad.

U Said: I don't respond to liars or to those who have been proven to use deceptive tactics.

Interesting, You have repeatedly lied about what I have said, I have never lied about you. Please post a link to anywhere I have lied, or retract this additional slander against my good name.

U Said: Since I consider outright lies and deception to be a form of abuse, if you post to me again I will report you to the RM.

Please do, if you post to me by definition you are inviting a response.

You might want to read the Religion moderator's page, he / she has information on what you can and can't do here on his / her page.

Furthermore, you might want to read the Do not post to me thread. Moderators do not enforce requests by one poster to keep other posters from posting to them.

Look CG, your kind of a newbie here (October of last year) if you want to throw your weight around, go ahead, but one of the fastest ways to have the RM monitor your posts is complain a lot. If you want me to stop posting to you, simple, stop posting to me, or about my church, and I'll leave you alone too.

U Said: You were caught red-handed lying both to me and to Godzilla.

Where? Prove it. I do not believe I have lied to anyone here. Please note that in order to lie, there must be intent to deceive. Simply stating that I was wrong about something like a scriptural interpretation is not telling a lie. Now Prove that I have lied, apologize, or stop posting, your choice.

U Said: In consequence NOTHING you would ever have to say would be trustworthy or worthy of any sort of discussion.

LOL! While in Taiwan, I learned a saying, "A truly wise man can learn from even a fool", it has stood me in good stead on Free Republic.

U Said: Good luck with that Lying for the Lord thing in attempting to prove you have the truth.

The proof is simple, I tell people to ask God, he proves it.

U Said: God doesn't lie, neither do true servants of His.

Precisely my point, God will tell the truth whether or not I am, if I am leading people down a "dark path", it's gonna be a short line behind me as God tells everyone not to go in response to the prayer I am encouraging them to say to him. If however I am right, the line will grow as it is doing. (The point of the article...)

Logically, you should be encouraging everyone to read the Book of Mormon and pray about it, because if it's false God will tell them and then nothing I can say will persuade them to follow, the only reason I can think of for anyone to tell people not to read and pray about the Book of Mormon (get a free copy here) is if that person knows it's true and wants cover for their actions here.

(Hey, I never said I was imaginative, but it's all I could come up with.)

CG you can respond to this or not, you can call the RM or not, I am a known quantity on this forum, and not likely to change because you threatened (Argumentum ad Baculum ) to call the RM if I don't stop responding to your attacks on my Church.

I hope you have a really nice day and that the love of God can penetrate and fill your heart, Go with God.

you did not say that, neither can you because you cannot slander my church, and me by extension, and then deny me the right to respond to your slander.

Want an waaaaaamblance DU?

Interesting, You have repeatedly lied about what I have said, I have never lied about you. Please post a link to anywhere I have lied, or retract this additional slander against my good name.

She posted to you where you lied about providing proof of the bom. You obfuscated in your reply to me when I caught you in it, but it does not change the fact, you lied in your reply to CG.

Look CG, your kind of a newbie here (October of last year) if you want to throw your weight around, go ahead, but one of the fastest ways to have the RM monitor your posts is complain a lot. If you want me to stop posting to you, simple, stop posting to me, or about my church, and I'll leave you alone too.

Classical mormon bullying. More times than not, it is the mormons that go running to RM to try to get a thread shut down when it is not going their way – an electronic version of Navuoo Expositor. So when you cannot support you evidence you turn to personal attacks – yep, you have learned well from FARMS and Lindsey, et al.

U Said: You were caught red-handed lying both to me and to Godzilla.
Where? Prove it. I do not believe I have lied to anyone here. Please note that in order to lie, there must be intent to deceive. Simply stating that I was wrong about something like a scriptural interpretation is not telling a lie. Now Prove that I have lied, apologize, or stop posting, your choice.

See my earlier this post as well as previous posts. Equivocation doesn’t cut it, nor does bullying.

Logically, you should be encouraging everyone to read the Book of Mormon and pray about it, because if it's false God will tell them and then nothing I can say will persuade them to follow,

Nope, that is the most illogical thing one can do. Since the bible already condemns it, it is spiritually, intellectually and historically void of fact and truth, makes it also a stupid thing to do.

BTTT

Looks like there has been a new memo sent out from corporate LDS....censorship is on the rise....youtube has been hit hard by them, and we are seeing the tried and true cut and paste thread-kill being used.

There are still a few clips not banned yet.

Hat Trick

You don’t know why it is sad? All those poor young girls sold into marriage like cattle and teen boys thrown out. I think you do.