Mormonism increasingly draws Spanish-speakers as converts

This is not actually a response to post #1959 as it says it is, and as such, I am unable to verify your quotes of my words so if I think they are out of context, I will say so simply because I can't check.

I Said: …..God did speak to me in answer to my prayer to him…

U Said: Thank you for affirming what I’ve already said then.

RIIIGHT, in your last post #2020 You doubted that I even received a response...

I Said: You think God spoke to you ‘because you prayed a prayer’ and you know the prayer is true because God spoke to you through the prayer.

That is not what I said, or what I would say, I wish I knew which post you were replying to. I asked God for confirmation of the Book of Mormon, and because the Book of Mormon is indeed his word, he confirmed that to me, along with a testimony of Jesus Christ.

This shows not just that God answers prayer, but that he confirms the Book of Mormon as his word! I guess if you spin long enough everything starts looking circular.

U Said: Classic definition of circular reasoning.

Yeah, we all get that you believe that, even though it's not in touch with reality.

Now we get to the interesting point.

I Said: Let me explain this to you. God told me The Book of Mormon was his word.

U Said: No, Joseph Smith told you The Book of Mormon was his word.

No, Joseph smith did not answer my prayer, and I did not pray to him (we don't do that) I prayed to God and God answered and his spirit testified of the truthfulness of the book of Mormon, period, end of story.

U Said: It always, always, always, gets back to Smith, not Christ.

I understand that that is your perspective, you focus on Joseph, we focus on Christ.

U Said: If Smith lied, the BOM is a lie. The evidence is overwhelming Smith lied except to you lost in darkness Mormons.

If God testifies of it, then Joseph didn't lie, there is all sorts of evidence that the Book of Mormon is divinely inspired, but you ignore that. let me give you a short list of a few, just a few undeniable (to rational people) evidences.

Book of Mormon Evidences
Archaeological Evidence and the Book of Mormon
The Bible and the Book of Mormon
Ten Biblical Proofs of the Book of Mormon (By a practicing Baptist minister)

I Said: If the Book of Mormon is God’s word, then Joseph smith is a prophet of God, because only prophets write God’s word God said the Book of Mormon was translated by Joseph Smith.

U Said: 1st correction: Joseph Smith is not a prophet of God proven repeatedly by his false prophecies and his bad fruit.

You do not appear to be able to do simple logic.

your "Proofs" are highly subjective, the evidences in the Book of Mormon are not.

U Said: Therefore, the Book of Mormon is not God’s Word because false prophets cannot write anything from God.

Conversely, if God says it's his word then Joseph id a prophet... If one "proof" is true, then so is the other.

God can and does call flawed men (all men are flawed) to do his work, anyone called by God, can do what God tells them to, if God tells a man to write scripture he can no matter what his flaws. Look at the prophets in the Old testament, you used Moses earlier, he rejected his call saying he was slow of speech, God had to rebuke him for drinking too much, he performed a miracle and didn't give the glory to God, for this God forbid him to enter into the promised land, prophets are not perfect, nowhere in the Bible does it say a prophet will be perfect.

U Said: 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.

I Said: You are saying that you know Joseph Smith is a true prophet, because you know the Book of Mormon is true, because Joseph Smith is a true prophet. Circular reasoning again.

I can understand that since you refuse to admit that God calls prophets and he testifies of them, if your template is that no matter what I say it all comes back to Joseph, then you will see circles because your glasses are distorting the straight lines I am speaking into circles. However, God testified that the Book of Mormon was his word, that means that God says it's his word, which means Joseph is a prophet, and if Joseph is a prophet and he says God told him to start his church... God is the prime mover here, not Joseph, I know that goes against your template, but it's true.

I Said: If God says a man is his prophet…

U Said: Correction: God did NOT say Smith is His prophet, SMITH said he was god’s prophet…

Now you were there when I was told by God that Joseph was a prophet? You seem to have been everywhere and think you know everything, wait, you must think you're God, that explains it!

I Said: It’s simple, it’s not your place to judge Joseph Smith….

U Said: It is if I’m going to obey Jesus Christ when he commanded me to ‘judge them by their fruits….” Your refusal to judge Smith on his fruit puts you at enmity with Christ.

LOL! Begging the Question again are we? Assuming that you are right without even presenting proof is a quick way to get that circular reasoning charge. you assume you are right, therefore, the evidence supports that you are right. Consider the following "reasoning":

Joseph is a prophet because of his fruits, I’m going to obey Jesus Christ when he commanded me to ‘judge them by their fruits….” Your refusal to judge Smith on his fruits puts you at enmity with Christ.

Everything in bold is a direct quote from your post, you assume Joseph is not a prophet, therefore his "fruits" are bad, therefore he's not a prophet. That's nonsense, try actually judging the fruits on their own merits.

U Said: You are in error regarding judgment about men who claim to speak in the Name of the Lord. These men are to be judged to see if what they say is true (Deut. 18:22) and to examine them to see if they are producing good or bad fruit.

Are you even reading the posts we post back to you? If this is applied to the Bible, Large portions will be missing. this is not a test you want, or should be saying is universal It's a test for any claiming to be the Christ, and if it has to be applied to every prophet in the Bible.. well the Bible isn't going to fare very well... I guess thats why you like the tanner's work, no wait, this is some stuff you got from them , isn't it, LOL!

U Said: (Matt. 7:16 is very specific on this and are the words of Christ Himself in direct response to His warning of false prophets to come). He repeats this again in Matt. 7:20 in the same section warning of false prophets. Repeated twice: Its emphatic.

See the Fallacy files on Begging the Question again...

Matt. 7:16-20

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a ccorrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

IT's a Chiasmus, Chiasmus are something that would slow down a mortal writer to a crawl, yet these Chismus, a little known (In the 1800's) Scriptural construct, appear all through the Book of Mormon, some are so large as to only be discovered once the Book of Mormon was computerized. anyway, Joseph wouldn't have known (3rd grade education) and couldn't have had the time (five months start to finish) to put them in (since the translation went one way, forward, no rewrites) so how did this Hebraic construct get there if not by a Hebrew speaking prophet who spoke and wrote in that structure centuries before.

Oh wait, you won't accept any evidence for the Book of Mormon no matter how obvious and logical, what was I thinking...

Now you'll say as the Tanners do that the Bible was there to model, and that the D&c and PGP contain some Chiasmus, but none as complex as those in the Book of Mormon, and since it can't be because Jesus having been raised a Hebrew often prophesies that way...

I ask you, why go to all the trouble to put them there, tell no one about then, and wait for them to be discovered over a hundred years later, just so you can defeat some detractors then in a logical argument when Chiasmus will be understood, and if Joseph this guy with the third grade education knew all this future stuff was going to happen, wouldn't that mean he was a prophet? The only way to "handle" much of the evidence for the Book of Mormon is to simply ignore it as the Tanners have done.

I Said: If God says a man is his prophet, no matter what flaws….

U Said: Again you make the mistake of equating flaws with direct revelation from God.

Where? I said if God say a man is his prophet (that's the revelations part), then no matter what his flaws (that's the flaws part) than that man is indeed God's prophet for God is a God of truth an canst not lie.

IT's actually simple logic, Even Jesus himself obeyed the high priest and did not revile him when he could have. All the way up until the crucified him, he honored the calling they had from God because he was bound by his word, then when they were ripened in iniquity did he dismiss them. You claim Joseph was "Bad fruit" and refuse to look at all the evidence. This is not "Righteous Judgment" by any stretch of the imagination.

U Said: You seem unable to grasp the concept that any revelation proven untrue makes God into a liar.

You are right, I can't grasp an impossible situation, God as a liar, NOT!!!

You keep going back to the lords coming, The revelation specifically says if you live until... Joseph didn't live that long, Prophecy fulfilled.

U Said: A flaw doesn’t condemn God it only condemns the sinner. In contrast a false direct revelation condemns the sinning prophet, but it also condemns God.

Like when Jonah prophesied Destruction on Nineveh?

Let me remind everyone what the Bible says Jonah 3:1-10

1 And the word of the Lord came unto Jonah the second time, saying,
2 Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee.
3 So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the Lord. Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three days’ journey.
4 And Jonah began to enter into the city a day’s journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.
5 ¶ So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them.
6 For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he rose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes.
7 And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water:
8 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.
9 Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?
10 ¶ And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

There were no caveats to Jonah's pronouncement, there were no proviso's he didn't even say unless Nineveh repents, just "Ya got forty days, then the city will be destroyed".

This is only the easiest, and most obvious (as in not only), flaw to using your methodology of absoluteism, the entire Bible is not God's word (it has lies in it!), It was compiled by men claiming inspiration from God and they should have known! That means the whole Bible must be thrown out and all those men who compiled it men must be servants of Satan for claiming revelation they did not have, Horrors! (cue the scene with people screaming as the run mindlessly from a blue screen with nothing on it)

This is the logical extension of your standard, either the Bible and it's backers pass your test, or that test is invalid when applied to others.

U Said: It makes God into an untrustworthy God who should not be obeyed or listened to.

I can see your dilemma, your standards for the Book of Mormon invalidate the Bible and that's why they are not valid arguments, hmm what to do...

U Said: This is WHY God Himself set a 100% standard in Deut. 18:22 and again in I Samuel 3:19, it wasn’t for man, it was for God’s own glory and His Holy Name’s sake.

Deut 18:15-22 is specifically a prophecy about the coming of Jesus Christ, not a standard for prophets in general, but you know this, for I have pointed it out in prior posts.

1 Samuel 3:19 Does not even broach the topic of judgment, it's a commentary on Samuel being a prophet!

I Said: Your arguments seem to all be based on "Since Joseph is a false prophet..." which….

of course is Begging the Question again...

U Said: There is no SINCE to it so your argument is flawed. My position is a PROVEN position based on the above scriptures of Deut. 18:22 and I Samuel 3:19.

Your position is not proven. I dispute most vehemently that that is the standard for a prophet for it would also destroy the Bible which I also love and revere. All this "interpretation" of yours proves is that you are wrong, since it nullifies a book we both agree is the word of God.

U Said: We are back to your own position of circular reasoning again, “I know Smith is true because the Book of Mormon is true and I know the Book of Mormon is true because Smith is a true prophet….”

My reasoning is not circular no matter how you try to make it. If Joseph testified of himself his testimony would not be true. John 5:31-32

31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
32 There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.

I have never said I just believed Joseph's word that he was a prophet, you keep saying that I say that and it is a lie.

I prayed about the Book of Mormon, to God the Father and he answered by his spirit and fulfilled the Test Given in John 4:1-3, My answer was specific, unmistakable, and clear. I do not expect anyone to take my word for it, instead, I testify that "I know". Furthermore, I testify that all men can obtain the answer i have received. The "answer" you posted earlier does not contain the specific elements the Bible says it must contain to be unmistakably from God.

There is however one circular point to my faith, it starts and ends with God.

I Said: Yes, there are and were antichrists, but you are looking in the wrong place for them….

U Said: Wrong again. Smith is himself an anti-Christ in his false teaching that there are 3 separate gods, indeed a whole pantheon of gods within Mormonism as each individual Mormon may become his own god. This teaching denies the very nature and essence of Christ as found in God’s triune nature. Mormonism is not only heresy, it is the spirit of antichrist since it does not confess the Christ presented within Scripture, and you are following it.

Godhead (three personages, one power, might mind and strength, Biblical)
Diefication of Man, Biblical
The Jesus of Mormonism, Biblical

Triune nature of a formless, faceless, impersonal, disembodied God -- Is Not Biblical.

I have thought long and hard about what I am about to say, but you are the one who is big on judging by fruits.

I have carefully examined your posts here, and I have found your posts here devoid of logic, fairness and legibility, you are needlessly verbose and pointedly rude, you seem to prefer to offend when you could mollify, you seem to want confrontation and to say outrageous things that will elicit a response that is the most raucous you can tease from your opponents. IMHO you are not a pacemaker, I don't think you are interested in charity or in actually converting anyone you are talking to on the forum, despite your claims, I feel no concern for my soul in your posts, only animus. I get the distinct feeling that were we to be conversing in person, I would be trying to figure out how a gentleman defends himself from a deranged sepagenarian bent on poking him the in the nose because he disagrees with her on a a matter of religion. To whit, I would like to share with you a few scriptures.

Charity:

1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

Please note that this is Corinthians, and this was written after Jesus had come.

Note how important Charity is. CG, I hope you have the charity necessary to be saved, but I fear if you continue to judge as harshly as you judge us here, if you continue to be as fair in your application of Justice as you appear to have been to us, I am afraid for you at the last Day, for in spite of your faith, if you have not the pure love of Christ, necessary to be his at the last day you will be cast off. We have been commanded to 1) Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2) For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Seeing your actions here I am very afraid for you, even if you are right.

May God bless and keep you as close to him as you will let him and may something in my words penetrate the hardness of your soul that I find evident in your posts, Amen.

Yeah, we all get that you believe that, even though it's not in touch with reality.

See you are doing that morg mind meld with CG huh?

Joseph smith did not answer my prayer, and I did not pray to him (we don't do that) I prayed to God and God answered and his spirit testified of the truthfulness of the book of Mormon, period, end of story.

So for all to see, the only valid prayer is that which gets answered the way a mormon believes it should be. The fact is that this is a common test for mormonism. The fact is that it is SUBJECTIVE – based only upon the feelings and emotions of the individual. Remarkably, the moonies have a similar challenge as mormonism – pray about moon’s message and god will testify its truth to you. On that basis, mormonism must share its claim to exclusiveness of the gospel because there are quite a few moonies who prayed that prayer and got their answer. The claims of the bom are subject to objective validation too, and I see that DU has tried to stumble through this.

God testifies of it, then Joseph didn't lie, there is all sorts of evidence that the Book of Mormon is divinely inspired, but you ignore that. let me give you a short list of a few, just a few undeniable (to rational people) evidences.

Yes, this is a VERY short list (hehehehe), Undeniable is yet to be seen, so lets take a lookie

Book of Mormon Evidences

Ah yes, a Jeff Lindsey special. At the top of his website he is very careful to state:

Such evidence is not "proof" but represents indications of plausibility

. Without consuming as much bandwith as DU likes to, let us say that there is more fluff than fact in Mr. Lindsey’s website. What DU does not tell you (or anyone else) is that the LDS GA (as well as Nibley) disagree with many of these evidences

• Archaeological Evidence and the Book of Mormon

Oh, this is just juicy. A mormon expert best summarizes this

The first myth we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon archaeology exists. Titles on books full of archaeological half- truths, dilettanti on the peripheries of American archaeology calling themselves Book of Mormon archaeologists regardless of their education, and a Department of Archaeology at BYU devoted to the production of Book of Mormon archaeologists do not insure that Book of Mormon archaeology really exists. If one is to study Book of Mormon archaeology, then one must have a corpus of data with which to deal. We do not. The Book of Mormon is really there so one can have Book of Mormon studies, and archaeology is really there so one can study archaeology, but the two are not wed. At least they are not wed in reality since no Book of Mormon location is known with reference to modern topography. Biblical archaeology can be studied because we do know where Jerusalem and Jericho were and are, but we do not know where Zarahemla and Bountiful (nor any other location for that matter) were or are. It would seem then that a concentration on geography should be the first order of business, but we have already seen that twenty years of such an approach has left us empty-handed (Dee Green, assistant professor of Anthropology at Weber State College, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1969, pp.76-78).

Secondly, the folks at FAIR who put this undeniable proof together find them selves at odds with the official mormon interpretation and stance set forth by their prophet and seer at the time. Basically, the GA disavows any semblance of the Limited Geography theory that is largely espoused at FAIRS as well as other mormon apologetics sites. In fact, this link virtually stumbles over itself over the LACK of objective evidence and proof.

• The Bible and the Book of Mormon

Oh, it does not get any better than this. The very FIRST line from the site states:

For over 100 years, Mormon archaeologists have searched in vain for indisputable proof of Book of Mormon civilizations.

Sounding scholarly, they talk about the Masoretic Texts (MT) and the Septuagint (LXX). Then they start comparing bom exerpts to the KJV and LXX. Some fine scholarship here, I wonder if DU understands the failed linkage… Then they go on and point out the close parallels to the KJV – well DUH, most of it was copied from the KJV. It goes down hill from there, because true comparisons would be done based upon the language written in Hebrew (MT) and Greek (LXX). What they don’t mention here is the fact that smith also copied ERRORS in the KJV over into the bom. Tsk, tsk.

• Ten Biblical Proofs of the Book of Mormon (By a practicing Baptist minister)

To say that Lynn Ridenhour is a practicing baptist minister is intellectually dishonest, it is more like pretending. His bio states clearly that he has become a mormon. Caught up in a pyramid scheme a while back too. I could cite numerous former mormon bishops who would easily refute Ridenhours proofs (oh but the word of the apostate cannot be trusted) :0

You do not appear to be able to do simple logic. your "Proofs" are highly subjective, the evidences in the Book of Mormon are not.

If these are the finest examples

of bom proof you’ve got? But then you’ve described a classical highly subjective means for testing the bom too. :)

Conversely, if God says it's his word then Joseph id a prophet... If one "proof" is true, then so is the other.

Problem you have is proving that the bible sez Joey is a prophet.

God can and does call flawed men (all men are flawed) to do his work, anyone called by God, can do what God tells them to, if God tells a man to write scripture he can no matter what his flaws. Look at the prophets in the Old testament, you used Moses earlier, he rejected his call saying he was slow of speech, God had to rebuke him for drinking too much, he performed a miracle and didn't give the glory to God, for this God forbid him to enter into the promised land, prophets are not perfect, nowhere in the Bible does it say a prophet will be perfect.

Wonderful red herring DU – Moses had a speech impediment, drinking too much??? Not giving glory to God? Must be using that JST again. Point of the matter here is that of character. Smith has a documented history of lying. His fruits indicate that he is lying. The objective evidence shows that he is a liar. And if he lied about so many fundamental items, who is to believe there is truth in anything else he 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.

Well, now I know the weekly world news site you get some of your stuff from. BOM evidences got trashed already. Your second reference should also show the alien shaking hands with smith too, LOL. It has a little bit of everything for the easily persuaded. The pictorial info is taken from a non-peer reviewed magazine. As such, it can hardly be viewed as authoritative or substantiated articles or interpretation. And AFA the bom and Mesoamerica archaeology, the very first line of the site states:

Disclaimer: I originally wrote this piece in January of 2001 as a term paper for a Harvard class on Mesoamerican Civilizations (Foreign Cultures 34).

Not a full fledged, peer reviewed research paper. In fact the author admits the gross lack of proof for the bom:

People that believe in the Book of Mormon do so for esoteric reasons, not because of academic proof.

His conclusion paragraph starts out with

It appears that belief in the Book of Mormon will forever remain outside the domain of archeologic proof.

Finally, the author is going counter to what the GA have already declared – the Mesoamerica theory is not accepted. I’m sure the professor nodded his head gravely, then went to the lounge and laughed his head off. Only the reality challenged will accept these proofs at face value. Too bad you keep selecting references that do not support your argument.

I can understand that since you refuse to admit that God calls prophets and he testifies of them, if your template is that no matter what I say it all comes back to Joseph, then you will see circles because your glasses are distorting the straight lines I am speaking into circles.

Yes it does come right back to smith because as you say in your very next sentence

However, God testified that the Book of Mormon was his word, that means that God says it's his word, which means Joseph is a prophet, and if Joseph is a prophet and he says God told him to start his church... God is the prime mover here, not Joseph, I know that goes against your template, but it's true.

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. I’m going to obey Jesus Christ when he commanded me to ‘judge them by their fruits….” Your refusal to judge Smith on his fruits puts you at enmity with Christ. Everything in bold is a direct quote from your (conservativegramma) post, you assume Joseph is not a prophet, therefore his "fruits" are bad, therefore he's not a prophet. That's nonsense, try actually judging the fruits on their own merits.

Putting words into peoples mouths again, tsk, tsk. We have laid out numerous examples of the fruit of joey to include:

60+ false prophecies (and yes, we can discuss Nephi Lowell Morris’s small handful too)
Adulter and polygamist – even while he preached and taught against the practice and swore in a court of law he did not practice it AND behaving in open violation of his churches law and canon.
False translation of the book of Abraham
False translationof the Kinderhook plates
False translation of the Greek psalter
Swindler and con-man – convicted peep stone treasure seeker and bogus banker
Violent Criminal – ordered the destruction of a newspaper after one edition. Allowed the danites to function freely.

Matt. 7:16-20

Yep, joey’s has bad, rotten fruit.

Wishful thinking DU. Smith’s journal contains chismus and the principle was identified and in publication in the late 1700’s. You would probably point me to Alma 36. The first thing that we note is that there is an awful lot of repetition in this passage. In fact, this is a feature of the Book of Mormon in general. Mark Twain noted that the book was 'chloroform in print'. Repetition, increases the chances that at least some passages would display a roughly chiastic structure. You had better notify your Gas to canonize Dr. Seuss too.

Oh wait, you won't accept any evidence for the Book of Mormon no matter how obvious and logical, what was I thinking...

You have not provided any real evidence yet, so please start thinking.

Where? I said if God say a man is his prophet (that's the revelations part), then no matter what his flaws (that's the flaws part) than that man is indeed God's prophet for God is a God of truth an canst not lie.

Again, circular logic so clearly pointed out by CG. Who ever said joey was a prophet? Not the bible. Oh, are you talking about that First Vision thing? Were there any other witnesses to this – no, only joey’s word. So joey said god called him a prophet and this is so because joey said so. (ring around the mulberry bush….)

You claim Joseph was "Bad fruit" and refuse to look at all the evidence. This is not "Righteous Judgment" by any stretch of the imagination.

The refusal is on your part to examine the bad fruit, you have yet to supply real evidence.

Like when Jonah prophesied Destruction on Nineveh?

God also gave them 40 days to repent. Was this an unfulfilled prophecy? Not at all--it was a clearly judgmental prophecy, designed to provoke such a response. (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. You know, it helps if your example really supports your point.

This is the logical extension of your standard, either the Bible and it's backers pass your test, or that test is invalid when applied to others.

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

So lets look at one:
June 22, 1834. D&C 105:13-15. The Lord says regarding Missouri: "I will fight your battles... the destroyer I have sent forth to destroy and lay waste mine enemies; and not many years hence they shall not be left to pollute mine heritage, and to blaspheme my name upon the lands which I have consecrated for the gathering together of my saints."

FULFILLED: The Missouri opponents of the Mormons were not destroyed, but have remained in Missouri (and "polluted" it?) The Mormons were driven out of Missouri within five years. Fulfilled – not in this space-time continuum. U Said: There is no SINCE to it so your argument is flawed. My position is a PROVEN position based on the above scriptures of Deut. 18:22 and I Samuel 3:19.
Your position is not proven. I dispute most vehemently that that is the standard for a prophet for it would also destroy the Bible which I also love and revere. All this "interpretation" of yours proves is that you are wrong, since it nullifies a book we both agree is the word of God.

I presented one of 60+ false prophecies of joey that meet the Deut 18:22 standard. Its proof that joey was a false prophet only destroys the mormon interpretation of the bible – and not the Bible itself.

If Joseph testified of himself his testimony would not be true. John 5:31-32

Oh, right, that angel or what ever in the first vision base solely upon the word of joey – that testimony?

I have never said I just believed Joseph's word that he was a prophet, you keep saying that I say that and it is a lie.

Wow, you sure are trying to defend that interpretation, aren’t you.

I prayed about the Book of Mormon, to God the Father and he answered by his spirit and fulfilled the Test Given in John 4:1-3,

Gnostics bothering you again?

My answer was specific, unmistakable, and clear.

And subjective – no greater testimony than a moonie or a JW.

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

There, fixed it for you, for it to be Biblical. Leave it alone (but non-biblical) and you have polytheism – non-biblical (see below)

Diefication of Man, Biblical

Isaiah 43:10,11. Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD [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 [Elohim] formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD [Jehovah]; and beside me there is no savior.
Man does not become a god, or are you calling God a liar.

Triune nature of a formless, faceless, impersonal, disembodied God -- Is Not Biblical.

John 4: 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth. Jesus refutes the definition of the mormon god by stating clearly that God is spirit, not possessing a tangible body. As such God is not constrained by the physical or temporial. The truth – priceless.

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

”circular”

Yep, its circular.

No, Joseph smith did not answer my prayer, and I did not pray to him (we don't do that) I prayed to God and God answered and his spirit testified of the truthfulness of the book of Mormon, period, end of story…..you focus on Joseph, we focus on Christ.

More lying for the Lord there Delphi???

From the day that the priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding up things of all things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are -- I with you and you with me. I cannot go there without his consent" (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 7:289 See also Search These Commandments, 1984, pg. 133).

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’.

If God testifies of it… blah blah blah and then you give me links to Jeff Lindsay again (ROFL) and yet more Mormon sites, lol. 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. (Mormon sites don’t count due to BIAS).

And once again we’re back to:

”circular”

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

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????? 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. 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.

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, or one name of any one person named in the Book of Mormon???? And how about that Hill of Cumorah eh? Not one skeleton ever unearthed even though there was a large battle there and thousands died????? Please……..I would submit this continued assertion the BOM has been proven archeologically when it most definitely has not would be an Argument by Pigheadedness.

Now you were there when I was told by God that Joseph was a prophet?

I don’t have to be, shall we go into the Greek construction of I John 4 again????? 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. And yes I’ll keep bringing this up as all of these are the positive test that we are to make regarding him. For you to continue to assert this with no biblical proof or support is commit the Wishful Thinking fallacy.

And yes we’re back to:

”circular”

you assume Joseph is not a prophet, therefore his "fruits" are bad, therefore he's not a prophet

Hardly. There is no assumption here. 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.

What you should do is study I Corinthians 13:8a KJV, “Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail”…. The NASV renders this verse: “but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away”. The NIV render this verse: “…But where there are prophecies, they will cease”. Anyone comes along and starts claiming to be a prophet and to prophecy violates this passage.

Then you should have studied Ephesians 2:20 - And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; -for this verse teaches you the reason prophecy will be done away with: because it was foundational to the church. 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.

The reason for this? Hebrews 1:2a - Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,… Because we have Christ and HIS WORD prophets and prophecy have been done away with, that’s what Scripture teaches. Yet one more PROOF Smith is false and you follow him at your own peril.

Then you proceed to go off to rehash previous debates with you where all the points were already rebutted by me, which you further proceed to ignore. Then you go off on an attempt to teach me your views of Scripture which are quite laughable. I’m supposed to trust someone who’s authority is a false prophet conman???? LOL! I want everyone to know just exactly HOW you debate so I’m going to post the following from our LAST debate:

I’m going to demonstrate the cherry picking that you do in desperate attempts to win a debate, in the process you commit the Argument by Half-Truth or Suppressed Evidence from previous post #2133. In this post you sought to prove that Hippolytus supported your viewpoint instead of the Trinitarian viewpoint by cherry-picking out quotes that may have supported your position and excluding those which did not.

In Post #2133 you quoted: “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. Froth his other actions, then, the proof is already given us that he spoke not with a pure spirit; for he who blasphemes against the Holy Ghost is cast out from the holy inheritance.” Source: Against Noetus (Hippolytus).

This is what was LEFT OUT: “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.’ [Note here that the heretic Noetus is denying the trinity, but instead of embracing 3 separate persons as does Mormonism, he goes the opposite ditch and embraces one person all rolled together, instead of the triune teaching of one God or substance or essence, but consisting of 3 persons within that substance] But Hippolytus goes on to say in rebuking Noetus which Delphi so graciously LEFT OUT FOR US ALL: But the case stands not thus; for the Scriptures do not set forth the matter in this manner. ……..And in saying, "God is in you," he referred to the mystery of the economy, because when the Word was made incarnate and became man, the Father was in the Son, and the Son in the Father, while the Son was living among men. ……..Who, then, was in heaven but the Word unincarnate, who was despatched to show that He was …….Rightly, then, did he say that He who was in heaven was called from the beginning by this name, the Word of God, as being that from the beginning. In this way, then, they choose to set forth these things, and they make use only of one class of passages; just in the same one-sided manner that Theodotus employed when he sought to prove that Christ was a mere man. But neither has the one party nor the other understood the matter rightly, as the Scriptures themselves confute their senselessness, and attest the truth. See, brethren, what a rash and audacious dogma they have introduced, when they say without shame, the Father is Himself Christ, Himself the Son, Himself was born, Himself suffered, Himself raised Himself. But it is not so. The Scriptures speak what is right; but Noetus is of a different mind from them. Yet, though Noetus does not understand the truth, the Scriptures are not at once to be repudiated. For who will not say that there is one God? Yet he will not on that account deny the economy (i.e., the number and disposition of persons in the Trinity). The proper way, therefore, to deal with the question is first of all to refute the interpretation put upon these passages by these men, and then to explain their real meaning…. And in saying, "God is in you," he referred to the mystery of the economy, because when the Word was made incarnate and became man, the Father was in the Son, and the Son in the Father, while the Son was living among men. ……."No man has ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."…… 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.

Then Delphi proceded to quote from Here “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. 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, 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's 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 scum 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: 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. 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 retrace with all speed your steps. For Christ is the God above all, and He has arranged to wash away sin from human beings, 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 divine perfection; having made you even God unto His glory!"

Now once again to demonstrate Delphi’s cherry picking argumentative and arrogant debate syle, 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!): The Logos alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also the Logos is God, being the substance of God……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. 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…….

What Delphi SHOULD HAVE DONE 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:

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. They therefore add Sige as the spouse of this Father, and style the Father Himself Bythus. 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. [Sound familiar Mormons???? God the spirit Father and His wife procreating other spirit children on the planet Kolob???]

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. [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].

Chapter 18. Ebionaeans - They live, however, in all respects according to the law of Moses, alleging that they are thus justified. [Hmmmm kind of like the works based salvation of Mormonism].

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

Is it any wonder Delphi cherry picked this out???? So now we can all see that Delphi is deceptive, he’s argumentative, not to mention obsessive compulsive, he’s arrogant and presumptive, he engages in the Lying for the Lord doctrine as well, but most of all he is lost in darkness. At this point in time I am fed up with you, if you post to me again, I will not answer you. I refuse to continue in a debate with a lying pompous A$$ (your words, not mine, but they do fit don’t they?)

P.S. As to your pompous statement I am not to judge your false prophet so you can continue to deflect and protect him, this is what GOD says: 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.” Thank you, but I’ll obey GOD over a brainwashed heretic any day of the week.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.