Replies

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.

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.

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.

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

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

No mind meld required, I simply told her I believed what she said she believed, even though it's not true. Is there a problem with that?

I Said: 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: 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.

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...)
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.
Moonies are nothing like Mormons, thanks for the smear.
I never said the Book of Mormon could be proven true, in fact, I don't believe God wants it to be. Jesus cannot be "prove" to be our savior either.

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

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

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.

U Said: 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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

You wander off picking at individual pieces, have fun... (Speaking of wasting bandwidth...)

U Said: 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

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!)

U Said: If these are the finest examples

I never claimed to be the finest defender of the faith, when Jesus gets here ...

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

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

U Said: Wonderful red herring DU – Moses had a speech impediment, drinking too much??? Not giving glory to God? Must be using that JST again.

Moses Slow of speech Moses Forgetting to give God the Glory is forbidden to enter into the promised land. 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?

U Said: His fruits indicate that he is lying.

His fruits indicate that he is a prophet of God.

U Said: The objective evidence shows that he is a liar.

Objective evidence vindicates Joseph Smith.

U Said: And if he lied about so many fundamental items, who is to believe there is truth in anything else he said.

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.

U Said: Well, now I know the weekly world news site you get some of your stuff from.

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.

U Said: BOM evidences got trashed already.

The NYT gets trashed here all the time, that does not stop people from posting new threads based on them or their stories. 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?

U Said: Your second reference should also show the alien shaking hands with smith too, LOL.

To be historically accurate, it would have to be a painting, wait, it's not too late... you could paint it yourself, ask Mark Hoffman for some pointers on forging and off you go!

U Said: It has a little bit of everything for the easily persuaded.

What does? the WWN? Do you read it often?

U Said: The pictorial info is taken from a non-peer reviewed magazine.

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...

U Said: 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)."

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?

U Said: 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."

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.

U Said: Too bad you keep selecting references that do not support your argument.

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.

I once had another poster trying to convince me I didn't exist, it was fun... Once. these arguments that my faith is misplaced are like that, fun, once. unfortunately you guys just don't seem to be coming up with any new material, Yawn...

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

8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

Now, you show me a scripture that Says the Bible is the word of God (of course, you can't use the Bible, and leave our scriptures out of it too, good luck!)

See, Drivel

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) Polygamy is not adultery by definition.
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.
The kinderhook plates were never translated, please proved me with the translation as proof it has or stop asking me to prove a negative.
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
Swindler con man and convicted... - Please prove any of the above... You can't it's been tried.
Violent criminal for ordering the sheriff to follow the city councils lawful orders? LOL!
Danites? ROTFLOL Prove it.

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.

U Said: Wishful thinking DU. Smith’s journal contains chismus and the principle was identified and in publication in the late 1700’s.

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

U Said: 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.

Nice try, the Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon are obvious to anyone who wants to even start to look into it, and Joseph having a whopping three years of education knowing about and using Chisamus, well you might as well claim he invented the Internet.

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

Yes I have and you have not disproved any of it (Victory by claiming it before it's achieved! LOL)

U Said: 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….)

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.

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

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 Said: Like when Jonah prophesied Destruction on Nineveh?

U Said: God also gave them 40 days to repent.

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

U Said: Was this an unfulfilled prophecy?

Only an idiot would say no.

U Said: Not at all--it was a clearly judgmental prophecy, designed to provoke such a response.

Ahem, wow that was fast.

U Said: (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.

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.

U Said: You know, it helps if your example really supports your point.

It does, thanks for the concern.

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. (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)

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

U Said: 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.

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?)

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

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.

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

Wow, You are really trying to impugn a dead man aren't you? (I figured one red herring deserves another)

I Said: 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,

U Said: Gnostics bothering you again?

Not even remotely

I Said: My answer was specific, unmistakable, and clear.

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

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

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

U Said: There, fixed it for you,

If I wanted to be fixed, I would call a doctor, thanks, I meant it the way I said it, here let me iterate:
Godhead (three personages, one power, might, mind and strength, Biblical)

U Said: Leave it alone (but non-biblical) and you have polytheism – non-biblical (see below) I Said: Deification of Man, Biblical

Psalms 82:6

1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
5 They know not, neither will they understand; they awalk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. 6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are achildren of the most High. 7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. 8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

(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.)

I figured if Psalms 82:6 was good enough for Christ to Quote...

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

U Said: 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.

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

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 (The belief that anything physical is less powerful than intangibleness is a Greek belief that influenced the Doctrines of the Church thus taking away truth)

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

Similarly, if not having a body is so great, why are we being resurrected, is this not a curse?

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.

Godzilla, thanks for the opportunity to clarify, God bless.