Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

@Dibble

...which is why Jews where historically just like Christians. Oh wait, they weren't. If you don't have the lens of the New Testament when looking at the Old Testament you're going to come to some very different conclusions.

You’re forgetting the early church did NOT have the NT and had only the OT, yet were Christian, proving that the NT is NOT a prerequisite to becoming Christian…In fact, in the book of Acts, there are several stories where people were converted after only a paragraph or two of explanation.  

Such was the case of the Ethiopian eunuch: Phillips explained to him that the OT was all about Jesus, the eunuch believed and was baptized on the stop, then Phillips vanished and the Ethiopian eunuch continued on his way to Ethiopian without any further connection with the Apostles and without a NT - all he had was his faith in Christ and an OT.

Also, look at it from this angle:

Obviously, if you read the OT using something other than a Christ-centered approach, you’re going to reach a different conclusion.  In fact, you could turn it into anything, including a recipe book for lamb chops.  But the Jews DO believe in a Messiah, so the approaches aren’t vastly different.

The question for you, Dibble, is: If you had to compare both the Christian viewpoint verses the Judaism viewpoint, to the OT, which viewpoint better meshes with the WHOLE of the OT?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Granted.  But since you are admitting you can’t discount my testimony/doctrine (which I claim was birthed from the spirit that inspired the bible) based on the fact it is in agreement with the bible, can I assume you’re also admitting that Mormonism is not in agreement with the bible and is therefore full of beans?

1. I have no reason to believe your particular testimony was anything special, as there are people of other religions who have claimed religious experiences that mesh with their own beliefs. You could probably find a Mormon with such an experience. It's not really useful as evidence.
2. Mormonism is full of beans for plenty of reasons beyond any lack of agreement with any particular interpretation of the Bible, so I really don't care that much.

Yeah, I know, everything is a shade of gray, isn’t it?  Doesn’t matter if other religions have contradictions and mine doesn’t, we’re all right exactly on the same level of legitimacy.

In fact, if I were to claim that Houston Texas was the place where Jesus Christ was crucified, such an obvious contradiction with the bible (which I claim as my foundation) wouldn’t move me up or down a peg at all in your mind, would it?

---

Aside from the differences between early manuscripts and later ones (which I'm not sure where you are getting 99.5%), we have uncertain authorship, the indications of copying, etc. Also fantastical claims without any supporting evidence is rather disconcerting.

Well, if you want to get downright technical about it, 85% is IDENTICAL, the other 15% includes mostly misspellings or differences in word order that are easy to spot,,,after all these obvious copying errors are corrected, you’re down to <1%, and none of that <1% affects doctrine.

In fact, there are more differences between theEnglish translations (e.g. NIV vs. KJV) than there are between the early manuscripts.  But the differences between the English translations are not due to manuscript differences, but are almost entirely due to the approach the publisher was following:  literal vs annotated, etc, etc.

Which is why I have stated for years on this forum that if your doctrinal approach is correct, your doctrine won’t be depended upon a particular translation.

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They still had the stories of Jesus, which is more than the pre-Jesus Jews would have had.
 Also, how many of those converts you mention are ones who had actually read the OT before hearing about Jesus? If they only read the OT afterwards, their interpretation is going to be colored by their new found beliefs.

I think most of the conversion examples in the NT involved people who were very intimately familiar with the OT.  Which is why the Apostles referenced the OT to prove their points.  Peter converted 3000 Jews who knew the OT with his very first sermon in Acts ch 2.  Throughout Acts, even many of the Gentile converts were familiar with the OT scriptures before their conversion.  Most scenes have the Apostles preaching in synagogues to both Jews and God-fearing Gentiles (probably Gentile converts to Judaism).

In fact, you probably have to fast forward all the way to Acts ch 17 when Paul preached on Mars Hill in Athens before you could point to a possible example of converts without knowledge of the OT.

---

The Christian one meshes better with the Christian interpretation of prophecy and the Judaic viewpoint meshes better with the Judaic interpretation of prophecy. Having vague, non-specific prophecies gives you that problem - too many ways to interpret, no good way to demonstrate which one is right.

Oh, really?   Was Joseph rejected by his blood Jews, by the plan of God, yet accepted among the Gentiles to the point where he even married a Gentile bride?  Yes or No?  Obviously, this is what Genesis says.

Now, you may say, “Well, the Jews will say that portion isn’t prophetic.”  But that only means Christianity has more parallels to the story of Joseph than even Judaism does.  What’s more, those added parallels between Christianity and the story of Joseph came to pass historically - the Jews did reject Jesus and the Gentiles did accept him.

Also, given that Judaism has had thousands of years to get its story straight, how do you explain that the historical story told in the four Gospels and the book of Acts can mesh so completely with the WHOLE of the OT, both the pre-Moses law portion and after Moses Law?  How did a group of uneducated men (the original Apostles prior to Paul) fabricate such a tale that meshes entirely with the whole of the OT, and did so to the point that it meshes with the OT in parts that the NT doesn’t even explicitly tie together (e.g. the parallels between Joseph and Jesus I’ve been discussing aren’t even mentioned in the NT)?  How exactly did they pull that rabbit out of that hat?

“A guy named Otto Octavius ends up with eight limbs. What are the odds?”

It’s simply beyond the realm of possibility.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

But at far more liberal churches than your's or Mormons I have heard things such as praying for guidance and that you seek the truth in reading the Bible, etc.

praying for guidance when reading the bible is one thing...but asking some to read your supposed extra book and then pray in reference to said book is something entirely different. That's brainwashing, regardless if it comes from liberal or conservative churches… and that method simply unheard of in the NT - that is NOT how they won converts.

the bible says that Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light - you do NOT simply believe whatever some spirit has told you in prayer, rather you "test the spirits".  And if a spirit is telling you something contrary to scripture, then OBVIOUSLY, it ain’t the same spirit that inspired the bible.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Yeah, I know, everything is a shade of gray, isn’t it?  Doesn’t matter if other religions have contradictions and mine doesn’t, we’re all right exactly on the same level of legitimacy.

You know, the Mormons probably say there are no contradictions with their religion as well. Doesn't make it true.

Like I said, it’s all just a shade of gray to you.  You choose to enter into these conversations, yet you learn nothing in the process.

---

The Bible in fact seems to have a number of contradictions... with reality. The description of the creation process (which the Bible itself can't seem to decide which order events occurred in) contradicts what we find in actual evidence.

There’s contradictions with Genesis and the evidence and/or within Genesis itself?  How so?

The bible says God created the whole universe out of nothing – science is now in agreement.
The bible says the universe has not always existed – science is now in agreement (even though science used to believe differently)

There's no geological evidence for a worldwide flood - such an event would leave some rather big signs.

You mean that there is no geological evidence for a natural flood, but the bible doesn’t claim it was a natural flood, but rather a supernatural flood…The bible never claims the world was covered with mud from the flood.  In fact, the story suggests just the opposite:

Gen 8:11 “When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth.”

If the flood had covered the world in a thick layer of mud, then the events of Gen 8:11 would have been impossible.  What’s more, Noah and the animals would have died of starvation after disembarking from the ark if the world had been covered in mud.

You need to actually read the whole story before jumping to assumptions.

---

There's no archeological evidence for a number of Biblical events.

   assuming we would have found archeological for every event in the bible is simply being dishonest.  The question is whether or not there is evidence to the contrary.

e.g. Muslims claim Jerusalem was never the site of a Jewish temple – yet that is contrary to archeology and the recorded human history of the surrounding nations.

--

If you want Biblical contradictions within itself, you can use Google.

You mean, like others use google to attempt to prove homosexuality is acceptable within the bible?  Haven’t you learned by now that the internet is full of hacks?   If you’re going to use google to attempt to debate with someone who is knowledgeable of scripture, then you’re going to be bringing a knife to a gun fight.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Well of course not because it's in the New Testament. The Bible wasn't completed at that time.

But even without a NT, the Apostle’s did NOT say to unbelievers, “Hey, here is our doctrine: [xyz].  Now go and pray to God about our doctrine.”

---

Now yes what you describe here is different but I've seen conservative evangelical websites advise to do that all the time.

I don’t care if it is conservative churches doing this or not – it is BRAIN-WASHING!  Even if the rest of doctrine is 100% correct, in this area they are still WRONG.  I’m not saying they are committing a deadly sin, rather I am just saying this particular practice is misguided.

---

the bible says that Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light - you do NOT simply believe whatever some spirit has told you in prayer, rather you "test the spirits".  And if a spirit is telling you something contrary to scripture, then OBVIOUSLY, it ain’t the same spirit that inspired the bible.

Ha, at the church that afleitch thinks is some evil right wing holy roller abomination (and thus just like you according to him) a few months ago in the sermon the guy actually spoke about listening to the voice of God (and gave some example about how he had a dream about a friend of his committing cheating on his wife so he talked to his friend saying "Hey I know this sounds crazy but..." and then his friend broke down and admitted that he was considering and planning adultery.) So are you saying you agree with afleitch?

Obviously, the difference between Andrew and me is that my viewpoint actually meshed with scripture.  No matter how many hoops he attempted to jump through, his views were contradicted by the very passages he was attempting to corrupt.

So, I am not against connections with and messages from the spiritual realm, rather I am simply saying those messages have to be tested against scripture.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Ok, let's start with Genesis 1. Let's look at the order of events.

1. God creates the heavens and the earth. Waters are mentioned in the second sentence, so clearly matter advanced enough to make H20 exists.
2. God creates light, and makes day and night.

I can find contradiction with scientific knowledge right here. Science indicates that after the 'birth' of the universe with the Big Bang the only matter available was hydrogen and helium. In order for heavier elements to be made available so that molecules like water, which requires oxygen, stars had to be formed first to fuse atoms together. How could the Earth and water exist before light if the component elements necessary for it to exist require stars, which are sources of light, to exist first?

Dang, dude, can’t you read?

Gen 1:1  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

The context here is the THE WHOLE UNIVERSE.  And the text doesn’t imply the universe immediately coming into existence, nor does the text imply a process.  So we can’t say, from the text, if this was immediate or the results of a long sequence of events.

Gen 1:2 Now the earth was (or perhaps became) formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Here, the locational context of the darkness is the EARTH, not the entire universe.

Gen 1 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

There has been no change in context, so the context here is STILL the EARTH.

---

I didn’t read your reply for days because I knew it would be butt-stupid and therefore a total waste of time.  And, sadly, you proved me correct.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Clearly you don't quite understand the notion of order of events, which the Bible quite clearly lays out.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So again, if the stars were only created on the fourth 'day', and yet science tells us stars have to come before we can get water (or the rocks that make up the Earth to boot), exactly where did the water in all the prior 'days' to this come from?

Point 1) So, God, who created the whole universe out of nothing, doesn’t have the power to make water without fusion from stars?  That’s illogical.

Point 2) And, on a wholly separate point which doesn’t rely upon Point 1…Gen 1:1 already has the heavens and the earth in existence, with an unspecified time WITHIN Gen 1:1 and BETWEEN Gen 1:1 and the 4th “day” when the objects that mark time (Sun, Moon, visible stars…” let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years”) were put into place.

So, I could either argue God has the power to make water without stars AND/OR I could argue the water came from the unspecified processes of the universe during the unspecified timeframe of Gen 1:1.

---

Genesis is simply too much of a general summary (e.g. doesn’t define length of time intervals, doesn’t define process or lack of process), and God’s power too unlimited, to make cut and dry declarations.

Aside from being literal yet vague, Gen ch 1 is also allegorical:   “Let there be light” is allegorical for the Word of God…the Sun is Jesus, the Moon is the church which reflects the Sun’s light, the stars are the believers…the separation of light from darkness is the judgment...etc, etc.

Same thing with Adam/Eve.  They were literal, but what is written is an extremely brief summary of only a couple of chapters.  But the allegorical meaning could fill volumes:  Adam is Jesus who longed for a companion, but none of the created things of the earth were a match, so God took part of Jesus and created the Church out of the body of Jesus.  The bride of Adam was deceived, just as the Jesus’ bride, the church, was once deceived.  In order for Adam to be with his deceived bride, he had to die for her…just as Jesus died for his church.  In order for Adam to be with his bride and share her flawed humanity, he had to leave paradise…just as Christ had to leave heaven to share with his bride’s humanity.

But then the contrasts to Adam and Christ are even more striking:  Adam was the first man from earth, Christ is the first man from Heaven…Adam died because he sinned in order to be with his bride, Christ died because he was righteous in order to be with his bride. 

This is what I meant when I said the Apostles could not have created a story that so completely meshes with the scripture.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

1.   I never said that an all-powerful God couldn't do it, just that our knowledge from science indicates that stars would have had to exist first. If you ask for a contradiction with science that's what you're going to get.

The supernatural is NOT contrary to science, it is just outside the observable realm of science.

---

2.   All available scientific evidence on the subject suggests that stars existed long before the Earth did. Gen 1 says they came after. (as clearly indicated by God making sky, sea, and land in previous 'days') The amount of time in between 'days' is completely irrelevant to that, it's still a contradiction between the two.

The context of the celestial objects created on the 4th day (Sun, Moon, stars), is in the context of those which give light on the earth and are used for keeping time:

Gen 1:14 “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.”

Which celestial objects have been used to mark the seasons, days, and years?  Answer:  the Sun, Moon, and visible starts.  Do those represent the entire universe?  No.

So the only context of the 4th of Genesis is all the celestial objects used throughout the ages for keeping time…the context is NOT all the stars of the universe.

---

3.   You can argue for some unspecified process if you like, but you have absolutely no evidence for it. Until you can specify what the process is and then provide evidence for it, your claim would be utterly worthless - it wouldn't even be an argument, just a bald assertion.

Dude, it’s not an assertion.  I simply pointed to the lack of mention of whether there was or was not a process to counter the interpretation (by young earthers and some non-believers) that everything just instantly appears as soon as God commands it..  The bible doesn’t say if it immediately appeared, or if it appeared after a God ordained process.

---

And yet when this unlimited being dictated this summary to Moses he somehow stated an order of events contradicted by what reality actually indicates happened…

as I have shown above, there is no contradiction with science, rather there is only a contradiction with your assumptions.

---

and then have the order of events differ from one chapter to the next? I just don't buy it.

There is no contradiction between ch 1 and ch 2, rather you’re only creating a contradiction because you take each as separate and exhaustive descriptions, when in fact ch 2 assumes the context of ch 1 and neither are exhaustive

Your claim of contradiction is just like those who claim that one gospel has Jesus being visited in a manger by shepherds and the other has him being visited in a house by wise…and thus, “Ha! A contradiction!!!”.  When in fact, the timetable of the story allows for the house visit of the wise men to be up to two years after the birth of Jesus.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

If the Bible say X and science says Y, it doesn't matter that you think the Bible has some magic explanation you can try to use to justify the contradiction - it's still a contradiction.

You’re confusion the assumptive statements of scientists with science.  If you want to equate the two, then science has changed its story and contradicted itself millions of times in just the past 100 years.

But when I say science, I’m referring to the known physical processes, I’m not referring to the scientific theories regarding past events that were not observed by scientists.

There is nothing in science that precludes God making H2O without the help of fusion within stars.

---

…some of the stars used to determine seasons came about AFTER the animals created on later days. For instance take the star Rigel, brightest star in the Orion constellation - scientific dating puts its age at about 8 million years, giver or take a million.

And stars are still being birthed by the natural processes put in place by God…so what’s your point?  Nothing in Genesis about the 4th day states that the starry sky has to remain constant.   In fact, since the account of the 4th day claims they will also serve as “signs”, the context is of a dynamic system, one stable enough to mark time, while also being dynamic enough to serve as signs.

---

I didn't say anything about appearing immediately - you used the word 'process' so I actually thought you could mean something that took a while. I pointed out that if you don't have a process outside of stellar fusion for which you have evidence that making such an argument isn't worthwhile, regardless of how long your process might have taken.

You missed my point - I pointed out that the bible doesn’t exclude the possibility of process in order to show that the water could have come from fusion within stars:  

“in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”

There is no mention of timeframe or process or lack thereof.  It doesn’t tell us if the Earth was created at the same instant as the universe, or whether the earth was produced later by a process that first started as a result of the creation of universe.

So, your statement that the bible has the earth’s water molecules being created without the help of stellar fusion is off base, for there is nothing in the account to preclude the water on the earth being formed by the undefined time period of Gen 1:1.

The only thing it excludes is that the earth’s water was NOT formed by the Sun Moon or visible stars…a fact that science is in complete agreement with.

 ---

Ok, Gen 1 says animals, then man and woman. Gen 2 says man, then animals, and then woman. How exactly is that not a contradiction?

Dude, please learn to read, there is no “then” between Gen 2:18 and 19

Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” 19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

[A very silly argument]

Dibble, would you attempt to use science to disprove the resurrection of Christ, which the bible admits is impossible using natural processes?  Of course not, it would be a futile exercise without any hard evidence for or against.  

Nevertheless, we do have recorded eyewitness accounts of the event.

Now, if those eyewitnesses and the accounts are telling the truth… your whole argument against the Genesis account immediately become extremely foolish, for if God exists and if he did raise Jesus from the dead, there is no argument against Genesis, since no one was there to witness creation…and if God is the cause of the universe being in existence, there are infinite ways God could have gone about it.

The bible is not saying, “this is the exhaustive way God did it,.therefore, you can use your knowledge to back track into the past and arrive at a single solution”…else it would be claiming you could trace the mind of God.   But in fact, it claims that you CAN’T trace the mind of God.

So, if the bible is true, by definition, your limited knowledge of current cosmological theories will NEVER solve the equation, likewise the scientists themselves will never solve it…because 1) it didn’t begin with a natural process, and 2) God never stopped intervening in the natural process he himself started.

Summary:  The bible explicitly states God created the universe, along with the laws that govern it.  In addition, the bible explicitly states that after God initially created the universe, he intervened numerous times.  Therefore, there is not a continuous observable equation to follow to a single solution.  Which is why all scientific “solutions” are mere conjecture that run contrary to every single experiment ever conducted.

---

Hold on there cowboy - I noticed you skipped over the Sun being older than the Earth. That's the more blatant contradiction. Please address it if you want to continue the conversation. And no, calling science 'assumptive' doesn't count - you need to show why the science that lead to the conclusion the Sun is older than the Earth is flawed.

Ok, mr astronomer, what scientific evidence precludes the Earth being older than the Sun?

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So this indicates that God didn't make plants until he made man, because there had to be rain first and man had to be there to work the ground

You seriously don’t know how to read.

“Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground”

The reason given for no plants was that there was no rain, which is understandable even in Moses’ day…that fact that no man was there to work the ground is NOT stated as being part of the reason, you’re simply assuming it is part of the reason.

It is also obvious that plants grow without the presence of man being there to work the ground….showing that your interpretation is a hack job that not only assumes what is not being stated, but it also makes no sense even to the people of Moses’ time.  

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

sorry, for my previous tone...I'll try to be more productive:

Unreliable accounts by uncertain authors making fantastical claims for which they have no further evidence. Not convincing.

What part of the story are you doubting…Do you believe Jesus Christ really existed and really was crucified by the Romans in Jerusalem?  Or are you questioning his entire existence?  Or, do you accept his existence yet question whether or not he was executed.

---

1.   Okay, so IF it's true I'm wrong. So what? IF is not a convincing argument.

Yeah, but it does show that your argument has no real merit given the fact that what the bible states is not a continuous process and that the vagueness of the account could lead to infinite solutions (since the process is not continuous).

But you are approaching it as if were a concrete continuous equation with a single solution…which is much the same mistake the Young Earthers make, they’re just making it  from a different angle - They make several assumptions about the Genesis account which are actually contrary to the account itself, then they attempt to apply it to the natural world.

---

2. Objections are not necessarily foolish even if what's being objected to is true. IF Joseph Smith or Mohammed actually did receive divine revelation, many of your objections are perfectly reasonable because they are based on the data available to you. If no evidence for the claims can be presented, it isn't foolish to not believe them and raise objections on those grounds.

You’re serious not equating my objections to those religions (which are single witnesses contradicted by recorded human history) to your objection of Christianity, are you?

---

2.   Even if God had infinite avenues with which to create the universe, only one would have actually happened. The order of events proposed in Genesis are supposedly the order of events used. Regardless of the number of possible permutations with which God might have done his work in the order specified, if the evidence available suggest

But it is explicitly not a continuous natural process.  Rather it states God stuck his hand into it numerous times, thus breaking the chain of a continuous natural process.  But you’re addressing it by assuming the world is the result of a continuous natural process, and then you attempt to compare that to an account that is not a continuous natural process.


By definition, the two sides of the equations are NEVER going to equate.  Yet you act as their inequality is proof that the bible is wrong, when it is nothing more than proof that the assumptions of both sides of the equation are totally different, and therefore their inequality is to be expected. 

Furthermore, if by chance they did equate, you would use it as evidence that  the universe didn’t require a God.  You would say, “See, God is not needed.  The biblical account is explainable by natural forces alone.”

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Character limits on this forum being what they are…

Dibble, the answer is very short:  Unlike the earth and the moon, there is no current way to directly measure the age of the Sun, for the Sun is way too hot for molecules to hold together. 

Any age given for the Sun will have to be either a) a broad guess based on observing other stars, or 2)  assumed by the dating of other objects within the solar system.

Even dating techniques of the earth and moon can only prove the age of the material which they were formed out of….but that doesn’t even prove when they were formed, for that they use the age of rocks…what is left is a age range (older than the oldest rocks, but younger than the age of the compounds).

So, there are direct methods for arriving at a narrow age range for the planets…but not for the Sun.  The age of the Sun is simply inferred based a model for stars and on the assumption that it had to form before the Earth and Moon.

But, this whole point is moot, since the bible doesn’t assume a natural process.

---

Let me clarify - if God created plants before man as Gen 1 states, why does Gen 2 state "no plants because..." and then skip all the other steps and immediately in the next sentence move to the creation of man? This indicates that either Gen 2 is a different story (or alternate retelling) with a different order of events OR it means that whomever wrote Gen 2 doesn't know how to write in a cohesive, sensible manner. Was Moses just bad at taking dictation or something?

Dibble, Jesus and the Apostles referenced BOTH Gen ch 1 and Gen ch 2, multiple times, and they saw them as one and the same story.  If you don’t, then there is not a lot I can tell you.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, but it does show that your argument has no real merit given the fact that what the bible states is not a continuous process and that the vagueness of the account could lead to infinite solutions (since the process is not continuous).

No, you can't set something that is unfalsifiable by your own admission to be the baseline for an argument's merit. That's absurd. The scientific arguments have merit based on the weight of the evidence backing them.[/quote]

By point is that by going by what the account actually says, you have no basis by which to attempt to measure it by assuming a continuous process, any more than a Young Earther has a basis to their argument by assuming no process whatsoever.

You’re attempting to the answer the following:

Does A=B?

Where:
A = continuous nature process (assumption of scientists)
B = mix of non-continuous nature and super natural process (claims of the bible)

The assumption that you can ask “Does A=B?” is faulting…because, obviously, by the completely different definitions of A & B, A is NOT going to equal B,

In other words: You’re comparing apples and oranges and stating that since an apple is not an orange, the apple must be false.

--- 

It depends on the objection. I imagine you have some similar objections to me - I think we would both say to Joseph Smith's claims things like "Well why couldn't you show anyone else those golden plates before destroying them?" Even if he did have the golden plates, it would be perfectly natural to be suspicious of such a fantastical claim if not even one other person had seen them because you'd think that anyone who had such artifacts would be happy to show them off, especially if he's trying to get converts. Understand?

My rejection of Mormonism has nothing to do with the golden plates, rather it has to do between:

a)   the contradictions within Joseph Smith’s own beliefs
b)   the contradictions between Joseph Smith’s teachings and the bible
c)   the contradictions between Joseph Smith’s claims and recorded human history

I allow Mormonism to stand or fall based on its own merit…I compare apples to apples…which is exactly the test I am trying to get you to apply to Christianity.

---

Do you think it's an assumption to believe that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow? If not, why? If yes, do you think it a more reasonable assumption than someone saying that it will rise in the west instead? If yes, why?

Because, based on my own experience and the total lack for contrary evidence and/or testimony, I have no reason to doubt otherwise,

But, in the case of Christianity, you are faced with:

1)   the testimony of witnesses, both modern and historical
2)   a historical account written by eyewitnesses that completely meshes with what is known from nonChristians historical records about the 1st Century world…proving that the NT account was written by those who lived in that geographical location within the timeframe that is claimed
3)    the complete lack of evidence, as well as plausibility, of a vast conspiracy between Jews/Christians/Rome – the existence of Jesus and the nature of his death is not made up.
4)   The short timeframe between Christ’s death and the widespread growth of Christianity across many nations and languages – thus preventing both enough time and control to concoct such a deep and profound story.
5)   Given such a brief window for conspiracy, the vast agreement between the NT and OT, the complexity, depth, and profoundness that the NT explains the OT.
6)   The inexhaustibility and profoundness of what the NT leaves unstated, so that  believers, completely unschooled in theology, who lives span across the vast centuries, have the ability to understand deep mysteries of the scripture that aren’t even mentioned in the NT…leaving no doubt that the NT was written to dovetail with these areas of the OT, even though the NT doesn’t itself point them out.
7)   The lack of external context needed for its interpretation, demonstrating it was designed for a global audience without regard to time nor place.
8 )   The generality, yet profoundness, of the concepts of the message, demonstration that is was designed to be message translatable to every language.
9)   The way the NT completely accepts people of all races, even those who killed Jesus…again demonstrating that is was intended for a global audience.
10)    Etc, etc, etc.


---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So is God a bad writer or was Moses bad at taking dictation? Again, it makes no sense in terms of story structure to mention the plants not being because of no rain when the the creation of plants was discussed beforehand, and then immediately move on to man being created in the next sentence.

It makes complete sense:  the first account obviously was meant to offer a broad overview of creation, including the entire universe and the earth and man…the second account then backtracks and fills in addition detail in order to zone in on the need for Adam to have a mate, the relationship between Adam and Eve, and the universal covenant of marriage.

The reason it mentions the plants is simply to introduce the Garden and food, the same food given to man in Gen 1:29…and Gen 1:29 and the account of the Garden in Gen ch 2, pave the way for the fall of man in Gen ch 3.

Also, Gen ch 9:3 references the account of Gen 1:29…so Gen 1:29, Gen ch2, Gen ch3, and Gen 9:3 are all interdependent.

If you can’t see that then you’re simply being purposely dumb, once again.

 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I encourage anyone reading this to go to Mormon.org and sincerely pray asking god if Mormonism is true.

there it is, the brainwashing, again...